#and again the reliable / unreliable narrator argument

[fideidefenswhore]

things that make you go hmmm.

[bestworstcase]

Your post re: Salem's attitudes towards magic got me thinking about "Why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans, when we can replace them with what they could never be?" from Lost Fable again. I'm finding it a little difficult to blame people for believing she thinks the current crop of humans are just inferior when the only subject on offer in that sentence is "these humans." Of course when you stop to think for two seconds why Salem says or does anything she does it makes total sense that her hangup is with the gods, but that just makes me wonder even more why write the script like that? How unreliable is the direct dialogue in Jinn's vision supposed to be taken vs. her narration? (The simplest read of that episode seems to be of course the narration is biased per the question asked, but otherwise it's a frame narrative for the flashbacks which may or may not be more objective portrayals of events. The fact that the characters are also physically witnessing these scenes means they can't be 100% objective I think, but still leaves open the question of what's skewed and by how much.)

Unreliable or not, it's just a surprisingly absolute statement to put in her mouth considering how often we're invited to question her motivations everywhere else.

i do take the dialogue in the lost fable to be accurate to what the characters said, perhaps with some smudginess if what we’re seeing is ozpin’s memories exactly – in which case the dialogue in scenes he wasn’t present for is suspect because it’s what he imagines was said based on what salem told him, and the rest is probably closely accurate paraphrase because no one could be expected to remember the exact wording of conversations from several thousand years ago! but even then i would expect the parts he was there for to be reliable enough. 

so much rides on the lost fable and specifically this one line that it would be beyond cheap for the resolution to be “she didn’t say that at all, actually.”

the first time i watched the lost fable, i did intuitively interpret that line as salem alluding to the gods – so i think there’s probably some degree of her statement reading as ambiguous or not ambiguous depending upon how one habitually uses the word “redeem.” specifically: how precise one is about the verb requiring an indirect object. 

to ‘redeem’ something means to take some action to settle a debt, or redress a wrongdoing, which—inherently—implies the presence of a creditor or wronged party. in some contexts, the implied creditor is only an abstraction (think “the city’s robust public transportation is its only redeeming quality”—redemption is used here in a figurative sense to mean that the one making the statement dislikes everything but the city’s transit system); and in casual speech it’s fairly common to leave off the indirect object if it isn’t necessary to identify the wronged party (think the common phrasing of “so-and-so redeems themself”).

but while it isn’t incorrect to drop the indirect object, necessarily, there always is an indirect object; it isn’t possible to redeem a debt or a wrong that doesn’t exist, nor to have a debt without a creditor or a wrong without someone wronged. (as an aside, this is why redemption arc discourse tends to always be arguments about forgiveness—redemption does, inherently, definitionally, necessitate forgiveness—and this is also why i’m pedantic about differentiating ‘redemption arc’ vs ‘atonement arc’ vs ‘villain-to-hero arc’ and dislike the popular usage of redemption arc as an umbrella term.)

anyway, in simpler terms: when salem says “redeem these humans,” the apparent meaning of the next clause depends on whether or not one is predisposed to hear that phrase as a clipping and mentally append the implied indirect object, which makes her complete statement “why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans [from my sin in the eyes of the gods] when we could replace them with what they could never be?”

<- and then the question becomes, which “them” is she referring to? “these humans” or the gods who will judge whether redemption has been earned? her elision of the gods is entirely within the realm of common vernacular, and salem is a character who regularly circumlocutes (and earlier in the lost fable itself we have ozma’s quizzical “what are you saying?” signaling that salem’s speech is cryptic or confusing – because ozma doesn’t understand her; this is an intended trait versus the writers fumbling), and she says this in a moment of emotional distress (which she mostly bottles up, but while ozma is explaining all of this to her she’s leaning on the desk with her arms folded, listening intently – this is the same posture she has when she’s huddled in the shadows making herself miserable with conjurations of her children in 8.4).

so there’s quite a bit of weight here on the side of, “salem just discovered that her partner has been manipulating her into serving the gods she abhors throughout their entire relationship, she’s deeply shaken, she isn’t awesome at clearly articulating her thoughts in general; is it really surprising that she might misspeak to the tune of saying ‘them’ in reference to an (elided but necessarily implied) antecedent of ‘the gods’”

it (clearly) isn’t going to occur to most viewers as an obvious interpretation of the line, but i think it’s well within the bounds of what is reasonable for the narrative to later reveal that salem really meant this, particularly given how deliberate and how clear the storytelling themes are. definitely a risk, because some section of the audience is undoubtedly going to feel lied to and cry retcon, but rwby takes creative risks all the time.

and then there’s the ‘fairyales of remnant’ piece of it – the anthology is very much in dialogue with the lost fable across the board (on this see also ‘the two brothers’ presaging the thematic treatment of the brothers in v9, and ozpin’s paired commentaries on ‘the infinite man’ + ‘the girl in the tower’ being discussions of truth, propaganda, and forgiveness). so why does ‘the shallow sea’ begin like this:

Long ago, before the fish had scales, before the birds had feathers, and before the turtles had shells, when our god still walked and crawled and slithered the earth, there were only Humans and animals. (And Grimm. There have always been Grimm. There will always be Grimm. But those creatures don’t figure in this story, so just put them out of your mind, if you can.)

and end like this, after a story about the god of animals leading their chosen people to transform by submersion in magical waters, to the horror of those humans who refuse to change: 

From that moment on, there have been animals, Humans, and Faunus. And the descendants of the Humans who turned away from our god’s great gift have always carried envy in their hearts. To this day, they resent us for reminding them of what they are not and what they never can be.

humans and animals (and grimm) -> animals and humans and faunus, and the last line – the mythic explanation for human hatred of faunus – is a nearly direct repetition of the last thing salem says in the lost fable?

now obviously not everyone can be expected to read ancillary material like the fairytale anthology, and that’s why the shell game with the implied indirect object matters; but it is interesting that ‘the shallow sea’ is stated to be a very old oral tradition (one which “contains deep truths,” no less) and that it repeats that line in a context that is quite plainly not about genocide – but rather cultural pride in the face of intense, often violent, persecution. 

this story also 1. explicitly belongs to a closed tradition, and 2. is (obviously) one ozma knows despite there being no indication that he’s ever reincarnated as a faunus. which – together with the story’s age – adds up to at least the implication that it is possible he heard this story from salem, because the reasons she might be conversant in ancient faunus oral traditions are. well. obvious. 

…and if that’s so, then ‘the shallow sea’ as written in the fairytale anthology completely recontextualizes salem’s last statement in the lost fable as salem quoting from a faunus creation myth both she and ozma knew in order to express her rejection of the brothers’ mandate, which would 1. neatly explain why ozma seems to have understood exactly what she meant even though none of the lost fable witnesses picked up on it, and 2. provide an elegant and very simple opportunity to ease the general audience into this revelation by having a character in vacuo retell this myth, using that same closing line. you don’t even need to mention salem directly – the turn of phrase is memorable enough that a lot of viewers will go “…why does that sound eerily familiar” and that plants a seed for later. (or if you’re going for more of a sudden record scratch moment, salem is the one declaiming.)

from a character standpoint, it also makes a lot of sense for salem to respond to ozma in this way – his liking for stories is, one presumes, not a new thing that developed after the ozlem kingdom’s collapsed, and he also clearly isn’t just cynically using fairytales to deceive and manipulate – else he wouldn’t have apologized to the kids by referencing ‘the girl who fell through the world’ and comparing himself to alyx. stories are just important to him and part of how he communicates.

so if salem heard everything his god told him and then said “no, none of that matters, why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans when we could [paraphrases the conclusion of a story where the hateful envious people who refuse to change are simply sent home and not allowed to live in the harsh but free new world with the people who chose to embrace change]” – she made an effort to say what she meant in his language, and what she meant was either 1. figuratively associating the brothers with the envious humans who were sent home and “these humans” with the faunus who were now free to determine their own fates, or 2. “okay yeah these humans aren’t great, have you considered more faunus as a solution” (<- this would be extremely funny if it turns out the shallow sea is a more literal story than i think it is, but i think it’s much less likely).

more broadly, to the question of why the line is written that way – i can only speculate based on what i would be thinking in the writer’s shoes, and the overall structure of the narrative around salem – but i imagine the absoluteness is sort of the point. it’s meant to be a really shocking and frightening thing to hear coming out of her mouth, while also being, if you pause to think very precisely about what she said, quite plausible as a verbal stumble – the alternative antecedent of “the gods” for “them” is implied and eliding the indirect object of “redeem” is common vernacular – and then there’s this other possibility hinted in an ancillary text that she might have actually been quoting a story as a verbal shorthand both she and ozma understood. 

there’s a narrative expectation that the viewer will be right there with the kids making the same snap judgment about what salem meant – because i think the kids all absolutely did take this at face value as a statement of genocidal intent. the story itself is structured like a nesting doll such that each new revelation appears at a glance to be the whole story, but isn’t and in fact has large gaps and details that don’t add up which become glaringly obvious as soon as you reach the next layer and look back, but if you’re paying careful attention as you go it’s also quite possible to piece together the missing pieces. 

delivering information this way trains the audience (…mostly) to expect that the information we’re given is incomplete and maybe not wholly accurate. the advantage here is that even if the vast majority of the audience is completely blindsided by a specific reveal, for most viewers that’s going to feel really exciting – this happened in v9 with the lore reveals about the brothers, massive overnight reversal in the mainstream fandom views of darkness with the general mood being that it was cool – as opposed to feeling tricked or lied to by a “retcon.”

and that builds up a certain kind of trust, that the story is a puzzle but it isn’t going to cheat. it’s also a bit of a challenge or an invitation for the audience to try to figure out what’s coming, like a mystery.

with salem, i’d bet that one line in the lost fable is supposed to seem weirder and weirder the more you think about it, because… why doesn’t it track with anything she says before that point in the lost fable? why does the story begin with salem waxing poetic about humanity’s virtues? why does the narrative make such a big deal out of nobody knowing what salem wants AFTER the main characters witnessed a seemingly open-and-shut declaration of her “true” intention?

at the same time, the amount of explanation required to argue for an alternate interpretation – even if it’s really not complex or a reach – compared to the ease of just taking the statement exactly at face value, in and of itself is both a misdirection (most of the audience will take the path of least resistance, and hopefully enjoy the journey the story takes them on while leading them to the eventual right answer) and sort of the thesis with respect to the storytelling themes. salem thinks coolsville sucks!

but i am also very willing to consider (because of my own intuitive reaction to the line) that the writers perhaps did not mean for it to seem quite as unambiguous as the general audience and most of the fandom ended up taking it, because if you’re spending a lot of time immersed in a specifically theological context regarding redemption (which the writers probably would’ve been, given the importance of the religious narrative in the lost fable and in relation to this line in particular) – and if you’re also in the habit of being very precise and careful about how you phrase things (which is true of how rwby is written in general) – and if you’re writing what might be the most critical episode in a complicated puzzle box story, whose fulcrum is a red herring that is also meant to provide a clue to anyone who thinks to look at it more closely and with an open mind — then yeah i can see a scenario where the writers may have felt that the specific wording of salem’s statement was more ambiguous than it actually is. in which case the echo in ‘the shallow sea’ might have been a bit of an effort to correct course by giving the subset of fans invested enough to read the fairytales (<- the cohort most likely to be keen to unravel the puzzle) an additional hint. who knows.

[danganronpa-theories-v3]

Is Shuichi the mastermind of V3?

I've had a few thoughts about four chapters and Shuichi's involvement in them.

FIRST CHAPTER So, the first case had an unreliable narrator as Kaede. While playing the game for the first time, Shuichi felt like a really good and reliable guy to me but after analyzing the game again and looking at other people's theories, I think Shuichi might be strongly connected to the mastermind to the point of being one. A detail that strucks out about Shuichi is his parents being an actor and a screenwriter. This is important considering the game's ending. I believe it means there's a possibility of him having good acting skills and feeling comfortable being a character in a "fictional" world. In the first chapter, Shuichi had quite a few opportunities to notice what Kaede has been up to.

He leaves her around shotput balls, soon-to-become murder weapons.

He had an opportunity to see that the books were put in a very strange fashion.

Clearly, he withheld information about the cameras from everyone including Kaede for no obvious reason.

It is very possible he messed the cameras up in some way (https://www.tumblr.com/fit-artichoke8738/649993708004130816/problems-with-the-library-cameras-drv3-ch-1).

SECOND CHAPTER The most suspicious thing about the second chapter was the way Ryoma died. I suppose there's no arguments against Kirumi being the killer but did she kill Ryoma the way Shuichi said she did? https://youtu.be/HXuq50Bt6PE?t=341 - Monosuke here even touches on the topic of the cause of death although in the usual wacky way. Monosuke has a "slip-up" in which he says it was practically impossible to put the body in the piranha tank - you had to lean through the window and that would count as breaking the rules. All that when other characters emphasize that the trick would work only if someone carefully put the body in the piranha tank. Ryoma had a crack on his skull. Could Kirumi have killed him with one blow and leave his body without any other manipulations, and then someone decided to make things more interesting? Perhaps, to give Shuichi another chance to shine as a detective?

THIRD CHAPTER Korekiyo's behavior during the third trial was a bit suspicious. Korekiyo acted as if he didn't remember killing Angie or perhaps didn't do it at all. He was ready to prove his innocence till his dead sister persona told him to "admit defeat", otherwise he would probably try to defend himself further - and that's already after the Closing Argument! But he wasn't really nervous nor did he put much of a fight when the students suspected him in killing Tenko. You can say he simply realized he isn't going to be executed for this but obviously killing Tenko would make him the prime suspect in Angie's murder, especially if he knew he used the same floorboard to kill both of the girls. I think another thing a lot of people already noticed is that Korekiyo only asks about what would happen if there are two blackened after the second murder already happened. and he does it in front of everyone. And he doesn't even get the answer at that moment because Monokubs (seemingly) didn't expect this to happen at all - this to me outrules the possibility Kiyo asked about this before. Korekiyo also is the first one to say "We should investigate Tenko's death as well, just in case" after it's revealed only the Angie's killer is the blackened, basically asking to be outed as her murderer and possibly appreciated as one, with his genius seesaw trick and all. Before the Closing Argument, Shuichi says, "Kiyo..I want you to confess! No…I will force you to confess!". Sounds strange if we consider the possibility Kiyo might not have anything else to confess for.

FOURTH CHAPTER The 4th chapter… something tells me Shuichi had a hand in Miu's murder. One of the most suspicious things is how Kaito was the last to appear when everyone's logged out. He said, "What's this all about!? What was that body discovery announce-" when there was no body discovery announcement. It is EXTREMELY suspicious that he knew someone was dead beforehand. He even goes on to repeat that obvious lie, saying "when that body discovery announcement woke me up, I rushed over here". For some reason, Shuichi doesn't question this one. After Shuichi said he was going to reveal the culprit, Kokichi says, "Even if the culprit is Kaito?". Is Kaito the culprit?

@fit-artichoke8738 theorized about the possibility of Body Swapping (https://www.tumblr.com/fit-artichoke8738/648228491354144768/body-swapping-in-the-virtual-world-drv3-ch4). As far as I recall, Miu didn't specify at the beginning that you can log out as anyone, so that makes not mentioning that you can log in as anyone less improbable. https://youtu.be/LVrHupB88y4?t=2880 - In this sequence (Gonta bringing the bridge), we see events not only through Shuichi's perspective, something that the game didn't do very often. What was the reason for that? During the trial, Kokichi was quite angry at Gonta, pressuring him to make solid arguments to defend himself. Some people say Kokichi just wanted to kill everyone after he had the card key and saw what the "real world" was like. But he also said (in yellow, mind you) that he wants to live with his super angry sprite. If this line was genuine, then why would he pressure Gonta to defend himself so much? Perhaps because Kokichi thought that Gonta might not actually be the culprit?

This first line came after Miu explained everything. Isn't Gonta smart enough to at least listen to what Miu just told everyone? Maybe I'm wrong but this bit feels like someone putting on an act. The second line - and then again, Gonta questioned something that was explained a few seconds ago.

So these chapters have these questionable moments that make me think Shuichi has something to do with the game's mastermind if he isn't one to begin with.

[squarebracketsmileyface]

heyyyy if ur still doing songs: Reliable Narrator by Chase Petra is so Tim i just-

all of it. so. so tim. i need someone else to sob with me

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO okay I like this one, its fun. To me it kinda feels like if Jay kinda lost it and spiralled out of control about Tim, like, if Tim did something even slightly wrong Jay can't cope with it because his head's just full of Alex, so he goes off on Tim about him being an "unreliable narrator" or lying about things to him, both lies about general marble hornets stuff, but also lies about their relationship and Tim's intentions etc.

Anyway, read more thingymabob because this is a bit longer than it was meant to be

It kinda feels to me like a song for the end of the series, like, before the entry 80 fic i have planned where Jay dies and all that stuff. Like, when they have their argument and Jay shows up to Tim's house with the knife and all that. Like, he's accusing Tim of all sorts of things and Tim's questioning himself and realising that their relationship is basically over and he's trying to convince himself that that's okay and he doesn't need the "roses" (aka, like, a functional relationship and all the nice things that are meant to come with that) he spent so long trying to make it work, hoping it would work and they'd both make it out of Marble Hornets alive to see it work out.

The ignorance is bliss line works for that too. When Tim didn't know the extent of Jay's issues, and Jay didn't know the extent of Tim's, they could work fairly well together. The ignorance was bliss. But once they get to know who each other actually are ("actually are" a lot of it comes down to the operator fucking with them, like that voice message that got deleted and would probably have fixed a whole lot of things)

The less skin in the game like too. Tim was too far in already to just leave and stop fighting and go on living his life, and he'd probably also feel really guilty for leaving Jay even if he did decide to try and go back to living normally. Jay's already been abandoned and in his fear of it happening again, im not gonna like Jay could probably end up getting pretty manipulative about trying to get Tim to stay. Not maliciously, just in the way that he's terrified of being alone again and abandoned by someone he loves, so he'll say anything to make them stay, even if its hurtful or cruel.

The hit me where it hurts would probable be about exactly that, Jay would know exactly the things to say to hurt Tim the most. I get the feeling that accidentally Jay would say similar things to Tim as Alex said to him, but, like, twisted so that instead of being intended to drive Tim away (like alexs words were designed to) they'd be designed to try and make Tim not feel secure enough to leave. Because Jay isn't innocent in all this. With Alex he was definitely the one worse off and the victim in it (victim is the wrong word, but I cannot think of the right one, so i'm going with that for now, it's too harsh of a word i think? idk, anyway) but once Jay's in a healthy relationship, everything that kept his feelings safe when he was with Alex becomes kinda hurtful with Tim?

Idk if im explaining that well at all? I'm just putting my fears about relationships onto him, it doesn't need to make sense

ANYWAY

Idk what you thought of specifically, but I'd love to know cos damn it's a good song.

[nopenonoaaaahh]

Immaturity in The Summer I Turned Pretty

I think tsitp is really interesting, mostly because of the immaturity of the three main characters, and that leaks into the Fandom space as well. Each one of the characters is very immature at this current moment but in very different ways, and I really hope we'll get to see how they grow and mature next season.

First off we have Belly. Despite a lot of her actions I really like her mostly because of her space as an unreliable narrator. You have to read into scenes with a more precise lens because we're being fed false information as fact based on how Belly is feeling at the current moment. Which shows her maturity level. She is very insecure but also very self involved. She inflates her importance but often times in a negative way, which leads her to making these incredibly rash decisions and has her flip-flop on her feelings all the time cause she feels like she'll never get her chance again and tries to shield herself from hurt. With Conrad she never trusts his intentions because she's spent so long telling herself he is a fantasy that she can't trust he genuinely loves her or wants to be with her. And with Jeremiah you have kind of the opposite thing happening she never really entertained the idea until he brought it up so now she feels like she can always trust him to be there and love her despite the fact that he's been trying to move on.

With Jeremiah, he is competitive and overconfident. Belly's relationship with Conrad forces him to face both of those without him really wanting to. He does genuinely care for Belly but he gets jealous and scared that he won't be good enough because she's always been in love with Conrad. And it being Conrad just makes it worse for him, because we see that he's always felt overshadowed as the younger sibling and that Conrad was 'the golden boy'. We see with how he reacts to Cam. He is jealous, but he'd be willing to let her date him, barring a little teasing, because he wants her to be happy. But that doesn't happen with Conrad. The only reason he gave them his "blessing" is cause he didn't want to look pathetic. It's a competition and a way to prove he can truly win out over Conrad, and every time she chooses Conrad over him it's a hit to his ego. He wants Belly to be happy, but only if it's not with Conrad.

With Conrad his immaturity is shown in a very different way. Whereas Belly and Jeremiah are immature because of lack of experience and needing to learn, Conrad has had a lot of responsibility. Both of his parents aren't reliable. His dad's never around, and though I love Susannah, she is not flawless. She has a very common belief that you don't talk about hard things you plaster on a smile whether or not you're actually happy because you don't want to bring the people around you down. The problem with that is if you cannot express your emotions or how you're feeling you will either be completely unable to address and understand your feelings or you'll blow up. Conrad is immature in the way he refuses to address his feelings even when he's hurting people because he doesn't know how.

I just think it's really interesting to see especially how the Fandom reacts to it because a lot of us are immature in similar ways and we're going to relate to and care for the characters that act in ways we would.

Anyways I want to hear what other people think of this and any counter arguments to these ideas cause I really like analyzing these characters and their actions.

[horizon-verizon]

Since you published a post on this subject, I take advantage of it. What do you think of those who use / make use of this video of GOT lore, so the series more precisely, to prove the nature of the Nettles & Daemon relationship, as being undeniably sexual ! It's quite tiring I find, in addition to not being a real proof as many claim, and I'm curious to have your opinion on the matter ?

I actually had an argument with an apparently known DaemonxNettles shipper and fanfic writer named bohemiandreams99 on this POST. It’s in the comments. 

I write:

No the narrator of the piece of the video that you told me about, you say that it is Oberyn Martell? Before watching the video, I have to say that Oberyn this video (which I actually watched and even linked to on my own blog) is not an in-universe source. It is a playful exercise by the creators and voice actors in a different sort of frma narration just for narrating the Dance.

The problem with the video that you sent to me is that it is that Oberyn is not a historian nor was he there with Daemon and Nettles. Just as Mushroom wasn't.

I wouldn't call "Oberyn said it was true so it must be" evidence. Again, Oberyn wasn't there. If someone says something and it seems correct, doesn't make it true until we take context. Because that's how unreliable narration works, you take a lot of things other than "he said", "she said" to think about how they are a reliable source of info for what event/argument that are presenting.

My conclusions haven’t changed. 

I will only add that the narrators, like Stannis Baratheon, are narrating the story that they have been told how it went. 

Again, they were not even alive during the Dance. The people who were had many self-serving, misogynist, classist, etc. biases we would have to contextualize and inspect before we just go believing what they say: Mushroom, Septon Eustace, Maester Mellos, Maester Orwyle, Maester Munkun, etc.

Oberyn is even less reliable and credible than all the Dance sources combined, for telling how things “really went”.

It’s also...questionable for Oberyn Martell to believe that Daemon would have an affair with Nettles and then think it that particular relationship an absolute good thing.

[mzannthropy]

My favourite scene from DJATS is still the "pick up your kid" one with Camila and Billy. Also the balcony one with Camila and Billy. In a show that's all about a rock band, I seem to prefer the non-band parts.

Also bc Sam Claflin is the reason I knew DJATS existed in the first place. Had he not been cast, it's unlikely I would ever have picked up the book. (I'd read a book from music/entertainment industry setting, but, like, contemporary.) What I saw from him on this show was some of his best acting. And that definitely includes the above mentioned scenes. Apparently, when Sam and Camila Morrone were doing a test of the pick-up-your-kid scene, TJR was there and it moved her so much, she said: "I don't care if he can sing, give him the role." All the Billy and Camila scenes felt were organic and natural, which I can't say about Billy's scenes with Daisy. The scenes in which they worked together, maybe, but not the ones the writers were shoving down the viewers' throats in order to make us see what an amazing cONneCtIoN they had. That argument after the press conference is the worst offender. Gods, it was so awful and so forced, it was as if they were performing for the tabloid media. Nobody argues with their faces that close together. Therefore, I'm confident it never happened. Daisy was on drugs most of the time, she was pining for Billy, she's hardly reliable. Same with the look across the room when someone was talking about "soulmates" or whatever. It was just so stupid. (Unreliable narrator works both ways. Julia still has a product to sell. Dramatic licence. People want to hear the juicy stuff.)

Even the ending. A phonecall would have been enough, and would have honoured Camila's wish. But no, again, they had to beat the viewers over their heads with the D/B hammer, bc clearly they think we're all stupid and have no imagination. But then, many people are stupid and have no imagination...

Why the writers made these choices, whether they wanted to appease the D/B shippers, or are D/B shippers themselves, we might never know. My spicy take is that they had to, otherwise the story wouldn't work. A man with a wife like Camila and a daughter he loves is not going to leave his family for a junkie. But they wanted us to believe he would. That's why they had him relapse on the day of the Chicago concert.

But also, whatever I say doesn't matter. You do you. I'm not in this fandom and don't wish to be. I listen to the songs bc I like them and bc it's Sam singing (I had no idea prior to this he could sing). If more people discovered his talent, that's a good thing. Feel free to hit me up if you want recs. Peace out.

[aficionadoenthusiast]

tsoa IS a good book, even divorced from the iliad, and its a very emotional interpretation of the relationship between achilles and patroclus. But you cant fault someone being frustrated that for a majority of people, at the very least on this site, tsoa's interpretation is THE ONLY interpretation of the relationship between achilles and patroclus, because their only knowledge of the content of the iliad is what was said in tsoa. And Miller (purposely, and its not inherently a bad thing) made a lot of changes to better fit the narrative of what tsoa was trying to say: patroclus' worth was disminished (reliable narrator... unreliable narrator... the text is still the text) to emphasize his adoration of achilles, and it was effective! But the frustration comes from the constant lack of awareness people have of the distinctions between patroclus' modern portrayal (which is not entirely Miller and tsoa's fault: hades game and now, the holding achilles play also portray achilles' and patroclus dynamic in a similar way as tsoa) and how patroclus, and achilles for that matter, are in the actual iliad.

There is also thetis, and while I am not here to judge Miller's antagonizing of thetis in her book (which again, fit the narrative), you have to admit it is a bit saddening to see thesis constantly villainized without distinction wheras thetis in the iliad, had no actual ill toward patroclus, her most defining interactions with him being her weeping with her son on the shore while hes holding patroclus' body, and her giving patroclus the nectar and ambrosia of gods to keep his body from decomposing. Her relationships with both her son and husband were also "healthier" as she embody maternal love as her narrative role in the iliad.

Lastly, I think it all just comes down to tastes: while I do appreciate the soft and dramatic, almost forbidden, yearning of tsoa, I think I would enjoy it more if it was a more casual, unquestionned kind of love, the one you dont really think about until it is violently and tragically taken from you. After all, gay relationships are as diverse as any relationships. And I feel this one lacks representation, not just for achilles and patroclus, but just in general.

I apologize for the essay, this is not meant to be an attack nor a lesson, just to offer an argument from another point of view. A plesant day or night to you

hi anon! this is the post they're talking about for anyone interested.

first off, i want to say thank you for being respectful. when i opened this ask, i was honestly expecting something way worse just based on the tsoa hate i've seen.

second, when i say tsoa hate, i'm not talking about people who are frustrated that the majority of the iliad retelling content is tsoa or the people who just didn't like the book. that's fine; everyone's entitled to their opinion, and i don't expect everyone to love the book as much as i did, and, honestly, i can understand the frustration (though i generally am only looking for tsoa stuff)

everything you said is very true, but the hate i'm talking about are the people who are straight up blaming madeline miller and tsoa for everything wrong with all modern portrayals of the iliad. i won't link any of it because i don't want people who see this to click on the links just to spread hate, but believe me when i say there is a ton of it, and most of it is full of toxic masculinity, almost none of it as tagged as hate or anti, most of it mentions achilles and/or patroclus as 'soft uwu gays', all of it tags just 'tsoa' or 'patrochilles' so anyone looking for tsoa content has to see it, and all of it hates on miller for being uneducated for bullshit reasons.

the 'soft uwu gays' is the thing that really bothers me. (look up 'soft uwu tsoa' to find some of it if you want to see what i'm talking about.) hating the book is fine! like i said, not everyone's gonna have the same opinion on the book as i did. but ignoring the whole message of the book to instead prioritize traditional ideas of masculinity, and then to act like the book is feeding into a gay stereotype by making the two of them loving partners? that is straight up homophobia and sexism.

besides, the book is a retelling. it is not gonna be the same as the iliad, and that's how it's supposed to be. the point is to offer new perspectives on old stories.

i will admit that the tsoa fans that act like it's just another version of the iliad and can be taken as a substitute for the iliad are annoying and wrong. there are indeed many differences.

(reiterating: no hate on you! you were incredibly respectful and made very good points, and i'm not trying to call out everyone who didn't like tsoa! just the ones who can't figure out how to hate respectfully or have a conversation instead of an accusation match)

for the unreliable narrator thing, that is a big deal imo. if the narrator is unreliable, there is nothing in the book you can trust. in this case, the part you can't trust is patroclus' true role in the fighting as well as the real level of badassery between the two of them. like i said in the original post, the book was purposefully written to leave out a lot of the fighting because she wanted to highlight the duality of warriors, but the soldiering side is already known from the iliad which left madeline miller to speak on the loving side of patroclus and achilles via patroclus' perspective and narration.

as for thetis, i'm not gonna lie, i have not yet read the iliad, but i have read excerpts, summaries, and i have studied it (i just lost so much credibility but it's fine), so i can't speak on her tsoa portrayal (though i will say that i have never acted like tsoa is canon iliad). what i can speak on is growing up with controlling parents. i'll just leave it at it fucking sucks. although, it would have been cool to see a supportive thetis!

thanks for the ask! and, again, most of this doesn't apply to you! you were very respectful, and you had very good points!

have a good day or whatever time it is where you are!

edit: i took out the first reference to canon relating to the iliad. see notes for more info.

[knowlesian]

like the research nerd i am, i decided to get together all the evidence (aka: all the scenes where izzy and ed talk about death, stede’s or otherwise, since you always need the whole data set on this kind of thing to sort out the answer) to try to suss out if the text tells us whether izzy knows about ed’s fine line on killing.

just to make it easy on myself, i’ll start with breaking down the scenes first, in order from e3-6.

e3 - 

- izzy asks if “we” should attack/kill/feed to the sharks stede and co; this could imply ed would take part, but it could also mean the rest of the crew sans ed, so inconclusive.

e4 - 

- the talking tough way ed mentions the spaniards dying seems a bit odd if izzy knows ed never kills directly/feels morally weird about the subject, but also inconclusive.

- “what’s the plan”/“the ushze” conversation about the revenge’s crew is again on the ambiguous end; it doesn’t really give us much on who would be doing the executing.

- until a little later! when izzy casually orders ivan and fang to kill the crew for him. this doesn’t give us much re: ed, but it does show izzy offloads his own killing as well and isn’t the Ship Executioner as a matter of course.

- during their first conversation about stealing stede’s identity ed implies he’ll be doing the killing, and izzy doesn’t appear to assume otherwise/show any surprise or shock ed would break a decades-long rule.

(which to me is the first potentially slam dunk piece of evidence: the natural response to finding out something like that would be anything but easy acceptance, if izzy was aware this would be the severest of breaks in pattern for ed. it’s like... we all have that one friend who orders the same thing every single time they go to a restaurant, and if they ever switch it up people go OH SHIT, THO. this is more than that— this is like a lifelong vegan ordering a whole rack of ribs without warning. essentially: when you know somebody’s rock-solid established patterns and they up and break one, you don’t go yeah sure okay. i have no shock.)

e5 -

- ed tells fang to kill the french captain for him and again there’s no shock or indication this is unusual, so it’s definitely not just izzy doing ed’s killing either way.

e6- 

- opens with izzy’s internal monologue that after two weeks of spending 24/7 living up each other’s assholes he’s “beginning to suspect” ed himself isn’t going to kill stede. which seems odd, if izzy has any idea ed doesn’t kill— why would he be surprised ed’s getting cold feet at all? and if it took him two weeks to be like, wait. ed’s maybe NOT gonna kill this guy??? even though he knew killing was a line for ed, that seems a weird way to say that/approach this situation. 

(on a formatting note: the fact that this is the single moment of internal thoughts given as voiceover/monologue on the series— eta, forgot about mary! overall point stands, but accuracy!!! refining arguments is always best. this is also interesting since stede’s narration is given via his narration to lucius in-world which makes mary and izzy the unreliable/reliable no in-world explanation for the monologuing pair, anyway back to the action— and worth thinking deeper about. the writers made sure to establish even in the privacy of his own head, izzy isn’t thinking to himself anything but ‘huh. maybe ed... isn’t going to do it????’ and that it took him literally two weeks to suss out ed’s flirting, not getting ready to do a murder. 

they also juxtapose the monologue with ed being obviously flirty and enjoying himself— so obviously that Fang and Ivan can see it—  so on the emotional intelligence/reading the room and seeing things he doesn’t want to see side: if izzy’s been with ed for years and it took him two weeks to notice ed was playing footsie vs plotting murder, that’s another mark against the idea that he can read ed like a book.)

- then we get a direct line into the scene where izzy tells ivan and fang ed is for sure gonna kill stede, he promised. so unless we’re meant to take away that izzy is aware this would be huge for ed and is simultaneously not running cover/setting up things to pressure ed before he ever offers to do it himself (or even thinks he’ll have to!) this feels like more evidence he has no idea. (because the use of internal monologue just told us izzy isn’t lying to ivan and fang here: he 100% expects ed to do it, and not that he’ll want or need izzy to step in.)

- which leads into izzy bringing ivan and fang in to push ed. (and being a bit of an unreliable narrator once again, as he speaks for ivan and fang despite the earlier scene where they push back on him and don’t agree with his desire move ed along.) if we read in that izzy knows ed doesn’t kill, this positions izzy as the kind of skilled manipulator that just doesn’t scan with the rest of what we see from him. the kind of sneaky/fucked up you have to be to know ed’s line here and only implicitly threaten that image while also bringing in fang to remind ed about the dog doesn’t fit with izzy’s blaring sirens/neon sign mode of persuasion. izzy sort of just says FUCKIN DO THE FUCKIN THING I WANT! FUCK!!! he’s not a sneak around corners dude. if izzy 100% thinks ed kills people then this is a scene of him getting more and more impatient about annoying foot dragging.

- then we get to: “i’ll happily end it.” / “no, it’s my mess. i’ll do it.” izzy only volunteers to kill stede for ed after two weeks of waiting and after pulling in ivan and fang and still getting nothing, and again he expresses no surprise or doubt at ed’s continued promises he doesn't need the assist, either verbally or physically. 

(this is also the only time izzy offers to kill for edward, in the entire run of the show, outside “you’re not doing this. so i must” before the duel begins. izzy says over and over he absolutely expects ed to kill and isn’t assuming it would be hard or a break from pattern, and only once in ten whole episodes offers to do it for him. these are very careful writers: i can’t imagine this is a mistake.)

- this is immediately followed in the same conversation by izzy saying “send him to doggy heaven” as a followup to the offer which... again, as ever, makes me die laughing. but also shows us: izzy still has zero real doubts ed himself is gonna do this, and has once again not acted like somebody who thinks this is hard for ed, or a change in pattern. he offered, but by the end of the conversation izzy is back to: yeah, of course ed will do it.

so, my baseline argument: just given what we see in the text, it seems far more likely izzy doesn’t know ed doesn’t kill. 

it’s either that or he’s somehow aware but not in any way confused/shocked/even vaguely suspicious that ed is changing this long-held rule out of nowhere, and is comfortable using it against ed despite knowing in a way that positions him as more of a manipulator and not just a guy trying to hurry ed along and get rid of stede, already. 

beyond that izzy never mentions ed’s choice not to directly kill a single time, even in his own brain or when telling ed he wishes he was dead in the finale; it seems a huge writing oversight to leave that out, if izzy is trying to provoke ed and/or prove his worth while enforcing what he assumes is ed’s natural state. if izzy understands ed is not actually that legend and in fact uses the legend to keep people from noticing what’s behind it on a practical level, shoving the legend in his face and saying it’s all ed is doesn’t scan.

and what’s more, we know ed has put on a good pirate show. he’s cut off toes before, he's maimed people, and he takes parts in raids just like everybody else: to be blunt, there are a hell of a lot of ways to hurt people reeeeeal bad without directly killing them. if you shoot or stab or whack somebody real hard and leave them there and they die like, twenty minutes later when you’re already gone, that suits ed’s definition of not killing just fine. there’s a lot of hard to notice ground between ‘leaves to die’ and ‘doesn’t kill’.

which leads me into the human nature argument, and the fact that the show establishes ed is the kind of person who thinks about how to conjure and use fear to control people, and thus needs to understand people in order to accurately assess their fears. on ed’s side, if you make yourself known to be the sort of man who cuts off poor bastards’ toes for a laugh or sets ships aflame and all that, people don’t ask themselves: wait, does this guy kill people though? 

it’s part of why we have the whole ‘but he seemed like such a nice/quiet/etc guy!’ trope whenever somebody does some fucked up shit. most people don’t notice a lot happening around them, because they aren’t looking for it and don’t expect to see it. people fail to notice things on the scale from infidelity to a serial murder habit in their intimate circles alllll the time.

and then on izzy’s side, we are shown a real lack of emotional intelligence and/or social observational skills over and over. it takes him two whole weeks to even begin to suspect ed doesn’t want to kill stede at all, he can’t really improvise or adapt to any sort of situation that breaks with his expectations of how things should go, he can’t manage the crew the second ed isn’t around (pre-canon and in canon) or tell a mutiny is brewing even though everyone but pete disappears to go plan it, he can’t stop said mutiny once in progress, etc etc etc.

he’s also built up an image of ed that isn’t about who ed actually is, and then built his own career and image around being Blackbeard’s First Mate. we really have to think of things from izzy’s perspective: blackbeard is a legendary pirate, izzy came into his service when he was already a legend, and izzy’s concepts of the world do not seem to include “it’s cool if you don’t like to kill people”. we are given absolutely zero evidence izzy would consider that anything but a sign of horrifying weakness, and lots of evidence he thinks ed is someone who does kill.

given all the evidence, everything we know of izzy’s character and how he processes the world/ed, and the fact that these are very good writers who know human nature and how to craft a story, i would say with a fair amount of certainty it’s more likely izzy has no idea ed draws that line.

[rosewind2007]

Murderbot and eyelashes…

So in Artificial Condition ART suggests (you know, the way friends do) that it hack a couple of centimeters of length out of our SecUnit’s arms and legs.

This is something Martha Wells is a little bit uncertain about, is it 2cm from each limb or 2cm overall the texts are:

SecUnit modifications:

“After a lot of argument, we agreed the easiest change for the best result was to take two centimeters of length out of my legs and arms. It doesn’t sound like a big change, but it meant my physical proportions would no longer match Unit standard.”

Artificial Condition

“My friend ART had changed my configuration, removing up to a centimeter from my arms and legs so I wouldn’t match a scan for SecUnit standard body shape.”

Exit Strategy

But, hey: unreliable narrator/unreliable author? Does it matter (yes, yes it does but possibly only to me).

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, EYELASHES!

“Then ART said we also needed to change the code controlling my organic parts, so they could grow hair.

My first reaction to that was no fucking way.

I had hair on my head, and eyebrows;

that was a part of SecUnit configuration that was shared with sexbots, though the code controlling it kept SecUnit head hair short to keep it from interfering with the armor.”

Hair on head and eyebrows (which BTW get a whole lot more mentions than most human attributes, Mensah is the master of the pointed eyebrow)…no mention of eyelashes. Which is just rather weird in that I don’t include eyelashes in with eyebrows or head hair… And eyes without eyelashes (as with individuals with alopecia universalis such as Tómas Lemarquis) are quite distinctive (also see eyelash loss in people with madarosis, milphosis (a falling out of the eyelashes), alopecia adnata (an underdevelopment of the eyelashes), and hypotrichosis (a reduction in hair numbers).

Some people apparently don’t notice eyelashes? I think ART would argue with you (ART had done some analysis and come up with a list of biological features that humans might notice subliminally. Hair was the only one we could change my underlying code to create). So does Martha Wells just not mention eyelashes? It’s strange that an author who is thinking about the subliminal response of humans to “the fine, sparse hair humans had on parts of their skin” and who mentions head hair and eyebrows DOESN’T mention eyelashes? I means she literally writes:

“I had hair on my head, and eyebrows; that was a part of SecUnit configuration that was shared with sexbots…”

Is this just Murderbot not mentioning its eyelashes because they make it think of ComfortUnits (which is the preferred term, thank you MB)? That’s actually feasible, it does get really touchy about that, like when Gurathin asks why it doesn’t like them looking at it:

My jaw was so tight it triggered a performance reliability alert in my feed. I said, “You don’t need to look at me. I’m not a sexbot.”

Ratthi made a noise, half sigh, half snort of exasperation. It wasn’t directed at me. He said, “Gurathin, I told you. It’s shy.”

Which is another one of those situations where…really Ratthi? (I love Ratthi, but sometimes)

So eyelashes?

Does Murderbot simply not have them until ART modifies its code? Possible-yes most people would this (there is a huge eyelash focused cosmetic industry based on this) BUT considering we get a lot of “I didn’t even know it had a face!” reacts, or “I’ve never seen one out of armor. They really do look human.” so I guess this is plausible?

Or does Murderbot have beautiful long eyelashes which it hate hates hates so much that it doesn’t mention them, associating them with “the other constructs” which is doesn’t even like to think about or name? Also feasible.

Or from a Doylist perspective did Martha Wells just forget we have these cilia around our eyes? Possible? Seems odd in a section all about the subliminal human response to things like vellum hairs? Did Martha Wells just think it was an extra detail that was unnecessary? Again: seems odd in a section about SecUnit appearance. But hey, she forgot who Tapan was, those 2cms are a bit random and there are the feet… I find the Doylist “the author forgot” a bit dismissive, anyway WHY did they forget.

So: what do you think?

[snicketstrange]

The secret meeting at Hospital H

THH ... How intriguing this book is for theorists like me.  We have a library with a lot of information.  We have the revelation about the SB theft.  And we have the information that a person loved by Lemony died in a terrible fire on afternoon.  Or at least that's what Lemony believed at the time he wrote THH.

Let me reignite the flames of one of asoue's main controversies a little, and I would say one of the most important: Is Lemony Snicket a reliable narrator?

Well, surprisingly we have Daniel Handler's confirmation that Lemony is not a reliable narrator.  This is very important information from the author himself.

However, this leaves theorists with more problems than solutions.  If Lemony is unreliable, does that mean he lies on purpose? And before I think the answer to that is yes or no, I can say that the most sensible answer (without making an assessment of the text itself, but of the statement) is that it is not necessarily so.

Let me cite an example of Brazilian literature in a book called Dom Casmurro. The narrator is the main character. He categorically states that his wife betrayed him. It provides evidence that for it sufficient, but an attentive reader will soon realize that the evidence presented are not conclusive, and all can be explained as misunderstandings. But the question is: did she betray him or not? The answer is that it can not be sure, and that was what the author wanted. To this day people argue about it, and no one has achieved a definitive answer, despite the statister's statements. The narrator is unreliable, not because he wants to fool the reader, but because he makes statements that they simply are not necessarily true even though he believing them.

Now let's think about Lemony Snicket.  The main argument that serves as evidence that Lemony is an unreliable narrator is that he sometimes contradicts himself.  After all, either Beatrice died one morning, or she died one afternoon, or she didn't even die.  Either Kit Snicket died on the island during the time when the Buadelaires children were there, or she was alive at the time of the publication of the books.  But if we take into account the evidence that Lemony spent years writing his books, there is a possibility that these contradictions are caused by Lemony's access to new information, which led him to complete other things as he published his books.  The fact that he contradicts himself only underscores the value he gave to the truth: when he himself realized that he had been wrong in some detail, he was not ashamed to clarify some details.  We can say that, based on this logic, when Lemony wrote THH, he believed that Beatrice had died on a different occasion from the fire in her house.  Although this statement itself cannot be substantiated, due to the unreliable nature of the narrator (who may be mistaken again regarding Beatrice's death) it does mean that Lemony had access to information that made him believe that Beatrice survived the fire  from her house.

(Of course the credibility of these possible information can also be contested). Still, it's good to ask ourselves, "Why did Lemony change his mind?"

We can say that there are two canonical moments that can indicate the reasons why Lemony changed her opinion.  One of these reasons I have always defended, and I will not dwell here: The masquerade ball at which Lemony was captured took place after the publication of TRR.  And TRR was published years after the main events described in asoue.  Whether Beatrice was actually there or not is a good question, after all it may have been a scheme to attract and capture Lemony.(better than a costume party to disguise yourself as someone else).

But still we have proof that Lemony believed that Beatrice could have survived for many years after the fire at her house.

But, while he was writing THH, he believed that Beatrice had died at some point after that, at some time when a suspicious typewriter was involved (as indicated in the three-part art that describes what happened to Beatrice).

The other and canonical evidence is the list of patients in the form of anagrams contained in THH. I always believed that the names on this list were fourth wall breaks. As Dante said, it would be unlikely that a great disaster in Vfd make several people involved with VFD go to the same hospital at the same time. This convinced me at the time. But then, Roxy222 , in a game, created a more interesting theory. The list of patients containing Lemony Snicket Anagrams, Beatrice Baudelaire, Daniel Handler, Lisa Brown and others should not in fact be a list of true patients. According to Roxy, VFD must have marked some secret meeting at the hospital that day, and the list of patients would actually be a list of people present for that meeting.

It makes a lot of sense.   Hospital H had a library linked to VFD.  Information related to VFD arrived in physical media, which indicates that someone personally took it there.  Due to the confidential nature of these messages (not even Hal could read them in detail) it is to be expected that the messengers were people connected to VFD or animals connected to VFD.  It is not difficult to imagine the hospital as a meeting place.

Second, there would be no reason for Count Olaf to simply write all those anagrams there.  It is quite possible that when he went to write Violet Baudelaire's anagram he simply came across a list of anagrams with names of his enemies.  He easily deduced that his enemies were around.   Although he did not deduce the names of each one, it was easy to see that those were anagrams of someone from VFD, and so he deduced that it could be some of his enemies.  This certainly served as an additional motivation for Olaf to start a fire in that hospital.

Third, there is my theory about how Lemony knew about events in detail, including secret Baudelaire meetings.  Klaus and Sunny decoded their sister's anagram in a room where only the two of them were.  Klaus disregarded anagrams that could not have been Violet's.  However, Lemony knows the names of these anagrams.  Although Klaus has an incredible memory, I think it is unlikely that he would write these names in the island book, on which Lemony based a good part of his writings according to my theory.  That list must have been destroyed in the fire.  So the information about the contents of the other names on the list must be something that Lemony Snicket himself already knew.  This is evidence that he was indeed there, that day, and that is why his name was there, in the form of an anagram, on that list.

This is evidence that Lemony did believe that Beatrice had survived her house fire when he published TRR.  (Although he started writing TBB before the fire at Hospital H, although he probably published it years later, as indicated in TBBRE).

[writing-for-life]

Yes to all of this.

What we also can’t forget is that we have a lot of unreliable narration in the Sandman, and for every story told before 1915, we simply cannot know if it gets told in the old or new reality. As in: If we’re getting told this story before Overture happened or after. Both is possible. Both changes the reading, if only in small ways. But it does, especially where it comes to his character.

As for how much he remembers: There are probably convincing arguments for both. I meanwhile lean more towards that he does remember. Because he very clearly remembers his failings regarding the first vortex. The whole of The Doll’s House hinges on that very fact. It is the very reason why he is willing to kill Rose with far less hesitation this time, even if it hurts him.

But yes, his memory could of course be fragmented, and above, he could simply refer to not killing the vortex soon enough without necessarily remembering his failings regarding the Mad Star he didn’t put out (I think simply not killing the vortex might be a memory shared in both cases, so not entirely conclusive). But I’m near convinced he remembers a lot more than his siblings. And I also can’t shake the feeling that he remembers that he and Desire worked together, and that it is not down to forgetting that he isn’t willing to acknowledge it, but rather down to his inherent inability to forgive what he perceives as a slight (I mean, even Desire seems to be certain he’ll remember but they’ll forget, which is confirmed in the epilogue for them, so maybe that’s a clue?). He’s not just the king of dreams, he’s also the king of pettiness 🤣 Because we have these panels:

He is absolutely appalled that Desire tricked him (despite them obviously having done the right thing, but our boy is just like that). And in the very next panel, he says:

I will not be angry but I will not forgive.

That’s the whole issue in my view. I think he might remember, but he is holding a grudge. And we know how bad he is at letting go of grudges.

And what else does he potentially remember? Does he have awareness that it is not him who finds/gives back the saeculum? He might get a hunch here:

But does he know here?

The above panel is not entirely conclusive in that way. Is he aware of these things, or are they just something that we, the readers, are aware of? Because if he were aware, it would add another layer to the whole thing again.

Glory in the later scene is maybe not entirely reliable either, and I think he might be proven as wrong as the Star Morpheus and Hope talk to before Hope is killed (the Star is also directly proven wrong by later events, especially in A Hope in Hell). Because “saying that” (“I am Hope”) does “change something”.

It’s all interpretation, and more than one reading is possible. He might have forgotten, he might not, we’ll probably never know for certain.

And I’m sorely reminded that I need to finish that Overture/Hope meta 😩

What would working for Morpheus/the Dreaming be like? Like, assuming people in the Waking world are allowed to just live in and work in the Dreaming?

Well, apparently, we work for him anyway if he feels so inclined and needs someone to serve food to his guests or something 🤣

I don’t know, it doesn’t look very fun to me from all I’m gathering. More like, “Surprise, you’re the lucky dreamer who can put food on the table tonight, so hop hop, off you go…”

Living in the Dreaming for any extended amount of time is not a good idea, as Alianora showed us, so you better make sure it’s really just on occasion, and that you get back to reality. Quite literally, because that’s the whole quandary—getting lost in dreams definitely always has heavy implications in the Sandman (see Dream Hunters).

But to do it on occasion could be fun? You wouldn’t need to worry about gravity or what makes sense. As long as serving him his bloomin’ salad isn’t all you get to do 🤣

@saiyanblood2 ask answered

[demonologist-in-denim]

Okay, let’s get into this, because I have put off talking about Crowley’s cut monologue from 12x23 for long enough. If you haven’t already, you can read it here, or in this great gifset.

I absolutely see why this was cut. And I’m only acknowledging it here to talk about why I not only think it doesn’t add anything to Crowley’s story or our understanding of him, but how it actually detracts from it. After that, I intend to ignore it and let it fade away into the ether of the spn fandom. That being said, deleted scenes and cut scripts live in a sort of canonical limbo – you can choose for yourself whether to accept them as canon, consider them glimpses from some alternative universe, or do away with them entirely. I’m choosing the latter in this instance.

(This was meant to be a post, but it turned into an essay.)

Whomever wrote this was either unfamiliar with Crowley as a character, or was intentionally twisting the character in such a way as to fit into the convenient narrative that removed him from the show. Blame it on Chuck in text, blame it on the showrunners outside of text, whatever your preference – this doesn’t read like Crowley.

There are very few parts of this monologue that felt in character, that read like something Crowley would say. Not just in the tone or the choice of words, but the openness of it. And that’s coming from someone who writes reformed and/or human Crowley, with his admittance to remorse and shame and love. In this cut script, he is uncharacteristically vulnerable, sharing self-reflections he would never have shared aloud at this point in his character development. His dialogue lacks the layers of meaning or deflection that Crowley would normally employ, that he employed everywhere else in the show, even when being emotionally vulnerable.

That’s not to say that Crowley didn’t think or feel these things – I will argue to the end of my days (in spn fandom) that after the cure, Crowley hated himself. He hated that he was alone and unloved. Some part of that was due to being a demon and the horrible, evil, messy things he’d done, and some of it he believed was due to his inherent lack of worth. And I think this monologue was written in part to have Crowley make that final confession out loud. Final because, if that’s the case and he’s willing to admit it – to his former enemies and now the only people he really has in his life – his story can only take one of two directions: redemption or death. Embrace the desire for change and move forward as a reformed demon and full Winchester ally, or dramatically (and unnecessarily) sacrifice himself.

And there is a way to write that, but with Crowley properly in character and with the emotional complexity we know him to possess, not this blatant declaration. Maybe the line would have worked depending on how Mark Sheppard played it, and it only falls so flat because it’s just a script – I’m willing to allow for that. But this moment, facing down the boys after letting Lucifer loose, in front of an audience of Mary Winchester that he doesn’t know well and isn’t comfortable with, it doesn’t feel like a moment for Crowley to be this open, this vulnerable, about something so personal and so monumental.

I’ve no doubt that Crowley expected the Winchesters would one day kill him, “for good this time.” He was a demon working alongside a pair of hunters; there was always going to be that risk. Crowley was intelligent, one of the smartest characters on the show. He had to know that was how things would play out – either that, or he would die on their behalf, or because of their actions, even if he had ended up leaving Hell and joining Team Free Will. That was what happened to people around the Winchesters. Crowley warned Kevin of that himself. “They use people up, and leave them to die bloody.” Crowley knew. And as he internalized more and more of his blood-born conscience, Crowley had to believe on some level that he deserved it, especially if he hated himself and what he’d done.

But once again, if Crowley was going to say something like that, that’s not how he’d say it. It would be as a dismissive aside, or a knife in Dean’s gut in a moment of intense emotion between the two of them, or as a rebuke that the Winchesters badly deserved. Or better yet, as something remarked between himself and Cas, who Crowley likely suspected would outlast him but also ultimately die in service of the Winchester cause. Words like those have power. And it’s unlike Crowley to lay them down in supplication like this. It doesn’t even feel like a heart-felt confession, like his monologue in 8x23. It reads like someone wrote what was meant to be under Crowley’s words, the intention behind his dialogue, the much-exalted subtext, but failed to add all the layers on top of it, to put it in actual character.

I’m just going to bundle the whole beginning of the monologue together and toss it out entirely. Firstly because I’ve argued more than once that Crowley is an unreliable narrator when it comes to his human life. What we know of it from Rowena comes with an agenda, and what we know of it from Gavin comes from a man who had a difficult relationship with his father. It’s about as reliable as young Dean telling stories to Sammy about their parents’ time together. And there’s canonical errors in this monologue to back that up – we know Crowley wasn’t buried in a pauper’s grave, because we saw it 6x04. The “dying in a puddle of his own sick” is a great detail in terms of storytelling, but it’s almost directly repeated from Rowena, who said it as a belittling comment to a young Fergus. It’s too forced. And we know at least Gavin came to the funeral, because he tells us so in a deleted scene in 12x13 (remember what I said about getting to pick and choose when it comes to cut scripts and deleted scenes?).

But more importantly – and this is the part that really grates – Crowley’s iteration of his human life reinforces the narrative of absolute morality in the spn universe. It supports the argument that if a character becomes a demon, it must be because they were a terrible person. There is no room for human flaws, for characters to have made mistakes – and that doesn’t just hinder characters in terms of backstory, but in character development and emotional growth moving forward. It’s a stance spn takes more than once, and especially with non-human characters, though never in regards to the Winchesters. The Winchesters can become soulless or demons, but they were “always good” before that, so they are deserving of redemption. If Crowley or other non-humans were “always bad,” that absolves the Winchesters from seeing them as people deserving of help, or of their ability to change, or even to be seen as beings deserving of any level of respect or agency. And it absolves the showrunners from writing a character capable of development, of being able to grow beyond their previous flaws.

That’s not to say that Fergus MacLeod wasn’t some or all of those things. But if he was a complex character – if he was a person, as all stories should aim to present their characters – then he was all of that and more, just as the Winchesters are their virtues and their faults all wrapped up in an individual person. And if Crowley had brought this up some other time, in reference to his human life, none of this discussion would be necessary. It would be easy to say: he’s an unreliable narrator, and this provides us with insight into how Crowley feels about himself, and it would be interesting and valuable. But here, it’s used in justification for Crowley’s status as irredeemable – which is not true – and as part of justification for what happens next.

Crowley’s death was written by the showrunners as an excuse to remove him from the show – attribute that to budget costs for the show, or running out of story ideas for Crowley, or creative laziness, whatever you want. And within spn, it can be attributed to Chuck not wanting another character like Cas muddling up his Winchester Brothersᵀᴹ grand narrative. I’ve written before both in posts and in fic about how Crowley’s character-central instinct for self-preservation crumbles into depression after losing Hell and the seemingly-irreversible depletion of his and Dean’s friendship in 12x23. And that this ushers in a desire to End in such a way that achieves revenge against Lucifer (not a significant motivation, in my opinion, you’ve got to outlive your enemies to win against them), earns him the appreciation of the Winchesters, saves the world (proving his capacity for good), and brings about an end to his waiting. Glory through death, redemption in death – tropes that are hard to associate with Crowley unless you buy into his character’s devolvement in the latter half of season 12, but which the writers do their best to smooth into place and the fandom was forced to choke down.

And I won’t argue that Crowley didn’t wanted an end to his waiting – I’d argue the opposite in fact. This blatant preference for suicide, however, is antithesis to everything Crowley. What Crowley wanted in that End wasn’t an end of himself, but an end to existing in a state of perpetual limbo. Be accepted by the good guys, embrace his more human aspects, or return to the full dark depravity of demonkind. An end to the emotional rollercoaster, to continuous and destructive self-doubt, to striving to be both the king Hell needed and the ally the Winchesters refused to admit they benefited from having. That’s entirely different than wanting to end himself. As much as Crowley hated himself, he would never have considered death to be a preferable option – not unless some outside force, be it Chuck or the spn showrunners, decided otherwise for him.

Even if that had been the case, and I am wrong about Crowley’s characterization and his motivations, I still do not think he would have been as open about that motivation as is written in this cut script. It is just not like him. It is too vulnerable, too self-pitying. Crowley was always concerned about the others around him, and especially the Winchesters, thinking less of him. He never would have said something like this to them, not as this is written. Nor would Crowley have gone to the Winchesters with the intention of them killing him. He might have known it was a possibility, once he confessed his actions, (and from his perspective, there was the chance the Winchesters didn’t know of his involvement in Lucifer’s escape anyway), but it would never have been his intention. It’s not unknown for Crowley to encourage abuse from those he’s wronged, and to revel in the attention and emotions of it (here I’m thinking specifically of Kevin beating him in 9x02), maybe considering the punishment just and due. And Crowley at this point likely suspected he would eventually meet his end in some way involving the Winchesters. But death by their hands in this moment would have involved none of the justifying benefits of death by his own hand only a few scenes later – glory, revenge, redemption, a sense of closure.

Compare this cut monologue and its potential death – at the hands of the Winchesters after confessing his role in Lucifer’s escape – to this cut line of dialogue from later in 12x23. “Tell Dean he was right – you bloody fools have rubbed off on me.” This is Crowley. This is emotional complexity, admittance to a change of heart, self-awareness, and a brave act of equal defiance and sacrifice, with his usual smug, snarky dismissal. This isn’t suicide brought on by depression, by an uncharacteristic vulnerability. It is resolved, determined, if reluctant. This is Crowley choosing the greater good and the boys, even if it means sacrificing himself.

For me, this small addition smooths over much of the unevenness in the showrunner’s attempts to justify Crowley’s death. He has lost Hell, he believes he’s had an irreversible falling out with Dean – all of which could be overcome, grown beyond. But then a rift opens, and Lucifer is an immediate danger, and it requires a life to save the day. Crowley knows it can’t be either of the boys – that tends to have world-ending effects – and it can’t be Mary Winchesters or Castiel, because of “Winchester man-pain.” So that leaves Crowley. And having exhausted all immediate alternatives, Crowley does what internalized Winchester logic and conscience tells him is right. It would still require a moment of hesitation, a moment we see him combatting his deeply imbedded trait of self-preservation. But at least that would have been in character and show definitive character growth on Crowley’s part.

So yes, I completely agree with the decision to cut this monologue in 12x23. It doesn’t tell us anything about Crowley that we don’t already know, and is uncharacteristic of him, and provides out-of-character justification for his actions that wasn’t needed. You don’t have to agree with me, obviously. And I’ll end this rather long rant of an essay by saying what I always say: that Crowley deserved better. He deserved better than the mangling of his character’s motivations in the latter half of season 12, and he deserved better than this monologue. I’m glad it was cut from the final script.

[thistlecatfics]

How do you feel about James threatening to take off Snape's underwear in front of a group of fellow students? And using that to try and coerce Lily into a date with him? I've seen different takes which included sexual assault (which isn't wrong by our standards, per se, including showing underwear in the first place) to teenage antics. Basically, how do you feel this action reflects on who James is as a person - ignoring the arguments of Marauders vs Snape being "justified" or not. 1/2

2. An aside, where does it say in book text that Mulciber used Levicorpus against Mary Macdonald? (I think I saw that in a discussion on meta here.) I can't find any part of the book that confirms what was actually done to her. For what it's worth, I tend to think of the characters all fighting a small war during the marauder era, and find "who bullied who" discussions pointless, especially in the later years.

First off - I cannot be entirely sure I did not send this ask to myself in a fevered state because this is exactly what has been bubbling around in my head for the past week. (so, uh, that is to say, thank you for the ask, anon.)

Second - everything we get about the marauder’s era is through 2+ unreliable narrators which is why it’s so fun! I just reread SWM and am going to offer a few potential interpretations. I’m very much open to more.

Rereading “Snape’s Worst Memory” right now, the first thing that stands out to me is that it is Snape’s memory but the details around James Potter and co are almost absurdly clear given that Snape is “as deeply immersed in the OWL paper as ever, which left Harry free to sit down on the grass between the beech and the bushes and watch the foursome under the tree.” It’s a little difficult for me to understand how everyone is situated but why are the details of MWPP’s conversation intelligible to him?

A few questions right from the start:

To what degree is Snape’s pensieve memory reliable?

To what degree should we see this as a school-based proxy war vs bullying?

To what degree is this moment an aberration vs typical?

“Snape reacted so fast it was as though he had been expecting an attack.” (hyper-vigilance, trauma-response, training, situational awareness, been listening in - lots of ways to read this)

“Students all around had turned to watch… some looked apprehensive, other entertained.” (everyone assumes something is about to happen)

The initial dialogue (grease marks on the parchment) feels super schoolyard bullying.

Scourgify - choking him, seen described as “waterboarding” very cogently though I’m still iffy on that, but we do know it’s very much the lizard brain not the thinking brain that reacts to that - you’re terrified of drowning like that, wizarding or not. It's quite a cruel thing to do.

“Leave him alone.”

“I will if you go out with me, Evans,” said James quickly. “Go on… go out with me and I’ll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.”

“Quickly!” is such a useless adverb! There are still so many ways of interpreting that! Quickly as in - he’s said this so many times he doesn’t have to think about it? Quickly as in - he’s not thinking and he says a stupid 16 year old thing which he regrets soon after? Quickly as in - this is fun, almost mutual banter? (doubtful as her earlier statement was said “coldly.”) But also like... what the fuck, James? What the actual fuck?

Ok then Sirius says “bad luck, Prongs” briskly, and Snape reaches his wand. Snape curses James with a spell that leaves a gash across his face “spattering his robes with blood.”

(to be fair to Snape, faces bleed super easily, and a shallow cut on the face will bleed just horribly as any rugby player will tell you.)

Then James sends him upside down. Everyone laughs, and even Lily’s “furious expression” “twitches.”

Then we get the Lily/Snape/James interaction bits - they’re fighting, James undoes the Levicorpus and then the Patrificus Totalus at Lily’s insistence, and then, famously, Snape says, “I don’t need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!”

Sirius gently mocks James “who looked furious now.”

And the scene concludes with:

“There was another flash of light, and Snape was one again hanging upside-down in the air.

‘Who wants to see me take off Snivelly’s pants?’”

Honestly rereading the chapter I was hoping for some clear insight, and my main reaction is that I have a renewed understanding for why there’s so much debate about this memory!

Without any context, the concluding moment, that James feels humiliated over a rejection by a girl, and he then physically restrains another man, shows off his underwear and threatens to take them off in front of a crowd, feels like standard issue sexual violence (in the sort of hazing/bullying type.)

In context, given that we know Snape and his friends are about to be (or already have been) inducted as Death Eaters, a process that involves murder, this feels like a school-based proxy war in a larger fight and while it might be sexualized violence, it’s not so outside the pale as it would be in our own high school context.

Alright now that I have thoroughly confused myself and gotten nowhere, let me focus on the actual questions given.

"Basically, how do you feel this action reflects on who James is as a person"

Badly! It reflects badly!

To me, I see him as your typical Social Justice Bro - he’ll say the right words, fight against the Baddies with genuine fervor, but he still very much sees women as prizes to be won in exchange for his good behavior.

This is SUCH a common type of person and the idea that Quidditch star, wealthy only child, brilliant Jame Potter falls into that trap is not surprising.

I see there being three options fans can take here:

This memory is accurate and representative: James Potter, like many men, fights on the good side but harbors misogynistic views and treats the women in his life like objects and is willing to use sexualized violence against others as a means of asserting his own masculinity.

This memory is accurate but not representative: This is the worst James Potter ever acted. He never behaved this way again. He apologized to Lily. He did his feminist reading. He worked on his own shit. (I think this is the one JKR wants us to take? But who knows and who cares with her.)

This memory is not accurate: Snape, being very smart and very highly motivated, like many people like him, has slowly and steadily edited his own memories to better fit into a narrative he feels comfortable with. (This explains why his recollections of the MWPP conversations are so accurate and unflattering and also why he seems to have done zero healing or maturing in the past 10 years and bullies children. He has been stewing in his own edited memories rather than healing and moving on.)

I can vibe with all of them, depending on what kind of story I want to write/read/imagine.

where does it say in book text that Mulciber used Levicorpus against Mary Macdonald?

It doesn’t. I think I remember the meta you’re referencing (I remember it being very good and interesting!)

“Mulciber! What do you see in him, Sev, he’s creepy! D’you know what he tried to do to Mary Macdonald the other day?”

…

“It was Dark Magic, and if you think that’s funny-”

It’s super vague in canon. I interpret it as an act of sexual violence, because that’s where my brain always goes, but it’s incredibly vague!

Anon, I hope you don’t think the fact I managed to write 1,000 words and weasel my way out of answering your questions means I don’t deeply appreciate them! I hope you have a stupendous evening <3 <3

[hamliet]

do you think jin guanyao had even a little bit of love for his son even though he killed him?

Well… I guess it depends on how you define love. I’ve spoken about this a bit before, here. 

In my opinion, yes, he did. It just seems consistent with his character that he would–that said, he does describe himself as being frightened to look at his son thanks to Rusong, you know, being the biological child of two siblings who had no idea they were related. Which is horrible, and Sect Leader Yao’s claim that the child was likely mentally impaired is actually not scientifically accurate. But even if he was, it doesn’t matter. Rusong was an innocent kid who deserved to live and I’m sad over his fate. 

In the post I linked, I spoke about how I think whatever happened to A-Song–which MXTX left deliberately vague–is likely in the middle. It probably wasn’t Jin Guangyao maliciously waiting and plotting for how to murder his own kid while framing an enemy sect leader, but neither was it likely “sect leader poisons his kid and Jin Guangyao was taken by surprise.” The person in the final version of the novel who conjectures that it was solely A-Yao’s nefarious plan is Sect Leader Yao, and he is about as unreliable of a narrator as you can get within this novel. 

Jin Guangyao is also a highly unreliable narrator (still more reliable than SLY though), but from the few incidents we do know the truth of, the truth is likely in the middle. He always acts surreptitiously rather than upfront confrontation, he tends to hurt the people he loves most (I mean, look at his list in the end chapters), and he only acts when he feels like he has to–but he does not have to respond how he does, which tends to be a deadly overreaction. Yay tragedy? -___-

Mo Xuanyu

Mo Xuanyu was kicked out of Koi Tower because of “his own doing” according to Wei Wuxian. At that point in time, WWX had all the reason in the world to blame one more crime on Jin Guangyao, so whatever he read in those letters MXY left behind (with no reason to lie) must have convinced him. I know there are debates, but I think to read MXY as completely innocent borders on misreading based on what we have in the text. 

Plus, Jin Guangyao had nothing to gain from banishing Mo Xuanyu–his level of cultivation was abysmally low, he was a cut-sleeve and timid–and we’ve never seen Jin Guangyao act out of sadism. He genuinely committed his crimes out of a belief that he had no choice (but he did have a choice, and that’s the tragic flaw of Jin Guangyao). 

That said, given what we know of the context–that Jin Guangyao had accidentally married his birth sister–it seems pretty in-character for Jin Guangyao to overreact and pretty out of character for Mo Xuanyu to do something extreme (but in-character to develop inappropriate feelings to the one person who’s been nice to him), and send his little brother to a terrible fate. 

Qin Su

He did not marry Qin Su out of a type of perversion, but to preserve himself and to preserve her. Her reputation would have gone the way of his mother’s, after all, if it came out they were pregnant with Rusong before they married. 

It was a bad situation. I still hold that Jin Guangyao’s decision to marry her but not touch her wasn’t the wrong thing to do inherently, but his sin was rather that he deceived her instead of telling her the truth. He claimed to truly care about her, and while we’ll never know, it’s also said that Qin Su is the one who insisted that she would marry him and who fell in love first, so it doesn’t seem far-fetched that this might be the case. 

Nie Mingjue

Nie Mingjue tried to kill him days before Jin Guangyao killed him. It’s not a coincidence they both wind up trapped in a coffin for 100 years: neither of them are morally better than the other (sorry Da-Ge, but righteousness without empathy isn’t righteousness). I mean, literally, if Lan Xichen hadn’t intervened Nie Mingjue would have killed Jin Guangyao, and because he would have done it in public doesn’t make it any more moral than Jin Guangyao poisoning him surreptitiously. But, we know that Jin Guangyao kept trying to improve their relationship until the moment Da-Ge called him the son of a whore, and then it was over. 

We also know he truly cared about Nie Mingjue at first. One of my forever-gripes about The Untamed is that it changed the ending of the Sunshot Campaign, because in the novel Jin Guangyao killed Wen Rouhan to spare Nie Mingjue, not Wei Wuxian. He would have had much to gain from killing Nie Mingjue in that moment, but he did not. He knew Nie Mingjue might well try to kill him in rage after saving him (which he did) but he saved him anyways. Plus, for all NMJ’s conjecture about how Meng Yao manipulated him, it was NMJ who took the time to notice him when Jin Guangyao didn’t notice he was watching, so much like Jin Guangyao, Nie Mingjue kinda sucks at personal responsibility. 

All that to say, Jin Guangyao probably did love A-Song in his narrow view of love that refused to utilize empathize as much as Nie Mingjue did. He empathized, learning where people were coming from but without understanding the point of empathy (i.e. “do unto others” or their lives are equal to his own). It’s this lack of understanding about the point of empathy that led to him killing A-Song: again, I expanded on this in the previous answer I linked to, but A-Song had a lot in common with his father in terms of their birth situation, and Jin Guangyao had always wanted to live regardless of how he was valued, so he should have extended the same desire to his son. 

The tragic irony of Jin Guangyao’s situation is that the man only ever wanted a family–to love and be loved–which most other characters were born into. (I know it’s a common argument that JGY wanted esteem, but he only ever directed said esteem towards trying to make his family love him.) However, in his quest to love and be loved, he misunderstood that he didn’t have to be perfect. He wasn’t unloved because he was the son of a prostitute. He was unloved because his father was a terrible person who was bound by his own privilege, and so Jin Guangyao assumed he needed to get that privilege to earn love when he absolutely did not. He had it through three characters who foil each other: Lan Xichen, Qin Su, and Mo Xuanyu. He could have had it through other characters as well (if he hadn’t kept trying to cater to society Nie Mingjue would have come around–it’s not like NMJ gave him no chances). He just refused to consider that love and privilege did not go hand-in-hand, and ironically often oppose each other. It’s no coincidence that Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji only find love when they’re against society, after all. 

Sigh. 

[mellowgelo]

Misconceptions about Walter White and Grey Matter

Everytime I see a post/video about Walter White’s backstory before the events of Breaking Bad, there’s always dozens of comments from people slagging off his former business partners, Gretchen and Elliott Schwartz. As far as I can see, a lot of the criticisms are completely unfounded. After finishing my 2nd rewatch of the series, I feel compelled to talk about and examine some of these criticisms

1: “Gretchen dumped Walt to fuck his best friend!!”

I mean, I don’t even know why I need to refute this one? In the restaurant scene with Walt and Gretchen, (’Peekaboo,’ 2.06) she clearly describes the events of their breakup: they were both staying at her family home one weekend until Gretchen caught him secretly packing his bags. She asked him what he was doing but he refused to explain and then simply left. 

In the scene, Gretchen asks 'did I dream all of that?!’ and Walt does not dispute her version of events. Pretty clearly, he was the one who ended their relationship.

2: “Gretchen was cheating on Walt with Elliott!!”

Again, I’m not sure why this has become such a prevalent idea? At no point does Walt accuse Gretchen of cheating on him (and you don’t think that if she had, he wouldn’t have brought it up during their argument?) and although he talks about Gretchen and Elliott bitterly several times in the series, the fact that they became a couple is never mentioned as the cause of his anger. It’s not specified when Gretchen and Elliott first became a couple or when they got married. Potentially, their relationship might have started years after Walt left the company. 

So...it’s not impossible? But there’s no facts to support this idea and Walt’s reactions to the couple don’t suggest that any infidelity took place.

3: “Gretchen and Elliot made their billion dollar company by stealing Walt’s ideas and cutting him out of the business!”

Okay, so this is the big one! The main cause of Walter’s grudge against his former colleagues! The first betrayal that set him on the path to eventually becoming Heisenberg!

And...it’s kind of bullshit.

He first accuses Gretchen of ‘cutting him out’ in Season 2, implying that some shady business deal took place which forced Walt out of the company and denied him his fair share of the profits. However, in ’Buyout’ (5.06) Walt seems to contradict this by telling Jesse that he chose to leave Grey Matter for ‘personal reasons’ and sold his share in the company for $5000. 

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, this was clearly a bad financial decision! But there’s no evidence of coercion or manipulation being used against Walt in this situation and as seen in point 1, he’d already begun severing ties to the company by breaking up with Gretchen. Much as he came to regret this choice later, it was a choice that he made freely.

But! What about Walter’s grand contributions to Grey Matter Technologies while he was there? He seems very eager to claim responsibility for the company’s success, telling Gretchen that they built their empire on his work. And in the penultimate episode ’Granite State’ (5.15) watching Gretchen and Elliott claim that his sole contribution to Grey Matter was providing the company name makes Walt furious. He clearly wants to be given the credit as the man who’s research turned a small grad school company into a billion dollar organisation.

But....is he really? 

Walt’s status as a brilliant chemist cannot be denied. Neither can the fact that before co-founding Grey Matter, he was a contributor to a Nobel Prize winning experiment! However, when he tells Jesse about his time with the company, he only mentions ‘potential’ and a few insignificant pending patents. Walt gives no specific examples of his achievements at Grey Matter, only vague references to ‘my work’ and ‘my research.’ What exactly is he taking credit for?

Moreover, by the time the series begins, it’s been approximately 20 years since Walter left Grey Matter. Is it really possible that a company this successful would still be riding the coattails of a man who hasn’t worked there in two decades?

None of this is to say that Walt didn’t provide crucial research during his time at Grey Matter, only that we have no idea what this work was. This missing information could just be a case of the writers not wanting to bog the show down with scientific jargon etc, but I think the lack of specific detail was a clue about Walt being an unreliable narrator.

4: “They only offered him the job because they feel bad for ripping him off!”

This is often linked with the previous argument, making the claim that they must have ripped him off back in the day because that’s why they offer him the job in Season 1, out of guilt. 

Walt certainly seems to think that this is their motivation. He describes Elliott’s job offer as ‘face-saving bullshit’ in ’Grey Matter’ (1.05) and directly accuses Gretchen of ‘waving her chequebook around like a magic wand’ to make amends for stealing his work. In both instances, he makes these accusations in a fit of anger, showing how much inner resentment he holds towards them both. However, as mentioned above, when he makes his speech to Jesse in ‘Buyout’ he places the blame on himself for leaving the company. In this scene, he is calm, suggesting that he is talking about his past more objectively than in his previous statements.

And then we have how Gretchen and Elliott react to him throughout the series.  When he attends Elliot’s birthday party, the atmosphere during their conversations is slightly awkward....but this is all coming from Walt’s end. When Walt and Skylar first arrive, Walt’s pleasantries are clearly forced but the Schwartzes look genuinely pleased to see him again. Walt is embarrassed by his cheap present of a Yum Good Ramen packet but Elliott is visibly moved by the momento of their college days. And when Walt and Elliott are alone reminiscing about their old professors, they’re both laughing enthusiastically and it’s the first time Walt looks comfortable ...until Elliott suggests that Walt come back to Grey Matter.

You would expect that if the Schwartzes had knowingly ripped off Walter’s research, or had an affair behind his back, there would be some embarrassment/shame from both of them upon seeing the man they screwed over at their party. In fact, you’d imagine they’d want to keep as much distance from him as possible! Why would they invite this man, this innocent victim of their manipulations, to their house where he could tell all their guests about how they ripped him off? 

As well as their behaviour, Walt’s reactions to Gretchen and Elliott don’t make sense either. After arriving at Elliott’s party, it’s clear that Skylar has met them both before, showing that the two couples have maintained contact throughout the years, and Skylar seems unaware of any bad blood between the trio. When Walt bumps into another former classmate, he introduces Walt to his friends as a co-founder of Grey Matter and encourages him to describe his role in the company. However, upon getting this perfect opportunity to brag, Walt only mentions how he came up with the company name. And although his cheery facade at the party is not very convincing, he still accepted the invitation to a party he knew he wouldn’t enjoy and does his level best to appear happy. Why would he bother to do all this for a couple who ripped him off so badly? Why did he not completely sever contact with them as soon as he left the company?

Walt’s resentment towards his college friends is clear to the viewer but Elliott and Gretchen seem oblivious to his anger. When Elliott floats the idea of working together, he asks ‘why not?’ and ‘what’s stopping us?’ When Gretchen calls Walt at the end of 1.05 encouraging him to take their offer, she assumes that his reluctance is due to their former romantic relationship, not because of any professional jealousy. And when Walt argues with her in 2.05, she is completely shocked to hear his version of events, furiously responding ‘that cannot be how you see it!’

Walter seems to hold Gretchen and Elliott responsible for ruining his life but they never show signs of guilty behaviour towards their former partner. Perhaps they are sociopaths who are incapable of feeling remorse...or perhaps they’ve done nothing to feel guilty about.

Conclusion

Apart from one flashback where Walt and Gretchen discuss the elements of a human body, we don’t see any of the events regarding the early days of Grey Matter firsthand. It’s all conveyed by characters discussing the past through their own potentially biased perspective and it’s impossible to regard either Walt, Gretchen or Elliott as a definitive source. However, as you can see from this post and my conclusions, a lot of information can be gleamed from reading between the lines and paying attention to what is not being said.

Given the lack of direct evidence, a lot of this debate comes down to whose perspective is more reliable and the series demonstrates over and over again that Walt is not a trustworthy person. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a single episode of the show that doesn’t show Walt telling at least one lie. Despite this, many fans who identify with Walt take his version of events at face value, without really examining how his arrogance and sense of victimhood have clouded his perspective.

After rewatching the show and getting a very different perspective on several characters a second time round, I’d encourage any fan of the show who strongly identified with Walter White to rewatch the series and this time, focus on getting into the heads of the characters he comes into conflict with. You might come away with a very different opinion. And a renewed sympathy.

Thanks for reading, this is my 1st post so any constructive criticism is welcome and any likes/reblogs would be very much appreciated :)