#but I like LIVE for character and plot analysis

[kiefbowl]

even though I just made a joke about it killing the rain forest, I had to conclude my little foray into chatgpt land by asking it some things I know a lot about. so I asked it to "could you create a language" and it spit out some of the most unimpressive surface level stuff about the building blocks of language.

then I asked it: "Can you explain to me what happens in A Dance with Dragons" and it again just said the most cursory stuff that feels like reading a 9 year old's book report. So I said "explain in more detail" and it just used more words to say the same stuff like a 9 year old who can't hit the word count. So i said "explain in more detail" and it's just more of the same...besides the stuff it's wrong about in any case. I didn't read it all, but just from skimming I could see it got some things wrong. like:

Tyrion hasn't made it to Daenerys yet. Daario is missing for most of the book. Missandei is 9 years old. These are three prominent characters from the show, but they are not her most prominent advisors in the book.

The children of the forest creating the white walkers must be from the show because what?? Not only is that not in the book, there's no evidence or foreshadowing of that in the book. The white walkers don't need to be "created" by anyone, they are just living creatures in this world. Even if it's later revealed in a book or by GRRM that was the intention, it's just simply false that it's in ADWD.

But also, it's just unimpressive this "summary". It's just kinda saying vague things that kinda happened. I asked if it could explain things that happened in ADWD, and it just doesn't. I ask for more detail, it just gives more words. I asked for more detail, it just gives more words. Which to me is telling, as these are some of the most popular books of the past twenty years, with endless amounts of meta for free on the internet you could find easily. There is no way that if thousands of people are feeding chatgpt things to analyze, people haven't uploaded large chunks of the book itself. I'm not asking it to give me deep analysis, I'm asking it to explain the plot and it's saying things like "Jon struggles with his leadership" and "Tyrion struggles with his guilt." Okay.

So I asked it something specific:

This is a normal english question, and I get this:

The most important thing that happens to Daenerys and Drogon is that she gets on top of him and flies away. She flies a dragon. "After Drogon appears, Daenerys realizes how dangerous her power can be" like wtf are you talking about. I mean yeah sure, but what a generic ass thing to say.

No shit sherlock, this is a theme running through the books that dragons are dangerous and powerful. But what literally happens between them? And it just doesn't say it.

So I decided to use a more specific question, because maybe I asked incorrectly:

This is 1. wrong and 2. still doesn't mention that Dany gets on Drogon's back and flies away. Like she literally does control Drogon. It is absolute chaos when Drogon returns, and no she doesn't sit there and reflect. She runs into the pit, to Drogon, dodges fire, and instinctively climbs onto his back and flys away and he listens. This is the first time it happens. This is monumental. This is like the culmination of five books of waiting to see when Dany is finally going to fly one of her dragons. And this stupid ass thing cannot tell me it happens. From an insanely popular IP that had a tv show made of it.

This isn't impressive at all. You'd get better, more concise information reading the wikipedia page.

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

finished hazbin hotel and what the fuck it's actually kind of??? good???

[lord-squiggletits]

I know there are as many religious good guys as there are religious bad guys in IDW, but I think I pinned down the reason why it feels like the most prominent religious figures are all bad guys and it's pretty much due to the worldbuilding.

Maybe my memory of the comics is just really bad, but the religious worldbuilding in IDW is....kind of trash honestly. I'm not sure there's a single religion or religious custom that doesn't exist solely to further the plot along. Like, it's one thing for the Camiens to worship the Primes and that causes a lot of stuff in exRID/OP, but what does that worship actually look like? What are their holidays, customs, religious texts? What about "spectralism" which basically the only thing we know about is the Festival of the Lost Light and some hippie color coding and aura shit? Like sure, there are characters who are religious and their beliefs come into play sometimes, but it honestly feels (especially in MTMTE) more like their religiousness only exists when it's relevant to the plot and it's just kinda. Disappointing eh. Lacking in worldbuilding. Plus the more religious a character is the more it's written as their entire personality and the driving force making them evil so it just kinda made me cringe to read honestly.

[hell-heron]

Sometimes the fact that GRRM has, amid all his efforts to have nuance and a wide spectrum in his female characters and to deconstruct certain tropes, played the daddy's girl tomboy in contrast to the hostility or complete elimination of the female figures in her life trope completely straight over and over again, with basically every female warrior he wrote, from his female lead to two whole secondary POVs to one note extras (with the exception of the Mormont ladies yeah at least, maybe when we get more Alysane content I will be less grumpy about this), leaves me kind of bitterly shocked tbh

[paint-tastes-ok]

.

[hexhomos]

little random but i really appreciate your dissections and analysis of Mel mainly bc the fandom either adore her and won't admit she is a flawed character and get over defensive when you call her out, or straight up hate her and make her out to be completely evil.

Mel is written as morally grey for a reason and when ppl try to act like she was morally correct in everything she did, it goes against the whole plot. yes, she regrets most of her actions by the end of the series and is left to deal with her family's leagacy and the weight of her actions, but that doesn't undo anything she did. and her eventually starting to care about Jayce doesn't just cancel out that she manipulated him (you'd think this would be obvious)

what bothers me the most i think is meljay shippers who say Jayce mistreated her and that Mel only ever helped and care about him and aided him in rising to power politically, and how she was so understanding of Jayce's and Viktor's friendship. yes, encouraging methods of political corruption in order to gain more power is so caring and kind of her! ❤️

Mel might've told Jayce to go spend time with Viktor after finding out he was ill, but the one time in the show she interacted with Viktor was... prejudiced to say the least. she never directly spoke to or answered Viktor, and the expression on her face any time she looked over at Viktor was so clearly full of dislike. it shocks me ppl still believe Mel and Viktor could get along and respect one another, especially romantically. no way.

anyways, sorry for the rant. just tired of how many bad takes there are in this fandom and very fond of your account lol

you are right and you SHOULD say it re: that oft repeated argument about her "only wanting what's best for him" bothers me so much. Its just... weirdly patronizing and spousing pro-piltover nationalism every time i see it being brought up. "She's doing what anyone would do/what is best for the city!" IDK MAN I AM NOT ROCKING WITH THAT. Im not an ubercapitalist. I don't think any of that was the good option actually lol. Probably I hate piltover too much to humor these arguments but from day 1 we are shown this is a city of immense class inequality in which the elite few holds all the power and all the profit gains at the cost of everyone else's submission and humanity. (Not for nothing: these are also the classic old guard Noxian tenets of supremacy. That's how they do colonization.)

The interactions Mel has with Jayce for majority of the series, before she watches that bomb come in and has her rapid onset change of heart, are her talking about how investors want his work and how she can use his discovery to advance this city (which is already built on exploitation!) or instigating his rise to power as a new ringleader for the council's rigged mercantile operations, and this is just not good or heroic in any way to me. This isn't love either, it's industrial convenience. The fact that she's conflicted by the end doesn't cancel these actions out! Jayce realizes that he's been used in ways he strongly disagrees with and any the affection in that dynamic vanishes instantly. The time he spends in isolation replaying his mistakes in that cave has an emphasis on mel/heimerdinger's voice on the council too, all of his regrets with blindly following someone else's vision or disappointing an idol he held in high regards.

And Jayce DOES care about the state of the cities, or he did before the writers forgot: He's the one who pleads for Zaun's independence at the end of season 1! He's the one who spent all his life trying to work towards improving the lives of common people, giving them the miracles they've been denied!

Viktor is a fucking nobody. He is extremely worthless in the eyes of the piltovan upper crust, only kept around on the merits working with Jayce have afforded him; and they still don't care. They're probably hoping he dies quicker. We *SEE* him being singled out and alienated during that weapons discussion where Mel is pleading for Jayce to think about "protecting his people" (only piltovans, never, ever zaunites- protecting piltovans against the zaunite menace.) and Viktor is set off at that whole exchange because it doesn't matter how loud he screams, these people can just tune him off and pretend he doesn't exist anyway. It's what they're used to doing. It drives me insane!!!!! His indignation is extremely under-explored and very inline with his act1 speech of feeling like an undesirable presence in piltover and having to push through with the grit of his teeth. It's open faced classism and I still see people pretending it didn't happen. Fandom makes all of these characters FAR less interesting by defanging them. The heart is in the friction and in the ugliness of them fucking up because they have very, very different conceptions of "utopia" - and some of those utopias require the death of the other characters present.

A lot of the Arcane character arcs have to do with realizing the above, and weighing if the sacrifice is worth the risk. Sometimes it turns out their utopias were shit.

[splatoonpolls]

a really long analysis about fanon Marina and the flanderization by fandom she has gotten

fanon marina (the version created by the fans) mainly focuses on two things, her being autistic coded and her being basically confirmed to be a lesbian. And I do think this has to do with her being VERY much like a typical splatoon fan in many people’s eyes. Her being a nerdy queer neurodivergent person. This is also why other parts, especially her relationship with her being an octoling gets often locked away. Subconsciously at least

if Marina was a book, several chapters would focus on her identity as a dome octoling. Her being autistic would probably pop up here and there, but it wouldn’t be a whole chapter. But her very much gay relationship with Pearl would definitely have a few chapters. But with people focusing on those few lines and chapters rather than the whole book. People would slowly ignore the other chapters, get shocked like Adam Sandler learning Pac-Man was the bad guy in the hit movie pixels.

the splatoon fandom’s western side is mainly white Americans and Europeans. Which is one reason why the fanon Marina doesn’t focus on her identity as an octoling, but also on how many details are not really told to the player. Marina barely shows her ears, which can both be read as her having sensory issues (which is a super valid headcanon(, but also her not feeling super comfortable with her body. With her ears being a reminder of her “you are with people who still think you are only going to steal stuff”. Her tentacles may be weird, she may lack the eyeliner an inkling has. But those things can simply be a stylistic choice. Her ears can’t be one. They are too different. I also know the DLCS focuses more on her identity as a dome octoling. However many can understand how her arc as a whole can be paralleled to the real life experiences of people belonging to marginalized ethnic communities. I also want to point, while writing this. I realized (which many people probably already did). Dome octolings you see outside of the domes (splatoon 2 octolings, Marina, Acht, Paul), are all refugees. They are all characters who grew up in a society that had been shunned for decades, even centuries. That society ended up being oppressive both due to external and internal issues. They know the society they’re living in is no longer a good place to live in. So they escape. Hoping to find a place that will take them on. For agent 8, Marina, and Paul. They found a safe place. Acht wasn’t super lucky however. They were told they could find a “promised land” only to be left in even more ruin before. So not only does Marina’s character arc focus on her being a part of an ethnic minority, but a refugee at that. so why does fanon marina usually avoid that part of her? Well as a mentioned before. Marina has three things that makes her very relatable. While the more backstory focused things are less relatable to a way smaller margin of the splatoon fandom. A way smaller part of the fandom are poc in a very white country. And a very small percentage are refugees.

if we removed Marina’s backstory. We would still be left with the fanon version. A nerdy autistic lesbian who deeply loves Pearl. I love how Nintendo got a game that also isn’t afraid to show a society that cares about queer people if not is queer centric itself. Which is probably why many people cling to that part of Marina. But if we removed that part. What would we be left with? Well, we would have an octoling refugee who is a trained soldier and can create weapons of destructions (and she would still be in love with Pearl, it is an important part of her backstory). im not saying the splatoon fandom’s openness to lgbtq and neurodivergent people is a bad thing just because they boil down one of the most plot heavy characters down to those things. It is actually a really great thing to have a fandom that is open to these marginalized groups.

i just want to say, due to this love for Marina being a character you can relate to. It feels like certain parts of Marina’s character (which can also be very relatable to some) is being drifted away to the more lore centric side of the fandom. Which will lead to a sort of fandom flandarization which is very unintentional and just done due to a love of Marina as a character.

If you’ve read this an disagreed, that is fine. Character writing is a very subjective thing

[terriblyrenderedenigma]

On Transformers and Human soulmate tropes...

(i do personally attack starscream at the end, i'm sorry starscream lovers, i love him too, but he's just a sad, devious little guy.)

Just a little thought here, so, I love soulmate tropes. Depending on the plot, they can be really fun and take so many interesting paths as a medium used within storytelling, whether romantic or platonic.

But what i want to talk about specifically is Transformer x Human soulmate tropes. Like, you have this super sweet side to it where the bot can be like 'I have waited my entire life to find you, finally, I can hold you in my arms and we never have to part again'. Depending on the character/story/type of SM (soulmate, shortening it because I'm not gonna keep writing it out) trope of course.

Can I just say how...instrumentally fucked this is though? So you have this race of robots who live for, what is essentially millennia out in the wild unless they catch the smoke. Their soulmate ends up being this little creature that lives for 80, maybe 100 years tops before dying. -Unless we're going for some kind of mind switch body type thing, but we all know how that went with spike in g1.

Our beloved robo blorbos will eventually have to cope with the fact that their soulmate, the person or creature they're MEANT to be with via laws of the universe, will die a LOT sooner than they will.

This especially hits hard with the decepticons who, depending on continuity -- hate humanity already. Bots who've gone through so much, losing their home, friends, and their dignities; have to learn to put up with and accept this creature as their fated mate/spouse/conjux endura, whatever you want to call it- SOULMATE.

Then the decepticons just have to deal with the fact that they're going to lose this person too, just like they've already lost everything else and oh GOD. Maybe they choose to forget about them and move on, stay alone and mourn what could have been if the universe hadn't had such a fucked sense of humor. Maybe they choose to accept it, but never let their SM too close because they know they'll just be hurt so much more hurt when the inevitable comes.

Then you have to think about decepticons having to possibly protect their SM from other cons! From being taken and 'saved' by the autobots.

Imagine some bots or cons just flying off the handle, going crazy just to try and keep their human alive in any way they possibly can, afraid of running out of time.

(Starscream lovers forgive me for the angst)

And Starscream especially, Maybe he'd try. He'd have a great time, take a chance, and give it a go. But what if he's actually terrified? Maybe he'd also self sabotage a little, knowing the relationship will never last too long anyways; not in the short blink of time it would be next to his life. Maybe, he doesn't actually know what to do with himself in a positive relationship after being, i dunno, consistently dogged on by megatron and he freezes.

There's something actually good for him, and since he isn't sure how to receive or accept that fact, he's gone. And maybe he'll come back, but the cycle could repeat.

(Im sorry, unless you put a tracker on him and call his ass and really give him some therapy. get him some god damn therapy.)

But yeah. All around, the angst potential is immense for this stuff and it makes me sad to think about so I thought i would share it instead of just write about it in an actual fic because my character analysis and ability to comprehend my own thoughts is so shit.

Okay, CIAOOOOOO~

[princesssarisa]

My post about whether or not Lydia should be saved from Wickham in modern Pride and Prejudice retellings has gotten more likes and reblogs than I expected. It's made me think of another possibility of why Austen didn't save her from him.

Presumably, Lydia and Wickham's marriage could have been avoided in only three ways that would have left Lydia's reputation intact. The first is if they had only been planning to elope, but it was prevented, as with Georgiana. The second is if they had been found earlier and separated before Lydia lost her virginity. Or else Lydia could have listened to Darcy and left Wickham, and then Darcy could have used his influence to protect her honor: e.g. by claiming that she was kidnapped, or by arranging a decent marriage for her.

If Austen had wanted to make any of those choices to free Lydia, she could have done it without drastically changing the plot. But if she had, it might have felt a bit too "literary" and unrealistic.

I've just been re-watching some of Dr. Octavia Cox's literary analysis videos on YouTube. They reminded me that Austen always loved to skewer the tropes and clichés of other literature, especially Gothic melodrama, whether in outright parody or in subtler deconstruction.

Dr. Cox's video on the elder Eliza's fate in Sense and Sensibility particularly highlights this trend in Austen. She argues that Eliza's story is a classic, clichéd Gothic melodrama (a beautiful orphan, an abusive uncle, thwarted romance, forced marriage to a cruel man, a "fall" into a life of "sin," and ultimate illness and death, all narrated by Colonel Brandon in heightened, poetic language), and that Austen's point in including it was arguably to highlight that this wouldn't be the fate of her heroines. Marianne comes close to it with Willoughby and with her near-fatal illness, but in the end she's saved. Austen's point was arguably to say "Yes, I know all about this type of melodrama, I know all the clichés, but I'm relegating it to the backstory, because that's not what I want to write."

(I don't know if everyone would interpret the elder Eliza's storyline this way, but it's how Dr. Cox reads it.)

Maybe with Lydia's fate, and with the backstory of how Georgiana was freed from Wickham, Austen was doing something similar.

I'm not enough of an expert on Georgian literature to know if the rescuing of girls from predatory men with their virginity and honor intact was a cliché or not. But it does appear in late 18th century comic opera. For example, Mozart's Don Giovanni: the title character is the ultimate womanizer, but he has no success with any of the women he tries to prey on over the course of the opera. His seductions are stopped by the timely, chance arrivals of his enemies, his victims get away unscathed, and he pays for his crimes with his life in the end. Or The Marriage of Figaro: the Count's designs on Susanna are thwarted, and he's humiliated and forced to beg his wife's forgiveness.

If stories of womanizers being thwarted and punished, and their female victims saved with virtue intact, were as common in the literature of the day as they are in opera from that era, then maybe Austen used Wickham and Lydia to deconstruct them.

We definitely see some skewering of poetic cliche in the fact that despite Mrs. Bennet's fears/hopes, Lydia's honor is saved with a bribe instead of a duel.

Maybe like the Eliza backstory in Sense and Sensibility, the backstory of Georgiana's near-elopement can be read as a more perfect "literary" example of a girl escaping a cad's clutches. The elopement was thwarted partly by pure chance, as Darcy paid a surprise visit just before Wickham and Georgiana meant to run off, and partly because Georgiana was a “good victim,” whose conscience got the better of her and who chose her family and honor over her whirlwind romance.

But similar luck isn't on Lydia's side, nor does she make the right, “virtuous" choices. Darcy doesn't find the lovers until Lydia has already been living with Wickham, and like a typical reckless teenager, she cares nothing for either her reputation or her family compared to her infatuation with him. So Darcy is forced to bribe Wickham to marry her, Wickham goes unpunished except that he loses his hope of marrying rich, and all the characters have to live with the results of the scandal for the rest of their lives.

By having Georgiana's successful escape from Wickham be mere backstory while foregrounding Lydia's lack of escape, maybe once again Austen was saying "I could have freed Lydia this way – I know the tropes other authors might have used to free her – but I'm a more cynically realistic writer than that, so I won't."

I have no idea if this is valid or not, but it's a theory.

[imagopirateversion]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales; Why It Shouldn’t Exist

Or how I invested time and energy into an analysis of a relatively dead franchise instead of doing it for my actual media analysis university course.

An essay by: a bitter and obsessed PotC fan since they were 7, with a lot of free time.

Lads, this is going to be long. You have been warned.

The Beginning

At the very beginning of the movie, we see a young Henry Turner looking for his dad.

Now, we're not talking about characterization problems or how likely it is that a ten-year-old child would risk his life to look for a man he technically only saw once; we're talking about plot problems, actual logical fallacies. My questions are:

How? The Flying Dutchman is a legendary ship, impossible to be found unless She wants to be found. The only reason we see Her in Dead Man's Chest is because Davy Jones himself is looking for Jack to collect his debt, and in that occasion the Dutchman's captain wasn't even doing what he was supposed to do, so he was most definitely in the living world. Will otherwise, he's doing the job Calypso gave him, so he's constantly in between. Is the movie trying to convince me that a kid was able to do something no one in the history of piracy was ever able to do? And even if he did, why hasn't anyone explained me how? He simply looks at a map and throws himself on the bottom of the ocean. How did he know The Dutchman was there? How did he know it would've come to surface?

Where is his mom? We got to know Elizabeth in the first three movies; we know she's a smart woman and we can assume she's an attentive mother. She didn't notice her son preparing himself for a trip in the middle of the ocean to go look for his dad? Was she distracted? Was she outsmarted by a 10ish-year-old? Or is she just not contemplated in this scenario?

Why does Will look like that? Will is doing his job, so... why does he look like he's slowly corrupting? That kind of corruption is the punishment Calypso reserves to The Dutchman's crew when the captain fails her, which isn't the case. Did they forget about it? Was the idea of putting algae on Orlando Bloom's face just impossible to resist to?

Alright, this isn't actually from this movie but it's bothering me, so I have to write it; also, it would make this whole movie unnecessary, so it's somehow related to it. Why (and I can't stress this enough) can't Elizabeth be on the Dutchman? Why can't they do the job together? Is it because she's not a pirate? I'm pretty sure se actually is. Is it because she's a woman? Last time I checked she was the KING. She wants to stay with Will forever, Will wants to stay with her forever, they can literally live forever on the same ship. Why aren't they?

Whatever the Hell Happened to Jack Sparrow

Imagine creating a character that is so iconic whenever you ask a person who was a kid in the early 2000 to imagine a pirate, they imagine said character.

Now imagine fourteen years pass and you decide to ruin that character by making him the most hideous, annoying, idiotic person in the whole saga, and we're talking about a saga that has Philip the Missionary in it. Why? Jack Sparrow is THE anti-hero. Never on the right side, but never on the wrong one. You can tell he's doing something morally questionable, but you still find yourself rooting for him. He's stupid enough to make you laugh, but he's secretly clever enough to always get away with it. Now he's just... drunk. And that's not even an excuse for this horrendous new characterization, because he was always drunk. The guy FORGOT HE WAS ROBBING A BANK, the same guy just one movie earlier was able to escape from the King of England's palace and steal a lady's earring (by pretending to be a literal slut) in the process. He just switched from the iconic drunk bi bestie everyone loves to my cringe uncle that drinks too much at Christmas parties and makes everyone uncomfortable. Please, if the risk is ruining an entire generation's beloved character, either don't make the movie or find a better explanation than "Bad luck dogs you day and night".

The Pearl in The Bottle

So... what you're telling me is that Jack Sparrow, the guy who was able to defeat Hector Barbossa, Davy Jones and Blackbeard thanks to his slyness, and who loves his Black Pearl more than anything else in the world, had said ship in a bottle in his pockets for FIVE YEARS... and he never thought about breaking the bottle to free Her. That's what you're telling me. This is the pivotal point upon which the entire Jack's plot hinges. I... I don't even know what to say. Was this supposed to be funny?

What an Incredibly Lucky Coincidence

A guy needs a treasure to save his father. To find it, he needs the help of a notorious and legendary pirate. He looks for him everywhere, sailing on dozens of ships just so he has the remote chance to stumble across the pirate. The last ship he's been on has sinked, he's the only survivor. He's been found in the middle of the ocean and someone brought him to the nearest city. Which city? I mean, the one that has both the pirate he was looking for and a lady who's the only person in the whole planet who's able to find the treasure he was looking for! And, oh my... he finds the both of them! In that same city! Without even LOOKING FOR THEM! A hell of a coincidence, if you ask me. Also known as lazy writing.

What's Wrong With the Guards?

Now, I know Pirates of the Caribbean isn't exactly known for its accurate historical reconstructions, but why are the guards in this movie acting like they're some sort of hellhounds ready to kill anyone in sight? Even pirates and traitors as Jack and Henry were supposed to stand trial before being sentenced to death. It would've probably been an unjust and barbaric trial, but there should've been one. We literally saw it, in the previous movie. Why's Jack been sentenced to death for simply existing here? He gave pirate vibes and they decided that was enough?

Paul McCartney

This is not an actual point of the analysis, I just wanted to remind people that Paul McCartney is in this movie and that's the only valid reason to watch it.

Salazar

I am confused. Once again, I have questions.

El Matador Del Mar was so good at his job he had almost defeated piracy. "The last ones joined together to try and defeat me". The last what? Pirates? There were no pirates left? This happened when Jack was young, so a lot of time before the first movie, right? Where were, I don't know... Blackbeard? Davy Jones? Barbossa? All the other Pirate Lords? I might be wrong, but I guess Salazar didn't kill them, did he? Why weren't they there during that "last battle" in which "the last ones joined together"?

The Devil's Triangle. I just don't understand what's the logic behind it. So, this is a cursed place. Whoever enters there, can't get out. One would think it means that if you get there, you die; and Salazar does die, but he somehow also becomes a ghost whose only purpose is to find Jack Sparrow and have his revenge. So, do people become ghosts when they get in The Devil's Triangle? We have to assume people have gotten stuck in there before; otherwise, there wouldn't be legends around the place. So why isn't it like full of spirits ready to haunt people? Why are Salazar and his crew the only ones?

Poseidon or Calypso?

What's the Trident of Poseidon? Does Poseidon exist? Isn't Calypso the Goddess of the sea? Breaking the Trident, you break all the curses of the sea, so the Trident must be more powerful than Calypso, which leads to a question. Where is she? She IS the sea, right? So she must have known someone was about to find the Trident and brake all curses, including her one. She just decided it was okay? It really feels like someone decided to suddenly change the world's mythology without giving explanations.

The Compass

This is possibly the most blatant plot hole in the whole saga. Probably the most blatant plot hole I've ever witnessed, and man, I watched all the Harry Potter movies. In Dead Man's Chest, Jack meets Tia Dalma in her "shop" and he tells her he's looking for the Davy Jones' key. She asks him "The compass you bartered from me, it cannot lead you to this?", making another pivotal point of Dead Men Tell No Tales factually senseless.

That man couldn't have given his compass to Jack, because that wasn't his compass.

So either Salazar is lying while telling his tale or they forgot about that line in the second movie. Anyway, let's pretend that line doesn't exist; even if that captain gave Jack his compass in that exact moment, why would it be the key to free Salazar, exactly? How is the compass in any way related to The Devil's Triangle or to Salazar? In the movie, they try to explain it with a sentence: “if you betray it, your greatest fear comes true”. So, is Salazar Jack's greatest fear? I really doesn't seem right, Jack almost didn't remember Salazar when Henry mentioned him. To Jack, he's only a guy he outsmarted decades earlier. Also, Jack technically already gave the compass away, twice: to Elizabeth in Dead Man's Chest, to make her find the chest, and to Beckett in At World's End, when they're negotiating.

That's... That's Just Body Shaming, Mate

Let's talk about her. So, the woman's ugly. It can happen that a woman is ugly. Was it necessary to build an entire scene around some blatant body shaming? This scene wants to mimic the similar scene in Dead Man's Chest: Jack's on an island, running from the main villain, and he's forced to do things he doesn't want to do until someone saves him, then it was Will, now it's Hector.

Except in Dead Man's Chest it was LITERAL CANNIBALISM he was facing, and yet he looked LESS TERRIFIED and DISGUSTED. What's exactly the message here? Lads, is marrying an ugly woman worse than cannibalism? I don't know... that was just bad.

Justice for Hector Barbossa

If you know me (you probably don't, but if you do) then you know about my obsession with Hector Barbossa. I truly believe he's the best written character in the saga, and he's in my top five of the characters I love the most in all media. I watched The Curse of the Black Pearl when I was seven and I am autistic, so I had all the time to develop a literal relationship with these characters in my head. As much as Geoffrey Rush's interpretation was impeccable, as always, it really hurt to watch Hector in this movie. He just doesn't sound like him. First of all, why isn't he on the Queen Anne's Revenge? Why's he letting someone else sail around on his ships? He would've never. Why's he just sitting on a throne and shooting musicians instead of, I don't know... being a pirate? Being a pirate is the only thing that matters to him. He says it at the end of On Stranger Tides, and he even says it in this movie, to the witch. "I'm a pirate. Always will be".

So, why isn't he pirating? What happened to him? And what about the pact with the witch? He made her curse all his enemies; that's honestly the most out-of-character thing he could've done.

Seriously, watch this movie, and then The Curse of the Black Pearl and tell me he sounds like he's the same character. Then there’s his death... was it necessary? And I don't mean if it was necessary to the plot (it wasn't), but the way he died, did it make sense? He takes the sword and sacrifices himself to kill Salazar, but WHY? Salazar was back a mortal. They could've brought him to surface and then shoot him. What was the point of his death, Disney? I will never forgive you.

I would've preferred if they never showed him again. He's alive and living his best life in Tortuga, if you ask me.

How does Carina Smyth exist?

Let's do the maths. Carina Smyth has approximately the same age as Henry Turner, who was born around nine moths after the end of At World's End. At the end of that movie, Barbossa once again stole the Black Pearl (he's iconic we stan a legend), so we have to assume it is during that time (between the At World's End and On Stranger Tides) that he conceives Carina. He stays with this woman during the whole pregnancy, bacause he says he was there when she died. So nine months, at least, right? Except; Jack makes it clear that he and Barbossa met Carina's mom, Margaret, together.

When, exactly, did this happen? It can't be between On Stranger Tides and Dead Men Tell No Tales, because Hector himself says only five years passed between the two, and Carina doesn't look like a five-year-old;

it can't be between At World's End and On Stranger Tides, because we know Jack and Barbossa weren't together, and Hector was too busy losing a leg and planning his revenge by working for the King of England; it can't be during At World's End, because Barbossa was too busy rescuing Jack and then slaying (literally and metaphorically) Beckett's men to save piracy; it can't be during Dead Man's Chest, because he was dead; it can't be during The Curse of the Black Pearl, nor during the ten years before it, because he was... he was a skeleton, I hardly believe he could reproduce, despite what’s written in some fanficions; it can't be before, of course, because Carina would be too old. The only chance, but it's a stretch, is that Hector and Jack met this Margaret Smyth years and years before, and that at a certain point (while he was still busy slaying, losing a leg or planning his revenge), for some reason he decided to come back to her and accidentally had a daughter. That would mean that Jack remembered Margaret Smyth's name DECADES after he met her.

The Post-Credit Scene: What?

WHY'S DAVY JONES BACK? The Trident technically broke all the curses of the sea. He is THE cursed man of the sea. AND HE'S DEAD. The only answer I was able to give me, is that the moment the Trident broke the curses, the curse that said if you stab his heart he dies was also broken, so he technically didn't die, but it makes even less sense, because if the curses just aren't real anymore, then a man shouldn't be able to... carve out his heart and put it in a chest, right? (Which by the way, makes Will Turner being alive senseless as well). Even if so, Davy should've come back as a human.

My conclusion is that this movie should not exist, and we, as a community, should pretend it was never made. Hector is alive. Bye.

Imago

[fake-married-my-dead-fiance]

I started watching Kdramas this year and I do a lot of literature analysis in my normal life, so I found it really fun to find the tropes that were unique to this genre/culture that were different than what I find in Hollywood TV/movies and novels. I started with Alchemy of Souls and I was kind of amused looking back, because I never thought the SML had a chance with the FL but if I had known how strong the "they met as children and therefore DESTINY" trope is, I probably would have thought they would get together for sure!

Here are some of the unique tropes I've noticed:

-Leads meet as children and therefore DESTINY (What's Wrong with Secretary Kim, 100 Days My Prince, It's Okay to Not be Okay, Castaway Diva, The King's Affection, Sh**ting Stars, Destined with You, subverted in Alchemy of Souls)

-Reincarnation, which happens a ton but of course for the same reason Western media is littered with Chosen One/Saviour plots (played with in Alchemy of Souls and Extraordinary You, straight in Destined with You, Tale of the Nine Tailed, Moon in the Day, My Demon, The Story of Park's Marriage Contract... so many)

-Guy (usually) buys the girl shoes and then puts them on her. They also usually make a joke about her running away. (Tale of the Nine Tailed, 100 Days My Prince, Extraordinary You, Castaway Diva, King the Land, subverted in The King's Affection and The Forbidden Marriage)

-Guy (usually) gives/brings the girl an umbrella to protect her from the rain. I LOVE THIS TROPE, symbolism for protection and shelter gets me (straight in My Lovely Liar, King the Land, Tale of the Nine Tailed, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, subverted/played with in Alchemy of Souls, Business Proposal, Doom at Your Service, Castaway Diva)

-Not sure if this would count as a trope, but unique to the genre because we don't have formal speech in English and especially not in Canada where I live (we've basically started just going first name with everyone) I love it so much when the main characters use informal terms with each other for the first time. The subtitles don't always translate this well, but I know what the honorifics sound like and I'm all, "She didn't use "Mr." that time it's serious now!!!"

Anyway, are there more? I'm probably not catching them all!

Edit: Definitely some sort of trope around characters finding wild ginseng to solve a problem.

(I've only been watching Korean dramas by the way, I'm sure some of these tropes are shared by other dramas from China and Thailand. I just found the comparison with English language TV interesting.)

[starreyblueberry]

A03 is down so it’s time for another fairy odd parents analysis

Wanda and Cosmo have such an interesting relationship and it’s shown though out the OG show and the new one. It’s debatable what of their relationship is the respective canon and what can just be handed too as faulty writing. I’ve noticed we always try to create canon explanation’s as to why their marriage went so downhill, when most of it IS just horrid writing on everyone’s side. The new show truley did a testament of their relationship, as it’s the first time we’ve ever really seen them in love continuously. The OG show represented them as much more… Clutzy during the first and second season, it was endearing. We had a lot less of a family dynamic between Timmy and his fairys too (well second season perked it up but first season it felt more like friends/actual godparents rather than parents). Cosmo and Wanda were working together so smoothly and it truley felt like we were watching actual little creatures, and as the show progressed we eventually were more into the characters rather then the core plot, and then slowley we got the “I hate my wife” cosmo and the “my husband is annoying” Wanda.

I have my own little canon explanations that involve Cosmos mom and how she was a helicopter parent to Cosmo, and how as time went on and Wanda consisntly tried to restrict (for good reason) some of the ideas/wishes Timmy or Cosmo had, he felt trapped again. There’s a reason he moved out of his moms place and decided to become a godparent (aka the one job where you don’t live in fairy world) and Wandas parents being a part of the Mafia must have felt so uncontrollable. Everyone she loved was in constant danger that as the wishes got more reckless she needed some input, some control, and they just clashed. Especially since they were stuck like that for 50+ years

Then the 10,000 year vacation. They didn’t have to worry about Da rules/wishes/their job. They had time to talk and to actually connect and to talk about how they never took time to listen to each other, and how Cosmo “hating” his wife was just bad jokes. They actually took the time to understand each other and break generational trauma ❤️

So yes it was cause of bad writing and blaming Timmy is ignoring the blatant flaws, and also how they had problems with each other as people. I’m so happy the new show shows them being the couple they needed to be :]

[billyshakesp]

One for his Lyctors

Something that will never cease to amaze me is how well TazMuir writes the Lyctors. So I'm making it your problem ;). CW: Spoilers for Gideon the Ninth and Harrow the Ninth.

Let's start off by stating the obvious: the Lyctors are old. Whenever I mention "the Lyctors" in this post, I'm referring to Jod's original crew of eight Lyctors, and, more specifically, Augustine the First, Mercymorn the First, Gideon the First, and Cytherea the First. Those four are the ones we have met at the time of writing this. And they are old. They are each ten thousand years old. However, ten thousand is a number which may not mean much to you since you (presumably) have not even reached the age of two hundred. To quickly contextualise how colossal a number ten thousand years is, just remember that written history only extends as far back as five thousand years. In not so many words, my bbygirls are not actually very baby, and are, in fact, fucking ancient.

We, as humans, do not have any living reference for a ten-thousand-year-old being, aside from an occasional tree or a sponge, or perhaps a condiment bottle so deep in the back of your fridge that it would warrant a paleontological dig, but I digress. So how does Muir write her Lyctors so effectively?

Vicious dehumanisation

One of the most striking things about the Lyctors is the dehumanisation they have suffered over the past myriad. The first thing I noticed while diving into this subject (and by diving into, I mean I took a long shower one day and pissed off my family) is that the Lyctors do not have last names, and their first names function more as titles. Furthermore, the Lyctors are referred to as the hands, fingers, and gestures of the Emperor. In short, the readers and the characters of the Locked Tomb, including the Lyctors themselves, don't see the Lyctors as individuals anymore. Rather, their sole purpose in life has been reduced to just a soldier of the Emperor. Muir really shows the effects of the Lyctors' age; they are ancient, to the point where they have lost their own humanity and the only reason for their existence that they still hold onto is to serve the Emperor.

2. Their morals

Are extremely fucked up. Like, I cannot emphasise enough how fucked up the Lyctors are as people. Their morals are twisted in a way which can only come about from ten thousand years, rotting in deep space. For example, G1deon probably makes like 56 attempts on Harrow's life, and he doesn't give a second thought about it. When the other Lyctors find him, they don't really condemn his actions the way a human would expect another human to condemn attempted murder. To the Lyctors, life and death are both abstract concepts: life has lost all its meaning to the Lyctors, and thus, they do not see value in others' lives, especially the life of another Lyctor. Especially the life of a "Half-Lyctor." Additionally, Cytherea's plot to destroy the Nine Houses, while technically noble in its intent, is just insanely messed up. Yet, it makes sense in the context of her being a Lyctor, and, furthermore, someone who has suffered abuse for the last ten thousand years. She wants to bring justice to Jod, and for her, a small genocide is completely insubstantial. These people do not value nor understand life the way a human would, because they are unbelievably old.

3. The ways they break

Every one of the original Lyctors we see has a point in which they break, and when they break, we see a glimpse of the humanity peeking through. I could do character analysis on all of the Lyctors, but that would take a really long time. In short, we, the reader, get to see shreds of the people the Lyctors once were, and yet this only demonstrates just how shattered they are under the inexorable weight of time (yes, I use inexorable excessively now that I've read these books). Muir feeds us these pieces of the Lyctors' former selves to show just how buried that former self is.

In short, Muir does such a good job writing her Lyctors. They really are some of the most beautifully tragic characters I've ever read. I'm really just compiling some of the elements which I think Muir used to achieve the effect of "this character is bloody ancient." Feel free to add anything you feel that I missed (and I'm sure I missed a lot of stuff), and thanks for reading!

[i-like-eyes]

Trying to figure out how they'd work as puppets

More in depth analysis below the break

For those that don't know, typically the three most common variants of foam puppet are know as rod hand, live hand, and walk around. Examples would be Elmo, Cookie Monster, and Big Bird respectively. Rod hands are smaller in size and held up by, well, rods. Live hands have the puppeteer (or two!) insert their hand in a sleeve connected to the puppet for more interaction. Walk around puppets are full costumes the puppeteer wears, but what makes them puppets and not like, fursuits, is that there is still puppet mechanisms like moving the mouth or blinking.

Here is what comes from the website/Clown's tumblr:

Julie is a rod hand

Eddie is a live hand

Poppy is a walk around

Barnaby has a walk around and live hand

Howdy has a walk around and live hand

Sally is a live hand but "required an additional hand to help move her head, as it was much larger than other puppets"

Frank is said to have a fixed expression but his head could spin, rather he was rod or live or magic third thing I cannot figure out

Wally doesn't have any details regarding his puppet anatomy because he is special like that

Of note:

Julie likely has smth holding up all that hair (please be a fucked up skull please be a fucked up skull)

Poppy is a pretty standard walk-around puppet (she's just Big Bird), but I'm having trouble understanding how a human could fit into Barnaby or Howdy. Then again, 2d artwork of puppets tend to take liberties for the sake of stylization. So if someone were to make them IRL they'd either look really different or utilize tech I don't think was available in the early 70's

Howdy's legs could work on Squidward Spongebob Musical logic. Arms I have no clue, as a live hand he could have multiple people filling up those arms, but as a walk around idk cheap spider costume logic were the lower arms are attached to the upper arms ala a string?

I do not know what to make of Sally needing extra help to hold up other than that's so specific it might become a plot point

Frank.

Okay Frank lacking details or having weird details that stand out is a running theme for him. He has no listed backstory whereas everyone else can say where there were from and who their family is. Every character's first name ends with a long "e" sound whereas Frank is. Frank. (His last name "Frankly" does cover that though). The fact that WHRP lacks any concrete detail on his creation is a story reason, what's the story no clue we are 5% in dudes

Regarding his puppet, he obviously had a fixed frown because puppet but also could spin his head. Now I have absolutely zero clue how you can have the head spin and also have room for the hand for the mouth, unless this is a rod puppet (Rizzo the Rat) where the mouth is moved by some other mechanism. All I can say is I'd suspect Frank to have a very stiff (read: not majority foam) head and body in order to hold up such a feature. If his head can detach, I can imagine a metal ring of sorts that his collar covers up

His arms are a different story. The website not clarifying how his arms work doesn't really mean there is anything particular about them, but I am going to over analyze is anyway dammit

Points for rod hand: arms/hands are slim, inspirations Bert and Mr.Robinson are rod hands, lack of other rod hands/variety reasons

Points for live hand: Sally also has slim hands but is live hand, not all live hands have thick arms (looks at how small Ernie's upper arms are compared to his fore arms), Beaker hasn't been listed as an exact inspiration for Frank but look at him, and most importantly is Poppy. Poppy is noteworthy for being the only walk around puppet without a live hand counter part. As a result of having wings for hands the puppeteer cannot realistically perform any of the baking tasks in her segment. As a result she gets help from Sally, Howdy, Eddie, and Frank. The former 3 are all live hands, and one can assume that because of this Frank could be a live hand as well

And finally I know he's said to not super expressive but my heart says that he would look great with the eyebrow mechanism Bert and other puppets have.

I should point out that puppets from the 90's (Dinosaurs and TMNT come to mind) used more robotics in order to achieve more expression with the characters, but I don't think that kind of tech was common place in the 70's and would apply here.

The big take away is that this post was made for practical reasons; I am just Quite Fond of researching this kind of thing. This will probably not get you any lore, but it could provide context for the characters. I personally suspect that Poppy not being able to fly or perform tasks she swore she could will play a big of her character. In general I think that what other puppets can and cannot accomplish will play into the theme of figuring out who you are. That's the real fun.

[majorasnightmare]

taps mic

minthara

*uproarious applause*

okay so like. obviously everyone here knows and understands mintharas romance route is fucking incredible, like we are ALL on the same page here and telepathically communicating our agreement. shes a compelling fascinating character with a fantastic blend of firmly held political beliefs and hypocrisy and surprising mindfulness that makes her a thrill in any party, playing good OR evil.

her character is absolutely magnetic, made all the more enthralling by her stellar voice work and delightful party banter

so. we all know why WE love minthara. but something I find equally engaging is why SHE likes US. the way the companions experience desire is already more interesting and in depth than a lot of older, more familiar rpgs that have to make sure companions are equally approachable regardless of how exactly you spent those many hours in character creation, with actions and dialogue choices capable of boosting their opinions and engaging their romantic interests being accessible more or less regardless of playstyle. this is what gave rise to the dreaded "player-sexual" term: a romancable npcs who seems utterly devoid of sexuality or desire EXCEPT for your player character specifically, regardless of gender options selected at the very beginning. the dialogue options presented are so personalized and plot relevant as to reveal nothing at all about their lives outside of the narrative, and any ambient party chatter is loose and vague enough as to avoid potentially turning an interested player away. the end result is an npc who is technically canonically bisexual, but avoids engaging with sexuality or desire in any meaningful way and only expresses that bisexuality exclusively through the fact the player can choose either of two gender settings at creation before romancing them.

minthara, and all of the origin companions, are NOT that, thank GOD. the degrees to which companions openly discuss their desires vary, but are nonetheless fairly consistently present, but we arent here for them. we are here for lolths specialest princess and her 4d8 smite not including paralyzing critical damage. and minthara specifically is a fun choice for analysis because she is Loudly and Proudly Menzoberranzan. which means WE get to play with drow gender politics and cultural influence on the expression of gendered desire! YIPPEE

okay so the biggest misunderstanding I get repeated by people who kill minthara at the grove is that she hates men. which is crazy because, last time I checked, her personalized greetings actually only check for being a high elf of any gender, being a drow man, or being a drow woman, and everyone else gets a more generic true soul greeting. and i KNOW most of these people arent playing male drow. she MIGHT call female true souls sister offhandedly when she implores you to attack the grove, but admittedly its been a while since I checked her dialogue and this is an off-the-top-of-my-head ramble and not a cited analysis. anyways back on topic. minthara is pretty openly biased against drow men, specifically, which continues to a lesser degree even after being rescued from moonrise, but is highly contextual and pointedly SPECIFIC. minthara does not, in my experience, make off the cuff derogatory comments towards men as a general thing. she has menzoberranzan politics and ideology, for sure, but her phrasing around those tends to be more careful (saying the honor of matricide better belongs to a daughter than a son, which really only tracks through the lens of menzoberranzan politics and less so through a lens of generalized man hatred).

something else that i think gets widely overlooked, (and this will be relevant), is that minthara is funny. she has a very flat deadpan style of humor that relies on a rugpull at the end for its punchlines. why exactly is this relevant, you may ask? well as i was discussing how minthara tends to specifically demean drow men, you may have thought to yourself "wait, but minthara says LOTS of rude things to my male party members ALL the time!" well. shes literally joking. and that isnt me speculating, either! if, playing as origin gale, you recruit minthara and spend your playthrough interacting with her, and survive to the epilogue party, you get a dialogue option remarking on how she consistently calls gale "the wizard". in that dialogue branch, minthara goes on to explain she has been consistently paying close attention to gale AND the kind of person she is, and says she does things like refuse to use him name SPECIFICALLY because she KNOWS hes taking it as teasing and that she enjoys doing that! we know gale tends to interpret minthara's harsher dialogue more positively just by his reaction to her recruitment, and this dialogue confirms its a two way street for them. her calling gale a third son after he asks if shes going to say something awful? thats them playing with each other. canonically. and this is consistent with ALL of the male companions! she playfully insults astarion by calling him a pleasure servant, knowing astarion prides himself on vanity and his good looks, and astarion responds equally playfully about how shes inadvertently complimented how beautiful he is, knowing she dislikes saying nice things so openly. minthara teases wyll about mizoras flirtatious nature and her MO of seducing people into pacts specifically because she knows he prides himself on being a slow burn romantic, and then teasingly compliments him by saying a failure to seduce him would be a bruise on her pride (revealing that she thinks highly enough of wyll to consider him a prize worth bragging about, even in the hypothetical context of an impartial one night stand).

mintharas FUNNY and while she rarely lets herself openly admire others, she DOES try to joke with them! understanding this about her recontextualizes a LOT of her party banter and makes a lot of her interactions more genuinely wholesome. the only male party member minthara actively dislikes is minsc, and its explicitly because he repeatedly refers to ass so often (in the context of butt kicking but. it IS a lot), and her tone there implies it has an objectifying feeling to it when minthara overhears the things minsc says.

minthara also openly admires gortash, repeatedly and without prompting, and she admires him specifically for a lot of the traits she finds enjoyable period. hes competent, pragmatic, and ambitious, but willing to compromise and ally himself with others if it suits him, and i feel like a more quote-unquote "misandrist" minthara would not so blatantly admire such a man for the very traits that allows one to excel in Lolthite society without making at least SOME passing mention of gender, at the very least something closer to her comments regarding dolors matricide. as far as ive experience, minthara only really brings up her explicitly gendered distaste ONLY in regards to drow men. minthara is generally fairly good at contextualizing her own experiences to the culture she was raised in, and avoiding generalizing those experiences to other cultures. shes MUCH more likely to assume something is specific to her home than assume it to be universally true, and i feel like this is especially true regarding gender politics. as far as i can recall, her only slipup is referring to the ruling body of baldurs gate as matriarchs before correcting herself to patriars, and pointedly those are both highly gendered terms associated with positions of political and familial power.

this has been a whole lotta Post about why minthara does not in fact Hate All Men, but thats honestly because theres just more to discuss there. minthara openly admires and desires women, and unlike some of her subtler character traits, minthara being sapphic is one of the few things people can pick up on right out the gate. there simply isnt as much to say here that doesnt veer into more cut and dry upfront aspects of mintharas desire, rather its how she engages with and desires masculinity that has the caveats here. mintharas desires in women are what she finds baseline attractive: she enjoys a go getter. she finds ambition and hungry power seeking to be attractive, and ruthless pragamaticism is a major selling point for her, and admirable all on its own. she enjoys when someone is coldly calculating, and she thinks its hot when you kill people and dont give a shit. none of these desires are gendered, rather, they are simply traits more common and encouraged among the women she grew up and around. these are not innately feminine traits, but they are culturally feminine in mintharas experience. in short, gortash is admirable because he acts like any other admirable drow woman minthara would find back home. minthara understands both of these things to be true: that this is not inherently gendered but simultaneously how SHE expresses her gender, and furthermore are culturally gendered from a society she admires and misses in equal measure (even if she no longer agrees with the underlying theocratic reasoning behind it).

things that are culturally feminine in menzoberranzan are her baseline point of desire in seeking a partner, and she seeks those traits in potential partners regardless of gender. however, things that are culturally masculine in menzoberranzan are general traits she finds distasteful. the gendered politics of menzoberranzan are such that the gendered role of a drow man is one of being a sycophant, one who bolsters his own social standing by attaching himself to a powerful woman and then people-pleasing enough to avoid being discarded. The role of being a drow man is one of debasement, victimization, asskissing, and servitude, with the permissible reactions to this role being a kind of desperate ambition to carve a bit more breathing room within the box without meaningfully breaking free of it (see: most wizards being drow men). And minthara almost universally dislikes all of that. However, something thats culturally masculine in AND out of menzoberranzan is a trait minthara DOES desire in her partners, with it even being one of her key emotional lynchpins: protectiveness. A lot of male drow consorts are expected to both go out of their way to protect and give their lives for their matriarchs, and the biggest threat to a matron mother is usually only other matron mothers, and the agents they move through. a consort CAN be weaponized as a threat in this way, but its more like poaching, in that a consort is promised a better position with a higher ranking house in return for aiding the destruction of his current house. In this way Menzoberranzan maintains its culture of duplicitious intrigue and discouraging vulnerability, while simultaneously having an admirable model of masculinity one can idealize in a culture that actively subjugates men as a gendered role.

The safest thing a drow man can be without being pathetic to the point of disdain, is a loyal guard dog. And thats something minthara openly craves in her partner, having someone to guard her back and protect her from threats, and more importantly someone to guard her vulnerability. minthara admires the culture of menzoberranzan, and views her childhood (and the traumas it inflicted) positively because of her pragmatic acknowledgement of her skillset, knowing that it would not be nearly so keenly focused and practiced had she not grown up the specific way she had. Simultaneously, the loneliness and paranoia it instilled in her is something she desperately wants relief from, and only really seeks that out from a romantic partner.

Mintharas bisexuality is so compelling to me because of how her desires are so couched in her heritage while she avoids removing them from that context. The things she wants, what she finds attractive, the traits that take her from a passing fascination to a deeply committed relationship, are gendered in a way that would make it difficult for her to be satisfied with the average gender conforming individual from her home city. And this is more or less confirmed by Minthara only really mentioning one actual lover, having a plethora of suitors instead. Minthara desires a partner who has to come off to her as feminine to be attractive, but masculine to fully commit to them, and that particular set of traits would be hard to reliably find in a society where gender dynamics are harshly enforced and strictly stratified. Its a very distinctly bi-and-pan experience where even if you DO find a partner thatd hypothetically pass as a het couple, you do so in such a way that fails to conform to the gendered norms of your partnership and STILL manages to trip flags for being queer even if your literally a m-f couple.

Its a deeply lonely experience that echoes so much of mintharas character, that i find it difficult to engage with her narrative without coming back to HOW minthara experiences attraction in the first place, what she wants and how she wants it and who she wants it from and when she feels shes allowed to have it. Her romance route is endlessly rewarding to me because of it, engaging with this deeper level of her character and her desires and how she expresses them and how Minthara herself interacts with gender roles in the context of drow expressions of romance and sexuality (not even getting to her alurlssrin dialogue! an eilistraean expression of love!!) and its just SO immediately interesting and engaging that even though minthara has a full act LESS of general content, she manages to be equally as dynamic and in depth as most of the origin companions.

i just. love minthara and i love the way she loves.

[got-into-worm-by-mistake]

Okay, I've Read Worm: A Retrospective Part 2: What The Fuck Did I Just Read?

So I don't mean literally 'what did I read'. I know and understand the plot, and while I probably didn't pick up on all the references and cape theme stuff Wildbow was going for, it was established a while ago that I wouldn't. And I may not have understood every scene and character the way may intended, but sincerely, fuck his intent, it sometimes sucks.

What I mean by this is -

I heard a lot about Worm before I read it. "Grimdark" "Depressing" "Optimistic" (Yes, someone actually called Worm an Optimistic Work which is... a take), "Bleak" "A Deconstruction" "A Love Letter To The Superhero Genre" "A Takedown of the Superhero Genre" "Just A Fucking Story" "The Greatest Piece Of Superhero Media Ever" and god knows what else.

I didn't hear anyone call worm a Reconstruction until I was partway into the Work, when I also discovered TV tropes calls it that which is... well, we'll get into that.

And I heard Wildbow called "A Hack" "A Nihilist" "A Guy Who Lets His Problems With Authority Get Ahead Of Him" (Or something to that effect" "An Amazing Writer" "A God Amongst Men" (Okay, not really on that last one, but I have made jokes about Wildbow having cultists or the 'Church of Wildbow' for a reason, because some people are really fucking out here acting like he's just... way better than he is, imo. Like, beyond just the degree of just subjective opinion. Not that I think Wildbow deliberately fostered such a mentality... probably)

So. What the fuck did I just read? What is Worm?

Well I am comfortable in saying that Worm is Grim, Bleak, Depressing. A lot of really bad shit happens without neat narrative resolution, there's a lot of hurt and not a lot of comfort. Taylor's life mostly gets worse, and most other people's lives mostly get worse. There's not a lot of unambiguous victories, even the ones that are straight up victories come at hilariously lopsided costs, the whole damn world is slowly collapsing, and everyone in authority is largely either complicit, incompetent, overwhelmed, corrupt, or useless. Almost nobody is just straight up heroic, and those who are usually die (in often pointless ways) or get treated as incredibly naïve by the narrative. Often both. Worm often feels pretty hopeless, and even the hope is pretty fragile and strained, when it's there.

Is Worm dark? Is it Grimdark? Well... that's trickier. There are a hell of a lot of dark implications of Worm, a lot of dark stuff that is hinted at, or insisted is there by the writer (*cough* *Cough*) but in terms of the actual darkness onscreen... depending on how one defines 'Grimdark' - how reliant are they on the conventional 4chan inspired definition or if they've expanded their understanding of the word and so on - it could qualify, but... *equivocating hand gesture*. I am reasonably comfortable that Worm itself never really quite qualifies as grimdark. The darkness on the screen is not really enough, and really, under the narrowest of 4chan definitions, it probably isn't even grim. Though I would say that there's a point where the 4chan Noble/Grim Bright/Dark four quadrant approach becomes a useless category of analysis.

I think in most cases people who call Worm grimdark are either parroting other people, lack adequate terminology to really describe what they mean (because Worm is rather hard to put a box around) or have very low standards for 'grimdark'. But I don't think everyone is talking out of their ass, because like I said, there's a lot of really dark implications of Worm. Some likely intended by Wildbow, some the result of probably oversights by him or didn't really quite grasp certain things and just kinda... threw stuff out there without following through. (Not that I blame him, Worm was huge and not every single detail needed to be followed through on, but still. Happens). Worm's entire universe and setting runs on people rather consistently making the decisions that make shit worse.

Like in 90% of the cases, each individual person's decision to make shit worse makes sense from their perspective and understanding their psyches, but it does strain credulity a little, and make it hard to say the story isn't kinda grimdark when almost every decision almost everyone makes makes things worse.

But... technically, I think Worm manages to skate by being grimdark. Sometimes just barely, but just barely can be enough.

I don't think it's particularly controversial to call Worm 'A Deconstruction' or to say that Worm deconstructs elements of the superhero genre. Does Worm Reconstruct... well, yes. It does the deconstructing thing (exploring how so many common elements of the superhero genre don't make a lot of sense) and then it does the reconstructing thing (putting them back together and designing the physics and rules of the universe so they kind of do make more sense).

But I would say that calling Worm a 'Reconstruction' is false advertising. Not because it isn't, but when most people hear the word Deconstruction, they expect a kind of depressing, bleak, grim, sometimes dark, etc story. Reconstructions are thus expected to be more upbeat and optimistic and bright. I don't think this is just me. To be fair, this doesn't have to be true. A deconstructed slasher flick would probably be fairly upbeat and bright, and a reconstructed slasher flick would... probably not be those things. But I think the general implications of the words remain true.

Telling someone Worm is a Reconstruction of the Superhero Genre, before they read it, without a lot of qualifiers, would, I think, be pretty deceptive. Accurate, but deceptive. It is possible to be misleading while being totally accurate, after all.

One thing I hear a lot about is how much more 'realistic' Worm is compared to other superhero media. Without being a deep aficionado about superhero media, I honestly can't say if this is true, but I can say that, as of itself, Worm is not what I would call realistic. Leaving aside the way Wildbow puts his thumb on the scale of 'everyone makes decisions that make shit worse' across the board, there's the fact that every element of the underlying rules of the universe are deliberately, and sometimes quite obviously, contrived to create the necessary parameters for the story he wants. Which is fine, that's perfectly fine worldbuilding and writing, but it's not 'realistic'.

He covers his ass with PtV, using it as an excuse for a lot of shit, but uh... that's still covering his ass, it's still obvious plot device is obvious. Not the worst thing the world, and I've seen much worse handlings of obvious plot device is obvious, but... man, sometimes with his worst WoGs, Wildbow really would have benefited from just admitting it was a plot hole and he made a mistake or he didn't consider something or that 'you know what, yes, it's unlikely that no one shot Jack Slash in the face during his entire career pre-Bonesaw's modifications, but it happened' (i.e. the Cauldron gun social engineering WoG is just so goddamn dumb. Less in of itself and more how it fits to everything else. String enough of his WoGs together and the whole damn setting starts to fall apart)

Things like the CUI, and the Gesellschaft and the way Africa and South America are written speak to the profound lack of realism and the contrived way that the Wormverse got constructed. The Gesellschaft is a perfectly fine plot device to have in a story - a reference and use of the way Nazi and Nazi-created and Nazi-descended and Nazi-related villains and villain organizations are a common trope in superhero comics - but it's not really all that realistic as presented. Wildbow has rather repeatedly insisted that it is, but uh... no, he's wrong. (He has admitted that his handling of South America and Africa weren't great, and to be fair, most of what we know of both could just be filtered through Taylor's own distinctly American Teenager view of the world, and to be more fair, developing entire continents that aren't even close to being in-focus for the story is a tall ask for anyone). But like, Worm isn't realistic. The way Shards work was deliberately contrived to have his intended outcome. Endbringers too. Cauldron. The backstories of characters and organizations show the way they were bent that way to achieve the outcome he wanted. And again, I don't really have a problem with elements of a story being constructed to achieve the intended outcome. People who get too focused on the worldbuilding will sometimes write themselves into a hole where the needs of the story and the needs of the Worldbuilding conflict. Wildbow almost always picked the story. It can be frustrating for people trying to isolate the elements of the world to write fanfics or analyze the world for like, versus fights or whatever, but... I don't blame the author for that. (Though his inability to just admit that he picked story over worldbuilding and instead keeps pulling a WoG out of the ether to cover his ass is... not great) To be fair, I don't think Wildbow has ever called his work 'More Realistic than Other Superhero Media'. I don't think he set out to create some hyperrealistic superhero story. And the word 'Realistic' is tossed around a lot without really clarifying what someone means. I honestly don't really call things realistic that often for that reason.

The problem here isn't Worm, or Wildbow, but some of his fans. Like I said, there's a reason why I joke about a 'Church of Wildbow.' There's people who have said that Worm has 'ruined' other superhero media for them and to those people... I mean, ruined is subjective, and like I've said repeatedly, I'm not really into superhero media, but like, deconstructing and even reconstructing the Superhero genre is not new? DC and Marvel and a lot of smaller presses have been doing that since like, the 90s? At least? I've already address how Worm doesn't seem particularly realistic to me. I think in some cases, what they may mean is that Worm is more cohesive. It's one single story told by one guy with one clear vision. Comic books in particular can experience all sorts of tonal and narrative whiplash between runs, as writers change, as artists change, as executive meddling can interfere. And that's pretty true. (*sings* We don't talk about Waaard oh-no-no).

But I also feel like if Worm really did ruin all other superhero media for you... maybe you weren't actually that into superhero media? Even if you've read a lot of it, maybe Superhero media wasn't actually for you? Just maybe?

Now, this all brings us back to the question that started this: What the Fuck did I just Read? And the disappointing answer is that... putting a box around Worm is really fucking hard. It doesn't really fit into a nice, simple, easy, pithy descriptor. Not one that doesn't mislead. I mean, Worm is grim, bleak and depressing, but it is more than that. Worm is... Worm a lot of things.

I think honestly the closest thing to a nice, succicnt, easy way to describe Worm is this one:

I don't know if Wildbow was the one to use this to describe Worm first, or if a Fan did or what, but... yeah. That's Worm.

That's what the fuck I just read.

(I did hope to go into 'Who the Hell is Worm For' question here, but uh... this is pretty long as it is, so we'll leave that off for later.)