#but just saying the way it was narrated is weird

[maddy-k-reads-all-day]

Thinking about Wooly in When You Feel Bad

Okay so like... everyone noticed that Wooly was acting kind of funny in the "When You Feel Bad" Tape right? Here's some things I noticed... just note there is a LOT of detail put into this tape so I'm definitely not going to be able to notice and cover everything... I don't even think a post that long would fit in the tumblr text limit...

Anyway first thing I noticed is that right after he says, "How about an Adventure?" he looks directly at the camera. Everything about how he says this feels very scripted. But the interesting thing is... his face immediately changes to one of nervousness or unease as soon as his finishes this sentence and his eyes slowly turn in her direction, BEFORE Amanda even says anything. Almost like he knows that this is not what Amanda wants or needs right now, so it's gonna piss her off. However, it's probably what the SHOW needs, in order for the episode to continue.

Before I continue, I'd like to share a little theory. I think the narrator's story might actually be the correct scripted one the episode was meant to read. Hameln does enjoy subtle but slightly harmful messaging, and telling a friend a sad story to cheer them up might be one of them. I think Wooly was supposed to start the story and the narrator was supposed to continue it (with our help). Because otherwise, why would the narrator be there at all if Wooly was supposed to tell the story? If that's the case, why isn't our script-loving Wooly following the script?

I have two theories:

1. First off, if you answer "tragedy" or "sad" for your favorite type of story, Wooly glances at Amanda (who doesn't appear to be paying attention) and says "We don't like those kinds of stories AT ALL." But... this is lie. We know Amanda likes these stories. So that means... the one who really doesn't like them is Wooly. His reaction to horror also implies that he has some of the trademark Hameln trauma too, though he doesn't seem to show it as much as Amanda. It's kind of a weird reaction to have honestly... like, why would the mention of the word "horror" give you flashbacks of... whatever THAT was. I've had this theory for a while now that part of the reason Wooly tries to change the subject when Amanda talks about sad stuff might simply be because HE doesn't like talking/thinking about this kind of stuff. When we answer "horror" he says he wishes he hadn't asked. In comparison, whenever Amanda remembers something about her past, like when we first mentioned Sam, she seemed confused and maybe a little suspicious of us, but she never flat out has said she regrets remembering these memories, despite how unpleasant they can be. It's a weird contrast. Almost like Amanda wants to remember and Wooly wants to forget. And he really doesn't seem to like listening to the narrator's story when it's told. It's almost like he was trying to avoid it getting told at all. In this case, it was never about cheering Amanda up and Wooly was being rather selfish here. So in order to prevent the narrator's story from getting told, he tells his own.

Which could explain why it's so bland and uncreative, considering Amanda (even in this episode alone) is shown to be the creative type of the two. She's an artist. We've never seen Wooly try and be creative before, so maybe it's just not his thing?

Another interesting thing is, Amanda goes off script quite often and the show seems to bend to her will, but for Wooly it doesn't. (in both this tape and the second In Your Neighborhood tape). It's almost like Amanda seems to get rewarded for going off script (aka in getting what she wants) and Wooly gets punished for it. But it always works for which might be why Wooly is surprised when the same doesn't work for him. But he continues to try nonetheless, trying to get HIS story back on track.

He continues to tell the story wrong ON purpose. Probably hoping he can get the show to play along, the way it always does for Amanda. But it FAILS again. Wooly starts to get frustrated and eventually realizes we're the ones messing with his story. When he asks us to at least TRY and go along with his story, he sounds annoyed which we don't get often from Wooly. So anyway that's theory 1.

Theory 2 goes a bit deeper.

To preface this, I don't 100% believe in this theory I could be wrong but I just want to put the idea on the table. It started with this detail I noticed and found REALLY interesting.

When the narrator says "the knight slew the dragon, not knowing they were killing their true love" Wooly looks at his hands with this weird, wide-eyed expression, while Amanda says the knight is going to regret that.

I've always thought his reaction here was a little strange. Like it didn't make sense. But what if this line is implying something about Wooly? I do think that this story is a metaphor for something, but it isn't a word-for-word representation of what happened. It is simply a SAD STORY to cheer Amanda up. But bits and pieces of it may remind Amanda and Wooly both of events that happened in their life. Amanda might relate to being separated from someone she cares about and to being turned into a monster (in her case, the demon) without her consent. But Wooly might relate to other things. For this scene in particular maybe he hurt someone he really cared about in a way he couldn't take back and really regrets that? (like the knight killing their true love, killing someone is something that cannot be undone). Once again, I don't think it's supposed to be a one-to-one thing. This line could even be hinting at Amanda and Wooly's falling out. Amanda tells us in the final tape that Wooly did something to betray her trust. Wooly and Amanda used to be best friends. So maybe Wooly did something that really hurt Amanda, something that could not be taken back. Something that ultimately made him lose his best friend and he regrets that. In multiple scenes in this series, Wooly seems to look sad or guilty when Amanda shows anger towards him or says they aren't friends anymore. So it's very possible that this is the case. That said, another common theme with Wooly is that he doesn't seem to enjoy looking at or talking about subjects that make him uncomfortable. (When Amanda talks about death, he seems extremely uncomfortable, when they watch the cat eat the bird he says he feels like he's going to be sick and his constant changing the subject routine that happens throughout the series). So this story, that might in some way remind him of a mistake he made might be something he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't want to be reminded that he screwed up in a way he can't take back, he doesn't want to hear it.

Side note, when Wooly suggests that finishing the story might cheer her up, she doesn't object, she sits back down and looks at him (albeit still pretty upset) and waits for him to continue.

As the narrator's story continues Wooly starts to seem really angry about it. And then he starts getting really like emotionally bent out of shape. Then there's the whole, "There was a big battle, the brave knight prevailed and then-" and Wooly stops, once again having this weird look on his face. Like this got too personal.

Wooly goes on to talk about how the Knight saves the princess and they live happily ever after.

I think this could imply that at one point or another, Wooly had some sort of chance to do something to help Amanda or save her from her fate. A chance he didn't take. Maybe this didn't even happen while they were trapped, but beforehand and Amanda found out later and got reasonably upset. In any case, it does feel like Wooly may be projecting to an extent. Maybe even trying to subtly tell Amanda that he's sorry, and he doesn't like how their story went. Something that Amanda clearly didn't pick up on. This would be interesting since it's not the first time the game or it's characters have tried to tell us something subtly through a story. Amanda did it through the lonely kitten and the farm animals. I'm not 100% sure that's what is going on here, but I am acknowledging the possibility. Regardless of what Wooly was trying to do, the true ending to this is that he fails.

Going off that theory, something else that add to this is the annoyance Wooly expresses when Amanda dislikes his story. He knows this isn't the story she likes, but if he were trying to tell her something with it, it'd be pretty annoying if he felt like she was ignoring that message. As Amanda keeps criticizing Wooly's story, Wooly claims he's doing his best to cheer her up. Which is a lie. This whole "I'm going to tell my own story" is incredibly selfish and misguided on Wooly's part. Amanda clearly isn't getting the point or liking the story. Even if Wooly was trying to hide some apology in this story, it still doesn't make it okay for him to activitely ignore Amanda's feelings. Besides, even if he is trying to apologize, the apology itself probably comes off a bit mockingly? Like... "I wish our lives didn't completely suck, I wish I had done something about it when I had the chance. But I'll never actually say it to your face." Another thing- Wooly clearly seems to feel genuninely bad about whatever he did to Amanda- but he has never even TRIED to apologize to her!!!

Amanda asking "why doesn't the dragon just put her out of her misery?" I think this adds to my other theory that Amanda just wants to be out of here. She wants to bring an end to what feels like an endless nightmare.

Idk if this post makes ANY sense and like there are so many more details that I could uncover I just wanted to share these two little theories. I do actually really like the idea that Wooly might actually be trying to hint at an apology in changing the sad story to a happy one but I'm probably thinking too deeply about this. Anyway I just wanted to share my thoughts! Hope you enjoy!

Bonus:

But I thought Wooly says he doesn't like scary stuff? I mean it's just a dragon so it isn't really scary but this was kinda weird of him right?

Is this a spelling error or is it intentional and somehow important? Genuinely asking.

[d3f3n3str4t10n]

New Year, New Update!

I hope y'all had a good New Year's feast. Ashley certainly has! We'll be eating too, it seems, thanks to this new update!

Firstly, the least exciting thing to someone that's already bought the game: Due to steam pricing jank, they're extending and increasing the discounts for now up until the game's price increases with the release of Episode 3A. Cool!

Next are some words typed straight from Nemlei's hands themselves, describing how working on the game has been like for the past year, and another content comparison between episodes. It's really weird to see it laid out in plain numbers like this, but it does a good job showing the scale of 3a! And they're not even done yet! It's good to hear that the team has gotten into the groove of things, now that all the development issues we saw lined out during the devlogs have been taken care of. Hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer! Now onto the REAL good stuff...

First, we see a pretty familiar corridor. The same one what Andrew confronted Ashley in, during the dream sequence that leads to Episode 3A's beginning. Fortunately however, at least according to Ashley, everything seems to be resolved. I'm honestly a little surprised that they'd share something so... blatant, like this, but maybe that's the trick. We only have Ashley's very untrustworthy words to go off of here, of course.

Next, we see a short reunion. One of Andrew's friends is back! It's unclear whether this is during the present day, or sometime before quarantine, however. Given Andrew's insistence that they drop all contact with anyone they knew during Chapter 1, I'd imagine that if this IS in the present day, Andrew isn't too happy about it. Probably NOT why he's throwing up, though. Either way, he still considers him a friend, so that's nice to see!

And lastly... a video!! Hell yeah! This one shows us the full context for a previous screenshot we saw in one of the devlogs. The video begins with a CG of a VHS rewinding. Whether or not it's meant to be something dietetic or not, it makes it clear that this is meant to be a flashback. We see Friend B and Andrew chatting in their highschool class after the bell has rung. Friend B offers to go to some non-descript event with Andrew, but he can't, because he has work. During this conversation, Ashley barges in, furious that some clique of girls is preventing her from getting a drink.

We then see the CG from the devlog, as well as Andrew's reaction. He tells her to just go with Julia, to then Ashley says they aren't talking at the moment. Something that I don't doubt happened quite a lot, in their "friendship."

On their way to the vending machine so Andrew can sort out the situation... somehow, Andrew realizes he left his notebook back in the classroom and goes back to get it. On his way, he overhears an interesting conversation...

Some guy, presumably an acquaintance or classmate of Friend B, starts talking with them. He calls Andrew a "fucking sissy", and mistakes Ashley as his girlfriend. Again, probably happens a lot. Friend B sticks up for Andrew throughout the conversation, calling out how rude the Douchebag is being to Andrew and how creepy his not-so-subtle suggestions to get with Ashley are. Friend B claims Ashley has "A few screws loose" which may be why he thinks she's so clingy, and why Andrew goes along with it. Because, why would he go along with it, if there wasn't some reason, right? Siblings aren't just LIKE that. The further the Douchebag seems to push it, the more Friend B tells him to knock it off.

Andrew is, at first, confused by the situation, not really understanding what the big deal is. Of course they're close, they're siblings. He has to look out for her, with all the bullies in this school, apparently.

His confusion quickly turns to anger, and he starts to work up the motivation to tell the douchebag off... but he doesn't. The narration then lets us in on another side of Andrew's thought process.

This is the start of Andrew's Denial. This is most likely before the "rumors" Julia brings up begin, perhaps they were even started by this Douchebag. Andrew is finally starting to realize how odd his and Ashley's relationship is. When they were kids, it could be excused and defended by adults as just, them being kids... but they're in High school now. That excuse isn't going to cut it anymore. Andrew though, still doesn't see anything wrong with it. They've been this way forever, and they're fine with it, so why does anyone else care? What's so weird about it? A very well written scene, if you ask me.

Oh, Also there's a Q&A! Check out the steam post to participate! My question was about what Nemlei thinks Andrew and Ashley sound like. Not very creative but eh. Happy New Year, everyone!

[violettierre]

I just watched oshinoko and im really confused about the concept

[fisheito]

Me: Everything i make is garbage i shouldn't even bother

The eiden in my head:

Me: Sorry eiden you're right my efforts have value

[girlatrocity]

MAN.

[uzukali]

Yknow, pvp civ is actually pretty damn good when evbo isn't making meta/fourth wall breaking jokes every minute and pissing me off

[adamshallperish]

listen. i love bruce springsteen. i love ethel cain. american teenager is not the new born to run. it is not born to run if it was written by a bi trans woman instead of a cis man. they are two very different songs in terms of sound and tone, and even theme-wise they run parallel to each other rather than down the same road.

a lot of ethel's music draws from/can be compared to a lot of bruce's songs, especially on his nebraska album, but i'm not seeing where people are getting the born to run comparisons from. if anything, american teenager reminds me of born in the usa if it was sung by the narrator's next-door-neighbor, a secondhand account of the suffering springsteen explores in first person in born in the usa.

also like. both of these songs can stand on their own just fine. a thing can be good on it's own without being compared to another thing.

[riftsmagic]

I want to enjoy this game so bad bc I paid money for it and I’ve invested 70 hours of my life into it already. but I’ve gotten to a point where it’s SO hard not to get critical every time anything happens. im losing it

[eyepatchdate]

hopefully smtv vengeance like. adds some stuff to clarify on things left by the wayside in the original game. im looking at some forums and such on some of my remaining questions and they're like. nobody knows lol. smtv has suffered a bit too clearly from the cutting room floor i think

[twodlover]

the more i think about it the more interesting it seems

[loplainlointhemorning]

I literally told a hot goth girl I wanted to be the narrator to her tyler last night & she rejected me what do I have to fucking do around here

[mummer]

me when i lie

[metanarrates]

hi! I know you said you probably won't answer (and honestly that's ok I'm just curious!) but what's the main problem with the high school/college au trope? I'm asking because like. while the rest have some clear red flags that's the only one to me that seems decent enough

I don't think it's problematic or anything i just find it really boring lol. especially if you're transposing characters from a fantasy or sci fi setting into a regular american high school or college! you get rid of a lot of the cool shit about their world, and most critically, the context in which those characters exist.

I guess that's the main reason I find it boring. almost all the characters I find extremely compelling, especially when it comes to their dynamics with other characters, are so informed by their extremely specific circumstances that it just strips the appeal to remove those circumstances! character dynamics especially are NOTHING without the really weird context in which they were formed. it's tough to replace the context with something else and still get similarly compelling characters or relationships. and since the context for high school aus are always "these characters are normal american high schoolers," it invariably ends up lacking any appeal those characters/relationships may have had for me. where's the genuinely weird shit!

idc if people enjoy it, to be clear. i think it's a boring way to interact with media but that doesn't mean it's totally bad. I just don't like the trope because it's everywhere in certain fancontent and I'm really tired of seeing it yknow?

[j-esbian]

thinking about the time i was criticizing a male fantasy author for not including many female characters (and all but one were incredibly generic) and people were really like "be nice to the author, he's said he doesn't know many women in real life :/" like. yeah i can tell

[vinceaddams]

People who try to copy historical writing styles don't say enough weird stuff in them. I'm listening to a 1909 story about a ghost car right now, and the narrator just said he honked the car horn a bunch of times, but the way he phrased it was "I wrought a wild concerto on the hooter".

[mortalityplays]

This is a dangerous sentiment for me to express, as an editor who spends most of my working life telling writers to knock it off with the 45-word sentences and the adverbs and tortured metaphors, but I do think we're living through a period of weird pragmatic puritanism in mainstream literary taste.

e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.

I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.

This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.

And it's risky, because unmeasurables come with the possibility of rejection or failure. Drop in too many allegorical descriptions of the rose garden and someone will decide your prose is 'purple' and unserious. A lot of online audiences seem to be terrified of being considered pretentious in their tastes. That creates a real unwillingness to step out into discursive spaces where you 🫵 are expected to develop and explore a personal relationship with each element of a work. No guard rails, no right answers. Word of god is shit to us out here. But fear of getting that kind of analysis wrong makes people hove to work that slavishly explains itself on every page. And I'm left wondering, what's the point of art that leads every single participant to the same conclusion? See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Down the rollforth land, yonder horizonways. I just want to read more weird stuff.