#also i ended up doing archetypes instead of tropes but it's the same thing to me personally | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

caligvlasaqvarivm · 1 month

Note

How do you analyze so good I'm really impressed and honestly wonder if I can learn from you

It's a skill, so the good news is, you can practice and get better at it!

Read A Lot/Gain Context

Analysis often means making comparisons or drawing from external context - one of the best things you can do if you want to be better at analysis is to try to cram your head with as much knowledge as possible. The time period, culture of origin, and where the author slots into those are usually major influences on a work (in Homestuck's case, much of it is a direct commentary on the internet culture it emerged from, and missing that part of it can drastically influence how the story reads).

Also important are the works the author themselves are inspired by. You've likely heard some variation of "nothing is original." We're actually really lucky with Homestuck in that regard, as the work is highly referential, and you can glean a lot by looking at what it references (for example, if you watch Serendipity, one of Karkat's favorite movies, which is titledropped during the troll romance explanation, you will understand Karkat so much better). This applies to things like mythological allusions - you'll hardly know why it matters that Karkat is a Christ figure if you don't know what the general outline of the Christ story is, nor will you pick up on the Rapture elements of Gamzee's religion or the fact that Doc Scratch is The Devil, etc. The key to picking up a lot of symbolism is being aware that the symbols exist.

And last, it helps to read a lot of media and media analysis so you can get a better understanding of how media "works" - how tropes are used, what effect language has, what other entries into the genre/works with similar themes/etc. have already done to explore the same things as the piece being analyzed is doing - and what other people have already gleaned and interpreted. I've mentioned before that many people seem to find Homestuck's storytelling bizarre and unique when it's actually quite standard for postmodernism, the genre it belongs to. But you're not going to know that if you've never read anything postmodern, y'know? I also often prepare for long character essays by reading other peoples' character essays - sometimes people pick up on things I miss, and sometimes people have interpretations I vehemently disagree with; both of these help me to refine my take on the matter.

Try to Discard Biases/Meet the Work Where It Is

Many will carry into reading media an expectation of what they want to get out of it. For example, one generally goes into a standard hetero romance book expecting a female lead, a male love interest, romance (of course), and a happy ending for the happy couple. If the book fails to deliver these things, a reader will often walk away thinking it was a bad book, even if the story told instead is objectively good and interesting. We actually see this a lot with Wuthering Heights, which receives very polarizing reviews because people go into it expecting a gothic romance, when it's really more like a gossip Youtube video spilling the tea on some shitty rich people (and it's really good at being that).

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this when reading for pleasure and personal enjoyment, but it presents a problem when attempting to analyze something. There's a concept called the "Procrustean bed," named after a mythological bandit who used to stretch people or cut off their limbs to fit them to a bed, that describes "an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced." Going into a media reading with expectations and biases often results in a very Procrustean reading - I'm sure we've all seen posts complaining about how fanfic often forces canon characters to fit certain archetypes while discarding their actual character traits, etc.

Therefore, when reading for analysis, it's generally a good idea to try and discard as much bias and expectation as possible (obviously, we are never fully free of bias, but the effort counts) - or, perhaps even better, to compartmentalize those biases for comparison while reading. For example, Hussie talks at length about what they INTENDED Homestuck to be, and, while reading, I like to keep Hussie's words to the side while I try to experience the comic fresh, seeing what choices were made in accordance with Hussie's intentions, or where I think Hussie may have fumbled the messaging. At the same time, I try to let the work stand on its own, set in its proper context.

I'd say this is the number-one problem in fandom analysis. For example, people hear from the fandom that Eridan is an incel or a nice guy, so they interpret everything he says and does to fit that belief, or ignore any contradictory evidence. Or they fall for the character's façade that's meant to be dismantled by the viewer. Some works are fairly shallow and accessible, wearing all their meaning on their sleeve (or are Not That Deep, if you prefer meme-talk), and problems arise when a work is, in fact, That Deep, because someone biased towards the former will discard evidence that a work is the latter. This isn't exclusive to HS - it's happened in basically all of my fandoms - which is a statement to how easy it is to fall into this way of thinking.

Even without knowing that Hussie had coming-of-age themes in mind, for example, characters will talk about being kids and growing up. Knowing that Hussie has explicitly said that that's one of HS's themes serves as extra evidence for that interpretation, but the work itself tells you what it's about - if you're willing to listen to it.

Even If the Curtains are Just Blue, That Still Means Something

This is the next biggest fandom stumbling block - thr insinuation that when things in a work are put into the work without more explicit symbolism, that that means they're a discardable detail. This one is more about making a mindset shift - details aren't discardable, even if they don't appear to have been made with the explicit intention to mean something. Everything kind of means something.

First of all, whether or not the curtains are Just Blue is often highly dependent on the work. For example, in something made in large quantities with little time, staff, and budget - say, for example, one of the entries into the MCU's TV shows - there likely isn't too much meaning behind a choice of blue curtains in a shot (although you'd be surprised how often choices in these constrained environments are still very deliberately made). In a work like Homestuck, however, so terribly dense with symbolism and allegory, chances are, the blue curtains DO hold some special meaning, even if it's not readily apparent.

However, even in cases where a choice is made arbitrarily, it still usually ends up revealing something about the work's creative process. Going back to our MCU example, perhaps the blue curtains were chosen because the shot is cool-toned and they fit the color grading. Perhaps they were chosen because the director really likes blue. Perhaps the shot was filmed at an actual location and the blue curtains were already there. Or, even, perhaps the blue curtains were just what they had on hand, and the show was made too quickly and cheaply to bother sourcing something that would fit the tone or lend extra meaning. These all, to varying degrees, say something about the work - maybe not anything so significant that it would come up in an analysis, but they still contribute to a greater understanding of what the work is, what it's trying to say, and how successful it is at saying it.

And this applies to things with much higher stakes. For example, Hussie being a white US citizen likely had an effect on the B1 kids being mostly US citizens, and there was discourse surrounding how, even though they were ostensibly aracial, references were made to Dave's pale skin. Do I think these were deliberate choices made to push some sort of US superiority; no, obviously not. But they still end up revealing things about the creation of the work - that Hussie had certain biases as a result of being who they were.

Your Brain is Designed to Recognize Patterns, So Put That to Use

So with "establish context" and "discard expectations" out of the way, we can start getting into the nitty-gritty of what should be jumping out at you when attempting to understand a work. One of the most prominent things that you should be looking for is PATTERNS.

Writing is a highly conscious effort, which draws from highly unconscious places. Naturally, whether these patterns are intentional or unintentional is dependent on the author (see again why reading up on a work's context is so important), but you can generally bet that anything that IS a pattern is something that holds significance.

For example, Karkat consistently shows that he's very distraught when any of his friends get hurt, that he misses his friends, even the murderous assholes, that he's willing to sit them down and intervene on their behalf, despite all his grandstanding to the contrary. We are supposed to notice that Karkat actually loves his friends, and that he's lying when he says he doesn't care about them.

Homestuck is very carefully and deliberately crafted; if something comes up more than once, it's a safe bet to assume that you're supposed to notice, or at least feel, it. Don't take my word for it:

Basically, [reusing elements is] about building an extremely dense interior vocabulary to tell a story with, and continue to build and expand that vocabulary by revisiting its components often, combining them, extending them and so on. A vocabulary can be (and usually is) simple, consisting of single words, but in this case it extends to entire sentences and paragraph structures and visual forms and even entire scenes like the one linked above. Sometimes the purpose for reiteration is clear, and sometimes there really is no purpose other than to hit a familiar note, and for me that's all that needs to happen for it to be worthwhile. Triggering recognition is a powerful tool for a storyteller to use. Recognition is a powerful experience for a reader. It promotes alertness, at the very least. And in a lot of cases here, I think it promotes levity (humor! this is mostly a work of comedy, remember.) Controlling a reader's recognition faculty is one way to manipulate the reader's reactions as desired to advance the creative agenda.

But this applies to less deliberately-crafted work, too; for example, if an author consistently writes women as shallow, cruel, and manipulative, then we can glean that the author probably has some sort of issue with women. Villains often being queer-coded suggests that the culture they come from has problems with the gays. Etc. etc.

This is how I reached my conclusion that Pale EriKar is heavily foreshadowed - the two are CONSTANTLY kind to each other, sharing secrets, providing emotional support, etc. etc. It's why that part of my Eridan essay is structured the way that it is - by showing you first how consistently the two interact in suspiciously pale-coded ways, the fact that a crab is shown in both Eridan's first appearance AND his appearance on the moirallegiance "hatched for each other" page becomes the cincher of a PATTERN of the two being set up to shoosh-pap each other.

A work will tell you about itself if you listen. If it tells you something over and over, then it's basically begging you to pay attention.

Contrast is Important, Too

Patterns are also significant when they're broken. For example, say a villain is constantly beating up the protagonist. Here's our pattern: the hero is physically weaker than the villain. In a straight fight, the hero will always lose.

And then, at the mid-season two-parter, the hero WINS. Since we've set up this long pattern of the hero always losing to this villain, the fact that this pattern was disrupted means that this moment is extremely important for the work. Let's say the hero wins using guile - in this case, we walk away with the message that the work is saying that insurmountable obstacles may have workarounds, and adaptability and flexibility are good, heroic traits. Now let's say the hero won using physical strength, after a whole season of training and practicing - in this case, we say that the work says hard work and effort are heroic, and will pay off in the end.

In Homestuck, as an example, we set up a long pattern of Vriska being an awful, manipulative bitch, and a fairly remorseless killer. And then, after killing Tavros, she talks to John and admits that she's freaking out because she feels really bad about it. This vulnerability is hinted at by some of her earlier actions/dialogue, which is itself a pattern to notice, but it's not really explicit until it's set up to be in direct contrast to the ultimate spider8itch move of killing Tavros. This contrast is intended to draw our attention, to point out something significant - hey, Vriska feels bad! She's a product of her terrible society and awful lusus! While it's shitty that she killed Tavros, she's also meant to be tragic and sympathetic herself!

Hussie even talks about how patterns and surprises are used in tandem:

Prior to Eridan's entrance into the room, and even during, the deaths were completely unguessable. After Feferi's death, Kanaya's becomes considerably more so, but still quite uncertain. After her death, all bets are off. Not only do all deaths thereafter become guessable, but in some cases, "predictable". That's because it was the line between a series of shocking events, and the establishment of an actual story pattern. The new pattern serves a purpose, as a sort of announcement that the story is shifting gears, that we're drifting into these mock-survival horror, mock-crime drama segments, driven by suspense more than usual. The suspense has more authority because of all the collateral of unpredictability built up over time, as well as all the typical stuff that helps like long term characterization. But now that the pattern is out in the open, following through with more deaths no longer qualifies as unpredictability. Just the opposite, it would now be playing into expectations, which as I said, can be important too. This gear we've switched to is the new normal, and any unpredictability to arise thereafter will necessarily be a departure from whatever current patterns would indicate.

Patterns are important because they tell you what baselines the work is setting - what's normal, what's standard, what this or that generally "means." Contrast is important because it means something has changed, or some significant point is being made. They work in tandem to provide the reader with points of focus in the story, things to keep in mind as they read, consciously or unconsciously.

Theme

I'm talking about this stuff in pretty broad and open terms because stories are so malleable, and so myriad, and can say so many things. There are stories where horrible cruelties are painted as good things - propoganda is the big one, but consider all the discourse around romance books that paint abusive/toxic relationships as ideal. There are stories where the protagonist is actually the villain, and their actions are not aspirational, and works where everyone sucks and nobody is aspirational, and works where everybody is essentially a good person, if sometimes misguided.

This is, again, why outside context is so important, and biases need to be left at the door. For example, generally speaking, one can assume that the protagonist of a children's cartoon is going to be an aspirational hero, or at least a conflicted character who must learn to do the right thing. However, there are even exceptions to this! Invader Zim, for example, features an outright villain protagonist - a proud servant of a fascist empire - and for a lower-stakes example, the Eds of Ed, Edd, n' Eddy are the neighborhood scammers, constantly causing problems for the other characters with their schemes.

Thus, how do we determine what any particular narrative's stance on a given topic is? It's a difficult question to answer because every narrative is different. If I say something like, "the things that bring the protagonists success in their goals are what the narrative says are good," then we run into the issue of villain/gray morality protagonists. To use moral terms like "hero" and "villain" instead runs into the problem of defining morality within a narrative in the first place. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

So that brings us to themes.

Now, as with a lot of artistic terms, "theme" isn't necessarily well-defined (this isn't helped by the way the word is used colloquially to mean things like aesthetic, moral of the story, or symbolism). Wikipedia says: "In contemporary literary studies, a theme is a central topic, subject, or message within a narrative," but this is still very broad and hard to work with, so I'll give it a shot.

A theme is what a work says, beyond the literal series of events. Sometimes a theme is obvious - the theme of Boy Who Cried Wolf is that if you become famous for lying, you won't be believed when you tell the truth. Sometimes a theme is one of many - for example, Disney's Cinderalla says that kindness and virtue will eventually be recognized and rewarded, and that cruelty is interlinked with ugliness. Sometimes a theme is unintentional - for example, how Disney's body of work tends to villainize queer-coded characters. Sometimes context and the passage of time changes the theme - for example, Snow White originally held a message of hope for wartime families that domestic normalcy would one day return, but is now seen as anti-feminist as it appears to insinuate that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and her happiness is in marriage to a man. And sometimes a theme is not something you agree with.

In any case, a theme is a meaning to be gleaned from the text, more broad and universally applicable than the text itself. After all, we humans have traditionally always used story to impart meaning; our oldest epic, The Epic of Gilgamesh, contains within it several themes, most famously that of accepting one's mortality. It's startling, really, how applicable the story is to this day, even if specific details have become obtuse or unsavory to a modern reader.

This is, again, why it's so important to engage with a text on its own terms, in its own context, with as little bias as possible. A story's themes are not necessarily apparent, and commonly implied rather than stated outright, and approaching the story with expectations can easily lead to a Procrustean twisting of the facts to fit those expectations. A theme should emerge to the analyzer out of the reading, not the other way around.

Identifying theme gets easier with practice, and largely comes down to identifying patterns within the narrative (alongside looking at context and symbolism, of course). What does the narrative consistently touch base on? Are there any references; is there any symbolism? What does the story deem "normal," "good," or "bad"? How are ideas developed, and why? Why did these events happen, and are those motivations echoed anywhere else?

Homestuck is very complex and tackles many topics at once, and explaining why it's a coming-of-age would basically require a whole second essay, so I'll use a simpler and more popular example (like I've been trying to do) - let's say, Shrek.

The most obvious theme of Shrek is that beauty does not equate goodness, that one mustn't judge a book by its cover. The opening sequence is LITERALLY Shrek ripping out pages of a fairy tale book to use as toilet paper, and the movie ends with Fiona finding that her happiest, truest self IS as an ugly ogre. Shrek's main character conflict is that people immediately judge him as cruel and evil because he's ugly, and the characters' lowest points occur because Fiona is similarly insecure about her ogre half, considering it unlovable.

But there's other stuff in there, too. For example, if you know that Dreamworks and Shrek were founded after a falling out with Disney, then the beautiful, sanitized city of Dulac, with its switchback queue and singing animatronics add to this theme of a direct refutation of traditional Disney fairytale values, mocking them as manufactured, inhuman, and even cruel in the way that they marginalize those who don't fit an ideal of beauty. Again we see the opening sequence - defacing a fairytale - as support for this, but also the way that Dulac is displacing fairytale creatures. There's a moment where Gepetto literally sells Pinocchio, which can easily be read as a commentary on the crass commercialization and exploitation of fairy tales Disney likes to do.

And then, of course, there are lesser, supplementary themes. Love being a powerful positive force is one - Donkey is able to rally Shrek after he truly reciprocates Dragon's love for him (which echoes the theme of not equating goodness with beauty, as Dragon is still big and scary), and it's true love's kiss that grants Fiona her happy ending.

And then there's stuff that's unintentional. There's all this work done about how beauty =/= goodness, but then they made the villain incredibly short, which is a traditionally unattractive physical feature. So, does that mean that ugly things can be beautiful unless that ugliness is specifically height?

Sometimes, authorial intent does not match up with result - but in those instances, I think the most is revealed about the author. Modern Disney products tend to be very cowardly about going anti-corporation and pro-weirdness, despite their usual feel-good tones and uplifting themes - and that says a lot about Disney, doesn't it. That's why I think it's still important to keep authorial intent in mind, if possible, even if they fumble what they say they've set out to do.

Obviously, Lord Fuckwad being short doesn't REALLY detract from the overall message - but it's still a weird hitch in the themes, which I think is interesting to talk about, so you can see where personal judgement and biases DO have to be applied. There are two options here, more or less - either one believes that Shrek is making an exception for short people, who are of the Devil, or one believes that the filmmakers did a bit of an oopsie. Barring an outright statement from the filmmakers, there's no way to know for sure.

We can say a work has very complex themes when it intentionally explores multiple ideas very deeply. We can say a work has shallow themes when it doesn't have much intentional meaning, and/or that meaning is explored very lightly. The labyrinthine storytelling of Homestuck, with its forays into mortality, morality, and growing up, chock full of symbolism and pastiche and allusions, is a work with complex themes - especially as compared to the average newspaper comic strip, although they ostensibly share a genre.

We can say a work has very unified themes when these themes serve to compliment each other - the refutation of Disney-esque values, and love as a positive driving force, compliment the main theme in Shrek of not judging books by their covers, of beauty not equating to goodness. Ugly things are worthy of love, and those who push standards of beauty are evil and suck.

Similarly, we can say a work has unfocused or messy themes when the themes it includes - intentionally or not - contradict, distract, and/or detract from each other. Beauty has no correlation to goodness... unless you're short, in which case, you are closer to Hell and therefore of evil blood. To get a little controversial, this is actually why I didn't like Last Wish very much - there are approximately three separate storylines, with three separate thematic arcs, going on in the same movie, none of which particularly compliment each other - so the experience was very messy to me, story-wise, even though it was pretty and the wolf was hot. This is why we feel weird about Disney pushing anti-corporate messages, when they're a big corporate machine, or why it's easy to assume Homestuck was written poorly if you don't like Hussie - we want themes to be coherent, we want context to be unified with output.

Tone

Tone is somehow even harder to define than theme. It's like, the "vibe" of a work. For example, you generally don't expect something lighthearted to deal with the realistic, brutal tragedies of war. Maybe it'll touch on them in light, optimistic ways, but it isn't about to go All Quiet on the Western Front on the reader. By the same token, you don't expect fully happy endings out of the melodrama of opera, or frivolous slice of life from something grimdark.

Tone, too, is something people often wind up Procrusteanizing, which makes discussion difficult if two people disagree. If I read Homestuck as unwaveringly optimistic, with its downer ending the result of an author fumble, I'm pretty much going to irreconcileably disagree with somebody who reads Homestuck as though it's always been a kind of tragedy where things don't work out for the characters. Since it's even more difficult to define than theme, I'm not even really going to bother; I just felt like I had to bring it up because, despite its nebulosity, it's vital to how one reads and interprets a text. Sometimes I don't have a better answer for why I dislike a certain interpretation other than that it doesn't suit the work's tone. I generally try to avoid saying that, though, because it winds up smacking of subjective preference.

In summary... analysis is about keeping everything in mind all the time! But i swear, it gets easier the more you do it. Happy reading!

#homestuck #literary analysis #critical thinking

95 notes · View notes

sassykinzonline · 2 months

Text

ok i saw the post you guys meant when you were asking about platonic SNS aka "SNS should be platonic because that makes it selfless", heres what i'll say (some of these sort of rehash the ask, but with a more direct rebuttal to the specific point):

the manga explicitly shows how various types of love (platonic, familial, professional, romantic, sexual) can be "imperfect", therefore, the manga rejects the idea that one sort of love is implicitly "correct" or "selfless" or whatever ontological good you want to attach to the love of your choice

action/shounen's propensity to pose the love interest as the "reward" for the hero's journey not only doesnt apply to SNS (nor the naruto manga from an SNS lens), but this is also another example of attaching an ontological idea that is irrelevant to a concept. tropes are not what define a genre nor a story archetype, theyre simply a common device used within these things. for example, the "heroine as a reward" trope for the hero may be a device used to exemplify success, honour, or nobility. it likely stems from cultural patriarchal norms where what was "desirable" was a "brave" man with deeds to his name. the point of this trope is likely to inspire a reader to emulate the hero, thinking that they will also ~get the girl at the end of their "journey". but the trophy doesnt have to be the girl. the trophy can be riches. the trophy can be a title. the trophy can be peace itself. it can be all those things. why? because the core of a hero's journey is literally the hero's journey, how and why they get from point A to point B and what the effects of that are. and thats typically how you choose what trophy to give your hero at the end.

the naruto manga subverts this trope by making the "journey" the feelings themselves: do you have them, how to express them, are they enough, are they even appropriate to have, what does the other person feel, what can be done about that? thats why i said the trope doesnt exactly apply to SNS. by making the journey about the feelings, the "reward" of the heroine at the end is no longer a patriarchal holdover but a logical conclusion to a conflict. this is why i joke that naruto the manga works better as a YA novel from the twilight/hunger games era, because typically those kinds of books have room for this kind of complexity. this is also why "sasuke" is not primarily an antagonist, he is a deuteragonist. he is tangentially going through the same journey as naruto, he is not running counter to naruto's journey intentionally.

even if you wont agree that the feelings are the journey, and instead the journey is becoming hokage or uniting the shinobi world or whatever, by definition naruto's feelings have to change for the journey to be possible. otherwise theres no point in the journey, hed be able to be hokage at the start of the manga and everyone would agree on that despite him being weak. there is a reason why naruto's power-ups also come with some sort of emotional lesson, and that emotional lesson is what gets people on his side. every arc in the manga is naruto has to do something -> naruto has an idea -> someone tells him that his idea is immature -> he trains while pondering the idea -> he needs to use the idea to complete his training -> he voices his revised idea that he learned from the someone -> he wins. theres only one exception to this. i'll let you figure out why that is.

many people who make this argument about how "platonic love is better" are both understanding the point and not understanding the point. these people are taking platonic love to mean "friendship" and thats not what it means in the sense its used in the manga, nor in a classical sense. platonic love according to plato (the one its named after), is the idea that it is a love that transcends earthly ideas like carnal desire and physical unity and instead becomes desire for one's true essence and unity in the "truth" of one's being. this means platonic love isnt "love without sex" but "love that can be more than just sex". so these people understand that "platonic love" is above any other type of love, but not because its "friendship". platonic love is "better" because it is permanent and unchangeable. truth is inherent. a soul is inherent. thats why within SNS there are themes of reincarnation of souls, of sharing of pain, of cosmic unity, of reuniting after death, of inexplicable yet unavoidable attraction, of the recognition, understanding and acceptance of someone else's truth.

in summary: SNS' souls are having cosmic sex and thats what saves the world.

#naruto analysis #naruto meta #sasunaru #narusasu #sasunarusasu #sns #sasuke #naruto #sasuke uchiha #uchiha sasuke #naruto uzumaki #uzumaki naruto #naruto x sasuke #sasuke x naruto #pro sasunaru #pro naruto uzumaki #pro sasuke #once again i wrote this in one go so if there are typos im sorry but im tired of having these arguments over and over

80 notes · View notes

that-ari-blogger · 7 months

Text

The Owl House's First Reveals

The Owl House is a master class in archetypal storytelling. I have a whole post entirely dedicated to how it corresponds with one of the most iconic secret world magic school stories of the current era. But the key to good archetypal storytelling is that it engages with the archetypes and stereotypes.

By this, I mean that the characters fit specific tropes. The mentour, the bully, etc. But this is entirely superficial. To every character in this series, there is more going on under the surface that adds nuance to the characters.

The Owl House is lauded for its reveals. The unmasking's of Bump, Hunter, and Bellos are iconic, but every character in the show wears a metaphorical mask, that being the archetype they embody. When these are removed, or chipped away at, things get interesting. And nowhere is this more obvious than in Lost In Language

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Let's start with the obvious. Amity. This is the episode where we learn about Amity's whole deal and where Luz makes some majour steps towards befriending her.

I don't think enough credit is paid to the voice acting here. Because Mae Whitman (@whitmanmae), who voices Amity, is doing something with affectation.

When Amity is introduced, and in most of her early scenes, there is an air of superiority in her voice, it sounds like there is a permanent sneer. This only falter when she gets angry or stressed. It's something Amity is putting on intentionally, it's a character choice.

So, what happens when Amity stops with the persona and starts being open and honest? Then Whitman drops the affectation and assumes a different speech pattern. The voice acting changes to match the change in character.

I bring this up here because the scene above, with Amity reading to the children, is the first time we see Amity's relaxed voice. This is the voice that will go on to be the most iconic and synonymous with the character. This is the mask that has been removed, and underneath, is a character who is completely fine putting on voices and reading to children, with zero care about being embarrassed.

It is also worth noting that the hair dye is starting to run thin here. The colour of Amity's hair is an important metaphor for her character arc, and here, as the mask slips, the dyed appearance is fading to reveal the roots underneath.

The storybook motif of this episode plays into this theme.

I have said in the past that Luz has a fairly flat character arc, and I meant it. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have flaws to overcome. This episode dives into one such flaw.

The reason that the series utilises archetypal storytelling so much, is because that is how Luz thinks. Luz's flaw is ignorance, or more accurately, naivety. She very much wants life to fit with the archetypes that she has in her head. That is why she gets scammed in episode two, and that's why here, she directly causes the problems of the episode. She tries to play with storybook rules, she tries to take shortcuts to friendship. This causes problems because, as I have stated, there is nuance to these characters, and as such, shortcuts don't work.

Otabin is the embodiment of this. A character warped beyond all recognition by a tiny nuance in the drawing brought to life. A little change has a big impact and turns him into a different character who cannot be treated the same way.

Interestingly, the conflict resolution is literally just write your own story and you would assume this moment works, with the cape and the staff. But it doesn't. Why? Because it's Luz writing herself into someone else's story. She's not Luzura yet, because to be Luzura, she needs to be Luz first, and she's avoiding that.

In the end, the story is written together, and it starts with:

Luz needs to right a wrong

For the new story to begin and the relationship to actually work, Luz needs to let go of preconceived expectations and start taking the story as it is, instead of adding to something it is not.

That's how she befriends Amity as the episode closes. Instead of trying shortcuts, she sees something personal to Amity and offers to help. The book. And it causes Amity to open up, slightly.

But, I titled this post The Owl House's First Reveals and I did intend to put "reveals" in plural. Because there is another character who has a side of them revealed. Eda the Owl Lady herself.

This is the episode in which we see the maternal side of Eda. Specifically, we see the lack of it. Eda is unconditionally one of the series' main parent figures. The others being Camilla, Bellos, and the Blights (Argue about Darius and Bump and whoever in the comments). But at the start of the series, she has no skill or interest in the subject, or does she? Eda takes in King and Luz on a whim, because they looked sad or in danger, and she passes that off as just something one does. The instinct is very much there, the skill? Not so much.

This episode shows Eda learning the skills of parenting. She has to put up with the babies and learn their ways in order to earn spending time with the teenagers. This is the start of Eda's arc into becoming the matron of the Owl House and the resistance later on down the line.

So, in conclusion, people are complicated. This episode sees Luz and the audience learning about the nuances of characters, even as the characters themselves learn these things about themselves.

Previous - Next

#rants #literary analysis #literature analysis #what's so special about...?#the owl house #toh #the owl house amity #the owl house luz #owl house #the owl house eda

68 notes · View notes

invested-in-your-future · 7 months

Note

What are your plans for Jaune?

Short answer: pretty much nothing the show did.

Long answer:

It's pretty common to hate Jaune. Even half my posts might come off as disliking the character.

The sad truth is, there's an interesting core of the character there - someone who has these grand naïve aspirations of what being "the manly hero" means and someone who, in a way, has felt entitled to that destiny, but also, at the same time, is driven by the inferiority complex - he feels like he's really "nothing" without his visions of toxic masculinity and "heroism". So much that when confronted with his own uselessness and weakness, his first choice of action was to outright give up (seriously, without Pyrrha's push he would have likely just outright given up).

What makes me dislike show-Jaune is that past V3(and even during the first three volumes really, but not to that degree), the show does every single thing they can to reinforce that toxic persona as RIGHT. It's so much like the toxic trope he should carry a fridge with him at all times just in case a woman appears in his path to be used for his growth.

He's this brooding "I never asked for this" hero who is basically only one really allowed to be affected by the deaths of (conveniently, women) characters around him. He gets the "cool and manly" Cardin haircut too.

Now some would say the story is showing how he is not fit to be a hero and how he doesn't want the life he idealized, but...

For one, "the hero who never wanted to be a hero" is LITERALLY part of the same trope. A Woman gets stuffed into a fridge so The Man goes on the Journey to do the Things he doesn't want to do. That's literally the trope.

And secondly, idealizing the path of a Huntsman is part of RUBY's characterization. The writing is once again leeching off the lead heroine of the entire show to give screentime and focus to this dude.

The show at the same time forbids everyone else from being affected by anything (because if you have traumatic experiences you are evil or "less than you were") and stacks the trauma upon Jaune by trying to elicit emotion and care from the audience towards him.

Instead of someone with potential for interesting subversion of toxic tropes he is so obsessed with, the show uses him to steal the screentime and development and reactions that should come from the main cast. All while turning him into pretty toxic cookie cutter archetype of a character that feels like an unintentional mockery of both who he could be AND of what Pyrrha would have wanted him to be.

It just makes Pyrrha - this famous person everyone knows, this caring friend everyone interacted with, this very definition of what it means to be a Huntress - into someone who only existed for his benefit.

That does not sit well with me.

Now, Jaune has been mostly separated from the group for the first few chapters in what I am working on, but I think the intent will be a bit clearer once he gets a bit more than two sentences.

It's honestly the direction I expected (but never got) for the character ever since V3 ended.

#rwby #rwde

20 notes · View notes

longdeadking-moved-blogs · 1 year

Text

ok hi guys i have. genloss thoughts.

so we've seen a few different "archetypes" for characters, right? we have the hero (ranboo), the side characters (charlie and sneeg), the antagonists (the puzzler and demon charlie), the background characters (niki, austin, etc), and who i'm calling the crew (the ghouls & rats, the cameramen, and the drones). (hetch is his own thing but i will Get to him, also security and squiggles.)

all these archetypes are very distinct, there's not a lot of overlap between them (the only exceptions i could think of would be frank, who doesnt really count since he's not. yknow. alive. and rat-rae, who has speaking lines, but is still obviously crew.)

i'm thinking, these archetypes almost seem like... a life cycle. let me explain.

first, showfall finds a Hero. they need to be naive, blinded by fear and hope. so the Hero needs to be the first step. and there are three directions the Hero can go after that.

if the Hero is just... boring, uninteresting, going through the motions, they become Crew. the masks (or the goo, in the case of the ghouls) control them permanently.

if the Hero goes the way ranboo did, there are two options. either they die, and stay dead (or restart, becoming a Hero again), or they live and move on to the next step - becoming an Antagonist.

Antagonists have more freedom than Heroes (squiggles outright says they let the puzzler do whatever he wants), but they're still under showfall's control. the freedom is helpful because it makes them more interesting, but it also makes them unpredictable.

once an Antagonist has run their course, there's three options again. if they're too complacent, they become Crew. if they're too volitile or if showfall needs some drama or a Hero needs a win, they die. but if they prove to still be useful, they move on. they become a Background Character.

seems like a weird jump, right? but we saw it happen, with charlie. he died as demon slime, then reappeared as patient charlie.

also, i think this is the reason neither Antagonists lasted more than an episode. they need a lot of Background Characters, so turnover is quick.

by the time Background Characters arrive, they have developed personalities. or, more accurately, a single trait that showfall can monopolize on. charlie was slimy. niki was nice. austin was gay (a nice nod to the token gay trope, btw). and Background Characters switch up the formula a bit.

i think, by the time you get to this point, you aren't at risk of becoming Crew. or at least, it isnt likely (i'm thinking rat-rae was a BG Character who got turned into crew, which is why she can talk). no, instead, your two options are as follows:

you can stay a Background Character, "dying" and being reset every episode.

or, if you're a fan-favorite, you get upgraded to Side Character.

again, we saw this happen with charlie, and also with sneeg. i believe sneeg became a Side Character between episode 1 and 2, which is why he was allowed to see beyond the 4th wall. gotta have your characters be a little haunted, right? it's a horror show, after all.

and if you become a Side Character, there's not a lot of places to go. viewers will recognize you in different shows, so the question is - what does showfall do when a Side Character's show ends?

once again, they have two options. death or promotion.

and this time, the promotion is a little different.

so. hetch. a villian for sure, but he's in a weird position. he tells ranboo - and the viewers - during the final scene that he's just following orders. he wears his own mask, same as ranboo. but why? why have this weird, semi-canon, rebel traitor figure?

i think hetch made it to the final archetype. a subsection of Crew that's picked out for a special characteristic. anything that makes them truly compelling. i think the wire monster made it here, too (they were so consistently rebellious that showfall had to strip away all of their humanity, leaving them a mess of wire).

hetch became a Mascot.

hetch, the wire monster, and squiggles went through every step, proved their worth, and what did they get in return?

knowledge, but not freedom. never freedom.

and i think if we'd voted live, ranboo would have made it all the way as well.

#the kings decrees #genloss #genloss spoilers #gl!ranboo #genloss theory #long post #im going insane over here guys #you dont understand #it's a cycle... all of them are disposable... cogs in a machine... you dont understand!!!#inspired by watching charlie go from Silly Guy to Sillier Guy to Oh God I'm Going To Die Here #genloss archetype theory

58 notes · View notes

datastate · 6 months

Text

i think the problem with a lot of fictional romance is that, despite all build-up that may have happened, once the two finally get together... they begin to lose that edge of what made their dynamic interesting. it's disappointing enough when it happens within the game/movie/show, but then irritating when 'fans' choose to flatten them to fit into the same rehashed tropes they feel any 'couple' should involve themselves in...

...which is so disheartening to see when there are definitely interesting scenarios uniquely built from these characters' situation! things so specific to them that it'd be a struggle to find a similar scenario/dynamic/dialogue beats between any other character you may be a fan of, even if they fall into a similar narrative archetype. there are such small things indicative of the characters themselves they should be given the chance to explore together. even if they're still reserved and thus reluctant to admit as much aloud, there would inevitably be a shift when someone else takes to their side. whether it's introspection or within action or whatever else, there's still so much more to explore within its setting/further character study.

but, unfortunately for many, the end goal of 'being together' indicates they are no longer characters in their own right, but instead "a couple" - and that is all they remain as, unfortunately... as though that's where their relationship ends, instead of further building upon their established bond.

i feel it's a part of the reason i've noticed so many people attach themselves to 'slow burn' or 'childhood friend' sort of stories. what makes it interesting is the fact there is so much range to explore these characters and what this budding new relationship may mean to them, in many of these it may be the focus of the story, but... ironically enough, it also leads to many people jumping to imagined scenarios of the two finally getting together to do 'couple things' together. due to their adoration for the original scenarios the characters are put through to show/strain their love, they want to write for these charming characters, but just. either seem to miss what makes them so compelling, or haven't the confidence to write such scenarios, or simply find it more enjoyable to place intense focus on the domesticity alone once they allegedly, inevitably, get together (even at the cost of characterization... i feel there's a fine line between someone mellowing out and to completely rid their fangs, yes?) and it's just a little dreary to see these characters so flattened once people feel there's nothing else to be done once the relationship is 'official'!

#aegehaha hope this makes sense... to be honest. i'm not a ''ship'' person anyway so x']#within the last. nine? years or so. i've only been deeply attached to four fictional relationships #that did not include my ocs; mimistasia/lurien+butler/kaishima/safamaple. other than them... no one really comes to mind :P #i enjoy some; sure! i'm neutral/leaning positive with a lot & if a friend brings it up i'm usually detached yet fond...#jestersvaguely

12 notes · View notes

literary-illuminati · 10 months

Text

Book Review 47 – The Gods Are Bastards Volume Two by D. D. Webb

Being entirely honest I read the first four volumes of this in a sprint, but I’m spacing out the reviews with things I read afterwards in between for variety and (honestly) to help keep each distinct in my head.

So, for context, Volume 2 is comprised of books 5, 6 and 7 of an incredibly longrunning web serial. You can find my thoughts on Volume 1 here. The serial follows a set of college students/novice adventurers of improbably vast power and (much more interestingly) a sprawling cast of supporting characters in a world that’s best described as ‘generic D&D fantasy setting on the tail end of the magical industrial revolution’.

While the main plotlines still (unfortunately) follow the freshman students of the Unseen University as they get assigned various character-building fieldtrips that are in fact life-or-death struggles for everyone else involved, I find them much less abrasive in this volume than the last. Not not abrasive, but the trendline is positive – partially because most of them have gotten real character development and partially because, while all the conflicts they got tangled up still involved comically massive power differentials with them being on the wrong side of them to be sympathetic or worth rooting for, they were at least usually not settled through preordained and tension-less contests of violence. Special callout to Juniper, for a slow evolution out of just being the incarnation of the Male Gaze is prose form, and Tris, who is not a mostly non-murderous racist and sometimes a really tryhard ally instead.

Anyway, the actual reason to read this continues to be the other subplots. This volume was great for Bishop Darling and Archpope Justinian, and introduced what’s probably my favourite pair of sets of secondary characters in the entire serial – the two rival adventuring parties ostensibly working the Bishop and Archpope (note – Darling does also theoretically work for the Archpope) who keep getting sent after the same thing and spend more time fighting each other and scheming about their ostensible employers than they do actually adventuring. They’re all two-dimensional comic archetypes of high level fantasy adventurers/western gunslingers/steampunk gadgeteers on hand, and a dragon, succubus, magical assassin, and just kind of asshole mobster on the other. They’re all a bunch of absolute drama queens and I love them all so much.

The serial is clearly hip-deep in references to and in conversation with tropes that I, despite the millions of words of web serial I read a year, am basically ignorant of. This was particularly clear with the book where the students got sent into the dungeon beneath the school because, well, that’s what adventurers do (intelligent dungeons! Spontaneously generating ‘monsters’! Instances!). This had my favourite setpieece involving them in the entire story so far, but also does kind of mark the point where I’m starting to get annoyed waiting for the serial to actually do something with all the fucked up generic fantasy worldbuilding conceits instead of just occasionally nodding at them but otherwise taking them as read.

I trust that the story actually has intentions for thedissonance between end-of-book denouncements where the characters almost look at the camera and explain the lessons they learned this month and Teal massacring demons trying to surrender to her and then being comforted and supported as her friends explain that demons can’t be trusted to surrender and killing them all is really the humane thing anyway, but it’s getting to be a bit of a wait for it.

Anyway, still very much compulsively readable. This worldbuilding got much more detailed and less broad-strokes-D&D this volume, with generally good results. I basically axiomatically get bored with extended action sequences, but as far as they go the one that took up most of Book 7 was quite well done.

#book review #web serial #the gods are bastards #sff #map fantasy #D. D. Webb

15 notes · View notes

janiedean · 1 month

Note

25th hour and city of thieves I never read the book so why did you compare them to jaime jon and ygritte

eeeeh it's been years since I dealt with either and god why do I even have to admit benioff can write when he wants to but anyway

25th hour has nothing to do with asoiaf it's just a really good script and it turned into a really good movie

the thing with city of thieves is... okay tldr the basic plot is two russian men (lev and kolya) are taken prisoner during the leningrad siege and are promised freedom if they manage to find eggs to bake a birthday cake for the daughter of the guy who arrested them (obv hard to find during a siege where everyone was dying of hunger), they go around trying to find the eggs, at some point they go out of town in this mansion where they supposedly had a bunch of chickens and it turns out that the mansion is full of girls who were kept there as nazi prisoners for you can imagine which reasons, they team up with the local partisans to save them, the partisans include a young girl named vika who is v good at warfare and eventually falls in love with lev, blah blah blah not spoiling things but at the end they have to separate then *she* finds him post-war bringing eggs, he tells her they can make an omelette and she replies she can't cook, that was your basic plot thing is, lev is a 17yo bucket of walking angst who has Issues because his father was arrested and deported by the government because he was too much of a free thinker for them and jewish, bad combination when it comes to stalin government (as far as I recall), doesn't really want to admit that he might be dead-dead at least in the beginning, doesn't talk too much and isn't too social, also being jewish he already felt singled out and like he had to mix/blend/be better than his father or smth like that kolya was taken prisoner for being a deserter, doesn't appreciate authority all that much, cracks bad jokes all the time and irritates lev bc he doesn't take shit seriously except when he gets serious when it comes to saving the girls used as unwilling prostitutes, if I don't recall wrong he was extremely attractive/charming vika basically was going guerrilla stuff, was a better shot than them, went at lev every other moment like I know way mroe than you about stuff (which she did btw), was the one pursuing him more actively and I don't remember if she was a redhead or not but like... the personality fit the bill now like idk if it was obvious from my bad summary and ofc there were differences (like for one kolya had a nice active sex life with a bunch of female friends instead of yknow toxic rship with his twin) but when it comes to character archetypes/personalities lev and jon were pretty much the same deal from the teenage angst to the daddy issues to needing to keep the family name honorable, jaime and kolya had a good 70% of basic traits in common and vika and ygritte were the exact same type including the romance where they make the first move and not being stereotypical feminine which is why idg why the fuck benioff managed to write a book with three main chars that are the exact same archetypes as jon jaime and ygritte with the obvious differences and then completely fucking up adapting jon/jaime in the series because if he could write city of thieves there is absolutely no way he actually misread the og characters nor didn't realize what they were there for so...................... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ idk and I guess I never will but if I wrote an asoiaf au of city of thieves with that recast no one would bat an eyelid, I compared them because they're the same tropes obv written different and in another context but it was so glaringly obvious I'm still asking myself wtf went wrong there almost ten years later

anyway as much as it pains me to say city of thieves was actually a pretty good book so like idk if anyone feels like obtaining it through whichever mean they find most ethical when it comes to maybe or not financing benioff it's not a waste of your time

#ask post #megashadowdragon #city of thieves for ts #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #anti-lannincest #anti lannincest #i hate that i liked it but eh #it... was actually a good book what do i even say

2 notes · View notes

samasmith23 · 1 year

Text

How Magnificent Ms. Marvel deconstructs the "Chosen One" archetype

One element of the Destined arc from Saladin Ahmed's run on Magnificent Ms. Marvel that I find interesting is that it actively subverts orientalist and imperialist tropes present in sci-fi "chosen one saves alien planet" narratives.

Specifically, the whole idea of a human being whisked away to rescue an entire alien civilization from their own despotic dictator was heavily popularized by the comic-strip/serial show Flash Gordon, which was infamous for its usage of racist Yellow Peril tropes. Like not only was the main antagonist of Flash Gordon, Ming the Merciless, an overtly Yellow-Face Fu-Manchu caricature, but even the name of the planet he ruled, "Mongo," sounds awfully similar to the real-life Asian country of Mongolia. And this is made even more uncomfortable by the fact that Flash Gordon himself is the stereotypically glorified blonde-haired blue-eyed white male, and both the strip and serials portray him as liberating and conquering the planet Mongo from the obviously Asian-coded villain.

So yeah, there are definitely some imperialist and orientalist trappings within the "human saves alien planet" narrative. However, while the Destined arc of Magnificent Ms. Marvel is clearly modeled after this archetypal narrative, there are plenty of ways in which it both subverts and deconstructs this type of plot IMO. Immediately right off the bat one of the key methods in which Destined avoids the same White Savior trapping as Flash Gordon does is through the fact that although the protagonist Kamala Khan is an American, she's simultaneously a brown Muslim Girl who comes from a first-generation Pakistani immigrant family. So that alone already subverts the traditional "chosen one/savior" archetype by having the main character be a woman of color instead of a white man. Plus the author of Magnificent Ms. Marvel, Saladin Ahmed, is a Lebanese-American Muslim, whereas Flash Gordon's creator, the late Alex Raymond, was a white man.

Furthermore, what also helps the Ms. Marvel arc is that even though the alien civilization of Saffa which Kamala and her parents visit is clearly modeled after Arabic and Middle Eastern cultures, it avoids the orientalist trappings since this coding reads much closer to Kamala's own Muslim identity and the story even draws direct parallels between the two. While of course Pakastini and Arabic cultures are not the same and bear distinctions between each other, there is still some overlap between them especially through shared Islamic traditions, which is a huge deviation and contrast from the clearly all-American Flash Gordon versus the obviously Yellow-Peril inspired Ming the Merciless.

Lastly, in an interesting twist it's actually not the theocratic dictator which Kamala saves the planet Saffa from, but rather from the invading hordes of a rival alien empire who were mentioned in the the "Destined One" legend that the Saffans' believed Kamala was a part of. And the Saffan dictator, Maliq Zeer, who was previously built up in the narrative as the traditional final boss ends up putting aside his own evil agendas in order to prevent his planet's annihilation.

Plus, the entire story is focused on deconstructing the chosen one trope by examining how various other characters view Kamala as a hero, as well as her own struggles with this sort of glorification whilst still trying to protect others simply because its the right thing to do.

And while I've seen some people argue that the Saffan's "magic = Islam" which therefore "intrinsically roots violence in their beliefs and has such messed up connotations," it's outright stated or heavily implied in the Destined arc that that Maliq Zeer and his priest's version of the "Destined One" legend was a perversion of the planet's normal belief system to amass their own political power, which said dictator is willing to put aside when the Beast Legions from the legend return in the arc's climax. Heck, even the aforementioned "call for prayer" that Cheb Hura (Maliq Zeer's son and the leader of a band of rebel freedom fighters) mentioned previously was coded as something positive rather than negative since it was banned by the theocratic dictator.

So overall, I personally felt that while Saladin Ahmed’s Destined arc was playing with the “human saves alien civilization” narrative that was typical in old sci-fi serials like Flash Gordon, he simultaneously avoids a lot of the problematic white-savior and imperialist/orientalist tropes which also predominated those older stories due to Kamala’s own status as a Pakistani-American Muslim girl, the subverting of the tropes found in these kinds of narratives, as well as the overall framing around the Arab-coded alien civilization.

#kamala khan #ms marvel #magnificent ms marvel #saladin ahmed #marvel #comics #minkyu jung #flash gordon #mini essay

11 notes · View notes

ballwizard · 10 months

Text

speaking of plvaa we just started the final trial so thoughts on it so far before we actually get to the ending!! Under cut :-3

so overall the game has been VERY fun. bear in mind that I've been playing with octavius which makes games both more fun and funnier had I played them alone, so my opinion is a little rose-tinted a la having fun with my friend. HOWEVER. ive found the story and mysteries really fun and engaging!!! some of the twists have been pretty easy to call but i don't think that's necessarily bad? other than espella being bezella. that one is like comically obvious. but like the twist of both maya and layton being presumed dead?? that was fucking bonkers and i loved every minute of it (though it was obvious neither of them would 'stay dead'). i ALSO really liked the segment where Luke was a witness; it worked really well as a show of his character as well as a story beat. I'm always a sucker for distrust between good friends due to circumstances and it hit just the right pitch of desperation to be really really fun.

i think gameplay-wise it's a nice mix of both series, with the investigation portions taking after layton and the court parts taking after ace attorney (obviously). the hint coins in trials is a really nice mechanic & being thrust into an environment with new rules other than what seems most logical is a really fun way to play off the ace attorney format of solving cases.

I've had a running argument with otto that it's not actually magic and I'm genuinely excited to see how it goes. I still am convinced it's all just some incredibly convoluted plot a la unwound future or curious village or. any of the Layton games, but theres just enough doubt in my mind that it's compelling to consider. Im really excited to see how the final mysteries pan out...

visually the game looks pretty nice! though I do agree with the common sentiment that the styles clash a bit (every time we see phoenix in a cutscene surrounded by labyrinthians he looks SO out of place, or the one scene where phoenix and espella are talking and luke looks copy-pasted in). I would've loved to see the whole game in the Layton style, considering most NPCs trend that way anyways. It makes the more ace attorney-styled ones stick out like sore thumbs, like Greyerl and Mystere. Though it's so odd that most plot-important NPCs so far have been ace attorney styled, except for Kira? It caught me a bit off guard. But, even with the style mismatch, it still holds together.

I did want to talk about my disappointment with Greyerl though. Ive never been a fan of the 'secretly a girl/boy but posing as a different gender for REASONS!!' trope, more often than not because it's a) Easy to clock and not very interesting and b) Tends to lead into weird transphobic territory, a la "he's ACTUALLY a SHE?!?;?" or vice versa (or, in more annoying cases, like robin newman from dual destinies, flipping a switch in their behavior and suddenly presenting the complete opposite way. though i will admit i liked robin as a character). It kind of annoyed me with the whole thing. Either way, it was a smaller thing that didn't really impact my enjoyment all that much, but I still wanted to address in some way. I liked that Greyerl got to say it themself instead of being completely forcibly outed this time, but the whole thing with the unpinning of the hair was pretty dumb to me. I think their design could have stayed the same either way; an androgynous butler is not that strange of a character archetype, and makes way more sense than them just. Having extremely long hair somehow pinned up to make it look like a bowlcut. Blech. Whatever.

ANYWAY. This post is far too long already but I just wanted to close it out :-P TL:DR PLvAA has been a very fun and engaging experience so far and i hope and pray that it sticks the landing 😁👍💥‼️

#REALLY long ramble under cut. just my thoughts on the game so far #find later #<-so i can complete my thoughts when we finish

2 notes · View notes

shihalyfie · 2 years

Note

Something I'm curious to get your opinion on: I was reading a forum on With The Will on character archetypes, specifically on the "Sixth Ranger" trope in Digimon (like Hikari, Ken, Kouichi, Ikuto, Yuu, and Yuujin). There doesn't seem to be any consensus on who the sixth would be for Tamers; Ryou & Cyberdramon or Impmon. I use to say Ryou, but now I think Impmon fits best, since technically speaking Ryou isn't a Tamers character. I'm wondering what do you think.

The tl;dr answer: I don't think it has one in the first place.

The longer explanation: My stance towards things like archetypes is that one should make use of them "as long as they're helpful", and that it doesn't really help anything to get so obsessed with classifying the characters by archetype that you defeat the purpose of why you wanted to classify them to begin with. Archetypes help to compare characters, but if you're at the point of trying to force a square peg into a round hole just to say that this character counts as the archetype, at that point it might be better to accept that it was so outside the usual setup to begin with that it doesn't merit comparison. This is also why I tend to exclude Xros Wars a lot when trying to compare Digimon protagonist groups; it's not me wanting to be exclusionary, but rather me feeling that it wouldn't really be respecting Xros Wars' unique setup and way of organizing its characters if I tried to cram it into a structure it was deliberately made to not follow.

The concept of a "sixth ranger" comes from Super Sentai (and by extension Power Rangers), and it is undeniably true that Digimon's way of having teams with variations on the same power set takes a lot from Sentai, which is why situations like Hikari and Ken resemble the concept so much. But let's take a look at the explanation of "additional warrior" in the Sentai context as defined by Pixiv's wiki via the tenets you generally expect of one:

Was not present at the time of initial production announcement, or if they were, was not announced as part of the protagonist team

Usually shows up in the middle of the series in order to change things up once the tone has been set, although not always since it depends on toy sales schedule

Usually has different motives, origins, or powers from the original team

Usually causes some kind of drama dynamic with the rest of the team in terms of what happens when they try to integrate themself with them

…so as you can see, these tenets are looking at them in a broad, production-based or structural view instead of being too married to their role in the story. This is probably because Super Sentai has been running for so long with such variety in series that these kinds of production circumstances are the only thing these "additional warriors" have in common at this point. The concept has also carried over to Toei's magical girl series PreCure (known as "additional Cure"), with pretty much the exact same idea. But if you look at what's being suggested here with these points, the answer probably is Ryou; even if he's not originally from Tamers, the version seen in Tamers is functionally treated as a Tamers character, and in terms of having an ability set comparable in power and structure to the main cast, he checks off those boxes.

Obviously, that doesn't really make a lot of sense from a story perspective; as you said, Impmon has more relevance in Tamers' narrative, and this is what I think is an example of the limitations of trying to square-peg-round-hole an archetype and structure into something not built for it. Tamers already gets this with the question of who's the "rival"; I know people like to insist it's Ruki because she has a cold attitude and is associated with blue, but I think this also ignores the fact she never actually ends up establishing a particular dynamic with Takato in the way Jian does, and in the end the Tamers trio is really a trio (more on my ambivalent feelings about the "rival" concept here). And even with Ryou in play, unlike most Digimon media that's usually diligent about including their "additional warrior" in post-series merchandise, there's still quite a significant amount of modern Tamers merch that singles out the trio as a trio without anyone else, implying characters like Ryou and Impmon were more “guest helpers” than core members of their groups. So if you wanted my really honest answer about who the "sixth ranger" or "additional warrior" in Tamers is, it's that it simply doesn't have one nor does it have the Sentai structure to begin with to merit that comparison. Any potential response to this requires enough forcing that I feel it's missing the point.

On that note, I don't even feel like I agree with the concept of Yuu being of the sixth ranger/additional warrior archetype in Xros Wars either, considering he never truly "joined" the team until Hunters (where he was definitely announced in the initial production lineup). Xros Wars doesn't use the Sentai format to begin with. In fact, I get the impression Xros Wars is more significantly inspired by Toei's other series Kamen Rider (of which Xros Wars' head writer Sanjou Riku is known to have written some landmark entries of). I'll leave this more to the Rider experts reading this post to chip in on how they feel about it, but Rider doesn't typically use a "team" structure, with its individual Riders being more likely to simply have clashing ideologies of differing natures (there is a concept called the "Second Rider", which has had its own discourse, and its Xros Wars analogue would probably be Kiriha, but trying to force a comparison to Sentai would be messy because a Second Rider can be equivalent to a "rival" or an "additional warrior" depending on the series).

Personally, when I was a kid watching Digimon and wasn't incredibly good at analysis, I did make the observation "Digimon series really seem to like having a prominent character that starts off as an enemy but joins the protagonists later" (TV Tropes, invoking pro-wrestling lingo, calls this a "heel-face turn"). Even now, I find this to be more useful, because it's much more broad and less restrictive than the "sixth ranger" concept but still allows you to make ample comparisons between how each of these characters started off and under what circumstances they ended up turning. (In this case, the characters in question would be Tailmon, Ken, Impmon, Kouichi, Ikuto, all of Nene/Kiriha/Yuu but probably mostly Yuu, and Rei.) Even with characters who are clearly more of "sixth rangers" like Ken or Ikuto or Yuujin, the circumstances of how they join are often so different that comparisons aren't really all that useful and don't say as much about their characters. (Of course, this is just my way of seeing it to the very end, and I don't have any negative feelings about anyone else seeing more worth in it.)

#xm0c #shiha's ask box #digimon multi series talk

12 notes · View notes