#(like I said... complicated. and narratively compelling!)

[veinsfullofstars]

🕸️Kirbtober 2024 Day 2: Revenge 🕸️

(ID: Kirby series fanart of Dark Meta Knight and Taranza, the latter looming behind the former with violent intent in his four front-facing eyes, his six hands clenched into shaking fists and curled into claws and raised over his head to conjure a pair of glowing spiderwebs. Meanwhile, the knight stands in blissful ignorance in the foreground, a mug of steaming coffee in one hand, a rolled-up newspaper in the other, glancing off in confusion as a thought bubble over his head reads, “Why do I hear boss music?” END ID.)

Based on the implication from KTD’s Dededetour! that DMK might be responsible for Sectonia’s corruption, indirectly or otherwise.

Previous Day | Next Day | Prompt List (made by @/paintpanic)

Started on 08/30/24, finished on 08/31/24. | Kirbtober 2023 Comp

[vigilskeep]

avoiding most reviews like crazy for fear of spoilers, however I’m scared that some have said that rook can do no wrong even when picking the most aggressive impolite options, there’s never any social consequences for *choosing* to be rude, or even dismissing others worldviews and beliefs.

i will say a lot about inquisition, but at least it let the player have complicated relationships with the party by not having everyone agree to everything they say as the word of god

us getting to have complicated relationships with the party in dragon age inquisition is, frankly, news to me

personally i’ve seen more of people suggesting you can’t be as rude in the first place, than people saying the game doesn’t react when you are? to which i have to say, yes, interactions with the party are going to be different in veilguard than in previous dragon age games. they’re writing a protagonist who the plot requires to be more of a hero type who chose to join this venture, every party member is essential to the main plot, and they’re openly going for a “found family” dynamic, which (i would strongly argue) they’ve never done before. the group is intended to work as a whole, to be people who all care about each other, rather than simply being tied together by your player character. you’re not going to have a situation like in every other game where companions can get thrown out or betrayed or aggressively belittled by the protagonist, because this party simply would not work if you were doing that to certain members. the story they are telling this time would not make sense

however, i’m yet to see that that means we can’t have complicated relationships with the companions? in fact, we know it allows for main plot choices with lasting, drastic consequences on our relationships with certain companions. we know you can disagree with characters and still progress your relationships with them. there are new opportunities that we never had in previous games for all companions to be closely involved in what’s going on, and thus for all companions to have opinions that matter on all of rook’s decisions. i’ve already seen footage of companion commentary absolutely not holding back on challenging even relatively small choices

i think challenges from this style of companion can be very compelling in their own way. if all these companions are considered equally good-aligned by the narrative and care about each other, and they still sharply disagree, it suggests fewer conflicts with simple right answers. i think that could be a breath of fresh air from previous dragon age games which have often and regularly fallen into the trap of “obvious good answer” and “the answer your slightly evil companions will like”. there’s a reason so many worldstate decisions and quest endings are overwhelmingly popular, right? isn’t it possible it will be just as interesting to engage with a story where you are definitively written as good-aligned, but that means you get real choices between options just as justifiable as each other—or as bad as each other?

it’s a change so it’s by nature not going to be for everyone. you’re not going to be able to play certain kinds of character that you could in previous games and if that’s what you were looking for in another da game, that’s a disappointment. but i don’t think dragon age should necessarily be restricted by that forever? like i don’t think it’s necessarily conducive to good storytelling to always have to input evil/mean options and reactivity just for the sake of it. and i completely understand why it would be detrimental to the game they’ve chosen to make this time. their primary selling point and concept is the complex team dynamics. can you imagine the sheer bulk of writing it would take to have these companions as thoroughly invested in each other’s lives as they seem to be, and let you be horrible to particular ones? for how many players’ benefit? for what story coherency, when building these relationships is the plot of the game? i don’t really see the point

that’s how i feel about it idk. i’m optimistic. i also don’t rlly think jumping to conclusions at this point is worthwhile. the reviews are largely positive. it’s coming out in a day and a half. let’s just wait and see?

[copperbadge]

Hi, please ignore if this is too personal, but as someone with Jewish ancestors who is considering conversion, I'd love to know your reasons for converting? For me it's more about community and reconnecting with that part of my family (there's a complicated family history there) than about religious belief, but I'm worried that might not be enough of a reason, if you know what I mean?

I don't know, I think conversion to Judaism is hard enough that if you don't have "enough" of a reason, you'll find out -- but I also think that one doesn't have to have a "sufficient" reason to convert to any faith which allows it, just determination and respect. If you want a connection to your ancestors and community, that's a very powerful motivation. And if it's not enough to sustain you through conversion, that's still a huge self-discovery for you, and while some practice should remain closed, you can still connect through things like traditionally Jewish foods and appreciation for Jewish art and culture.

For me, it's not that it's too personal, but it's difficult to vocalize; often when I'm asked about converting there's an assumption that I'm marrying a Jewish person, and when I say no, I usually add, "I just hear a call." Which admittedly is much more often said by Christians joining a ministry, but it's the most truthful I know how to be in short. Something in Judaism speaks to something in me. I have very little Jewish ancestry (although every time the DNA websites reevaluate their calculations it ticks up a percentage point, which is hilarious to me; I'm up from 2% to 6% currently) but the attitude towards the divine, the strength of tradition, the respect for learning, they all speak to my soul.

Even the hard stuff -- content in Torah or Talmud that I find difficult to reconcile with modern sensibility -- is at least something to challenge me, and Judaism is a faith that encourages argument, so I'm allowed to have a critical opinion of it. I think a lot about a quote I read from someone (possibly a reader, if so I am so sorry I can't find your name in my memory) who said, "I keep kosher, but sometimes I eat bacon when I'm mad at G-d." I think a lot about my Methodist confirmation class, where I was almost kicked out because I thought the Parable of the Wedding Feast was stupid and continued to argue against it after, realistically, I should have stopped; if it had been a class for a Bar Mitzvah, we might have been allowed to really examine it instead of glancing across it awkwardly and moving on. (As I found out years later, it was basically about how anyone can be a Christian but Jews should be punished for refusing to convert, so you know. Even as a kid I was very Jewish in my approach to theology and knew anti-Semitic propaganda when I heard it.)

I like that so many of the traditions involve things that I find compelling: bread, fire, water, the written word, the cycle of the harvest. I like that there's a search for truth and precision in Jewish scholarship, and that scholarship often seems to reward a neurodiverse approach to faith and study. As someone committed to philanthropy and versed in radical compassion, the exhortation to care for others baked into every foundational Jewish text is also very attractive. Some of the prayers I find viscerally satisfying (particularly the Traveler's Prayer, for some reason).

I find faith in a single divine entity extremely difficult, but one of the first things that got me to seriously consider Judaism (something I'd already been interested in) was being told that you can be an atheist Jew. To be able to commit to a faith community while still struggling with faith itself feels special to me. Whether a divine entity caused the miracle of the oil we celebrate this time of year is immaterial to me; the beauty of the narrative, the righteous rebellion rewarded with eight nights of light, is enough for me.

I might never finish conversion; realistically while I've done a lot of studying I still haven't worked extensively with a rabbi on a conversion path, and I do not call myself a Jew and won't until I complete conversion (I do observe a lot of the holidays and prayers, but mainly because that's generally advice to converts, so they can understand the demands of the faith and the myriad issues with being Publicly Jewish). But that's fine too; Judaism has been around for thousands of years, it'll wait for me, and if I never convert I'm still enjoying the journey.

[renewedmotionforjudgment]

You're telling me after she goes ride or die for him like you said and all the stuff she did this episode she's still hesitating between him and the ex eunuch? I saw some people who read the novel say she does some very messy things to him even later on and I'm dreading it so much.

I'm genuinely going to try to not be snarky here, but relationships are complicated?

If you want a cdrama that goes from the spectrum of love, mutual ride and die, and no mess, there are a lot of very fluffy modern cdramas that will cater exactly to your taste.

But here, the drama (and the novel which the drama has been following decently) makes it clear that Li Rong is this character who doesn't necessarily understand love. Not because she's incapable of it (all of her actions in fact reveal her as a character with deep capacity to love), but it doesn't exist in that palace environment she grew up in where her own birth mother is willing to sacrifice her for her brother's and her clan's power. So of course there is messiness! She's unlearning her damage!

And her and PWX's relationship is complicated and nuanced. I will note that even PWX himself is not forcing her to return his feelings after his confession in the rain. He understands that there is a lot of history between them (and with her and SRQ, who after all was her companion for 20 years). But what's so compelling about her and PWX's relationship is that even though they can't quite label it, they consider each other as family.

TL;DR - relationships are complicated. It's perfectly fine to nope out of a narrative you don't like. But the way these characters act make narrative sense.

[utilitycaster]

Saw a post in the tags; did exandria historically have a thing abt persecuting ruidusborn? The post mind you was largely lambasting the gods along the lines of "these gods should shut the fuck up abt their extermination when their followers in modern day are going after ruidusborn" which... Doesn't seem like the same thing for a number of reasons but also I wanted to ask a wiki person because i didn't think that anyone was actually doing that

Hi anon,

I don't know if I've seen that post precisely - there's a very good chance it's from someone who I have blocked and haven't thought to check to see what wild stabs in the dark they're making now, to be blunt about it - but this is pretty much entirely incorrect and/or deliberately leaving out crucial context.

Exandria historically had a stigma about Ruidusborn. There has been no evidence of widespread persecution specifically for being Ruidusborn. What little negative responses we have seen and have evidence of has either not actually been specifically "this person is Ruidusborn" but rather "this person has uncontrolled and invasive psychic powers that are negatively impacting me specifically and so I am, understandably, put off"; or has been a mere acknowledgement that a stigma exists. Notably, this has not specifically come from followers of the gods. We haven't seen any information about the presence of religion in Gelvaan and Laura herself as Imogen has alternately said once that she did pray to the gods and multiple times that she didn't, so anything here is entirely presumptive. (We also know that Imogen literally didn't know what Ruidusborn were until it was told to her, so I think we can pretty safely say that prejudice against Ruidusborn simply for being born under the moon, rather than like, the invasive psychic powers, was not the issue there). Alma, Orym's mother, mentioned that the Ashari attempt to avoid having Ruidusborn by delaying birth simply because of that stigma (episode 3x66) and the Ashari aren't affiliated with a deity.

The Ruidusborn page on the wiki is here, and you can cross-check with the citations (I am flattered that you ask me as a wiki person, but a wiki is a public document anyone can edit - if you are wondering, and especially if you are trying to debunk something, please cross check citations for the source of truth). I cover the key ones below.

Per Call of the Netherdeep, page 6, the widespread superstition about Ruidusborn themselves is that they are "destined to bring suffering to others, or to experience great tragedy in their own lives". This is actually less harsh than the superstition about those who study Ruidus, who are believed to be "compelled to cause misfortune and woe". Estani, in Episode 3x19 states the following: "Many important, whether for honor or great sorrow, individuals of history have been claimed to have been born under such a ruddy light." We also know, from Call of the Netherdeep, that Alyxian the Apotheon was both Ruidusborn and a devotee of the Prime Deities, receiving blessings from three of them. Obviously Fearne lived a weird and sheltered life, but we didn't find out she was Ruidusborn until we met Birdie, and she never experienced any prejudice about it during EXU or early C3 or really after that, unless you count the fact that people attuned to the conflict on either side (see next two paragraphs) like Otohan and Groon noticed it. In short: the lore about Ruidusborn and the responses to Ruidusborn in history are varied and complicated.

Finally, just from watching the show: people who do not know Imogen is Ruidusborn nor related to Liliana and whom she does not use her psychic powers on tend to respond pretty positively to her now that those powers are largely under control. I've talked before but there is a certain type of fan of Imogen that leans heavily on the "stripped of choice" narrative in which she has never done anything wrong in her entire life and has always been a victim of cruel circumstance (and more generally tends to abdicate all responsibility for their blorbos - and, frankly, themselves - not realizing that people who squirm out of their obligations are loathed for good reason and they're only worsening the response to both their blorbos and themselves). Anyway, the idea that she was persecuted simply for the circumstances of her birth and not that those circumstances led her to do things that are genuinely extremely offputting, even if done involuntarily, is a relic of that "stripped of choice victim" false narrative.

Now: it is technically true that followers of the gods in Exandria in 843 PD are going after a large number of Ruidusborn. If you have been watching Campaign 3 of Critical Role and are not absolutely fucking stupid you may have noticed this is because the Ruby Vanguard, which heavily recruited from Ruidusborn, have instigated widespread unrest and are actively trying to kill the gods by unleashing Predathos. They are not going after all Ruidusborn; in fact, they've worked with several Ruidusborn prior to Imogen and Fearne and their main reason for suspicion was "you are literally the children of generals for our enemies, and also all other Ruidusborn we previously worked with ended up leaving to join the other side", not "you are Ruidusborn and so you are bad." They are going after the army that recruited Ruidusborn to kill the gods. The Ruby Vanguard shot first.

Really, it's the same nonsensical circular logic being put forth re Aeor and Ruidusborn. The people who specifically plotted annihilation of the gods first were Aeor (with the Factorum Malleus) and Ludinus and the Ruby Vanguard (with the Malleus Keys and the intended unleashing of Predathos). To be clear: I am not denying people may have had negative experiences with the gods, but in both cases, their response wasn't to spite them: it was to attempt total annihilation. It was to create something with the intent of destroying every single god. We do have a word for that, and people keep solely using it about Aeor while ignoring it was the instigator. The gods (and their followers) are in both the case of Aeor and the Vanguard responding to an attempt at their extermination, and then these people are like "um, why won't the gods just sit still and let themselves be executed? Figures that these horrible entities are trying to stop the firing squad that has their guns pointed at them. This is just more proof that they should die - what kind of terrible person doesn't lie down and let themselves be killed!"

For what it's worth, I do not think that if Bells Hells and the Exandrian Accord foil Ludinus and the Vanguard's plans they will then proceed to exterminate all Ruidusborn, because their intent is stopping people from unleashing an existential threat that would kill all the gods, not murdering people because they were born during Ruidus flares. The goal here is not extermination; the goal is their own continued survival which requires the painful and difficult choice of sometimes killing those who are dedicated to trying to kill them. This isn't like, a novel concept in fantasy, history, nor ethics, but we are not dealing with the brightest stars in the fandom firmament here.

I mentioned before that I have yet to see a post that posits all the gods should die or that sides with Aeor entirely that isn't riddled with factual inaccuracies from the lore, and that I wish we had "readers added context" options on Tumblr; sadly, we do not. I am happy to answer questions like these, but I do want to encourage people to check the actual text. If anything seems off? You can definitely ask me (and I do have all the CR sourcebooks so if you don't, I get it) but also we've got searchable transcripts that I highly recommend using. Don't take any posts - mine included - at face value if it doesn't line up with what you personally understand. But also make sure what you personally understand is supported by the text.

[lurkingshan]

Unknown (2024)

A Plug and a Content Warning

I have watched the first two episodes of this drama and this is, hands down, the best bl I have seen out of Taiwan in years. The creators have a firm grasp on the story they are telling, the characters are extremely well drawn, the relationships are compelling, and the production is strong enough to support the narrative. The show is based on a novel by Priest, and the confidence in the writing is evident.

That said, I cannot give a blanket recommendation for folks to pick this show up. For one, it’s centered on a romance between (essentially) adoptive brothers. So right out of the gate, if that trope is a no go for you, you will not like this. The family bond is very real and I expect it to be a very real complication.

On top of that, this show is quite dark. Our little family have survived some very rough childhoods. CWs for the first two episodes alone: child abuse, including CSA, child abandonment, homelessness, poverty, gang violence, blood, PTSD. If you decide to watch, please know that some of the content is truly upsetting. Please take care and know your limits.

Priest has a pretty strong track record with writing complex trauma and nuanced family dynamics so I am inclined to believe this has a strong chance of holding up, assuming the adaptation remains solid. All caveats above aside, I’m excited to have another strong Taiwanese drama to sink my teeth into.

[wolfsetfree-if]

Another anon's two-cents if you'd like,

I think it's okay and even good that it might be frustrating. It makes a ton of sense for a game about healing to have frustrating moments because healing itself not garunteed to be a smooth or even linear process which IS frustrating when you just want to heal and return to normalcy. It isnt throwing a wrench in the works fot the sake of padding the plot or weighing down the pacing, it feels natural and serves a narrative purpose, lending weight to the idea that healing is a long, sometimes complicated process that isn't always smooth sailing. so the narrative, if anything, is advanced when mc encounters a potentially frustrating wall or set back. And not only does it make for an understandable and relatable story, but if you want to give potientially frustrated players a way to vent that within the story itself it could turn a frustration with the story's mechanicals or pacing to a way to empathize with mc.

Giving mc the chance to experience and react to setbacks through hope, frustration, or dejection in these situations literally builds their character, and being able to interact with that character building process in different ways depending on our mood or the kind of character we want to play through choices, even if its just an emotional response, is a big part of what makes interactive fiction so compelling in the first place!

Sorry for the wall of text, either way I'll enjoy the story, Im already invested in mc and their new pack and looking forward to updates 🥰

Thank you so much for this very thoughtful ask, anon. I completely empathise and agree with everything you said.

It is why I have decided to go with this path, because as you said it fits the main theme of healing of the game, and healing is painful, frustrating and can bring one step forward and three steps back.

I'm going to try my best to both describe MC's emotions and give the players varied possible reactions to the setbacks MC will go through.

[kittenintheden]

You know when Astarion disapproved the idea of saving the torture victim in Act 1 I was shocked but then I realized Act 1 Astarion is still in the “lol better him than me” phase since he was just freed from his enslavement and his highly competitive relationship with his siblings. The empathy was tortured out of him. Makes sense in later acts he approves some acts of charity, like helping a kid out.

god anon u right

the way Larian made all of these characters so... rich, you know? they all have such compelling, complicated backstories that don't make for many easy answers from an RP perspective. and the depth in the way that every unique choice can affect the narrative. when Larian said there were 17,000+ possible unique playthroughs, they weren't fucking around.

not only that, but you can SEE the character progression in each companion throughout the arc of the story. they all LEVEL UP. literally and metaphorically. they become more skilled, more powerful, more self-assured. you can RP them to literally become wiser, stronger, smarter. and you get to see so much of that even if you AREN'T romancing them, and if you are? then you get all that PLUS ADDITIONAL DEPTH AND CONNECTION.

so when we see little details like this that aren't fully spelled out in the narrative, we can still intuit exactly what's going on to result in that response. because we know Astarion's whole story, all his Act 1 responses and actions make so much more contextual sense. which adds to the replayability of the game.

idk I just aaaaargh the WRITING in this GAME is what inspired ME TO WRITE AGAIN and ENJOY DOING IT AAAARGH

[mdhwrites]

I was thinking your takes of how TOH fails at making a bigotry allegory with the witches that I can’t help be reminded of this post regarding Netflix’s The Dragon Prince (I’m not sure if you watched the show): https://www.tumblr.com/chronicallylatetotheparty/757857588414152704/i-think-western-media-has-relied-on-non-human

The writers of both TOH and TDP have far more interest on [insert magical creature]. They’re unintentionally bias that narrative reflects on it.

They make humans look worse than [insert magical creature] for reason that justified (in TDP villagers attacked a dragon who was harassing them for days and TOH have witches eat babies in the 1690s while they have a main villain be against witches and was probably in the same time period). They ignore certain details that make [insert magical creature] look bad and result in messy world building and messages (in TDP there was a reference to the Trail of Tears that the humans have to endure from the elves and dragons and in TOH witches sees humans as inferior).

Amphibia actually doesn’t ignore that the fantasy creatures can be messy. In fact they have Anne deal with being treated like a freak because the frogs never met a human.

They have Andrias and the Core be the bad guys who attempted to take over Earth. They considered humans as lesser beings because they have knowledge, power, and technology humans don’t have.

Amphibia is by far the only recent fantasy story that is willing to let the magical creatures be flawed and their society changed.

So I think you and the blog you cite are actually two very different points. The blog you linked is about lazy recycling of tropes from better media to the point where we have stopped considering what made those tropes powerful and those stories impactful. Anime is also facing a problem of this but when you try to apply it to more allegorical elements, like trying to use non-humans as an oppressed underclass (something even most classic fantasy fucks up in a number of ways) you get some really abhorrent, accidental undertones.

Your complaint on the other hand is... A little hard to tell if I'm being honest, especially since the TOH stuff (I haven't watched TDP) appears to either be VERY arguable (the Isles does not give a flying fuck about humans, positive or negative) or seems to be taking words that I assume either were said as a joke or by Belos, the bigot, about witch behavior in the past. "They eat our babies" is just about as stereotypical of bigot speech from someone who's a moron as you can get.

And I keep trying to find something to grab onto with your point and I'm just struggling. Honestly, it just sounds like the general complaint of 'smart' stories actually being dumb as rocks. The stories that can actually tell a complicated narrative that portrays every side properly in a conflict is extremely rare. This is how you get TOH being so pro-self expression that acknowledging ANY societal requirements, or any amount of engagement with 'the system' is portrayed as negative when like... Luz assaults people in the first five minutes as part of her 'self expression'.

It is preachy and lazy and leaves these cultures with no actual culture because they are there to make a statement. A lot of sci-fi struggle with this because of The World of Hats problem where they want to comment on one type of person so an entire race is just that type of person, like the ever present Warrior Race in all speculative media. It is the storytelling equivalent of writing an analytical piece with the conclusion set in stone. Your ability to make the piece properly will inherently be tainted.

I haven't watched TDP but for TOH, this is how you get Belos' death as it is in the show. Belos claims that humanity has mercy. Has sympathy. That a human is moral enough that if they see someone in agony, they will be compelled to save them, unlike these witches. However, the thesis behind TOH is that witches are good and people like Belos are pure evil. As such, he is written lazily and so are the witches. Belos' speech is 100% just recycled from elsewhere. A final plea to a hero to be saved, with the witch response being a badass one liner or meant to be one that makes them look cool and superior. It plays to the thesis and 'theme' of TOH... Without examining the details for even half a second because if you do, yeah, they're rancid. This race accused of not caring for other people or their lives just agrees with the villain before proving him right by stomping him to death. This isn't saying that Belos should have lived, absolutely fucking not, but that someone who was worried more about their point, who was being careful about their allegories, might have made it so that instead of glee, literally one of them calls murder 'satisfying' which... Dear god why? They might have made it horror, or hesitation or a dozen other emotions that do have this race thought to be monstrous consider reaching out to this man who has hurt them so much. That in his final moments, Belos would be proven wrong because while they hurt him and so they could never forget, they at least provide him with mercy. Genuine empathy that he never gave them despite everything he's done because, you know... They're good people and not what he thinks they are.

But if you are certain about your message, entirely unquestioning... Why would you do that? Not when you can do the 'subversive' thing despite the fact that these tropes exist for a reason and subverting them might not happen a lot for a reason. That some plot beats are just mandatory for the sake of making your point function. It is being a confident dumbass about your story because you're never going to blink as far as questions on how well you did go.

But do you know what happens when you don't blink? Irritation, which sure seems to be how people feel about these mixed messages. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[onlyymirknows]

What are your headcanons for Reiner coping with Bertholdt’s death? Do you think he actually has the time to grieve during the timeskip or is it only post-Rumbling that he allows himself to fully embrace what happened?

Hello! Thanks for the ask, this is my first on this blog ���

I think he theoretically has the time to grieve Bertholdt during the time skip but I don’t think he actually does. Reiner’s main methods of dealing with emotional stress are repression and distraction. He basically ignores his problems by occupying his mind with something else.

And Reiner is presented with a really compelling distraction when he returns to Marley:

Fighting for his life and reputation in a brand new war is the perfect distraction from what happened on Paradis. Not just the presumed deaths of Bertholdt and Annie but also his immense guilt over the things he did.

I think the fact that he resorts to suicide the moment he’s confronted with the idea of going back to Paradis is a good indication of how little he’s processed his emotions.

That said, he doesn’t react strongly when people mention Bertholdt which tells me that he’s accepted it factually. But in my head, Reiner hasn’t bothered to confront the emotional reality of the loss (among a ton of other things) because he’s got his finish line.

In addition to that, there’s nobody for him to talk to about Bertholdt in Marley. Everyone back home only knew 11 y/o Bert, not the 16 y/o he developed into. Reiner also can’t admit to the fact that the two experienced a big shift in their worldview together (eg- island devils don’t exist.)

So it wouldn’t be until after the Rumbling that he has to contend with a lot of his unresolved trauma, including the grief of losing his best friend. (And potentially his love interest/boyfriend depending on who you ask.)

Best case scenario is his friends/family proactively encourage his healing and don’t let him run away. Worst case scenario, he goes full distraction mode (my HC is workaholism) and won’t admit there’s a problem until he falls apart.

Some talk about my relevant long fic below the cut

My fic is gonna be about the worst case scenario because I want to dig into the emotional aspects of his character. Namely his unresolved grief, childhood emotional trauma, and queerness.

Plus I want to write about how trauma feels, having been on my own healing journey. It’s kind of a vent fic that spun out into a full narrative that I really need to write an outline for lol.

It’s gotten a bit complicated with multiple POV’s/plot threads so I’m taking my time. I watched a video recently talking about the pitfalls of serialized fiction. I’d like to avoid some of the bigger ones, namely putting in scenes/details with no narrative purpose.

Not everything needs to be Chekov’s gun but I’m sure you know how it is 🤭 so an outline is gonna help a lot. But I feel pretty good about the main story beats! I could talk about my fic a lot more but I’ll leave it here.

[licncourt]

hi!!! i'm new to tvc and your blog so im not sure if this has been done yet but :'D i just wanted to ask your thoughts on akasha, even generally speaking? thanks!

Welcome!!! I have lots of thoughts on Akasha, but mainly I think her existence tells us a lot about the author and provides a lot of context for how AR approaches female characters in the series overall. I think Akasha, Claudia, and Gabrielle are a very succinct look at how Anne viewed women and the archetypes she felt existed within womanhood. Akasha is really the final boss of anti-feminist strawmen, written to be the ultimate evil and Bad Woman, but she just kind of ends up being an almost-compelling female character instead.

I think Gabrielle has strong elements of that, but the fact that she was so heavily inspired by AR's mother softens the narrative to her some despite the bitterness there. Akasha is something else though, and the narrative on a meta level does not seem to feel sympathy for her.

AR obviously had a very complicated relationship with her own womanhood and a virtually unshakable "not like other girls" mentality her entire life. It was some truly breathtaking internalized misogyny or maybe even a case of gender dysphoria that turned toxic. I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but that loathing she seemed to feel towards womanhood is very much on display in QotD.

Looking at the book as a female reader, I can't help but feel sorry for Akasha on some fundamental level despite the absolute evil she also commits. She was a queen, but doomed to be subservient to her husband on the basis of gender. Then, through some incredible accident, she's suddenly the most powerful human being there's even been, only to then be tortured and spend thousands of years internally conscious but unable to move, speak, or do anything at all.

It's almost an Eve story, a woman who is designed to be a man's inferior who instead seized knowledge and power (and the narrative), gained autonomy from and influence over her male counterpart, and then was punished for it by the larger forces at play. In some ways she reminds me of Claudia too, driven insane by her circumstances and unable to comprehend her own monstrosity, but she's also more evil than Claudia was ever capable of being due to her age (torturing and ordering the rape of of Maharet and Mekare, forcibly turning Khayman, etc).

If Anne had left it at that and changed her goals to be less grandiose, I think her character would have read better and been a more complex and convincing villain in the evil-but-a-victim-of-circumstance way that so many VC vampires are. That's one of my favorite things about the original VC vampires that was present in Akasha but not executed with quite enough finesse. Instead, I think Anne takes it way too far into cartoonish hatred for feminist stereotypes.

For most authors I wouldn't feel confident saying that was the intention but AR, if nothing else, aggressively involves her personal feelings and beliefs in her work, often to the detriment of the story. VC is just the fictionalized inside of her head and we know that. Combined with her other female characters and her own public statements, it's hard not to eye roll at the climax of QotD when Akasha decides she's going to kill 90% of human men and turn the Earth into a new Eden with her as the goddess for the human women (and male human chattel).

In that sense of her character, it seems like foreshadowing to Blood Canticle Lestat reprimanding the audience directly, just Anne finding something to be irrationally angry about and writing it into her book. I've said before that QotD is a step below IWTV and TVL because the cracks in her writing really start to drag the book down like they would for the rest of the series to a rather extreme degree. Knowing this was her last book with an editor, I'm curious how much of the overall readability of the book can be attributed to that/how far gone Anne already was at this point.

In spite of all that, it is kind of fun to go balls to the wall and take a Hell Yeah Get Them mentality when Akasha goes scorched earth because despite it all, it's sort of cathartic to watch a overpowered female vampire go on the warpath and scream all the deepest frustrations with patriarchy that many women struggle with. At the same time, it's hard to fully enjoy it knowing authorial intent (and reading it all within the context of the sexual violence Akasha perpetrated with Anne's usual lack of nuance). That's kind of par for the course though, most things in VC are Almost Good and that's what keeps us on the hook.

[magerywrites]

magery hello,,!! i hope this isnt too forward but i discovered you via _maiqo on twitter a long while ago and have been absolutely enamored by your works ever since — your writing is an enormous inspiration to me and i sincerely hope that my works can one day match the same level of excellence.

you absolutely dont have to indulge me at all, but is there any advice you can give in terms of writing character studies? :’D if not its totally ok !! and anything works !! i just figured it’s worth a shot haha

Thank you very much! It's always lovely to learn that what I've written has meant something to someone. I appreciate it.

In an attempt to answer your question, I'll talk about how I think about and approach character studies. It may be that much of what I say fails to be useful to you, but I hope to be of some small aid regardless!

To begin, I think the most fundamental element of writing a character study—as a piece of fanfiction, though much of this can be applied without significant difficulty to orginal works—is to have a firm vision of who the character is to you.

This is separate from having a firm vision of who the character "really" is. Nobody can have that—every way we engage with media is coloured by our own values and perspectives, and that bleeds into the way we think about and write characters. This is sometimes a difficult dichotomy to balance against the principle of "they would not fucking say that", but to borrow some old and too-simplified physics, I think it can be useful to consider that a character is in many ways like an electron in an electron cloud. Their precise and perfect characterisation is not something that we can ever truly locate, but we can identify the area of narrative space it is most likely to be in.

The task of the character study, I feel, is to hammer down on the part of that narrative space that you find most compelling. To take the meat of their character and cook it the way you would want it served to you. A character study is not to please anyone else. A character study—or, at least, the kind of character study I write—exists for you to get your feelings out about the character you have been rotating in your brain onto the page. It also exists, of course, so that you can try to show those feelings to other people and hope they feel them too, but you will never succeed in actually capturing those feelings in the first place if you don't allow yourself to write your authentic vision of the character.

They don't have to be your blorbo, or your problematic fave, or your three corners of the OC design triangle, or whatever, but when you write them, for that space and time they do have to be yours. Otherwise, what's the point?

Once you have that vision, you can put them in practically any situation you like and as long as there's something in it for them to bounce off, you're going to be able to tell a story that reveals something about the character. If you look at the "plots" of a selection of my character studies, we have "one guy folds sheets, another guy asks him questions" as a plot, we have "a pair of exes talk across a tabletop after a party", we have "oh LAWD they FAWKING" like four and a half times, we have "retelling the plot of something else" twice, and we even have "two people on a helicopter flight for an hour". It's not really complicated stuff. It doesn't need to be. The character, or characters, just need to be in a situation where they're going to have some reason to think about, and maybe even talk about, whatever conflict or idea or relationship you find most compelling about them.

With that said, it should be noted that it's... well, for me, with the way I do things, it's very very difficult to conceive of writing a character study in any situation without a clear and central conflict the character or characters are grappling with. All of my character studies revolve around a problem a character has and how they react to it. And yes, "having a conflict" is, like, the quiddity of a story, the most basic plot diagram there is. But what I'm trying to say here is that even in the story I mentioned where two people sit in a helicopter and talk to each other, the story is intensely focused on the internal struggle one of those characters is having with the choices that led to her sitting in that helicopter and how much they do, or don't, make her like the person she's sitting opposite (both more and less than she knows). And that's the sort of thing that I think is key. The conflict, in my eyes, needs to be philosophically central to the way you view the character and what you want to say about them. It needs to be tightly intertwined into what you find most compelling about them—the thing that you just want to sink your hands into and squeeze, for good or ill. That's how you get to really show the world who they are and why you care about that.

After that, I really think that in a lot of ways it just comes down to the prose. How deeply can you write into your character's head? Are you colouring even your description of the world around them with the way they would see it—or are you taking the opposite path and presenting the character entirely through someone else's eyes, so that you can characterise them through the distance between what the other person thinks about them and how they present themselves? You don't need frame-perfect metaphors or the Inanna-Ishtar LGBTQIA+ sharingan-coloured prose to do that, but you do need to focus on writing in a way that expresses the character.

This does take focus. How much focus depends on how specialised you are into that style of prose, but it is focus nonetheless: you need to think of your sentences, each and every one, as tools to communicate something about your understanding of the character that you want the audience to know. Some of them will inevitably instead become vehicles to reach a point where you can communicate that understanding, but something as simple as what a character notices first when they walk into a room tells you something about them. Lean on that. Lean into that. After all, if you're writing a character study, the writing should study your character.

(Colour this advice with the fact that I am, as you've probably realised from reading my writing, very much a prose-focused writer. I have spent near on fifteen years, since before I even graduated high school, honing my prose for poetry of language and interiority so that I can write in the way I most enjoy reading. That affects what I value in writing, and it affects my opinion on the way people should write. I believe what I am saying is true and good and useful, because I have faith in the way I engage with my art, but my advice does not chart the sole and singular course to the ever-distant utopia.)

To tl;dr myself, my advice for writing character studies fundamentally boils down to to the idea that I think a character study is most potent when it presents a vision of a character that the writer has clearly obsessed over. That they have layered with their thoughts, their perspective, and their heart to the degree that it drips even from their prose. A character study with the confidence to say this is what I think is compelling about this character, and I want you to see it too.

I may not agree with it, I may think "They Would Not Have Fucking Said That", I may even think the writer has just invented an unsustainable interpretation of the character that demonstrates startling reading incomprehension and I can't believe I have to share the same fandom as these people.

But at the same time, I know people have thought and said that about my own works—and I'm still happy that I wrote them.

I have far more respect for someone who's written an entirely committed and deranged interpretation of a character that I think is Flatly Fucking Wrong than I do someone who presents me with the most milquetoast interpretation I can't disagree with. If I choose to read a character study, it's because I want to see you study the character. That's, as the meme goes, why I'm here.

So, really: focus on determining who you think the character is, write them the way you want to see them written, keep your prose tight to who you think the character is (not just "would they say that?" or "would they think that?" but "how would they describe that?" and "what would they see in that?"), and commit to the bit.

(If you've managed to read to the bottom—thank you for entertaining my rambling, and I hope it helped!)

[absolutebl]

I'd like to specify a request for good Thai shows that just finished. They're my favorite for many reasons, and I also enjoy getting to learn more Thai words.

Good 2023 Thai BL That Recently Finished (to Binge!)

(I actually held off answering this one until a few had ended this week because I didn't have many for 2023. It's not been great year for Thai BL so far IMHO. Now South Korea is KILLING it. So is Japan.. in a different way.)

My School President

9/10

GMMTV gave us a classic high school set Thai BL with tropes like messy boys singing their feelings that made this one Love Sick for the modern age with all the gentle sweetness and pining ache, but none of the dated damaging tropes or issues.

Yes, we’ve seen it all before, but I still ADORED this. And there is a lot to be said for the classics being re-executed perfectly. Who let my BL be this wholesome and funny? This show was fantastic, it’s only flaw was the singing (and that’s my baggage).

My favourite GMMTV BL offering to date. And yes, I've watched them ALL. (YouTube)

Step By Step

9/10

This was Thailand’s answer to The New Employee, and everything I loved about that show I loved about this one.

This was an office romance between stern boss and sweet subordinate that felt more authentic to an office environment than previous Thai BLs of this ilk. And that authenticity added tension to the narrative and character development (how novel). Now that might be because it has western source material, or it might be because it is actually kind of old-fashioned (it’s been years since I worked as an office grunt). I also really enjoyed the brothers’ relationship, and kinda wished they hadn’t attempted (and failed) to give said brother his own side BL.

(Gaga & YouTube & Viki)

La Pluie

9/10

This BL takes to task the fated mates trope and what it means to have love chained intimately to predestination. It’s about how faith in destiny before choice diminishes the authenticity of emotion, relationships, and connection. This is a high concept to examine through the lens of a BL.

By activating + examining the soulmates trope this show is challenging a foundation of romance: the idea that there is one person meant to be your one romantic partner all your life. This means that we, as viewers, spend much of the show worried about it having a happy ending, and that’s the source of both its brilliance and tension: would the narrative have the strength to truly challenge its own romantic core?

But, ultimately, all this elevated complexity was executed in a somewhat shaky manner with the narrative derailing into some serious pacing issues and characters manipulated by miscommunication. However, with good chemistry and decent acting all around, plus some excellent high heat and representation of consent and a few other rare tropes, this one has to (like it’s sibling show My Ride) earn a 9/10.

I enjoyed it even as it made me think. (iQIYI)

Make a Wish

8/10

PNR (from Sammon: Manner of Death & Triage) about a doctor who can see the dead and strikes a bargain with a wish-granting irreverent tree angel - naturally they fall in love.

Stars Fluke Natouch opposite not-Ohm, but who cares bc Fluke has chemistry with everybody. Once again the Thai afterlife is incredibly bureaucratic but I enjoyed the premise and the unfolding of the story (it’s not predictable but still satisfying and with nice little twist). I like that the doctor is just gay af and has a fag hag bestie and everything.

The cast is excellent but the comedic stylings are too overblown and tonally off. It had sad parts and did make me cry but is ultimately happy with a great sex scene, good smiley kisses, and all the agency. (grey)

Moonlight Chicken

8/10

I enjoyed this complicated little show, even though it’s spectacularly messy gay with lots of shrapnel and authentic pain.

I thought EarthMix turned in their most compelling performance to date. But it was GeminiFourth who stole my heart.

That said, the most interesting central relationship was that of Jim & Li Ming, their father-son angst mixed with evident affection made me tear up.

This was more slice of life than it was BL, but it ended happily so I’m not mad at it. (YouTube)

Never Let Me Go

8/10

Bodyguard romance where poor boy must watch over rich boy for family obligation reasons. Simple premise well executed with a few bumps that made it feel like it was trying to tackle too much (when it wasn’t).

Still, an enjoyable show that benefited from being handed to PondPhuwin who did a stellar job with their roles and chemistry. Is it going into permanent rewatch rotation? No, but a solid GMMTV offering. Of GMMTV passing out new series to established pairs this has been the most successful IMHO. PondPhuwin were about 10000x better in this than FUTS (and that's FUTS's fault, not theirs).

It's typically Thai in that its a bit bloated and has a confusing plot, but at least it HAD a plot and the central relationship is solid and loyal. Their Our Skyy 2 follow up is great. And very much adds to the cannon in a fun way rather than feeling superfluous - making this show ultimately 14 eps rather than the usual 12. (YouTube)

Destiny Seeker

8/10

A darn near perfect pulp featuring 3 likable grumpy/sunshine pairings with uncomplicated iterations of enemies to lovers. At least one half of each does a decent amount of pining and there’s good chemistry, classic tropes, and communication rep. It’s fun and full of linguistic jokes.

Sublimely cheesy but a good rainy day offering with tons of rewatch potential. (WeTV)

Bed Friend

8/10 (Triggers include: child abuse, attempted rape, family abuse)

Office frienamies transition a flaming hot one night stand into a f-buddy relationship that is built on a puppy/cat dynamic (and kinks into it at one point). Our puppy is loyal, smitten, and protective with endlessly longing eyes, while our cat is snarky, prickly, and deeply damaged (ALL THE TRIGGERS).

NetJames give lovely high-heat with excellent chemistry and tuned-in performances of surprising depth, unfortunately the story ultimately failed them. Had the show had the strength of its convictions and kept to a tighter, darker, harsher 8 eps it would have been the first high heat to earn a 10/10 from me, but once they fussed with it, it dropped to a solid 8/10.

Could have been great but was overworked. Still if high heat is your thing, this one will not let you down. (YouTube)

Between Us

8/10

Featuring the hugely popular side characters from 2019′s Until We Meet Again, Win Team (played by Studio Wabi Sabi's most popular, and commercially viable, pair BounPrem - Long Khong, You Never Eat Alone, Seven Project, Even Sun), adaptation of the y-novel Hemp Rope.

It’s a serviceable series about hot swimmers flirting and dealing with family drama in a sweetly earnest manner, but ultimately it squanders the talent in play. I would’ve preferred a cleaner narrative arc, less angst and more plot, fewer couples, and a shorter series.

That said, there’s nothing objectively wrong, sub-standard, or off-putting about this show. And it has lots of consent and other good qualities.

It’s fine. Watch along here. (iQIYI)

This list dated July 16 2023, not responsible for anything that came after, that'll probably be in end of year wrap ups.

[secondhandsorrows]

Some Vital Scenes to Include in a Romantic Subplot, Pt. 2

Back at it again with part two of some scenes to consider adding for a romance subplot. Before we get into it, just a brief reminder that everyone’s story is different. Take that as you will. I find these helpful for planning and keeping a solid foundation for a compelling romance. There's probably a lot more I'm missing out. Some of these tips, I'm thinking, could even be helpful for writing a platonic friendship, in cases like making mistakes or helping each other through tough times.

If there's anything you would like add or share about this process or some of the things that have helped you, let me know! ~

- Moments of intimacy:

This is rather similar to our last point about flirting, but what I’m trying to get across here is the things that are not said. The unspoken. The unmentionables, if we wanna go there. But I’m getting ahead of myself… this is the kind of scene that can be built up gradually as the romance between your characters grows and deepens. Moments of intimacy in a romance subplot involve deeper and more meaningful interactions between the characters, showcasing their emotional closeness. They include physical closeness, such as hugs, touches, or moments of shared proximity. 

It doesn’t have to be all touchy-feely, either. These scenes also might include gazing at the stars, a shared adventure, a sudden desire to reach out but chickening out at the last second, or a quiet moment of understanding during a tough situation. These gestures can convey a sense of comfort or safety. Intimate moments can also build anticipation and tension in the narrative, where readers may eagerly await these little, momentous moments as they read and become more invested in their relationship. 

- Helping each other out:

Nothing get me more invested in a romance than those moments where the characters offer support, assistance, or guidance to each other, thus reinforcing their bond and showcasing the strength of their connection. Also, while helping each other, the characters can also encourage independence and growth in each other. They can encourage each other’s goals and aspirations, allowing each other to maintain their own unique identity within the relationship. 

The characters could also perform acts of kindness, be it big or small — showing to the other character how much they care without explicitly stating it. There’s an element of vulnerability that can be explored here, in which the characters share experiences and insights good and bad — offering each other solace during hard times and joy during the best of times. 

Some examples!

- Character A solving a problem in a way that only they would know or character B wouldn’t have thought of in the first place. 

- Character B being understanding and listening without judgement to A’s opening up and venting.

- Character A offering support and clear-headed advice to B, who tends to get irrational. On the other hand, B standing up for A and protecting them from harm. 

- Character B teaching a new, valuable skill to A, thus providing great opportunity for them to get closer and connect. 

- Mistakes or misunderstandings:

Like many others, I’m not a big fan of miscommunication in romantic arcs … unless they’re resolved quickly (because they tend to be predictable, sometimes, or just frustrating when there's every opportunity for them to reconcile but they're ignoring it because drama).

Ahem. But, characters should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. It’s realistic, because who hasn’t made a mistake at least once in their life? Not every budding relationship is ever perfect. It’s rewarding to see characters learn from their errors and work towards a mutual understanding or reconciliation. This helps to show their emotional maturity and resilience, especially if its gradual or important for their character arc.

Narrative elements that introduce complications (often arising from bad impressions, flaws, insecurities, awkward moments, mistakes, or even just being at the wrong place at the wrong time) can add tension to the relationship while providing space for growth. When used right, this can add deeper strength to your characters’ bond as they eventually overcome the bumps along the road of romance. It’s always interesting to see how characters might react in certain situations, for better or for worse. This is also a great point as to force your characters to confront their true feelings and be able to recognize them or communicate them better.

- Declaration of feelings:

Finally! The moment we’ve all been waiting for! This is the special moment where one or both characters express their romantic feelings for each other, marking a significant turning point in the subplot that often dictates how the story would then play then on out. Think about how you want your “declaration” scene to play out and what emotions you want to invoke. Is it elation? Anguish? Confusion? Excitement? Sadness? I mean, not every declaration scene has to be perfect. It all depends on the story you’re wanting to tell, how focused you want your romantic subplot to be, and what your characters are like. 

Also consider how your characters are feeling in that moment and what brought them there. Have your characters been waiting for this moment for a long time now? Is it risky? Easy for them to declare their feelings out loud? Could it also be just not the right moment, so hopefully later their love will be fully understood and reciprocated? Just some helpful things to consider. 

[hawkogurl]

Hi! 😊 I saw you post something saying it was clear to you that raimi harry Osborn was schizophrenic do you think you could please explain that a bit? (If you've already made a post about it and I've just missed it I apologise) Have a nice day!

Probably won’t be the best worded so I’ll be happy to elaborate further. Also feel compelled to state that I probably view that constitutes canon pretty differently than most people. What I mean by the idea that Harry having some sort of psychotic disorder in the raimiverse is at least semi-canon is generally pretty complicated so bear with me.

A lot of what has brought me to this conclusion is pretty doylist. It’s not a plot hole that Harry’s hallucinating in the second movie, the way the first two movies are written in this regard before Sony decided to fuck with things in the third is too deliberate. Raimi’s history as a horror directors shows in a lot of areas, but it never really feels like he’s throwing elements in for the hell of it, whenever something feels horrorish, it’s pretty deliberate. All this to say that Harry’s not hallucinating for the hell of it.

When it comes to specifically raimiverse based interpretation, there’s generally four things I see a lot. The first and in my opinion weakest being the idea that it’s happening as a result of the serum in the nearby hidden room leaking. I understand how this is seen as appealing or interesting, especially in any case where someone might think it doesn’t make sense for Harry not to have developed a goblin persona like Norman had. In the past I’ve gone into how I believe that’s also a pretty deliberate narrative choice, so putting all that aside, I don’t think it makes sense for this to be intended by the creators. From a writing standpoint, if that’s what we were supposed to think, you’d be shown shots to indicate things like that. Additionally, the serum itself is always shown to be stored in a liquid form, only gas when it’s applied to a person, a process that consistently requires quite a bit of machinery. I understand the appeal of the theory, but if I’m looking at what I think is most likely to be the thought in the creators heads, I don’t think this is likely.

I also see it generally get dismissed as ghosts a lot, which also feels strange to me. The only other instance of something happening that could be seen as similarly supernatural would also be in this movie, being the scene where Peter, conflicted about how being Spider-Man effects his life, has a conversation with Ben, who is also dead, in the car from the first movie in the middle of a white void. This scene occurs in an ambiguous white background using imagery from the last conversation Peter had with Ben before he died and also draws on how that conversation has affected Peter’s worldview. This scene ends by cutting to Peter, who’s sitting in bed with his eyes open as he comes to the conclusion he can’t keep being Spider-Man. Because of the framing of it in a space that isn’t recognizable as the normal physical world and the fact we’re shown Peter in the physical world after it, we’re not meant to be taking this scene literally. This scene is a metaphorical expression of Peter’s internal conflict, not a literal event that’s physically happening in any sort of meaningful capacity. It’s a visual expression of a non physical story element. This isn’t all that important for my point, but I find it important to state for later comparison.

This leaves Harry’s interactions with Norman after he’s died as the only remaining event that can be simply explained with the supernatural. That being said, it doesn’t really make internal sense for this to be the case. Though fantastical, every superhuman element of this story has been at least connected to some sort of scientific idea that grounds it in reality, never something more fantastical. The Green Goblin is the result of a performance enhancing drug created for the military. Doc Ock is the result of malfunctioning AI and his most dangerous goals rely on using nuclear fusion to create energy. Sandman was created by the writer’s rather incorrect idea of what a particle accelerator is. Venom is an alien, but still connected pretty blatantly to real life biology ideas of real word symbiotes. It’s all rather fantastical and implausible, but it’s all still connected to real world familiar scientific ideas. To randomly bring the supernatural into it for scenes it could be easily replaced with something else to accomplish the same end results and never elaborating on the idea that apparently ghosts are real would be a really bizarre world building choice.

But going back to the scene with Peter, unlike that this scene is not framed to be metaphorical. It’s happening in the real world right before and after real physical events with Harry and has physical results on the world and the characters. In some capacity, what’s happening here is literal—but I don’t think that means some piece of Norman is physically there. The audience is viewing this alongside Harry and from his perspective, there’s never any other character who’s present for scenes where Harry experiences things like this. The events are literal and intended to be something physically happening, but only from Harry’s perspective. There’s no other set of eyes to establish the reality of this from beyond Harry’s sole perspective.

Among the common theories I see, I probably like the idea that it’s alcohol induced the second most. I don’t really like to demean it because I think it’s very likely that this idea is important to people in the same way it being psychological is important to me. That being said, I don’t know how much I think it holds up to scrutiny. Yes, Harry’s shown to be drinking pretty heavily around this period, but in the moment he first experiences his hallucinations, he’s not shown to be drinking. He at least appears to be somewhat sober. In the second instance, he is shown to drink, but only in the literal seconds before he hallucinates. If this is intended to be the actual cause, the creators would more likely put more emphasis on him drinking in relation to the hallucinations or similar. That being said, I have reasons I think it was kept more vague that I’ll get into.

If I’m looking at what was likely intended, the most likely doylist explanation for why these scenes exist, the idea it’s psychological for him is the only thing that’s going to consistently check out. For one thing, in the comics, Harry is schizophrenic! That’s outright the word used to describe what he has going on, he is diagnosed with schizophrenia. Additionally, in a lot of comics with Harry at the time, he’s hallucinating Norman as an expression of a lot of his internal conflicts, similarly to what we see here. In the comics that Raimi Harry most closely follows the broader beats of, he has persecutory hallucinations of his father as an expression of his internal conflict, hallucinations that target the things that he feels make him weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors while also being specifically schizophrenic. In the raimi trilogy, Harry develops persecutory hallucinations of his father that particularly target the idea that he feels weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors. From that alone, it’s not irrational to conclude that it’s at least something of a reference towards his schizophrenia in the comics.

What’s more, in the novelizations it appears to be rather explicit. While interviews and Reddit AMAs have made it somewhat clear that Peter David, their author, did have quite a bit of freedom, they also made it clear he was still obligated to follow the scripts he was given rather closely and his writing still had to be approved. The novels were primarily only allowed elaboration, not outright reimagining. In the novelizations, Harry is written to hallucinate much more frequently. He’s often paranoid of the world. His behavior is more erratic. He experiences moments of Cotard’s delusion. His behavior through the third movie goes from likely being inspired by or intended to reference and imply Harry’s comic-canon schizophrenia to, in the novels, being outright written to resemble and follow the symptoms of schizophrenia far more closely. While they very much aren’t the movies, the fact that they were being written from the scripts at the time of the movies release and a lot of the information we have on how they were written does point me towards the idea that while you can’t exactly treat them as above the movies in terms of what’s canon, you can treat them very fairly as auxiliary information in terms of interpreting the intended story.

Additionally, I think they provide a pretty interesting piece of information that also sort of solidifies the idea for me that what Harry’s experiencing is some form of psychosis. Harry only develops these issues after learning Peter is Spider-Man. Not after taking the serum, specifically immediately after learning Peter is Spider-Man. At this point in the story, Peter is Harry’s closest friend and arguably the most important person in Harry’s life. I don’t need to explain that Spider-Man is the exact opposite. It’s likely rather shattering to how Harry perceives reality to realize the most important person in his life is the person he hates the most, and that he’s been lying to him after in Harry’s perception killing his father for multiple years. Psychosis is specifically a break in someone’s grasp on reality. I don’t think it’s that hard for me to believe that a revelation that shattered how Harry perceived reality that severely might risk causing a psychotic episode of some form.

Additionally, it’s the most consistent with how the world and writing of these movies work internally. It’s never really about the fantastical elements narratively—these movies are about people. The internal, human elements of these characters lives are the most emphasized, the supernatural elements are almost always allegorically connected to some aspect of humanity or very human flaws. That’s always what’s emphasized. Narratively, the goblin is representative of Norman’s greed and ego, his conviction that he is superior to others and entitled to power and control. Otto isn’t about the arms, not really, it’s about selfishly motivated ambition even with the best of intentions and turning those motivations into selfless ones. Flint being Sandman is secondary to how poverty has fucked him over, how he’s been forced into crime in his desperation to help his ill daughter. Eddie wasn’t really corrupted by Venom, he was a selfish and self centered man with a massive sense of entitlement to what he wanted who was given the power to do what he wanted. By extension, it makes the most sense that Harry, who’s already defined by trauma, cycles of abuse and identity would be far more connected to the very human idea of mental illness than something far less poignant like inexplicable supernatural elements.

All this to say that when I, guy who’s always going to feel compelled to take doylism and authorial intent into account when doing my analysis, look at all the information that I have, I think it’s very likely that Harry’s comics schizophrenia or hallucinations were on the writer’s minds when they were planning out or writing the scenes I am referring to. I don’t think that was ever likely to end up explicit—it’s not practical for a movie with its demographic, with a studio prone to intervention, especially with how messy SM3’s development was. It’s not practical for it to be super explicit in a movie of its demographic in 2007, but I think it’s very likely to be on the writers minds when it was written.

[utilitycaster]

Pls ignore if the spectre of ruminating on old god-diskhorse is far too obnoxious but it's rather a jump-off point for a more general question; an issue brought up pushing back against the most obnoxious "vanguard is right eradicate those tyrant gods rq stole vax hate that bitch" ppl, aside from other things like just being deeply myopic even just from an in-universe perspective, but on a wholler narrative level requires completely ignoring or discarding campaign 1 and 2's theses and genuine connections. Largely i think these ppl's takes are more interested in self-validation than concerned with what they're actually saying when they want these things to be true (which they aren't, Matt and cast and plot progression from the peak of those discourses have made that clear), but now here's my wondering: what would it say if c3 were to be these things? By what metrics do you judge a sequel installment should it, in the pursuit of its own story, undermine or contradict the earnest, complete, already told story that preceded it and was built upon?

Hi anon,

This is a good question, and necessarily one with a subjective answer, so I hope I at least explain my thought process below! Also: this does have some spoilers for a Midst episode in Season 3 (which aired a few weeks ago). I mention this because it's a really useful example for me but this wasn't a question about Midst so you might not be expecting me to talk about it.

Firstly, I agree with you that a lot of the people who want this want the story to validate their personal beliefs. Some want it to validate political/philosophical beliefs, which is a complicated thing: on the one hand, I very much don’t want to watch a show that’s like “hey slavery is neat-o!” and doubt such a show would have much merit. On the other hand, when we’re dealing with much more complicated issues like religion, which simultaneously exists as a tool of oppression; an aspect of identity that makes one a target of oppression; a source of meaning and comfort; and a source of justification of terrible practices all in one; I think it’s extremely valuable to be exposed to a multitude of perspectives and to not just endlessly look for those that validate one’s own experiences.

Others just want the story to validate their feelings about the happenings within the narrative, which is on the one hand usually less close-minded, but on the other hand, kind of stupid. You are permitted to dislike that Vax died. I disagree, but you can feel however you want (indeed, you don’t need my, or anyone’s permission to dislike that Vax died). The story saying “The Raven Queen isn’t perfect” or even “The Raven Queen is Bad” isn’t necessary for you to have those feelings; and the Raven Queen being slaughtered isn’t per se necessary for Vax to come back (which I think would be cheap and stupid, but like, if that’s what you want you could just have him come back.) You don’t need to story to tell you that your response to the story is good, so this is ultimately a case of “why are you even doing this."

I also suspect there’s just some degree of subversion for subversion’s sake (or change for change's sake) people who were into the idea of killing the gods just to flip C1 and C2 on their respective heads. The thing is, subversion for the sole purpose of subversion has always been the province of the dull. There’s a reason why culturally we treat M. Night Shyamalan as a joke and it’s because “THERE’S A TWIST” without a strong and compelling build-up to said twist nearly always is, as the post I recently reblogged said, something that only hits hard if you’re stupid.

What I need from a story to be good is internal consistency and a strong execution. I am frequently surprised, in a very positive way, by stories that are so well-executed that they sell me on a premise with which I was less than enamored. If you’d told me that I’d feel sad about FCG’s sacrifice or extremely in favor of Phineas and Jonas’s romantic relationship during early C3 or, frankly, even the minute before I listened to Trustfall, respectively, I would have said “huh, really?” But both of these events were thoughtfully built to a point where they felt like meaningful and interesting choices for the story to take, even if that was not apparent to me earlier on.

So: the metric I’d use to judge a god-killing C3 is the same as that of any long-running story. I think there is a universe in which Campaign 3 could have made the demise of the gods a good and compelling story. But that work simply has not been done. The atrocities of the Vanguard, Weave Mind, and the Dwendalian Empire under Ludinus Da’leth; the callousness shown towards all Exandrians and Ruidians by the Vanguard and Kreviris Imperium; and most importantly the fact that there haven’t been new reveals of terrible things done by the gods and the story has instead striven to paint them as more fragile and complicated than what we’ve seen in past means that a sudden twist would, well, be cheap and only hit hard if you’re stupid. You can contradict a past story in an installment (or the earlier work in a long-running series) in a way that is not undermining if you are able to tie it together and show new information that was not available earlier! But that’s the key: it needs to be clear that the earlier works were showing a specific perspective (already a very tall order given the protagonist-only POV of D&D campaigns) or that the situation has drastically changed. If you fail to do this, then as you said, it’s undermining and it’s poorly done and a bad story.

I think that last point is also really important in thinking through the fandom response. I mentioned that I can be sold on a premise that didn’t win me over initially if the execution is strong. I think some people, and especially those gunning for a “The Gods are All Bad” story are so terrified of not being validated or of being wrong in their predictions or of criticism from other fans that they can no longer enjoy a story or comment meaningfully upon it. To which I say skill issue. I am thrilled and even grateful that, as previously mentioned, FCG had an arc that deepened their character and addressed my earlier criticism such that I could enjoy episode 91 as much as I did. I was mildly spoiled on the potential of Jonas and Phineas getting together and was, to be honest, slightly dreading it as I’d always preferred a platonic interpretation of their relationship, and then the scene in which it happened (and everything since) has been so deftly handled that I’m fully on board.

I am a far better analyst and critic of fiction than a creator of it, and I’m open about this. I am constantly surprised in ways both positive and negative by how other people tell stories, and that’s why I come back to them. I want the story to be so good that it expands my horizons and comfort zone and shows me something new. I find little joy in a story validating who I already am and what I already think. I want the story to make a better argument for what it has to say than I can make against it. If this is a competition between the story and me, I am rooting for the story to win over me and in doing so, win me over; and I am disappointed when it doesn’t.

I am also a physicist, and, famously within our understanding of physics, pretty much anything can happen; it’s all just a matter of probabilities. And so it’s hard for me to say “there’s no way this could ever be done well.” It’s very easy, however, for me to say “the eye of the needle one must thread to do this well is a micron in diameter and constantly moving.” I think it’s possible to turn the concept of a god-slaying Campaign 3 into a story that, rather than clumsily ignoring or discarding C1 and C2’s theses, transforms them and puts them in a new and unexpected light. But the narrative dexterity check required for that has always been high, and only gets higher as the actual Campaign 3 story continues along its current path.