#even if it was influence by an alt personality that character has to deal with the consequences

[goldenthyme]

I know there's a level of "that's not how he would act" because of how many different people write comics, but after Gotham War, even though it was pretty hated by everyone, you really can't say Bruce Wayne is not abusive to Jason Todd.

[fumifooms]

Bonbon is fucking me up

Fancy alt title: On coping, safety in the inanimate and helplessness against the animalistic

I don’t care about the storybook symbolism I’m here to talk about the experience of it all and how it’s so viscerally relatable. Watched the new Jacob Geller vid and I am in shambles (< how to say something that immediately ages your draft pfft…) I appreciate this game I appreciate it a lot

I recommend if you’re here but don’t know a thing about Bonbon you just go watch it, here’s a gameplay, it’s short. Or the Jacob Geller video segment at least 🙏 It does an amazing job at covering it.

Official game description:

Bonbon is a thirty-minute long, first-person domestic horror narrative about childhood events you are too young to understand. Playing as a young toddler, walking and carrying objects will be difficult. You will drop things, and you will fall over. Since your parents aren't there to pick you up, you'll be spending time with a large, overbearing and ambiguous visitor... a monstrous, hungry rat named Bonbon.

Official CW: Steam : The player character is a young child who is being traumatised by a giant humanoid rat who appears in the house one day. The traumatic events are symbolic and related to domestic issues. Physical violence is extremely mild, but some players might find the threatening atmosphere to be uncomfortable. // itch.io : Bonbon deals with grown-up themes and suggestions of child-abuse. There is no literal violence or onscreen abuse, it is entirely in the subtext.

If you play through it without knowing anything about it, you’ll have to piece things together to grasp the theme of domestic abuse, but the second you step into official descriptions, it is very straightforwardly about that. I mention this because the game also makes the rat monster, well, a literal rat— a pet rat that is shown in-game to be feral & average in the end credits and to have been adopted into the family from a newspaper rehoming ad. I’ve seen people argue without the extra context that the story has no "fancy" analogy and metaphor for the monster, that it’s pretty literal and is just about a kid’s fear of his own pet rat exaggerated. And, well………. 🧍

So warning for this specific post, we’ll be talking about domestic abuse and trauma, not any acts perse but moreso the feelings it makes you go through- what I think this game is interested in representing.

So I only looked at other non-youtube-comment reviews after writing most of this, but now that I have I do have many nifty little links and snippets to share as cherry on top. If you look on the game’s itch.io page you can find links to some other interesting reviews/analyses. In particular, this short quote by Adam Smith about the game represents well something that people keep bringing up about Bonbon, childhood anxiety :

"the confusion between what is real and what isn’t, and what is threatening and what is malign, rings true."

This reddit thread is another interesting analysis, particularly with the angle of sexual abuse but also goes into the meta mechanics & experience. Only setback is you must have a reddit account to read it. (I won’t be taking the same angle at all but it isn’t incompatible with my reading either, either way it’s very compelling and supported by concrete analysis so give it a look if that interests you.)

And yet even still with all these I wanted to make my own thematic analysis bc I need it and I have other & new things to say. Like how personal experiences have shaped others’ reviews, mine will have a specific angle influenced by my own as well. I don’t consider I was abused- but I was traumatized by a parent, so I do relate to the feelings evoked. Alcoholism, absentness and mild anger issues with an occasional threat of corporal punishment makes for a very fitting cocktail for Bonbon, I feel, but we’ll be getting into that.

The suspense, the fear lingering at the back of your mind that you’re trying to suppress because this is your daily. Domestic horror feels like a quite accurate term. Critiques of the game often agree on a central theme being agency and the lack thereof and that’s particularly interesting, but I want to give a look at the coping angle of the narrative specifically, moreso than the suffering & enduring reactive and active side of it that has been extensively covered.

No the rat man never stops feeling disturbing next question

Before truly getting into it I want to lay out the game’s plot and structure. It has 5 scenes. In the first scene you, the kid, are playing outside when your mom calls you inside, and you have to put away your toys. In scene 2, you play inside and your mom calls you to dinner, and you have to put away your toys. Scene 3, it’s your birthday and you eat cake. In scene 4 a radio with dad’s voice soothingly reads you a morbid tragic bedtime story. In scene 5, it’s night and you can’t sleep, you wander a bit before going back to bed. In scene 3 and 5 the parents are arguing as background noise (albeit very deliberate and purposeful one you’re meant to notice and pay attention to). Bonbon is in all of these scenes, and the aggression he shows/discomfort he causes escalates, until the game abruptly ends when he jumpscares you.

Mild fear, no alarm

Scene 1 and 2 especially are great at establishing normalcy. It feels like routine. The acts are mundane. This is your normal. There is nothing that feels special about today and seemingly nothing is out of place, even a giant rat man suddenly coming crashing in through the fence. No one comments on him, but you interact with him and talk to him. You already know his name, the way you know the name of all your toys, Bonbon.

A significant part of the gameplay is spent with toys, holding them up, manipulating them, playing with them and putting them away. Even in scene 5, toys are used in eerie ways to lure and scare.

Toys are obviously important to the child. They’re the only thing besides the environment and parents that they interact with at all, and the only thing they talk to besides Bonbon. They talk to the toys, saying "hello [toy name]!" almost like a ritual, compulsively, every time to every toy if you the player takes the time to. You certainly have the prompt to do so, and no reason to do or not do it. This ingrained habit shows that they humanize the toys to some degree, and supports that the child has an active imagination.

So, you’re putting your toys away when suddenly Bonbon appears, like I said crashing through the fence noisily. There is no more sudden movement or noise from him, and nothing indicates that this is strange or unusual. Eventually, you’ll have found all the toys you can in the backyard, but that doesn’t mean you found all the toys you need to put away. With nothing else to do, you wordlessly approach Bonbon, and only then does he do anything at all. He watches you, and he drops the last ball you need, it rolling closer to you. You have to approach and bend down to grab it. You do not know why or how Bonbon had the toy in the first place.

There are two levels with this as with any game, the character’s experience and the player’s experience. We have very little insight on the kid’s emotions through all of this, but player wise it’s clear and unanimouse- It’s disturbing. This scene is very powerful in showing how something as simple as help from someone you feel uncomfortable about— someone you’re not sure about— can be very, very intimidating. Uncanny, even. Both during and after, you’re unsure wether the help is genuine or if, like an animal it’ll turn around at the flip of a dime and rip you to shreds if you make one step out of line.

But no, (for now,) the rat helps, and this makes you tentatively decide it’s not all bad. You still feel a little uncomfortable. Bonbon is holding a toy, something that is safe and joyful, helping and giving it, after all. Still, the association between Bonbon and "safe" can’t be made, despite the signs pointing to him not being nefarious we always instinctively hang onto nitpicks of "so far" and "for now". You feel the wrongness, the distrust. Even though by the time the second scene rolls around, the association between Bonbon and "toy" has definitely been made.

You move on to the next scene still wondering if any consequence will come of the encounter. And scene 2 is very similar, almost a repeat in only a different setting. This time Bonbon enters the house and stands in the doorway to the room, almost fully filling it with his size. When he gives you the toy you’re looking for, it’s smaller than a ball and it doesn’t roll toward you. You have to pick it up, bending down right next to his feet, almost touching.

He didn’t hurt you last time, but (in the player at least) there’s something that screams at you to be careful, that that’s no reason it won’t hurt you this time. Still, you need its help, and still, it offers it.

The uncertainty. The threat of danger— though you constantly second guess yourself, should you be scared at all? Is there a threat, or only a possibility? Does that distinction matter? Is it your fault for being scared? And you don’t know, you don’t know if you truly should, there’s no way to know until it happens and that’s precisely the thing you’re stressed over and working so hard trying to avoid.

Has it not happened yet only because you tiptoed and walked on eggshells, or would it not have happened either way? The game in this case answers this in its last second of the last scene- and I argue that’s why that’s the end. That answer was given- the game is about this longheld feeling of anxiety and dread and discomfort, that you’re unsure of when the elastic will have been pulled too far causing it to snap. Then it answers this, and it ends just like that.  There’s no proper closure, about what happens afterwards to the kid or anyone else in the family, or even about the meaning of all the imagery and metaphors, but there is closure in one thing: you hadn’t imagined the threat. You were right to be scared all along.

This is the core of what the game was building up with the first two scenes : tension. A balloon swelling until it pops, more and more and more and you keep asking when will it pop.

It’s a never ending suspense, a jumpscare music starts but the jumpscare never happens, rationalizing everything and gaslighting yourself. A child, though, of course, thinks of these things much less clearly, all of this is much more subconscious. Feels things instead of understand them- which is why I think the game was so well thought and made, you’re a child and you don’t really know what’s going on —and you don’t have the tools to either—, everything feels vague and more importantly vaguely wrong. You can only feel. You have no proof and you understand nothing you can only feel. There are instincts but they’ve been dulled by normalization and habit.

Obviously, toys are the opposite of this anxiety. They’re predictable and safe because you know them and what they are and what they do, there is little to no hidden factor and they have no will or intent. The communication there is to be had with them at all is in very predictable standard sentences and onesided, "Hello, [name]!". There is no body language to analyze or keep track of and their faces if any are drawn and designed for a child’s, smiling and bright or teaching emotions through cartoonish exaggeration. A pet rat, or parents, by comparison, have subtle and complex body language, hard to read expressions- You never see your parents’ appearances at all, much less their faces, but what can you read in Bonbon’s face? You can’t read anything, it’s morbidly neutral, it’s not human in a way you can intuitively understand and that makes it feel more unpredictable and scarier. The inanimate is safe. Toys are humanized to some degree to make them warmer more fun company, but other living things are inversely objectified to attempt to make you more comfortable with them. Let’s move on and I’ll get back to this in scene 4.

Deep fear, mild alarm

Scene 3. It gets revealed it’s your birthday! There’s nothing that cements it for sure, but there’s no reason to disbelieve that all 5 scenes of the game are set in the same day. In which case, the mother’s unremarkable mundane behavior can speak even more interestingly about the theme of neglect.

You’ve been called to the table and mom lit up the candles on the cake and sings you happy birthday! You two are interrupted when the phone rings and mom steps away to answer it, breaking the happy mood. You hear a chair scraping on the floor and when the screen shows things again Bonbon is sitting next to you, huge and insistent on getting cake. You cut a slice, for yourself presumably but he asks for it and you give it. Asking for a slice, then another, then another until he pushes you over to eat all your cake and you still haven’t had any. And of course this happens during while you can hear fight on the phone between mom and dad. Mom seemingly blames the mess on you and sends you off to take a bath fondly.

This was the part that made me wonder what line the metaphor was toeing. The dad is busy on the phone, so Bonbon can’t just be dad when he’s physically there. My first impression was that the child brings their rat to the dining table to have company sometimes. Someone to share a cake with even perhaps. But not something they can hold back or make behave, so when they give it some cake it gets out of hand… We’ll come back on this but I think loneliness is an important and supported theme. Is it only the child’s trauma given form, that causes them to lash out and smash the cake or such? Is it the memories, that ruins the cake for them? The official description of the game makes it sound like Bonbon’s presence is only allowed because of the parents’ neglect, some visitor that appears when they’re not watching... This is all interesting to ponder, but ultimately this is the point where the line gets truly blurred, what makes me think that it’s nuanced and situational rather than a black or white answer.

The mom never comments on Bonbon, and Bonbon joins the table quickly only after mom goes away on the phone to talk to dad- Bonbon has inserted himself in the scene both figuratively because he called by phone and it’s distracting from the moment, from the birthday cake and from the child’s birthday, and literally (through Bonbon, perhaps just a personification of trauma) by seating himself at the table.

In this scene the child talks to Bonbon for the first and only time. "Hello, Bonbon!" they say, and after this they get the prompt to either give Bonbon a slice of cake each time they ask or say "No, Bonbon!", but even if you do he’ll only insist and ultimately push you out of the way. The theme of agency is of course central here, the sheer helplessness of it all. To add insult to injury mom comes back and makes light of the situation, dismissing it entirely.

Extra stuff you could read into is how sweets are unhealthy and potentially poisonous to rats. Bonbon in french means candy btw, if that’s anything at all. I also had in my notes written that there was smoke in the scene, interesting because it’s unecessary, helps atmosphere even though it’s illogical or such? Idiom reference, or reminds smoke detectors bc of kitchen for a metaphor? But was it puffs of breathing? The thing is that I physically cannot rewatch the cake scene so, sorry you only have my memory after five months from watching it lol.

Comfort

This is an interlude of sorts. The only thing that happens in this scene is you have to listen to a bedtime story while tucked in bed, one told by a radio at your bedside speaking with dad’s voice.

In meta, this has an effect on you, it slows the pace and the game’s story down. Maybe there’s lingering tension in you and you can’t relax all throughout it, because of what’s happened so far, but personally, I found myself getting sleepy, almost comfortable, soothed. Both are very interesting experiences. The story and scene lasts long minutes where you can’t move or do anything but listen, so it’ll have an effect on you in any case, even if it’s simply breaking tension through boredom, which could feasibly be an emotion experienced by the child as well. A tradition done out of routine, so the story can bore you to sleep lol. The former shows just how much the child’s home life puts one in a constant state of stress and tension, meanwhile the latter shows a potential reprieve from the tension and more importantly where the child would find it in.

I’ll be going forward with the latter. You, the player, get to be soothed with a bedtime story to the voice of daddy. The scene tells a story that can explain the symbolism and is ripe grounds for analysis, but it itself shows you another side to things. Daddy here, through the inanimate object that physically cannot be unpredictable, a recording of sometime nice, is soothing, a bedtime story, it’s a presence that lulls you to sleep with a kind soft voice.

By this point, it’s been cemented that the father is the unstable destabilizing element in the household/family dynamic. This was the scene I was most onterested in analyzing, because I think this goes back to the child’s liking of toys. Dare I say, their coping through toys. The radio shows distance, which both has positives and negatives. This reinforces to me the theme of neglect and loneliness— Daddy reads you a story but it’s through a radio, which supports the dad might be an absent father. Mechanically, you can never give an appearance to either mom or dad like I mentioned, they’re always offscreen or in black screen cutscenes. In this house it’s only you, Bonbon and the toys. The radio is there because dad couldn’t or wouldn’t be physically present to read it to the child, or because… The radio as mentioned is an object, something safe. The recording of daddy’s voice is unchanging and it stays soothing, predictably slow and soft. It could be argued that the radio isn’t even literal and it’s a way for the kid to pretend that the dad has no physical presence. Perhaps because like the end shows, physical consequences can and do happen. With scene 5 it’s arguably, but as of scene 4 with scene 3 we’ve only ever heard dad’s voice through an electronic. There is an association being made between dad and phones and radios, a faraway voice.

The mechanic of the kid saying "hello, [name]!" is very associated with toys, and then we say that to Bonbon in scene 3… Daddy is the radio, the mother never gets any metaphorical or warped form like that, and then there’s Bonbon. This in good part is what makes me think that Bonbon is somewhat considered like a toy too by the child, but unlike inanimate objects they have a will of their own. I think this mechanic is also meant to portray loneliness like I mentioned, that the kid always talks to the toys, always plays with toys, etc. It’s not "stop playing with your friends and come home", it’s the kid sitting on the floor with toys and playing away, and then Bonbon. The kid had the rat to stave through the loneliness I think, and visually/behaviorally it disturbed them even though it got categorized as a toy and then it also grew an association with father.

We’re building a dichotomy here. There is helpfulness and aggression. There is object = predictably safe and Bonbon the pet rat = unpredictably unsafe. And we’re coming closer to me saying it plainly, but I think Bonbon the humanoid rat monster is at once both the child’s literal pet rat, fused with the father, a way to visualize him that puts distance between him and the child, or the child and their parental trauma. I think the father’s bad is being absorbed by the child’s boogeyman vision of Bonbon, and I think the good and comfortable is associated with the radio, is relegated to that visual representation again. The good ol’ coping mechanism of compartmentalization. How to reconcile scene 3 with scene 4, if both Bonbon and the radio are the father? Which part of him is more important, which vision of dad should you go with? The one that’s scary or the one that’s soothing?

Bonbon is great I feel at showcasing what it feels like to be traumatized by the threat of danger but not it being fulfilled perse. Or yes it being fulfilled but- it’s about being scared in your daily life by someone. That suspense I spoke of. Bonbon is a coping mechanism, but in the pet rat becoming associated with the thing it’s helping the kid cope with, it becomes a source of dread also. If Bonbon is dad when he’s mean, then dad’s nice voice on the radio— dad when he’s not physically present- can be comforting instead of scary, because that wasn’t dad it was Bonbon. Personally of course this effect, the need to compartmentalize and dehumanize, reminds me of alcoholism, because when drunk it can truly feel like they become an animal- unpredictable, with baser instincts, more impulsive and primal and messy. Their patterns of behavior are all thrown off so in turn you recognize them less and that’s viscerally scary. If you can’t predict them and you can’t recognize them then it makes them something unknown that’s in your range and could do anything to you- if your brain is to be believed.

To summarize the story that gets told roughly, our poor protagonist gets tricked into doing a bunch of things by a rat guy he thinks is his ally to the rat’s benefit and the trickery is only revealed at the end, upon which the rat villain wins and the protagonist loses. The story reflects well the outline of the game, the first scenes compared to the ending, Bonbon revealing himself to not be as much of an ally as we’d like to think. It also reinforces this sense of helplessness, being at the mercy of others, and the theme of trust.

There are a lot of associations in the game, rat and dad, rat and distrust— which is perhaps why these three got tangled together in the first place. The story’s scenes evoke routine, so presumably this isn’t the first time they hear this storybook, so then just how formative was the story for them? Do they listen to it every night And then, my main argument, other associations: Toys and bonbon, toys and safety— If Bonbon, a pet, is a toy but he’s also a rat, then what is he? Safe or untrustworthy? Again the confusion from these contradictory associations could have been what kickstarted this analogical hot pot.

Bonbon as a pet being halfway between toy and unpredictable animal. Pets as more property than separate living being. Something that is not allowed to hurt you, but can sometimes surprise you with shows of agency and aggression if you neglect its warnings. Because pets are infamously easy to neglect and commonly mistreated, they’re often seen as possessions. Or yes, just toys for their kids, fish and small rodents especially. How many afternoons has the child spent inside, in the room of the end credits, with Bonbon in its cage as their only company… If the parents tend to neglect the child, who’s taking care of Bonbon? Bonbon might be our protagonist’s only friend-adjacent being. Like with toys conversations are also onesided with animals, and there’s also how a pet is a bit like the responsibilities of having a child, sometimes a violent one especially when starved or mistreated. There’s lot of things pulling them in different directions with Bonbon. So then we’re left with a mix of contradictory concepts and feelings, somethings that triggers your fight or flight but is too confusing to settle on anything, instead just leaving you restless yet used to it.

Associations like that a subconscious thing, human pattern recognition is a strong and instinctive thing. That his dad taught him that rats are to be distrusted and that he then visualizes him as a rat… I don’t think it was a conscious thing —and in many ways it’s a coincidence that both the pet they got and the story character were rats— but it could have become a subconscious way to rationalize both the fear the child feels (because they were taught rats are to be mistrusted so they’re validated in disliking and fearing it, not the way kids’ fear of their parents often get socially invalidated), to deflect and to warn themselves. They’re trying to rationalize and normalize it, has done so, but a part of their brain keeps begging them to be careful, to not trust it, to keep a distance and keep safe from it.

Deep fear, no alarm

So, final scene. You wake up in the middle of the night and hear your parents arguing, leaving the bed to take an eerie trip through darkned halls where supernatural things happen.

And something that interests me about the game is how the child never speaks up about their experiences with Bonbon right. Their mom cares, why not try to tell her, or get her help if they’re scared? But, why would you seek out help from mom or anyone in the first place? It’s scary, but it’s your normal. It’s normal so it’s nothing you can or should get help for. It’s just a natural part of life to endure, just a silly fear you’re unsure if you should have. What would asking for help or crying about it help, change, at all?

So after this then you get back to bed, still wondering, when will it snap? When will it snap? You hear an argument that you can’t tell the words of, but it’s dad and he’s arguing. The argument stops and now the silence is complete. But the angry one hasn’t stopped existing, he had to either go silent or go somewhere. Which is it, where is he? There’s a fear as you face away from the door. If you turn over, will that fear be confirmed or undermined?

The game abruptly ends on a jumpscare that occurs when the player character is in bed. Bed, the place that should be your safest, in your room. The same bed in which daddy radio nicely reads you a story, the same bed where Bonbon will get you. The framing feels like where a game would cut off and say "game over", what regardless of game over animation is usually synonymous with ‘death’. You as a player have to push a button to roll over, that triggers the jumpscare and thus progresses through the game. But this scene removes the artifice of agency that was present in previous scenes and Bonbon directly attacks the child player character at their most vulnerable moment, no matter how soon or late you push that button. Placed in the narrative’s broader context, it reads as an escalation of the abuse and as confirmation that the player character was always already powerless—the exchanges and negotiations of prior scenes were facades, and the abuser was never going to let the child assert themselves in any meaningful way. On a meta level, the game being a linear narrative (as opposed to offering the player meaningful choices that might affect the game’s outcome) reinforces this lack of agency communicated by the story and gameplay mechanics.  I was really intrigued by how well the interactive aspects of the gameplay contributed to tensions surrounding power and autonomy. I can’t not see it as being about the visceral experience of child abuse from a child’s perspective and logic, and I think it evokes those feelings so well without ever becoming so literal as to be triggering (for me), which was very welcome.

Making my research on this game’s reception like a scholar by reading Manlybadasshero’s comment section I saw many different theories and appreciative or unappreciative comments, and I have to say I think going "it strictly symbolizes the father or this specific trouble" or inversely "there’s nothing deeper to it" misses the purpose of ambiguity. In ambiguity there is the possibility of letting every individual in the audience come up with their own most satisfying conclusion yes- hence me being able to relate so much despite having never had a pet rat— but there is also an implicit nuance to be had, that things aren’t clear cut, and coping mechanisms or trauma or discomfort is something we can feel and visualize in big or subtle ways. The game is great at capturing a feeling, and I think that above piecing the lore is what’s important to experience with it. Of course, the game works to convey the experience of child abuse in general, and the game’s mechanics here articulate a vulnerability and sense of entrapment well regardless of whether they evoke that specific concept for a particular player.

Someone said that it should’ve been a short story instead of a game and, disagree. I think having it as a game instead of a short written story is good, because one the sound design is great, two the visuals are disturbing and the atmosphere– everything greatly enhances the whole thing. And most of all, as always, agency is the crux of games. Again it enhances the powerlessness here ironically, that you can do nothing, and it isn’t unrealistic, not when you’re a child in a home situation like that. And even as you the player are the one choosing when to roll over in that bed sealing your fate, you know it had only ever been a question of time.

Conclusion

The scenes can be referred to by time of day (afternoon, dinnertime, evening, nighttime) but also by room (backyard, living room, dining room, bedroom). By being a domestic horror slice of life story with a sense of routine we can assume these are snippets that embody the rooms for the child, the kitchen is for tense meals shared, the bedroom is for comfort and terror alike. I think it’s an interesting angle to ponder it from that I won’t go over more extensively since this is already so so long.

My thesis in the grand scheme of this is that Bonbon, the rat monster and not just the feral pet tat, is for the child that middleground between toy (predictable, safe) and animal (unpredictable, unsafe). It uses that complex ~harder to deal with and wrap your head around~ dynamic between material possession that’s also a living thing to show a child trying to cope with a relationship they don’t know how to understand or process. An attempt to make it more digestible, but mostly more stomachable I think. An attempt that fails, but an attempt nonetheless.

The unknown is scary, because then you don’t know wether you are safe or unsafe, and that uncertainty and confusion can be even more unsettling than knowing for certain that the enemy is hostile or aggressive. A nice video on the topic. This in good part is what can make us more afraid of animals, or people we can’t read well, etc etc.

I said that my own experience growing up was that I was under the occasional threat of corporal punishment, but the truth of the matter is— once you teach your child to be scared of you physically hurting them, the threat doesn’t feel occasional, it feels constantly lingering. On an edge, teetering, just waiting to be pushed and then you’re in danger again.

And there’s a lot of compelling things you could assume about the father. The game gave me the impression that he was an absent one, because his presence was through a phone and a radio, plus he misses your birthday, parents are heard arguing in scene 5 at night but it could be argued that there’s no proof the dad was ever even around or in the house during the game. If he was home in scene 5, was it because he got home from work or whatever he was doing or was it because he wanted to come even if say, they were divorced and he had a restraining order on him? How closely is the rat meant to be dad being physically present? Because I can also see the narrative where it’s the latter, where Bonbon coming crashing through the fence is a way for a dad to steal little moments with the kid it was discouraged to see again. The coaxing undertone to the first scenes can also recall grooming specifically. In the first two scenes, the dad is cautiously on his best behavior to gain your trust and approval, in the third one where he argues with mom on the phone he loses his temper, perhaps because he wasn’t welcome to the birthday party he’s invading as Bonbon, in scene 4 you try to calm yourself with memories of a better moment but in scene 5 he’s home and bad things happen. It’s notable that he never talks to us, either because he never asks to like in scene 3 on the phone and the child’s just that unimportant to him in the grand scheme of arguing with mom, or mom won’t let him. Mom talks to us but dad never does, closest is a radio telling us a story, again through a filter, through the object, a step removed, through distance. You could also say that there’s a contrast between mom and dad-bonbon, mom giving you directives and orders in a way that feels very warm and fond, and dad talking very little to you at all, instead coaxing and leveraging gestures in a way that feels disturbing and wrong.

someone brought up "if you give a mouse a cookie", the story where a mouse just asks for a cookie but if your provide it then it asks for milk then if you provide it it asks for a straw etc etc, and I think that’s an interesting link to make with the theme of ceding ground to an abuser with trust or complacency. It’ll always take more and more. Most explicitly represented in the cake scene.

I went with inconsistency as my core analysis theme but there is an argument to be made for the level of Bonbon’s intentionality in its actions, wether its gestures are purposeful to gain trust before abusing it, or wether it is truly acting on impulse and whims at all times, wether it was truly well-meaning in helping you with your tasks in the moment and angrily hungry the next. Ultimately, it matters little, because your cake still got ruined and you still got… Well. There is a lot of elements that give the game a somewhat dreamlike atmosphere, the hazy lighting being one, your garbling voice when speaking to the toys, and so much more. In the end all we can do is theorize for the sake of theorizing, and try to cope with the reality of things as the game showed us.

[shakespearefreak]

New friend! Meet Virginia Wilde, from the late 1880s - early 1890s.

I've wanted Truly Me #115 for a while now, and I found a very good deal on her recently. I originally had intended to make her into Luna Lovegood (in fact, I'd already bought a fan-made Ravenclaw uniform for her), but as a trans person with trans and Jewish friends, Harry Potter has become... much more complicated for me the last few years. There's still a lot I really love about the series, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (as long as I don't buy official merchandise etc.), but a lot of people I know are starting to see HP as a signal that someone isn't safe to be around (which, to be fair, makes a decent amount of sense, especially given Rowling's comments about the fanbase supposedly supporting her agenda). Anyways, the point to all this is to say that while I was planning to make #115 Luna, I also knew that for the comfort of those around me, I couldn't post a lot of photos of her or bring her out in public as I do my other dolls. I also was very torn on having a reminder of how betrayed I feel by Rowling in my room for me to see on a daily basis. Every time I find myself thinking of the Potterverse, it makes me happy, then immediately sad and angry when I remember how Rowling has harmed and continues to harm people like me. I was considering maybe keeping her stored away in her box part of the time.

But here's the thing... when she arrived, I took one look at her face and knew I couldn't do that; I loved her too much. So... now I had a very, very beautiful doll and no idea who she was. And I'd never, even as a child, bought an AG just because she was pretty and made up a character for her later. I definitely wanted to keep her though, so I just decided to wait until she told me who she was.

The first one I got came with a manufacturing defect, so I returned her to the seller and got a replacement. While the replacement was in transit, I racked my brain trying to decide who she should be. I had some vague ideas, but a lot of them seemed contradictory: I kept picturing her in historical gowns, but also found myself thinking of her in contemporary gothic alt fashion. In my mind, she was both a cheerful, creative artist type and an unusual “old soul” who made many people uncomfortable. Then, when the replacement arrived, I found myself thinking of her physical features: her pale skin, wide cloud-gray eyes, and flaxen hair, and tried associating her with pre-existing characters with similar attributes; and suddenly it clicked. She’s a Victorian gothic heroine; her biggest influences are Virginia Otis from “The Canterville Ghost” (which is also where her name came from: “Virginia” from the character herself, “Wilde” from the author), Edith Cushing from Crimson Peak, and Johanna Barker from Sweeney Todd.

She’s a little older than the rest of my dolls (15). Her father died shortly before her story starts, which is why her Meet Outfit is a mourning gown (I also want to get her some accessories inspired by Victorian mourning jewelry). She was quite close to her father, and became interested in the paranormal after his passing. She also loves art (especially painting). She’s quiet but cheerful, despite her more morbid interests, and friendly when you get to know her. Like Samantha, some of the dress codes of her time period frustrate her, and she surreptitiously rebels against them when she can.

I wanted her to be from 1884 originally (because of the old AG tradition of starting each story in years that end in 4), but then I had the idea of giving her a doll-sized Ouija board (which I’d found on Etsy ages ago, but never found a good use for!), and while spirit boards were used at the time, the Ouija board specifically was invented in 1890, so I’m leaning towards 1891 (I know I could use 1894, but then only a decade would separate her story from Samantha’s). I’ve been having trouble finding affordable era-appropriate doll clothing on Etsy, and I don’t know too much about the fashion from that period myself, so I’m kind of kicking myself for choosing this backstory, but now that I’ve seen it I can’t unsee it. (Any information about the time period any of you have, or any ideas for where to get outfits/furniture/accessories for her, would be more than welcome; thanks in advance!)

Since I don’t have a black Victorian-style gown (yet), for this photo I put her in the nightgown my mother made for Samantha when I was a child. I think it suits her more than it ever did Sam, so it’s hers now.

[magnetoeisenhardt]

@spidey011002 I hope you'll forgive me for responding this way; it's far easier to reblog than to deal with character limits.

Image IDs in Alt Text.

So first thing I want to say is that I don't think we can make any definitive statements on Batman's feelings towards violence. He's a character written by many different authors with many different takes on him. While it's true that (my personal favorite) versions of the character do not enjoy violence, it is also true that there are versions of the character that do. I don't think it's possible to make a definitive statement either way. In the same vein, I don't think we can make any statements on whether Batman comics emphasize restorative justice. Some do, some absolutely do not.

I just want to get that out of the way because I don't think any of that actually matters to the problem at hand. Even if Batman doesn't want to hurt people, the narrative is still constructing a scenario where it is his moral duty to hurt criminals in order to protect life, and it's that framing device I'm taking issue with. I think that is an inherently right wing framing of crime and justice; in order to protect people, we must hurt criminals.

To address your next point, I don't think this is a problem intrinsic to all comic characters. Superman, for instance, could be shifted to doing mostly rescue work, without losing the character's core identity. Wonder Woman has plenty of mythological influences to draw from. I think this is a problem specific to crime fighting superheroes, of which I picked Batman not because he's a particularly egregious offender, but because he's the most famous.

This post was actually inspired by Chip Zdarsky's Daredevil runs. To massively simplify, they begin with Matt accidentally killing a man, and then giving up being Daredevil because of it. He realizes that he is only hurting people, and that he is failing to address the systemic issues that create crime. Furthermore, the criminal justice system is inherently punitive, and, because prisons are for profit, corrupt, and he feels incredible guilt for being its enforcer. Matt decides to give up being Daredevil, and attempt to atone for what he's done.

I would very much recommend reading it (it's Daredevil (2019), Devil's Reign, Daredevil: Woman without Fear, and Daredevil (2022)), not because it's good (it goes so genuinely off the rails it actually loops back around at times), but because I think it's a fascinating case study on the limitations of comic books. The really interesting thing that it highlights for me is that big two main universe comics, as a serialized format, can never actually be meaningfully committed to restorative justice (I'm sure you can do it with indie comics, or limited run alternate universe big two comics). Daredevil can never stop being Daredevil (and anything I'm going to say about Dardevil can be substituted for Batman), so there must always be crime for him to oppose. His villains can never actually be reformed, because they need to keep appearing in the story. Daredevil can never actually succeed, and the story needs to be constructed in a way to facilitate that.

The way that it facilitates that is by constructing an endless stream of criminals that he must defeat. No matter how much he wants to stop hurting criminals, he morally cannot do that, because violence against criminals is the only thing keeping "ordinary" people safe. In order to society to be protected, criminals must be harmed.

Mandatory Disclaimer: Stories do not have to be morally perfect in order to be good or interesting. Stories do not need to function as a moral lesson for the audience. A fictional character doing bad things is (by itself) morally neutral. However, works of fiction reflect ideology, and it is worth examining and critiquing both the underlying ideology and the way a work of fiction engages with it.

Mandatory Disclaimer Part 2: Don't post the "The best thing you can do with power is give it away" comic here. I don't think it's a bad comic, but I think it's addressing the strawman (who does exist, his name is Alan Moore) argument that "superheroes are inherently fascist". That is a very stupid argument, but I think "there are inherently right wing aspects of some superheros" is not an absurd thing to say, and I don't think the aforementioned comic meaningfully addresses real critiques people have of specific comic book characters and stories. This critique is not about all superheroes. It is very specifically about Batman, and other primarily crime fighting heroes.

As a huge Batman fan, I've been wondering if it's possible to divorce Batman from very right wing ideas of justice. (As a hero) Batman's entire existence is predicated on the idea that criminals are a class of people to whom it is morally good to do violence to. I think a lot of arguments to and against this are made in bad faith, but the fact that Batman goes out and hurts "criminals" as the major component of his heroism actually does map onto right wing rhetoric about crime and punishment. Criminals do not have the same human rights as non criminals, and this is good.

I don't think diegetic arguments against this (Wayne Corp donates a bunch of money to charity; these criminals are ninjas/evil clowns/sewer mutants; Gotham would be even worse without Batman in it) meaningfully address the fact that the Batman story is constructed in such a way to create "inflicting violence" as the correct and moral response to a criminal. Additionally, as a street level hero, the criminals that Batman deals with are often committing the exact same kinds of crimes that real would be committing. We do see him fight run-of-the-mill muggers and drug dealers and murderers.

I do think Batman is more in the clear than other characters by virtue of his No-Kill-Rule, as I do think that we are still at a point where "breaking the law is not something that should result in being murdered" is a pretty radical statement. Additionally, there are stories that try to make Batman into a softer character, with more emphasis on restorative justice (DCAU Batman, for example). However, even these stories don't do away with the crime aspect all together. Violence is still an acceptable response to most criminals.

I also don't think most "Batman is actually the bad guy" stories actually do anything interesting or meaningfully address this problem. Most of the time, it's "Batman is usually good, but this time he's Gone Too Far", generic "authoritarianism bad" that feels like it could have been written about any character, "vigilantism is bad because it's breaking the law", or edgy ragebait.

Furthermore, even if the "violence against criminals is good" paradigm was portrayed as morally wrong, there's really only two options, which are to write Batman as if he is in the wrong, effectively ending him as a hero, or to somehow transition him away from being a crime-fighter, which would, I feel, render him almost unrecognizable. While I think a limited Batman series could end with Batman rejecting violence and doing something else, think the serial nature of mainstream comics means that Batman is bound to the status quo, and I don't think you can permanently change this aspect of Batman's identity and have him remain Batman.

[autumnslance]

What do you do if you feel like you can't play a character due to RL issues/influences? I have a main character who is caught up in 6.2 but a friendship has ended and I can't play the character for a while. This character was made to play along side said friend but once caught up, she's suddenly busy or doesn't wish to play XIV due to her sudden change of feelings for the story. How or what do you do to enjoy a character that was made for someone's benefit?

I'm very sorry that's happened. Unfortunately you've learned an important lesson in a hard way:

Never make a character for someone else.

A character should, first and foremost, be for oneself. Even if you're making that character to play alongside another person, to go through content and story, etc, with them, that character should have enough made for yourself and your own enjoyment to stand on their own. To not be tied to another player--not even a spouse or sibling.

Even when making characters that are introduced with pre-existing relationships in their RP/fanfic story, it's possible to make your own character have enough of their own life and independence while the other character fades into the background as the missing player does as well--still not good to godmode them, especially out of spite/anger/upset, so give it time to decide further down the road what to do, especially if they remain gone for a good long time.

Peoples' feelings about hobbies change, differences in gameplay, story direction, general life issues, outside things, can all change their interest in the game, and/or affect a relationship. Not everyone stays invested forever, or interests wax and wane depending.

Give the character a bit of a rest if needed, if you have other alts to play through things. Or make an alt, if you don’t have one. Get some time and distance. Determine what about the character by themselves is fun, good, appealing to you.

If there's RP/story, you can always rewrite/rework the story, if you want to keep the same person but standing alone now (especially depending on how the break in friendship/interest went down). If not, can also always fantasia/rename the character and create a new/alternate story to further the distance and minimize reminders.

Also spend some time with other friends in game; find like minded folks willing to chat, hang out, do content together. Don't restrict oneself to 1 person so you're not left hanging if they decide this is no longer what they want. Do bits of content alongside other people, cuz it IS fun to do stuff together, but don't hinge your gameplay and enjoyment on any one person except yourself.

I had 1 character in WoW who was in a relationship with another OC, and the other player abruptly killed his OC off cuz he didn't like someone else I was friends with, whose OC my OC was close to, and he didn't want to deal with them. I had not made the character for him, she had her own life and story, so I shrugged, had my OC react to that event in RP as appropriate, and over time (years), quietly went back and minimized our characters' relationship in my OC's story. There's more to revise if I ever rewrite some important things for republishing on Ao3, but overall I focused on my character's own story and gameplay, rather than the person who cut me off arbitrarily (and if it had been discussed reasonably beforehand, I maybe wouldn’t retcon, but oh well).

And I know some folks were left with connections to my OCs when I left WoW, but I also talked to them, maintained contact and friendships (thanks Discord), and discussed off-screen things so as not to leave folks in the lurch. So they would feel fine moving their OCs forward to other things while mine moved to background roles we bring up now and then. And none of them had made their characters for me, it was just progression of IC relationships over time, but they all had their own stories so when I left game, their characters weren’t hanging just cuz I no longer played.

I have other friends who've been through similar situations that I may ping into this for them to reply/reblog with their own advice too, so keep an eye on the notes. Do take care of yourself, and just give yourself and your character a bit of time.

[zhuhongs]

Ever since I watched Your Name Engraved Herein two weeks ago, I have wanted to talk about Jiahan as whole but in particular this scene right here that starts around the 40 minute mark. 

CW’s: discussion of religion, internalized homophobia, violent homophobia, choking, and lack of consent. Generally, the same cws as in the movie. 

Read more bc it’s uh.. 2.7k

all images are described in alt text

As soon as I watched this scene I just knew it had to be really significant and now rewatching YNEH, I realize that this is a major ideological turning point for Jiahan as a character. From this point on he slowly begins to accept that he’s gay and starts to consciously act on his feelings for Birdy. However, I must first add some context and insights on Jiahan’s prior behavior before I dive into this scene as a whole. At the beginning of the movie, we see that while Jiahan feels different from the rest of his roomates, he still sneaks out with them when they go hook up with girls, despite not showing any interest in the girl he’s with. He feels very different from the rest of his friends, but still goes along with them due to peer pressure. Later, he tries to dissuade them from violently hazing the gay student, Xie Zhenhong, (his name is never said in the film but it says so on his uniform shirt, and that what I’ll refer to him as for the rest of the post) but is reluctantly influenced to gang up on the student as well. He closes his eyes while he’s about to strike the bat down on the student, until Birdy rescues the student-- and Jiahan in a way-- from what is about to play out. After this, his friends accuse him of being in the same stall as Birdy (which he was) but he denies it, not wanting to explain why he was there and the ensuing taunting from his friends.

 While its obvious that Jiahan has feelings for Birdy, he isn’t confident enough to pursue them outright. Birdy is the more confident one in both their friendship and in his sexuality, not caring about how anyone perceives him and does what he wants regardless of the consequences. Jiahan is the one worried about societal stigma and goes along with things he doesn’t want to do. However after this encounter with the gay underclassman pictured above, Jiahan become more brave and honest about his feelings towards Birdy. Interestingly enough in the scene directly after this, Birdy begins to conceal his true feelings for Jiahan and pursue a straight relationship with Banban. He doesn’t do this hurt Jiahan, as he does reciprocate Jiahan’s feelings, but to discourage him from coming out and becoming a social pariah for being gay. Birdy himself doesn’t mind being an outcast, but he does not want to see the same thing happen to the one he loves. So instead of letting Jiahan do that, he tries to discourage Jiahan from ever pursuing him by getting a girlfriend and suggest Jiahan does the same. In the same day, both Jiahan and Birdy come to opposite realizations about their feelings for the other, thereby changing their dynamic for the course of the movie. Someone else has picked apart Birdy’s scene in their own post. If you haven’t read that analysis, please go read it, because its really good at explaining Birdy’s character since most of his story isn’t directly revealed to us. We must read inbetween the lines and piece it together, which can be confusing on a first watch.

Anyways, now we can focus on Jiahan. At this point in the movie, Jiahan is trying to understand why he’s upset that Birdy is showing interest in a girl in their band while dealing with his own internalized homophobia and denial over his sexuality. He then turns to the only out gay person he knows -- Xie Zhenhong, who he sees in the cafeteria with new bruises on his face. He looks at Jiahan with a smile. This makes me feel like Zhenhong probably picked up on Jiahan and Birdy’s feelings for each other since last year, when he saw them exit the same stall in the bathroom. Having been the Distinguished Out Person in a group before, I can definitely relate to the way Zhenhong reacts to Jiahan. It the typical “oh honey, you don’t realize it yet, but I know you’re gay” reaction. 

 Jiahan waits outside the cafeteria and calls out to out him from behind. At first Zhenhong ignores him as we can see that he smirks a bit when he first speaks. He definitely heard Jiahan but doesn’t answer him until he repeats himself a few times. Zhenhong purposely stops when the two are in front of the stained glass window, away from others. Jiahan’s word choice towards Zhenhong is also interesting as he addresses him as “學弟” which is a term for an underclassman. To my understanding, it’s not overly formal nor is it overly familiar, however it is the nicest way that anyone has addressed him all movie. Jiahan than asks him who gave him those bruises, showing concern for his well being. He then reveals why he stopped Zhenhong saying “Actually I want to ask you, when did you start liking boys?” This really seals the deal to Zhenhong that Jiahan is talking to him to try and sort out his own feelings towards Birdy. While his suggestion that Zhenhong perhaps “see a doctor” or “consider getting a girlfriend” read as a microaggression to most viewers, Zhenhong himself can tell that Jiahan is asking him this in good faith. And perhaps, this might be the most understanding anyone has been towards him since Birdy helped him out prior. Before he responds, he looks up at Jiahan and fixes his bangs. This all stumps Jiahan whose eyes dart around, speechless. Zhenhong then circles his arms around Jiahan’s neck, a very intimate gesture, and studies him for a moment. We cannot see Jiahan’s face at this moment but he does shuffle slightly, his body language nervous and confused, but not upset. After looking at him, Zhenhong then goes in closer, assumedly to kiss him. At this point, Jiahan physically stops him and grabs him by the throat. However, Jiahan’s face doesn’t seem to be angry, if anything, his face looks more scared and confused-- akin to a ‘what are you doing?’ moment.

Initially Zhenhong’s choice to kiss Jiahan read very...strangely to me. Why would the screenwriter, as a gay man that grew up in the 80’s, choose to include this? What was there to gain? To me it seemed like it was reinforcing the stereotype of gay men being overly flirtacious and viewed as predators. Why show a nonconsentual attempted kiss at all? I thought about it a lot, both for this scene and the following one with the old man and later between Jiahan and Birdy because it seemed?? Odd to me?? Isn’t that a disservice in representing gay men? I don’t fully have the right answer but I feel like by writing the scene like this, it goes to demonstrate how Jiahan still isn’t fully comfortable with being gay. And also that lgbt people, especially teens, aren’t always going to be good rep. Liu Kuang-hui wasn’t writing the movie to be an perfect, morally uplifting, santized gay narritive. He was writing something that spoke to his real life experience as a gay man in 1980’s Taiwan. In real life, people do questionable things and good narratives are supposed to make you question characters and their actions and judge for yourself whether what they did was right or wrong. The narrative isn’t looking to condemn Xie Zhenhong for doing this. Xie Zhenhong is ultimately a victim of violent homophobia, that will not hide himself or his sexuality despite the violence he faces. He isn’t perfect, nor is Jiahan, nor is Birdy, nor is anyone in the film. 

Although now having rewatched this scene upwards of eight times in writing this, it feels like Zhenhong didn’t assume this action to be without consent. Of course, no words were explicitly exchanged about kissing, and I’m not trying to make the case that it’s okay to kiss someone without their consent, that’s harassment. However, Zhenhong did gave Jiahan time to express his discomfort before proceeding. Zhenhong first got close to Jiahan by brushing his bangs, Jiahan did not say anything or look visibly uncomfortable. He then put his arms around Jiahan’s neck, and stared at him for a good ten seconds. At this point, Jiahan had time to say he was uncomfortable. As we know it, consent does indeed entail a verbal, understood yes from both parties. However given the context, I can understand why Zhenhong thought that Jiahan was consenting at that moment. However the moment Jiahan revoked his consent Zhenhong stopped trying to kiss him. Zhenhong shouldn’t have gone in without getting verbal consent, and Jiahan could’ve done something other than grabbing him by the throat. They were both in the wrong. Violence shouldn’t have been the reaction, nor should’ve kissing someone without their verbal consent. The lines were very blurred, and proper communication could’ve resulted in a better interaction but like I mentioned above, I don’t think the writers wanted to portray the scene in that way. The intent was not to say that Zhenhong’s actions were romantic or something to emulate. It was very purposeful in showing to interplay of homophobia, gay desire, and religion.

The scene is set up like a religious confession. Zhenhong purposefully leads Jiahan to the stained glass, a metaphor for his religious guilt. He doesn’t look Zhenhong in the eyes, his voice is hushed, and body language nervous, and troubled-- it communicates to Zhenhong that he thinks he may be gay and wants either reassurance that he isn’t or acceptance that is. Regardless, it’s a very vulnerable and intimate moment. Jiahan is facing him like ‘hey, I know my friends were bullying you and I wanted to save you but was too much of a coward and almost took part in harming you. I’m sorry. I know you saw that me and Birdy were in the same stall together, and that you saw me just telling him not to talk to the girls, and neither of those are heterosexual things to do. Please, help me.’ He’s asking Zhenhong to pass judgement on him, is he gay or not? By virtue of even asking that question, they both know the answer -- Jiahan is in love with Birdy, but whether Jiahan can accept that or not is up to him. In a way, Zhenhong is testing Jiahan to see how honest he can be with himself. By approaching him like that, he’s testing to see whether Jiahan can accept being intimate with a man or not. It’s not a good or ethical test, but it sure is effective. Because in his head, Jiahan is coming to realize that he doesn’t mind a man being close to him in a romantic way. Although, he isn’t fully there yet. He still grabs Zhenhong. But as Zhenhong stares at him despite the hand around his throat, Jiahan really has to think about his actions. Is that what he really wants to do, or is that what he’s been taught to do? It illustrates his internalized homophobia perfectly. Jiahan is literally staring gay desire in the face, rejecting it, while in front of his religion. Zhenhong finally answers Jiahan that “he has always loved boys since he was little, it’s never changed.” Upon hearing that his grip loosens and he pulls away. And the fact that we can hear him well means that Jiahan was never choking him, his hand was there, but not gripping. Zhenhong pulls him in closer and tilts his head, and says “and it never will.”  Zhenhong’s words are very deliberate. It’s as if he anticipated this might happen and knew exactly what to say. He wants to carve it in Jiahan’s brain that no one chooses to be gay. They always are and no amount of denial, like the kind Jiahan is showing, will change that. He then finally lets go of Jiahan, who is speechless, he thanks him, and leaves. Jiahan, however, stays there for a second, processing everything that has happened, and breathes heavily before the scene cuts to later that day.

Finally, I would like to examine exactly what Zhenhong’s “thanks” even means. Why would Zhenhong be thanking Jiahan? On the surface, it lookslike Jiahan waited for this guy to finish eating, then asked him invasive questions about his sexuality and suggest he should get help and then almost choked him. This should count as a microagression at best and an attempted hate crime at worst. But, as I just dived into, this wasn’t a bad faith jeer by Jiahan in order to bully Zhenhong, this was a genuine cry for help made by a deeply confused teenager. I feel like the “thanks.” at the end of the scene was perhaps just as puzzling to me as when I thought about why the staff would have that scene play out like that in the first place? I think his thanks is conveying many things. Firstly, thanking him for not actually hurting him and allowing him to have a semi normal interaction with a student of the same gender. As far as we know, many,  MANY different students have tried to hurt him in the new semester alone. Hell, we literally do not even know his name as everyone refers to him by the q slur or some other derogatory term, which speaks a lot to how he is treated. He also may be saying thanks for actually asking him about his sexuality. While Jiahan still followed it up with a suggestion he see a doctor, he still genuinely wanted to know why rather fully assume he has something wrong with him. Also, I feel like he might be thanking Jiahan for being brave enough to actually confront his sexualtiy and ask Zhenhong for help in the first place. Zhenhong really seems to be alone as the only gay student at the school but now knowing that Jiahan is realizing thathe’s gay as well, might make him be hopeful that things may slowly begin to change. Sadly, this interaction is the last time we see Xie Zhenhong all film which sucks because I really liked him. And I feel like it would’ve been really nice to see him after the time skip or at least have Jiahan mention him because this moment was one of the things that really made Jiahan start to accept his sexuality. A cut scene with Father Oliver also contributed, but I really wish Xie Zhenhong got more narrative than being the only out student that was then violently bullied. But, I acknowledge that MANY scenes were cut from the film for length so I can’t complain to much.

Oh god, that was a lot to say about a scene that was literally a minute and thirty seconds long. In conclusion!! I just had a lot of things to say about this scene and the scenes surrounding it. I think Jiahan is just a very painfully relatable character for many LGBT viewers and he was incredibly relatable for me which is why I felt the need to spend my day off writing this as opposed to doing homework. This scene is incredibly rich on many levels and I really appreciate YNEH as a whole for not spoonfeeding the viewer information and letting us interpret and question the scenes on our own and come to our own conclusions about the characters and yea. There’s so much going on and a lot of nuance and idk how to properly convey a lot of my thoughts but I tried really hard bc i really do love this movie. I really was puzzled by this scene at first, but now having examined it, it is my favorite scene in the movie. If this scene was changed in any way to make it more palatable, it would’ve been nearly as impactful which was a hard decision to come to, but I stand by it. I don’t know if I feel the same about other scenes but I will be reviewing YNEH as a whole in a different post. I have much more to say but my thoughts on this scene were far too long to not make it a separate post of its own. In essence, YNEH is about growing up and accepting yourself in all ways. Not all of those things are pleasant but if you cannot accept those things about yourself, you’re doomed to be miserable until you can live life unburdened by your own and societies limitations. Goodnight, my fingers hurt.

[jinjojess]

超高校級の英雄 V3: Danganstuck Classpects V3

Okay, okay. 

Enough waiting around; let’s get this up and ready to go.

These are obviously just my own opinions on things, and as such are very closely tied to my own personal interpretations of both the V3 characters and also of the classpects themselves. For clarity’s sake, I based the aspect rationalizations from the official lore here, and I used the MSPA wiki for direction with the classes.

Just as a quick note, I used some of the FTE info (which is debatable in its veracity) for some of the assignments. Sorry, gotta work with what I have to work with. Also, if anything is expanded on in Homestuck 2, I have no idea, as I haven’t read it (or the epilogues, for that matter).

Akamatsu Kaede Prince(ss) of Time Derse Dreamer The Land of Sharps and Flats

Going off the canon description of Time, it makes perfect sense for Akamatsu. She’s goal-oriented, wants to skip to the credits, and would rather take a leap of faith than wait things out. To say nothing of the strong associations between Time and music. I went with Prince for her as a class since it’s the destroyer class--Akamatsu very literally destroys both Amami and herself (and her goal of getting everyone out alive) thanks to her own impatience in wanting to stop the one responsible for the killing game. I had her sleep on Derse since she’s supposed to be a bit of a protag subversion in that she hatches a literal murder scheme. Her equivalent of the Beat Mesa is a big metronome. 

I also have an alt land name for her in The Land of Ninths and Eighths to reference the time signature of Claire de Lune (which is 9/8). 

Saihara Shuuichi Page of Doom Prospit & Derse Dreamer The Land of Glass and Fingerprints

I considered making Saihara a Rage player at first given how the ultimate conflict is (supposedly going to be) solved in Chapter 6, but the description of Doom players as being commiseraters rather than healers really stuck out to me as appropriate for Saihara. Of all the characters in the game, he’s one of the few that doesn’t actually push anyone to heal, and his ultimate gambit in the 6th trial is to counteract the audience trying to self-medicate with catharsis at their expense. He takes a while to come into his own, which is the signature trait of the Page class, too. As a Doom player, he dreams on both moons, which for reasons I can’t quite articulate just clicks for me. The glass in his land name references not only magnifying glasses but also mirrors, since his is very much a journey of self-reflection.

Amami Rantarou Seer of Breath Prospit Dreamer The Land of Sails and Nail Polish

I really like what I came up with here for Amami. Breath is linked pretty strongly to his FTE reveals about how his desire to explore led his sisters to disappear into the ether (and changed his direction in life), and the angst he feels over wanting to reunite with his sisters hints at his trouble with bonds (the Breath inverse Blood’s territory). I incorporated the boat stuff into the theme with the idea of sailing for his world name, while the nail polish is for his sisters and that extra scene with Akamatsu. I went with Seer as the class since Amami Knows Things, and there’s that bit about Seers “having a strategy guide in their head” that I wanted to be a callback to the special map and the fact that he’s the Shogo Kawada of this operation. Prospit as the dream moon just felt right, so there it is.

Iruma Miu Thief of Space Prospit Dreamer The Land of Caulk and Nuts (and Frogs)

I don’t care if you have to have Frogs somewhere in the Space player’s land name, I will stand by that pun! So Space is all about creation and seeing the bigger picture, and to me that jived with how Iruma is an inventor. While Time is deeply linked to music on a conceptual level, Space is linked to nurturing, including growing plants, raising animals, and parenting. The Space and Motherhood parallels fit well with Iruma’s canon aspirations and goals. I went with Thief because Iruma is very much out for Number One, and wants to hog up all the creation ability for her own ends. Prospit dreamer because she’s the type.

Ouma Kokichi Bard of Heart Derse Dreamer The Land of Kings and Horses

There’s a lot you could do with Ouma, and I’m sure that plenty of people peg him as a Void player because of the lying. For me though, I read Ouma has being primarily concerned with his own identity, and how he’s perceived by others. Fractured senses of self are a Heart concept, after all, and it seems that Ouma likes trying on identities to see which one ultimately fits him best. I made him a Bard because they’re unpredictable and all about helping or hurting a session in random turns, but also because Ouma himself is allowing his own identity to be destroyed thanks to his paranoia and inability to let anyone get close to him. He dreams on Derse with all the other schemers, and I went with a name pun for the planet that can also function as a chess reference (ala his bandana and his 5d chess approach to life).

Kiibo Sylph of Mind Derse Dreamer The Land of Shells and Ghosts

Since Sylphs are healers, I wanted to have Kiibo in that role, since he’s usually trying very hard to smooth things over and fix problems. I went with Mind for him for a few reasons: one is that Kiibo’s self-identity is subsumed by his “inner voice” that later turns out to be audience suggestions, meaning that he’s healing things through the choices of others and doesn’t have as much of a Self as it were. Another reason is because I made Naegi a Mind player and Kiibo is clearly meant to be a bit of a callback to him (up to and including the fact that Naegi very much functions as an audience insert in the first game). I made Kiibo a Derse dreamer because he literally hears the whispers of the audience members telling him what to do. The land name was me having a little fun and poking at his aspect a bit.

Gokuhara Gonta Heir of Light Prospit Dreamer The Land of Pins and Wings

Light is all about knowledge, and Gonta has, while specific, quite a lot of knowledge. He likes learning, and is open to new information to re-evaluate what he knows. I made him an Heir since the speculation is that they are subsumed in their aspect, and Gonta is very passively knowledgable. He often offers helpful suggestions based on things he just happens to know, for instance, and what ultimately undoes him is Ouma showing him the “truth” of things, which Gonta doesn’t even think to question. He’s a Prospit dreamer who’s been awake for awhile, unwittingly watching the clouds for signs, and his land name is a reference to pinning butterflies into a collection.

Shinguuji Korekiyo Mage of Light Derse Dreamer The Land of Scrolls and Masks

Meanwhile, on the other end of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, we have the other scholar, Shinguuji. Unlike Gonta, he’s actively out there seeking knowledge, rather than being drawn to it, and his motives are undeniably selfish in nature, so I wanted him to be an active class (I’m assuming Mage is the active counterpart to Seer, shhh). Shinguuji uses his understanding of his field--humans--to progress his own goals and wants. He’s also smart enough to know what pieces of information to share and which to keep hidden behind a convenient zipper. Made him Derse because shemey as all hell, and I went with some general imagery for folklore for the land name.

Chabashira Tenko Knight of Breath Prospit Dreamer The Land of Sweat and Flipping

I think we can all agree that Chabashira is probably not a Derse dreamer. Meanwhile, I chose her aspect for a couple of reasons: first, because aikido is generally about evading attacks which strikes me as a windy kinda deal, even if Neo Aikido is a bit different; second, because her central conflict in the game is about learning to let go of a bond she desperately wants to forge with Yumeno (which, again, is a Blood-related matter); and third, because flipping somebody would create a gust of air movement and that image made me laugh. I went with Knight for Chabashira, since the most common interpretation of Knight is that it exploits its aspect, and I think that Chabashira is able to exploit the various currents of influence (especially in Chapter 3) to great success. I also think that she exploits The Breeze to nudge Yumeno’s path out of danger by taking her place in the kagonoko ritual. The land name is the sweat of training in martial arts, and the flipping is not just about said martial arts, but also about being flung off a see-saw.

Toujou Kirumi Knight of Life Derse Dreamer The Land of Sticks and Carrots

Life players are generally known to be trying to fix everybody’s problems, whether they want that to happen or not, and if that doesn’t scream Toujou to you, I don’t know what will. I went with Knight again for the exploitation aspect of it, where Toujou uses her position as authority in the group to further what she believes to be the greater good (hedging my bets here since we don’t know if Knight is active or passive). She’s clearly a Derse dreamer, because even if she wasn’t schemey, she’s droll as fuck. Her land references the two main ways to motivate someone: threats and rewards.

Harukawa Maki Knight of Time Prospit Dreamer The Land of Beans and Demons

I know, I know, but really, if you think about it, HaruMaki and Dave do kind of have a lot in common (and not just the fact that they have red eyes). The part about Time that fits well to me is that a Time player’s life is marked by strife and struggle, which HaruMaki has in spades. Like Akamatsu, she’s impatient and often acts rashly, in an attempt to cut out the middle man or advance what she thinks should be happening. She’s the last of our Knight squad, exploiting Time (or more broadly, destruction/entropy) to try and help out, such as trying to off Ouma or attack the Exisals head on. There’s also a bit on the Wiki that’s speculated that Knights often try to conceal their insecurities by acting tough, which is HaruMaki’s M.O. While she doesn’t have the music theme, assassination is very much about timing. I had her dream on Prospit because she’s not really a plans person, deep down, and her land name is a joke about her name/birthday referencing Setsubun.

HaruMaki doesn’t have a Beat Mesa equivalent, but she does have a tool specifically for causing a Scratch: a huge, unwieldy kantana.

Hoshi Ryouma Prince of Blood Prospit Dreamer The Land of Grass and Clay

Here you go, anon, what you were waiting for. I personally peg Hoshi as a Blood player, through and through. He’s stubborn, values bonds with other people, can lead via inspiration rather than direct command, and feels grounded. I think he’s a Prince thanks to the fact that he ended up destroying the very people who meant so much to him, and in the aftermath continued to push people away and pre-emptively destroy any possible future bonds. He’s a Prospit dreamer because he can see flashes of the future, though he often doesn’t read them correctly. His land is a reference to different types of tennis courts.

Momota Kaito Rouge of Hope Prospit Dreamer The Land of Wishes and Stars

The key part of a Hope player is that they can dream up a better world than the one that exists, and that can definitely be said about Momota. Like Jake, he’s a bit in his own head and immersed in his fantasy version of reality, where he plays the hero and is able to save everyone else. He’s somewhat gullible, to a point, and he’s the most superstitious of the bunch, showing how much stock he can put into the thing he believes. The sheer power of Momota’s belief is infectious, hence why I made him a Rogue--he’s out there trying to impart his sense of belief into those around him, for everyone’s benefit. He dreams on Prospit because of course he does, and I made his land name reflect literal space in conjunction with his talent, and to riff on that inspirational poster about shooting for the moon and landing among the stars.

Yumeno Himiko Heir of Doom Prospit & Derse Dreamer The Land of Death and Magic

While most people who played V3 picked up on Saihara being depressed, not everyone has noticed that Yumeno also suffers from the same bleak view of the world. Similarly to Saihara, Yumeno is not a healer, or a doer. She’s here to sigh and complain and tell you that’s rough, buddy. Because of that, I can definitely see her as a Doom player. I made her an Heir, as one who is consumed by their aspect, since Yumeno is very much doom and gloom a lot of the time. She’s also subconsciously drawn to death, as she gets close to both Angie and Chabashira before their untimely demises. It’s through their deaths that she comes more into her own, hence why it’s also part of her land title (I don’t think I have to explain the other part). She dreams on both moons because Doom players are implied to do so.

Yonaga Angie Witch of Hope Derse Dreamer The Land of Prayer and Idols

Like Momota, Angie has intense faith on her side; if Angie thinks it’s true, it’s true. She’s also similarly not looking at the same world as everyone else, instead seeing something slightly different and colored by her own beliefs. However, unlike Momota, Angie is not interested in helping others find their own faith, and would rather use the power of her belief for her own gain. Hence why I made her a Witch, an active class that manipulates its aspect. The other characters may not believe in Angie’s religion, but they sure do believe her when she tells them to sacrifice their autonomy for safety. I put her on Derse since her god could very easily just be a specific horrorterror, and the land name is connected to religion. 

Shirogane Tsumugi Maid of Void Derse Dreamer The Land of Scripts and Swatches

I went through a lot of possible Classpects for Shirogane, including Light, Space, Seer, Heart, etc., but I think that this is what I’m going to settle on. Derse Dreamer because not only is she schemey, she’s listening to whispers of her bosses and the ratings, albeit in a less direct sense than Kiibo (what’s more horrorterror-y than a focus group!). Void as an aspect works well to me, since Shirogane is always going on and on about being plain and forgettable, about how she hides in plain sight, and even her talent is about becoming somebody else rather than herself. She’s also the one who in the end throws the “truth” into question, instead concealing it in favor of ambiguity. I went with Maid since one of the speculated interpretations is one who creates or creates through their aspect: she not only (arguably) erases the casts’ identities and memories, she does this in order to have “blank pages” on which to write the killing game’s drama. Whether Maid is an active or passive class is unknown, but if it’s active it makes sense since she’s using other people for her own gain, and if it’s passive, it could be argued that she’s doing it in service of Team DR or the audience.

Speaking of...

Bonus!

The V3 audience Muse of Space The Land Beyond the 4th Wall

I don’t like assigning Master Classes unless I have a really good reason, and here I think it works. The fans are the epitome of the “wait-and-see” model, and their crime as it were is their general apathy toward the very real subjects of the killing game. They’re all big picture and no important details or nuance. You can’t get much more passive than being an audience member, hence Muse class, yet it’s their desire to recycle the series over and over that leads to the killing game’s very existence (they’re also not too upset about letting the kids’ past lives be sacrificed for this act of creation). The V3 audience is collectively in the real world as opposed to the Medium, hence the “planet” title for them. In the context of an actual Sburb game, they’d likely be Exiles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, no Rage players in V3. I couldn’t find my notes the other night when I got home, so I just went ahead and reworked all of the classpects from there.

The Aspects were fairly easy to assign, but the Classes really had me scratching my head for a good long while. Maybe it’s because it can recontextualize the Aspect elements depending on what it is, or maybe it’s because we don’t have as much information about how Classes work. 

Anyway, whew, that’s it! Hope you enjoyed!

[lastsonlost]

All this over the Japanese liking a game they don't like...

Ghost of Tsushima opens with a grand wide shot of samurai, adorned with impressively detailed suits of armor, sitting atop their horses. There we find Jin, the protagonist, ruminating on how he will die for his country. As he traverses Tsushima, our hero fights back the invading Mongolian army to protect his people, and wrestles with the tenets of the Bushido code. Standoffs take advantage of perspective and a wide field of view to frame both the samurai and his opponent in something that, more often than not, feels truly cinematic. The artists behind the game have an equally impeccable reference point for the visuals: the works of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa

“We really wanted to pay respect to the fact that this game is so totally inspired by the work of this master,” director Nate Fox said in a recent interview with IndieWire. At Entertainment Weekly, Fox explained how his team at Sucker Punch Productions suggested that the influence ran broadly, including the playable black-and-white “Kurosawa Mode” and even in picking a title. More specifically, he noted that Seven Samurai, one of Kurosawa’s most well-known works, defined Fox’s “concept of what a samurai is.” All of this work went toward the hope that players would “experience the game in a way as close to the source material as possible.”

But in embracing “Kurosawa” as an eponymous style for samurai adventures, the creatives behind Ghost of Tsushima enter into an arena of identity and cultural understanding that they never grapple with. The conversation surrounding samurai did not begin or end with Kurosawa’s films, as Japan’s current political forces continue to reinterpret history for their own benefit.

Kurosawa earned a reputation for samurai films as he worked steadily from 1943 to 1993. Opinions of the director in Japan are largely mixed; criticism ranges from the discussion of his family background coming from generations of samurai to accusations of pandering to Western audiences. Whether intentional or not, Kurosawa became the face of Japanese film in the critical circles of the 1950s. But he wasn’t just a samurai stylist: Many of the director’s films frame themselves around a central conflict of personal ideology in the face of violence that often goes without answer — and not always through the lives of samurai. In works like Drunken Angel, The Quiet Duel, or his 1944 propaganda film The Most Beautiful, Kurosawa tackles the interpersonal struggles of characters dealing with sickness, alcoholism, and other challenges.

His films endure today, and not just through critical preservation; since breaking through to the West, his visual ideas and themes have become fodder for reinterpretation. You can see this keenly in Western cinema through films like The Magnificent Seven, whose narrative was largely inspired by Seven Samurai. Or even A Fistful of Dollars, a Western epic that cleaved so closely to Kurosawa’s Yojimbo that director Sergio Leone ended up in a lawsuit with Toho Productions over rights issues. George Lucas turned to Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress in preparation for Star Wars; he’d eventually repay Kurosawa by helping to produce his surreal drama Dreams.

Ghost of Tsushima is part of that lineage, packing in action and drama to echo Kurosawa’s legacy. “We will face death and defend our home,” Shimura, the Lord of Tsushima, says within the first few minutes of the game. “Tradition. Courage. Honor. These are what make us.” He rallies his men with this reminder of what comprises the belief of the samurai: They will die for their country, they will die for their people, but doing so will bring them honor. And honor, tradition, and courage, above all else, are what make the samurai.

Except that wasn’t always the belief, it wasn’t what Kurosawa bought whole cloth, and none of the message can be untangled from how center- and alt-right politicians in modern Japan talk about “the code” today.

The “modern” Bushido code — or rather, the interpretation of the Bushido code coined in the 1900s by Inazō Nitobe — was utilized in, and thus deeply ingrained into, Japanese military culture. An easy example of how the code influenced Imperial Japan’s military would be the kamikaze pilots, officially known as the Tokubetsu Kōgekitai. While these extremes (loyalty and honor until death, or capture) aren’t as present in the myth of the samurai that has ingrained itself into modern ultranationalist circles, they manifest in different yet still insidious ways.

In 2019, to celebrate the ushering in of the Reiwa Era, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party commissioned Final Fantasy artist Yoshitaka Amano to depict Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as a samurai. Though described as being center-right, various members of the LDP have engaged in or have been in full support of historical revisionism, including the editing of textbooks to either soften or completely omit the language surrounding war crimes committed by Imperial Japan. Abe himself has been linked to supporting xenophobic curriculums, with his wife donating $9,000 to set up an ultranationalist school that pushed anti-Korean and anti-Chinese rhetoric. The prime minister is also a member of Japan’s ultraconservative Nippon Kaigi, which a U.S. congressional report on Japan-U.S. relations cited as one of several organizations that believe that “Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 ‘Nanjing massacre’ were exaggerated or fabricated.” The Nippon Kaigi, like Abe, have also pushed for the revision of Japan’s constitution — specifically, Article 9 — to allow Japan to reinstate its standing military.

This has been a major goal for Abe as his time as prime minister comes to a definite close in 2021. And from 2013 onward, the politician has made yearly trips to the Yasukuni shrine to honor the memory of war criminals, a status of which his own grandfather was accused, that died with the ethos of the modern Bushido code. Abe’s exoneration of these ideals has continued to spark reactionary nationalist sentiment, as illustrated with the Nippon Kaigi and their ultranationalist ideology. These traditionalist values have encouraged xenophobic sentiment in Japan, which was seen in the 2020 Tokyo elections with 178,784 votes going to Makoto Sakurai, leader of the Japan First Party, another ultranationalist group. Sakurai has participated in numerous hate speech demonstrations in Tokyo, often targeting Korean diaspora groups.

The preservation of the Bushido code that was highly popularized and utilized by Imperial Japan lives on through promotion by history revisionists, who elevate samurai to a status similar to that of the chivalric knight seen in Western media. They are portrayed as an honor-bound and noble group of people that cared deeply for the peasantry, when that was often not the case.

The samurai as a concept, versus who the samurai actually were, has become so deeply intertwined with Japanese imperialist beliefs that it has become difficult to separate the two. This is where cultural and historical understanding are important when approaching the mythology of the samurai as replicated in the West. Kurosawa’s later body of work — like the color-saturated Ran, which was a Japanese adaptation of King Lear, and Kagemusha, the story of a lower-class criminal impersonating a feudal lord — deeply criticized the samurai and the class system they enforced. While some films were inspired by Western plays, specifically Shakespeare, these works were critical of the samurai and their role in the Sengoku Period. They dismantled the notion of samurai by showing that they were a group of people capable of the same failings as the lower class, and were not bound to arbitrary notions of honor and chivalry.

Unlike Kurosawa’s blockbusters, his late-career critical message didn’t cross over with as much ease. In Western films like 2003’s The Last Samurai, the audience is presented with the picture of a venerable and noble samurai lord who cares only for his people and wants to preserve traditionalist values and ways of living. The portrait was, again, a highly romanticized and incorrect image of who these people were in feudal Japanese society. Other such works inspired by Kurosawa’s samurai in modern pop culture include Adult Swim’s animated production Samurai Jack and reinterpretations of his work like Seven Samurai 20XX developed by Dimps and Polygon Magic, which had also received the Kurosawa Estate’s blessing but resulted in a massive failure. The narratives of the lone ronin and the sharpshooter in American Westerns, for example, almost run in parallel.

Then there’s Ghost of Tsushima. Kurosawa’s work is littered with close-ups focused on capturing the emotionality of every individual actor’s performance, and panoramic shots showcasing sprawling environments or small feudal villages. Fox and his team recreate that. But after playing through the story of Jin, Ghost of Tsushima is as much of an homage to an Akira Kurosawa film as any general black-and-white film could be. The Kurosawa Mode in the game doesn’t necessarily reflect the director’s signatures, as the narrative hook and tropes found in Kurosawa’s work — and through much of the samurai film genre — are equally as important as the framing of specific shots.

“I don’t think a lot of white Western academics have the context to talk about Japanese national identity,” Tori Huynh, a Vietnamese woman and art director in Los Angeles, said about the Western discussion of Kurosawa’s aesthetic. “Their context for Japanese nationalism will be very different from Japanese and other Asian people. My experience with Orientalism in film itself is, that there is a really weird fascination with Japanese suffering and guilt, which is focused on in academic circles … I don’t think there is anything wrong with referencing his aesthetic. But that’s a very different conversation when referencing his ideology.”

Ghost of Tsushima features beautifully framed shots before duels that illustrate the tension between Jin and whomever he’s about to face off against, usually in areas populated by floating lanterns or vibrant and colorful flowers. The shots clearly draw inspiration from Kurosawa films, but these moments are usually preceded by a misunderstanding on Jin’s part — stumbling into a situation he’d otherwise have no business participating in if it weren’t for laid-out side quests to get mythical sword techniques or armor. Issues like this undermine the visual flair; the duels are repeated over and over in tedium as more of a set-piece than something that should have a component of storytelling and add tension to the narrative.

Fox and Sucker Punch’s game lacks a script that can see the samurai as Japanese society’s violent landlords. Instead of examining the samurai’s role, Ghost of Tsushima lionizes their existence as the true protectors of feudal Japan. Jin must protect and reclaim Tsushima from the foreign invaders. He must defend the peasantry from errant bandits taking advantage of the turmoil currently engulfing the island. Even if that means that the samurai in question must discard his sense of honor, or moral righteousness, to stoop to the level of the invading forces he must defeat.

Jin’s honor and the cost of the lives he must protect are in constant battle, until this struggle no longer becomes important to the story, and his tale whittles down to an inevitable and morally murky end. To what lengths will he go to preserve his own honor, as well as that of those around him? Ghost of Tsushima asks these questions without a truly introspective look at what that entails in relation to the very concept of the samurai and their Bushido code. This manifests in flashbacks to Jin’s uncle, Shimura, reprimanding him for taking the coward’s path when doing his first assassination outside of forced stealth segments. Or in story beats where the Khan of the opposing Mongol force informs Shimura that Jin has been stabbing enemies in the back. Even if you could avoid participating in these systems, the narrative is fixated on Jin’s struggle with maintaining his honor while ultimately trying to serve his people.

I do not believe Ghost of Tsushima was designed to empower a nationalist fantasy. At a glance, and through my time playing the game, however, it feels like it was made by outsiders looking into an otherwise complex culture through the flattening lens of an old black-and-white film. The gameplay is slick and the hero moments are grand, but the game lacks the nuance and understanding of what it ultimately tries to reference. As it stands, being a cool pseudo-historical drama is, indeed, what Ghost of Tsushima’s creators seemingly aimed to accomplish. In an interview with Famitsu, Chris Zimmerman of Sucker Punch said that “if Japanese players think the game is cool, or like a historical drama, then that’s a compliment.” And if there is one thing Ghost of Tsushima did succeed in, it was creating a “cool” aesthetic — encompassed by one-on-one showdowns with a lot of cinematic framing.

In an interview with The Verge, Fox said that “our game is inspired by history, but we’re not strictly historically accurate.” That’s keenly felt throughout the story and in its portrayal of the samurai. The imagery and iconography of the samurai carry a burden that Sucker Punch perhaps did not reckon with during the creation of Ghost of Tsushima. While the game doesn’t have to remain true to the events that transpired in Tsushima, the symbol of the samurai propagates a nationalist message by presenting a glossed-over retelling of that same history. Were, at any point, Ghost of Tsushima to wrestle with the internal conflict between the various class systems that existed in Japan at the time, it might have been truer to the films that it draws deep inspiration from. However, Ghost of Tsushima is what it set out to be: a “cool” period piece that doesn’t dwell on the reasonings or intricacies of the existing period pieces it references.

A game that so heavily carries itself on the laurels of one of the most prolific Japanese filmmakers should investigate and reflect on his work in the same way that the audience engages with other pieces of media like film and literature. What is the intent of the creator versus the work’s broader meaning in relation to current events, or the history of the culture that is ultimately serving as a backdrop to yet another open-world romp? And how do these things intertwine and create something that can flirt on an edge of misunderstanding? Ghost of Tsushima is a surface-level reflection of these questions and quandaries, sporting a lens through which to experience Kurosawa, but not to understand his work. It ultimately doesn’t deal with the politics of the country it uses as a backdrop. For the makers of the game, recreating Kurosawa is just black and white.

[takerfoxx]

In response to JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, my (former) idols

I really didn’t want to have to do this.

So in addition to…=gestures vaguely=…all of that, the last few months have been kind of sucky when it comes to learning some really unpleasant things about artists that I looked up to, admired, and was in fact inspired by. I’ve already spoken about the Speaking Out movement revealing a lot of ugly behavior from various wrestlers, some of which I was big fans of, and then later we got Chris Jericho being a full-on MAGA. Yeah, that all sucked. But those were just performers whose work I enjoyed watching. The one that really hurt were writers who I deeply admired, whose stories I love, and who I was heavily influenced by.

The first, of course, was finding out that JK Rowling, the author of perhaps the single biggest YA fantasy series of all time Harry Potter, is a TERF. This really sucked for a number of reasons. Firstly, I really like Harry Potter! I mean, I’m not a super fan or anything. I came into it when things were kind of dying down, like the whole book series had already been released and there were only a few movies left, but I still really enjoyed it, have all the books and movies and a fair amount of merchandise swag, including a nifty wand I got at Universal Studios. Shit, I got two replicas of the Sword of Griffyindor, thanks to them screwing up my order in my favor and sending me a duplicate! They’re on my wall right across from me as I type this!

But in addition to writing a book series I really liked, JK Rowling was supposed to be one the good guys. She’s been vocally progressive, often openly comes down on British right-wing nonsense, has supported various persecuted minorities, and is on record as being one of the few self-made billionaires to actually stop being a billionaire for a time because she donated so much money to charity. And while we mock it now, her revealing Dumbledore as gay was a huge deal at the time. Plus, she cultivated this reputation as Auntie Jo, that cool, supportive aunt we all wanted.

But for a while her stock has been dropping. Her preference for confirming “representation” via tweets instead of explicitly putting it in the text of her stories has raised the question of queer-baiting, especially with a whole-ass movie with a young Dumbledore and Grindelwald to make their relationship explicit but failing to do so. The whole Nagini thing from the latest Fantastic Beasts movie was pretty gross. And re-examination of various problematic elements from the original novels has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Now, none of these really looked to be intentionally malicious, of course. Just about everyone’s early work will have problematic elements; that’s just how people work. And the later stuff smacked more of ignorance than anything. But after all this time, it’s like, c’mon. You should know better by now.

But the biggie came when her transphobic views finally came to light. Now, this one had been brewing for a while, due to some questionable likes and statements on her twitter. But then she decided to just go public and published what essentially amounts to a TERF manifesto, one with a very “love the sinner, hate the sin” condescending attitude and had a real persecution complex air to it.

Now, I’m not going to go into detail about what the manifesto was about, what the circumstances surrounding it were, or how wrong it was. It’s already been raked over the coals, dissected, answered, and debunked in detail by people far more qualified than me, so odds are, you’re already well aware of its contents and the subsequent rebuttals. But the gist of it comes down to her basically believing that transwomen are actually cis men claiming to be trans so as to infiltrate and invade female-only spaces.

Yeah.

Okay, that’s gross, but…why? Why is someone so noted for being progressive and wanting to foster an inclusive environment making this the hill of exclusion that she wants to die on?

Well, that’s where things get tricky. She mentions that prior to Harry Potter, her first marriage was highly physically and sexually abusive, and when she escaped from that, she had no place to go, leading her to be homeless for a time.

Oh.

Well, that makes sense. Someone goes through a highly traumatic experience with a member of the opposite sex, has no support structure when she escapes it, is left to fend for herself, only to suddenly get rocketed into fame, fortune, and influence, which in turn leads to a Never Again mentality. She was hurt, no one was there to help her, and now she’s afraid of men invading women-only spaces to victimize others like she was victimized. So…literally transphobic. Literally a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Guys, this is so fucked up. Like, how do you even approach something like this? She’s a victim in every sense of the word, so of course she’s going to have physiological damage and a warped view of things. I mean, if I found out that a close friend of mine went through the same thing and had the same prejudices, I would be nothing but sympathetic! I mean, I’d still do what I can to convince her to overcome those prejudices, but I’d still show sympathy and support for what she went through.

Abuse warps people. There’s a reason why so many abusers are abuse survivors themselves. It makes you terrified of being hurt again and often causes people to adopt toxic behaviors, beliefs, and reactions to protect themselves. I’ve already talked about it at length while discussing She-Ra and its own handling of the cycle of abuse, which included franks discussions of Catra’s horrible behavior, why she was the way she was, while never losing sympathy for her and rooting for her to overcome it. So if JK Rowling is an abuse survivor, is it really right to come down on her for having warped views because of that abuse?

But that’s the problem. See, she isn’t your troubled friend that you’re trying to help. She isn’t your cousin Leslie who’s a really sweet person but unfortunately adopted some bad ideals due to trauma suffered. She JK freakin’ ROWLING, one of the most famous, wealthy, and influential women in the world. She has a platform of millions, if not billions, which means her voice lends credibility to her bigoted beliefs. Alt-righters and other TERFs have already swooped upon this for giving validation to their awful beliefs, which puts trans people even more at risk. And as horrible as Rowling’s experiences might have been, the trans community is often the victim of far worse, and they don’t have a mountain of money and an army of defenders to protect them like she does. I’ve said it time and time again: just because you’re a victim, that doesn’t give you the right to victimize others! And bringing things back to Catra, as much as I loved her redemption in the final season, she was still a TERRIBLE PERSON for a huge chunk of the show, one that needed to be stood up to and stopped.

So yeah. That’s the messiness that is JK Rowling.

Now, let’s talk about the one that really hurts. Let’s talk about Joss Whedon.

I’ve made no secret of what a huge Whedon fan I am. Unlike Rowling, I was a HUUUUUGE superfan. Seeing Serenity for the first time in theaters was akin to a religious awakening to me as a storyteller, making it one of my top three movies of all time. Firefly is my favorite show ever. And I adored Buffy, Angel, and Dollhouse as well. I love Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers. The very first fanfic I ever wrote was a Firefly fanfic that disappeared along with my old laptop. I know his style isn’t for everyone, but I cannot understate how much of a personal inspiration he is to me as a writer.

And like Rowling, Joss was supposed to be one of the good guys! Buffy was monumental in pushing the needle when it came to female empowerment. Will and Tara were groundbreaking as a gay couple. He’s been outspoken for years about his feminist views and beliefs and was seen as one of the most prominent and influential feminist voices in Hollywood!

And then things started to go bad.

One day he was on top of the world, the mastermind behind the first two Avenger movies. And the next, it seemed like he was in freefall. It’s hard to really pinpoint exactly when the change took place. Some would say him being brought in as a last-minute substitute for Zack Snyder to take over on Justice League after Snyder had to leave due to family tragedy, and the subsequent awful critical reception to that film tarnishing his image, even if those were very unique circumstances that couldn’t really be blamed on him. Others might point to Age of Ultron’s less than stellar reception, as well as criticism of some questionable jokes and certain creative decisions regarding the character of Black Widow, which then led to a more critical examination of how Whedon continues to write female characters, as while his work might have been revolutionary in the 90’s, his failure to evolve with the times had meant that many of his portrayals are now woefully outdated and problematic, with his vision for a Batgirl movie getting hit with a lot of backlash as a result.

Again, I’m not going to go into too much detail, as this is all public knowledge and can be easily looked up, but overall it seemed that Whedon entered into a period where he was getting criticized more than he was celebrated, and his image of a guaranteed hit maker was now in doubt.

But all of this wasn’t the big problem. All creators go through rises and slumps, and everyone hits points where they get hit with a barrage of criticism; that’s just part of being a public creative figure, especially a progressive one. And had nothing happened after, it would have probably faded, got forgotten, and Whedon would have moved onto the next project with no fuss.

But as it turned out, it wasn’t just a minor slump in his career. Instead, it was the priming of the pump.

In 2016, Whedon divorced his wife of sixteen years, Kai Cole, and in an open letter, Kai Cole accused him of being a serial cheater, who would have affairs with a great many women, from co-workers, to actresses, to friends, to even his fans. And in addition to raising questions of him possibly abusing his position as showrunner to elicit sex from those working on his projects, there also is the ugly question of how could someone who speaks so highly of women then go and backstab the person who was supposed to be the most important woman in his life, as well as lying to her and denying her the autonomy of deciding whether or not she even wanted to continue to have a relationship with him?

Furthermore, Whedon himself has not explicitly denied these accusations, and comments made by him seem only to confirm them.

Now if you’ll recall, I reacted publicly to this news, and despite my admiration of Whedon’s work, I came down on Kai Cole’s side, and stated that while things like marriage issues and infidelity were no one’s business but that of the couple’s, it did raise a lot of uncomfortable questions about how Whedon treated the women in his life and he really needed to get his shit in order.

But hey, a messy private life and a guy falling into temptation isn’t that big of a deal, right? Plenty of creators also go through multiple marriages and have problems staying faithful and still continue making great art. We’re all human, it’s a stressful job, and this shit just happens, right? Sure, it’s gross and a shitty thing to do, but ain’t no business of ours, right?

In late 2020, actor Ray Fisher, who played the role of Cyborg in Justice League, openly accused Joss Whedon of fostering a hostile work environment, claiming that the director’s behavior was abusive and unprofessional, and that Whedon in turn was protected by DC executives.

DC and Warner Bros. came down against Fisher, claiming they had done an internal investigation that turned up no evidence of wrongdoing (yeah, sure they did), and soon Fisher was out as Cyborg, apparently for rocking the boat.

But then Charisma Carpenter, noted for her important role as Cordelia Chase in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, then spoke up, claiming to be inspired by Fisher in doing so. She described Whedon did indeed foster a hostile work environment on his projects, that his often acted in a toxic manner, from asking incredibly invasive and inappropriate questions regarding her pregnancy to insulting her on set. She said that she made excuses for him for years, but after undergoing a lot of therapy and reading what Ray Fisher had to say, she felt compelled to speak out.

And this just open the floodgates. Other actors and actresses also came forward, some with stories of their own, others to offer support. Even Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar, confirmed Carpenter’s stories and said that she no longer wanted to be associated with Whedon. Michelle Trachtenberg, who played the character of Dawn, stated that she also experienced toxic treatment from Whedon despite her being a minor at the time, and says that the set had a rule that Whedon wasn’t allowed to be alone with her again, which really raises some sickening questions of what happened the first time. Even male stars have spoken out, from words of support and apologies for not speaking up earlier from Anthony Stewart Head and David Boreanaz, to an earlier interview with James Marsters, in which he described being terrified of Whedon, mainly due to an instance when Whedon was frustrated with the popularity of Marsters’s character of Spike messing with his plans and physically and verbally taking it out on the actor. There have been many corroborating stories of Whedon being casually cruel on set, on seemingly taking delight in making his fellow show writers cry, and even the man himself admitting to enjoying fostering a hostile work environment during his director commentary of the Avengers. We’ve joked about Whedon’s supposed sadism for years, but that was in regards to how he treated the characters in his stories, not the people helping him make them!

So yeah. That’s the problem with Joss Whedon.

So, do I think that Joss Whedon is somehow some kind of sociopath who lied about his feminist principles and deliberately put on a progressive façade specifically to get into a position of power so he could torment people? No, of course not. I think he was sincere about his beliefs, and I do think he didn’t realize the wrongness of his behavior. But that’s kind of the problem. See, it’s one thing to have kind of a trollishness to your nature, a sort of sadistic side. No one can help that. But when someone with that quality gets put into a position of power in which they are protected by both the higher-ups and their legions of fans, they are allowed to mistreat and continue to mistreat people. And by never suffering any consequences, that sort of toxic behavior becomes internalized, becomes a habit, becomes their moda operandi. And when you’re constantly getting praised as a creative genius and a wonderful feminist voice, any self-criticism just gets wiped away, and you think yourself above reproach, leading to what Joss Whedon became and went on being.

And you know what scares me the most about this particular issue? It’s not that I am a fan of his stories. It’s that I can so easily see myself turning out the same way.

Look, I’ll be upfront about it: I’m kind of a sadist myself. You’ve seen it in my stories, you’ve seen me gloating after a particularly dark plot twist makes my readers freak out. That sort of stuff is fun to me. There’s a reason why I have a much easier time in the dark and violent scenes, because I’m channeling something ugly within me. We all have a dark side, and this is mine.

But UNLIKE Whedon, that doesn’t carry over to how I treat people in real life (unless Monopoly or Mario Party are involved, then it’s fair game). Maybe it’s because I wasn’t given the sort of power and praise he did so early, and I was always taught to be considerate of other people’s feelings, but if I ever find out that I hurt another person or went too fair, I feel TERRIBLE, and it just throws me off all day until I apologize. Even if I don’t notice right away that what I said or did wasn’t cool (autistic, remember?), when it’s pointed out to me and I have some time to think on it, yeah, the guilt is on and I make a point to apologize to whoever I’ve hurt. I’ve even made a point to apologize to members of my family for inconsiderate stuff I said years ago as a little punk kid because it wouldn’t stop bugging me.

So maybe Whedon got too big, too fast. Maybe putting people on these sorts of pedestals, especially progressive ones, is ultimately a bad thing.

So where does this leave us? How are we to treat JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, one who developed a lot of transphobia due to abuse suffered while the other became a toxic individual due to unchecked control and a lack of consequences? Can we still enjoy their stories despite them now being colored by their creators’ falls from grace? Can we separate the art from the artist, or do we have to do a clean split?

Honestly, I feel that has to come down to the individual. I can’t remove the influence Rowling and Whedon have had on me as a storyteller, and I still highly respect both of their talents despite taking major issue with their problems as people. And I’m not going go throw away all of my Harry Potter or Firefly stuff. Because that’s my stuff. It has value to me, it doesn’t represent the issues with their creators, and a lot of it was gifts from people who are dear to me. Though I do think it’ll be a long time before I return to either of their work, as I just don’t have the stomach for it now.

But I will be avoiding any projects they have in the future. I don’t want to put money in their pockets that might go on to support their toxic beliefs or behavior. And as for royalties for their past work that would also support the cast and crew of the Harry Potter films or those who worked on Whedon’s shows who do not deserve to lose money because we don’t want any of that money going to the creators? Er, that question is a little above my paygrade. I don’t know. You’ll have to all decide for yourselves. As for me, I still have a lot of thinking to do.

Regardless though, if I or anyone else is still able to enjoy their work, then it’s important to not divorce what these people said or did from the art they created, even if it makes enjoying that art less fun. It’s important to be critical about what we enjoy, to acknowledge the bad aspects along with the good, and open up discussion of those elements, because that’s what mature adults are supposed to do. 

And as for JK Rowling and Joss Whedon, whose stories I love, whose talent I admire, and whose past good work I’ll happily acknowledge, I do hope they both experience some sort of realization and enter into a period of self-examination that leads to them getting help for their issues, for Rowling to get help in coming to terms with her trauma and realizing that she’s wrong about the trans community and a full apology, and for Whedon to also come to terms with his toxic behavior and how he treats people, for him to make no excuse for what he did and sincerely apologize to those he hurt and work on bettering himself, as well as them both examining some of the more problematic tropes still present in their works. Because despite everything, I do feel that they can still be a creative force of good, and it would be a shame if they let themselves self-destruct.

But if not, then if it comes down to choosing between Rowling and the protecting the trans community, if it comes down between choosing between letting Whedon continue to make shows and protecting actors and writers from his abusive behavior, then I know who I’m siding with, and it ain’t the two individuals this whole essay is about. No story, no matter how good, no matter how creative, is worth letting sacrificing vulnerable people in order for it to be made.

[cosmoscourge-a]

Tobias Mendelssohn and the Never-Ending Revolution

Arceus is a plague. Much like a disease, we’re engaged in a constant struggle against him, and yet he’s constantly inventing new ways in which to trouble us. This is the nature of the evils of the world--always mutating according to the temper of the times; when one problem is solved, two more spring from the very solution itself. These struggles against Arceus will culminate in a final battle that I’ve been plotting for a while now, although certain other things (such as Renate’s resignation) will have to happen first. But even after the battle is won, the fight will still continue.

Because Arceus isn’t just a dangerous being. He also represents dangerous ideas. And thus, like all tyrants, his ways will still pollute the Earth long after he’s gone; in fact, for some of his followers, his death has only convinced them that he is a martyr. Though he won’t be around to fight on his own side any longer, which will certainly make it easier for humanity to progress, he has more than enough people to carry on the fight for him. There will be those who refuse to give up their terrible Arceus-inspired ways. There will be devoted cultists and their leaders clamoring for his return. There will be evil Teams striving to revive him. All in all, even though our heroes will have their day, they’re still going to have to spend the rest of their lives picking up the pieces. Thus, the Never-Ending Revolution will continue, long after most of my muses are dead and gone. Perhaps their great-grandchildren will truly live in a world without him, as will my muses with extremely long lifespans. But most of my characters will not.

We need look no further than our own world for proof that this is how things are going to be. People have fought against racism and other forms of bigotry for hundreds of years, we’re still dealing with the problem today, and our grandchildren will probably still be dealing with it in one form or another. And though blatant racism still exists like it did in the past, racism has also mutated to be more subtle, more underground, more unconscious. It manifests in things as innocent (yet annoying) as “I’m not a racist but,” to revealing accidents such as writing a “white savior�� narrative while not knowing what that is, to things as horrible as alt-right dogwhistles. Support for Arceus and his ideology will likewise mutate, changing to try and make itself more politically correct, attempting to re-mold itself in the language of the times (or, like racism, trying to convince the next generation that the past was better). The revolution that overthrew Arceus was just the beginning. The real revolution will be fought on the battlefields of the mind.

What is Tobias’ role in all this? Well. He certainly didn’t start this fight--that honor goes to Friedrike Skyherald. But as the man who finally exposed Arceus’ curse on Unima to the world, he sees it as his duty to end it. After the six years it takes to complete his Ph.D. on the Protagonist Phenomenon and its influence on regional politics, and after the final battle against Arceus, he sets out into the world to do more “field research.” This is his way of describing that he personally throws himself into as many of the major protagonist-vs-evil-team conflicts as possible--usually as a guide/mentor, but sometimes, if the protagonist is too young or too mentally unfit for their job, he steps in and does their journey for them. And after Arceus is defeated? Most of his time is spent cleaning up after Arceus’ mess. Going after the evil teams that formed around Arceitic ideologies. Or politicians trying to drag their countries back into the dead god’s grasp. The fight is a part of him now. And there’s no going back.

Though Tobias has lost the trust of @idanikou​‘s Ghetsis due to his actions after the Sweet Love Soiree, he manages to earn his found family uncle’s trust back through many years of his journey toward being a better person. As he goes on these journeys with his adoptive brother @qntmthry​ / Colress and his childhood best friend also named Tobias / @drkvoids​, he actually becomes a part of Ghetsis’ court as an ambassador who goes to regions who have been destabilized by evil Teams and corrupt politicians--particularly those who still serve Arceus. I imagine he was chosen because people would see him as a symbol of hope, and see his story as a microcosm of the ultimate struggle between humanity and its tyrannical cosmic oppressor: a stormy and treacherous path beset with setbacks, but one that ultimately leads to resolution and peace.

Tobias retires from his overseas adventures at the age of 45. He becomes more settled in Ghetsis’ court as court composer--finally fulfilling his Mozart-like potential --though he still acts as an ambassador due to what he means to the world. Throughout his life, though, starting from the publication of his Ph.D. all the way to his death, he will still produce a huge and extremely influential body of work based on his travels recording everything he’s learned about evil Teams and why Heroes (protags) are so effective in dealing with them. It’s really the sort of thing he wants to dedicate his life toward, and these are the sort of works that can forever change scholarship and the way people look at the world. And of course, running through all these books is a very anti-Arceus thread: the final word in the fight against the demiurge, even long after he’s retired from revolutionary warfare.

[cosmosrival]

there it is! kama interlude analysis by a kama fan!

WELL. LIKE IT SAYS IN THE TITLE: this is just my own thoughts!! youre free to think whatever u want !! i am just putting my own knowledge into words because i genuinely love kama, and i would like for kama’s depth to be understood by the NA fandom a little more!! i try to stay as close as possible to their character in everything i do because i believe that the more in character they are, the funnier/more interesting content ppl will produce. 

and hopefully i understood them well ???!!!! HOPEFULLY ?!

i will be screenshotting the translated reddit post under this read more and stop whenever something i find interesting to develop pops up ! or else it’ll get way too long lol if you wanna read the interlude for yourself heres the link!

with that said, let’s go!!

kama’s interlude begins with guda passing the hell out because of exhaustion and then waking up in a dream sequence where kama treats them to some relaxing adventures, stuff to take their mind off heavy things!! first dream sequence is kama roleplaying a highschool setting where they’re dating.

i like this because they openly admit that its an illusion, breaking the immersion but as long as youre okay with roleplaying, they’ll continue it LOL  at some point, caesar mentions the student council president and arjuna appears behind him 

since this is an illusion that kama made, i’ve been wondering about the fact that the way servants conduct eachother in this interlude is mostly because that’s how kama envisions they would act in a highschool setting, in an amusement park and finally with eachother (mostly for confirmed couples such as siegbryn, consort yu and her hubby etc...). suzuka and sei being gyarus is obvious, but arjuna as the student council president... is so cute???!!! i MEAN IT FITS ?! THATS A GREAT IDEA KAMA!!!! ANYWAY

this is kama’s first monologue and since they’re primarily the god of lust, all of the more vanilla stuff they mentions such as sharing a pair of headphones embarrasses them since its so tame. ITS CUTE !!! kama expects you to be horny in class !! what are you doing thinking about hand holding !!! medusa saves u from that tho with a direct reference to her relationship with kama’s vessel 

this is interesting !! and reassuring !!! i think that kama as a character has a lot of depth and just reducing them to “sakura” would be a waste and this interlude shows how different they are from her. but they’re also similar! sakura went through a lot just like medusa says and kama does have trauma related to shiva. its not the same circumstances but the same kind of suffering which explains the nuance here. and what i like about chaldea is that there’s been multiple instances where its been proven that servants can grow thanks to their relationships with guda (most common example: leveling up your bonds) BUT ALSO, saint graph evolution (alts). and as a kama fan i’d like to see them happy someday and this interlude as a whole is proof of their healing/coping because of the time they spent in chaldea and how they interact with others. more on that later ! here, they don’t recognize medusa which is normal since they’re not sakura (someone else entierly), but...

they care about her ! because of sakura’s influence being a part of the servant called Kama(assassin). the difference here is important !! but i’ll come back on this in a bit. quick mention to the greek cupid <3 kamadusa nation we were fed (i clap by myself because im the only one who has 57575757557 kama rarepairs-----)

kama is a delinquent whos horny in class but still takes a few notes, enough to do well on their tests! and thats tea<3 smart horny lazyass !! theyre a gift

SO ARJUNA WAS OUT FOR BLOOD ????? ANYWAY, this is right after the actual fight against weirdo terrorists, and im happy to know that kama DOES enjoy a good fight (as proven in their voicelines as well) but theyre not a farming unit because it’d be too much work (single target NP..)...!!!!!!! lavish god of love.... 

FINALLYYYYYYYYYYY THE REAL DEAL !!!!!!!!!!!! “it feels wonderful to be your girlfriend” christ, kamadeva was so used to being a husband and a good lover, it reflected in their servant version.... but ree what do u mean by servant version???

I MEAN THE OBVIOUS !! kama explains it very well in the screenie just above ! 

“You know very well how servants work.”

KAMA ASSASSIN (the servant in your chaldea) is neither KAMADEVA or SAKURA MATOU or MARA. they’re a MIX OF PARTS OF THE THREE. creating an entierly new person(in this case, servant) !!!! it might sound like i’m repeating myself, but this is important!!!!!!!!! i will say this multiple times so people remember it !!! and if u already had this figured out: GOOD JOB I LOVE U !!!

Kamadeva (the god) has many stories, ones where he was born from concepts (dharma and shraddha), one where his parents are brahma and sarasvati, one where his parents are vishnu and lakshmi, stories about his reincarnation after his death where his parents are krishna and rukmini, his love with Rati and so on. We all know Sakura’s backstory since this is nasuverse. And Mara is a demon, an entity that tried to corrupt Buddha and prevent him from reaching enlightenment/stray from the path. Kama assassin has parts from all of these entities which explains why they have a vague longing for Rati, why they have a soft spot for Medusa and why they have an affinity with Kiara(and also like talking about corrupting u !). 

they then mention how a japanese highschool setting is fun and all i have to say is: i’m gonna make an indo fam delinquent vs student council au out of this one folks !!!!!!!! i gotta !!! 

OK next

TIME FOR THE SECOND DREAM SEQUENCE WHICH I WAS VERY VERY VERRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY AFRAID OF BEFORE THE TRANSLATION CAME OUT.

THE PART WHERE KAMA ACTS LIKE YOUR CHILD.

well with their stage 1 it was expected but without the translation i have to say that i was scared shitless! because people hate thinking! and even if kama clearly tells you that it’s a charade, u know a JOKE. A DREAM SEQUENCE. DONT BE A CREEP. KAMA INTENDED FOR IT TO BE WHOLESOME. i know some ppl wont use their brains. but u know its fgo and degenerates are everywhere. 

anyways. family bonding time ensues until another monologue appears!!

exactly like before, kama mentions myths that belonged to kamadeva. Meaning that the Kama in our chaldea isn’t the Kamadeva we know and is not Pradyumna either but the fact that the writers chose to have kama acknowledge it is very reassuring !!! Because it means that they’ve chosen to make it a part of their (complicated) history. Kama says that Pradyumna is the myth about themself they know the least, once again proving us that the Kama in our Chaldea (Assassin) is a different entity and that they were summoned to the throne upon their death, the moment they were burned by Shiva’s flames and became Ananga, in any case they’re still familiar with all of their own myths. it allows us to keep heroic spirits separate from their original myths. Obviously! And in the case of pseudo-servants, it allows us to keep them separate from their vessels. Cuz this is a fanservice japanese game. Andddd the fandom likes forgetting this fact quite a lot i’ve noticed. As a person who loves thinking about tons and tons of headcanons for fun, this allows us a lot of space ! Because this is fate/grand order at its base. Nasuverse. 

I’m glad that the interlude explains it so clearly, it’s very good !! Because the majority of myths from every culture are confusing, family trees are confusing, names are confusing, powers and attributes are confusing... its a mess !!!! the fgo characters we know are just cut from their own respective timelines/historial figures so the writers can organize themselves more easily. Like cutting halves from a big cake. Kama (Assassin) is the Kama that died from Shiva’s flames and became the universe ONLY. In Nasuverse, Arthur Pendragon is a woman. Anastasia Romanov NEVER had a demon familiar named Viy in real life despite the creature being part of russian folklore. u know ! im russian i can testify dude !! 

hopefully everyone got this bc i wont be explaining this any further dude, its exhausting !!!!!! bangs my hands on the table !!!!! 

ANYWAYS kama mentions “eternal pain that turns [them] into ash” being their key element. Their trauma is at the center of their heroic spirit self, what they are as a servant. This suffering is tied to everything they do, why they’re so lazy, why they’re so lax, why they’re so detached from their job.  But they’re not detached from their role. And “job” and “role” have different connotations here. They refuse to work as a cupid because of obvious reasons. BUT. They’re not detached from their role as the God of Love, as the God of Passion. The embodiment of those feelings. This whole interlude is proof ! They’re giving u free therapy because they Love you. Passion. They feel your love. Passion. They acknowledge how much fun you’re having. How passionate you are about certain things. They might seem extremely detached and hateful, but they aren’t. They’re one of the most empathetic servants there is. And their ability to love everything, even the things they hate is what makes them so miserable. Because it’s a part of them. Because the concept of Kama in hinduism is linked to them. Be it lust or simply the passion born from anything you do where you’re enjoying yourself. (quote:  “ the term also refers to any sensory enjoyment, emotional attraction and aesthetic pleasure such as from arts, dance, music, painting, sculpture and nature “. R. Prasad (2008), History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization )

... I’d like to say that this contrast with Mara is interesting. And that i’m glad the writers chose to add in Mara to the kama assassin Beast mix. 

Because the anger Mara feels can become a drivepoint for Kama. I’ve always believed that anger and sadness are two sides of the same coin, it’d explain how layered Kama is and how valid their emotions are. Constantly torn between love and hate. An eternal grudge (i don’t deserve to be hurt like this) and an eternal misery(maybe i do deserve to be hurt like this). 

i wish they were my roommate <3 oh fuck ree got emotional wait where were we.

OH YEAH

i think kama saying that they dislike being involved with other indian servants because theyre linked to shiva is a feeble attempt at trying to keep up a strong front because they still love them in the end. cuz that’s how kama is ! after a while they’ll get bored of bullying ganesha and ashwatthama. they’ll get interested in rama because their respective mythos are linked even if their servant selves have no connection. hell, at the end of the interlude they talk about parvati and how they themself changed and realized things. BUT OH WELL, THATS STUFF FOR ANOTHER POST HEHE thats just ree wanting kama to b happy yall move along !!

.....THIS ISNT A COLLEGE STUDENTS ROLEPLAY BUT ITS A CUTE JAPANESE COMPANY BOSS/UNDERLING SETTING AND ITS CUTE SO I THINK KAMA WEARING A PENCIL SKIRT AND POURING U ALCOHOL IS CUTE. CUTE.

further proof of kama’s overflowing affection and what i detailed above!! hopefully u all knew this one simply from reading this interlude/their profile page and dont need me to write it down for u. HOPEFULLY !!!!!

(I START BEATBOXING VERY RAPIDLY AND RUNNING TOWARDS YOU) KAMA IS A SADIST AT THEIR CORE AND I WILL NEVER STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they’re easy to fluster because theyre not used to being so vanilla, but whats underneath is how they truly are !! a beast turned servant, the sweetest sadist !! theyre very mature and this interlude is so well written (wipes my teears

this is directly linked to what i explained above, by burning you away, you’ll melt into nothingness just like they did. When they were the universe, they felt both everything and nothing. 

But was it really relief ... ?

... IT WASNT.

AND PARVATI SAVES THE DAY !!!!!!! phew!! thank u paru, it’d still like to be able to touch kama’s huge titties and i cant do that if i turn into ashes (falls down the stairs

ok she summoned lovey dovey canon couples to annoy kama since they’re exhausted of seein them!!

...............(I TAKE OUT A KNIFE) TAKE THAT BACK. DONT TALK TO THEM LIKE THAT. TAKE THAT BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

ohhhhhh im obsessed i love when theyre angry<3 i love when theyre fighty <3 i think they should beat the living shit out of a boxing bag DAILY to let out some of this steam. they’d be a monster on the ring... aaa kama in training boot y shorts aa a .. .uughg hg ouu... (you all shove me into a locker)

ok this is interesting !! i think that the interlude showing us that parvati feels a semblance of guilt is character dev. proof for what i mentioned before!! in ookuu parvati felt quite ..unsympathetic to me, even if kama is a beast who wants to annihilate humanity, when u think about it, at their core their grudge is because of her and shiva’s betrayal. and here, she properly apologizes for making kama so upset. this is heartwarming to me since i dislike thinking that members of the indo fam hate eachother :( same goes for arjuna and karna, at some point i’d like for them to act like bros normally and finally be comfy. but anyways !!

u wake up from the dreams and da vinci, mashu and paru are here to tell u whats going on. But its fine bc u remember everything and u have to go thank someone for helping u out!!!

CUTE !!!!!!! THEY CARE ABOUT U !!!!!! but whether it be because of their role or because theres a deeper meaning is entierly up to your own interpretation because...

of what they say here. 

and here !! 

ohhhhhhhhh this is so important !!!!!!

this is actual proof of kama’s growth as a servant and how servants evolve in chaldea !! chaldea is not the same as a grail war, its a special, cut-off place and thats what makes it even more relaxing to think about. Everytime u summon a servant in ur chaldea u give them a chance to have fun with you, to have fun with other servants, to make amends, to start from scratch, to discover things they would’ve never known in their time (movies, video games, tons of different foods etc...), u give them a chance to relax. to grow !! this is the headcanon that im most attached to and im glad to see it be confirmed in the interlude of a character i love tbqh i had to stop and talk about that.

everyone say thank u kama !! can we roleplay a college roommate coffee shop slowburn au next time <3 

ANYWAYS if you’ve read it this far: thank you !!! im sorry if you expected something very serious, im not that type of person hehe im jus here to have fun and look at things i like, and the interlude itself was quite lighthearted and refreshing. By talking about the myths and all of kamadeva’s stories, the writers basically gave lore nerds a huge thumbs up like... “its ok now !! u can go ape now !! go be insane<3 love u<3″ and all of this kama characterization GENUINELY makes me so happy because i think they really needed that. kama assassin... (i blow a kiss to the sky) is a little mess of a servant... a god, human crumbs and a demon... a total mess... im in love with them...

..............tho now the wait for a summer alt where they interact with the entire indo fam begins (im sitting in a chair unmoving)(i have a gun in case minase begins acting gross

[ltbroccoli]

Warning: Tony/brashir is a bully.

EDIT: Tony has had the callout doc taken down twice. Please see the post linked here to access a new version of it.

Anyone who knows me knows that I despise getting myself involved in drama. However, there are times when it's necessary, and one such time is to defend a friend. This post is rather long, but I ask you to please read it in its entirety. This is a summary of a full length callout, which you can read here.

Some of you may have seen the post by Tony (brashir) calling out Serena (empathicstars) -- if you haven't, I'll link to it here. It's pretty shocking, and horrifying to read. There's just one problem: none of it is true.

Tony had a bad breakup with his fiance, Ray, back in August of 2019 (some of you may remember him as seamworn). Tony claims that Ray was abusive towards him. This is a lie. Ray has made mistakes, certainly, and their relationship was not a healthy one. But all of Tony's claims of abuse simply don't line up, and most of the evidence points to Tony as the abusive one. The same is true for Tony's other claims -- that Ray is racist, that he fakes his triggers, that he's stolen money, that he forces survivors to write r*pe with him, etc. -- all are untrue.

After their breakup, Serena chose to remain friends with both Tony and Ray. She was extremely upfront about this decision, and Tony told her repeatedly, for months, that this was fine. He did try to manipulate her into dropping Ray, but she never did so, as Ray had actually apologized for his actions and was working hard to become the best person he could be away from Tony's influence.

In regards to Tony's claim that Serena is best friends with a racist white person: this is referring to me. About a year and a half ago, someone in the Doctor Who RPC added the character Krasko, who is canonically a racially motivated mass murder, to their multimuse. Tony and others in the RPC burst into action, calling this person out and harassing them over their choice of muse. I am someone who is very open about separation of IC and OOC -- it's featured prominently in my rules that I do not believe writing something is the same as supporting it -- and felt very uncomfortable watching this go down.

I did not address the situation directly, but I did reblog a rather targeted PSA post. Ray (still together with Tony at the time) messaged me to confront me about it. I then blocked him at his request, and took the chance to cut off Tony and several others in the RPC that I had been growing more and more uncomfortable with. In hindsight, I was not as open to conversation as I could have been, and I don't think I would defend that person's writing today, not unless I actually knew them and could personally vouch for the respectfulness of their portrayal. However, I would still defend them from harassment, as that is never an appropriate response under any circumstances.

Serena and I did discuss this at the time, and she made it clear that she did not agree with my stance. However, we still remained friends. Serena was again upfront about this, and no one ever told her to drop me. The claim that Serena is ignoring BIPOC voices is untrue. The BIPOC voices he's referring to are only him and his friends, and those voices have lied to her face. Serena was told clearly, directly, and repeatedly that it was okay to be friends with Ray, that it was okay to be friends with me. Then a few months ago, Tony dug up the incident I had with Ray so he could turn on a dime and attack Serena for it, triggering her and driving her out of their friend group for good.

Additionally, since this has happened, Serena has been directly harassed and most recently doxxed. A friend still in Tony's server gave Joel (Serena's husband) a warning that Serena's phone number had been shared in the group, and that they were signing her up for spam. Since then, Serena has received various Trump and Republican propaganda texts, as well as explicit imagery and videos. The group has also evaded blocks to harass her on Tumblr. Ray has been dealing with similar forms of harassment for over a year now, and I've even had a small taste of it myself when one of Tony's group made an alt Discord account in an effort to sneak into one of my servers.

At this point, I frankly don't care what Serena or Ray supposedly did or did not do. This behavior is unacceptable. This behavior is illegal. Both Serena and Ray have tried to apologize, tried to ignore everything and move on, but Tony keeps dragging the same issues up, over and over, refusing to let anyone let it go.

And this is not motivated by racism, whatever Tony claims. If racism were the root of the problem, I would be the target, not Serena. Yet I have received almost nothing about this, while Serena has been doxxed and harassed. The root of the problem is that Serena did not cut Ray off like Tony wanted, and he lost his control over her. He's masked his anger as social justice to rally his friend group against her.

I cannot stress the following statement enough: Tony is a bully. He is a liar, an abuser, a manipulator, and so much more. This has reached the point where legal action is being seriously considered, and that is not a decision any of us have made lightly. We have also been reporting this to Discord and to Tumblr, in hopes that something will force this to come to an end; this process is ongoing.

Over the past several months, I have been working on a callout to bring all of this to light, in the hopes that others will see how bad the situation has been and hopefully take measures to protect themselves from being targeted in the way that we have. That document is now complete, and it's linked here. It's quite long, but it debunks Tony's many false claims and provides evidence for everything I've stated above. It also namedrops everyone in Tony's friend group that has been directly involved in his harassment and doxxing, for awareness.

If you feel that Serena, Ray, or I have done something unforgivable -- I understand. If you feel you must cut us off, we will miss you, but we will not fight you on it. But please, please do not trust Tony, and be extremely wary if you choose to keep him in your life.

And if you feel so inclined, please reblog this post so that others can see Tony and his friends for the bullies that they truly are. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or Joel directly and off-anon (he can be reached on @solitaryskies or @themekets). Serena has requested not to be contacted about this, for her own mental health; please respect this.

[mrdrzezstchkowitzatyourservice]

Uneven numbers for the writer ask :)

1: Do I listen to music when I write?: Yes! Nothing put me in the mood like a good symphony or railroad song

3: Computer or pen and paper?: It depends. Computer for bigger projects, but most of the time, I prefer a good notebook

5: How much writing do I do on an average day?: 1500 words on a good day, most of the time I do about 500-1000 words daily

7: Standalone or series?: Sometimes standalone, sometimes series. If it's a short story, I'm more likely to do a sequel. But standalones are better imo

9: Current WIP: I'm writing a novel! It's a large project, (with my ocs in it) so I often take time to work on smaller works.

11: Books and/or authors that influence me the most: Clive Cussler! My father introduced me to his books a while back, and I love their writing style!

13: Describe my writing process from idea to polished: Oh boy. Usually, I'll get an idea, and I'll write it down along with all the details/characters that come to me in the moment. Next, I formulate a plot by coming up with important plot points and building around them. I don't map everything out, so somethings just come to me as I write. One thing though, that I always map out is the story's ending, so that I know hat will happen and can tie everything up better. After the first draft is done, I look over it for spelling/grammar mistakes, fix plot holes, etc. Then after that, I make sure that it's formatted correctly. After that, I'm done!

15: How do I deal with writer's block?: I let the work sit for a bit, and then come back to it later with a renewed vision. Sometime's I'll brainstorm new plot points or details.

17: What writing habits/rituals do I have?: Every day, when I sit down to write, I always get a piece of chocolate, and a nice cup of tea, and i have my notebook ready

19: How do I keep myself motivated?: "This is some seriously wacky shit, but someone will want to read it."

21: Who is/are my favorite characters to write?: Dee Havermeyer and Pavlov Livitchsky are my favorite characters to write! I also quite enjoy writing Reginald and Charles

23: Favorite author?: Clive Cussler will always be one of my most favorite authors. He created some an wide (and very interesting) array or characters! I am also a huge fan of Jules Verne His stories are so creative and adventurous!

25: Favorite part of writing: The freedom it grants!

27: Favorite line/scene: "I'll shoot a man for money, but I'll meddle around in his business for free" said by one of my villains, Charles Bixby

29: Favorite villain: shgllhflfhgdsljjklhdgskj can't believe I have to choose a favorite villain. The villains are always one of the most important parts of my stories. It's tough but I'd have to say either Mattias Calvin (corrupt law) or Charles Bixby (Disney villain on steroids)

31: Least favorite part of writing: When I'm on a roll and suddenly I hit a brick wall, like I don't know where to go next. It's the worst.

33: Ever killed a main character?: Yes. :( It hurts. It most often happens in the historical fiction that I write.

35: What scene/story do I least look forward to writing: warning: spoilers. I might get my novel published one day (that's the end goal) but at the end Dee has to watch his father die and turns his friend over to the corrupt law because he deems that friend responsible. Even though Dee isn't a real person, it just hurts me to have to put him through such trauma like that. :(

37: First sentence of your current WIP: "Well Reggie? What'd you find?" God I love these two

39: Weirdest character concept I've had: Goodness, let me think on that! I'd say Pavlov Livitchsky. Ukrainian farmer who's also a secret agent? Who would think of it!

41: Any advice for new/beginning writers?: Writing can be frustrating sometimes. This scene doesn't work, your characters aren't doing what they're supposed to, it all happens! Always make sure to look back into previous chapters to fix things up, or to find something that you want to reference again. Researching and worldbuilding is important, but don't spend too much time infodumping!

43: What to do if/when your characters don't follow the outline: it happens often. Sometimes I make improvements to my characters so they fit better, or I don't have an outline at all and just go with the flow :)

45: How much worldbuilding do I do?: Depends on the situation. If it's historical fiction, not much is needed. If it's an alt-history/fantasy/sci-fi, than much more is needed.

47: Best way to procrastinate: "I have written exactly one (1) good sentence today, and that's good enough."

49: What character would I most like to be friends with, if they were real?: Dee :)

[offtopicoverload]

Howdy there!! Who are the li’s you fancy the most from LITG??

hi! thanks for the ask!

i honestly dunno who’s my top answer, cuz they’re all interesting in their own way

I’m only going to talk about female LIs cuz the only male routes I’ve finished are Bobby and Jake, and I tapped through most of Jake and only ended with Bobby on my first run cuz I never unlocked Marisol, so I’m not the best source lol

Talia:

She’s just so chill but has no problem standing up for MC, she has her back no matter what

Which, like, what a queen

She’s the original and only one of 4 LIs, which maybe it’s just me, but for a game based on an incredibly heteronormative reality show, allowing representation for queer audiences from launch is such a big deal and so cool to me, so Talia’s kind of special in my mind

She was also my first LI so nostalgia points

And she’s such an easy LI, not much drama on her route outside of Lucy, just her having MC’s back as the boys make themselves look like idiots

And she has so much potential, like I know some people think her only personality trait is fancying MC, which I mean, is a little fair, but there’s so many opportunities for her in fics and headcanons to develop the good amount of information we got on her in 13 days

I absolutely love how self-aware and confident she is

She just went for what she wanted, struggled a bit with commitment at first, because who wouldn’t, but after that it was smooth sailing

Like obviously what she said in the Beach Hut at the beginning of the season wasn’t great for MC, but she knew exactly what she wanted out of her time on the show

She was confident in herself and her sexuality so much so that she was just down to have a fling with a girl and not worry about how it would effect the show

And then she *coupled up* with that same girl, not even giving a shit about the rules or anything

A queen

Allegra:

I know she’s not an official LI, but her arc is what got me into writing so she gets a million points for that

I love what could have been done with her progression if she was given an actual route, I’m a sucker for some good enemies to lovers, but alas, she’s canonically a bad bitch with a lot of internalised homophobia yet enough confidence to ask MC out

I still love her

Marisol:

I know so many people hate her, and I get it, but I do really like her growth

Maybe it’s cuz I’m pretty analytical too, but her analyses never bothered me or anything, and now that I’ve played her route so many times, it’s pretty obvious that that’s a defense mechanism, and I understand that

She very much so has a “figure their weaknesses out before they have a chance to figure mine out” attitude, and I’m 99% positive it’s because of the ex that Elisa reminded her of

So not only has she been burned in the past, I’m willing to bet it was by the only woman she’s been in a serious relationship with

I really have no problem with her commitment issues, it’s understandable, and I can really empathise with her fear of coming out, it’s absolutely terrifying even if you’ve accepted it and bought a flag, saying the words can be really difficult

My biggest issue is her entitlement and immaturity, I guess?

Like her using Graham to make MC jealous just feels like an excuse to crack on with him and still have MC available for when she’s ready

I understand her being scared to couple up, but playing games to distract herself just made things with MC worse

And unless youre on her route, and sometimes even when you are, it’s clear to me that she expects things and has no problem saying what they are, but going after them is a problem?

Like her going after Lurik even though they don’t have a connection, or Gary even when he’s with Hannah

But then it never works and she gets sad and I melt because I’m weak

ALSO, can I just say how awful it is that Lucas and Henrik don’t pick her unless they have to???

Like cmon she deserves MC after that

And when they finally couple up? And she’s all soft? The GROWTH ohmygod

Anyway I love who Marisol became, maybe not everything she started out as, but definitely the person she ended the season as, more confident and self assured and willing to be vulnerable

It’s precious

Elisa:

I still haven’t done an Elisa route

I tried to a couple months ago, but dumping Marisol felt so cruel, what the hell was Fusebox thinking with that?? 

I do really like that they learned from their mistake though, even if they went in the opposite direction

From what I’ve seen of Elisa, she can be pretty sweet, I’ve seen her described as a Lucas-Bobby hybrid, and while that’s not the most interesting personality to me, I will say that she’s a really cool character that FB messed up on

Why did they make her a straight up villain???

And why ONLY her???

None of the other female LIs have been villains or had such a complete 180

Like her going from shouting at Chelsea, who is literally meant to be MC’s ride or die and the person outside of your LI that youre supposed to want to defend and avenge, to “i cant even sleep because im pining so hard”

I know the treatment of black women has been discussed before, specifically in regards to Hope and Erikah, and it is by no means my place to speak on it, but I definitely think something’s going on with Elisa

Anywayyyy, I love her archetype

The celebrity and influencer has so much potential, to the point that I wrote a one shot without even knowing her lmao 

And she’s so confident in a way that’s so different from Marisol

She doesn’t even care if MC’s happily coupled up, she WILL get in her pants and I respect that

In conclusion, Fusebox did her dirty and I’m probably going to try and retcon some canon for her in the future

Lottie:

Ohmygod

Lottie

A goth babe

Lottie

Yeah, anyway, so I love her

Her growth is just unbeatable in my opinion

Yeah, she still has her flaws by the end of the season, but she went from ready to rip everyone’s throat out to biting her tongue around Hannah

And her and MC???

And the development between them??? 

Ugh

No matter what way you swing it, you’ve either got best friends to lovers or enemies to lovers and I adore both

And her aesthetic is one of my favourites, I’m alt myself and having a character like that is just so cool

My Runaways MC is a ball of sunshine with some hidden darkness specifically because Lottie’s such a dark cloud but can start shining with the right person, and that’s my absolute favourite trope

But man were the wedding episodes a cop out

Why couldn’t they give her the Noah treatment? Or the single treatment? Where they just get together after the show? Same with Hannah, why are they giving such an intense confession after who knows how long of literally nothing, like no communication even????

Don’t get me wrong, I kinda simultaneously love it for the angst and yearning, but it just… makes no sense?

So yeah, amazing bat lady that I seriously vibe with and wish my MC could have wifed up

Hannah:

I know this is a little controversial buuuut

I fucking love Hannah

But only OGHannah, Returning Hannah was butchered and I will never let that go

And it was such a toxic message too, that she needed to change herself and her appearance just to get a guy to like her?

Fuck that, Original Hannah was amazing and perfect exactly as she was

I love her trope, too, the naivety and how obvious and clear it was that she’s still learning about the world and relationships, to the point that it’s going to get her in trouble

And her obsession with fairy tales? 

Fucking adorable ohmygod

I started a fic a while ago that I think I’m gonna scrap, that just indulged in the fairy tale metaphors and stuff because I just love how cute it is lmao

If she wasn’t dumped, I think she could have had amazing growth alongside Lottie, and their friendship/kinda, probably, most-definitely-if-MC’s-not-there-more-than-a-friendship growing together would have been so good

In an alternate reality Hope was dumped instead, and that helps me sleep at night

I firmly stand by the fact that Noah should have been the deciding factor between Hope and Hannah/MC, where Lottie said something that screwed with his head earlier in the day to make sure her friends were safe

Noah should have saved Hannah/MC and Hope should have returned with Rocco, hellbent on revenge and proving herself

That would have been so good for Noah stans and such good drama, that actually made perfect sense

Hope was fully expecting that she’d get picked by Noah because they’d spent three days attached at the hip and then to just… not have that happen. It would have driven her insane and if there was then a scene with MC where she just like, gives up

Like she’s spent the past two days grafting Noah but he won’t make up his mind and she’s just done and MC can comfort her or fight with her and you just get to humanize her make her vulnerable and hurting and I fucking WISH they did something like that, even for RHannah

And Hannah’s growth in the Villa would have been so amazing

I think her idea of a perfect guy is definitely too much, and I’m not advocating that she settles by any means, just that she could have learned that there are things more important than money

That conversation on day 1 where you choose between money, kindness, and intelligence still baffles me

Like why are you a gold digger Hannah?!?!

Why don’t you just want a Prince/ss Charming???

Her and Hope should have swapped and I don’t understand why they weren’t

I mean, I do really like Hope, but Hannah’s just so cute and has so much to learn and her struggling in the Villa just to have a lightbulb moment with MC would have been precious and now I want to write it dammit

Anyway, Hannah is adorable and had so much potential and she never should have returned if they were just going to scrap everything that made her Hannah, except for snooty literature

I wanna listen to her rattle on about Belle and Mulan and every other Disney Princess and what they meant for representation and progress in media and then compare them to their original stories like a dweeb and I would have melted on the spot

Like yes, please tell me more about how gruesome Cinderella is

She should have shown up at the finale and hugged MC and been innocent and sweet so I could have just lost my shit for like a half hour

But stan OGHannah, burn RHannah

AJ:

Adorable, precious, denied an arc outside of coming out

I am not exaggerating when I say that I cried at 4:30 in the morning at her blushing face when playing the first two days

It’s just so fucking cute and I’m a sap and I don’t know why it made me cry, but it did okay?!

And her coming out was such good representation!!! By far the best thing in Boat Party, and I’m so proud of the progress FB’s made in queer representation at the very least

I know she’s pretty one dimensional, but most of S3 is unfortunately

Her being available right off the bat was also such a win, I’m positive it’s the reason she had so many stans

If her and Yasmin had switched or her and Lily, they would have been the ones that were dominating Reddit polls and stuff

And I know she’s written as masc but I just can’t really see it? Like I can’t see her in a dress, but outside of a few clothing items, I guess I just can’t see it? Maybe androgynous is more the word for my image of her, like definitely a mix

She’ll wear a skirt under the right circumstances, but never a dress, a crop top with a flannel, her prom outfit that’s like a frilly jumpsuit, stuff like that? idk im not a lesbian

Her route for me was so glitchy, but I know that if MC’s stolen from her by Yasmin, Tai, or Ciaran, she has some really cute scenes and I wish I could have seen them

And I know some people were ragging on her for the eyelash at the end of the scene but I thought that was just a perfect callback - maybe it’s the writer in me

Basically, AJ’s adorable and why did Ciaran have to split her and MC up, not cool dude

Yasmin:

I forgot I was doing a Yasmin route a while ago, but from what I’ve seen and played, she’s really sweet 

I hate that she’s almost nonexistent outside of her route

Give us a mysterious musician friend, you cowards!

I saw that she sings to MC on the final date and damn is that cute

Her eyeshadow kinda throws me off, but her stuffed animal makes up for it

And I’m salty that Yasmin the Lamb disappeared too, that was such a nice detail that made me start a Yasmin route

She’s distant and self-assured, but has a soft, gooey, nostalgic center and I wish we saw more of that, even if we weren’t on her route

My final thoughts on Yasmin: An artsy indie icon that I really need to stop getting distracted from and finish her route

Lily:

Again, don’t know much about her, but she seems really cool

Her shaving her head between the finale and Boat Party is such a flex and I wish she did it right before Boat Party so we could see her in all her bald glory

She’s into cars, right? And… architecture?

Idk, I barely remember my own name, let alone a 10 minute date from months ago

But I’ll definitely get around to doing her route at some point, maybe just to write for her, we’ll see

Elladine:

I know she’s not an LI, but MC so should have been able to run away with her

I missed that option in S3

I kinda get why they didn’t do that, but Boat Party’s just so messy in general

And I would include Genevieve here, but she’s so cute with Seb that I’d feel bad splitting them up

But Elladine had actual problems with Nicky!!!

Why did they mention it for it to never pay off??

And I’m so mad that the hype around her died when it was revealed she wasn’t an LI or the badass of the season, because I still adore how sweet she is

I also want to brag that before we got a name I was calling her Emma and that’s just on example of my almost psychic-ness

But yeah I wanted Ell to be a run away option and I’m salty that she wasn’t

Know what, fuck it, Viv too, she’s smart and cool as hell, let us love these awesome women FB, you cowards!!!

I have no idea who would be my number 1 based on canon, but if we’re talking hypotheticals, I think my answer, as strange as it is, is Hannah.

I just love what she could have been, but by no means what she is. 

It’s so awkward to know her for three days, not see her for three weeks, then spend a couple more days with, a couple weeks at most, just for her to write a whole ass book about MC?? And tell her about it with that hair????

No thanks, I’ll stick with closeted sapphic horse girl nerd Hannah because I guess that’s somehow my type??? Oh god what the fuck I swear I’m not a total weirdo

[homestuckexamination]

What do you think about the characters becoming who they are in epilogues and HS2 like Dirk, Jane, etc.

For them, as people, it’s a step in the wrong direction. Dirk succumbed to the multiplicity of Bad Selves he’d been trying to fight back against for years due to Bullshit Ultimate Ascension Shenanigans. Jane fell for toxic systems of old Earth, mixed with a good slathering of biases stemming from subliminal influences and a wrong reconciliation with her Aspect that Maids go through. They’re not irredeemably evil, though. Dirk is afraid to show weakness, doubts and fear and tries to cover it up with a mean brand of narcissism. Jane pushes away her doubts through sheer stubbornness and doubling down on what she’s doing through emotional outbursts. They’ve gone really far, SPECIALLY Candy Jane, but also they don’t mark an unchangeable and inherent evil in their characters, just a bad road taken, a lack of communication with the people they used to care about. It’s painful to see them fall for their worst flaws.

As characters though it’s kind of really cool for me, I actually love Dirk’s verbosity and his justifications for his actions, while embracing the role of the Villain, and Jane going off the deep end and mirroring Condy’s ideals and Aesthetics, to the point of being called the Batterwitch? That’s fascinating to explore.

Other than them though, each character develops in different ways. Jade, isolated all her life, starts to crave excitement and action and other people, and I love love love love her new characterization personally, but you all know that. She’s made some major mistakes in Candy, yes, but I adore the... I don’t know. Open bluntness of her? Taking no shit attitude? All packaged into a still extremely-loving dog girl that adores her friends and family.

Rose, manipulated in Meat? Heart-wrenching, missing Kanaya but trying to justify ‘her own’ actions. In Candy? Spur of the moment decisions, past mistakes. Inability for foresight. But still a deep care for her friends, and now, the conflict with the wife whom she loves so much, but whose trust she’s betrayed and couldn’t DARE to tell her for over a decade, in fear of the retaliation. Unable to face the consequences. What a disaster of a woman, I love her.

Kanaya? Heart-broken, Rose taken away by Dirk in Candy, she sets out on a Galactic Quest, pinning over her, to get her back, rescue her. In Meat? A rebel leader, fighting for the freedom of Trolls, alongside her wife, and just having found about this major breach of trust. Angry, but trying to be understanding, a balancing act of high emotions, with knowing their love for each other has not faltered, but will need time to mend. The drama-

Dave and Karkat? Comfortable, domestic, in Meat, but complacent with the little pocket they have built for them, eventually pushed too far by Dirk, and deciding to take matters into their own hands before others can push them to it of their own accord. Actively dating, and searching for Rose, and Dirk. In Candy, lovers, split. Karkat cannot leave his race to suffer again, not like in Alternia. And he doesn’t want Dave and Jade to risk their lives. Dave, who keeps pinning after him, even with Jade by his side, Jade, who stays with him to cheer him up, because he lost Dirk, too, and knows it doesn’t work as a relationship, but can’t simply abandon him. And in the end, he just can’t, he succumbs to an offer from another Dirk, and finds catharsis in Other Iterations of Himself, led down a path of Narrative Relevance, but abandoning those he seemed to care so much about in the process.

Jake, oh poor Jake. He gets a rough deal, complacency, inaction, a lack of drive to push forward, he remains rather static. Dumped and manipulated by Dirk, in Meat, is left lost and aimless. Making bad choices in Candy, ending up in a loveless and abusive marriage, but eventually, oh, eventually, better late than never, takes his Kid from Jane, and stays by her side as a counter-spy attempting to outdo her. He hasn’t done much yet. But he’s in a fantastic position to actually show some drive for his family, and stop Jane from doing something even more awful.

John, depressive, isolated, fated to fight a fight he doesn’t want to and die in one Timeline, and stuck seeing a surreal and fake reality on the other. Aware that something is ever so slightly OFF with Candy, it consumes him, as the Heir of Breath he is, detaches himself once more from those he loves- But finds catharsis thanks to Jake, the drive to actually talk things out. Revelations, introspection, the slow return to form of the Protagonist, the realization that there may be more in them than they ever thought there was.

Roxy... The exploration of their gender. In Meat, leaning transmasc, non-binary, trying something that feels right for him. Friendly and open to those around him, going through his own journey of self-discovery. In Candy, they don’t transition. Finding solace in a familiar structure, she is stuck in complacency. Inaction. Not standing up to Jane and trying to gloss over that things will just work out! They won’t. She cares deeply for her family, and has found a purpose and happiness in trying to just, be a good Mom. One she never had herself. And although those potential feelings are still in there, isn’t life about being happy with what you’re doing, rather than torn up about what could have been? Mistakes can be made, bad things can happen, but... You keep pressing on.

Terezi, fuuuuuuck. Her pinning for Vriska? Vriska, stuck in Candy, isolated from contacting with her. Giving up on Vriska JUST as Vriska would’ve tried to contact her. Unable to let go of Dead John, clinging to him still. No place for her on Earth-C, no home to return to, torn up about her feelings, she joins the Narratively Relevant Journey of Dirk and Rose, only to find what she’s seeing is two broken up people who try to act tough, but are entirely unsure of what they’re doing. She’s trying to make Rose See, but those robot eyes of hers are too closed. Pitch feels arise. A fling, to try and stave off the need for a connection they both have lost.

Calliope, poor sweet dear Calliope. A Muse of Space. In both Timelines, cast aside. Ending up an Observer of what’s going on. Unable to assert their want to still be with Roxy, and ending up scared away by Alt Calliope, they at least seem to have been with her and Harry off-screen, so she’s probably Harry’s cool alien... Aunt? Gender-neutral aunt. In Meat, shocked out of their wits by Callie’s Jade-possession. Venting through gruesome art- Maybe even influencing the Candy Timeline unknowingly, which would explain so much of the Candy Timeline in general... Jade is now awake in the ship, and they may stop being so reclusive and coming back into the picture, which may also mark a shift in some things, as the scared, horrified fan regains their trust on the story, and takes on a more positive outlook on what’s to come.

Like I would love of they were all HAPPY on EARTH-C and exploring these things in healthier environments instead of being thrust into Angsty Space Adventures or Fascist Dystopias, but I looooove these characters, the good AND bad, their ties with each other, the unwarranted lashing out sometimes, the driving others away, the self-blame, the healing, the trying to make things better, the realization they have made something wrong... And the NEW characters? The Omega Kids... Just. *Chef’s Kiss*

[bondsmagii]

hey do u have any more thoughts on the whole twitter "activism" thing, and/or dealing with bigoted authors, content creators, etc. in general? i've been having trouble articulating my stance on it and i thought you would probably have some intelligent points to make. it's cool if that's not something you want to delve into, though!

I try to have absolutely zero thoughts on Twitter activism and social media activism in general if I’m honest; it’s all mostly pointless, and with very few exceptions it seems to just be busy-work for people who won’t actually go out and do any real activism. I tend to listen to pretty much nothing I see people saying on Twitter or Tumblr, and I recommend everyone to do the same.

with the wider question of dealing with content creators, I’m very much for separating the author from the work. I have critical thinking skills and contrary to what people on this website believe, a book isn’t a carbon copy of the author’s intent, nor is any creative piece a carbon copy of the creator’s full views and personality and beliefs. if you have basic critical thinking skills you can identity and reject the nasty parts while still liking the work as a whole. just don’t support the creator with your money, etc. you’re allowed to take what you like from a piece while rejecting the things you don’t, and even the author or director or actor or whatever. to use a recent example: J. K. Rowling. she’s full of shit, but she can be as full of shit as she likes, because literally nobody is listening to her. her work, while now read critically (as all work should be) has become something larger than herself. it’s like a child growing up and moving away -- they’re going to bear marks of influence from the people that raised them, but if they’re a decent enough person you’re not going to reject them because their parent is a transphobe. hell, if we did have that attitude, none of us would speak to one another seems I’m sure all of us have at least one racist parent or relative running around out there.

this kind of attitude -- that if something has any problematic elements or was created by someone with problematic beliefs it should be cancelled and we should all act like it never happened -- is counter-productive and absolutely ridiculous, if I’m honest. if we truly committed to this attitude, we would have to cancel pretty much everything ever written. it’s totally possible to engage with creative content in a way that both acknowledges and disagrees with elements that are a product of the times or of current bigotry; just because you enjoy watching a show or reading a book that has an asshole on the team doesn’t mean you yourself are an issue. people need to learn to separate work from creator, and I vehemently disagree with the idea that the two are one and the same. I speak from experience. I am a writer. no, you do not know everything about me from reading my work. my characters have opinions and do things I do not agree with. if you think you can look at an author’s work, or any creative work, and thing you know everything, you’re wrong. likewise, if you think that someone with shitty-ass opinions is incapable of creating good work outside of these issues, you’re also wrong. nothing is black and white, and it sucks, but the answer isn’t to go around cancelling things like a literary censorship committee in Stalin’s USSR.

something to keep in mind in the present age, however, is that there are a lot of creators who are very accessible and have huge ranges of impressionable fans. I think in the case of like, certain video game streamers who have been proven to recruit people to the alt-right, we should definitely be boycotting. but with wider things -- books, films, TV shows, etc -- we need to understand that we can enjoy the work while still remaining critical. I’m not going to give up something I love because the creator turned out to be an asshole, and I’m especially not going to turn to Twitter for my moral code on what constitutes an asshole.