#rdr2 discussion

[zaddyazula]

rdr2 spoilers under the cut

this cutscene is really interesting to me because it really does start to mark the shift in the game’s narrative. sean’s death is the beginning of this shift, almost foretelling of what’s to come, but you’re still safely in chapter 3 territory at that point; it’s only when you get (officially) introduced to saint denis that this shift starts to become apparent (at least to someone who’s played the game before. obviously, first time players won’t have a clue in the world what’s about to happen). the smoke billowing up into the sky, the grit of the city that’s visible even in the sliver of it you see in this cutscene: it’s nothing positive. chapter 4 is such a pivotal chapter, not with only the deaths and missions, but with the obvious (the tuberculosis diagnosis), and the mood the game fully develops into after that. there is a sense of pure dread to me in this scene, but even without the knowledge of how badly the game goes downhill from here, this scene is anything but pleasant - it hardly paints a lovely picture of the chapter - which makes it all the more interesting. if we take the point of view of a first time player, we don’t know arthur’s ill, we don’t know how messing around in saint denis is going to domino the entire story, we don’t know hosea and lenny are going to end up dying. so having this scene here must be strange. why is there such a negative light cast on saint denis? on the beginning of a new chapter? it’s an unprecedented mood to start the chapter on, thinking about how the other chapters start before this, even with the content they might contain. they are the starting chapters, obviously, but chapter 2, we have thomas downes; chapter 3, we have sean’s death and the pinkertons looming even heavier over the gang. both chapters start wholesome enough, so to someone playing the game for the first time, it’s unusual. instilling worry into those first seeing it, and further reinforcing it into us who have played the game before - it’s the right choice for the chapter, starting off on a comforting foot: running around after children, a whole new city to explore, before returning to the sentiment it started on - absolute dread. the chapter tricks you after this scene, lulling you into a false sense of security, making you take the introduction to it as a bit strange, but nothing more, but before you know it, you’re at the bank robbery watching it fall to pieces - and it doesn’t stop there. the entireties of chapter 5 and 6 you are just forced to sit there and play as the gang falls apart.

[arthursfuckinghat]

Thinking about how Hosea gave Arthur the raven black shire, how Hosea said it was a brute, a bastard, and mean.

But after you've bonded with the horse, you'll find that it's one of the sweetest and bravest horse you've ever had.

In a similar vein, I think about how Hosea said that Arthur was a brute, dumb, and not that intelligent.

But then again, Hosea knows that it's just an act that Arthur puts on, he knows that Arthur has a heart and cares deeply.

In the same way that the shire revealed its true nature with time and care, so did Arthur. Beneath the harsh exterior, Hosea always saw the true goodness in Arthur.

[pinkysberg]

is it misogynistic to critique a flawed female character? of course not. is it misogynistic if the only characters you find yourself investing time into actively critiquing are the female characters? i mean, if i were you i'd maybe invest some time into self reflection.

also lets put our intersectionality caps on while we're at it. maybe you find your critiques being levelled more frequently, with more intensity at a queer/gnc presenting character, or a black character, so on so forth.

we can all be flawed and any good character is flawed. that's what makes them interesting. but perhaps we can dedicate more energy into dissecting the misdeeds of dudes in media more often as well. i don't know. how about that?

[meeks-just-wants-to-scroll]

Get out of the way, Micah, there’s a new #1 Baylock fan.

[moeitsu]

If your only argument for shipping Arthur and John is “well they’re not real” stay the hell away from me.

I’m not even going to get into why IT IS incest. But here’s my take nonetheless:

Shipping incestuous relationships, even among fictional characters, is ethically problematic. It normalizes taboo behaviors and can distort perceptions of healthy relationships. Incest is universally recognized as harmful due to the potential for exploitation, abuse, and genetic risks. Romanticizing such relationships in fiction risks trivializing these serious issues. Choosing to ship incestuous relationships, even in fiction, perpetuates a harmful misconception and undermines the effort to cultivate a respectful and understanding narrative.

Misinterpreting a familial bond between characters raised as siblings as romantic chemistry reflects a misunderstanding of a healthy adult relationship.

It's important to be able to distinguish between different types of relationships. Such as recognizing the boundaries between familial love and romantic love. When people romanticize these sibling-like relationships, it blurs these distinctions. And it creates misconceptions about appropriate relationship dynamics.

This misinterpretation underscores the need for highlighting the role of media literacy in appreciating diverse human connections. Portraying and perceiving these characters' relationship as romantic undermines the value of familial bonds and may foster unrealistic expectations in adult relationships. It's crucial for audiences to acknowledge and respect the various meaningful connections that extend beyond romantic narratives.

I’m sorry if this reads like an essay, but as someone who’s taken media literacy classes in college and grown up in the Superwholock fandom, I have a lot to say on this topic. Engaging with fandoms and media since a very young age has deepened my understanding of how narratives influence societal norms and personal perceptions. It’s fascinating yet concerning to witness how certain portrayals in media can impact a fans interpretations and behaviors.

I want this to be open for discussion, because I think it’s important to promote a healthy and thoughtful consumption of media. As well as contribute to healthier representations and relationships in media and storytelling.

That’s it, goodnight, sleep tight, and be kind.

[lazypapers]

do you have any HCs about how Arthur reacted to John being distant to Abigail when Jack was born? /how Arthur reacted when John showed up after a year

Oh definitely, my HC is similar to Roger Clark (the actor for Arthur). I think Arthur resented John for being distant and leaving her and his baby for a year. I imagine a couple years before Jack was born that's when he lost Isaac and that tragedy never left him and deeply effected him. He hated John for running away and taking things for granted from the very thing Arthur always sought and wanted. So when John returns, Arthur is just livid and their relationship is broken.

Arthur seemed like a character who wanted to be loved and belong in a family. He tried that with Mary, but I felt like Mary toyed with his feelings in the most wishy washy way (I get it. Like what future would you have with an outlaw). Obviously Eliza was a rebound from him breaking up with Mary. And that one night stand led to the conception of Isaac. He still chose to stay with Dutch's gang cause that was his family and he wasn't gonna stay with a girl he barely knew and didn't love. He probably tried to bring her along but she most likely didn't want to. I have this headcanon that their relationship was getting better and had potential to work. Arthur would have wanted to stay with them more often as his son got older with each visit. I would say maybe his son was like 4-5 years old the last time he saw him (since it's hinted in the game he taught a little boy fishing during the Jack fishing mission). However, this is when Dutch would manipulate Arthur severely.

He likely pressured Arthur to choose his loyalty to him and the gang over Arthur's son and Eliza. Think about it. When Hosea left to make a life with Bessie, Dutch got really messed up about it. Which explains his disgruntlement with John's loyalty and Abigail. For a bit he lost his family unit and control. He wasn't going to lose Arthur through the same thing. So he starts tightening that leash around Arthur through his low self-esteem and self-worth. He didn't want to lose his best dog. Definitely a red flag, that a lot of the gang members felt obligated that they owed Dutch just because he saved their asses (weird savior complex going on there 😬🙄).

As for why, he didn't seem all that bothered that John left. Maybe he kind of learned from his mistake with Arthur. Under his manipulation, Arthur completely broke when Isaac died (I feel like Arthur never fully recovered from that and Dutch noticed that he wasn't the "same" anymore). So not wanting to break his 2nd Golden Boy he loosened the leash. I'm pretty sure Dutch cared deeply about Arthur and John, and he isn't this evil selfish guy the way I'm describing him. That would be later in RDR1 😆, Dutch is complete bonkers in 1911. He is just incredibly flawed and super weird and a messed up way of showing he cares in 1899 prior.

Anyways I want to draw a storyline focused on the year John left and returned in the Golden Hour. Since the Golden Hour comics are basically about the close bond and eventual collapse of the gang. It would be fun to explore that part of the era of the gang. But once my wrist stops hurting and I have more time. All I can do is talk about it instead of drawing it.

[river-of-wine]

A long way from home

[little-pup-pip]

batman cg themed moodboard :))))!!!??

Sure!!

[classic-oatcakes]

'You ain't as tough and dense as all that' is such an important line to me.

Idk how to explain It but I feel it just shows how much Charles understands Arthur. And that Charles takes no shit.

[arthur-kilgore]

So here’s the thing about chapter 6 that has plagued me for months now; I thought I noticed a difference in Arthur’s appearance between my first and second playthroughs but I wasn’t certain because I didn’t take a lot of screenshots. For my third playthrough I played it up as much as possible (#2 I took really good care of Arthur, frequent rest/baths/meals/etc, #3 I neglected him as much as I possibly could) and uh, yeah. Screenshots for comparison.

[arthursfuckinghat]

The fight with Tommy during Americans At Rest has always fascinated me. Seeing the way that Bill and Javier are just happy to watch tells us plenty about the kinds of fights that Arthur had likely gotten into over the years, but it's Charles' reactions that interests me.

He looks.. disappointed. Or at least unimpressed, maybe even shaken.

Charles' reactions are the more telling ones in the scene. Unlike Bill and Javier, who are caught up in the spectacle of the fight, Charles is more distant. He doesn't cheer Arthur on or encourage him, he just watches quietly.

It wasn't even Arthur that started the fight, but by god was he finishing it.

Charles didn't say much during the fight, or even after, he never brings it up again. Part of me thinks less that it was because he was horrified by the senseless violence, but more that he was just disappointed in Arthur for the way he handled it.

There's finishing a fight, and then there's what Arthur did to Tommy.

Needless punch after needless punch, beating that man until he was left permanently damaged after each hit. It wasn't about Tommy anymore, it was about Arthur letting the spirit of the fight get the better of him and doing more damage than he needed to amidst the chaos.

Arthur would have gladly killed Tommy, swing after swing until the man wasn't breathing anymore, and he probably would have if it wasn't for Mr Downes.

It's as if it wasn't just about the fight anymore, it was about Arthur’s internal conflict, his rage, and the frustration with his own life that just manifests in moments like these. It's a way of lashing out at something bigger than Tommy, something he doesn't know how to handle. Maybe his past, his regrets, or maybe just the man he’s become.

And Charles probably sees that. He sees Arthur as someone who is capable of more, someone who should know better, and someone who still has room to grow, even in the few months they've known eachother. But in that fight, Arthur isn't showing the restraint or self awareness that Charles values so much. It's almost like Charles is witnessing a man lost in himself, consumed by the very violence he’s been trying to avoid, and that's what brings out his disappointment.

The whole situation is one of the first few painful reminders that Arthur’s journey isn’t just about external struggles, but internal ones too. He’s not just fighting the world around him, but himself too.

In a way, Charles' disappointment could be a reflection of his hopes for Arthur. He sees Arthur as someone who is more than his role in the gang, more than the violence he’s trapped in, and when Arthur falls into that trap again, it’s not just a disappointment in his actions - it’s a reminder of the potential that’s being wasted.

It's a subtle but very significant difference in how Charles sees Arthur compared to the others in the gang, and it hurts.

[sunfir3rain]

i think that modern au arthur morgan would be the type of a guy to have a photo of his face on his facebook profile picture, BUT this photo would be from like. 2015 or something and he would look way different than this now but would not change it

[cc-xinxin]

VanderMatthews HC - what if it was Hosea who named Dutch ‘Dutch’?

I don’t remember if I heard ppl talked about it or I got it from a fic… but I think it’d be very, very cool if it was Hosea who named Dutch ‘Dutch’.

Like, in my hc, Dutch abandoned his original name cuz he hated his mother and the name she gave him, and has been using his surname ‘van der Linde’ after he left home when he was 15, as a tribute to his beloved father (who died in civil war). He introduced himself as such to everyone with whom he crossed paths later. Partners in crime, whores, fellow burglars and thieves… Everyone was okay with that cuz van der Linde would leave them before they were familiar enough to be on first name basis.

But then it came the exception in the name of Hosea. After they’ve been riding together for a considerable amount of time, Hosea demanded to know van der Linde’s first name, which forced an answer like ‘I don’t have one, and I don’t wanna lie to you or let you call me something that doesn’t feel like me’ from him. At first Hosea thought he was concealing something big (like, infamous past or double identities) with that, but Hosea did not push cuz he (thought he) understood that van der Linde needed more time to open up. Instead he said, ‘van der Linde is a typical Dutch name. Before you get ready to tell me your real first name can I call you Dutch?’ And van der Linde said ‘sure, whatever you want’, then the name Dutch sticks and never let go

Later when they fell in love (ohhh typical friends to lovers I like that!), Dutch started to love the name ‘Dutch’ cuz it was a symbol of the man he loved and a new life they started together. The future they were bound to face together. Something he could associate with love, support, sense of belonging and security, and most importantly, Hosea. A perfect replacement for his original first name which he associated with his mother, the old life he tried to escape from, and all the nightmares it had brought. So every gang member in 1899 called him Dutch and not ‘Mr. van der Linde’ cuz he loved that name and asked them to call him that

(And Hosea secretly loved it)

[moeitsu]

Since it's pride month I wanna talk about something I've noticed in the Red Dead Redemption fandom:

The Bisexual erasure of Sadie Adler and Arthur Morgan.

I apologize if this comes across as harsh, but it's something that's been on my mind since I started interacting w/ this media. And as a bisexual, I wanted to discuss it further.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with shipping these characters with the same sex. Personally, I am a Charthur shipper till the day I die. I don't ship Sadie with anyone but her husband, but I still enjoy seeing the fanart and headcanons of the women she's shipped with.

That being said, these characters are not lesbian or gay. That's literally a fact, and if you think otherwise it is bisexual erasure.

Let's start with Sadie Adler. Her entire character arc is getting revenge on the O'Driscolls for killing her husband. Whom she mourns for years, and talks about frequently with Arthur/other camp members. Now, if you want to ship her w/ Abigail or Molly or whomever, go for it!! But she has loved and still loves her husband. She is not a lesbian, and she didn't just magically turn into a lesbian after Jake's death. If she had any love interests other than Jake, this would make her bisexual. (even Sapphic is still a more appropriate term than lesbian)

The same goes for women in real life who have dated men first, then dated a woman. Just because their current partner is the same sex doesn't mean we can assume they are suddenly lesbian. Calling characters lesbians even if they have been in a relationship with men before is bisexual erasure.

This same concept is applied to Arthur Morgan. He had previous relationships with women. (one of whom he still has strong feelings for) and he is attracted to women. We see this with his greeting dialogue and when he compliments people. I believe Arthur's character is more likely to be bisexual than Sadie's, given his interactions w/ some of the men in the game. But that doesn't erase the fact that he's still attracted to the opposite sex. Arthur is not a gay man. Disregarding his past relationships w/ women is a form of bisexual erasure.

There is a huge double standard here because if these character's were actually lesbian/gay and the fandom decided to ship them with people of the opposite sex (i.e headcanon they are bi), there would be a major discourse.

Whenever bisexual women and men are presented in the media I always notice a few things:

Bi women are "secretly straight"

Bi women "don't know their lesbian yet"

Bi men are "secretly gay"

As well as this funny little graphic below ↓

Like I said before, I am bisexual. And if I'm being honest this years pride month has been exhausting and mildly infuriating with how the community seems to disregard bisexuals in a hetero relationship.

I stopped talking about my bisexuality with people because once they know I have been in a committed relationship with a man for seven years, I am suddenly excluded from the conversation.

I've had ex-friends tell me that I only identify as bisexual to "fit in" with the queer community. I've had people in college assume I was lesbian bc of the way I dressed, and then try to tell me that I must be secretly lesbian when I tell them I'm Bi. (Ppl also assumed I was non-binary bc of the way I presented but that's another story)

This stuff doesn't just happen to fictional characters, it happens to real people every single day. I'm honestly tired of ppl saying "well my headcanon doesn't hurt anybody, they're not real." Yes it does!! You are supporting Bi erasure!!

That's all I'm gonna say on this topic for now. I'd love to leave it open for discussion, but please be nice. This isn't a call-out or me trying to antagonize the queer rdr community. I just wanted to get it off my mind.