#but still...he's rarely a storyteller (at least imo)

[jlf23tumble]

oooh i wanna hear your interpretation of little freak

I think it's a fascinating song because a) it's him being his most hyper-literal self, and like my tags say here, the reactions I've seen about it (gender???? whut) truly underline his Cassandra curse, people forever thinking he's being deep or whatever, but really, he's literally SAYING it as it is (I'll plop some other examples in the tags), b) it's the only time he's been overtly mean (or at least petty or at least that I can remember) in a song, just ouch, what a read, and c) me as him, truly #annoyed with the typical LA party vibes, he really took a swing with the golf club trampoline of it all

[excitedrainbow]

Ok I just saw a big spoiler for junior year and like,

I know that D20 was filming the end of Junior Year under a crunch deadline because of the strikes, which meant everyone was so tired, but Brennan’s decision in the finale to not revive KC… I’m so frustrated. I think it’s a rare total failure of storytelling on his part. To imply that a teen who - although she chose it initially - was manipulated by a trusted adult and controlled via a rage god, to imply that this teen was irredeemable and evil, AND to give her very little interiority that the audience could hear directly from her, that’s a failure as a writer imo.

Kipperlilly is a horrible, weird, furious teenage girl who did terrible things, AND she is a narrative foil for Riz AND she was right in the tragic metanarrative sense about the injustice of NPCs vs PCs in terms of storylines and character depth AND she was right in the metanarrative sense about the fantasy and DnD tropes of PCs with sad backstories getting ahead in The Story! She is one of the most fascinating characters Brennan has ever created and he gave her such a flat, undignified, silent end. She is a mirror of Aelwyn, who canonically sunk a whole ship and killed at least tens of people, and emotionally abused Adaine as they grew up, and yet Aelwyn is the only one who (rightfully!) was given interiority, depth, understanding and a chance to do better.

It’s a season about rage and doubt, about being corrupted by outsiders and isolated from your loved ones, and yet for some reason the cast could reach out with empathy to a god who has done awful things and not to a mortal teenage girl!!! Which again, is also partly on Brennan and filming schedules because they were tired and Brennan chose to not give KC any interiority, which could’ve swayed some of the cast a little.

I’m still going to have fun watching the finale but I’m more looking forward to all the incredible fandom art and fanfic that’s going to come out of this thematic and narrative failure.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Is it possible to a musical artist that people project things on for thirty years? /

I was trying to think of a musical artist who's had success using that blank slate strategy and I instead have a very long list of artists who have not used that strategy. I know for some reason fandom hates to admit this, but at the top of any list when you're thinking about pop artists with long, successful careers is Taylor Swift, especially when you're focusing on post-social media revolution (which, imo, combined with the streaming revolution, is really important to consider). Personally, I'd argue that Taylor Swift manages to combine approaches, telling consistent narratives about herself and her life in a way that still leaves room for people to project things onto her, which is reflected in lyrics that feel both deeply personal and deeply relatable (and interestingly, there are also at least two major stories about Taylor Swift being told - Gaylor is arguably a bigger thing for Taylor than Larry is for Harry).

But that aside, Taylor Swift did manage to remind me of one very commercially successful artist who definitively did not tell a story about themselves, and let people project onto them - Linda Ronstadt. I can't find it again, but I read a fascinating article awhile ago discussing the potential legacy of Taylor Swift, and that article brought up Linda Ronstadt as someone who'd had comparable levels of commercial success, but had very little long-term cultural impact and cultural memory (I love Linda Ronstadt and think musically she had an impact, but no one is remembering her the same way they're remembering Madonna or even Dolly Parton).

So, I think that might point to the answer - yes, it's possible (if rare) to have a long, commercially successful career where you don't have a narrative about yourself and let people project things onto you, but when it comes to a cultural legacy past the commercial success, that approach doesn't work. And intuitively, that makes sense to me as well - their story is how artists are remembered.

Thanks for your thoughts anon - this is really interesting. I have been struggling to think of artists who were blank canvases for people to project onto in the past - and this is a really compelling theory as to why.

Agree with everything you say about Taylor Swift. I think she is the absolute master of narrating and renarrating her life in her own work - when I think of storytelling and contemporary artists she is very much the exemplar. I think you make a really good point that telling a really strong narrative about yourself and your life doesn't prevent people from identifying with you and projecting onto you (in a lot of ways it facilitates it). She also shows that even if you are telling a lot of very specific stories, you still leave enough Blank Space for people to project into.

As if to demonstrate your point the name Linda Ronstadt is one that is only vaguely familiar to me. And I think the idea that if your main appeal is what people project onto you that will limit your long term cultural impact - sounds very likely.

The question then for Harry becomes - what does he want? One of the reasons that I'm fascinated by the way he talks about 2022 changing his life, is because I think he's had to come to terms with getting what he wants and the questions it raises about what comes next. But any answers are going to be a long time away, as most of this year is going to be dedicated to commitments that were already made last year.

[thebad---catholic]

Why I don’t think Azula should’ve gotten a healing/redemption arc

k so I made this meme a couple weeks ago

and I got a lot (a lot? Like 10 but that’s a lot for me) responses disagreeing with my post, which is fair because there’s really only a tiny subset of fans who fit into the “if you stan villains you’re a bad person” category, and Azula’s character (like most other things in atla) is fairly nuanced. I won’t dive into her personal psychology so much, just why I was satisfied with her arc as a viewer.

Note: I’m only speaking within the context of Atla. I haven’t read any of the comics or seen Lok so for the sake of this lil post those don’t exist.

Not enough time

Plain and simple, Azula didn’t have enough time for any sort of healing or redemption. She would’ve needed at least 2 seasons based on what Zuko went through. Adding more seasons for this purpose would feel kind of pointless. Maybe they should’ve explored this in other media but not within atla as the story works best as a tidy three season bit.

Along this same vein, I’m not viewing the show the same way as I would irl. If we’re being realistic, Azula was a horribly abused mentally ill 14 year old who most definitely should’ve gotten treatment. But this is a cartoon, where standards are a little different, which I’ll talk more about in a minute.

Iroh used to be a bad person/If Zuko changed so could she

This one is more complicated for me, but basically I view it like this. In the show, Iroh and Zuko display goodness before their redemption.

We see this with Zuko especially. He is banished for trying to protect the lives of fire nation soldiers from certain death. Twice he spares the life of his rival Zhao, even after that rival tried to kill him. In season two, he saves appa, risks blowing his cover to light lanterns for Jin, saves a town from mercenaries, and even when he’s robbing, he spares certain people (the pregnant woman for example) and mostly targets the wealthy. Zuko, even at his worst, had hard limits on his morality.

Iroh is more subtle. The most clear example comes from the flashback in “Zuko Alone” where Iroh gifts Zuko a dagger from the earth kingdom that he notes is of superior craftsmanship. This, to me, shows where the start of Iroh’s arc comes from: his appreciation of the other nations. It’s been noted before that Iroh has also mastered all four elements, even though he can only firebend. Redirecting lightning comes from waterbenders- likely learned before Iroh “turned good”. Even as their adversary, Iroh respects the people of Ba Sing Se for their resilience. (This again contrasts Zhao, who was so deranged he murdered the fucking moon just to win.) Finally, the dragons. Iroh is known as the dragon of the west even to people from Ba Sing Se- this means that he spared the lives of the final dragons before Lu Tens death. Like Zuko, Iroh shows mercy even when on the wrong side. Lu Ten’s death breaks Iroh because it forces him to finally come to terms with the fact that the fire nation is built on a lie. Fire nation superiority is a lie, and it’s one he’s known for a long time.

Azula doesn’t display any of these traits. The only time in the entire series where she apologizes is after she insults Ty Lee, and I’d argue it was an act of manipulation, as she quickly uses the apology to receive praise from Ty Lee. The beach episode is the only soft side we ever see to Azula, and all of her interactions can still be interpreted like my example. Was the comment about Ursa thinking she was a monster a slip of her mask or an attempt to “perform” like the others? We know Azula is a liar, so was she lying when she said ursa was right, or that it still hurt? Or both? And, mind you, I do love how this episode explores azula more closely, but I don’t believe being a nuanced villain makes you a redeemable one. Even as a child, Azula is cruel and takes pleasure in hurting Zuko, and animals, and her friends. She’s a master manipulator who makes friends through fear and intimidation. Imo, the only reason she doesn’t actually kill someone is because Avatar was technically a kids show, though that sure as fuck didn’t stop her from threatening multiple peoples lives. There is no action of Azula that signifies an ounce of good in her.

She was abused

1) a tragic backstory isn’t the be all end all of whether or not a character’s redeemable, and 2) So was Zuko. And probably Iroh and Ozai, and probably Azulan. The fire nation royal family is fucked up. Even if Azulan was a “good” father to Ozai and Iroh he was still a dictator who was grooming them to take over.

Having Azula be a puppet in her fathers game was an incredibly mature route for atla to take. Once again, it adds depth with a realistic take for Azula’s villainy. Very rarely are individuals born evil (enter nature v nuture debate here). Some of the worst people to ever exist were victims of abuse and neglect to varying degrees. Once again, though, this doesn’t suddenly render Azula open to redemption. And from a storytelling perspective, there’s parallels between Ozai and Iroh and Azula and Zuko.

Ozai continued the cycle of abuse, Iroh broke free from it, Zuko ended it, and Azula was broken by it. These are all things that happen in real life.

She’s 14

Oddly enough this is the argument that baffles me the most. I know I just said a whole lot about real life vs fiction, but I’m gonna pull the fiction card on this one. I can suspend belief with these characters and their ages. I don’t think any 12 year old could function after waking up from a coma and finding out his entire people were slaughtered and that he only had like, six months to save the world, regardless of his upbringing and power set. I also don’t think any 14 year old could lead a trio to infiltrate a city state, outsmart the shadow leader of said city state, and manipulate and entire little army for her favor.

There’s just a point where you have to suspend belief. The characters of avatar are fantastic, but are not realistic portrayals of people in their age group. Azula could be 14 as easily as she could be 25 and nothing about the narrative would change. The same is true for the rest of the main characters- even Aang, as youthful and fun loving as he is, also has more emotional maturity than anyone in the gaang, and more than most adults i know. If you want a realistic example of a child working through trauma, try Lilo from Lilo and Stich. Not anyone from Atla

Not everyone needs a happy ending.

This is ultimately what it comes down to for me. I like Azula as a villain. I like Azula as a villain who stays a villain and who is driven insane by power and paranoia. I like Macbeth. Azula is a tragedy- and that’s what I like.

So there ya have it folks. That’s my take. I’m writing this at five am with very little sleep, so please forgive typos and whatnot. I feel like maybe I haven’t explained everything the way I wanted to, but I can’t stop thinking about this, and the great thing about this show is that it’s fun to keep thinking about.

[crusherthedoctor]

Can we have some unpopular Sonic opinions?

I tried to cram in a lot, so I hope this satisfies you. :P I tried to stick to the ones that I haven't brought up quite as often, since by this point, we all know that I think IDW's storytelling is dire, SA2's story is overrated, X Eggman is an embarrassing portrayal (at least from season 2 onwards), Blaze shouldn't be handcuffed to Silver, Shadow's backstory had issues with or without the Black Arms, Neo Metal Sonic looks silly, etc. But anyway, here we go:

- Knuckles may be tricky to incorporate into plots that don't relate to Angel Island, but making him obsessed with his duties is no better than having him forget about Angel Island entirely.

- I like Marine, and never found her annoying. Oh, I understood what they were trying to do with her, but I honestly wasn't put off by her, and found her Aussie lingo more endearing if anything. Since her debut was during the period in my life where where I couldn't stand Sonic himself, I instead thought he was irritating (and hypocritical) for getting annoyed with her for doing shit he would often be guilty of.

- Silver is just as guilty of being shoehorned into games and plots as the Deadly Six are. Having more fans than the latter is irrelevant, since we're still talking about a character who constantly has to time travel in order to be present.

- Speaking of Silver, if he has to stick around, please do something different with him. They've pulled the doomed future routine multiple times now, and it's been boring every single time. I wasn't interested when it involved Iblis. I wasn't interested when it involved Knuckles drinking the edgy Kool Aid. I wasn't interested when it involved a council of dumbasses... give it a rest already.

- The Tails Doll can work as a mildly creepy thing, with maybe more to it than meets the eye when it's time for a boss fight or what have you. But the memes about him stealing your soul are just dumb, and I thought it was dumb even back in my teenage youth.

- “Eggman is supposed to be clownish!” Yeah, well he's also meant to be a genuine villain with a 300 IQ. These qualities don't have to be mutually exclusive.

- “Sonic is supposed to have attitude!” Yeah, well that's not the same thing as being an absolute cunt. Sonic was only ever meant to come off as having an edge compared to Mario. He was never meant to be a GTA-tier protagonist.

- Rouge is not a villain, and never was a villain. Literally the whole point of her role in SA2 was to reveal that she was working against Eggman and Shadow the whole time, albeit using sneakier tactics to do so. You'd think all those people who exult SA2's story would remember this, but apparently not. She barely even qualifies as an anti-hero, since aside from stealing the Master Emerald, she rarely does anything morally questionable otherwise. She's got a lot more good in her than people give her credit for.

- Captain Whisker is a better Eggman Nega than the actual Eggman Nega. And as far as robot characters in this franchise go, Johnny's design is pretty underrated.

- I don't like Iblis or Mephiles, but I DO like Solaris, and it annoys me that it was out of focus for most of the story due to all the time spent on its less interesting halves. Had they kept the backstory with the Duke and his experiments, and worked from there, I think they could have provided an interesting contrast with Chaos (since Solaris can also qualify as a monster with a sympathetic backstory) instead of recycling the surface level schtick.

- Black Doom may technically be just as bad as Mephiles, Nega, Scourge, Mimic, etc, since he's yet another villain with one-note characterization and fucked over Eggman. But because he never gained a disproportionate fandom, he doesn't annoy me to the same extent. It's easier to ignore him by comparison, and his Dr. Claw voice and face shaped like a lady's delicate part make him enjoyable to mock.

- Likewise, while Lyric is also on the same level as these other villains, it's easier to dismiss him because I was never invested in the Boom games anyway, and being an obvious alternate universe (compared to Sonic X or IDW, which retain the Modern designs and plot elements), it never had an effect on the main series. I also unironically like his design, and if nothing else, at least this snake didn't start a hypnotism fetish across the internet.

- Sally - and the rest of the Freedom Fighters for that matter - have had their importance in the franchise severely inflated. They may have been lucky to be the face of popular media (SatAM and Archie), but they're not these magnificent entities that the game characters are but a speck of dust in comparison to. Having a “legacy” doesn't make them more entitled to shit than any other character, old or new.

- Conceptually, the treasure hunting gameplay is one of the better alternate gameplay styles IMO. But it was let down in SA2 by its one track minded radar (the levels may have been big, but I don't think that would have been an issue on its own if the radar was better). If they brought it back and made it more like SA1's treasure hunting, I'd be all for it, although it would probably be better suited for a spinoff title.

- This goes for a lot of games, but when it comes to 2D, I prefer sprites over models. Not that the Rush models are bad (though the ones in Chronicles sure as fuck are), but the sprites in Mania and the Advance trilogy are just so charming and full of character.

- I actually like Marble Zone. Yeah, the level design is a bit blocky, but I love the concept of an underground temple prison, mixed with lava elements in a zone that otherwise isn't a traditional volcano level.

- I also like Sandopolis Zone. Again, completely understand why it's not the most popular zone around, but I've been a sucker for the Ancient Egyptian aesthetic since childhood (you can thank Crash 3 for that), and Act 1 is visually stunning.

- I prefer the JP soundtrack for Sonic CD over the US version overall... but I also prefer Sonic Boom over You Can Do Anything.

- SA2's soundtrack isn't bad by any means - I love Rouge's tracks, and The Last Scene is one of my favourite pieces of music - but as far as variety goes, it's a step down from SA1's soundtrack.

- If Sonic X-Treme had been released, it probably would have been unenjoyable and confusing. Whatever your thoughts on SA1, it was probably the better option between the two as far as Sonic's first legitimate translation into 3D goes.

- I have no qualms with Modern Sonic and the other Modern designs and characters, but I also fully acknowledge that changing gears from Adventure onwards - and doing it with a great amount of fanfare - was always going to create one of the biggest divides in the fandom, and fans shouldn't act surprised that this happened. The fact that they felt the need to hype up a new design and direction in the first place (compared to Mario, who has mostly been the same since the beginning, with only the occasional minor change with little fanfare) also indicates that they weren't confident enough in Sonic and his universe being the way it was, which often gets ignored by all the “SEGA have no confidence!!!” complaints you see with their recent games.

- Unleashed did not deserve the incredibly harsh reviews it received back in the day... but it doesn't deserve its current sacred cow status either. It had more effort put into it than '06 to be sure, and I can respect that, but much of it was misguided effort, and even if you like the Werehog, you have to admit that the idea came at the absolute worst time. The intro cutscene may be awesome, as is the Egg Dragoon fight, but 2% doesn't make up the entire game. Chip was also quite annoying, and I wasn't particularly sad when he pressed F in the chat at the end.

- On the other hand, while Colours definitely has its shortcomings, and people have every right to criticse those shortcomings, a lot of its most vocal detractors tend to have a stick up their arse about the game because people actually enjoyed it, and it had a gimmick that people actually liked. Yes, it may have been the first game to have those writers everyone hates, but then SA1 was the first game to give the characters alternate gameplay styles and have other villains upstage Eggman, so...

- Forces is absolutely not on the level of '06. It's nowhere close. A game being flawed does not make it the next '06, clickbait YouTubers. Or should I say, the game they want to retroactively apply '06's reception to, since they've been trying hard to magically retcon '06's own quality...

- To echo @beevean, ALL of the 3D stories have their issues. SA1 is probably the most well-rounded of them on the whole, but even that one isn't perfect.

- To echo another opinion, although I do love SA1, I'm not crazy over the idea of a remake, and would prefer them to just take Sonic's gameplay from SA1 and work from there. Because with a remake, you're stuck in a hard spot: Do you keep it the way it is bar the expected graphical upgrades, and risk accusations of not doing anything to actually improve the experience? Or do you try to address past criticisms, and risk the wrath of the fans who will inevitably go on a #NotMyAdventure crusade about it? What people fail to consider is that the Crash and Spyro remakes were accepted gracefully because their original iterations were still unanimously beloved for the most part, whereas SA1 - and especially SA2 - have always been divisive, and have only gotten moreso over the years.

- People take their preferences for the character's voice actors too seriously. I have my own favourites like anyone else, but I don't make a big deal out of it.

- And with fandom voice actors, they usually focus too much on doing a basic impression of their preferred official voice actor, and not enough on the acting. So you end up getting a lot of fan voices who sound like decent impressions of Ryan Drummond or Jason Griffith on the surface, but they sound utterly empty beyond that impression, because there's no oomph or depth to the actual emotions. They think about the actor rather than the character, when it should really be the other way around.

- The thing with Ian Flynn is that he is capable of telling a decent story, and he can portray some characters well. But he's proven time and time again that everything will go off the rails if he's given too much freedom (ironic, given how quick he is to point the finger at mandates when something goes wrong).

- Ian Flynn and Shiro Maekawa are not the only people in the world who are allowed to write for Sonic. I understand that one should be cautious when seeking out new writing talent, but for all the fandom's accusations of playing it safe, they sure aren't in a rush to experiment outside of their own comfort zone.

- And of course, the big one: You don't fix the franchise's current problems by crawling back to its previous problems. It's much more helpful and constructive to discuss the good and bad alike with each of the games. Less “THIS GOOD, MODERN BAD”, and more “This could work, but maybe without that part...”

[devilsskettle]

can i ask u to elaborate on ur feelings/notes about swallow? i rly liked it and i would love to hear another person’s thoughts!!

yes! i’m so glad you asked, i was just writing about it actually! 

the main two things i think this movie has going for it are the visual appeal and the strength of the acting. every shot in this movie seemed intentional and considered thoroughly, none of them seemed unnecessary or even boring to look at. everything from the set and costume design to the camera work was well done. i think that’s really impressive! most films don’t have that kind of intentionality. it felt kind of like “wes anderson does a psychological thriller” lol but not in a way that felt distracting to me. also the actress who plays hunter, haley bennett, did such a good job of conveying her as a character, and with so much nuance to her emotions. i also think it’s thematically interesting, the way it explores ideas about health, bodily autonomy, financial inequality (this is another “rich people suck” movie), gender, i could go on but you get the idea. it’s very gothic in a lot of ways, discussing the confinement of and violence towards women in the domestic sphere, especially the entitlement to their bodies and ideas about motherhood. i’ve also rarely seen stories about pika but i think here it’s framed in a sympathetic and respectful light that points out its seriousness but doesn’t place the blame on the person who struggles with it, which is a good way to handle any mental health issue in stories imo. i also think it’s rare to have abortion portrayed as a neutral choice that is right in certain circumstances so i think it did that well enough (there have been several movies/tv series in recent years that also discuss abortion without bias so it’s hardly revolutionary but i still like the way they went about it). however, i didn’t love the direction the movie went, i was hoping for more horror than that, in fact the only reason i think it’s labeled a psychological thriller is because people aren’t used to seeing pika portrayed and while it’s a scary problem to have, i don’t think the movie as a whole feels like a thriller. it feels more like a drama about marriage and mental health, if maybe a little bit more intense for that genre. like you can tell it’s intended to be a thriller based on the tone and everything, but the story itself doesn’t back that up. also it only really gets at surface level issues, and gives you a clear reason and solution for her problem (reason: guilt about the method of her conception + problems with her home life + pregnancy. result: pika. solution: confront father + leave husband + abortion. i wish it hadn’t been that simple)

which brings me to: the things i would’ve changed about it or liked to see more:

1. they opened the movie with several close up shots of food and i thought that would be a motif that they carried through the movie, which it was with the items that hunter ate, but not with actual food. like i thought in the birthday party scene, they would have a close up shot of the tray of sandwiches she was carrying, for example. i would’ve liked to see that and how by treating both the food and the objects the same way visually it would blur the line between the two, also i just think it would be visually appealing 

2. i’m uncomfortable with the way they portrayed getting mental health help, with the therapist breaking confidentiality and the family of her husband coercing her into checking into an inpatient facility, even though imo that’s exactly where she needed to be (she almost died! she should’ve been in more intensive treatment). i don’t mind the therapist thing as much because it shows how money can open any door and how alone hunter was, but there’s nothing wrong with having to go to a psych ward even if it feels like an extreme step so it kind of felt bad to me but maybe i’m just hypersensitive about that kind of thing 

3. again, i wanted it to go darker. i wanted for her to snap at the end and do something fucked up to her husband or his family. honestly i didn’t mind the ending, i thought the bathroom scene under the credits was a very strong final shot, but the narrative after she leaves the hotel feels like it diverts into soap opera melodrama territory. in some ways i like the ending but i wished it had something else to it

4. i wish we got to see more of hunter’s real personality but i think that’s difficult when she’s so isolated. maybe in some of the therapy scenes she could open up more and we’d see more past the facade (besides when she’s having a breakdown, which is also not indicative of her “real” personality) 

5. the fact that we get to hear from her father and very little from her mother - none of which is positive - is a little bit questionable to me given that he raped her and we see him humanized and her - maybe not dehumanized, but she’s framed as not being a very good mother, at least to hunter, despite what she says about it. but it’s also surprising and moving in unexpected ways to see her confront the real person face to face instead of literally carrying around the image that she has of him and never really dealing with it, and it also shows that what he did and who he was when he did it was truly pathetic and entitled and massively harmful to both hunter and her mother and potentially to the family he has now, and also there’s not some magical line that separates “normal” people from people who do terrible things to other people, they’re also just people, which isn’t to say “we should forgive them and give them another chance! they’re only human,” more like “you are a person who is capable of hurting others so think about your actions and hold yourself accountable for them.” so i don’t know if it works or if it doesn’t work for me, i maybe have to sit with that one a little longer

6. while i think this movie is better, it does feel like it’s potentially getting into promising young women territory with the pastel aesthetic, focus on women, and shallowness of the storytelling (everything in either of these movies stays very surface level imo). i think it’s a much better movie but still there were parts that felt pretty meh in the same ways

that having been said, it’s a movie i think is going to stick with me and i definitely think it’s worth a watch for anyone curious, but if you’re not already curious, i don’t think you’re missing out so terribly much if you skip it

if you enjoyed this movie (or even were just interested in its themes) here’s some things i would recommend checking out: the yellow wallpaper by charlotte perkins gilman (a woman experiences a mental breakdown after being shut away in her room to recover from “hysteria” while suffering from postpartum depression), white is for witching by helen oyeyemi (also deals with pika as well as horror in domestic spaces), the invisible man 2020 (i feel like these movies have a lot of overlap - isolated glass houses on a cliffside, abusive/possessive men that they have to escape both of whom threaten to - or actually do - hunt them down, a woman experiencing a serious problem that no one takes seriously and is threatened with - or actually experience - institutionalization, commentary on wealth and autonomy), wide sargasso sea by jean rhys (after reading jane eyre of course! follows the character of bertha from jane eyre during her childhood, the early days of her relationship with rochester, and the breakdown of that relationship - similar in relationship with her husband, etc)

anyway yeah that’s all i have to say about it for now but i’d love to hear what you think about it!

[the-family-fortune]

Earlier today Cali asked me quite possibly the worst thing you CAN ask me

And boy howdy did I have some thoughts. 

idk if ive mentioned it here before or not but I have a lot of feelings about the idea of redemption in psy2. I LIKE the idea that no one is beyond redemption, that people can be good and that we are all, at our core, just hurting. and those are the themes that psychonauts plays with. mental illnesses that are seen as "scary" like the inmates (though the inmates themselves are rarely presented as scary, with maybe the exception of Edgar because he's just. huge.) - bipolar mood swings with inexplicable rage, Edgar's anger issues and sheer strength combined into an intimidating figure, and the stigma of multiple personalities like how Fred acts meek one second and then on the warpath the next when he "switches". All of these oooh scary mental illnesses are literally just people grappling with trauma. Edgar's OCD and the trauma from high school, Fred's... weird genetic memory issues, and Gloria's inner critic and the death of her mother. These things are like, Normal People Problems (sorry fred idk what the fuck is up with u buddy ur on another level all together) and really contextualize the inmates' mental illness in a way that emphasizes the main theme of empathy. 

I intentionally leave Boyd out of this because while the root of his mental illness is schizoaffective paranoia, his ROLE as the Milkman and in fact his entire mindscape is the product of Oleander's hypnosis.

So like, I VIBE WITH THAT, its a really really interesting take on the conversation about mental illness and how these things do not make people inherently bad or scary!!

But I feel like, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, that the Galochios - or, at the very least, Zalto on his own - fall into a different kind of category.

The Galochios from the start are jealous people. They're jealous of the Aquato's fame and think that they deserve more recognition which in and of itself isn't a bad thing per se - wanting to feel appreciated and recognized and seen is just a basic human desire, I think. But jealousy isnt a mental illness. Jealousy is a natural human emotion that we, as rational and empathetic people, must make the conscious choice to deal with in healthy ways. The Galochios don't, and they let that consume them from the start - where they allow themselves to hate the Aquatos for their fame, where they allow themselves to ostracize Marona, where they drive her out of the family and where they attempt to drag her back, it's not the product of mental illness destroying relationships like someone in Edgar's position might experience, but pure pride and jealousy directed towards the Aquato family.

And like from there its just all downhill

And I could argue that from this point things compound to create a mental landscape that maybe isnt the picture of health in the Galochios, because grief can really, really fuck you up, and regardless of how they acted, losing a daughter or a sister when Marona died, could not have been easy.

But I cannot read "the Galochios crowded around the tank to gleefully watch Lazarus's decapitation" and be like "aw they're just hurting 8(" because mental illness is not synonymous with undue cruelty.

Like the Galochios at every turn are presented with A Choice and by god they're determined to make the wrong one. Whether or not this is motivated by grief or jealousy or whatever doesnt matter, because even when you are mentally ill it is still the bare minimum to not gleefully watch someone you dont like get decapitated, u know?

That is, I think, them consumed by jealousy and hate and seeing nothing wrong with it because it benefits them and hurts people they dont like. Thats. that's not mental illness that's just being an asshole

So while I absoLUTEly vibe with Psychonaut's theme of empathy and compassion and understanding that mental illness isnt bad or scary, and that we're all struggling with something, I think that narrative has two sides to it, and the same way that "we're all struggling with something" lends to the idea that we need to extend compassion to others, the Galochios being so stubbornly cruel as to be irredeemable in the narrative of psychonauts two lends to the equally important theme of "but you can not sacrifice yourself for people who do not WANT help"

Because of the nature of the things the Galochios have done (and perhaps, are still doing, as we move into the secrets behind the RoR and Psy2 narrative) I think that it would take a LOT. A LOT. for the writing to pass off a Galochio redemption in a meaningful and complete way, because of the nature of the choices they make. From what I know about them right now, these are not the actions of people who are... hallucinating grandeur or some greater purpose who believe in some hidden agenda like Boyd. From what I can gather and what we already know about the Galochio backstory, this is just the kind of people they are. 

 Now, taking into account Zalto specifically, I can without a doubt see him having some major psychological damage. Like I said earlier, grief can really, really fuck you up, and Zalto experienced more grief than reasonable, all at once, with the tank accident. He was already not the most stable person. ("But Daisy!" I hear you cry, "Augustus lost his entire family in a year and didn't snap like that!" True but look me in the eye and tell me you think he's coped with it in a healthy manner. Augustus experienced unreasonable amounts of grief and as a result his ten year old thinks he wants him dead.)

So if that turns out to be the case, and we see a level where we actually do deal with that grief in a healthy way (which imo would be very interesting to see the trauma of grief treated the same as mental illness - even though we all experience grief at some point, sooooome of us dont quite take it as well as others, whoops!) we could see the baseline path to a Zalto redemption.

But really it all boils down to responsibility for their actions and how they handle their trauma and the fact that eight Aquatos were murdered does not automatically become sympathetic because Zalto was dealing with grief. I personally, would be really interested to see the Galochios as villains end the game as villains and for that stubbornness and unwillingness to accept empathy or help be shown as their downfall, because irl its incredibly unhealthy and self-destructive to refuse help or refuse to SEEK help when you very clearly know that something is hurting you, and that you are in turn hurting others.

I also REALLY don't want them to be given the Oleander treatment.

As much as I love Oleander, I feel like a lot about his character was mismanaged, and he was turned into comedic relief in RoR.

like. A lot of my thoughts on the psy2 narrative as a whole relies heavily on the li-po document of course but the story that we were given IN psy1 vs the story that we are told in the document are so STARKLY different.

"Oleander wants to take over the world because he's angry at tall people from that time from that time his dad killed his bunny, which traumatized him" is NOT the same as "Oleander spent his formative years FIRMLY BELIEVING that his father saw him as a burden because he was small, thought he was nothing better than pig slop, and witnessed the death of an animal that he had a psychic connection to, after which he spent his entire life attempting to make his father proud only to be rejected by every branch of the military. By the time he was finally a Psychonaut and felt he would be able to make his father proud despite his stature, both of his parents died horribly in a meat grinder accident while he was away training." 

 NOT THE SAME HOLY SHIT.

Oleander had so much POTENTIAL but he was kinda shoehorned into a very two-dimensional role. Idk if it was because of budget or time or what, because the production of psy1 was very..... not great. But its absolutely a SHAME to see such a heartbreaking backstory reduced to "short and angry about it"

And it absolutely cheapens his redemption, too.

The fact that Oleander's story was so heavily pruned COMBINED with the fact that - while it's hinted at in game, its honestly INSANELY difficult to put two and two together imo because of how its presented, Ford outright tells us that Oleander's assignment to whispering Rock was the cause of his mental break (the camp sits on a motherload of psitanium. It makes psychics more psychics, and unstable people more unstable.")

that's never once brought into the resolution of Oleander's character arch and the processing of his trauma and how the psychonauts directly contributed to his deteriorating mental state that led him to try and take over the world because they so deeply misunderstand psitanium but decided to build a kids summer camp training facility on top of it

thats like... early experimentation with nuclear materials before we understood the dangers of radiation. Not to stay topical or anything, but its a clearly dangerous substance that the Psychonauts treat very blase.

But to get back on track there, I really hope that if the Galochios DO receive a redemption arc in psy2, which seems likely given the overarching theme of the games themselves even extending to Loboto of all people... I hope they don't butcher it like they did with Oleander's. Given that they've had five years and a LOT more experience with this genre and its storytelling conventions (plus the fact that they're just excellent storytellers to begin with) I have a cautious optimism that whatever happens with the Galochios it will at least be a satisfying conclusion. (For comparison, Oleander's butchered redemption is still kinda held together by the satisfying conclusion of the game, in which Raz actually becomes a Psychonaut so that isnt to say that psy1 didnt have a satisfying conclusion) 

and at this point im sure you're regretting telling me to talk as much as i want because if there's one thing you ought to know about me by now its that i never shut up about the Galochios and honestly I've had a lot of thoughts about them and the themes of Psychonauts and the general structure of storytelling in the Psychonauts games overall.

As for the Galochio family themselves, I'm fascinated to see exactly who survived and what the power structure of the remaining Galochios is. If Zalto makes the final cut, I want VERY badly to know how he treats his family and if his anger has kinda pervaded what was probably a long time ago a relatively tight knit family. I want to see the individuals involved in this, how far they're each willing to go and where that lies in relation to Zalto. Like everyone has their moral limits, and if Zalto is utterly consumed by his goal to either obliterate the Aquatos or resurrect his family (shudder) his tolerance for atrocities may be much higher than that of his family members, which would automatically sow dissonance within the family when one by one people start deciding this is too much, this is too far, we cant keep doing this.

[mystech-master]

My BBTAG ideas and the Fate series

Long talk under

I have been looking into the Fate series mostly because I heard of people wanting it to be the next Fate/series introduced into BBTAG, specifically Fate/Grand Order.

I mean I’ve heard of it and I did watch Fate/Zero a while ago, and the idea was interesting. A bunch of wizards summon Magical Warriors based on legendary and/or historical figures from all over the world, all with a cool unique special ability based on their legend.

But HOLY SHIT this series is way more complicated.

I mean you’ve got almost 11 or more parallel universes, as more than that are separate entries in the series just going by different canon, and F/GO is a fusion of ALL of them plus some of Nasu’s other works.

Also the series seems to have a bad habit of just assuming you’ve seen everything in it prior to any entry, so you’d need to start at the VERY beginning I bet in order to start understanding shit.

But I am bringing this up for a specific reason. The reason I can not, or rather will not be trying to add this into my BBTAG ideas is not just that the Fate series is too much, it is too GOOD.

Good, as in it’s writing is MUCH better than the other four main Fates in BBTAG. I mean given Blazblue is in there that is kind of a low bar I mean. But by good storytelling I mean a bunch of deep and dynamic characters and specifically world-building that expands so much.

Like at the very least the four initial BBTAG worlds are REALLY bad at showing how their powers work, because either they are too vague or the writers are just lazy.

Blazblue has Ars Magus which is a fusion of magic and science, whatever the fuck that means, since you’d need to specify the difference between the two, (imagine the Magus Association in Fates losing their shit over this). The Power of Order (sort of the Blazblue Universe’s version of the Counter Force it seems) is vague as fuck and really doesn’t seem to be all it’s cracked up to be.

Personas seem to rarely be talked about since outside of gameplay they aren’t really talked about. Like in P3 I’m sure many people wondered why anyone with healing spells couldn’t have healed Shinji when he got shot. Also, no one brings up how the personas take the names of famous mythical and historical figures. Like with some minor rewrites, specifically for P4 Arena, you could literally take the power of Persona out of the story completely, or completely change it into something else because of how much the actual workings of Persona are NEVER brought up in-universe. Even the Shadow Operatives, who use Personas professionally and have the Kirijo Group’s research, don’ do anything we haven;t seen almost ANY other Persona do, this is where Arc Sys could’ve flexed their usual BS and I would’ve been fine. I mean you COULD say a reason that they haven;t gone more into the Power of Personas in0universe is that Mitsuru doesn’t want to go down the same path her grandfather did which resulted in the Dark Hour and The Fall.

EXS is Under Night also is rarely explained. Look at the wiki it seems VERY simplistic and doesn’t always match up to what we see when we look at the story modes, which also has a shit load of vague terminology that makes Blazblue look cohesive. I mostly blame the fact that Under Night hasn;t actually moved it’s story foreward for this though.

Lastly: Aura, Semblances, Dust, and Magic in RWBY. From vague terminology, to outright retcons. Semblances and Aura are literally just Rule of Cool. Semblances and Magic are VERY vague in their differences sometimes. Even in-universe they keep saying how much of a mystery aura and even the Grimm are (in the World of Remnants videos) which just seems to be a lazy way of wanting to keep things way too vague so they can have it do whatever the fuck they want.

But looking at Fate: magic circuits, Prana, Counter Force, the Magus Association and how nasty they can be, the Holy Grail War, etc. They SHOW and TELL. Is it complicated? Yes, but you just can’t drop into all of it right in the middle. The level of detail that Nasu gives it’s characters and world is LEAGUES above the other series in BBTAG who rely on vague terminology, reducing a lot of it to background information, never explaining anything (and when they do it is very bad explaining), or a bunch of other issues.

Like, you can talk all about the Fate series’ individual aspects and bring up multiple examples of every little detail. Can you do that with any other the other four series?

Like, I’m sure a competent crossover fanfiction author COULD fill in the blanks and give any of these four worlds the depth needed to stand equal to the Fate universe, but really it just seems like everything is incompetent compared to the Fate universe. I’m sure not every aspect of the Fate series hits bullseye every time, but it is still much better imo, just from sticking my toe into the series a bit, than these other four series.

[bigskydreaming]

meowmeowmeowkins Are you enjoying the show? :) It’s one of my favs. The books don’t read... all that great imo. Did you read them?

Yeah I like the show, its actually one of those rare adaptations where I think its better than the source material. I’ve read the books and I’m like.....eh, they’re hit and miss for me. The earlier books were better but the more the authors widened the scope of their narrative, the worse their characterizations got overall, I think. They traded strong character work for ambitious storytelling and I mean, it wasn’t without dividends, they definitely manage a “holy shit” factor at times, like I did NOT see that ending with Earth in Nemesis Games coming despite the writing being on the wall in hindsight. But I think the show actually has so far managed to balance the scope of the story with more contained, concentrated character work in ways the books haven’t.

That said, there’s still some elements of the books that have an edge over the show for me.....like the way they brought Havelock back from a bit character in the first book to being a major player in Book Four.....and then they went and cast Jay Hernandez as Havelock in S1 and I was like yesssssss because I thought he did a great job with the character despite it being a relatively small part.....and he’s a big enough actor that casting him for that role really only made sense by factoring in that he had a major role upgrade coming once they got to the storylines of Book Four....except by the time they DID get there in the show, like, they’d lost Hernandez to his own show as he was off starring on Magnum PI by now, and that’s just the downside of casting a bigger name with an eye towards the future but the possibility of him moving on before then. They took a gamble with that casting and lost, which meant Havelock ended up left out of the Ilus stuff entirely, which was kinda a bummer but like. The book version still exists so its all good.

And then there’s some parts where I’m like, I enjoy the show and I enjoy the books but in totally different ways. Like book Bobbi and show Bobbi come across extremely different to me but in very hard to define ways....its more of a feel than anything....but I like both versions just in different ways? Like Bobbi’s dynamic with Chrisjen on the show is similar to their dynamic in the books but also with its own ticks and nuances on the show, and I just appreciate both versions for entirely different reasons.

I actually have always really liked Thomas Jane though, so I think they really lucked out by getting him for Miller on the show, because Miller is just UNBEARABLE for me in the books, lol, like I can not stand the guy and have wanted him to die since book two, which is awkward because like....he did. And it, y’know. Didn’t help. hflakhflahflafhal

But Jane brings just enough of like....idk, maybe even self-deprecation to the role? Whatever it is, its enough to make his scenes kinda more poignant than just omg can this be over already, can he be gone now. Like, those moments where he kinda glitches and you remember that for all his romanticized soliloquies, he’s not really MIller, he’s just a kind of self-aware program that remembers being Miller even though he wasn’t ever really? Ouch. And those moments would never land like that for me in the books, like I think Jane really did just bring something to the role that then informed how the writers wrote his depiction of Miller moving forward. And I really enjoy when an actor’s performance like....then feeds back into how a show’s writers write future material for them. Gives the role a life of its own beyond what the source material ever envisioned for that specific character.

Also, the show does a good job of not over-using the character, which I think goes a long way towards making his appearances actually resonate. Frankly, I think the books’ writers are just too in love with their version of Miller and took full advantage of the narrative loophole that basically made him damn near accessible for every part of the story even when he reeeeeally didn’t need to be there, and like yeah. 

But yeah, I like the show, and its had enough near misses with cancellation that I’m really glad its been planned to end with season six since before season five even started, because it gave them two full seasons to work in everything they needed to give the show a satisfying ending instead of just a cliffhanger cancellation. That said though, I really have no idea how they intend to fit the rest of the major storylines into just this last season now, like, they’re going to have to trim some fairly sizable plots, I just have no idea what they’re gonna pick to do that.

Like, Season 5 isn’t over yet, and the finale has the fairly ominous title of Nemesis Games, and is written by the book’s writers so I think its safe to say at least what the S5 cliffhanger will be.....which makes me think that S6 will mostly be a mash-up of Babylon’s Ashes and Persepolis Rising.

And so I’m tempted to think that like, maybe they’re planning on just ending it there, instead of trying to bridge the practically seismic shift in tone from Persepolis to Tiamat’s Wrath? Because I mean, in the books, Tiamat’s Wrath basically completes the gradual evolution of the series from nearish-future space exploration to full-on space opera. Like.....Leviathan Wakes is space opera in the sense that like, Battlestar Galactica was space opera, but Tiamat’s Wrath is space opera more in the sense that Star Wars is space opera, y’know? Like, they’re both space opera but in ENTIRELY different ways and with completely different feels.

And so I’m wondering if the show’s plan is to like just end things with the conclusion to Persepolis and like, set up the potential for the later books like lay stuff with Duarte in motion, etc...but then try and springboard that into another project entirely, like a sequel show? After all, there is a thirty year gap between books there so there’s a built in development breather for production to almost take a break and then try and come back later with a successor show that picks up with Tiamat.

The only thing keeping me unsure about that is like.....in the books, the threat from whatever destroyed the Protomolecule Builders, like....still very much has not been shown or dealt with as of Tiamat, and its pretty much a given that final conflict will be the focus of the upcoming final book, Leviathan Falls......so there’s no way to end the show with a potential bridge to be crossed later with a sequel about Tiamat’s Wrath, etc.....unless you leave the Who Killed the Protomolecule Builders mystery still unsolved as well. And I don’t know if the show’s going to want to do that, because that will leave some very dissatisfied fans....but I mean, the show does like to take risks so maybe that is the plan. I don’t know. I’m definitely interested in seeing what they decide however.

[catalina-infanta]

My FINAL (Happy) Thoughts on Reylo and Bendemption

This will be a good post for anyone who is scared about Reylo because I am hoping to show you it will end HAPPILY!!

I was kinda cynical this past week and thought we wouldn't get a Reylo HEA, but I just want to say that I still expect a happily ever after because it thematically makes sense  (and thank you to @reylo17 for contacting me when you noticed I was discouraged, I really appreciate your kinds words in contacting me more than I think you know) that I still have confidence we will get what we want. If we dont, then I think thats just a major fuckup on JJs part because I dont see this story as making sense any other way.  

Really because, the whole story makes no sense as a completion of the 9 episode saga (what with rectifying what, in part, by correcting went wrong with Anakin and his possessive love for Padme AND Anakin’s losing Padme (after all Ben will “start what his grandfather started”...in more ways than one I think, because I think this line will be seen to be correct from many points of view). Ben will show a wholesome love with Rey, and this will be rewarded with true love and forgiveness as well as the chance to start over and be healed by love, because being alone won't heal either of them. Also, Anakin must refind his Padme for this to be a FULL CIRCLE. Why end the series more sadly then it ended in ep 6 if not to CORRECT and bring things FULL circle to heal the rift that occurred in Ep III? The rift that had not been healed among Force users from the General audience’s perspective was romantic love. What will be the point of the OT characters having their lives and happy endings upended otherwise? it had to be worthwhile in some way. 

Also, the Jedi need to change, Rey and Ben being a couple would be visual storytelling representation of this that we never had with Luke. We dont live in a culture that thinks that repressing sexuality and romantic love is healthy anymore, so why reinforce this line of storytelling that was popular in the middle ages? I mean, we know this was a big part of the emotional flaws that Jedi just didn't understand human attachment nor make room for it, causing Anakin's ability to love to become a negative thing (when his love should have been a positive thing!) and boil over in hatred and fear. Viewers need to see the wholesome message that romantic love can be fulfilling and safe if done right. A refuge for the lonely heart in need of the support of someone who truly has their back in life, a life partner (why do Jedi always go in two? You always need a partner). 

Finally, Rey and Kylo are lonely. JJ wrote TFA, he knows whats up. Rey being alone without at least the hint of starting of a new family of her own would be tragic indeed. I don't accept the friends are a family argument for one because she is not 12 years old, and because only the rare human adult accepts this about their own life (i.e. the thought that “I don't need a romantic partner because my friends are enough for me”). Also, when Leia is prob going to die, Poe only has one line of dialogue with Rey so far, and Finn has found his own love in Rose, can we really expect the Resistance to be her new family when its gonna disband anyways when the FO is defeated? 

Also, wouldn't Ben be better to atone by helping young force sensitives/maybe young orphans like Rey and abused children like himself than by just abandoning the galaxy to fuck off somewhere and sulk alone in exile? Help them avoid the dark side? That's how atonement should, imo, doing actual good work where it matters. And in this ST it matters most in the lives of the young children that are being mistreated and thrown away.   

Also I think a HEA it just makes from a financial standpoint. 

If this movie DOESNT end this way then I will think that they majorly fucked up in understanding what they were doing/writing/what needed to happen for the story to be fully bookended. And because I don't think JJ is that incompetent, I have decided I will be going into the theaters optimistically. 

May the force be with you, comrades! 

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Why (most of) the 2010s Marvel legacy characters didn’t work

For Marvel characters I think it comes off as profoundly undermining when they get legacies, at least in the specific way Marvel attempted this throughout the 2010s.

To explain this we need to actually first look at DC’s characters in order to compare and contrast why legacies for them tend to work out better than they do for Marvel.

Simply put back in the 1930s-1950s (if not even later) DC’s characters were almost always created as powers first, people second. Wish fulfilment fantasy figures over flawed mere mortals.

Consequently you could legacy Green Lantern and the Flash in the 1950s and then do so again in the 1980s-1990s because so so long as you had a guy with a ring and another guy with super speed you were retaining the essence of both characters, the fundamental point and appeal of them.

But the Marvel characters were the other way around and practically deliberately designed to be so. 

Thor was the story of the life and times of Thor Odinson. Spider-Man was the story of the life and times of Peter Parker. The Fantastic Four was never the story about a brainiac who stretched, a girl who could go invisible, a kid who could burst into flame and a guy who looked like a rock monster. 

It was about a stern scientist obsessed with his work. A nurturing young woman who loved him but was frustrated by his tendency to get lost in his work. Her younger brother interested in sports cars, girls, excitement and other typically hot headed teenage endeavours. And an average Joe who was tortured and depressed that he was no longer human. 

Ben Grimm could’ve looked like any kind of monster and the central point of his character would have been retained. The F4′s specific powers, complemented their personalities, but they were not the driving point unto themselves. 

In contrast let us consider Captain America, probably the Marvel character who’s done the ‘replacement legacy hero’ storyline the most (at least within 616 canon). How comes he  lends himself so much better to this type of story than the other Marvel characters? 

Simple, because unlike most of the big name Marvel characters you know of, he wasn’t created in the 1960s or beyond. Cap was the product of the 1940s and was a peer to those same early days super heroes from the Golden Age, including the original Green Lantern and Flash. Like them he began fundamentally more as a symbol and powerset than a person. 

But now flashing forward to the 21st century many (most in my view) Flash fans were upset (and continue to be so) Wally West’s ascension to the Flash mantle was undermined and ultimately undone for the sake of restoring Barry Allan to the spotlight. The reason for this upset when Wally himself had replaced Barry? Wally had proven himself a far more flawed, nuanced and complex character than Barry had ever been. 

He demonstrated a degree of characterisation in the Flash role that Barry never had. It wasn’t even that he simply had more of this than Barry, but that Barry, just like Jay Garrick preceding him, had little to speak of in the first place. Thus the contrast between Jay and Barry was mostly superficial but the contrast between Barry and Wally was as stark as comparing Spider-Man to 1950s Superman.*

But Wally West, and the entire DC Universe from Post-Crisis onwards in fact, were in that mould precisely because they were trying to be more like Marvel comics has been since the 1960s onwards. 

DC in effect began prioritising the people beneath the costumes over the powers.** But Marvel starting in the 1960s had pretty much always been like that with their heroes.

Consequently when legacies popped up and those new characters were pushed as being just as good, just as worthy, or (in some cases) lowkey pushed as being better  than their predecessors it naturally rubbed those fans with decades of emotional investment the wrong way. OBVIOUSLY  a woman or a POC can be just as worthy and just as capable as a man or a white person as a superhero. But series to series, character to character, it was almost like Marvel was taking away your beloved pet.

Imagine for a moment you had a pet named Rex that you’d known and loved for years. 

Then Marvel insisted on taking Rex away from you when there was nothing wrong with him. In his place they give you another clearly different pet with Rex’s collar, who gets Rex’s bowl, Rex’s food, Rex’s toys, Rex’s bed and even Rex’s name and asks you to treat them not as just a new dog but straight up the new Rex.

Except he isn’t Rex. Rex is Rex. The ‘new Rex’ playing with Rex’s toys, doing the same tricks as him or having his collar doesn’t change that.*** 

Because Rex was more than a collar, his toys or his tricks. He was an individual that you’d known and loved. And even if you know Rex is going to come back ‘eventually’ having Rex taken away from you at all, having the new Rex supplant them (especially if old Rex was screwed over for the sake of new Rex’s arrival) and having so many people insist new Rex is just as great or more great than old Rex (to the point where many people loudly proclaim they don’t even want the old Rex back and the old Rex was kinda lame and boring) is going to create a massive dissonance. Maybe you would’ve been chill with the new Rex is he was just another additional pet called Rover or even like RexY who was similar yet different to Rex, but not actually promoted AS Rex or as his replacement. 

Maybe you would’ve been okay with the new Rex if the old one got too old, died naturally or accidentally. But you aren’t okay with it because there was nothing wrong with Rex, you LOVED Rex and Rex had been with you and been around generally forever. So the new Rex felt like he was undermining him, especially undermining Rex’s individuality. 

That’s how I think most Marvel fans felt about practically EVERY legacy situation that’s ever cropped up from the 1960s onwards, not even the ones just from the 2010s. I remember  the outrage when Bucky was announced as the new Cap. I know there were people salty about Eric Masterson as Thor and the Spider-Man Clone Saga speaks for itself.

Compounding the situation is that more than a few media outlets (despite imo not representing the feeling’s of the majority at all) promoted (and in some cases still promote) the new characters as not just better than they are (see the dozen or so lists talking about how great Riri allegedly was) but along with many fans tear down the older characters whilst doing so. 

See every article ever talking about why Peter Parker in the movies (and sometimes in the comics) NEEDS to die for the sake of Miles becoming the new Spider-Man in spite of their rationales rarely making sense from a creative/financial POV and utilizing misrepresentations of both characters to varying degrees. Even fans that appreciate the social/political relevancy of the new characters are going to naturally be upset in response to that and angrily voice opposition when the character they love gets dragged through the mud like that. And that then gets exacerbated when they are labelled as bigots for feeling upset by the changes or reacting against the character they love being dragged through the mud.**** 

Especially considering they would’ve reacted the same way regardless of who was the replacement hero.  Again, fans at first didn’t take kindly to John Walker or Bucky as the new Captain Americas so the idea that backlash against Sam Wilson was entirely or primarily racist was itself profoundly ignorant. Especially when you consider black reviewers such as those on the Hooded Utalitarian were calling it out as bad storytelling and bad representation for black people. SpaceTwinks went issue by issue through Spencer’s Sam Wilson run and called it out as racist, ignorant and naive. NONE of which is me saying that there isn’t more than a little bigotry going around detractors of these new characters nor that there aren’t obviously bad actors.

But those people did not and do not represent the majority and framing the situation as though they do is disingenuous and highly unethical. In conclusion, the backlash against the 2010s Marvel legacy characters was entirely natural, understandable and for the vast majority came from a place of love for the original characters not a bigoted hatred for the new characters skin colour or sex. 

It was a testament to Marvel’s, and the wider media, misunderstanding the psychology of most comic book fans. 

P.S. In regards to that, though it isn’t exactly talking about what I’ve spoken about I’d highly recommend checking out this video which touches upon the disenchantment Star Wars fans felt over the Sequel Trilogy, which itself could be viewed as doing the same thing Marvel did with it’s replacement legacy characters.

P.P.S. The reason I think the likes of Miles Morales or Kamala Khan succeeded where others failed is chiefly due to their rise to the role of legacy replacements stemmed from their predecessors not  being sidelined for their rise to the spotlight. Miles never ever replaced the 616 version of Peter Parker, widely considered by most fans and Marvel internally as the true and legitimate version of the character. Kamala Khan meanwhile picked up the Ms. Marvel only when Carol Danvers discarded it and became Captain Marvel. She was still in the spotlight in her own right, Kamala simply got her own spotlight using Carol’s obsolete name. Which isn’t all that dissimilar to fan favourite Cassandra Cain’s rise to the Batgirl mantle now I think about it.

P.P.P.S. A possible counter argument to all I’ve said is the success of the Superior Spider-Man/Otto Octavius. After all why was he embraced when Sam Wilson and Jane Foster wasn’t? Was a double standard rooted in bigotry at play?

No, but the answer isn’t neat and simple.

I think Ock as the new Spider-Man was more embraced partially because Ock had been around essentially as long as Spidey himself. But more poignantly  pre-Superior Spider-Man was so atrocious that a sizzling and sexy idea like Superior (which generated tons of cheap novelty) felt utterly refreshing, even to people who had actually LIKED pre-Superior Spidey under Slott. It’s like how people praised the early Big Time stories despite their problems because compared to BND they were genuinely better.

Plus Superior, for all it’s god forsaken writing, didn’t exist to clearly workshop potential movie ideas or chiefly in aid of a social/political cause. Someone can agree that there should be more black or female superheroes but disagree that the older characters should be sidelined in the attempt to achieve that.

Especially when there were better alternative options such as introducing those newer characters within and alongside the established hero’s narrative or simply introduce them independently as has happened recently with the likes of Lunar Snow.

*This is also why I suspect Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman survived from the Golden Age into the Silver Age. Because they were the DC characters who (more than any of the other ones) had actual personalities/substance to them. **Of course this didn’t begin wholesale with the post-Crisis era. But noticeably the characters who had worked with this new shift in priorities prior to Crisis on Infinite Earths stayed generally the same thereafter (E.g. the Titans, Batman) whilst characters who had largely vacillated or struggled (e.g. Superman and Wonder Woman) were given fresh starts which proved critically and financially successful.  

***Not even if he does everything just as well as Rex did or does some stuff differently that’s still good (although the overwhelming majority of the time new Rex is clearly not as good as the old Rex).

****I’ve seen people be called racist and misogynists for calling out Riri Williams honestly ridiculous degree of competency as a hero/tech genius in spite of her age. This is not an invalid criticism, yet disliking the character because of those reasons is grounds to be labelled as something ugly by another (imo minor yet also vocal) contingent of fandom. 

Hell I was called a Trump supporting Breitbart reading bigot for calling out Marvel as two-faced due to never putting a black writer in charge of Sam Wilson as Captain America or a woman in charge of Jane Foster as Thor. It isn’t exclusive to comics either as I and other people have been accused of racism/misogyny for disliking the Last Jedi in spite of that film to my eyes being itself racist and sexist anyway.

[ertrunkenerwassergeist]

My thoughts on Final Fantasy VII Remake

I should preface this with saying that I’m not a game reviewer and this is going to be my subjective opinion on the game and I’m writing this because I’m feeling the urge to just ramble about my experience.

So to start with: I love this game so freaking much.

It gave me what I expected: great characters, it took me on an emotional roller coaster, it made me smile, it made me cry, it made me bounce in my seat in excitement.

The graphics are phenomenal. As is the environmeltal storytelling. I walked through Midgar and thought “This is a real place” and that happens so rarely for me in games. For all that I love FFXV, that one didn’t manage to convince me it’s world could be real. This game however, did, and that’s a big part of why I love it so much.

Characterisations have been spot on. Barrett’s willingness to go in guns blazing, his bluster, but also the care he has for Marlene and the members of his Avalanche cell.

Jesse, Biggs and Wedge are finally real characters and we learn at last of Jesse’s motivation to have joined a band of eco-terrorists. The inclusion of her backstory was spot on imo. I find it sad that Biggs got the least screan time of the three.

Aerith was perfect in this game. She was quirky, she was flirty, she had personality that went beyond this holier-than-though thing she had going on in most of the compilation. And by Yevon does she have cheek. I love her.

Now Tifa, I have one gripe with, and it’s really more a pacing and tonal issue during the train graveyard. Tifa was really close to a panic attack thinking about what Corneo said and then there comes this hour long ghost dungeon where she’s a scared damsel. I feel there‘s a disconnect here and that’s literally the only ‘negative’ thing I have to say on her character. I like her confidence, her moral dilemma on how Avalanche is doing things, how her motivations are very close to Barrett’s, but she manages to (mostly) keep a level head.

Now for Cloud I was kind of sceptical in the beginning, but I feel they did him so well. He’s got this cool and collected facade of being a SOLDIER 1st Class, but it’s just that: a facade. Beneath it he has a deep willingness to help other people, and also an insecurity that I can appreciate.

Non of this would have really worked, if the voice acting hadn’t been as good as it is. I can only really speak for the German voice acting, but it’s phenomenal. Cloud, Aerith, Reeve and, funnily enough, Roche are my favourites. All others are really good as well, Barrett just threw me off for a bit because the same voice actor does Gladio in FFXV and for the first hour every time Barrett opened his mouth I was seeing Gladio. The only voice I don’t really agree with is Rufus’. I don’t know, the voice actor does a good job, it’s just not what he sounds like in my head.

On the game play side, overall I really liked it. It’s fluent, the materia is spot on and the technical RPG elements are there. The only gripes I really have concern the spell casting, the AI of the characters you don’t control at the moment, and the ATB.

I have nothing against that my spell casting can be interrupted. What I didn’t like that the ATB bar used was gone and also the MP, even if the spell hadn’t been cast. This made it really difficult to judge when ti use level 3 spells because you could potentially loose a large amount of MP with no spell cast. The AI is kinda dumb in a lot of places, which I think is partly to force you to switch characters often, but I don’t like how they’re doing it. I would have really liked something like the Gambit system in FFXII (if less complex) or something like what Kingdom Hearts does. Just... some amount of control would have been nice. Also I would have liked if the ATB bar filled just a bit faster.

Sometimes it was hard to judge which enemy attacks could be blocked and which couldn’t so I hope in the next game they can do something with that. And improve on the dodge roll. Because right now it has no iframes whatsoever.

I’ll tackle the story (and the ending) in another post because this is already getting long enough, but safe to say I loved it.

So. Dungeons. They’re not bad. And they really sat down and thought them through. In many of them are little game play quirks to make things more interesting like the hand crane-thing and the pump in the sewers. But I feel like the train graveyard and the dungeon in chapter 17 (the secret lab, got no idea what its name is in English) slightly overstay their welcome. Especially, like I said earlier, the train graveyard threw the pacing off which is sad because the original game had such great pacing.

Which is why I’m so ambivalent on how they used Sephiroth in this game. New players who never played the original or any FF ever, won’t ever experience the same tense build-up on who that character is and the truly iconic horror scene in the tower after you escape the prison-cells. I’m sad for new players missing out on that. (But I can see that the bloodbath would have pushed the rating, so I can see why they didn’t keep it in. Still sad about it though.)

The music in this game is great, and when you really listen it can spoil the hell out of the story (for people familiar with the compilation). Most tracks are so well redone and the production value and quality is insane. Not sure what more I can add since I’m practically tone deaf on my best days, so I’ll leave that here.

Lastly, I don’t mind the linearity. I think the closest I can compare it to are FFX and FFXII. Yes, those games are also full of ‘corridors’, they just trick you into thinking they aren’t. And while the Remake cannot fully trick me, since it is taking place in a city, the places we can go to are so large, I did not feel it even being remotely close to approaching claustrophobic. (That sentence sounds wrong for some reason, but I cannot see why. English wrangling is exhausting.)

So that’s it for now. Feel free to message me or reblog or whatever. I would love to hear other people’s opinions on this game and discuss it.

[isagrimorie]

The Doctor Who showrunner wars is still in full swing despite the three Doctor Who showrunners being friends IRL, and some things they’ve done and implemented can all boil down to preference.

I wanted to weigh in with my thoughts on this.

I like some things RTD did in his time in Doctor Who, I am very grateful to him for bringing the show back from the war but I also remember slowly getting disgruntled with his writing.

He is a drama writer, and one of the best; RTD has a way of turning a phrase that just fires up the imagination like:“Skaro Degradations, the Horde of Travesties, the Nightmare Child, the Could-Have-Been-King with his army of Meanwhiles and Neverweres.”

He has also written and help re-write my favorite two-parter of Revival!Who Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, Midnight, Turn Left, and Children of Earth. The problem is as much as he loves both camp (sometimes the results can work, sometimes it doesn’t), RTD’s cynicism does leak through.

He tried to fight against those instincts in Doctor Who but you can see the strain show as he struggled to keep that cynicism away from the show.

There’s also the part where his frequent joke targets are middle aged women. And TBH, I was tired of Ten’s God Complex (“I am the final authority!”) and how the narrative rarely call him out on it. Unlike Nine, he started to believe his own press and the press of other people

I wasn’t keen on the way he joked about appearances of women above thirty, and tbh, I was tired of Ten’s God Complex (“I am the final authority.”) and how the narrative refused to call him out on it.

Ten believing his own press could have been interesting if the narrative didn’t think he was right. For example, The Water of Marscould have been interesting but I thought WoM resolved Ten’s Time Lord Victorious moment far too soon and easily.

I thought they could have explored more about the ‘Time Lord Victorious’ moment for at least another episode, or have The End of Time comment on it.

Apart from series 1, all of RTD’s series finales were heart-wrenching; each finale I ended up feeling like I was going twenty rounds against a meat grinder.

It was why I loved and will continue to love series 5 and how refreshingly happy the ending was.

No one was trapped in another dimension! No one had to single-handedly stop an apocalypse and have their family enslaved, or mind-wiped.

In the scheme of things, I think in certain aspects, Moffat’s storytelling style is more on line with my tastes. The fairytale seasons. Even Twelve becomes a fairytale Doctor, and I wager that his arc in series 8 is remembering the joy and becoming the fairytale Doctor again.

Another reason why I love series 5, coming directly from Ten’s Lonely God thing, was that a lot of people called out the Doctor on their God Complex and made their self-loathing a lot more text. I also loved the fairy tale aspect of his seasons.

But like with RTD not everything Moffat’s done is my favorite, there were some stories that had missteps, and one of those missteps was Moffat trying to out clever himself. Credit to him for swinging for the fences but he also started to spread himself too thin working on two shows, and the seams showed.

One of the criticisms about Moffat’s writing is character work, and he had no interest in the Companions’ families.

I’m in the middle. I have issues but also (especially after rewatching) I was more forgiving, as an example, in the end I didn’t care as much about the state of Amy’s parents.

No, that’s wrong, I did care.

I cared the first time I watched Angels Take Manhattan, I cared so much that when Amy and Rory disappeared I was so angry because all I could think about was Amy’s parents and Brian (Rory’s dad). I cared to the point that it was one of the reasons why I stopped watching.

On subsequent rewatches, I’ve reconciled with the idea that Companion families and family dynamics (the Companion’s parents) isn’t something Moffat was interested in. It took Chibnall to give Rory a dad (interesting that parent-child dynamic is really something Chibnall is drawn to).

Honestly, if family dynamics isn’t something he is interested in, that’s fair. Also, Amy’s parent’s weren’t a factor since series 6 and Amy’s parents might have well fallen back into the Crack for all we know.

Rewatching also helped me come to terms with some narrative choices I wasn’t fond of. Binge (re)watch tended to sand down any rough parts and I find rewatching can help me hold the shape of a story more.

Still, it took a while to realize Eleven acting big and bombastic was deliberate. Moffat needed Eleven to be big and loud, and full of himself so he can also go crashing down. It falls in line with what River describes the Doctor she knew: “Now my Doctor, I’ve seen whole armies turn and run away. And he’d just swagger off back to his Tardis and open the doors with a snap of his fingers.”

One of the things I wasn’t satisfied with Moffat’s writing (and there were plenty) was how series 6 dealt with child loss. Or, how s6 initially didn’t deal with child loss. The writing would eventually address it, and most prominently in The Wedding of River Song in a fantastically chilling scene between Amy and Kovarian.

But even then I felt it wasn’t enough. Emotional continuity during this time was very low.

This brings me to River. I loved her the moment she stepped on screen in Silence in the Library but my love for her character cooled because of series 6. My theory is Moffat wrote himself into a corner trying to out grand series 5.

For those taking notes at home, I watched Doctor Who sporadically during series 7 and then stopped watching at Angels Take Manhattan. I stopped watching until Day of the Doctor happened.

**DotD* reignited my love for Doctor Who! So much so that I went back and binged series 7.

I liked s7 well enough except for how Amy and Rory left, that still sticks in my craw. I would have been okay if the Ponds left at the end of the Power of Three. Unfortunately, for Revival!Who, there’s an expectation now that Leaving Stories should be hard and tragic, and breaks your heart. I don’t always need grand leaving stories.

TBH, with the exception of The Day of the Doctor, Series 7B is one of my least favorite Moffat seasons.

One of the many factors was the way the writers kept giving Matt Smith big speeches. The writers know he can do big speeches so they kept writing big speeches for him. It was their default.

Also, as one podcast speculated series 7B could have been where the writers realized (belatedly) that Smith was actually quite hunky. This and Moffat being too busy to manage the next half of the season because of The Day of the Doctor can explain the disaster that was the Time of the Doctor.

TotD remains as one of my least favorite Doctor Who episodes ever. (Well, not ever, there are some series 2 and 3 episodes that stand above it).

And then the Capaldi era.

This was the turn around where I started loving Moffat’s work again. It wasn’t easy to get to that point though, and like the previous series, there was a time I fell off the Doctor Who wagon because the first half of Capaldi’s season didn’t click with me.

I found him far too mean and unlikable which broke my heart since I loved Capaldi.

But a binge, again, sanded down all sins (well, notall) and now the difficult and prickly series 8 is something I really enjoy because knowing where Twelve ended up in his character journey helped.

This is why, I don’t mind getting spoiled about a show, as long I only get the broad strokes but not the details. I love finding out what his journey was and I don’t think I would have come back if I didn’t know where he ended up.

I think I saw snippets of Zygon Inversion speech on YouTube, and then I decided to give Husbands of River Song convinced me to finally watch all of Twelve’s run.

And now Twelve is my favorite Doctor.

Moffat’s writing didn’t magically become perfect (to me) but I loved the themes he chose to tackle for Twelve. Twelve is another PTSD!Doctor but unlike Nine, he had an opportunity to grow from that trauma. (And get fresh ones — thanks Time Lords!).

I love that Moffat used Twelve’s stories as a way to interrogate Ten’s stories culminating in Heaven Sent/Hell Bent.

IMO, Twelve’s relationship with Clara is similar to Rose and Donna. Twelve and Clara developed quite a co-dependent relationship by the time series 9 rolled around. They never quite achieved the height of smugness that was the first minutes of Impossible Planet nor have they ever been as obnoxious as Ten and Rose were in Tooth and Claw. Possibly because the Doctor’s older at this point and knows the perils, and similar to Donna because of how Donna kept Ten grounded. And, of course, because of the mindwipe argument that was definitely Moffat’s answer to the mindwiping of Donna, and as Moffat said in the War Games commentary, to the mindwipe of Zoe and Jamie.

And then we have Bill with Twelve, showing the very final form of the Twelfth Doctor. Twelve as a grown-up, feeling settled with himself, finally. He learned a lot of lessons and committed himself to stay in one place.

I love the relationship he built with Bill and while I do love, love, love Jodie Whittaker, I was sad to have only one season of Bill and Twelve. Especially since after Lie of the Land Missy’s story began to have more prominence over Bill’s.

(And there’s the whole Missy thing which tbh would make this a longer post than it already is!).

TLDR. Both showrunners aren’t perfect, sometimes their views don’t align with mine. I loved series 1 because it was my entry point into Doctor Who but there are also things about RTD’s run I wasn’t happy with. Same with Moffat there were things I adored and things that really didn’t sit well with me.

There were points during both showrunner’s time on the show I had to take time off.

Now with Chibnall, the same thread runs through: I like most of his stories in series 11 but it also isn’t perfect and has a lot of room for improvement.

/EDITED

[sirikyu]

Sun and Moon and character dynamics - a.k.a Ash’s unbelievably many varied types of friendships in this series like holy s

sit down friend, i am about to ramble on about sun & moon’s brilliance in its character writing. i center this mostly around ash because he’s my fave. i love all of them but i have biases from my childhood and i tend to gravitate towards main charact- i mean anyway here we go. (warning: gettin a bit personal but not in a negative way)

one of my many fave things about sun and moon are the characters. the entire main crew of classmates are all different and fun in the own individual ways and they all manage to hold an episode very well, even though they rarely have to do that (and that’s good, because it’s a story about friends and support and family!! never put them alone to deal with a new, scary situation tbh, that’s too dark for me). everyone in the main cast have all managed as the emotional core of the episode, not necessarily because they are all very likeable, which definitely isn’t necessary for good storytelling, but i’d argue that it’s valuable especially in children’s tv, showing good people making mistakes and showing how far a supportive environment goes to help them over that. every individual dynamic between ash and another member of the sumo team is so unique to each other. ash isn’t at the forefront of everything, he’s not “the” main protagonist, and he isn’t what makes this series compelling, but he IS an excellent tether between this group of friends to me, personally, and i think this show has a lot of new ash content i haven’t gotten in many, many series run (ash is great, alright? you guys are just mean.)

im especially glad of sophocles’ and ash’s friendship because their complementary differences are in such a good balance, and i have such a soft spot for sophocles. sophocles is smart and not-sporty, but he isn’t a know-it-all stereotype. i was afraid there would inevitably be a fat joke or nerdy joke, but i don’t remember seeing anything too demeaning or harmful in the light tone they handle sophocles’ nerdiness and roundness. i still remember watching the very early episode where ash and sophocles are still getting to know each other and they get stuck in the mall. even before all the fun character beats as they scramble in the dark (and get short with each other) in that episode, i remember with GREAT fondness when sophocles was very hesitant to admit he’s in the mall to indulge in ice cream. he’s shy about his sweet tooth! i found the excecution very delicate and sweet (pardon the pun), because i don’t think i’ve related in that specific way to a character before in a show? because being fat means that there is an awkwardness and hyperawareness whenever you so much as think about stepping into the candy aisle, and sophocles not wanting to admit to his new classmate-soon-to-be-friend that he’s indulging was, deliberately written that way or not, very real. (not to be a sophocles stan, but he’s a good kid and deserves everything good since episode 1).

but i digress. sophocles steps in to teach his classmates sometimes because he loves learning. he rarely acts condescending to his friends. be the everyman in some crazy situations ash and others get into sometimes (that shrinking episode?? it’s still one of my favourites mostly because of the group of characters they chose for the main conflict. the daredevil pokemon loving duo that is lillie and ash vs. sophocles’ anxiety about the hectic and kinda perilous situation!! it was hilarious). sophocles, to me, seems to value ash’s friendship for similiar reasons clemont used to, in XY. it seems more warm and mutual in this series, thanks to ash’s characterisation. sophocles saves ash in several occasions, which, just! hello!! is the best thing and i love that all these kids are heroes and worthy of admiration. they also remain good. theyre all good. all rangers are equally important. they’re all amazing. okay? alright.

its heartwarming and supportive. they also are like, bonded through their main pokemon being electric mice. isn’t that the cutest?

ash and kiawe on the other hand, they’re a powerhouse couple that egg each other on. they push each other forward and have similiar sense of drive towards pokemon and battles. ever since kiawe gave hint that he battles he found common ground with ash. also he’s such a goofball who gets SUPER emotional about so many things (his sister!! mountains!! determined people!! so many things! he cries openly!) even though he comes across as serious at first, which kind of gives us a character with some similiar traits to ash but who couldn’t ever be mistaken for ash’s personality. they both get fired up in tandem about competing, but they also come from very different lives and backgrounds. I don’t ever think to compare their dynamic to anything else, they’re really unique! they are also mutually supportive, but it has a distinct flavor compared to sophocles and ash. maybe kiawe is a little bit more relatable to ash because of their similiar interest in battling and competing?

ash and lillie are super lovely and i like that lillie has her own story that ash is driven to help her with. and they are similiar in their excitement about pokemon (and yet, in a wholly different way than ash and kiawe are?? lillie has great drive in wanting to help pokemon with knowledge and books, because a hands-on approah wasn’t possible to her in so long, but i think when sophocles learns about stuff, it’s his studious nature and interest in tiny details.) and self-sacrificing hero-type stuff. we got to see lillie fulfill her potential after she figured out her way through her trauma, and we could see that out of her shell, lillie and ash are super similiar, AGAIN in a different way from the others, but never in a less important way. lillie is just a ray of sunshine. she also knows he limitations and works toward overcoming them. her and ash’s frienship comes from going through some very important and life-changing things together. i think ash really wanted lillie to be able to touch pokemon because it’s important to him and it clearly used to be to lillie, which he realises when he sees her old photos.

ash and mallow have this very sweet and family-oriented sibling relationship. they’re not often paired up but i think the times they are, they remind me of my sister and me, which is such a big part of my love for mallow, even if she doesn’t get imo enough spotlight in the big plots. on the other hand, her personal journeys within her own family are so good i cannot be mad at anything. she guides, she’s patient, she’s enhusiastic in a similiar way to ash, but has a more level head. but she also eggs her friends on with her boundless energy. the more i think about her, the more i love her. mallow is awesome!! not least of all, she has such good relationships toward her female classmates. she’s nosy and protective, but not in a smothering way. she’s very supportive and very good at it. (the episode with the mom? killed me.) the way she takes care of her peers in the school is amazing.

ash and lana are both adventurous, i think they really like to get in trouble together lol. lana is also strong and they both ooze main character material with the way they have with pokemon in the wild. it’s awesome. i kind of feel like these two could use a more emotional episode together, but i think i’ll have plenty to be emotional about when this crew parts ways :(((

i made myself sad, but i can confidently say that this show has the most unique and varied and developed set of characters and character dynamics of all pokemon, in a cast this size. the fact that they’re good friends and have none of that bordering-on-mean banter from any of the previous seasons is in fact, a big bonus for me. i love this class, i wish i could hang out in alola indefinitely.

[hardlyfatal]

gary’s writing workshop: lesson 5: point of view, part 1

Defining Points of View

Points of view, which I’ll refer to henceforth as POVs, is the narrator’s position in describing the events unfolding in a story. POV filters everything in a story, so if you get it wrong, the entire thing is compromised. There are four types: first, second, third limited, and third omniscient.

First, let’s go over why they’re named as they are. Linguistically, grammatical person is the distinction between who is participating in an event. If a person is by themselves, to whom would they speak? Themselves. They are alone, there’s just one of them, so they are the first person. 

If they are speaking directly to someone else, instead of one person, there are two. The other person is the second person.

More than that, by default, is three or more, so if the individual narrating isn’t first or second, all that’s left is the third person, of which there are two kinds1.

Note: This explanation is solely to explain how the terms came to be called this. It does not mean that scenes with one person must be done in first, with two people in second, and 3+ people in third.

So what does all of this have to do with us? What does it mean to us as writers of fiction?

Narrative Modes/Voices

POVs are also known as narrative modes or narrative voices. I’m still going to call them POVs to make it easier for us, though.

1. First person: 

 When the story is told by the narrator, filtered through the protagonist as if they’re telling it themselves. “I” tells the story. The character relates the story directly, using the pronoun “I” but also sometimes “we” if the narrator is part of a group. “We” should only be used very sparingly.

Pros: It mirrors real life, as we experience our lives only from our own POVs and think of ourselves in terms of “I” and “we”. It creates a clear and direct connection with the reader, and thus also sense of immediacy and intimacy. Excellent for getting the protagonist’s opinion of their own appearance – you get a front-row seat to how they sees themselves, through the filter of their own experiences and conditionings. Their looks could cause them pain… or pleasure, if they think they’re hot stuff.

Cons: Like all limited POVs, you’re pretty much restricted only to scenes showing what the protagonist experiences. Using “I” all the damned time can quickly become redundant and repetitive, and there’s no effective way to make substitutions for it. It’s harder to establish who, exactly, “I” is so you have to take care to pinpoint the protagonist’s identity at the start of the story, and it can feel awkward2.

There’s also a risk of too much introspection, to the point of claustrophobia since we lack exposure to any other POVs besides the primary. The character has to be particularly strong and compelling to sustain interest throughout the story. There’s a danger of the author inserting too much of themselves because it’s easy to slip into that when you’re writing a lot of “I” statements.

Examples: The Hunger Games series, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jane Eyre, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, Moby Dick, and Rebecca.

2. Second person: 

When the story is told to “you”, where “you” are one of the characters. It’s pretty rare to see this in published fiction, usually just when someone’s trying to be artsy, but more frequently in fanfiction, where it’s used in “you are the OFC paired with (Favorite Hot Dude) stories that don’t even try to be anything but blatant self-inserts. Gotta give them points for honesty, at least.

It works best, IMO, in an epistolary story, such as Part Two of my None But You series, where the characters were writing letters to each other. The letters were written in second person, with the assumption that the letters’ authors were directly addressing the recipients. Dracula by Bram Stoker is primarily an epistolary novel and much of it is written in this way as well.

Pros: It creates a feeling of closeness and intimacy between the narrator and reader; it’s as if the former is speaking directly to the latter. It makes the writer less likely to yammer on about backstory or engage in overlong or unnecessary flashbacks. 

If your aim is to render the narrator oblivious to or disrespectful of boundaries, or to describe a dynamic between two people that is intense and encompassing, this is an excellent way to create that ambiance and hammer home the point without having to use the narrative itself; the POV does a lot of the heavy lifting in this regard.

Cons: That closeness and intimacy is kind of intrusive and can feel uncomfortable and downright unpleasant to the reader. It can seem like an assault, relentless and exhausting, since you’re dictating what the reader is supposed to be experiencing, thinking, and feeling. It’s harder to develop secondary characters, and subplots featuring them, because the focus is inherently on the narrator-and-reader duo. It’s weird and uncommon and can be distracting and hard to get through.

Examples: Bright Lights, Big City and various shorter stories by Margaret Atwood, Nathaniel Hawthorne, William Faulkner, and Leo Tolstoy. 

3. Third person: 

When the story is told about one or more characters: “he” or “she” or, more rarely, “they”. The two main kinds consist of: 

a) Third omniscient: This POV has been extensively used in some of the most famous fictional works of all time. The story is presented by a narrator with an overarching, all-knowing POV that sees, hears, and knows everything that is happening at all times, including the thoughts and emotions of each character.

The narrator may not be a character in the story, even, merely acting as an observer from a distance who’s recounting events as they progress. Think of it as someone describing a movie they watched; they weren’t in it, but they know everything that happened, regardless of whether various characters were present in a scene or not.

Pros: It can feel ‘traditional’ in the manner of great works of literature. It gives the author freedom to explore multiple characters in a way that sees the ‘bigger picture’ instead of only what each character would be able to perceive; a forest-instead-of-the-trees perspective. Your voice as the author will end up coming through more strongly than that of the characters; if your intent is to give a sense of godliness, that the story is being relayed by a superior figure who sees it all, this would work well.

The author, and therefore the narrator, is not restricted only to what the character would be able to know because there is no filtering3 through a character to begin with. It can create an ‘epic’ format of storytelling because it grants the author the ability to dart back in time for a flashback, or ahead in time to hint at or fully reveal the repercussions of current events in the story, thus contributing to the forest-not-the-trees big picture feel.

It creates a lot of distance between narrator and reader, thus permitting a more effective and easier-to-write description of events since you don’t get bogged down with as much need for showing instead of telling. If your aim is to create a more remote dynamic between characters and reader, this is the best way to go about it.

Cons: The same distance that makes it easier to describe events can weaken the sense of intimacy and how personal the story feels to the reader, and since third person omniscient is already pretty distant feeling, that can make identification with the characters take a big hit.

Can lead to info-dumping; feels a lot like ‘telling’ instead of ‘showing’ because, as an omniscient narrator, they might know everything that’s happening, but they’re not really feeling as the characters feel, as they act and react to events. Thus it can significantly reduce the visceral feel of the story, and whatever connection the reader makes with it.

If you do try to ‘zoom into’ a character’s feelings, you then have to ‘zoom out’ again so you can either return to omniscient narration or zoom into another character, and all that back-and-forth can create not only a sense of literary vertigo but also make the story feel uneven and disorganized. That same strength of voice, with the author being stronger than the characters, can become a problem if it feels like the story is more about you than them.

Examples: The Da Vinci Code, Little Women, Pride and Prejudice, Brokeback Mountain, the Discworld series, the Lord of the Rings series, and The Scarlet Letter. 

b) Third limited: The story is restricted to narration by only the main character(s). In mainstream literature, it’s usually just the single, main protagonist, but in popular fiction, including many romance novels, there are two or more characters who narrate from their POV4. The huge majority of stories are written in third limited.

Pros: This is the best of all worlds; you get the ‘bigger picture’ benefit of distance that first and second persons lack, but also have access to the thoughts and feelings of the characters in an effective, less distant way. Since the majority of fiction is written in this way, it feels effortless and doesn’t force the reader to stretch to comprehend what’s happening. Since the scope of narration is smaller, and the characters only know whatever is filtered through them, the author can write them in ways that make it easier for the reader to identify and connect – enhances intimacy between character and reader.

Cons: Likewise, with the smaller scope, narration loses that all-encompassing sense of time from past through present to future, and of space from events unfolding in a number of places – you’re limited to only what the narrating character perceives in their particular time and space until and unless you switch to someone else.

Examples: the Harry Potter series, the Song of Ice and Fire series, 1984, Cloud Atlas, Ender’s Game, Fahrenheit 451, The Old Man and the Sea, Alice in Wonderland, and The Cask of Amontillado.

Homework

Your homework is that, if you have any questions or are confused about any of it on the first read-through, write out your thoughts to help organize them, and then try to answer them on your own through in-depth scrutiny of the lesson’s contents – see if you can figure it out for yourself, without explanation from me or anyone else.

I’m hoping you’ll have epiphanies because if you can catch on without assistance it will have more meaning and you’ll get a deeper comprehension of the issue. It’s so important, I really want to you get it as well as possible.

Endnotes

1 There are actually more than two but they fit under the umbrellas of either omniscient or limited and only literary analysts actually care and none of us are here to write a dissertation about this shit so let’s just narrow it down to the main two.

2 Many a Mary Sue and Gary Stu is born because a less-than-deft author favorably describes their protagonist in a way that irritates the reader. Plus, how to go about it? Many fall into the trap of the ol’ “looking in a mirror” scene, which ends up seeming narcissistic more than not. It’s been done and done and done a zillion times since the invention of fiction a few thousand years ago – it’s gone beyond trope to cliché and now is universally considered by good authors to be lazy, shitty writing.

3 We’ll be going over filter words in more depth in a later lesson but for our purposes here: they are words that aren’t strictly necessary and act as a layer, or filter, through which the reader must pass to get to the story’s meaning. This meaning as well as urgency and intimacy can create distance between the character and the reader. Words like “saw”, “thought”, “wondered”, “felt”, etc. are filters.

4 Having numerous POVs in a single story is very difficult to keep organized and maintain, and I advise against it until you have mastered just doing two of them, as in a romance novel. I took on five POVs for Desperado, and don’t think I don’t regret that choice every damned time I have to write another chapter.

© 2019 to me

[maiji]

“If you could pick 5 members to be on your team in the dark tournament, who would it be?”

So while I was going back through my archives trying to see if I had any incorrectly flagged content (I scrolled all the way to 2015, found three, and gave up/went to bed lol), I kept getting distracted and rereading old posts out of amusement. One of them was this 21 Questions Yu Yu Hakusho meme - and one question in particular made the gears of my brain clank so I thought hey, why not? Let’s answer it.

I'm going to tackle this question from two angles.

A) If I could pick ANY characters in Yu Yu Hakusho to form a team.

B) If I could only pick characters who appear during the actual Dark Tournament.

As soon as you see my first list, you'll understand why I was like, “oh.” and opted to do it again from B lmao.

(Oh yeah my tags spoil everything but oh well. Hope the rationale makes up for it hahaha)

VERSION A: Fun times

Raizen.

I'm sorry, the tournament is over now, thank you for coming. Seriously though, he's Yusuke with a million times more firepower and brains/experience. Also, one of the appeals of Yusuke is that he makes fighting fun, which is why everyone wants to go up against him. Raizen's friends express the exact same sentiment repeatedly. Raizen in his prime in battle would be a sight to see. He'd be all DID SOMEBODY SAY FIGHTING?? YEAH I'LL FIGHT ALL THE FIGHTS WAHOO and nobody would be able to get him off the arena platform. If there is an arena platform left. Or an arena. Or anything.

Enki.

Jolly uncle/all-round good dude, I love him. He also loves fighting, so he is also lots of fun. He seems much more cool-headed and practical than Raizen, and definitely takes the lead in coordinating the rest of Raizen's pals. Thus, he's a great wingman for Raizen. If you somehow actually manage to defeat Raizen- haha, what am I talking about? OK, if Raizen slept in or something, then you can fight Enki. And in that case the tournament is still over.

Kokou.

LOVES FIGHTING AND WILL KICK YOUR ASS. Even Enki was relieved he didn't have to face her. I firmly believe after Raizen she's the strongest - or at least one of the strongest - out of all of Raizen's already insanely powerful friends. Honestly, between Raizen and Kokou they'd probably just take everybody down, including each other, and have a blast. 

My perfect noodle husband Hokushin.

Obviously no one is surprised at this pick on my blog. Also loves fighting, plus super duper reliable, he's perfect support for anything. Along with Enki, he'd help temper Raizen and Kokou's wild party. And somebody needs to clean up after all the mess and make sure everybody gets first aid and whatever. Well, first aid for the other team they just massacred, I guess.

One more Raizen friend: Natsume.

We could put another one of Raizen's friends here, but I pick Natsume because we know a lot more about her and she's so badass and we should have more women. Also, because she's very clearly another great mashup of LOVES FIGHTING and NOT STUPID, as a fifth member, she can easily step in to fill any of the others' shoes, whether it's happily beat the crap out of everything in sight or be calm and strategize. If anybody ever actually needed to be filled in for some reason.

I call this amazingness Team Old People. IMO this team is flawless because they would just be so damn entertaining on so many levels. You have five extremely powerful and smart warriors with centuries of experience who have nothing to prove aside from sheer enjoyment of battle. Every one of them has expressed a passion for fighting because it's simply a joy for them, which means they wouldn't be playing it safe/boring. Seeing a master in action at practically anything is awesome, and not only that but they’d be willing to experiment and take risks and do things that are out there. A tournament is also a form of entertainment for the audience (both the real life audience and the one in the show), and that combined with their expert level combat skills means that I think they'd be so fantastic to watch. And all of them have distinct personalities that balance "I am an ancient demon with wisdom and stuff" VS "I love punching people (or getting punched) in the face!!" in different enough ways that they still offer really interesting character dynamics and interaction opportunities. And they would also be incredibly supportive of each other while still allowing for plenty of snark.

That said, FUN FUN FUN aside, the very obvious problem with this team is that they seriously break the question. And everything else. Even if they don’t intend to flat out obliterate everything, that’s what would probably happen, and that unfortunately can easily head towards its own kind of boring. Everyone would be like "why are we having a tournament, we're going home". So, we must leave Team Old People behind and move on to version B.

VERSION B: Serious business

Dark Tournament characters only. I will exclude members of the Toguro Team from my selection for obvious reasons. NO MORE FUN TIME. This is me pretending that I'm some rich underworld dude or whatever putting together a team I'm betting on to get through the tournament. You're going to see a clear pattern emerging from my picks.

Genkai.

The veteran. Intelligent, experienced, very powerful and pragmatic. I'd shell out big bucks to get her to come back to be my team's captain. No question for me, she's a must, even if all she does is sit on the sidelines and coach the rest of the team. With a group of serious, motivated and talented fighters, she'd be the best mentor and my team would be well-positioned to MAKE ME LOTS OF MONEY SO IN YOUR SMOKY SCARRED FACE SAKYO

Hiei.

Those who know me may find it shocking that I'm including Hiei but not Yusuke, Kuwabara, or Kurama. Hiei doesn't appear on my tumblr very often, and of the four main characters he's probably the one I'm least emotionally invested in. But if you're assembling a team for the Dark Tournament, you're IN IT TO WIN IT!! And Hiei is the best bet. I shall explain.

Hiei is efficient and effective, and his success ratio is the highest out of all Urameshi Team members - the most number of individual fights without a single loss or draw. Granted, he sits out for a chunk of the tournament, but he rarely appears worn out at the end of a fight. The only time he overexerts himself is against Zeru; after his recovery, he never seems to break a sweat. Even against Bui, he had no real issues. From a betting perspective, his odds are very, very good. Kuwabara and Kurama both experience multiple losses - Kuwabara often because he's young and overconfident or becomes so personally involved that he cares more for a positive outcome for other people than for winning; Kurama often because (as Hiei notes) he tends to overcalculate the situation and draw things out so long figuring everything out that it turns into a disadvantage. Yusuke's very strong and has huge potential, but he's also focused far too much on the experience. This makes his battles fun to watch but would give a strategist heart attacks. Many of his fights involve near-misses or less-than-ideal situations stemming from amateur errors. And finally, he gets dinged with a draw in his match with Jin, in part because his dawdling on the field made the deception feasible. Yusuke's great for drama and storytelling, not great for the comfort of my pocketbook. Having him on a team is risky when I know the other underworld bosses I'm competing against are not above using underhanded tactics.

As a result, based on a purely practical evaluation, Hiei is the most reliable choice. He's very focused on, and very good at, the one thing I want - DEFEAT THE OPPONENT UNEQUIVOCALLY. He comes in and tears people apart and there's no chance of an ambiguous referee call. He just needs his team members to be people he can respect to keep him in line. With Genkai as captain, that shouldn't be an issue. Nor with the rest of my picks.

Ryo (Kai in the anime) / M-3.

This is the Dr. Ichigaki member with the invisible claw powers. After their fight, he offers to be a replacement for the seriously injured Kuwabara (Yusuke appreciates it but has to turn him down because it's against the rules unless Kuwabara actually dies). He seems to be the strongest of the three students who were brainwashed by Ichigaki, and without Genkai's intervention and his own struggling against Ichigaki's mechanism, he would very likely have wiped out Kuwabara and Yusuke. He's extremely serious and dedicated, and with someone like Genkai steering the helm I think he'd go far. I'd be comfortable putting money on him. I also like him a lot and wish he had more involvement in the story - I've always felt that if Togashi didn’t need to get Koenma in for story purposes Yusuke hadn't been so freaked out and completely lost mentally when Genkai died, he probably would've asked Ryo to be the replacement fifth member. SOMEONE WRITE THIS

Touya.

Stronger than Gama, less arrogant than Risho, more reliable than Jin (who has many of the same problems as Yusuke), and Bakken sucks and will never be considered by anybody. Touya's powers are also very flexible. Somebody just needs to tell him to NOT TALK TO HIS OPPONENT. Don't talk to them, don't listen to them, don't let them distract you, don't let them get into your head, JUST GET IN THERE AND EYE ON THE PRIZE AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THEM OKAY lol. I also think when Genkai was training everyone for Kurama, Touya was probably the one who gave her the least hard time. I mean, out of Touya, Jin, Chuu, Rinku, Suzuki and Shishiwakamaru who do YOU think would bellyache the least? I thought so.

The fifth member is actually a backup/alternate who doesn't necessarily see action (if you recall, this is why Chuu was mad). For my final pick, I took a while to decide, so I'll tell you about both of the last two people I was considering since I enjoy any excuse to talk about characters I don’t usually see mentioned.

5a is Zeru. 

OK, partly I considered him because nobody remembers him lmao - he was Hiei's first victory, obliterated into a shadow by Hiei's training-wheels Kokuryuuha. But if you look at my other picks, I think you'll appreciate why he's on my radar - he fits the profile of what I'm looking for very nicely. I want someone in control of themselves; who is a reliable, consistent, focused fighter unlikely to get distracted by other things; who clearly demonstrates power and is committed and has potential to grow really fast with the right direction/team captain. The only thing is that with Hiei already on the team, this may be duplicating the skillset and the mental profile a bit too much. And I think it's clear Hiei already has the upperhand in baseline power. So,

5b is Suzuki. 

His strength isn't fighting. It's his ingenuity in adapting, augmenting, and outfitting his team members with really good, really creative tools. He's honestly more a tinkerer and an inventor, imaginatively tweaking things to be even more useful, and whenever he realizes and accepts this about himself instead of trying to be just another fighter in the limelight, he'll be rich lmao. Anyways, this skill makes him a hugely valuable asset. I don't need him to be in the ring, I'm fine having him support with cool gadgets to amplify the rest of the team.

I HOPE YOU LIKED MY PICKS lol