#bertie macguffin

[rqgender]

Today's gender is half man, half man.

[jmtorres]

so jeeves and wooster is a 24/7 D/s relationship? service top/bratty sub?

like i wasn't all the way there until i hit the "how they met" story and then i was like ah. i see. no, it's not incidental that Jeeves replaces the possibility of women in Bertie's life, he literally blew up his engagement within 3 days of meeting him, and the "yes i already gave it away" of the bratty macguffin loud clothing item was not a development of the apology scene after a long time together, it was right from the start

(i stg the "how they met" story in carry on jeeves doesn't read like an original, it reads like fanfic in that they instantly hit their familiar dynamic instead of having to develop it. i'm almost more comfortable thinking of it as non-canonical in that way, considering that there's no negotiation, not that one would expect explicit D/s negotiation on the page, but it's just jeeves completely blindsiding bertie BEFORE any establishment of trust. it makes him out manipulative as hell!)

[dathen]

Thought about RQG today and my life flashed before my eyes realizing that Sir Bertram “Bertie” MacGuffin was most likely named after my dear bimbo bestie…

[mj-is-writing]

Was Anyone going to tell me that Rusty Quill Gaming Podcast’s Sir Bertrand “Bertie” MacGuffingham, whose family crest is a Maltese Falcon, was a reference to “MacGuffins” in writing, or was I supposed to find that out from this post myself.

MacGuffins Matter

If you know what a MacGuffin is, you’re probably thinking that they actually don’t matter in the slightest and that I’m full of nonsense. If you don’t know what a MacGuffin is, here’s a definition from Merriam-Webster: an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance. The most famous example is the Maltese Falcon, in the film of the same name. It sets the plot in motion, in that every character wants the statue for himself, but lacks intrinsic value in that “the Maltese Falcon” could be swapped out for the treasure of your choice: the Abyssinian Monkey, the Peruvian Chinchilla, the MacGuffian Beast.

Technically, a MacGuffin only lacks intrinsic value in the meta sense, as the characters themselves obviously want the object for some reason. The Harry Potter books, I think, are perfect examples of well-done MacGuffins (except the last book, but more on that later). The Philosopher’s Stone in the first book is a powerful magic item that grants perpetual life, so it makes sense for it to be under lock and key, and for Voldemort to want it. In the meta-narrative, it’s just an object that provides a mystery for Harry & Co. to investigate. Rowling does something similar with the horcruxes, which are vitally important to stopping Voldemort, ie, are a convenient way to provide a challenging search for our heroes in the final book.

And yet, many authors don’t treat MacGuffins like they matter. Because I overanalyze every bit of media I consume, I’ve noticed two trends of late wherein MacGuffins are misused, and I’m here to tell you all why this is a problem.

Keep reading