#it's all presented in the framework of 'we need to make things better' but like

[thought-42]

Spent the afternoon at a bioethics seminar and now just fully disconnected to the concept of being a fucking person

[lurkingshan]

Dead Friend Forever is a Marvel of Mystery Writing

I haven’t been watching Dead Friend Forever live, because I am not always that into the slasher genre and I figured I would wait to hear whether it holds up before jumping in. I admit, I was a bit dubious about a drama sustaining a slasher narrative for 12 entire weeks and didn’t want to spend time on something that might be too shallow to sustain and would end up falling apart. I basically told bestie @wen-kexing-apologist to vet it for me and holler if I needed to start paying attention. And a few weeks ago, they started poking me with increasing intensity, along with a few other friends, because the writing was holding up better than they could believe. I started asking questions, and once @ginnymoonbeam mentioned that Sammon was the writer, it all started to click and I dove into a binge to catch up.

And they were right! This show is excellent, and its strength is sourced in an incredibly strong script from a writer who knows how to construct a longform mystery. Because it turns out, that’s what this show actually is. How do you sustain a slasher for 12 weeks? By embedding a deeper mystery within the slasher framework and pacing your story so that the entire middle delivers a backstory narrative that is even more compelling than the current events. This show is expertly structured to grab your attention and then get you deeply emotionally invested in the coming bloodbath, which is crucial for a slasher to feel like it has any stakes. Let me also note that the excellent writing here is supported by extremely smart direction and editing and some standout performances from young actors. I am going to focus on the writing here because that’s what I do, but it should be said that this whole production is all around excellent. 

So let’s talk about why the writing in Dead Friend Forever works so well! Great drama mysteries should support two kinds of engagement from the viewer: 

no thoughts head empty engagement from the people who just want to be pulled along for the ride and be constantly surprised

red string board theory engagement for the people who enjoy finding clues and trying to solve the mystery in advance. 

It’s actually really fucking hard to thread this needle as a writer, because it requires seeding strong enough clues that attentive viewers could reasonably guess some of the big reveals, but not giving away so much that you are unable to surprise them. A reveal in a good mystery should have you saying “oh my god WHAT” and “of course, that makes perfect sense” at the same time. And the best mysteries support the viewer being able to go back and rewatch, find new meaning they missed the first time, and realize every single thing that happened adds up. A tight mystery has no loose ends and no false steps; it never lies to the viewer, it only works to draw your attention where it wants it at any given point in the story.

Dead Friend Forever does this masterfully with several of its reveals, but I will highlight the biggest example: the reveal of Phee and Non’s relationship in episode 7. In the first four episodes of the show, the story lets us in on a few crucial facts: Phee is newer to this friend group (along with Tan and White), he was not present for whatever went down with Non three years ago, he has some kind of fucked up not!friends with benefits relationship with Jin that involves lots of sexual tension and dick biting, and he seems interested in figuring out what the hell happened once all these dudes start acting crazy about the videos. The string board theorists had enough to go on there to reasonably guess that he was intentionally trying to uncover the truth—but not why—and the no thoughts head empty crowd could just vibe, enjoying his scenes with Jin and wondering how exactly he ended up hooking up with him and getting involved with this group of people he doesn’t even seem to like.

Once we get to the backstory and see Non’s narrative, additional clues emerge, like the existence of both an older brother and a mysterious sweetheart that is only saved as [heart emoji] in Non’s phone. No thoughts head empty is over here going huh I wonder who they’re gonna be and hey when are the rest of the characters going to show up; string board theorists now have two clear options for how Phee could tie in to Non’s story and why he might care enough to investigate, but no one knows for sure. So when the show ended episode 6 with Phee running into Non’s room and began episode 7 with The Most Effective Five Minute BL Of All Time, everything clicked into place. No thoughts head empty got to experience a very pleasant shock moment, the string board theorists got to feel satisfied that they figured out at least part of the reveal, everyone got to enjoy an unexpected shot of romance in the middle of this stressful narrative, and there were still parts of Phee’s motives and involvement with this group that we didn’t understand and would require additional reveals. That is great mystery writing in a nutshell.

And it’s not only the mystery construction that makes the writing here so smart. It’s also the way Sammon is weaving in tons of social commentary, embedding Thai cultural and religious values, incorporating complicated crimes with lots of players in the mix that somehow don’t get confusing, and drawing complex and nuanced characters whose choices and behavior you understand even if you find them abhorrent. It’s not easy to make a viewer both despise a character and still care what happens to them; when you write a story about despicable people you run the risk of inspiring apathy in the audience, which is a death knell for a mystery. We have to be invested for this story to work. We have to feel deep empathy for Non to the point that we fully support axe murdering his bullies, but we also have to be interested enough in the bullies and why they behave the way they do to watch 12 weeks of them running around being awful to each other and harming everyone in their paths. And Non, too, gets to have real complexity. He is not a perfect little Mary Sue who never does anything wrong. He makes big impulsive mistakes, and seeks attention and affection from the wrong people, and lies to the ones he loves, and doesn’t always ask for help when he needs it. He is a flawed human being and that’s so important, because he is the center of this story and we need him to feel real.

In conclusion: holy shit. I tip my hat to you, Dr. Sammon, and I am very excited to be on this ride for the final four episodes. 

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

To piggyback off of @shunnedmorlock's post here about the relative justification for both the black and green causes, and how the show presents Rhaenyra's cause as sympathetic.

The in-world choice of who to support in an internecine conflict is, for a lot of lords, ultimately going to be based in self-interest rather than legal, ideological or moral justifications. This fandom fixates a lot on who is in the "right," but the houses that throw their support behind Rhaenyra or Aegon mainly do it for self interest or self preservation. Every lord is going to have multiple literal dragons breathing down their necks, many lords are going to be offered enticements from one side or the other, and some will be considering their own personal circumstances and the precedent their choice sets. A great number of the houses seem pretty determined to stay out of the conflict altogether, even several of the houses that pledge their support in theory, wait until the risk of being caught up in a dragon battle has passed to take any action.

For viewers, our reasons for supporting one side or another are different. Strictly speaking, looking at things from a modern framework, no one has a "right" to the throne. Usurpation is not a human rights violation or even a crime by our standards. Imagine fixating on women being unable to own slaves and thinking that a woman fighting for her right to do so is an expression of feminism. Ridiculous! Certainly it is bullshit within an already bullshit system that a woman comes after her brothers in a hereditary monarchy, but in a just system this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place, not because Rhaenyra would automatically be queen, but because Westeros wouldn't have a king or a queen at all. Liberation doesn't start at the top and trickle down, but rather the opposite.

That said, to modern viewers, Rhaenyra's cause is sympathetic because it feels like an injustice. Most of us don't live within a feudal system and do not have the framework to understand why it's not a form of oppression to be denied the throne. We see it more like a presidential race, in which Rhaenyra is the Hillary Clinton who might have defeated Trump in 2016 if not for misogyny, in which even if we didn't particularly like her, we were disgusted by the fact that that man beat a woman who was at worst no different from many of the men who had occupied the seat before her. To the average vaguely liberal American watching the show, it's insane for fans to support Aegon and the greens and clearly you'd only do it for horny or antifeminist reasons. And you see that a bit in even the showrunners' comments on Alicent being a "woman for Trump," how both they and much of the audience fail to fully understand the historical framework, but in a way that's kind of understandable, because while what happens to Rhaenyra might not be injustice, it is unfair.

If you're looking at things from a historical in-world framework, this is a world in which stability takes a higher priority than equality. Inequality is everywhere, completely baked into the system. If you want to bring about gender equality in a feudal monarchy with a large agrarian population, you have to have first the stability necessary for the rise of an urban middle class which allows for more women to move into the trades, you need the printing press for widespread literacy, which means that more women are getting educated, you need movements such as the reformation to challenge the divine right of kings, and you need to reform the political structure so that leadership is not based on birthright in the first place, because that concept inherently reinforces patriarchal norms even in modern countries that allow women to become queens regnant. So making one woman queen is not going to make things better for women across Westeros, but that woman going to war to reclaim her "stolen" birthright could make things a whole lot worse for a pretty much everyone. This is why you see a lot of history nerds on this site going well, yes but Rhaenyra does have the weaker claim because common law was a big deal in the medieval world and her becoming queen is going to lead to long term succession crises due to the circumstances of her children's birth, so the thing to do would be to take the peace deal. Because while on an emotional level you can understand why she doesn't, it's not the choice that prioritizes the good of the realm.

I think on some level Condal understands (and I think GRRM probably hammered this point home) that you can't really grant anyone the moral high ground in a war of succession if you want to approach the issue with any level of nuance; Rhaenys' speech in the previews for S2 seems to indicate as much. The problem with HotD is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to say war for the throne bad, but HBO also wants to make up for the way GoT fumbled the ball with Dany and give the people their likeable dragonriding princess triumphant.

Except Rhaenyra isn't triumphant, she is felled by her own Targaryen hubris and belief that nothing could possibly overcome the might of dragons. It's not Aegon that defeats her, truly, it's the people emboldened in various ways to act against Targaryen interests. It's the dragonseeds she hands dragons to who wonder why they have to take orders from a queen or king when they have control of the kingmaking weapons of mass destruction, it's the smallfolk who face down dragons with pitchforks because they've had enough. They've backed themselves into a bit of a corner with what @shunnedmorlock called the "engoodening" of the black faction, but they can turn it around by showing that it's not enough to be nice to your family, you have to actually care about the people and at the very least (the bar is on the floor, it's fuedalism!) not throw them into chaos, famine, and war for no reason. Give us payoff for Rhaenys' dragonpit scene, have Mysaria and Alys Rivers play a role in their sides' downfalls, show how resentment on Dragonstone allows Aegon to infiltrate. And yes, show Rhaenyra losing herself and becoming a worse person, but in ways that the audience can't excuse as justified. This is how you sow the seeds for that actual progressive change that people seem so desperate to find in the dragonshow, you show how the Dance emboldens the regular people who for the first time realize they can slay dragons, dovetailing into the new show, which stars Dunk, a commonborn man from Fleabottom, and Aegon V, the only Targaryen who ever cared about the smallfolk.

Can HBO pull it off? Ehh. But I remain eternally hopeful, against my better judgement.

[commsroom]

memoria is incredibly close to my heart, but when i listen to it now, it's hard not to think about the undertones re: how therapy as an institution handles disability. maxwell's objective was always to help hera get back to work, to find accommodations she could function under, or otherwise to replace her. "i'm sorry you feel like you can't do your job." maxwell presents her solutions in a less hostile framing, but her methods are the same ones cutter threatens hera with in her live show performance review (re: deleting her memories) and it's something she intends to do regardless of hera's consent. maxwell's practice aligns with goddard's interests, and of course it does. there's something about therapy as maintenance, and the treatment of the disabled mind and/or body as a broken machine.

hera is used to being condescended to and taunted for her limitations ("we all have our limits. you can't do what you can't do. it's not your fault.") and that intersects with her trauma ("i can't do this. i'm not good enough.") in a way that inherently ties her self worth to her ability to be useful and perform a job. as a result, she has a gut reaction to and a resistance to anyone suggesting she might not be capable of something, or that she might need help, and that makes her constantly push herself past her limits, causing real damage. the problem is that hera is disabled, there are things she can't do, and she hasn't been given the security or compassion to really come to terms with that. no amount of ways to manage doing her job will really help the core problem; she needs to be able to separate her concept of self worth from her productivity. "we get things wrong, and we get better." is a nice sentiment, but i think it applies more to interpersonal conflict than physical burnout. hera even directly calls back to and casts doubt on that specific line later in the show.

that's why eiffel matters so much to hera. when eiffel says "you can do anything" - he believes that, he has that kind of sincere faith in all of his friends, but he means it even when it's disproven. he's seen her fail. he's seen her make mistakes. it doesn't matter because it isn't about what he expects of her, it's about who she is to him. minkowski is the commander, even when she's not. hera can do anything, even when she can't. eiffel values people, not their jobs. if hera didn't have a supercomputer for a brain, she would still be the same to him; it's who she is and her companionship that he wants. i'm not saying that what maxwell did for hera was useless - it's effective therapy that gave her a clearer understanding of herself, and a framework to understand what's been happening to her; that's extremely valuable. but that alone would not have been enough. what hera thinks of at the end of memoria, what actually pulls her through, is the support and care that eiffel and minkowski continually show to her.

[fordtato]

Gffan has done the following:

-Letting people comment transphobic stuff on his Server

-associating with a reddit mod whos known to be transphobic

-openly showing weird distaste for the Dipper being Trans headcanon (didn't he also say: "I hate the Dipper Trans Theory" to us once?)

He also believes there’s only 2 genders

Hello. So. I do not normally respond to anonymous discourse like this in my inbox as a rule (especially given this site's proclivity for seeing anon callouts weaponized against trans people and women and people of color), but I felt it was important to do this in this case, since I am publicly working on a project with ThatGFFan.

I have known GFFan for over a year now now (in an exclusively online capacity), and in that time, he has not only never misgendered me (a nonbinary trans person, someone outside the "2 genders" framework) but has also actively corrected people who have misgendered me. I have witnessed him speak against transphobia in the fandom and against transphobic content creators. The idea that he "believes there are only 2 genders" is inaccurate by every account I have of him.

As for other accusations in this ask, such as him "associating with a reddit mod who is known to be transphobic" I don't have any evidence for this presented to me, and even if I did, association in a public online space is not the same thing as sharing transphobic sentiment. There is room in any online space for a conversation about the optics of this kind of engagement, but if I had to apologize for every person I've ever engaged with civilly who I later learned was problematic in some way, I'd be here all day, and that would be an unproductive use of my time, and would not undo any harm done by that person.

Lastly, I hope ThatGFFan will not mind me saying this, but he is a young person (younger than you think, I assure you). If he has engaged with unsavory people in the past, or has indicated any kind of transphobic sentiment (neither of which I have any evidence of) it is my belief that we need to allow people to grow, especially when I have actively witnessed that growth firsthand. And in that case, I do think (and maybe I'm putting my faith in the wrong person here, so I hope this doesn't bite me one day), that he has made an active effort to learn how to do better, even if he makes mistakes in that process.

What you have done, anon, is entered my inbox with accusations against a person of color, half of which have no evidence behind them, and the other half that I personally know to be demonstrably false. Nobody who is a victim of this transphobia has come forward, at least that I saw, and if they did, that would be up to ThatGFFan to respond to - not me, a trans person unrelated and far-removed from whatever incident you are talking about (an incident that likely occurred when ThatGFFan was a minor, in any case).

I don't have a big platform. I am a small creator (much smaller than ThatGFFan), and a trans Palestinian person. Why am I being called upon to answer for a cis person's (alleged) missteps as they grow into an adult? Why am I being called upon to publicly shame and renounce a person who has shown me kindness and allyship? Is it so I can prove my dedication to the fight against transphobia? My entire blog, my entire body of work, my entire existence, has been an active fight against transphobia.

I mean, by God, all I can do is hope I'm doing the right thing here, but I vouch for him. Or I at least vouch that he is trying.

(p.s. I hope this goes without saying, but someone disliking a specific queer headcannon does not indicate one's political beliefs, and this is not going to be an accusation that I really engage with, because it sets a bad precedent. This is not a moral wrongdoing. This is an opinion you are suspicious of.)

[generalluxun]

different anon but if anyone's closer to the Gary Stu/Mary Su type it's Marinette, cause they keep insisting that she's so special (the time she had on all the miraculouses), the best Ladybug ever (Tikki constantly says this despite the fact that she's lost the miraculouses at least two times), and was ultimately the one that beat Hawkmoth on her own (Gabe stole the miraculouses from her AND got his wish, so she didn't actually win). Not to mention all the people who were crushing on her? Nino, Nathaniel, Luka, Zoe, and however many others? Adrien was over there in his white prison room talking about how HE'S not worthy of MARINETTE'S love? Yeah no...

Okay, we need some definitions. For myself I absolutely love what OSP has for this. *Note* I will use the term Mary Sue so I'm not constantly typing both out, but I honestly consider it gender neutral. You can have a Male(or ace, or whichever) Mary Sue, it's a lot easier than bothering with 'Gary Stu'

With this framework we find that people are often talking cross definitions. Some people latch onto the G1 definition of Mary Sue as someone who is 'perfect' and the fact that Thomas/Marinette(Don't hate on Marinette here, Thomas's words in her mouth) declare Adrien is 'perfect', but those aren't the same definitions.

G1 Mary Sue perfect is 'without flaws' Can do everything better and at range, everyone loves them instantly, etc etc.

Thomas means 'a thing to be kept and admired' like a perfect diamond. It's quite clear Adrien has flaws in the series. It would take a heavy level of self-delusion to miss them. I *like* Adrien, I write for him a lot! But yeah, look at Lies, he treated Adrien like garbage and the narrative punished him for it, pretty bog standard.

Now Marinette- She's an interesting case. She didn't START out a G1 Mary Sue, but she has always been a *type* of Mary Sue. You see after the initial blowback to G1 Mary Sues writers began to throw flaws onto their characters to try and dodge the label. Yet, a lot of the FUNCTION of a Mary Sue remained. So a new definition was formed. This one relies simply on the narrative warping power that a Mary Sue possesses. They are the only *real* person in a world of extras. They have flaws, but those flaws are simply backstory or window dressing.

Marinette's Clumsiness is a prime example of this. She's Clumsy! Except... never when it matters. Imagine how much more of a dynamic we would have if she were *actually* clumsy. She's the thinker/leader who is still functional in a fight, but when it comes down to anything precise, she needs her Olympic-Level trained Partner.

When bad things happen to a Mary Sue, it's only for sympathy points, and they come out on top. S3 She had to be the Guardian- And then we get a series of things that were only solvable because she was the guardian. Her ability to make charms is literally 'Just believe you can' Su-Han shows up and she mocks him. etc etc. Gabriel beats her in S5! -and his wish gives her everything she wants. She is tormented in Derision! -And all it does is make Adrien even more on her side, she's already won and they used her 'trauma' for comedy for 4 seasons.

The biggest thing though is how almost nothing ever progresses without Marinette's attention(a little changes in S5, but that's just because Felix is even MORE of a Mary Sue when he shows up, his localized Sueness defeats her general Sueness) Even when you have a protagonist centered story, most narratives will have a world that lives and breathes and side characters with lives outside the main. The world they live in feels alive. With a Mary Sue(and ML) the world stops completely and almost ceases to exist if the Sue is not present to influence things.

Now I'm gonna blow your mind- A Mary Sue isn't always bad! You *can* write a strong narrative around a Mary Sue- as long as you recognize it.

Marinette is a fun character!

If the show ran with 'Marinette is amazing and multi talented and a paragon, capable in every situation' then you know, that works! Your hero can be blessed! People loved *Superman* to pieces for decades while he was basically invincible. Doc Savage was a thing in the Pulp Era.

The problem is they want to try and run this 'normal girl! oh so clumsy. Oh put upon, pity her, poor girl.' Line, and yet... she just wins, and wins, and always wins, and never stops winning. She is always considered morally by the end of every episode. She wins without even trying (her victory vs Lila was handed to her. She got her power upgrades basically out of the blue each time) So these two disparate things don't click. They create cognitive dissonance that aware viewers pick up on, and it makes things far less satisfying.

I just want to reiterate though. A Mary Sue is not who Marinette is, it is how the narrative *handles* her. Don't hate on Marinette. Wish she was in a better executed story.

[brothermouse]

Since you said in an earlier post that you try to have silly debates to introduce the idea of debate as *not* attack to other Mormons and Mormon culture in general, here are some more serious but still hopefully fun ideas to throw out:

1. Lehi saying in 2 Nephi 2 that God must be both merciful and just during his sermon implies that God is operating according to moral principles that they did not create nor that they control. There are some issues in the philosophy Lehi presents, like the assumption of dualism ("for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things"), but contrasting this with debates surrounding Divine Command Theory ("we can know things are good because God commands them" and debating whether God commands it because it is good or whether it is good because God commands it) brings up some interesting ideas to explore wrt how ethics and morality intersect with religion.

2. The philosophy of "by their fruits ye shall know them" presented in Matthew 7 and the justification the Holy Ghost gives Nephi in 1 Nephi 4 for killing Laban ("It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief") both imply that God is operating on a utilitarian or utilitarian-adjacent moral framework.

Both of these ideas probably have more stakes than the 'the WoW technically allows cannibalism' tbh, so like...don't feel too pressured to post these if you think it won't go over well.

Yes! I would LOVE to see these kind of faith promoting debates! The key, I think, is to approach it all from the idea that, no matter the answer we arrive at, or even if we arrive at no answer at all, the process will make us all better Saints!

The idea that God operates on a moral framework that He did not create is fascinating to me. If we believe that "as man is now, God once was" then that leads to a whole lineage of God's and creators who are, in my opinion, building upon a moral structure passed down from God to God. We talk about eternal progression and this is, potentially one way it manifests. It also could mean that the flawed morals we develop in mortality are essential to improve and perfect the divine morals of Godhood.

But what if the divine morals don't grow like that? What if they were carefully calculated by divine minds? What if all things right and wrong can be expressed by some algorithm too complicated for mortal minds to hold?

So many interesting stuff in there.

[uniquely-plural]

I am pretty sure I'm a traumagenic system (undiagnised because my parents just think im "moody" amd dont belive i have other people in my head) but I have so many questions.

Is it OK that I still think of me as me and my alters as other people? I see alot of people who say "us" and "we" but I feel like I can't speak for them.

Is it normal for, when another alter fronts, me to still see through my eyes and know what's happening, but not ve able to control or stop it? It's like my consciousness is only in the alter I consider "me" and then there are other non-me people in my head, is that weird?

Would it be weird for me to say that at some points I've had conversations with my alter out loud, and it was like i could feel a vertical split in my physical body as to which alter was where? They were sort of like a caretaker whenever I was at my darker points, so they would talk to me and I'd talk back and it allowed for physical contact like hugs, ect, but I've never seen anyone describe something similar

Also, how on earth do people figure out what alter is what? It's like my consciousness (me) is in the front park of a semi truck abd the rest are all in the back so I can't see them but I am really sure that they're there.

I havr so many questions and no one to ask T T sorry if this is too much

It's always okay to ask questions! We can do our best to answer.

There are a lot of frameworks we use to understand plurality, and I don't believe any one of them is inherently superior to another. So when you're asking yourself, 'is this okay?' - I would try to ask yourself, 'does this feel right to me? Does framing things in this way help me function better and be happier?'

One person, just as an example, could have DID and figure out that understanding their alters as completely separate people from him was holding back his trauma recovery. Understanding his alters as part of himself and developing compassion and acceptance for them could be therapeutic.

For another system, knowing they are completely separate people who just happen to share a body is the understanding they need to be respectful towards each other and work together.

So yes, in your case? It's totally okay, normal, and common to feel like your alters are other people and you cannot speak for them. Some people always feel this way, and then some people feel like that at the beginning, but their understanding changes once they get to know their system more, or if they work on improving disordered dissociate barriers.

We can speak as an unit because we have a monoconscious, median system core. In other systems, each member prefers to speak only for themselves. That's also perfectly fine.

As for still seeing through your eyes while another alter fronts, that does sound possible if you have no amnesia barriers and possibly co-fronting, in the sense someone else is fronting as in 'control of the body' while you are still in front as in 'awareness of the outside world'. You could look into possession and possession style switches.

In polyconscious systems, members have their own individual consciousness.

It's not weird to have conversations out loud, if that's what helps you communicate. And that link to the possession entry mentions how it can also be experienced as an alter taking control of part of the body, so it sounds like you might have been in control of one half and your alter was in control of the other one, which makes sense to me. I'm very glad to hear they took care of you.

Not being aware of a lot of information about your alters or system is very common. Developing a better understanding is often a process of trying things and finding what works for your system, and it can vary a lot depending on things like level of internal communication, what barriers are present, etc. This post on Mapping your system could point you towards some possibilities.

I hope you found that helpful, and thank you for sharing your experiences.

[that-ari-blogger]

So, You Have an Exam Tomorrow (Boys' Night Out)

It’s ok to not like something.

In terms of fiction, something not working for you is not a cardinal sin on either your part or the part of that story. Art is, by definition, subjective, so having a preference is the point of all this.

I take issue with the idea that someone might have “bad taste” in music or stories, defined simply as being contrary to the general consensus. Because, since when is being unique an inherently bad thing? If someone enjoyed the Percy Jackson movie, more power to them. If someone didn’t like Bloodborne, that doesn’t make their preferences any less valid.

But, this does provide an interesting conundrum for analysis that you will probably be familiar with already. How do you analyse something that you found uninteresting or unpleasant?

In short, you focus on the things that you like.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD (She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, The Great Gatsby)

If you hadn’t guessed by my extremely subtle implication, I dislike Boys’ Night Out, and that is putting it mildly. But this isn’t a review blog, it’s an analysis, which means the framework is slightly different.

The point of analysis is to explore what the text is communicating to its audience and to justify your own reading of that. It is to create an argument based off evidence provided.

So, I could talk about the reasons for my hatred towards this episode, but that doesn’t really help anyone. I’m not trying to convince you whether or not to watch this episode, I’m presenting a theory for what it means.

The issue here, is that if a work of fiction doesn’t work for you, there is a disconnect between it and yourself. This means that you are less likely to enjoy analysing it, hampering your ability to engage with it.

This is one of the larger issues that I take with how the school curriculum in my country. It explores themes through texts, with preset ideas and steps for getting there.

This is fine. Stories have been used as a vehicle for understanding since the birth of humanity. But, come on. Australian students don’t need to learn exactly what F. Scott Fitzgerald thought about the American Dream. They need to learn about how to recognise what a person is talking about, and how to infer from what has been left out, or when someone is projecting. Crucially though, they need to learn how to better communicate their own ideas.

If you give someone a green light, they’ll see the future for a moment. If you teach them to make their own, suddenly their whole world has been illuminated forever.

Which brings me to Boys’ Night Out, and if you allow me, I’d like to show off what I mean and maybe help out some people who are struggling with this kind of thing.

I am a visual learner, so let’s examine a few shots from this episode and see if they convey a theme we can look for.

A group of people cheering and having fun. Not much at the surface value, but if we dive a little deeper, this is in Salineas. This is people who are under siege, whose homes are under threat, whose lives have been made better for the moment through the camaraderie of the tavern.

For the first time in the episode, the one true queen looks happy. Specifically, because she has been given something to do. That joy is actively interrupting an argument going on between Glimmer and Adora, keeping that friendship from falling apart for just a while longer.

Which means that we have a theme to work with. This is an episode about finding happiness in the dark times, and specifically the importance of doing that. According to this episode, joy is what keeps you going.

The princesses are fighting to protect the wonder of those in their kingdoms, and there’s more than one way to do that. You can stand in the way of those trying to destroy it, or you can cultivate that emotion and allow it to grow naturally.

Notably, Sea Hawk is a bard, he plays support and inspires people. The episode opens with Sea Hawk trying his hardest to lead people to safety, and when that option has failed, he stands resolute between the cannon and its targets. He’s reassuring and real, and his smile is constantly on display.

Even when Glimmer saves him, he has a joke to make to lighten the mood.

Later on, the episode explicitly positions Sea Hawk and Mermista growing closer as an opposite to Adora and Glimmer. The one true queen is looking constantly to her bard, while Bow is left staring at the sunset, watching the best friend squad go their separate ways.

Here comes step two of this master plan, diversity of evidence. If you are writing an essay for an exam, this is one of the things that will get you marks. If not, it's still useful. Once again, analysis is about communication, and that takes multiple forms.

In this case, I think the most important dialogue of the episode contrasts with the thing about joy and camaraderie, in that it’s about the Best Friend Squad falling apart.

“Well, maybe your best isn’t good enough. If it was, my mother would still be here.”

If a piece of evidence doesn’t work with the individual theme you are going for, maybe don’t use it. Not everything will work on that, maybe there are other ideas being explored at the same time. Alternatively, just slap the word “contrastingly” at the start of your paragraph and you’ll be fine. Talk about how different the themes are, and how they don’t work together at all. Maybe that’s intentional, who knows? You do.

And in your analysis, Fitzgerald contrasts the repeated metaphors of light and dark with the crowded party spaces to draw on biblical ideas of space most used in gothic cathedral designs.

Here, for example, I can draw this line in particular to my overarching theme of the cycle of abuse. Specifically, how trauma causes itself in others.

This isn’t a callout post. Being traumatized and being a bad person are not synonymous. I’m saying that trauma responses are often selfish, that’s part of why they are so insidious. Trauma has a habit of making you self-centred and defensive, to the detriment of those around you. In this case, Glimmer’s trauma response has been to blame Adora.

Glimmer has grown up as a rebellious princess, and she has kept that as she became queen. She never really found closure, so the anarchistic habits have been translated over to Adora, who in turn has taken an authoritative role in an attempt to protect everyone.

The difference here, is that this is so out of left field. We see why Glimmer would think that. She has naturally sought someone to blame and the only person who came within 100 miles of Angella’s “death” was Adora, but that doesn’t make her responsible.

I’m going to side with Adora here and say that Glimmer is entirely in the wrong for this, and it is this outburst that will cause the rest of this season to go as it does.

This contrasts with the theme of camaraderie and joy to imply a sense of directionality. Being together lifts you up, while the trauma keeps you apart, and makes you fall together.

Final Thoughts

Ok, biases. I detest this episode because of how jarring the tone is. Specifically, Sea Hawk tries to make everyone feel better by turning the war story into a musical, which I find takes me out of the story. I can feel the hand of the author so heavily in this episode, especially because of how much Sea Hawk warps the setting.

Show me an episode of things going bad and the bard with no braincells going all out with the support and momentum. Show me a plan that nearly fails but is saved by moments when this dumbass manages to keep his smile through utter disaster, and that inspires others to push forwards and succeed.

That is the premise of Sea Hawk’s role in No Princess Left Behind, and he isn’t any smarter in that episode, the show is just less embarrassed by him.

I do hope my complaints about this episode haven’t pushed you away, I did try to say something interesting other than that.

Next week, however, I will be talking about hero, one of my favourite episodes of the series. So, stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

[salarta]

I Saw The TV Glow Thoughts

So I saw the movie, and I wanna talk about several things within it. I'm gonna put it under a cut because spoilers are involved.

I thought it was a great movie, though I don't think it'll have the same impact on streaming.

The whole scene of Mr Melancholy speaking to Owen is a prime example. It feels very encompassing when it's on a huge screen taking up your attention, vs on a smaller screen when you can easily just look at your phone or get distracted. I LOVED the effect on his face. But yeah, "you won't even know you're dying" hits hard.

By the end, it very much feels like one of those popular 90s episodes where the main characters are tormented by a monster of the week that tries to convince them their actual reality is pure fiction and they're just "crazy." Except, in this case the movie all takes place from the perspective of the characters inside the fake reality.

I've seen mostly comparisons between Pink Opaque and BtVS. I can see that, both due to the director's comments and certain elements. But honestly, I feel Charmed is a better comparison point. The Pink Opaque focuses on two young girls who use the astral plane to communicate, and involves fighting demons, both of which do apply to both shows. But it's the implied sisterhood aspect, paired with the astral plane, that feels very Charmed in nature. The power of the pink opaque feels very much like it fits power of three.

More importantly, Owen's dad refers to Pink Opaque as a "show for girls." That attitude more closely mirrors Charmed because of its protagonists all being female, and very strong girl power emphasis of the show.

Then there's the fact Pink Opaque comes on during a "young adult" block even though it's talked about as being "for kids," yet the show comes on too late for kids to actually watch. And somehow lasts 5 seasons like that. That was the first indication to me something wasn't quite right.

I think just how different Pink Opaque is on streaming makes very clear that Owen's in the midnight realm. Aside from simply how cheesy it is by that point, if it was really that cheesy originally, why would it be on at 10:30 PM instead of during the day like with Power Rangers. The Mr Melancholy game at the arcade goes further into this matter by suddenly making it more "childish."

Now, within this whole framework, with Pink Opaque being the real world and Owen being one of its characters, Owen's midnight realm circumstances work perfectly both to keep the character trapped in the realm and to show division with Maddy. Maddy's two years older and a white lesbian, while Owen's trapped in the realm presenting as a black man. You get the effect of this on their relationship when Maddy starts out calling him a "baby" for being two years younger than her, and later with Maddy feeling she needed to make clear she's a lesbian.

Along with this, it helps get across to the audience how difficult it can be to "escape" the pressures of masculinity. How Owen feels the need to sneak around with "girly" interests and connections. Never considers asking to stay over at Maddy's. Also Owen cleaning off the pink ghost drawn on his neck. We know he loves the show, so that decision must come from fear of public stigma if people saw it on him. It's very much a "I'm wiping away this power of mine, this thing that gives me life, from public view so I can fit in" case.

Fred Durst is also someone I would not have expected starring in this. Yet he was a perfect choice for the character he played. He's one of several people who had a pop culture masculine image out there in the 90s, so it fits for Owen to have that affecting him.

Oh, and I very much saw the AYAOTD reference for what it was.

Wrapping up, I can understand the point of the ending after seeing commentary by the director. It's a very valuable ending and I certainly wouldn't say it should "change" in any way from the director's vision. However, I will say that I didn't get the impression the director intended while viewing. "This is gonna be a process Owen needs to go through, it's gonna take time" is something that makes sense once explained. Taken as-is, it ended up feeling like Owen saw the truth but then decided to run away from it again, like Owen has no hope of breaking free of the midnight realm. It felt like a very "if that's not enough for Owen to change, nothing will make it happen" situation.

That's all I have at the moment. Again, good movie!

[piromantic]

gender rambling

this isn't about how i feel on the inside or trying to sort out any of that stuff. the older i get the less i care about applying the gender dichotomy to my own feelings or trying to describe myself within this framework that doesn't really mean anything, like i'm myself and i'm good with that

however. we live in a society.

ngl for this being the 'burnt out gifted kid transgender' website i've never actually seen any discussions about gender within competitive academic settings. i've seen some mentions of how toxic masculinity presents differently in nerd spaces, but still permeates it just as much as any other space. but it took like, so fucking long to even recognize it in my own life, let alone unravel how it affected me.

i sometimes play video games with a group of guys from my major and for the last year and a half i was The Team Carry because i had a few hundred extra hours of practice on them. they're all nearly caught up to my level now, and even though they're all the pretty typical 'woo feminism' cis men and have never said anything towards me that was weird or discriminatory, i've started to feel afraid that i'm going to be mentally demoted in their minds as soon as i lose the status of 'carry'. which is irrational, but as i started dissecting where this fear came from it started unraveling like years of my life

it sounds absolutely ridiculous when typed out, but when i'm in my own head i keep going in circles of 'am i, personally, going to lead to the downfall of feminism by not being a woman'.

because i am studying in a field where there aren't many women in general, let alone visibly queer people. things have gotten better for sure but i have literally been in a class where i was the only person who wasn't a cis man in the whole room. so i'm viewed as someone setting an example and paving the way just by existing, which feels like i'm just pulling off a giant deception on people who see me as a sign of community, which feels awful.

but also, i think i became aware of this on a subconscious level YEARS before i realized it outright. like i think about this reaction i have to video games and it takes me all the way back to fourth grade, when i realized that girls were never going to accept me, but if i was mean and smart and loud about it, boys might. so i got really into the Act Of Appearing Smart, which manifested as just being... ridiculously competitive. oh i know more digits of pi than you. oh i can recite more of the periodic table faster than you. oh i can do integrals in my head faster than you. etc etc ad infinitum

when i think back, so much of my life was spent trying to like, win scraps of gender euphoria through 'proving' myself in the academic system. and like. ???? playing the misogyny game is still misogyny. i look back and wonder whether i had a missed opportunity to make these spaces better if i had just pushed back on them a bit more, and whether i was just perpetuating them by being like 'hey guys, no need to stop the toxic masculinity! i'm a girl, and i can succeed in here, so girls who don't succeed just aren't trying hard enough!'

or, put slightly differently: was i just perpetuating the idea that the only way to succeed in these systems was to be masculine.

over time i found that the way boys (and men, now) signify that i've succeeded is to allow me to be in their spaces. guys will tell me about the girls they find hot, forgetting that it's not socially acceptable for me to agree. guys will drop the use of female pronouns when i'm in the group, slotting me under 'boys' or 'king' like the rest of their friends instead of making exceptions. and it's like. if i was a woman i wouldn't let this happen, and i know they would respect that.

BUT I'M NOT A WOMAN. and these things are affirming, but i feel terrible for finding affirmation in them, because they weren't meant that way.

(and i can hear my mother's voice in my head like 'you're not trans, you just want male privilege', and no, i really don't think that's it. i had a friend that used to say misogynistic shit to be edgy when we were in like, elementary-middle school, and i always shut that down immediately. but it never felt like i was defending myself as part of that group. i've just always felt a bit of distance there)

i guess the issue i've been trying to articulate is that things are fine on the surface, but the context for them isn't. if people were treating me the exact same way because i came out to them, i wouldn't feel bad. but i'm a coward and i hate coming out because it usually goes badly for me, and i'd also feel bad about coming out in my area of study specifically because i'm already in the minority right now. (and i don't think it would go over very well, despite diversity trainings and whatever getting more popular.) like i don't want to be the SINGLE they/them in my entire department. that's too much stress for me.

and i have this fear that it would just come across as becoming a stereotype, or being misogynistic. like ohhhh you think you're a man because women can't do math or something. <- insane thing to worry about

idk i need to stop stalling and finish my conference presentation already. if you read this far idk why you would but thanks for making it through all that

[rockofeye]

I recently started noticing Haus of Hoodoo’s foreboding posts. It feels very heavy. I found your blog by searching her name. I read your entire post about her. All the lies & contradictions… Have you seen any of her new Instagram stories? I’d love to hear your thoughts. You mentioned that her past posts were like fear mongering. She has a lot of people passing these fears along.

You know, this is similar to what I said about New Age apocalyptic vision and universalizing personal revelation with the last person engaging in practices that do not align with Haitian Vodou as a communal, collective religion. She takes what she represents as her dreams and conversations with spirits and presents it as universal truth when they are vague statements that can be interpreted any particular way.

She apparently is currently pounding on some pretty low bar 'the world is ending' stuff and 'predicting' earthquakes and blackouts and illness and whatever scattershot statements make sense. None of it is anything surprising to anyone paying attention to the state of the world for the last ten years, and none of it is anything exceptional...but it does make people scared.

Someone sent me this post specifically and I think it's an interesting example:

She reports having this dream, and then says 'now we have to worry about...' as if those dreams are inherently important to other people. The trick is that they are not, but folks who come from the standpoint of New Age thought, which is inherently manipulative and fear-based, don't see it like that because that culture is heavy on apocalyptic marketing as a way to draw in paying customers.

She also takes them literally which is...interesting. Vodouizan often have better insight than that.

She's not speaking to vodouizan with that kind of stuff because there are dozens of ways to interpret that from the framework of Haitian Vodou, with the first being that there is no inherent meaning for anyone but her. Part of the humility she talks about a lot is understanding that bit about personal revelation being personal.

Of course, that hinges on that she is reporting accurately and this isn't marketing.

This has sat for a minute because giving her energy is like feeding a vampire: the need for her to prove more and more how serious and spiritual she is only grows, because any threat to that is dollars not spent.

She's started telling people they need to flee the US before a great blackout that she has been talking about for at least a year comes to pass. I thought the next logical step from that would be the ask for cash for some product or special access that will mitigate the effects or help you navigate her coming apocalypse..and she did that too!

Now she is advertising an almanac and private group to share her revelations and tell people where they should flee to, etc. She says she can't share openly, so she's going private which means she can communicate these things to people who are vulnerable to this style of manipulation. It also means she'll say/sell whatever she wants without any critical eyes on it which means no checks and balances which is the same thing as telling folks they can't photograph anything in the fetes she says she holds. If you're acting above board and in good faith, there's no reason to hide, especially for vodouizan.

But she's not speaking to vodouizan, she's speaking to scared and overwhelmed folks who want to feel better and will part with cash to do so. It's a time-honored tradition of spiritual grift, so she's right in line with those type of spiritual communities and fits in with those marketing schemes that target vulnerable people.

So, of course those posts feel heavy! That's definitely the point. It drives engagement which she can translate to dollars in her private group with whatever paid plans and assistance cures she is going to offer, like mass produced bracelets for protection, crystals, a very expensive fixed candle, etc.

None of this is to say that the world is not a really tough place to be right now. It's all shit, but none of this is new and these have been things that have been a result of long and deeply entrenched systems of oppression and not anything specifically spiritual or magical in nature. From the perspective of Vodou, the lwa have seen all of this before. It's not new.

I will say that it is super interesting that someone who brings out the title of manbo when they want to assert authority has had almost zero to say about the continual disaster in Haiti. She's asserted no spiritual insight into that nor expressed one ounce of empathy for the suffering of folks she has claimed alignment with. But...she is also the person who wanted to talk big about the peyizan who live on the land she claims to own and how they would be punished if they cut a tree without her permission. How do you empathize when you barely see folks as human?

There are a lot more spiritually sound outlets available for critique and discussion about current events and what that means for spiritually aligned folks that don't involve insistence on a particular vision or apocalyptic supposed messages. Survival in a world based on inequality and white supremacy does not mean following a personality or their interpretation of what they believe their visions are. It's okay to leave that stuff to the side in pursuit of understanding our place in the world because survival is not predicated on ideas that inevitably come back to white supremacist conspiracy theories. She's already there with her most recent stuff.

So...take care of you and your own spiritual vision without buying into someone who wants to sell to you. Don't buy into collective fear where the solution comes with a price tag.

Those are my thoughts...I hope that they are helpful.

[danniswrites]

My writing turned totally around in Jan 2022. I was editing my latest NaNoWriMo project, and decided to check out a resource I found on nanowrimo.org to help me. Basically, I wanted help to write a dynamite blurb, or tagline. When I create a new story, I use a LibreOffice template I created to put my title page, copyright page with a sentence describing what the story's about, TOC, and a dummy first paragraph with my first dummy paragraph heading.

I wanted to know how to write better taglines.

So I read the article above and the light bulb went on! Simple. Elegant. Plotting.

I had always been a pantser. Never planned any part of my stories, and I have about 650 of 'em, half not even to the first draft. Dedicated pantser. In my teen years, I hated English literature in 8th grade even though I knew I needed to know how to plot, but all the analysis of the books we read [and I enjoyed reading them] just made me feel like, 'I'm too stupid to learn all this.'

Now, I'm reading these 10 steps and had an epiphany!

So, I broke down Step 1 and made it into my worksheet for coming up with taglines.

Here's how I think about those 15 max words to get it done:

One Sentence Summary: Adj.+Noun+Verb+Obj [Worker] [Action] [Effect] in 15 words or less Character With Most To Lose: What They Want:

So, for Adia, Scientist, here's what I came up with:

Discouraged scientist must discover a new fuel so her colony can escape from war.

I write science fiction and I loved chemistry in college, so, hey, I like formulas. I don't want my writing to sound like it came from a formula, but if you look at a lot of genres, there is one.

If you read enough romances, like my sister did, you figure out there's a pattern you can follow as a writer. I was there when she did. She went on to become famous and actually got an award presented to her in New York from her idol, Barbara Cartland at a writer's conference.

I--uh, I'm the non-famous sister who self-publishes on Amazon. But I enjoy my writing life, and though I do love to put romance in my books, romance writing is not my thing.

However, if you're like me and you want to improve your writing, Snowflake Method does work for a lot of us. And, if you buy one of Randy Ingermanson's very entertaining books, you get a free copy of his Snowflake Pro software, which walks you through each step and lets you see what you wrote in the previous step.

I don't do all 10 steps. Let's face it, I'm a plantser now. I'm not that meticuolous and organized. But, I do most of them, because Steps 1-5 give me a nice head start. And, Steps 3, 5 and 7 concentrate on your characters. Characters make your story. If you don't have a character that grabs your reader from the first chapter, why will they want to read your story? You have to have someone to care about and they have to have something happening that attracts the reader.

Now that I had a loose framework for my stories, I needed to [finally] learn something about plot structure more than the beginning, 3 disasters, and an ending. Randy does an excellent job of simplifying 3 act structure [though there are other methods such as PlotDot or Save The Cat that also work with Snowflake Method].

Another resource I found while exploring resources in the Now What? Revision pages on nanowrimo.org was K. M. Weiland's wonderful site:

This lady puts 3 act structure into terms that I can understand, and she has a vast database of books and movies that she's analyzed for us. If you think 3 act structure is complicated and boring, try reading a little of your favorite on this list:

I love the Marvel movies, so here's how she summarized The Avengers.

And she even mentions how what works in this movie would not, in a book. This is something I read time and time again about science fiction writing. Science fiction movies are not 'true' science fiction, for the most part. Star Wars is fantasy set on other planets. Star Trek has science in it, but again, is science fantasy.

In science fiction, science drives the story more than characters or plot. Though, to make my science fiction more accessible to a wider audience, I choose to concentrate on psychology, particularly interpersonal relationships. I do make sure that my science is feasible and believable, and explain it simply. And, I do my research.

So, when writing a book, it's good to see analyses like this of movies, but remember, it's different for books.

A friend who was also a producer told me, for a two-hour movie, you have to choose about two chapters for your script. The director has to insert some points to connect the dots. That's why many movies 'aren't like the book' they're based upon. It's an art to take a book and condense it like that so it still makes sense and absorbs the viewer.

But, we writers can learn much from movies about character development and how to get our readers involved with them, and with our stories.

[leam1983]

Designing Better Fantasy Schools - A Compromise

Let's say you don't care about the associated politics and the baggage that comes with the Wizarding World. Let's say you're willing to more or less commit social suicide by saying you don't much care about J. K. Rowling's politics and just want to focus on all things Harry Potter. How can you still improve on the basic framework without leaving it behind?

I've already mentioned Marvel's X-Men as a more cogent example and Ursula K. LeGuin's Tales of Earthsea need no introduction either, but let's play Devil's Advocate and figure you want to write Potterverse fanfic that strips away all that Meritocratic, Neoliberal, Boy's School for Billionaires feeling the franchise has. What's your best bet?

I'd suggest looking elsewhere around the world - and specifically, while ignoring the other named schools in the canon. The way they're presented, we can assume that every other institution from Beauxbâtons (a terrible name thought up by someone who doesn't speak French) and Uagadou (Wow, Joanne, did you just look at an Atlas map of Africa and pick the capital of Burkina Faso at random, and just strip one syllable?) all follow the same basic setup as Hogwarts - or at least the same basic setup as other paid-for, private schools.

My advice? Go public. A well-thought-out Wizarding World should have included the notion that not every kid will have the chance to make it to an independently-financed institution, and that several will, in fact, be forced to attend wizarding classes in the same Brutalist hallways as their Muggle peers.

It does strip the setting of its Neoliberal undertones, as wizards and witches can't simply Hammerspace their entire society into Non-Euclidian streets and byways the Muggles can't access. It requires closer coordination with Muggle governing bodies and strips magic of its status of a golden goose that has to inexplicably be kept out of Muggle hands.

As that's another thing: for how Edwardian JKR's wizards and school headmasters are, they're still resolutely Medieval in their anticipation of Muggle rejection and persecution. Assuming magic, in this universe, is in some way tied to natural forces, then you'd figure Muggle scientists would've accidentally discovered the ability to Apparate without a wand or a spell, and would've just labeled it as teleportation. You'd figure that someone born without magic would have seen some spell-casting take place at some point and would've said "Hey, this is neat! Paired with some of our own tech, this could solve so many problems!"

Enmeshing both worlds closer also fixes several worldbuilding problems. Let's say Rowling's gonzo bit of lore about wizards and witches dropping deuces on the spot and then whisking them away with a spell is canon, don't you think most of them would actually welcome the addition of modern plumbing? Legacy includes toilets in the student lavatories, but the professors have no definable living spaces!

Setting your story in the public sector fixes that issue. Teachers only work in their professional spaces, and go home after classroom hours, just like the students would.

Then again, this raises another question: why cling to the Potterverse at all? Politics aside, the setting reflects something that even the most skilled fanfic authors don't bother reckoning with, which is that it really is meant for a tiny sliver of its total readership. The Canadian kid with parents working a nine-to-five won't ever receive a letter, not when there's hazy, improperly-defined "other local schools" that serve as Budget Hogwarts. The American kid who grew up on everything Potter isn't a potential target either, the American concept of a boarding school tends to evoke places like West Point Academy, as opposed to refurbed mansions packed with kids.

Do a little research, and you'll realize that British boarding schools are, more often than not, looked back onto with regret. Youtuber Lindybeige has a very lukewarm summary of his boarding school years, with the general sense being that it had a stultifying feeling. Compare and contrast with early-2000s fanfic that present Mall Goth Hogwarts students as surviving in this context, and you're left rolling your eyes. All these 'sonas crapped out after an overdose on My Chemical Romance wouldn't have lasted a week at Eton College during the heyday of British boarding schools.

So - destroy the concept altogether and rebuild it from scratch. You're an underprivileged inner-city kid with a weird scar on your forehead, and a class trip to the zoo takes a turn for the worse. In the days that follow, the principal asks to meet with you more often than usual, and offers that you'll start to work with "specialized educators".

There's an unusual trip to the hardware store for some cookware and some Chemistry sets you associate to late High School classes, and an introduction to new classmates. To the School Board, you're moved to a different class of student - the Arcane Enabled. Common-subject classes are still with your old classmates, only now you've got new classes that enmesh spellcasting with core disciplines you're still in need of learning. Defense Against the Dark Arts with a side of Ethics, Potion-making with a side of Chemistry...

In this new version of the setting, identitarian politics are a non-issue. Trans students are shown that there are ways for them to use magic to alter their gender, some merely Veil-based for Enbies in the lot, and others more permanent. Goblins are entirely emancipated and "House Elf" is now a paid position that's rapidly growing out of fashion - and Wizards, crucially, have evolved in tandem with the Muggle world. Your educators all drive cars and own smartphones and tablets, they all can work their way around a computer - but they're also able to do slightly more with these things than a Muggle can. You realize that being a wizard doesn't shut you out from the wider world, and finally figure out what was so special about particular channels, TV shows, movies or other media productions your parents love; as the Muggles aren't shy about mythologizing their magic-slinging peers.

At that point, you again have to ask yourself the all-important question: why cling to Potter at all? The concept of a second secret and shadowy world comes complete with so many risks of added toxicity and of enshrining elements that might seem quaint or antiquated but that actually hide their lot of relational or sociopolitical conflicts; that you're left wondering why Modern Fantasy clings to it at all.

Wouldn't things be simpler, fairer, even, if the Ordinary People always knew?

[gunsli-01]

Honestly, when it comes to Mu framing it as Innocent or Guilty is the best approach not Forgiven or Unforgiven. Mu's actions aren't really forgivable her entire first trial song is about how I'm sorry won't reach anyone. The anyone in this case being the actual victim because they're dead so of course they can't hear it. During her interogation her only justification for killing is that it was self-defense and she had no other choice but to do it. Something that more easily aligns with a guilty/innocent framework.

Then, when asked, "Do you want to apologise to the person you killed?" during the first trial, she literally says, "I think the person who did something wrong first should apologise first." Making it abundantly clear to me that her actions are unforgivable based on the fact that she doesn't believe she needs to apologize to the person she literally killed making her song come off as nothing but a performance. I feel incredibly uncomfortable with saying I forgive Mu at all cause her apology

1. Is not mine to accept.

2. Blatantly ignores the voice of her actual victim to the extent that a good deal of the fandom really did just heavily partake in victim blaming by going but what did so and so do to deserve getting stabbed.

It just gives off that incredibly blind energy of x person did something bad/offensive towards insert minority group here but I someone who is not a part of that minority group or a direct victim of person x's actions forgive them. I accept their apology. Because they took onus of their wrongdoing and promise not to do it again. So, there's no need to fuss they didn't know any better.

It could just be my own bias cause again black and I see stuff like this happen all the time. Yet, to be completely honest, it's easier to vote her innocent than forgiven for me given these reasons.

Like at least there is a vague legal precedent for her actions under the idea of it being self-defense. Especially given how far bullying can go at times. Yet, her actions are pretty much unforgivable outside of that and she seems very aware of this given she doesn't want us looking too deeply into it anymore. Just saying knocking the Guilty/Innocent translation can ultimately end up screwing her over in some way this time around.

I wouldn't be pointing this out if not for the whole Haruka's life possibly hanging on her verdict thing but like just at least try and give people some reason to consider her positively instead of digging a deeper hole. Cause if she's voted guilty and Kotoko innocent again then she will die. We saw what Kotoko did to Mahiru and Kazui is not spending his time protecting women. So, Haruka is the one in the clear if Futa is voted innocent given Mikoto can protect himself barring something changing. So, Mu fans have got to work harder at this point given the patterns present.

She can not continue to give people nothing and given her song title and the bit of lyrics we've seen so far she may just give people less than nothing. She may just give people every reason to vote her guilty and like as much as I think that'd be deserved when it comes to the possible long-term consequences of that result, I'm wary.

[askmerriauthor]

Pokemon S/V and the Fourth Wall

For those of you who may not know the term, the Fourth Wall is a narrative/theater concept that refers to the unseen barrier between the Audience and the Fictional World being portrayed. When a character in a given work looks directly at the camera/audience, speaks to the viewer, or otherwise interacts with the medium their story is being presented in outside of the way a being in that setting could normally do, that's called "Breaking the Fourth Wall".

Pokemon games have always played pretty fast and loose when it comes to the Fourth Wall. In the early days this could be attributed to simply not having better ways to familiarize Players with the games' systems, functions, and command prompts. The games were heavily limited by their medium and file sizes, so it's not like the devs could spare the extra space to give a more sensibly in-universe explanation to a lot of things. Sometimes a dev has little recourse but to have a character say "Press the B Button", speaking directly to the Player and breaking the Fourth Wall by acknowledging the game/console mechanics. Since Pokemon itself, as a setting and story, has taken lengths to establish a living, breathing world full of lore and history and characters with their own lives, such fissures between Player and Game are generally ignored as a necessity, or cheekily winked at as an Easter Egg, such as when the Player can find Game Freak studio in many of the games and talk to the dev team. Suspension of disbelief maintains.

That said, I have a MAJOR problem with recent developments as of Pokemon Legends: Arceus and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet.

PLA takes place in the far-flung past of the setting and covers a lot of mankind's first real efforts at domesticating Pokemon, which leads up to the modern era the other games take place in. That's a fantastic concept and one I love to see explored. But it also introduced an extremely unnecessary concept into the lore:

All Pokemon have the ability to shrink themselves down small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. All of them. All Pokemon. At-will. It's just an innate thing shared by all Pokemon in existence, even ones from other planets and dimensions or artificially made by man or spontaneously manifested from the grudge of a dying soul, regardless of their differences in biology.

To which I say... no, they fucking don't.

Far be it from me to tell the writers at Game Freak how to do their jobs, but y'know what? I'm a writer in the game development industry myself, so I will since I at least qualify as a professional peer. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever, directly flies in the face of the established lore, and doesn't add anything useful to the lore either. It's not used to expand or fiddle with our understanding of the setting. It's just an excuse to justify why Pokemon shrink away and disappear when they're defeated (a common video game practice of de-rezzing an unneeded character model) or why they can fit inside Pokeballs (we don't need to know that, we've gone the entire series without knowing for certain, it's better not being explained). That said, as the other Fourth Wall breaks prior, this can be massaged away and gently ignored. The story takes place at the very beginning of mankind's scientific exploration of Pokemon, so we can easily wave this statement aside as "they were operating on flawed logic and assumptions that seemed accurate at the time, but didn't hold up to scrutiny as scientific understanding progressed". Suspension of disbelief may be bruised, but it maintains.

Pokemon S/V takes this needless invocation of the game mechanics even further and far more to the detriment of the setting. The Academy is a place that was criminally misused by the game: the Player has the option to explore biology, language, history, math, and other topics outside of the normal Trainer framework we usually play in. It's the perfect opportunity to examine the lore of the setting, really dig into how Pokemon society functions when you're not a combat-focused Trainer, and really flesh out the whole story in interesting ways. S/V did exactly none of that. Instead, all of the classes just discuss combat mechanics or S/V-specific Paldea backstory. That's bad enough on its own because it's such a massive waste of potential, but S/V goes into territory that doesn't just break the Fourth Wall, but grinds it into dust and throws it in our eyes.

Classes in the Academy make statements that blatantly defy the setting we actively interact with at the very moment we're doing it, purely for the sake of justifying a game mechanic. The "Let's Go" function, where you can call out your Pokemon to walk along with you in the overworld, doesn't work indoors because of sizing/pathing constraints. That's fine, it doesn't need to be explained at all. But S/V goes out of its way to state that Pokemon in Paldea, regardless of their species, AREN'T ALLOWED INDOORS, even as virtually every room - including the very class that statement is being made in - features Pokemon in them. Just like the "all Pokemon can shrink" line, this exists only to explain a game mechanic and plainly breaks the setting for no reason.

Further, all these lessons directly reference concepts that don't exist in the setting itself but do exist as part of the game mechanics. They discuss the specific mathematical odds of Shiny probability, the exact damage equations of Super-Effective moves and STAB mechanics, the numerical likelihood and effects of a Critical Hit, and even refer to system statements made in the USER INTERFACE ITSELF THAT EXIST SOLELY FOR THE SAKE OF PLAYER.

What this sort of thing does is directly tie the game's mechanics to the nature of the setting itself; these mechanics are no longer a medium by which to interpret abstract concepts that can't easily be addressed in the game, but are now a fundamental part of how this setting operates. It's absolutely ridiculous and outright damaging to the integrity of the game setting, especially when it comes to the implications it brings up.

For example, there's an invisible stat called "Friendship" in Pokemon that measures how friendly a Pokemon is to you, which raises and lowers based on how you treat them. Some Pokemon will only evolve if they have high Friendship values, or some moves will change their effectiveness based on if a Pokemon likes or dislikes you. As a shorthand mechanic, there are items in the game that alter a Pokemon's stats, including making it more friendly to you. Previously, Players could just use this as an abstraction - "Oh, Pokemon enjoy these items, so using it is the game's way of representing me caring for the Pokemon and giving it things it enjoys". But now? Because of how S/V explicitly ties the game mechanics into the setting, it means these items basically mind-control a Pokemon. "Oh, this Pokemon doesn't like me at all? Let me shove a handful of Grepa Berries down its throat - now it instantly loves me". See how that completely defies the entire concept of Pokemon being independent creatures, Humans befriending Pokemon, establishing a bond with them, and being partners in adventure that even S/V itself tries to present?

This is made so much worse by the fact that it's completely unnecessary. One might argue "But Merri, this is some Players' first Pokemon game! They need to have the mechanics explained to them or else it won't make sense!". I understand that, dear Convenient Strawman, but that's ignoring a very important facet of S/V: the Adventure Guide. That is to say, an in-game key item the Player has from the very start of the game that explains all of the game's various functions, mechanics, and concepts in a non-lore manner. It's a tutorial guidebook specifically for this purpose; its presence in the game explains these ideas better and more thoroughly, making the integration of mechanics into the lore itself redundant and pointless.

For the love of lore, Game Freak, please stop trying to over-explain and integrate game mechanics into the story. Go home. You're drunk.