#fairytale antagonists

[adarkrainbow]

Is there any significant difference between the French ogre and the British giant?

Both seem to fulfill the role of half savage monster, half evil aristocrat, cannibalistic antagonist to child protagonists.

Some fairy tale adaptations even seem to mix them up, like the giant from Disney's Fun and Fancy Free who can shapeshift just like the ogre from Puss in Boots, or Into the Woods that treats giants and ogres like synonyms

The two are basically "cultural" cousins if you will. And indeed the giants that pop up in British fairytales tend to be confused with ogres. Most notable being the giant from "Jack and the Beanstalk" who is regularly called an "ogre". (I usually invoke him as one of the two "foreign ogres" example, the other being the witch from Hansel and Gretel which is basically an ogress in all but name)

And as you pointed out, the giants of British folklore and fairytales do have the same tendency to eat people and ownership of great treasures and magical objects, plus they are villains that must be defeated or killed in the end. (Mind you, I don't think shapeshifting was a traditional power of giants, I don't recall encountering shapeshifting giants in British folklore or fairytales - probably more of a modern invention, unlike ogres which are attested as shapeshifters in French and Italian folklore).

That's the same way for the trolls of several Norse countries too! They also fill this specific niche/archetype in fairytale (hence why some troll are translated as "ogres" sometimes). They all answer to some sort of greater archetype lost down some Indo-European root I guess... It doesn't help that the ogres are often giants! Especially in the parts of France that were influenced by or shared culture with England - because one of the attested "cultural ancestors" of the ogre are the man-eating/man-killing giants of the Arthurian myth, which was shared by both France and England. As such, a lot of folktale ogres, and ogre in popular imagery, are giants or called as such.

Now, the thing is that while there is a kinship and overlap, it doesn't overtly mean they are the same - and that's the differences that are often too overlooked. The same way ogres and trolls are similar, and yet you can't say they're exactly the same. The very word "ogre" does not originally come from the English language, it was imported in English from the French - because the ogre is a purely Franco-Italian creature (ogre/orco). England has giants for ogres, and hags for ogresses, but not "ogres" per se - the same way "hag" is actually a unique British concept hard to translate in French. You can say "ogress" or "witch" but these two are but facets of a more complex entity.

Same with the ogre - which can be a giant... but sometimes is not a giant. Sometimes it is just some sort of cannibalistic sorcerer, or just a cannibal nobleman without even any real magical power. Other times it is an obese devil. Some times yet it is some vampire-werewolf.

I would say the significant difference relies in two things... A) The giant of England (and of fairytales as a whole) is not purely defined by man-eating. A giant can happen to eat humans, but there are giants that do not eat people. An ogre in France is primarily defined by the fact he eats people. That's what an ogre is all about. B) As I said before, a giant is defined as being a very large and tall humanoid. And while ogre are often depicted as giants, they are not exclusively giants and come in a variety of shape and sizes. Devils, wolf-men, witches, ugly sorcerers, cruel queens...

But yeah, giants, trolls, ogres, dragons, there's always this archetypal need for "frightening monster that hoards treasure, kind-of has magical powers, and eats humans".

[dommnics]

FAIRY TALE ART SERIES | Hans Christian Andersen's 'The Little Mermaid' | PART VII

Finally, here's the last merperson before I move on to the human characters for my interpretation of Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid story. I included the potion she gives to the little mermaid as well as her toad and snake pets mentioned in the story!

Bonus: this is an initial design I drew for the sea witch character, which I did after designing Iniya/the little mermaid, and before I designed the mermaid sisters and royal family. After I did the other characters, I felt like her look was really underwhelming, so I went back and revised most of it, and ultimately I'm a lot more satisfied with the final design.

--

Check out more of my work on other platforms!

My Instagram -- My Twitter

[pinkeoni]

Lonnie is honestly very compelling to me. Yes he’s a scumbag and a piece of shit but he’s also just. A guy. I would venture to say he’s the most grounded and realistic character on the show. Like that’s just a guy you could find in the real world. He’s an alcoholic who abused his wife and kids but the way that adults in town talk about him he was well regarded. He had friends. He was a monster in his home but people liked him. He received hugs and well wishes at Will’s funeral. He was the guy you knew from the bar who told everyone that his son was queer.

[thebuttsmcgee]

Ive seen some people get mixed up (also sorry if this comes off pompous I swear I'm not I just really fuckin enjoy these movies ghggb) so I'd like to clarify that the Big Bad Wolf is an already established character in the Shrek world.

And he's just some guy. He also might transform into a human woman with a strong accent when there's a full moon according to a halloween special but ya know.

The wolf that chases Puss in Last Wish tho is, Death, straight up, as he said.

Some promotional media did advertise him as the double b wolf but that was just to not spoil the surprise. (Apparently some promos would also just call him The Wolf so yeup.)

However, it's also not unreasonable to mix up the 2 since in Shrek's ogreverse (ogre universe I NEED to coin the phrase c'mon now) there's been a few number of soft rebooted characters from a lot of Shrek media.

But to go off strictly from the movies, the 2 most obvious examples are Rumpelstiltskin and the 3 bears.

The left depictions are really just one-off jokes/background characters that rarely appeared in more than 5 scenes from previous movies (Shrek 3 and 1 respectively), while the right depictions are the later focused antagonists that got plenty of screen time (Shrek 4ever after and Puss in Boots 2 the Last Wish respectively).

The difference tho is that the original depictions are really Just one-off jokes. Nothing more than just something in the background. The Big Bad Wolf however is an already established part of Shrek's friend group alongside the 3 little pigs, Pinocchio and Gingy.

Basically, not someone they could just easily make a soft reboot about like with the aforementioned 2 examples.

It is incredibly likely tho that DreamWorks did base Death a bit off of the real life folklore of the Big Bad Wolf. Considering how much they love old tales, and how much old stories had him as the main antagonist. (Plus c'mon. Wolf from Bad Guys literally says he's the big bad in every story, they're definitely self aware at this point.)

Having the penultimate depiction of the end of life itself in their fairytale inspired long-running world be loosely based on the most popular antagonist from old folklore stories is most likely on purpose, and I gotta say, based.

It's also likely that Death can take whatever form he chooses. But I'm cool with gnarly wolf form. 👍

[cinnabeat]

watching hbomberguys rwby video rn and very annoyed by the idea that the whole dust intro and dust shop robbery scene is poor writing

[enchantingepics]

Story Prompt 105

As the figure approached, he couldn't help but chuckle softly. "You know, it's funny how everyone expects the hero to win every time."

The heroes, caught off guard by his nonchalant demeanor, exchanged uncertain glances before one of them retorted, "Well, that's how it goes. Heroes always prevail. It's the way of the story."

He shook his head, a wry smile playing on his lips. "Seems like a narrow view of things, don't you think?"

Their confidence waning, the heroes tried to muster their courage. "You won't win this time. We'll make sure of it," they declared, their voices tinged with desperation.

With a shrug, he replied, "Guess we'll find out soon enough."

In a sudden flurry of action, he overpowered them with ease, leaving the heroes stunned and defeated. As they lay defeated at his feet, he sighed softly.

"You never stood a chance," he mused, shaking his head at their misguided certainty.

[anaalnathrakhs]

yeah she is one of them little ponies, the main antagonist of the fifth season, culprit of turning a village into an egalitarian cult, and then of traveling through time to prevent the protagonists from forming their world-saving team as children.

her authoritarianism was overturned by the power of friendship, and she has a good number of fans now that's she's a main protagonist, but like, dang, it's a jarringly fast character arc.

^ the authoritarian herself

yes she committed atrocities. BUT! she's my special little guy. AND! she looked hot doing it. so.

[chantillyxlacey]

i've seen a lot of takes (i am using the word 'take' absolutely neutrally here; and i'm specifying neutrality bc i have started to see that word as having inherently negative connotations in this context and i have no idea if that's just a Me Problem but i figured specificity couldn't hurt)

okay, that got away from me, let me start again

i've seen a lot of takes about The Damsel that have to do with idealization being another kind of dehumanization and how she's Like She Is because you/TLQ are projecting a fantasy onto her and sanding away any traits that don't fit into that fantasy and rendering her into little more than a vessel for your/TLQ's wish fulfillment

and i don't necessarily think that's *wrong* either-- but i think that's also not the complete picture, and that only looking that that half of the image does kind of tend to paint TLQ in an unfairly bad light

because the thing is, in The Damsel's route, TLQ is ALSO being reduced to an archetype just as much as The Damsel herself is! The Princess becomes the quintessential fairytale fair-maiden-in-distress that exists only to be rescued by a knight-in-shining-armor; and TLQ-- if you allow them to be guided entirely by The Smitten-- becomes that quintessential fairytale knight-in-shining-armor that only exists to rescue the fair-maiden-in-distress

The Damsel says over and over, explicitly, that "I just want to make you happy!" and The Smitten in this route is equally preoccupied with making HER happy-- he even says it directly if you start deconstructing her. every other part of his identity has been subsumed to revolve entirely around her just as much as the reverse is true for her.

(speaking of the Deconstructed Damsel, i've also seen Smitten's reaction to that touted as him not caring about her agency-- but again, i always read that as him being unable to see any flaws in her rather than being pleased with the idea of her being biddable, specifically. if you halt the deconstruction his reaction is "she's ALWAYS been perfect" -- he'd think that no matter what she did or said, because his identity revolves around her the exact way that hers revolves around him/TLQ)

even the actions that lead to HEA fit into this, i think-- i read that moment as less The Smitten lashing out at her because she didn't live up to his fantasy-- it still happens even after she's said "i guess we can stay, if that's what you want"-- she's giving The Smitten what he wants, but he's still distressed because SHE'S not happy

i think it's more The Smitten feeling that HE hadn't lived up to HIS half of their shared fantasy. if she's not happy with the idea of "all we need is each other" then it must be because HE failed somehow. if she needs or wants more than him, it must be because HE is not enough.

if he was just better at playing his part, if he just offered her more, if he was just clearer about his devotion--

"if we just showed her the contents of our heart, she'd be happy"

that's not to say that what The Smitten does in HEA isn't incredibly toxic for both of them-- it definitely is, and it clearly makes both the Princess and TLQ miserable. "everything she doesn't know she wants" is a bad mindset to approach a relationship with, whether that mindset is reached through controlling selfishness or a desperation to appease (and i definitely think Smitten is motivated by the latter-- it's no coincidence that we arrive at HEA through a literal and fatal act of self mutilation)

he's definitely the antagonist of HEA, in that he is what TLQ and the Princess and the player need to overcome, but he's not a VILLAIN (which i think is most clearly illustrated in the moment where the Princess admits she's unhappy, that she's never been happy here, and his reaction is to GIVE UP instead of lash out harder)

i never got the sense that The Smitten was ever putting any blame on The Damsel-- he always considered *himself* to be the problem-- he puppeteers TLQ just as much as he does the Princess, even if we can't hear him while she can, and he asks TLQ/the player through her "isn't this enough? isn't this what you wanted?"

which in and of itself is an unhealthy way to approach a relationship-- blaming oneself for every bit of conflict or lapse in synchronicity is just as harmful as laying all the blame on the other person. there IS no blame-- sometimes people disagree or have conflicting needs or desires, and that's not anybody's "fault" because that's just how people and relationships WORK.

...can you believe i wrote out all of this when my original intention was to lay out an entirely different point about a read on The Damsel/HEA routes that wasn't about relationships at all?

OKAY!

THAT GOT AWAY FROM ME LET ME START AGAIN

so i don't think that looking at The Damsel/HEA through a lens of "what does this say about relationships and expectations and respecting other people's agency" is incorrect-- clearly i have a lot of thoughts about that lens!

but i wanted to offer another one that i haven't seen yet:

The Damsel/HEA route as a commentary on what makes a satisfying narrative

if you play out The Damsel route just single-mindedly taking actions to free her-- it's kinda dull, isn't it? like-- it's not without its charms! The Smitten is silly and entertaining and the Narrator's exaggerated pettiness is very funny! but ultimately, that's about it.

potential sources of conflict are brushed aside-- if you took the blade with you, you just drop it and it gets forgotten; the Damsel's hand slips right out of the manacle with no effort or harm; when the Narrator locks the basement door, every 'choice' you make just magically unlocks it right away. and then you're outside, what you wanted to do from the start. ...so what do we do now?

nothing, actually. the chapter ends, and there is no chapter 3. the game itself continues, but that ending feels about as substantial as the Narrator's "Good Ending" where you follow his instructions without question and accomplish his goal immediately.

if you DON'T take either of the actions that lead to one of Damsel's chapter 3's, there's very little variation in The Damsel's story-- pretty much all of it comes down to slight differences in dialogue. there's no "the princess kills you" outcome. the closest thing to an alternate end to The Damsel is if you deconstruct her-- and even then, it feels like less an "alternate route" and more like-- a cheeky acknowledgement of the lack of substance, because that isn't a bug, it's a feature!

but if you introduce conflict-- either in the more direct sense by slaying The Damsel or in the more interpersonal sense by highlighting a mis-match in her and TLQ's desires-- suddenly the story opens up! there are a bunch of new possibilities and a bunch of new outcomes, and all of them are more interesting than "you achieve your goal with trivial effort, hooray!"

Even if you wind up finishing HEA on a note that is superficially very similar to the easy end of The Damsel's route-- you leave hand in hand with her, the narrator conceding defeat, and the last image of her before TSM takes her is a warm, tender smile-- it FEELS so much more like a genuine happy ending-- even though the Princess' face is still streaked and stained from her tears. BECAUSE of that.

it's one of the most heartwarming moments in the game, and one that has made me misty eyed every time i've seen it, and it's BECAUSE of the conflict you had to go through to get there.

conflict is what drives a compelling narrative, is the takeaway. it precludes PERFECT endings, perhaps, but not happy endings-- it's what makes those imperfect happy endings feel substantial and earned.

even the dinner and the board game contribute to the idea-- the description of the food is some really lovely writing, to the point where i sat through and listened to it all again even though i knew nothing really happens during it-- but *nothing really happens during it*. it doesn't move the narrative forward-- you're just as hungry as you were when you started. it just stalls the story in place, and every time you go through it again it's less satisfying until it's outright unpleasant. the description of the meal also notably gets simpler each time, and less detailed-- there's only so much that you can say about it before you run out of things to describe.

the board game is similar-- the way that it's described the first time you play even sounds like the description of an exciting story! and then the board resets, and you do it all again just the same. and so on. the game/story stops being exciting and the wins or losses stop feeling like they mean anything-- because is conflict really conflict, is a challenge really a challenge, if you're always tracing the same path, always making moves where you already know the outcome? it becomes "a slog towards the end"

and this is how i tie the idea of "what Damsel/HEA has to say about relationships" and "what Damsel/HEA has to say about narratives" together:

ultimately, the statements can be summarized the same way "whether in a narrative or a relationship, 'perfection' is unattainable, but you wouldn't actually want it anyway"

conflict, substance, variety

in a relationship there will always be differences of opinion, differing goals etc-- variety between the members of the relationship, knowing and sharing this substantial and non-superficial information about one another, navigating the resultant conflict-- that's what allows the relationship to grow and deepen, and what allows the people in it to grow as individuals as well.

in a narrative, or in Narratives, as a whole, conflict is what makes things HAPPEN, substance makes them feel like what happens MATTERS, like something is being communicated, variety means that you're learning or considering something new-- and those are what make a narrative capable of impacting a person, of changing them, of being remembered

[aquasarsstuff]

Your Choice, Dating sim au

Heartslabyul Route:

Summary: Awakening in a dating simulation, you find yourself immersed in a realm of whimsical fantasy, a stark contrast to the modern world you’re accustomed to. In this alternate universe where you’ve landed, will you navigate towards your fairytale ending or become ensnared in a complex web of deception? The outcome depends on your choice.

A month has passed since you've been whisk away from your home, yet you could still never get accustomed to this new world you were place on. Despite this world matching the sets of historical films and fiction you've read, it has far more advanced technology than your world's pinkie toe, due to the existence of magic. As such a heavy burden was place on your shoulders as one of the children of aristocracy: pretending to have magic. From the hush whispers sent to you by your parents, it was without a doubt that you don't possess magic. Even so, your weekdays are always used to learn more about magic and whatnot to be able to blend with fellow mage.

The setting and the plot of your life screams of familiarity inside your head. It took a few days before it finally click. You were inside one of the dating sim you've played before. There were four main leads or was it the only routes you've only got to finish? You're not sure, but you had all the information you have to survive from your bad ending. You were neither a protagonist nor an antagonist, not even a side character! Just an unseen character use as a bridge to bring romance between the protagonist and love interest in one of the routes.

You brought down the book to your table. Its pages were at least two inch thick, and its width stretches from your wrist to your elbow. You've been staring hollowly at far distance for a few minutes that you didn't notice the discomfort it brings on your skin for putting all of the weight of the book on your lap. You pressed flatly and straighten your outfit. It would not be nice to be seen unkept if there were guest to arrive, invited or not.

What will you do?

Option 1: Get out of the room

Option 2: Escape through the window

Option 3: Stay in the room (Keep reading)

You opted to get a snack, but if one of the servants caught you leaving the room, they might report it to your father, and the last thing you want these days is to get scolded for slacking off. You leaned your back closer to the couch. Its plump cushion being pressed down your weight. The number of materials on the table that is in dire need to be read, rest peacefully. Most of it were still left untouched by you. You did try to read it, for heaven's sake, but its meaning on every page was ancient to you, and it's not because you have a bad reading comprehension. It's due to the fact that you are no magic user. The books were enchanted, but you can't even feel a tinge of its presence under your fingertips, hence you can't make a connection to understand the contents. You can only sigh in frustration and scream internally, otherwise the other people living in the house might think you're getting kidnapped or something.

A boisterous laugh echoed the hall. Finally, the hours of torture will come to an end. You picked the book you were holding earlier and opened it to where you last left it off to create an illusion that you were reading as per orders. The doors to your study room opened in a flash, loud sounds of footsteps hitting the marble floor followed. A man with an orange hair, that reminds you of a carrot you had for breakfast this morning, peek inside the room. A smile as bright as his hair decorated his lips. It was Cater, your personal butler since childhood is what they said, yet you can't find any reason to believe any of those perfect grin. He did get you in trouble for several occasions.

You grip the hard covers of the book firmly in your hand, your nails digging on the thick leather. Something in your mind told you to raise this book to your face, and you did. A click was heard, before he finally stepped out of the doors, a weird gadget in his hand, presumably a camera of some sorts. You gently close the book down, and let it seat on your lap. A particularly large sigh escaped his lips, showing his absolute discontentment.

"What a shame, that shot was so perfect if it only captured your face." He took a glance at the gadget he has, probably looking again at the said photo.

What will you do?

Option 1: Say nothing

Option 2: Be condescending

Option 3: Ask his intentions (Keep reading)

"What are you doing here? Is it the time for dinner?" You still asked him, even though you knew what his arrival meant. What you don't know is why did his obsession for taking pictures was suddenly directed on to you. Nevertheless, this only strengthen your distrust for him. It's probably because of those pictures that he was able to snitch you on to your father. What was his intention? Is it fear? Loyalty? Or something else?

Entering Cater's route: (To be continued)

---------

More options will come out later. Please tell me if you wish me to continue this au. Writing Cater was honestly just fuels my writer block ahahhaha

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

I’ve read a few takes which view Izzy through a Marxist lens and paint him as a working class* hero. The premise being that this proletarian warrior is unfairly usurped in the affections of Ed by some upper class, monied, artsy type; and to not root for the grassroots character makes you somehow a bourgeois prick.

Izzy is never in Ed’s affections romantically. Ever. So the premise falls at the first hurdle.

But for the sake of argument…

If you’re truly going to view the show as a Marxist allegory, in which an individual overcomes horrendous class obstacles, then that character is Ed Teach.

Ed rises from extreme poverty to become the most successful and infamous pirate in history. It’s a rags-to-riches story.

The takes I’ve read on this completely ignore the fact that Ed is also ‘working class’. And the only conclusion I can reach is that Ed is ‘the wrong kind of working class’. Because what these interpretations do is separate the idea of the working classes into a ‘deserving’, romanticised, white, ‘salt-of-the-earth’ type, and non-deserving groups not worthy of recognition, usually representing people of colour.

And so we’re back to race. The Marxist lens as I’ve seen it applied here defines the white working class man as having had his toy stolen by the white bourgeois man. Ed is a just an object. And when Ed’s handed back rightfully to Izzy by the British Crown as payment, he is literally chattel returned to the correct owner.

A large part of the show is Ed’s fightback against an ownership narrative in order to claim his identity for himself. That to be with Stede is his choice; and Stede’s initial obliviousness is an extremely important part of that narrative. The agency has to lie with Ed first, and the writers clearly understand this. Else we might be setting up a power struggle over ‘who owns the brown man’.

Stede never lays claim to Ed because there is no claim to lay. He instinctively and intuitively falls into a reciprocal friendship with Ed, which eventually grows into an equal love and natural affection. Stede always sees Ed’s personhood. And it’s really important that Stede views Ed, at the very least, as an equal in terms of human worth. Societally they are not equal due to white patriarchy; however, Stede’s giving up of his wealth, his bourgeois status, is another step towards a truer equality between the two.

Meanwhile, Izzy views Ed as a valuable asset to be utilised for a certain masculine glory and riches. Izzy might not be bourgeois, but his worldview is certainly bent that way. He will willingly and violently take possession of another human being as an interpretation of owning the means of production - that isn’t exactly proletarian. It’s participatory enslavement and a bourgeois act.

We know nothing of Izzy’s past. We can presume he’s from a working class background because Occam’s razor would suggest as much. But we are never explicitly shown Izzy’s class in the way we are Ed’s, because Izzy’s class isn’t overly important to the story unless it serves the narrative of Ed and Stede. It has no independent meaning. He’s an antagonist. And let’s face it: he cosies up to Chauncey and the British establishment pretty easily when it suits him.

If you must apply a Marxist lens to this story, your working class hero is Ed. And if not, why not?

*I’m using ‘working class’ as a Marxist term. I realise in 1717, it was not widely used

Ed Teach, finally co-owning property and a potential business. It’s not a fairytale ending entirely, but it is an important practical ending to a lifelong journey from nothing. And Ed might never have to go hungry again.

[adarkrainbow]

Romanian witches: Muma Padurii

(Note: I unfortunately cannot add the accents needed for the writing of those names since my keyboard is not equiped. So know that there are accents missing)

I originally made a post about one Romanian fairytale character... which turned into a post about two fairytale characters... which became a post about three fairytale characters... So ultimately I decided to split this post into a whole series because it was getting too big. I want to explore with you three characters tied together in Romanian folklore and all present within Romanian fairytales, but each fascinating in their own right. And I want to begin with the first of these ladies... Muma Padurii.

Muma Padurii means "The Forest Mom", or "The Mother of the Forest" (Muma is an archaic form of "mom").

In fairytales, Muma Padurii is an antagonist. She is an embodiment of the wicked witch, or rather of the hag. She is a very old and very ugly woman (so ugly the expression "You look like Muma padurii" is an insult) who lives all alone in a little, dark and scary house in the depths of the woods. She is not a normal woman: she is a witch gifted with various supernatural powers (including shapeshifting), and she is also an ogress who loves to eat children. It is as a children-predator that she usually appears within Romanian fairytales, luring kids to her house to kill and cook them. One of the most famous Muma Padurii fairytales is the Romanian version of "Hansel and Gretel", which mostly differs by A) having the witch named B) the house not being made of candy and C) the genders are reversed (here it is the girl that is to be boiled alive into a soup, while it is the boy that pushes the hag into the oven).

But the thing with Muma Padurii is that, in a similar way to Frau Holle, she is an entity that was "split" between fairytales and legends. There is a Muma Padurii of folktales who is the evil hag I presented above, but there is also a Muma Padurii of beliefs and legends which is quite different and much more neutral.

This Muma Padurii is still an old, ugly, shapeshifting witch - but she is presented as amoral rather than wicked, with a personality mixing a fairy-like mischieviousness and a pure insanity. The name "Muma Padurii" is also very revealing... In the fairytales this name is used in the typical motif of the witch/hag as the "false mother" or "anti-mother", but in the Romanian mythology, this name indicates what Muma Padurii is. She is the Mother of the Forest, as in the spirit of the forest. Her main role, and the reason for her hostility towards humankind, is her function as the guardian of the woods. She still lives in a remote and hidden location - but it is not always a little cabin, it can just be a tree, and it is usually within a virgin-woodland at the heart of the forest, untouched by human hands. She still brews potions - but they are good potions, that she uses to heal injured animals and sick trees. For Muma Padurii always keeps the forest alive. She does attack humans - but only those who destroy the fauna and flora, or who trespass within forbidden areas where only wild things are supposed to be. This was why those that entered the woods were warned to not go too far and to respect what surrounded them: else Muma Padurii would at best scare them away, at worst drive them to insanity with her magic. As such, it was forbidden to pick up certain wild fruits and berries in the forest during certain times of the year - they were for the animals to replenish their strength, and Mama Padurii made sure this rule was followed. In the most extreme cases she would kill the trespassers and devour their corpses like a wild animal - a bogey-version of Muma Padurii that explains her role as a child-eating crone in fairytales...

Muma Padurii is present all across Romania, sometimes in local variations (Padureanca, Muma Huciului), and this explains why there are so many different incarnations of her. Sometimes she is an angry ghost of the woods, a vengeful spirit which can be heard crying among the trees for all the plants that mankind destroyed, and if a house built near the forest isn't carefully locked up at night, she will enter in them at midnight and kill all those inside... Other times she is depicted as a young and beautiful fairy of light, who will be kind and helpful to children but will trick adults into being lost, having their body paralyzed or dying in various ways. This specific idea of the "young faced Muma Padurii" is notably present in another folktale/fairytale, where it is said that the Muma Padurii is a witch that needs to eat human hearts to keep herself young and alive - as such she takes on the appearance of a beautiful woman to lure young men into the woods, but once they are isolated enough she turns into a giant monster and rips their hearts away.

Her link to the forest is highlighted by how she is often said to disguise herself as a tree, to be a part-tree woman, or a hag clothed in moss (she also can appear as a cow, a horse or an ox) ; her function as a "Romanian fairy" is also highlighted by how in various legends she either makes babies sick, or replaces them by changelings (and as such there were several folk-spells and rituals Romanian country-folks used to protect their babies from the Forest-Mom). But mostly Muma Padurii stays an embodiment of the woods in what they have of dangerous and scary. She can be kind and helpful - but only towards the "innocent", animals, plants and (sometimes) children. However she stays an ancient woman of the woods, the mistress of the wild animals, the embodiment of a state of non-civilizations, and as such she is the fright that drives one mad and the savage force that will kill and eat men. And even then, the fauna and flora itself is not always escaping her wrath - some records say that Mama Padurii knows the name of every tree of the forest, but that she can get angry at some and curse them to fall either by the woodsman's axe or by lightning.

The last interesting difference between the fairytale Muma and the legendary Muma is that, while the fairytale Muma is usually a lonely entity, in beliefs Muma Padurii was part of a large family. Sometimes Muma Padurii herself was multiplied into several "Muma" - there was notably a belief about many of them sometimes visiting the cabins of those that lived near the woods, asking to have their hair brushed and cleaned, with a comb and butter (which isn't an easy feat since she had her hair dirty, tangled in snake-like braids and so long it touches the floor). Anyone who agreed to the task and performed it well could receive a wish from the Mother of the Woods - but the rule was that they could only pronounce three words in total as long as she was here, if a fourth was pronounced, she would take your voice and leave you mute. Sometimes Muma Padurii was given a male counterpart of companion called "The Father of the Forests", or the "Woods Papa".

Muma Padurii was also said to have several sons, which were the spirits of the woods and/or of the night (going by names such as Decuseara, Zorila, Murgila, Mamornito or "Midnight"). She is also linked to a set of female forest spirits known as the Fata Padurii (Fata being of course linked to the "fairies", "fées", "fatum" - but here it is to be understood as "The Daughters of the Forest", "The Girls of the Woods, and fittingly they are said to be the daughters of Muma Padurii) ; and to an entity I personaly do not know much about, "Mosul Codruilui" (she is said to be her mother, and "Mosul" means "old woman")

Finally, there was a certain Christianization of the Muma, as some tales started saying her task as a guardian of the forest was given to her by God, and a modern attempt at explaining how she could be such an ambiguous entity, benevolent and malevolent at the same time: most modern storytellers highlight how protective she is of the fauna and flora, and how she was said to wail and cry for the destroyed wood, to explain her "transformation" as her becoming more and more bitter, and angrier and fuller of hate the more humans destroyed her domain, harmed her trees and wounded her "children". A true ecological fable.

Some people point out that Muma Padurii could be a "Romanian equivalent" of the Russian Baba-Yaga which is... not quite exact and not quite true. The two characters seem to derive from a same old "forest mother-goddess" but there are too many differences between Muma Padurii and Baba-Yaga for them to be consideed one and the same. There is however a interesting link between the two, which will be the subject of my next post... about Baba Cloantza.

[kallypsos]

My pop said Wakanda was the most beautiful thing he ever seen. He promised he was gonna show it to me one day. You believe that? Kid from Oakland, running around believing in fairytales.

ERIK KILLMONGER - BLACK PANTHER (2018)

@pscentral​ event 20: antagonists

[vyvilha]

i really appreciate how solas, a transformative, transgressive, esoteric, trickster character, out of all beasts they could've chosen — they chose to make him a wolf. wolf is an animal that, in fantasy, is most commonly attributed to characters that are straightforward and brute. that is, of course, understandable: wolf, in modernity, came to be associated with ideal modern masculinity, and that masculinity despises all things abstract. that is, however, not the role of a wolf in folklore. the folklore wolf is a witch's beast: the witch themself, or their assistant, a fairytale helper, an otherwordly blood brother or an otherwordly antagonist, an enchanted prince — in any way, the wolf is liminal, transgressive, other. the wolf eats you and you are reborn. you break a taboo against your wolf-husband, and you are reborn. you split your blood with your wolf-brother, and you are reborn. you, an initiant, not here and not there, but while you are in your liminality, the wolf is here to transform you; as liminality is its homeworld. solas reflects this role of the fairytale wolf, as he is, too, a liminal character: between friend and enemy, man and beast, progress and stagnation, living world and the fade. and he, too, not unlike a fairytale wolf, has a key influence over your transformation. such i wonderful beast he is!

[mattapparentlystumbltourneys]

Welcome to the Cutting Room Throwdown!

Not every character gets their chance to shine, and finds themselves cast out of the narrative while it's still under development. Even if they do make it, the end result can be completely different from what was initially pitched. So...that's what this is! A battle for characters who technically don't exist!

Rules and criteria:

Submitted characters must either be characters cut from their intended media, characters from cancelled media, or characters whose initial planned portrayal (their "beta" version, if you would) differs heavily from the final product.

To help clarify what could count, here are the three characters who autoqualify and an explanation of why: - Sake (Tekken): A character who was originally proposed for Tekken, but was scrapped shortly after. While data exists for the character, they do not have a unique design, and all knowledge of the character comes from developer explanations. - Barrett (Mega Man Legends 3): A playable character to be introduced in the cancelled Mega Man Legends 3. The character has not appeared outside of a brief playable prototype, and has not been acknowledged by Capcom since the game's cancellation. - Woody (Toy Story - Beta): The first draft of Woody from Toy Story, with the character instead being an antagonistic ventriloquism dummy. The character was not well liked by the higher ups or Tom Hanks, and they were reworked into one of the film's two protagonists.

Any additional questions can be sent to the ask box. I"ll clarify when I can. I know this is a bit tricky to define.

Pilot characters may count, but it would be preferred if there was a significant difference to how they are portrayed in the final product.

Due to the nature of the medium and how sometimes they can be hard to define, OCs will not be included.

Characters from Harry Potter, South Park, and Hazbin Hotel will not be considered due to personal reasons.

Please do not spam a single character. Trust me. They will have a chance.

I'll do research on the characters before approval. But if you want to link any sources for the character regarding their existence or info regarding them, feel free to link it below.

Be kind. :)

With that, let's get into it!

Anyways bonus tags to boost!

@princess-polls @foundfamilyhq @blond-jerk-tourney @fairytale-poll @polls-showdowns @yall-hate-kids-tourney

[sideblogdotjpeg]

also also also. i dont know if this is ever gonna get really explicitly explored in the show. but.

like. theyve talked pretty minimally i think? about jovyres motivations as an antagonist. and while the main explanation they have gg on right now is the general "power corrupts universally" i also think. with how prominent this theme of sibling conflict has been ....

jovyre is cirillas younger sister. because of this, while cirilla gets to be the queen of the summer court, jovyre is relegated to being the princess of the "lesser" autumn court. an arbitrarily lower status. she had to use magic & trickery in lieu of cirillas' power and armies. her sister got to be a fairytale princess while she was the pragmatic ruler, with a chip on her shoulder. she has to get her hands dirty, "not all of us can be perfect can we". in spite of this, she was the one who stayed in command while her sister had fallen into her own despair. she negotiated her way into the unseelie crown. why should she have to be the one bending the knee to her sister. "i dont believe any of us should be limited by how we were born.... i only want to be her equal".

so its like. even though we havent met her yet. jovyres rise to power was explicitly via the death of the previous unseelie queen. of course she would be paranoid and defensive of her title. and while jovyre is plotting and planning and carefully amassing the army that she had to build herself to defend the crown she had to earn herself. her sister is in the columns of milfred murmurs and partying, all with the crown that she would have lost if not for her. "well some of us value beauty more than others". jovyres second offer to the band of boobs, "the more pragmatic approach", was to kill queen cirilla and bind her followers to someone else (someone more worthy, someone more fit to rule). at the time, jovyre admits that she would rather not take that option, "i dont wish for any harm to come to her". in the intervening 200 years. how many times did she wonder if she had made the right decision then. shes certainly changed her mind now

(and a minor thing ... because i admittedly might have misremembered. while talking to the band of boobs, she tells them that she wants to unite the seelie & unseelie courts. wouldnt it be nice for unseelie to get to experience spring and summer too? if im not wrong ...... the unseelie courts still only experience dusk and night? i might have totally misremembred this BUT if its true . then queen cirilla was also not as easy to negotiate with as jovyre expected)

anyway! all that to say is. given how this campaign has explored sibling relationships that are based around feelings of inadequacy & insecurity against a perfect older sibling. the way that leads to competition and jealousy, the desperate urge to prove that actually i AM better than my sister and im soo going to rub this into her face! well! maybe the story of jovyre and cirilla is not just entirely "power corrupts" and more also about the. "200 years of growing resentment and jealousy that has clouded all my love and protectiveness towards you into hatred, and envy, and havoc". on parallel planes, callie and cyra forgive each other, while jovyre plots her own sisters assassination.