#and it's just ONE of more logical and satisfying solutions for this loop than what we got

[todaysanother]

Look. I loved LOVED lucifer series in general and I absolutely onboard with s6 deckerstar daughter and time travels cause I adore both this tropes, but the way it was handled....... that was unnecessary cruel and poor. I love good time loop ouroboros terminator style written tragedies that you can't avoid to happen, but that didn't make sense in lucifer. First of all RORY HAD WINGS ALL HER LIFE. If she was so angry at Lucifer and wanted revenge/answers so bad that she literally involuntary time traveled to get it, why couldn't she JUST FLY TO HELL AND CONFRONT HER DAD AT ANY POINT OF CHLOE'S LIFETIME? Makes no sense she didn't try to find him in her own timeline at least once, he's not hard to find, he's not hiding, Lucifer is literally in the first place you would go look for him - in HELL. No need to time travel for that, girl.

More than that, if they couldn't stop the time loop, they def could STAGE all her acts in it in order to have a good life together and still keep the story happening. Like, Lucifer would work part-time in hell (like Ame in heaven) an spend half of the time with his family on earth, and tell Rory what happened in s6 and what she did, so Rory would KNOW about her future and learn to control her powers sooner with her dad's help. Then when it's time Rory could time traveled back and simply ACT angry, so her parents would believe the story she told, how she never knew her father and how he just vanished and all of that (that is not true anymore or never ever was true at all). Yes, all of this is a little messed up, but it is still more logical and satisfying than the fact that Rory basically ruined her parents' and her own happy life on earth together for her character development arc, that she wouldn't need at the first place if she didn't do it.

[cephalofrog]

been playing rain world and thinking about saint again recently

full rain world spoilers below

I hate the "saint is the triple affirmative" interpretation. hate even more how it appears to have become the accepted truth in the fandom

first off, my dislike for this interpretation is not logical. it isn't something I can be convinced out of using canon evidence, because my reason for not interpreting the story this way is not evidence-based, it's because I don't find it to be a satisfying conclusion to the entire story of rain world.

but here's some rambling about logical reasons why it doesn't make sense anyway

if saint was created as the triple affirmative by sliver, that makes them extremely old - they came into existence LONG before spearmaster's campaign even started. if they came into existence with the purpose of ascending iterators, they sure took a long time to ascend any iterators - like okay, travel time and whatever, but you'd think they'd get at least one or two more before all the iterator comms break down entirely post-spearmaster. SM and hunter managed to get from SRS and NSH to the pebbs/moon area pretty quickly.

they also have fur, which seems to be an adaptation for the cold judging by the lizards in the campaign, despite the world not being cold at the point at which they were created. this could be easily explained by sliver just being very forward-thinking, but...

if sliver created saint, their entire triple affirmative thing comes across as incredibly thoughtless, which imo contrasts with sliver being forward-thinking enough to make saint immune to cold. like they finally created the magical rat that will ascend them all but didn't even think to send out a message beforehand like "hey guys I'm trying something new if I send out the triple affirmative and die right after this it worked and you should be visited by a flying green dude with an ascension beam at some point in the future"

there's also the thing of... wait so how does this whole iterator ascension work again? cause saint's timeline loops. after they ascend, they end up back in sky islands, with the iterators back where they were. this could be explained by "later playthrough loops aren't canon and pebbs and moon are ascended if you got em" but there's literally a specific gameplay mechanic - carrying stuff in your stomach between campaigns - meant to make it clear that the campaign is a loop.

anyway. the real reason I hate the theory isn't related to any of this - it's that it absolutely destroys pebbles and moon's story, thematically speaking.

sliver of straw's triple affirmative/death is a random event that could mean basically anything. the futility pebbles felt around trying to solve the great problem caused him to assign meaning to sliver's death that wasn't necessarily there - they found the solution, and it was self-destruction. that's what they were trying to tell everyone. it wasn't a random event, the triple affirmative was real. one of the bugs in the maze found the way out, and he's going to prove it to everyone by following them and escaping.

and that's what leads to the events of the main story. this random event - this horrible tragedy, the death of someone who seemed to mean so much to so many people - was assigned meaning by someone desperate to prove that his entire existence, and the existences of everyone around him, are not futile. the ancients created the iterators without knowing whether the answer to the great problem could ever be found, and this is the result of that.

a nihilistic, hopeless person, abandoned by his creators to work forever on an unsolvable problem, assigns meaning to a random tragedy, and tunnel visions on what he has to believe is what he's been looking for - because it is an unimaginable understatement to say that the alternative would be worse than death. and then, in his self-destructive desperation, he kills his sibling* and dooms himself to the slowest, most painful death imaginable. this is the legacy of the ancients' dead society, the result of all of their stupid ideals and obsession with karmic perfection. (*as far as he knows)

but saint being the triple affirmative undermines all of that. not only does it make sliver's death less of a tragedy and more of a noble sacrifice - like yeah, sure, they were loved, but solving the great problem was far more important - but it also makes pebbles look less desperate and more just kinda stupid. like you thought that the solution was self-destruction? nah, it's a magical flying rat. in this version of the story, pebbles wasn't striving for something that didn't exist, he was just not smart enough to figure out the real solution.

even outside of canon evidence, that sucks. it causes pebbles' story to go from being about how you should value the people around you over the impossible striving that life always seems to expect from you or you're gonna end up hurting them and yourself to how you should just be smarter to find the right solution to all of your problems.

anyway as for my own interpretation of saint, I think that the campaign is just a representation of what it's like to be an echo. reliving the moments that led up to your failed ascension over and over, reaching maximum karma and gaining superpowers because you're just that karmically pure - you are a saint, after all - and then letting your ego consume you at the crucial moment of ascension, over and over again, cycling into infinity. (I don't think they actually had superpowers prior to ascending, I just think that they kinda thought of themselves so highly that they thought they should have those powers.) then contrast this with the world as the age of the iterators and the rain finally ends, and you have an unchanging echo reliving the same few cycles over and over contrasted with a world that is, at last, changing and moving on.

yeah it doesn't make sense with the joint iterator dialogue in rubicon (at least, the final line doesn't make sense). I don't care. it's what makes me happy as an interpretation. you can pry my morally dubious hypocritical ego-driven saint from my cold dead hands

[aaleaqlania]

Al.Haitham and Dealing with Sadness

One of the way Al.Haitham expresses his hurt is by working it out: if there’s anything less productive than feeling blue and flouncing around without a solution to it, he finds even less tolerable is to simply lay around and letting it consume you. If artists claim to paint better when sad, what’s the use of moping and letting precious time be wasted when you could canalyze the feeling in something productive?

He dissociates heavily, compartimentalizes his sadness and stores it away to be elaborated in another chamber of his mind where he can process it with cold, praticed logic: he’ll pinpoint what made him sad, how can he realistically solve it, and find alternatives and possible loops to solve a particular situation that ellicited bad feelings. 

To be more precise:

i. He’ll make up a scenario that ellicited bad emotions, construct it from zero if he has to. In this recount or imaginary situation, he can spectate it from a colder point of view; ii. He starts analyzing in depth what was said and done that brought him to feel either sadness, frustration or any negative emotions he felt at the moment of the situation. He’d move the other people as toys, ordering them to stop speaking and focusing on their facial expressions or make them replay the words they just said until he finds a clue to what could have struck the emotion; iii. When he finds it, or has enough clues to figure most of it out, he’ll begin moving the other people like chess pieces to find an imaginary solution. He can’t cancel the sadness, but he can make himself feel better by essentially staging multiple ways to fix the situation, so he can prevent another episode like this from happening. This can go on for hours, until he’s satisfied with the outcome and comes out of it with several ple-planned plans to avoid anything even remotely related to an occasion like what just happened;

Meanwhile, outside of his mental palace, Al Haitham is compiling sheet after sheet of paper to productively deal with it on two fronts, mechanically grabbing for the next one as soon as the space to write in ended━

━and before he realizes it, six to nine hours have passed like this. He has dissociated so hard that he doesn’t notice the obvious signs of distress from his own body: the cramping fingers and wrists, an exceptionally dry mouth where swallowing feels like sandpaper, and the feeling of tiredness announcing dehydration, accompanied by a light head that prevents him from straying too far from furnitures, least he tumbles.

Mind you: he fixes it. Once he can safely stand without the room spinning, he’ll redirect himself to the kitchen for a light snack and slowly drink glasses of water with time between sips to prevent bloating, but he usually considers the temporary state of his body a fair price to pay for the mental clarity he gets from. It’s fixable, leaves the man with immense hindsight, and it has always worked for him.

[ichayalovesyou]

Why Bones & Spock NEED Each Other (Grief)

So over my tenure in this fandom I’ve seen some one sided stuff about Bones being mean to Spock, and vice versa and I’m like

Thing is y’all: You’re both right, but you’re also both wrong!

Bones is mean to Spock you’re right! But you know what? That’s a good thing!

Spock is mean to Bones because of course he is! And guess what? That’s also a good thing!

They both need it, and they can only get it (safely) from each other! What they have is (in a weird way) healthy! But it’s only healthy for these two specifically because they understand each other so well!

Prime examples? Somebody has died or gone missing (usually Jim)!

Let’s talk about how Spock & Bones grieve!

Let’s address how each character (generally) moves through the 5 stages of grief

Bones: Anger, Denial, Depression, Bargaining, Acceptance

Spock: Bargaining, Denial, Depression, Anger, Acceptance

They are each individually perfectly equipped to handle each other’s grief (or refusal to grieve)!

Bones initial reaction to death is usually Anger, he blames himself and anyone in proximity. Quickly followed by a weird form of denial, in which he doesn’t deny someone is dead, but he denies that other people think the person is gone and that they felt it when it happened because he’s dunked so hard under his own grief his usually high empathy has switched off.

Now, Bones is highly familiar with grief as a medical professional (and having lost his father). He establishes how important and deeply believes in that process in And The Children Shall Lead.

I think Bones is acutely aware of how he grieves, and is equally aware that throwing these feelings out at just anybody could really hurt them.

But Spock isn’t just anybody, he’s a (half) Vulcan, it’s like shouting at a brick wall, Bones knows Spock can take it. I also believe Spock understands that this state is temporary, which is why he handles it with such grace.

What happens when Bones isn’t able to go off at (not truly “on”) Spock is that Bones keeps that anger to himself and gets bordering-on-suicidal (Depression phase of grief). It happens in Miri (self injection), For The World is Hollow & I Have Touched The Sky (trying to stay behind), and The Empath (the whole freakin episode). Jim is good for comfort, but Spock is good for a slap in the face reality check.

They both know that. It’s why they’re still friends despite how much shit they throw at each other

Not only that, but Bones (almost) ALWAYS apologizes, from their worst fights I can rattle off:

“They were wrong, and I was wrong I’m sorry” (Paradise Syndrome)

“Pawns huh? Well if it makes any difference, this pawn is extremely sorry.” (Day of The Dove)

“Spock I- I’m sorry, it does hurt doesn’t it?” (The Tholian Web)

And that’s not including implied/non-verbal apologies.

Bones needs Spock to help him grieve because otherwise he’s gonna take an emotional nosedive toward attempted Martyrdom. Spock’s stoicism punctured by occasional genuiness helps Bones move to the Bargaining stage (making peace with Spock and everything that’s happened) and later Acceptance.

The inverse of this is also true so let’s address how Bones uses his belligerent nature to jump start Spock’s healthy grieving process!

Bones grieving style (and his confrontational nature in general) is uniquely suited to make Spock honor his Human side, his emotions in the matter. Because we know a softer touch (like Jim’s) while more comfortable for Spock, seldom cracks open that wall of emotional repression unless Jim’s in danger.

Bones doesn’t give a shit, and that ultimately a good thing! Both he and Spock constantly need to be directly shoved against their default reactions to interpret things in a balanced way, which is why they’re perfect for each other.

Without Bones, Spock would never let himself grieve, ever. We also know that, more deeply than Spock, Bones understands grief and how to move through it, he’s familiar with loss (which is why I think he’s so quick to accept someone is dead whenever it happens, it’s the reaction of someone whose had to lose a lot of people and is more comfortable grieving than hoping). There’s a lot of evidence for this in Gamesters of Triskellion & Return To Tomorrow.

He also honors Spock’s human half a lot more than Spock does, it’s one of the fundamental power sources for Bones & Spock’s “the racism’s mutual” banter. And it is mutual, I feel like people forget how often Spock compares modern humans to the worst examples of their/his ancestors and treats them as inferior out of internalized hatred and the general xenophobic attitudes of Vulcan culture. Bones of course responds in kind, usually in cockamamy insults, he’s not as well versed in Vulcan history as Spock is in Human. Although I admit Bones does start it a lot, I think arguing accounts as a love language for him lmao.

So when Bones sees Spock trying to stunt and stifle his grieving process, especially since Bones knows he’s at least partly human and it is affecting Spock’s judgement, it hits literally ALL of Bones nerves.

Bones uses reverse psychology to get Spock to admit he is human and he has feelings ALL THE TIME especially where Jim is concerned. Bread & Circuses, The Immunity Syndrome, The Tholian Web & Requiem for Methuselah!

Spock will absolutely refuse to grieve or at least move on from the self-destructive bargaining/denial loop he gets trapped in unless Bones smacks him around a little. Just like how Bones will get self-destructive unless Spock recenters him via logic.

Again, I think on a subconscious level they both know that, and it’s why they never take each other’s smack downs to heart.

An excellent example, Chekov’s “death” in Spectre of The Gun:

Spock isn’t grieving, but everyone else is, Spock was close to Pavel but isn’t letting himself feel it, which could later backfire. Bones is currently grieving, but there’s no time to grieve because they’re all gonna die in 20 minutes if they don’t find a solution to their dilemma.

Transcript & Breakdown:

Bones: You talk about another man’s [Jim’s] feelings? What do you feel Spock?!

Are you grieving? He was like son to you you’re not acknowledging it, again.

Spock: My feelings are not subject for discussion Doctor.

No, and I’m not going to, leave me alone.

Bones: Because there are are no feelings to discuss!

Well I’m grieving! And I’m gonna reverse psychology your Vulcan ass until you start your grieving process so that I can move on!

Scotty: Mr. Spock Chekov is dead! I say it now and I can hardly believe it, but you worked closely with him! That deserves some memorial!

Bones: Spock will have no truck with grief Scotty, it’s human.

Alright, that first comment didn’t work, maybe “insulting” him will get that thick head of his to acknowledge his feelings.

Jim: Bones! Scotty!

Spock: It’s quite alright Captain, they forget I am half human.

Fine, yes I am grieving for Pavel in my own way. Are you satisfied Dr. McCoy?

Bones: [looks surprised and thoughtful, satisfied with Spock’s answer]

Wow, you said you were human without any disgust this time... huh... good job.

Scotty:[looks ashamed]

The 5 o’clock duel bell rings.

[nanowrimo]

5 Tips for Finishing Your Novel

April’s session of Camp NaNoWriMo is drawing to a close, and you might find yourself nearing the end of your novel. If you need some tips on writing and polishing the ending of your story, author Derek Murphy is here to share a few! Plus, you can check out the rest of our novel-finishing resources on our #NaNoFinMo page. 

You won NaNoWriMo and have a 50k collection of scenes and sentences, but how do you clean it up and get it done? How do you make sure it’s finished, satisfying and enjoyable? Here are 5 powerful strategies for finishing your novel and some helpful writing tips that will push you past the finish line.

1. Give it a satisfying resolution.

In order to have a powerful story, your book should probably focus on a main character’s change or transformation. There’s an inner war, a.k.a. the character’s emotional healing, and an outer war: the conflict that forced the reckoning. If it’s a purely symbolic internal realization, you can mirror that with actual conflict in the real scene: the breaking of a dish, a fit of rage, a sudden ray of sunlight (or a storm… this should not be pleasant; It’s a breaking point and spiritual death/rebirth).

You can clarify the moment of change by setting up an illustrative contrast, a before and after, that shows how those internal changes have resulted in real-world consequences or benefits. Each character’s unique challenge will match their personal weakness or fear. The price for victory is the one thing they have so far refused to do, or something they cannot give up or bear to lose.

Make sure your protagonist has gone through a transformative struggle to arrive at deep insights, knowledge or awareness. Find a way to deepen the incidental scenes so that they become instrumental to a deeper purpose, leading towards an identity-shifting event.

The plot is what happens, and it’s important. But you can make it more dramatic and meaningful by making sure you demonstrate how hard it was and what it cost. It matters, it is remarkable, because it forced your protagonist to change.

Your conclusion might include:

Physical tension as allies perform a tug-of-war battle against resistance, that shows how difficult this struggle is, and how much force is required.

The consideration phase, as characters are tempted last minute or the price for victory is revealed: the sweet memories that give them awareness that this fight is worth the cost or risk (you need to show them making the choice, knowing what they will lose).

The final flashback, as the full backstory is revealed so we can see exactly why this conflict is so difficult or meaningful for the main character.

2. Add (unresolved) conflict.

Your story is made up of the events and scenes, where something happens. Each new event will push the characters further into the plot. Slow scenes where nothing is really happening can be red flags, so the first thing to focus on is increasing conflict, drama, suspense and intrigue. This is what creates urgency. The full reveal, demonstrating why THIS challenge is so difficult and powerful, should happen just before the final battle or resolution.

You want to make sure every scene, especially in your conclusion, has enough conflict. I recommend these three:

Outer Conflict (threats): Challenges or obstacles that prevent the character from achieving goals.

Inner Conflict (doubts): Moral struggles, decisions, guilt or shame, anger.

Friendly Fire (betrayal): Strong disagreements between allies or supporting characters. 

You want to extend and deepen the potential conflict, without resolving it too easily. The biggest destroyer of conflict is conversation: when your characters just sit around and talk to each other. Most conflict involves a lack of information, and a desire for clarity. A lot of conflict is perceived or imagined.

The most important information needs to come last, and come at a great price. The information that has an emotional impact, and influences their actions and decisions, should be big reveals at dramatic peaks. A surprise or twist should be treated as an event: each scene is leading towards a change or new piece of information that provokes the protagonist to respond.

3. Fill plot holes with character motivation.

After you’ve made sure that “what actually happens” is intriguing (opening questions and raising tensions without resolving them) you can focus on making sure the plot holes are filled, and characters are properly motivated – these two things are usually adjacent.

You can find and fill plot holes by asking:

Why are the characters doing this?

Why does any of it matter?

Basically, readers need to respect the main characters enough to care what happens to them, so their choices and actions need to make sense within the given information. If there’s a simpler, easier solution, readers will get stuck up on “why didn’t they just…”? To fix plot holes and gaps in logic or continuity, or make the story go where you need it to, you can add urgency, fix the mood of the scene (bigger stakes require bigger justifications), show characters in a weakened mental state, or raise concerns but have them dismissed, with an excuse or justification.

You need rational characters to make plausible choices that lead to dire consequences. You need show why they don’t do something easier, or nothing at all, or why they face clear challenges, despite potential obstacles.

They’ll also require a deeper motivation, for why they’re willing to put themselves in identity-destroying conflict, rather than just giving up or running away. Why do they stay in THIS fight, when they’ve run from similar ones? If they weren’t ready at the beginning, why are the ready now – what changed in them, as a result of your story’s journey?

Your protagonist needs to have a strong, consistent internal compass, and it needs to be revealed through incidents that establish their character. This is who they are. Without this reliable core identity, we won’t be able to tell a story that forces them to change. 

4. Let readers picture your story with detailed description.

In the final stages of revision, you can begin improving the description with specific details.

It’s smart to start – or end – a chapter with a vivid, immediate scene. You want to leave readers with an image they can see in their minds, hopefully connected to the feeling you aim to evoke. You can close a chapter with a reference back to a motif or image, with a deeper or more reflective context; applying meaning to the metaphor. This will help readers feel engaged, be moved, and leave a lasting impact.

Vivid scenes are mostly a matter of detailed description, so add the specifics about the story environment. Be precise, not vague. Instead of “she put a plate of tea and snacks on the table” you can write “she gently placed an antique porcelain teapot on the table. I could smell it was Earl Grey from the scent of bergamot. The half-sleeve of Oreos and can of onion-flavored Pringles seemed incongruous with the fancy dishes, but I knew she was making an effort to welcome me.”

Focus on the sensations and feelings; but also zero-in on any potential sources of conflict or internal emotions or states of mind. In my example above, the host might be nervous or ashamed of her spread; or perhaps she has a degenerative brain disease and doesn’t notice the incongruity. Tensions are unspoken, potential sources of negative feelings. They hover in the background of your description.

Readers will remember the pictures you put in their heads, not the words on the page.

Description should serve and be bound to the story, not distract from it.

It should be squeezed into and around the scene action, when the protagonist is using or exploring.

Show what’s different, not what’s the same.

Leave space for readers to fill in the gaps, but get them started in the right direction so they aren’t surprised later.

Sidenote: be careful about your metaphors, analogies and similes. Each one will put a picture into readers’ minds, and it can quickly get overcrowded with imagery. You’re asking them to ignore your real scene and think of something else. Use them to confirm and amplify the scene you have, and limit distractions.

5. Prepare to publish.

Typos are bad, but perfectionism will ruin you. This section is about editing and proofreading, but I don’t have time for all that, and you don’t either. The real problem with a story is rarely the number of typos. A very clean book isn’t better if people stop reading.

You can solve a lot of common writing problems, with my big list of 25 common writing mistakes, and self-edit your manuscript to make it as good as possible. After that, a copyeditor or proofreader isn’t always the best investment (and it can also be the biggest publishing cost).

Instead, use an editing software (I like Grammarly) to root out obvious mistakes, but don’t dwell on the small stuff like perfecting every word or rearranging the commas. Spending a very long time wrestling a poorly-written manuscript in shape is less effective than getting something (actually) done to the point where you’re comfortable sharing it.

This may be difficult at first, but you can’t learn and improve without genuine reader feedback (from people who aren’t your mom or best friend; nor the short-sighted opinions of a self-proclaimed literature enthusiast). You need to find readers who enjoy your particular genre, and the sooner you find them, the more valuable feedback you can get.

Shorten the feedback loop: Get over the fear and focus on learning by getting feedback early and often. However, this doesn’t just mean joining a writer’s club: writers are brutal and might focus on trivial things. The safest bet is to make it public, on Wattpad at least. Or get a cheap cover and throw it up on Kindle, Draft2Digital or even your own blog.

Making it public is scary and vulnerable, but it’s better than letting the fear of messing up keep you from the brutal, necessary experience of allowing readers to tell you what they liked and disliked about your writing. Will some people be critical? Yes! But guess what, you’ll get negative reviews even if you’re a brilliant, famous writer. Those are inevitable. And the first negative reviews may teach you more about writing than 10 years attempting to self-edit, afraid of putting your book out into the world.

PS. You can use resources, like my 24-chapter plot outline, as a way to spot story gaps in your manuscript and improve the structure (especially if your book suffers from a “soggy middle.)

Derek Murphy has a PhD in Literature, writes urban fantasy and is the founder of the alliance of young adult authors. More recently, he’s started sharing writing tips on http://www.writethemagic.com

Top photo by Adegbenro Emmanuel Dipo on Unsplash.

[senseandaccountability]

Hey, did you get a chance to watch season 6 of Lucifer? What did you think of the finale?

This is going to be salty (sorry) so I put it under a cut for people who prefer joyous things in the feed.

I didn’t like the final season.

To be brief: It felt like a story where the writers knew how they wanted it to end, and therefore the plot ruled over the characters. It wasn't a main plot I enjoyed at all, and it was told in a way that made it difficult for me to appreciate even the small bits I liked. (Ella reveal. Ghost Dan.) I thought it suffered from a jarring tonal shift and when it comes to several overarching themes, I felt it negated/trivialized previous seasons. In many ways it also managed to be both cheesy and cruel, often at the same time. I had the impression it was a compilation of (unfortunately rather boring) fandom wishes and tropes more than authentic storytelling.

To be anything but brief:

I dislike the season in part because it undid a lot of great things about Lucifer as a character.

By the end of 5B Lucifer had come full circle. I think that season finale is great. The Lucifer vs Michael fight was so well done thematically - he fought himself, and unlike the first fight in 5A when he wants to hurt his twin he had now reached a state of personal growth, of compassion. Not even when Michael kills Chloe does he deserve death because everyone deserves a second chance. And then the funny and pitch perfect “Oh, my me”. Ambiguous enough about the details to fuel the fandom, clear enough about the themes and the lore to offer closure. (No, Deckerstar didn’t have a date or much of a snog but I can fill in the blanks there though I am aware that many fans were disappointed by the lack of on-screen love.)

Excellent way to end the show.

Except they didn’t. S6, I feel, tried to tell the same story all over again, only not as well or even coherent.

Over the seasons it’s been pretty clear that while Lucifer can be caring, he mostly cares about the handful of people in his life. S6 even touches upon this, has him trying to care for random people in their hell loops. But S5 already did this, but better, with Michael. The family dinner with God was excellent, it showed broken people all around and had Lucifer, the self-centered drama queen of the family realizing that he’s not the only one that’s been hurt. It showed the best and worst of them all. Sparing Michael, considering Michael worthy of redemption, was peak growth for Lucifer as a character because in that moment he also considers himself worthy of the same thing. That’s when he truly forgives himself. I thought. And then season 6 shows Michael as a prisoner in Hell, just once, never to be mentioned again. Is that a second chance? Is that redemption? Is that really the symbolism they were going for or just a spiteful and stupid little addition because LOL SOME PEOPLE DESERVE HELL. (Do they? Says who? The show doesn’t answer that because the show that focuses on the neutral character the Devil and the totally untarnished place Hell doesn’t much care about such divisive matters, but more about that soon.) I dislike the season, in parts because I wasn't satisfied with the moral/quasi-theological backdrop. The system is wrong, Lucifer concluded by the end of 5B. Season 6 has him return to the system, as an Afterlife Coach of the Damned. Is that really the best they could do?

I mourn all the cool possibilities of what Lucifer, the advocate for free will and defender of desire, could have done with hell as a concept. Blown it apart, closed it, tossed the keys to someone else and rode off in the sunset. At the very least he could have altered it so that it’s no longer solitary confinement but a collective of doomed souls trying together to achieve redemption but hey, never mind me, I’m a bleeding-heart socialist and I don’t believe in revenge and I don’t believe in God but if I did, God would forgive. Otherwise, what the hell is the point?

I parsed through the season with my husband, a real-life minister who doesn't think anyone deserves hell and who gets to suffer my long-ass questions about the theological themes of popular culture a little bit too often. Because we both felt slightly insulted after watching. "Is this bullshit what they offer me?" my husband asked me as the timey wimey time travel plot unfolded. But timey wimey bullshit aside, we concluded that the real reason we were both so annoyed and frustrated with the season is because it highlighted how flat the background lore really is. I mean, I guess they wanted to be yay, neutral and non-divisive themes galore! It’s good to be good, folks! If you’re not, well, I guess you might have your spine broken by the Devil or sent to a never-ending hell loop but let’s not talk about religion! The main issue, for me, with the whole system of heaven and hell and earth on the show is that for every equation, there’s a part missing. The show has borrowed the character from the comics verse but left the entire lore and its internal logic behind. It borrows a bit of moral philosophy, but cuts away the troublesome bits otherwise Lucifer can’t both be on a redemptive path and happily slaughter people in fits of vengeance; it uses Heaven and Hell and vaguely also the concept of sin but never answers any questions about it, apart from the central message of course: it’s up to you. In fact, the show discourages questions about the lore because it has no answers. It doesn’t care. The ending of the show brushes off the much needed systematic changes of heaven and hell like it’s just another joke. (Want to know a show that has compassionate writing about morality while managing to be very funny? The Good Place. And you know what, morality should be serious. I’m a softie and again, a bleeding-heart, but it’s important to be a good person and it’s important to get a chance for redemption. It matters. It’s not just a minor detail.)

Which brings me to the damn therapy theme. I know a lot of people like it and I have also liked it a lot in previous seasons. I have. It’s been quirky. (Also highly unprofessional, but hey.) But as the key to your afterlife/redemption/second chance it’s just not good enough.

It is so very, very individualistic that it makes my skin crawl. It’s the ultimate American solution to systemic injustices and suffering - hey, it’s up to you, man. You decide if you deserve hell. You decide if you deserve Heaven. You make the difference! You can do it! Live the afterlife dream, achieve all your goals, get a hell loop that no longer loops but… stays in one static place where at least you’re moderately happy. Navel-gazing into your soul is certainly one way to get some insights into your mistakes. But it’s not redemption. Redemption is an active choice to be a better person. You don’t have to earn redemption or deserve it. And redemption isn’t the same as forgiveness either. Redemption is the opposite to pointless, everlasting punishment. It’s hopeful and it’s ugly and it’s full of purpose and the chance to be better and add something good to the world. Even Lucifer doesn’t get to do that on the show. He deals only with the already doomed. The here and now on Earth fades into the distance as Deckerstar, too, gets their happily ever after in Hell. You’ll get pie in the sky when you die. Or you get to shag on a throne in Hell. Either way, life on Earth doesn’t matter. (Here the show lean into some really dodgy Christian themes, I’d argue, but hey, it’s not about religion! It’s just a fun romp about a reformed bad boy!)

“Hell is just revenge porn for fundamentalists and other people who believe in eye for an eye. I just want there to be a level of collective forgiveness and hope, you know?” I told my husband whilst chugging down beer. As you do when you watch crap that makes no sense. “A level of hey, I’ve got this, I forgive you, you can do better. Go and do better. And then the actual opportunity to do so, even if it's just reliving your life as a ghost again and again until you figure out what went wrong.” “Honey,” my husband said. “I hate to tell you this since you’re an atheist but that level you’re talking about? That’s Jesus.” Well, screw that.

I really don’t want to need Jesus to make sense of a story. I just want decent bloody storytelling.

[hopeymchope]

How would you rank the 18 Class Trials from THH, DR2, and V3 from worst to best?

This is... virtually impossible for me, lol. Comparing the trials from each game to each other?

How about I just rank them within each game? That'll make it a little easier for me to deal with...

DR1

6) 5th. It's driven by lies and ultimately rushed to its end before the characters can draw any solid (pointless/meaningless) conclusions. So of course it's last for this game, and it’s probably last for the entire series as well. If there are any saving graces to this trial, it’s the surprise when your closest ally is willing to let our protagonist die... and that this trial contains the fake/bad ending route.

5) 3rd. Although the main culprit is pretty obvious from the jump, it requires some surprising twists to explain how everything got to be the way it turned out. But did I always find those twists plausible? Errrrm... not really. 

4) 2nd. Pretty good trial that's hurt for me by the fact that there'd barely be any need for a trial at all if a certain third party didn't dick around with the evidence for no reason. Also, the dual nature of Toko is an incredibly predictable reveal. Without those two aspects dragging it down, though, this could easily go higher.

3) 1st. Sure, the major hint given and, subsequently, the eventual culprit are pretty obvious, but this one establishes so much about how the trials work and how much the details you observe will matter that it’s still pretty fun that first time around. The initial surprise of the first victim makes for a great way to keep you invested in the trial experience. This trial is damn near iconic now, so it feels almost mandatory to respect it.

2) 6th. DR1 still has the best "final trial,” easily. SO MANY great reveals, and they all totally work for me. Nothing rings false or disappointing, and it also features Makoto finally coming into his own and taking the lead. I nearly labeled this my top pick for DR1, but...

1) 4th. It's easily the most emotionally dramatic/satisfying for me, and there’s something weirdly inspirational for me about Hina’s incredibly harsh stance during it. This one GOT ME IN THE FEELS, and in part that was because I saw so little of it coming. After the more predictable elements of the first and third trials, this felt like the writing was firing on all cylinders. 

DR2

6) 2nd. You have to accept a couple leaps of logic to make this trial keep flowing, and the fact that trial is ultimately reliant on someone noticing a candy that’s very small and hard to see while the person is also in a stressful situation and they are groggy from being drugged/asleep and it necessitates the person retaining this seemingly useless detail inside their brain .... that’s always bugged me.  The “escape route” conversation even retroactively raises questions about the first trial. Oof. On the upside, the reveals it brought us about Fuyuhiko and Peko were incredibly important, satisfying, and legit surprising turns. And it’s pretty cool how it’s basically a two-for-one combo trial because you have to solve the Twilight Syndrome case before you solve the current case. 

5) 3rd. Other people have pointed out the leaps of logic and missing pieces of this trial, but at the same time, the candlelight hanging is so intense and the ultimate reveal of the culprit is such a brutal turn that I have to give it some props. The culprit’s primary plan is ultimately one of the most ingenious in the series, IMO, and definitely one of the most twisted/fucked-up, which earns it some points. 

4) 4th. This is probably the single murder case in the franchise that I understood the absolute least about when entering the trial, for better or worse. On the one hand, that made it really fun to see the mystery gradually unfurl, but on the other hand, it made it tough for me to provide the right answers at certain points in the trial, leaving me fumbling. A big part of those issues was how it was initially hard for me to wrap my head around the nature of the funhouse via the provided 2D graphics... but once I eventually got there, I had to respect the creativity that went into devising such a “weapon.” Also, it can be hard to tolerate Komaeda in this trial. He’s even more of a know-it-all-but-reveal-none-of-it jackass than ever before, and his turn towards overt cruelty towards the others (and Hajime in particular) left me raging. The culprit reveal is good, but the motive does beg the question of why he didn’t just come forward from the jump.

3) 6th. There are a lot of great reveals in the final trial that totally reframe how you see the characters, and some of them are deliciously twisted. There’s also a ton of great dialogue provided, and in retrospect, it’s actually sort of neat to have one endgame mastermind reveal in this franchise that doesn’t involve the “They were hiding among us this whole time” trope. All that plus the surprise return of our surviving heroes from the first game! However, this is also where they officially reveal a core element of DR2 and its setting that I've never liked. This knocks the trial down a few pegs for me. Of course, by the time you reach the trial, I'm sure 99% of players have already figured that particular "twist" out. There’s adequate evidence to predict it in the first freaking chapter, and I know this because I DID predict it in the first chapter of my initial playthrough... which further hurts the supposed “reveal” of the island’s true nature when it comes around. 

2) 1st. Probably my favorite of the “first trials,” there are lot of components that go into this one. There’s a combination of two premeditated killers plus one spur-of-the-moment accidental victim, there’s a satisfying (though admittedly maybe too easy) reveal of the killer being one of the most unpleasant people to be around during the first chapter, and I really dig how audio became a very important component of the mystery due to the total blackout. This is also the part of the game where we learn just how twisted Komaeda really is, which is HUGE both in terms of its immediate shock factor for a total newcomer and in terms of its impact on the game as a whole. Of course, since it’s a “first trial,” it can’t be too complicated... but they still manage to confuse so many of us with “MEAT ON THE BONE” :P

1) 5th. Again, I will almost always give the most emotionally intense one the top slot. The “traitor reveal” is obviously THAT MOMENT in DR2. I also love how this one used the strange internal logic established early in the game RE: Komaeda’s luck to develop the eventual solution. And forcing us to make use of evidence gathered in multiple locations outside of the immediate site of the body/murder? That more complexity of that type that I see relevant to a trial, the more I appreciate it, and this one has loads of that stuff. Although I guess the investigation isn’t technically part of the trial itself... but it’s still very relevant to it. 

DRV3

6) 4th. I found this whole trial to be just... extremely predictable. Maybe it’s because I was so far into the series that I’d gotten used to its tricks by this point, but this was the most predictable trial for me since the first one in the first game. The whole looping/rollover map setup of the VR? Obvious. The murder weapon? Obvious. Our culprit’s ongoing confusion at everything discussed? Obvious. There were only a couple of points I didn’t have already figured out when I walked into the trial room, and those turned out to be basically irrelevant (such as the bottle of poison). The eventual motive is at least a surprise, but I also found it hard to accept that this culprit would really kill people over it. Overall: Super lame. 

5) 3rd. Another double murder trial, and once again one murder overshadows the other. The séance murder is definitely clever. Sure, you know the culprit pretty early on, but the methodology is the good part. However, the real fascinating one for me is the art lab “locked room” murder. Going into the trial, I couldn’t fathom how they were going to explain that one, and I found the answer both smart and satisfying. It’s funny to imagine how many times the culprit had to try that stunt with the lock before it actually worked, heh. This is probably the best of the three “double murder” mysteries in the series, but the trial isn’t as emotionally affecting as the 3rd trial in DR2 to me. Moreover, the trial loses points for the most infuriating Hangman’s Gambit of the series and especially for the motive reveal. When the killer’s motive can be boiled down to “they’re basically just a psycho serial killer,” it’s not very interesting.

4) 6th. The first part of the trial, which deals with re-assessing the first case? It’s pretty damn on-point. That leads to the mastermind reveal, which... isn’t great, really. It’s not a terribly interesting character to make the mastermind, they have no interesting motives or characterization to unevil, and they’re ultimately just a pawn behind another, off-screen group of masterminds. But then things get uproariously funny to me. The metatextual stuff is just so goddamn ridiculous. It’s frustrating and annoying how much of our not-mastermind’s explanation is clearly full of lies and half-truths that we’ll never have complete answers on, but that’s also part of what makes it all fascinating. We get to swap protagonists like four times! There’s a fake-out Game Over! These are really cool things. But it all leads down the road of our protagonist arguing that fiction does affect reality (yes, good), that fictional people can still matter (definitely) and that... fictional lives are equal in value to real ones? Uhhhhh slow down there, champ. That only works for YOUR universe, where fictional people can be made out of living, breathing individuals. But in light of the metatextual stuff you’re surrounded by, you kinda sound silly AF right now?

3)  2nd. Look, this is still incredibly irritating to me. Also, if you go down the alternate “lying” route at one point, you are forced to accept that these piranhas were somehow trained to only eat dead things, which is just... so deeply dumb.  But what is good is the entire ropeway conceit (which is a very significant part of the trial!) and the idea of the partition inside the tank. This was a murder with an elaborate, intelligent plan that is very well-executed. And the motive reveal? It’s one of the best in the series! I respect that stuff. (If I had the right to toss the execution in as part of the soup, I’d say that it’s also one of the series’ best. Let’s call it the icing on the cake.)

2) 1st. The writing that made this trial work is undeniably clever. The way the narration told us exactly what was happening without really telling us what was happening? It was a masterstroke of both great writing and perfect localization coming together. When it becomes clear during the trial what is about to happen, it’s a huge shock. The transition to another protagonist with the lights flickering out and back on is beautiful. Even the core concept of a protagonist who was willing to step up and try to kill the mastermind immediately is just deeply interesting. And obviously this one made my emotions run high. HOWEVER! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Kaede Akamatsu was a more interesting, unique, and compelling protagonist than Shuichi Saihara ever was. Ultimately, the protagonist-swap, no matter how well-written, was a mistake because they shifted us from a unique character with an interesting new perspective to a character who is, in many ways, “Makoto Naegi with even less self-esteem.” Yes, I know he has aspects that make him distinct as his own person, but there’s still just too much there that feels like we’ve done it before, and he never fully escapes from that. It feels like a massive waste and a huge missed opportunity to ditch Kaede like this. Now, if they had just done the protagonist swap in reverse — making us start out with Shuichi before flipping things over to Kaede — we could’ve had ourselves something amazing here.

1) 5th. I know I decided that I couldn’t rank all among each other, but if I did do that, I feel confident that the 5th trial in DRV3 would rank very high indeed. You go into the trial unable to even determine who the victim was due to the fact that two people are missing and there was nothing left of the body that spoke to an identity. Going into it, you naturally figure that one of the two missing parties has to be the victim and the other one is probably the culprit. But even with just two friggin’ suspects, the amount of turnabouts in the case that made me rethink all my assumptions was insane. Sure, the explanation for how the person inside the Exisal can maintain “character” is pretty damn thin, but once you get past that, I don’t think there’s a single false note in the trial. It even breaks unprecedented ground by continuing into another Non-Stop Debate after everyone has already voted. And of course, it culminates with a lot of intense emotion. Even the execution is emotionally satisfying! ..... although I’m not sure if I should count the execution as part of the trial, but hey, still. As far as Dangan trials go, the fifth one in DRV3 is basically a masterpiece.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hello. I'm an INFJ and I would like to ask: you always say (in some way or another) that we should get closer to people in order to develop Fe. So I was thinking, what if I am always trying to get closer to new people I meet but at the end, I constantly feel that they have toxic behaviour and I try to get away?

I mean, I've been learning recently because I did not have boundaries before and now when I observe and experience firsthand bad behaviour that, once communicated to the person, they are not willing to change because "that's just who they are", I try to maintain my distance.

For example, I have an ISTP friend (who is not developed at all and therefore only relies on her own logic) that is totally immersed on her own judgment and even though I tell her she doesn't know the whole picture and that there's more information she has to know and take into consideration before jumping to those conclusions, she just says "I don't care if there's more info, I would probably just think the same thing, so i don't care". I can observe she gets defensive when I tell her judgment is not overall/complete/objective.

Another example is that one day we were in a party and I was feeling bad for some stupid shit and I told her about it and she bluntly said "Yeah, just don't think about what you are feeling. It doesn't matter right now." I understood her point of view but I just felt so bad because of the indifferent and almost aggressive way she said it. So I communicated that to her a few days later, telling her that she should take more into consideration the way she expressed things to others because some people could get hurt or offended by her lack of tact. She just said "I just say what I think the way I think it. I won't change because that would be changing who I am and I'm not willing to do that. I can just not tell you about what I think but I will still think that way."

She also wanted to control the decoration of my house and my instagram page lmao. So it's not just her, I've had a looot of ENFP friends who are even more toxic and I just cannot help but observe all these behaviours and not want to be close to them.

So the question is that, what if I am trying to get friends but they always, for some reason, turn out to be toxic because I feel I observe the meaning of their behavior way too much? Should I ignore what I am seeing? What should I do to change this? Help. Thank you.

________________________

I think you have misunderstood the issue because of taking my words out of context. Yes, Fe development requires getting closer to people, BUT this is only the right solution if the main problem is severe Ti loop that inhibits social connection. If severe Ti loop is not your main problem, it wouldn't make sense to apply that solution.

Struggling with boundaries indicates that the main problem is probably Fe overindulgence. You are showing poor judgment in terms of trying to get close to people indiscriminately. It seems that you implicitly expect everyone you encounter to harmonize with you, validate you, and emotionally support you. It is an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation.

There are indeed assholes out there. Most toxic people are toxic because they have their own unhealthy shit going on and they end up hurting people unintentionally. A minority of toxic people are toxic because they are malicious and intentionally destructive. This distinction is vital to making wise social decisions.

To understand the difference, you have to exercise cognitive empathy to get an accurate understanding of what's going on with people. When you feel hurt by someone or when someone displays harmful behavior, you should get to the bottom of whether it was deliberate. If it was, then it would be smart to protect yourself from their attacks. If it wasn't, then it would be smart to not take it personally, because it has nothing to do with you.

A "boundary" means that there is a clear separation between "my business" and "their business". The boundary gets violated as soon as someone gets too emotionally involved in the other's business for egotistical reasons. Examples include being irrationally critical due to projection (unhealthy Ti) or trying to change someone to be more aligned with oneself (unhealthy Fe). As far as I can tell, both you and your friends are guilty of overstepping boundaries in various ways.

Having healthy boundaries means that you should be able to get along with most people just fine because what they do is really none of your business. People often push gently on boundaries as a normal part of social interaction. Only when they violate relationship boundaries in a harmful way should you think about whether it's justified to distance from them. If someone is just being who they are, though you find it unpleasant, but they're not violating relationship boundaries, then distancing from them is an indication of your failure to understand and accept different kinds of people.

You need emotionally supportive relationships and there's nothing wrong with that. Having a good social support network is a legitimate human need; it is mandatory for flourishing in life. The problem isn't the need itself but the methods that you choose for fulfilling the need. If you walk around in life expecting everyone to satisfy your needs, as though they were only put on earth to serve you, then YOU are the problem in the relationship, because you are treating people as mere objects for your own gratification.

If you want meaningful relationships and a supportive social network, you have to seek out people who are capable of it and work hard to build relationships/community with them. Healthy Ni means that you should have bigger vision and try to realize the greater potential of every relationship. Healthy Fe means that you should be encouraging and give everyone a fair chance to show you whether they can handle a more intimate relationship. Healthy Ti means that you should be discerning and properly assess the quality of your relationships so that you invest your effort intelligently. Healthy Se means that you should be realistic and avoid expecting more from people than they are actually capable of giving.

[ambersock]

On the Edge of Forever

Characters: Sam Winchester, Dean Winchester, Castiel, Lucifer (Cassifer)

Summary: Sam has a plan to deal with the Darkness. Dean is definitely not going to like it.

Word Count: 4095

Warnings: Angst, Minor Sam Whump, Swearing, Sam Winchester Has Self-Worth Issues

A/N: Takes place in Season 11, after 11.10 The Devil in the Details. More notes at the end.

Now: Dean

Baby’s tires squeal in protest as Dean uses up a month of tread taking yet another turn too fast, her back-end fishtailing with only intermittent traction keeping her from spinning out. He’ll apologize to her later. Dean slams the accelerator down as he exits the curve and hits 90 on a straight section of the backwoods road on the outskirts of a town probably called Where The Fuck Are We We’re Lost. He starts to recognize landmarks from the last time he was here almost three years ago; he’s close. Not close enough.

He hurtles towards his destination, praying to who the hell knows what (because, really, there’s nothing out there that gives a shit, is there?), that he makes it in time to stop his idiot brother from doing an idiotic thing. Because he idiotically let his brother go to talk to fucking Lucifer, and of course Lucifer got inside his head. And here he is again, wracking his brain to figure out what the hell he can possibly say to convince Sam to abandon his insane plan.

Five days ago: Sam

Ever since the train wreck that was supposed to be a “safe” visit to the Cage to ask for Lucifer’s help against the Darkness, Sam has been replaying the Lucifer-guided tour of his worst fuck ups over and over on an endless loop, hoping that repetition and whiskey will numb him just a little more each time. For the hundredth time Sam curses his hubris, thinking he would even register on God’s radar, let alone that He would answer his prayers and send him visions. For the hundredth time he curses himself for being so naïve that he never suspected that the visions were just a lure from Lucifer to reel him in, break him down, and use him as a ride out of the Cage. And he hates himself for how close he had come to caving in. More than once.

On his third shot of whiskey and his umpteenth rerun through his trail of regrets, it hits Sam: within the chain of events of disaster begetting calamity begetting catastrophe, there is one moment in time where it could have easily all fallen apart. One small delay, one broken link, would cause a cascade failure and drastically alter everything that came after. He can’t help fantasizing, over and over, about all of the different little things could have happened that would have changed the entire outcome. If only.

On his fourth shot of whiskey, Sam remembers the sigil that allowed Henry Winchester to travel through time, and he huffs out a laugh.

On his fifth shot of whiskey, Sam staggers to the archive room and starts pulling books.

******

Sam continues to stare at the passages describing the Enochian time travel spell. The task he’s set himself is a flame that has both sustained him and consumed him for days on end. There’s a tree’s worth of paper covered in notes scattered across every horizontal surface, held down by mostly empty coffee mugs distributed randomly around the cramped space. His eyes are dry and red, an eyestrain headache thrums in the back of his skull, and his back is aching from being hunched over musty tomes for hours at a time attempting to deconstruct and reverse engineer the spell, to adapt it to his specific purpose. He’s not sure when he slept last, and Dean has started to give him those sideways I-know-something’s-eating-you looks which means he’s got limited time before Dean drags him out of the bunker “for his own good”. Sam forces himself to clear his mind of everything except the patterns of Enochian writing in front of him. He’s close, he thinks he’s found the right figures, he just needs to understand how to combine them with the original blood sigil. As Dean would say, he’s on the one-yard line and it’s time to push through it.

Hours later something finally clicks like a circuit closing in his brain, and suddenly the pattern of the lesser symbols within the larger whole makes sense to Sam. The solution is simple and elegant, and it’s so obvious to him now that he can’t believe he didn’t see it sooner. He adds the figures to a drawing of the original blood sigil and he knows, just knows, that this is going to work. He allows himself to luxuriate in the endorphin rush that accompanies success, the feeling that he’s about to score a win. For the first time since he threw himself into the Cage, he feels like he’s finally doing something right.

The only problem now is finding the right way to tell Dean. He’s going to need some time and distance, a head-start to get out in front of Dean’s inevitable knee-jerk reaction, because Dean is definitely not going to like this. Even if it was his idea.

Yesterday: Lucifer-wearing-Castiel

It was a stroke of luck, really, that Lucifer landed Castiel as a vessel instead of Sam as he had originally intended. Dean might have caught on to Lucifer-wearing-Sam, but it was just too easy to pass himself off as the besotted pet angel when Dean had caught him tearing through the records. A contrite little “I’m sorry Dean” coupled with a soulful look and Dean was sold. It is surprisingly so much easier to masquerade as someone else topside than it ever was in the Cage. He never could fully convince Sam that it was Dean who was carving out his organs.

Fun aside, there is now a possible monkey wrench in Lucifer’s carefully laid and, so far successful, bid for freedom. He stares at the disarray of notes decorated with Enochian symbols strewn all over the small bunker storage room by his erstwhile vessel, and can’t dismiss the growing possibility that everything is about to unravel.

“Oh Sammy-boy, what are you up to?”

His vessel has been mucking around with a time-travel sigil, and it seems like he’s pretty far along. Logically, Sam would be looking to prevent the release of the Darkness, which also certainly means undoing the events leading to the damage to the Cage that allowed Lucifer to escape. There are two lessons he files away for later: one, never speak Enochian in front of a chew toy; two, sending Sam Winchester on a guilt trip tends only results in a manic attempt on his part to fix things, which is exactly how Lucifer ended up back in the Cage the second time. He takes a moment to appreciate the irony of how tormenting Sam with his past regrets might now colossally backfire on him. He questions whether it was really worth it just to see Sam squirm like that once again, but then he can’t keep a smile of contentment from spreading across his face.

Yes, yes it was. Definitely worth it.

So now to the problem at hand: Lucifer-wearing-Castiel has other important, and definitely more amusing, things he needs to attend to, such as feeding Crowley his own intestines. But this potential threat to his plans is not something he can abide. He mulls over the merits of just disintegrating Sam—not very satisfying, but efficient—when he feels a tickle from a small, dark corner of his consciousness. He sighs in irritation.

“What do you want, Castiel?”

I believe I can help.

“Yeah, not really buying that.”

Give me five minutes, and I promise that Sam will no longer be of concern.

Lucifer is loath to cede control, but at the same time his curiosity is piqued. He can always return to Plan Disintegrate later. Or maybe he’ll think of something more entertaining while he’s waiting.

“Five minutes.”

Castiel takes out his phone and picks Dean out of his contacts. As Dean picks up, Castiel reaches for the page holding the altered blood sigil.

“Dean… I’m afraid your brother is planning to do something very foolish…”

Earlier: Dean

“You’re going to what?”

“I’m going to fix this. Fix the Darkness. I figured out a way to take Abaddon off the board in the past. No Abaddon, no Mark of Cain. No Mark, the Darkness stays locked up. Kevin lives. Charlie lives. It’s a no-brainer.”

Dean is standing in the room where Sam had been doing his clandestine research, now devoid of the notes that Castiel had described. After 17 frantic, unanswered calls to Sam, who had gone missing all night, Sam has finally called back and Dean knows that something’s seriously off. He sounds eerily upbeat, which immediately sets off Dean’s alarm bells given how shaken and preoccupied he had been after coming back from the near-disastrous visit to the virtual Cage. Whatever Sam’s planning, Dean is pretty sure he’s not going to like it, and Sam’s not exactly forthcoming with details. Either Dean needs to get Sam to spill, or he at least needs to get a trace on his phone and figure out where he is.

“Aren’t you the one who always says not to screw with time? Mothra Effect, or whatever? And if you go back and meet yourself, won’t the universe, like, explode or something?”

“Butterfly Effect. And I’m not going back, I’m sending something back. Seriously, Dean, do you really think I can possibly screw up the time line any worse than The End of Everything?”

Dean doesn’t have a good response to that, so he switches the topic to keep Sam talking. “So how, exactly, are you gonna take Abaddon out without the Mark and the First Blade? You planning to send her one of your documentary podcasts and bore her to death?”

There’s a huff of exasperation on the other end and Dean swears he can hear Sam roll his eyes. “Hilarious. Look, I’ve found another way.”

“Then tell me where you are and I’ll come help.”

Silence.

Then, “Don’t worry Dean, I’ve got this. It’s an easy spell. You should keep researching the Darkness in case this doesn’t work.”

Sam being evasive confirms that Dean has good reason to be suspicious about this plan, but the trace is still going and Dean plays for more time.

“Don’t worry? Might as well tell me not to breathe. Let me guess: you’re sending a bomb back to blow Abaddon to fucking bits so we can’t sew her head back on.”

“…Huh. Interesting idea, but there’s too much risk that I’d end up blowing up one of us. Anyway, it’s a blood spell. Whatever goes back has to be infused with DNA so that it can latch onto the same DNA. I’m just sending some cloth back. Like I said, it’s simple.”

Dean gives in to his growing irritation at Sam’s caginess and decides to go for the direct assault.

“Sam. What aren’t you telling me?” Dean already has his suspicions of what Sam isn’t telling him; there’s only one way he can think of that takes Abaddon out of play and saves Kevin. He’s hoping he’s wrong. He’s also dying to know how time travelling cloth comes into this.

“Don’t get mad.”

“Sam.”

“Look, just promise you’ll hear me out, okay?”

“SAM.”

Dean can hear Sam take a breath, like he’s getting ready to plunge into deep water. “…I’m going to make sure I finish the third Trial.”

There it is. Damn it.

“LIKE HELL YOU ARE.”

Click.

Sam disconnects before the trace finishes, but Dean doesn’t need the trace to know where to find him. He hauls ass to the garage where the Impala is waiting.

Now: Dean

Dean stands on the brake and Baby skids to a halt next to the car Sam had appropriated, sitting in front of the old, decrepit church. It’s exactly as he remembered it last, like it’s been frozen in time waiting for their return. Overgrown bushes still cling to the rotting siding, and stained glass still litters the ground from the blown-out side window. The only thing missing is the shower of angelic fireballs cascading toward the earth with Sam dying by his side, an image that perversely reminds him of watching fireworks in a field with next to his little brother.

The last time they were here, Sam was half out of his mind with fever and remorse, and Dean’s desperate I’m-Your-Big-Brother-You-Have-To-Do-What-I-Say tone had actually, thankfully, gotten through to him and Sam had backed down. He can’t believe that he has to talk Sam down from the same fucking ledge again, only it’s worse this time because Sam is laser focused on his mission to fix the problem. This time, emotional pleas and yelling and demanding aren’t going to work. This time, so help him, the only way Dean will be able to talk Sam out of this will be to throw logic at him.

Dean launches himself out of the Impala and bursts through the doors of the church to see Sam sitting, chin in hand, in the chair that once held a nearly human King of Hell. A crimson stain is spreading on a strip of cloth that he’s holding to his arm, and there is a bowl of already-mixed spell ingredients on the floor in front of him. Sam has clearly been waiting for Dean.

“Well, that was quick.”

Dean, bent over huffing, heart still pounding from breakneck drive here, is seriously tempted to punch Sam.

Before Dean can take a deep enough breath to start in on forcefully explaining to Sam how idiotic this is, Sam launches into his sales pitch. “Look Dean, I know what you’re going to say, but just listen. I’m not throwing my life away on some impulsive, reckless act. I need you to understand that, that’s why I waited for you. I’ve had days to think this through. This endless cycle of crossing lines we’ve got no business crossing, of throwing away the world to save each other, this is where it all started, and I can stop it before it starts.”

“Damn it Sam, are you even capable of coming up with a plan where you don’t die? Closing up Hell wasn’t worth your life then, and it’s not worth it now—”

“Isn’t it though? I mean, my insides were going to be deep fried whether or not I finished it. You were right when you said you shouldn’t have pulled me back. Look at everything that came after—Kevin, you becoming a demon, and—and the things that I had to do to get you back, to remove the Mark… getting Charlie killed… and how many people died when the Darkness infected that town? I mean, how can you tell me that saving all of them isn’t worth it?”

Dean feels a knot growing in his stomach because he knows damned well that it wasn’t Lucifer who got into Sam’s head. It was the Mark that told Sam that he should have been on the pyre instead of Charlie. It was the Mark that told Sam he should have died finishing the Trials. It was the Mark that told Sam that he was evil. It had said all of this to Sam for his crime of saving Dean from an eternity of suffering.

But it was Dean who never apologized, never tried to set things right.

They have both said and done abhorrent things to each other while under the control of some entity or force, and there has always been an unspoken understanding between them that they don’t take it personally. Mostly. Sometimes. Okay, Dean usually gets mad, leaving Sam to trail after him afterwards apologizing profusely. But Sam always brushes these incidents aside and moves on without a word. Hell, the first thing Sam had done after the hammer episode was to go out and get Dean a double bacon cheeseburger with extra onions and three different pies.

But this… this has really gotten to Sam. He didn’t just dismiss it like he did when they were under the influence of the Siren. He buried it instead and let it set down roots and infest every corner of his brain. And when Sam gets like this—like after he set Lucifer free, like after he found out what he had done while he was soulless—he just can’t let it go until he does something to atone for it. This is ironically what Dean both most admires and most infuriates him about his little brother: his unwavering determination to make things right and his absolute faith in their ability to do so. More than once he has carried Dean along in his wake by sheer willpower when all Dean wanted to do is crawl into a bottle. But these crusades never end well for Sam, and the one thing that Dean will never be able to protect Sam from is himself.

Sam crosses over to the oversized wooden double doors at the entrance, already adorned with the augmented blood sigil. He winds the cloth through both handles and ties it securely as blood continues to ooze from the cut on his forearm. Dean gets what Sam is doing now. He’s using the spell to send the blood-infused cloth back in time, homing in on his own blood in the past, to hold the doors shut back then. Dean had barely gotten to Sam in time to stop him from curing Crowley, and if it had taken him just a few more seconds to push through the door it would have been over. Will have been over.

“Kah-nee-lah. Poo-goh.”

The sigil on the door starts to glow dimly, and the reality that This Is Happening hits Dean like cold water in the face. He had every intention of trying to talk Sam out of this with a reasonable, adult discussion, because he knows damned well that Sam doesn’t respond to orders being yelled at him. It all flies out the window at that moment and he’s barking at Sam like a drill sergeant, because if he doesn’t, he’d be breaking down instead. He grabs Sam’s arm and spins him around.

“What the hell, Sam? You know that nothing I said while I had that thing on my arm counts. You can’t seriously believe that I meant any of—”

Sam cuts him off, his gaze intense, his voice fervent. “It’s true, Dean, what you said. Mark or not, it’s the truth. I chose to cross those lines; I chose to let the Darkness out. You told me not to, and I did it anyway. So this is me stepping up and taking responsibility. If I’ve got a chance to undo all of this, I have to take it. And right now, it’s the only play we’ve got.”

Angry words propelled by desperation shoot out of Dean before he can stop them. “Yeah, that’s exactly what you said about your visions of the Cage, and how did that work out for you?”

Sam visibly flinches and pulls away from Dean as his expression hardens. “Kah-nee-lah. Poo-goh.”

The sigil blazes.

This is not at all what Dean intended. He came here to talk Sam back from the edge, and instead he’s pushing him toward it. Dean swallows his anger and it tastes like acid going down, and all that remains is panic.

“Sam, just stop. I don’t care what came out of my mouth when I had the Mark, it’s all bullshit. Sam, you don’t need to do this—”

“Yeah, Dean, I really do. I wasn’t strong enough to make the right choice then, but I can do it now.”

Dean flounders for whatever magic words he needs to get through to Sam and comes up empty. He does the only thing he can think of to shock some sense into him or, preferably, to knock him cold so that he shuts the fuck up and can’t finish the spell. Dean’s fist connects with Sam’s jaw, propelling him backwards. Sam goes down, sprawling on the floor, but he’s not out. He sits up, hand to jaw, and Dean expects to see shock or anger on Sam's face, but all he sees is compassion. And Dean knows that he’s lost.

“Sammy, don’t—"

“Kah-nee-lah. Poo-goh.”

A blinding light envelops the cloth holding the doors shut.

Yesterday: Lucifer-wearing-Castiel

Castiel ends the call after warning Dean about Sam’s intentions. He takes a marker to one of the added symbols and alters it slightly. He freezes as Lucifer gets back in the driver’s seat.

Lucifer asks suspiciously, “And what exactly are you doing with this, Castiel?”

I’m just disrupting the sigil. The change I made will prevent the spell from accounting for the current position of the Earth relative to its position within the—

“Summarize, Poindexter.”

With the change I’ve made, whatever object Sam is sending back will end up in space. Sam will think that his alteration failed, and he won’t interfere with your plans. You would know if I was lying.

“So… I’m trying to understand this. You’re helping me by sabotaging Sam’s work… why, exactly?”

To eliminate your motivation to kill my friend.

Lucifer considers Castiel’s response. “Huh. We’ll see.”

I can still expel you.

“Now Castiel, we both know that’s an empty threat.”

Castiel is silent for a moment. Then:

It’s a small world after all, it’s a small world—

“Alright, alright. Just kidding. Grow a sense of humor.”

Now: Dean

The cloth binding the door handles is gone, but as far as Dean can tell, nothing else has changed. Sam is still on the floor, a stunned expression on his face that would be comical under any other circumstances, and all Dean can think is thank fucking God, and he starts to wonder if maybe there isn’t something out there intervening on his behalf after all.

“I don’t… it should have… it didn’t work.” Sam looks around in dazed confusion for a moment before pushing himself to his knees, and he looks up at Dean, eyes filled with defeat. Dean can’t stop the memory from superimposing itself in his mind of Sam kneeling in front of him, resigned in his acceptance of Dean’s judgment of him, waiting for the scythe to swing.

“I’m sorry...” Sam apologizes for not being dead.

Dean thinks he’s going to be sick.

He drops to Sam’s level and doesn’t know whether to shake him or maybe hit him again. He pulls Sam to himself instead and holds onto him like he’s going to blink out of existence if he lets go. Sam doesn’t resist, but he doesn’t respond.

Dean knows that there is something that Sam needs to hear, something he should have said weeks ago. Dean hasn’t been able to tell him, because it’s selfish and the good guys aren’t supposed to be selfish. The good guys are supposed to put the rest of the world first, and happily throw themselves into oblivion for “the greater good”. He keeps his grip on Sam because he doesn’t want to see Sam’s reaction to what he’s about to say; he’s not sure what Sam will think of him afterwards.

“What you said… after you risked the world for me, when you said that you’d do it again in a second…”

Sam tenses in his arms, and Dean takes a breath.

“Sammy, that wasn’t evil. That was the best fucking moment of my life.”

The statement hangs there for a few heartbeats. Then Sam relaxes, lets his chin drop to Dean’s shoulder, and tentatively folds his arms around him. Dean feels him starting to shake.

“I wanted to—I couldn’t save them.” Sam’s words fall out of him between hitched breaths.

“I know Sammy.”

“It should have been me up there instead of—”

“Don’t.”

All of the mourning that Dean hadn’t allowed Sam to express as they watched Charlie’s body burn, all of the grief that Sam has held bottled up ever since pours out of him then, and Sam clings to Dean like a drowning man to a life preserver. He doesn’t know how long they stay there. His knees are aching and his legs are falling asleep but he doesn’t care because Sam is still here and he’s alive. He waits until the tremors slow and finally stop, then slowly pulls back.

“Hey, you don’t get to put this all on yourself. I’m the one who took the Mark without reading the warning label. We’re in this together. We’ll figure this out, both of us.”

Sam just nods numbly.

“Now let’s get out of here before we hit menopause.”

Sam rewards Dean with an expelled almost-laugh and a flicker of an almost-smile, and Dean chooses to count that as a win.

~~~~~~~~~~

More Notes:

I have this nagging need to address all of the drama from 10.23 Brother's Keeper that the writers just decided to drop on the floor.

The title is named after the ST:TOS The City on the Edge of Forever. The theme of the story, at least from the original script, is that it is possible to love someone so much that you would throw away your whole universe for them. I can't help but notice the parallel to SPN.

This is exactly what Dean wants from Sam throughout seasons 8 and 9, and when Sam does it in season 10, Dean calls him evil for it. Sam just can't fucking win.

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

The Dos and Don’ts of Writing Smart Characters

Since I started this blog, one of the most common questions I’ve received has to do with the portrayal of intelligent characters.  This is also one of the most difficult to answer -- excluding questions about characters with specialized knowledge sets, which are fairly easy to answer with source compilations.  Most of the questions have to do with:  how do you portray a smart character believably?  How do you make the audience relate to them?  Can I still make them likable?  How do I avoid the pitfalls of popular media?

Well, I’m finally here to answer, utilizing examples from some of my favorite (and occasionally, not-so-favorite) media.  Let’s jump in to the dos and don’ts of smart characters!

1.  Do let the audience follow the character’s thought process.  

As demonstrated by:  Tommy Shelby from Peaky Blinders

Albert Einstein allegedly once said, “If you can’t explain it to a five-year-old, you don’t truly understand it.”  And the sentiment rings true:  true genius doesn’t need to dazzle with big words and technobabble.  Instead, it makes the complex appear simple.

The same rings true for brilliant characters.  BBC’s Sherlock (more on that later) ceased to satisfy in its later seasons because it began to rely too heavily on visual glitz to avoid actually explaining its mysteries and how they were solved.  Similarly, the biggest complaints with block buster franchises -- Star Wars, The Avengers, Game of Thrones -- is that they became obsessed with “subverting expectations” cleverly instead of leading the audiences to their most logical and satisfying conclusions.

Meanwhile, the smartest and most satisfying media dazzles not by staying over the audience’s head, but by illustrating how simplistic the solutions can be.

Let’s start with my boy Tommy Shelby, the charismatic, swaggering protagonist of the charismatic, swaggering crime drama Peaky Blinders.  Using only his intelligence (and complete disregard for his own life/suicidal tendencies, but that’s not the point here), Tommy claws his way up from the near-bottom of the social ladder (an impoverished Romani in early 20th century Birmingham) to being a decorated war hero, to being the leader of a feared razor gang, to dominating the race track business, to becoming a business mogul, to becoming a member of parliament and trying to assassinate the leader of the fascist party. He’s also one of the paramount reasons why I’m bisexual.

So how can such a drastic social climb be conveyed believably?  Because Tommy -- as the viewpoint character -- is placed in seemingly inescapable situations, and then proceeds to demonstrate that the solutions to those situations have been there the whole time.  I recently watched a brilliant video on how this is done, which can be viewed here.

Early in season one, for example, he responds to aggressive new methods by the police by organizing a mass-burning of paintings of the king, and uses the press this garners to publicly shame the methods of the chief inspector who’s been antagonizing him.  In the next season, he talks his way into a deal by bluffing that he planted a grenade in his rival’s distillery.  My personal favorite is in season four, when he responds to being outgunned by a larger, American gang by contacting their rival -- none other than an Alphonse Capone.

All of Tommy’s victories are satisfying, because they don’t come out of nowhere -- we have access to the same information he does, each victory is carefully foreshadowed, and we are reminded at every turn that failure is a very real possibility (more on that later.)  So when he wins, we’re cheering with him.

Other examples:  Mark Watney from The Martian, who explains science in its most simplistic terms and with infectious enthusiasm.  He would make every character on The Big Bang Theory cry.  

Also, Miss Fisher from the AMAZING Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries.  The dazzling, 1920s, female Sherlock Holmes of your dreams.  I cannot recommend it enough.

To apply this to your own writing:  Remember you won’t dazzle anyone if you smack them in the face with a “brilliant” plot twist.  They want to take a journey with your character, not be left in the dust.  

Also, for everyone in my askbox concerned that they’re not smart enough to write intelligent characters, just remember how simple the problems confronting smart characters can be.  Put them in a difficult situation, and provide them with a means of getting out.  Then, just let them find it. 

2.  Don’t assume the audience is too stupid to keep up (or try to make them feel too stupid to keep up.)

As demonstrated by:  Sherlock Holmes from BBC’s Sherlock.

Say what you will:  there were reasons why everyone was so captivated by this show during its first two seasons.  It felt fresh.  People had yet to become frustrated with the inescapable thirst for Benedict Cumberbatch.  The writing was sharp, and the editing clever.  And it wove a tantalizing web of mysteries that demanded solution.  The problem was, there weren’t any.

The most frustrating for many was how Sherlock faked his death at the end of season two, after which devoted fans spent two years creating intricate theories on how he might have pulled this off.  The creators responded by mocking this dedication in the opening episode of season three, by showing a fan club spinning outlandish theories (one of which included Sherlock and Moriarty kissing.)  This might have been laughed off -- at the time, many seemed to consider it quite funny -- if the creators had bothered to offer their own explanation of how Sherlock survived.  They didn’t.  And so began a seemingly endless loop of huge cliffhangers that promised -- and consistently failed to deliver -- satisfying answers.

The most egregious examples occur in season four, which provided answers to questions no one asked, and withheld answers for things everyone wanted to know.  For example, did you know that the real reason Moriarty engaged Sherlock is because he was hypnotized by Sherlock’s secret evil sister?  The same one who killed Sherlock’s best friend, whom Sherlock convinced himself was a dog?  Yes, that was a real plot point, in the climax of the series.  It’s an effort to befuddle the audience with brilliant and unexpected writing, but instead pulled them out of a story they were already invested in and made them far more critical of its pre-existing faults. 

It’s pointed out in the brilliant (if bluntly named) Sherlock Is Garbage, And Here’s Why that Moffat can be a great writer, but is a consistently terrible show runner, because he’s more interested in dazzling the audience with cleverness than actually telling a satisfying story.  The video also points out that the show often implied Sherlock’s brilliance, without ever letting the audience follow along with his actions or thought-process in a way that DEMONSTRATED his brilliance.  

I highly recommend giving the aforementioned video a watch, because it is not only a great explanation of how Sherlock Holmes can be best utilized, but about how writing itself can be best utilized.

Other examples:  The Big Bang Theory.  As Wisecrack points out in their wonderful video on the subject, the punchline of every joke is “oh look, these characters are smart nerds!” which is repetitious at best and downright insulting at worst.

How to avoid this in your writing:  Treat the audience as your equal.  You’re not trying to bedazzle them, you’re trying to take them on a journey with you.  Let them be delighted when you are.  Don’t constantly try to mislead them or hold intelligence over their head, and they will love you for it.  Also, cheap tricks do not yield a satisfying story:  readers will know when you went into a narrative without a plan, and they won’t appreciate it.

3.  Do remember that smart people can be kind and optimistic!

As demonstrated by:  Shuri from Black Panther.

Yes, brilliant people can be unhappy and isolated by their intelligence, or rejected by society.  But remember that intelligence isn’t synonymous with a cantankerous attitude, or an excuse to be a pugnacious ass to those around you!  

Part of the reason why Shuri of 2018′s Black Panther was such a breath of fresh air was the fact that she subverted almost all preconceptions about how a genius looks, acts, and regards the world.  And it’s not just the fact that she isn’t a sullen, middle-aged white man that makes her stand out:  Shuri has an effervescent attitude, and genuinely loves contributing to her country and family.  She referred to sound-proof boots as “sneakers” (and then explained the pun when her brother didn’t get it.)  She’s fashionable.  She teases her older brother, and cries when he is apparently killed.  She’s up on meme culture.  This makes her unlike pretty much every other genius portrayed in the MCU.

Except maybe the Hulk.  He can dab now.

Shuri is also allowed to take pride in her genius, and can be a bit insufferable about it, which makes her more enjoyable and rounded.  But she is an excellent example of how genius can be explored and portrayed in fiction, and I will forever be embittered that she was underutilized in Infinity War and Endgame.

Why, for example, are all geniuses portrayed as arrogant misanthropes?  Albert Einstein battled depression, but he is also said to have enjoyed blowing bubbles and watching puppet shows.  He was kind to those who knew him.  Similarly, Alan Turing behaved little like his fictional counterpart, described as “shy but outgoing,” with a love of being outdoors.  Nikola Tesla fell in love with a pigeon.  Why do we have to portray these people so damn gravely?

Other examples:  Spencer Reid from Criminal Minds.  Also an excellent portrayal of an intelligent person on the autism spectrum, as he struggles to interface socially but cares profusely for his fellow human beings.  He is brilliant, and completely precious.

Also, Sherlock Holmes -- the original version, and all faithful adaptations thereof.  Anyone who thinks Sherlock is an austere, antisocial jerk isn’t familiar with the original canon.  He blushed when Watson complimented his intelligence, for God’s sake. 

Then there’s Elle Woods from Legally Blonde and Marge from Fargo.  Brilliant, upbeat, optimistic geniuses.

To apply this to your own writing:  If you have a smart character who hates everyone around them for no identifiable reason, ask yourself why this is necessary and what this adds to the plot.  Are they angry about injustice, towards themselves or others?  Are they frustrated with an inability to relate to people?  Do they want to protect themselves or their family at all costs, including politeness?  If not, question why your brilliant character can’t also be kind to those around them.

4.  Don’t make your character perfect at everything they do.

As demonstrated by:  Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Ah, Wesley.  Some call him the original Mary Sue, and it’s one of the only times I’ve seen the term applied with some accuracy.  He is somehow the most gifted and least qualified person on The Enterprise.  He’s Hermione Granger without the charm, jumping in to answer questions before any of the trained officers in the room have the chance to, always in the right.  His only obstacle?  Why, the boorish adults he’s surrounded with simply don’t understand his brilliance!

As early as the series’ very second episode, Wesley -- inebriated by an alien illness -- forcibly takes over the ship from Captain Picard, only to later save it from a threat with a reverse tractor beam of his own design.  

Wesley was obviously inserted as a means of attracting younger viewers, but failed egregiously, because he was too annoyingly perfect for kids to relate too, and not cool enough for them to be invested in.  I binge-watched the various Star Trek series in my youth for Spock, Data, and my wife Seven of Nine, not to watch seasoned military and scientific officers get lectured by an adolescent.  Even Wil Wheaton, who had the misfortune of portraying this character, expressed a dislike for him.  

Precocious children are great, if you get them right.  But get them wrong, and they can easily become your most annoying character, marring the face of otherwise great media.  The most important thing you can do for a brilliant character is endow them with weaknesses and flaws -- even something as small as Shuri’s fondness for teasing her older brother made her enjoyable, as anyone with siblings could relate to their dynamic.  

But, what if you want a supernaturally talented character who not only fails to be a ray of sunshine, but is something of an arrogant, antisocial jerk?  Can they still work, especially if they also happen to be a child? 

Yes, under one extremely important condition:

5.  Do keep your characters out of their depth!

As demonstrated by:  Number Five from Umbrella Academy.

Okay, he’s not exactly a child.  He’s a fifty-eight-year-old trapped in a child’s body, who’s traveled back in time from a post-apocalyptic future to warn his siblings of an incoming Armageddon.  In other news, Umbrella Academy is a weird show.  Unlike the comics, however, the apes don’t engage in prostitution. 

 The effect, however, remains the same:  a preternaturally talented child who talks down to everyone around him, including his (apparently) older siblings.  So why does he work while Wesley fails so egregiously?

For one thing, it’s demonstrated early on that Five has the skills to back up his sanctimonious attitude, with the delightfully ultraviolent Istanbul (Not Constantinople) sequence.  It also helps that he lacks Wesley’s squeaky-clean moral code, to the point at which he can get drunk in public or kill without remorse.  

But:  the element most vital to his success as a character is the fact that he’s kept completely, and consistently, out of his depth.  He knows the world will end in eight days, but he doesn’t know how this will transpire or how to stop it.  Ultimately, he fails again to stop the apocalypse, and must travel back in time with his siblings for another chance.  

Most authors have the impulse to demonstrate a character’s brilliance by allowing them to succeed against insurmountable odds, but the Umbrella Academy writers show tremendous wisdom in allowing Five to fail.  This allows the audience to empathize with him, and countermands the effects of his arrogant attitude.

This advice isn’t just true for pint-sized prodigies.  Look back over this list, and take notes of how often the most successful characters are allowed to fail, to have flaws, and to ascend past their comfort zone.  

Other examples:  Virtually every successful example on this list.

Tommy Shelby, a character of limitless ambition, conducts a new, perilous climb outside of his social rank each season, which almost always puts him in positions of mortal danger.  He faces threats both external (rival gangs, evil priests, and rising fascists) and internal (hello PTSD, suicidal tendencies, and crippling addiction) but either way, we understand that his fast-paced climb is not for the weak-willed or faint-hearted.  

Mark Watney is a brilliant scientist who has been stranded in an utterly impossible situation for which absolutely no one could be adequately prepared (spoilers:  it’s on Mars.)  We are drawn in by his plight, and how he could possibly escape from it, and there we come to admire him for his courage, optimism, and humor.

Shuri, though not the main character of Black Panther, is allowed to show off both tremendous gifts and vulnerability, as she is powerless to stop the apparent death of her beloved older brother.  She watches Wakanda’s takeover both as an innovator and a young woman, and a large reason for her success is that she is allowed to be both.  

How to apply this to your writing:  When portraying intelligent characters, take stock of how often they fail, their level of control over their surroundings, their vulnerability, and their flaws.  We don’t want to read about flawless deities.  We want to read about characters who embody and personify our humanity.  So remember they need to fall down in order to pull themselves up.

Happy writing, everybody! 

[ploppythespaceship]

Dark Season 3 Review

I know I’m a month late to this party, but... I finally finished the show. So! Overall this final season was very good and made for an emotionally satisfying ending to the show. Everyone has been praising it and that praise is well deserved.

But that being said, it was definitely the weakest of the three seasons, and some parts of it have been bothering me.

Heavy spoilers to follow.

The main issue I took with the season was pacing and focus. Season 1 and 2 have basically perfect pacing, where the show feels like a slow burn while still giving you new developments and twists at a good pace. Season 3, on the other hand, felt very fast and at times rushed by comparison.

I think they may have bitten off just a bit more than they could chew -- juggling the introduction of a parallel world, quantum entanglement, and the transitions between the various time periods is a lot to manage in eight episodes. You have to fly through some explanations and gloss over parts here and there to make it work, and I do think the season suffered slightly as a result.

Additionally, the first two seasons were fairly easy to follow once you had the characters down. Information was presented in such a way that piecing it all together didn’t require much effort. But this season often went so fast and flew through some explanations at such a pace that I had to pause several times to walk myself through it in a way that made more sense.

I also felt that several of the characters I cared most about and was more interested to learn more about were underused and overlooked. For example, Magnus, Franziska, and Bartosz being trapped in 1888 barely feels like a plot point at all. It’s brushed past yet so quickly -- yet I care about all of those characters and want to know how they feel about being trapped over a hundred years in the past.

And then when Bartosz and Silja turn out to be Noah and Agnes’s parents, the moment has no weight because the entirety of their relationship happened offscreen. We see Bartosz and Silja meet. We see Silja give birth to Noah. And we see her dead after giving birth to Agnes. That’s it. Why couldn’t we have slowed down to see the rest of that?

Another one was Hannah in 1954. After she decides to keep her child... we don’t see her at all until she travels to find Jonas in 1911. It’s possible that not much of interest happened, but I would rather have seen that, or simply seen Eva visiting her and young Silja. This could have easily been included as part of the “Between the Time” episode, and I’m not sure why it wasn’t.

Instead, a lot of the focus of this season was on the parallel world. Which is a good concept in theory, but in execution, I think the concept was a little half-baked and never felt fully developed. There were some elements I really liked -- everything in the parallel world being literally mirrored was a nice touch, and it had the added bonus of making some character’s faces look different in a very subtle way.

But there simply isn’t time to developed an entire parallel world to the same extent as the one we’ve spent two seasons now fleshing out. Yet the show tries to, taking a weird amount of time showing us slightly altered versions of events we’ve already seen instead of expanding on characters and events from the universe we already know and care about. The novelty wore off for me after the first episode, and remaining in the parallel world after that to focus on Ulrich and Charlotte’s investigation was just dull and unnecessary. All we needed to know was that everything in Eva’s world happens more or less in the same way as in Adam’s world, and the differences between the two are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

My last issue is about the time travel itself. For the whole show, the timeline has been treated as entirely fixed and immutable. Any changes that a time traveler may try to make in the past, those actions have always been in effect and have always impacted the future. Even if characters like Adam, Eva, and Claudia didn’t actively work to keep events the same way every time, they would still play out in exactly the same manner, with no variation, because the entire system is predetermined.

I really enjoyed this fixed timeline philosophy because it made Dark the single most consistent time travel story I have ever seen. Many of the logical contradictions present in other stories were simply absent, because everything is predetermined. It wasn’t a story about changing the timeline, it was a story about discovering how the timeline had already played out. It made the entire show’s structure incredibly satisfying, while also trying into the idea of fate and free will very nicely. The overwhelming theme was that your choices don’t matter, because everything you do has already happened. You are quite literally trapped in the cycle of time.

So naturally, season 3 stepping back from that to subscribe to the idea of a timeline that can be altered? That the timeline only loops on itself because Adam and Eva and Claudia actively work to ensure that it does? That didn’t sit right with me And I couldn’t help but feel a bit disappointed.

The timeline changes were implemented in a way that is consistent with itself and with the story up until that point. And it didn’t feel like a cheat, exactly. Once I managed to rethink the timeline and the knot, it is in fact consistent with itself, and I’ve come around to the ideas presented. But it still jarred me at first and left me a bit underwhelmed.

(Side note: this video helped me with rethinking it the most -- don’t picture the time knot as a circle as I had been, but picture it as a slinky. A series of nearly identical circles, the end of one loop leading directly into the beginning of the next.)

Additionally, the loophole/quantum entanglement parts still don’t make sense to me, despite all the theories I’ve read and videos I’ve watched. Does this mean there are two versions of young Jonas running around at once? Or does this mean that the two outcomes alternate each time we progress through the loop? As in, the first time through the loop, Jonas goes to Martha’s world and dies, and the second time through the loop, Jonas stays in his home to survive the apocalypse and become the Stranger. I don’t know!! This doesn’t feel adequately explained to me.

Regardless, this all feels to me like it goes against the core conceit of the show. In a way it’s arguably more tragic -- the knot could have fallen apart sooner had Adam and Eva simply chosen to let it fall apart. But they cannot change their human nature, meaning that their stubbornness and utter commitment to their own selfish goals perpetuated an endless cycle of misery for everyone. But now it’s a story about human nature and refusal to change, instead of free will and determinism. Which isn’t wrong, exactly, but again, to me it feels like this goes against the philosophy of the show’s earlier seasons.

Then again, you could argue that the whole point of the show is to make you rethink something you thought you understood and view in a new light, so maybe the show did exactly what it set out to do? I don’t know! And I think the fact that I don’t know and have to keep mulling this over after the fact speaks to what a masterpiece the show is.

And in any event, I do get why the decision was made to change the time travel philosophy And I don’t think there were any better solutions. The show has been set up in such a way that the only satisfactory ending would be breaking out of the time loop. And in a completely fixed and unchangeable timeline, this just isn’t possible. The only possible outcome is that the loop continues indefinitely, and that would be such a bummer of an ending that... I get it. It’s a better ending from an emotional and storytelling perspective, and that should be prioritized over the logic of the time travel.

Which, from a storytelling perspective, it really does work. The idea of a third world being the origin of this knot, of Jonas and Martha ultimately being the ones to break the cycle that they started? Both are thematically beautiful. You can’t help but feel emotional watching everyone fade away, wondering if they will only be a dream.

So don’t misunderstand me and think that I hated the final season. I really didn’t, and it was a good ending for the show. And I immediately looked up theories and videos to try to wrap my head around the whole thing! I just can’t help but be bothered by some of these issues, and haven’t really seen anyone discussing them.

[neeksleep]

Day 4: Outer Wilds

               There is a huge problem with me talking about Outer Wilds: I don’t want to give anything away. I don’t even want to give basic gameplay details away. I had only heard about this game from various podcasts and mentioned in videos, but the way people were talking around it made me very interested, especially when some mentioned it could be their game of the year. How could a game that I had barely heard anything about be a game of the year contender for some? So, I tried to avoid anything about it before playing it myself. I didn’t know the genre, the game length, I didn’t know what I was getting into. If your curiosity is piqued, and you’re in the same spot now that I was before I played it, I implore you pick the game up and stay in the dark about it.

               That’s a tough recommendation though. If you want to know the basics then here, I will try and give a basic idea without giving away too much. Outer Wilds is a first-person puzzle game with a “time-loop” mechanic. You assume control of an alien who has access to a spaceship that lets you fly around your small galaxy. Puzzles aren’t necessarily obvious, and a lot of the puzzles require more understanding of information that’s been given to you rather than a puzzle sequence.

               Even that feels like I’ve given away too much. So this is my final warning. If you haven’t played Outer Wilds yet and you have even a remote interest in playing it, even if you don’t think you’ll be able to play it in years, do not read beyond this!

               With that, let’s get into what makes Outer Wilds a stand-out game.

The “I’m a Genius” Moments

               As mentioned, the puzzles in the game are less like set pieces, and more understanding concepts and story bits. The main pulls of this game are a time-loop that occurs every 22 minutes, and the way the worlds change over that time period. Most planets have some time dependent feature such as a planet that is lose it’s sand covered surface to a nearly joint planet, while another has a planet being bombared by it’s volcanic moon as it crumbles into a blackhole through the loop. The puzzles lead you to pieces of text-conversations that contribute to the history of a long-gone race called the Nomai. These conversations sometimes contain subtle hints as to how a mechanic works somewhere in the world, but also act as guides for places you should check out next, especially if you’re stuck. The key bits can be referred to once on your spaceship where you have a web of information, linking one piece of data with the others. Depending on how you play, you may have quite a scattered picture, but over time you’ll see the network come together.

               Here’s the thing though: even with all the information, you still need to understand the information you’re given. You could have found all the key information, but the final puzzle(s) will remain unsolved until you can put all the pieces together. I’d wake up after a night’s sleep and turn the game on to try something that seemed logical based on the data. It was so satisfying putting the pieces together.  I was probably slower on the intake than the average person, but even after I found everything, it took me a few days to figure everything out. It felt odd being excited to discover what amounts to be a few lines of text from a conversation, but that is a testament to the world that Outer Wilds has built.

               By putting things together, that often meant revisiting areas that I thought I had fully scoured only to discover that there was just something a little more to be found. As far as the type of puzzles, mostly you’ll be doing basic interaction with the world. Looking at something to move it or picking up something and placing it somewhere. If I’m going full spoiler territory, a lot of the puzzles are timing, camera manipulation and navigation. I am not well versed in puzzle games, so it’s quite possible these ideas have been explored before, but it was all new to me, and I think any game that has a puzzle aspect to it can learn a lot from Outer Wilds and the way it thinks outside the box.

The History and the Story

               Uncovering the history of the world in Outer Wilds is half of your goal. The other half is figuring out just what is going on now. You’re a new astronaut about to explore a galaxy that’s been mapped by a group of astronauts that are currently still exploring. You get tidbits of information on their whereabouts, and using the few pieces of equipment, you can quickly figure out that they’re all out there somewhere. You’ll meet a member on each planet who will then share what they’re doing there, provide a clue on what to explore and act as a reminder of the key points you’ve discovered on each planet.

                It was equally enjoyable reading the Nomai conversations as it was meeting each astronaut. Even text that was just conversation was nice as it built up a race that had their own personalities, even if you couldn’t meet them. It was lore done in a way that clicked where other games hadn’t really grabbed me. It may have had something to do with it’s simplicity. Yes, they were primarily scientist-like characters trying to preserve their race for the ages, but they also had to deal with their internal politics. And then, to finally put the pieces together to discover whether their ultimate goal was reached, seeing the state of the current world, it was undeniably most “I get it!” moment in my gaming history.

 In Conclusion…

               There’s a reason this game is so difficult to talk about is because it is so different, and by talking about it, you almost give away the charm of the game that is so satisfying to discover by yourself. I wouldn’t look down on anyone who uses a guide to get through this game because honestly the puzzles are only a part of what makes this game so great and I think seeing the solutions will still leave you with an impression. If you love being curious, this is the game for you. It rewards curiosity in more than one day, and it also rewards patience. There is no downside to literally watching the galaxy burn; you’ll get to see a spectacular view, or you might notice something that’s worth prodding. Even in this conclusion, I want to stop talking. I want so many people to experience this game in some way. I felt the rush of solving a mystery, the satisfying feeling of solving a puzzle and the immersion of reading text messages all at once. Pair this with a great soundtrack by Andrew Prahlow (available to listen on Spotify and other streaming services) and you’ve got an unforgettable experience.

[bluewatsons]

Alan Calnan, The Nature of Reasonableness, The Nature of Reasonableness, Southwestern Law School Research Paper No. 2019/07. (June 4, 2019)

Abstract

Though the notion of reasonableness dominates Anglo- American law, its meaning has been clouded by traditional conceptual analysis. This Essay argues that greater clarity can be gained by taking a scientific approach to the subject, exposing the natural foundations beneath the concept’s varied interpretations.

Introduction

Reasonable legal minds agree that reasonableness is one of the foundational concepts of American law, infiltrating everything from administrative, corporate, and constitutional law to crimes, torts, and contracts.1 Yet the concept’s importance and prevalence haven’t necessarily bred clarity. In fact, a recent flurry of analytic interpretations has only clouded the term’s meaning.2 While some scholars say reasonableness is a prescriptive standard,3 others ]believe it describes existing community values,4 and still others see it as a combination of the two. 5 This split is deepened by disagreements over the concept’s normative basis. Indeed, the latest proposals ground reasonableness in a wide variety of ideals, including utilitarianism, economic efficiency, fairness, deontological respect, pragmatic rationalism, formalism, mutuality, and aretaic virtue.6

Since reasonableness effectively serves as law’s conscience, doubts about its essence are an obvious cause for concern. But the impasse also puts legal theory in a serious predicament. If reasonableness means different things to different people—or at least, different things in different legal contexts—then there’s little point to searching for a common unifying principle. Even if such a principle exists, traditional conceptual analysis has struggled to discover it. As jurisprudence maven Lawrence Solum recently observed, legal philosophy’s exhaustive polemic on reasonableness eventually just “runs out of gas.”7

Yet the problem with these approaches isn’t a lack of analytic rigor. Rather, it’s an absence of critical facts. What’s missing from the discussion of reasonableness, I argue, is a basic understanding of human nature. Because science informs that inquiry, this Essay explores the biological origins of reasonableness by probing three of its key connotations: sensibleness, fairness, and moderation. The first meaning evokes mankind’s integrated cognitive faculties, the second addresses humanity’s reflexive values, and the third entails the coordinative processes animating human decision-making. Together, these attributes suggest that reasonableness is not an abstract, static, or monolithic ideal; rather, it’s an organic, dynamic, and systemic phenomenon for satisfying our natural urge for homeostasis.

I. Integrative Faculties

It’s widely recognized that reasonable and sensible are effectively interchangeable ideas. But it’s not so clear how these terms became synonymous or what deeper insight can be drawn from their relationship. After all, words grounded in reason, on the one hand, and senses, on the other, seem facially antagonistic if not incompatible. Yet as it turns out, the meaning of sensible has changed over time, and its transition to reasonableness reveals more about that concept than any standard dictionary definition can offer.

What makes the etymology of sensible so significant is its uncanny resonance with human nature. Sensible originated in the Middle Ages with a physical connotation, suggesting something “perceptible to the senses.”8 Since sensory perceptions are typically clear and emphatic, sensible things were deemed “easily understood.”9 This interpretation subtly turned a biological feeling into a mental experience. That tendency was exacerbated by the growing belief in mind-body dualism, which placed reason in control of all human understanding.10 Thus, if a thought were comprehensible, and thus sensible under the latter view, it had to be both “logical” and “in accordance with reason.”11 So construed, sensible became something of a notional composite, integrating body with mind and feeling with rationality.

Though reasonableness isn’t conceived this way today, science has confirmed its integrative nature. The ostensibly one-dimensional term—reason-able—is really the functional integration of two human faculties: reason and feelings. As neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has observed, “Feelings and reason are involved in an inseparable, looping, reflective embrace”12 in which “mind and brain influence the body proper just as much as the body proper can influence the brain and the mind.”13 In fact, says Damasio, body and brain aren’t really separate life systems but rather “two aspects of the very same being”14—in effect, “an organismic single unit.”15

Like reason, feelings are a type of cognition.16 They process and evaluate information obtained internally from a person’s body and memory and externally from the surrounding environment. 17 Informed by homeostasis, which sets the parameters for an organism’s survival and flourishing, feelings provide “a moment-to- moment report on the state of life” inside the body.18 That report includes a normative judgment about its findings, signaling that the body’s condition is either good or bad.19 Conditions conducive to well-being produce a range of positive or pleasant feelings, while bodily states detrimental to survival evoke feelings that are negative or unpleasant.20 Over the course of evolution, these valenced feelings get etched into mankind’s long-term memory bank— DNA—where they emerge as heritable intuitions.21

This preserved affective experience begets, directs, and grounds our “sense” of reasonableness. When the body’s sensory apparatus is stimulated by new information, our feelings spontaneously appraise the situation and sound an immediate call to either accept or reject the precipitating cause. 22 This impulse often is accompanied by powerful emotions—like anger, fear, joy, or comfort—which heighten the initial reaction.23 These tumultuous feelings finally stir our reason, but not to act as the final arbiter or sole decider. Rather, reason intervenes to serve our intuitions by updating their old wisdom with new plans, strategies, and arguments suited to the prevailing circumstances.24 In short, feelings propose general rules of behavior, while reason searches for exceptions. If none can be found or fashioned, our rational faculty readily justifies, defends, and approves the proposal.25

Even when reason counsels a different course of action, feelings continue to influence its trajectory. Feelings monitor the quality of the mind’s response to a problem, making us feel good when the solution benefits our welfare and bad when it fails to advance our interests.26 This feedback renews the rational review of better alternatives, thus completing one cycle of integrated problem- solving and initiating a repeating succession of others.27 At each turn, reason is informed and tempered by feelings, and feelings are informed and tempered by reason.

Reasonableness emerges when the relationship between reason and feelings is relatively reciprocal. When it’s not, the effect is unmistakably un-reasonable. Psychopaths and sociopaths are rational, but they lack important social feelings like empathy, compassion, guilt, or shame.28 By contrast, infants are extremely emotional, but they have undeveloped powers of reason.29 Although adults with impulse control disorders are capable of rational thinking, they often are captive to their feelings and emotions. In each situation, the actor’s dis-integrated mentality prevents her from behaving as a reasonable person.

Ironically, our integrative faculties may explain why humans ever began creating such behavioral standards in the first place. According to Professor Damasio, “Feelings, as deputies of homeostasis, are the catalysts for the responses that began human cultures.”30 When people started experiencing the stress of group living, Damasio surmises, they would have invented a variety of responses to diminish their displeasure.31 These reactions initially may have “ranged from moral prescriptions and principles of justice to modes of social organization and governance.”32 Because such conventions proved effective, they were formalized in codes of conduct and eventually sanctified as law.33

We may not know precisely how reasonableness came to represent these homeostatic developments. Yet one thing is reasonably clear. We can’t hope to understand the meaning of that concept without investigating the integrated interplay of reason, feeling, and homeostasis.34

II. Reflexive Values

As it turns out, homeostasis and feelings are not just biological faculties for creating reasonableness. They also are normative agents that inform this mindset. We’ve seen how homeostasis gives valence to our feelings, which make positive and negative judgments about our homeostatic stability. But that process goes deeper still, imbuing us with core values that prime our every decision. While these values often seem too deep to fathom, their natural foundations actually lie well within the realm of reasonableness.

The central value of reasonableness is fairness.35 Though fairness is presented as a single concept, it combines two apparently inconsistent ideals. Fairness can be either a general sense of justice and equity36 or conformity with specific rules or duties.37 In reality, however, fairness is neither unary nor binary. It is a complementary and reflexive set of ideals naturally derived from mankind’s highest normative authority, the human brain.

The brain evolved in three stages to solve three different adaptive challenges.38 While the ancient selfish brain structures promoted the individual’s survival, later social structures facilitated cooperation and group living.39 The final global layer reconciled conflicts between its discordant predecessors and fashioned long-term strategies for human flourishing.40

As an assembled unit, the brain produces the two types of fairness that make up our sense of reasonableness. The selfish and social modules emit moral intuitions. Inherited at birth, these intuitions are self-evident to their hosts, who perceive them as special, serious, imperative, and universal.41 So when someone violates these rules, the infraction feels instinctively unfair.

This deep-seated feeling derives from values so important to human survival that they have been imprinted into our genome by natural selection. Though cultures prioritize these values differently, all people crave autonomy, care or security from harm, reciprocity, loyalty, hierarchical authority, sanctity, and integrity.42 Because we possess a visceral need for these basic goods, we feel subconsciously entitled to their fulfillment. When that entitlement is threatened or impaired, our indignity reflex automatically kicks in and we are filled with a sense of injustice and inequity. This feeling appears to account for theories of reasonableness grounded in deontology and virtue ethics.43

Our global neural network works differently. It deliberatively constructs conventional rules to solve current problems that evolution, genes, and intuitions can’t or don’t address. These rules depend on a logical accommodation of many factors, including the norms, practices, customs, and conditions prevailing at the moment. Though conventions are influential, they don’t feel nearly as binding. In fact, they typically must be enforced by external incentives like punishments or social sanctions, or justified by the power of affective persuasion.44 When such rules are breached, we think the transgression is unfair because it disrespects a rational rule of behavior grounded in a utilitarian or economic assessment of costs and benefits.45

The legal notion of reasonableness does a good job of capturing the dual strands of biological valence. Our moral intuitions are embedded in bright-line rules of law, including crimes and torts against battery, false imprisonment, theft or conversion of property, breach of confidentiality, and abuse or exploitation of the weak and vulnerable.46 Because these offenses directly betray our harm, autonomy, reciprocity, loyalty, and authority values, they are treated as presumptively unreasonable. When our values conflict or interrelate in complex ways, the law typically abandons a rule-based approach and replaces it with a general standard of reasonableness.47 This is particularly evident in the tort theory of negligence, where an endless array of lawful but ill-considered acts may result in someone’s harm. In these cases, findings of unreasonableness cannot be presumed, but must be rationally and affirmatively justified by considering all of the surrounding circumstances.48

Yet law’s rendition of reasonableness as fairness is not quite complete. Because the legal concept lacks a foundation in human nature, it misses reasonableness’s essential reflexivity. Rules and standards are never entirely separate; nor are they permanently set in stone. Rather, like the faculties of reasonableness inside the brain, these valenced mediums are constantly shaping and being shaped by each other.

Such circularity is most conspicuous at the level of doctrine, where rules and standards are locked in a perpetual feedback loop. In torts, for example, the presumptive rule of an intentional tort or strict liability theory is often countered by a privilege or defense grounded in the standard of reasonableness.49 In other situations, a reasonableness standard is used to clarify an ambiguous rule, as is true for cases of outrage and abnormally dangerous activities.50 This relationship is also reversible. Doctrinal standards—like negligence’s standard of reasonable care—frequently spawn rule- based exceptions; 51 and in some scenarios—like the no-duty principle for nonfeasance—the exceptions can effectively restore the standard.52

Because reasonableness’s reflexivity is ongoing, its patterns can even shape the course of law’s historical development. If one assumes a global perspective—in fact, the sort of meta-view taken by our faculty of reason—these ripple effects soon snap into focus. It’s clear that theoretical standards—like the original writ of trespass or “wrongs”—may splinter into more fine-grained behavioral rules—like our various intentional torts.53 It’s also apparent that a hodge-podge of specific social rules can scale up to form a general standard of reasonable care, as happened with the theory of negligence.54

It’s even evident that these normative movements can waffle to- and-fro. A good example is the law of products liability, which gradually morphed from a strict no-duty rule to a standard of reasonableness; then transitioned to a rule of strict liability, and ultimately morphed back into a standard of reasonableness.55 In each situation, reasonableness isn’t just the state of fairness within our rules and standards; it’s also the process for coordinating them.

III. Coordinate Processes

The idea of reasonableness as coordination is captured by yet a different connotation of the term. Being reasonable means being moderate or displaying moderation.56 Since the core idea of moderation is avoiding extremes or lessening their intensity,57 this version of reasonableness certainly assumes a coordinative mentality. But it also comes with a familiar qualification. Like other aspects of reasonableness, the mind’s coordination process isn’t purely rational. Instead, it’s a natural dynamic of a complex biological system.

All living systems contain disparate elements organized to achieve some purpose.58 Because these elements are innately competitive, they must coordinate their individual aims just to maintain system function.59 That process, though system-specific, is neither haphazard nor idiosyncratic. Rather, it’s the product of a universal medium called coordination dynamics.60 This uncanny natural power not only senses system instability, it initiates a continuous cycle of adjustments to restore equilibrium at all levels of existence.61

In fact, coordination dynamics accounts for the integrated brain mechanics mentioned earlier. Alerted by homeostasis, coordination dynamics sets out to reconcile the cacophony of thoughts and feelings aroused by a disruptive event. It also harmonizes the selfish, social, and global drives directing the mind’s response.62 As the process unfolds, coordination dynamics employs the trick of moderation to inhibit extreme, knee-jerk reactions. Though the mind simultaneously entertains opposed positions—a process called metastability—it constantly explores the vast array of middle-ground alternatives, ensuring that the final decision is measured, moderate, and ultimately, reasonable.63

But that’s not all. These dynamics don’t just operate in isolation. Because systems are overlapping and interactive, their dynamics have a circular causality, scaling up to higher levels and affecting the levels below.64 So it is with law. Human beings first addressed their survival problem by forming larger coordination systems called societies. When these social systems came into conflict, they formed coordinative cultural systems like religions, philosophies, traditions, and customs to hold their factions together. Yet even this wasn’t enough. As cultures and sub-cultures clashed, humanity adapted once again, this time by developing the still higher coordination system of law.65

Law served as a system of sociocultural homeostasis. As Professor Damasio explains, “the development of justice systems responded to the detection of imbalances caused by social behaviors that endangered individuals and the group.”66 Law’s purpose was to coordinate society’s volatile elements by reestablishing a healthy equilibrium between the law-abiding and the lawless.67

The longer law persisted, the more deeply coordination dynamics shaped the human psyche. Nurtured by global values of authority, sanctity, and integrity, this sociocultural norm became a pervasive natural instinct, inspiring an exalted and unifying legal “system” that reflected and reinforced its coordinative nature. In fact, within democratic cultures, coordination dynamics bred legal institutions structured for the very purpose of facilitating reasonable decision- making.

These features consistently promote metastability by juxtaposing polar positions, diversifying their analysis, assessing their intersections and interstices, and synthesizing medial solutions. The process begins with law’s superstructure, which strikes a delicate balance of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It also permeates the infrastructure of each branch, dividing executive power among the president, the cabinet, and various implementing agencies; splitting legislative authority between the House and the Senate; and stratifying judicial authority through a multilateral court system.

Though such governance structures may seem to “leave the realm of biology,” Professor Damasio insists “that is simply not true.”68 “The protracted negotiating process required for governance efforts,” he continues, “is necessarily embedded in the biology of affect, knowledge, reasoning, and decision making.”69 Because “[h]umans are inevitably caught inside the machinery of affect and its accommodations with reason,” “[t]here is no exit from that condition.”70

These coordinative properties scale all the way down to law’s minutia. Legal concepts are framed as rules, standards, and principles or policies, and are packaged as competitive rights and duties. If these binaries can’t be reconciled, they’re functionally coordinated by law’s global mediator, the constitution. Such accommodations aren’t permanent, however. Under the common law system, each new decision must be continually coordinated with the old wisdom of past opinions. The same holds true in individual lawsuits, where law’s longstanding norms are constantly mediated by judges and juries informed by prevailing social values. Within the trial process itself, the law’s high-minded rationality gets further mediated by the raw emotion of the parties, the witnesses, and the factfinders.71 Even when a final decision is necessary, law typically doesn’t entrust the responsibility to a single person, but assigns it to a panel of coordinators willing to reconcile their differences in the common pursuit of justice.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the resulting judgments will be sensible, fair, or moderate. Seemingly rational people sometimes do irrational things. But because law is an essentially coordinative enterprise, it’s reasonable by nature even though it’s not always reasonable in fact.

Conclusion

Conventional legal theory treats big questions as matters for deep philosophical discourse. That’s certainly been true in the jurisprudence of reasonableness, which has become little more than intellectual jousting. It’s now clear, however, that topics like reasonableness can’t be grasped by analysis alone. Because reasonableness has physiological origins, it’s susceptible to scientific investigation. In fact, science helps to illuminate three of the concept’s core connotations: sensibleness, fairness, and moderation. While the first meaning describes the cognitive integration of reason and feeling, the second evokes homeostatic values like justice and reciprocity, and the third reflects the dynamics of human coordination.

Admittedly, these findings don’t tell the whole story, as new discoveries in the natural sciences continue at a frenzied pace. But such insights do bring us closer to the truth. Even if that prospect doesn’t convert every science skeptic, it does make a naturalized approach to reasonableness reasonable in itself. As Professor Damasio counsels, “It is often feared that greater knowledge of biology reduces complex, minded, and willful cultural life to automated, pre-mental life,” but science actually “reinforces the humanist project” by “achiev[ing] something spectacularly  different: a deepening of the connection between cultures and the life process.”72

Footnotes

See Brandon L. Garratt, Constitutional Reasonableness, 102 MINN. L. REV. 61, 69-70 (2017) (recounting the concept’s significance and use within multiple legal fields); Frédéric G. Sourgens, Reason and Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity of the Common law, 67 ME. L. REV. 73, 74-75 (2014) (same).

The latest entry appeared just two months ago in the Yale Law Journal Forum. See Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Fourth Amendment Reasonableness After Carpenter, 128 YALE L.J. FORUM 943 (2019).

See Alan D. Miller & Ronen Perry, The Reasonable Person, 87 N.Y.U. L. REV. 323, 326 (2012) (“We put forward and defend the argument that normative definitions [of reasonableness] are categorically preferable to positive definitions because the latter are logically unacceptable.”).

See Kevin P. Tobia, How People Judge What is Reasonable, 70 ALA. L. REV. 293, 299-300 (2018) (describing this view of reasonableness as a search for the statistically average characteristics of people within a community).

See id. at 296 (arguing that “[r]easonableness is best understood as a hybrid notion that is partly statistical and partly prescriptive”).

See Sourgens, supra note 1, at 80-105 (discussing utilitarian, pragmatic, and formalist paradigms of reasonableness); Benjamin C. Zipursky, Reasonableness In and Out of Negligence Law, 163 U. PA. L. REV. 2131 (2015) (proposing a theory of reasonableness as mutuality); Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Theory Lexicon: The Reasonable Person, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Apr. 21, 2019), https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2019/04/legal-theory-lexicon-the-reasonable-person.html (addressing efficiency, fairness, deontological, and virtue-based notions of reasonableness).

Id.

Sensible, ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY, https://www.etymonline.com/word/sensible (last visited June 1, 2019).

Id.

Mind-body dualism is the belief that mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects.” Scott Calef, Dualism and Mind, THE INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, https://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/ (last visited June 1, 2019). Such “substance” dualism was popularized in the seventeenth century by French philosopher Réne Descartes. See id.; see also EDWARD O. WILSON: CONSILIENCE: THE UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE 108 (1998) (discussing Cartesian dualism).

Sensible, supra note 8.

ANTONIO DAMASIO, THE STRANGE ORDER OF THINGS: LIFE, FEELINGS, AND THE MAKING OF CULTURES 171 (Vintage Books ed. 2019).

Id. at 117; see also id. at 12 (stating that feelings are a “cooperative partnership of body and brain”); id. at 139 (noting that feelings are “based on hybrid processes that are neither purely bodily nor purely neural”).

Id.

Id. at 26

See JONATHAN HAIDT, THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: WHY GOOD PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED BY POLITICS AND RELIGION 52-53, 102 (2012).

See DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 30-31, 146-47, 157.

Id. at 104.

See id. at 25, 102, 105-07.

See id.

See id. at 21-22; see also HAIDT, supra note 16, at 144.

See id. at 64-66.

See DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 99-100, 108-13.

See HAIDT, supra note 16, at 54.

See id.

See DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 15-16, 171.

See id. at 117.

See HAIDT, supra note 16, at 72-73.

See id. at 74-75.

DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 26 (emphasis omitted).

See id. at 13.

Id. at 13, 26-27.

See id. at 13, 21, 26, 28-29.

See id. at 5.

Reasonable, OXFORD LIVING DICTIONARIES, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reasonableness (last visited June 3, 2019) (entry 1).

Fair, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (entry 1).

Fair, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair (last visited June 3, 2019) (entry 1b(1)).

See PAUL D. MACLEAN, THE TRIUNE BRAIN IN EVOLUTION: ROLE IN PALEOCEREBRAL FUNCTIONS 13-18 (1990).

See GERALD A. CORY, JR., THE CONSILIENT BRAIN: THE BIONEUROLOGICAL BASIS OF ECONOMICS, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS 9-14 (2004).

See id. at 15-18.

See HAIDT, supra note 16, at 11-12 (discussing and affirming the earlier work of psychologist, Elliot Turiel).

See id. at 178-79, 200-01, 215.

See, e.g., Heidi Li Feldman, Prudence, Benevolence, and Negligence: Virtue Ethics and Tort Law, 74 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 1431 (2000) (virtue ethics); Gregory C. Keating, Reasonableness and Rationality in Negligence Theory, 48 STAN. L. REV. 311 (1996) (noting that a freedom-based approach to reasonableness  

See HAIDT, supra note 16, at 11; SHAUN NICHOLS, SENTIMENTAL RULES: ON THE NATURAL FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL JUDGMENT 5-7, 25 (2004).

See Stephen G. Gilles, On Determining Negligence: Hand Formula Balancing. The Reasonable Person Standard and the Jury, 54 VAND. L. REV. 813 (2001) (reviewing the cost-benefit or risk- utility approach to reasonableness).

Professor John Mikhail specifically has argued that the elements of a battery action find support in moral psychology. See John Mikhail, Any Animal Whatever? Harmful Battery and Its Elements as Building Blocks of Moral Cognition, 124 ETHICS 750 (2014).

See DAN B. DOBBS ET AL., HORNBOOK ON TORTS 193-95 (2015) (describing the evolution of reasonableness in the tort theory of negligence).

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PHYSICAL & EMOTIONAL HARM §3 (2010) (“ A person acts negligently if the person does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances.”).

For example, battery’s rule against harmful or offensive contacts may be countered by a privilege of self-defense, which depends on the reasonableness of the defendant’s response. See DOBBS ET AL., supra note 47, at 132 (“A person is privileged to use reasonable force to defend himself against unprivileged acts that he reasonably believes will cause him bodily harm, offensive bodily contact, or confinement.”). Likewise, strict liability’s rules against certain animals and activities may be met in many jurisdictions with the reasonableness-based defense of comparative fault. See id. at 793-94.

Outrageous conduct is viewed as unreasonable behavior that seriously violates the norms of a civilized society and can be assessed only by reference to various circumstantial factors. See id. at 707-09. Similarly, an abnormally dangerous activity is determined by analyzing a number of factors that “look like a poorly disguised negligence regime, balancing such things as the value of the defendant’s activity to the community.” Id. at 786.

For example, some jurisdictions recognize a rule that exempts property owners from negligence for failing to trim foliage at the perimeter of their premises. See id. at 207.

See id. at 615-16 (stating that the “exceptions [to the no-duty principle] have the effect of creating a duty to act in most instances where a reasonable person would feel compelled to act”).

See ALAN CALNAN, A REVISIONIST HISTORY OF TORT LAW: FROM HOLMESIAN REALISM TO NEOCLASSICAL RATIONALISM 160-61, 191-200, 225-30 (2005) (discussing this historical progression).

See id. at 161-62, 201-09, 231-48, 274-76.

See Alan Calnan, Torts as Systems, 28 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 1, 51-53 (2019) (forthcoming).

Reasonable, OXFORD LIVING DICTIONARIES, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reasonableness (last visited June 3, 2019) (entry 2).

Moderate, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/moderate (last visited June 3, 2019) (as a noun, entry 1a; as a verb, entry 1).

DONELLA H. MEADOWS, THINKING IN SYSTEMS: A PRIMER 11 (Diana Wright ed., 2008).

See J.A. SCOTT KELSO & DA VID A. COMPLEMENTARY NATURE 9-12 (2006).

Coordination dynamics is “a set of context-dependent laws or rules that describe, explain, and predict how patterns of coordination form, adapt, persist, and change in natural systems.” Id. at 90.

Coordination dynamics helps to explain patterns within and between genes and proteins, different brain regions, various parts of the body, natural organisms and their environments, and among people, social structures, and institutions. See id. at 111.

See CORY, JR., supra note 39, at 20, 21 & n.9 (observing that “[t]he two master programs of self-preservation and affection” within the brain are “locked in inseparable unity” to form a motivational and behavioral spectrum that continuously blends both tendencies without ever reaching either extreme).

See KELSO & ENGSTRØM, supra note 59, at 10-11

See id. at 114-15.

DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 224.

ANTONIO DAMASIO, SELF COMES TO MIND: CONSTRUCTING THE CONSCIOUS BRAIN 310 (Vintage Books ed. 2012).

Id.

DAMASIO, supra note 12, at 224.

Id. (emphasis omitted).

Id. (emphasis omitted).

See Jessie Allen, A Theory of Adjudication: Law as Magic, 41 SUFFOLK U.L. REV. 773, 811 (2008) (noting that in the ritual of trial, “[n]orms and values ... become saturated with emotion, while the gross and basic emotions become ennobled through contact with social values”).

[the-energon-hole]

may i request a headcanon for the transformers prime bots, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Knock Out, and Ratchet for their opinion on a schizophrenic human ally whos coping skill is art? like painting entire walls to escape their madness.

((A/N I’m going to level with you on this one, this was actually really hard for me to write and I had a difficult time wording my sentences without seeming offensive or ignorant.

My Father suffered for a very long time due to Schizophrenia, to which eh rarely ever took his medications, and my Mother told me she prayed every day that my Brother and I would never suffer from it- we both suffer from a multitude of mental illness, but neither of us have experienced Schizophrenia.

I’m sorry if this sounds vague and unfulfilling- I did my best with the knowledge and understanding I have of this particular mental illness, and I hope it is sufficient enough to satisfy this request- I didn’t want to offend anyone and I didn’t want to seem like I was being spiteful on purpose, If there is anything you ant to change or talk to me about, please, let me know.))

Optimus Prime

-He was not a medical professional and could not define and explain all kinds of illnesses that Cybertronians can suffer from, but he knows the bare basics of his species and their ailments so that when you professed to him that you suffer from a disorder known as Schizophrenia, he couldn’t help but try to equate it to one of their own illnesses to try and understand it a little better. He couldn’t think of anything major, and he felt terrible that you were having trouble staying grounded and not listening to the voices that tell you lies while perceiving ghosts and apparitions that were not there. You tried your best to take your medications and attend your therapy, but it felt like everyday was a struggle to push through all of these twisted and anxious feelings you feel. There was only one thing that mostly made you feel better, the one thing that helps you stay grounded and helps you perceive what is real behind all of these twisted and confusing patterns you can perceive others can’t seem to notice. Painting was your solace in a world that felt like it judged you before you ever even got a chance to introduce yourself- and that was something the Prime oud relate to all too well. SO long as it made you happy and you were able to function a little bit better, he says paint away, create big and bold works of art that express how you are feeling- and don’t let anyone stop you from creating.

-Optimus loved watching you pour your heart and being into every single one of your large and upscale murals, it reminded him why he fought so hard to protect your entire species as a whole- each and every human is important and has something of value and worth to offer the world. Your art was oddly comforting with all the warm and inviting colors you use to try and display what you perceive as your reality. You were so quick at painting to, you could finish a big mural on a blank wall so easily that he felt if he blinked he would miss you working on it- you did it so often it was second nature for you to plash and plaster whatever surface in paint that it was mesmerizing seeing it happen first hand. He hops you never stop creating, as it was a great way for you to cope and work out whatever feelings you were experiencing, it was also a great reminder that no matter how broken you think you are- you are important and you have so much to offer to the world.

Bumblebee

-Thought it has never been a chronic problem for him, he too, has experienced a detachment from what reality really was. Fighting in a war that he was basically thrown into without much choice can have a really bad negative impact on one’s ability to function normally. He has been given multiple treatments by Ratchet in order to fix some of his mental problems, but you had to explain that it wasn’t hta teasy in the human mind, and that biology was a very fickle thing that not even humans understood 100% at this point in time. The only treatment for you right no is medication and therapy along with a few coping skills that you partake in to help you remember that not everything you see and hear are really there. He was such a  great listener, that anytime you had to question if something was really there, he would tell you without being malicious or judgy about it. You felt safe sharing around Bumblebee almost more so than you do your therapist, but that was dangerous, because you need to be honest with them for them to help you better cope with what you are feeling. Bumblebee was the one to tell you that, as honesty will always be the best way to get better when it came to medical issues, as one cannot heal until they admit they have a problem. He was wise beyond his years it would seem, but again, it must have been because of this war that nearly wiped out his entire species and destroyed his planet.

-Painting was always something that made you cope with your reality as it helped to ground you and help you decipher what was real and what was something your brain decided to cook up to make you question your own sanity. Bumblebee can’t say he can relate to the whole art thing, but he is happy to sit and listen to you talk about the latest creation you have made. He is always shocked at the scale in which you create art, you can fill an entire wall up of different colors and patterns and shapes- it was almost overwhelming for him to process, but if it made you happy to create and share than he would try his hardest to relate and understand what you were telling him. It was also pretty cool actually watching you create such large pieces of artwork all over every surface anyone would let you do- you can fill up so much space with such meaningful images it was You were one of the most important people to him on this planet, and he will do whatever it takes to make you feel loved and normal, even if he doesn’t fully comprehend everything you are telling him.

Ratchet

-When you explained to him in as much detail as you could about what Schizophrenia was, he seemed to absorb the information like a medical sponge and began to inquire about things you didn’t even know about your own mental illness. He asks because it is similar to a medical condition Cybertronians can suffer from called a Processor Loop- here the processor tricks and manipulates all the sense in the frame into reliving the same series of events over and over again. It was a dangerous illness that is brought on by devastating physical trauma or devastating emotional trauma, and it can last for a mere few cycles or the rest of a bot’s existence- as it is not so easily cured or changed. Your illness was similar in that you can take medication and it doesn’t always help subside the problems, you have good days and bad days jus like patience he has had over the cycles. In his spare time he likes to research Schizophrenia, and is fascinated by how the biological human brain works, and he is here for you if you need advice on how to differentiate between your brain’s hallucinations and reality.

-He wasn’t trying to be mean to you or come off as if he doesn’t care, but the fact that you paint to help keep you grounded and clear from all your chemical imbalances in your brain wasn’t that interesting to him. He is impressed with the result of your hard work and dedication to your projects, but really he has a lot of other things going on in his life to just sit and ath you work. He likes to check up on you while you are caught up in whatever to was you were doing to make sure you were still functioning normally and that you weren’t in any kind of apparent danger of harming yourself or others- but that was ok. He doesn’t have to be interested in what you do all the time, it was just nice to know he was there to see your paintings when they were done, it was fun explaining how you got to the conclusion of your work and your thought process behind how you go there to this conclusion. He was a mech of science after all, and if there was one thing he likes hearing about, it was how you got to the solutions you did using your research and development process- aka he liked hearing about how your paint and motor skills got you to this finished product hr eas viewing.

Knockout

-Being a medical doctor of the Cybertronian variety, he can say without any doubt, that you and your human mind was an absolute enigma. You didn’t function the same way that he and his species did, so when you explained it to him how you need medication and talk therapy to sort out your perceptions and sporadic feelings it just baffled him further. Talking thing through seemed like a logical fix, but it also seemed too easy, surely there was another way to fix it? There isn’t? Well that is no good- if talking is what it takes for you to be able to tell what is rea and what is just some messed up vision your brain decides to throw at you than you can bet he will be there to talk to you about what is really going on around you. Humans were so fascinating, and the fact there was stl so much to discover about your minds was also interesting, he would have explored it had he the time to do so- but you know, soldiers to repair and frames t fix, his plate was already full of unethical research that yours was at the bottom of the list. No offense to you, but you seem to be getting along just fine without his input, and he didn’t want to mess up all the progress you made already. Sitting and talking as always an option with him, and he was always willing to listen to what you have to say- even if some of it as a little crazy, but in his mind, a little crazy is always a good sign.

-Knockout was a fan of all things colorful and lively, so anytime you made a big mural dedicated to all the pretty colors and endless patterns you can think of, he was always the first one to praise the beauty you can create with just the simple stroke of you brush. He would call you a genius, he would rave about how it was grand that you were bringing such beautiful creations to a dull and dreary world, but mostly he would tell you that you were doing a good job keeping grounded and releasing all of those mad thoughts into something that everyone could appreciate. Art was a good way for you to share what you were seeing and feeling, and it was a good way to remind yourself that not everything you perceive is real, and it was a good way to get noticed by the bright red mech who wouldn’t seem to get enough of your larger scale wall murals that you spend so much time on that it was nice someone appreciated it. A lot of people write off your art as strange or unnerving, but that was far from what you wanted them to see, s it was nice to know Knockout can see what you were throwing out there without you having to explain it to him or hold his hand through all of the images you plastered on whatever surface you could get your hands on.

(05/03/18)

[brandtruiz2-blog]

A Easy Trick for Nintendo Switch Uncovered

A Secret Weapon for Nintendo Switch It sounds like Mojang has figured out a means to make it really simple to observe when your friends are logged in their server so that you can just jump right in. Another disappointing part is that online play will take a monthly subscription. Today, times have changedand you require high-quality images, well-researched info AND consistency to be successful. Via apps don't feature the capability to make a new account. This offer can't be used along with any other offer or promotion code. Looking at Nintendo's history with streaming solutions, it isn't difficult to see why. General information about GameStop Corp. can be gotten at the organization's corporate site. Amid the newest Nintendo Direct, a full range of amusements were both uncovered and provided authority discharge dates. The organization anticipates that continuing for some moment. The remainder of the options are laid out horizontally under the games. Chat with friends in the middle of your game One of the numerous terrific features of Switch is it lets you chat with friends when you are playing online. The perfect way to stay in front of the game is to learn the tracks and the shortcuts that lie hidden within. It provides a fairly straightforward gameplay loop. Euro Truck Simulator 2 isn't a game for high-speed thrill seekersyou're intended to stick to the rules of the street in your enormous cargo vehiclebut something to zone out to at the conclusion of a lengthy moment. A Mario 3D might not be the sole game featuring everyone's favourite plumber on launch day. It Switch also contains a number of built-in features that make it more interactive. It will have to do more than that to convince. It probably can't say that they're releasing a product that isn't done. Nintendo Revolution hopes to meet its name the moment it hits stores in 2006. Stardew Valley is a remarkable tribute to classic Nintendo games including Harvest Moon and Rune Factoryso it is logical it would locate a house on the Nintendo Switch too. Game is challenging and at the exact same moment satisfies all of your expectations. The Fundamentals of Nintendo Switch You Will be Able to Learn From Starting Right Away But starting tomorrow, you could have an opportunity to obtain a Switch during its normal $300 price. It's a fairly good mixture of items for new owners. Still, I'd say it's well worth the discount over purchasing a completely new model. The image goes right to your Album and doesn't interrupt your gameplay. Here is what you have to know about the iPhone X. They will be the same price. The Nintendo Switch Pitfall If you're looking for a European seller to purchase the Xecuter SX Pro, we'll recommend you the 3DS-Flashcard. With the CFW SX OS, we aren't able to only play totally free games, additionally, it makes it possible for us to enjoy different applications by installing a homebrew. It also unveiled a new online subscription service that will begin with a free trial at launch. Inventory system and weapon usage continue to be the exact same. Browsing the net is simple, and the storage devices can manage both small and huge downloads if you need them. You will likewise not be in a position to opt from the multiplayer component for the digital edition, so ensure you clear some space out on the computer system. The New Fuss About Nintendo Switch Uber wants to construct a map of the full world with the aim of using it for it's autonomous vehicle efforts. The remedy is just to stay in contact with people utilizing consistent, targeted marketing messages. The very first is that the PS4 Pro support has a caveat. The Basics of Nintendo Switch Close to the close of the class, you are going to be on railroad tracks with some mine carts. Whether the variety of games suits your taste, we can't say but we think that it's a fairly great list. And yet another with a mix of all the above. I believe the Yuzu emulator is a significant idea. If these hardware upgrade rumors prove to be true, Nintendo has a lot of time before it has to do any type of refresh. Somewhat unexpected, sure, but Nintendo is becoming increasingly more known for thinking beyond the box. The Nintendo Switch stock levels continue to be low and lots of fans who didn't Pre Order are facing a wait time to purchase a new console. This way it is like traditional XBOX and PS4 games. Pairing the controllers is a bit more complicated than with different devices because of how they can be paired or used separately. If you've been meaning to buy a Nintendo Switch you may be finding it really hard to receive your hands on one. At nighttime the entire room lights up once you wake the Switch. Go here in order to observe the light! The base of the unit is not as busy. When nintendo switch best accessories hit the button, you're exit out to the menu and you're going to secure a small window showing where you're in the game. You may hit the reset button when you like and you will receive an instant save pointwe bow to the mighty save point. New Ideas Into Nintendo Switch Never Before Revealed There are several tactics to play and I adore it. Yes, portability is going to be a great motivator. It is simply amazing. The big question now is whether the Switch can keep this up. The very first issue to do is ensure you don't lose your mind. There was a reason for it.

[aion-rsa]

Deathloop Proves Incredibly Flawed Games Can Still Be Masterpieces

https://ift.tt/3EmwtJd

Deathloop‘s initial reviews have everyone buzzing about this timed PS5 exclusive from developer Arkane Studios (the team behind modern classics such as Dishonored 2 and Prey), but I’m a little worried that the positive buzz surrounding this game is going to give people the wrong impression about what kind of experience it actually is.

When a game starts getting perfect scores, it’s tempting to start telling yourself it must be perfect. Well, no game is perfect, and Deathloop is one of the most imperfect major games I’ve played in quite some time. It’s loaded with obvious shortcomings that will surely chase people away from its inherently divisive core gameplay.

Yet, I too am convinced that Deathloop is a masterpiece not just in spite of its flaws but, in some strange ways, because of them. Because a score can give you the wrong impression about why Deathloop is great, let’s take a slightly deeper look at this game’s problems, greatest qualities, and the strange relationship between the two that shows you just how rare a game like this really is.

Deathloop’s A.I. Is Shockingly Bad

The core of any immersive sim’s gameplay is the thrill you get from finding different solutions to complex problems. Do you go in guns blazing to show off your arsenal and abilities, or do you use stealth, hacking, and subversion to find a more subtle solution? That thrill of finding the perfect path forward (or even just your preferred one) is what makes games like Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and BioShock the classics they are. 

Sadly, Deathloop’s terrible A.I. limits the moment-to-moment appeal of its immersive sim gameplay. Enemies will regularly walk straight into their death, ignore bodies dropped inches behind them from great heights, and generally refuse to use even basic combat techniques to try to slow your progress.  

Deathloop’s woeful A.I. rarely inspires you to find those creative solutions that should define these types of games. You can still approach a situation however you’d like, but you’re rarely left with the feeling you’ve just found and executed the perfect plan since you’re pretty sure just about any plan would have been good enough to topple this game’s hapless goons. 

Deathloop Tries Too Hard to Hold Your Hand

Deathloop is a pretty complicated game built around a fairly unique premise. As such, I can certainly sympathize with developer Arkane’s decision to frontload the game with quite a few tutorial screens designed to explain the basics. 

Still, it feels like there was a better way to explain this game’s core concepts without relying on a series of screens filled with tiny text. For a game that does such a great job of subtly relaying nearly every other bit of information while letting you figure things out on your own (more on that later), it’s odd that Arkane chose to rely on such a conventual, straightforward, and often frustrating method of delivery. 

In fact, the somewhat sudden way this game pivots from guided gameplay to encouraging you to find organic solutions to complex problems might be too much for some and ultimately negate the good intentions of the title’s opening hours. 

Deathloop Doesn’t Feel Like a Next-Gen Game

Most people knew that the Covid-19 pandemic and global supply shortages were going to slow down an already slow next-gen transition process. We probably won’t start seeing a steady stream of “true” next-gen games until later in 2022, and I understand why that’s the case. 

That being said, I’m not sure Deathloop is entirely “worthy” of its current PS5 console exclusivity (the game is also available for PC). Aside from a few Dualsense features and quicker loading times, Deathloop feels like a game that probably could have been ported to the PS4 without sacrificing its best qualities. 

Considering how hard it is to find a next-gen console, I feel like this game probably should have been developed for PS4 and PS5. Microsoft may eventually offer some kind of backward compatibility once Deathloop comes to Xbox, but this title’s few obvious next-gen features aren’t a good enough reason to limit its initial reach. 

Deathloop’s Time Loop Is One of the Best In Video Game History

You probably know that Deathloop is a time loop game, and, thanks to a surprising number of new entries into that formerly niche genre, you probably know that means Deathloop is designed to make you repeat the same time period over and over again until you break the loop. 

However, you’ve got to play Deathloop to appreciate just how great its time loop really is. In fact, the way that Deathloop uses the time loop concept to slowly unravel its initially bewildering plot and enhance your understanding of what is possible in this game may just make it the best example of time loop design in video game history. 

I’ve already heard some say that having to repeat Deathloop’s basic structure over and over again starts to feel “grindy,” but in my experience, but there was honestly never a time when I felt too disappointed to start the loop over as doing so usually opened up exciting new opportunities or at least allowed me to learn from whatever mistake I just made that triggered the most recent reset.

Read more

Games

Future Bethesda Games Like Elder Scrolls 6 Could Still Release on PS5 on a “Case-by-case Basis”

By John Saavedra

Games

Xbox Team Indicates Bethesda Will Retain Creative Control

By Matthew Byrd

Deathloop’s Assassinations Are Some of the Most Satisfying Logic Puzzles Since Portal

While Deathloop’s poor A.I. makes battles against its basic enemies feel…basic, the battles against the game’s Visionaries (your “boss” targets) combine the best elements of Portal and recent Hitman games to form the most satisfying logic puzzles you’ll ever experience. 

Identifying your target and finding not just the perfect way to kill them but the perfect way to kill them that then allows you to seamlessly move on to the next target with enough time to spare is quite simply one of the greatest experiences I’ve had in a video game in the last 15 years. The number of possible ways to kill an individual target is bested only by the number of possible ways to kill every target in one perfect run.

It’s an approach that leads to a nearly infinite series of “aha” moments that never fail to provide the motivation you need to work your way through one more loop. 

Deathloop Brilliantly Repurposes the Best Qualities of the Roguelike Genre

At first, I was a little worried about Deathloop’s item rarity, skill finding, and progression/regression mechanics. During those early stages when the game is trying to explain so much to you in a short amount of time, the combination of all those roguelike systems started to feel like a bit much. 

However, you eventually discover that the reason those mechanics work so well together is that Deathloop brilliantly limits how many skills, weapons, and items you’re able to readily access during each loop. The result is a kind of roguelike experience where you (eventually) get to have some say in what your reset looks like and how close to “zero” you really have to start from.

I love a traditional roguelike experience, but between games like this, Returnal, and Hades that challenge the idea of “starting over,” it’s been fascinating to watch developers play with the boundaries of the roguelike genre and blend that genre with other concepts. 

Deathloop’s Multiplayer is a Brilliant Idea You May Choose to Ignore

In case you haven’t heard, Deathloop features a fascinating multiplayer component that allows other players to “invade” your game by controlling Julianna: a rival who will stop at nothing to kill the player and preserve the time loop. Julianna’s unique set of abilities allows invading players to easily disguise themselves and generally make your life hell.

That’s the great and annoying thing about this feature. See, if you choose to disable player-controlled Julianna invasions, the character will still “invade” your game but will instead be controlled by the A.I. Considering this game’s A.I. problems (see above), you don’t really get to experience how brilliant this concept is until you enabled the multiplayer component. 

At the same time, the “griefing” nature of this invasion system means that many people are going to find it to be quite annoying and even detrimental to the overall experience. I feel like this problem could have been solved by a stronger A.I. version of Julianna who comes closer to representing the challenge offered by human players without being quite as frustrating. 

Deathloop’s Incredible Environmental Storytelling Enhances a Sometimes Weak Narrative

Most of Deathloop’s storytelling is done through audio files, environmental clues, computer exchanges, and…well just about everything other than cutscenes and character-to-player dialog exchanges. Anyone who is familiar with Arkane’s previous works (most notably Prey) will be familiar with this basic approach. 

Arkane’s familiarity with this complicated form of storytelling generally results in some of the cleverest and most unexpected bits of narrative design I’ve ever seen, even by this studio’s lofty standards. It’s amazing that Arkane left it up to the player to discover so many vital plot points and character development moments, but that approach ultimately enhances the thrill of finding that one bit of information that puts every other piece of the puzzle in place.

However, the game’s brilliant approach to storytelling doesn’t entirely disguise the weakness of the overall narrative. I won’t get into spoilers here, but once you realize that Deathloop’s plot is more about the little moments and the journey rather the destination, you start to get the feeling that there was a more interesting overall story here that the developers just didn’t quite deliver.

Deathloop Isn’t For Everyone, and That’s What’s Great About It

Developer Arkane Studios has been criticized in the past for making a specific kind of game that rarely meets sales expectations. Some have wondered whether or not Arkane would be better off making at least a few concessions to the preferences of wider audiences just so they could help ensure that they’re able to continue making at least some kind of version of the games they make so well. 

Between Deathloop’s PS5 console exclusivity, Arkane-style design, and the fact it’s hard to even offer a basic description of the experience without getting into spoilers, I highly doubt that this is going to end up being a long-term best-seller or even just the studio’s best-selling game to date.

However, that’s kind of what makes Deathloop so great. Nearly all of the problems in Deathloop can be attributed to Arkane’s desire to focus on the things they do so well and not worry so much about whether or not someone who doesn’t really enjoy what this title is fundamentally going for is going to take a chance on it. 

I can’t speak to what would have happened if Arkane tried to make a few more changes for wider audiences or even just worked harder to break free of their bad habits, but what I do know is that they came up with a brilliant idea for a game and made that brilliant idea work despite the fact that it could have so easily fallen apart at any time. 

In a world where nothing is perfect, it’s hard to withhold the masterpiece label for something that somehow manages to get everything right. Like many of the most innovative and greatest games before it, Deathloop was made by a team of people committed to getting their biggest and best ideas right above all else.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

It’s easy enough to see how Deathloop could have been a better game, but I’d rather be left with a series of nitpicks acquired in the pursuit of something original than another perfectly fine Triple-A game that ultimately justifies its existence through sales figures alone.

The post Deathloop Proves Incredibly Flawed Games Can Still Be Masterpieces appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3tL0v4z