#because we all interpret characters from our own perspectives so no one. no one can be 100% right!

[kittenintheden]

headcanon, subjectivity, and convincing the reader

hi! I got a wild hair to write a little essay today. here's that little essay. it's about fic writing and how our subjectivity about the source material becomes a conversation with the reader. LEZGO.

quick primer on common terms:

canon: objective, indisputable truth about the property based on what is portrayed on the page/screen. it is canon in BG3 that Astarion is a vampire spawn, it is canon that Wyll is the only son of Grand Duke Ravengard, it is canon that Lae'zel is a githyanki originating from Creché Ki'liir, etc.

headcanon: an individual's subjective interpretation of events and characters in the property based on context clues, hints, personal experience, vibes, etc.

fanon: a more widely accepted community headcanon that is not objectively supported by the property but is generally accepted as a popular interpretation of the source material.

word of god: interpretations considered truth by the creators of the property that may or may not be included in the source material itself. this includes devnotes, responses to fan questions, behind the scenes material, etc. there's much argument to be had about whether or not this is considered canon if it's not also represented in the source material itself.

okay? okay! now let's talk about transformative works (fanfiction and fanwork).

the first rule of transformative work is that there are no rules. okay? okay! to get that out of the way. which is why this is a post about subjective interpretation.

(obligatory blah blah blah obviously having basic writing skill and knowledge is helpful for communicating your ideas to the reader, we all know this)

but what makes a transformative work GOOD? what makes a reader pick up a fic, devour it, and then go "holy shit I can absolutely see how these characters in this scenario make sense. I BELIEVE in this story and this author's interpretation."?

that's where things get complicated. let's do a cut bc this is about to get lengthy!

when we become fans of a property, it's because we are the readers/viewers having a conversation with the source material. something about it caught us and spoke to us, then drove us to create more art based on it and using it as a framework. that's important.

as readers/viewers, we will always have our own subjective interpretation of the work. that interpretation is informed by the work's canon, but it's also informed by our personal experiences, feelings, and knowledge. that's where headcanons and subjectivity come in. it's why some people feel a character is "annoying" while others find them sympathetic.

(there is a MUCH BROADER conversation to be had about how social pressures and oppression also factor into this subject, but that's not my intended goal with THIS essay, so I will acknowledge the fact that a person's internalized biases also inform their perception of the material and move on).

so, we all develop our own personal headcanons about a work. it's inevitable. sometimes those headcanons are based in canon, sometimes they're based on our own experience. where they come from doesn't matter -- they are yours and they belong to you, and they will inform whatever work you create.

now comes the part where we begin a conversation with the reader.

when you're writing fic, one of your many jobs is helping the reader to understand your perspective. this is very challenging! you're essentially creating a written argument for why the characters and elements in your story are unfolding the way that they do, but you're doing so via the vehicle of creative writing. you're depending on narrative structure, dialogue, characterization, setting, plot, tropes, themes, metaphors, etc. to make your "argument."

if you've ever heard people say a character "felt flat" or that an action didn't make sense or that a fic subject is OOC (out of character), that comes from the writer failing to provide a convincing enough argument for the story they're trying to tell. (note: I use the word "fail," but I don't mean it in the sense that the project was a failure. art is never time wasted. but as with most things, it may take time to get to a place where we have the skills to tell the story we want to tell.)

so: how the hell do we work on an issue like that?

a few ways.

first and foremost, at its core, a transformative work should be in conversation with the canon of its source material. that DOES NOT MEAN that canon should be treated as a Bible and ultimate authority (people rewrite canon well all the time), but it does mean a writer needs to consider what worked about the canon to be able to apply it to their own interpretation.

if you found a character compelling in the original property, you need to understand what exactly it was about that character that made them so compelling. it isn't just how they physically look or their signature catchphrase. what about the source material drew you to them, made you empathize, turned you on, etc.?

if a particular relationship made you absolutely feral, WHAT IS IT about that dynamic that caught and kept your attention? what makes them WORK?

THAT is what the conversation with the source material is about. it's about understanding why you were moved in the first place. it's distilling the subjects down to their essence so you can put them in a different scenario without losing the core of who they are.

now you need to understand where your HEADCANON comes from.

(you will notice a running theme here that in order to properly tell a story, you have to understand the story yourself!)

our own subjective interpretation of a work is informed by the knowledge we have (I have a degree in reading and analyzing and writing creatively, it's something I literally went to school for), our personal experiences (Astarion speaks to people with a history of sexual abuse and trauma, imagine that), and emotions that rise organically when we interact with the source material, either unexpectedly (whoa I did NOT expect that to turn me on) or with understanding (animal death always makes me cry because it's upsetting to see something that doesn't understand what's happening go through that and/or I remember when I lost my own animal companion).

so! you have a headcanon that Shadowheart and Nocturne were lovers. this isn't something verified by canon, but it is a scenario that makes sense given the information we have -- they were very close, they have a secret place together surrounded by the flowers Shadowheart calls her favorite, they know intimate details about one another's lives, and their history of standing up for one another and caring about each other is clear.

how do you convince a reader that this is a viable scenario?

first, converse with the canon. all the framework is there for a potential romantic relationship. their respective personalities work together. now, determine why you enjoy this headcanon. is it the intimacy, the loyalty, the kindness? is it the hints from canon that they were important to one another? is it that they have chemistry you find interesting and appealing?

this is the argument you must make to the reader. this scenario is plausible because of canon, character, and context. now you need to build on it and add your own perspective in order to convince the reader to see it as you do.

this particular example is a pretty easy thoroughline, but the same principle can be applied to more varied scenarios. modern AU? okay, how would that change the way these characters interact with the world without losing what makes them, them? pirate AU? okay, which characters would make the most sense to fit certain roles in that scenario given their existing personalities?

there's a common refrain in my writing circles that goes: "do what you want forever." we tend to use it in a flip way to mean that this is play and creativity and you can literally do whatever you want, but the deeper message is, "you can make anything believable with the right approach."

and the "right" approach is about maintaining a conversation between yourself, the source material, your headcanons, and the story you're trying to tell. it's about bringing all those things together in a way that will convince a reader to believe it.

it's a balance, and it's one that isn't universal. no matter what we do, subjectivity means that some people will not agree with our interpretation. that's okay. not every story is for every person. what matters is that you're writing YOUR story for the readers who want to engage with it.

so, at the end of the day: do what you want forever, and do it well :)

[graementality]

behold?? my full interpretation on all of the main factors of CCCC!! I don't know what compelled me to write all this but here we are. (whoops this got LONGG)

enjoy!

[disclaimer that this is my own interpretation and, while I take alot from canon, some of it will be closer to the fanon side of things. ]

[disclaimer 2 that I get all writery in certain parts and essentially write "from the characters' perspective" so those bits aren't MY OWN opinions, it's what I think they would feel about certain things C:]

[disclaimer 3 that alot of this is me stating the obvious, aswell as making them out to seem quite horrible, I promise I love them all and while they do have many flaws, they have good moments too </3 uhh ok yeah don't kill me with rocks pls]

Heart

• first of all: Heart has a huge victim complex. whether intentionally or not, he will always play the victim- he can get quite emotionally manipulative in this sense too. It can never be his fault- "he was provoked" "the other deserved it" "the other started it" "I'm innocent I'm innocent I'm innocent."

• he *can be* immature. now this word gets thrown around alot by Mind but i think he's 'immature' not in the sense that he throws tantrums and can't be trusted and has nothing of importance to say like Mind thinks. he is in the way that he refuses to listen to others, refuses to take the blame, and can also be quite petty and has a tendency to blow up (sound familiar? yeah. Minds immature too, we love Heart Mind parallels).

• he is spiteful and impulsive, but can you blame him? he's constantly being belittled and fought against; of course he's gonna take any chance he can to get back at Mind- to show him how it feels- to make him finally *listen*.

• Heart constantly feels like no one listens to him, that he is the disregarded part bcus he's "uncontrollable and unruly". this obviously forms alot of built up resentment because no one is taking him seriously. I think he can switch alot between "I need to prove that I'm just as good as Mind, I'll show them." and "they're right, I'm violent and impulsive and I'm ruining our chances of becoming Whole.". as you'd expect- his mood swings are wild.

• he is Inherently violent and impulsive. nothing is premeditated- if he's angry, he'll act on it. he'll say and do whatever he thinks will get him out of a situation or will make the other person listen.

• just the same as Mind- he is under the full impression that his opinions on how Whole should be are correct. And of course there is truth in that, emotions are a necessary part of existence, but just like Mind, he doesn't understand the need for his other half's part aswell.

• I think he very much wallows in his depression. he finds it difficult not to, but when he's bad- he's bad. he takes after Whole in that sense. he will be selfish and cruel and will isolate. he will spend all his time in his room and will be significantly more vile to Mind. he gets very caught up in his own emotions and depression, which just enhances it. (that is until things start being better and they're on their way to concord ofc, they all start helping eachother and themselves again) (this sounds mean I promise I love him, sadly I love projecting onto him more)

• there's alot of negatives here for him being my favourite character but trust me he can be good too. He's excellent at comfort, he knows just how to make someone feel better when they need it. He's empathetic, he can read people's emotions with ease and because of this-is able to understand them. Every fight with Mind- he feels his anger and frustration just as much as his own, he knows Mind gets just as riled up as him when tipped over the edge. The same goes with Soul, he can feel Soul's anger like a looming threat when their fights escalate too far. He can feel Soul's guilt and and how he relishes in the control despite it. That is to say- Heart can be kind and caring too, when it counts. he's the love AND the hate; it just so happens that he's got ALOTT of things to be mad about in his life </3

Mind

• Mind is astronomically emotionally repressed, it is a problem. he views emotions as something that holds him and everyone back from rational thinking and being at their optimal performance levels. he doesn't allow himself to get caught up in emotions (this of course is a lie, and excludes his petty outbursts at Heart, those don't count).

• ^ so much to the point that he 'removes himself of everything humane and emotional' by replacing himself with mechanical parts. no I don't think that's canon but I love this headcanon and I will die on this hill.

• though he would deny it: he is very petty, and does enjoy provoking Heart whenever given the chance. (which of course Heart does aswell)

• he is a 'control freak' to his core. though it comes off as tyrannical, he truly does think he knows what's best for the Whole, and that's why he's so adamant on being the ruler. logic is straightforward, logic can be easily worked through and used to make optimal decisions, thinking clearly avoids all possible bad situations. logic is his mainstay, his rock. (If he were to let in the flood of repressed emotion, he wouldn't be able to handle it all, and would lose hold of his mainstay whilst desperately trying to stay grasped onto it. he would be scared and lost in it all without a way back up.)

• he hides behind his apathetic facade but he *does* feel and he *does* get angry and upset and scared- and he hates himself for it. he can't be seen as vulnerable, as weak. I don't think he even knows *how* to deal with emotions either. he's spent so much time shoving them down that when they finally all come back up, he genuinly doesn't know what to do, he panics, unable to use logic in a situation like this.

• he is stubborn as all hell.

• he is Whole's ego. he doesn't think he's ever good enough and yet pretends he's the best; he believes he's the best too- contradictory I know, they're all hypocrites /lh.

• despite all these sympathisable things, he *is* cold and he *is* cruel at times. just like Heart, he has his reasons, but that doesn't make his actions justified. (make up already you guys suck!!!!)

Soul

• sigghhh identity issues x1000; he doesn't know who he is or what he's meant to be. he isn't a real person, and what's worse, he isn't *Whole*.

• I think so much of his character is based around Whole rather than him being much of his own person. his identity is a mimicry of Whole, botched together to make the imperfect Self, always wrong, never perfect enough. he has spent his whole existence working towards becoming someone else that he's never once thought to make an identity of his own- it's all for Whole, he would be nothing without him.

• he does not want to have to hurt the other two but in the end, that's all they'll listen to. he mimics power and control. he doesn't want to hurt them- but what else does he have if not power over these two? he has no control over the loops, no power against Whole, he can't do anything to stop this in the grand scheme, so he exerts control in the only way he can. he (tries to) keeps them in line. there is a large amount of guilt around that though.

• he's actually a very guilty person in general, his existence is merely the happenstance of dissonance; he and the others are born from it. he is the hubris of his Whole's misery- how could he not feel guilty about his every motion and thought, his existence itself is made from anguish {his Whole's anguish}.

• he yearns for non-existence and existence simultaneously; he contradicts himself. he wants to be Whole, but at the same time he wants to co-exist with him, happily.

• overall he is tired, he is very very tired. he doesn't have much left in him and he'll do whatever is necessary to just make it *stop* at this point. I think even after cacophony ends and the fighting finally stops, he's still on edge. he flinches at every little sound and raised voice. he wakes up in the middle of the night thinking he heard the other two arguing again, he has nightmares. he's very paranoid at all times.

• during cacophony I feel like Heart and Mind are defintely dehumanised by him. whether subconsciously or not. they become the ids, rather than his fellow thirds. they're a problem he needs to fix, parasites he needs to be rid of. he wants to get along and trust them, truly, but he never can.

• touch starved. this needs no elaboration.

• he worships Whole, devotes himself to him. he thinks of him like a god, something holy and perfect and completely out of his reach. his whole identity and existence is built around becoming him, this places Whole as the epitome of perfection. he wishes he was able to be close to Whole, to know him- but that's impossible, and he thinks if he ever even got the chance to brush their hands together his body would explode at the heat of his divine touch. yeah listen to this freak, please be normal for once in your life Soul.

Whole

(disclaimer: this is the character Whole and is in no way how I view CJ!! they are completely seperate thank yew) -

• my entire perception of Whole is mismatched ideas I've collected from mutuals but a large portion of his personality is from 'live the dream'. so, just picture that version of Whole mixed in with the weird codependent god relationship with Soul and that's my Whole 👍

• he is selfish and hypocritical at his core, he's almost as guilt-ridden as his Soul.

• he knows he does bad things, to himself and others. he hates it, he regrets it, he feels guilty for it- but he will always come back and do it again.

• he lacks barely any form of self love- of course this is going to make it difficult for him to sympathise and love his little blots- *parts of himself*.

• he is (of course) suicidal, alot of his (self proclaimed) 'selfishness' stems from this; he can't help it but its true. he's spent so long only looking out for himself, in isolation, believing that everything he does is pointless- his actions are gonna be selfish, whether he likes it or not. hence- the loop; he continues to repeat it.

• he is a chronic liar, he lies to himself, he lies to HMS, he lies to his friends. sometimes harmlessly, sometimes Very Much Not. there are times he's sworn he won't restart the loop and believed it, but of course that never lasted very long.

• he's not good at maintaining relationships- with anyone. this is why he struggles so much with Soul's unwavering devotion to him. not only does he feel like he's not putting into their relationship as much as Soul is, but he also lives in constant fear that *it will end eventually*. Soul will realise what a bad person he is and abandon him, or he'll fuck something up on his own.

• Whole has religious trauma (two wuv), and because of this he is very uncomfortable with Soul's worshipping of him.

• despite this, he still leans into it; no one's ever adored him this fervently, without hesitation, he can't help but enjoy it at least a little. both him and Soul are touch starved as hell so, it's *alot*. It's easier when they're in the loops, when he's separated from them all, from their resentment and their love. he doesn't think he deserves anything but what he thinks of himself. so Soul's unwavering love and devotion throws him off, but who would he be to refuse such a scarce thing in his life?

The Juno Incident

• ok!! I like lot's of different interpretations of the Juno incident honestly, though the ones that align best with what I think happened are these:

• Heart missed, literally. his bullet did not hit Mind. I believe he had low vision (just like me fr!!) before being blinded fully after TJI and this of course made aiming difficult.

• ALTERNATIVELY, he *did* shoot Mind, and the bullet *did* hit. Whether that was in the throat or some other place idrk, it fluctuates.

• In both instances, I think it went like this: after Heart's shot, Mind was shocked, he was scared, ESPECIALLY if the bullet did actually hit. I think in that moment, he did not have his logic to rely on, emotion- shock, fear, betrayal, anger- all of it, took over. he probably couldn't move for a few *very long, agonising* minutes, he was shaking, he was trying to organise his thoughts to best approach the situation and *couldn't*. his smug demeanour was finally broken down and in that moment he was truly *weak* (which he resents both himself and Heart for every day).

• meanwhile Heart very quickly flips from seething hatred and anger to regret, he's a sobbing mess. he's also scared- partly for Mind (if the bullet hit), but mainly for himself, mainly of *Soul* and what the consequences will be. he starts hysterically apologising, not to anyone in particular, just whoever will listen. he immediately goes into defence mode- victim mode.

• when Soul gets to the scene it's a mix of emotions. he's mad, mostly, but also feels betrayed- this is going to impact Whole, this is a setback we can't come back from, how could they do this? but of course the first thing he has to do is help, mediate, punish- as always.

• when it comes to whether or not Soul blinded Heart, I'm not sure. I enjoy the interpretations where he does, but also the ones that don't. but I firmly believe that it was majorly Heart's doing (self inflicted whilst in Apathy which I'll elaborate more on soon).

• Soul still punishes Heart obviously. after realising that Heart isn't the one that's been hurt here, and is crying crocodile tears, he quickly makes his way to Mind, who is still trying to regain his composure. Heart is obviously still screaming and wailing, and Soul now has the full picture of what happened, he tears into Heart. he yells at him about how he's betrayed them, betrayed Whole, how he's broken everything. Heart just defends and defends, cries and cries, he doesn't want to face the consequences. Soul eventually sends him to Apathy, where he can't wreck anything else (except himself). This was maybe the first time they were all equally afraid of eachother. (It will happen again, and again, of course)

• after dealing with Heart, Soul tends to Mind, who is *very* averse to being looked after (he doesn't need his pity). But he is obviously Very Fucked Up and accepts the care anyway. cue weeks of recovery and PTSD.

Apathy

• Apathy is somewhere in headspace that no one knows how to get to, they just end up there when that is where they need to go. It's a long walk, or a short one; no one really knows when you end up underground, you just do.

• I picture it as something of a cave system but instead of rocks, it's made up of decay. It smells like dirt and rotting flesh, the walls squirm as if they were alive, the floors are covered in rotting vine-like things that crawl around you and pull you deeper into the pit. Its dark and agonising.

• Heart relies heavily on sound and touch, this place is a sensory nightmare for him to say the least. he can barely see, Apathy is unable to harbour sound, and everything around him makes him want to throw up.

• eventually his own actions, with the additional side effects of being somewhere so horrific all alone for so long- causes Heart to scratch out his eyes. I hc him as someone very prone to scratching and skin picking- it got a bit much here to say the least and that got taken out on his eyes.

• I imagine he was down there for at least a few weeks. at the max a little over a month. Soul is the one to come get him, Mind does not want to face him.

The Loop

• Whole purposefully restarts the loop. for quite awhile I stuck with the idea that the loop restarts itself, like when they start fighting again- as the cycle of depression does. and while I still believe that- I like Whole restarting it on purpose more :]. It gives not only the plot, but all of the characters so much more depth in my opinion. there's resentment, there's guilt, there's it's effects on relationships and relationships with oneself. It's just overall so horribly good.

• I mainly like the way things happen in 'live the dream'. as in: Whole gets tired of Being A Person, he doesn't want to exist anymore- so he sits down at his piano and begins his song to restart the loop; the loop that brings him to the peaceful realm of unconsciousness whilst his thirds go through hell once again. and when they finally reach concord, he's brought back to reality. and it repeats itself.

• regarding memories: Soul remembers the most, which isn't saying much but yk. his memories of the loop mainly consist of the main events (split, fighting, Juno incident, any other significant things). his memories aren't clear enough to ever prevent any of this though, he just has to live with the fact that he knows something bad is going to happen, and he can't do anything to stop it. even if he did manage to, the loop would find a way to make it happen anyway. (for example: he calms Heart down before he manages to shoot Mind. Soul thinks all is well but later that night he hears muffled yelling from one of the blots' rooms, he's annoyed for a moment- just another fight- until he hears a gunshot. It happened anyway, his efforts were fruitless.)

• Soul is aware they've been through many many loops. he doesn't know how many, but he knows they've been here for A Very Long Time. he's tired.

• Heart and Mind are..somewhat aware of the loop? I think during calamity and closer to concord they're able to remember better, but in the midst of cacophony, they might as well know nothing. the battle for control and constant warring prevents them from remembering they've been here before- and will be once more. It all feels familiar, they write it off as deja vu. alot of things happen because of their 'instincts', for example: Heart's first thought during The Fight with Mind is to grab the gun; he's never shot anyone before, so why'd the thought come up? well it's obviously the most efficient choice of action- it'll certainly get Mind to shut up and listen to you. <- and so the cycle repeats itself.

• on how many loops there have been. I think it comes and goes like the cycle of depression (obviously). I think they each last for a few months up to a year at a time, and concord lasts for roughly a few months aswell. however many of those fit into the time that Whole has been alive and struggling with depression is how many loops there have been.

done!! holy shit that's alot, over 3k to be exact. these ideas will probably change and fluctuate over time but it was nice to get it all down for now :] feel free to send me asks about my headcanons of these weird little bugs, I love them :33 !!!

[lassify]

Twilight's Guilt

*Spoilers for Spy x Family Chapter 107*

I haven't seen anyone talking about this yet, but I just can't get it out of my head.

Chapter 107 is a real goldmine for Twilight The Spy. All these amazing connections! All this potential intelligence! He can finally feel like he is extracting what he can from Anya's hard-won connections at Eden, and he is fully using every opportunity possible to squeeze what he can for Operation Strix.

And then Jeeves had to go ahead and say this:

Jeeves really hits the nail on the head here.

He probably knows about the responsibilities and expectations that are put on the Eden kids by all of their parents - of which he understands Damian's position the most intimately - but at this point in time, Jeeves (likely) has no idea of the extra burden that has been put on one child in particular.

That is, Twilight's burden on Anya.

Not just the burden of becoming an Imperial Scholar, and doing well in her tests, and making friends with the right people: only Twilight knows about the burden of being a fake family, of having to complete a mission, and dispose of her when it's over.

"How I hope that these children are to remain forever unburdened by the statures and standpoints of their parents..."

This is what I love about Endo's storytelling so much: so much is said with so few words and gestures.

Because after Jeeves says his piece, we get a look from Twilight. It's interesting - he almost looks bored, but the lack of response is by itself so telling, even when the other parents express their remorse.

To me, he looks exhausted. This pretence must be so exhausting.

Then his gaze turns towards Anya.

And: he's guilty.

Twilight knows that Jeeves is right; that by taking up a fatherly role for this child, he has automatically burdened her with his own goals and expectations.

Which then leads us to this panel:

I love this panel so much. I honestly felt myself tearing up looking at it.

The first thing that the reader notices is the vast expanse of negative space: everything and everyone else has faded away, and now it is only them. Without the bustling festival and rowdy kids and background characters, suddenly the reader is so aware of the distance between Twilight and Anya. We know that this distance is emotional as well as physical; because Twilight has put himself in the position of the 'onlooker', he is separating his emotions and keeping himself distant from Anya as a person.

I also couldn't help but notice that this panel, unlike every other one on this spread, did not have a border. Endo intended the negative space around them to be endless and borderless, to show that the guilt has the potential to swallow Twilight entirely.

Finally, the size difference between them: while we can interpret this as distance, I also see their physical forms as an illustration of their difference in power. In that sense, one could say that Twilight is larger in this panel, because he overwhelms Anya in the power that he holds over her. He is her 'father'; the man who took her away from the orphanage; and the man who could put her back without a second's notice. Twilight is fully aware of all of this.

(Despite his ignorance of Anya's telepathic power, the scale is still very much in Twilight's favour.)

We even see this side of Anya as though from Twilight's perspective: suddenly, Anya is just a child that caught up in something so much bigger. With our view just of Twilight's back, we can imagine the weight that this must have on his shoulders, bearing a burden that only he is aware of.

And yet, here you are, Twilight...

Despite the attention paid to Twilight's guilt in this double-page spread, Twilight is still very much back to 'business as usual' within the next couple of pages after this. After all, he has a mission to complete. As a spy, he should be adept at compartmentalising his emotions by now...

... Or perhaps, his only option is to keep squashing his guilt down, before he drowns in it.

[stardewvalleybut-i-draw]

Can u give me ur full thoughts on Alex? I feel like a lot of the shit he gets is unjustified. Yeah he says some sus things to the farmer (no matter what gender you are!) but that's only because he's horribly mislead. The man just doesn't know any better. I mean think about it. Abused and neglected, lacking good male role models, and he's got no friends in town except for maybe Haley and you know how she is. If she was told "you're probably not into sports" she'd say "ew no" because sports would get her all dirty.

I always saw him as just a loner-type guy who doesn't know how to talk to people. Spent too much time trying to develop his cringe ass macho man persona that he forgot to develop social skills. I don't think that makes him a bad person though. I could honestly talk for hours about how toxic masculinity is a monster that preys on young boys and eats them alive if they're not careful. But even with societal pressure being so intense, growth is possible. Alex is still a massive sweetie in my eyes. A big dumb doofus who loves his granny and wants to lift heavy things just to impress you.

I would love your thoughts though!!

#1 Alex fan anon ⚡️

Yeah. That's basically more or less my thoughts😅

It honestly depends on what you experience that can greatly color Alex's character

This might be one of my more controversial takes

(right next to being a Clint apologist💀)

but stick with me here-

If you grow up in a similar environment to most guys, you can understand why Alex is the way they are. It's not exactly easy to be soft or mindful when you have a harsh environment around you. Many guys end up coping with repressed thoughts and feelings in unique ways to soothe themselves. I think Alex's was sports. (Idk just a hunch) but it often leads to a lot of blind spots or misunderstandings of the world.

I've seen a lot of people like Alex and I've had a couple of friends in high school like that too! And I can tell you... yeah... it comes from SOMEWHERE, A lot of them ain't doing so great mentally.

Heck, I do that! Whenever I get uncomfortable with a situation or feelings I don't like, I make jokes to ease my brain. Releses a little serotonin ya know what I mean?

Not all coping mechanisms are bad tho, we kinda have our own form of bond and support that from the outside looks cold and uninviting but I promise you, we would die for our brothers. (plus the cold uninviting part is just a front)

"I know the homie told us to KYS over Roblox but he bought the group Freebirds during the gym session so it's all good!"/j

I can't say much from the other perspective but I would assume they would see Alex as a HUGE BIG RED flag and someone potentially dangerous or someone who brings back bad memories which is why he is dunked on so much. Even if they don't mean it, they have a higher chance of hurting people.

I don't think Alex is THAT type of character at all, I think he has good intentions but as you said "no social skills". I can see why others would interpret that way though.

It's funny that you mention how Alex doesn't have many female role models cuz... you have

Haley- Lazy and super not into dirt.

His mom- got sick and DIED.

Granny Evelyn- frail weak old woman who makes cookies and tends to flowers.

Those are not exactly SUPER GREAT examples of women who like sports.

Personally, I get why people say that playing a male farmer is better for Alex's story arc along with confronting George about the whole being gay thing but I think the female farmer has elements that I don't think are acknowledged much.

From my perspective anyway, I think a Fem farmer shows Alex a better example of women and what they can do VS grandma, dead mom, and Haley... along with learning boundaries and how better cope with repressed feelings and MAYBE-

-even address the fear of the farmer DYING of a sickness just like his mom or the intrusive thoughts of believing he'll end up like his father making him overprotective and paranoid about the farmers well being...

but you can ignore that...

Idk man, that's just the way I view it. You either like Alex or you don't :/

I ain't saying anyone's wrong to feel the way they do

[lesbianfakir]

Thinking about this post and can we talk about how important it is that fakir was okay with Duck not loving him back?

I think it’s fair to say it’s pretty heavily implied that he’s in love with her, and it’s explicitly confirmed in the guidebook.

While Duck’s feelings for him are more nebulous and hard to pin down, from his perspective she’s in love with Mytho. We as the audience know she doesn’t actually feel that way about Mytho but from Fakir’s perspective everything she’s done so far has been for Mytho. She admitted to him in episode 12 that she had feelings for mytho and there has been nothing to dissuade him from this line of thinking. In fact, he finds her crying because mytho chose rue.

There’s this little moment I like. When Duck tells him mytho has chosen rue as his princess his eyes narrow ever so slightly.

[ID: two screenshots of Fakir from episode 25. In the first he is looking at Duck (off camera) with a serious expression. In the second he narrows his eyes slightly. End ID]

He REACTS to this news, even if it’s subtle. And he doesnt look happy about it. Fakir is upset that Mytho rejected Duck. And this seems so antithetical from what we come to expect from a romantic subplot.

So the girl he loves loves someone else… and he’s okay with that. He never tries to pressure or guilt Duck into being with him. Hell he never even mentions his feelings. She likes someone else so what’s the point. But this never dissuades him from his devotion to her. He doesn’t give her an ultimatum or make her choose. He doesn’t even seem get upset that she loves someone else. Even when she goes back to being a duck destroying his last hope of being with her romantically, even then he never wavers. He wants to spend the rest of his life with her. Whether that’s as friends or as partners or as just a simple boy and a duck, he wants to be with her. How she feels for him doesn’t matter so much as getting to share his life with her.

And I find this such a refreshing spin on tired romance tropes. “Just friends” looms large in our media so it’s lovely to see a boy in the so called “friendzone” who’s okay with it. Beyond okay he treasures the time he spends with Duck. His affection for her doesn’t hinge on reciprocation.

It’s so common for characters in fakir’s archetype to grow angry or sad that they’re not “the one,” often lashing out at the girl who doesn’t return their feelings. But instead we have Fakir who’s perfectly content to stay Duck’s friend. After all, being her friend is a gift in itself.

I just love to see a platonic relationship not treated as a lesser stepping stone to a romantic relationship. Sure, Fakir has feelings for Duck. But that in no way undermines the friendship they already have. It’s treated with all the gravity usually reserved for romantic relationships. They’re going to spend their lives together and whether that’s as friends or as lovers—that part isn’t important.

I’m tired of media treating friendships like they’ve suddenly become worthless when one party develops feelings and the other doesn’t return them. With fakiru, the lovely part is that their relationship is built on such a strong foundation it can stand on its own. We the audience are free to interpret it as romantic, platonic, or something in between, but with any reading their close friendship forms the centerpiece.

[deus-sema]

The discourse surrounding Sauron and Galadriel about love and obsession has been rather interesting to catch up with so far. After going through the perspectives of both those who like this pairing and those who don’t, I think both sides can unite in agreement over this one fact, if nothing else: obsession, without any shred of doubt, exists between them. It exists on both sides for she has been obsessed with him long before he was with her. Yes, it was motivated by unadulterated hatred and a desire for vengeance, but he occupied her thoughts for the better or worse. Now, she has planted herself in his mind too.

Then comes the question of whether whatever there is between them can be considered romantic or not. Is it appropriate to label it as love or not? Here it is a matter of preference which differs from person to person. What will be interpreted as romantic by one may not be so by another and vice versa. It is completely understandable why many will be uncomfortable with the notion of obsession being associated with love. Obsession – over anything and anyone – is usually an unhealthy emotion. Unwanted and unpredictable, it can prove detrimental to both the individual experiencing it as well as the people around them. In the real world, it needs to be recognized for what it is and addressed for the betterment of everyone.

But, herein lies the difference between the world we exist in and fictional worlds. Every work of fiction, regardless of genre, exists on a different plane whose happenings have no bearing on our reality. Fiction is a realm of infinite possibilities which is the reason why people use it for wish fulfillment. People can’t fly or use magic for real but they can do so in a make-believe world. People can cheat death and turn over a new leaf. Foes can become friends and overcome their grievances. They can live happily ever after without any worries about betrayal or loss. It is a place where ideal and unconditional love is allowed to thrive. Simultaneously, it is also where love can exist in flawed, twisted and, even, perverse forms. It can be greedy, possessive, selfish, and warped while still retaining its essence. That is probably the reason why many, myself included, are fascinated with the idea of stories with obsessive love. With the idea of an all-consuming desire and yearning on one character’s part for another that can go on to be destructive. With the concept of evil beings experiencing love. It is why obsession fueled by love, whether executed properly or not, is an integral component of many dark romances. Within stories, it is permitted to be what it is most certainly not in reality. In real life, no emotion – not even what we believe to be love – should override our individual well being or anyone else’s. This is why fiction is a safe space to explore fantasies. Even the most incredulous ones of all.

Now, about how I interpret Sauron and Galadriel, specifically, within the context of this show: It is love. They developed feelings for each other when their paths crossed unexpectedly and they forged an unlikely bond because of the circumstances they faced together. Simple. Unintentionally, Galadriel began to care for her greatest enemy and believed him to be her friend. She is still obsessed with defeating him but whatever she felt for Halbrand now exists alongside her hatred for Sauron. Meanwhile, Sauron is still pretty much evil. He is working to further his own interests or,rather,what he thinks to best for Middle Earth. But, at the same time, he desires Galadriel. Both were visibly attracted to one another in the first season. Even though no words were said, Charlie and Morfydd, being the phenomenally talented and intelligent actors that they are, conveyed it beautifully through their expressions and body language. I don’t think it is a betrayal to the characters either for the show, more or less, took Sauron’s canonical obsession with Galadriel and her persistent defiance against him and added to it a layer of romance which is doomed because of who they are. I don’t claim to know what the show plans on doing with them in future and it is not in my hands. We can only speculate, engage in wishful thinking and write fanfics and AUs if things don’t go the way we want them to.

RoP is a show I’m enjoying so far in all its aspects and I’m not exaggerating when I say that its fandom is one of the most chilled-out and relaxing ones I’ve engaged with in recent times. I’ve gotten to interact with many amazing posts. However I’m well aware that where there is more than one person, there are differences in opinions. Where there are differences, there will be disagreements. Where there are disagreements, there will be clashes. Clashes will lead to fanwars. Fanwars have high chances of turning toxic. I know the drill for I have undergone it in many fandoms. I’ve been carried away by the toxicity and have made my fair share of mistakes too. Those experiences have taught me some important lessons. One mistake I made, rather repeatedly, during my…..enthusiastic….stanning phase was to engage in fights with people whose opinions on a certain topic or fictional character differed from mine. All factions believe their interpretation of whichever nonexistent character they like in whatever made-up story they are into, is the correct one and many a times they can substantiate their claims with reasons. Sometimes, these contrasting opinions lead to some riveting and respectful discussions between people which, to be honest, is the entire point behind a public platform. Sometimes, they result in nasty fights.

Ideally, the feelings of real people should be prioritized over seemingly trivial issues like different preferences in fiction. But if we were capable of that we would all be perfect but, as we all know, perfection exists only in Valinor. Fictional works are dearer to us than some random stranger on the internet. So, when we encounter a radically different opinion about something we are passionate about, the first reaction is usually one of annoyance. Depending on whether it is mild or severe, this annoyance can make us petty. We crave the satisfaction of one-upping those who disagree with us, of validating our perspective over their’s and, as a result, we don’t realize if someone’s feelings get hurt in the process. Or even if we do, the euphoria of ‘winning’ in the discourse makes it easier to sweep the adverse effects under the rug. I don’t believe we need to withhold our opinions to make others happy. We are not bound to understand each other's opinions, much less agree every time. But we do owe it to each other to be civil if not anything else. As for me, what I’m going to try and do is to ignore the takes I disagree with and mind my own business. If it gets too much then I am going to press the block button. I advise those who dislike my opinions and takes to do the same. It’s nothing personal and we all deserve to enjoy in our own spaces while choosing what content we wish to see and engage with without suppressing our thoughts. We deserve to vent as well for it is healthy. I cannot guarantee that I’ll be successful right away for there are still instances when I end up behaving in a manner that is plain immature. But, to paraphrase the late Diarmid who once tried to counsel Sauron (Eru bless his soul), I simply have to keep trying until it becomes a habit.

So, take care everyone, and I hope you all are doing well wherever you are.

[cross-d-a]

I wonder if one of the major purposes of The Acolyte is to show that the dark side is everywhere and it is in everything and it is in everyone. It is a constant battle, a constant fight. A consistent echo of “choose the right thing choose the right thing choose the right thing this time.” Bc it feels like the show is leading up to the big Reveal of whatever Sol has done. Sol, who is kind and gentle and fatherly. Sol who seems to encompass the epitome of the Jedi. We’ve really only seen him through the eyes of his friends/comrades and the eyes of a lonely, traumatized child.

The overarching “unreliable narrative” of the show is Fascinating. As the audience, we view the story through so many opposing viewpoints and are forced to work mostly with both the characters’ and our own interpretations of events. We have multiple Jedi viewpoints of course, who largely view themselves as a benevolent entity. And then of course we have the Sith who view the Jedi as oppressive but also perhaps naive as they force themselves to work within their own self-governed rules. And we have the people, who so far have seen the Jedi as friends, strange neighbors, hands of the Senate and nuisances. And then. THEN we have Osha and Mae who have inside perspectives of these opposing viewpoints but are also Other, both by nature of their existence and their experiences.

We can choose to make the wrong decision, or the right one. But who determines what’s wrong or right? And how do you navigate that choice when you don’t have the full story? How can you trust that your decision is the right one, when it may be right for you but wrong for someone else?

There are so many layers to it and it really feels like The Acolyte is trying to explore that. Because the Dark Side is wrong to the Jedi, but it’s right to the Sith. And what do you do when you think you’re a good person but make the wrong noice? How do you navigate that? How do you recover? How do you right your wrongs? And should you even do so?

This got away from me a bit but I think The Acolyte boils down to this. Nobody is inherently Good or Bad. There are decisions and how you deal with the consequences. Not to say you can’t consistently purposefully make choices that hurt others, but I think The Acolyte is trying to show that the Jedi are just- people. They’re people who have this amazing power and live within a complicated religious organization with a complicated relationship with the rest of the Galaxy. And the Jedi may have power but they’re just people, too. And they have good in them, and they have bad in them. And what makes a Jedi a Jedi is that they’re constantly fighting against the dark in them, and maybe sometimes, they make mistakes, because after all they’re just people, too. And sometimes, they just give in, for any number of reasons, but maybe most of all because they think they’re doing what’s right. (But who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?)

[golvio]

I think the metanarrative reason for the Princess being put into an antagonistic role in the “intended story structure” instead of being the protagonist is a big hint to her true nature.

While the protagonist gets to have the POV and make the major decisions that determine the story’s resolution, the antagonist is the one who actually makes things happen. Even when she’s not an antagonist and you’re working together, she’s still making things happen solely by being the only visible character present. Her mere presence changes things.

It’s very, very difficult to have a story without some external force or another character acting upon your protagonist and pressuring them to make a move. Even stories told primarily in flashbacks have the main character interacting with something, even if only in the past tense. A story where the main character just sat there, never interacting with anyone or anything, never having any experiences to learn from, would be incredibly boring. Simply having someone else there to talk to and play off of is enough to get things to move again.

Contrast this with The Narrator’s ideal story, which is a Wholesome™️ story where the main character does what they’re told and then never has anything bad happen to them ever because, as the only character left in the story, they’re safe from conflict, change, or heartbreak. Sure, it might not be a controversial story that would upset someone, but it’s also incredibly dull and unfulfilling. The credits roll and that’s it? That’s all we get?

It’s absolutely hilarious to me that, while The Narrator inserted his echo into the Construct under the conceit of being the literary device that’s the vehicle delivering the story to the reader, he really sucks at storytelling. He can’t build rapport with his audience (us) because he doesn’t understand what we want or how to persuade us beyond vague moral arguments with no emotional hooks whatsoever. He’s so inflexible and refuses to allow alternate interpretations that he can’t handle when things go off script, and can’t get the story back on track when we start going off the rails short of pulling a deus ex machina (which only works when the audience still has enough faith in him to take him seriously as storyteller instead of doing their own thing). Things only get interesting when the Princess gets involved. Things only move forward when she forces the issue, particularly in the Nightmare route, where you refuse to commit to a choice out of fear of potential consequences.

A friend of mine who recently did their first playthrough commented on how the underlying quest to collect perspectives for the Shifting Mound was basically an improv session. I think they’re right on the money. Each chapter is like a game of “Yes, And” between you and the Princess that continues until neither of you can think of anything else. The developers mentioned in an interview that Shifty M. only arrives to take the vessel home when the story “ends.” That is, when there’s nothing left to do. Improv is one of the genres of performance that best encapsulates Change in its demand for adapting to circumstances and new information, so of course The Narrator would be against it, preferring simple, linear narratives.

People tend to become fascinated with antagonists because they’re the ones who make things happen. Adding an antagonist who’s also a person is one of the easiest ways to start building a story. By making the Shifting Mound and her fragments our enemy and requiring us to get within talking distance in order to slay her, The Narrator shot himself in the foot by making Her the most compelling and interesting character by default.

[rahuratna]

HI!! I love your reasons on why Nanami speaks to you on a personal level sm!! It’s so interesting because you pointed out a different perspective I’ve never thought about before. The reason why I started liking Nanami was because of his journey of finding a sense of purpose. If I were to drop myself into the JJK verse and had the option to convince Nanami to stay as a sorcerer instead of a salaryman, I wouldn’t. Because then he wouldn’t have known if being a salaryman and, like you mentioned in some of your fics, having a simple and more ordinary lifestyle made him more fulfilled.

Then your insights on identity comes to play: no matter what you choose to do with life, it doesn’t completely define you because we also have to consider the emotions and experiences that make us human. What we never got to see was what Nanami did in his free time and, excluding the value/service he provided for others and the short clips from “Where our blue is”, what memories and experiences that made him happy and loved. That’s also why reading your works is so good and comforting 😭 😭

You also talked about lack of self-preservation which I think makes a lot of sense given the pressures Jujutsu society. For Nanami, I think he feels like there’s barely a choice in what he can do. Both being a salaryman and a jujutsu sorcerer means being “exploited” by the higher ups. As a salaryman, he was “making the rich richer,” and as a sorcerer, he and his peers were being sent out to risk their lives to kill curses instead of the powerful elders doing it themselves (particularly with his best friend’s death). The higher ups in society do not care or value his life because there will always be more sorcerers and salarymen to replace him in terms of the job. THATS WHY I LOVED WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOUR JOB DOESNT DEFINE YOUR IDENTITY AIDHNSJDNBDKS. I think that’s what might have influenced Nanami to have a lack of self-preservation like you said. Yes because being a sorcerer requires it, but also because the only semblance of meaning that society could provide him was providing value to the innocent and weak which ultimately costed his life.

IT MAKES ME SO SAD BECAUSE HE DESERVES THE MOST AND HES SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT *sob sob*… tysm for all the character analysis you do, it makes me so happy talking about it :) Please add on if you have any more thoughts 🫶 🫶

Firstly, this is what I love about writing fanfic. These conversations with fellow fans who appreciate the same things about the series and characters is just golden to me 💛💛. I'm so, so flattered and glad that my interpretation of Nanami provides these different perspectives and I love hearing your ideas on it too!

So, I really liked Nanami's character to begin with, but there was one particular scene, where he wipes away the tear of the transfigured human, that really made me sit up and take note.

When the show got into his background, I immediately picked up on how much he values others over himself. It ties in with what you said about how there could possibly have been a happier reality for him if he'd simply chosen the path of a 'normal' life. Maybe he could have eventually retired and lived that peaceful existence.

And this is where he truly becomes a tragic figure for me. I feel like the world he lived in would never have allowed that peace. His compassion, desire to protect and serve others and his strong beliefs always shine through. Jujutsu society favours the ruthless, the predators, the ones who can detach and operate without thinking too hard about the cost, like Mei Mei, for example.

Nanami is not an apex predator. He's very strong, but a foot soldier, and one who fully acknowledges his own weaknesses. While his compassion and heart make him a sterling human being, they don't grant him safety, or survival.

To reiterate what I said in my previous post, he does define himself by how well he can serve others. Which is his job.

You also pointed out something really important, which was that Nanami's search for purpose makes him so interesting. I think that the trauma he suffered from the death of his friend, along with possibly the survivor's guilt, is what actually led to him under-valuing himself like this, and also prioritizing the younger sorcerers. He thought so hard about his own purpose, but was also so blind to his own value as a human being, with qualities that made him so much more than JUST a salaryman, or JUST a sorcerer.

Yaga said something to Yuuji which always stuck with me; that in their world, being a sorcerer requires a certain level of insanity, an ability to detach yourself so that you can face the horror of the curses with reckless bravery.

Nanami had his own brand of insanity, one that allowed him to actually remain attached to the value of peoples' lives, to express kindness and compassion, and STILL go out there and face the dangers of his job with a straight back and steady heart. It wore him down terribly, but his powerful belief in his own principles allowed him to do his job, day after day.

That unique madness was what tore away any sense of self-preservation and self-value he had, but also served as one of the strongest inspirations to those who he left behind. Their value of him, their grief and their loss, speaks volumes about the man he was.

I love writing those same aspects you mentioned, the little things that give him happiness and pleasure, the healing and understanding of his own importance, the simplicity of his needs being met.

Cheers to plenty more fanfic! And always feel free to drop me your thoughts, even if you had a random 1 am musing! I love hearing them!

[leporellian]

How are we meant to look at operas, anyway? (and what are they?)

Operas are my favorite art form of them all. This is because I think they are "just really neato" and "the most interesting to study". However, if you were to go around and ask what Defines an opera? Nobody would have a concrete and true answer to the question. They aren’t ‘sung through stage works’ because many operas aren’t sung through and non-operas that are. They have no specific orchestra or singing requirements. Even determining them on a cultural basis doesn’t entirely fit. I actually think ‘art’ is too loose and philosophical a term for what they are either. (I mean, yes, they are art. But how are they so?)  

I think that while there’s no concrete definition for what an opera actually is, there ARE certain sets of… rules (for lack of a better word) that dictate how operas Are and what we should do when Seeing them. Funnily enough, the most complete rules I’ve seen for operas I found in an essay that has nothing to do with operas at all- “Monster Culture: Seven Theses” by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. My rules for How To Look At Operas are heavily derived from that essay, interpreted in ways to best fit the art form. 

My Rules of Opera (with apologies to Mr. Cohen):

1. The Opera’s Body is a Cultural Body.

Operas are sociological and anthropological records that entail a gap in time between their composition and their performance. They contain as many perspectives as there are people aware of them. Every time you watch an opera, you are negotiating with something or someone else. And these records are always being added onto- no opera is ever truly ‘complete’. 

Operas cannot truly be escapist entertainment because they directly reflect societal problems in both the composer’s time and ours. La Traviata’s main conflict- the way sex workers are demonized and unsupported among ‘polite society’ and how societal expectations and the pressure to conform destroys lives- is something that existed in Verdi’s time, and our own. La Traviata is about the sex workers of today who can’t find work anywhere. It is also about how Giuseppe Verdi’s wife was poorly-treated by the people around her for having been sexually active before their marriage. It is also about the gap between these two events, and how one thing became (or still is) another. 

An opera production is not a recreation. No matter how ‘original production accurate’ they claim to be, they are always a negotiation. There is no such thing as accuracy, as civic law. Once one is freed of the expectation of ‘canon’ or ‘what ought to be’ in an opera, one can deal with these creatures more handily. 

2. The Opera Always Escapes.

No matter how many times Don Giovanni is dragged off to hell at the end of Mozart’s opera of the same name, he always reappears again in a fresh new staging. He never stays down there. Maybe the gates to Hell are looser than we imagine- or, more likely, this is because he represents something that cannot be defeated. What does the character represent? Abuse, sexual violence, power (with class, with gender, with religion); grief, loss, death. None of these things will go away in our lifetimes or the next, and so Don Giovanni as an opera remains relevant. 

In fact, there are no ‘irrelevant’ operas in the standard canon as we know them. Any irrelevant operas that did exist are long gone because there would be no reason to revive them. Even operas that have ‘aged poorly’, like Turandot, confront us with why they’ve poorly aged and force us to reckon with some part of our current world. We react to them in some way and therefore they are worth further looking into.

I call this the “All Dogs go to Heaven” theorem because it doesn’t argue that all operas adhere to the same standard of quality, or are even written with good intentions in mind- but it does argue that they all are worth studying and experiencing. And any opera, as long as a copy of its score and libretto exists, can come back from the dead. So just like the movie, not all of them stay there.

3. The Opera is the Harbinger of Category Crisis.

One of the most common ways to explain away what an opera is, against a musical or a straight play, is to claim that operas are sung through while musicals feature spoken dialogue. Respectfully, this is wrong and insane. Two of the most famous operas of all- Carmen and The Magic Flute- feature extensive spoken dialogue, while Hamilton and Cats (both sung through) are musicals. The notion of operas having specific orchestral or voice requirements isn’t quite true, either- each era of opera, and each opera, is a separate animal.

Is Porgy and Bess an opera, or is it a musical? It features many musical qualities with the latter, and was written by musical-writers - yet it is referred to as an opera. Sometimes it is both. Maybe at some point it could also be neither. Operas do not participate in the general categorization of their Western theatrical siblings. Musical, straight play, ballet- these art forms are immediately distinguishable as themselves. (Note that musicals, despite having a lot of variety, do not have as wild a diversity as operas do owing to their relative youth as an artform.) But an opera can be all three of these and still be an opera. Not only that but there’s so many ways for operas to be- chamber opera, verismo, singspiel, music drama, opera-in-jazz. The opera may borrow from any art, at any time. Its incorporeal form grants it the ability to shift. This is both opera’s great weakness and its greatest boon of all, maybe its most defining operative feature of them all- it can be anything you want it to be.

4. The Opera Dwells at the Gates of Difference.

With their characteristic exaggeration and other oddities, operas are immediately recognized as depicting a world that isn’t quite our own. It’s a world rooted in our own (see point 1) but it isn’t our world. We don’t sing, or gesticulate to that degree, or stab people at the drop of a hat to solve a problem. As much as opera tries to be ‘like us’, it never is entirely so, in a sort of Frankenstein way. 

In this way it is no wonder that all operas focus around difference- from each other, from society, from ourselves. Sometimes this difference is explicit- the ‘othered’, shunned main characters characteristic of the Verdi operas, as in Rigoletto and La Forza del Destino- and sometimes it is more implicit (Tamino and Calaf being strangers to the people around them, Figaro’s position of a lowly barber among Counts and Dons, even Orpheus out of place in the Underworld). The opera seeks to represent the Other. Oftentimes the opera itself is the other. We are all made to learn a new set of social rules when we come to the opera- this equalizes us as an audience, and paradoxically renders us the Other. Opera is about othering and being othered. This is not necessarily good, or bad- it is just a neutral feature. 

5. The Opera Polices the Borders of the Possible.

Every opera begins with- and then revolves around- some kind of transgression. Moral (Don Giovanni slays the Commendatore), cultural (Pinkerton marries Cio-Cio San), societal (Alfredo falls for the courtesan Violetta). The way the opera’s narrative body reacts to this transgression is what will come to define that opera’s theme and what it stands for. Even in the most comic operas, the inciting incident is always a transgression; it is up to the interpreter to detect what the transgression actually is, and from this point the opera emerges all at once like a cracked egg.

Die Meistersinger Von Nurnberg is an interesting case study in transgression. The initial transgression may be seen as Walther joining the Meistersinger contest to win the hand of Eva- he is, after all, not initially a singer, and an intruder on the world of the (educated, cliquey) Meistersingers. But this is not true. Walther initially disrupts status quo when he boldly joins them but he doesn’t stay that way- he is a literal knight in shining armor; masculine and chivalrous, the exact image of how men ‘ought’ to be. Beckmesser, the clerk of the Meistersingers, is consistently depicted as an Other, the nitwit among geniuses; he is effeminate and overconfident, we laugh at his attempts at music making. It is Beckmesser entering the contest himself as a competitor to Walther that is the true transgression in the opera, and the opera surmises this as a bad thing that must be punished through public humiliation and further exclusion. While there is no proof that Wagner wrote Beckmesser to be explicitly antisemitic, the character appears to subconsciously reflect many of Wagner’s antisemitic talking points, adding a particularly cruel underbelly to the way the opera sees the transgression of Beckmesser’s inclusion.

6. Fear of the Opera is Really a Kind of Desire.

Operas are marked by multiple features: Their otherness, their transgressions, their propensity to shift. These all give operas a certain other quality: They are a vehicle for catharsis. The fact that opera is so physically demanding adds to this- an opera is a workout in which emotions about a certain endless topic can be expressed. Salome is terrifying, but through her we can express rage and pure obsession that otherwise would have no place in society. This is also where the falsehood of opera as escapism takes root: When the opera is not given the space to threaten, its catharsis is cauterized into fantasy.

Opera is a space where we can play- already something rare in adulthood- and through the opera we are allowed to play with terror (something even rarer). It is an abstract liminal location only maybe rivaled by a rollercoaster, a playroom, or a shrink’s couch. This sheer radical expression of emotion makes it also easily-mocked by a popular culture unfamiliar with it. I suspect this is because, really deep down, operas are envied. They are so upfront, so passionate, so heartbreakingly sincere that they make those who laugh at art seem small, laughable. But the art form carries on, being unapologetically itself because it cannot be anything else. 

7. The Opera Stands At The Threshold… of Becoming.

What Cohen writes here in the original essay is maybe my favorite paragraph about literary analysis ever written so I’m just going to leave it here in its entirety:

Why do we love opera? What are we meant to do with them, and why are they the way they are? We come to the opera to find ourselves. The rest is just postscript.

[mysteryanimator]

SENSES - Animatic breakdown :D

Breaking down my panels because I am silly and I know some people wanted me to break down my thoughts for this. THOUGH, I still leave a lot up for interpretation!

You can watch it here :D

(Also I ended up adding subtitles to this, so you can see what panels get timed to each lyric)

(I won't go through every single panel since 30 image limit BUT please know that 99.9% of the panels have been beamed with a lot of symbolism. I'm very passionate about this subject, esp with drama scenes LOL)

Also here proving to myself I don't use ten billion close up shots HAHAHAH, ty for three days ago me for thumbnailing everything

SECTION 1- MIZRAK'S POV

yes, the first verse and first chorus is from Mizrak's perspective/second verse is from Olrox's perspective.

OK, not only is the establishing shot, but it kinda establishes the major symbolism stuff I play into- hands and windows! Connection and dividers! Please keep in mind eyes are the window to the soul :D

It very much informs the entire animatic LOL.

From here on out (till a certain point :3) the window acts as a divider. This shot will be important for later btw :))) Also I have a feeling Olrox would say something like "Destiny always seemed make believe."

Fun fact, I ended up dropping a wip section 01 to a few people and they were all eviscerated by the part of Mizrak reaching for Olrox. This acted like a screen test for me and later informed me to focus on Mizrak's hand for a few more shots.

WHICH, BY WAY THE CHORUS BREAKUP SECTION FROM MIZRAK'S POV:

I won't delve too much into here, BUT mentally i decided that when interpreting the chorus, it was as if they were speaking to each other. It also happens again for the bridge part :DDD

SECTION 2- OLROX'S POV

What was important to me was getting Olrox's POV on Mizrak, since in Nocturne we explored Mizrak getting insight into Olrox's past I went "omg, let's do the reverse!" and get Olrox to gather insight on Mizrak's past.

I've perceived Mizrak to be a lot more snappier with his co-workers and friends (take for insistence him yelling at the other monks, and being a lot more direct without fanfare with Richter and Maria in the first ep)

PARALLELS !!! Which, the abbey is intentionally overlayed over Olrox, hahaha Mizrak needs to choose between duty and desire :))))) Also this is the sole reason why the placements are skewed heavily to one side, so they can literal mirrored version of each other and be put side by side.

I actually debated myself a lot for this part, because the plan was going to go in a very different direction, however I thought having them not facing the camera, much like how they both can't seem to face themselves (or each other directly for this matter). Which I noticed was a huge thing with the character acting between those two characters.

ANOTHER CALL BACK LOL. Also I personally interpret Mizrak saying "we make our own destiny".

Mizrak reaching out !!! Also, while there is no window, the wood panels are there to substitute for the division theme. Olrox is standing on that divide and Mizrak has to decide if he wants to "break" through that divider.

SECTION 3 - omg they do it

OK, the scenes where they do the deed!!! By this point I feel like you guys are already getting very used to all the call-back scenes, so instead of doing a mirrored version of the first chorus scene, I decided to make all of the lyrics a contradiction to what was happening on screen. This helps for the hard cut to their argument hit sooo much harder (well i would hope sooooo LOL)

also if this shot feels familar, It's from an animation wip I'm working on that's been shelved for now because of uni HAHAH

A fight? No no, you're getting them fuc-

HAND, this will be the only time they will touch hands. The only time they connect. Also I like the contradiction with the "leave me alone with all of my questions", while they literally hold hands as they do it LOL.

SECTION 4- The argument

OK SO, me explaining these frame isn't super important, its more so a fun fact BUT going back to them using parts of the song as their "dialogue", I thought it would be fun to have them jab at each other. SO when Olrox is paired with:

"Know you fell for the person that tried to be someone they're not." Olrox is taking a jab at Mizrak for not being himself.

"You long for a feeling you'll never get back and I'm scared that you'll finally give up." Mizrak is taking a jab at Olrox for being a 'coward'.

HA, so remember eyes are window to the soul? Well so I decided that for this argument section, I wanted to give off that the argument here was literally going to dig DEEP, so I just ended up reusing the exact same lighting/posing for them. Which is the reason why they're both dead center (and it helps make this section slightly disorientating).

Which by the way, I noticed in Nocturne, these characters don't face each other directly when being vulnerable- they're always like behind or off to their side. The only times where they've been face to face properly are these:

"You're an animal whose soul died centuries ago." "Oh, has the world abandoned you Mizrak?"

They're jabbing into each other's inner psyche, so I wanted to do that here :D

Yes, that is right. Briefly you see Olrox's lover and Olrox's amercia fit. I thought it would be SO angsty for the earring piece to come from Olrox's previous lover. Also the past versions only start appearing during the "but the one you'll never love." :))))))

Btw I'm not 100% solid on Olrox's prev lover design, but I'd love to develop him more someday (if he doesn't get further developed season 2)

SECTION 5- Aftermath

From here on out, I make the references so much more obvious! For Olrox waking up I ended up going backward of the introduction! Which as a final note, the abbey and Olrox are on opposite sides of the divide :)))

Also, around this time I had realised "oh I have 30 seconds left and I want this done now or else it'll fester and rot in my brain, making me unable to do anything else until I finish it." So instead of completely making new assets from scratch, a much more straightforward parallel was in order (and it makes it super angsty too, which double points)

The ending I wanted to leave very open ended! However, I will make it known that he crosses over that divider when he balls his hands into fists, unlike how he was unable to when I first showed this exact shot.

Also these are the three shots I reference back to for this final scene. Mizrak ends up crossing over that divide, much like he did when the animatic started. WHICH AGAIN, you are super free to infer and make up your own thoughts as to why these scenes were crucial for referencing.

By the way, every time we have seen Mizrak from the chest down, it starts from the back, then the side, and now the front :))))

As a side note, every time I cut off a character's head (specifically eyes too) in a shot, it is very purposeful to force the audience to infer what these characters are feeling and base it off their body language alone. It is also in a way, an attempt to conceal as much as I can about what the character is feeling, playing into the theme that eyes are the window to the soul, and we, as the audience, are not allowed into their private thoughts.

anddd done :D hope y'all enjoy this info-dumping soup. I'd love to try my hand at some action boards and see how my analytical brain puts drama beats there, since at this point applying emotional connections to compositions and camera angles is second nature. So that for action hrmmmmmm we'll see AFTER UNI THO (ANNETTE IT'S YOUR TURN)

I have one assignment left for this semester, wish my uni wouldn't adamantly put down 2d focused students (or wish they'd even teach us, though honestly teaching myself is very fun and rewarding) BUT I digress!

I had a lot of fun doing this! Ty for reading this far LOLOLOL

[frankifried]

something i've always found interesting about the misinterpretations of darian or the hunters of the dead in general is that they are apathetic or cruel, or lacking a love for "anything beyond the sanctity of the golden order," which in itself is oversimplified.

the golden order encompasses everything. all of the life in the lands between, all of the potential. everythings' soul returns to the ertree with time, by darian's own prayer, because everything is sacred. by the hunter of the dead's account, or at least darian's, the golden order is no perceived to be exclusively some unreachable, small concept. it overarches all of the lands between. the hunters' responsibility is the lands between, everything the erdtree touches.

i've never understood this concept that such a thought process is built on apathy and not a misleading or desperation given the hunting in itself is so driven by a protection & cleansing of others & the world?

even the concept alone that they seek "an absolute evil to contend with" means they believe in an overarching innocence or goodness to be protected, beyond the golden order. that the "absolute evil" in question harms or threatens. whether that be the animals, the agriculture, passing tarnished, sacred ruins.. followers of the golden order are waiting for its restoration, waiting for queen marika's return. the lands between is in shambles but that does not mean that what remains is not worth protecting until it can be restored to its livelihood once more.

to see these concepts so simplified and mistaken or misinterpreted is so saddening to me because at the end of the day it is all about love. i understand at first being a bit "icked" or reactionary to certain dialogues but that is both a privilege & a disadvantage that we have as the player. we know more than these people do.

it can be difficult for us to understand the perspective of alot of these characters at first because of this, or even acknowledge that there is a perspective at all, but i greatly encourage people to try.

to the inhabitants of the lands between, marika just up and left with little explanation at all. everything fell apart. and it's been quite some time on top of all of that. and when explicitly in a conversation about the hunters of the dead & the spread of death, one can assume that darian at the least has been doing this for years now. one does not simply keep a disease spreading across an entire world at bay by themselves out of some sort of malice or bloodlust. one is not so adamant about warning passing strangers not to tread somewhere they don't understand out of an itchy trigger finger. i hate this concept that darian would harm or kill any that slightly opposed her. because it's not accurate or truthful to how she's portrayed within her dialogue whatsoever. the erdtree itself is not stingy or picky about who is in or who is out. it's complex. and the hunters of the dead are meant to serve in what they interpret the golden order may want, not what they personally think is best for it. (which in itself is a different conversation regarding darian's heresy & whatnot. an unrelated topic.)

she's incredibly tolerant & accepting towards our decisions on purpose. a difference in opinion or a slight opposing in thought process does not deem you an "absolute evil" if you can still fall victim to something even greater than you. a disagreement does not make you unworthy of protecting, because that is not her decision to make.

the hunters of the dead are not scholars or prophets, they reject study in its entirety. and based on darian's opening dialogue, they're likely entirely incapable of proper rites & whatnot in its entirety as well. they are unfortunately detached from the soul of their faith, its dehumanizing. they are there to enact their hunting and that is that. not change minds, not spread propaganda or word like corhyn for example. they don't exist to engage in thought or the human bits of religious following. they lack autonomy, personhood. likely because if they pursue thought or study, they'll be forced to realize not only the complexity of fundamentalism, but recognize & accept the fallacies within the golden order, and how they've (the d twins) been wronged & misled by it. they're weapons, dogs. sent to kill what they believe to be the worst of the worst to protect others and that's it, so no one else has to.

the dead are perceived as an "absolute evil" by the hunters of the dead because it essentially eats everything. it takes over everything with little control, with little moral, little ethic. it kills without thought or reason. no matter how innocent or how guilty its victim is.

the conversation regarding whether or not the concept of an "absolute evil" can even exist under the golden order is not so much a demonization of the hunters of the dead as it is a genuine incite for thought and what the order means & stands for. the order is historically ever changing, that is its purpose. to morph & to shift to adapt to the world it overarches, not the reverse. that is the hunters' mistake.

yes, those who live in death kill & spread with no thought, no reasoning. but that is because by nature, without proper guidance, it is all they know how to do. how can they be blamed or "evil" if they know no better? can something be evil if it's not malicious or intentional? can something be evil if it's only misguided? they are intentionally juxtaposed to the d twins, as the only hunter/hunters(?) we know for this reason !!

too many people approach duskborn and the hunters v. the dead with an intent to come out of it picking sides. of fitting either of them into a box of "whos good whos bad." and it's such a terrible mistake to make because it's not about answers or fighting, it's about the complex thought & irony behind it all. the big bad evil is not the hunters nor the dead. it's those misleading them. because again; can something be evil if it knows no better?

[saintsenara]

always wondered how Snape never clocked that the diary/ring/Harry was a horcrux (other than the plot needed him to remain in the dark). Doesn’t add up that teen Regulus knew what it was and the 38 year old Dark Arts expert and professional double agent who has seen Voldy fail to die never worked it out

honestly, anon? same.

although i think we can work our way around this with a bit of canon-wrangling...

we can probably justify snape not clocking that harry's a horcrux during order of the phoenix, on account of the fact that he's presumably the only human horcrux in existence.

dumbledore says in half-blood prince that using animals as horcruxes is unusual because it's inadvisable, because the behaviour of a sentient horcrux can't be predicted or controlled [and it may, i suppose the implication is, therefore destroy itself, thus defeating the purpose of making it] - and snape is certainly taken aback by dumbledore asking him to keep an eye on nagini.

this could, however, be interpreted as snape being surprised that voldemort - who is highly-strung even by the standards of people who might encase their souls in inanimate objects - would have made an animal horcrux, even though he knows voldemort is able to control nagini through virtue of being a parselmouth.

connected to this, snape's understanding of the attack which harry witnesses on arthur weasley is that voldemort was mentally present in nagini when the attack took place:

“You seem to have visited the snake’s mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment,” snarled Snape. “He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it too...”

voldemort is canonically known to be able to possess people - ginny weasley chief among them - and also, by his own admission in goblet of fire, to possess snakes. the assumption snape is making is that voldemort's control over nagini is one of the "standard" possessions the dark lord is capable of - and he must also assume, as mad-eye moody does and as the rest of the order accepts moody's account of, that harry's visions are the result of voldemort possessing or attempting to possess him.

indeed, there's an interesting sense in canon that many of the adult characters don't understand that harry's visions don't resemble what possession typically looks like - which is a genre convention which is in keeping with the overall narrative arc of the series as children's literature. the child-heroes need to be able to work everything out and the adults need to be, at best, politely disinterested - and this manifests itself throughout the seven-book canon in the fact that the child characters understand voldemort considerably better than any of the adult ones.

after all, the only person who points out that harry's experience isn't standard possession is also a child:

“Well, that was a bit stupid of you,” said Ginny angrily, “seeing as you don’t know anyone but me who’s been possessed by You-Know-Who, and I can tell you how it feels.” Harry remained quite still as the impact of these words hit him. Then he turned on the spot to face her. “I forgot,” he said.  “Lucky you,” said Ginny coolly.  “I’m sorry,” Harry said, and he meant it. “So... so do you think I’m being possessed, then?” “Well, can you remember everything you’ve been doing?” Ginny asked. “Are there big blank periods where you don’t know what you’ve been up to?” “No,” he said.  “Then You-Know-Who hasn’t ever possessed you,” said Ginny simply. “When he did it to me, I couldn’t remember what I’d been doing for hours at a time. I’d find myself somewhere and not know how I got there.”

from snape's perspective, then, the idea that nagini and harry are simply being possessed by voldemort - rather than that they're sentient horcruxes [and that harry is a unique type of sentient horcrux, and that voldemort could have been stupid enough to intentionally make his child-enemy who hates him into a receptacle for his soul] - is the result of him applying the principle of occam's razor: that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

snape does, however, acknowledge that harry and voldemort's mental connection is unusual:

“The Dark Lord is at a considerable distance and the walls and grounds of Hogwarts are guarded by many ancient spells and charms to ensure the bodily and mental safety of those who dwell within them,” said Snape. “Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye contact is often essential to Legilimency.” “Well then, why do I have to learn Occlumency?” Snape eyed Harry, tracing his mouth with one long, thin finger as he did so. “The usual rules do not seem to apply with you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord. The evidence suggests that at times, when your mind is most relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep, for instance - you are sharing the Dark Lord’s thoughts and emotions. The headmaster thinks it inadvisable for this to continue. He wishes me to teach you how to close your mind to the Dark Lord.”

obviously, we know that the connection forged between harry and voldemort is that harry's a horcrux. but it's also the case that harry doesn't have the ability to see into voldemort's mind before voldemort is corporeal again. if we assume that dumbledore keeps harry's visions from the earlier parts of goblet of fire secret from snape - and there's no reason why this wouldn't be the case - then snape's understanding of the mental connection between harry and voldemort is presumably that it was caused by voldemort using harry's blood to resurrect himself.

after all, snape must know about the blood protection established by lily's death, since not only the full order [moody mentions it in deathly hallows] but the death eaters also know about it. he will also know that voldemort used harry's blood for the ritual because voldemort did this in order to show off - he's proud of the symbolism, and you can tell he was dining out on it right up until it spectacularly backfired...

the question then becomes whether snape truly deeps what dumbledore's saying when he tells him - during the half-blood prince timeline, but not revealed to us until the end of deathly hallows - that:

“On the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort’s soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of Lord Voldemort lives inside Harry, and it is that which gives him the power of speech with snakes, and a connection with Lord Voldemort’s mind that he has never understood. And while that fragment of soul, unmissed by Voldemort, remains attached to and protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die.”

snape realises, without dumbledore prompting him further, that this means harry has to die. which means, i think, that we can justifiably suggest that snape has twigged that harry needs to die because - in order for a horcrux to be destroyed - the container needs to be damaged beyond all repair...

and - let's be frank - his little argument with dumbledore after this revelation makes perfect sense if he knows that dumbledore is speaking about harry as a horcrux:

“I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter - ”

snape's beef is that dumbledore secured his cooperation as a spy on the pretence that he could atone for his role in lily's death by protecting harry from voldemort, while dumbledore knew all along that this was never going to happen [snape does not, of course, know that dumbledore reckons harry will be able to return]. clearly, he would have preferred dumbledore to have just smothered harry as a baby, destroyed the horcrux, and saved them all the agony.

and so i think that it's canonically impossible that snape doesn't understand - eventually - that harry's a horcrux.

and i also think that it's canonically impossible that snape doesn't clock the others well before this.

after all, voldemort states in goblet of fire that the reason he's so pissed off by the death eaters who pretended to have renounced him after 1981 is because they knew he couldn't die:

“I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know... I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked... for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself... for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand... “I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist... I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited... Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body... but I waited in vain...”

[he is hamming it up so much here. the man understands camp.]

what he means by this - clearly - is that the fact that he'd made at least one horcrux was common knowledge among his minions, which provides the explanation for why regulus knew what was going on [which i've gone into more detail about here].

which makes sense - voldemort actually tells us in canon that his safeguards aren't that nobody knows he created the horcruxes [and also, if that's what he'd been going for, he'd almost certainly have killed slughorn.]

the section is too long to quote, but if you look at the bit in chapter twenty-seven of deathly hallows when he's panicking that harry and dumbledore have figured out his secrets, the thing he's afraid of isn't that they know he's made horcruxes, but that they've worked out what the objects are and where they might be hidden, something he was certain nobody other than himself would ever be able to discover.

the ring - for example - could only be located by someone who knew voldemort's full birth name, who knew that the name "marvolo" was associated with the gaunts, and who knew where the gaunts had once lived.

the locket - as voldemort understands it, since he assumes kreacher is drowned by the inferi - could only be located by someone who knew that voldemort had, as a child, been taken on an outing to the coast and had lured two children into a cave to torture them.

the diadem could only be located by someone who knew that it wasn't actually lost, knew that helena ravenclaw could be manipulated into revealing where it was, and knew how to open the room of requirement - which voldemort canonically believes is impossible for anyone other than him [even though this makes absolutely no sense to me - there's furniture everywhere, babe?].

the cup could only be located by someone who managed to bypass gringotts' famously tight security, gain access to the lestranges' vault, pick out the cup from among all the other objects stored within [which would also require them to know that a shop-boy called tom riddle stole it from a woman called hepzibah smith] and then not get crushed to death by a rising tide of molten metal.

the diary is much less closely guarded - although voldemort evidently believes that lucius malfoy can be trusted to keep it safe until he tells him otherwise. but this - as dumbledore tells us in half-blood prince - is because voldemort wants it to be used, so that the chamber of secrets can be reopened, and that he's therefore prepared to take the risk of it being destroyed because he believes that his other horcruxes are so secure that the loss of the diary won't matter. this is also, i suspect, his view of nagini - which is why him moving to protect her is taken by both dumbledore and harry as the signal that no other horcruxes remain.

snape must know, then, that voldemort has made horcruxes, because voldemort must, however obliquely, have told him so.

and he must figure out that the diary and the ring are horcruxes specifically. he's clearly the source of dumbledore's information that voldemort's fury when he discovered the diary had been destroyed was "terrible to behold".

and he must be the person who prompts phineas nigellus black to drop the info that dumbledore used the sword of gryffindor to break open the ring. harry and hermione assume this is something black lets slip without knowing its significance, but we know from the prince's tale that he visits them at snape's request in order to find out how the horcrux hunt is going.

[on the sword of gryffindor, snape's statement - "and you won't tell me why it's so important to give potter the sword?" - has to be taken as asking why the sword is so crucial to the destruction of a horcrux that he's being forced to go to great personal risk to give it to harry in order for this overall argument to work... but i think this reading is plausible - not least because voldemort knows that harry was left the sword in dumbledore's will, since wizarding wills are examined by the ministry, and could undoubtedly find out very easily if he wanted to that the sword snape places in the lestranges' vault is a fake.]

the reason that snape doesn't participate in the horcrux hunt in any more specific way relates to the point about genre conventions and child-heroes made above.

the reason that the horcrux hunt takes the form it takes isn't because horcruxes themselves are magic so arcane and unknowable that only the trio, dumbledore, and voldemort are aware they exist. it's because harry - even more than dumbledore - is the only person who knows voldemort well enough to figure out what the horcruxes are made from and where they are.

[this is why i don't vibe with stories which assume the hunt goes quicker if snape - or sirius or anyone - helps the trio. the point is that nobody but harry could figure out that voldemort would be seething about not having a vault at gringotts, or that he would have hidden the diadem the night of his failed job interview.]

snape appears to know the adult voldemort reasonably well, but there's no evidence at all that he knows anything about his life prior to c.1970 - either from dumbledore or from voldemort himself. this means that he would be absolutely no help when it came to guessing what the horcruxes were - the diary, ring, cup, diadem, and locket all presuppose the knowledge that voldemort was once called tom riddle, after all.

which makes him useless to harry when it comes to hunting them down. by the time dumbledore dies, harry knows with near-absolute certainty what five of the horcruxes are: the diary, ring, cup, locket, and snake. he knows for a fact that two of these have been destroyed, he and dumbledore believe they've just got their hands on a third, and he knows where a fourth is [nagini, next to voldemort]. the location of the cup - and the form and location of the sixth horcrux, the diadem - is something only harry has the ability to work out. the seventh - harry himself - is information dumbledore has ordered snape to keep hidden until the appointed time.

meaning that snape clearly does know what a horcrux is - both in theory and when four [diary, ring, nagini, harry] of voldemort's own are put in front of him - but that this knowledge is sufficiently incomplete as to be irrelevant to the quest harry's engaged in which takes up the narrative's time.

[overleftdown]

farleigh start and racism; oh boy.

(some people are going to find this post really annoying. some people are like felix catton.)

read this.

just some thoughts from the perspective of a person of color who is slightly too obsessed with this character. this movie leaves the viewer a lot of wiggle room to interpret how dynamics such as race and privilege come into play. there are certain parallels between this movie and the real world, and how unnoticeable white privilege tends to be for white people.

lemme lay some groundwork. from what i understand, the most prevalent form of racism and white privilege within upper- and middle-class circles is implicit bias. this is racist conceptualization that subconsciously interacts with one's perception of society and people. implicit bias is often externalized through microaggressions, differences in treatment and language towards a marginalized person, misplaced guilt or pity, and persistent denial of any existing privilege or marginalization. most of these biases are also founded on stereotypes. some racial stereotypes are heightening (e.g. asians are all smart) and some are lowering (e.g. black people are all lazy). all stereotypes are harmful. i'm going to discuss some of the stereotypes that could theoretically interact within the saltburn canon, as well as some things i've noticed within viewers. can of worms, to be honest. boutta get INTO IT.

to use one of my externalization examples, let's discuss (or, more accurately, let me discuss) the denial of existing privilege or marginalization. this is a subconscious way to uphold a sense of morality, effectively avoiding "white guilt," so to speak. as is clearly presented to us, the cattons are very attached to their methods of upholding their own self-righteousness. saviorism is a common theme within both elspeth and felix. in oliver's conversation with elspeth about poor dear pamela, you can see that oliver recognizes elspeth's need to justify her actions in an attempt to preserve her sense of decency. one can only assume that this applies to how they view farleigh's relationship with them. there's more to talk about there, but i'd like to start with the only overt mention of race in this movie.

in felix's confrontation with farleigh, farleigh makes the bold and brave decision to mention his blackness. i call this brave because it's genuinely a terrifying thing to do, and the end of this conversation is proof. "oh, that is... that is low, farleigh. seriously, that's where you want to take this? make it a race thing? i never know our footman's names; the turnover for a footman is notoriously high!" we have felix's intentional or unintentional shaming of farleigh. we have felix's appalled denial of any involvement of race or racial bias. we have felix's diversion away from farleigh specifically and onto his own inability to know his staff's names. felix made no further attempt to recenter farleigh, aside from telling him that the cattons have "done what they can." (which is SO absurd on its own. they are clearly and obviously able to do more. they are disgustingly rich). farleigh does feel ashamed after felix's response; you can see it on his face, and archie says it directly. here is a relevant and prevalent stereotype for all marginalized people: that the discussion of marginalization is exclusively weaponized to gain something or manipulate a situation. this is how felix chooses to see farleigh's implication of existing white privilege. this conversation results in nothing, does nothing, as felix chooses not to confront what he's probably thinking as he repeats the words "begging bowl" to venetia.

now. saviorism, guilt, and pity. felix specifically tells oliver that sir james made an effort to support farleigh out of guilt. i'd like to order some things in a way that i perceive them. frederica start runs from england, which is explained in a condescending way by felix. frederica start marries a so-referred-to "lunatic" who dug through fred and jame's money, although it's farleigh who only mentions fred's financial irresponsibility. out of guilt, james offers to pay for farleigh's education. the specificity of education is compelling to me. perhaps james is simply a patriotic man who strongly believes that english education is better. or this is a mobilized racial stereotype! who can truly know. i digress. james' offer to pay for farleigh's foreign education puts the cattons in an odd position; if farleigh is to attend english schools, he will need to stay with the cattons. if farleigh is staying with the cattons, he will need to be treated as equal to felix and venetia. this is all one long chain of obligations. none of these acts from one family member to another should be considered "charitable," because family should intrinsically create a trustworthy and supportive dynamic.

i believe that the cattons do consider their fostering of farleigh as obligatory. moral obligation, as they recognize that families are intended to have a sympathetic and loving relationship. they cannot, however, escape the truth that they're just guilty. the "begging bowl" and "biting the hand" are more symbolic of a starving dog and its charitable adopter than a cousin/nephew who's staying with his absurdly rich family. see, the cattons are fully and entirely capable of affording another child, of supporting frederica financially, etc. the only way i can rationalize their reluctance to do so is by assuming that they don't feel like farleigh deserves it. is this a crazy assumption? i genuinely don't see why else. of course, i don't think this mentality is explicit or conscious. it's more-so the reality that when farleigh walks in a room, he's not the same as anybody else. aside from background characters at oxbridge, the only on-screen black people are liam, joshua, and james' godson's wife (who gets degraded on-screen). this is the reality of being different in an environment such as the english aristocracy. the cattons choose to see themselves as the hand that feeds the less fortunate, more entertaining, and least inconvenient. the cattons' inclusion of farleigh is not only reliant on how well farleigh performs, but also on their own pity and guilt.

all of this is somehow, painfully mirrored by some takes i've seen on farleigh. maybe this entire post is presumptuous, but you know what isn't presumptuous? saying that certain people hold farleigh to an incredibly odd standard. while the cattons never canonically said anything along the lines of "farleigh doesn't deserve our love and support," mfs on the internet have. the number of times people have referred to this character as greedy, lazy, petty, and malignant is so odd to me. i'm insane, i know. i just don't understand how people can hold farleigh to the backdrop of an english aristocratic family and so passionately say that he, of all characters, is the most detestable. or that he, of all characters, has no reason to behave in the way he does.

is farleigh greedy? greed is defined as a desire for more. farleigh has no desire to climb ranks, no desire to replace or surpass felix, no desire to hold any power over any family member. he is maintaining, upholding a standard that has been set for him throughout his life. is it kind or selfless of him to meddle in other people's affairs with the cattons? no. does he have a reason to be upset that non-relatives of the cattons are a threat to his inclusion in the first place? yes. is farleigh lazy? i don't even need to explain this one. no. if you don't consider oliver lazy, then i really don't want to hear anything. is farleigh petty? pettiness is defined as "an undue concern for trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way." farleigh's meticulous attention to trivial matters isn't undue in any sense. a person of color and their meticulous attention to trivial matters is almost never undue. elspeth is a good example of petty. is farleigh malignant? there are a lot of definitions of malignant and i've seen people apply all of them, in some way, to farleigh. that's just wrong. archie madekwe once said, "i was interested in humanizing what, on paper, seemed like a mean character, a villain, or a bully. i don't think he's any of that. he's very self-serving, but i think he's really a heartbreaking character." case closed, this was for my own piece of mind. had to write this section because good lord.

in conclusion to this post that has gone tragically off the rails, i think the in-canon and viewer perspective of farleigh is, perhaps, a little racially motivated. sue me. they are all very centered on this idea that farleigh doesn't deserve inherent respect, support, and love. to remove farleigh's rational position within the cattons family would be akin to removing his right to familial love. genuinely, that's how i see it. the transaction nature of farleigh's actions is responsive. he sees felix as a social shield at oxbridge, he sees elspeth and james as the beholders of his perceived security, and he sees saltburn as a way to escape from his lack of privilege and his lack of stability in america. boom. bam. pow.

[ponett]

with the fallout of bandai namco's idiotic "it's up to interpretation" bs, do you think that it's possible to enjoy queer media made in a corporate environment in addition to independent works? is it even worthwhile to attempt making queer media in a corporate environment? i find it special how well the g-witch production team managed to tell the story they wanted even with the challenges and pressures they faced, but i have to admit that independent works like slarpg are always going to more completely tell queer stories. as someone who has resonated with both slarpg and g-witch, i was curious to know your perspective.

i'm probably less cynical about this than a lot of my peers are - not that i can blame anyone for feeling cynical about queer rep from corporate-owned media. (we've been through so many First Ever Gay Disney Characters at this point, and lord knows blizzard loves to tease that another overwatch character might be gay every year or so as a PR move.) unfortunately it's just extremely hard to get something like a full season of an animated series funded and produced independently, so the artists looking to enter these fields and pour their hearts and souls into meaningful queer stories as a full-time job don't have many options

going indie gives you theoretically endless creative freedom to tell your stories without corporate censorship, but it's also a massive gamble. only an extreme minority of indie creatives in any medium are actually able to make a living. the fact that i came out the other side of slarpg's development with enough money that i can keep being a full-time indie instead of being in massive debt makes me one of the lucky ones. and even with my modest success, i sure as hell don't have the money to hire a whole team, which limits the scope of what i can make. so i can't turn my nose up at the queer people writing disney channel cartoons where they can't say the word "gay" out loud. they have health insurance, i don't. for most people, what i do is simply not an option

with the corporate-produced Queer Stories i enjoy, i'm often able to squint and see what the creatives were trying to do, wishing that they could have done more while understanding that they probably had to fight tooth and nail for what's there

in the realm of children's animation in particular, i'm thankful that the people working at these studios ARE fighting for more, because it means that kids today have so many more positive queer stories to relate with. i didn't have a single gay character i felt i could relate to until i read scott pilgrim at age 16 and saw wallace wells. before that, i felt so alone in the world. i denied who i was for years because it felt like there would be no place for me. i didn't know anyone openly gay in real life, growing up in the south, and in fiction gay people either existed as the butt of a joke or not at all. the fact that queer kids are now able to see people like themselves in so many shows means something, even if we still have a long way to go and the big studios continue to be a major obstacle

on the subject of g-witch, i'm honestly unfazed by the statement from bandai-namco. i guess i wish they could've let suletta and miorine kiss, but like... the text of the show is extremely blunt about them being a couple by the end. it's not up for debate. and it's not like a gundam series having a meaningful story in spite of the wishes of the toy-producing overlords is anything new, this is just our latest example

all that being said, i do think people should branch out more and explore more weird indie shit if they want more wholeheartedly, openly queer stories. people gotta suck it up and embrace more outsider art instead of only valuing things with studio-level production values. start looking at ren'py visual novels, rpg maker games, obscure webcomics, zines drawn in sharpie, artists on bandcamp who aren't signed to a label, all that jazz. maybe part of the reason why i'm not more fazed by the state of affairs with corporate-funded fiction is that i'm constantly surrounded by furry artists who are telling their own little gay stories

[corpsegirl-sarah]

Slay the Princess and Death of The Author

A terrible "essay" I made to get all the thoughts out of my head

There is only one character death that can't be avoided in Slay the Princess: that of The Echo (or The Narrator, if you prefer), the one who created the construct the game takes place in, the entire scenario it revolves around, and the characters that take part in it. He was dead since before the game even began, the sacrifice he had to make for this all to work.

Why did he have to die? Because The Shifting Mound would have been changed by his perception of her, and thus the construct becomes even less reliable.

In order for this to have any chance of working, the number of perspectives that she can be molded by must be as low as possible, preferably zero, but, by the very nature of what he has made, there is one perspective that can't be removed: that of The Long Quiet. He is inextricably linked to her until his task is done.

This is where the meta-textual interpretation comes in: The Shifting Mound is the story, and The Long Quiet is its audience. A story is incomplete without someone to see it, appreciate it, analyse it, just like she is when we first find her. What's the point of a story if no one hears it? Without someone to make sense of it all it's just a bunch of words. She asks us to bring her perspectives, so that she may be whole. The game is asking us to experience it and bring our own interpretations to the table, come to our own conclusions about it, and thus make its existence meaningful.

The Long Quiet is similarly incomplete at this stage, unaware of his true nature as a god. Without a story to watch unfold, an audience can't exist, it's just people, and people with nothing to do at that. Put someone in a room by themselves for long enough and they will eventually seek relief from the crushing boredom and loneliness in the same place: art. They'll hum to themselves, or start twirling about in some semblance of a dance, or, maybe, a story will start to form in their mind. People are drawn to art and stories, they are the greatest constant throughout human history. It seems fair to say, for our purposes, that we, too, are incomplete without art.

Only by interacting with each other do the two gods come to realize their full potential. If you choose to ignore the princess, and just turn away from the cabin again and again, you will find only a torturous existence for both of you, with no meaning to be found.

However, there is a third option, neither engaging with the story nor ignoring it altogether. The Echo did put a piece of himself within the construct, as all authors do by the nature of creation, and thus, there is still a perspective that is not your own at play, that of the creator. If you choose to just follow The Narrator's instructions without a second thought you reach the "good ending" to the game, an obvious joke but an ending nonetheless. The game does end and the credits do roll, but you got nothing out of it. The princess is dead and you are a mindless husk, neither of you ever having reached your true potential.

Choosing to follow the "word of god", relying on authorial intent rather than engaging with a story yourself, experiencing it firsthand and coming to your own unique understanding of it, is gonna lead you nowhere. You will not have been enriched by what you just experienced, and the story will have no meaning.