#but the real question for me is if I try killing from a narrative perspective or from a random chance perspective

[arolesbianism]

I need to keep playing ruina but I am now faced with the opposite problem of before where now I have too many nuggets and cannot fit them all. I'm for sure going to have to kill off some of them or at least write them out of lor and I don't wannaaaaaa

[artbyblastweave]

Let’s get some abandoned effortposts on disco Elysium in the list. Liked what analysis on it you had, would be great to see more, or fail to see as the case may be

Here’s one of the last insights on Disco Elysium I care to put to paper for a good long while; I really enjoy the nested futility and self-defeat of the central murder mystery, the way it structured to constantly raise the question of how anyone could possibly benefit from what you’re doing.

I mean off the bat the murder victim is a fascist stormtrooper, so there’s that. I personally maintain that it’s still good in a general sense to investigate murders regardless of the moral standing of the victim, but to get real, it’s a very convenient time for me to embrace universalist rhetoric given how little support the neighborhood receives with problems that don’t involve someone well connected. And then, over the course of the game, you can kill all four people left on the planet to whom the initial victim actually mattered on a personal level. Three in clear-cut self-defense, the fourth as an optional casualty to the same mindless, trusting proceduralism that’s admittedly and unfortunately intertwined with my “ no murder left unsolved” stance.

And then! You finally run down the murderer, and from a public safety perspective it turns out that if you’d just gone home after the mercenary tribunal, nothing would have changed; Dros is on his last legs, the odds he’s gonna kill anyone else are very very low.

The last redoubt is the ideological angle- there could be a narrative here about how you’re crushing the last vestige of the revolution, how the killing and the subsequent investigation was the last theatre of the old war- but I think the narrative resists even this attempt to read meaning into it. From an ideological perspective Dros committed the killing off the clock. It was spite, not praxis- informed in the moment by his misanthropy, his neuroses about women, and his obsession with Klaasje more than it was about striking a blow for communism. He killed Lely while Lely was doing probably the least objectionable thing he ever did. Obviously Dros’s neuroses and living situation were downstream of ideology, of material circumstances, in the way everything else is- but to try and elevate the killing by making it about that feels disingenuous.

And this is great, because Disco Elysium isn’t really about the murder mystery in the same way that Fallout: New Vegas isn’t really about finding the guy who shot you in the head-it’s an injection point, it’s a thread you pull for guidance, but the real meat is all the other stuff and people you encounter while poking around. The killing isn’t unimportant, per se, but the mystery surrounding it kinda is! Given the repeated anti-climax, it’s definitely *less* important than the harm you can cause to people in order to push the investigation forward, or the good you can do for the community by going off-script and helping people out with random bullshit. It’s neat!

[sparklingdemon]

grggrgrgrg i dont know where else to put this but i dont know how to explain but i hate when everyone coddles cody its like NOOOO! like yes they shouldnt suffer a horrible punishment but who are you to say what they did is nothing! or to just blatantly just put hate to charizard because shes holding them accountable for their actions! Just because cody is your blorbo does not make what they did right! you cannot forgive them because you are not the victim! sure you can forgive them for lying to you the entire time theyve known you but well to me that also brings up the question of. well what truth have they actually told me.

im not hating on anyone specifically or anything i promise its just like NOOOOO!! STOP!!! THEYRE NOT A LITTLE BABY WHO NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM BIG EVIL CHARIZARD!!!!!

KILL!!!

(joke)

I believe cody needs to be looked at in a realistic light. like "hey cody that was fucked up. buuuut... well youre already in a prison of your own making so there isnt much more i can do. youre already paying for your actions."

Maybe thats just my thoughts i just always feel like a feral animal like this whenever everyone is comforting them

maybe that is how i feel about cody in general on a variety of fronts though they are my chew toy <3

FOR REAL IT'S GENUINELY SO CRAZY SEEING PPL JUST GOING "that's it?" AT THE FACT THAT CODY KNOWINGLY KILLED THE CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN CREATION. they did the thing that these players have literally threatened to kill EACH OTHER over. like, it's not just a one-off instance. there has been a RESOUNDING amount of support for cody in monochrome's inbox right now.

BUT that said, there ARE some people who are saying exactly what you have of, "i forgive you for lying and what you did was bad but you've already been punished for it" and even some people who do feel genuinely angry at them so it's not like EVERYONE is just blindly coddling cody. so that's good.

i'm trying my best to make it clear from a narrative perspective that what cody did was a Very Bad Thing and that charizard isn't just senselessly bullying cody over something that wasn't their fault. i know that was the false narrative that cody was fostering in peoples' heads for the past two years, so it's going to take a while for people to unlearn what cody misled them into believing and fully accept the gravity of cody's actions. charizard might be harsh but she is the voice of reason here to expose not just cody's true nature but also the hypocrisy of cody's players. it'll be fun to see more of her from now on.

[commsroom]

first of all thank you so much for having this blog and sharing your thoughts!! your eiffelposting (and heraposting) has literally got me through the post w359 Grieving Process after running though the whole thing in about 2 weeks and your character insight is. well. chefs kiss. Eiffel Understander Of All Time. 2 things: 1, if it’s ok, you’ve mentioned before about an eiffel version of change of mind, and the idea has (1/2)

(2/2) literally stuck with me since and i’d love to hear your thoughts on that if you have any! 2, are there active w359 discords about bc i got a deep need to yap about all this (apologies if the first msg came through twice, tumblr's being weird)

oh, it makes me very happy to hear that!! your art is a gift, and i'm glad i can offer you something in return.

as for your question... yes! okay. the basic premise is to frame eiffel losing (and regaining) his memory as a catalyst for character growth, as a narrative parallel to lovelace's death and resurrection, rather than a resolution. i think it's noteworthy that the finale has eiffel faced with himself from first a very internal (the final confrontation literally taking place inside his head) and then a very external (hearing his logs as an outsider after losing his memory) perspective and i think the natural extension of this is, well. to confront him with himself.

one of the most key things about eiffel's character arc is that he wants to escape himself. "it's taken me this long to realize that running from everyone else means that you're alone with yourself" but, as addressed in constructive criticism, he's also running from himself. he doesn't like what he hears on those tapes, but the eiffel of succulent rat-killing tar both is and isn't the eiffel of brave new world, and i think that's what's being set up/suggested at the end.

i think viewing eiffel's memory loss as a death is incomplete, while viewing it as a "fresh start" or anything of the sort is incompatible with his existing character arc. but if you think of it as part of this pattern of eiffel trying to escape himself, and ending up still stuck with himself...? if he makes the big sacrifice, "escapes" the person he is as much as anyone can, and then finds he's still stuck with himself, still has to live as the person he is...? then, what next?

(i think this also ties in well with maintaining sobriety; addiction, self-destructive impulses and the desire to not be present in his life, etc. are all rooted in the same things.)

my concept of eiffel regaining his memory would be this sort of... fever dream "life flashing before his eyes" sequence of stepping into significant moments in his life (as a stranger) and interacting with himself, and needing to accept / reintegrating all of these versions of who doug eiffel is and has been. that the question of "am i still doug eiffel?" is one of accountability for his past but that he's always been changing and will continue to grow. i think a key part of this would be him seeing these moments through a pop culture lens / as if it's a movie and then more gradually seeing what they really are. ideally, these would be moments tied to specific songs for him; eiffel's internal soundtrack is well beyond wolf 359's budget, i'm sure, but it's a hypothetical anyway. these would be real memories, in some form, but obviously none of this would be happening for real; it's just how i think his brain would make sense of it (while he's presumably unconscious.) it's like sarah shachat said about eiffel's story in limbo: to tell that story, he would first have to make it a story.

i like this because i think it works well with eiffel's existing arc. i like it because it provides a different angle on self-exploration via memory in the same vein as memoria and change of mind. i like it because it makes a good potential parallel to shut up and listen/constructive criticism, and to mayday (eiffel alone with the voices of others vs. eiffel literally alone with himself.) it feels like a natural extension + heightened conclusion to things that i feel are already implied + set up. and, while i like where wolf 359 ended and would never want to add to it, i like imagining what zach valenti would do with a bunch of different versions of eiffel at different stages of his life interacting; i think he would knock it out of the park with material like that.

i think the real core of identity in wolf 359 is in these moments where people assert who they are, or decide to be who they are. again, in parallel to lovelace... the same way that lovelace decides to be isabel lovelace, "even if [she] never has been before", eiffel would decide to be doug eiffel, all the people he's been, the person he is now, and all the people he's going to be.

(as for discord... i think there are some, but unfortunately i don't know of any that i would personally recommend. you are always welcome to ramble at Me on discord, but i know that's probably not the same.)

[linkspooky]

Hey, love your fanfic and your metas. I have a thing that's been bothering me since I read your Azula rant a few months ago (which aside from this one thing, was AWESOME. GO THE FUCK OFF.). You bring up how Azula protected Zuko and looked out for him and he repaid her by treating her like she was a live wire meant to be pitied instead of helped. I agree that Azula was done dirty by the narrative, especially with your points added, but I couldn't help but feel that your reasoning for Azula being a better sibling to Zuko was based mostly on conjecture for her motivations rather than what was told to us from the show. So that brings me to my actual question: Should Zuko help Azula because he's supposed to as her family or because he's supposed to be a hero? And will the fic acknowledge their equal share in their toxic dynamic in later chapters?

I agree that most of my arguments on Azula's motivations are based on inference and not directly stated in text. If you don't find my arguments convincing than that's that. I can only argue my interpretation I can't tell you how to read it.

However, briefly I'd like to point out that Azula's motivations are muddled at best. I used killing the avatar as an example, because unless Azula is omniscient she had no way of knowing that Aang could have lived. She reacted with complete surprise when Zuko questioned if the avatar was really dead. If the show was telling us that Azula planned all along to throw her brother under the bus in case the avatar turned out to be alive, that doesn't really make sense. Azula's motivations aren't really made clear to us because 90% of the time she's being shown to us through Zuko's perspective who has very mixed feelings about his sister at best. Azula is also ultimately intended as just to be a part of Zuko's arc and foil to him not really her own independent character so like, I kind of have to infer her motivations.

Anyway, to addressing your actual question. I'm going to use an example to show what I think is the ideal development for Zuko and Azula's relationship by comparing it to another media. Namely, the redemption arc of Faith in Angel the Series. It's briefly covered in this video redemption for her but I'm going to write my own spin.

Faith is the other slayer, a girl chosen to hunt vampires in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Her intention with the start is similiar to Azula's, she's meant to serve as a dark foil to the main character and while Buffy triumphs Faith was destined from the start to take a fall. Faith is also the bad victim to Buffy's good victim. They've both suffered from severe physical and sexual abuse, but Buffy ultimately has a support system while Faith does not. Buffy is also unable to save Faith and basically gives up on trying, because she's suffered very personal abuse under Faith's hands.

Faith takes a fall from lack of any real support system just like Azula. She envies Buffy for the fact that Buffy has everything, a mom, a watcher, firends the same way that people in Azula's life (her mom, her uncle, Mai and Ty Lee also sidenote Mai and Ty lee aren't obligated to choose Azula she made those relationships toxic but like Azula's mother and uncle war criminal are just playing favorites) have always chosen Zuko over her.

Buffy: Why, Faith? What's in it for you? Faith: What isn't? You know, I come to Sunnydale. I'm the Slayer. I do my job kicking ass better than anyone. What do I hear about everywhere I go? Buffy. So I slay, I behave, I do the good little girl routine. And who's everybody thank? Buffy. Buffy: It's not my fault. Faith: Everybody always asks, why can't you be more like Buffy? But did anyone ever ask if you could be more like me? Angel: I know I didn't. Faith: You get the Watcher. You get the mom. You get the little Scooby gang. What do I get? Jack squat. This is supposed to be my town!

Faith basically has nothing, and she's defined by her lack of stability and identity. Similarly to Azula's breakdown, she's almost terrified by the idea of love. Azula can't trust people and can only resort to controlling them with fear because the person who should have loved her unconditional abandoned her and the only parent who showed her attention made her earn it and the person who modeled her relationships showed her how to control others through fear and obedience and that taints all her other relationships. Azula is a toxic individual who doesn't deserve Mai and Ty Lee's forgiveness, and she's also literally never been shown what a healthy relationship looks like and people can't understand that if they've never been taugh tit both of these things are true simultaneously. Faith envies Buffy's life but she's also terrified of unconditional love because abuse and abandonment is basically all she knows.

[Riley is on top of Buffy, looking down at her.] Riley: I love you. Faith in Buffy's body: Uggnnh Get off. No. No. No! [Pushing Riley away]Get-get off! No. Off me. Get off. No, no-o. G-get [Buffy stands] Riley: Buffy...What? What's wrong? Faith: (gasping) Who are you? What do you want from h-her? Riley: Should I not have...? Faith: This is meaningless. Riley: You're shaking. [He gets up and puts a blanket/sheet on her.] Faith: Nnnh. Riley: What happened? Faith: Nothing. Nothing.

Faith is committing sexual assault here, just by the way. Faith is honestly worse than Azula (they both try to do a mass murder for their daddies) and gets shown way more narrative sympathy than Azula ever does. But you know, Faith is also her own fully fledged character while Azula only exists to be a part of Zuko's arc and most of her deeper writing was Aaron Ehasz champining her cause. I guess Faith exists in a show where the writers allow women to be messy human beings.

Ursa: [appearing in the mirror] What a shame. You always had such beautiful hair. Azula: What are you doing here? Ursa: I didn't want to miss my own daughter's coronation. Azula: Don't pretend to act proud. I know what you really think of me. You think I'm a monster. Ursa: I think you're confused. All your life you've used fear to control people. Like your friends Mai and Ty Lee. Azula: [hysterically] Well what choice do I have? Trust is for fools! Fear is the only reliable way. Even you fear me. Ursa: [gently] No. I love you, Azula. I do. [Azula screams and hurls the brush at her mirror, breaking it; then collapses, sobbing]

As one final parallel both of them are aware on some level that they are a monster, and that their actions are bad. Ursa is just Azula's own mind telling her, so if Ursa is telling her that using fear to control Mai and Ty Lee is wrong then Azula is on some level aware of that. Faith and Azula define themselves as the bad one, and use that as a personal shield from both guilt and other's people rejection.

AZULA: "My own mother thought I was a monster... she was right of course, but it still hurt." vs. ANGEL: You can't imagine the true price of evil. FAITH: Yeah? I hope evil takes mastercard.

While Faith shares many parallels with Azula, I'd also like to point out the parallels between Angel and Zuko. They are both marked as having "the redemption arc" for their show. That's literally Angel's concept from day one, he's a vampire with a soul trying to atone for his past deeds. His entire spinoff show is Angel trying to find redemption by saving others. Zuko on the other hand is not only considered like one of THE REDEMPTION ARCS of all time but also his entire arc is learning that the fire nation was wrong and redeeming himself by joining the avatar the person he used to hunt and atoning for the ways he hurt Aang and his friends.

I think Zuko's character arc is much more similar to Angel's than Spike's to be honest (they're both characters in buffy who receive redemption). In that as you said above in your ask Zuko's arc is about him learning to be a proper hero. We don't really get to the part where Zuko like, develops his identity as a person outside of being a hero who saves others. Zuko does like learn to calm down and not express his rage and learns about unconditional love from Iroh but like his act of redeeming himself is switching sides and helping the heroes. Spike swithces sides too but that doesn't redeem him, Spike's redemption is gaining a soul himself and learning to develop his own morality and do good deeds for the right reason and not because he wants to get Buffy's approval.

In my writing I'm planning to continue it so Zuko has to let go of the notion of redeeming himself through heroism and instead has to learn that real redemption is trying to be a better person every single day, not defeating the fire lord and being a GOOD KING TM.

Back to Angel, he's a vampire with a soul. Rather he spent 200 years as a soulless vampire killing people and then he was cursed to have a soul and suddenly feel guilt and remorse for his actions. It's like how Zuko eventually realized he was on the wrong side. Angel can deeply empathize with Faith because he has been where she has. At the same time there's a marked difference. Angel's redemption was basically handed to him on a silver platter. He didn't decide to get a soul and start feeling guilt for his actions again it was forced on him.

The parallels between them culminate in Five by Five, one of my favorite episodes of television ever. Basically Faith has escaped the consequences of her actions and is running away from Buffy. She goes to LA and gets a contract to kill angel at which point a lawfirm will drop all murder charges against her and also continue to pay her to kill people form them.

While Faith is hunting Angel down, the episode flashes back several times to the series of events that started angel's redemption. First Angel deciding to murder a young girl, and getting cursed by her family to regain his soul and feel the guilt for what he did forever.

The next flashback depicts angel's mental breakdown after his ability to feel guilt is restored. He's immediately abandoned by his partner, another soulless vampire who finds his guilt and his soul disgusting. He's left alone with his guilt and there's no comfort in the world for him.

In the third flashback in spite of his guilt, Angel tries to be a monster again and go back to his old self by feeding on a woman in an alleyway only to find the guilt is too strong and he can't bring himself to kill her so he runs away in shame.

Buffy walks the really fine line between the fact that just because you feel guilty doesn't mean you're owed forgiveness or your feelings of guilt take priority over the people you hurt and also that it's painful feeling guilt and everyone at some time feels and struggles with guilt after hurting someone.

Angel is a mass murderer who feels guilty, which like yeah you should feel guilty. He's also a human being feeling genuine remorse with no idea how to make up for his actions.

Angel is able to sympathize with Faith because he knows that guilt, he knows that feeling that there's nothing you can ever do to apologize for your actions and it seems almost better to just kill yourself. To be so hopeless to believe you're just not capable of good.

Angel: (harshly) I can't do it again, Buffy. I can't become a k*ller. Buffy: Then fight it. Angel: It's too hard. Buffy: (desperately) Angel, please, you *have* to get inside. Angel: It told me to k*ll you. You were in the dream. You know. It told me to lose my soul in you and become a monster again. Buffy: I know what it told you. What does it matter? Angel: (raises his voice) Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. He sobs. Buffy is at a loss for words. Angel: Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs k*lling, Buffy. It's the man. Buffy: You're weak. Everybody is. Everybody fails. Maybe this evil did bring you back, but if it did, it's because it needs you. And that means that you can hurt it. Angel doesn't want to believe her. Buffy: (pleadingly) Angel, you have the power to do real good, to make amends. (raises her voice) But if you die now, then all that you ever were was a monster.

Angel has also previously in the show attempted suicide because he believed he wasn't capable of being better or ever apologizing for his actions and when that happened he had someone who believed in him unconditionally and urged him to keep living.

So, really what right does Angel have to deny Faith that same support? How can we believe Angel's truly grown as a person if he doesn't show other people the same kindness that's been taught to him?

Which leads to one of the most beautiful scenes in all of television.

Faith: "You're gonna die!" Wesley is almost done sawing through his ropes. Faith keeps hitting and kicking Angel. Halfway through this it starts to first rain then pour. Faith: "You hear me? - You don't know what evil is! - I'm bad! - Fight back!" Wesley has freed his hands and is untying the other ropes. Faith keeps whaling on Angel, sometimes he ducks, sometimes the hits connect. Angel grabs a hold of her: "Nice try, Faith." He tosses her away from him. Then walks after her. Angel: "I know what you want." She hits him and he hits back dropping her. She comes back up hitting and screaming, but not making much of a dent. Wesley leans out of the window and sees Faith beating up on Angel. He goes into the kitchen and grabs a butcher knife, then heads for the door. Angel as he dodges another hit: "I'm not gonna make it easy for you." Faith throws herself against Angel screaming: "I'm evil! I'm bad! I'm evil! Do you hear me? I'm bad! Angel, I'm bad! (She begins to sob, grabbing a hold of Angel's shirt and shaking him) I'm ba-ad. Do you hear me? I'm bad! I'm bad! I'm bad. Please. Angel, please, just do it." Wesley comes running out of the house. Faith sobbing: "Angel please, just do it. Just do it. Just k*ll me. Just k*ll me." Angel wraps his arms around her shoulders and pulls her against him. She over balances them and they sink to their knees, Angel still holding her as she cries. Angel: "Shh. It's all right. It's okay. I'm here. I'm right here. Shh."

As I said in my longass Avatar post we could have gotten this scene with Zuko and Azula. Zuko doesn't even have to necessarily forgive her, but we could have seen him at least embrace Azula out of sympathy at the lowest point in her life.

It would have been a parallel to the way when Zuko reunited with Iroh the first thing he did was hug him after Zuko was so worried his Uncle would never forgive him. Even if we didn't get a full redemption arc we could have just gotten this as a start, a sign that things might get better for Azula one day.

This is how I plan on writing Zuko and Azula's arc though. Zuko eventually needs to reach a place of self-awareness where he can help Azula get through the crushing guilt she feels because he's been there too. He had help when he was struggling at his lowest point, and now Zuko being that support for someone else is a way to demonstrate his growth as a person. That's a major theme I want to tackle in this fic, that helping the avatar and being a good firelord isn't the end to Zuko's development.

He can also do that while still holding Azula accountable for the hurt she's caused others and him. To emphasize she needs to actually do something to better herself, because feeling guilt isn't enough.

Faith: "Oh, maybe we - just don't mention it then." Angel: "Maybe we do." Faith: "Are you saying I got to apologize?" Angel: "Think you can?" Faith: "I don’t' know. - How do you say 'Gee, I'm really sorry tortured you I nearly to death?'" Angel: "Well, first off I think I'd leave off the 'Gee.' And secondly I think you have to ask yourself: are you?" Faith: "What?" Angel: "Sorry." Faith: "And what if I *can't* say it? There are some things you can't just take back, no matter how sorry you *are*, right?" Angel: "Yeah, there are. I've got some experience in that area." Faith: "Right. And you've been doing this for a hundred years! I'm not gonna make it through the next ten minutes." Angel: "So make it through the next five, the next minute." Faith: "I don't think I can." Angel: "Yes, you can." Faith walks away: "God, it hurts. I hate that it hurts like this." Angel follows her: "Oh well, it's supposed to hurt. All that pain, all that suffering you caused is coming back on you. Feel it! Deal with it! Then maybe you've got a shot at being free." Faith lets out something between a laugh and a sob: "I've got to be the first Slayer in history sponsored by a vampire." Angel: "Yeah, well, I've got some experience in that area, too."

Once again the fine line between "Yeah, you should feel guilty when you hurt people that's how it works" and also "You can still live with the guilt and get better."

As for Azula and Zuko's relationship and the way I plan on writing it, first and foremost I plan to make things get worse before they get better.

I do want to portray Zuko and Azula as being equally bad to each other. Azula was willing to throw Zuko under the bus for her father's favor. When Zuko is firelord though and the tables are turned and he has power over her, the way he treats her isn't exactly great let's say.

It's almost like abuse is born out of an unequal power dynamic and not just something that bad people do to innocent victims.

I know so far the narrative is incredibly slanted towards Azula, but one I'm just writing the way Zuko acted in the comisc, and two it's from Azula's perspective. Now that Zuko is finally getting his POV I plan on covering a lot of his pain from the way Azula hurt him too.

If you've ever read Interview with a Vampire and the Sequel Lestat, I'm planning on doing something similiar to Lestat and Louis' divorce arc. Each of them narrates a story from their own perspective and each of them paints the other in the worst light possible while highlighting their own qualties.

Also to some extent I do think Zuko believes that he's "the good one". That part of his treatment for Azula comes not from anything Azula's done, but from projecting his worst flaws onto Azula because they were both groomed by Ozai and wanting to convince himself he's NOT LIKE THAT.

Whereas Azula views Zuko as an ungrateful trait. I think they'd both have to essentially get over it. Zuko betrayed the fire nation because the way Azula and Ozai treated him was wrong and the fire nation was wrong. Zuko can't play good victim bad victim. You don't become a good person by pointing the finger and scapegoating someone else as evil, you do it by working on yourself every day.

The way I want to model their relationship is something like Sanemi and Giyu, or Blackfire and Starfire. The pain that they caused each other is legitimate and shouldn't be shied away from but also both ulitmately grew up and survived the same abusive household together. That's a special kind of understanding that they have for each other that no one else does, and I think Zuko needs that understanding from someone. Ursa ran away, Kiyi is an innocent kid, I don't think he could connect with either of them the way that he could with Azula who shared Zuko's same abuse.

Forgiving Azula and seeing how her trauma affected her can also be a way of Zuko forgiving himself and learning about himself. He can look at Azula's abusive behaviors and be like, oh I do that too. I'm not quite over that yet. It's impossible to be truly over the ways my abuse affected me, but I can keep working on it.

This is basically the note I want both of them to end on where they're both still working on redemption together.

ANGEL Faith, wake up! FAITH (wakes) I've rolled the bones. You for me. ANGEL (walks away from the fight with Angelus to talk to Faith) I used to think that. That there'd be a point when I'd paid my dues. ANGEL Faith, listen to me. You saw me drink. It doesn't get much lower than that. And I thought I could make up for it by disappearing. FAITH I did my time. ANGEL Our time is never up, Faith. We pay for everything. FAITH It hurts. ANGEL I know. I know.

Anyway, thnak you for the ask. I'm happy you're interested in my fic. If you have any more questions of comments on my fic feel free to send them.

[maxdibert]

Well yes that's why bigotry exists - people learn it from their environment. And not everyone turns out decent when they become an adult. It's not wrong to call out what it is or what these ideologies or thoughts mean. This is just me speculating and making more sense of a fictional world, because I do enjoy politics and Harry Potter at the same time. If someone is a member of a group that wants to kill/hunt down a group of people and and make them second class citizens I want to know how this line of thinking originated and how is it possible that the environment and society allowed it. If you don't like calling it fascist, then what is the word for it? The universe clearly has a society that has a huge problem with muggleborns otherwise it wouldn't allow a group of people (purebloods) who have such extreme ideas about them come to power and hold so much wealth. There is a reason a small group of people who disdain muggleborns are at the top of society and one of the reasons seems obvious to me - the general society doesn't view muggleborns as equal and that simply always shows in the economic sphere. Those who are most powerful in society always rule it in some way. Maybe I'm overthinking this. Btw I don't target certain people with this, especially Severus. Severus's case was completely different so I don't even think about him when I say that the death eaters were fascist. I target the ones who hold power in their society which to me are the purebloods. The Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges and Potters are known for having huge wealth so it is obvious they associate wealth/power with blood status. And that means they associate the lower class with muggleborns. Or atleast they wish that was the case. I'm not trying to compare this to real world cases, I just want to make it make sense, because Rowling really did a poor job at explaining how it all came to be.

The problem with the idiosyncrasy of Rowling’s world is that there is no real awareness of social issues. The “good guys” support Muggle-borns, but there’s no substantial reason, ideological motive, or intention for social change behind that support—just the fact that they’re “the good guys.” They don’t question the system because their system fundamentally works. The only disruptive element is the existence of a terrorist group specifically targeting Muggle-borns, but no broader social issue is clearly established around this.

Take Arthur Weasley, for example. He literally works studying Muggles, yet he talks about them as if they were little more than animals to be analyzed in a lab. All the “good” characters at some point make derogatory comments about Muggles. They are paternalistic, condescending, and exhibit a clear, widespread sense of superiority. This is something they neither question nor are aware of, and it’s never addressed because the narrative doesn’t see it as problematic. The narrative simply ignores this obvious distinction and never frames the “good” characters as problematic for adhering to these beliefs.

Harry, for instance, doesn’t care about Muggles, and he doesn’t seem to care much about Muggle-borns on a broader social level either. He’s concerned because specific people in his life might be affected, and the same goes for the rest of the “positive” characters. They don’t have a political view of the problem; their perspective is personalized and individualistic. They fight because they are supposed to, not because they truly understand the root of the issue.

Similarly, after Voldemort’s defeat, no political or social reform is proposed to address the inequalities faced by those considered second- or third-class citizens or those who lack basic rights (house-elves, werewolves, giants, etc.). There’s no movement for systemic change. It’s simply about defeating the bad guy so that everything can stay the same. As such, we can’t really talk about a progressive or leftist opposition to a fascist or far-right threat because the “good” side is made up of privileged bourgeois characters who only care about what affects them personally and have no intention of pursuing social change at its roots.

We also can’t compare those who genuinely face social exclusion in Rowling’s world (humanoid magical creatures) with Muggle-borns. The former truly lack rights, are marginalized, and are persecuted, while the latter only experience discrimination when Voldemort comes to power. You mentioned that pure-blood families are tied to class, but this isn’t entirely true. The Weasleys and the Prewetts were pure-bloods, and we know they were considered poor. Thus, pure-blood status does not necessarily imply a certain economic status by default.

What about Muggle-borns from wealthy families? We know that Muggle money can be converted into wizarding money, so a Muggle-born from a wealthy family could end up richer and have more economic power than a poor pure-blood.

I see the concept of blood purity as more akin to a xenophobic nationalist sect. The magical culture represents the nationalist aspect, while their disdain for “outsiders” gradually integrating their customs reflects the xenophobic side. Can parallels be drawn with fascist principles? Of course, just as you can find similarities between socialism and social democracy in certain aspects, but they are not the same.

My main issue with labeling one side as Nazis is that there’s no antifascist counterpart in the story. Antifascism is not just about taking down fascists; antifascist groups are typically rooted in political theories advocating for systemic change and social reform in addition to opposing fascism. The Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore’s Army don’t fight Voldemort because they want to address the numerous social inequalities and problems in the wizarding world; they fight him because Voldemort wants to seize power, and that poses a personal threat to them.

When the war ends, Harry essentially becomes the magical equivalent of an MI5 agent—he’s basically a cop. And an antifascist doesn’t become a cop. Antifascists are the ones getting beaten up by the police, not joining their ranks.

[completeoveranalysis]

Of Yūko's customers, which ones you find most memorable?

Most memorable customers, you say?

I hope you don't mind me using this as an excuse to make an arbitrary list by way of answer. (Arbitrary lists, my beloved...)

Yuuko's Customers In Order Of How Well I Remember Them

(Though I will exclude all the bigger characters for fairness. So, Syaoran, Watanuki, Lava Lamp, Fai, Kurogane, Doumeki, Himawari, Seishirou, Ashura, Tomoyo, etc, etc. Regular xxxHolic customers only!)

10. Birdcage Customer

What was this about? Was he even a customer? We just don't know!

But the thing most memorable about this whole situation is the most pressing question: WHY DO YOU HAVE EVIL WOLVERINE'S SYMBOL ALL OVER YOUR HOME? It's even on his front sign!

WHO ARE YOU?????

9. The Liar

Mostly at the bottom because I can't resist the irony. She's the first big customer we see - but what do we really know about her? Absolutely nothing, because she lied every step of the way!

What can we really remember about someone who never actually told us anything about herself?

Though I guess you could say her ending causes quite an impact.

8. Monkey's Paw Customer

Did I forget this had happened? Perhaps!

She's one of those cases where the cause and effect are so clear that the rest of the cast might as well not even be there - and I think most of her story IS told through scenes entirely from her perspective.

I think the most memorable thing about her is the Sheer Audacity of hunting down a monkey's paw and being convinced that, actually, she already knows what it does so it can't possibly go wrong. Love that for her. Would kill for this confidence.

(Not literally - but she kind of did that also)

7. Ame Warashi

Her impeccable style. Her winning charm. She's an icon.

I had just completely forgotten that she was also a customer at one point.

She makes up for it for being absolutely great in every scene she was in, but what are you going to do in a list based purely on how well I remember the customer part? Woops! My bad!

6. Karasu Tengu

They get huge points for this being a Central Event in the narrative, but also I completely forgot they were in this as customers. The entire plot scenario? Incredible! Character defining! Et cetera!

The actual Karasu Tengu themselves? Woops! I forgot they were there. My fault though!

5. The Computer Addict

I love this one. She's so ahead of the curve that she was addicted to the internet back when you had to be on the pc to use it. Honestly, relatable. I also went through a phase like this as a young teen, so the struggle was real.

Little did we all know that in the present day the accessibility of the internet would be so rampant that she literally wouldn't even need that pc to indulge her habits anymore. Oops!

But that aside Yuuko is peak during this arc and I love everything about it. Especially the fact that Yuuko just hangs out on message boards in her free time? Wonderful information. I can do so much with this.

4. Oops! All Ghosts

Another incredible storyline. The twists are preserved by some sneaky panels from Watanuki's perspective and Yuuko's morally grey approach to the whole situation is wonderful. What if you wanted to get rid of the ghost in your home, only to find out that YOU were the ghost all along? It has the DISTRESS. It has the CONFLICT. It has the TRAGEDY. 10/10

3. Haunted Photo

Another customer with Peak Audacity. Trying to wish away the consequences of your own actions? Committing something awful but being unable to actually look at the proof yourself? The ultimate wish being an anxiety inducing curse that is sure to fail? Love it.

It's also one of those juicy situations where the morality of the situation basically drives itself. The customer causes her own problems and can't actually be saved - and doesn't deserve it either.

And honestly I think CLAMP should get a lot of credit for having the haunting effects of a photograph slowly turning around in a purely static medium. They really pulled that off.

I still love the evil smile in the photograph the last time we see it. PURE memorable.

2. The Twin

WE LOVE HER? WE LOVE HER.

Being consistently cut off and run down and overwritten and slowly clawing your way out of the situation through the sheer desire to be your own person?

And then the answer is a haircut?

It's another glimpse into the side of Yuuko that really does try cut people a good bargain. The wish could have been taken in any number of ways, but Yuuko went for the easiest and most affordable way that would genuinely help the customer actually fix her life on her own. She didn't specifically need supernatural help for this, but it was the route that presented itself, and it was the one that got her the help she needed when she needed it. Very hitsuzen, very relatable, very identifiable storyline that sticks with you.

Just like the final entry!

1. Kohane

Listen do I even need to explain this one.

Kohane is like THE storyline. It's THE example of what it's all about. It's not entirely supernatural in nature but completely heart wrenching. It has Watanuki playing a central role in fixing the problem, setting up for his future (or at least, what I assume it will be). It ties xxxHolic to Tsubasa and hints at a secret tool that will help with someone later.

And it has Kohane! You can't go wrong.

[eliotquillon]

alex rider for the ask game :3

my favourite female character:

wow there’s just so many women in this series i can’t possibly choose! jk lmao.

for me it is sabina. my diva, my queen, the only character to consistently call alex on his shit and point out that for all his protests he keeps agreeing to do ‘one more mission’….i will never understand why people hate her (other than misogyny lmfao). i will forever be mad about that weird era of crocodile tears—never say die where ahorz turned her into a bit of a wet wipe because skeleton key/eagle strike sabina is so funny and headstrong and willing to give as good as she gets. i think she is one of the most realistic characters in the series (pun name aside) and her refusing to believe alex in eagle strike doesn’t make her evil or a fake friend…it makes her a teenage girl who was being gaslit by an intelligence agency. from sabina’s perspective the story is basically a horror movie: her best friend is being blackmailed and forced into putting his life at risk over and over, and there’s nothing she can do. there was never anything she could do. he chose danger and adventure over wanting to stay safe with her and her family and there was never any point in trying to change his mind because he is always going to be a little bit out of reach. i love her, and i think she balances alex out so well. forever mad that the tv adaptation didn’t have the foresight to realise that introducing kyra (who i love btw don’t get it twisted) and keeping her as a series regular was going to create some balancing issues with sabina, so they just turned tv sabina into a spineless caricature of all her worst traits because they didn’t need to worry about making her likeable like they did with kyra. book sabina i will love you forever.

my favourite male character:

am i allowed to say ‘the ghost of john rider that is perpetually haunting the narrative’. because to be clear it is the ghost of john rider that is perpetually haunting the narrative.

in all seriousness this is so difficult…i genuinely do love whatever the fuck is going on with the unreliable portrait of john that gets drawn throughout the series, but given that his only real appearance is in russian roulette (a book so filled with continuity errors/unreliable narration that for my own sanity i HAVE to assume that yassen is deliberately lying in at least parts of it) i don’t know if he sincerely counts as a ‘character’. although for what it’s worth i do fundamentally think that whoever john really was, he wasn’t a cut and dry ‘good person’ like we keep being TOLD to believe (too much contradiction going on with him for that).

it’s probably either general sarov OR alex himself. general sarov is cut and dry my favourite villain, is in my favourite book, and i could talk about his decision to shoot himself instead of alex (when sarov was 100% on the edge of victory!) forever. he’s such a tragic figure and i always find myself wishing that we’d gotten more villains like him…characters who genuinely weren’t cut-and-dry evil, whose motivations were actually kind of reasonable apart from the fact that the endgame/means to get to it were all wrong. but since i’m probably gonna talk a lot about skeleton key anyway i’ll put a pin in that. ALEX in the meantime…i love him so much. i love his smug one-liners, i love his fits of bad temper, i love that he never does what he’s told. and i also love how wistful he is. there’s a lot of moments, especially in the earlier books, where it’s clear that alex was actually already pretty fucked up from the simple fact of not knowing his parents. he’s been grappling with that big gnawing question of ‘who am i, really’ for a long time. he has so much guilt and shame. killing is for grown-ups and he’s still a child. i never really got into any of the other ‘teen spy’ novels when i was a kid and i think the reason why i latched onto alex rider specifically is because he is such a good protagonist. as an adult he is still so interesting because it becomes so much clearer how scared and insecure he is a lot of the time. i love him.

my favourite book/season/etc:

my fave season of the show is s1 fyi. ANYWAY.

as previously mentioned my fave book in the series is skeleton key. it is so many things. it’s a coming of age story. it’s a reverse whodunnit. it’s a story about grief. it is so, so uniquely of its time. alex continuously tries and fails at playing happy families (the pleasures, troy and turner, sarov) and never quite hits any of the right notes in any of them because he doesn’t know what it would look like. sarov would rather burn the world than admit that he sent his son to die in a useless proxy war and that it was his fault. it is the last book that was published before the war on terror started in earnest. i know it doesn’t really add to any of the overarcing stuff going on (no scorpia and no rider family drama) and nor does it have many of the other popular elements of the series (again, no scorpia and no rider family, but also no k-unit, no yassen, no julius, barely any whump, alex is basically beaten fair and square by sarov at every term) so i know this is probably an unpopular opinion. but there’s something so gentle about it. it’s so heartbreaking. it’s the point of no return - this is the first time alex chooses to do mi6 a favour instead of strictly being blackmailed into it. sarov killing himself even though he’s on the precipice of victory just because alex has made it explicitly clear that he will never be his son, that he can’t ever really turn back the clock, just fucking guts me. i don’t think this is necessarily the best-constructed book in the series (scorpia is, objectively, the best IMO), but it is my favourite.

also the american edition is totally different to every other edition and features a completely different version of the cia scenes, primarily to make the special agents more sympathetic and less like they fucking hate a child. which is just so cool. i mean the censorship stuff isn’t cool but the difference in editions is fascinating.

my fave episode (if it’s a tv show):

i can’t remember if it’s ep7 or 8 of season 3 but the tv show’s take on what happened at albert bridge. that episode. it was so, so good. i cannot imagine a better way to film it. i loved the interspersing of present with past and they cast john rider SO fucking well. i have a lot of mixed feelings about season 3 (i thought the decision to veer right back into being very book accurate after doing a pretty good job of making it explicitly clear that this was a retelling/its own distinct spin was…confusing) but that episode was perfect. i also really like s1ep8 (because i’m obsessed with kyra).

my fave cast member:

if we’re talking about the show again: marli siu as kyra. she is so fucking cool. and also adding kyra to the show, for all it opened up a can of worms, was the best thing guy burt ever did. i adore kyra so much.

if we’re using cast member to mean ‘recurring main character who isn’t one of my two named favourites’: i have a bit of a soft spot for crawley. i have no idea why, but something about him consistently being described as looking like a second-rate private school teacher forever tickles me. he’s just some guy but he cracks me up for some reason.

my favourite ship:

across the whole AR multiverse of madness, it is probably alex/kyra. i blame them for my sudden het ship renaissance tbh. i was rooting for them like i have never rooted for any heterosexual couple before (although arguably neither of them are het LOL). i think i fainted when they finally kissed in s3.

but if we’re doing book-only (since most of my answers have skewed that way)…hmm. i think i will have a forever fondness for sabina and alex’s invisible string thing they have going on. not friends not lovers but a secret third thing. i also like the toxic yaoi of john/yassen a lot because the fuck is going on THERE. i don’t fuck with alex/yassen because it personally icks me, but like i very much see the vision of yassen recreating the dynamic he had with john but with alex (and the roles reversed). john/yassen most toxic mentorship of all time spread the word.

a character i’d die defending:

sabina pleasure lol. i have in fact made some very snippy posts in the past because like…listen. obviously you are allowed to dislike her. you can dislike any character for any reason. but she has been DISPROPORTIONATELY hated on by the AR fandom. it is pure misogyny. her existence is not ‘getting in the way’ of making any other alex ship canon because sabina/alex isn’t even canon! claiming you dislike her because of ahorz’s bad/inconsistent writing is fair but you cannot say that and then, at the same time, praise the likes of ben daniels (whose identity has been swapped multiple times as a result of bad writing) as your fave character. she reacts badly to the truth in eagle strike but this was not her fault! she was being gaslit! if alex forgave her then i think maybe the fandom can let this go! she is one of the only shreds of normality left in his life and one of her chief functions is to call out alex’s shit and serve as a reality check to him. she did nothing wrong for REAL!!

a character i just can’t sympathise with:

i think it goes without saying that we’re not really meant to sympathise with a lot of these characters, so let me be controversial: mrs jones!!!!

like listen. i’m sorry to hear your kids got kidnapped yeah i actually am like obviously i’m gonna be upset about that innit yeah and tulip you know the only thing is yeah is that no-one can force me to be your mate or anything yeah and i don’t want to be mates wiv you alright? i know mrs jones is meant to be the ‘softer’ option to blunt. i know we are meant to believe, especially in the reboots, that she is better than him. but she isn’t. she talks a big game about how making alex work for them is wrong and that she’s against it, but she is never willing to put her money where her mouth is. she’s the one to goad alex into going to cairo in scorpia rising. in a lot of ways, i think her softer coating makes her a lot more insidious than blunt. this is one of the reasons i kind of went off the tv show towards the end: they made show!jones WAY too nice and sympathetic, and that’s just not who she is.

and don’t get it twisted: i think she’s fascinating. i love her character and her different faces are so, so interesting in a series that tends to stick women in the whore or mother box respectively. but i do not sympathise with her. i like her character, but i don’t like HER.

a character i grew to love:

am i allowed to say sabina again. because it is, genuinely, sabina. it took me YEARS to come around on her and then when i finally did it it was so worth it. but maybe i can’t say sabina for three different answers LOL.

this is genuinely a difficult question because there are a lot of characters in this series that i don’t LIKE but i LOVE in the sense that i find them interesting. i think jack has genuinely grown on me over the years, mostly as a result of the secret weapon short stories. it didn’t seem like it when i first read the series as a kid, but she’s so young, and she is functionally helpless—she wants to look after alex, but she’s an illegal immigrant with no blood relation to him, who at best is another way for mi6 to exploit him and at worst is a way for scorpia to exploit him. i have a lot more sympathy and respect for her now. and on a similar (yet wildly different) note: i hate ian rider, but he has slowly grown into the alex rider character i think about the most. what the fuck was up with him. what was up with him and john. did he know what he was doing when he raised alex to be a child soldier? is there a reason why yassen killed him but spared alex despite both of them being john’s blood relatives? i’m just so!!!

my anti otp:

sorry guys…it is yalex, i’m afraid. like i said: i can see the vision, but i can’t personally get past them meeting when alex is 14 and yassen is in his 30s. even in aus where they meet as adults i still get squicked out. honestly wish i could get over my aversion to it (at least a little) because i have read some FANTASTIC fics that had background yalex rumblings and i’m almost definitely depriving myself of a bunch of amazing fic by not really being willing to read anything where they’re at the forefront, but it’s just not for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[joannerowling]

thoughts on The Casual Vacancy?

I love The Casual Vacancy, though i haven't read it in a long time! One of my strongest memories of it is reading the ending while on holiday at the beach and running to hide in my small camping tent because i didn't want people to see me crying 🤣

It's a book that stands on its own, but my favourite way to read it (and i don't know how JKR would feel about this; hopefully not too bad!) is as a continuity of HP's themes. You often see criticism these days about how, at the end of Harry Potter, "nothing has changed". Voldemort is gone, but the structure of the world is the same: there's the Ministry, there's the school with all its four houses. The fight against corruption at the Ministry and to change mentalities about the Muggle born is implied, but not clearly stated, and the way to get there is skipped over. This is an ending fit for children, but as an adult (and Harry Potter is narratively constructed to accompany the child in their journey towards adulthood; you are meant to finish Deathly Hallows in a significantly different state of mind than you did when you started Sorcerer's Stone), you would be tempted to ask, "but is it that simple though? Is the evil truly vainquished?"

Well imo The Casual Vacancy addresses that question full on, and brutally. It's like Jo was like, "alright, now you are all adults. Here's how shit happens in real life."

The story starts by killing the hero off in a cruel and undignified way. Barry Fairbrother is obviously a cheeky nod at Harry, but beyond that, he is almost stereotypically "heroic" with JKR's standards in mind: physically, he has the ginger hair - JKR is very fond of redheads -, the small unassuming but still athletic stature, simple clothing and "kind" face; socially, he comes from poverty - lived in a caravan at some point with his siblings and only his mother in the picture - but thanks to a combinaison of good support and social policies, managed to escape it and now gives back to the community by being politically involved. He's also a good husband and father, can relate with teenagers, has a sense of humour that puts people at ease, etc. He's basically the Lily Potter / Margot Bamborough of TCV, but unlike them, he isn't assassinated, his death is all natural. In TCV, life is just unfair like that. The evil can't be killed because it's not a person, it's intangible and yet very real. It's the greed of the Pagford inhabitants, the fear of the other, the violence of poverty. The characters who have been dealt a bad hand don't get to escape just because you like them.

In Harry Potter we mostly follow the story from a unique perspective. In TCV, everyone gets their share of the narrative, which means all the private frustrations, all the ugliness which were previously only implied in HP are fully disclosed. Wives are disatisfied with their husbands and secretly fantasise about teenage boys band members, husbands cheat with neighbours or colleagues, kids ressent their parents for fair or unfair reasons, self-harm or harm others in retaliation. Everyone is acting for selfish reasons far more than for the common good, even in the camp of those trying to do good. There's rape and drug addiction and racism and child abuse. It's all very, very raw and bleak.

What's to be taken from this is, i think, that JKR is not a person who believes in systems or would rely entirely on them to guarantee fairness in society. The novel is in a very real sense a plea for socialism, and the policies Barry Fairbrother fights for are good and just and work, but he is also fatally alone in his dedication, and when he dies it all falls apart. Of the novel, JKR said:

"This is a book about responsibility. In the minor sense—how responsible we are for our own personal happiness, and where we find ourselves in life—but in the macro sense also, of course: how responsible we are for the poor, the disadvantaged, other people’s misery."

And indeed in the story, most characters don't want to take on the responsibility Barry was shouldering, or they want it out of greed. And that is a very adult topic, isn't it? That is in fact the definition of accomplished adulthood: being responsible for your actions, taking charge of things when they must be done. Anyway, i really like that contrast with HP (as the quintessential "growing up" series) and that connection between the two.

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #10 – The Last Graduate by Naomi Novik

I read A Deadly Education last year and quite enjoyed it (and Novik’s unrelated Spinning Silver is just one of my favourite low fantasy books full stop so she has quite a bit of my trust), so I finally got around to putting in a hold request for the sequel. Broadening your horizons and reading outside your comfort zone means swimming through 400 pages of YA a couple times a year, right? Anyway, despite only barely remembering who anyone but El and Orion were when I went into this, was a fun read!

The book picks up more or less directly where A Deadly Education stops – with the horrible murderous monster-infested extradimensional wizard high school’s cleansing machinery repaired for the first time in generations, and the place therefor incredibly less monster-infested than previously. El, prophesied future dark lady of the apocalypse with a savant’s talent for specifically the sort of magic you cast after cackling and before someone puts a sword in you, doesn’t get to enjoy that much – her senior year seems destined to be spent being the target of just about every monster that’s left. Eventually you really have to wonder if the school is trying to kill you – and that question is where the plot really starts to go off.

So I said it before, but this is very much YA. I don’t mean that as an insult, or even a marker of quality, just that it’s a book from the perspective of a 17 year old looking down the end of high school and clearly written to provide a relatable emotional reality for an assumed audience of the same. So El sometimes acts like a cartoon character, and is pathologically incapable of expressing her emotions coherently or expressing affection for the guy she likes in any sane manner, and is far more blase about murder attempts and soul-eating monsters than emotionally awkward conversations – but honestly all that just rings as pretty true to life. Deeply aggravating at times, and her internal monologue and all its snark and doublethink does occasionally grate a bit, but overall it really works. She’s just a fun character to spend time in the head of, (and far less irritating in basically every way than she was in the last book. So hey, maturity!).

The emotional beats were all pretty simple and clearly telegraphed, and it isn’t exactly a book that requires you to sit down and ponder deep symbolism or metaphor to comprehend, but the pacing is tight and it’s very readable. The prose isn’t really anything to write home about – especially knowing what Novik can do when she decides to get fancy and show off a bit – but it very clear and just dripping with El’s personality on every page. I read this at the same time as I was picking through an incredibly dense and citation-heavy historical reader, and the contrast made me very appreciative of those virtues.

Character-wise – well, there’s El, and Orion (love interest, single-minded and near divinely-ordained monster hunter, golden boy of the most powerful enclave in the world), and there’s El’s few close friends, and then there’s a cast of dozens of students with maybe one memorable character trait who kind of drift in and out of the narrative as required. The amount of nuance and exploration someone gets drops off dramatically with each step down the list you go. Most of the cast shows up precisely when required and is more or less forgotten about directly afterwards – which does sell this being a school with over a thousand students in it! But the number of characters who really feel real drops off pretty rapidly.

(Also like, I assume it just comes down to social progress in the 2010s coming at you fast, but you really get the sense that at some point between the books getting written the publishers sent down a memo that you were allowed to say queer people existed now.)

Even more than Deadly Education, this is a book without any sort of singular villain, or even really any consistent antagonists. Some of the other students are assholes, sure, but the book’s whole thesis is that no one is that murderous or awful for the sake of it – they are because they’re rats in a cage, convinced that amoral self-interest and husbanding and acquiring every resource they can is the only hope they have of maybe living to see their families again. Offered a chance to do good, to actually change things for the better and help everyone without getting themselves killed in the process, just about everyone takes it. Even the semi-intelligent school itself gets in on it by the end, pressing the senior class to figure something out and make it obsolete – and the whole conflict of the final act is how and whether everyone will.

El and Orion can both kill basically arbitrarily large numbers of monsters (or people), so the monster-killing is never really where the book finds its drama either. I mean, both do a lot of it through the climax, but the actual tension mostly comes down to crowd management and logistics and whether everyone else is as committed to this as the two of them are.

As for what they’re struggling against – so like, this isn’t Divergent, by the standards of the YA I read in high school, the social commentary is both subtle and nuanced. But I mean, it’s also a story where highschool is four years or murder-hell-prison and justified only because it’s barely the lesser of two evils, and also a story where the poor and marginalized are only kept around more-or-less explicitly as ablative bodies for the kids the powers that be care about, with their only hope of good life being so impressive and useful to those kids that they try to bring them along when they ascend back up to the gilded paradise that is their birthright. So like, not that subtle.

As far as teenage romances go (which, for me, really isn’t very fair at all), El and Orion’s was surprisingly tolerable. It helps that they’re both actually deeply profoundly weird about it, and also that the book didn’t try to milk any drama out of will-they/won’t-they stuff or a love triangle. The ‘and they have sex for the first time the night before the final climactic struggle where one or both of them could very well die’ did feel right out of an old bioware game, though. (Also I’m just a sucker for tragedy and ironic mirroring/repetition, so the ending was great for me).

Look forward to finishing the series whenever I get around to it sometime in the fall.

[luneinary]

I have something silly and perhaps a little lame to say about v3

So after a good 7 months of ruminating and actually Sitting Down to give chapter 6 my full undivided attention and analysis (without operating on a flu-induced fever and not half-asleep from NyQuil) I have come to the conclusion that I love v3's ending , or at the very least its message

I was initially in the crowd that was like "wow I have never stopped caring about a narrative faster" and tuned out the remainder of the trail before the mantra of "it's all fiction" numbed me first and I indeed fell hard for the cameos that Tsumugi kept showing the audience . Normally I liked meta - commentary and media that challenged the status quo so I wasn't sure why v3's conclusion sat so wrong with me , so naturally I just kept chapter 6 at an arms length while I sat on what it was trying to tell me , as the player .

Nowadays , I absolutely still wish that it was better in its execution , but it did what it was set out to and is extremely effective when you lend it some patience.

  the mechanics of the trail are deliberate , subversive , and a really great method of storytelling . It's Shuichi's UI gradually shutting down just before entering K1B0's perspective -- a little nod to Kaede passing the torch to him in her trial; it's the back route (the "lie" mechanic essentially) being "despair" to counter hope , once again calling out the surface-level dualism between the two concepts; it's seeing the inner monologues of both Maki and Himiko while convincing them to abstain; it's the trial impeding on the player's ability to even interact with the game at times (i.e. Monokuma throwing a Hangman's Gambit or a Psych Taxi in your face in a way to coax you into playing, though you aren't meant to participate)  , and that's just a few of my favorites .

Your first instinct is to be upset that everything you learned up to this point was fabricated and being laughed at for caring-- I was upset , too . But the game isn't mad at you for liking its story . If anything I feel like it would not spend nearly as much time trying to get you to care about its narrative and characters if that really were the case . It swept the rug from under our feet to force us to look inward and ask: have we truly understood what we were consuming ? Do we emphasize with the grief and loss that these characters are experiencing , despite knowing that all we can really do is watch ?

Questions that which lead me to the author;

Tsumugi is fascinating as a mastermind because she's so deeply entrenched in simply creating something consumable , that she forgets to care about her own story . If something as big as Danganronpa (in-universe anyway) went on for as long as it did , there had to be, once , a time when the franchise had the most integrity , only to be gradually diluted with each season until it became whatever for the sake of whatever-- it doesn't matter , it's just a show, everyone will tune in anyway, because the world needs it . It's silly and dramatized in the trial , but an example of consumerism all the same .

All of this, likened with the thematic constants, of truth and lies , belief and doubt -- our perception of them -- just kept changing and changing , to the point that even we couldn't make those distinctions, and it was like what are we even doing anymore ?? What even is this story ?

It only makes sense that the characters would outgrow a script that wasn't reliable to begin with, the death of their supposed author allowing them to finally reach an audience that had dismissed their experiences as "lies," in favor of keeping a collapsing franchise alive . The extent of what seemed real to her classmates , maybe even the audience , doesn't seem as such to her -- even if she participated in the killing game -- because of the lack of integrity she had in writing her own plot .

Whether you're an artist or an author or just someone who creates , it's important to remember that: Life imitates art and vice versa , and what we create doesn't exist in a vacuum . How common is it nowadays for people to share how much a game they grew up with has impacted them , or the friends they've made over a book that they've read , or see the time and energy and love people put into fanmade material for the world to see for free ? We are all human beings with so many feelings and thoughts to share, and our ever-evolving ability to express them through storytelling is a wonderful gift -- especially now, when people are connecting more to works of fiction and diverse media more than ever .

So even if it's just fiction , what these characters say , do , think , it matters -- just as much to them as it does us . Shuichi could have always been meek and unsure , but he has gone through something horrible  , seen people at their best and at their worst , met people he loved dearly , and now he isn't . And we were so proud of what he became . Nevermind if what he experienced was predetermined , because it felt real to us , and it mattered ! All of it !! It all matters !!

An author may die . But the memory of opening their book for the first time is timeless . The story isn't over because it lives on through us . Our care . And for that reason, our stories are eternal . Be honest and be real with what you create . People can tell .

[mdhwrites]

Why Do Modern Isekai Like Slavery?

So the easy answer here is that it allows the MC to treat a girl like complete shit and she still has to suck his dick. That it's part of the power fantasy. However, that's the easy answer. That's treating these authors like they're just trying to find an easy answer for fetish bait and for getting to the tropes that their audience likes. I don't find that useful analytically. So, for now, we're going to hang that up and talk about shudders for a moment the narrative utility in a fantasy story of including slavery. God I hate some of the shit this will make me have to say.

I do want to be clear: Slavery is bad. Absolutely terrible. There are few worse things you could to a human being. I would personally argue that killing another human being is less inhumane than slavery. I feel like I should make this clear because I am going to talk about, from a storytelling perspective, how acknowledging slavery in your setting can be useful, especially for these sorts of stories.

With that out of the way:

Any fish out of water story, which ALL isekai inherently are, need a few things to make sure our protagonist doesn't just wander around for a couple days before dying of lack of food or pissing the wrong person off. Those things, though this list is not comprehensive:

A basic understanding of the world, or at least someway to be stopped from breaking common knowledge on accident.

Something that can help them survive in this new world.

Something to help them not go crazy

If we address MODERN isekai's tropes directly, we could also add "Must be a love interest" to this because these are harem anime trying to not have the stigma of harem anime. This actually does add an extra wrinkle of:

4. Isn't going to fuck off when they get the protagonist to safety or when they choose to do things like go fight the demon lord or whatever.

So you need adhesion. That moment in a romance title where the two people aren't just potentially interested in each other but stuck. Something that makes sure that no matter what happens, the starter town farm girl nuts up and shuts up.

A slave girl, genuinely, fits ALL OF THESE. They can be a constant companion who is always on their side who also has a familiarity with the world and has lived at least some amount of a harsh existence and so likely knows something about surviving in this world. The fact that they can't go anywhere or question you inherently adds to this adhesion. Even if it's an isekai protagonist who frees the slave girl in question, they'll just go with the angle of "I owe you my life and so I pledge it eternally to you."

Put a pin in that last part. We'll get back to it.

It also accomplishes a lot of things outside of just this narrative utility for our protagonist mechanically. It also allows for worldbuilding and character defining. Does he just buy the slave like in Shield Hero? Well, he's kind of a bastard then and he's a bit more anti-hero because he's willing to help the slave trade. Does he instead kick down the door, slaughter the slaver and free the girls? Well, you get an early moment of being a badass and unarguably the hero. In both cases, it also opens the door for both author and audience to claim that this is 'dark' fantasy because they're tackling real atrocities like slavery!

Rolls eyes out of the back of his head.

It's incredibly efficient storytelling... and it's also really fucking lazy. Slavery is the poor man's option here and requires you to just acknowledge slavery as the selling of people and not its wider contexts or even the wider traumas of anyone who has even been threatened to be enslaved. It is a very callous, very utilitarian way to use the trope which is kind of terrible for something that actually happened.

Remember that pin? Yeah, that's just a character deciding to enslave themselves rather than being officially enslaved which... What? Who the fuck chooses that? Now yes, an argument can be made of "If I don't stick with you, I'd die," but that's STILL the argument of the slaver as well. That they're too far from home, or that their home is gone, and so they HAVE to behave until they can have a master who will take care of them. It is just another prison. But that's NOT useful for the narrative purposes being exploited here and so we just go with some fantasy 'life debt' bullshit which immediately obliterates really any attempt to claim you're dark fantasy. REAL dark fantasy has the hero free the slaves, them look at him like "Okay, what now motherfucker?" and question how he's now going to keep them alive because at least the slaver was doing that much. Or when he tries to make them work for him, they will bring up the arguments I am because if he actually gave a shit about them, instead of posing virtuously, he would help them get home and back to their own live. They wouldn't force these people to just be an extension of themselves because 'dark' fantasy interrogates the tropes of fantasy and how they ACTUALLY might play out because fantasy worlds are always a place of grand cruelties and injustice due to their commonly very violent nature.

The point to all of this is that at the beginning of this, I discarded the meta or marketing reasons for the use of the trope. The problem is that modern is isekai is so poisoned in so many aspects that even if you discard one explanation of laziness and poor writing... You just run into another. That's why these shows have the reputation they do. Do they sometimes manage to be better? There's too many of them not to have exceptions. The rule though is that the writing is bound by genre law to be as abused and warped as the author needs it to be to just get the story done.

And that's bad for everyone, like always. See you next tale.

======+++++======

What's extra funny to me is that if you wanted to not have the real world baggage and actually make the life debt thing maybe work, there's a really easy answer: Highway rescue. Someone is accosted by bandits, the hero saves them but OH NO! The wagon that's destroyed already had all their stuff so they need their savior's help further and if they will help them live, they will do anything for them. There you go. Just as easy but you don't look like a creepy dick of an author who is exploiting real world tragedies without actually acknowledging what they do to people.

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[nalyra-dreaming]

I apologize in advance because this is about the unreliable narrative topic, but I did have a question/thought and I hadn't really seen it quite discussed in this way, but it is very possible that I missed it.

At this point, we have multiple confirmations that Louis is unreliable, that S1 will be viewed differently after S2, and that at its core Louis' memory is the way it is right now to try and protect him in some way. These are just facts. The only real speculation left is what he is unreliable about. So, if it isn't about whether Lestat deserved the events of ep 7, what could his unreliable memories actually be about? Even trying to play devil's advocate to be fully prepared for S2, I can't really think of anything that would logically fit.

There is a big difference between Louis being a little biased in his own favor or not having Lestat's perspective (and there are many examples of this sort of "unreliableness" from Louis in S1) and Louis' memories being wrong to the point that he knows they are wrong and he is seeking help to discover the truth. That being a major plot point has to be something big in the narrative. It can't just be if it was raining.

The biggest issue to me really does come down to if Lestat deserved what happened to him. If the S1 narrative remains exactly the same then I do think he deserved it and whatever other suffering he has to go through on his way to the redemption arc they would have planned for him. However, if that core remains the same, what horrible truth does Louis need to be protected from then? We know ep 5 and 7 have specifically been named for the revisits. I guess Louis might need to be protected from the truth that he didn't kill Lestat himself, but then why the need to revisit ep 5 at all? I have seen the idea that Louis is actually in denial about just how abusive Lestat was, but that doesn't make logical sense to me for a variety of reasons both already in the text (like the changes from the first interview) and the way they are currently promoting the show. Would Louis just need to be protected from the truth of not doing everything he could to stop Lestat and protect Claudia, as in he didn't really help directly in ep 7 and he feels guilty about it? Again, that doesn't change how viewers see S1 overall; it would just change the ending, and it doesn't make sense with a lot of other elements. It also doesn't really fit Jacob Anderson's recent discussion of the books and show either.

This all comes with the disclaimer that I don't believe Lestat will be retconned into the perfect husband or theirs a perfect marriage or that the actual mutual fight in ep 5 didn't happen at all. It is really the difference between what events deserve or even require Lestat's murder and what events mean that Louis and Lestat really needed vampire marriage counseling for lack of a better way to put it.

To return to my main question, what could Louis be unreliable about to the extent he needs protection from the truth if it isn't about why Lestat "died" and by extension Claudia and her true nature. I want to be prepared, but I can't really think of anything else that fits all of the evidence and fits with the books and what has been said about the books by those making the show.

I hope my thoughts make sense. I just really wanted to discuss this, and your analysis is always so thoughtful to me.

Hey! (sorry this took a moment)

Okay, so first off - Louis being unreliable is a mixture of a few things.

First, there's memory. It's a "monster", and that is what the raining falls under, imho. Little details. Dates, too. All the dates are off on the show, the speech on the radio given twice, etc. Details. Even vampires do not have perfect memories.

Secondly, there's the things Louis is (maybe still) bitter about. Jacob called that Louis being a "bitter ex who presents their former partner as a monster", so that is still a factor as well. (This is the only part where actual "lying" may come into play, but all in all it's not that huge of a factor in this second interview, imho).

Thirdly there are parts Louis is (still) doing intentionally - like protecting Claudia's image. Painting her in a more favorable light, because he loves her. (Rather understandable!)

And lastly - there is the fact that his memory has been "tinkered" with (I'm not going to pull up all the quotes here, I think you know them by now^^, let me know if you need them.) THAT is the part Jacob referred to at the panel, with Louis trying to regain his true memories.

Now, given what we know already will be in s2, and given the further seasons and their content I also doubt that whatever retcon they'll do in ep5 will be to make Lestat worse.

Like, how could it be worse. Seriously. And where and how would you go to what's to come from there.

It would also contradict Rolin Jones' various statements, which I am also not going to pull up again here^^.

But no, Lestat will not be retconned into a perfect husband and father, lol. He made mistakes, and probably lots of them. There are reasons why Louis is a bitter ex.

So.

To (try to) answer your question:

I have talked about ep5, at length, let me know if you need the various posts and source, but in real quick, I think that part will be revisited to show that while the fight happened (and it did show this utter power discrepancy) it stopped upstairs. When Claudia looks into the mirror. That is a deliberate shot, with meaning. The drop will likely be something Armand planted, because it is eerily close to something he does to Lestat - and Lestat later does to him. The dragging outside... IF it happened then a hint in ep6 will play into it. Though if they reveal that already?! I'm not sure. But the discussion there with Claudia, and Lestat's words can easily also have been part of the actual fight. Or when it stopped.

Episode 5 and the aftermath serve to "prove" that Louis and Claudia needed to kill Lestat. And that is the crux of the matter, right there. Because while Lestat says in his own novel that he never blamed Claudia, and might have done something like that himself... (and I am aware that a lot of people see this as proof for what the show showed there) - in the book context he refers to damning her to darkness in such a small body, and making her so utterly reliant on them. Because he is aware of what he did to her through that fact alone.

Which brings us to episode 7 and the "kill". I think it will be Claudia who wielded the knife, and Louis standing by, as in the book. There were some bts photos of that shoot, with the twins, and Sam and Claudia, and somewhere there is a statement that Jacob had already left. It makes sense that they would have filmed that already.

Louis... is trying to protect Claudia (as he should). And Armand... is trying to protect Louis (by now), and influencing as he sees fit. Not everything, no, but of course his own experiences with Lestat (and we will get to see some of those in s2) have left their own marks.

Armand literally thought Louis would snap out of his grief over Claudia’s death. He says he protects Louis from himself.

I think the tinkering is an attempt to try and free Louis of that grief. And his longing. Parts selfishly to keep Louis ro himself, parts in a desperate attempt to help Louis.

Armand cut the pages of the diary, imho. The ripped out ones may yet come into play for the trial. And, given the Merrick revelations of those pages… those pages might very well be what will bring in the retcons. Because Claudia’s diary in Merrick brought huge revelations.

I concur with you there that the things Louis needs protection from are likely things that pertain to Lestat and Claudia.

The shifts will reveal imho that Louis did not want to kill Lestat (we already know that, imho), and that not everything was as dire as told. And that Claudia was not as pure as Louis wants to remember her as. Which is in line with the books.

Anything else will be details.

Armand in Dubai is trying to keep Louis from suicide. Because Louis knows that things are not adding up, he’s not stupid. And Armand (rightfully) fears the (repeated) impact of the truth. A truth he is not exactly uninvolved in either.

So to close this - actually it boils down to what you already said^^. There will be details maybe. But the main parts will be the already mentioned parts. The rest… will click into place in further seasons.

[vitos-ordination-song]

I’m trying to put into words why I feel so defensive over Thorfinn’s pacifism. Plenty of fans who like the non-violent direction still say things about it which make me cringe. Like “he’s gone too far with his beliefs” or “he needs to be realistic” or “he’ll have to figure out when violence is okay and when it isn’t.”

I have agreed with critiques of pacifism before. I don’t like it when people living privileged lives start to preach to oppressed groups, telling them not to fight for freedom. I don’t think moralizing is the right response to violence in general. Whether or not violence is “right” isn’t the question. We never know what’s right from wrong with certainty. The only thing we can do is look at the circumstances surrounding violence and decide how to proceed. I’m also not immune to enjoying, even celebrating, liberatory violence, which I believe exists.

However, in real life, what percentage of the time is violence positive in any way? For violence to be liberatory or justified, violence must already have been done. This non-justified, aggressive violence is far more common than violence done in self-defense, as not everyone has the ability to stand up for themselves. For the people who can fight back, being forced to commit violence is usually traumatizing. But in fiction, violence is more often portrayed in a positive light; heroes commit justified or “badass” violence, and those who act in self-defense come out on top. With Vinland Saga, Yukimura wanted to create one, just one story where violence isn’t justified, where the characters look for another way instead of making excuses.

Since Thorfinn is a former warrior who has no right to judge others, his character sidesteps being preachy. Additionally, his main foil is Canute, who uses violence to try to reach the same ends and is framed as understandable and pragmatic by the narrative. The work presents multiple perspectives on violence, enriching its themes, but I strongly believe that to the end, Thorfinn will never compromise his beliefs. Not everyone in the world has to believe the same way that he does, but it is right and good that he maintain his pacifism. Readers looking for complexity in a work often want characters to reach a middle ground, like this automatically means they’ve grown, but some of my favorite stories focus on protagonists who cling to ideals and resist change. Through being forced to test out their ideals in real life, they become wiser, better people, more able to live in accordance with their values. That is what I believe Yukimura is going for with Thorfinn’s character.

In my heart of hearts, I believe that Thorfinn is right. He’s never once said that violence is always wrong, only that it should be a last resort. He hasn’t killed anyone since his vow of non-violence, but he’s had to bust some heads. In a recent chapter, he said there’s no such thing as righteous violence; that’s not the same thing as necessary violence. He can do it—but he hates it. If you’ve ever felt a thrill of enjoyment in hurting someone, you know how seductive it is. Developing a disgust for violence is healthy antidote to this tendency.

Reading the Vinland arc, I fully agree with other readers that Thorfinn is naive. I just disagree on whether his pacifism is a part of that naivety. When I examine the story so far, Thorfinn’s failures as a leader mostly stem from his lack of experience. He spent 10 years of his life fighting, then he became a slave, and then he became a merchant. Technically, he has a lot more life experience than most readers. But there’s plenty of things he doesn’t understand because he’s never been exposed to them, like the settlers’ investment in private property. Further, Thorfinn has a kind of simplicity to him, maybe caused by his rebirth, the way he was emptied out and then filled back up. He’s surrounded himself with like-minded individuals, true and honest friends seeking the same goal as him. He also knows how to deal with enemies, warriors who make their intentions clear. Where Thorfinn has failed is in dealing with manipulators and opportunists, paranoids and backstabbers. He isn’t good at understanding people who might cooperate with him while harboring ill intentions or irrational beliefs. It was very naive of him, and the rest of his people, that they didn’t check new members for weapons before leaving for Vinland. I’ve felt from the start that Thorfinn shouldn’t have allowed Ivar and his group to come at all, and he hasn’t been able to handle them very well, not recognizing the threat they pose.

But I’ve seen people equate these failures with his pacifism. That’s where I disagree. If the settlement wasn’t peaceful, it would have already failed, like the one that Leif’s brother started. If Thorfinn wasn’t constantly reigning in the violence of others and trying to communicate peaceful intentions to the natives, war would have broken out a long time ago. It is a simple fact that if you approach people with mistrust, superiority, and violence, you will create an enemy, while if you approach them with openness, humility, and generosity, you will create a friend. It’s interesting how quickly people jump to calling pacifism unrealistic or immature, when violence is usually the true example of those things.

Regardless of whether Thorfinn is right or wrong, naive or wise, it is possible that Vinland will fail. He may not be able to hold it together. But is this because of his non-violent ways? After all, Canute’s violence will ultimately fail as well—historically, his stable kingdom collapsed after his death. Vinland Saga portrays human beings who long for something better while remaining trapped in their failures and misfortunes. Yet the story still praises the efforts of those who try. Following their ideals, foolish as they may be, they attempt to shape the world. This theme is introduced all the way at the beginning with Thors, hurting his family’s livelihood to save a dying slave. There is a nobility and strength in continuing to pursue what you believe is right, regardless of the outcome. That is the only way for us to live fulfilled lives.

[hanzajesthanza]

i must add my two cents to your wonderful video essay. firstly, brilliant research, hats off. what i want to talk about is polish history intertwined in the saga. i first read the witcher as a 12 year old, and didn't put so much perspective on this aspect then. it taught me a lot about war, sure. but thank you for widening my point of view. I've been thinking about it and realised that Jarre's story says a lot about how war seems to the Poles who read about war in history books after becoming free of the communistic grip. basically, what we have now is the cult of patriotic insurgents, of dying in the name of motherland. they are much more important heroes than a lot of our inventors. so many young people died in a hopeless fight. so many brilliant minds. that's what i think when Nenneke says to him that he can't go, because that's not this thing, that his life will go to waste. during ww2 our oppressors firstly took all our intelligence and murdered them. and those who fled, were later considered cowards. those who couldn't fight were ashamed. Jarre's part of the story illustrates it, his ideals and how useless his suffering is in this war. that's reality.

literally ugh… that’s probably one of the best characteristics of the witcher and hussite trilogy, war and battles being depicted realistically, in that realism it’s not glorified, but we are shown the futility, senseless violence, nauseating fear, with any victory pyrrhic… through not only the eyes of “professional soldiers” but also through thise of “average people”.

and how on what we might believe to be “the good side” there is actually a lot more complexity to it, and it’s not just black-and-white. as for instance, jarre is shown the horrible sides of the northern forces, innocents being killed for spreading “defeatism and desertion”. and here then returns the question of lesser and greater evils.

i don’t know if i explained my personal opinion on this so much in the essay (i was trying to remain a little objective, since criticism for netflix usually gets into a lot of subjective opinion rather than trying to present facts) but this perspective of war, which in the essay i attribute to the witcher’s polish identity, was something which made the books particularly interesting to me as an american reader—

because i’ve never been drawn to war stories in fiction. the war stories i knew were all the same and like “soldier gets drafted—makes friends in his group but is then exposed to violence—comes back and can’t cope,” which, to be true, is an honest and real depiction of a lot of american veterans’ experiences, i’m not denying that; but it was so steeped in either a black-and-white depiction of a good side vs bad side (without, for example, in narratives about the vietnam war—ever considering the perspectives of the vietnamese, only those of the american soldiers 🫥) where the quote-unquote “enemy” is largely dehumanized and whose motivations are never explored, only that they’re wanting to kill “us,” so they need to be killed, and-or a “hero” narrative, where the story largely follows the experience of only one soldier and his personal journey. so reading how war is depicted in the witcher, i was very struck by the nuance in moral and political complexity, the multiple POVs, and how it’s not a foreign war they’re shipped off to fight, but one for survival, on their own soil. i’m of course not saying that the witcher is the only media ever that does this (lol), but it was my first exposure to this kind of war story—and it was probably so because it’s a fantasy saga, which i wasn’t expecting such realism from.

and it actually is a main focus of the saga, as well, not inconsequential background. and even if you dgaf about “politics” and only pay attention to the main characters’ storyline, this kind of war of lesser and greater evils also plays out with them—for instance, ciri, who’s our protagonist despite the fact that she descends into evil herself. and also something i’m desperate to talk about is the moral ambiguity of geralt and his company and how they’re introduced in baptism of fire, because despite that they’re well-liked, all of them except dandelion have some blood on their hands, and that’s why they seek to undergo a baptism of fire.

i did want to get into brenna in the essay, because it is actually mentioned by sapkowski in the same quote from historia i fantastyka, re: showing realism of war (from which i explored baptism of fire)—i wanted to stay a little vague about the events of lady of the lake, not knowing who the video would be served to and if people would care about end spoilers… however, brenna was indeed the second part mentioned re: his desire to “take away the mysticism from war.”

also another analysis that i didn’t touch in the essay but is interesting nonetheless, the concept of “many young people died in a hopeless fight” also applies to the elves and story of aelirenn (tomasz bagiński pointed this out in the same interview in which he was talking about the warsaw uprising)

[drill-teeth-art]

Here, the question has already been raised in the asks that such an image of the problem of immigrants in the Earthspark actually portrays all this in the wrong light. But it only became apparent by episodes 17 and 18. The rest of the episodes are trying to teach us morality that those who see you as "bags of meat", unequal to themselves, ready to destroy you without regret - they are actually good guys! You have to forgive them, give them a second chance. Even despite what they've done in the past. And they didn't admit mistakes. And, actually, they can still and are ready to kill you at any moment, because their problems are more important. But you have to forgive them. Otherwise you're a vicious racist. And now we imagine the reaction of real victims of the war to this. They will really like it (no). "Hey, do you know those guys who bombed our city? Probably we just didn't understand them, probably they are cute and funny guys!". To be honest, it looks ugly at this historical moment.

This is a great point omg thank you for pointing it out. Earthspark's moral view is really falling into the "forgiving the unforgivable" trope that is pretty troublesome to me. Rant under the cut about this very trope that gets a little tangent-y about my observations about the trope generally.

Like I'm all for redemption stories and gray morality and believing that people can change and showing that the world is complex and good intentions don't equal good actions and etc. But that's not what Earthspark is doing imo. You're right that the writers are working to make the Decepticons in Earthspark read sympathetic and that the humans who hate them are robot racists with no reason to be suspicious. But in Earthspark, the Decepticons and Autobots did literally bring their war to Earth and cause damage and chaos and pain in the narrative.

But back on the topic of "forgiving the unforgivable" trope I find really troubling as a trend that is more and more prevalent in media. It pretty much always prioritizes the feelings of those who caused active harm to others instead of the ones who were hurt by those actions. It so often demonizes characters in the story who dare to be upset about how they were harmed because they won't forgive the ones who harmed them.

Like imo, a good redemption story is not about the victims of harm forgiving the perpetrators. It's about the perpetrators wanting to change for the better and choosing to try and be better even when the ones they hurt will never forgive them. And Earthspark isn't that. Earthspark's writing is going out of the way to make humans who understandably want to defend themselves into cartoon villains who love hurting transformers. And I gotta say that's messed up.

Again, thank you for pointing this out to me about Earthspark's writing. I really appreciate the insight and perspective from others. Feel free to critique my analysis and summary of the trope I mentioned too if you feel so inclined. I always appreciate the input.