#for some reason a lot of these narratives have no grasp on the nature of violence either and it just. Sucks.

[dailyloopdeloop]

DAY 75: onehat

[rxttenfish]

can we please kill the “this character did something problematic!” people already theyre making it very hard for me to talk about actual issues of how narratives are handling characters doing Absolutely Fucked shit or when a character does something fucked but the narrative has some utterly unhinged idea on what’s actually wrong with it or unintentional philosophies that narratives dont mean to have but it ends up enforcing regardless

[nyuuronfly]

On Rain World lore and it's implementation within the game.

This is kindof a random ramble I went on in a Discord chat and just feel like sharing elsewhere. (also note this is all primarily in reference to the original game, Survivor's story.)

I honestly think too many miss the forest for the trees a bit with RW, in terms of how important the lore is, if that makes sense. I talked with somebody about first-time experiences with the game and they said they'd watched a number of lore explanation videos on YT before starting, because of some reason along the lines of "I didn't trust the game to deliver its own story properly." To me this is almost saddening to hear because I really feel that misses the point of why the game has it's lore to begin with.

To me, while playing, any tidbits i learned about history or other information contributed to a feeling like the world I was navigating had a very real history that saturated it, yet one that I would be unable to grasp fully. It is an illusory feeling of realness, given how it is experienced. The game is mechanically not designed to incentivize collecting many information pearls, especially when in the original game you can literally just drop them off a cliff and lose them forever. You get the feeling often like you are bound to never be able to get everything, nor would you even probably want to put in the effort, so the illusion actually stays stronger because of that. Your mind wanders speculating about every little detail, whether intention truly existed behind it or not, because it feels like it did. You learned that it might have. Maintaining that illusion while playing I think is the primary reason they were included, not actually the experience of "knowing" the history. Rain World in general seems to have a thematic fixation on the simple idea that individuals have limited perspectives. Joar Jakobsson has said that one of the core ideas behind Rain World was to recreate the life of a "rat in Manhattan." That is to say, a creature that understands how to find food, hide, and live in a complex man-made structure, that cannot understand it's structuring purpose or why it was built. The very core issue of the iterators, is that the solution to the "great problem" intrinsically has to lie with knowledge that could only be obtained from "the other side." They are corporeal beings trying to know something that pertains to something outside corporeal reality. Yet pursuit of knowledge is very important to creatures like ourselves. Collecting any individual pearl is mostly an exercise in doing a lot just for little bits of knowledge. There is a lot of understanding of just how significant wanting to know more is, even something unimportant, when you are left in the dark the way you are in the game. Most information pearls you deliver are literally completely useless to know about, but they feel personally important, especially in how finding them relates to your connection to the iterators. My primary motivation to find pearls in my first play was to spend more time with Moon. On a very real emotional level, Moon felt like my only friend in the world while I played. On a mechanical level, she does literally nothing. But Rain World manages to operate on a very emotional, even instinctual level with how it's designed. I wanted to be in her company and have something to give her. Because I am alone, and lost. So something along those lines is why I felt saddened to hear the sentiment like Rain World somehow "fails" to deliver it's "story." The purpose of the game is not to find pearls and hear about some grand narrative. At it's core, Rain World is a game that's design was inspired by nature, and it's use of history within the world relates to us as a player the way history relates to us as people. It is relayed through people reading from records created by parties with their own perspectives, and connects us abstractly to a sensation that there is more out there than our own lives. That is a feeling you have as a player, and ultimately the true story that Rain World tells is the memories you have playing it. What you did, saw, and felt. The same as how our story is that of our own lives. That is the purpose of the game.

[bambi-kinos]

Why do people perceive John's love for Paul as unrequited? I confess that I fail to grasp this perspective. Paul is absolutely infatuated with John in every sense of the word. The difference between him and John, as Paul himself has stated, is that John voices his feelings out loud, while Paul excels at self-preservation; he knows how to navigate the rules of society while also enjoying the thrill of breaking them.

For the same reasons why Hanya Yanagihara wrote her eye wateringly boring novel "A Little Life." In "A Little Life" Yanagihara writes a Stephanie Meyer-esque novel about boys being turned gay via SA perpetuated by adult men and how they eventually grow up and become super rich and also they all have vague disabilities that cause a lot of pain but never get full definition because defining them would be inconvenient to the narrative. (Disabilities are debilitating and Yanagihara wanted to write about Sad Boys Who Were Turned Gay By Child Rape But Also They Are Rich And Go On Globe Trotting Vacations Everywhere All The Time While Being Depressed.) The point of "A Little Life" is not to tell a Sad Gay Man Story about the fallout from CSA, it is to depict a sexually exploitive miseryfest that uses disability as a way to pad the word count and add a layer of fancy fondant to the masturbatory and self indulgent text that makes it look more interesting than it is.

I bring this up because I think the phenomenon are related. There has never been a good justification for why Paul is magically indifferent or blind to John being a gay simp especially when you have so many examples of Paul being a gay simp for John in return. BUT it does make for an even sadder and more exploitive miseryfest where a Sad Gay Man died Forever Alone because he was so in love with a Happy Heterosexual Man who could never Return His Love and that is what a lot of people want. That's the only reason the narrative has any steam IMO.

It's just trying to make a sad story and make it even worse: more sad, more tragic, more gay, etc. If John and Paul were mutually attracted and in love with each other than that means they may have had stretches where they were happy together and that's unacceptable to a certain kind of mind. Because the point is the emotional and sexual gratification of seeing a Sad Gay Man Suffering, not to respect the Sad Gay Man and his story and the events and decisions that lead to his predicament. If Paul reciprocates John's love then the John and Paul love story turns into a mundane tale about a first marriage that started out happy but didn't work out because the two spouses grew apart over time. The point of "A Little Life" is the same, there's nothing genuine or cathartic about the Sad Gay Men or the Sad Painful Disabilities, they only exist so the author can circlejerk with her readers about how enlightened and noble they are. Needing the misery becomes all consuming to the point that entire rest of the story, the three dimensional nature of it, gets destroyed and swept under the rug. It's too real and some people just don't want to engage with that.

There's a mundanity to McLennon. Yes there was all sorts of stuff happening but at the end of the day they were just another couple trying to muddle through life together. The soulmate-ness of it all didn't save them when push came to shove. There wasn't a clear path forward for them to make up and get back together even as friends. This is much harder to bear for some people because it shows how the simple act of living your life can carry you away from the person who loves you most. John and Paul found each other but they still drifted apart eventually and stopped wanting to be together. The romance novel didn't end with "happily ever after." The fact that it was so relatable and downright boring is something a lot of people don't want to know or hear about. How can they jerk off to it? It's not miserable or indulgent enough.

Reducing their dynamic to Sad Gay Man Who Is Forever Alone and his Evil Oblivious Heterosexual Partner Who is Blind To His Yearning flattens it, makes it two dimensional, and thus makes it a lot easier to cope with and masturbate to, emotionally and sexually. And look there may be some people who genuinely believe this and don't type that narrative out with one hand, but they're outliers and outliers get discarded.

[wherevenusholdssomeofficespace]

Linda Flynn-Fletcher

I think Linda Flynn-Fletcher is potentially one of the most misunderstood characters in the show.

It think comes from a natural enough place. Her role in the show is of course, to act as the potential threat to their summers of fun. While they boys never see her as a threat, narratively she's the big bad. If she sees it, its game over.

Here's the thing though. She's a not a bad mom. Her children LOVE her. Similarly to how Phineas and Ferb absolutely adore Candace and would do nearly anything she asked, Phineas, Ferb and Candace all love and respect their mother and don't disobey her. Now a bit of this is clearly Linda being a more permissive parent, but any rules that Linda has Phineas and Ferb never do anything to disobey their mother. While I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two instances where Candace disobeyed her mother willfully, the closest I can think off off hand is Candace not doing a bunch of chores that she was supposed to do. Really, the fact that all her kids love her, shows how much all her kids feel loved in their household. And I think that's super important. Candace wrote a song about how much she feels loved by her mom, even if her mom is dismissive of Candace. But she still goes with Candace to see what the boys are up to even if she doesn't believe it. She sets boundaries on how often Candace can bust the boys sure. But she hasn't forbidden Candace from doing it altogether. Nor does she punish Candace for presumably lying?

At MOST Linda will say something like: "let's get you out of the sun" after a failed bust. The worst of it I think is probably the time Linda made her promise not to try or suffer the Pharaohs curse. Which, was just some guy in a Pharaoh costume telling Candace curse you. Linda goes out of her way to read books to try and deal with her daughter. She and Candace still clearly hold a lot of affection for each other and do spend a decent amount of mother daughter time together. Linda gives books to her daughter, tries to direct her to other activities, and finds her sleep busting cute, and sometimes goes out of her way to do activities her daughter wants to do with her. All things considered Linda is REALLY patient about Candace's busting. Could she be doing more to get to the bottom of why Candace is presumably acting out? Sure. But Doofensmirtz could also be doing a better job of listening to his daughter and not insulting her (or do we not remember why Vanessa wears earbuds around the house) but we all call him a really good dad.

A LOT of shows have kids hiding a secret from a parent for one reason of another. But while the crux of the show rests on Linda not knowing what her sons are doing, its not because its a secret. The boys aren't hiding it from her. The boys genuinely believe she knows. Lawrence genuinely believes she knows. Candace is the only one in the family who really grasps the situation.

Linda's ignorance, her disbelief of the wild shenanigans that her children get into is easily mistakable for normality. For representing the oppressive day to day. The same thematic antagonist as school. A mom who wants whats best for her kids, and thinks that whats best for them is them being normal, without realizing what's really best for them. After all why else we saw what would happen if she found out in Quantum Boogaloo. But the fact of the matter is aside from that one future (which also featured an effectively evil leader in Doofensmirtz, and therefore implies more factors at play than just Doofensmirtz and Linda's characters), we don't really know how it would play out in the long term. Future Linda even just kinda moves on after discovering the truth.

Linda is exactly like her kids. She just does the same things on a less physics breaking scale. The woman has like 37 different hobbies. She takes a cooking class, donated an art sculpture, is part of a jazz group. She has a background in astrophysics. She was a pop star. She won a meatloaf contest. She takes french lessons. The fact that Linda has several hobbies is part of the reason the formula works at all. Linda is constantly trying new things which gets her out of the house, while her sons are trying their own new things. Her absence is what prompts Candace to have to go looking for her. Also, What Do It Do when the moment Linda gets put in Candace's position she acts the exact same way.

Also it's why she and Lawrence are so compatible. They have a lot of weird hobbies they spend together. She likes Lawrence's history references. They watch car racing together. They went spelunking together. They go bowling regularly enough to have equipment. She has played the bagpipes while Lawrence danced (which sidenote: do you think she taught Candace how to play the bagpipes?).

Not to mention her extended family. Think about it. Her mom was a competitive roller derby skater who once bit a skate and shook it like a dog with a chew toy and pulls elaborate pranks with her identical twin. Really she's a lot like Candace with her aggressive passion. Her dad apparently won a balloon race, but tells the story in the most straightforward way possible, sometimes very oblivious, but is overall a lot like Phineas. Her sister is an adrenaline junky. And back to Quantum Boogaloo for a minute: Her granddaughter is just like Candace, Grown up Candace is a lot like Linda. Do you not see the implications!!?!?!? LIKE???? DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT LINDA WAS PROBABLY A LOT LIKE CANDACE AND PHINEAS WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER?!!?! YOU THINK IT SKIPPED A GENERATION OR SOMETHING???

Do you think Linda used to complain about Tiana??? Do you think Linda thought her family was weird and was embarrassed by them??? Do you think Linda ever called herself the only mature/normal member of her family?? LIKE CANDACE DOES????

Anyway, Linda is just like her family. Sure, she is RELATIVELY more normal, but that's relative, and probably simply because the universe bends itself around to keep her from knowing. Linda literally cannot find out about the real nature of her universe. Linda is just a grown up version of her children, seeking to make the most of each day, but within the bounds the universe has set upon her, both as an adult woman and mother, but also in the laws of physics expected of her. But she still makes the most of her life. You don't have to build a roller coaster to make the most of each day and all that.

I think if Linda is representing anything its that even parents can have rich fulfilling lives. Where they make the most out of each day. Having fun with your life doesn't stop with adulthood. Even if you have more responsibilities doesn't mean you can't have fun? Sure childhood is something you can't get back but growing up isn't inherently bad either?

[grison-in-space]

It's never too late. We are beginning to think about how and why we exploit animals, and how it is not morally consistent with our values; several prominent anarchists and communist bloggers on Tumblr have admitted that veganism is ethically and financially superior on every level, though they don't participate in it, which is sad. All it takes is a little extra work. The collapse of capitalism will also bring the collapse of the animal industry, or vice versa. The meat plants subjugate both humans and animals, causing persistent trauma- in fact, it has the highest rate of trauma among every category of labor. If you support abolition, you should support all abolition: children, psych people, and animals. On a site like Tumblr, we have an opportunity to promote the breakdown of all positions of power. We are all equal.

Honey, you have the wrong fucking blog to the extent that I can only assume you are spamming this message to everyone you think might listen. I have gone on the record several times to say:

I am a pragmatic empiricist. I care much less about ideological consistency than I do about observed outcomes. There are traps there, too—sometimes people get too much into the weeds about observing proxies for desired goals—but essentially I do think that careful observation of the world around me is much more valuable than starting with a consistent ideology and assuming that good intentions will yield good outcomes.

I am motivated by animal welfare. For me, part of that involves meeting animals on their own level, using their own species-specific signals to assess stress and comfort, and understanding animals within their own social context. Therefore,

I am opposed to animal rights narratives that encourage people to project their own imagined emotional responses onto animals without assessing the animals' actual signals in context. Additionally,

I believe as a behavioral ecologist that, for good and for ill, humans are essentially animals participating in a broader ecosystem that includes us. I do not think humans are special or exist outside that broader web, and I think that ecological intervention works most effectively when we see ourselves as part of nature rather than as some kind of twisted unnatural personification of original sin. Conflict and death are part of life. You won't make a better world by pretending otherwise.

I am a disabled person ("psych people?!"), and more specifically an autistic and neurodivergent person. I literally spelled out for you last night that I have difficulties eating and that imposing more barriers to that ("a little extra work") is a significant burden for me. Your easy dismissal of this point is, in context, amazingly and blithely ableist. Wow.

"psych people?!" I am happy to critique coercive psychiatry and medicine more generally, but that one's new on me. If you're not brave enough to use the language of mad/crip pride, are you entirely sure you understand the points of the dialogue? Your demonstrated grasp of disability justice is already extremely poor; this ain't helping.

I am not anti-state (i.e. I am not an anarchist; I am a democratic socialist) and I routinely criticize daydreams about burning entire systems to the ground and replacing them with a vague new system. Those criticisms are usually based in historical analysis of attempts to do exactly that, which have typically resulted in a lot of bloodshed, generally from the most vulnerable people in society. They also often yield a new and not necessarily more egalitarian power structure that continues to oppress people, sometimes more aggressively than the institution preceding it.

For the same reason, I am not a communist. I think communism offers too many opportunities for unscrupulous people to seize power, creating more inequality under the banner of equality itself. Again, this position comes from reading the history of communist states from as many perspectives as I can get my mitts on.

I frequently critique assumptions that capitalism is the only root of social problems. This does not mean that I am pro-capitalism. It means that I think you have to think deeply about problems, especially when it makes you uncomfortable, to understand how to solve them. Many problems that capitalism exacerbates are actually rooted in problems about impulse control (as with Ideas Jerry the other day), basic human social dynamics, emotional regulation, complex traumas, and many other things. You must understand how these problems arise before you can construct a structure that guards against them effectively.

Fundamentally, I think you are probably optimistically spamming this message to anyone that you think will listen. I invite you to consider how effective that is as a tactic to advance your politics: when you pick the wrong person, at best you leave the impression that people serving your ideology are essentially self centered and bad at listening. At worst, you wind up pissing people off enough to sit down and lay out exactly how many points they disagree with you on. Coalitions of solidarity are based on listening carefully to one another and finding the places we agree on; shit like that is antithetical to building them because it sends a very effective signal that you are either very, very bad at listening or uninterested in doing so.

Either way, get out of my house.

[kradogsrats]

Schrödinger's King in the Bird Box

Time for a return to the single topic that most torments me in this entire franchise canon: is Harrow in the goddamn bird or not?

Except not really. I'm not going to go over the evidence again. I've done it before. Almost everyone has done it before. It has only gotten stronger. At the absolute minimum, an attempt was made to put Harrow in the bird. That's not really disputable. I admit it. It's over.

This is actually the second time that I've struggled with narrative cognitive dissonance regarding a real core factor of this show (like not "what's the deal with Archdragon reproduction," but something that is clearly supposed to be thought about with the intent that it will eventually make sense), and eventually managed to rotate it so hard in my mind that the way I wanted to see it slipped out of my grasp and I saw it the way it's actually intended. Ironically, I think I may have been thinking about the Ocean arcanum at the time.

Anyway, what previously always bothered me about this question was mainly two things:

It would have a devastating impact on Ezran's character development if Harrow reappeared during s1-s3, but the timeskip and arc of s4-s5 made it so it would also be deeply weird for him to reappear before the show ends.

If Harrow is in Pip's body, both Viren and Pip's subsequent behavior, as well as how Pip is treated by the narrative on a meta level, make absolutely no fucking sense.

But... if Viren doesn't know whether the spell was successful or not? If we are meant to not know whether the spell was successful or not, because it's not going to get resolved in the show itself?

If we accept that the earliest point with any chance of the hooks for this plot being set is late s7—because yes, Aaron Ehasz would do an exact beat-for-beat repeat of Zuko and his mom—that both puts Ezran far enough in his growth for it not to be threatened by the "real" king returning, and keeps Harrow out of the loop for long enough that it doesn't really make sense for him to do anything but step down from the throne in favor of Ezran, anyway. As for Viren and Pip's behavior, if the show isn't going to advance that plot much further during its runtime, there's no reason for us to be constantly reminded of it. The setup has been made, and they can just let it stew because it's not actually relevant.

That being said, Viren's behavior actually does make a lot of sense if "is Harrow in the goddamn bird or not" is a question that is also tormenting him. To that end, I'll be doing some digging here on the nature and context of the body-switching spell, Pip/Harrow's behavior post-swap, and what the hell is going on in the Harrow section of Viren's dark magic dream.

The Spell is Made Up (Unlike All Those Real Spells)

First of all, I think there's been some long-term incorrect assumptions made about the body-switching spell. It's not a known spell: this is Claudia and Viren essentially flying by the seat of their pants... but we rarely stop to think about how that contextualizes the rest of the discussion around it.

The initial plan is to find the assassins and ambush them before nightfall. As Soren points out and Viren himself confirms: if they fail, the assassins will be unstoppable under the full moon and Harrow is as good as dead. Claudia decides to put her mind to that problem, so naturally she stops to flirt with Callum in the library and gets the inspiration for the spell from something he says.

(Fun fact: none of that happens in the novelization. Zero amount.)

She brings the idea to Viren, and they develop the spell from there. It's not really clear if Claudia actually knows whether something like that would be possible, but Viren does know that transferring the essence of a person can be done—he's got a nice little coin collection that proves it.

As for the snake, there's no way Viren "acquired" a two-headed soulfang serpent because he has a book somewhere on how to use a rare, malformed specimen of a dangerous Xadian creature to switch people between bodies. He probably thought "that's weird, but could be useful," or maybe whoever sold it to him just had a great sales pitch. A non-trivial amount of success at dark magic is in having access to rarer and more powerful reagents than your competition.

Anyway, what this means is that Viren has absolutely no idea what success looks like for this spell, particularly when using it on subjects of different species. When he describes it to Harrow, he is 110% talking out of his ass. He sounds like he knows exactly what the spell will do and how, and I think a lot of us kind of fell for that. He needs to sound confident, because if he admitted that he doesn't know if it will even work, with a possible failure condition of "snake eats your soul," well... a) Harrow rightfully wouldn't go for it, and b) he'd look incompetent, which is the worst thing ever.

When he goes to Harrow's room, he casts the spell... but did it work? I think that whatever it did, it did it in a way that Viren can't tell whether it worked or not. Maybe both Harrow and Pip passed out. Maybe Viren just didn't want to hang around for the aftermath—in the novelization, when he exits the room and runs into Callum, his eyes are still black from spellcasting.

Activities of Dr. Pip Harrow, Ph.D.

Probably the thing that has always bothered me the most about the entire Harrow-Pip theory is that yes, literally everything in the lead-up and immediate aftermath of the assassination points to that being exactly what happened... and then the narrative lens of the show completely drops the rope. Pip doesn't even appear in the novelization until Viren's pre-coronation scene, which is funny given his looming presence over half the scenes with Harrow in the show.

Pip appears exactly twice after the assassination—once in s1 and once in s2—otherwise he goes completely ignored. He's not in the background of Viren's office, or the throne room, or Harrow's bedroom. No one ever mentions him ever again. Ezran never mentions him again, in the show or in any supplementary materials. You'd think the boy who can talk to animals might have some interest in his dead dad's beloved pet... but who knows, maybe Pip has always been an asshole and Ezran's actually like "thank goodness I never have to speak to that dude again."

Anyway, in all of Pip's appearances, he behaves like... a bird. A trained bird—Harrow can rely on him not just fucking off—but he doesn't demonstrate human-like intelligence the way Bait does. That being said, Bait is essentially a main-cast character (at least as much as, say, Corvus... maybe even Soren) while Pip is a plot device, and even then it takes until well into the first arc for Bait to show the kind of complex reasoning and initiative that separates him from an unusually smart dog. Pip's human is also a stressed-out king, rather than a rambunctious ten-year-old, so he's probably a bit more sedate overall. I would personally bet, given the way the show has progressed with regard to Xadian creatures, that Pip is as intelligent as Bait.

The point of that is: even if Harrow's consciousness is occupying Pip's body, he's not really doing anything with it. He's pissy, sure:

But is that Harrow's pissy-ness or Pip's? Even if Pip is only as intelligent as a trainable bird, that's plenty intelligent enough for both grieving/confusion that their human is gone and holding a grudge against obvious assholes. Viren cages him, but is that because he flipped out and got bite-y? And was it Harrow flipping out, or Pip? Or is he caged just because Viren's of the general attitude that animals belong in cages? Those who fail tests of love... We just don't know.

A lot of us also, to circle back to assumptions about the spell, have tended to think of a body swap between Harrow and Pip resulting in Harrow flailing his arms around wildly and screeching... but again, we know literally nothing about this spell, nor do we actually know anything about Harrow's behavior after Viren leaves his room. Maybe his body sat catatonic on the bed until Runaan came in and shot him. Maybe Pip, being intelligent, was able to maintain the facade—once everyone's in the heat of battle, it would be hard to notice even significant deviations from normal behavior. Even if "Harrow" appeared to fight only halfheartedly, or give up entirely... well, he hasn't been the same since he lost Sarai. Maybe the spell only partially worked, and only half of his soul is inside Pip, with minimal or no influence over the bird body's behavior.

Viren does appear to take some precautions in case Harrow is alive inside Pip. The cage, for one... but he also has nearly all subsequent important conversations outside of his office. Like I said earlier, Pip's cage isn't rendered in the background of any scene, but since he escapes from Viren's office I'm assuming that's where he's been. Even if Pip was just out of frame in every scene in Viren's office post-assassination through end of s2, the only things he's seen are... Viren eating butterflies, and the conversation between Viren and Claudia about the mirror and her side mission to bring the egg back at all costs. He doesn't know about Soren's instructions to murder the boys. He knows about the mirror and Viren's obsession with it (which he could have known before), but he doesn't know about Aaravos. He may know that Viren stole his seal but only if Viren was stupid enough to stamp the letters with it in front of him (which... look, he could be). The only things he's really learned are that a) his sons are alive, and b) Viren lied to him and the egg is alive.

Now, realistically, if we were meant to hang on to the is-Harrow-in-the-bird plot thread because it's going to be significant within the scope of the show... I'd be expecting to see at least one cut to Pip glowering at some point during all these machinations. If it weren't for the mirror and Aaravos, I'd expect Viren to be yelling all his monologuing at Pip, too. But the show does none of that. Instead, the next time we see Pip, we see him peace-ing out of the show for at minimum the next three seasons, and possibly the remaining two, as well. If Harrow's in there... why? Did he go to find Callum and Ezran himself? It's not actually clear that he knows Ezran can understand animals, so it would be reasonable for him to think Viren is his only chance at ever not being a bird again. Maybe he thinks that chance is gone with Viren's arrest and would rather not spend the rest of his life in a cage. Maybe he really isn't in control of the body.

Back to Viren, though: since Pip refuses to demonstrate any behavior that could be taken as distinctly Harrow's, Viren actually has no idea at any point whether Harrow's in there or not. He doesn't know if Harrow lived. He doesn't know if he succeeded or failed. It's a constant reminder that he's almost, but not quite, in control. Almost, but not quite, good enough to achieve what he wants.

It probably drives him absolutely insane.

Did You Think You Were Somehow Getting Out of This Without Me Mentioning Kpp'Ar?

Just kidding, it's finally time to talk about Viren's dream. We've gone two entire seasons and a two-year timeskip without any mention of Harrow or Pip (though those maniacs dropped the fucking snake basket on us as an incidental but obvious prop early in s4), and then suddenly we get punched in the face by Viren's subconscious.

First, though, I do actually need to point something out in the scene with Kpp'Ar. Bear with me, I promise this is relevant.

Viren sealed Kpp'Ar's soul in a coin 12-ish years ago, and the coin has been sitting collecting dust in his secret dungeon for... some amount of that time. Now he opens the door and finds Kpp'Ar standing there, free—and I will note that I don't believe Viren actually knows how to free people from the coins, or whether it can even be done. His reaction is surprise, followed by suspicion and wariness:

When he encounters Harrow—dead—his reaction is horrified shock, which is fair since the last time he entered the room that way there was no surprise body chilling out waiting for him in it:

Then, when Harrow speaks to him, suddenly alive and unharmed, he drops straight into relief:

Some of this is undoubtedly due to the differences between Viren's relationship with Kpp'Ar and his relationship with Harrow. With Kpp'Ar, after that initial moment of confusion, he's absolutely determined to not show a single hint of ignorance or weakness—this is a trick, or a test, and a passing grade in "light verbal sparring with the mentor you're pretty sure you remember betraying" is a thing that is both normal to want and possible to achieve. For Harrow, who he wants so desperately to call him brother, who he walked into this very room ready to die for, before everything went horribly awry—he not only immediately and willingly goes to his knees, he literally prostrates himself.

... I'll give everyone a moment to get all the innuendo and suggestiveness out of their systems, because that's not the point. This time.

What is the point is that Viren's reaction to Harrow isn't disbelief, but relief. Hope. Kpp'Ar is supposed to be in a coin, and Viren immediately questions how he got out. Harrow is supposed to be dead but Viren doesn't give a second thought to how he's not. Fortunately, Harrow helpfully explains:

Fun fact: back in s1, we don't actually see Viren actually taking action against the assassins. We don't even see evidence that he re-entered the room at all—it's only Soren and Claudia who participate in Runaan's capture.

I haven't actually touched a lot on the complex shit going on for Viren, emotionally, throughout all of this—I mentioned it's was probably driving Viren insane over the course of the first two seasons, but let me elaborate. If Viren successfully switched Harrow and Pip, that means Harrow survived... but he expressed his feelings on the proposal in no uncertain terms, and there's a good chance he will literally never forgive Viren. I don't think Viren thought far enough ahead to consider how to get Harrow into a human body again, but I do think he's dragging his feet on it a little because if he can work things to his advantage—unite the Pentarchy against Xadia and follow through on the war Harrow was avoiding—he'll prove to Harrow that he was right all along. Any chance of that flies out the window with Pip at the end of s2.

If the body-switching spell failed, it means Viren essentially killed Harrow himself. That's the reality I think he grows more and more resigned to over the course of s1 and s2, when Pip remains unresponsive. He had no choice but to take the best chance at saving someone he loved—but this time, instead of saving Harrow, he murdered him.

In the dream, Harrow has not only survived, but credits Viren with his survival. He doesn't just dismiss Viren's show of remorse, but makes his own apology to Viren. He calls Viren brother. After an impossibly long nightmare, everything is okay. All is forgiven. Maybe there was nothing to forgive, in the first place. Maybe Viren was right all along.

Then it all turns sinister with the callback to the coin incantation, and we have a sharp return to reality:

The cinematography here treats Pip a lot more like how I would expect him to be treated in s1/s2 if we were meant to know he was actually Harrow. There's focus actually on him, instead of just other characters' reaction to him. He "speaks"—as I noted in another post—in raspy sounds very unlike his songbird chirps from s1. This is absolutely Harrow as Viren actually left him—even if he's not dead, he's in a warped prison of dark magic, a perverse mockery of himself.

Oh wait.

Harrow-who-is-both-human-and-alive was never an option, and what we've got now is mirror images of Harrow-the-dead-human and Harrow-the-live-bird, and they're going to do to Viren what he did to them.

Now, it's not that none of this makes sense if Viren knows for sure that Harrow is in the bird... but it makes a lot less sense and has less emotional resonance. If Viren knows Harrow survived as Pip, he'd be more likely to question Harrow's human form than his survival—the way he does with Kpp'Ar. He might be more guarded, expecting hostility—which, I will note, is what he gets when Pip enters the scene. Instead, because until now he believed that he actually killed Harrow in his attempt to save him, he's so relieved to see Harrow alive that for that one moment he loses all pride and is ready to beg for forgiveness at Harrow's feet.

Since legitimately none of this makes sense if Viren didn't at least attempt to put Harrow in the bird, we're left with Harrow maybe or maybe not alive, Viren having maybe or maybe not been the one to actually kill him (gonna be a fun one with the Runaan context), and a plotline that is definitely not going to be resolved in the remaining two seasons of the show. I'd be kind of surprised if they even did any more setup for it (like Callum/Ezran finding out it's a possibility, or even a hint drop like Runaan being all "it was fucking weird, he just sat there" or something) outside of future supplemental media.

Conclusion

Either Harrow is alive and in the bird, with the future intent being to do a spinoff story The Search-style, or we're in for a huge bummer of a "actually, it was Viren all along who killed Harrow, therefore Runaan is a good guy and we can all be one happy family" pile of absolute bullshit. Yes, they said Harrow's dead. Harrow's body is dead, we knew that all along. There's a note in the artbook that Viren was actually going to rip the shroud off at Harrow's funeral in order to publicly prove it's his body, because that is an extremely normal thing to do.

The show just treats it extremely weirdly because, even as the only person with any chance of knowing, Viren is in the same uncertain boat as the rest of us. (Actually more uncertain than the rest of us, since he's not genre-aware.) Also it's another chance to torment Viren emotionally, and they'd never pass that up.

Thanks for coming to my absolutely ridiculous TED Talk on this topic, I hope this screenshot now does as much psychic damage to you as it does to me:

[nekropsii]

hello oh great provider of art and analysis, do you have any tips on how to correctly analyse a character?

Funnily, I don't think there's a correct way to analyze media, but there are incorrect ways to do it. But my advice for sound analysis is as follows...

Look at Canon. Reference it as heavily as physically possible. Take into consideration who the author is, and what their intentions would be. Extradiegetic Analysis is extremely important. Commit to it. Do not pussyfoot around Extradiegetic Analysis. Take into consideration the story, its tone, who it's made for, who it is marketed towards, what messages it's trying to convey, how, and why. Use Occam's Razor heavily. Ground yourself, turn off "Fandom Brain", and your own personal headcanons. Remember that Characters are Plot Devices, not People- they are put in the story for a reason, and they serve a particular function within the narrative. Ask yourself what that reason is, and what that function is. It's important to get a firm grasp of the story and the characters in it before extrapolating. Ponder their relationships with themself, others, the world around them, their task at hand. Try to take into account framing, themes, motifs, and symbolism.

Grab anything that really stands out to you, see what you can do with it. Analyze why it stands out to you. Does it match your own personal experience in some way? Does it remind you of something else? Does it seem to be setting something up within the context of a story? Are the curtains blue for a reason? If not, should they be? What if they did? What function would that serve?

Analysis is largely asking questions and trying to answer them. Sometimes those questions are posed by the thing you're analyzing itself. Sometimes the question comes from your heart. Sometimes it emerges from something you've latched onto that isn't quite there - a blind spot in the narrative, missed potential, et cetera.

Again, Occam's Razor is your friend. Get very familiar with it. And... Do not consult Freud on anything. If you feel the impulse to consult Freudian analytical concepts without prompting from the narrative itself, that's the devil talking to you. Beat it to death immediately. We do not need Freudian analysis of children's cartoons. We literally do not need that. It will be wrong.

This is one I'm seeing more and more disregard for lately, especially with regards to minority headcanons... Consider the real-world implications of your analysis. I do not think it is very "woke" to headcanon unrepentant sexually abusive assholes as trans women, or characters who are known for their loudness, aggression, and abusive natures as Black. Consider optics for maybe, like, five seconds. Analysis is just as much an act of introspection as it is an act of dissecting a piece of fiction. You need to be able to ask yourself why you're seeing characters the way that you're seeing them. Sometimes that answer is latent bigotry. Unpack that. Work on it. Sometimes the answer is that the author is a bigot and trying to tell you something about the group of people a character is supposedly representative of. Acknowledge it. Unpack that. Work with it. And I mean that seriously- you cannot just skirt around bigotry without perpetuating the bigotry yourself. Analysis will, by way of the vulnerability of the practice, get uncomfortable at times. Be ready for that.

Think critically and think for yourself. A lot of people shoot themselves in the foot by being reactionary, and/or letting other people do the thinking for them. Again, analysis will get uncomfortable at times. It is vulnerable, introspective, and an act of challenging yourself and your worst habits. Commit to that.

Oh, and have fun. Yes, I just spent several paragraphs talking about how analysis is challenging and uncomfortable, but don't make yourself have a genuinely bad time on purpose. You truly do not need to give yourself an attack or episode for the sake of an internet post or something. Horror movie rules - know your limits and respect them.

That's all for now, I think. There's infinite nuance to this subject, but I believe this is a decent 101 post.

[txttletale]

socialism: elysian and scientific

[whispering to you in a movie theater in between mouthfuls of salted caramel popcorn--other moviegoers who just want to watch we bought a zoo (2011) are glaring at us but i don’t care]

so in 1880 friedrich engels wrote a snappy little number called ‘socialism: utopian & scientific’. it’s a foundational marxist text and one i’d recommend to everybody--and i think some of the ideas in it are incorporated and built on in disco elysium in really interesting ways.

socialism: utopian & scientific does a few things. first, it lays out the ideas of the 18th century utopian socialists and explains the societal context in which they developed their ideas--and the core idea of the dialectic development of ideas. engels harshly critiques the enlightenment's conception of the history of thought as a history of individual thinkers attempting to capture an eternal, immutable corpus of truth and justice--he describes this worldview thusly (emphasis mine):

What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chains of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.

and of course it jumped out to me playing disco elysium that this is exactly how human development works the world of elysium--innocences are singularly world-changing individuals who personally establish systems and ideologies within their lifetimes:

dolores dei in particular is a pretty clear synechdoche (both narratively and, because of how innocences work, diegetically) for the bourgeois revolutions of the enlightenment--her followers, the moralists, are clearly analogous to the real-world post-enlightenment liberal international system. the “kingdom of conscience”, is, i think, also a pretty heavy-handed reference to engels’ sardonic use of the “kingdom of reason” to describe the empty promises of the 18th century bourgeois revolutions:

Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man.

so--moralists are liberals, that’s not exactly groundbreaking. the innocentic system is a literalization of the metaphysical vision of the history of ideas--that’s interesting, but it doesn’t really say anything in and of itself. so let’s go a little deeper. if engels doesn’t think philosophers, are accessing a nebulous immaterial well of absolute truth, what does he think--well, he cites hegelian dialectics, a system he and marx develop into material dialectics and historical materialism. what the fuck are hegelian dialectics--well there’s a lot of really long fucking books that answer that, but let me just quote engels here:

In his system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and developmen

hegel posits the history of mankind as the history of ideas evolving in concert with one another--the ideas of, say, the enlightenment weren’t just waiting in the aether during the age of feudalism, fully formed until some singular genius could grasp them--instead they are the product of the ideas before them interacting through the process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. this is dialectics--the idea that progress broadly takes the form of contradicting forces generating a novel force through their interaction.

now, engels identifies one key flaw in hegel, which is that he’s still idealist--he is putting the ideas first in this historical model, positing them as drivers of history rather than products of it. engels then goes on to lay out the fundamentals of historical materialism, which is the application of dialectics to a material view of history--when engels says “all past history [...] was the history of class struggles”, this is what he means, that historical development is the process of the creation and resolution of contradictions between modes of production and exchange (how stuff gets made and who gets it and why).

[i take someone elses double gulp soda out of their hand and slurp it loudly, ignoring their obvious outrage]

okay that’s all cool but what does this have to do with beloved crpg disco elysium (2019)? well, for a start it takes a very distinctively historical materialist worldview when it comes to its own history--the history of revachol is very much the history of class struggle, from the revolution to the strike--and the idea that the elements from which future society will arise are already present with current society is a recurring theme:

the future is change--society is in motion, contradictions must resolve, the world is dialectic--and the moralists are in opposition to this, desperate to maintain the status quo, to maintain contradictions perfectly suspended forever. from the dialectic point of view, moralism in disco elysium is the quest for no future at all:

as engels explains, a dialectic view of history means that you need to understand the past if you want to understand the present, because the present is born from elements of the past:

From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself.

for the moralists, the past is something to be forgotten, cast aside for an eternal unchanging present. which is interesting because in disco elysium there happens to be a global world-threatening force which is forgetting the past: the god damn pale. the pale is the accumulation of all human history into something flat and meaningless, the detachment of history from its context--the pale is the future, past, and present not as dialectical continuum of cause and effect but as meaningless incoherent chatter. the pale is the moralist’s view of history made real global force--

--and it has the potential to destroy everything--

and this is what moralism is. engels says of metaphysical philosophy:

In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the woods for the trees.

by understanding the world in repose, as a dead thing, moralism is killing it. by discarding the past it is creating a debt that can’t be repaid. and what brings this all together is this bit of information from the game’s concept art:

innocences create the fucking pale. what they’re doing, their immanentized personificaton of the kingdom-of-reason model of history, is destroying the future. very literally, the non-dialectic view of the status quo--the quest for the right ideas to ensure endless stagnant stillness--is killing the world. the man who killed dolores dei was right:

we were supposed to come up with this ourselves. so--all that done--what’s the point of this post? what do i think any of this proves, other than that i and the DE writers are fancy communists who read books? well, my read on it at least: the pale is the destruction of history for a purpose--because if we do not understand history, we will think we cannot change it. we will wait for the great people to do it for us--we will wait for them to invent a future to live in and we will wait until we die. we are supposed to come up with this ourselves. as engels says:

The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day-by-day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now, for the first time, here, but it is here.

liberalism tells us that the future is unknowable, untouchable, that all we can do is wait for it to arrive. socialism--and disco elysium--tell us that the future is here, now, that everything we need to build it ourselves is already in the world. the second hardest part of that is realizing it--the hardest part is doing it.

[i am dragged bodily out of the theater by my ankles, frantically snatching snacks out of other people’s hands as i go. for the road]

[snowblack-charcoalwhite]

The way Condal, Hess and co write certain characters, especially Alicent, just makes them look like some kind of aliens who cannot comprehend the core of human nature and familial bonds (motherly love, sibling dynamic...) . I mean, fine, maybe they aren't parents honestly have no idea about their private lives nor do I want to know ), but that still doesn't justify the atrocious manner in which they have been portraying Alicent's relationship with her children. And I dislike the explanations that come from one part of the fandom (she married against her will, never wanted those children, never felt freedom...) I mean, I don't deny these, but they are not enough to explain or justify her weird (and sudden imo) detachment and dare i say, borderline hatred of her sons. Not to mention that this was the life of westerosi women, basically every one of them. Also, Ryan talked how Alicent and Viserys had "a loving marriage, just weren't in love " and generally holds Viserys in high regard, so he obviously doesn't see him as Alicent's abuser or anything. That's why i cannot understand what is the point of showing her so disgusted by her children and incapable of showing them love. Otto's influence? Maybe, but still not the greatest explanation. And she seems even harsher and distant to her sons this season than Otto ever was to her. She doesn't seem broken over Jaehaerys, she doesn't seem overly upset over Aegon (he's burned alive and is dying ffs and she won't shed a tear), Aemond is apparently an ireedemeable monster in her eyes fur some reason, even before RR... It's so frustrating that there are people who eat it all up and justify it as a genius and subtle storytelling with a lot of details that we "the whiners" refuse or are unable to grasp. Idk, I really liked her in s1 and although she was a bit inconsistent in ep 8 and 9 I hoped it would be retconed. Unfortunately, this season I'm watching a character I don't recognise anymore. And the worst thing is that she doesn't suffer from a lack of screentime like Aemond or Helaena do. Almost everything on tg revolves around her and yet I still have no idea what is her goal or who she is anymore.

Sorry for the rant.

Hello!

I could not agree with you more. Not sure if some kind of personal/family circumstances of HotD writers played a role in them fumbling the Greens family dynamic so badly but I am convinced that their "women good men bad" narrative policy did.

In "Driftmark" Alicent orders for Luke's eye to be cut out (and immediately, in public) - and then attacks Luke and Rhaenyra herself. But a few minutes (in show time) later she repents - and after that, apparently, she is all for "violence is reserved for men" agenda. That's where her disdain for Aemond (in whose name she was about to commit a public act of violence herself) is supposed to come from, I think. It doesn't even feel like she is horrified precisely by the fact that he might have almost killed (deliberately at that) his own brother. Lack of consistency and logic? Yes. Obliviousness at best, hypocrisy at worst (from Alicent, I mean)? Yes. But who cares, right? Alicent does not support the evil deeds of men - and that's what matters.

And her treatment of Aegon looks even more moronic. Girl, you put him on the throne against his will! After her meeting with Rhaenyra she knows it was a result of a misunderstanding (the favourite trick of this show, dammit - but it is a topic for a whole another conversation) but how is Aegon to blame for it?

I can relate to Alicent growing tired of being used and manipulated - but IMO (I agree with you here as well) this is not a good enough excuse for her to fully go into the "fuck yourselves, the lot of you" mode. But for the writers it is, at least it looks like it. They were trying to sell us the bullying of Aemond by Aegon (combined with the former's desire for power) being a sufficient motivation for Aemond to get rid of his brother (during the civil war where they are supposed to be on the same side no less) - and now they are trying to justify whatever Alicent does with her being a child bride and so on and so forth. I have no love for Viserys (or sympathy for Otto - where it comes to him pimping his teenage daughter out to the king) - but turning Alicent into this and expecting everyone to eat it up? Come on. Even some casual viewers are going "WTF" watching Alicent's scenes with her children, never mind those who are familiar with Fire and Blood.

And double yes to the point about the show very heavily focusing on Alicent to the detriment of many other characters (Aemond first of all). It feels like the writers believe that all that audience is supposed to know about Aemond now is that he is a bad guy - and they give him just enough screen time to show that. Meanwhile Alicent has loads of it - just so we could get a really good, really long look at her face and understand just how bad patriarchy failed her.

So, as I see it Alicent is now no more than a means to the end of hammering home the main idea of the show. How does she do that and what happens to her character in the process is unimportant - at least, to the writers and showrunners.

Sorry for the rant as well🙈

[emeldiir]

Hello! I’ve been a bisexual sapphic for my entire life (save for the few times I thought I was a lesbian) and I am also transneutral and on Testosterone. I’ve been struggling to feel comfortable enough to ID as butch for a while because of online (twitter) discussions making it a “lesbian only term”. Do u have any advice that could help me both feel comfortable and explain to my friends how I feel? Thank you!

- 🪐

Twitter is an absolute hell hole of young queers refusing to read anything about queer history and assuming that they have monopoly on queer identity and discussion.

first things first, the people who deny bisexual people our queerness are the same people who parrot the talking points that bisexuals cannot be butch or femme. this is woefully ignorant of a good 80% of queer history.

lesbian bar culture is where butch and femme got popularized within the queer community, and during the 1930s through 50s, the lesbian community included anyone who would be sapphically identified today, anyone who was transgender (man, woman, nonbinary, agender) and anyone else who resonated with the community.

butch and femme were coined within the queer ballroom scene, and the labels were spearheaded by black and brown queer people of all orientations and gender identities. Ballroom culture has catagories such as ‘butch queen realness,’ ‘femme queen realness,’ ‘butch queen up in pumps,’ and many more.

the idea that butch and femme are lesbian only arose with polical lesbianism in the 1970s when political lesbains (some who were heterosexual woman attempting to practice their feminism through the lesbian identity) attempted to distance themselves from anything remotely connected to men. this included bisexual sapphics, trans men, and trans women.

The reason i always speak about the history of the butch/femme labels is that when discussing the nature of butch/femme, when being interrogated or harassed for using the identities as a non lesbian queer person, the most important thing for us to remember is that we are historic. we have existed for decades, and anyone who tries to deny our history has not listened to their queer elders, does not have a good grasp of queer theory, culture and history, and are so focused on pushing their own harmful narrative into queer spaces that they end up a danger to the community.

the people who say this sort of stuff are more focused on being bigoted towards bisexuals then doing any sort of research to back up their claims.

I hope this helped! I’m a little scatterbrained today so if you need more information you can look through the #ro talks about butch things tag on my blog, i’ve archived a whole lot about bisexual butches and femmes.

and just to reassure you a bit, I would be more then happy to share a space beside you, my fellow butch. we need more solidarity in this world, and you are more then butch enough to stand beside me. much love <3

[lej222]

hiii i'm a new fan of aslfua and also recently discovered ur tumblr! i appreciate ur analysis and insight so much because it's made me enjoy alsfua so much more and ur brain is so smart to connect all these references 😭😭 i'm curious, what is the ending that u hope for aslfua/mi-ae? :)

Hi!🙂 I'm trying my best thank you so much for the kind words❤️❤️❤️ Even though I might be totally wrong, it's fun to find those little clues😁

This is such a good question, and I will include spoilers from the latest Episode on Naver (155) to tell my opinion.🙂

So I've said this before, but I mainly started reading this series for nostalgia and because I used to work in education. For these reasons, I always viewed it as a growth story about kids whose biggest narrative role is to mature and learn throughout the story. I think so far some characters have had great character arcs that showcase this, like Cheol, Johan, or even Honggyu. In my head, their narratives are almost completed because they have changed a lot and matured - you can clearly see they were very different at the start of the story.

For Miae, I want to see a similar journey. Miae is still pretty much immature and she keeps running away from/ignoring problems that would destroy her "dream" world that she lives in. She has unrealistic expectations about life and doesn't grasp the seriousness of certain situations, or why she has to be responsible for her own actions. I think I've also mentioned this before, but Miae's biggest "teacher" seems to be Jisu just like how Miae was Cheol's. By hanging around with Jisu, Miae needs to be reliable, patient and understanding, but most importantly- Miae cannot run away from her problems because Jisu calls her out for it. Every time Miae tries to act like a kid, Jisu, who is a naturally blunt person points out her behaviour and becomes her voice of reason. Like when she tried to interrupt the confession or how she wants to keep secrets from everyone as to keep peace with her friends, basically she's avoiding conflicts. Miae reflects on Jisu's words because he treats her as someone of the same age, while others just accept her sometimes irrational behaviour which doesn't help her to change. Miae has to be super honest about her feelings and intentions when she's with Jisu because that's the only way he understands her intentions. Just like she has to be honest about his behaviour so Jisu can see when he's being too much/oversteps boundaries. So in the upcoming episodes I really want Miae to realize that Jisu is also a human being with emotions and she's actually hurting his feelings by not telling anyone they're friends and she enjoys his company. Or that she should stop hitting him/ruining his clothes and listen to what he says about himself.

Speaking of this, I hope that Miae and Cheol's relationship becomes healthier regardless of the outcome. It's sad to see that Miae has to keep being Jisu's friend a secret because Cheol is annoyed with him. In a relationship, communication is the key and Cheol and Miae struggle with it. When one of them is closed off, they keep following and cornering each other instead of giving time, and it only leads to misunderstandings. They keep avoiding talking about the status of their relationship because of their pride and Miae's expectations about dating are so naive I just cannot imagine them dating in the close future. Plus I also think Miae relies on Cheol to take responsibility for her and solve her problems, like when she wanted to call him to make peace between her friends. And not surprisingly, it was Jisu who showed up and called out her behaviour, which makes me think Miae will have to solve her own problems. So I hope all of these things will be resolved without other characters getting hurt, like Jisu.

And lastly, I really want Miae to realize her mother is coming from a good place. Because even though she's strict, she only wants the best for her daughter. I want to have one scene where Miae has a serious conversation with her and they both open up to each other. It's been theorized that Jisu doesn't have a good relationship with his father, so it might be the push for Miae's realization because both her and Cheol come from loving families. And Miae takes a lot of things for granted, that's why she keeps dodging responsibility. And she's a kid, so it's understandable, but if other characters have matured significantly, Miae should also be more mature by the end. She will go to high school and most likely very few of her friends will attend the same school, so she has to learn to let things go and accept negative experiences. Like the narrator pointed out, there are certain circumstances one cannot get over with sheer willpower because they happen anyway. So my final thoughts are that I want to have a closure that doesn't leave these kids with regrets, but rather when they look back on these years, they will think of them as fond memories.🙂

[idrellegames]

You've probably gotten a few of these before but my turn for praise. Even as a person who's probably a hopeless romantic I dearly appreciate that Wayfarer doesn't make itself a romance first game. So many IF do that and it makes the game lose any sense of plot and in the worse cases, outright repetitive because the options fail to add any flavor to the rest of the game. Even worse are all the games that sort of 'forget' the other characters are there once you're in a romance.

But what makes Wayfarer even better is the fact you have ace/aro-spec representation that actually matters because people fall into the pitfall of making them a "hard to get/aloof/unaware of anything ever" romance option. Having the ability to make platonic bonds that influence the game just as much as romantic ones and don't diminish aro/ace characters is so nice and I appreciate it so much.

I think this is maybe a good opportunity to riff a little on genre conventions and expectations.

Romance games have their own conventions. They're fun, they're often self-indulgent--the point is to indulge in the fantasy that the MC (and therefor you, the player) is the centre of the universe. Everyone you come across is at least a little bit in love with you. You are special. You are loved. And this is really fun!

Of course, there are romance games that colour outside these lines, but the general expectation is that you will have your selection of ROs, their individual routes, and that the ROs are always going to put the MC first. Having individual routes for each RO usually means that the RO is the star of their route, and all other characters take a backseat because they are the star of their own route. The MC and the romance is the focus, everything else is secondary.

I do really want to stress that there is nothing wrong with this format. It's successful for a reason! The problem comes when you try to apply these conventions to all games, especially ones that do not fall within this genre.

When romance isn't the focal component of the game, the narrative can ring a little hollow if you try try to employ conventions like this. I think there needs to be room for IF games where the MC isn't special, where they are literally Just Some Guy, where the characters they interact with have a range of things going on with them that don't have anything to do with the MC at all. Characters having a life outside the MC is really important for creating deep bonds and meaningful relationships; it's part of having rounded, fleshed-out characters. There needs to be room for conflict and complications, because that's where character development lies.

There's a reason why Aeran doesn't spill all his secrets in Episode 2. If this were a romance game, he might--but it's not and he won't. He is in a significant amount of emotional distress in Velantis and it is not in character for him to break down and reveal everything at the MC's request. Relationships aren't easy, especially when both parties have a lot of growth and healing to do.

And I think, too, when it comes to early IF development it's very easy to want to rush right to the romances. Romances draw in an audience, they give folks something to look forward to. They're the thing you get asks about, which generates interest in your game, and helps you inspiration and drive afloat. But when the focus remains only on that, it's very easy to overlook other necessary narrative aspects. There needs to be balance.

With regards to aro/ace characters - it's easy to fall into tropes for them, even if you don't intend to. There are expectations about what a "good" and "satisfying" relationship looks like in fiction, and aro/ace characters often fall outside of that. To grasp being aro/ace, you have to question what sexual and romantic attraction actually is, which you don't necessarily have to grasp with other characters because the assumption is that it is there naturally.

And even then, aromanticism and asexuality is hard to communicate effectively in fiction without making it feel "lesser". Take for example, Aeran's intimacy scene in Episode 2. There's a difference between the allosexual option (where the MC sleeps with him and they are emotionally and physically intimate) and the asexual option (where they don't have sex, but the emotional intimacy is still there). Even though I was being as careful not to weigh one option over the other, in comparing the two the allosexual version is the more traditionally "satisfying" ending to that arc than the asexual one because it follows conventions. I am personally really happy with the asexual option, but it still feels like it lacks a certain… "oomf", for lack of a better term.

I think this is why it's really important to have substantial relationships outside of romance. When romance and sex aren't weighted as a signifier of the deepest bond you can have with a person, there's room to explore more diverse relationships and how they can take form.

[bestworstcase]

I found your blog via your post about yang and strength, got really interested, and then I ended up reading through a loooooot of your rwby commentary, and now I’ve got a question for you, if you don’t mind: Is it okay to want Penny to come back? I’ve read a lot of your analysis of her story arc and character, specifically that giant post you wrote about her in november 2021. i um, have definitely been guilty of wanting her to come back a whole lot. I’ve definitely done some frantic and outlandish theorycrafting to cope, but also I really do see what you mean about how her atlas arc is meant to be a tragic ending, so I don’t know how to reconcile my appreciation for the show’s story with my desire of just… really wanting to see her again?

This isn’t me asking you about whether or not she might come back because I’ve made my peace with whatever happens, this is just me asking if like… am I entitled or ungrateful for missing her so much that it makes me cry when such a wonderful story is being told in the show as a whole?

of course it’s okay!!!

the fact that her death had such a profound and lasting emotional impact on you speaks to the strength of the storytelling and the care that the writers poured into her character. tragedy aspires to incite the feelings you’re describing for the purpose of emotional release; catharsis is the whole reason tragedy exists at all.

you’re not just allowed to cry—you’re meant to. you’re supposed to care deeply that she’s gone. it matters. the story grieves for her and it’s inviting you to grieve too. when ruby breaks down over losing penny, it’s okay to be right there with her emotionally.

wanting her to come back or hoping that she might is a natural aspect of that feeling. theorizing—even in a grasping at straws kind of way—is a natural way to process that feeling. so is writing or reading “fix-it” fic or other kinds of AUs where penny survives or returns or never endured that ordeal in the first place. inherent to catharsis is the idea that letting painful feelings out is not only good but necessary for emotional well-being.

(you are also under no obligation to like every creative decision a story makes and it is entirely okay to feel like penny dying in v8 lessened your enjoyment of the story overall, if that’s how you feel. by no means do you owe it to any story to like everything about it just because it’s written well.)

what is entitled is the attitude held by a specific subset of hardcore penny 3.0 theorists that penny’s death was something bad that the writers did to the audience that they now have an obligation to “fix” or “make right”—often accompanying a sentiment along the lines of “why even bring her back if they were just going to kill her off?” and dismissal of her entire presence in the atlas arc as “just fanservice,” sometimes with the implication that the writers took advantage of penny fans only to stab them in the back.

the entitlement comes from the failure or refusal to recognize that the writer’s room does not revolve around what penny fans would like to happen (or indeed fans of any other character) and a narrative turn that upsets you is not something that the writers have done to hurt you. it’s entitled to act like the writers owe it to you to bring a character back to life, which was the general tenor of a lot of high-profile penny 3.0 discourse back in 2021 although the attitude has mellowed since then.

(& just in case: if you, personally, were in the category of penny fans who felt outraged or hurt back then and wanted to demand that the writers make it up to you by reviving her, and you’ve since reflected on those feelings and moved on from them to—as you say—make peace with whatever the story has planned, That Is Also Okay, and you should not beat yourself up over it. this is not something you need to feel guilty about.)

as for how to reconcile appreciating the story for what it is and still feeling like crying when you think about penny… i mean this completely in earnest, even if you’ve never written anything before in your life, try writing a fanfic where she lives or finds her way back or her friends manage to save her. not just reading or looking at fanart—i do think that there is really something to be said for making your own fanworks. writing or drawing gives you a degree of control over what happens in your story or artwork that you can’t get anywhere else and that can be a very comforting outlet when mourning a character.

you’re okay.

[starlit1daydream]

so i finally did it: flowey the flower's classpect & asriel dreemurr

obligatory disclaimer that this post will include massive spoilers for undertale and undertale yellow.

let's get the obvious out of the way first - what is flowey's ASPECT? this is something that i feel is pretty obvious, he's a very clear-cut doom player.

he deals with inevitability and predestination, has a very nihilistic and cynical worldview based on his soulless perception of the world and the repetitions he's gone through, and he's associated a lot with some very morbid and edgy imagery. in particular, i think it's his manipulations with fate and inevitability that solidify him as a player of doom (save states and such). it's for this same reason that i believe sans is a doom player, but that's for another essay.

what's his class? well, let's get into how flowey experiences doom.

flowey's existence, from the very moment of his creation, has been defined by doom. an inability to die or cessate his own existence that leads to a plethora of lives full to the brim with death, experiments with predestination and a general morbid curiosity. flowey does things until he's exhausted every single possible outcome of the situation, and then he moves on to the next until he's sucked all novelty and nuance out of it, effortlessly manipulating doom and making it bend to his whim.

a lot of people would be quick to place him as a witch because of this, but personally i think that flowey's absolute will and dominion places him at an even higher tier.

flowey isn't a witch, he is a lord of doom. he holds absolute control over the aspect of doom, exhibiting full control over inevitability and decay in every facet.

let's just look at some of the things flowey does. he subjects clover to countless resets and deaths at his hand for his own amusement, sets up the denizens of the underground like little dolls for him to play with until they break apart, all the while plotting to grasp more control and seize true dominion. he's a textbook lord, endlessly determined and power-hungry as he lets nothing stand in the way of his goal (acquisition of the SOULs). much in the same way, we see caliborn's quest for power leaving similar destruction in its wake and he holds the same determination, hell, they're even associated with the same laugh soundbyte! the similarities are all there, and the stunted mental development definitely shows for both of them given they're a kid who never properly got the chance to grow up.

in fact, it's the link to caliborn that brings me to my next point. what of asriel?

simple. in the same way the caliborn has his calliope, the muse of space, flowey has his asriel, the muse of life. this may sound contradictory to the asriel we see in the finale of undertale, but i propose that this is an asriel still under the throes of the inversion that brings flowey his classpect.

their true classpect has always been the muse of life, it's merely that flowey's soulless state brings about an inversion that is only 'fixed', if you will, after asriel is brought back to normality.

the real asriel is much like a muse. he is tender, emotional, caring, perhaps a little weak-willed or timid at times. he is the narrative's driving force but in a wholly passive manner. throughout the whole game asriel is the inspiration that hangs over the plot (throughout BOTH games in fact, his role in deltarune very much cements his role as a muse) but we never see him until the final hour. much like a muse, he has become his aspect for the sake of the narrative. life, of course, represents growth, affluence, the natural energy of all things, and uses both baking and plant-life as symbolism. consider what asriel and chara used for their plot, and what flowey is now, and those two symbols make a lot more sense.

so, though asriel and flowey have two separate classpects by technicality, they are still the same person and it's a inversion similar to that people say rose underwent during her descent into 'grimdarkness', going from a seer of light to a witch of void.

now, this is a controversial statement to make because a lot of homestuck fans question the validity of the 'inversion' argument, saying that it's never explicitly stated in canon and to that i say that homestuck is quite possibly the poster child for 'death of the author'. i want you to bear in mind this is my personal view on the subject and homestuck's fanbase has never been one to agree on any concrete interpretations of the classpect system.

that's all from me. until next time, tumblr.

[fipindustries]

first course completed!

that was arc 1 of introduction to magic.

and this is the first drawing i made of the main characters all the way back in 2019

what is this

now that the first arc is done i would like to take a chance to actually stop and properly self promote a little here. it was about time.

i am currently writing a novel called Introduction to magic, an examination of a magic system i came up with by way of following the lessons of magical apprentice Katerina Dolcevita under the aprenticeship of Maria Bellanova. the best way i have to summarize the feel and tone of it all is Fantasy AU-R63! Rick and Morty. imagine if rick and morty were both women and they were exploring magic rather than sci fi.

the first arc is intended to be a prologue of sorts, to get you up to speed with the nature of this world and the nature of the two main characters.

where this came from

i came up with the story and the concept around this world proper in 2021, while reading pale. i was looking at all the extra material that wildbow had written for its magical world and i found myself really wishing that we didnt have to just see excerpts from the magical books like famulus or 100 years lost. and it came to me that if i really want a book about magic to exist then i can just write one myself.

the magic system in this story follows a bunch of my own deeply held beliefs about life and magic. mainly that is kind of silly how we insists magic doesnt exist when we have things like computers and planes and psychodelics. it occured that if we were to live in a world where magic was real we wouldnt call it magic either, we would just think of it as the normal state of affairs. there is a post i read here, which i cant find right now, which said something about how weird conciousness is, how strange the fact that conciousness arises from the specific configuration of a brain. about how conciousness is the last, mysterious, seemingly ineffable property of reality. they concluded that we live in a fantasy world where our magic system has only one spell "summon daemon". obviously a lot of it was merely poetic and rethorical devices to see with fresh eyes of wonder something we take for granted.

and a lot of this book stems from a similar wish to want to see the mundane with eyes of wonder once again, which is why i insist that low level magic in this world is things as basic as writing and lighting a fire. is also the reason why a lot of the titles that i use for the magic specializations are normal every day professions.

the second, stronger impulse was to try to come up with a system of magic that could be broad enough to grasp all possible forms of magic humans have come up with and yet simple enough that could be understood in a few pages. the classification system i use on this book is based on all the broadest, most basic forms of magic practisce that i have seen in history and fiction. manipulating signs as drawings and writing, manipulating sound as voice and song, using tools and props, moving the body, combining and refining substances and materials, handling living creatures.

what's next

as we move forward on this story the format will switch to a more traditional narrative where we will properly follow the adventures of these two ladies. ocassionally i will dip back into textbook-like sections where i infodump about another interesting concept i thought of, but even in the narrative sections most of the chapters will be an excuse to explore some concept or idea. i gather by sheer quantity 80% of the content of this story is going to be maria explaining things to Katerina.

so yeah, if that sounds at all interesting please do read this, and please do leave a comment, i really want to see what people think of this work. i dont need money or donations or to be engaged in any algorithm, all i need to stay motivated and energized and thus continuing the story is to know that people are invested in it.

thank you so much for reading.