#and writing something that goes against some fundamental character trait like this is not something I like to do

[carryoncastiel]

Still thinking I'm missing some vital piece of information that tells us Gale would hate being a father because I just cannot see that one line of dialogue giving people such conviction.

[melonteee]

Hello!!! I love your videos, and I hope you don’t mind if I ask you a question, but I’m really interested in what you think about this.

I’m writing a series of fantasy novels which has been in the works for about five years, so it’s a pretty significant project for me and kind of has my heart in a constant choke-hold.

Initially, I really struggled to understand my protagonist. She was like a complete stranger, chipped off from a bit of myself as all characters are. I knew she was bold, joyful, stubborn and would do anything for her friends, but she always seemed to be missing something fundamental.

Anyway, then I kind of figured out that I want her to be like Luffy. But Luffy is, as you know, far from a simple character, and honestly I don’t quite know how to base my protagonist off him without accidentally writing a female Luffy or missing out key aspects of Luffy’s character that would give my protagonist that ‘Luffyness’ that is just so incredible.

So really my question is: What is key to Luffy’s character, but more specifically, what are some traits that can be replicated to make a character feel Luffy-like without just being Luffy?

I really hope if you decide to answer this one you find it interesting to think about! I think we need more characters like Luffy and I want to be part of that.

Thank you!!

Boundless optimism is one trait Luffy has, but that's not just Luffy, it's a very shonen trait. But I've found Luffy differs because his boundless optimism comes from the fact he doesn't like thinking about anything, and he will actively not think to stop bad thoughts from swarming him.

His smile is the main one! No matter what, and no matter why, Luffy has a smile on his face! The only time he drops his smile is when he is enraged, such as the Drum Island scene where he's holding Dr Hiriluk's flag. Luffy's anger feels powerful because we know, without a doubt, Luffy is ANGRY. But these moments are used sparingly, otherwise the effect is gone.

Luffy's selfishness is a big one, he will do anything he wants no matter what anyone says. If you want a character to be like Luffy, they essentially have to work on automatic instinct of "I want this, I will get this." The reason this works for Luffy is because he finds a way out of the trouble he causes, ie getting imprisoned in Wano only led to him meeting new friends and growing further - even though that wasn't part of the plan. Luffy can make the most of any situation.

A major one is Luffy wearing is heart on his sleeve, to the point it's so difficult to have any sort of miscommunication with Luffy. He's honest and earnest, he physically cannot lie to save his life, and he will tell you what he thinks of you straight up. But, Luffy's view of a person can and will change, and he'll tell you when THAT happens too. He doesn't look down on nor up at anyone, and this stops Luffy from seeming conceited or annoying.

Luffy's strengths are also his flaws, hence why he collapses upon Ace's death, because his optimism and 'everything will work out' attitude didn't work. The second a bad thing happens, he cracks, and he cannot help but lose control of himself due to unbearable grief that he keeps bottled up. The same thing happened when Kuma vanished all the Strawhats in Sabaody and Luffy entirely broke down.

Good luck on your novels! But I will say, another difference is that Luffy is a man - of course. While there's no difference in genders or sexes as human beings, and while I wish everyone could be written on the same level, there's still a difference in how one is perceived depending on societal pressures and restraints. For example, Nami was told by Bellemere that "girls need to be strong too," showing us that Nami goes against the status quo of One Piece's world by not being a passive woman. These are reasons why I connect to Nami personally, and why many female fans love Nami and her character.

My advice is think about the societal structures of your world, who's on top and who's on the bottom, and if that will effect your main character in terms of struggles she may face or trials she must go through!

[blackjackkent]

3, 6, 21, 18, 25 for Karlach uwu

uwu!

(Character ask game)

3. Least favorite canon thing about this character?

The fact that she doesn't get an option for an unequivocal happy ending. :P

(TBH I love her Avernus ending and I think it's badass and in the fic I write she will absolutely end up getting a happy ending after battling things out with Zariel. And I'm not entirely mad that Larian only went with bittersweet at best; her story is stronger for it. But deep down I just want her to have the option to be happy and safe. <3 )

6. What's something you have in common with this character?

I like to think that I share a certain relentless optimism with Karlach even when things are crappy, and a desire to see the best in people no matter what. I'm not always as good at this as Karlach is - and given my on-and-off depressive struggles, it's hard to say how I would hold up against the truly horrendous shit Karlach has had to deal with, which goes way beyond my personal experience - but for the most part it is something that I try to cultivate in myself, at least. I always want to see the good in the world even if it's not making itself super obvious all the time.

21. If you're a fic writer and have written for this character, what's your favorite thing to do when you're writing for this character? What's something you don't like?

Karlach has such a breadth of tone which makes her a lot of fun to play with; she works equally well in comedic moments and super serious ones, and she's equally earnest and sincere in both. (I think Sky-High turned out as a good example of how she can kind of carry both simultaneously without seeming out of character.) So I would say that I like playing up that breadth and giving her moments to be humorous even in pretty serious situations, and vice versa.

As for what I don't like... idk, man. Hard to think of anything. I guess I could say that I struggle with writing her in any worldstate outside of Hector's because her relationship with him was so fundamental to that worldstate. XD But even then, doing anything else just becomes an interesting challenge.

18. How about a relationship they have in canon with another character that you admire?

I was gonna say her relationship with Jaheira but tbh a lot of that is my own headcanon as much as what is reflected in canon per se. I do love their canon interactions, though.

I think her best relationship purely based on canon is with Wyll. She calls him her best friend at one point! And the fact that they get along is representative of some of the best traits of both characters - they're good people, and the fact that they started out at odds doesn't change the good they ultimately see in each other.

25. What was your first impression of this character? How about now?

Then> Really hope I like her. None of the other companions so far have really clicked for a romance for Hector. Oh... oh, she's hot. O.O Wait, she is not talking like an evil devil. She seems nice! ...Oh, I like her. 👀

Now> I would give body parts for her to be real and let me hug her. Fantastic character and fully representative of the best parts of who I want to be as well.

[troquantary]

Edward Cullen: That Boy Ain’t Right

So I was doing a reread of @therealvinelle 's collection of Twilight metas, as one does, and in "Edward, Denial, and a Human Girlfriend" she mentions that she doesn't believe Edward is sane. I thought, "ha, yeah, he's definitely not," and also, "but wait, what does that mean exactly, please say more about that." But since she's already inundated with asks, I've decided to use my own head-muscle and explore this idea. (TL;DR: I start out more or less organized, synthesize some points Vinelle has made across several posts (and have hopefully linked to them all where relevant but please tell me if not), touch a little on narcissism, then take a hard left into the negative effects of being a telepath.)

Just a couple things to note at the outset, though. Theses have been written already (probably) about Edward as an abuser. Edward being insane doesn't negate that at all; he's definitely an asshole and just...a disaster of a human being. (I find it more funny than anything, but YMMV.) I'm also going to try to avoid talking specifically about mental illness and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to abusive behavior -- that's territory I'm not really equipped to discuss, like at all. My starting point is "Edward has a deeply warped perception of reality," not "Edward has X disorder."

So: deeply warped perception of reality. The evidence? Goes behind a cut, because my one character trait is Verbose.

Vinelle provides a great example of it in the post linked above, which I'll just quote because she does words good: "[Edward] keeps acting like his romance with Bella is a romantic tragedy, and all the cast of Twilight are actors on a stage making it as sublime as possible." Edward's the one to pursue Bella, but he does so with the full belief, from the very beginning, that it will never last; Bella will "outgrow" him, go on her human way, and he can spend the rest of eternity brooding magnificently over his too-short romantic bliss. [Insert premature ejaculation joke.] Turning her is never an option, even though Alice, Noted Psychic, says that romancing Bella will either end with her dead (exsanguinated) or dead (vampire).

This framing, where he's a dark anti-hero in love with -- but never tainting! -- the pure maiden and eventually leaving her in a grand, tragic sacrifice to preserve her soul? It's fucking bonkers. Bella isn't a person to him in this scenario. As Vinelle points out, Bella's never really a person to him at all; he falls in love with his own mental construct, cherry-picking from what he observes of her behavior and her responses to his 20 (thousand) Questions to convince himself that she is the ideal woman.

Bella's not the only one who gets the projection/cardboard-cutout treatment. Edward sees everything and everyone through a highly particular, personalized lens. He filters his entire reality, which we all do to an extent, but the thing with Edward is that he starts with his conclusions and then only pays attention to the evidence that supports those conclusions. Often that evidence consists of what he admits in New Moon are only "surface" thoughts -- but recognizing that limitation doesn't keep him from taking those thoughts as representative of what people are. Edward then becomes absolutely convinced by his own "reasoning" and won't be swayed from what he has decided is Objectively True. It's obvious with Bella; it's also painfully obvious with Rosalie. (Vinelle explains this and brings up Edward's raging Madonna/Whore complex in the same post, so refer to that again -- she's right.)

He also catastrophizes. Everything. Bella's just vibing in her room, rereading Wuthering Heights for the 87th time? She's gonna be hit by a meteor, better sneak into her room while she sleeps. Bella's going to the beach with the filthy mundanes their human classmates? She's gonna fall in the ocean. Jasper's cannibal pals are stopping by for a visit, but know not to hunt in the area? DISASTER, DEFCON 1, ALSO FUCK YOU JASPER FOR EVEN EXISTING IN MY AND BELLA'S SPHERE YOU UNSPEAKABLE BURDEN. Edward must believe that Bella is vulnerable and in near-constant peril, to support the reality he has created in which he is the villain turned protector and maybe?? hero??? (!!!) for his beloved. So when the actual, James-shaped danger arrives, he goes berserk, snarling and flipping his shit and generally not helping the situation. His fantasy demands that Bella remain human, so instead of doing the very thing Alice, Noted Psychic, assures him will neutralize the threat (and not just a threat to Bella, either, but to Bella's family and any other human James might decide to include in the "game"), he vetoes it immediately, no discussion. Bella Must Not Turn, and he sticks to those guns despite James nearly reducing her to ground beef, despite leaving Bella catatonic with depression (but human! success!) in New Moon, despite Aro's order and his family's vote and, let's not forget, Bella's clearly and repeatedly stated desire to be a vampire. It's going to happen. But he doesn't accept it until Renesmee busts out of Bella like the Kool-Aid man and the poor girl's heart finally, unequivocally stops.

Sane people don't behave this way. I don't want to slap labels on Edward, but I can't help but note that he comes across as highly narcissistic. He's the only real person in his universe, the lone player among us NPCs. That probably has a lot to do with him being frozen in the mindset and maturity of a seventeen-year-old boy, but I think it's also just...him, on some fundamental level. His failure to connect with others and recognize them as full, independent beings with their own wants and priorities isn't like Bella's failure -- she's badly depressed. Edward is...something else, and I get the sense that his sanity has been steadily deteriorating over time. And a cursory google of narcissistic traits turns up some familiar-looking stuff. He's self-loathing, yes, but also grandiose; he hates himself for the monster he is (and hates most vampires besides Esme and Carlisle for their monstrosity, too) but still feels superior to humans, to the extent that he felt entitled to human blood and resented Carlisle for depriving him of his "proper" diet. He eventually returns to Carlisle, but he's far from content -- the beginning of Midnight Sun finds him in a state of ennui, bored and dismissive of (if not outright disgusted by) everyone around him, that has apparently persisted for years and years. He doesn't play the piano, he doesn't compose, he doesn't enjoy anything...at least until Bella comes along and then he becomes obsessed to a disturbing degree with her and his new, romantic tragedy spin on reality.

[Next-day edit: I’m not sure where else to fit this in, but the way Edward casually contemplates violence against people who have, at best, mildly annoyed him is...chilling. I have a hard time writing off his strategizing how to murder the entire Biology class as a result of bloodlust -- it’s so calculated, nothing like the blackout state of thirst Emmett describes when he encountered his own “singer,” and that is probably the default for when a vampire is extremely thirsty. But even ignoring the Biology class incident, Edward still does things like consider, with disturbing frequency, how he might grievously injure or kill Mike Newton, all because...Edward considers him his romantic rival (despite Bella barely giving the kid the time of day). He thinks about slapping Mike through a wall, which might be an amusing slapstick image, except as a vampire Edward’s actually capable of turning this boy’s skeleton to a fine powder. So it’s, y’know, kind of sick when you think about it.

But even worse than that, when Bella tells Edward about how she flirted with Jacob to get at that sweet, sweet vampire lore, Edward chuckles and then, after dropping Bella home, flippantly observes that now that the treaty’s broken, why not genocide? I’m not even kidding, it’s right there in Midnight Sun; he seriously thinks about the fact that he’d be technically justified now in wiping out the entire tribe because a teenager tried to impress a girl with a spooky story. That is fucked. Remember, Edward was there with Carlisle when the treaty was first established. He knows how remarkable it is that they even came to a truce in the first place, that it was only ever possible because Carlisle is...well, Carlisle, and that it marks a pretty significant moment in supernatural history. He doesn’t care; he doesn’t respect it, or he’d never think something like “Ha ha, if I went and killed them all, I wouldn’t even be wrong. I mean, I won’t do it, but I’m just saying, I wouldn’t be wrong.”

Again: not the thought process or behavior of a sane person. (Or a person that respects life in general -- sorry Carlisle, big L.)]

Finally, whether he's a narcissist or not, I think the fact that Edward has constant, unavoidable access to everyone's thoughts is a powerful contributing factor to his instability. He can tune out the mental noise to an extent, but he can't stop it -- so he comes to rely on it like another sense. This causes issues with disconnect and lack of empathy, of course, but there's another facet to this shit diamond: he's basically experiencing a ceaseless flow of intrusive thoughts. His narration in Midnight Sun suggests that he "hears" the words people think, can "see" what they visualize in their mind's eye, and can sense the emotional "tone" and intensity of their thoughts. Therefore, perceiving Jasper's thirst through his thoughts makes Edward more aware of his own, "doubling" the discomfort. This would be a lot to deal with even from just his immediate coven members, but Edward gets all of this pouring into his head like a firehose on a day-to-day basis because the Cullens live right alongside humans. I know Meyerpires have galaxy brains or whatever, but that's a ton to process.

Besides the compounding effect on his own thirst when he "feels" the thirst of others, Meyer never suggests that Edward has difficulty separating his own thoughts from other people's; even when he was newly turned, he recognized Carlisle's "voice" in his head as Carlisle's. That would create a whole different host of issues around identity, but it looks like Edward's escaped that particular torment. However, I can easily imagine that what he does experience is just shy of unbearable nonetheless, with an eroding effect on his sanity over decades. He can't sleep to escape it; he's on a dishwater diet and probably (like the rest of his family) experiencing a perpetual, low-grade physical discomfort due to his thirst never being fully satisfied; and he's around far more people than is the norm for vampires -- even discounting all the humans, his own coven is unusually large -- meaning more noise.

Honestly, it would be weirder if he were all there, considering.

And even though I feel like I lost a sense of structure around where I started ranting about telepathy, I've written like 1.5k words about Edward fucking Cullen and I think that's enough for one post.

[msgrubbly-plank]

Hi! I found your post on authorial intent and characterization interesting and I have a question about your argument that it doesn’t betray James’s fundamental characteristics/isn’t a complete OOC decision.

When Harry confronts Sirius and Remus about SWM, Sirius tells him “James - whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry - always hated the Dark Arts.” Sirius is defending James here, sure, but he’s also the person who knew James best and, importantly, chose him as an escape from his family who did strongly believe in that ideology. Speaking strictly in terms of characteristics rooted in canon, I find it hard to believe he would make this choice for someone who didn’t stand firmly opposite of his family in ideological beliefs.

I also think it can be argued as OOC for Lily from a canon standpoint, though we obviously have much less to go on with her. She defends Snape for years because he’s her childhood friend, but as soon as he gives her concrete proof of his prejudice, she’s out. He’s aware of this boundary at some level - he avoids revealing this prejudice in the early scenes of Prince’s Tale, despite nearly slipping up a few times. I struggle to imagine what she would find attractive about someone who publicly aligns themselves with a group dedicated to genocide against people like her.

I guess my question would be why would Jily be the relationship to explore these themes? Other ships have that dynamic by default and don’t necessitate rewriting both characters’ backgrounds to create it. This isn’t meant as an argument against ignoring OOC fanfic, or to discount your points; I find discussions on characterization interesting and wanted to offer a perspective on it from someone who does think it’s OOC and was wondering how you see that Sirius quote in relation to James’s character.

Thanks so much for this! You've really made me think and you've laid out some great points. I wrote a lot (way too much) so I divided it into sections for readability. This is very long so I recommend a beverage if you read it.

Disclaimer: I go into a little greater detail about this below, but my arguments cannot necessarily be applied to all DE! James fan fictions because they have him motivated by such different things. In the case of this write up, I specifically had the fan fiction story Bought by scriible in mind. It will be valuable to pay close attention to where I say "necessarily" in my arguments, because I agree that DE! James can absolutely be OOC in some fan fictions.

TL;DR

If canon James Potter lived the same life but joined the DE, it would be an OOC decision. If James Potter retains his characteristics but lives in a different world/lives a different life, his choice to join the DE is not necessarily OOC because the motivations behind the choice are "canon compliant" even if their outcome is different.

OOC

OOC is a character saying something or choosing to do something that is inconsistent with their personality. Within the constraints of a story, there are limits to what a character would reasonably or realistically do. The author has to lay a foundation of their backstory and history to establish these constraints. For example, although Narcissa Malfoy is portrayed as being sympathetic to the DE cause, she has always been shown as a devoted mother. Although her decision in the forest to save Harry goes against her political beliefs/ties, it is not an OOC decision because JKR established the intrinsic trait of her loving/protective of her son.

Arguments I Saw

My post was a response to the arguments I had seen about DE! James fics being OOC because he would never join the DE because he hated Dark Magic/DE.

Fundamental Characteristics vs Outcomes

The way I was differentiating it in my head was the fundamental characteristics of a person vs the outcomes/material conditions of their lives. The former would be the intrinsic traits of a person (bravery, intelligence, loyalty, ambition) and the latter would be things that contribute to who they are that are driven by their environment/life (House placement, fighting for the Order vs the DE etc). As we know from canon, your fundamental characteristics could "belong" in any Hogwarts House (Harry potentially being in Slytherin, Hermione could have been in Ravenclaw etc). Therefore, it is reasonable to say that James could have been sorted into Slytherin while still retaining his fundamental characteristics/being the "same" person.

(Obviously my argument of intrinsic characteristics is not a scientific one, because there's a discussion for how nature/nurture would play into someone's level of bravery, intelligence, loyalty, ambition, etc. However, I maintain that the internal traits to a person are different than the outcomes/results of their life.)

DE! James Stories

In this section I am only referring to the stories where he is authentically a DE. There are of course examples where he is a double agent.

In many of the DE! James stories he's sorted into Slytherin. That is the catalyst for divergence in his life and him joining the DE instead of the Order, rather than it being an illogical/OOC decision with no "supporting evidence" (illogical in the context of his AU life not morally).

We can assume his canon path is:James as he normally is/with all his intrinsic traits>sorted into Gryffindor>that shapes his perspective on DE/Dark Magic>joins the Order. In DE!James fics, it would be: James as he normally is/with all his intrinsic traits>sorted into Slytherin>that molds/shapes his perspective on DE/Dark Magic>joins DE.

If he follows his canon path, deciding to join the DE would be OOC. Because he retains his intrinsic characteristics but follows a different path, deciding to join the DE is a reasonable choice within the constraints of his character directed by different circumstances rather than OOC.

James and the Dark Arts

In my personal opinion, hating the Dark Arts is an outcome based on his environment, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of him. In the context of Harry Potter, it's basically a political opinion. He was molded to hate the Dark Arts by his family/house/material conditions of his life. His opinion of the Dark Arts (whether in canon or in fan fiction) is something he develops. If those conditions are changed, his opinion of the Dark Arts does too.

Arguing With Myself

I think one can reasonably argue that hating the Dark Arts, while not an intrinsic characteristic, is so fundamental to his character/personality that any story that portrays him as having a different relationship to it is OOC. I think that could be perfectly valid, but also think his fundamental traits are still what make him James rather than his life path. However- the former is more supported by HP themes/theses than the latter. Because HP is so focused on choices being more important than intrinsic abilities, James choosing to join the DE would be the defining aspect of his character rather than those traits he was "born" with.

However (again), what do we do with the stories where DE! James gets a redemption arc? He made the choice to join the DE, but then chooses to defect. Which choice is more in/out of character? Is there space for an in character James Potter to realize the error of his ways? He matures/grows past his bad decisions in canon. I think a DE! James that makes bad choices and then grows up to make better ones follows the same framework of canon, even if it happens at a different point in his lifestream/in a different fashion.

I maintain that most of the choices made by DE! James Potter can define his character in the same way as his canon self. In Bought, he chooses to join the DE to protect his loved ones and himself. He also choose to sacrifice his own safety for Lily at great physical detriment. The choice to join a group to protect his loved ones is the same choice he makes in canon, it is just the other group. Much like my argument about intrinsic characteristics being maintained in the context of different circumstances, if the motivations and choices made by DE! James are similar or the same to his canon self, he is not OOC even if the outcomes are different (Order vs DE).

Essentially, I view his choice as "do I put myself in danger to protect my friends or do I not protect my friends" rather than "do I join the Order or the DE". He still makes the same choice in the fanfics as in canon, the conditions of the choice are just different.

Ultimately- an OOC choice would mean that James was choosing something outside of the constraints established by the author. JKR has established James would do anything for his friends and be loyal and trusting to a fault, therefore James choosing the Death Eaters to protect his loved ones is still an in character decision because it is reasonable within the context of his AU life.

Sirius/James

In most (all?) of the fan fictions I have read, the Marauders are sorted into Slytherin with James. In these stories, James does not make the choice to take Sirius in because Sirius is not disowned. However, the sacrificing/loyal trait/choice is still present and just manifests itself through different decisions. If that trait/choice is still present, but the circumstances through which it surfaces are changed, he is not OOC but rather dealing with AU situations.

Lily/James

You're right that Lily is harder to argue for/against because we don't know much about her. Also- because there are so many different DE! James fics that have him doing different things/getting together with Lily in different ways, it's hard to speak for the trope as a whole. In some, they get together because Lily/James kill Voldemort and become the new Dark Lords. In others, Lily gets together with James for her own safety within the context of that world. It could be a totally valid reading to argue Lily deciding to be with DE! James is an OOC decision. I also think (if she retains the traits of her canon self) her being with DE! James is a response to different circumstances rather than an OOC choice. Because her surroundings/world are different, she retains her characteristics but makes different choices. We know canon Lily is willing to do the hard thing to survive (hides in Godric's Hollow with Harry/James, ) and her choosing to be with James for her safety at the expense of her personal values can be viewed as an in character choice motivated by the AU circumstances. Her choice is "do I do all I can to protect myself/those I love or not" and she still makes it in these fan fictions.

Why Jily?

I think my answer to your final question is going to be disappointing. Jily is being used to explore these themes because people like James and Lily as characters/archetypes and find it interesting to see them handle a new twist to their dynamic. The Draco/Hermione relationship explores this in many fan fictions so the trope's content is there, but I think some people just aren't into Draco/Hermione and want to see similar themes explored with their favorite characters. It's a similar motivation to why people write the Marvel characters attending Hogwarts.

Wrap Up

HP holds choices as a sacred value. Within the context of canon, James Potter joining the DE would be OOC because of the conditions of his life. In a fan fiction where the conditions of his life are altered, it is not necessarily an OOC decision to join the DE if his intrinsic characteristics are maintained and if he is still making that choice motivated by the same things as in canon, regardless of the outcome.

Ultimately- anyone is at liberty to decide DE! James is an OOC for them. I'm claiming if James retains his intrinsic characteristics that we know from canon and makes the same choices, even if they result in different outcomes, but follows a different life path/deals with different circumstances, he is not necessarily categorized as OOC.

I loved thinking through this one and writing up my thoughts. Thanks so much for the ask.

[heyovivi]

You know this week I’ve heard a lot of outlandish theories and arguments against Gwynriel, against Gwyn, and even against Lucien. And obviously it comes from mostly Elriel stans--not ALL of them, but goddamn a large number of them. I can appreciate having your own views on certain characters and certain ships but goddamn at least maintain your humanity and some part of a moral compass. 

First of all, we shouldn’t accuse SJM on writing or promoting pedophilia in her books. The theory that Gwyn is a child is completely invalid. She is twenty-eight and she was sexually assaulted when she twenty-six. Just because she ages differently doesn’t negate the fact that she is still an adult--and if you’ve seen any fan art or read an canon description of her you should know that she is an adult--both Azriel and her are adults and if you’re an Elriel stan trying to convince me otherwise just know Elain is younger than Gwyn. Feyre was nineteen when she fell in love with Tamlin. And Aelin was eighteen when she started to fall in love with Rowan. If there is anything, Gwyn and Azriel is one of thee most realistic ships that I’ve seen so far in the book series. 

So what if Gwyn is a little childish. She isn’t the only one. In ACOSF we’ve seen childish sides from Nesta AND Emerie. That’s how a close circle of friends works and if you don’t think there are childish adults out there who are youthful and overall just chipper people than you honestly have never met Disney adults. Plus Mor is the same age as Rhys and yet also has her own childish tendencies. Hell, even the Bat Bois have their moments. 

Gwyn is a playful person with a cheerful personality. Just because she sings and dances and comes off as a curious soul doesn’t mean she isn’t as mature as other characters in the series. In fact, I think it solidifies that Gwyn’s story is a parallel to the Little Mermaid because who else do we know that likes to sing, wants to dance “on those things called feet”, and is also a curious soul? 

Next. I don't know who thought having friendship bracelets was stupid or unnecessary because clearly that anti didn’t read the book and didn’t realize that those bracelets were a *fundamental part of the Valkyries surviving the Blood Rite. Without them they wouldn’t have found each other or maybe not even survived the Rite at all. And plus, Nesta, Emerie and Gwyn are chosen sisters. Making the bracelets was something Gwyn and Catrin did in Sangravah as a symbol of their unity. The fact that Gwyn decided to share that part of her with Nesta and Emerie speaks volumes of her relationship and feelings towards them. 

Also, comparing Gwyn to Ianthe. I’m sorry, Gwyn is a sexual assault victim. Ianthe is the assaulter. Not only has she assaulted Lucien, she attempted to assault Azriel. Just because they have the same color eyes doesn’t mean ANYTHING. By that pathetic and stupid logic your telling me everyone with teal eyes is evil. Then I guess Elain is evil and is going abuse her children when she’s a mother because who else has brown eyes. Beron has brown eyes. He abuses his children and is also a tyrant. OH who also portrays these exact same traits? Keirs does. Morrigan’s father. Who also has brown eyes. 

Now doesn’t that just sound so incredibly stupid? 

Now, I will say that Gwyn being a lightsinger does make sense in it’s own form. But do I think SJM is going to make her a character who lures males with her feminine whiles and voice to ultimately kill them in end? No. Gosh no. In what world would she think it’s okay to make the victim the assaulter. If you’re going to make an evil-Gwyn theory make it make sense and give me actual textual evidence that can’t be overruled by other textual evidence. 

Lastly, the theory that Gwyn and Lucien are invalid love interests because they are both redheads is just absolutely--like what in the fuckery shit hole head canon hell did that come from? Do gingers not deserve all in the love in the world as well? Is Lucien also not a victim in his own right? Does his story not deserve to be told? 

Lucien has made mistakes. He has even owned up to them and apologized and now he works everyday to make up for what he did by acting as an Emissary to the Night Court. And everything he does for Elain is everything everyone should be wanting from a partner in their life. Yes, he yearns for her. Yes, he is protective. But he is still a respectful king. He lets her have her own boundaries. Gives her space and doesn’t enforce anything on her. Do I like the idea of Elucien? Honestly no. Until I see a little bit more spice and chemistry between them then I will reassert my position (although I do like the idea of the whole fox and fawn theory). 

Guys, keep your humanity in tact. And think before you post. Actually read the words your about to write before you post. I have no doubt that whatever route SJM takes, it’s going to be written beautifully. That goes for Elucien, Gwynriel, and Elriel. 

[dreamsatdusk]

Analysis:  Baghra and the Apparat

I received an Anon ask a while back and accidentally published it before it was done a while back.  Privated the post but decided to have the final product as a new post just in case; I don’t want it buried in tags from way back.

The Ask:

Hello! Can you do a breakdown on Baghra's character and the Apparat's? I'm interested in reading your thoughts about them

Thank you for the ask!  And apologies for the delay in response.

Baghra

One of the first Grisha meta posts I wrote years ago was about how the way Baghra and her hut are portrayed evoke the impression of Baba Yaga.  Her appearance, hut in the woods (likely amidst birch trees), and something of her attitude all lend themselves to it.  Since then, I’ve also come to think there might be a bit of tie in to the tale of Vasilisa the Beautiful, who was forced to go and bargain with Baba Yaga for a light against the darkness.  

Looking past that surface, in the trilogy we are presented with Baghra as a figure both ascetic and penitential, as well as bitter and unkind.  The latter traits are well explained by what we learn of her history:  she has had a long life filled with a great deal of loss, with countless threats to Grisha and particularly to she and her son, different as they are even from other Grisha.  Her childhood was a sad one brimming with trauma and what she recalls of her parents to Alina causes me to think that she did not feel truly loved by either one of them.  I think their treatment of her and behavior toward each other shaped her perspective on life in profound ways, ones she never got past.

But the former traits don’t have so obvious a cause on page if you look more deeply.  Her lifestyle is very austere despite the fact there is no need for it - she is not on the run and in hiding any longer as she was in the Darkling’s youth.  Her conversations with Alina in regards to her son are couched in religious terms:  she is worried about his being beyond redemption, she speaks of merzost as abomination, and so forth. In R&R, she has Misha read religious parables to her to pass the time.

This clashes with what we know of contemporary Grisha.  It is said at one point in S&B that Grisha don’t put much stock in religion and we see the Darkling does not seem to either.  Not to mention the fact that he and his mother knew at least several Grisha who later became considered saints.  I find it likely they suspected other saints could also have been Grisha - Grisha and martyred for it, their true identities obscured so later people could pray to them and not have to consider the ‘unnatural’ people they were.  It makes a lot of sense that neither Baghra nor the Darkling would invest much consideration in Ravkan religion as it is presented on page.  In fact, it seems like they’d find it more infuriating than anything.  And yet.

The Second Army has no need to lead lives of deprivation.  Yes, they eat ‘peasant-style breakfast’ and such, but their rooms are gorgeous, they have beautiful clothing, sugar for their tea and so forth.  Baghra surely wouldn’t be living in a tiny dark hut in the trees unless that is what she wanted.

There’s also the fact that she shows signs of not using her summoning powers.   Even before S&S, she’s apparently quite chilly a lot.  It makes sense she wouldn’t show she could summon shadows where other Grisha could see.  But the indication is she isn’t using her powers at all.   That is another way she seems to have chosen to deprive herself, to the point of impacting her health.  Perhaps she even hoped that it would lead to her death, but apparently it has not been enough to override the impact of her amplification talent.

Looking back at the woman seen in Demon in the Wood and was glimpsed in the tale she tells Alina of her past, it very much seems to be something happened to turn who Baghra was into who we see in the trilogy.  

I suspect much of the true reason is that she is pretty much a plot device in the story.  She needs to spook and horrify Alina into running.  Her talk of ‘redemption’ and ‘abomination’ are peculiar in terms of many other elements we see in the books.  I’m writing a meta on the amplifiers and merzost and such that goes into this further, but I’ve also written some in the past about how there’s no real reason to believe merzost is inherently bad. Baghra has clearly decided it is though and speaks of it and her son’s actions in absolutist terms.  Because she needs to in order to have the narrative run how it does, more than once.

And again, what reason would this character really have to put so much faith in Ravkan religion?  

What’s a possible in-universe explanation for this?  I think the creation of the Shadow Fold works well for that.  We find out that what the Black Heretic was actually trying to do was recreate Morozova’s amplifier experiments and something went wrong.  (This is the focus of the upcoming meta I mentioned above.). The Fold happened and all of the people within its bounds were transformed into volcra. All in all, a horrific situation, however much an accident.  This could have functioned as such a systemic shock to Baghra’s worldview that she sought solace and perhaps forgiveness in religion.  I suspect she felt guilt, which is pointed to in things she says in the trilogy.  Also, she’s the reason the Darkling even had Morozova’s journals - she went back to the village she was born in and found them, per R&R.

I still think her being invested in the Ravkan religion itself is a weak point, but could be generously explained by just how traumatized she was by the Shadow Fold situation.  She may have desperately wanted something to believe in.  That said, the lack of any sign in the books of what more lies behind Ravkan religion than Saints and the fact that Baghra knows that at least several of those Saints were actually Grisha, doesn’t make this the strongest argument to me.

I also wrote some weeks back on how Baghra was portrayed as emotionally and physically abusive to Alina and according to their own accountings in R&R, other Grisha as well.  In the early days of the fandom, I never really saw that acknowledged, though it has gotten far more recognition this year with new people reading the books since the release of the tv show.

Overall, she is a very bitter person and I think a lot of what we see of her is driven OOC by her being largely a plot device and IC by guilt.  She feels guilty about the Fold’s creation and so forth and lashes out at others in misdirected anger.

I think this also relates somewhat to her treatment of Alina in S&S and R&R.  She blames Alina for not ‘adequately’ running away (went after the stag instead), blames her for the Darkling putting himself beyond redemption (in Baghra’s mind - like too many people IRL, she seems to not understand what redemption actually is), blames her for the sea whip, for wanting to find the third amplifier.  She blames Alina for these things, but it is likely a mask for further personal guilt. Of all people, Baghra is likely the one who would have been most successful in stopping the Darkling before things took the path they did.  He trusted her.

But her nasty treatment of others obscures that Baghra is largely a passive character in the trilogy. Whether out of love or some variety of religious concern, she doesn’t try to kill her son.  She doesn’t remove Alina from the situation in a more final way, only tells her to run.  And in the end, she commits suicide rather than more directly confront the Darkling.

The Apparat

Okay, after all that, I don’t have near as much about the Apparat. *L*

If Baghra’s surface details are meant to evoke Baba Yaga, then I think the Apparat’s point to Rasputin.  His physical description was practically a caricature (if you’ve only seen the show, he looked far less revolting in that than he was described in the books) and he starts out as a trusted advisor to the Ravkan royal family.

One of the big questions about the Apparat is about what he truly believes.  He was in cahoots with the Darkling around the coup against the Lantsov dynasty in S&B, but he later swung his support behind the Sun Summoner.  I think it would be a believable reading of the text to suspect he may have planned to do so since learning of Alina’s existence.  There’s no real reason to think he truly supported the Darkling’s cause or cared much for Grisha themselves; on the latter point, I think the greater support is for the idea that he does not care about the Grisha and just used them to get what he wanted.  

His presentation is a mix of True Believer and power-seeker and a great deal of the questions around him relate to where one thinks he falls most strongly on that spectrum.  Alina’s interactions with him in S&B have the hallmarks of a fanatic, but then, these signs are also seen through Alina’s eyes and you have to consider whether she is seeing reality or a careful act.  I think the case could be made for either.   But either way, I also think he wanted power.  I suppose you could argue he wanted power on behalf of Sankta Alina, but I think his actions in R&R show that an Alina who wasn’t going to comply with his wishes was deemed more trouble than she was worth. If she had died, I don’t think he fundamentally would have cared.  She had established enough of a reputation, was known to enough people, that he could have exploited her as a martyr without having to deal with the reality.

The Apparat was the sort of character I tend to really dislike (religious manipulation, etc.).  Something that struck me in all the books is how more than one character was strangely...tolerant of him. He backstabbed people more than once and yet nothing was every truly done about it.

[killianmesmalls]

On your comments about Jack: ye-es, in the sense that Jack is a character who definitely deserved better than he was treated by the characters. The way Dean especially treats him reflects very badly on Dean, no question. But, speaking as a viewer, I think the perspective needs to shift a little bit.

To me, Jack is Dawn from Buffy, or Scrappy Doo. He’s an (in my opinion) irritating kid who is introduced out of nowhere to be both super vulnerable and super OP, and the jeopardy is centered around him in a way that has nothing to do with his actual character or relationships. He’s mostly around to be cute and to solve or create problems — he never has any firm character arcs or goals of his own, nor any deeper purpose in the meta narrative. In this way, he’s a miss for SPN, which focuses heavily on conflicts as metaphors for real life.

Mary fits so much better in that framework, and introducing her as a developed, flawed person works really well with the narrative. It is easy for us to care about Mary, both as the dead perfect mother on the pedestal and as the flawed, human woman who could not live up to her sons’ expectations. That connection is built into the core of SPN, and was developed over years, even before she was a character. When she was added, she was given depth and nuance organically, and treated as a flawed, complex character rather than as a plot device or a contrivance. She was given a voice and independence, and became a powerful metaphor for developing new understandings of our parents in adulthood, as well as an interesting and well-rounded character. You care that she’s dead, not just because Sam and Dean are sad, but for the loss of her development and the potential she offered. So, in that sense, I think a lot of people were frustrated that she died essentially fridged for a second time, and especially in service of the arc of a weaker character.

And like, you’re right, no one can figure out if Jack is a toddler or a teenager. He’s both and he’s neither, because he’s never anything consistently and his character arc is always “whatever the plot needs it to be.” Every episode is different. Is he Dean’s sunny opportunity to be a parent and make up for his dad’s shitty parenting? Yes! Is he also Dean’s worst failure and a reminder that he has done many horrible things, including to “innocent” children? Yes! Is he Cas’s child? Yes! Is he Dean’s child? Yes! But also, no! Is he Sam’s child? Yes! Is he a lonely teenager who does terrible things? Yes! Is he a totally innocent little lamb who doesn’t get why what he is doing is wrong? Yes! Is he the most powerful being in the universe? Yes! Does he need everyone to take care of him? Yes! Is he just along for the ride? Yes! Is he responsible for his actions? Kinda??? Sometimes??? What is he???

Mary as a character is narratively cohesive and fleshed-out. Jack is a mishmash of confusing whatever’s that all add up to a frustrating plot device with no consistent traits to latch on to. Everything that fans like about him (cute outfits, gender play, well-developed parental bonds with the characters) is fanon. So, yes, the narrative prioritizes Mary. Many fans prioritize Mary, at least enough that Dean’s most heinous acts barely register. To the narrative (not to Cas, which is a totally different situation), Jack is only barely more of a character than Emma Winchester, who Sam killed without uproar seasons earlier. He’s been around longer, but he’s equally not really real.

I debated on responding to this because, to tell the truth, I think we fundamentally disagree on a number of subjects and, as they say, true insanity is arguing with anyone on the internet. However, you spent a lot of time on the above and I feel it's only fair to say my thoughts, even if I don't believe it will sway you any more than what you said changed my opinions.

I'm assuming this was in response to this post regarding how Jack's accidental killing of Mary was treated so severely by the brothers, particularly Dean, because it was Mary and, had it been a random character like the security guard in 13x06, it would have been treated far differently. However, then the argument becomes less about the reaction of the Winchester brothers to this incident and more the value of Jack or Mary to the audience.

I believe we need to first admit that both characters are inherently archetypes—Mary as the Madonna character initially then, later, as a metaphor for how imperfect and truly human our parents are compared to the idol we have as children, and Jack as the overpowered child who is a Jesus allegory by the end. Both have a function within the story to serve the Winchester brothers, through whose lens and with whose biases we are meant to view the show's events. We also need to admit that the writers didn't think more than a season ahead for either character, especially since it wasn't initially supposed to be Mary that came back at the end of season 11 but John, and they only wrote enough for Jack in season 13 to gauge whether or not the audience would want him to continue on or if he needed to be killed off by the end of the season. Now, I know we curate our own experiences online which leads to us being in our own fandom echo chambers, however it is important to note that the character was immediately successful enough with the general audience that, after his first episode or two, he was basically guaranteed a longer future on the show.

I have to admit, I’m not entirely sure why the perspective of how his character is processed by some audience members versus others has any bearing on the argument that he deserved to be treated better overall by the other characters especially when taking their own previous actions in mind. I’m not going to tell you that your opinion is wrong regarding your feelings for Jack. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, it harms no one to have it and express it. My feelings on Jack are clearly very different from your own, but this is really just two different people who processed a fictional person in different ways. I personally believe he has a purpose in the Winchesters’ story, including Castiel’s, as he reflects certain aspects of all of them, gives them a way to explore their own histories through a different perspective, and changes the overall dynamic of Team Free Will from “soldiers in arms” to a family (Misha’s words). In the beginning he allows Sam to work through his past as the “freak” and powerful, dangerous boy wonder destined to bring hell on earth. With Dean, his presence lets Dean work through his issues with John and asks whether he will let history repeat itself or if he’ll work to break the cycle. Regarding Cas, in my opinion he helps the angel reach his “final form” of a father, member of a family, lover and protector of humanity, rebellious son, and the true show of free will. 

From strictly the story, he has several arcs that work within themes explored in Supernatural, such as the argument of nature versus nurture, the question of what we’re willing to give up in order to protect something or someone else and how ends justify the means, and the struggle between feeling helpless and powerless versus the corruptive nature of having too much power and the dangerous lack of a moral compass. His goals are mentioned and on display throughout his stint on the show, ones that are truly relatable to some viewers: the strong desire to belong—the need for family and what you’ll do to find and keep it. 

With Mary, we first need to establish whether the two versions of her were a writing flaw due to the constant change in who was dictating her story and her relationship to the boys, which goes against the idea that her characterization was cohesive and fleshed-out but, rather, put together when needed for convenience, or if they both exist because, as stated above, we are seeing the show primarily through the biased lens of the Winchester brothers and come to face facts about the true Mary as they do. Like I said in my previous post, I don’t dislike Mary and I don’t blame her for her death (either one). However, I do have a hard time seeing her as a more nuanced, fleshed-out character than Jack. True, a lot of her problems are more adult in nature considering she has to struggle with losing her sons’ formative years and meeting them as whole adults she knows almost nothing about, all because of a choice she made before they were born. 

However, her personal struggles being more “mature” in nature (as they center primarily on parental battles) doesn’t necessarily mean her story has layers and Jack’s does not. They are entirely different but sometimes interconnected in a way that adds to both of their arcs, like Mary taking Jack on as an adoptive son which gives her the moments of parenting she lost with Sam and Dean, and Jack having Mary as a parental figure who understands and supports him gives him that sense of belonging he had just been struggling with to the point of running away while he is also given the chance to show “even monsters can do good”. 

I’d also argue that Jack being many ages at once isn’t poor writing so much as a metaphor for how, even if you’re forced to grow up fast, that doesn’t mean you’re a fully equipped adult. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I believe Jack simultaneously taking a lot of responsibility and constantly trying to prove to others he’s useful while having childish moments is relatable to some who were forced to play an adult role at a young age. He proves a number of times that he doesn’t need everyone to take care of him, but he also has limited life experience and, as such, will make some mistakes while he’s also being a valuable member of the group. Jack constantly exists on a fine line in multiple respects. Some may see that as a writing flaw but it is who the character was conceived to be: the balance between nature or nurture, between good and evil, between savior and devil. 

Now, I was also frustrated Mary was “fridged” for a second time. It really provided no other purpose than to give the brothers more man pain to further the plot along. However, this can exist while also acknowledging that the way it happened and the subsequent fallout for Jack was also unnecessary and a sign of blatant hypocrisy from Dean, primarily, and Sam. 

And, yes, Jack can be different things at once because, I mean, can’t we all? If Mary can be both the perfect mother and the flawed, independent, distant parent, can’t Jack be the sweet kid who helps his father-figures process their own feelings on fatherhood while also being a lost young-adult forcing them to face their failures? Both characters contain multitudes because, I mean, we all do. 

I can provide articles or posts on Jack’s characterization and popularity along with Mary’s if needed, but for now I think this is a long enough ramble on my thoughts and feelings. I’m happy to discuss more, my messenger is always open for (polite) discussion. Until then, I’m going to leave it at we maybe agree to disagree. 

[oumakokichi]

What's your opinion on Kaito and Maki! I don't know if anyone's ever asked this before (sorry if yes) Ur blog is epic btw!

This question is pretty recent, so I feel like this is a great one to kick off with getting back into writing full meta! I know in the past I’ve answered a few brief questions on how I feel about Momota and Maki respectively, as well as their relationship in-game, but I don’t know if I’ve ever written at length about the two of them.

I also don’t know whether you want my opinions on them both as individual characters or their relationship together, so I’ll probably touch on both aspects! This ask will obviously include spoilers for the whole game, so I’ll talk more under the cut!

Momota and Maki are definitely two of the most important characters in the game. Both their dynamic with each other, as well as their eventual friendship with Saihara, are pivotal plot points that come up again and again. Momota’s good intentions and attempts to help Maki come out of her shell and self-imposed isolation from everyone else are initially met by her with skepticism, distrust, and a feeling that he’s being incredibly overbearing and putting his nose where it doesn’t belong—but in the end, she does find herself pulled in by his unrelenting optimism and offers of friendship.

As Momota helps Saihara begin to overcome his anxiety and self-doubt by pushing him forward and reaffirming that he believes in him, Maki also begins to face some of her own demons. Like Saihara, her issues are rooted in deep-seated trauma from a young age, though hers is considerably more severe as it concerns both physical and mental child abuse, as well as a life filled with violence and murder.

It’s interesting, because both Saihara and Maki struggle with what I would call self-loathing, but go about showing it in completely different ways. They both doubt their own ability to do anything right and feel that they’ll only hurt people in the end, but where Saihara overcompensates for this by trying to please everyone and being afraid of saying no, Maki’s approach is much firmer: she tries to shut everyone out completely, keeping everyone at arm’s bay in order to prevent any attachments from forming in the first place. As someone who lost pretty much everything at such a young age, she’s clearly afraid of the same thing happening all over again, as well as wary of anyone who might try to get close to her, only to attempt to “take her out” in the same fashion that she’s had to kill people her entire life.

Momota’s persistence in striking up a friendship with her is therefore really, really interesting. It’s the first time in Maki’s life that anyone has ever been so adamant about wanting to get to know her. Considering how harsh and unfriendly she initially is, as well as the fact that her talent is revealed to everyone by the end of chapter 2, it would make complete sense if Momota wanted nothing to do with her, in her opinion. She’s used to being alone, and she’s already convinced herself by that point that it’s preferable to the alternative.

But Momota is a character who fundamentally refuses to take no for an answer. This is simultaneously both his best and worst trait, in my opinion: it’s literally right in his catch phrase, whenever he claims that he’s going to reach the stars someday. He runs purely on the idea of faith and belief. There’s no middle ground with him: either you trust someone implicitly, regardless of everything stacked against them, or you don’t. Shades of grey, especially at the beginning of the game, are virtually nil. It’s a very “shounen protagonist” sentiment that winds up being somewhat challenged for him as the game goes on.

He’s interested in Maki, and wants to know why she closes herself off in her research lab. When the finger is pointed at her in chapter 2 and she falls under suspicion of murdering Hoshi, he defends her even at the expense of making himself look worse, and even to the point of claiming that he would “bet everyone else’s lives” that she’s innocent (a line which was completely omitted in the localization and dub, but which you can still hear him say in the jp dialogue of the chapter 2 trial).

There’s absolutely no evidence to back Maki up or support her; Momota’s defense on her behalf stems more from the fact that he hates Ouma’s equally black-or-white “guilty until proven innocent” approach, and resents the attempts at mutual suspicion and paranoia that Ouma tries to force between them. Momota is, in a word, stubborn. He figures things out by “feel” or “intuition” and is extremely slow to change his opinions even when facts and evidence are presented before him.

Again, this can be a good trait: his loyalty means he’s the last person who would ever throw someone else under the bus, and it’s the main reason he succeeds in getting closer to someone as emotionally closed-off as Maki at all. It’s less of a good thing, however, in later chapters like chapter 4, where his stubborn refusal to look at the facts genuinely endangers everyone’s lives in the trial and results in a huge blow-out that threatens his friend group with Saihara especially, but really with the whole training trio.

It’s this stubbornness of his that really baffles Maki. Initially, she doesn’t know what to make of Momota’s attempts to befriend her. She assumes he must be reckless, or stupid, or both, to want to get close to someone as dangerous as she is. But as she gradually begins to let her walls down and starts opening up despite herself, it’s such a nice change to see her eventually starting to believe in herself and view herself more positively as a result of Momota’s own belief in her.

I think momoharu as a ship works really well and has potential specifically because of these themes of “self-love” and “believing in yourself” that come up in the main game’s narrative again and again. And unlike the dynamics between Momota and other characters, such as Saihara, I feel like Momota and Maki are on much more of an even footing, where the two of them can view each other as equals and aren’t afraid to challenge each other whenever one of them is in the wrong about something.

For example, Saihara and Momota have much more of an imbalanced, sometimes one-sided friendship. That’s not to say that they aren’t both extremely important friends to one another—but between Saihara’s inability to say no to people and Momota’s tendency to take charge and view himself as “the hero” while everyone else is his “sidekick,” their relationship becomes incredibly uneven very quickly.

Add to this Momota’s unspoken jealousy of Saihara’s talent and his pivotal importance to the rest of the group in trials, and it gets even messier. I’m reminded of the chapter 4 trial, when Saihara really goes against Momota’s opinion on something for the first time by proving that Gonta is the culprit, and Momota is livid. Even when all the proof is laid out before him, and even when he knows, logically, he feels so betrayed by Saihara’s lack of “belief” in him that his underlying jealousy bubbles up and he lashes out. The localization considerably dulled the impact of this, but in the original Japanese dialogue, Momota even stops referring to Saihara by his first name for a long time, referring to him much more coldly by his surname from the end of chapter 4 until the latter half of chapter 5.

Momota and Saihara never feel as though they’ve really escaped that “hero and sidekick” dynamic until the very end of chapter 5 when they say their farewells, and even then there’s a real hesitance with Saihara to call Momota out when he’s wrong or ask for an apology even when Momota owes him one. If the game had explored more of Momota’s jealousy and feelings of inadequacy compared to Saihara, I would have really loved that, and I feel like there would be real potential to explore how they could eventually be on even footing… but as it stands, in canon we don’t really get that, and most of Momota’s shortcomings and flaws are somewhat brushed aside after his death in favor of Saihara remembering him more fondly.

This isn’t to say that Momota doesn’t have any flaws when it comes to how he interacts with Maki, of course. His character has a lot of “toxic masculinity” baggage, including unironically believing really outdated things like “women shouldn’t be fighting, they should be raising children,” or thinking that women are inherently weaker physically and more fragile emotionally than men. Luckily though, Maki often consistently proves him wrong on all of these points: her ability to wipe the floor with him during their training sessions is of course part of it, but it’s worth noting that she’s also considerably more level-headed than Momota is in many ways.

Where Momota is superstitious and afraid of the occult to a comedic degree, Maki remains the rational, down-to-earth one who doesn’t believe in such things. Where Momota is prone to letting his pride and temper get the better of him and refuses to speak to Saihara or apologize for the things he said during their fight in chapter 4, Maki is the one who attempts to push them into interacting with each other again, and believes that Momota is being much too childish about the whole ordeal. Again and again, Maki proves Momota’s outdated and harmful stereotypes about women wrong, and isn’t afraid to poke fun at him or get exasperated with his bullshit whenever he’s being kind of a dick.

Her relationship with Momota works specifically because of how much it feels like the two of them are on a more even footing. Where Saihara somewhat meekly accepts the “sidekick” role, even when he thinks it’s unfair, Maki doesn’t really accept it or go along with it in the first place, beyond showing up for training sessions. And when she gradually begins to develop romantic feelings for him, it feels authentic—particularly because it ties back into the idea of Maki learning to believe in herself the same way that Momota has believed in her from the start.

Deep down, Maki is someone who fundamentally believes herself not only undeserving of, but borderline incapable of love. She feels as though any human emotions she might have once had were stomped out of her from a young age and that absolutely nothing remains, to the point where she says “even Kiibo is more human than she is.” This self-loathing and dehumanization are the main reasons she keeps people at arm’s length: she simply thinks she doesn’t deserve any kindness, and that even if it’s given to her, she doesn’t know how to reciprocate in turn.

Her entire character arc is about unlearning this, and gradually coming to accept that she does have the capacity to love, including love for herself and for others. I’ve seen some people who believe Tsumugi when she claims in the chapter 6 trial that she “gave Maki those feelings for Momota” for the sake of the show, but I feel that believing that at face value really doesn’t do justice to Maki’s autonomy as a character.

Even if Tsumugi somehow did insert those feelings there (which I highly doubt, especially considering how she blatantly lies about giving Momota his illness too despite pretty obviously not knowing he was sick prior to chapter 5), the whole point of Maki’s confession to Momota in chapter 5 and reaffirmation of those feelings in chapter 6 is that she eventually comes to believe that they’re her feelings, and no one else’s. As someone who was denied any free will or choice for her entire life, her coming to view Momota as someone precious to her, as well as herself as an individual capable of making decisions and loving other people, is an incredibly powerful arc of character growth. I honestly really love to see it.

And it’s clear that Maki coming to love and value herself as an individual is exactly what Momota wanted to see from her. We don’t really know if he reciprocated her romantic feelings or not since he dies without really giving her an answer. I personally think he spared her an answer because even if he had said he reciprocated, it only would’ve hurt her worse to see him die immediately afterward.

But what he does make really clear is that he fully believes that because she could come to love him, she could also eventually come to love herself. Whether it’s romantic or not, he clearly cherishes her a lot as a person and wants her to be happy. He wants her to live on as herself, and not any of the roles she’s had to take thus far in order to survive. She eventually does do this, and I think he would’ve been absolutely thrilled to see it happen.

All in all, I feel like momoharu has a lot of potential for character growth (both for Maki and Momota), as well as for cute moments, comic relief, and all around as a feel-good ship. Momota definitely has some issues to work out with misogyny and toxic masculinity, and while it’s certainly not Maki’s job to hold his hand and walk him through those things, she’s the type of person who doesn’t mind putting her foot down and telling him no when she feels like he’s crossed a line, which is exactly the type of dynamic I like to see in relationships.

Anyway, I’ll wind this up here. This was a really fun question to go into, thank you again anon! I had a lot of fun getting back into the swing of writing meta, and I’m glad I got a chance to write a little more about my thoughts on momoharu, and Momota and Maki as characters.

[warsmith-38]

How I would do RWBY Pt. 0

Disclaimer: It is easier to improve what already exist than it is to create something new. Boy howdy do I know that. That being said, I believe that RWBY has more than its fair share of flaws and this is how I would do it differently if I was behind the reigns. This is just a collection of my opinions and ideas which in the end will probably amount to nothing. I felt the need to do this because my brain just decided ‘nah motherfucker, you ain’t thinking of anything else from now on’ and this is the end result for nothing else would satisfy my rage.

I wouldn’t quite call this a complete re-haul, but more rather a rework with some of my own brand of polish. It’s not a compete rebuild from the ground up in a different world with different concepts and themes, but how I would go about a second go around with the series from the base that is already there. If a detail is missing from my musings then assume it is either unchanged or removed, depending on context.

If some of my complaints were addressed after I stopped watching, I honestly don’t much care. If it takes longer than 4 seasons to fix what I view as fundamental problems, then it’s far too little too late for me. I paid scant attention to the series post my stopping point and liked little to none of what I saw.

Please do not take this as a specific attack on anything other than the writing of the show itself. This is not directed or targeted against anyone, regardless of position or feelings on the topic at hand. If you ignore what I just said and decide to take this as an insult, then I say that you need to be more self-secure in your tastes and interests.

Things I would remove + reason why

Silver eyed warriors as a concept- it’s more or less the same concept as dojutsu from Naruto. It’s the fucking sharingan (rubygan). It’s not quite chosen one level, but crap like this is the blight of good protagonists. It’s fucking eugenics that makes you awesome not your own skills or training but on your bloodline. No need for personal development or life-changing hardship when you have a built in power that can be cultivated like a fucking bumper crop.

Maidens- Wasn’t intended originally and only made the overall story more cluttered with power creep and plot device. It’s a similar problem as above. No need for training or anything if people can just kill the person who has the power currently and take if from them. Which, at that point, why do you want that power if you’re already strong enough to kill and take it from the person who has it to begin with? It’s something someone just shouted out and they rolled with it because it sounded cool in the moment.

The Relics- McGuffin dragonballs that serve as plot device and little else. A story can be told without needing to monotonously race for Excalibur or the holy grail. Considering the Maidens, I doubt that the relics were intended in the first place and as such if you can’t tell a story without throwing something in after a few seasons because you realized that you didn’t have a plot, then you’re not that good at telling stories.

Oscar- The show didn’t need more main protagonists when what was already there wasn’t being given enough characterization to begin with. For that matter-

Quite a few characters- The cast is cluttered and convoluted enough as is with seemingly important characters getting the shaft in favor of yet another new character that would barely do anything. Time and effort seems to be put into one-off schmucks that would be better served making the story not need poochie the dog, let alone several. Character integration is not ‘create a character to do one thing and then pretend they don’t exist’. There’s already plenty of characters than can be used wherever.

The overt shipping bait, especially if it’s just going to be taken up or abandoned on a whim- I don’t mean relationship building, I mean the obvious baiting of a relationship that, in the end, might not even happen. All it does is dumb down characters and character arcs, draw out pointless scenes, and make the fans have conniptions one way or another. People are pissed off whenever things don’t go their way with shipping so the only winning move with these people is not to play their game. Looking at you Klance and Zutara. Either don’t do anything or have a fucking plan and stick to it and not make complete swerves when fans get uppity. If it genuinely matters to you, then pretend whatever ship happens at whatever point, I don’t care.

Changes to the world that I think would go over better-

Everyone has a level of aura with a naturally high level generally meaning that they might be able to unlock a semblance. A semblance is unlocked through some sort of specific event, typically a stressful one IE: Yang and Ruby are caught in the woods by grimm and Yang gets frustrated and scared at not being able to defend her sister before getting angry and her rage mode semblance unlocking. Not everyone who unlocks a semblance goes into combat schools but it is a requirement for acceptance into most of them. Having the potential to unlock a semblance seems entirely random but has a higher chance with genetics.

There are two types of semblances: 1 is hereditary like the Schnee glyphs, changing only slightly, if at all, through the generations. 2 is a random personal power like Yang having her rage mode as compared to Raven’s portals. Whichever you get tends to be random with the occasional exception depending on genetics and the specific semblance.

Every 1 in assumedly 10 people who have semblances have the potential to have two semblances, often times, but not necessarily, being one hereditary and one random. The process of unlocking the second semblance involves immense emotional distress and in some cases might not even happen for the individual who has the potential, period, thus skewing data. This gives an enhanced type power but isn’t protagonist exclusive. It shows a higher than average power capacity, but isn’t a gamebreaker to the same level as a fucking kekkei genkai or getting the powers of a fucking demigod. A good amount of characters would only have one semblance and be considerable badasses despite it and even be able to beat a couple of the few that have two.

Establish Menagerie as the official Fifth Kingdom, the newest of the great kingdoms. Maybe not the singularly strongest or most influential, but make it so Menagerie and its people, the faunus, have a considerable role in the world’s affairs, if even from an isolationist standpoint. Don’t have them as even a semi thriving entity that isn’t a kingdom because that only begs the question as to why the kingdoms are so important to begin with then.

Make the White Fang a faunus supremacist group that has very little support, if any, from the faunus people as a whole. Faunus right issues are history for the vast majority of the world and the White Fang as a whole is only using the problems in Atlas with the SDC as a means of trying to gain power. There are actual faunus rights groups trying to make things better for their race in Atlas and other marginalized areas but the White Fang dislikes them on the grounds that they go against their goal and it makes them look even worse.

Fucking pronounce names correctly, I mean, Christ. Weiss, the word, is pronounced like ‘Vice’. It’s an actual fucking word. It’s the German word for white. It’s like saying tor-till-uh not tor-tee-ah. Blake is Bella-doe-nah not Bella-dawn-uh. Shit like that. No you don’t need to put on a heavy accent to say these words but pronouncing things so inaccurately just makes you look like an ignorant rube (no, that was not a pun). I don’t fucking care what your reasons are. Why use these words in the first place if you’re not even going to try to say them right?

Ozpin is order to Salem’s chaos. Ancient demigods of both archetypes vying for power across the ages and the innocent peoples of the world be damned in the crossfire. Neither are entirely good nor evil but both are not exactly helpful to the free peoples on the world and the continued livelihood thereof. Their progenitor god created them to try and guide humanity in a balanced way. That seemed to work at first, but then failed like a bad marriage and they waged war ever since like a bad divorce. The grimm are a creation of Salem’s to test humanity and make then stronger through conflict. Ozpin ranges from the lawman to the fascist fairly duplicitously. The two can only be permanently killed by each other but neither wants to get too close to the other because of that exact same reason. If killed by other means, they will resurrect after a fashion no worse for wear.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Ruby Rose- It is a crime that the titular character has so little actual character beyond just being ‘Hyperactive Anime Protagonist #235’. Most of her (few) character traits are tell not show, and of course she’s got the fucking rubygan bloodline ability crap. She has next to nothing that isn’t allotted by default to most anime protags on the grounds of the stereotype. For the main character to have less character than any of the members of the fucking B-team is a travesty.

1. Give her a clear rebellious streak, a distinct problem with authority, and a headstrong attitude. Daddy doesn’t want her to be in danger, so she decides to become a huntress. She’s told to stay put, so she hunts down Roman. She’s told that she needs to stay home and recover, so she sets out on her own not thinking about the exact consequences. Make her the impetus for the team’s involvement with the problems of the world in the early seasons. Make her a driving part of the plot, not just being along for the ride or because someone else said so.

2. Give her blood knight tendencies. Make her VERY willing to get into a fight with the bad guys, not just fights in general, but fights against bad guys. Nothing over the top, but enough that she has a scene or three where she says “Shut up bad guy, skip to the part where we get to kick the crap out of you,” or something of that nature. Hyper combative characters are fun and ethical.

3. Give her more traits as a mechanic and weapon nerd. Include scenes of her fixing everyone’s weapons for fun or being able to analyze an opponent’s fighting style based on the type, design, and/or wear & tear of their weapon, make her a polyglot of weapons that can be at least proficient in using just about any weapon. Come to think of it…

4. Anything that could give her actual character traits. They don’t even have to be all that major traits, just give her enough so that we actually have a character with more definition than printer paper. She’s the main character, the titular character at that. This isn’t a video game with a blank-slate protagonist. If the main character isn’t even really a character, like, at all, then what’s the fucking point?

5. Convert silver eyes power into a second semblance for white fire vision that kills grimm like nothing else. Gotten as a hereditary semblance from Summer. Which is also why Summer was specifically targeted by Salem on the grounds that it makes her just a little too dangerous for her long-term plans. This makes it so she isn’t just the fucking chosen one, but still has a clear definitive reason to be involved against the big bad because, y’know, dead mom. Yes, this kinda goes into the whole ‘bloodline is what determines importance’ thing I wanted to be rid of, but it’s only a chance two generations instead of a massive lineage of nonsense and keeps more of the onus of involvement on Ruby herself.

6. Give her a very clear motivation that’s deeper than surface level. ‘Oh, I want to do the right thing’ is a flimsy as balls motivation especially compared to the rest of her team that has that AND an actual reason for thinking that way. Why does she want to be the good guy? What happened in her life that makes her this motivated to doing the right thing? Yang has her desire to find her mother (which, come to think of it, doesn’t necessitate being a good guy), Blake has wanting to make up for being a terrorist, Weiss has her desire to step out from under the shadow of her family’s reputation, even fucking Jaune, the b-team protagonist, who wants to live up to his family reputation, has a proper motivation to be involved in the story. WHY is Ruby involved beyond ‘I’m the main character’ level reasoning? As much as admitting it makes me wish to commit Sudoku, even SAO has better main character motivations. Good god, I need hooch after typing that.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Yang Xiao-Long- Her arc was mostly fine, barring some of the pacing. Raven being a maiden undercut the message of ‘screw that deadbeat bitch, go to your real family’ by making her important to the overall world state and confirming a measure of later relevance but that’s more a flaw with Raven than Yang.

1. Keep her motivation about getting strong enough to find her mother but add in the clear desire to kick her ass for leaving her and Tai. Of course it’s more about just getting the answers to her questions, but the ass-kicking should also be a major component.

2. Amp up the rivalry between her and Mercury. Mercury was designed as an opposite to Yang, I mean for fuck’s sake, look at him. Consider their respective backstories too; both raised in a single father home yet one was supported and loved (if a little neglected) while the other was horrifyingly maimed and abused. Punch vs kick. It works.

3. Make her more protective of her little sister, explicitly going along with her personal crusade to keep her safe (safer, rather). If she’s supposed to be the good older sister, maybe just maybe, something more than lip-service to that idea should be done. Hell, maybe she can be overprotective like their father, or even the exact opposite, not really giving a shit and then learning to give one. That might lead to a little tension and growth between the two of them.

4. Make her semblance consistent. Is she supposed to have super saiyan rage mode or is it energy buildup and dispersal? Is it supposed to be both? Just make it rage mode, for the sake of fuck, and don’t flip-flop. Speaking of…

5. Give her anger issues. Flesh out her being the kind of gal that would start a fight in a nightclub when she doesn’t get what she needed with little justification. This would stem from abandonment issues from Raven, Summer (inadvertently), and Tai and her general thrill seeking personality. This could lead to tensions and dramas until she overcomes it and learns to use her aggressive feelings and not let them use her.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Blake Belladonna- Shitty-kitty is shitty, here’s why.

1. Do something with the hypocrisy of being, more or less, princess of Menagerie, a world power albeit a minor one, and joining a band of terrorists that do more harm than good for the people they claim to represent. It’s like a trust-fund baby joining some charity organization in Africa for a few weeks, doing jack-shit to help, joining some jihadists, and then acting like she’s Mahatma Gandhi.

2. Make her arc less about running away and fighting Adam, more about realizing that running is for assholes and try to find her team to at least apologize for cutting and running like she did. Doing that and stopping Adam are not mutually exclusive. The friend thing should be the priority. As it stands she is almost rewarded for abandoning her team just to focus on her own problems.

3. Make her arc involve going from ‘There’s no such thing as pure evil’ to ‘Okay maybe some people are just too evil to work with’. Some people are too far gone and, despite still having good traits, will only ever continue to do evil things and don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone has some sort of good motive beneath the surface and, even then, does that matter when the only action they do is objectively evil? Still, y’know, save who you can, like Ilia.

4. Have Belladonna not actually be her last name. If she’s the daughter of a the chief of Menagerie, the closest thing the faunus have to a unified racial leader, then how the unholy shit does nobody recognize her name? She is, again, princess of Menagerie, yet nobody recognizes the name in a grander context. Have ‘Belladonna’ be a cover name so she can hide her identity better so that she’s using what should be a very recognizable real name in a tournament that is broadcasted worldwide. Her real family name could be “Nightshade” or some shit like that.

5. If she’s supposed to be ‘The quiet one’ maybe actually have her be quiet and not make big speeches every season or have loud arguments with her team. Just a fucking thought. If she’s still supposed to do that, then make her ‘the opinionated one’ or ‘the kind of mean one’ or even ‘the one who doesn’t shut up’. Blake, as seen, or rather heard, is not the quiet one.

6. Have her actually fucking interact with Ruby. Maybe they have a two-person book club. Maybe Blake teaches Ruby to meditate or something. Anything, anything at all would be fine, anything more than nothing at all. Blake’s whole interaction with the team shouldn’t just be through Yang and cursory scenes with Weiss.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Weiss Schnee- You can’t solve racism with like two scenes.

1. Make the racism thing a much more gradual decay rather than more or less disappearing after a single conversation. Hell, make jokes about it, ‘oh, no, one of my best friends is a faunus,’ stuff. It’s hard to unlearn an upbringing of hate, but she’s trying type stuff.

2. Involve her at least a little with the White Fang plot. It only makes sense that the heiress of the company that still more or less has slave labor is at least semi-involved with the plotline involving terrorists that want that company destroyed. Make her subject to assassination attempts at a young age, or even have her been kidnaped at a young age and held hostage, getting her scar in the process.

3. As evident by some of the intros, her rival was supposed to be Emerald. This could be serviceable, at the very least. The street rat pickpocket that had to learn life lessons the hard way and was taken in by the baddies VS. the rich heiress born with a silver spoon but raised by a dickhead. There’s potential there and it is a crime that it is not explored in the slightest. Even Yang and Mercury had a minor fight.

4. Like Yang, make her semblance consistent. Is it supposed to be summoning or physics altering magic symbols? These are two completely different powers, it’s not like super speed also giving super reflexes or whatever. Just make it one or the other, don’t bullshit us on these things. Or, hell, make it a second semblance she gets during the course of story.

5. Emphasize her loneliness. Make the main onus of her personal arc be about how she goes from this prickly, spoiled, opinionated, brat to a warm and caring friend who only wants the best for everyone. Yes, this might be the main intention in canon, but I feel it could have used a little more refining.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Cinder Fall- If she’s supposed to be Ruby’s chief rival and foil then she needs a lot of work to even be close. She shouldn’t be nothing but the rival, but at that same time she should have that be a considerable part of her characterization and role in the series. I feel the best way to do it is to have their similarities highlight their differences in both character and design. Basically, make her the Vergil to Ruby’s Dante.

1. Make her Ruby’s age. Being the same age as Ruby while initially outclassing her, and even veteran hunters, provides risk and contrast between the two. Throw in an evil sadistic streak compared to Ruby’s happy-go-lucky personality to further the contrast and you’ve got a good little yin-yang thing for them. It also shows just how bad someone can turn out if raised to be a killing machine.

2. Keep her using the bow/twin swords as a comparably simple weapon in contrast to Ruby’s, even in universe, overcomplicated Scythe/Sniper rifle. Both weapons are long range marksmen’s weapons as well as vicious close combat weapons but are still very different in essence. Also make sure she keeps the red with black and gold color scheme is contrast with Ruby’s Black with red and silver. Even minor visual cues can work to the rival schema.

3. Make her one of the people who have two semblances. Pyromancy (pyrokinesis? Fire bending, she has fire bending) and dilated perception (bullet time) so that Ruby’s super speed and the dilated perception cancel each other out, adding a little extra tension to the fights now that both parties’ signature abilities are moot points against each other.

4. Make her competent. She kills Ozpin and Pyrrha and then she either fails or draws every fucking fight she has afterwards baring nameless jobbers here and there. Even before that, she needed help to take down Amber and even manages to fuck that up. The more failures she has and the less intimidating she is. Too much of that and she’s just a jobber that makes you wonder why she was ever seen as intimidating in the first place. When that happens then Ruby beating her is just the status quo and not a triumph of any sort.

5. Make her Ruby’s long lost fraternal twin sister. Incredibly cliché, I admit, but siblings make the best rivals, especially twins. Once again, it’s all about adding the similarities and the contrasts. In this case it creates the ‘there but for the grace of god go I’ idea with the two of them. Ruby seeing it as how evil she could have turned out and Cinder seeing it as how weak she could have been (Eventually becoming how good she could have had it because I’m a sucker for redemption arcs) Who said that?

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Team JNPR- JNPR was fine-ish but the over focus on Jaune and the underutilization of Ren + Nora early on are both issues. B-team should not get jack shit before the A-team gets the lions share.

1. Downplay Jaune’s screen time. I doubt this is a particularly controversial statement. Jaune is not the titular character. This is (technically) a shoujo not a shounen. It’s supposed to be about the girls more than the guys. It kind of undercuts that idea when the guy (the side guy at that) gets the lion’s share of characterization, attention, and growth before the girl (the main girl) does.

2. Make Ren and Nora actual characters earlier on. Comic relief is all well and good, but either extend that to the whole team or make these two characters more than just comic relief in the early parts of the story. Make them, y’know, actual characters. They ain’t gotta be all that important, but they do have to be actual characters.

3. Make Pyrrha’s deathflags less blindingly obvious. We all knew Pyrrha was going to get clipped. The self-sacrificing type, all the musical and visual cues throughout, being based on Achilles, and ‘oh she just confessed to the boy she likes’. Homegirl was waving deathflags like an insecure redneck with the confederate flag. When you foreshadow obvious things that much it’s not a surprise to the audience when it happens and the reaction of the in universe characters seems overdone. If it’s not supposed to be a surprise then, whatever, but that’s clearly not the case if you’re going for just shock value. It’s fine for a character to die, but for the love of Jaysus you got to do something with it more than ‘this character’s sole purpose is to die for the angst and to up the stakes’. Pyrrha was just a plot jobber.

4. Make them a little more independent in the overall plot. Give them their own full sub-plots, have them go on their own little adventures, have them do things completely separate from RWBY that has plot relevance but not overtaking the main story in grandeur or importance. B-team gets B-plots and are cool in it of themselves.

Overt changes to (and complaints about) Qrow Branwen- Take or leave this, I just felt the need to include this because reasons.

1. Just make him Dante from Devil May Cry. Just make his personality the same as Dante from Devil May Cry. Make him stylish and cool but low-key a massive dork. He’s too cool to drink or smoke or anything harsher than PG-13. This series could use a guy like that, says I.

2. Make his semblance something that makes sense and isn’t just an angst generator. How do you even quantify ‘bad luck aura’ as a power? Make it short range teleportation as a connection to Raven’s portals. Make it so that he can direct the bad luck at will. Do SOMETHING with it that isn’t just an excuse for mostly pointless character angst.

3. This technically also counts as a Raven change but whatever. Make the Branwen family old nobility and not a loser bandit tribe from nowhere. Or at least make it so they used to rich or something. They come from a family that had a good amount of cash and even a chateau in Mistral. After the money dried up and the chateau ransacked by grimm, the Branwen twins had differing opinions on how to proceed. Qrow fully integrated into the hunter thing while Raven ran away and became a bandit, using it as further excuse to skedaddle on Tai and a recently born Yang.

[popculturebuffet]

Darkwing Duck Reviews: Tiff of the Titans

Uh-Oh, Gizmoduck Comes to town! In the first of a series of reviews building up to Just Us Justice Ducks,  the dopey, arrogant, anti-charasmatic, national embarrassment heads to St. Canard to guard a super weapon from F.O.W.L. Naturally, he ends up being more of a problem for our hero than the actual bad guys. Also a look at Tad Stone’s claims the series isn’t in the same universe as Ducktales.  Full review and recap commissioned by @weirdkev27​ under the cut

This review, much like Death, Taxes and Thanos, was inevitable. I’d been planning to watch and review the first appearances of each of the justice ducks and fearsome five as my next step in watching Darkwing duck anyway, and while I’ve already got one member’s appearance in the wings anyway, I’ll get to that tomorrow or Saturday just in time for Halloween, hint hint, Kev pushed this one into the queue with a commission and I  was happy to take the side trip to see just what the Darkwing version of Gizmoduck and Steelbeak, two of my favorites in the reboot, were like originally. So welcome folks to the build to the greatest superhero team made up of ducks of all time, let’s get quackin. 

We open, here in Duckburg, where the Eggmen are breaking in. Sadly they do not have the master plan, but they are here to steel the Comarant, a super powerful land, sea and air device the military is storing there. They instead find Gizmoduck! Who makes a good first impression, being a hoaky superman parody in iron man’s costume in this continuity, but it’s a nice way to contrast to Darkwing’s batman parody with a touch of Sandman.. the pulp one not the neil gaiman one.  Sadly he doesn’t have a cool gas mask but the Darkwing Duck costume is iconic without it. 

Point is the eggmen are easily repelled, though they do get away by blasting Gizmo with a tank. The General in charge is thankful for Gizmoduck’s help, but notes the Comarant will be heading to St. Canard soon for a demonstration at the big air show, and asks that Giz go over and protect it, maybe even work with Darkwing to protect it. Though Gizmo shoots that down, and not only insults Darkwing but says he’s not sure if he’s good or bad. While the latter comment did sour me on the guy.. research bears out Darkwing has been framed once or twice, and my own experience with the pilot saw him you know breaking out of jail and basically clamming superheroes are above the law, so I COULD get why someone wouldn’t trust him, even if Giz’s attitude about it still isn’t great. So fenton quick changes behind a sign and heads off to see his old buddy Launchpad.  A quick aside before we get going this episode doesn’t so much torch Tad Stone’s retroactive claim this isn’t the same universe as Ducktales, as burn it to ashes, take a whiz on those ashes and send each separate ash on a seperate probe to the farthest reaches of space. This episode not only has a cameo by Scrooge on a billboard.. but it’s one for DUCKBURG. Where Gizmoduck is said to be from. He also knows launchpad well, and vice versa, and outright mentions McDuck Manor. the episode couldn’t be saying “this is the same universe as ducktales’ harder if Scrooge himself showed up and started ranting about a Sea Monster eating his ice cream. I do like and respect Tad Stones, but I will never like or respect this claim of his and even if HE had that idea in his head during production of the show, it’s very clear everyone else including Disney who greenlit the Darkwing Duck comics explicitly connecting the two universes, felt it was a shared universe, and there’s really no reason they can’t coexist. 

If it’s because “Well launchpad wouldn’t leave scrooge”.. besides the fact Scrooge tried to fire him MULTIPLE times, it’s not farfetched Scrooge would put him in charge of a hangar both because he trusts him.. and to get rid of him since he doesn’t like Launchpad very much. Plus Donald has to come back from his tour of duty sometime and likely could easily do Launchpad’s job as pilot, as he did in the source material. My point is there’s tons of ways to write the man out easily, and he could just as easily be doing both jobs like in the reboot. This feels like a weird, unnecessary retcon no one wanted and everyone just politely ignores, like the creators of Doug saying he and Patti didn’t end up together after High School. Which even then makes more sense than this claim, since at least there I get the creators not thinking a high school romance would last forever. That’s fair.. it’s just not something fans really wanted to hear after spending two separate series and a movie getting them together. It would be like if Girl Meets World had revealed Cory and Topanga had divorced. Yes it’d be possible since they’d broken up twice over the course of the series, but no one wanted that, why would you do that. I’m getting off topic, the point is a few breakups aside Doug and Patti clearly married eventually, and Darkwing Duck and Ducktales are in the same universe. Sometimes you just have to ignore Word of God for your own sanity.

Back at the actual episode we cut to Steelbeak’s Bowling Alley Hideout... and I do love a job that allows me to say things like that. But in a really fantastic bit Steelbeak is bowling his minions over as punishment for failure.. even though they have a valid reason but eh he’s the bad guy and he has to get his bowling average up for FOWL’s bowling team somehow. Their insurance covers evil punishment related accidents anyways, they’ll be fine. 

But yeah let’s talk about Steelbeak for a second. I honestly hadn’t seen any of the original version so I was curious.. and he’s really damn awesome. Rob Paulsen always does a great job though and is always a pleasure, but he really does a good job here and with the contrast in him: He’d seem like a dumb thug, what with his gangster accent and general cockiness and swagger.. but he backs it up with great combat and even greater planning. He’s a schemer, a fighter and damn if he isn’t fun to watch.  It also makes me love the reboot version even more. While I already loved him for being played by Jason Mantzokus, being enjoyably dim, while also still enough of a threat to be freaking cool, it’s even cooler knowing he’s still fundamentally the same character. Much like Drake he’s simply been tweaked a bit. For drake it was softening the edges since Ducktales isn’t as broad a show, and neither will the darkwing reboot i’m betting, so his ego and selfishness is sanded down considerably. For Steelbeak it’s giving him an actual origin: Instead of starting at the top of FOWL, he’s starting as a very competent but very wet behind the ears and full of himself agent, working his way up to becoming justifably full of himself like the original show. He has the same swagger and badassery, he’s just not a master planner yet and he’ll get there. Like many of the reboot characters, he’s simply an already great character given some extra depth and rounding out. I love both and can’t wait to see him again next ep and hopefully he’ll show up in the Darkwing reboot so they can go for round 2. 

So with that out of the way, Darkwing naturally interrupts, and cleans house with his gas gun, forcing Steelbeak and his crew to literally go underground into the sewers. This successfully fools drake, and Steelbeak bemoans how both Darkwing and Gizmoduck have been thwarting his plans.. until he gets a great idea; pit them against each other so he can pilfer the comerant while their too busy fighting. It’s a classic supervillain tactic, and one that works perfectly because one of them’s an egotist and a dick and the other is also that but with more style and likeability.  Back at Drake’s place, Gosalyn and Honker are watching a horror movie they clearly aren’t supposed to till Drake and launchpad come back in via their easy chairs flipping them in from Darkwing Tower which is just.. really cool. I like it. I also like that much like the Shakespeare bust in Wayne Manor, Darkwing has his own neat statue to provide acess to his lair... a tiny bronze statue of Basil from the Great Mouse Detective.. I REALLY need to fucking watch that film but it’s a nice nod. But yeah Launchpad brought them back because he feels drake could use a break while Drake refuses to stop because crime never stops and he doesn’t have time for it and your usual self destructive bollocks. It’s interrupted by a knock at the door? 

It’s Fenton! Whose stopped in to see his old buddy launchpad, who is happy to see his old friend and the two catch up, though Drake dosen’t like the interuption because Classic Drake is kind of a grumpus. Fenton naturally is here because Gizmoduck is but says he’s doing a job for the military.. which makes no sense but given Drake doesn’t know what he does and Launchpad dares to be stupid, if not nearly as stupid as his reboot version, no one questions it. When Fenton says he needs to find a hotel Launchpad, being Launchpad, invites him to stay and while Fenton watches the movie with the kids, Drake wants him gone because you know he has a secret identity to keep and a case to work on and they don’t know if they can trust him with it. It’s fair.. but since this is Drake he almost handles it with the subtly of a howitzer. But before he can try to literally throw Fenton out on his ass, a news report comes on about an attack at a local theater and both head off to take care of it.. we also get a nice moment where both react to it with the same words at the same time.  Fenton.. is actually really likeable. He’s a bit awkward, more in that he sort of barges in and makes himself comfy.. but it’s very easy to see from this and the one Ducktales episode of his i’ve seen where the utterly marvelous reboot version gets some traits from: his nervousness, his pluckness, his lack of thinking things through ocasionally when he’s not overthinking them. Fenton is charming. The issue is once he switches on the costume he goes from utterly charming to punchable REALLL quick. I’ll explain my problems with his alter ego in a sec. 

At the theater Steelbeak fakes it to look like Darkwing’s doing the bombing, if half haphazardly and leaves Darkwing with the bomb so when Gizmo shows up he thinks he’s responsible. Darkwing naturally says it wasn’t him, but Gizmo dosen’t buy it and asks if he’s so good how come he wears a mask... says the guy in a helmeted visor’s whose only defense when that’s pointed out is it came with the suit. Which yes is a joke.. but it fails to land and instead of being funny just makes Gizmo look like a hypocritical dick whose assuming someone is evil based on flimsy evidence, and what’s very obviously a setup. it makes him come off as the biggest dumbass alive instead of this world’s superman and that is annoying. More ranting about him in a minute. We do end up getting an incredibly funny bit where the two end up arguing over who gets to defuse a bomb, with both wrestling over it till Gizmoduck takes care of it and both fall into the theater. Gizmoduck tries to arrest Darkwing who ignores him and runs off.  The next day the Mallard family, including Honker naturally, watches Gizmoduck get a parade, a key to the city and other good stuff on the news while Drake sulks before turning it off. And yeah i’ve waited long enough let’s talk about this version of Gizmoduck and why he does not work. I get in theory he’s supposed to be “The Cape”, minus the cape: The big cheese that everyone looks up to and loves to Darkwing’s  dark avenger of the night, a parody of that whose also really dumb. The issue is two fold. The first is .. the classic archtypical cape type chracter has been parodied to hell and back by 2020. He’s been a monster, an asshole and as with here an idiot. And even for then a superman parody, if not in apperance or powers but in treatment, whose really dumb wasn’t very new. 

And you CAN parody a big silver age type hero: Justice League International did so well without being too overt, having most of the team either annoyed or actively hostile to Shazam/Captain Marvel. But it was done well there because well.. billy’s a very corny very earnest and likeable kid in an adult’s body. To us he’s charming and loveable. But to a bunch of actual adults he’d be offputting at best and annoying at worst. While some have been annoyed at how he was handled, I a fan of both JLI and Shazam liked it and thought it was an interesting take. Another REALLY good and REALLY hilarious take on this is from fellow superhero action comedy Danny Phantom, one of my favorites and one I need to revisit. One episode had Danny split himself in two so he could crimefight and have fun with his friends resulting in one self whose a burnt out slacker, and another whose an over the top crimefighter who says things like “you Felonious fiend!” And “This looks like a job for the vacuum cleaner!”. It’s a damn good episode. My point is it’s been better done before and since. 

What doesn’t help is the episode tries to paint it as equal, since Darkwing’s problem in part is Gizmoduck stealing his thunder.. but it doesn’t work. Darkwing is a fully fleshed out character we know and love who despite his huge ego and rampant jackassery, is a decent person whose fought hard for St. Canard, loves his daughter and most damingly... is entertainingly sickish. Gizmoduck’s dickery just makes him come off less likeable and incredibly dense, while Darkwing’s is part of his charm and, along with his ego, has backfired enough to balance it out. Gizmo just doesn’t get comeuppance for his behavior, and instead gets rewarded with a parade, a key to the city, cheerleaders and Gosalyn looking up to him just for having powers in his gadgets. And really his methods aren’t that different from dark wing: While Darkwing is secretive, a loner and uses gadgets.. Gizmoduck’s suit is basically one BIG gadget, and he refuses to see. And I get that’s probably the joke but it just. doesn’t. LAND. It just makes him insufferable. And as far as I can tell in the original show he wasn’t: he was an awkward dork we root for like in the reboot, not a gloryhogging jackass whose squandered his good will long before he gets Darkwing isn’t evil and tries working with him to the point I don’t care by the time that happens: He’s already been so obnoxious it dosen’t make up for it. Maybe later appearances are better but he’s just a chore to watch in costume here. And that’s WITHOUT comparing him to the 2017 version, one of my favorites there, one of the best animated superheroes i’ve seen in a long time, and a toughly likeable character who struggles due to his superhero identity but took it up for exactly the right reasons and wants to help people. Darkwing Gizmoduck thinks he’s the cape and an inspiration when a good guy when he’s worse than the guy he hates at times. Reboot Gizmo is an honest, decent guy who simply wants to help people and use the gizmotech as a way to do that, to help change the world for the better and save the helpless, and only clashes with Darkwing due to his ego and lack of understanding that Gizmoduck and him really aren’t that different. Finally if THIS is why Tad Stones wants them to be different universes, because this Fenton is different from the Ducktales one in personality.. then that’s on HIM. That’s on him for writing this version poorly or letting him get written so poorly and not on the fans who had no reason not to connect a dot. God this character was disappointing and hopefully when I watch more of him at work in Ducktales, he isn’t this obnoxious, nor will he hopefully be in his sequel episodes.  Thankfully moving on Darkwing gets to work, because you know he has experience, and finds Steelbeak trying to pilfer the cormorant but Captain Clueless interrupts and tries to arrest him. The two then finally fight and while it’s sadly short, it’s a fun clash and I genuinely hope the reboot has it’s own fight with them, as given how damn good they are at fight scenes, it’s bound to be even more awesome. But Steelbeak gets away, and uses the comarant’s secret weapon.. a giant fake egg that drops a giant pile of yolk to drown them. Gizmo finally realizes he’s been fighting the wrong guy but our hero's are now running out of time. Darkwing , being the actually capable one here, has Gizmo uses his propeller to beat the eggs and the two head off.. though after a funny bit where Gizmo breaks the Ratcatcher’s sidecar Darkwing lets him use his spare tier, which is huge and likely intended for the main vehicle. Good stuff.  The two get after Steelbeak and while Gizmo makes me pray for death but death won’t come we get a fun battle with Steelbeak including Steelbeak using his beak to bite down and destroy the gas gun. It’s a damn fun bit I must say. But eventually the good guys win, disable the comarant and Darkwing beats Steelbeak. The day is save, FOWL is foiled, our heroes are on shaky but better terms, and Drake and Fenton depart on good if equally shaky terms, before arguing about which of them is better. And we’re out.  Final Thoughts: This.. was a disappointingly mixed bag. Gizmoduck REALLY drug down what was otherwise a good episode with a great concept: Bringing in a hero whose stronger and more popular than Darkwing.. but mostly uses it to make Darkwing look good, which he didn’t need, and make Gizmoduck look REALLY bad, intentionally or otherwise. Steelbeak is a delight and his plan, and the egg trap, are really good, and as mentioned there are enough good set pieces to prevent this from being a terrible episode.. but as an old friend says for me time and time again...

[jedi-order-apologist]

I am just so genuinely appalled by all this I had to take a step back. That is such an obvious and completely just wrong. Like I can understand interpretation but that's against the entire theme and Story of Star Wars. I am agahst. This seems like quotes used with arguements from a lot of anti-Jedi blogs I had to unfollow.

Regarding this post.

I know. It’s unsettling enough to see this attitude of “the Jedi deserved genocide” from random people in forums and comment sections, but you can pass that off as them being edgy for Internet points. Seeing it from an actual author who was paid money to write stories in this universe? That’s another thing entirely. Everyone takes away something different from stories, but how does anyone come away seeing something that distasteful in Star Wars?

And then unfortunately those ideas spread because they get put in her works (yeah, she might claim it doesn’t inform her stories but it absolutely does; perhaps not intentionally - though an awful lot of her characters seem to function as mouthpieces for her views - but she’s building the entire story out of a fundamentally broken foundation). Some of the fandom takes her books to heart and works her broken foundation into their conception of the story - which is fine on a personal level, but I see it as fundamentally incompatible with the films, if not pretty much rest of the material in the franchise.

It’s not just that she doesn’t like the Jedi or that she’s critical of them - everyone has their favorites, and even as central as the Jedi are to the franchise, there’s plenty of room to play around in for those who aren’t interested in or even dislike them. It’s that she’s so hateful in writing them; that she goes into an established series and writes the main icons of it from a place of believing they deserved genocide. This extends past the prequel-era Jedi, too - a reviewer came away from Traviss’s writing of Luke’s Jedi Order with this impression:

This is a book about bigotry and prejudice, but not one with a message against it, or even one that seems ambivalent:  It's very clear from beginning to end that the message here is that it's just to hate someone for a genetic trait, and that if that trait makes you uncomfortable, they deserve your scorn. 

Why would you ever want someone writing the iconic hero faction of the franchise this way? Why would you ever want them writing anyone that way? And why should we give any validity to interpretations based on this framework? On a personal level, fine - I can’t and won’t stop anyone from working this into their conception of Star Wars; that’s their right, even if I find it distasteful. But if we’re trying to discuss what the Jedi are and what they do? How am I supposed to find anything cited from Traviss in regards to the Jedi to be credible or worthy of any consideration?

[healresolve]

Lana’s portrayal is a synthesis of the traits she is given in both manga adaptations of FE4′s 2nd generation when compared against older translations of Genealogy. I borrow aspects that appeal to me from all three, but I lean heavily towards Genealogy and Fuyuki for inspiration with Oosawa being the one I draw the least from. The most fundamental traits I envision Lana possessing are Compassion and Insecurity.

The first is demonstrated through her insistence on fighting because she feels just as strongly as the more outspoken Larcei, challenging even Seliph on this. She also reaches out to Julia as the new girl in their already established group. A seasoned healer following in her mother’s footsteps for gameplay reasons, Lana has spent a great deal of time in the infirmary ward helping Adean who instilled in her the deep sense of caring for other people. The second, insecurity, I find is woven throughout her narrative and traceable to multiple sources. Adean, her mother, is widely desired by the men of Jugdral for her beauty and Lana inherits very little by way of appearance. 

(Spoiler warning for Belhalla here. At this point most people are aware, but I want to tag it out of courtesy to anyone who does not wish to be spoiled for the Jugdral games.)

Another large factor stems from the fact that Lana feels immense guilt that even one of her parents survived when the same cannot be said for most of the other children raised in Tirnanog who lost them when Arvis executed Sigurd and his troops at Belhalla. Growing up Lana always struggled with having to share to her mother while keenly aware how selfish it was to feel that way. These profound self-doubts endow her with sensitivity towards the feelings of others, but also negatively manifests as jealousy in her relationships, most notably dictating how she interacts with Seliph. While it may get the better of her at times, it never stops Lana from considering the feelings of others which sometimes is at the cost of her own.

Resolve

Lana: “Nuns can fight too, you know. I feel just as strongly about this as Larcei does. The imperial troops are becoming crueler with each passing day. It’s dangerous just to be a girl anymore! But I don’t plan to go down without a fight. I have my own means of warfare!”

Seliph: “I’m sorry, Lana. You’re right. This is everyone’s battle. Alright. We should get going. It’s hard to say how this is going to turn out… But let’s give it everything we’ve got!”

Lana: “Sorry if I got a little outta hand, sir.

Lana is introduced as a stark contrast to her childhood friend Larcei. Larcei pulls no punches from the start and Lana comes across as a timid healer by comparison, but their dialogue makes it clear in no uncertain terms that they are both incensed by House Dozel’s mistreatment of the people of Isaach. She goes as far as opposing Seliph who she deeply respects because once he relents she immediately apologizes.

Fuyuki’s Lana does not hesitate to put herself between an attack meant for Julia.

Compassion

While her brother, Lester, and Diarmuid presumably took up riding from Oifey and the twins, Ulster and Larcei, and Seliph trained with Prince Shannan, Lana did not discover her place among them until feeling her heart ache for the first time after seeing them covered in bruises and scrapes from training. She had originally picked up healing as a way of easing the many burdens on her mother’s shoulder, but the most fulfillment in the fact she could treat the wounds of her dear friends in order to protect them in the future.

For the brief period of time where Lana serves as the group’s only healer, she experienced immense stress from feeling that she had become solely responsible for their lives. When Lewyn introduces Julia, Lana happily welcomes the second healer into the fold and goes out of her way to make sure she’s looked after. This was both for Julia’s own sake and that of Seliph, as she wanted to relieve him of having to worry about something else when the weight of the world had already been heavy on his shoulders.

Wit

Lana to Febail: Hah… I know better than that. I saw all those crying children clinging to you when we were leaving the Manster District. You’re like a father to them, you know.

Almost comically emphasized in the Oosawa manga, Lana and Larcei bounce off each other in many scenes with Lana teasing Larcei over subjects ranging from boys to personal blunders. This side of Lana is present in the game where Lana pokes fun at Febail for posturing as a tough guy too.

Lana’s occasional snark should be considered something reserved for people and places she is comfortable enough with the other person that it would not come across as rude.

Insecurity

Low self-esteem plays a large part in Lana’s speech patterns. This trait is present in all three characterizations of her. Sometimes she wallows over her poor self-image and other times it takes on the form of passive-aggressiveness. Should Seliph marry another girl by the end of the game and Lana remain unpaired, she expresses explicit jealousy and perhaps even resentment towards him for it.  

Seliph : Lana...I’m sorry.

Lana : ...

Seliph : Lester said you were angry...

Lana : That’s because you...but it’s all right. I’ll just be going back to Jungby. So, farewell, Sir Seliph.

Lana: Seliph, we’ve just a little more go…

Seliph: Yeah. You’ve meant a lot to me out here, Lana. I really mean that.

Lana: Well, I don’t know if I’ve actually done anything… But I’m content just being by your side.

Seliph: Lana, we go pretty far back, don’t we… I remember us always hanging out as kids.

Lana: Uh-huh. I have so many good memories from back then, but I never thought you and I…

Seliph: But I’ve always liked you, Lana…

Seliph: I know… but it’s just hard for me to accept that, Seliph. I feel so awful to Julia…

Due to low self-esteem, Lana has a tendency to adopt blame even when there is no fault of her own. Her insecurities surrounding her mother and her upbringing make her feel unworthy of standing beside Seliph. That uneasiness does not go away if Seliph confesses to her either because she just finds something else to fixate on. In this instance, she worries that Julia may have also developed feelings for Seliph and cannot bring herself to enjoy the moment.

Closing thoughts

Most Jugdral characters have a handful of lines at best to extrapolate from. Outside sources such as Kaga’s dream scenario and the various FE4 mangas make an effort to flesh out the cast, but this results in characterizations that can be conflicting. Fuyuki’s manga presents Lana as a love interest for Seliph and this heavily influences her interactions with him. Oosawa, on the other hand, depicts a budding romance between Lana and Ulster.

I personally feel that Oosawa’s Lana is too immature to be congruent with her in-game counterpart, but I do like how her sense of humor and quiet wit shine that Fuyuki doesn’t manage to capture. Fuyuki’s Lana does, however, expand on the close relationship Lana has with Seliph. Regardless of whether anything comes of it, Lana’s bitterness towards Seliph if he takes another wife seems to imply closeness in some capacity at one point that just may not have developed in the same direction for him. I feel that Fuyuki stays faithful to the more introverted Lana seen in-game and I prefer this approach. 

Nonetheless, I believe there’s value in all three existing for analysis’ sake. It enriches a character that would otherwise have even less to work with and I’m grateful for that. I love that Lana’s faults feel very much in-line with her age group. She has a wealth of interesting dynamics to draw from with every single character that was present in Tirnanog before the liberation efforts took off and honestly writing her gives me the excuse to flex how much I love Adean, haha.

[under-the-lake]

‘I enjoyed the [DA] meetings, too. It was like having friends.’ - Luna, Friendship and Loyalty: Why She is NOT a Manic Pixie Dream Girl

This quote from Half-Blood Prince, Chapter Seven, is one of the blunt yet calm and non-judging statements Luna can come up with occasionally, and that usually startle people because of their accuracy and/or bold honesty. While Luna can be very Berkeleyan in her conception of reality, her friendship once given seems to be given forever. Contrary to many characters in the Harry Potter series, she’s loyal to people before being loyal to her House. Luna has also been deemed to meet the requirements for being a Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG). I beg to disagree with that statement. Maybe she ticks some of the boxes, but many of her traits and actions stand in opposition to that. So I’ll also explore that side of her here. These two short paragraphs already showcase Luna as ambiguous. Exciting, right?

Loyalty, Friendship, Empathy and MPDG

I’ve been asking people around me what they thought of Luna. Many put her loyalty, friendship and empathy forward. First it might be useful to define those terms. I know we all have some idea of what they are, but I was thinking of a more academic point of view (still wondering why Louhi was not sorted in Ravenclaw). I’ll try and make it short (I can hear you snort…).

Loyalty

Loyalty has been a theme running throughout the series from the very first chapter. Mr Dursley’s loyalty to the family principle of not mentioning the Potters is tested a few pages into the first book (Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter One). Dumbledore’s loyalty to the Potters is shown straight in as well (PS, Chapter One). I mean why would the headmaster bother bringing a baby to their foster parents himself if there was not a good reason? Harry’s loyalty to the Dursleys is settled rapidly as well, and further into the book (PS, Chapter Two), Hagrid’s loyalty to Dumbledore is stated by the gamekeeper very soon after he meets Harry (PS, Chapter Four). Loyalty as a virtue is associated with Gryffindor House by the Sorting Hat in each of its three songs (PS Chapter Seven; Goblet of Fire, Chapter Twelve; Order of the Phoenix, Chapter Eleven). It is therefore associated straightaway with the hero of the story, and by default, and tacitly, slyness and unreliability are associated with the ‘enemy’ that are Slytherins. None of these traits is mentioned in so many words, but Gryffindors are the ‘brave at heart’ whilst Slytherins ‘use any means to achieve their ends’ (PS, Chapter Seven) and that doesn’t change throughout the books.. Luna is a Ravenclaw. So what then?

What is loyalty? I mean we all have a sense of what it is, of course. Supporting our friends, our family, fly high the values we share with a society, support them whatever the circumstances, swearing allegiance to a master or an institution (sometimes even to social constructs). Loyalty is a virtue, albeit, as many point out, a complicated one, because it puts the person in front of hard choices, for instance telling their friends the truth or being bold, or honest, or doing things that they wouldn’t normally do, or acting against their own inclination. Some say loyalty is only a feeling because it’s always grounded in some sort of attachment for a person/institution/society. There’s no denying that loyalty cannot be affectless, but it doesn’t follow that the feeling is a positive one. You can be loyal out of fear, for instance. Take Wormtail. Of course one can question the very use of the term ‘loyalty’ in his case, but it ticks most of the boxes. What are the boxes, then? After reading the ‘loyalty’ entry of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Kleinig, 2017), I decided to make the boxes as follows: a) there needs to be some strong form of attachment that can go as far as devotion via professional commitment (like for a lawyer), b) this attachment makes the person want to secure (or at least not to jeopardize) the well-being/interests of the person/object/concept they are loyal to, c) this attachment makes the person put their interest and well-being after those of the object of loyalty, and d) there might be an interest for group survival (either genetic or other). That last one is one of the boxes that relate to family relationships, friendships, house loyalty etc…

The question is, how does Luna relate to loyalty? I reckon she’s one of the most loyal characters in the whole Harry Potter series, because she doesn’t question the concept. Her friendship, therefore her loyalty, once given, is given forever. Whilst she can be very Berkeleyan in many ways, Luna is full black or white when it comes to friends.

Friendship

Aristotle (him again) devoted a big part of his thinking to what friendship might be. Peoples (or some people among the peoples) have been discussing the topic of love and friendship as something fundamentally human (I don’t think I agree with that, but that’s not the point here). Ancient Greeks and Romans put friendship above romantic love in their scale of feelings (and I must say I do agree with that): it’s philia, friendship-love (Deavel & Deavel, 2010). That’s why there’s such a canyon of difference between the words ‘pal’ or ‘mate’, and ‘friend’. It has to do with the level of intimacy you share with the person (mentally and/or physically), but also with how much you embrace that person with all their qualities and faults, not trying to change them for your or their sake, but also being able to tell them truths in their face that nobody else would dare utter without fear of losing them.

If we go back to Aristotle, he defined three types of friendship (which, for him, is a kind of virtue, meaning people must constantly work on it): friendship for use, for pleasure, or complete friendship (Aristotle, in Mogg & Tully, 2012). It is easy to understand the first: the person whom the ‘friendship’ is bestowed on is only a means towards an end. For instance, take Peter Pettigrew. He never loved his three Marauder companions, but he used them to get protection. In the second type of ‘friendship’, the person who bestows his ‘friendship’ on someone wants to derive something pleasant out of it, still not considering the feelings of the other. That could be, for instance, the kind of relationship Romilda Vane would like to have with Harry, or again Pettigrew and the Marauders. A complete friendship means that the person desires positive things for their friend, for their sake and not their own. It’s valuing the friend for themselves, and not as a tool. Usually, in analysis of the Harry Potter series, only the friendship between Harry, Ron and Hermione is viewed in this light (Mogg & Tully, 2012). That might be because it indeed develops over seven years, involves living together not only in the comfort of Hogwarts or the Burrow, but in a tent (granted, with all comforts as well), on the run, on a mission, not really knowing where they are going. As Mogg & Tully put it, the evolution of friendship in Harry, Ron and Hermione goes from being a working group of complementary units to sharing and learning from each other and supporting each other’s psychological development.

Yet, I question this exclusivity in the sense that Luna’s character makes her a good candidate for that kind of friendship. She might not tick each box, but I’ll explore the concept, as well as try and state that Luna is NOT a MPDG among other reasons because of her take on friendship and loyalty. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe not. That’s the excitement of research, isn’t it?

Empathy

Empathy is a fashionable word nowadays, so it tends to be used to convey many things. However, primarily, it means the ability one person has to feel ‘in the stead’ of another, to step into their shoes and feel ‘with’ them. It is a central concept to the building of human societies, because it allows people to create bonds with one another. Empathy can lead to altruistic motivation, meaning that one who feels empathy towards others might want to help them. In the Sandford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stueber (2019) says that according to one of the philosophers who currently studies empathy, Batson, the predominant trait of empaths is selfishness (sic), that the altruistic bit of empathy is not the most common, and what determines if a person will help another or not depends on how strong they are personally, and what the cost of helping the other would be. To be truly altruistic, moreover (and quite obviously), the helping behaviour must not be directed towards a personal goal. That’s sort of logical, given the name is ‘altruistic’, but again, there are different forms of help. Other researchers (Ciladini et al., in Stueber, 2019) state that when in extreme conditions, this altruistic behaviour stems from a sense of oneness between the actors, the emergency or extremity of the situation leading them to behave as one body, therefore saving limbs rather than individuals. Empathy could go that far.

Of course I chose to mention those bits of the article because they serve my purpose, my question being Luna and empathy. I guess one could write books about all those three topics, but what is given here will be enough to shed some light on Luna.

A Manic Pixie Dream Girl?

For those who are into sociology and pop culture, the term is familiar. For those who are not, it requires a definition. The phrase was coined in 2007 by Nathan Rabin (in Nilson, 2020) but this type of characters actually were always there in pop culture in various forms. However, Rabin said that since this character was growing more and more common in films, it might be useful to coin a concept, and so he did: a Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) is a female character whose only role in the plot is to guide a soulful young male character towards embracing life and its mysteries. My inner feminism starts at such a phrase and all sorts of arguments come to mind to destroy it. After all, I am Louhi, The Witch Of Pohjola. However, it is true that MPDG characters exist and must be taken into account. Now the question is, what defines a MPDG?

A MPDG is a character who, at first, seems to have none. She stands out of the crowd, and represents something mythical or otherworldly at first, for the males around. That makes the MPDG attractive, along with some sort of dreaminess. Among the other ‘symptoms’ of the MPDG (Pasola, 2014) are innocent bluntness, lack of self-consciousness, and a propensity to desert conversations she doesn’t find interesting. There is even a ‘test’ (Bechdell-Wallace test) to assess MPDG-ness in a female character, and it consists of three statements: 1) the plot must contain at least two women, 2) who talk to each other and 3) discuss something else than men. This test has apparently been widely used to analyse films and culture (quick google scholar search… didn’t have time to read) since its appearance in 2005. Bechdell says that if a female character fails that test then she can be deemed a MPDG. I think it is a bit too straightforward.

Appearances… can be misleading. Therefore, while Luna fails the test (Pasola, 2014), there’s more to see than meets the eye, and Luna is worth the analysis. So, my stance is that Luna is NOT a MPDG, however much she looks the character at first sight.

Luna: what about her, then?

Luna is sort of vapoury, has a mythical or mystical je-ne-sais-quoi about her, conveyed by her waist-long blonde hair, protuberant eyes that give her ‘a permanently surprised look’ (OoP, Chapter Ten), and her rather peculiar choice of jewellery (butterbeer-cork necklace or radish-earrings). In the films, this effect is carried on further by Evanna Lynch’s voice, which gives Luna an ethereal quality. Therefore she physically sort of fits the MPDG trope. Moreover, according to literature, as said before, she fails the Bechdell test.

BUT. I don’t agree Luna is anywhere near a MPDG.

Let’s start with the definition of a MPDG. According to it, Luna should be a sort of muse to a man and guide him to embrace life and its mysteries. Well. Er… aha. There’s already a problem here. Because Luna guides nobody to embrace life and its mysteries. She sometimes says things that are just plain true and takes a rather original stance when it comes to relationships with others. She doesn’t guide anyone. She never seeks people to help them or offer any kind of advice. If she happens to be there at a moment when she can say something that seems relevant to her, then she’d do it. That’s not guiding. It’s a chance meeting. At least that’s how I see them. You could argue that she guides Harry. Why yes, but the bias is that we see the whole story from Harry’s point of view, so there’s no way we can be sure Luna doesn’t give the odd piece of her mind to anybody outside Harry’s presence. She doesn’t act like a muse either. Harry doesn’t daydream about her, his thoughts don’t get back to Luna every now and then. He basically doesn’t give a damn about her, at least at first, and if he occasionally does, it’s either by chance or for lack of a better option, like when he invites her to Slughorn’s Christmas party, or when he has no choice but to take her along to the Ministry. After that last adventure, though, his attitude towards Luna changes, she has grown on him, but in no respect is she a muse to him. He’s too much entangled with his love life, his loyalty to his parents, the Order and Dumbledore, and his need to save the world every now and then, to care much about others. To add to this, nowhere in papers analysing MPDGs do the words friendship, empathy and loyalty appear to describe the characters. And Luna can feel all three, and shows them throughout her appearances in the Potter saga.

Luna is empathetic, though in her own way. She can sense how others feel and offer comfort, yet it’s not the usual kind. ‘You’re just as sane as I am’ (OoP, Chapter Ten) is not exactly comforting at first to Harry, when he thinks he’s being mental, seeing the Hogwarts carriages being pulled by winged skeletal horses. He has just seen how unusual Luna is, reading the Quibbler upside down and believing the cock-and-bull stories her father prints about Fudge’s army of Heliopaths. However, at the end of the same book, they discuss Sirius’ and Luna’s mum’s deaths, and ‘as [Harry] watched her go, he found that the terrible weight in his stomach seemed to have lessened slightly’ (OoP, Chapter Thirty-Eight); Luna sort of comforts Harry in spite of herself with her optimism, and she couldn’t do that without being empathetic. In Deathly Hallows Luna is the one person who keeps Ollivander alive while both are imprisoned in the cellar at Malfoy Manor, as he acknowledges to her on leaving Shell Cottage: ‘I’m going to miss you, Mr Ollivander’, said Luna, approaching the old man. ‘And I you, my dear,’ said Ollivander, patting her on the shoulder. ‘You were an inexpressible comfort to me in that terrible place.’

Luna doesn’t seem to ‘need’ friends. As in, she’s not actively looking for friends. She probably has a whole world in her head that fills her. That doesn’t mean she’s not happy having some friends, as the mural in her bedroom at home is proof enough of. When she acknowledges friends, then she’s loyal to them. Had she not been so, she wouldn’t have stood alongside her dad and advocated Harry’s interview to be printed in the Quibbler. She wouldn’t have fought with Neville in the renewed Dumbledore’s Army in Deathly Hallows. She wouldn’t have stood to the Malfoys while being held captive. In return of her loyalty, one of the next offspring in the Potter family is called Lily Luna. I think we can reasonably say, along Aristotle in Mogg & Tully (2012), that when Luna bestows her friendship on someone, it is a complete one. She doesn’t want to change people, doesn’t want to use them, just wants the best for them, whatever the cost for her.

Luna doesn’t question her feelings. What she gives, she does fully. To the Trio, Neville, Ginny, and also Ollivander and Dobby. That leads her to not talk about her friendships, and therefore, maybe, people to think that she doesn’t have any. However, she expresses them in sometimes odd ways verbally, like when she agrees to go ‘as friends’ to Sulghorn’s Party with Harry (HBP, Chapter Fifteen), and sometimes in hidden ways, like in that ceiling painting she did in her room back home, and that the trio discovers when visiting Xenophilius during their hunt for clues about the Hallows (DH, Chapter Twenty-One).

Luna doesn’t forgive. She doesn’t need to. She’s so detached that it sounds like she’s not hurt by people being mean to her. A fine example of this is the finale of OoP, when Harry meets her on his non-way to the End-of-Year Feast, and Luna is looking for her possessions (OoP, Chapter Thirty-Eight). She doesn’t hold a grudge towards her fellow Ravenclaws for being mean to her. Therefore, she doesn’t need to forgive either.

Some people have suggested Luna could have autistic traits (Belcher & Stevenson, 2011; Guha, 2020). There are indeed traits that could lead into that direction, and the web is full of people discussing that possibility. However, Rowling has denied that (it’s all over the web, but I cannot get my hands on the place I read that bit of interview…). Luna is just… Luna, the moon girl, whose name is maybe only the moon, or, as Le Callet (2018) suggests, a tribute to an Assyrian satirist from the 2nd century AD, Lucian of Samosata, who wrote A True Story, a fantastic tale about creatures like tree-women, or Selenites living on the moon and grilling frogs (moonfrogs, ring a bell?), breathing the vapour that wafts from them. He was also a known critic of the belief in the paranormal and of religious superstitions. Then part of him stands in opposition to Luna’s: she does believe in weird stuff, has odd superstitions (Nargle infested mistletoe and all that), which she eventually has to give up (like Crumple-Horned Snorckacks). Luna’s name might also be a tribute to Cyrano de Bergerac, the French 17th century author of Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon which is a classic in the field of early French science-fiction (see illustration below, by Henriot, 1900, Cyrano in front of the Moon). After all, Rowling is learnt in French and French literature, so we cannot rule this hypothesis out. In this book, Cyrano travels to the Moon using rockets powered by firecrackers… The inhabitants of the Moon are four-legged creatures who have talking earrings which are used to teach children.

All in all, all well considered, there is not much to back up the idea of Luna being a MPDG, and I am quite relieved to see that my small researches and musings have led me to that conclusion. You could say I am biased, wanting my conclusions to fit my hypothesis. Who wouldn’t? However, it is reassuring to find that one’s mind goes not astray, somehow. I find, after all this thinking, that we can learn a huge lot from Luna, even if she appears only sporadically in the story: human values that make people strong in a moral sense: resilience, trust, loyalty, friendship, self-confidence.

Now this has been done, I want to delve further into Luna’s character by exploring the job of Magical Naturalist (that appeals to me a lot, being a biologist myself, with specialisations in botany, zoology and ecology), as well as exploring her relation to Death, comparing it to how the other characters embrace it (or not). But these are completely different stories.

Thanks to Little My, Purple, Andromeda, Kikimora, Dawn, and Thetis, for sharing their opinion of Luna with me.

Sources:

https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/the-original-forty  

https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/thestrals

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-resiliency-of-luna-lovegood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian

Belcher, C. L., & Stephenson, B. H. (2011). Entering the Forbidden Forest: Teaching Fiction and Fantasy in Urban Special Education. In Teaching Harry Potter. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. 121-142.

Chaillan, M. (2016). Harry Potter et Berkeley. In Harry Potter à l’école des philosophes, Philosophie Magazine, Hors série n°31, novembre - décembre 2016. 70-71.

Granger, J. & Bassham, G. (2016). Just in Your Head? J.K. Rowling on Separating Reality from Illusion. In Bassham, G. (2016, Eds.). The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy, Hogwarts for Muggles. Wiley Eds. 185-197

Guha, S. (2020). Luna Lovegood or Loony Lovegood? - Reading Luna Lovegood as a victim of Asperger’s Syndrome. In P Barry, N Pederson, L Kang (2020, Eds.) Proceedings of the Two-Day Conference: Questioning Attitudes and Labels: Mental Health Versus Madness,  St. Mira’s College for Girls, Pune, 45-48.

Kleinig, J. (2017), “Loyalty”, in Zalta, E. N. (2017, Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/loyalty/  

Le Callet, B. (2018), Le Monde Antique de Harry Potter, Stock, Paris.

Pasola, K. (2014). The Integrity of Luna Lovegood: How JK Rowling Subverts the ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ Trope. In Martín Alegre, S. (2014, Ed.). Charming and Bewitching: Considering the Harry Potter Series. 153-161.

Mogg, J., & Tully, K. (2012). Harry gets by with a little help from his friends: An Aristotelian reading of virtue and friendship in harry Potter. Reasons Papers, 34(1), 77-88.

Nadal, C. (2014). Magical Science: Luna Lovegood’s Beliefs, Discoveries and Truth. In Martín Alegre, S., Arms, C., Blasco Solís, L., Calvo Zafra, L., Campos, R., Canals Sánchez, M., … & García Jordà, L. (2014). Charming and bewitching: considering the Harry Potter series. 148-153.

Nilson, M. (2020). A Magic Manic Pixie Dream Girl?: Luna Lovegood and the Concept of Postfeminism. In Jarazo-Alvarez, R. & Alderete-Diez, P. (2020, Eds.). Cultural Politics in Harry Potter: Life, Death and the Politics of Fear.  32-41. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, Bloomsbury, London.

Rowling, J. K. (2000). Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Bloomsbury, London.

Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Bloomsbury, London.

Rowling, J. K. (2005). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Bloomsbury, London.

Rowling, J. K. (2007). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Bloomsbury, London.

Rowling, J. K. (2007). The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Bloomsbury, London.

Scamander, N. (2001; 2018; [1927][J.K. Rowling]). Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Bloomsbury, London, in association with Obscurus Books, 18a Diagon Alley, London.

Stueber, K. (2019) Empathy, in Zalta, E.N. (2019, Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/empathy/

[theusurpersdog]

So Game of Thrones ended on Sunday, and for now it’s going down as potentially the worst ending of any TV show ever. Some of the backlash has come from the more nonsensical elements, such as Bronn being on the Small Council, anyone in Westeros defending Daenerys (the show literally framed her like Hitler, come the fuck on), Tyrion deciding who was King while in shackles, etc. But the truth is, none of that would’ve mattered if the emotions rang true. And that’s been a problem since the show started; go all the way back to Winter is Coming and you’ll see that the Starks have always been sidelined - both as individuals and as a family - in favor of the Lannisters. George Martin is writing a character piece about the Starks and how they survive, and the show was never going to stick the landing when they fundamentally didn’t understand that.

I’m not the first to point this out, but man did it really bother me this episode. D&D really could’ve phoned in 95% of this story and just shown up to love the Starks and everyone would’ve been at least satisfied, and they just couldn’t do it. So many years of bad writing and idiot plots and plain stupidity hasn’t lost Game of Thrones hardly any fans, because the ones they had were deeply invested in the characters GRRM had created and were willing to overlook just about everything to see those characters have some sort of conclusion. That’s why their entire audience has turned against them now - they didn’t care about the Starks for 8 seasons, and GRRM’s ending required the audience and the writers care deeply for Jon, Sansa, Arya, and Bran.

For all of GRRM’s talk about wanting to break his reader’s hearts, and D&D’s version of his story as this GrimDark nightmare, GRRM’s story has a real, emotional heart to it. People debate whether it was a fantasy story with the false premise of a political period piece, or a political story with a touch of fantasy intrigue - but the truth is, this story is and always has been a character piece centered around the Starks and how they survive and rebuild after family tragedy. In number of povs and chapters, they literally overwhelm the series. Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Catelyn all are in the top povs as well as Ned, who is still competitive despite being in exactly 1 book of the series. Having the Starks as the center of the story, the point in which almost all the action revolves, is what grounds all of Martin’s series even as his povs reach 30+. Martin was being very serious when he said Arya, Sansa, and Bran were the heart of his series. You need them because they make it worth it.

So let’s break down how D&D ripped the heart out of asoiaf’s chest. The biggest problem the show had was something book readers have known for a long time, but didn’t fully realize until Sunday night: The Bran Problem. GRRM has stated multiple times that Bran is his hero, yet the show has never had any interest in his story. They made an entirely random decision not to include flashbacks or dream sequences, which immediately cuts out about half of Bran’s content. But not only did they take away his magical importance, they also stole his political importance. Bran was Robb Stark’s heir, Lord of Winterfell and first in line to be the King in the North. Yet they took Bran’s story away from him and gave the focus to Theon Greyjoy, a character more appealing to the tastes of David Benioff and Dan Weiss. So we never got to see the King of the Six (should be eight but whatever I’m just dying inside) Kingdoms acting in any leadership capacity. And, last but certainly not least, D&D took all emotion from Bran. And no, I don’t mean when he came back from beyond the wall a husk of a person. That was awful, but the damage was done seasons before. If you’ve read the books, you’ll know and love Bran Stark because this is who he is:

He sent sweets to Hodor and Old Nan as well, for no reason but he loved them

Bran was a sweet boy. Everyone loved him

The roots of the trees grow deep, and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. So long as those remained, Winterfell remained. It was not dead, just broken. Like me, he thought,  I'm not dead either

Old stories are like old friends, she used to say. You have to visit them from time to time

He is a sweet boy, quick to laugh, easy to love

Bran has always represented happiness and people coming together in GRRM’s story. Ned wants to bring him to King’s Landing because he’s universally loved and will ease the conflict between Joffrey and Robb, and just the thought of him being alive makes Jon bury his ego and reach out to his Night’s Watch Brothers. He is Meera’s little Prince, someone that Howland Reed’s children are willing to go beyond the wall and die for. He accepts food on the road beyond the Wall, and promises he’ll repay his debt many times over. He’s the boy who looks back into the past and just wants to see his dad again; who reaches out to save Theon, even when Theon took everything from him. He is Eddard Stark’s son, soft and kind and loving, brave when he is afraid, loyal and honorable, and he is a good person. He’s young, but he is fit to be a King one day. 

But no, D&D didn’t stop at Bran. Let’s talk about Arya Stark, and the little girl who never was. Was there ever a character more suited to D&D’s tastes than a little murder girl hellbent on revenging her family’s killers? But was there ever a character further from Arya Stark? She is nine years old when Ser Ilyn takes her father’s head, of course she is brash and reckless and childish, wanting to avenge him. But she is all of those things because she is still a kid. Below the surface, she is very scared and very hurt. Unlike the show’s version of Arya, who is upset Joffrey died because she couldn’t do it herself, the Arya of the books has a realization that Joffrey dying means nothing because she’ll never get Robb back. Arya isn’t turning into an assassin because it would be cool, she’s running away as far as she can.

You can watch the season finale of Game of Thrones s4, and be right in concluding that Arya Stark leaves The Hound for dead in a ruthless move of brutality as she goes to pursue her dreams of being an assassin. Now read the end of A Storm of Swords, and you’ll find an Arya who refuses to let Sandor take a piece of her no matter how he abuses her, and goes to Braavos because she is so afraid that no one could love her anymore - and most of all she leaves because with Winterfell sacked and held by the Boltons, she genuinely thinks she has lost her home. Arya doesn’t make a well-adjusted decision to leave Westeros, she’s trying to keep her head above water before she drowns in grief. Disassociating from her pack is the only way she can cope with the unbearable amount of loss she has suffered, especially at such a young age. But GRRM’s version of Arya is fierce, brave, loyal, loving, and above all she loves her family.

Then there is Sansa, the most empathetic character in GRRM’s whole world. The unfailing hope and kindness in which she views the world are her defining character traits; she echoes GRRM’s own worldview, one where you can see the good and the bad in everyone, and choose to forgive - and if not that, still refuse to be cruel in kind. Sansa is the only one who looks at Sandor Clegane, looks at the ruin fire made of his face, and see that his eyes are why he’s so ugly - and then reach out to show him mercy. The girl who was beaten everyday of her time in King’s Landing, and still mourned Joffrey because he was a person and he died and she understood that it was still awful. She wishes knights who literally beat her bloody would fall off their horse, then feels bad and ashamed when they do. Sansa Stark is kind above all.

And the show took this character and made her cold. They tried to make her Littlefinger. Surprise! Nobody cares about the emotional well being and happiness of Petyr Baelish for a reason. Thankfully Bryan Cogman was there to run interference between Sansa and D&D, so she wasn’t fully the Ice Queen D&D wanted her to be, but goddamn how do you take Sansa “if I am ever Queen, I’ll make them love me” Stark and make her cold?!

The biggest problem with stripping the Stark kids individually of their emotions, is that they can no longer exist as the family GRRM created them to be. Without Arya, Bran, and Sansa’s emotional arcs, everything becomes meaningless. Who cares that Ramsay Bolton is the one to rebuild Winterfell in the show? Certainly not an audience that hasn’t been told to care.

You’ll notice a trend in the type of chapters that D&D decided not to adapt into Game of Thrones; think of all the chapters that are the emotional heart of GRRM’s story. Not the shocking character deaths, or dragons, or plot twists. The moments of intimacy between GRRM, his character, and you as the reader. The moments so small yet so impactful, the lines you remember not because they pushed the plot forward but because they honestly moved you in a way that you felt hope, longing, love? Those chapters are almost always either from Bran, Sansa, or Arya; and are always about their connection to their family. D&D adapted none of them. Here’s three great examples:

Done with Wooden Teeth

When Arya is a serving girl at Harrenhal during A Clash of Kings, it really sucks. Unlike the show, she is not cup bearer to Tywin Lannister; she is just like everyone else: abused, mistreated, underfed, miserable, and uncared for. She’s already at a pretty low moment in life, then the news breaks that Bran and Rickon were murdered by Theon Greyjoy and Winterfell has been sacked. And Arya doesn’t even have someone to grieve with; the one person she tries to tell, Elmar Frey, tells her nobody cares about a serving girl’s brothers when he’s just lost his Princess (the irony...).

The news that her family is dead almost breaks her:

As Arya crossed the yard to the bathhouse, she spied a raven circling down toward the rookery, and wondered where it had come from and what message it carried. Might be it’s from Robb, come to say it wasn’t true about Bran and Rickon. She chewed on her lip, hoping. If I had wings I could fly back to Winterfell and see for myself. And if it was true, I’d just fly away, fly up past the moon and the shining stars, and see all the things in Old Nan’s stories, dragons and sea monsters and the Titan of Braavos, and maybe I wouldn’t ever fly back

This is Arya giving up. Everything she’s done in this book so far has been to get back to Winterfell, or to Jon at the Wall. Her making the decision to fly away (which she’ll follow through on in A Storm of Swords) is a defeat, the acceptance that she’ll never get her family back.

If the chapter had ended here (it doesn’t), D&D still would’ve gutted it, because no Stark gets to react to Bran and Rickon’s death in the show. Not even a minute of screentime given to the Heir to the North and his brother dying; not a moment where their family can grieve the tremendous loss.

But Arya is a Stark, so before she gives up on her identity, she visits the Godswood:

“Tell me what to do, you gods,” she prayed.

For a long moment there was no sound but the wind and the water and the creak of leaf and limb. And then, far far off, beyond the godswood and the haunted towers and the immense stone walls of Harrenhal, from somewhere out in the world, came the long lonely howl of a wolf

The Godswood is very important to the Starks for a couple different reasons. First, only the men of the North worship the Old Gods, and the trees is the connection they have to them. The Old Gods were who Ned went to for guidance, and every single Stark has huge moments of understanding in front of a Godswood (none of which made it into the show...). But, more specific to the Starks as a family, Bran speaks to his family through them and guides them toward home. So even though they don’t understand that Bran is calling to them, the Starks are drawn to the trees for help.

And the trees always answer them. The Starks get a real, physical response when they ask the Godswood for help:

Then, so faintly, it seemed as if she heard her father’s voice. “When the snows fall and the white wind blows, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” he said.

“But there is no pack,” she whispered to the weirwood. Bran and Rickon were dead, the Lannisters had Sansa, Jon had gone to the Wall. “I’m not even me now, I’m Nan.”

“You are Arya of Winterfell, daughter of the north. You told me you could be strong. You have the wolf blood in you.”

“The wolf blood.” Arya remembered now. “I’ll be as strong as Robb. I said I would.” She took a deep breath, then lifted the broomstick in both hands and brought it down across her knee. It broke with a loud crack, and she threw the pieces aside. I am a direwolf, and done with wooden teeth.

In her lowest moment, Arya re-finds her strength by remembering she is a Stark, a direwolf who belongs to a pack. The Godswood gives her Ned as comfort, as a reminder of who she is and what she should do. There is an incredible emphasis on family here. It would be impossible to adapt this chapter unless the writers and audience fully understood just how committed to each other the Starks are - which is why they didn’t adapt it.

I’m Not Dead Either

When Bran finally leaves the crypts at the end of A Clash of Kings, he’s close to giving up on himself entirely. He spent three days inside Summer, and returning to the body he views as broken (”Bran the Broken” is something he calls himself when he feels upset, not the monikor he’d give himself as King) is really hard for him. And when he finally leaves the crypts, he comes out to a Winterfell that has been destroyed; Ramsay has set the place ablaze and killed everyone. Bran knows Ser Rodrik is dead and Maester Luwin is soon to be as well. He looks around him and sees all this destruction, all he smells is fire or blood. But one thing in Winterfell stands unharmed; Summer takes off running for the Godswood:

The air was sweeter under the trees. A few pines along the edge of the wood had been scorched, but deeper in the damp soil and green wood had defeated the flames. “There is a power in living wood,” said Jojen Reed, almost as if he knew what Bran was thinking, “a power strong as fire.”

After Bran says goodbye to Maester Luwin, and him and Rickon part ways with no idea where either is heading, Bran has one last moment to look on Winterfell and find hope:

Beyond, the tops of the keeps and towers still stood as they had for hundreds of years, and it was hard to tell that the castle had been sacked and burned at all. The stone is strong, Bran told himself, the roots of the trees go deep, and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. So long as those remained, Winterfell remained. It was not dead, just broken. Like me, he thought, I’m not dead either.

Bran looks back at Winterfell, and because he’s able to see the unharmed Godswood and the Kings of Winter still seated on their thrones, he can understand it’s not dead, just like him. Again, a Stark is drawing strength from their connection to each other, and through a Godswood.

I Am Stronger Within the Walls of Winterfell

This next one, you’re probably thinking “but the show did adapt Sansa’s snow castle chapter”, and I’m here to tell you they didn’t. I could write an entire book on how that scene is the perfect example of how adaptations fail; they *technically* adapted it, with pretty much the same events, but it was completely stripped of its emotional impact and narrative importance. It is the perfect microcosm of why Game of Thrones was a bad adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire, as well as how D&D consistently missed the emotional beats the Starks were supposed to have.

The show’s version of this chapter somehow centers it around Littlefinger, while simultaneously underselling the fact that Lysa killed Jon Arryn (they sandwiched this episode and scene between Tyrion’s trial and Oberyn’s death, when this chapter ends A Storm of Swords. All of the climaxes in that book, and GRRM saved this one for last). The end product is a rather forgettable scene that most people overlook.

In the book, this chapter is everything. It is the best chapter in asoiaf, and the best writing of anything ever. Period. And it’s a chapter centered around Sansa’s relationship to her home, to Winterfell. Unlike the very small castle of the show, Sansa spends hours building a castle big enough that she can step inside and continue building details. The fact that she can stay outside for hours, while several onlookers get too cold and go back inside, is a reminder that she is a Stark.

And this chapter is centered around a Godswood. The tree never took root, because the Eyrie is too high for weirwoods, but the courtyard Sansa’s in was meant to be a Godswood. And since she doesn’t have a real one, Sansa builds her own inside her snowy Winterfell.

Being up in the mountains is also the first time Sansa’s seen true snow since she said goodbye to Robb in Winterfell, and just the thought of it makes her dream of home and of memories with Bran and Arya. She wakes up having dreamed of home, and thinks she’s sleeping next to her sister until she wakes up enough to realize she’s not in Winterfell.

When Sansa’s alone with no real connection to home, she finds the closest thing to Winterfell (the failed Godswood) and builds her own. She literally gains strength from it:

She wondered where this courage had come from, to speak to him so frankly. From Winterfell, she thought. I am stronger within the walls of Winterfell.

Her home and her family give her strength to stand up to her abuser, just as Arya was able to escape the abuse of Harrenhal and Bran escaped the Boltons.

There is way more than these three instances, but these are the best examples of D&D failing to adapt the Starks as a pack, or as individuals with feelings. Of course the ending didn’t feel right emotionally, because we had no explanation for what emotions led our Starks to their destinies.

I’ll probably make a post specifically about this in a couple days or weeks, but I can see GRRM’s ending stuck within D&D’s sloppy rush to the end:

The first time Arya leaves Westeros, she leaves because she thinks all her family is dead or taken, and that Winterfell is gone forever. At the end, she’ll leave because she is sure her family loves her, and that she has a room in Winterfell whenever she wants to visit Good Queen Sansa. Arya is also fast to make friends of all different people, and would start her own pack of rogues as she travels the world.

Sansa won’t be alone because she, like Arya, is good at finding her own pack. (And GRRM has built his world out so extensively, it’s honestly a joke to think we could be in a crowded room and recognize no one). Sansa’s friends are her people. She throws feasts constantly, and like Ned, always has a seat at the High Table for the small folk. She has many ladies in waiting, true friends of hers that help her write songs and stories, and sew dresses. She is a good and kind Queen, and visits the Wall constantly as she helps the Lord Commander resettle the Gift.

King Bran the Wise (or ya know, just not broken) rules from his Weirwood Throne on the Isle of Faces, at the heart of his kingdom. After Daenerys burns King’s Landing, he moves the capital since The Red Keep was a monument to Aegon’s Conquest - a symbol of tyranny King Bran is trying to move forward from. He fills his council with highborn and lowborn alike. He constantly talks to his siblings; Sansa waits for him at the Godswood, and Arya and Jon see him through Ghost and Nymeria. 

Just because they’re far in distance, doesn’t mean they aren’t a pack. They all know the others are safe, and that they’ll see see each other soon. GRRM will invest the right amount of time explaining the emotional beats of this ending to make it feel right. He cares so much about the Starks. He wrote them a whole epic fantasy because he saw Bran finding pups in the snow. He loves them more than we do, guys. 

The Starks are the Giants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ryanmeft]

Ryan’s Favorite Films of 2019

A stuttering detective,

A top hat-wearing vamp

A forced-perspective war,

A bit of Blaxploitation camp

Prisoners on a space ship

Having sex with bears

A writer goes remembering

Whenever his pain flares

  A prancing, dancing Hitler

A gambler high on strife

Here will go cavorting with

A mom who becomes a wife

A family plot with many threads

Three men against their own

A stuntman and his actor

A mobster now quite alone

Doubles under the earth

Two men in a tall house

Are here to watch a woman who

Is battling with her spouse

A family’s plans for their strong son

Go awry one night

A man rejects his country

Which is spoiling for a fight

 A house built by his grandpa

(Maybe; we’re not sure)

Looks out upon three prisoners

Whose passions are a lure

  All these are on my list this year

It’s longer than before

Because picking only ten this time

Was too great of a chore

  What are limits anyway?

They’re just things we invented

I don’t really find them useful

So, this year, I’ve dissented

  You may have noticed this time out

That numbers, I did grant

Promise they’ll stay in this order, though?

Now that, I just can’t

  I’m always changing my mind

Because, after all, you see

Good film is about the heart

And mine’s rather finicky

  There are a lot more I could name

(And I’ll change my mind at any time)

For now, though, consider these

The ones I found sublime

 20. Motherless Brooklyn

I’ve got a (hard-boiled) soft spot for 90’s neo-noirs like L.A. Confidential, Red Rock West and Seven, and Edward Norton’s ‘50’s take on Jonathan Lethem’s 90’s -set novel can stand firmly in that company.

19. Doctor Sleep

There’s something about Stephen King’s best writing that transcends mere popularity; his work may not be fine literature, but it is immune to the fads of the moment. So, too, are the best movies based on that work. This one, an engaging adventure-horror, deserved better than it got from audiences.

18. Jojo Rabbit

There was a time when the anything-goes satire of Mel Brooks could produce a major box office hit.  Disney’s prudish refusal to market the film coupled with the dominance of franchises means that’s no longer the case. If you bothered to give Jojo a shot, though, you got the strange-but-rewarding experience of guffawing one moment and being horrified the next.

17. By The Grace of God

I’d venture this is the least-seen film on my list; even among us brie-eating, wine-sniffing art house snobs, I rarely hear it mentioned. Focusing on the perspectives of three men dealing with a particularly heinous and unrepentant abusive priest and the hierarchy that protects him, it’s every bit as disquieting and infuriating as 2015’s Oscar-winning Spotlight.

16. Waves

You think Trey Edward Shultz’s Waves will be one thing---a domestic drama about an affluent African-American family (and that in and of itself is a rarity). Then it becomes something else entirely. It addresses something movies often avoid: that as life goes on, the person telling the story will always change.

15. Transit

You’re better off not questioning exactly where and when the film is set (it is based on a book about Nazi Germany but has been changed to be a more generalized Fascist state). The central theme here is identity, as three people change theirs back and forth based on need and desire.

14. American Woman

Movies about regular, working class, small-town American usually focus on men. This one is about a much-too-young mother and grandmother, played brilliantly by Sierra Miller, dealing with unexpected loss and the attendant responsibilities she isn’t ready for. 

13. Marriage Story

There is an argument between a married couple in here that is as true a human moment as ever was on screen---free of trumped-up screenplay drama and accurate to how angry people really argue. The entire movie strives to be about the kind of realistic divorce you don’t see on-screen. It is oddly refreshing.

12. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino’s love letter to 70’s Tinseltown is essentially a question: What if the murder that changed the industry forever had gone down differently? Along the way, it also manages to be a clever and insightful study of fame and fulfillment, or lack thereof.

11. High Life

Claire Denis is damned determined not to be boring. Your reaction to her latest film will probably depend on how receptive you are to that as the driving force of a film. Myself, I’m very receptive. I want to see the personal struggles of convicts unwittingly shipped into space, told without Action-Adventure tropes, in a movie that sometimes misfires but is never dull.

 10. Dolemite Is My Name

And fuckin’ up motherfuckers is my game! Look, if you don’t like naughty words, you probably shouldn’t be reading my columns---and you definitely shouldn’t be watching this movie. Eddie Murphy plays Rudy Ray Moore, the ambitious, irrepressible and endlessly optimistic creator of Blaxpoitation character Dolemite. Have you seen the 1975 film? It’s either terrible and wonderful, or wonderful and terrible, and the jury’s still out. Either way, Moore in the film is a self-made comic who establishes himself by talking in a unique rhyming style that speaks to black Americans at a time when black pop culture (and not just the white rendition of it) was finally beginning to pierce the American consciousness. What The Disaster Artist did for The Room, this movie does for Dolemite---with the difference being I felt like I learned something I didn’t know here.

 9. 1917

Breathless, nerve-wracking and somehow intensely personal even though it almost never takes time to slow down, it is fair to call Sam Mendes’s film a thrill ride---but it’s one that enlightens us on a fading historical time, rather than simply being empty calories. Filmed in such a way as to make it seem like one continuous, two-hour take, for which some critics dismissed it as a gimmick, the technique is used to lock us in with the soldiers whose mission it is to save an entire division from disaster. We are given no information or perspective that the two central soldiers---merely two, in a countless multitude---do not have, and so we are with them at every moment, deprived of the relief of omniscience. I freely admit I tend to give anything about World War I the benefit of the doubt, but there’s no doubt that the movie earns my trust.

8. Ash Is Purest White

Known by the much less cool-sounding name Sons and Daughters of Jianghu in China, here is a story that starts off ostensibly about crime---a young woman and her boyfriend are powerful in the small-potatoes mob scene of a dying industrial town---but after the surprising first act becomes a meditation on life, perseverance and exactly how much power is worth, anyway, when it is so fleeting and so easily lost. What do you do when everything that defined you is gone? You go on living. This is my first exposure to writer-director Jia Zhangke, an oversight I must strive hard to correct in future.

7. Knives Out

The whodunit is a lost art, a standard genre belonging to a time when mass audiences could appreciate a picture even if someone didn’t run, yell or explode while running and yelling every ten minutes. Rian Johnson and an all-star cast rescued it from the brink of cinematic extinction and gave it just enough of a modern injection to keep it relevant. Every second of the film is engaging; Johnson even manages to have a character whose central trait is throwing up when asked to lie, and he makes it seem sympathetic rather than juvenile. The fantastic cast of characters is backed up with all the qualities of “true” cinema: perfect camerawork, an effective score, mesmerizing production design. As someone who didn’t much care for Johnson’s Star Wars outing, I’m honestly put out this didn’t do better at the box office than it did.

6. A Hidden Life

After a few questionable efforts and completely losing the thread with the execrable vanity project Song to Song, Terence Malick returns to his bread and butter: meditative dramas on the nature of faith, family, and being on the outside looking in, which encompass a healthy dose of nature, philosophy and people talking without moving their lips. That last is a little dig, but it’s true: Malick does Malick, and if you don’t like his thing, this true story about a German dissenter in World War II will not change your mind. For me, what Malick has done is that rarest of things: he had made a movie about faith, and about a character who is faithful, without proselytizing. That the closeness and repressiveness of the Nazi regime is characterized against Malick’s typical soaring backdrops is a masterstroke, and the best-ever use of his visual style.

5. The Lighthouse

Robert Eggers is a different kind of horror filmmaker. After redefining what was possible with traditional horror monsters in The Witch, he returned with something that couldn’t be more different: an exploration of madness more in the vein of European film than American. Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe are two men stranded in a lighthouse together slowly losing their minds, or what is left of them. The haunting score and stark, black-and-white photography evoke a nightmare caught on tape, something we’re not supposed to be seeing. It’s not satisfying in a traditional way, but for those craving something more cerebral from horror, Eggers has it covered.

4. Us

I have become slightly notorious in my own little circle for not thinking Get Out was the greatest film ever made, and now I’ve become rather known for thinking Us just might be. Ok, so that’s definite hyperbole: “greatest” is a tall claim for almost any horror movie. Yet here Jordan Peele shows that he can command an audience’s attention even when not benefiting from a popular cultural zeitgeist in terms of subject matter. It’s a movie with no easy or clear message, one that specializes in simply unsettling us with the idea that the world is fundamentally Not Right. I firmly believe that if Peele becomes a force in the genre, 50 years from now when he and all of us are gone, his first film will be remembered as a competent start, while this will be remembered as the beginning of his greatness.

3. The Last Black Man in San Francisco

Ostensibly about urban gentrification, this story of a young black man trying to save his ancestral home from the grasping reach of white encroachment is a flower with many petals to reveal. Don’t let my political-sounding description turn you off: the movie is not a polemic in the slightest, but rather a wry, sensitive look at people, their personalities and how those personalities are intertwined with the places they call home. Though the movie is the directorial debut of Joe Talbot, it is based loosely on the memories and feelings of his friend Jimmie Falls, who also plays one of the two central characters. If you’ve ever watched a place you love fall to the ravages of time and change, this movie may strike quite a chord with you.

2. Uncut Gems

When asked why this movie is great, I usually say that it was unbelievably stressful and caused me great anxiety. This description is not usually successful in selling it. The Safdie Brothers have essentially filmed chaos: a man self-destructing in slow-motion, if you can call it slow. Howard Ratner has probably been gradually exploding all his life; he strikes you as someone who came out of the womb throwing punches. He’s an addictive gambler who loves the risk much more than the reward, and can’t gain anything good in life without risking it on a proverbial roll of the dice. His behavior is destructive. His attitude is toxic. Why do we root for him? Perhaps because, as played by Adam Sandler, he never has any doubt as to who he is---something few of us can say. He’s an asshole, but he’s a genuine asshole, and somehow that’s appealing even when you’re in his line of fire.

1. Pain and Glory

When I realized I would, for the first time, have the chance to see a Pedro Almodovar film on the screen, I was overjoyed. His movies aren’t always great, but that was of little concern: he’s one of the handful of directors on the planet who can fairly call back to the avant-garde traditions of Bergman or Truffaut, making the movies he wants to make about the things he want to make them about, and I’d never seen one of his films when it was new and fresh, only months or years later on DVD.

It seems I picked right, as his latest has been almost universally hailed as one of the best of his long career. An aging, aching filmmaker spends his days in his apartment, ignoring the fans of his original hit film and most of his own acquaintances, alive or dead---he tries hard to put his memories away. Throughout the course of the movie, he re-engages with most of them in one way or another, coming to terms with who he is and where he’s been, though not in a Hallmark-movie-of-the-week way. Antonio Banderas plays him in the role that was always denied him by his stud status in Hollywood. It isn’t simply him, though: every person we meet is engaging and, we sense, has their own story outside of how they intersect with his. Most engaging is that of his deceased mother, who in her youth was played vivaciously by a sun-toughened Penelope Cruz. Perhaps Almodovar will tell us some of their stories some day. Perhaps not. I would read an entire book of short fiction all about them. This is the year’s best film.