#i reliabled our unreliable narrator

[stefisdoingthings]

Rereading my old fics and criticising myself with “THEY WOULDNT SAY THIS”

[genderqueerdykes]

if your primary source of information on transmascs is by anyone else but a transmasc, it's not a reliable resource. it's currently viewed as perfectly okay for everyone BUT transmascs to talk about our experience- and in fact, it's encouraged for people to listen to everyone but us, because according to other people we're unreliable narrators, we "skew the truth," we "lie", that transmascs "already have too much space and too many people talking about transmasc issues", and that testosterone turns us into "irrational monsters".

i get it: people's internalized misogyny makes them treat us like we're too stupid to relay our own lived experiences because we're just "dumb, confused women." we get it- your misogyny is palpable. it morphs into a new, heinous experience- transandrophobia- once people begin telling us testosterone makes us evil, antimasculism begins to bleed into the misogyny that built this experience and turns it into something even more insideous.

people will do everything in their power to listen to everyone else talk about our experience, but when it comes to us advocating for ourselves, that's not allowed. everyone wants to speak for us, to tell us what their perception on transmasculinity is based off of a few passing experiences with transmascs so they "know what it's all about".

please seek out transmasculine people to listen to about our lived experience. everyone who attempts to speak for us has an agenda. don't listen to anyone but the source. outside speculation has no place when it comes to discussing the transmasculine experience, especially when it comes to saving young transmascs from feeling lost and totally alone

no one can tell our stories but us. stop being okay with people who aren't transmasc spreading lies about what we live through. our experiences need to be heard. let us speak for ourselves. stop putting words in our mouths and telling US how we live our lives

[penguwastaken]

About Brainwashing in Danganronpa

Hello to all 3 of the people who see this account. A few months ago, I made a thread on hit website Twitter dot com about brainwashing in the Danganronpa Series. I discussed where it came from, how it works, and how the brainwashing of class 77-B was never a retcon. The thread got a lot of attention there, even getting a "debunk" on other hit website Reddit dot com (lmao). Due to that, there's been a lot of responses and questions. Since I can't really update a Twitter thread, I decided that I'd make the Ultimate™ Brainwashing thread and hopefully dispel any information on the subject while making my original points more clear and covering things I failed to cover. So here it is: Brainwashing in Danganronpa, how it works, where it came from, and how it was intended from the start. (a 🧵 except not really) *Massive spoilers for Danganronpa Zero, Danganronpa 2, Danganronpa Another Episode, Danganronpa Togami, and Danganronpa 3, as well as the series as a whole*

Danganronpa Zero: First Sighting

Brainwashing has its roots all the way back in the second official entry produced in the series, Danganronpa Zero. During the story's events, Ryoko comes across a secret cult made up of students from the reserve course. They're seen staring at a strange video, seemingly turning them and turn them into mindless zombies.

The video depicts members of the student council killing each other. Ryoko is stunned while watching it. She can barely look away, but eventually through force of will she does. This same video is later used to convince the reserve course to rebel.

The way it's described to work is that it uses their “pent-up emotions,” implying that their emotions played a role in its effectiveness. It's also worth noting that the novel itself refers to what is happening as brainwashing, making this objectively the first depiction of brainwashing in the series right from the second entry.

Danganronpa 2: Now it Gets Dubious

Our next instance of brainwashing comes from Danganronpa 2. The concept is brought up multiple times, such as when Makoto states that the Ultimate Despairs were brainwashed or how the Neo World Program is good at treating brainwashing, though the details of what brainwashing actually means in this context are kept vague.

It's also worth noting that Danganronpa 2 was being written around the same time as Danganronpa Zero and Kodaka wanted concepts from the novel to appear in Danganronpa 2, likely so readers would feel validated. This is why things like Izuru Kamukura and the reserve course play huge roles in Danganronpa 2, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the same applies with brainwashing. One detail we’re given about the brainwashing is from Monokuma, who states the Ultimate Despairs were brainwashed by Junko taking advantage of their feelings. Specifically love, hate, grudges, and "anything really". If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s exactly how the brainwashing video from Danganronpa Zero was described to function, using their pent-up emotions.

I should mention that Monokuma and Junko are known for being unreliable narrators who often stretch the truth, exaggerate things, and use hyperbole to manipulate people into believing their narrative. Monokuma describes the Ultimate Despairs as “nothing more than Junko’s limbs”, which contradicts the existence of characters like Nagito. Who, while in his despair state, did not work with Junko nor did he look up to her (at least in the normal sense like the other Ultimate Despairs). In fact, it would have been impossible for them to really obey any of Junko's orders as Ultimate Despairs because Junko was trapped inside of Hope's Peak with minimal connection to the outside world. This isn't a definitive "Monokuma is lying" statement, but just note that his word isn't 100% reliable. Meanwhile, someone like Makoto who outright mentions brainwashing, is a much more reliable source.

Danganronpa Another Episode: More Brainwashing! (kinda irrelevant tho...)

The next time brainwashing is used is in the next entry, Danganronpa Another Episode. Though its purpose in this discussion isn’t the most useful, as the brainwashing is caused by Monokuma helmets, which don’t have their functionality explained. I figured it was worth mentioning and describing at least, as its another example of brainwashing at least.

I did figure it was worth adding how the brainwashed children act. They obey the Warriors of Hope’s every command, as if they have zero control over their actions. This is different from how the Ultimate Despairs act, who still some free had free will after presumably being brainwashed judging by the actions of Nagito, who is also in this game.

Danganronpa Togami: I Hate My Life

Okay. As mixed as my opinions are on this novel trilogy, it does feature brainwashing. In fact, it might feature one of the most detailed and important descriptions of brainwashing in the series, and even outright CONFIRMS that class 77-B were brainwashed (sorta).

"Hey um... Tumblr/Twitter user Pengu... what do you mean by 'sorta'?" Well my uninformed reader who I guarantee has probably never read this book, there's a twist. I regret to inform you that the canonicity of Danganronpa Togami is rather questionable, as it depicts an extremely unreliable narrator’s warped viewing of events due to this thing called the K2K system, which means not everything in the novel is meant to be taken literally or at face value.

This doesn't mean that everything should be discarded or immediately dismissed however. This just means that we have to use our brains a little and decipher what the hell Yuya Sato was cooking when he wrote this novel trilogy. In the novel, we discover the existence of the elusive despair novel. When read, the novel will turn the reader to despair and inflict them with the despair disease. This novel is what's used to plummet the world into despair, as well as being what caused the class 77-B to become the Ultimate Despairs. There's no known ways to avoid it, once you read it, it's joever. 😔

As I said earlier, the events of Danganronpa Togami can’t be taken literally. Due to this and prior context, we can safely assume that the despair novel is most likely the K2K's warped idea of the despair video from Danganronpa Zero. Instead of being a book being read that brainwashed people, it was a video being watched. What makes me so sure? Well let's look over the similarities. The way the despair novel works is that it uses cruel words to overload the reader with negative emotions, causing them to snap and turn to despair. That sounds almost exactly like the despair video, overloading the viewer by manipulating their emotions until they turn to despair.

However, a major difference comes from the fact that Danganronpa Togami confirms towards the end that the despair novel doesn't literally brainwash people, acting as a placebo and an excuse for people with despair to use.

However I don't believe this suddenly breaks the connection to the despair video in Danganronpa Zero. All it shows is that the novel doesn't create despair, which is something we already established with the brainwashing video. It doesn't make despair, it makes it stronger. Whether it be via the disturbing imagery on the screen or the words on a page giving you an excuse, all it does is amplify despair. Basically it doesn't make despair come out of nowhere, it incites it. This connection's a little bit of a stretch but I'll bring it up anyways. The technology used in the despair novels was originally to bring hope. (Take notes, it will probably be important assuming you buy this connection.)

Essentially, the despair novel works in a similar same way as the despair video, but instead it’s a book and you read it instead of watching it. This means that class 77-B and the rest of the world were most likely brainwashed via the despair video, and that is what caused the class to become Ultimate Despairs.

Danganronpa 3: The One People Really Don't Like

And all of this brings us to the most detailed yet controversial usage of brainwashing: Danganronpa 3. Many assume that the anime’s usage of brainwashing is a retcon, contradicting the words of our holy savior Super Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair High School. However, I’d like to debate that. In fact, I'd like to finally put a nail in the coffin of this really stupid debate and finally show you that Danganronpa 3's depiction of brainwashing is exactly how it has always been described.

In Danganronpa 3, we are introduced to Ryota Mitarai and his anime. Using the power of subliminal messaging, it heightens the viewer's emotions and makes them more powerful. What was once a slightly emotional scene is now a complete tearjerker fully capable of tearing at the viewers heart strings! While he acknowledges that there are unethical things that can be done with this technology and it's technically brainwashing, his goal is to use this technology to make the world a better place, even if it can be dangerous. If that sounds familiar, that's because it's what Hope's Peak tried doing with the despair novel in Danganronpa Togami. Though I'll admit, this single point is a little bit of a stretch as there are differences. I just figured it was worth at least a mention.

Using her analytical prowess, Junko gets a rough understanding of how the technology works, so she develops the despair video, featuring the student council killing each other overlayed with subliminal messaging technology to make the despair felt while viewing the video stronger.

The video works on Mikan, however Junko fears that the video may not be powerful enough to fully go through with her plans due to not understanding the technology nearly as well as Ryota does. Because of this, she forces Ryota to create a better, more powerful despair video. A despair video v2 if you will. Junko’s fears weren’t unfounded, as we discover that Chisa had the mental fortitude to resist the despair video, similarly to how Ryoko was able to resist the same video in Danganronpa Zero. This is exactly why Junko needs a more powerful video, one that she knows can’t be resisted.

"Ermmmm, Tumblr/Twitter user Pengu, how come Ryoko and Chisa are able to resist the despair video but Mikan and nobody in the reserve course could?" Good question, the answer is pretty simple. As mentioned before, the video takes advantage of the emotions of the viewer. Mikan is already pretty weak minded, so there wasn't much issue in controlling her. The reserve course already hated Hope's Peak and would take any reason to hate them more, so a video that shows them the sins of Hope's Peak would affect them as well. Ryoko and Chisa have no connection to the reserve course however, and neither are particularly very weak emotionally. Ryoko has the analytical prowess of Junko and Chisa is just a very strong willed person in general, and paired with Junko's lack of knowledge about subliminal messaging when creating the video, it's pretty obvious it wouldn't be that effective on them. All the more reason for Junko to force Ryota to make a better despair video.

The despair video v2 that Ryota is forced to make comes in the form of Chiaki’s execution video, where the stronger subliminal messages paired with witnessing the representation of the happiest moments in their miserable lives and their closest friend suffer makes class 77-B unable to resist. Ultimately this causes them to finally snap, being overloaded with despair, and now they turn into the Ultimate Despairs. (side note this is so freaking cool idc what anyone else says)

This resembles Monokuma’s explanation from Danganronpa 2. Junko used class 77-B’s emotions and years of getting closer against them to turn them to them to despair. Now featuring the added context of her using the video designed to manipulate people’s emotions. Also as @jelimore pointed out, Junko leading the class to Chiaki's execution itself was manipulating them. This depiction of brainwashing fits perfectly with the information provided throughout the series, even down to the little details. It’s so close in fact that I can say without a doubt that Danganronpa 3 did not retcon anything. “But Tumblr/Twitter user Pengu, that isn’t how the video is shown to work during Hope Arc. Therefore it actually contradicts previous entries and is inconsistent!" To that I say, you’re correct! ...at least about the hope video functioning differently, but that doesn’t make it inconsistent. The hope video behaves pretty differently. Instead of overloading the viewer with negative feelings, it simply just shows them a repeating video loop that turns them into a mindless zombie, likely caused by even stronger subliminal messaging. The people affected can also snap out of this state with some time, as seen with Aoi.

The reasoning for this is actually pretty simple, it’s just different technology entirely. It’s stated that the hope video was developed later on after the despair video. If anything, it behaves very similar to the Monokuma masks from Danganronpa Another Episode, which we also already established uses different technology. The hope video doesn’t contradict the despair video at all because they both use completely different tech. This can also be seen with how the despair video uses subliminal messaging, meanwhile the messaging in the hope video couldn’t be further from subliminal. There is no inconsistency, just two different things.

The reason the hope video needed to be broadcasted everywhere was so that since it would be airing everywhere, nobody would have time for the effects to wear off or resist it. This would turn the world into mindless zombies who obey every command, similarly to the Monokuma kids. It's just that now they don't have to force bulky helmets onto everyone.

Debunking Common Arguments

With the hope video out of the way, I think it’s very safe to assume that not only is the despair video’s functionality very accurate to previous descriptions, it’s also always been the reason for the brainwashing of Class 77-B, long before Danganronpa 3. Even if you disagree and think the cause of brainwashing was never explicitly mentioned in Danganronpa 2, there's still the fact that Danganronpa 2 outright says it was brainwashing. So even if a video wasn't the direct cause of it, them being brainwashed was still always intended (though given the context and the fact the video was introduced in a tie in novel for the game, I'm certain that it was always the culprit). Many point to this line where Kazuichi asks why they became the Ultimate Despairs and Makoto says he never got an answer to debunk this. But... this doesn't change anything. He asks why they became Ultimate Despairs, not how. And this is completely ignoring the fact that Makoto clearly has done his own digging into the situation, he discovered the Remnants of Despair were hiding among Future Foundation after all. The Future Foundation had access to brainwashing videos, they found them, so of course Makoto is going to know about the brainwashing. What Makoto is saying here is that he doesn't know every little detail, all he knows is that they were brainwashed. I wrote a bit more about it here, but there's nothing contradictory in this scene.

Many also point to Mikan stating that it was her many human relationships that led her to being the way she is. Once again, this changes literally nothing. Mikan was the only one of the remnants who actually knew Junko, she was the only one who spent time with her because she was the first subject. This is why she gets more attached to her, and even why she'd believe what Junko would tell her when they spent time together. Monokuma also says that Junko used "hopeless methods overflowing with charisma and humor" to control the masses. I don't even know why I have to address this, but this statement is so vague you can interpret it as a million things. Like for example, this is how she got Ryota to work for her. While pretending to be Makoto to manipulate the people in the trial, Junko tells them that they all became Ultimate Despairs while coming into contact with her at Hope's Peak and they were subjected by her terrifying influence. Again, ignoring how vague "terrifying influence" is, this is literally Junko trying to LIE AND MANIPULATE them. This is quite possibly the worst example you could have used because we know for a fact that she is lying to them while pretending to be Makoto. There's other examples of Junko trying to manipulate them, like mentioning how everyone hated them and their all Ultimate Despairs at the end of the day. But that's just what this is, manipulation. You would think that the "Junko manipulated class 77-B" crowd would understand that saying "everyone hates you but I saw your potential" is literally manipulation 101. She even states that Izuru killed the entirety of a student council, which we know for certain is a lie because Danganronpa Zero (which came out before) says otherwise. Some say that the brainwashing turned them into mindless zombies and eliminates all blame from their actions. While I would agree that it does make them less at fault, they still have the ability to make choices and still have free will. Their original personalities haven't been overwritten, their brains were just rewired to crave despair. They're still each their individual person with their own ways of feeling despair, and characters like Chisa and Nagito show that they regain their free will to an extent. I also wrote more about that here, LOL.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This whole debate stems from people misunderstanding Monokuma’s words and going along with the popular interpretation, which turned out to be wrong. Whether you like the use of brainwashing or not, it objectively isn’t a retcon as it's been developed ever since Danganronpa Zero. Personally, I love the use of brainwashing. I think the way it's developed throughout the series and its usage in Danganronpa 3 is super interesting. If you disagree, that's fine! Heck, if you choose to headcanon that Junko manipulated 15 individual teenagers into all becoming despair hungry terrorists capable but ending the world and fighting off every military in the world in less than a year, that's cool too! But the truth is, Danganronpa 3's brainwashing is canon and it's also not a retcon nor does it contradict anything. Contrary to popular belief, Kodaka was involved with the writing of the anime. He provided a large draft and outline of the plot and oversaw its development. He produced the anime, he did his homework, the team even played the games to prepare for writing the anime. He knew what he was doing. I'm sure if Kodaka intended for them to all be manipulated one by one, that's what he would have went with. All information implying that it was manipulation is very few and far between and questionable at best, not to mention outweighed by everything implying it was brainwashing. Mind manipulation stuff is not new in this series, its been around since the first game and brainwashing was established in literally the second entry ever produced. Whether you love it or hate it, think it's the best thing since sliced bread or the death of the series, brainwashing was the answer the whole time. Some people just never noticed it, and instead of acknowledging that they were wrong, they stuck with a headcanon that they believed so much and jumped to the conclusion of "retcon". I hope this mega post managed to inform some people, maybe change some minds too. If you still don't buy it, then I guess there's nothing I can do. Thanks for reading all of this though, I tend to yap a lot about this franchise lmao.

[iknowicanbutwhy]

Rating: General Audiences

Relationship: Siffrin & Everyone

Characters: Siffrin, Isabeau, Odile, Mirabelle, Bonnie

Additional Tags: in fast and food, fast food au, oh yeah give it up for the au i made to cope with capitalism and also that one april fools post, bonnie and nille are orphans, misunderstandings, self worth issues, the anxiety of making friends unless you are useful to them, i would love for isa and sif to be dating but you cant just ask someone out at their job, siffrin making bad decisions that turned out well, mirabelle calling out siffrin. you go girl, POV second person, unreliable narrator, its siffrin how reliable can you expect them to be, setting is not france or france-adjacent because i never worked there, oh but i could wish upon a star

Summary:

The best part of any job Siffrin has had, will have, and currently has, will be the people they get to feel some sort of connection with. Even when that connection is inevitably severed. Even if he can barely remember any friends he's had in previous towns they've moved on from. Even when they're.. not really friends, are they? They're just coworkers.

[echoed-salvation]

My gripes about the characterisation of yoo joonghyuk and the changing of particular lines aside I quite like the manhwa personally - the art is great, the fight scenes are amazing and the comedy works well - but I honestly think there are some things about the story that will never be properly communicated in comic form. Of course there's always content that will be lost when converting between mediums because that's how adaptations work after all. However, where the orv novel works so well is that it utilises its medium in order to delve into the nature and intricacies of stories and storytelling as a whole. The most obvious example of this is the main concept of orv - being a novel about a reader reading a novel - but it's also important to note how the form and structure of the narrative contribute to this as well. The orv novel primarily uses first person to not only to allow us to feel more connected with kim dokja's character, but to also have us see the world around him through his own eyes, experiences and biases, particularly earlier on. As a result of this, there is a subjective element to the narrative that allows for dokja to be more of an unreliable narrator and us as the readers to have the freedom to interpret or imagine the novel as we wish. Where the manhwa struggles to adapt its source material, in my opinion, is that it inherently portrays the events of the story a lot more objectively due to it being a visual medium. Rather than seeing orv through the first person lens of kim dokja, it is presented to us as third-person observers. A lot of the detail and nuance that comes from the contrast between his perspective and the small glimpses we get into the other characters' minds is unable to be fully conveyed. Kim dokja feels more reliable as a character because it is comparatively difficult for the manhwa to convey his own views and biases that apply to both himself and the people around him. We have less freedom as the readers to make our own interpretation and this is why we often find ourselves disappointed with the way specific scenes and characters are visualised. I love sleepy-c's work but as a whole I end up finding myself wondering how the manhwa is going to tackle the more subjective aspects and themes of the novel later on.

[lurkingshan]

Love in the Big City Book Club Meta Round Up

Already so many great essays and we’re just getting started! If you haven’t had the chance to read and share everyone’s thoughts, here is your weekly round up. Any additional essays that post after today will be added to the list next week, and I'll add on a new section for each part every week as we progress.

So let's see what our book clubbers had to say!

Background

AMA with Anton Hur, LITBC Translator

Translator’s note by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings

Part 1

Blueberries and Cigarettes: Universalities and Differences when reading Love in the Big City by @brifrischu

Jaehee: a good distraction–until she wasn’t by @serfergs

LITBC: Jaehee, and why she matters so much to me by @starryalpacasstuff

LitBC Part 1 – Timeline by @dylogpenchester

Love in the Big City Book Club: Part 1 by @fiction-is-queer

Love in the Big City: Reflections on Part 1 by @becomingabeing

Love in the Big City Part 1 Check in by @bengiyo

Love in the Big City, Part 1 by @emotionallychargedtowel

Love in the Big City Part 1: Jaehee by @sorry-bonebag

Love in the Big City Part 1: On Friendship by @lurkingshan

Love in the Big City Part 1: Reliable and Unreliable Narration by @twig-tea

On expectations by @hyeoni-comb

Part I: The unacknowledged relationship by @doyou000me

Rose Reads Love in the Big City by @my-rose-tinted-glasses

Two Friends Diverged in Emotional Sincerity: Reflections on Love in the Big City–Part 1 by @wen-kexing-apologist

Young’s world is small and private by @colourme-feral

Part 2

Finding Familiarity Despite Cultural Differences: Love in the Big City Part 2 by @fiction-is-queer

Hyung’s internalized homophobia and hatred for the US by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings

libtc part 2 by @hyeoni-comb

LitBC Part 2: A bit of rockfish, taste the universe by @dylogpenchester

Love in the Big City - A bite of rockfish, tase the universe by @littleragondin

Love in the Big City Book Club: Part 2 by @profiterole-reads

Love in the Big City: Part 2 by @wen-kexing-apologist

Love in the Big City: Reflections on Part 2 by @becomingabeing

Love in the Big City Part 2: Emotional Distance by @twig-tea

Love in the Big City Part 2 Check In by @bengiyo 

Love in the Big City The Playlist by @brifrischu

On Parents and Apologies Never Received by @lurkingshan

Part II: Historical Context and Hyung’s Background by @doyou000me

Rose Reads Love in the Big City (Part II) by @my-rose-tinted-glasses

Part 3

LITBC Part Three: Now Introducing, Kylie by @wen-kexing-apologist

Love in the Big City Book Club: Part 3 by @profiterole-reads

Love in the Big City Part 3 Check In by @bengiyo

Love in the Big City Part 3: Kylie Recontextualizes Everything by @twig-tea

Love in The Big City Part 3 - Notes from A Reader by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings

Love in The Big City Part 3 - Notes from A Reader 2 by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings

Love In The Big City Part 3: Words and Miscellaneous Context by @doyou000me

On Gyu-ho, the Mundanity of Great Love, and the Destructive Nature of Shame by @lurkingshan

Part 3: No Disappointment Without Expectations by @doyou000me

Rose Reads Love in the Big City (Part III) by @my-rose-tinted-glasses

Part 4

Adaptation Concerns by @doyou000me

Anticipating the LITBC Adaptations by @lurkingshan

Depictions of physical intimacy by @stuffnonsenseandotherthings 

LitBC - The Structure of Change @dylogpenchester

Love in the Big City Book Club: Part 4 by @profiterole-reads

Love in the Big City Part 4 Check In by @bengiyo

Love in the Big City Part 4: Having Trouble Letting Go by @twig-tea

Love in the Big City: Part Four- Regret, Rain, Love, and Loss by @wen-kexing-apologist

the story | relationships + Young by @hyeoni-comb

Young and Imperfect Character Growth by @lurkingshan

Young asking himself meaningful questions by @hyeoni-comb

And that's all for now, folks! Thanks to everyone who participated; it was such a fun experience discussing this book with you. Excited to get the chance to talk more about this story with all of you when the adaptations arrive later this year.

[myfairkatiecat]

NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE, BUT i HATE KEEFE SO SO MUCH AND IM WONDERING (GENUINELY) WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT HIM BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE APPEAL

ALSO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THIS IF IT MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE OR BUGS YOU SORRY IF IT DOES EITHER/BOTH

Hey anon! Those are some strong feelings you've got there!

This is a tricky question to answer since a lot of the things that make me like Keefe's character make some people dislike his character, so you might be about to get a list of all the things you despise about him by asking me what I like about him. I like him because I think he's a good character, and way better written than people give him (or Shannon) credit for. I don't always love Wattpad Fanon Keefe (perfect boyfriend, super sweet, always says the right thing) because it erases so much of his character. I like canon Keefe. He's a raw character with a lot going on and a whole slew of well-developed character traits.

Before I jump into this post, however, I want to say one thing: I think a lot of people who dislike Keefe are mostly frustrated with Shannon's portrayal of his character flaws, and I don't think they give Shannon enough credit for the way she's intentionally written Sophie as an unreliable narrator. It's rather clear during different parts of the series that Sophie isn't the most reliable narrator, and Shannon also explicitly writes in the margins of her annotated KOTLC book that she used a certain scene as an example of when Keefe takes his jokes too far. Sophie forgives him without even an outright apology in that scene, but Shannon makes it clear in her annotations that she, the author, isn't writing it off. I don't own the annotated so I can't remember the exact quote, but it's my biggest case for why I think Shannon has intentionally written Keefe with these character flaws, as character flaws, and yes, Shannon sees them as character flaws and has said so, so for the purposes of this ask response here, let's assume Shannon Messenger is aware she's writing a flawed character, because I do think it's rather unfair to her how often the people of the fandom accuse her of brushing by Keefe's actions when in reality she's just writing Sophie Foster as true to her character as she can.

With that, let's jump into this little essay about Why Keefe Is An Awesome Character And I Love Him that I've writtten for you!

My AP English teacher always used to say, "characters are more human than humans." I believe the purpose of this quote was that well-written characters exemplify what makes us human—our love, our experiences, our regret, our strengths and flaws—in ways that connect strongly to the audience. Part of the reason so many people like Keefe's character, I believe, is because they are able to connect strongly to him. This is because he is written as "more human than humans," as my AP English teacher would say—even though technically, he's not a human, but an elf.

One major strong point of Keefe Sencen's character is that his strengths and weaknesses are often wrapped up in the same character traits. This is something that is true for many people. For example, my politeness in real life social situations makes me a lot of friends, but too often can turn to people-pleasing. A good character, in my opinion, should have both strengths and flaws stemming from all of their major character traits. Here are a few of Keefe's:

His humor

One major aspect of Keefe's character is his humor. Whether you personally find it funny or not (I think I found it a little funnier when I was eleven... I'm sorta growing out of some of it, though his wittier comments in the latest books are more my style, which might be a sign of both me and the character maturing) it's an enormous part of his character. As a major character trait, it presents both strengths and flaws.

Often, he brings levity to heavy situations that the other characters appreciate. One instance I remember is in Flashback. They were preparing for a confrontation, and I don't remember what it was that Keefe said, but Sophie narrates that she appreciated the moment of comedic relief, because it eased some of her anxiety. Keefe is able to take intense moments and settle them with quick-witted (or hilariously not funny) comments. This is likely a skill he adopted in order to handle the crushing pressure of being in his own home as a kid. (Fitz, contrastingly, adapted the skill of just holding lots and lots of weight, bending and bending and bending until he finally breaks. Not to make my Keefe essay about Fitz, of course, but I know someone is going to point out that Fitz also dealt with a lot of pressure at home, and wanted to point out that he developed somewhat unhealthy coping mechanisms as well, they're just different from Keefe's.)

However, sometimes his jokes are unwanted or go too far. Shannon comments on this specifically at the end of the first book, where Keefe makes a joke about how he helped save her when she almost died, and then sorta trailed of when he realized he was talking about her almost-death. Shannon commented in the margins that this was a moment of Keefe experiencing awareness that his joking has gone a little too far. She hasn't released annotated editions of any later books, but I'm confident that at least a few other scenes are examples of this as well. Sometimes I run across them during a read through and I'm like "huh, it's interesting to have a good idea as to what Shannon was thinking writing this." Sometimes, his constant making light of serious situations really isn't funny to anyone, and it keeps him from accepting the gravity of what they're doing, likely contributing to his reckless behavior.

2. His intuitive communication

Something to notice about Keefe is that even though he's often socially unaware, either in ways that indicate his childhood trauma or just his emotionally immaturity as a teenager, he's very good at knowing exactly what to say for his intended goal. That intended goal isn't always necessarily something he should want, mind you—we just talked about how his need to lighten the mood sometimes causes problems, and he knows enough about some of his friends (cough Fitz cough) to know exactly what words will hurt them the most in an argument as well.

This can be a strength for him, especially when he's comforting Sophie. Since he can feel her emotions instinctively, he often knows exactly what she needs to hear. He's actually incredibly sweet at times, especially in Legacy (I mean... there are other issues there, which I'll get into another time). For example, when he's telling her the reasons Bronte isn't the worst possible father for her to have. There's nothing inherently great about the specific way he comforted her, but it did ease some of Sophie's queasiness, because he knew what she needed to hear. Also, there are the scenes in Legacy where he's telling her that Sophie Foster is all she needs to be, or the scene in Everblaze where he reminds her that no matter who her parents are, she's still going to be exactly the same person she is, and they can't change her. Keefe is really good at knowing the right thing to say. (This might have stemmed from walking on eggshells his entire life aroud his parents!)

However, this also makes it really easy for Keefe to be manipulative, or lie, or say the completely wrong thing on purpose. The best example of the first two was when he somehow convinced everyone in just a few sentences that he totally wasn't going to go to Loamnore with them. Somehow, the guy famous for not doing what he's told convinced everyone he was going to do what he was told, and the thing is, it wasn't even unrealistic. He gave really good reasons that it made sense for him to stay back, and even made jokes about it, about how he and the others not going were "too cool for Loamnore." He had everyone convinced he really wasn't going to be reckless this time, when he totally knew his plan the whole time. The famous Unlocked healing center scene is a great example of the last one, because Keefe got upset with Fitz and knew exactly what to say to make him the most upset and embarassed in that situation. He only even took back the words when Sophie became upset as well. He and Fitz are in... not an awesome place in the latest books, and his POV reflects that.

3. His courage

Let's be honest. Is Keefe a runner? Yes. But when he runs, is he running from a fight? Nope. Never. One of the major instances of this guy running away actually put himself in a ton of danger. He doesn't run for cover, or safety. He runs usually out of fear of himself, his relationships, or that he isn't able to help in any other way. If we really look at his character, Keefe is incredibly brave. All of the KOTLC main cast is. They've got guts. But a lot of the others have a more guarded sort of courage, while Keefe's is... well. Not guarded.

Keefe doesn't think things through, and sometimes, there isn't time for that. Sometimes, immediate action is necessary, and Keefe is great with that. Quick, in-the-moment plans are his specialty. He's not afraid to stand up to people who want to hurt him (*cough* Dimitar scene *cough*).

But he's also extremely reckless (*cough* Dimitar scene *cough*). Because his courage is less guarded than his friends (such as Sophie's or Biana's) he may be more inclined to carry out his plans quickly, but he's also more likely to not think things through fully and end up putting his own life at risk, and sometimes even his friends' lives, even when he's trying to help.

4. His caution and fight or flight instinct

To everyone who ever said Keefe's character is flat and his strengths and flaws never develop or change, what version of KOTLC are you even reading?! Like I mentioned above, Keefe's recklessness is a huge part of his character since book one, but now I'm here about to talk about his caution/obsessive worrying/the famous running away, specifically the second time. This is a relatively new character trait for him. It develops slightly after Lodestar/the first half of Nightfall. Keefe truly did learn a lot from leaving for the Neverseen and lying to Sophie before going to Ravagog. We're given an extremely limited window into this process, since Sophie had other things going on and Keefe's short story focused a lot on his crush on her, but Keefe noticeably steps back and stops trying to turn things into a "Keefe show" (as Sophie puts it in Nightfall) and attempts to work more as a team, which is definitely character development again. However, where he really learned his lesson was Loamnore. He showed up, again going behind Sophie's back and coming up with a plan of his own, and it ended with Sophie tied up on the ground and him being forced to undergo a transformation that gave him powers he's terrified of. While his recklessness didn't entirely vanish after this (his response in the end was to run away to the literal Forbidden Cities) but is definitely flavored with siginificantly more caution and an attempt to be genuinely responsible.

In Unlocked, Keefe noticeably asks for people to be kept away from him, including Sophie, so that he can keep from accidentally controlling anybody. He also stops using his voice entirely. These are actually incredibly selfless things for him to do. He loves to be with his friends (particularly Sophie for reasons) and he loves to talk! And neither of those things are bad! But he isn't willing to put them in danger. In fact, he actually sort of overdoes it in Unlocked, even asking for Dex to make him an ability restrictor. (While he's well-intentioned here, I think Keefe brushes past the idea that making one of those again might be something of a traumatic experience for Dex.) In the end, he's so worried about it that he runs away, but he does it with considerably more of a plan than he did when he joined the Neverseen. He knew he'd know the languages, he arranged a way to get his hands on human currency, and while Unraveled isn't out yet, the state in which they found Keefe along with some of the things Keefe described about his experience make it clear that Keefe purposefully learned a lot about human cultures and successfully blended in and made his life work.

His newfound carefulness paired with his classic instinct to run really encapsulate a lot of his character strengths and flaws. In the later books, it's actually a sign that he's developing as a character and moving away from some of his past character flaws, but like all well-written major character traits, it comes with its own drawbacks.

Another important aspect of Keefe's character is the way he is noticeably shaped by his own experiences. I mentioned the whole "being more human than human" thing earlier, and while yes, he's still not human, I think this is part of what makes so many people connect to his character. He's realistic. He has even more strengths and flaws than the ones I've mentioned above, and all of them obviously come from somewhere specific in his past.

Why is he so chronically unserious? Because he couldn't be serious enough for his family. Before he met Fitz and started spending time with the Vackers, he didn't even really have friends. He had a suffocated home and impossible expectations, and when he tried to live up to them, he just wasn't good enough. So he adapted to break the tension. He adapted to just... not try ("those who don't try never look foolish" -Fiyero in "Dancing Through Life," from Wicked. I think Fiyero is... very Keefe coded) and started skipping classes, breaking the rules, playing pranks and doing anything to cut through the tension. He dealt with pressure by tossing it off his shoulders and just deciding to not deal with it. Obviously, deciding to Just Not Deal With Things eventually began to hurt him, and he slowly and painfully begins to learn to have difficult conversations (but hey, at least he's getting there? I think Neverseen is where his development in that particular area becomes apparent, with the way he opens up more and even admits where he's really beginning to feel guilty).

Why is he such a master of knowing what to say? Because he grew up walking on eggshells around his parents. And when he decided to stop caring about his parents, he weaseled his way out of trouble whenever possible, and learned to use other people's emotions to learn things from them and get his way. "But Katie," you say, "reading other people's emotions without permission and using them to get his way is a very not good thing to do!" You're very correct! And it's an enormous indication of how skewed his view of normal is. What's the one Empath he grew up observing? His father. Look, he knows his parents suck, but because his parents suck, he has no way of knowing what is and isn't normal. Is his father doing this particular thing because he's a horrible person or because that's a normal thing to do? How on Earth is Keefe supposed to know?! Well, there are rules about telepathy, and there aren't any rules about empathy, so the external indications seem to tell him that this particular thing is normal. This is yet another example of Keefe's life experiences having a huge impact on his character.

Why is he so reckless? Because he doesn't care. Even his his most noble moments of bravery stem from the same place of not caring what happens to his life. It's the same reason his deep care for his friends' lives turns to quickly into self-sacrificial tendencies (which show themselves in canon on numerous occasions and usually don't even help). He has this "better me than any of them" mindset that's deeply rooted in his childhood trauma. Even though he's fought tooth and nail against everything his parents have ever said about him, he still has this ingrained sense of worthlessness. The way he says he "doesn't care about permanent damage" and tells Sophie that he's going to make sure he's always the one who ends up wrapped up in bandages and also has that moment in Unlocked where he wants to retreat into the darkness and never wake up? Look, we all know he needs therapy, but maybe reread that last sentence. ...Keep reading it until you get it.

And finally, what makes him finally learn to be cautious? Because he sees firsthand how his reckless plans are impacting the lives of other people around him, and if there's any negative trait that Keefe is NOT, it's selfish. Keefe may be occasionally selfish—you know, case by case basis, like most people—but it isn't a character trait of his by any means. He struggles significantly more with not caring about himself than he struggles with not caring about others. So when he realizes it isn't only his own life he's putting on the line, and sees the way it's hurting his friends, he takes an enormous step back, and even runs away for a time. Now, it would be great if he would start caring about himself too, because this poor guy needs therapy and his level of self-deprecation at this point is way out of control. But it is the case that he cares about his friends a lot (if someone quotes this part and brings up Fitz, I'm going to point out that their friendship has fallen way out due to actions and reactions on both sides of that relationship) and ultimately it ends up adjusting the balance in his character traits and their related strengths and flaws.

In short, Keefe is a lot of things. He's good things, he's bad things, he's consistent things. He reads like a real person—someone who frequently makes the same style of mistakes but does learn and grow over the course of his life. Every character trait of him stems from some aspect of his past. Shannon didn't write him with a slew of random personality traits—each and every one of them ties down to who he is and how he's shaped by his experiences. He can be a truly amazing friend. He can be a really horrible friend. He can be sweet and amazing and say the perfect thing. He can say the wrong-est possible thing with the intention of cutting the other person deep. He's a slow learner, but he learns nonetheless. His character development isn't a smooth arc in which he has trait A, event B happens and at the end he has trait C. That's common in storytelling, but not real life. Keefe learns, grows, then makes the same mistake again, then learns stronger. His character development sees both growth and setbacks, and the changes are subtle. He's still the same person even when he changes.

He's good things, he's bad things, he's consistent things, and I think it is out of an awareness of our own humanity that so many people relate to him and therefore enjoy his character.

I hope you enjoyed this essay, anon. Believe it or not, I actually have plenty more to say about any of these topics, and some other topics that I didn't even bring up, so if you want to see even more, just direct me towards what you want to hear and I assure you I'll have thoughts. Have a wonderful day!

[colleybri]

Prometheus in Kaos is one of very few recent examples I can think of of a genuine subjective / limited (as opposed to omniscient) narrator in a drama. It’s debatable, but he’s also probably an unreliable narrator. We actually start off thinking he’s probably omniscient, but when the shit hits the fan – he shares our dismay. He realises he was wrong.

I sometimes see the term used of any character in a drama. It’s not correct. They’re not narrators at all, reliable or otherwise. Well written drama just has…. people. Saying the things that realistic people would say. Of course their perspective is limited. Of course they say things which are unreliable. It’s kind of a people thing.

It’s also that time of year to dust off my all time favourite example of an unreliable narrator: Edgar Allen Poe’s gleefully nasty The Tell-Tale Heart. I sometimes read it in tandem with Robert Browning’s classic dramatic monologue Porphyria’s Lover. In both cases, wonderfully realised psychopaths justifying their horrible gruesome murders. Ah yes. Great stuff. Happy Halloween!

[elsaqueenofstress]

the daisy jones and the six series changing the interviews to be 20 years later instead of closer to 40 years feels like such a weird, superficially aesthetic choice, where they get to keep the young, attractive actors (how did none of them age a day except graham??) instead of committing to the fact that these people are only able to reflect on these events because there's so much distance from them and they have perspective now (though it also means that memories are contradictory, contributing to the lack of reliability). it also does a massive disservice to camila, who instead of getting to live a long, happy life with her husband who stated that he always loved her and would always choose her, is basically turned into the second coming of the mother from how i met your mother – a pit stop to give the main, important man some kids to tell a story to before dying so he can be with his real soulmate before they're too old for it to be sexy

i feel like too many people (mainly daisybilly shippers) are conflating the "unreliable narrator" aspect of the book with "oh, no one told the truth about anything so we can make up our own completely different story and have it be canon!" instead of understanding that while there were probably times that the interviewees lied, a lot of what jumbles up their memories is the time that has passed, the weed that was smoked, and their personal feelings toward certain events (why you get daisy and billy gushing over the aurora cover that highlights only them while everyone else talks about how much the shoot sucked) (oh and the fact that reviews are mentioning that the rest of the band rarely appears in scenes w/o daisy or billy?? meaning that the series did what the characters in the book were constantly complaining about and relegated them to backup?? i must laugh to keep from crying) (also if they weren't even going to focus on everyone, why the fuck didn't they keep pete?)

[magpod-confessions]

one of the reasons tma’s horror is so good is because the statement format allows us to see through the perspective of the victim. we get to see how their experiences affected their psyche, and it’s more personal and haunting than it would be listening to an factual third person description of what happened. it also gets really interesting when the horrors have affected the victim’s perception of what’s going on and their mental state, since the person telling the story is the only source of information we have about it. it’s like an unreliable narrator, but we don’t know which statement givers actually are unreliable narrators and how much of the story is credible.

i bring this up for 3 reasons- 1, i just wanted to mention it because it’s really cool, 2, i think this might be one of the reasons some of tmagp’s horror doesn’t hit as hard, and 3, i think it would have been really cool if they had leaned into this more with jon and his transformation. it definitely does happen with jon to a degree, he’s not always a reliable narrator, but it’s fairly rare and stops after season four. since he’s our main source of information throughout the podcast, it would be really interesting if they made his perspective just a bit less trustworthy.

.

[bettyshoweduptotheparty]

Midnights is defined by duality: The story of an unreliable narrator and performance art (Part 1)

One year on, I think I've finally figured out what midnights is about. And it might surprise you.

The midnights album has just celebrated its first anniversary. And having listened to these songs for the last 12 months, staying up late to watch live streams of the Eras tour, and at times being unable to escape news about Taylor on every medium, I finally have an idea that makes all of this make sense: This is Taylor's duality era. And she wants us to notice. Join me on the ride if you want to know more :)

I made a post a few weeks ago about how the Midnights aesthetic has the ‘two Taylors’ duology: Private vs public, which is the lead theme that carries over into the music and most recently also into her public image. Midnights had a mismatched visual to it from the very beginning with the depressed 70s look (announcement photo and vinyl covers) and the glamourous midnight blue (cover image and public appearances).

The two Taylors in the Anti Hero mv really drove home the message for me that this album is about two versions of the same story, and Taylor is the writer and narrator. And while I'm sure that these two versions have existed for a lot longer than the midnights era, they have not previously been so prominently next to each other. In fact, the very point of having the public narrative, is to keep Taylor's private life out of the public eye. She has never shied away from providing the 'stories' that her fans want to see in order to relate to her music, and as the girl that made her fame with songs about heartbreak and fairytale princes, that usually meant being seen with a man that these songs could be attributed to. And she made sure people would make the connection, be it with scarves that change ownership, or foxes on shirts:

(Btw you can't deny how effective this was, with just a few photos she managed to hang an entire album on each of these men!)

So, acting is not new to Taylor. In addition to appearing in a few feature films and TV shows since 2010, she's done this public performance for well over a decade now. And she has been vocal in recent years about her intention to go into filmmaking, so we know she's able to tell stories in multiple ways. She's a storyteller first and foremost, maybe the best of our generation. But is she a reliable narrator?

What does 'unreliable narrator' mean?

A story told by a so-called unreliable narrator, is usually a first person narration, where it turns out that the person telling the story was either lying or in some other way unable to give a truthful account of events (e.g. hallucinating or dreaming). That usually means that the audience is left with having to interpret for themselves what really happened and what was real or not real. Famous examples of this kind of storytelling are the 2010 psycho thriller 'Black Swan' with Natalie Portman, or the YA novel 'We were liars' by E. Lockhart. If you like stories that leave you guessing, check those out ;)

So, why is Taylor an unreliable narrator? For those fans that have paid attention to her lyrics, it has long been evident that her songwriting and public narrative don't match up. The most obvious theme being her 17-year run of writing songs about secret relationships and hiding, while she was parading men around in public to be photographed with. But, as we know, most people ignore it because it's just easier than digging deeper into lyrics. But now with Midnights, I'm starting to think she wants people to notice the duality and start to question her narrative. The sheer number of songs on that album that have strong double meaning or draw attention to lying or distorting the truth is astonishing: Right out the gate with track 1 we have Lavender Haze, a pretty loud song about bearding using the very well established queer reference of lavender. (And maybe she leaned out of the window a little too far with that title, because we all know the gaylor uproar was so loud when the title was revealed, that she had to backpedal and hetsplain it.) Immediately followed by Maroon, the song that has probably singlehandedly turned the most swifties into gaylors since Bettygate of 2020... Then on to Anti Hero, the ultimate duality song that also makes mention of lying and scheming, same as Mastermind. High Infidelity and You're Losing Me join the ranks of songs that look like they are about romantic relationships on the surface, but could also be interpreted to be about Taylor's relationship with fame and her fans. High Infidelity is a play on words of the term High Fidelity or HIFI, which is a 90s sound technology that refers to truthful reproduction of sound. High INfidelity is therefore a genius way of referring to both cheating and unfaithful reproduction of sound, almost like someone who makes music that isn't quite truthful... We also know from Aaron Dessner that this song was written following the 2021 Grammys and in the light of the whole William Bowery grammygate situation... I think there is point to be made about this song drawing attention to lying in a big way.

The timing of the release of You're losing me right around the time that her breakup with Joe made the news also feeds the narrative of a breakup song. But in this very 'breakup song' she says You say, "I don't understand," and I say, "I know you don't" and talks about sending signals that fall on deaf ears. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like 'I gave so many signs'? What does she know the addressee won't understand? Is it that when she finally reveals all her lies 90% of her fans will be shocked to their very core? On the exclusive CD version that has this track on it, it also immediately follows Dear Reader which on the track list looks like this:

Dear Reader You're Losing me (Does that look like a message? I think it does...)

By the time we make it to Dear Reader, she's basically told us 'I'm a liar who hides behind fake lavender relationships who charms everyone like a sleezy congressman, I'm the narcissistic Anti Hero you can't trust who schemes like a criminal and plans out everything like the puppet master I am, just so you like me and therefore you shouldn't look up to me, but I know you still will.' If that doesn't scream 'I want you to question everything I say or do' I don't know what does. Which brings us to performance art.

What is performance art?

Performance art is any kind of visual art that involves a dramatic performance aspect. To explain how this relates to Taylor and who she may have taken inspiration from, I refer to the brilliant Kristina Parro on TikTok:

Ok, groundwork is laid, but this is getting too long. Part 2 will be relating this to upcoming music releases and media coverage but that will have to wait til tomorrow.

As always, thanks for humouring me guys!

[bestworstcase]

Your post re: Salem's attitudes towards magic got me thinking about "Why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans, when we can replace them with what they could never be?" from Lost Fable again. I'm finding it a little difficult to blame people for believing she thinks the current crop of humans are just inferior when the only subject on offer in that sentence is "these humans." Of course when you stop to think for two seconds why Salem says or does anything she does it makes total sense that her hangup is with the gods, but that just makes me wonder even more why write the script like that? How unreliable is the direct dialogue in Jinn's vision supposed to be taken vs. her narration? (The simplest read of that episode seems to be of course the narration is biased per the question asked, but otherwise it's a frame narrative for the flashbacks which may or may not be more objective portrayals of events. The fact that the characters are also physically witnessing these scenes means they can't be 100% objective I think, but still leaves open the question of what's skewed and by how much.)

Unreliable or not, it's just a surprisingly absolute statement to put in her mouth considering how often we're invited to question her motivations everywhere else.

i do take the dialogue in the lost fable to be accurate to what the characters said, perhaps with some smudginess if what we’re seeing is ozpin’s memories exactly – in which case the dialogue in scenes he wasn’t present for is suspect because it’s what he imagines was said based on what salem told him, and the rest is probably closely accurate paraphrase because no one could be expected to remember the exact wording of conversations from several thousand years ago! but even then i would expect the parts he was there for to be reliable enough. 

so much rides on the lost fable and specifically this one line that it would be beyond cheap for the resolution to be “she didn’t say that at all, actually.”

the first time i watched the lost fable, i did intuitively interpret that line as salem alluding to the gods – so i think there’s probably some degree of her statement reading as ambiguous or not ambiguous depending upon how one habitually uses the word “redeem.” specifically: how precise one is about the verb requiring an indirect object. 

to ‘redeem’ something means to take some action to settle a debt, or redress a wrongdoing, which—inherently—implies the presence of a creditor or wronged party. in some contexts, the implied creditor is only an abstraction (think “the city’s robust public transportation is its only redeeming quality”—redemption is used here in a figurative sense to mean that the one making the statement dislikes everything but the city’s transit system); and in casual speech it’s fairly common to leave off the indirect object if it isn’t necessary to identify the wronged party (think the common phrasing of “so-and-so redeems themself”).

but while it isn’t incorrect to drop the indirect object, necessarily, there always is an indirect object; it isn’t possible to redeem a debt or a wrong that doesn’t exist, nor to have a debt without a creditor or a wrong without someone wronged. (as an aside, this is why redemption arc discourse tends to always be arguments about forgiveness—redemption does, inherently, definitionally, necessitate forgiveness—and this is also why i’m pedantic about differentiating ‘redemption arc’ vs ‘atonement arc’ vs ‘villain-to-hero arc’ and dislike the popular usage of redemption arc as an umbrella term.)

anyway, in simpler terms: when salem says “redeem these humans,” the apparent meaning of the next clause depends on whether or not one is predisposed to hear that phrase as a clipping and mentally append the implied indirect object, which makes her complete statement “why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans [from my sin in the eyes of the gods] when we could replace them with what they could never be?”

<- and then the question becomes, which “them” is she referring to? “these humans” or the gods who will judge whether redemption has been earned? her elision of the gods is entirely within the realm of common vernacular, and salem is a character who regularly circumlocutes (and earlier in the lost fable itself we have ozma’s quizzical “what are you saying?” signaling that salem’s speech is cryptic or confusing – because ozma doesn’t understand her; this is an intended trait versus the writers fumbling), and she says this in a moment of emotional distress (which she mostly bottles up, but while ozma is explaining all of this to her she’s leaning on the desk with her arms folded, listening intently – this is the same posture she has when she’s huddled in the shadows making herself miserable with conjurations of her children in 8.4).

so there’s quite a bit of weight here on the side of, “salem just discovered that her partner has been manipulating her into serving the gods she abhors throughout their entire relationship, she’s deeply shaken, she isn’t awesome at clearly articulating her thoughts in general; is it really surprising that she might misspeak to the tune of saying ‘them’ in reference to an (elided but necessarily implied) antecedent of ‘the gods’”

it (clearly) isn’t going to occur to most viewers as an obvious interpretation of the line, but i think it’s well within the bounds of what is reasonable for the narrative to later reveal that salem really meant this, particularly given how deliberate and how clear the storytelling themes are. definitely a risk, because some section of the audience is undoubtedly going to feel lied to and cry retcon, but rwby takes creative risks all the time.

and then there’s the ‘fairyales of remnant’ piece of it – the anthology is very much in dialogue with the lost fable across the board (on this see also ‘the two brothers’ presaging the thematic treatment of the brothers in v9, and ozpin’s paired commentaries on ‘the infinite man’ + ‘the girl in the tower’ being discussions of truth, propaganda, and forgiveness). so why does ‘the shallow sea’ begin like this:

Long ago, before the fish had scales, before the birds had feathers, and before the turtles had shells, when our god still walked and crawled and slithered the earth, there were only Humans and animals. (And Grimm. There have always been Grimm. There will always be Grimm. But those creatures don’t figure in this story, so just put them out of your mind, if you can.)

and end like this, after a story about the god of animals leading their chosen people to transform by submersion in magical waters, to the horror of those humans who refuse to change: 

From that moment on, there have been animals, Humans, and Faunus. And the descendants of the Humans who turned away from our god’s great gift have always carried envy in their hearts. To this day, they resent us for reminding them of what they are not and what they never can be.

humans and animals (and grimm) -> animals and humans and faunus, and the last line – the mythic explanation for human hatred of faunus – is a nearly direct repetition of the last thing salem says in the lost fable?

now obviously not everyone can be expected to read ancillary material like the fairytale anthology, and that’s why the shell game with the implied indirect object matters; but it is interesting that ‘the shallow sea’ is stated to be a very old oral tradition (one which “contains deep truths,” no less) and that it repeats that line in a context that is quite plainly not about genocide – but rather cultural pride in the face of intense, often violent, persecution. 

this story also 1. explicitly belongs to a closed tradition, and 2. is (obviously) one ozma knows despite there being no indication that he’s ever reincarnated as a faunus. which – together with the story’s age – adds up to at least the implication that it is possible he heard this story from salem, because the reasons she might be conversant in ancient faunus oral traditions are. well. obvious. 

…and if that’s so, then ‘the shallow sea’ as written in the fairytale anthology completely recontextualizes salem’s last statement in the lost fable as salem quoting from a faunus creation myth both she and ozma knew in order to express her rejection of the brothers’ mandate, which would 1. neatly explain why ozma seems to have understood exactly what she meant even though none of the lost fable witnesses picked up on it, and 2. provide an elegant and very simple opportunity to ease the general audience into this revelation by having a character in vacuo retell this myth, using that same closing line. you don’t even need to mention salem directly – the turn of phrase is memorable enough that a lot of viewers will go “…why does that sound eerily familiar” and that plants a seed for later. (or if you’re going for more of a sudden record scratch moment, salem is the one declaiming.)

from a character standpoint, it also makes a lot of sense for salem to respond to ozma in this way – his liking for stories is, one presumes, not a new thing that developed after the ozlem kingdom’s collapsed, and he also clearly isn’t just cynically using fairytales to deceive and manipulate – else he wouldn’t have apologized to the kids by referencing ‘the girl who fell through the world’ and comparing himself to alyx. stories are just important to him and part of how he communicates.

so if salem heard everything his god told him and then said “no, none of that matters, why spend our lives trying to redeem these humans when we could [paraphrases the conclusion of a story where the hateful envious people who refuse to change are simply sent home and not allowed to live in the harsh but free new world with the people who chose to embrace change]” – she made an effort to say what she meant in his language, and what she meant was either 1. figuratively associating the brothers with the envious humans who were sent home and “these humans” with the faunus who were now free to determine their own fates, or 2. “okay yeah these humans aren’t great, have you considered more faunus as a solution” (<- this would be extremely funny if it turns out the shallow sea is a more literal story than i think it is, but i think it’s much less likely).

more broadly, to the question of why the line is written that way – i can only speculate based on what i would be thinking in the writer’s shoes, and the overall structure of the narrative around salem – but i imagine the absoluteness is sort of the point. it’s meant to be a really shocking and frightening thing to hear coming out of her mouth, while also being, if you pause to think very precisely about what she said, quite plausible as a verbal stumble – the alternative antecedent of “the gods” for “them” is implied and eliding the indirect object of “redeem” is common vernacular – and then there’s this other possibility hinted in an ancillary text that she might have actually been quoting a story as a verbal shorthand both she and ozma understood. 

there’s a narrative expectation that the viewer will be right there with the kids making the same snap judgment about what salem meant – because i think the kids all absolutely did take this at face value as a statement of genocidal intent. the story itself is structured like a nesting doll such that each new revelation appears at a glance to be the whole story, but isn’t and in fact has large gaps and details that don’t add up which become glaringly obvious as soon as you reach the next layer and look back, but if you’re paying careful attention as you go it’s also quite possible to piece together the missing pieces. 

delivering information this way trains the audience (…mostly) to expect that the information we’re given is incomplete and maybe not wholly accurate. the advantage here is that even if the vast majority of the audience is completely blindsided by a specific reveal, for most viewers that’s going to feel really exciting – this happened in v9 with the lore reveals about the brothers, massive overnight reversal in the mainstream fandom views of darkness with the general mood being that it was cool – as opposed to feeling tricked or lied to by a “retcon.”

and that builds up a certain kind of trust, that the story is a puzzle but it isn’t going to cheat. it’s also a bit of a challenge or an invitation for the audience to try to figure out what’s coming, like a mystery.

with salem, i’d bet that one line in the lost fable is supposed to seem weirder and weirder the more you think about it, because… why doesn’t it track with anything she says before that point in the lost fable? why does the story begin with salem waxing poetic about humanity’s virtues? why does the narrative make such a big deal out of nobody knowing what salem wants AFTER the main characters witnessed a seemingly open-and-shut declaration of her “true” intention?

at the same time, the amount of explanation required to argue for an alternate interpretation – even if it’s really not complex or a reach – compared to the ease of just taking the statement exactly at face value, in and of itself is both a misdirection (most of the audience will take the path of least resistance, and hopefully enjoy the journey the story takes them on while leading them to the eventual right answer) and sort of the thesis with respect to the storytelling themes. salem thinks coolsville sucks!

but i am also very willing to consider (because of my own intuitive reaction to the line) that the writers perhaps did not mean for it to seem quite as unambiguous as the general audience and most of the fandom ended up taking it, because if you’re spending a lot of time immersed in a specifically theological context regarding redemption (which the writers probably would’ve been, given the importance of the religious narrative in the lost fable and in relation to this line in particular) – and if you’re also in the habit of being very precise and careful about how you phrase things (which is true of how rwby is written in general) – and if you’re writing what might be the most critical episode in a complicated puzzle box story, whose fulcrum is a red herring that is also meant to provide a clue to anyone who thinks to look at it more closely and with an open mind — then yeah i can see a scenario where the writers may have felt that the specific wording of salem’s statement was more ambiguous than it actually is. in which case the echo in ‘the shallow sea’ might have been a bit of an effort to correct course by giving the subset of fans invested enough to read the fairytales (<- the cohort most likely to be keen to unravel the puzzle) an additional hint. who knows.

[ianthe-is-a-bitch-and-i-love-her]

I first realized that the best ghost stories are love stories after watching The Haunting of Bly Manor, and though I've experienced a lot of media since that reaffirmed that understanding, The Narrow by Kate Alice Marshall really feels like it's closing the loop. It rhymes with Bly in a way that feels like I've come to the end of some great journey, and am now prepared to start another. Like Bly, The Narrow is a story about abuse. It's a story about possession, in more than one sense. And it's a story that asserts that true love, the love that's worth keeping, is the love that knows how to let go.

Our story follows Eden, a senior at a prestigious private boarding high school rich with history and legends, especially around its deadly river, The Narrow, which is unapologetically based on the Bolton Strid. Eden is excited to return to school and escape a summer vacation marred by a profound abuse that she is refusing to think about. However, upon arrival she discovers that her parents have neglected to pay her tuition - coincidentally, they've had to pay a lot of legal fees recently - and she is forced to take on a unique arrangement to remain enrolled. She must act as the live-in companion of fellow student Delphine, a reclusive girl who cannot leave her carefully refurbished dorm room, as any contact with water sends her into seizures. Eden knows something about Delphine that almost no one else does, however - at the beginning of her first year, Eden saw Delphine fall into The Narrow and be swept away - and what The Narrow takes is never returned.

The mystery at the heart of the story is, ultimately, not that complicated, but it is beautiful in its simplicity and the way it plays with the reader's expectations. Those expectations are shaped heavily by Eden's point of view, and Eden is a triumph of an unreliable narrator. She actively avoids thinking about things that weigh on her and occasionally skates over her own actions where they clash with her self-image, but these more obvious and dramatic omissions draw attention away from the subtler ways that her biases and coping mechanisms shape her understanding of the world around her, and it took me until about the three-quarters mark to know where and how to disbelieve her perceptions. She is incredibly compelling, deeply empathetic, and absolutely drowning in self-worth issues. The supporting cast is equally compelling, and the author injects a surprising sense of depth into each member of her friend group in remarkably few lines. Each give the impression of being flawed, well-rounded, but fundamentally decent people, and they all feel very distinct from one another. I was going to highlight one of them as a favorite example, but I genuinely can't pick between them. The adults too are well-rounded and compelling, which I feel is often a shortcoming of horror in an academic setting (is that what dark academia is? no one will tell me). And of course Delphine herself is quite compelling; a little odd, very intense, and eminently sympathetic, her dynamic with Eden is fresh, engaging, and believable.

One thing I really want to highlight about this story is its willingness to engage with real-life messiness that is often elided in ghost stories and love stories. The mechanics of the supernatural are not well understood in this story, and no tomes of ancient lore exist to guide the protagonists. Their methods of interfacing with the supernatural are cobbled together from their own intuition and their vague impressions of the occult from pop culture and religious mysticism, and their efficacy is neither reliable nor consistent. Similarly, the story is not afraid of engaging with the fragility and volatility of young love, the way it can feel all-consuming and eternal in one moment and fizzle out the next. This sort of messiness always appeals to me in fiction, and it is remarkably rare outside of deliberate genre subversions, so I was absolutely thrilled with it here.

I would recommend The Narrow without hesitation to anyone who likes ghost stories. I would also recommend it for its exploration of abuse in a variety of forms, and for its depiction of the aftermath of said abuse. Take that same recommendation as a content warning, though, and I'll toss in a more specific one for involuntary drug use.

[smallmediumproblems]

Propaganda under the cut

Why isn't John/David/Cecil/Obituary Writer/etc here?

I'm specifically excluding narrators who are also primary characters in the story. There are a lot of really good unreliable main character POVs, and some that are very, very popular. There are also a LOT of found footage / "documentary" shows, so the pool of "main character who is technically also the narrator" is monstrously large. This is for narrators who have things to say about the story but are moderately to severely removed from it. You'll notice I've also excluded the Documentarian from The White Vault, because by the time she's commenting on the story, she's also a main character.

Madeleine can stay because she's very polite.

Madeleine the mouse

Madeleine doesn't exactly serve a narrative so much as she plates and seasons it before bringing it out. Part plot device, part confidante, and all bohemian authoress. But please, consider the other candidates long and hard before you vote. She's not really too unreliable, she's just incredibly biased.

The Voice of HartLife

You have to be a special kind of unreliable for one of your characters to break down the fourth wall into your recording studio to kick the shit out of you.

The Historian

*Gesturing at a lithograph of Eisen and Telesphore making out sloppy style* "Truly, it is tragic that the men of our generation have lost such deep platonic bonds as are depicted here. So secure were they in their brotherhood that our contemporary idea of friendship fails to-"

The Narrator

No, not Leon. The other guy. I can't possibly describe what his Whole Deal is without spoiling a major plot twist of the show, but guys. He killed Matt Damon, guys. He killed Matt Damon while trying to murder dozens of other people at the same time. (Hundreds? I don't know how trains work.)

Dubrach

Yes, I know it's not really confirmed. That's what unreliable narration is all about. But what could be more reliable than the literal word of god on the puny machinations of his flock? :) :) :) Also he's voiced by Alisdair Stuart, our dad.

The Malevolent Patreon Hastur

...is specifically not included, because a) people are going to think I'm talking about John, and b) brand recognition is going to skew the whole thing, as if Madeleine isn't going to sweep for that very reason. But I'm mentioning him here because of the time he made people so angry that the actual real live writer had to come out and remind them that this is a fictional character. iykyk.

[iknowicanbutwhy]

Rating: General Audiences

Relationship: Siffrin & Loop

Characters: Siffrin, Loop, (others show up but they're not there for long)

Additional tags: in fast and food, fast food au, depression, self-worth issues, questioning one's humanity... in a different way, POV second person, unreliable narrator, it's loop how reliable can you expect them to be, actually they do have mind-reading powers in this one. so they cant be too far off, setting is not france-adjacent or vaugarde, homelessness, suicide ideation, afab loop, but check this out, amab siffrin, universe decided to get silly with it, loop/isabeau but its not major enough to warrant a relationship tag. if that changes though..., the stress and disappointment of everyday life mixing terribly with your thoughts of self worth, and making you drift from your friends, self-isolation, chat did i make loop silly enough. i dont spot enough tee-hees

Summary:

Not bad but not good but never good for long but never rock bottom. A cycle that just keeps going keeps getting tighter keeps constricting around you burning hot like sunburn from a shrinking spotlight until you're stuck center stage and you can't move. You can feel them pressing around you the harder you try to ignore them. Your friends. If you raised your eye, would you do it at just the wrong time - would you find them looking at you? You don't think they even want to see you, really. They just can't seem to leave the blinding stage, just like you can't. You need to move. You need to do something other than stay here. Passing over the spotlight.. might be the only way you can make yourself disappear from it.

[taralen]

🎆HOT TAKE: Jevil was never a sane or good person. His true nature was merely exposed by the "strange someone."

(A theory by an actual insane person.)

Although this is the first time I am addressing Jevil on this blog, I feel it is worth analyzing his character due to his parallel yet vastly different experiences to Spamton's. He is very interesting, and I like him for different reasons, but I can't deny that his actions make him less sympathetic as a person.

In-game, Seam, who was once friends with Jevil, describes him as having "gone mad" after talking to a "strange someone." Fans have taken this as a reliable narrative since it's coming from a presumably old but wise figure who was once close to Jevil. However, allow me to introduce these two concepts:

The Unreliable Narrator Perhaps within Toby's intentions, Seam is portrayed as an old yet wise figure, almost like a wizard. Just because a character appears to fulfill an archetype does not mean that the character is actually that archetype.

Cognitive Bias It is a well-known fact that people are willing to see the best in others who we consider to be friends, family, or lovers. Seam thinking Jevil had "gone mad" was likely due to Jevil never expressing his worst antisocial traits openly before talking to a "strange someone."

Seam also describes Jevil as always being into games, which surprises no one given his jester themes and design. Pranksters can be mean-spirited, and in the case of his implied interactions with Spamton, this is very evident. Spamton describes him as only being into "games," and how no matter what he did (even cheating), he could not beat him. This reference is never in-game, but we can still apply it to our understanding of Jevil's character since it was part of a canon Q&A. His implied coulrophobia and disdain for clowns can either be seen as a meta-commentary and joke about the Deltarune fandom's love for secret bosses or an excellent hint of how mean-spirited and unhinged Jevil really is. Someone doesn't develop a phobia from just one bad game unless that interaction was very uncomfortable to the point where it made Spamton feel threatened (possibly for his life). (Also, I am aware some people say they are exes. Given the lack of substantial evidence of this in-game or in the Q&A, I think it's safer to say that the "ketchup kids" part merely references a meme and shouldn't be considered anything substantial for analysis.)

Jevil was already showing signs of someone with antisocial traits, particularly among individuals with Cluster B personality disorders. He also falls under the category of Personality Type B (unrelated to Cluster B personality disorders) because of his lack of urgency. We can summarize him with these hallmark antisocial traits:

Lacking remorse for actions.

General dearth of empathy.

Grandiose Self-Worth (I CAN DO ANYTHING)

Need for stimulation and prone to boredom (which is why his solitary confinement was awful for him.)

Lying and manipulative (tricks the fun gang into breaking him out of jail only to try and kill them afterward. He doesn't even want Kris or Susie's souls. He just wants to have "fun.")

Lack of any long-term goals (he merely exists for games.)

Lack of value for other's lives (he finds the idea of murdering teenagers as an exciting game.)

Blasé attitude about life. Essentially, he is doing whatever the hell he wants without fear of consequences.

Notice the recurring theme of "games." In this case, a "game" to Jevil means whatever he wants it to mean. A game for him might mean torture for another person. His bullet patterns also exemplify this. They are aggressive, cluttered, and have (fittingly) chaotic patterns. Spamton's, by comparison, are structured and not as dense, showing his restrained need to kill the party to achieve his goals (particularly with Kris.) Also, notably, Jevil never considers the party "friends" by the end of the battle, regardless if you choose the ACT or FIGHT options of beating him. If you pick the ACT option, he goes dormant as a tail, but in the FIGHT version, he stays active as the Devilsknife and shows enthusiasm about being used as a weapon (presumably) to harm others.

And here's the kicker of all this: these traits are seldom learned but are inherent to some individuals, particularly those who fall closer to psychopathy than sociopathy.

Psychopaths have strong genetic predispositions, meaning they are born that way. While there are many psychopaths who never go on to become mass murderers, it takes a significant amount of social pressure and understanding for them to realize their actions will get them into trouble.

Prior to speaking to that "strange someone," Jevil was likely held back by his perceived notions of governance and law in the Card Kingdom. As the court jester, he probably believed he could express his desire to mess with others because of his assigned role. Being the "fool" of the court, he must have made the Card Kings laugh at his expense, and for most of his existence, he was probably okay with this since jesters, in our reality, were known to make some pretty nasty jokes about royals only for it to all be laughed off. Playing games with Seam was just an added bonus, and Seam likely saw good in him that no one else did. However, Jevil learned that he could do whatever the hell he wanted with (perceived) zero consequences, and he ran with it.

Any goodwill he had with Seam or the Card Kings was dropped the instant he knew he could do anything he desired. This is not behavior from someone who is even remotely sane. The "strange someone" told him what he wanted to hear. Now, the jokes were no longer just jokes. Seam mentions Jevil saying things that don't make sense, but there is a shadow of doubt that this is the only reason he was locked away. Considering his interactions with the main party, he may have attempted to kill the Card Kings, hence why he was imprisoned by Seam, the only person, as Court Magician, who could match his strength.

This ties back to my initial arguments about Seam's unreliable narrative and cognitive bias. Seam saw Jevil as sane and playful, whereas the "strange someone" knew Jevil wanted to unleash his inner thirst for more dangerous games. These needs were always there, he just needed someone to tell him he could do them.

☠️

This is a bit of an aside, but I recommend anyone who likes Jevil to read Edgar Allan Poe's short story, Hop-Frog. It's about a diminutive jester whose attitude closely mirrors Jevil's, only without a Seam to hold that jester back. Honestly, Hop-Frog was the first thing that popped into my head after beating Jevil. It's definitely worth a read (or listen if you can't read it.)

Like with my Spamton sanity theory, I hope my Jevil analysis and insight as someone with life-long mental health problems can help others see this character in a way that may be enlightening or interesting.

💜