#I think thematically it would be helpful to think of it as a parallel to Gideon and Harrow in Harrow the Ninth

[devilsskettle]

okay! so i actually think the relation between mouthwashing and the musical oklahoma! is most relevant wrt jimmy and his social status and his sexual violence towards anya. for some background: oklahoma! “tells the story of farm girl Laurey Williams and her courtship by two rival suitors, cowboy Curly McLain and the sinister and frightening farmhand Jud Fry” (source: wikipedia) — curly being a well-liked and respected member of the community, jud being an antisocial pariah who is bitter about his place in the community and feels entitled to laurey’s affections and more respect in general. in the end, laurey marries curly, and at their wedding, jud shows up, tries to kill curly, and is killed himself in the ensuing fight when he falls on his own knife. in traditional productions of the musical, curly is the clear cut hero of the story and jud the villain, but contemporary productions (notably the 2019 broadway revival, aka “sexy oklahoma,” or “woke-lahoma” to the haters) emphasize the troubling gender and class politics inherent to the story (while also changing nothing about the script, only the framing and tone of the production). the story is also importantly set in the territory which becomes, if you can believe it, oklahoma in 1906 — the characters are on the cutting edge of the american frontier. which of course is also a fraught premise because of american treatment of indigenous people and the theft of their land. the revival emphasizes that an in-group of american society is established at the expense of the “other” on the axis of class, race, cultural assimilation, and gender. the frontier attracts people who are looking for opportunity and freedom — and people who have no other options, or who don’t care if their success is at others’ expense

so the characters of mouthwashing are also drawn to a frontier — space, the final frontier. or whatever. their mission is solely a capitalist one. most of them are there because they have few alternatives. jimmy specifically has had challenges in other settings, apparently, and he considers his position to be the lowest rung on the ladder. he deeply resents captain curly who he thinks looks down on him and doesn’t deserve the success that he feels entitled to, despite the fact that they’ve been friends for a long time. this perspective clearly parallels jud’s resentment towards curly in oklahoma! his sexual predation of anya also parallels jud’s entitlement towards and harassment of laurey throughout the show. and of course his violence and eventual death at his own hand.

so, of course, captain curly’s role in this story also parallels curly’s role in oklahoma! though somewhat less directly than jimmy’s similarities with jud. however, both characters at first seem to be heroic, likable, morally upright figures who the female character in distress should be able to turn to for help. however, curly in oklahoma! participates in the same objectifying behaviors towards women as the rest of their community and while his affections towards laurey are reciprocated, she has some real reservations about accepting his proposal. he acts just as entitled to her as jud does which motivates him to instigate an antagonistic relationship with jud, at laurey’s expense. everyone to whom she expresses her fear towards jud dismisses her concerns, including curly, who sees him more as a romantic rival than a possible danger to laurey if she rejects him. i think that this is reflected in mouthwashing in the way that curly enables jimmy’s behavior consistently and overlooks anya’s real fear of the violence she has already experienced at his hands as well as the violence she anticipates. also, when he takes it upon himself to have a conversation with jimmy about anya, he only escalates things more, though much less intentionally and with much more dire results than oklahoma!’s curly

so i feel that given these narrative and thematic parallels, it would absolutely make sense for the name “curly” to be a reference to oklahoma! to intentionally invoke these ideas about male entitlement, male violence, and male complicity in gendered experiences of violence. i also am aware that it might be a bizarre connection to make! or might be a total coincidence! it’s an interesting way to think about the story though imo! anyway that’s my conspiracy theory!

@concordewillfly thanks for enabling me haha

important question that i haven’t seen answered yet regarding mouthwashing — is the name curly an oklahoma reference

[mayasaura]

There's a stanza from Annabel Lee that's been tickling my brainstem for a while, and it feels even more relevant now that we know how John and Alecto are bound together, and that their love was and still is mutual:

But our love it was stronger by far than the love    Of those who were older than we—    Of many far wiser than we— And neither the angels in Heaven above    Nor the demons down under the sea Can ever dissever my soul from the soul    Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

That's the heart of it, isn't it? The source of all of John's power, the reason he's God, it's because his soul is connected to his Annabel Lee's. To end all of this, they'll need to be dissevered.

I'd say that the angels have already tried and failed, and the demons look like they're winding up to take a shot. Odds are that'll go about as well for them as it did for Augustine and Mercy. But there's someone the poem doesn't ask. It doesn't account for Annabel.

I think that may be why it matters so much that that Alecto still loves John, and where the true horror of love comes in. If Alecto's soul is going to be seperated from John's, Alecto has to want it. No one else can do it for her. Annabel Lee has to become the subject, and not the object.

[anthurak]

Something I was always a little concerned about in the lead-up to Hazbin Hotel was that Charlie was going to be a bit too passive of a character, ie; leaning only into the ‘kind, optimistic Disney-Princess-in-Hell who just wants to help everyone’ vibe and not really have much else going on as a character. Which in turn would make her feel kind of bland next to the big, over-the-top or dramatic personalities like Angel Dust and Alastor.

But thankfully, that is not what happened and there’s actually a lot that I like about what the writers are doing with Charlie, particularly in the potential future development and reveals they seem to be setting up.

First off, I like how Charlie generally comes off more like an over-the-top caricature of that ‘Disney-Princess-in-Hell’ vibe, ie; SUPER energized, enthusiastic, affectionate and emotional, often to overbearing degrees that get on everyone’s nerves. It’s generally funny, or at least amusing, and lets Charlie stand out alongside the other big personalities in the cast. Funny enough, she’s actually a lot like Blitzo in this regard, minus the seesawing into extreme abrasiveness.

And more importantly, we’ve already gotten major hints all but confirming that this over-the-top personality is largely a façade, and that Charlie actually has some very clear issues and baggage that she’s working VERY hard to keep buried beneath the surface. Again, much like Blitzo.

Like how in the trust-fall exercise in episode three, despite asking everyone to reveal something personal, Charlie actually bullshits just as hard as Angel Dust and Sir Pentious with her whole ‘I love you all!’ bit. Sure, it’s not like she was lying or being insincere, but it’s clear that was NOT something truly personal for Charlie. And in episode 4 we have Husk straight-up calls out Charlie as ‘wanting to solve everyone’s problems but her own’.

Then of course we have the brief glimpses we’ve seen of Charlie getting angry. Both the times we’ve seen Charlie dealing with some truly despicable and horrendous characters, we’ve seen that rather than lacking the ability to get angry, Charlie is often working to hold herself back. In both her encounters with Adam and Valentino we see points where Charlie is clearly NOT intimidated or afraid of them at all and seems fully prepared to throw down, only being stopped by reigning herself in or by someone else (in this case Angel) stopping her.

Again, it all paints Charlie’s big, bubbly, hyperactive exuberance as something of a front, a way for her to bury a lot of thoughts, feelings and general baggage she doesn’t want to face. Just like what the show has already explored with Angel and Husk.

It actually raises some interesting questions as to what’s REALLY driving Charlie in running the hotel and trying to help Sinners. For one, Husk has already pegged Charlie as ‘wanting to solve everyone’s problems but her own’. And going back to thematic crossover with Helluva Boss, I can’t help but see some potential parallels between Charlie creating the Hazbin Hotel, and Blitzo creating Immediate Murder Professionals.

I think it’s pretty clear at this point that half the reason for creating I.M.P. was as a coping mechanism for Blitzo, or rather the assassination business in general. Something that we’ve gotten hints to as early as the second episode in Blitzo’s back and forth with the Robo-Fizz (“Does anyone love you, Blitzo?”/“No. But I’m really good with guns now!”). With the other half of the reason Blitzo created I.M.P. clearly seems to be to create a surrogate family, as seen with how much he tries to insert himself in the M&M’s lives. Possibly even a specific attempt to replace the family he unwittingly destroyed fifteen years ago.

So I really have to wonder if we’re going to find out that Charlie creating the hotel and her goal of redeeming sinners is in part likewise a coping mechanism and escape for her own baggage.

It’s actually really interesting how episode two first introduced the idea of people opening up with Sir Pentious, then episode four dived further into the concept of the walls and fake personas people put up to hide from their pain and trauma with Angel Dust and Husk. With those two opening up and starting to let their walls down to each other, and by extension we the audience, I think it makes Charlie’s own façade all the more noticeable. It’ll be pretty interesting if Charlie actually winds up being the toughest nut to crack when it comes to opening up about their real issues and baggage. Yet another interesting trait she shares with Blitzo.

All in all, I’m really liking what the show has been doing with Charlie as a protagonist. And I’m REALLY interested to see where the story is going to take her.

Particularly what’s going to happen when she reaches a breaking point…

[ihaveforgortoomany]

Rambling about how R1999 makes you recognise and accknowledge Vertin as not a self-insert but a character in her own right.

Do you think feel disconnected in a good way when BP or in general the playerbase is referred to as timekeepers (kinda like in Genshin were referred to as travellers or trailblazers in Star Rail)

I say in a good way because Vertin just stands out so much as a character in her own right outside of the player's own motivations to see the story, this isn't us experiencing the world of Reverse 1999 like a self insert protag (nothing wrong about that lemme be clear) it is us watching Vertin explore the world, her own desires to seek the truth of the Storm.

So when reading updates and notices it feels weird being addressed as timekeeper when truly that title belongs to Vertin and not anyone else.

And by extension it is so interesting watching Streamers or ppl slowly shift from "what is happening to me" to "what is happening to Vertin" because it is a recognition by a certain point that Vertin is not a self insert character we play as but rather the main character we follow their journey with. Largely I think this happens during or after Book 3, ofc since we get part of Vertin's backstory.

(For example consider a phenomena in Omori, most people will consider themselves as Sunny as "I", "I will go over there" until something happens and its suddenly "Oh why did Sunny do that" and not "Why did I do that".)

It only helps that voicelines by other characters directly react to Vertin, such as her tendency or physical affection in hand holding or tendancy to just walk into other rooms in the suitcase.

In conclusion one of the strong points of R1999 is the fact that BP establishes Vertin as a character independent of the player's will, she drives the narrative and not the player's initiative, I highly about the story would not have such a large narrative and thematic strength without Vertin at its core, as characters and relationships will parallel, mirror and subvert her own in a certain way which I appreciate alot.

[ghouly-boiiiii]

Does Max give anyone else major twist villain vibes???

Okay I haven't talked about Max much yet, but I think it's kinda wild to see people talking about him like he's just this sweet innocent cinnamon roll when my read on his character was the COMPLETE opposite.

I mean yes, he does seem very sweet. He's very soft spoken. Naive in a way like Lucy, but not as much. Kinda vulnerable. Got a killer smile. And some of the moments with him and Lucy are super cute and adorable. But damn if he doesn't have a DARK side!

Like I've heard people say that Max is stupid or that Aaron Moten's acting is bad, but hell no. Aaron Moten sold me on his acting during the interrogation scene. Max was scared shitless and I FELT that. I think Max was meant to be played as a character who lacks understanding about certain things and seems disconnected from people due to both being brought up in basically a cult and having an inherent lack of empathy.

You think about the fact that he admitted he wanted Dane to get hurt, someone who's supposed to be his best friend. How he coldly sat there and watched Titus die. And before that stood there and watched him get mauled by a bear, almost like he was fascinated by it and wanted to see what was gonna happen. The fact that he tried to kill Thaddeus the moment he became a threat, even though the two of them had appeared to have bonded and developed a genuine friendship. And let's not forget he was willing to let all of Vault 4 get plunged into darkness just so he could keep playing with his power armor.

Max wants to be a knight, he wants to be a hero. And I think he tells himself he wants it for the right reasons, but I think what he REALLY wants is power and recognition. Which is really what every (okay maybe not every, but a lot) good villain wants, right? Because at the end of the day Max wants what Max wants. He's selfish, even though he doesn't think he is.

And sure, he's nice to Lucy. And he went balls to the wall to save her when he thought Vault 4 was gonna execute her. But she's a pretty girl who helped him and offered him a safe home. When she gave him the proposition that if she helped him bring back the head, he would have the Brotherhood lend her some knights to save her dad, he KNEW he couldn't make that promise. But he made the deal anyway. So he doesn't REALLY care about her or what she wants.

And that blank stare he gets when he gets mad? ACTUALLY terrifying. The guy's got serious psychopath vibes. Literal anti-social personality disorder, if you ask me. In fact the first thing I thought about when Max let Titus die is this kids going to end up going to the dark side lol.

And I think that would work really well thematically if they plan on giving The Ghoul a redemption arc beside it. There are so many parallels between Lucy and The Ghoul, and they have such a strong connection to the beginning when the bombs dropped. I get that Max is there to represent the Brotherhood and he's from Shady Sands, the town Hank destroyed, but it felt weird that he didn't seem to be AS important in the grand scheme of things compared to Cooper and Lucy.

But if Max turned out to be a badass twist villain to thematically contrast Cooper's redemption arc, while Lucy remains steadfast to her commitment to goodness and the golden rule I feel like that would really round it out. It would make sense if you consider a lot of people have pointed out that Lucy, Cooper and Max all seem to represent different play styles and different moral alignments. And I think it'd be pretty crazy if the writers of the show set out to make it seem like Ghoul is a bad guy and Max is a good guy, but then it ended up being the opposite.

I mean, there are definitely hints all over the show that The Ghoul isn't as bad as he may seem. And Max has already done some pretty messed up stuff, so I'd say the possibility is totally there, and I'd be here for it!

Who's with me???

[a-town-called-hometown]

yippee! apologies if my takes are horrendously bad

my personal take on the matter is that i definitely think the dark worlds can work as a metaphor for escapism without undermining the darkners' personhood. it can be more than one thing, yknow? the darkners are important, their lives matter. and the lightners do go to the dark world as an escape from the problems they face in their own life. but that's not the darkners' whole PURPOSE, yknow? i mean. according to the laws of the universe of deltarune yes darkners' "purpose" is to serve the lightners but like it's not their whole purpose in the STORY.

it's sort of like how, in UNDERTALE, LOVE represents how distant you've become, how easy it is for you to hurt people. but it also literally gives you the power to destroy the world.

i think the biggest reason i believe escapism is at least a part of deltarune's narrative is queen.

queen's whole speech in both of her fights is about how she intends to provide escapism for the lightners (so that they will worship her but also so that they will he happy). she wants to turn the whole world into a dark world, so that everyone can live in bliss and not have to worry about the woes of the light world. she mentions "Staring, Tapping, To Receive Joy. Staring, Tapping, To Avoid Pain." which is like pretty much the definition of escapism

she wants to help Noelle with the problems she faces in the light world ("Noelle. Who Will Be There To Help Her? Her Strange And Sad Searches" and "My One Idea To Help Noelle, Failed") by just... shoving it away for a blissful fantasy world ("Wake? No, She Has Already Awakened Too Much. Let Her Close Her Eyes And Sleep Away, Into A Darker, Darker Dream.")

...i forgot the rest of what i wanted to say!

well first off, thank you for your ask! I'm going to get extremely in depth in my answer, so bear with me here. sorry it took several weeks to write this. the escapism reading of deltarune is pretty deeply entrenched in fandom, and to refute it, I felt it required a full-length essay to completely explain my viewpoint.

yes, "the lightners desire escapism" does not automatically translate to that being the darkners' actual narrative purpose. escapism can be a theme without dehumanizing those who are used in order to escape - in fact, I've read a number of stories that use someone's desire to escape to HIGHLIGHT how they're hurting others in pursuit of that. I believe that toby fox is definitely capable of telling a story about kids having a valid desire to escape, and about them grappling with having inadvertently created a world of real, living people as a result.

(I'll reiterate again that this is not the story arc that generally shows up in fanon. the common consensus is that the game will end in an omori-esque "growing out of" the dark worlds. it's why I have a huge dislike of the fanon escapism reading, given that the darkners are shown as people whose lack of agency parallels kris' own. it would feel cheap if the resolution to that plot was that the darkners were actually never meant to be agents in their own fates. but this is a digression.)

the reason why i DON'T believe that this is a story that toby fox is telling is because of the way the world, themes, and characters are written. put simply, it just doesn't come across as congruent with the story being told.

deltarune's main themes are agency, fate, identity, and control. this is a conflict that shows up in nearly every major character, is baked into the worldbuilding, and is the central struggle involving us, the player. the protagonist of deltarune is literally possessed by us against their will. the darkners are objects that have no choice but to serve and be discarded. over and over again, there is emphasis on roles that characters play - and crucially, roles that are imposed on them.

what would escapism mean, in this thematic context? in real life, escapism can represent any number of things, but in a story, a major narrative theme generally has to dovetail with other major narrative themes in the work. I would argue that escapism in deltarune would likely mean going to a place where characters are able to choose for themselves what roles they embody, or even to discard the notion of roles altogether. a fantasy of control is the only way to escape a reality where you have no agency. and honestly, it's hard to imagine that something could count as an escapist fantasy if you don't even get to choose whether or not you participate in it.

let's talk about kris.

I see a lot of discussions around kris that say that kris goes into the dark worlds to escape. the dark worlds are posited as kris' fantasy of heroism. it's a world where they can seem heroic and cool, a world where they can have friends. this theory makes a decent amount of sense on the surface level, but only until you consider that kris is being controlled in order to go into the dark worlds. and it is not a control that they appear to welcome.

if those worlds represent kris' fantasy, then why don't they get to choose what happens in those fantasies? why are they being controlled by an external force, one that they actively push back against? if it's really an escape, then why does everything about this world reflect their lack of agency? if they really think this world is just a pure fantasy, then why do they care if spamton falls when his strings are cut?

because they're being deliberately obscured to the player, it is hard to say how kris actually feels about many subjects... but I do seriously doubt that they view the dark worlds as an escape. they don't act in a way that is consistent with that. they resist their lack of agency, and what little we do see of their reactions to darkner characters doesn't suggest that they view those characters as part of a disposable fantasy, either. they seem to have complicated feelings on ralsei. and of course, one of their biggest emotional reactions in the game is to the spamton fight. I would argue that that suggests they have empathy for spamton, which is a hard emotional reaction to have if you believe he's just part of a fantasy. not impossible, mind you, but it seems unlikely that kris believes that all this is simply fantasy.

also, considering that snowgrave both actively discredits the idea that the dark worlds are mere fantasy and is actively traumatic for kris... I seriously doubt they'd open another dark world in chapter 3 on a snowgrave run if their motive was purely to escape. on that route, they've seen the damage we can cause in a dark world. they know that berdly has sustained lasting damage due to our actions, assuming he's not outright dead. why would they want to try and "escape" to a place like that again now that they know what can happen?

the only answer is that they have a motive that isn't escapist.

now, as for ralsei... what part does he have to play in all this?

ralsei does play a lot to the fun, fantastical elements of the dark worlds. he delivers the prophecy that kickstarts the adventure. he flatters both kris and susie endlessly when they act appropriately heroic. he welcomes them into the castle and even makes nice rooms for them. he initially seems tailor-made to enable a fantastical experience where no real issues can ever complicate anything, and where the pain of reality can successfully be hidden from. but there's a lot of complications to the idea that he might represent an escapist fantasy.

the first, and what honestly seems the most important to me, is that he doesn't encourage kris and susie to remain in the dark worlds. he is welcoming and kind, but once the adventure is over, he prompts them to return to the light world. he wants them to deal with their more "real" problems like homework. that doesn't feel like he is trying to facilitate escapism in them. a real fantasy would encourage you to stay in it, wouldn't it?

and while ralsei is definitely invested in making sure the lightners are happy, there are always cracks that show. he isn't able to make kris ignore what happened in the spamton fight. he isn't able to convince susie to be peaceful and kind. and in his very essence, he represents a number of uncomfortable ideas. very importantly, he represents a number of uncomfortable ideas to kris.

this probably ain't your first fandom rodeo, so I'm not going to explain all the different ways that ralsei interacts with kris' personal issues. there's plenty of posts on it out there. what i will point out is, once again, it feels odd that a character who seems tailor made to bring up kris' most uncomfortable associations with their lack of agency and their outsider status in their own family would be part of a fantasy of escapism to them. you'd think that they'd prefer something that didn't have an inbuilt hierarchy, a prophecy that denied them autonomy, or especially a person that reminded them how little they fit into hometown.

that doesn't mean kris doesn't care about him at all - it seems very likely that they do. what I mean to say here is that he just seems ill-suited to an escapism reading, both behaviorally and on a conceptual level. it doesn't seem like that's at all part of his servitude towards the lightners.

of course, there is another non-lightner entity that ralsei seems diegetically engineered to serve. but I'll discuss that later.

now as for susie...

yes, susie definitely views the dark worlds as more fun than the light world. and why wouldn't she? the light world sucks for her, and she doesn't seem very aware of the fact that the dark world can also suck. you could definitely make the argument that she views the dark worlds as a fantastical escape from reality... were it not for the fact that she treats her darkner friends with just as much importance as she does kris and noelle.

can someone treat components of an escapist fantasy as real and important? of course. but given deltarune's themes of agency and control, as well as the fact that darkners exist in servitude to the lightners, I feel like you'd have to make escapism tie into forcing others into a lack of agency if you wanted the theme to feel coherent with the rest of the work. this would require susie to be limiting the agency of the darkners around her. and obviously, she doesn't do that. her presence around them might be inherently limiting, just by simple virtue of being a lightner, but she isn't aware of it, and clearly is uncomfortable with the idea of limiting anyone's agency. she encourages ralsei to make choices. and she supports lancer in basically anything he wants to do. her treatment of lancer is integral to chapter 1's narrative, and it seems like that treatment of ralsei is integral to the ongoing narrative as well!

her preference for the dark world feels very rooted in her engagement with it as its own reality. rather than trying to avoid her real-life problems by engaging in a pretense, she seems to simply want to spend time with her friends in a place that isn't cruel to her. she isn't ignoring any of the dark world's problems in service of that, either. she notices when things don't line up. if she thought of it as a fantasy, wouldn't she be inclined to ignore issues that impede the fantasy?

and critically - like kris, she does not intentionally choose her imposed role in the prophecy at first. she steps into the role of bad guy to resist it, but that role is limiting too, and she eventually acquiesces to being a hero. it's never something she's completely on board with, though. she actively pushes back the limitations that the role places on her. I find this important to reiterate when we are discussing the notion of the characters viewing the dark worlds as fantasy.

noelle has a complicated relationship to the dark worlds. susie tells her that it's a dream to make her accept the strange reality she finds herself in, which works well on her. she continues to think of it as a strange dream throughout the chapter. (though, like the others, it is not a 'dream' she entered of her own volition!)

it is also a markedly unpleasant 'dream' at times. she has her agency restricted, is kidnapped, has to evade a controlling monarch, and is even tied up in a weird evangelion cross thing on the hand of a giant robot. it's not purely fun. noelle does like scary things, and while it might be healthy for her to have an experience where she stands up to a controlling adult figure... again, the circumstances make it difficult for me to assume that this is a fantasy she would choose for herself. not impossible, mind you, but it's not the first reading of the situation that comes to mind.

and while she does say she wishes she could dream like this every day in the normal route, that does happen specifically because she was talking to the girl she likes. it makes sense she'd find that pleasant. I don't think that necessarily equates to her finding the dark worlds escapist.

and importantly, this isn't the sentiment that she expresses in every route.

again, there's a lot of analysis on snowgrave, so I won't bother regurgitating it much here. but it's nightmarish for both kris and noelle, and very likely fatal for berdly. noelle needs to believe that the event is a dream, for her own psychological safety, but one of the most important parts of snowgrave...

...is that its events, and the world it took place in, are very, very real.

noelle wants to have the strength to face her problems, both in the regular route and in the snowgrave route. rather than escaping from them, she views the "dream" as a chance to practice dealing with her day-to-day issues. it's just that in the regular route she finds that strength authentically, and in the snowgrave route, that desire is manipulated and pushed until she is forced to kill berdly. she doesn't interpret snowgrave as an escape gone wrong. she views it as a dream that became a nightmare. and those are two extremely different things.

but i haven't even gotten to the biggest thing that undermines the concept that the dark worlds are a metaphor for escapism! which is: this fucking guy is dead wrong about everything.

so full disclaimer - I really love berdly. I think he's slept on a lot in the fandom because he's annoying and weird. which is fair, I suppose, but I think ignoring him hinders a lot of people's understanding of deltarune's overall narrative. because berdly often illustrates a lot of concepts in the game, but his narrative framing as a joke (usually...) prevents the player from taking it completely seriously. he has things to say and ideas to show off, it's just that he's often very loud and kind of dumb in his expression of them. which is kind of the point!

ralsei brings up the idea that the darkners are meant to serve the lightners very seriously in chapter one. by extension, and by way of the literal mechanics involved in a dark world's creation, we can infer that this logic is probably something that also applies to the dark worlds themselves. they are allegedly worlds and characters that only are supposed to fulfill a dream of the lightners. but due to narrative framing and deltarune's themes, we know that that's not the full truth. however dark worlds and darkners are created, they deserve to have their own agency. they can't just exist to fulfill a higher being's wishes.

you know who else undermines that view of the dark worlds? berdly! berdly does!!!!

because berdly is the only lightner in the game so far who does take the dark worlds to be an escapist adventure! he wants to turn cyber world into smartopia. he views this as a chance to be a cool hero. he believes he's going to get the girl, he's going to shape this world to his own liking, and maybe also he's going to get queen to acknowledge him or something so he stops being a forgettable little bluebird. and not only does none of this happen, his steadfast belief that it will happen is continually a joke within the narrative!!

berdly's wishes for uncomplicated escapist fantasy are flat-out denied by the dark worlds themselves. as a lightner, those worlds should be serving him. he should have the power to do whatever he wants within the bounds of an escapist fantasy. these npcs should be singing his praises!

but he doesn't have the power. and this world doesn't sing his praise. because it just isn't an escapist fantasy. he isn't right to view it that way. his wishes for heroism are always going to be thwarted.

so now that I've gotten all that out of the way, let's swing back over to the subject of your original ask. queen.

because, like berdly, queen's entire character arc is about how she's completely wrong about what the lightners actually want.

queen would in fact like nothing more to place the lightners into an escapist fantasy. she believes that that's the best way to serve them and make them happy forever. as a darkner, queen has very much internalized the idea that a lack of control is what actually makes people happy. since darkners have no choice in their destinies and are supposed to be happy in it, and since she personally finds her role as a darkner fulfilling, she believes that that's true of all people everywhere. if you want to make people happy, you just have to remove that pesky personal agency!

so she spends the story trying to force the lightners and particularly noelle into situations where she controls them in order to make them ostensibly happier. she does genuinely believe that this is the right thing to do, but as she finds out eventually, she's just wrong. noelle doesn't want that. queen believes that escapism is why the lightners use the internet... but that's totally wrong too.

while there are other searches mixed in, noelle is trying to use the internet to find her sister. instead of trying to hide from whatever happened, noelle wants to figure it out. queen's thesis about noelle and the lightners is proven wrong even before she personally encounters noelle in the dark world. it's just that queen doesn't realize it due to her limited perspective.

the concept of escapism being brought up with both queen and berdly is not there to say that the dark world is escapist. rather, it's there to say that it isn't. despite the dark worlds being a fantastical place, they are extremely real. to view them as a means of escape is foolhardy at best. you cannot act as though you are above consequences within them.

themes and ideas exist within the story for a sake of an audience. so let's get into the final character I need to discuss here. hopefully this will tie my thesis of deltarune together neatly.

that character is of course us. the player.

when creating a piece of fiction, an astute author will often identify and anticipate an audience's reactions to certain things in their work, and write things in such a way that they elicit the desired reactions. in essence, a writer is directing the "character" of the audience. how we feel and how we are anticipated to react to things is an integral part of nearly every fiction.

that effect is far more overt when dealing with metanarrative fiction that diegetically involves the audience. since the fiction is saying a lot of things about the general 'you,' the audience in aggregate, your reactions to certain things in the story have to be finely cued and anticipated by the author, so that the author can thus commentate on the reactions that you have to the story. the "character" you are assumed to inhabit is posited by the author to have certain traits.

to explain what I mean in plainer terms, I'll use the player of undertale's no mercy route as an example. because undertale is commenting on the way rpgs generally work. the player's behaviors in no mercy are attributed by characters in the story to be the result of us acting like a typical gamer. we kill the characters in the game because we want exp. and more than that, it's because we want to see everything the game has to offer. the role we inhabit in this role-playing game is that of a completionist. you could say that that's assumed to be our "character" in no mercy.

deltarune also posits that certain things are true of its audience. by being written to evoke certain cultural ideas, rpg tropes, and references to undertale, it guarantees that its audience will probably have certain traits, and spends a large amount of its conceptual focus commenting on those traits. one of those traits is nostalgia, which is probably an idea that I'll expound upon in a further essay because it's quite integral to my reading of deltarune. but the main one I mean to discuss here, and why I went off on this tangent about how audiences are dealt with in metafiction, is that we are posited as someone who believes in the logic of certain narratives.

deltarune's writing evokes a lot of portal fantasy narratives. alice in wonderland, narnia, pretty much every story where it's revealed at the end to be all a dream... the story of deltarune superficially resembles a lot of those. this, I think, is responsible for the popularity of the escapism theory. because those stories are often at their end about a child learning to put away fantasy and grow up, people tend to believe that deltarune must be about the same thing. but I truly don't think that deltarune is trying to do anything with that aspect of portal fantasy narratives, at least not directly. its main characters aren't involved in that exact type of coming-of-age arc.

instead, deltarune is very concerned with what happens to characters in fantasy, and specifically fantasy rpgs. if your world is deemed to not matter because it's a dream, what does that mean for you, who has no choice but to live in it? if you are an npc whose role has been predetermined for you via script, then can you ever decide for yourself what you want? what if you want to matter? what if you want to be your own person?

as the major controlling force of deltarune, we are initially cued to believe that deltarune is like a dream. it superficially fulfills so much of what we want from undertale fanon. hometown seems like it's a perfect idyllic town, at least until you start noticing the obvious cracks. and remember what I said about ralsei earlier? he is so reminiscent of asriel, and extremely eager to help us. it's not a stretch to say that making us specifically view deltarune as dreamlike and idyllic is probably part of his purpose in the game.

I would not say that we are posited as escapist. but the idea of escapism as brought up with queen and berdly is meant to strike at the heart of a much deeper idea that deltarune is trying to deconstruct. because if we view deltarune as a dream, escapist or otherwise, then we are inclined to write the internal realities of the characters inside off. the dark world can disappear without it mattering. we can control kris without it mattering. if it's all a dream, what does it matter? why should we care to let its characters go free? aren't we supposed to be in control?

if deltarune is an rpg... what is the significance of us interacting with it?

[my-rose-tinted-glasses]

Peaceful property is a bl even if it's not. It's also about so many other things although not really delivering on a consistent message.

I thought about adding my thoughts to this thread but it was getting long and I started to get sidetracked so I decided to just make my own post about it and share my thoughts on it. @lurkingshan @bengiyo and @twig-tea all made good point about why this show is faltering with its own themes, and @respectthepetty made a compelling argument that the show knows what its doing.

I think no one is wrong and I land somewhere in the middle with it. As in, depending on what I choose to care about. Much like @respectthepetty, I am bias about this show. For different reasons tho. I like Tay and New a lot so I lead with that instead of my critical thinking. just as a personal aside, I tend to do this when my brain and heart don't align. I ignore when my brain tells me that the show is doing something wrong so that I can enjoy the rest. This works particularly well with QL for some reason. I am after all a person who liked Dangerous Romance even when my brain kept trying to damper my enjoyment with logic. And also sometimes I'm a hypocrite and there's no reason for why I like a show and not another. Ok, there's usually a reason but it's most often not a good one, or a rational one at least. That's just how it is.

Anyway. Because of all the excellent points made by that post I decided to fully engage my brain and I've been thinking about what this show is trying to say and I agree that unfinished business is the main thing in the ghost stories but I would have to shut off my brain completely to not see how class factors into all of it as well.

The ghosts up until now, except the chef, were all lower class and one can argue that it played a part in how they died or what happened after. I'm not including episode 7 for reasons that I will explain in a bit. Even if Ride's unfinished business was about love, the fact that he was the only rider doing deliveries in the rain, at least to me, read as he was driven by the need to make money in the first place. Even in the chef's case, the customer that Peach basically poisoned was rich and it was a part of the headlines about it and the reason for the restaurant getting shut down. Also most of the individual stories didn't get deep into these issues, case of the week usual issues, but it was always an underlying theme. Also as @twig-tea said all the parallels work even better because this disparity also exists between Home and Peach.

All this gets me to how I started this post. This is a bl even if it isn't. The choice to include the tragic bl storyline in the middle of this, in my own brain, can only be explained if I believe this is a bl. (The tragic bit was thematically consistent with this show.) Specifically a gmmtv bl. Cause ultimately they have a tendency to forsake narrative consistency if it stops serving the main romance. It's also the only way I can explain having a bl pair mirroring the other bl pair on screen. So in that way it's consistent with gmmtv. Just brush aside anything that can get in the way of the couple not having a happy ending. This is also how I explain my biggest issue with it. Pangpang. She's the shipper. She's been the shipper from basically the start.

Home basically killed her brother, why would she be the driving force in getting him forgiven? Because of my previously admitted bias, I forgave Home almost immediately. It's New and he didn't mean it, it was an accident and he wanted to call for help and do the right thing but his family interfered and.... I could come up with a lot of reasons because I want to forgive him. So everything else can be ignored. But all this obviously doesn't apply to Pang. So it can only be the bl in the not a bl show.

Now, on full brainy mode, this last episode makes no sense with everything else this show has been saying until now. They used a branded pair to ignore any class disparity between our mains, since the last ghost story didn't really parallel that, and over the forgiveness part, and jump straight into Peach has forgiven Home and will probably now become his saviour. Don't even get me started on the fact that Peach is still broke but saving the rich dude that turned his life to crap will be the most important thing right now. I wonder if gmmtv has ever ignored class disparity between a main couple and instead focused on the richer dude's drama while ignoring the struggle of the other one, all in favour of the main romance and lovey dovey moments 🤔. But I guess I'll reserve full judgement on that until the next episode.

yeah, so basically this is where I am at with this show. My two sides are fighting but come next wednesday my brain will take the back seat for 45 minutes so I can enjoy Tay and New and after that maybe I'll think about it some more.

[vidavalor]

Perfectly Splendid

"Perfectly splendid" is a Mary Poppins allusion from another story that, thematically, is an interesting one for Good Omens to be referencing in The Final 15. That story, plus the ton of other Mary Poppins references in the last two episodes of S2 and how that could help us figure out what's going on, beneath the cut.

The phrase "perfectly splendid" is an allusion to Mary Poppins that comes from Mike Flanagan's The Haunting of Bly Manor. It's a modern-set Gothic horror story that features a nanny arriving to care for two, Jane-and-Michael-Banks-esque kids at an English manor house. Flora, the little girl in the story, is obsessed with her mysterious former nanny. We see quickly in the series that Flora has taken to using her former nanny's catchphrase and so calls everything she likes "perfectly splendid" repeatedly throughout the story, in a way that is both cute and eerie as all fuck, depending on the scene.

The "perfectly splendid" is a take on Mary Poppins' "practically perfect" and the homages to Mary Poppins in The Haunting of Bly Manor are overt, if not quite as much as Scary Poppins is in Good Omens. (It would be hard to top that!) Flora saying "perfectly splendid" is the main quote to come out of the series and a reference in Good Omens to this signature bit of The Haunting of Bly Manor is then also a roundabout reference in Good Omens to Mary Poppins.

The Haunting of Bly Manor is a horror story about possession.

Ya know, that thing that Satan did to Crowley in 1.01...

...and, I would wager, in the bits below of 2.06:

When the character Derek Jacobi is playing first arrives, all five angels fail to identify this being as The Metatron... and all while the only demon in the room-- Crowley-- is very still in the chair and suspiciously (forcibly?) silent until spoken to by the being.

The angels not being familiars of The Devil is, I think, the simplest explanation for why none of them can recognize a face that should be very familiar to them. Upon this person being identified as The Metatron, Michael, Uriel and Saraqael are then so terrified of ticking him off that they fail to recognize that he told them all to go back to Heaven using language from the wrong Julie Andrews movie.

If this is The Metatron below, then why is he saying "spit spot" (and alongside "not another word" as a bonus, as she says that, too)? These are Mary Poppins signature phrases and Mary Poppins is Hell's answer to Heaven and The Sound of Music in Good Omens.

I'm actually pretty sure Crowley & Aziraphale had a hand in writing both, which is why neither Hell nor Heaven seem to actually understand their signature stories but, for now, we know which one is supposed to go with which group and any sign of Mary Poppins is a sign of Hell, ever since the Warlock era... which parallels the last two episodes of S2, with The Meeting Ball disaster as a version of Warlock's birthday party. This time around, the party leads to the influence and not the other way around.

In S1, it's Crowley as Scary Poppins at the door to influence Warlock with Aziraphale there to counter him as the gardener... mirrored in S2 with Aziraphale as the Warlock, Crowley the Gardener as one influencing voice and the other being Satan-appearing-as-The-Metatron arriving at the door in the midst of a Poppinspalooza.

But there's still a lot more Mary Poppins than just the above:

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

Most of the Mary Poppins references actually started the prior night with the arrival of the demons, when Crowley paused in the street in mid-conversation as the demons arrived on Whickber Street and spoke aloud about how he felt a change happening a la Bert in the opening scene of Mary Poppins.

Wind's in the East/Mist comin' in

Like something is brewin'/About to begin...

Then, there's Crowley asking Mrs. Sandwich (who is wearing a plume very much like Bert's favorite lady in that opening scene of Mary Poppins) if she "has her hat pin", which is a reference to the suffragette movement, so cast off the shackles of yesterday! shoulder to shoulder into the fray!...

Mary Poppins' "Sister Suffragette" scene is also an example of one of its many scenes in which the humor is built around two characters who aren't at all hearing one another, which is very similar to Aziraphale and Crowley having issues with that to some extent during The Meeting Ball and then being in full-on, Baby-Swap-Plot-level, miscommunication Hell in That Scene in The Final 15. A lot of those Mary Poppins scenes, including "Sister Suffragette", involve action around a door-- like damn near every scene in Good Omens-- as that is symbolic of communication and whose voice is being listened to at any given time.

Or how everyone was then link your elbows/step in time-ing it the fuck out of the shop...

They're at the gate/step in time... It's The Master/step in time...

That was all after things got a bit supercalifragilisticexpialidocious...

So when the cat has got your tongue, Mrs. Sandwich, there's no need to dismay! Just summon up that word and then you've got a lot to say...

Beez's Fly + Hell claiming Mr. Brown of Brown's World of Carpets =

But the best/worst is near the very end:

Though her words are simple and few

Listen, listen/She's calling to you...

Feed the birds/That's what she cries

While overhead/Her birds fill the skies...

So, yeah...

Up/Where the smoke is all billowed and curled, Aziraphale...

...between pavement and stars

is the chimney sweep world...

When there's hardly no day/Nor hardly no night

There's things off in shadow

And off way in white...

We're owed some serious "Let's Go Fly a Kite" come S3. 🦆☂���😊

[saint-starflicker]

Nice post!

Narrative Voice is a bigger factor than I want to admit. I think the only narrative voices that I noticeably loved are Percy Jackson (Percy Jackson and the Olympians) and Shori Matthews (Fledgling) — but "good narrative voice" to me is less about relatability and more about if it's comfortable or sturdy enough to get to the next sentence. Shori's story is not at all comfortable, but her narrative voice is, so that's what got me through a very uncomfortable and tense and at times violent and gory story.

Omniscient Perspective, I love omniscient perspective. I have read and understand a lot of the reasoning for first person instead—that first person is less disbelief to suspend because the story is framed as being told by somebody that was there, and there's opportunity for Unreliable Narrator twists, if there is one character's thoughts or feelings constantly being divulged by an omniscient narrator then why not just write in first person then, or especially for Young Adult novels it's apparently mandatory by now because (marketers, editors etcetera think so) readers of those genres want a one-sided conversation with a character they meet and make a connection with by that first person...But I almost can't stand it, because first person now reads as gimmicky to me.

Emotionally Lacking Protagonists, I can adjust to this. I don't love it nor am I averse to it, but I'm open to what it's doing.

Robotic Dialogue, I think I can adjust to this but then I remember the dialogue in Atlas Shrugged that was like watching a tennis match between two brick walls.

Slow/No Pace in a Plot-Driven Book, I concur, although I can vibe with the mood-without-plot too.

Stale Tropes ...I keep hearing that this is a thing that makes contemporary literature bad now, but I don't really get it. What's everyone reading that the concept of recognizable tropes are a bad thing? I lived through a trend of High Fantasy Mentor Dies, and I guess that got predictable and annoying...and when somebody says "love triangle" I think I already know what they mean and I want to get as far away from that story as possible because I have not read that done creatively since maybe around the Arthurian era... But I don't know what the stale tropes of today are. Fake Dating To Real Romance, Enemies To Lovers, Only One Horse...? I don't know, I think if it gets popular enough to be annoying than it says something about where most people's minds are at. That's not always bad, mind you, that's just information.

Like... High Fantasy Mentor Dies might symbolize most people growing into a mentality in which they now have to do difficult and scary things all alone without guidance. Love Triangles might belong to a generation in which there wasn't a lot of clarity in whether what they truly wanted was the right thing. Fake Dating might resonate with the struggle of how even what we pretend to be will say something about what we're truly like, or how performing our obligations can have us re-discover the real feelings behind why we bother. I keep hearing that Enemies To Lovers is popular because it's the fantasy of having shown one's worst side to another person who can still know and love that, whereas "healthier" relationships between characters who were never enemies can have an off-putting tinge of pretentiousness or superiority about them to enjoyers of Enemies To Lovers exclusively.

Only One Horse can perish as a trope. That poor animal.

Otherwise I think even cash-grabby, transparently manipulative and boring uses of a trope can provoke thought about why it's there—or why it's everywhere in fiction, and thank goodness it is confined and contained in fiction where it can be examined critically.

(Or readers can just love it or leave it. That's a thing we do, too.)

What Makes A Bad Book In My Eyes

Books aren’t easy to write. There are always bumps along the road, whether they are a part of the writing process or events in life, which can set writers back and make an already difficult task much harder. In the end, a book is produced, but they don’t always get the same reception from their readers. Here is a list of elements in a story (or excluded from the story) that make a bad book in my…

[iamnmbr3]

I find very interesting that both Draco and Harry seem to get each other so well even though they barely know one another.

Honestly this is what fascinates me the most about their dynamic, because while Draco serves as Harry's foil, their parallels are just so symbolic.

Both children of a war they didn't choose, both boys fated to pay for the sins of those that came before, both loyal, both marked by something. Harry using Draco's wand (that worked so well for him) to defeat Voldemort.

And really, Draco is the kind of challenge Harry loves. Canon Harry didn't want admires (which is why is so beyond me that he'd end with Ginny of all people). Harry wanted someone that understood him, that would stand up to him when they thought he was being an idiot, and who in the whole saga we know does that?

So yeah, ironic that J.K. R unintentionally wrote that lmao

I completely agree! The parallels are fascinating on a thematic and character development level and are part of what makes the idea of a relationship between them so interesting and compelling to explore. Also, on a practical level it means that they have a surprising amount of shared experiences that would help them bond and understand each other in a way that is really quite unique. Each in his own way is surprisingly isolated and internal despite being seemingly surrounded by many people and I think they could reach each other in a very special way.

I also totally agree about it being strange that Harry ended up with a fangirl. Controversial take but imho Ginny's shallow admiration of Harry isn't really that different from Romilda Vane's. They're both kind of obsessed with the idea of Harry without actually knowing much about the reality of him. (In book 5 Ginny was starting to overcome this and was getting to know the real Harry while also coming into her own but then she very much backslides in book 6 and 7. Also while Ginny did make some progress Harry really didn't. He never learns much about her or her interests, fears, hopes, dreams etc.)

Draco (prior to his family's downfall) spends a lot of his life surrounded by sycophants and admirers and yet he doesn't really respect them and seems to crave a real friendship. After all, even before he knows who Harry is he tries to reach out to him in Madam Malkin's even though he obviously knows Harry isn't one of the children of the wealthy blood supremacist pureblood families who are already familiar to him. Because perhaps he wants something more, something real.

And similarly Harry doesn't want to be worshipped or feared. Part of what draws him to Cho initially is the way she can match and challenge him at Quidditch (who does that sound like?) and her humor and sassiness when they play each other. He likes someone who can push back and challenge and interest him and match his wit. And this isn't Ginny. That's Draco. Perhaps someday Harry reflects on how Ginny always did what he wanted and said what he respected, and Draco never does, and somehow that has made all the difference.

[caeslxys]

Something I think is extremely interesting thematically when it comes to connecting what Downfall and the ideas it tackled to the overarching narrative of campaign three is that the things Downfall made a point to showcase of Aeor—Cassida, Hallis, the visual of an aeormaton proposing to her partner, the specific and intentional decision to shed light on a far from insignificant amount of the population being civilians or refugees—is that it plays in perfect parallel across from what is happening (and, really, has been happening) to the ruidusborn on Exandria in present.

Bear with me for a moment. Aeor is ultimately a city that was collectively punished for the decisions of its leadership. We could (and, judging by the amount of discourse around this particular topic already, probably will) argue about what the Gods’ motivation for all of this was—whether it be that they could not, in the end, bear to kill their siblings or that they were terrified at the prospect of mortality—for me it is a very healthy dose of both—but for this I am much more interested in the latter. They were scared. That, really, is the driving force behind both this arc and their role in c3 as a whole.

Why I point this out is: It is far more interesting to me, especially as we go back to Bells Hells this week, to dissect the Gods and their decisions not purely on sympathetic motivation alone but as beings in the highest seat of power in the highest social class in Exandria.

So, having established that the Gods (in relation to mortals) are more a higher social class than anything we could compare to our real life understanding of divinity and that Aeor was eviscerated largely because of their fear—what is the difference between those innocents in Aeor caught in the trappings of their autocratic government leadership and a divine war on the ground, and those of the ruidusborn being manipulated both by Ludinus and by the very thing that inspired such visceral fear in the Gods to start with. I would argue very little.

I think of Cassida, doing what she genuinely thought was right and good and would save people, her son, and the object of her worship—and how that did not matter enough to any of them to spare her because of the fear they held at the very concept of mortality. I think of Liliana and Imogen, one of which we know begged for the gods to help her or send her a sign for years on years, and how every single one of their largest struggles could have been avoided had the gods loved them, their supposed children, as much as they feared what they could be. I think of how the thing that did save Imogen, in the end, was a woman who herself existed in direct defiance of the gods will. I think of that young boy, sixteen years old, that Laudna exalted on Ruidus.

I think it’s completely fair to judge Aeor’s overall society as deeply corrupt—it was!—but its leadership and police force are not a reflection of every one of its citizens. Similarly, it is fair to judge the Ruby Vanguard as corrupt—it is!—but its multiple heads of leadership and even the god-eater further are not a reflection of every one of its members.

Notably, and what I think the Hells will latch onto, this did not matter to the Gods. It did not matter that Cassida was trying to help. She was still too much of a risk. Will it matter, what Imogen does? Will it matter, if that young boy is in the blast radius when they decide to take no further chances?

I’ve seen a lot of people say that the Hells will side with the gods and I don’t think I agree. Especially as Imogen has been scolded and villainized over and over for daring to try and save her mother—who herself has been seen by some as an irredeemable evil in spite of her drive being the exact same—her family—but when it’s the Gods it’s justified? When it’s the Gods, it’s sympathetic? Too sympathetic to criticize further than “they’re family”?

I obviously do not think the Gods should die or be eaten or what have you, and I certainly don’t agree with Ludinus (though I find him much more compelling than just a variation of hubris wizard), but when talking about the Gods in Aeor and in present it isn’t really at all about their motivation or their family. It can’t be. Too many people, including our active protagonists, lives have been effected for it to be as cut and dry as “they’re family”. These are your children. They are your family, too.

[bibibbon]

You know? It's kinda of funny how LOV fans treat the whole "I want to be a hero for villains" of Shigaraki as something groundbreaking, when the same concept was already introduced in the series (and was done better) with Nine.

Unlike Shigaraki, Nine literally meet his team members when he saved their lives. In Chimera's case it was when a bunch of racists were about to execute him just for being a mutant.

Nine also was a hero for them in a more thematic level, as he not only save their lives but actually give his team mates a reason for live and fight. He offered them the chance to fight for create a better world. For me it's quite remarkable how Nine despite being a homeless and chronically ill person, go for save people he view as equally oppressed by the world.

He was selfless enough to sacrifice his own health using his quirk to save Chimera despite it was destroying his body, and without expecting nothing in exchange for share a dream Nine a hand to people at their lowest point.

That's much more of an "All Might for the villains" or whatever Horikoshi tried to make Shigaraki in the final moments. Or hell Nine even acts better as a foil to Deku in the sense both are selfless individuals who fight despite their bodies are crumbling, just for the save of the persons who are important to them.

How ironic is that Nine, the original movie villain that was supposed to be just a prototype for the "final villain" of MHA, ended executing the same themes way better than Shigaraki.

Hi @nyc3 👋

A main reason as to why people treat shigaraki's I want to be a hero for the villains ideology better than nine's is simply because I assume a lot of people forgot the plot of the 2nd movie or haven't read the one shot manga chapter mha leauge of villains undercover. All of this is a shame because I heavily agree that nine's version of I want to be a hero and hope for the villains is executed and built up 10000x times better than shigarakis and nine had a fraction of the screentime that shigaraki got which is saying a lot.

Actually rewatching the film and rereading the manga one-shot has showed me that nine and shigarakis arcs are pretty similar with nine's having a better execution and shigaraki having more wasted potential.

The movie sets it clear that nine and shigaraki are supposed to be foils for one another so it makes sense that they would share parallels. However, you would expect that by the time nine is defeated that shigaraki would naraatively prove to us that he is ultimately the better character but in truth he doesn't and nine's downfall by shigaraki ends up being quite disappointing to me.

Another problem within the narrative is also the lack of interactions that nine and shigaraki have. I think that nine is essential to helping shigaraki and start to infulence him to realise that he is just a puppet and should develop a goal outside of just destruction. If shigarakis goal stays as destruction then the destruction of what? Everything? And how would that benefit anyone including him?

Nine like you said meets his teammates and saves them. He sees his teammates suffer like him and chooses to help them and they choose to help him. There is a clear relationship being developed and all the characters come together for the same goal, with similar backgrounds and varying styles yet they work.

When nines team see him in distress they run to help him and vice versa. The team has trust and overall everything that a lot of the leauges dynamics and development lacks.

Nine seeks destruction but his path is clear. He seeks to liberate and let nature flow its course with the strong overtaking the weak and finally being leaders instead of feared and abused because they don't fit into the small little box that is the mha's status quo. Nine plans to get stronger while being fully conscious and knowing the consequences. He makes a logical and heroic decision where we see him realise that he is trading his own autonomy and agency in becoming a lab rat all in exchange for power and a slim chance at achieving his goal.

This is all contrasted with shigaraki and his actions. We don't see his goal of destruction develop into a much more consistent and precise idea like destroying the giver and status quo. We don't see shigaraki fully conscious to come to the conclusion that yes the doctor is evil but he needs power. We lack everything from shigaraki and the information of chapter 419 just makes his character worse as shigaraki was a lab rat through and through.

Horikoshi tries to make shigaraki the better character but nine outclassed him in every way possible from the traumatic beginnings, to the developed flawed goal and to the final bitter end where we see nine crumble due to various factors 1)shigarakis decay and 2) his illness whereas shigaraki dies due to afo still being a lab rat that fulfills his purpose.

All of this reminds me of the ask that said mha's manga ending is a sloppy edited 2nd movie ending (except I was only looking at it from a hero perspective but it even applies to the villains)

Nine deserved better!

[qiu-yan]

I think if MDZS was truly about moral good, then Cultivation Society would have been fundamentally changed and everyone who tried to change it wouldn’t be dead. The fact that XXC and SL wanted to change cultivation sects from being dynastic to more merit based and they got such horrible fates is tragic. JGY wanted to use his power to help the more common folk, but he was struck down and any good he’s done is going to be tainted. WWX and LWJ choose to walk away rather than do anything in the novel, so I’m not sure if their actions can be considered a net positive. There’s only so much good they can do as wandering cultivators, there needs to be some kind of structure to help the community but most sects are unwilling to put in a lot of effort if it doesn’t benefit them specifically. There was no social change in MDZS.

thank you for the message! and sorry it took me five million years to get to it...

from a utilitarian point of view, i think you're completely correct: the one individual the novel holds up as the most righteous out of everyone has a far greater negative than positive impact on the world at large; society and the plight of the common folk are in a worse state at the end of the novel than they are at the beginning. postcanon, no matter how much individual nighthunting wei wuxian and lan wangji do, the life of your average commoner is probably going to get more dangerous. you are correct that there was in fact no social change in MDZS. shit did not change on a major scale.

two comments about this: first, the moral framework employed by MDZS is decidedly non-utilitarian. second, as you said, MDZS is not About Moral Good.

first, the moral framework employed by MDZS is not utilitarian at all. wei wuxian and lan wangji are not "righteous" in the way that someone who pulls the lever in the trolley problem can be called "righteous" via utilitarian reasoning; rather, wei wuxian and lan wangji are "righteous" in the way that someone who walks away from omelas is righteous. from a utilitarian perspective, walking away from omelas doesn't accomplish shit because the child is still suffering and one person's absence is not going to change that. from a non-utilitarian perspective, though, walking away from omelas isn't about bringing about a certain result but rather is about living in accordance to your own ideals and code of honor. it's not about helping as many people as possible or about bringing about the best possible outcome, but rather about living your own life without any regrets.

this isn't a philosophy i (a utilitarian) really buy into, but many people do find it persuasive. and though there are still some logical holes induced by protagonist-centered-morality, i do think that MDZS is overall thematically cohesive if analyzed through this non-utilitarian lens. unfortunately, one side-effect of this lens (as well as the general non-utilitarian sorts of philosophies this lens is based in) is that the story ends up somewhat handwaving actual negative consequences.

second, MDZS is not Purely About Moral Good. it has an internally consistent moral framework and it has a lot to say about what it thinks is righteousness, but it isn't a "ringing endorsement of the Correct Course Of Action" book in the same way many other works of fiction are. MDZS is about a certain kind of righteousness, but it's also a cynical condemnation of society, a remark upon the role and unreliability of rumors and hearsay, a subversion of typical xianxia/wuxia genre tropes, an interpersonal tragedy of love and duty and sacrifice and hubris, and a thorough rejection of the just world fallacy. it's also a romance.

i say that MDZS is also a social critique and a rejection of the just world fallacy because, in my view, we aren't meant to read characters like jin guangyao as "unambiguously evil characters who got what they deserved." i do think we're meant to see the way in which society turns on jin guangyao, the way in which that parallels wei wuxian's unfair downfall, and the way in which the genuine good jin guangyao did for the world is now at risk, as a tragedy. as a rather depressing insight upon the morally bankrupt nature of society. MXTX wrote it that way on purpose. you're not meant to read jin guangyao's downfall and go "he got what he deserved;" rather, you're meant to look at the black-and-white, hypocritical, and classist way in which society turns upon jin guangyao as a criticism of that society - one that builds off of the social criticism baked into wei wuxian's character arc.

there is no structural change in MDZS because MDZS is a criticism of society, not a story about how society got better. MDZS posits that this polite society is classist and morally bankrupt, and then does not fix said society. MDZS says "this polite society was hypocritical and self-serving then, and it still is now." in that sense, then, the ending is deliberately rather tragic.

in that sense, then, wei wuxian stepping away from the cultivation world does also feel like him giving up on society. which, from an interpersonal perspective, is fair: he already set himself on fire and literally died trying to do the right thing, so i don't think we can really begrudge him for not wanting to risk it a second time. maybe this time someone else can try to fix things (and die in the process). also, given his and lan wangji's absolute lack of any political ability, it's probably also for the best that they not try to involve themselves in politics to better the world, because realistically they'd probably just make a bunch of enemies and solve zero of the problems.

MDZS tries to give us some hope for the future of its fictional society: both the novel and the fandom (including me myself) posit that said hope for the future lies in the juniors, by whom wei wuxian's generation tried to better than their parents did for them. jin ling's generation certainly seems kinder than wei wuxian's generation. i think we're meant to conclude that things aren't completely hopeless because jin ling's generation, kinder and nobler than the previous one, will try to fix things.

but personally, i'm not sure how i feel about placing the hopes of social reform on the specific personalities of citizens and leaders, rather than the structures those people exist in. instead, i'm reminded me of what i wrote a few months ago about the granularity of morality in MDZS being the entire individual and not the action, by which i mean that MDZS seems to assess and conclude entire characters as "good people" or "bad people" or "complicated and morally grey people," rather than analyze the morality of specific actions. and i think it's because MDZS treats the unit measurements of morality as people rather than actions or policies, that MDZS is ultimately able to posit that the future will be better because a specific group of individuals from the next generation have kinder personalities - even though there was no structural reform. as if the state of a society is determined purely by the personalities of a select group of future leaders within it, rather than the laws and institutions that bind it and the material conditions its populations live in. to put it in other words, this is peak "we replaced the evil king with a Wise And Just king (and made no other changes), so we've saved the day!!!" thinking.

.

i feel like i rambled a lot in this response, so i apologize for its relative lack of cohesion. i hope i haven't misinterpreted your points and that i've continued the conversation in a relevant manner.

[kusanagihaku]

anyway thinking about towa:

the kanji for his surname (音無) literally means 'no sound' which is one of his major character design points, so 10/10 there, and his name is very nature-related like the rest of jabberwock ('叶' leaf, '空' space/sky)

but why '叶' instead of '葉' (the more commonly used word for leaf)? '葉' would make more sense thematically since the character is made up of grass (艹), world (世) and wood (木).

is it related to the fact that '叶' has '口' (ten) and '十' (mouth)? it could literally mean 'ten mouths' (see: towa just chomping on straight up plants), but '口' and '十' together could also mean 'many voices', which is in direct contrast with his surname. ten mouths and yet no sound? very much a parallel to towa being super op but not doing anything with his powers until mc asks him to help in chapter 3.

the kanji for '叶' has also since evolved to '協' (to collaborate). taken together with the rest of his name - to soundlessly collaborate with nature? that tracks with what we see of him in chapter 5 when he's hugging / interacting with the tree. it also lends credence to a lot of theories about how towa isn't human / was an animal.

also interestingly, '叶' can also be taken to mean fulfil / make something real. tied in with the fact that '空' can also mean emptiness/absence, is towa meant to fill the emptiness, or create it? idk i feel like the use of '叶' makes his character overall a lot more ominous.

but anyway as usual tkdb's character design slaps

[tumbld-out-of-my-bed]

What if the first scene of S3 is the fall?

No, see, it makes sense, cuz S1 was them meeting for the first time after the fall, which sets the tone for their friendships, but also does a fantastic job of setting up their characters. Crowley questions things, even the Ineffable plan, and Aziraphale is giving, even risking falling to help humans, but still has unwavering faith in God's plan.

S2 was them meeting for the first time ever, and shows the beginning of their character development, as Crowley starts asking questions, a little recklessly, because the beauty of Creation (the beauty of something they created together, if you'll allow me) is at risk and the beginning of Aziraphale's toxic relationship which heaven, which actually stems from his desire to protect Crowley, as he tries to fix the problem by trying to reinforce the rules and their positions in the hierarchy (It's not our place to question the Almighty). It establishes their character flaws, which will eventually cause their separation at the end of the season. Crowley tends to be reckless, wants quick solutions to problems, and Aziraphale wants the system to work because it's all he's ever known.

So, why the fall in S3? I think it'll make a neat parallel. S2 ends with their last separation, and S3 starts with their first separation. But also, it would show their relationship fundamentally changing forever, the barrier between them being erected, and show how they grow into their flaws. It would link the S1 opening with the S2 opening, both thematically and chronologically, and be in keeping with Good Omens style of starting with important Biblical moments to raise philosophical questions.

A lot of people think it might start with them meeting Jesus. While I would LOVE to see that, I don't think that's gonna happen, simply because Good Omens always starts with a scene of the two of them together, and as established in S1E3, Aziraphale and Crowley were never with Jesus at the same time (Aziraphale asks Crowley is he's ever met him). (And also because, if it does indeed start like this, with Aziraphale and Crowley separate, and not together, I will-- well, I'm sure most people would relate to what I feel here :'))

Anyway, from what I remember, Neil Gaiman has already written the opening for the third season, so we just have to wait and see for now. And support the strikes

[quarterlifecrisis-activated]

I find it interesting that Stede is the unintentional cause of all 3 deaths of characters that represent toxic masculinity. Symbolically and thematically it’s just *chefs kiss*.

First take the Badminton twins. Stede is the opposite of toxic masculinity, he’s soft and picks flowers and cries and creates a safe space for meaningful male (for the most part) friendships. When Nigel and Chauncey die it’s because they were berating and attacking Stede and this form of masculinity. They also die by their own weapons unintentionally killing themselves. Toxic masculinity will always destroy itself because it’s hollow. If Stede and the crew are family and joy and connection the British navy is the system. There is nothing there to actually help people. But it’s so pervasive, one falls and someone else steps up. Same face, different name (literally). OFMD says that attacking this new way of life is meaningless because it is built on something more and trying to combat it will only turn inward. The Badmintons die alone and no one notices or cares.

Which brings me to Izzy Hands. I have a soft spot for that little nightmare (affectionate), he’s the character that I still haven’t pulled apart fully. Yes it’s Stede’s plan that leads to Izzy’s death but I don’t think Stede’s involvement is the same like for the Badmintons. It’s Ricky that’s important in the thematic meaning of Izzy’s death. Izzy is the toxic masculinity of the pirate world. It’s pretty clear that Izzy is the stand in for piracy and the old way of doing things. And he hates Stede! He also wins at the end of season 1. He removes everything touched by Stede from the Revenge and boy does it backfire. Raids for the sake of raids and no interpersonal connection sucks. And it was everything Izzy fought for in season 1. Continuing the idea of self destruction, I find it interesting that Izzy tries and fails to shoot himself. By his own hand and all alone. I believe it was Con who said that that moment was the death of Izzy Hands as we new him. Upholding a system just for the sake of upholding the system costs you everything and leaves you with nothing. And Izzy sees that and he changes!

If someone had told season 1 Izzy that he’d lose his leg that man wouldn’t bat an eye. But if you told him his new leg would be a gold painted unicorn hoof he’d go into cardiac arrest. But it’s his acceptance of what the crew made him that brings him into community. It’s a visual representation of what is going on internally and it culminates is his full look during Calypso’s birthday. He’s fully turned away from what was and put on this softness and femininity that makes him part of the crew. And I think that’s such a beautiful sentiment and I tear up every time I watch that scene.

Which brings me to Ricky. I mean, fuck that guy amirite?! He’s the worst and I wish we would have seen more of him. I think his conversation with Izzy is also so fascinating. It parallels nicely with Izzy meeting Chauncey in season 1. Izzy could’ve saved his own skin if he worked with Ricky like he did with Chauncey, if he upheld the system and played along. But he doesn’t and I love it. It’s so impactful to give Izzy that speech because every other member of the crew was already with the program. Having a character that was on the other side go actually fuck you you’re wrong is amazing storytelling. Izzy has learned his lesson and while he’s far from perfect he’s doing better every day. And that’s profound especially when you talk about trying to change people who upheld these toxic ideals. But it’s because of this rejection of toxic masculinity that Izzy dies. There’s no loyalty in the system; just because you helped them once doesn’t mean that it won’t spit you out and discard you. Even the people who have power in the system (white men) are not valued by it. But true community gives value. Izzy dies this time not alone but surrounded by people who care about him. The people around him when he dies pretty much all wanted him dead in season 1 and now they mourn and remember him fondly.

Izzy’s arc with crew is wonderful because it’s the shows thesis on unconditional love and the willingness to be kind even to those who don’t deserve it. Because look at how it helped everyone. To be loved is to be changed and it’s no surprise that the last shot of season 2 had Izzy and Buttons together changed.