#The Hamartia Arc

[childrenofcain-if]

ROs and MC as the seven deadly sins?

C LACROIX: pride — an excessive self-love and an inflated sense of self-importance, often leading to a disregard of others’ well-being.

V NÆSHOLM: greed — an excessive and selfish desire for more of something, often leading to the neglect of others and spiritual impoverishment.

W OSTENDORF: envy — a resentment or sadness at another’s good fortune or excellence, accompanied by the desire to possess it, often to the detriment of others.

D DIACONU: lust — an unbridled or excessive desire for pleasure, particularly when it is pursued for itself, divorced from its procreative and unitive purposes.

M WHITLOCK-SINGH: wrath — intense, uncontrolled anger or a strong desire for vengeance and a strong feeling of hatred or resentment.

[kateis-cakeis]

rewatching bbc merlin really has me like buzzing in my mind with so many thoughts. Like I'm kinda watching it backwards atm going from S5 to S4, I think I will jump around 3, 2, and 1 but just,,,, there is so much especially in S5 that makes me !!!!!!!

Honestly, I feel like this fandom has to give the writers more credit. Like they did a damn good job, and to me, it's such a good tragedy. Especially how S5 plays out, it takes everything and just tears you down, and down, and down. It's perfect, perfect with flaws! But still perfect

[bizlybebo]

thinking abt dakota again are we

ONLY THING GETTING ME THRU THE WEEK

[starsarebleeding]

thinking about how dramatically chet changes after realizing how bad he fucked up by leaving her behind. like there's a marked split in his character after the scene where he brings back the artifact -- IMAGINE him "letting go" of the aliens before??? no way. they were both obsessed; he left her because he needed to be part of it -- and then he realizes mary would have left him behind too, and he clocks what he's feeling and what he's done, and his whole understanding of the situation goes through a paradigm shift. he's willing to let everything go not just because he's suddenly realized what's moral or right, but because of how he realized that -- because he hurt his girl, and he doesn't want that to happen ever again, and to do that he has to prioritize her above the aliens. and so they fight they argue about what they're going to do but he never leaves her again, he dies so he can stay with her to the end, and then his goodbye video underlines it all: we could have been happy, if only you'd just let it go. he realized it; if she had too, they could have had everything.

[lylahammar]

man I know I shouldn't jump in on Wicked discourse but I keep seeing people calling Glinda the "villain" of Wicked and it's driving me nuts because I really don't think it's as simple as that

imo Glinda's story is a very Shakespearean style tragedy about a white feminist (liberal) politician. Her hamartia is her desire to be accepted by the oppressive ruling class, while her internal conflict is her struggle to be perceived as "good." She was influenced just enough by her marginalized activist friend to feel crushing awareness of her own place in the fascist system, but they were separated before she was able to fully reach self actualization and pursue a more fulfilling goal. Her tragic downfall is that she got exactly what she thought she wanted, but through her incomplete character arc she found that it was actually cold and hollow and lonely. Yeah she's a shitty selfish person and she dug her own grave but she's not the villain, she's the tragic anti-hero

[onlyhereforangst]

CHARACTER ARC (n): the transformation of a character over the course of a story, sometimes enriched with hamartia to explore the complexities of human nature and endow a sense of authenticity as a character's flaw leads to their ultimate downfall.

being a police officer is my future. i love this job. i love it. i get to help people. i don't feel like a hero. at all.

[nemo-in-wonderland]

bloody hell, with this all Shay/Dora thing that I have going on, I can finally introduce Thea properly.

She came so late into the game (as a concept, she existed since 2020 - Thea and Dora were always going to be twins- but as a character, I basically developed late 2022, early 2023?) that I NEVER thought about the possibility of making her Dottie's literal wingman and bff (again, in Syndicate Dorothea was an only child).

SWEET, SWEET DELICIOUS POSSIBILITIES THAT HAVE JUST OPENED UP IN FRONT OF MY EYES.

AM DELIGHTED.

(am basically moving all the Starrick family back into 1700s for the Rogue arc lololol).

SO HERE YOU HAVE THEDA BEING A LITTLE SHIT WITH DORA.

I will blabber more about them on my sideblog (which is @house-of-hamartia. But be mindful that it's a Rogue-centric blog, where I also post smut so, if you are minor, nope, stay the freak away from there lol)

hope you will like this!

--Nemo

[madou-dilou]

My analysis of Viren's death

Viren’s death in The Dragon Prince is one of the series' most ambiguous and tragic moments —a conclusion both majestic and cruel for the best character in the show.

Such a complicated and torn character couldn't possibly die a clear-cut death. He had to deliver a multi-faceted answer that refused any binary reading.

From the very beginning, Viren saw himself as the only one capable of protecting Katolis, willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. But he didn’t just want to be the executor of necessary sacrifices; he wanted to be the one who decided them, who bore the burden, the hero bound by necessity, clad in luxurious black outfits, who dirties his hands for the salvation of others, who nobly accepts to soak his hands in blood because no one else has the guts to, because someone has to. And, above all, was thanked, celebrated, and obeyed for it. Even if it meant usurping the throne and claiming the title of lord protector of the realm, for he has not the idealism granted by a priviledged birth. He is an adult, a key political player of recent history, he can see what needs to be done, he is quick, decisive, and ruthless. When Harrow rejected the sacrifice of his life, dismissing him as a "nothing but a servant", it was particularly painful for him... but it wouldn’t have been if Viren had been willing to sacrifice not only his life but, more importantly, his ego.

And it is that very ego that eventually leads him to his moral downfall.

Viren’s hamartia is not that he seeks validation, but that he lets this need overshadow his empathy and morality. He says so himself: he’s desperate to matter.

And yet, though his death ultimately serves the greater good, strikingly similar to his sincere claims, it is far from a martyr’s death. It happens after he has recognized his sole responsibility for all that happened, pleaded guilty, crawled before the rightful king, his luxurious black robes gone for tattered white rags soak in sweat and dirt and blood, and all in the greatest indifference—without witnesses, without recognition, without honor, leaving no trace. "I am a servant." No one is there to see the blood he spills onto the ground. In choosing to expiation this way, just like he chose all the rest, in humility, he finally accepts what he had always refused: to be nothing more than a servant whose existence leaves no trace. This renunciation, this ultimate submission to erasure, seems to mark a true transformation for the better.

However, with this reading of a purely redemptive death comes along a different one. Equally true.

I understand why the way his death happened doesn't sit right with most of his fans. Because why on earth bother spending a whole season on a whole introspection dream teaching him that on contrary to what he always believed ("Every step I took, I took because I had to."), he was always free, thus the sole to blame for all his awful decisions ("No. No matter where you come from, no matter what you did before, each step forward is a choice. I am free and so are you""), but also therefore able to take a different path, if it's to conclude his arc (reducing him to a passive figure, trapped, framed as fly caught in a spider's web) like this... ?

... but I think the bare minor piano music, reminescent of Ramin Djiwadi's best compositions for Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, acknowledges how awful Viren's fate actually is. The show itself acknowledges how unfair it all is.

Viren’s descent into darkness, from his first compromises to his final act, was never solely dictated by cold ambition or political calculation. It was, above all, an expression of profound self-loathing, fueled by the conviction that he could be nothing but a monster.

When Lissa called him a monster for what he was willing to do to save their son, he couldn’t help but agree with her. He once ripped the heart from a monster to save innocent lives, and now, he is doing the exact same thing. From the beginning, he has proven willing to offer his own life—not out of pure altruism, but because he has always seen himself as the monster who had no choice, the necessary instrument of a cruel balance. This is what dark magic teaches its practitioners: to see themselves and others only as tools. Viren was raised by a man who devoured his own arm to fuel his spells. His suicide, rather than a release from his ego, is its ultimate culmination: convinced that he deserves neither forgiveness nor recognition, he burns his note to disappear in silence.

His act, far from the nobility of sacrifice, instead reaffirms the worst belief he has ever held about himself—the one that led to all the others: if he believed he had the right to sacrifice others, it was precisely because he saw himself as devoid of intrinsic worth. Or rather, only ever worth whatever he was willing to lose. We’re talking about the man who screamed at his own reflection that he was nothing, worthless, until he collapsed in tears in the dark. Being indispensible was the only way he ever knew to prove he was worth something, anything.

So this final sacrifice is also the inevitable conclusion of a death wish he never truly escaped. Despite all his attempts to free himself from it, he was ultimately helpless to defy his fate. After all, sacrifice is the only thing he ever knew how to offer.

There is also a ... not pleasing classist dimension to this: Viren is a man who tried to rise above his station, to prove that his intelligence and dedication could transcend the established order, but he is punished for it. While Ezran and Callum, rulers by birthright, retain their legitimacy without ever having to earn or prove it, Viren is condemned to crawl, to cry and beg, to call himself a servant, and to disappear. His final erasure, where even his name is ignored, suggests a social fatalism: he never had a place among the born rulers, and his ascent was an aberration that history quickly wipes away. It is unfair, considering he saved countless lives—especially when Avizandum, who caused famines that left thousands of humans to starve, and Zubeia, who ordered Harrow's death, were given an entire memorial right beside Sarai’s and Harrow's tombs. I’m willing to let go of past grievances, but what would the Sunfire elves say if a statue of Viren was erected right in the middle of Lux Aurea?

Look : I wouldn't even have minded Viren's erasure from history if it had been debated on by the Katolis Council, for it would show how history is always constructed and biaised. But the show apparently doesn't care (and neither does Soren given his incoherent, insufferable persona in Book VII). Anyway

The ambiguity of Viren's death also extends to the impact of his death on his children.

His act is a liberation for Soren, a royal guard and an heir deemed disappointing, who grew up in the shadow of a father resigned to seeing him as nothing more than a sacrificial pawn. By choosing to disappear without explanation or justification, Viren spares Soren the burden of a grief weighed down by guilt or the ambivalence of a farewell letter that would have attempted to justify the wounds he inflicted. Soren can finally break free and move forward without carrying the weight of the past.

Claudia, on the other hand, a dark mage like her father, who sacrificed everything to bring him back, is shattered. Where Viren realized he was so toxic his mere presence was poisoning her, where he hoped he was freeing her by leaving, liberating her from everything she was willing to endure for him, and offering her a new life, he instead plunges her into an abyss of anger and despair from which she may never escape.

However, it is implied that Soren’s instant proposal ""take my heart" and long-acted enlistment in the royal guard, is not just noble but also the awful result of the deep self-devaluation Viren instilled in his children. Soren felt so neglected and unworthy of love he thought he could only prove himself by enlisting as a crownguard, in other words by sacrificing himself. And even now, that's probably what he's still doing when he orders Viren to take his heart. Fortunately, Viren immediately realises this and instead offers his own heart.

Similarly, Claudia, who amputated herself to save Viren, screams at his corpse, "You taught me how to love myself"… when she has just proven that she doesn’t love herself at all. It is a purely tragic paradox.

Her definition of self-love is entirely shaped by Viren’s sacrificial ideology: to love is to give until there is nothing left. He did not teach her to love herself, but to give everything, to burn herself away for another—to the point that she no longer exists outside of this devotion. This is exactly what Viren meant to stop by leaving her.

Viren realized the awful truth that he had transmitted a twisted vision of sacrifice to his children, the "dark and lonely path" : he taught them that their worth could only exist through what they were willing to lose. Soren by offering his heart, and Claudia, by tearing a leg apart, embody this bitter legacy each in their own way.

Yet, far from only ending the destructive cycles he chose to set in motion, Viren inadvertently prolongs them: Soren is freed, but Claudia is consumed by grief.

And the final nail in the children's coffin : when Viren tried to die for Harrow in episode 3 of Book I, he told what he intended to do to Soren, the crownguard, knowing he would understand, but kept it a secret from Claudia, knowing she'd try to stop him. It ultimately exactly what happens in Book VI.

Of course, because TDP loves parallels, many other parallels come to sublimate Viren’s death.

Both Ziard and Viren die defending humanity from Sol Regem, using dark magic. But Viren refuses to make others (magical creatures) bear the burden of his heroism. Ziard’s act unwittingly set a precedent of conflict and retribution, while Viren takes full responsibility upon himself.

Like Harrow, Viren, after writing a note to his son, gives his life as a lord protector of the realm, in a desperate hope to break the cycle of violence and pain they instigated—yet tragically, both inadvertently spark new cycles in their wake.

Runaan also sees himself as taking on the burden of monstrous actions for those they love. Him and Viren killed each other’s kings. The visual symmetry between Runaan’s capture and Viren’s death emphasizes their shared tragedy: bound by duty, yet, as Rayla says, monsters leaving behind a daughter who still needs them.

All these parallels show that Viren’s death embodies the show’s core themes: cycles of violence, sacrifice, and unintended consequences. Does sacrificing oneself to end them ever truly work, or does it only perpetuate them? What agency do we have in them? Can we ever escape them? Are we to blame for choosing between bad options, or to blame for not seeing these good options even exist? Do the dead ever stop breathing within us?

Despite all these contradictions—or rather, because of them—his death remains a moment of huge intensity. It is both a redemption and a condemnation, a liberation and a punishment, a necessary sacrifice and a cruel end. His final act refuses to be confined to a single interpretation, and it is precisely this complexity that makes it so unforgettable. It's just like the double-headed snake he gave Harrow. Whether one sees Viren's death as the deserved punishment of a monster who tried to be more than he could be ("leader of heroes"), or the ultimate surrender of a man convinced of his own worthlessness ("virus"), the mere fact that it could be both at once and more makes it like a multifaceted gem. An indifferent death, yet grandiose. An unjust conclusion, yet perfect.

Well I would have loved it if he had healed Lux Aurea, mentored Callum for a while and contributed significantly to Aaravos's downfall but anyway.

(Book II foreshadowing, rubbing his own wrist as the sky is set ablaze by a dying sun, on the very balcony he'll eventually commit suicide on, god I love him so much)

[thorinsghivashel]

Thorin Oakenshield can be considered a tragic character.

Analyzing Thorin Oakenshield as a tragic character through the lens of Greek tragedy provides a deeper understanding of his narrative arc and character development. Here’s a detailed analysis based on the principles of Greek tragedy:

Characteristics of Greek Tragedy

Noble Stature:

Greek tragedies typically feature protagonists of noble birth or high status.

Thorin's Noble Stature: Thorin is the rightful heir to the throne of Erebor, which establishes his noble lineage and royal status.

Hamartia (Tragic Flaw):

A tragic hero possesses a flaw or makes a mistake that leads to their downfall.

Thorin's Hamartia: Thorin's tragic flaw is his overwhelming greed and obsession with reclaiming the treasure of Erebor, particularly the Arkenstone. This greed blinds him to reason and leads to irrational decisions and conflicts.

Hubris (Excessive Pride):

Many Greek tragic heroes exhibit hubris, an excessive pride that often leads to their downfall.

Thorin's Hubris: Thorin's pride in his lineage and destiny to reclaim Erebor contributes to his downfall. His refusal to share the treasure and his stubbornness in negotiations with other parties reflect this hubris.

Peripeteia (Reversal of Fortune):

The hero's fortunes change dramatically, usually from good to bad.

Thorin's Peripeteia: Thorin's initial success in reclaiming Erebor turns sour as his greed alienates allies, causes internal strife, and leads to the siege of the Lonely Mountain. His fall from a respected leader to a paranoid and isolated figure marks this reversal.

Anagnorisis (Recognition):

The hero realizes their flaw or the true nature of their situation, often too late to avoid the consequences.

Thorin's Anagnorisis: Thorin experiences a moment of clarity on his deathbed, recognizing the destructive power of his greed and seeking reconciliation with Bilbo and others he wronged.

Catharsis:

The audience experiences a purging of emotions, particularly pity and fear, through the hero’s journey.

Catharsis in Thorin's Story: Thorin's tragic arc elicits pity for his internal struggle and ultimate downfall, and fear of the destructive nature of unchecked greed and pride. His redemption at the end provides a bittersweet closure.

[alexanderwales]

how much interest, if any, do you have in writing tragedies?

i've been getting caught up on Thresholder lately after taking a long break, so this question is prompted by reaching the book three epilogue. a pattern i've noticed is a certain optimism to how Thresholder's ends books. they're hopeful, if tempered by reality and nuance. thinking about it gave me this amusing mental image just picturing this... improbable streak of Things Getting Better across the multiverse

honestly, that sense of positivity is part of why i'm having as much fun as i am getting caught up on this story; i like that it doesn't bum me out or hurt me

still, Worth the Candle ended quite well, and Dark Wizard of Donkerk too, though i guess Metropolitan Man is admittedly a bit of an exception. i'm a fake fan, so i can't speak to much beyond that

most stories end well, so this isn't unusual, but i'm still curious: have you written any tragedies in your published & unpublished corpus? will you? i know there's some creators who think long form stories owe it to the audience and their investment not to shit on that with complete tragedy. do you put any stock in that?

I think first there's an important distinction between camps of tragedies that I want to draw first.

Note: unmarked ending spoilers follow

First, there's a tragedy that comes from within, where the protagonist sows the seeds of their own destruction. The Greeks called this hamartia, the character flaw or the mistake, the thing that the suffering springs from. There are a couple other "classic" elements of this, the fall from grace, the recognition of this foible or folly, etc. This is my jam. I wish that modern culture had more of it. The last two big examples I can think of are Walter White and Ned Stark, and I think neither of them really fit. Part of that is just that longform tragedy is harder to do, and less focused with a larger cast of characters. Still, I think there's a lot to love about the classic structure: the fatal flaw, the fall, the recognition, the catastrophe. (I'm trying to fit some other characters in this mold, especially from recent movies, and I guess Tár is another example of a tragic character from a movie I really enjoyed. Wolf of Wall Street might be another, but I agree with the common line of criticism here, which is that it was a lot more interested in reveling in the opulence and chaos than in the downfall. Very possible there are some obvious ones that I'm forgetting here. Oh, also The Substance, which I saw recently and didn't care for, but a more classic tragedy wouldn't have the inciting incident.)

I have never consciously attempted a classic tragedy, but I might some day, probably for a shorter, more focused piece. I think "start high, move low" make a lot more sense for it, and one of the things that a lot of modern takes on the classic tragedy do is "start low, move high, move low", which gives a lot less time for the tragic arc to appear in full, and robs the piece of some of its clarity.

The second camp of what people mean when they say "tragedy" is just "a story with a bad ending". I tend to not like these very much. I think it's culturally important for there to be a few examples of them floating around in the canon, and as a metaphor for climate change (or climate change feelings) I think it's ... eh, fine. I recently watched The Dead Don't Die and it's clear they were going for something like that, and I hated the movie but respected certain elements of its narrative decisions. I think it generally makes for a dreadful story, and is interesting only in a postmodern sense, and to keep people on their toes, and to combat anti-narrative thinking. A story that ends with everyone dying from circumstances that were outside their control is definitely not for me, because it just feels really pointless. Sometimes pointlessness is the point ... but I can't take too much of that.

I would be extremely hesitant to write a story with a bad ending where shit just doesn't end up working out for our protagonist, like he was just not strong enough, not fast enough, not skilled enough, not lucky enough, etc. It is true that in life sometimes you run up against those things, it's just not what I tend to be into fiction for. I don't tend to like deliberately sour endings.

Maybe this is just because I've seen them done badly and with no sterling purpose to them. "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown" is iconic for a reason, it's the punchline for all the setup, it's what the entire movie has been about. Same for "He loved Big Brother.", it's just ... so good? Such an encapsulation of everything that's come before? So I think it's fine to do that if that's what you've been driving at with a clear purpose, or a purpose that becomes clear only at the end. Difficult line to walk though.

Personally, I like my endings nuanced and optimistic and with costs and change and stuff. Let's say 70% sweet, 20% bitter, 10% sour. I'd also like to piss off some subset of people because there are many different valid readings and different viewpoints can have different ideas about them.

No proper tragedies of either kind in my published body of work, at least that I can immediately think of. Actually, on reflection, maybe Contratto, a vampire novella I wrote a while back fits, though I think intelligent people could disagree on how "down" that ending is. I have a 95% finished novel that has an ambiguously bad ending, but it'll never see the light of day (mostly due to being early, unpolished work that I currently think is unsalvageable). Among upcoming stuff, where "upcoming" is very ambiguous ... one or two with more "downbeat" endings, I would say. But again, I think "total catastrophe and ruin" is both not to my tastes, and hard to pull off in a way that makes it work.

[charcoalowl]

Fallen Juri: Valkyrie. Lesbian.

for my fren @baltears thank you for encouraging me 🧡

Me once again frothing over the mouth trying to talk about theological concepts in RGU. Celestial Hierarchy. Free Will. Divine Will. And how Juri's arc can be read as a fallen angel narrative.

Juri as Warrior Angel

That Juri is a warrior is a key part of her characterization. She is arguably the best swordsman at Ohtori and she doesn't shed a single drop if sweat during her entire first duel. The other most important thing about Juri off course is her fraught relationship with the idea of miracles. It is something that bears down on her perpetually. She claims to not want any part of the power of Dios but she can't let go of her position as duelist either. 

I find the duel songs the best resource to analyze the duelists. The angel motif is present from the get go there and the angel being called by name is none other than Michael. Sword of Heaven. This is in keeping with her skill as a duelist but the most interesting dimension it adds is to her characteristics in regards to believing in miracles. Effectively this internal struggle of Juri translates into a struggle of Faith in the Divine.

☆*: .｡. Little aside .｡.:*☆ I call Juri a Valkyrie in the title even though Norse Valkyries don't really have anything much to do with the rest of what I'm about to say. I do believe that the title of Valkyrie is just as fitting for her as is Angel. Valkyries are most well known for carrying the souls of heroes to Valhalla so here's a couple instances of Juri acting as a Valkyrie. ^-^ I love her so much

☆*: .｡. ☆ .｡.:*☆

Juri playing the role of an angel actually places her in a triad with the two other characters who share her storyline

Shiori living in the shadow of Light Black Rose duelist. Bottom Feeder. I do hesitate because of this to call her a Luciferin figure but it honestly tracks. All her importance within the narrative comes from her opposition to and her efforts to antagonize Juri (who we have established as representing the Holy half of their dynamic).

Ruka, seeing the face of God. Of all the boys in Ohtori, Ruka is probably the most  Dios adjacent figure he even dies from self sacrifice. Within their storyline he is a powerful but absent figure and when he returns his status is felt full force. Juri even defers to him as a subordinate and calls him Captain upon his return. Shiori of course he despises.

Staircase to Heaven: Queerness as Hamartia

This above Celestial Hierarchy that plays out between them was actually established back in the the very first flashback. Ruka is an obvious stand in for the boy that Shiori "stole" at that time. Even then Juri was the noble warrior. Even then Shiori was the conniving serpent. It was also from that time on that Juri's faith had been shaken.

For Juri to advance in the duels is for her to fulfill her celestial role and go closer to God. But she cannot advance because of her love for Shiori. Juri implicitly understands that the power of Dios cannot grant her this desire. The Castle in the Sky (which could be seen as the Kingdom of Heaven in this case) does not hold an eternity where she is allowed to be with Shiori.

Alongside the angelic motif this is the other concept that is featured heavily with Juri's symbols. The idea of duality, androgyny, within Juri is in explicit connection with her queer identity. She is in part the wielder of Celestial Light. She is in her other part in love with Shiori. Shiori down in the dredges. Shiori who is a girl.

But the stage that Juri is acting on has no place for that second aspect. That the arena does not favour Juri is made clear in her very first duel where despite being clearly superior in skill the Sword of Dios falls on her rose. She cannot go Heavenward until she forsakes that love altogether. Her queerness alienates her from her own myth.

It all comes to a head in the Apocalypse Saga after Ruka appears. His motivation from the moment of his arrival is to get Juri to duel again and thus restore her in her role. His end goal was to restore her faith. In order to push her to that brink he targets Shiori, first tempting her and then declaring her wicked to make an example of her. (I find it very interesting the way he publicly denounces her in order to humiliate Shiori i.e. being cast out by him is the worst possible punishment in and of itself. It really affirms the allegory for me)

Though Juri gives in I don't think anyone can argue that she had any notion of winning. If I were to pinpoint a specific moment when she becomes truly fallen however it would be the locket snapping. She knows that there is nothing for her in the duels. I think that really sinks in for her is when her locket is broken during her Apocalypse Saga duel. That love of hers is all she ever wants. An arena that will not even spare that locket will never grant her her true desire. She casts off her rose almost instantly. With that she concedes her place within the Celestial Hierarchy and ends her last duel in the series. 

By the rules of the arena it is defeat but maybe the joy that cannot be had through the powers of a stage can be found in the freedom that exists outside of it.

If you read this far I love you go listen to some St. Hildegard

[greenerteacups]

If there was one major plot element that you could change in the original canon what would it be?

The Marauders' deaths. With the exception of James, I don't think any of the Marauders die in a way that's narratively suitable — or, to be more particular, they die in a way suitable for a narrative I don't like very much. James is an acceptable (though, obviously, tragic) death to me because it completes his arc: he's an obnoxious, arrogant bully who grows into a selfless soldier on the side of the light, and lays down his life as a final gesture of abnegation. It's not Proust, but it's good, right? His death represents a symbolic triumph over Voldemort because it's something Voldemort would never do.

None of the others make the same kind of sense for their subplots. Sirius dies at the Ministry because Harry fucks up and lets his abandonment issues override his judgment, and while that's a compelling moment for Harry — whose hamartia is a trauma-forged combination of hot-headedness and desperate fear of losing people — it's not for Sirius. Sirius's problem in Book 5 is that he's emotionally stunted by his years of imprisonment and refuses to grow up, because he's clinging to the life he thinks — rightly — he should have gotten to have. This is made painfully clear in the Department of Mysteries, wherein some of his last words to Harry are "Nice one, James!" He refuses to treat Harry like the child he is, and he keeps acting like he's this fun-uncle type, blowing off rules and pissing off Mom (Molly), because that's the dynamic he should have had with Harry if Lily and James had lived. Sirius doesn't want to be Harry's guardian and role model. He wants a brother and a nephew, and he's trying to force Harry to be both, because he's all he has left of that family. His death doesn't tie any of those threads; they're left dangling. That's a valid narrative move — every death cuts a story short, and you can't give everybody an arc — but I loved Sirius. Giving Harry the "grieving loss of a parent" arc that was originally meant for Ron (Arthur was the original Big Death of the OOTP, in JKR's drafts) also means that Ron spends a lot of Book 6 without anything to do, whereas Harry goes through what's essentially a more intense version of the grieving-and-recovery arc he did after Cedric's death.

Remus, on the other hand, is just — first off, a Mess, I agree with so few of the choices made with Remus in the later books, but let's say he's deep in the trauma, the grieving, and whatever living among werewolves as a spy does for your mental health. So he gets into this will-they-won't-they with Tonks, gets married, tries to abandon pregnant wife, then goes back and gets to be with his wife and son for about half a year before dying, with said wife, in battle. Okay. So like:

I think the Remus Weirdness in Book 7 is actually an attempt to close a plot hole, which is that the Horcrux Hunt happens completely without adult supervision, despite the fact that there are lots of adults the Golden Trio could and should ask for help. Harry's insistence that he doesn't want to risk anyone's life except for Ron and Hermione's is, while understandable as a character move, utterly ridiculous, because the other Order members are risking their lives anyway. One of the biggest holes is Remus and Tonks, who are (a) both already targets for Voldemort because of who they are, and so have nothing to lose, but also (b) both care for Harry on a personal level, and would never accept his reasons for pushing them away. So Teddy Lupin is conceived in order to bench Tonks, who's safely out of commission while pregnant. But that leaves Remus, who probably in fact would have super complicated torn-loyalty feelings about the situation, and who is scarred and traumatized and probably has enough abandonment issues to try and walk out, but — in my view — never resolves any of those things. He doesn't suddenly realize that he loves Tonks and wants to be with her, or feel a sense of duty to his son; when Harry's justly furious at Remus abandoning his kid in Harry's name, Remus gets pissy about it and goes "well, if you don't want my help, fine," and leaves. Which is, again, fine, a character flaw, it's childish, he's allowed to be, and he is, in fact, similar to Sirius and James — but it left a bad taste in my mouth, because that's one of the last conversations we get with Remus, and it's such an impoverished vision of his bonds with others. It doesn't delve deeply into why he loves Tonks or Harry, or the substance of his conflict between them; like always with the Marauders, he just invokes James, and Harry throws James's name right back at him, and it ends there.

And then he dies, so that baby Teddy Lupin can be an orphan, and we can do a parallel to baby Harry Potter. Even though we don't see Teddy Lupin on the page ever, so we have no idea what that comparison means, or how their experiences compliment or contrast one another, or literally anything more substantive than the series beginning and ending on the same event. Which: great. Okay. To quote a Roger Ebert review that I think about, on average, once every thirty-six hours:

"J.K. Rowling has learned from better novels that authors sometimes create narrative parallels, but she has not learned why."

[st-just]

So I saw your hot take, and I'm just curious, what do you think character development should mean? If a character stays a shitty, pathetic, borderline abusive asshole no one is going to like them, because who would like them IRL? They suck. Thats why they have to be better (although I gotta admit, sometimes they deserve to just die rather than go through redemption arc i.e abusers)

re: (or I mean, I'm assuming)

I'm going to be honest, going off this ask I think we might just want and expect fundamentally different things from fiction.

But to try and answer your question, 'character development' imo just means the character changing in personality or priorities over the course of their arc - it's an entirely amoral term. The tragic hero being consumed by their hamartia until they destroy everything they care about falls under the heading as much as some degenerate sinner having a Damascene conversion (or secular equivalent thereof).

(I ran out of fire emojis to respond to, but: my related hot take is that works/fandom treating being a good friend or devoted romantic partner or being willing to sacrifice and suffer for the sake of your child as being automatic proof that you're fundamentally a good person is both aesthetically boring and morally repugnant)

[psychotomy]

Thinking abt the daze mv again and the song lyrics in general. I’m just rambling here

I feel like if you imagine the harlequin to be the visualization of “Hamartia” and his land of luxury portrayed in the video as the sorta “masquerade for people at the peak of life”, and the girl that drives away as a “tragic heroine” it all sort of comes together.

Since Hamartia means “the trait that leads a traditional hero from their glory to their downfall” (…or sth close to that!) it makes sense for it to appear as a coy fancy harlequin being a secret host for a party. People being close to Hamartia means being close to (or one’s already reached) the state of glory in their character arc, and Hamartia’s there to play a passionate yet cruel joke on the unaware hero.

If one’s there they’ve got three options:

1 stay at the party.

2 driving away.

3 being lured by the harlequin

Option 1 leaves you dazed and stuck forever in this illusion-like trance, losing oneself in the glory so to speak. Option 2&3 both means that you’ve embraced the element that takes you away from the peak, with 2 meaning a voluntary acceptance to absolution and a firm turn-away from the illusion (a tragic end but a lesson learned), and 3 meaning you were lured to take that fatal fall (tragic end, but it ends with passion)

-

That’s the MV part. The lyrics make it seem like the harlequin itself speaking out, trying to get the listener into option 3..

���And you can give me everything I need this way” only when the hero unknowingly takes the fall due to their flaw, can Hamartia be brought into existence.

“We’ll be loving till the first light of the day” then Hamartia becomes one with the hero, and only for the short moment of their fall can they bond intimately

“Set the world on fire… let the whole world burn” sounds like a bittersweet final call to the world; a carefree feeling resulting from acceptance of their own destruction, they’ll be laughing till the end as they disappear in a flurry of gold and flames.

-

The concept of harmatia was first introduced to me while I was learning myths in a writing course years ago. I forgot this word but was lucky enough to come across it in potf’s lyrics and GOD am I so happy. And linking this concept to myths and gods makes it perfectly reasonable for Daze to be the kickstarter song of the “Jealous Gods” album, boy it’s one hell of an awesome metaphor / message, harmatia exists 🎵 for the fates are devious by heart 🎵

-

Also the song’s a complete banger even without all this interpretation. It carries a complete meaning and has great “fated romance” vibes.

[jjanewillow]

the question

my latest affliction

a question found in Hamlet

trying to decide which

the obvious answer is to remain

to experience the fullness of life

appreciating what I've got in the present

no guilt for the past

no anxiety for the future

whatever comes with the decision

to be

cerebration has become an unruly creature

hamartia, my arc may be over

seeking something tangible to prevent me

from inflicting this upon myself

looking for a God, I will settle for an angel

tell me, do not be afraid

keep me from determining

things may be better if I were no longer

stop me from choosing

not to be

[hamartia-mmff]

Hamartia | Umfrage Server

So Leutchen, ich dachte ich hau mal die Umfragen bezüglich eines eigenen Discord Server für Hamartia raus und auch dann kommt gleich noch die Umfrage, ob ihr etwas mehr in die Story involviert werden wollt oder eben nicht. Was genau alles darunter fallen würde...das weiß ich selbst noch nicht so genau :'D Aber wahrscheinlich so kleinere Fragen wie euer Charakter die Handlung bestimmt oder Abstimmungen über Arcs und solche Dinge eben. (Selbst, wenn sich das durchsetzt ist es natürlich kein Muss, es soll sich keiner gezwungen fühlen, auch wenn ich mich natürlich über rege Teilnahme freuen würde :'D).

Grüßchen <3