#to explore? what was the moral or theme of this arc supposed to be? do they understand that the ones i at least could think of fall flat in

[asha-mage]

🌶️

The MCU's Spiderman is not a poor execution of Peter Parker's character concept. He's not even poor execution of Miles Morales's character concept.

He is a poor execution of Terry McGinnis's character concept.

Peter Parker and Miles Morales both have so many fundamental pieces to their characters that are just missing for the MCU's Spiderman. Familiar names are floating around him- Aunt May, Mary Jane, Ganke Lee- but the fundamental ideas that make up Peter or Miles arcs just are not there. Themes like Miles's family expectations, Peter's constant money struggles, and the balancing act of doing good vs trying to live your own life are all absent. Even the idea of power and responsibility isn't properly introduced until the THIRD MOVIE when that really should been the central theme from the beginning.

Rather the MCU Spiderman has way more parallels with Terry McGinnis. Both are young hot shot teenagers who end up being taken under the wing of established and experienced hero who is on their way out. Both have complex relationships with their mentor which in a lot of ways serves as the driving force of their character arcs. Both gain high tech suits which enable their heroism. Both are viewed (or at least supposed to be viewed in MCU Peter's case) as heirs to the legacy of this hero.

It falls apart when you get into how they are different. While Uncle Ben is implied to have existed and be dead by the time MCU Peter is introduced in Civil War it's never actually confirmed and never properly comes up. Meanwhile the death of Terry's father is essentially the inciting incident of Batman Beyond: it's what motivates and drives Terry and the murder and it's fallout are the main focus of the first two episodes of Batman Beyond.

What's more MCU Peter's relationship to Tony is grounded in the fact that Tony just shows up one day and essentially taps him to join the Avengers. Bruce by contrast initially tosses Terry out on his ear, and when Terry turns up seeking justice for his father Bruce can't offer him anything but 'go ask the cops for help', and when that goes exactly as poorly as Terry said it would, Terry breaks into the manor steals the Batsuit and goes to stop Powers himself. Terry has active agency in his own choice to be a hero, which helps define his relationship with Bruce and to heroism. While MCU Peter was doing his own superheroics prior to Tony showing up in Civil War (not that he ever does much of that in future movies) his relationship to Tony is defined by Peter's dependence on him and his quest for Tony(/the Avengers)'s approval. And because they don't even bother name drop Uncle Ben or flashback to him, we're left with the impression that the main thing driving MCU Peter is that quest for approval. His motivations are never more complexly explored, and we don't even really see him just running around Queens stopping muggings or car crashes or anything that hints he enjoys or feels the need to actually help people.

And I think that gets into the final and most important difference between the two. Gotham not only needs Batman, it visibly and obviously and terribly needs Batman. Batman Beyond leans into this because decades without a Batman have left Gotham a cyperbunk dystopian hellscape. The city needs someone to stand up to the darkness, to be a symbol of hope, to be aspirational. Terry taking up that mantel means fighting supervillains, yes- but mostly it means doing what the original Batman did. Solving murders, stopping muggings, rescuing people from burning buildings or fighting off street gangs like the Jokerz.

But even in the earliest MCU movies, New York only needs superheroes when the current world ending threat shows up. Otherwise the city is all bright shinny clean streets filled with haplessly content citizens. This is the only reason that Vision's position of 'Our very strength invites challenge' in Civil War makes any sense- because the only purpose of these Superheroes is usually to fight a threat they where somehow responsible for creating. And this problem hits 'friendly neighborhood Spiderman' the hardest because he only has a responsibility to use his great power to solve problems, if their are problems in need of solving. Most of Peter Parker's (and Miles Morales's, Gwen Stacy's, or any other Spiderperson's) day is not fighting alien armies or netherworld gods. It's stopping break ins, rescuing people from car crashes, or dealing with other small scale local threats, that none the less benefit from someone with his abilities to make them better. Either New York in the MCU is an ideal utopian city where the police have everything handled apparently (which ha!) or Peter is apparently not interested in stopping bad things from happening. He spends so much of the first movie basically begging Tony to give him superhero things to do, not realizing that he could go outside and find people that need help on his own.

In conclusion MCU Peter Parker isn't 'regular Peter Parker but not an underdog', or even 'Miles Morales but white'. He's 'Terry McGinnis but without any agency in his own heroism'.

[mudstoneabyss]

please they need to let me interview them please my casual daydream fantasies have shifted to just thinking about if i got that opportunity somehow

I should be allowed to interview brinknor over this one I have to know just what was going through their minds to end up here

[commsroom]

as an extension of how hera reads as trans to me, hera/eiffel resonates with me specifically as a relationship between a trans woman and a cis man. loving hera requires eiffel to decentralize his own perspective in a way that ties into both his overall character arc and the themes of the show.

pop culture is baked into the dna of wolf 359, into eiffel’s worldview, and in how it builds off of a sci-fi savvy audience’s assumptions: common character types, plot beats, or dynamics, why would a real person behave this way? how would a real person react to that? eiffel is the “everyman” who assumes himself to be the default. hera is the “AI who is more human than a lot of humans,” but it doesn’t feel patronizing because it isn’t a learned or moral quality; she is a fundamentally human person who is routinely dehumanized and internalizes that.

eiffel/hera as a romance is compelling to me because there is a narrative precedent for some guy/AI or robot woman relationships in a way i think mirrors some attitudes about trans women: it’s a male power fantasy about a subclass of women, or it’s a cautionary tale, or it’s a deconstruction of a power fantasy that criticizes the way men treat women as subservient, as property. but what does that pop culture landscape mean in the context of desire? If you are a regular person, attracted to a regular person, who really does care for you and wants to do right by you, but is deeply saturated in these expectations? how do you navigate that?

I think that, in itself, is an aspect of communication worth exploring. sometimes you won’t get it. sometimes you can’t. and that’s not irreconcilable, either. it’s something wolf 359 is keenly aware of, and, crucially, always sides with hera on. eiffel screws up. he says insensitive things without meaning to. often, hera will call him out on it, and he will defer to her. in the one case where he notably doesn’t, the show calls attention to it and makes him reflect. it’s not a coincidence that the opening of shut up and listen has eiffel being particularly dismissive of hera - the microaggression of separating her from “men and women” and the insistence on using his preferred title over hers. there are things eiffel has just never considered before, and caring for hera the way he does means he has to consider them. he's never met someone like hera, but media has given him a lot of preconceptions about what people like her might be like.

there’s a whole other discussion to be had about the gender dynamics of wolf 359, even in the ways the show tries to avoid directly addressing them, and how sexual autonomy in particular can’t fully be disentangled from explorations of AI women. i don’t think eiffel fully recognizes what comments like “wind-up girl” imply, and the show is not prepared to reconcile with it, but it’s interesting to me. in the context of transness (and also considering hera’s disability, two things i think need to be discussed together), i think it’s worth discussing how hera’s self image is at odds with the way people perceive her, her disconnect from physicality, how she can’t be touched by conventional means, and the ways in which eiffel and hera manage to bridge that gap.

even the desire for embodiment, and the autonomy and type of intimacy that comes with it, means something different when it’s something she has to fight for, to acquire, to become accustomed to, rather than a circumstance of her birth. i suppose the reason i don’t care for half measures in discussions re: hera and embodiment is also because, to me, it is in many ways symbolically a discussion about medical transition, and the social fear of what’s “lost” in transition, whether or not those things were even desired in the first place.

hera’s relationship with eiffel is unquestionably the most supportive and equal one she has, but there are still privileges, freedoms, and abilities he has that she doesn’t, and he forgets that sometimes. he will never share her experiences, but he can choose to defer to her, to unlearn his pop culture biases and instead recognize the real person in front of him, and to use his own privilege as a shield to advocate for her. the point, to me - what’s meaningful about it - is that love isn’t about inherent understanding, it’s about willingness to listen, and to communicate. and that’s very much at the heart of the show.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

The Dondon Post (or: the bizarre TotK's side content counterpoints to its main quest's immuable binary morality)

Speaking of strange TotK Choices, I think I have one singe post left in me about this game; and it's about the Dondon quest, "The Beast and the Princess".

(and about other stuff too, you'll see, we'll get to them)

More specifically: about how... strange of a thematic point it feebly attemps to make in the larger context of the storyline, and how it seems to be yet another mark of a world that, perhaps, once tried to be more morally complex that it ended up becoming.

Buckle up: it's a long one, and it gets pretty conceptual.

(good gem boys notwhistanding)

The Princess and the Beast

So, a couple of things about the setup. We are investigating potential Princess sightings; but at this point, either because we have already completed a bunch and know the general gib, because we have met a couple of wild Fake Zelda shenanigans, or through the simple fact that we are completing a side quest, we know there's a good chance it won't lead to an actual Zelda information. So when we ask Penn about what is going on and he replies with the ominous "we saw the Princess riding some kind of beast --a frightening one with huge, brutal tusks-- that the princess seemed to control", we get Ideas. Then the sidequest is registered: "The Princess and the Beast".

So. You know me. And if you don't know me, here's what you should know: my brain immediately flared up with the thought there was no way in hell this wasn't some kind of wink towards Ganondorf's renowned boarish beast form, especially given tusks were given so much focus.

My first assumption was: that's a miniboss right? I will get to fight some small boar-like thing that Fake Zelda rides sometimes. Cool! I didn't hold too hard onto my hope that the relationship of Zelda and/or Ganondorf to the natural world, or to each other would be expanded upon, since I had already been burned before, but my interest was piqued.

You have to understand how starved I was for any hint of complexity or mystery or ambiguity at this point. I was extremely eager for the game to throw anything at me that would surprise me, enlighten something pre-established, make the exploration lead to a meaningful discovery or deepening of characters, world or themes (and not just slightly cooler loot, or a bossfight, or a puzzle devoid of emotional context --cohesion and depth is what motivates my play sessions, especially in an open world game that I want to believe is worth losing oneself into). This was about the most intriguing task on my to do list at the moment, and so I plunged in immediately.

After really REALLY misunderstanding what I was supposed to do (I stalked every corner of every forest surrounding the tropical area at night or during blood moons in hope to see something --which was very much the wrong call), I arrived to the other stable, then was guided to the other side of the river where Cima awaits and explains that these creatures are actually a new species discovered by Zelda; that they are gentle and kind and not at all scary ("Dondons aren't beastly, they're adorable!"), and even somehow digest luminous stones into gemstones. They like the company of people and liked Zelda in particular.

I was... I felt two different ways about this conclusion, and I think it's worth to explore both: disappointment and some sort of... "huh!" Hard to describe this emotion otherwise.

I'll get the disappointment out of the way first, because it's the least interesting of the two. While I think the little emotional arc I was taken on was not devoid of interest --I was indeed taken on by the rumor and intrigued by its implications-- I wanted, well. A little bit more. And if the creatures were to be Zelda's pet project, I would have loved for them to be actually terrifying and feisty, and for her to develop an interest for these creatures in particular regardless. It could have been very interesting characterization that veered out of the perfect princess loving the perfect world floundering around her, always bringing her clear, practical benefits from the interaction.

(I have made another post that speaks of my discomfort that Zelda does everything everywhere and everyone loves her for it --I get what they were trying to go for, but it either lacks conflict for me to buy into that dynamic at the scale of several regions, or they went on too hard for my taste, as she is, at once and in the span of a couple of years at most: a schoolteacher, a gardener, an animal researcher, a scholar, a traveler, a military expert, a knower of landscape, a painter, a horse rider, an infrastructure planner, a [...] princess --at some point it begins to sound made up, "Little Father of the people"-esque to rattle the hornet's nest a little bit, especially if it's not shown as either a clearly godly characteristic or, even more necessary imo, a negative trait; another expression of her killing herself at work to compensate for a perceived flaw she's trying to earn forgiveness for, like she did in BotW. But that's another topic, and the clumsiness of her character arc has been well threaded by basically everybody disappointed in the story already.)

But, if I decide to be a little graceful, I'd like to explore my "huh!" emotion, and take it apart a little bit.

I think there's something interesting to have such strong parallels to setting up a story about the relationship between Zelda and Ganondorf ("The Princess and the Beast", like come on guys that's the conflict of over half the series), or at least Zelda and the concept of Evil since Ganondorf pretty much represents it in this game, and then have it go: actually, there was a horrible monster that everyone was afraid of, but Zelda was wise and patient enough to approach it and realize its potential beyond the tusks, what beauty can be brought upon the world if one makes the effort to look for what exists underneath. It says something a bit deeper about the world and about Zelda in particular. It intrigues, at the very least.

Is it a reach? Probably! Is my first interpretation that the quest is actually about "eww you thought Zelda would be interested in *disgusting vile monsters* and not sweet and gentle and human-loving animals that literally shit jewlery when cared for? jokes on you, she never would feel any ounce of sympathy for anything that isn't Good and Deserving" uhhh definitively truer? Probably! But I also don't want to dismiss that the quest made me think about it. If I had completed it earlier, I might have even felt like it was (very clumsy, not gonna lie) setup about the main conflict.

But that's also a good segway into my next section: the arbitrary limitations between the animal and the creature, the monstrous and the human.

And the fact that TotK points directly at it.

A Monstrous Collection

(these two guys are just. doing So Much and being So Valid despite being massive weirdos the game wants us to be slightly repelled by. I, for one, respect the Monster kinning grind and their general Twilight Princess energy.)

So. These two guys. There is so much to say about these two guys. I don't think I have seen the Trans Perspective on Kolton on tumblr, and I would love to get it because. I feel like it's a worthwhile discussion (just, how gender and identity is handled in TotK overall, I feel like it's a very complicated conversation and I have not seen super deep dives and I'd be very interested in hearing more).

Beyond the throughline of voluntary consumption of magical objects to turn into less human creatures being a weirdly prevalent plot point in TotK (Zelda, Kolton and Ganondorf casually transing their entire species for funsies --Ganondorf being particularly relentless with Fake Zelda, mummy/phantom shenanigans, Demon King and then literal dragon), I want to focus on Kilton a little bit.

Kilton is genuinely the only NPC in the game willing to acknowledge the inherent personhood that monsters have (the game does showcase them picking up fruits, mourning their boss if you kill them, being cutesy and happy to identify you as one of their own if you wear the appropriate mask --and that's not even getting into creatures like the Lynels, who seem to really edge on the limit of being a conscious creature with a system of honor and property and many other things). He does encourage us to think of monsters as more than a species whose only worth lie in how fun it is to eradicate them; even more, gameplay-wise, he does give us a reason to interact with them in other ways than just our sword with his museum. He does encourage us to see that beauty for ourselves and then select what we think is coolest/most intimidating/cutest/eight billion ganondorfs in every pose imaginable

The fact that Ganondorf is considered a monster was a great win for this feature in particular, and is very funny, but it's also... A lot, if we dig at it a little more than warranted. Beyond all of the Implications and all of the things of representation and political conflict and values already discussed ad nauseum: when did he stop being considered a human? What does that mean about the flimsiness of what is a monster and what is a creature and what is an animal and what is a person and what is even a hylian, as sheikahs got absorbed into the definition in this game? Especially with the stones taken into account, how profound changes in nature are a huge part of the plot (even when reversed and ultimately pretty meaningless): how easy it is, to make that slip? Who decides when that slip has been made? What is acceptable to hurt without remorse? What is beautiful and worth preserving? What is both at once? What is neither?

And again, in a classic Zelda conundrum (appreciative(?)): who the fuck gets to decide that, when, and why?

The Bargainers and the Horned God

(major shoutout to these big guys for being the sole and only providers of actual depth to the Depths, and for looking cool as heck)

So. Let's move the conversation to the Depths.

Conceptually: what an interesting idea!! And so well executed (initially)!! A mirror world to the surface, dark and hushed and full of unknown creatures; haunted by gloom and sickness and the unknown. Not a first in the series, far from it: from ALTTP to ALBW, and even taking the Twilight world of TP into account, this idea of a Dark World acting as a deforming mirror to Hyrule and revealing many interesting aspects as we get to explore both is always a very interesting take on corruption and envy and fear/weakness and/or some sense of darkness looming under the perfect exterior. I'd argue even the Lens of Truth of both OoT and MM's serve a similar function, both gameplay-wise, but also in terms of theme: not everything is as it seems. In the world of Light, darkness must hide itself; but darkness also possess its own beauty, its own hardships, and will stare back at you without blinking if you go seek for it. It's, in my opinion, one of the series' most compelling conversation about the cyclical nature of fate, the coldness of godhood, and how small one feels in the face of a universe that is more complicated than it initially appears --which is why Courage must be invoked to push forward regardless.

The Depth's otherworldly ambiance is truy wonderful, whether in the plays of light and shadows, the creatures native to the environment we meet there (wish we met more!), the soundtrack, the strange aquatic/primordial plants, the fact that the dragons visit this place and connect them to the outside --invoking ideas of balance and interconnectivity, that the tree branches look like veins. The coliseums, the mines, the zonai facilities and the prisons do seem to poke at many things about what the relationship to the past was to this place; was it ever truly a place? Did it look like this back then? Why was it buried? Why did it come back? But in spite of it all, I think the Depths struggle overall to question or reveal anything about the surface that we couldn't already assume going in (that the only thing congealing there is Ganondorf's gloom, his lonely domain of Wrongness, only shared by Kohga and the yiga --the only naysayers of Goodness and Light, contemptful and blinded by self-importance and rage). The zonite is mined by gloomy monsters --why, what for?-- so any notion of greed and over-expansion that could have been associated to the zonai is now reabsorbed into Ganondorf's general evilness, since it needs to be reminded he is everything and anything bad with the world: darkness and conquest and greed and capitalism and pollution and bad weather and sickness and darkness and violence and war and death and betrayal and fakeness and lies and patriarchy and exploitation. No matter that he never does a single thing with zonite in the game; rather set up elements of conflict that never go anywhere than, for a second, let the foundations of absolute goodness and absolute evil risk becoming shaky --and you coming to this unwelcoming dark place that hates you, killing the miners and taking their resources for yourself is, on the other holy, royal fur-covered hand, utterly legitimate. The resources were once Rauru's after all, were they not?

And this is what I would say, except... except for the dead. The fallen warriors, the poes, and, most important of all: the Bargainer statues.

The Bargainers are, in-universe, godly creatures guiding the fallen to a place of final respite, regardless of moral alignment. The poes are all, fundamentally, cleansed of judgement: they are lost souls whose past reality does not matter anymore, and all deserve that peace regardless. In spite of the heavy paradise/hell parallels drawn in that game, with Rauru/Zelda/Sonia as the guardians of Light where Ganondorf gets to become a Devil-like figure, it is confirmed here that no such thing exists when you actually die in this universe.

It almost feels as if the fabric of Hyrule itself, in a brief moment that refuses to elaborate on its own point, goes: "yeah, whatever is happening here between Light and Darkness, it doesn't actually matter. This conflict is futile and doesn't understand the real nature of being alive, dead, a god, a person, a monster, an animal. The truth lies elsewhere --but you will never be told what it is."

It's: wild.

One of the game's most striking traits of narrative brilliance in my opinion --to the point where I'm wondering whether it's there on purpose or was effectively an oversight since every other aspect of reality breaks its own back trying to reassure us that everything is at its correct place, receiving the appropriate treatment by the universe in a way that is never to be questioned.

Another case of that ambiguity being allowed to exist without being immediately crushed and repressed is the case of the Horned God (interesting parallel to Ganon's actual horns that he develops in this game in case the hellish parallels weren't clear enough already): a demon Hylia sealed into stone and pushed far from humans in a clear case of questionable behavior since, while the Horned God isn't exactly nice, does propose a different philosophy you are not punished for exploring; and yet, a proposal that has seen itself persecuted in a very real sense by the goddess of absolute goodness, patron of hylians, Zelda, and many more. Pushed away from view.

Interesting.

And Yet, Light Must Prevail

Okay, so, after all of this, we're left to ask... What the fuck is up with morality in Tears of the Kingdom?!

What do we trust? These half-breaths in the occasional sidequests that Light and Darkness is just the wrong frame of reference, that nature cannot be this simple, is ever-shifting and can be recalled or reaffirmed by arbitrary forces, and might even not matter at all in the universe's fabric, despite having so much of its lore soaking in the dychotomy? Or... everything else about the game, this insistence that Good must not only be assumed as whatever tradition the kingdom has passed down for thousands upon thousands of years, but remain utterly unquestioned the entire time? That Bad is without cause, graceless and unworthy of investment?

Are the Bargainer's statues the only thing worth listening to, that morality is a fable the living tells themselves --or should we be moved when Darkness destroys Light, when Light suffers to preserve itself and the world --but not when the Other is rightfully slain?

Was Kilton correct to see beauty in the monstrous? Was Kolton onto something when he let go of his previous form because there is no clear distinction between what should receive an arrow to the face and what shouldn't? Or should we rather focus on Zelda losing her human form as a beautiful and tragic sacrifice --but something that never actually altered her nature as a hylian, the descendant of a lineage of Good Kings meant to rule forever?

Is the Dondon good because it always was, or was it worth Zelda's love in spite of the fear it initially provoked?

Either way, at the end of the game, evil is slain. Ganondorf is, not killed, but --like his angry BotW boar counterpart-- destroyed, as monsters tend to be. He explodes over the lands of Hyrule, freed from Darkness; freed from everything wrong, since the foreign menace that embodied it all was wiped out in one fateful sweep of a holy blade cradled in sacrificial love. Nothing wrong remains. The Sages reaffirm their vows to protect the kingdom forward, and a very human --hylian-- Zelda smiles: Hyrule now forever and ever basked in eternal Light.

[aeantizlkamenwati]

Veilguard Thoughts

I just need to get my thoughts out of my head and the Void seems like a perfect place since I can’t write a review on console. I’m all for civil discussion, but at the end of the day this is my opinion/feelings after 20 hours. Perhaps it'll change once I finished the game, but I doubt it. Beware minor spoilers.

Warning: Incredibly long. TL;DR at the very end.

I’ll start this off by saying it’s not a bad GAME, just a bad DRAGON AGE. It runs nice (only had one crash, and minimal amount of stuttering on fidelity mode, one time the screen went completely black but the dialogue and music continued which was vaguely terrifying. Some movements are janky in cutscenes, but overall, not bad). It's pretty, I like some of the new designs. The music is nice.

I’m not a fan of this style of combat (never could jive with God of War or Bloodbourne; my preference for real time action is like Hades and DMC) mostly because I can’t cancel an action with dodge/block and the AI focuses solely on Rook so you end up getting swarmed and unable to properly see the flasher plus the timing is weird af. I tried playing on what I assume was supposed to be Casual mode (Keeper) because it said “emphasizes party composition over reflexes” and well…it lied. To the point that I was not having fun because the game is 70% combat, 20% exploring and 10% story. So I turned it to Story mode because I could not be bothered and enjoyed it slightly more. It feels very MMO, team-based, looter imo. The UI, how it handles, the depth of the story and how it goes about it (the Mission Accomplished Journal screens specifically), the emphasis on combat over anything else…

And here we get to my problem: I only enjoy it when I pretend it’s just a generic fantasy game and not Dragon Age. Because it doesn’t FEEL like a Dragon Age. It feels as soft as everyone’s skin texture. I don’t care about the story or the characters and it boils down to the writing.

It feels juvenile.

Like I loved DA because it was willing to confront the worst in humanity. The disgusting parts of war like Loghain selling elves to slavers, or the nunances of blood magic. Presenting choices that are morally grey like sacrificing the Circle or the Templars in DA2 (yes that choice was heavily forced and stupid but still). It didn’t shy away from it. There was levity, but the characters had multiple sides. They could get angry, they could get snappy or sappy. There was GROWTH to them. Zevran’s romance arc if you choose to reject the earring without more commitment was beautiful. DA2’ romances were…a little stilted, but I still enjoyed them. Inquisition also had lovely little arcs, depending on the romance. But even friendships felt natural as you got to know these people.

And Veilguard falls flat. They were okay with pissing off the culture war babies with trans/nonbinary options, but not with showing us the bad things. The game TELLS us “this is bad”, but doesn’t show why. They have their soap box moment of “slavery bad” like it’s not 2024 and anyone worth the air they breathe knows that, how about you still show that since we are IN THE HEART OF THE SLAVE TRADE?! Where’s the option to maybe be an escaped slave? An escaped Saarebas? They refuse to give us blood magic because “it’s messy” Yeah. It is. That’s the point. Maybe let me decide if that's a line I'd like to cross? No? Necromancy is fine? It’s like we traded the dark adult themes for better sex scenes.

The major choice I’ve gotten to means NOTHING outside of metagaming. It’s like they were trying to show they could be edgy or that “now now you can’t save everyone because we say so and we are going to force one of your companions to hate you”. And it boils down to who you want to romance, who is vital as a support character, and which faction do you prefer? Has nothing to do with anything else and there’s no way to fix this forced hardening, so have fun with that I guess? It’s not like I chose the dialogue options or anything, it feels as shoe horned in as DA2’s ending tbh. Like here have a shitty decision for no other reason than we want you to.

Then BioWare seems to have tried to both cater to the newbies and the ones who read/watch/listen to the extra media and fail to find a middle ground. It relies too heavily on codexes and journals and other media (which was my gripe with Inquisition) to do the heavy lore lifting (for example as someone who did not read Tevinter Nights yet nor listened to the third-party podcast, I have no connection to Rook's backstory).

But at the same time, it treats us like we are stupid? Going back to how juvenile the writing feels: it repeats itself a horrific amount. Every time Solas says “the Evanuris” it’s apparently a contractual obligation for him to say “or the elven gods as you would call them” immediately after. The amount of freaking out about them CONSTANTLY is like they are afraid we forgot after an hour. And again I kept thinking: how about you stop telling me they are terrible and why I should be scared and SHOW me?  D’Meta did nothing because I didn’t see it happen like watching Loghain call the retreat after watching darkspawn slaughter the army. Another example in the beginning is after you get the dagger, you speak with Harding and you can discuss magic. Rook notes they know dwarves are called Children of the Stone. Five seconds later Harding goes in the most “I’m speaking to a toddler” tone: “Dwarves call ourselves Children of the Stone. Some of us have what we call Stone sense.” Like…Rook would know that??? If newbies are confused they can go look in the glossary (isn’t that what that’s for?) or give an option to ask a question. It just feels so fucking patronizing.

Then it spoils so much of the story with the Varric interludes, or repeats itself AGAIN when I think they are there for style and suspense. Like Varric I already know they need to craft a red lyrium dagger, they straight up TOLD ME. That scene didn’t need to be in there at all. Solas’ little monologue rehashing everything in the beginning was unnecessary, and honestly him just telling us who we were against without us first seeing how bad it was…just…It took the suspense out of it. Like imagine if Inquisition straight up told you that Corypheus was the baddie just immediately in the Temple of Sacred Ashes prologue scene. That’s what it felt like.

Which brings me to the dialogue and characters I suppose. The companions have the depth of a shallow pool and Rook has less. They have moments where I like them, but tbh I don’t really care for any of them because how could I? I can’t talk to them. It feels empty. I like that they have lights telling me when I have new dialogue, but I miss having conversations with Dorian or Zevran, getting to know them before I started flirting with them. But nope. None of that. And good god the flirting is cringey because of it. Just comes out of nowhere and feels like teenagers. Again, there are moments where I’m like: THAT DO THAT, but it goes right back to the blah stuff. Like whoever wrote the Crows, good job. I loved Teia almost immediately. Viago great. Illario, I’m intrigued. Lucanis by default also interests me, but unfortunately, I don’t get to explore his character much. Irelin is also good. I liked the Veil Jumper fight you could get into with Strife (felt like witnessing a father/child yelling match). Where’s that sort of dialogue with everyone else?

And ROOK. Oh god Rook. They make a big deal about us not being able to be a people pleaser, and yet that’s the only personality Rook has. My favorite moment of Inquisition was in Trespasser where the Inquisitor could FINALLY have a human moment and BREAK. It felt like they had been bottling it up for so long and they just couldn’t anymore. I don't foresee Rook getting that sort of moment.

Rook is just three flavors of customer service. There’s no option for them to be anything but the dashing hero who has boundless optimism like a puppy. Where’s the option be the reluctant hero? The ruthless “hero”? They are just a bumbling idiot with witty one liners.

They feel like a teenager’s first protag as they try to give them “flaws” but never show those flaws. Nothing you do matters, just how you say “yes I’ll help”. There’s no nuance. No places where I think Rook can grow without ME. Rook is just a blank doll without me projecting onto them and even in BIG supposedly heartwrenching moments, Rook is just an idiot. And put them with the juvenile and forced dialogue of the companions? It feels like they are a pre-teen who’s been put in charge of a bunch of toddlers while the nice uncle tries to soothe them and the abusive dad yells.

The abusive dad is Solas btw. Varric says he views us all as children, to which I want to reply: yeah and he’s a piece of shit dad who rubs their toddler’s face into their diaper going “LOOK AT THE MESS YOU MADE BAD BAD BAD!” Like honestly, you can tell it’s not the same people writing these characters. Solas feels like they decided the low approval Solas was the canon no matter what. In Inquisition I truly felt like he was redeemable. This Solas? Nah, I want to stab that bitch first chance. Like he’s giving me no reason to like him and he’s being a dick for no fucking reason. Maybe later on we learn a reason, but in 20 hours there’s ZERO. That’s a problem if you are trying to get me to see his side of things. And the tonal shifts from when he shows that he regrets stabbing Varric? Feel forced, like my dude I think you are lying just because you seem to be unable to comprehend half of this is YOUR fault.

Which ties into my last gripe: this is not MY Thedas. The decision to make only the last fifteen minutes of a paid DLC mean ANYTHING (and tbh I have yet to find where the hell it actually matters in 20 hours. I have two saves about the same amount of progress: one Solavellan and the other Dorian, they are basically the exact opposite choices. I can't say I've found where anything has changed, so what was that about them not wanting to do one bit of dialogue???? At least in Inquisition within the first two hours I could find those bits of dialogue) that decision made it where none of these characters matter to me. They feel more like carrots dangling in front of long-time players trying to entice us closer, but when you grab the carrot…it just vanishes.

That’s not MY Morrigan. That’s not MY Varric, MY Solas, MY Dorian. They are NewBioWare’s versions of them. The Inquisitor? The character I played over 100 hours as isn’t MINE. They are a stranger because they tore away any agency I had. They just picked whatever personality they wanted and said LOOK SEE CONNECTION. But there’s no history, no connection, NOTHING. There’s so many places where I can see where they could’ve done something. And if I can see them, why couldn’t anyone at BioWare?

They forgot that DA’s uniqueness wasn’t just the companions (and these ones are just below DA2’s since we didn’t get to interact with them either, so…), it was the world and how it reacted to choices in previous games. How new heroes might have to deal with the consequences (and to be fair, no DA game has ever actually managed to deliver on that, but they at least TRIED).

This though…

TL;DR: this should’ve felt like a homecoming and instead it feels like BioWare demolished my home, spray painted the ruins with soft pastels and is trying to tell me it’s the same, if not better. And it’s not, and probably never will be again.

[annamariehamilton-unofficial]

Random Ghoulposting: A Gay Ghoul?!? Followup, part I

So, my little "No gay ghouls? hold my coffee" joke post seems to have gone a bit viral, which I was not at all expecting; anyway, I just wanted to post a little followup with some of my personal thoughts and theories apropos of Tokyo Ghoul and the lgbt community. I wouldn't consider myself to be queer, but I do know a bunch of people in that community, so, idk, hopefully this is insightful.

Obviously you are welcome to disagree with me, this is just my specific interpretation.

The Fandom

As I've deep-dove into the TG fandom in the last few months, I've discovered this really interesting paradox in that Sui Ishida, the author, has a really unfortunate tendency to rely on negative stereotypes and tropes for his characterization of queer characters. And yet, at the same time, TG seems to deeply resonate with (some) members of the lgbtq community because its themes of being an outsider in greater society and the importance of learning to accept those who are different from you. Like I don't think I've ever seen a work be both so riddled with homophobic/transphobic stereotypes and also so beloved by people in the queer community (at least so far as I can tell on Tumblr, which is, admittedly, a microcosm).

A couple of reasons for this, I think. For one, I've noticed a lot of queer people really resonate with horror and fantasy. And not just queer people -- people of any minority/marginalized identity, really. But it is a pretty pronounced trend among queer folks as far as I've seen. Fantasy and horror are this really great venue for exploring feelings of alienation and "otherness" in ways that can honestly feel more authentic expressed with "unreal" elements than in a more strictly realist fashion. Like instead of it being like, "ok, here's this gay/black/disabled/autistic/whatever character, you're supposed to relate to them because you share an identity," it's more like, all right, this character is a werewolf/vampire/ghoul/whatever, and this story shows viscerally how it FEELS to be "other," and THAT is what makes it relatable.

So, even though TG does have some homophobic aspects to it, the premise, of a group of people who are marginalized by society for something that isn't even their choice, but who are still shown to be complex *people* just as much as the human characters, would really resonate with anyone from any marginalized background, queer people included.

(I mean, I'm an Autistic somewhat-acespec Christian girl with anxiety and a certain amount of religious trauma who has a special interest in dark fantasy and classic literature, and TG hits me RIGHT in the identity-specific feels, so I can see how it would for others too).

The other thing is that, even though Ishida relies pretty heavily on problematic queer villainy tropes, I think he does just good enough of a job of giving all of his characters some shred of humanity or relatability, that ... well, I won't say that it's *okay*, because it's still not, but I think readers like myself are a bit more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Like yes, Nico is kind of a walking toxic gay stereotype. But let's also not forget that he stood up to an *extremely* physically and emotionally abusive partner to try to protect Kaneki and two other innocent victims, just because he thought it was the right thing to do. Tsukiyama also falls into the predatory gay man stereotype, at least at first, but he was just so enjoyable and fun (and, despite all his weird cannibal obsessiveness, he did seem to genuinely *like* Kaneki as a person) that he became a fan-favorite even when he was still the stereotypical queer villain of the week. Ishida also gave him something of a series-long redemption arc, turning him into a complex and lovable character who is, still, a fan favorite. Uta is a legitimately cool and nice guy, even if he does do some *very* morally questionable things with the Clown Masks later on. Even Jason is a monster plain and simple, but he became that way because he himself was abused, and his reminisces about his mother remind us that even the worst people still have someone they love.

I haven't read all the way through :re yet, and the negative queer tropes apparently get even worse there ... Mutsuki's descent into mental illness and jealous rage plays into a number of uncomfortable transphobic and misogynistic tropes, but I guess it sort of makes sense in the context of their past and struggles with mental illness, and the themes of the story with the relationship between trauma and moral decay. And prior to that really unfortunate arc, Mutsuki was genuinely a super cool character. Matsuri Washuu's profession of love to Urie was ... real weird, and the way he did it was gratuitous ... but you do kind of feel bad for the guy for being basically forced into marrying a woman he isn't attracted to for the family honor.

Then, of course, you have all the characters who aren't canonically queer, but are so relatable in more positive ways for queer folks that many fans headcanon them to be queer. Hide's unconditional love and devotion for Kaneki comes to mind. Or Hsiao and Saiko coming across as being queer but in a good/cool way. Or Juuzo's ambiguous gender expression, and Juuzo being completely unhinged but also one of the most well-loved characters in the series.

So I guess what I'm saying is ... yeah, the portrayal of queer characters in TG is problematic, and I don't mean to be defending it, exactly, but I guess what I'm saying is that even when the author is being awful with the tropes, he's still somehow able to write characters who feel human enough to occasionally transcend those tropey boxes he pushes them into.

I will also note that most of the queer or queer-ish characters are still alive in the final chapter. So, of all of the terrible tropes TG engages in with its queer characters, at least "bury your gays" isn't one of them.

IDK just my thoughts. I'll be posting another follow-up with some of my in-universe headcanons later on, I think.

[aspoonofsugar]

hey! Good day :) here to ask a question!! I was wondering about your process for analysis, character analysis, theme analysis- do you just write or are there specific things you look for? I suppose I’m curious if you have an idea/general gist of what you’re doing or steps you take to do your breakdowns. I’m trying to do something similar out of interest and your works are simply fascinating to read. I look up to your writing a lot!

hello!! Can I ask how you started analysing shows, how you went about it? I’m learning literary analysis and trying to do the same for hunter x hunter but I find it infinitely harder to analyse shows. Especially since I most notably consider diction in literary analysis lol

Hi!

Thank you for your nice words anon(s) and yay! I love meta-asks <3<3<3

So, it depends on the meta. In general, I try to focus on a specific topic, which can be:

a character (arc + foiling between characters)

a theme

the use of a specific motif, when it comes to a character or a theme

These are my three favourite kinds of analyses, but there are other types, as well. For example, some people are really into plot theories/predictions. Others prefer to focus on characters from a psychological viewpoint. Some other writers like to use philosophical lens or to compare different works. It really depends on your preference.

My preference is mostly for thematic analyses. This means that my character metas too tend to use a thematic lens. So...

WHAT IS THE THEME?

In short, the theme of a story is both:

the topic the story is exploring

the moral of the story, aka a phrase which summarizes its message

Stories explores topics through characters and plot, while the way the conflict is solved tells us the moral.

Some examples:

RWBY's main topic is humanity in both its weakness and strength and its moral is that victory is in a simple soul

Madoka's main topic is wishes and its moral is that it is worth to want things and to fight for them, even if it is painful

HXH is strange structurally, but its main topic is self-search, with its moral being that a person should not focus on the goal, but enjoy the journey

All of these messages and ideas aren't just things stated in dialogues (even if someone saying the theme helps). They emerge from the story itself.

RWBY's main conflict is about a destroyed world (remnant) surviving the anger of an evil witch (Salem). If humans let hate divide them, they lose. If they unite, they win. The main thematic question is then... can humans make the right choice? And the answer is that they can, as long as they remain simple souls (Ruby, but also Pyrrha at Beacon, Blake in Managerie, Yang in Mistral, Weiss with her family, JNR when they tag along and Penny in Atlas). The main message is that several people making the right choice leads to change. And that is humanity. This is why the characters keep being asked to give up their idealism and to embrace a more utilitarian way of doing things. And this is why every time they refuse and stick to their idealism. The conflict itself keeps testing their resolution.

Madoka's power system works through wishes, so the girls' powers and their backstories are all defined by their wishes and by how they relate to them. Madoka doesn't know what she wants. Homura's wish turns into an obsession. Mami makes a wish too early and thinks only about herself. Kyouko and Sayaka make a wish for someone else and have opposite reactions to their wishes ending poorly. Finally, it is revealed the girls' wishes are literally the force that keeps the world at balance. So, the plot, character arcs, conflict and worldbuilding are all about wishes.

HXH is made up of several arcs and each arc has its own theme. That said, the overall structure conveys the main theme. Gon's objective is to find Ging, but he keeps taking detours and getting engulfed in unrelated conflicts. However, the moment he meets Ging he realizes it is not his father who defines him, but rather it is all the people he met in his journey and his own experiences. Basically, HXH's strange structure conveys the main theme.

So, the theme (both topic and moral) should emerge by the characters, the worldbuilding, the conflict and sometimes even by the structure itself. In order to find it, one should start with the topic and ask themselves "What does the story really talk about?". The answer to this question will let you understand the theme as topic. The second step is to see how the story explores it.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON THE TOPIC

There are different ways a story can explore a topic. Still, the best stories have different perspectives clash with each other. Very often these different points of view are embodied by different characters.

Here are some examples, with some linked metas that explore the respective stories more in depth.

Madoka (topic= wishes):

Homura is determined to fulfill her wish no matter what

Kyubey is her opposite, as they are unable to wish since they lack feelings. This is why they need to recruit girls into creating energy through wishes

Madoka is in the middle, as she wants to wish for something, but doesn't know what

Mami, Kyouko and Sayaka all explore negative effects linked to wishes, which are connected to other secondary themes. Specifically, Mami explores the consequences of an immature wish, while Sayaka and Kyouko explore the selfishness/selflessness inherent in wishes

The conflict is solved through Madoka learning about the price of wishes, but still choosing to make a wish and to sacrifice her whole self for it. This ending conveys a specific moral: despite the pain and sacrifice that comes with them, wishes are still beautiful and worth it all. If Madoka had chosen to give up being a magical girl and had ended up the series without making a wish, the moral would have been the opposite: that a normal life is better than grandiose and dangerous dreams.

Monster (topic = the value of life)

Tenma believes that all lives are equal, which is why he chooses to save Johan as a child, despite being ordered to operate a far more influential patient.

Eva and Nina believe that not all lives are equal. In particular, Eva thinks that social status and importance in society influence the value of one's life. Nina instead believes that people who commit crime should be punished and lose their lives.

Johan believes no-life has value, including his own. In his words, the only thing all humans are equal in is death.

Here, the moral is conveyed through the Tenma/Nina vs Johan's conflict. Tenma is tested in his beliefs, but ultimately does not abandon them and ends the story by saving Johan. Nina instead is asked to change her mind, as she ends the story embracing Tenma's point of view.

RWBY - The Atlas Arc (topic = trust)

Ozpin lacks trust, as he is unable to trust others, no matter how loyal or dedicated to his cause they are

Ruby wants to "trust safely". She wants others, like Ironwood, to prove themselves to her before disclosing the truth to them

Ironwood is initially on Ruby's same page, but he spirals and comes to embody the "enemy of trust" aka control. He doesn't trust others, but wants to control them.

Oscar embodies trust, as he wants to trust Ironwood since the beginning. Even later on, he keeps on trusting people like Hazel and Emerald who are his enemies.

Cinder embodies another "enemy of trust", aka manipulation. She doesn't need to trust others to work with them, as she can use their feelings and wishes against them.

Penny embodies faith, which is a more extreme form of trust. She sacrifices herself and leaves the maiden power to Winter. She has no proof Winter will be able to save Weiss, Jaune or the relic, but she entrusts the future to her.

All these characters struggle with trust and its dangers. Some, like Ozpin, Ironwood and Cinder decide that trusting is too dangerous. Others, like Ruby, Penny and Oscar realize that to trust is the only way to move forward. Moreover, they learn there is not way to trust safely. As a matter of fact the moral of the arc is that "trust is a risk" and risks mean that things can end up badly. Still, not to take risk means to give up hope.

Hazbin Hotel - You didn't know song (topic= knowledge)

This song explores the idea of knowlege. The characters are after all in the middle of a questioning, which leads to several secrets coming out. Moreover, throughout it all the characters either admit or realize how ignorant they all are. The way they deal with this lack of knowledge establishes different thematic stances.

Charlie and Emily are both naive and ignore the darkest sides of their loved ones. Charlie doesn't know Vaggie used to be an exorcist and Emily has no idea Sera ordered the exterminations. Still, their answer to ignorance is to keep on questioning. They have no idea why only certain souls are admitted in heaven. Still, they think it is important to investigate the phenomenon and use it as evidence that there might be hope for the spirits in hell.

Lute and Adam don't know why some spirits end up in hell and others in heaven. Still, they do not bother to question it. So, Adam is caught by surprise by Charlie's question and has to improvise an answer. Not only that, but even later on the duo insist that Angel not being in Heaven proves he is unholy. And that's it.

Sera does know about the extermination, as she knows the system is unfair. Still, she refuses to question it and forbids others to do the same. She is the only one whose sin isn't ignornace, but knowledge.

There is no a clear thematic resolution to the question posed by the song. This is because the series is not over yet. However, the scene sets up the theme and the way characters will deal with it in later seasons will give us the moral.

As you can see, not only whole stories (like Madoka, or Monster) have themes, but also arcs (RWBY) and even episodes or scenes (Hazbin Hotel). That said, the way to go at it is always the same. Pintpoint the main topic and start investigate how the characters or the worldbuilding deal with it. You are gonna get several stances. The one which emeges victorious is the moral.

Let's highlight that the moral is not always embodied by the protagonist. For example, in the Madoka and RWBY's examples, Madoka and Ruby are initially at a loss and come to learn the moral by the end of the story (for Madoka) and arc (for Ruby). Similarly, Tenma initially does believe the moral, but doubts it throughout the story, only to be reminded and helped by other characters (like Nina).

In any case, the way the protagonist and characters in general relate to the main theme and to secondary themes is key for their arcs.

CHARACTERS AND THEME

When it comes to theme a character can either:

Believe the moral since the beginning

Not believe the moral since the beginning

In the first case, the character either stops believing the moral by the end (negative arc) or keeps believing the moral until the end (positive arc). In the second case, the character either learns the moral (positive arc) or doesn't learn the moral (negative arc).

In short, the story keeps challenging the character on their beliefs and they must either stick to their point of view or change it, depending if they believe in the moral since the beginning or not.

Exhibit A:

Charlie's belief that sinners can be redeemed is right. Still, in the beginning nobody else agrees with her, so she is challenged by the world around her. Her objective is not to lose faith in the Hazbin Hotel and to inspire others to change their mind too. Throughout her journey, she is bound to grow too. She starts as sheltered and naive with a simplistic idea of what redemption is. By the end, she will gain a deeper understanding of redempion and will grow as a result.

Exhibit B:

Eren's journey is about realizing what freedom (the main topic) is about. The problem is that he fixates himself on the idea that freedom means no boundaries, either natural nor humans. This leads him to embrace destruction and nihilism and to lose himself. In the end, the character who realizes what freedom truly is is Mikasa. She doesn't discard her bond with Eren, but is still able to make independent choices and to live as herself. In short, Eren doesn't learn the moral, hence why he spirals instead of growing.

Charlie is a protagonist who knows the moral and will grow with it in a positive arc. Eren is a protagonist who doesn't know the moral and never learns it. This is why he has a tragic negative arc.

These are just two examples, but there can be different combinations. By interrogating yourself on how characters relate to a theme, you get better a better understanding of their role in the story and of their overall arcs.

Still, how to find themes in a story? Luckily, each text is full of hints that are there for us to interpret them.

MOTIFS

Motifs are repetitive details within a story, which are used to communicate themes.

Anything can be a motif: a line, a musical tune, a specific imagery, an object. By repeating them in key moments throughout a narrative, they become symbols, which means they can lead to bigger metaphors and convey specific meanings.

In the song More Than Anything, dream is one of the main topics. We realize it because the characters keep mentioning it. At the same time, light keeps popping up. Lucifer summons light and throws it away, Charlie rememebrs a light show Lucifer imrpovised for her. Lucifer and Charlie start the song in the shadow and they end it in the light. This means that "light" is a motif throughout the song and by seeing how it is used we better understand the theme and the relationship between the two characters. We understand that light is a metaphor for dreams. Lucifer gives up on it, Charlie is inspired by it and eventually Lucifer summons it back as he has decided to believe in Charlie's dream. By looking at the way light is used, we can see that Charlie teaches Lucifer the moral that it is worth it to fight for dreams and not to give up on them.

In the CAA of HXH, gungi is a motif that comments both the topic of humanity and Meruem and Komugi's relationship. Their matches become a metaphor of monstrosity vs humanity, as humanity slowly conquers Meruem to the point he himself chooses to live and die as a human, rather than the King of the Ants. Similarly, Kokoriko symbolically becomes Komugi and Meruem's child, in the sense they give birth to this move and evolve the game.

Sometimes, their meaning is unique to the story. For example, gungi is a motif that makes sense within HxH and can't be brought outside of the series, as it is not a real world game. It only exists in that universe. Some other times, a motif can tie to bigger sets of symbols. For example, light and shadow are universal symbols that bring with them several additional meanings:

Good and Evil

The Jungian persona shadow

In the Hazbin Hotel song the first dychotomy doesn't fit, while the second one does. Initially both Lucifer and Charlie hide things from each other (shadow), whereas by the end they show who they are (light).

In short, to analyze a story, you should find its key motifs. They are hints to better understand the theme and the characters. Different stories will use different motifs and tie them to different wider sets of symbols. To find the right ones can help a lot in better understanding a story, as a whole.

Some examples:

RWBY uses fairy tales and alchemy as its main motif, so these two sets of symbols are the most useful to analyze the series

HxH is a shonen and uses its powers and fights to convey character arcs and themes, so to analyze one's nen abilities helps a lot

Hazbin Hotel is a musical series that takes inspiration from religion and mythology. So, it is probable that the best understanding of it will come from analyzing its songs and from looking into its religion inspiration

Of course this doesn't mean you should only use one motif to analyze a story. For example, you can use RWBY's semblances to look into the characters, as well. And there are some fairy tale allusions in Hazbin too. In the end, it is about using what best helps you understand a story as a whole.

What is more, there are general sets of symbols that can be useful in most stories, such as jungian archetypes. Finally, you might want to start from other aspects of the story itself, rather than theme or characters or plot. For example, you might be drawn to the world-building and realize it is used in a special way to explore the theme. Or you might be curious about character designs and see that they have their own symbolism (for example, I believe RWBY ones do and probably Hazbin Hotel ones, as well).

SOME PRACTICAL ADVICE

I have linked in the title of each paragraph, but this last one an article by @septembercfawkes. Her posts are great to better understand narrative structure and I found them enlightening.

I think the best thing you can do is to start with focused metas. Choose a scene, a character, a motif that intrigues you and start exploring it. It is better to start small and to narrow your focus, it would be easier to organize your article.

I usually outline the contents of the meta before starting to write it. Still, it sometimes changes as I keep writing.

It can be useful to write at the beginning of your analysis what you are gonna do. It will help you remember what the point of the meta is. For example, in my RWBY allusion meta or HxH nen meta, I always start with the motif I am analyzing. I summarize the fairy tale (even if many people know it already) and I explain what the character's ability is about. It helps organizing the flow and the contents.

The more you analyze the better you become at it, so it is just a matter of starting :)

Thank you for the asks, I hope this was helpful and not too much confusing!

Have a nice day!

[holydrakes]

Been thinking about why the idea of platonic soulmates 4lyfe Soma give me a huge deal of psychic damage lately and it's not just because I ship these two (hell, I have OTPs whom I don't mind just being platonic soulmates for life, so this is one is a big deal and comes with the way they are both written) because how much it wastes all those romantic undertones they already had within the text.

The fact that overcoming the idea of 'infidelity' is literally part of their arc and it was set since the very beginning with Maka learning to trust Soul and Soul declaring he'd never cheat on her, for this to be truly meaningful they need to enter the relationship where this specific type of commitment is required. And that is for them to become a long-term couple, since if you are simply friends why would the idea of 'infidelity' matter? This is why them being simply platonic soulmates is...ugh. They're already made out of these very specific themes that would be much more meaningful when applied romantically, we gotta use it.

(That said though, I don't mind that SE merely explored this through Maka and Soul having essentially a Pseudo-Romantic Friendship throughout the series. I think it's the most appropriate given their young ages. These kids had basically learned the basics before they become mature enough to enter a more serious relationship in the future. That's why if Ohkubo ever says something stupid like these two ain't meant to be a thing in the future either I'd say fuck that. You fumbled a gold here)

Hell, I've seen canon couples whose platonic soulmatism I'd have easier time to accept, because romance is just irrelevant to what their arc symbolizes for example. The other partnerships in the series made better platonic soulmates for me because of this reason, Black Star and Kid are simply meant be better versions of their fathers who made morally dubious acts in their lives, and their weapons offer them the support they need to balance out their personality traits that'd otherwise lead them to that same dark fate (it helps that their arcs don't involve them avoiding that same path altogether but just tackling it in different ways, Black Star still seeks power but makes it so he wanted to use that power to protect other people, Kid still becomes a Shinigami but decides to be more diplomatic) You can get the point across just by simply having friendship this way.

But Maka and Soul are supposed to be 'a better version of Maka's parents' and I'm not sure how you can thoroughly prove that without actually following them into the path where they specifically failed: which is the romance (it will follow how Black Star and Kid still choose to follow their fathers' paths and just avoid the mistakes they did when threading said path) And then have them face the same problems that might arise by committing themselves into this type of relationship, and see if they are able to handle it better than Maka's parents did. Like I'm sorry, yes SoMa being platonic when they are teens I can accept it, but for them to stay that way for life (like they even got together with other people and stuff) made their relationship feel cheaper than if they actually do get together since that makes it so there's never any real meaning behind Maka trusting Soul as a man who would always be committed to her in every sense of the word (be it as her weapon partner and romantic partner, a line that the 'cool guys don't cheat on their partners' specifically blurred) these two actually call for their relationship to eventually become romantic to come full circle imo.

[5mcsinatrenchcoat]

MAJOR ENDGAME SPOILER, if this slips through your tags SCROLL AWAY. Yes don't even read till the readmore. Shoo NOW.

.

Anyway if the second team captain choice becomes this fandom's Virmire or the equivalent of LiS1 ending dilemma where it somehow becomes an issue of a "right" choice or god forbid morality I'm gonna SCREAM.

I'm already seeing people saying that Davrin "is supposed to be sacrificed" 'cause he's a Warden, which uuuh sucks and also contradicts his personal arc and also kinda shitty towards the only black man on the team and also: Assan. But I'm ALSO seeing people scrambling to justify it being Harding 'cause it "makes sense", and whatever she came to represent is a "relic of the past" (rich coming from the fandom that usually understood the importance of old lore and culture when it came to elves. are those different people saying this or do we suddenly cannot read when it's about dwarves), or because she's a scout (what) and I just--

WHY is our first instinct in these choices to justify ours. To find why it "makes sense", or is "better". Does it make us feel better about clicking a button that led to a painful consequence? Must one tragedy be more acceptable than the other?

Like, I get analysis, themes, it's all good, but you lose me at the "And that's why this choice is better" point.

They both suck! Emotionally, narratively, on a character level, it's pain! That's the entire point!

Obviously it's not my place to god forbid police anyone's language, but just consider:

"I just couldn't bear Assan dying and also I like this end for Davrin better/I romanced Harding therefore I can't let her die" - cool, it's your feeling, your game.

"Here's my Rook's thought process on this" - also cool, yay headcanons and character exploration.

"This is why it makes more sense for Davrin/Harding to die and it's a better choice narratively" - now one choice is put on a pedestal and it's a straight path towards part of a fandom feeling superior for choosing "correctly". Does anyone seen what I mean? If we start receiving hate mail and callouts over choosing the "wrong" person down the line I'm gonna explooode.

Same goes for Treviso/Minrathous choice btw.

For the record, Davrin died in my game, but I didn't know the meaning of the choice. Harding just happened to be in my party 'cause I always take my LI with me to the final battle.

And I don't redo major choices usually, so there we go. Plus, yeah, even if I did, I'm not into that kind of angst in my romances.

That's it. I don't think Davrin is a "correct" choice or that he was meant for this. He just came to terms with not dying, with living. And also we lose the one of thirteen last griffins in the world. It's horrible.

I've just created a second Rook, so maybe she'll choose differently when I get there. I'm still getting the hang of her personality.

I think that neither of the two (three) was written to die. It's just war. Dying in war never makes sense.

So can we please stop (or not start) with the goddamn justifications and just cry together.

[mrynnn]

R.F KUANG Books- my thoughts

I just finished reading all of RF Kuang’s work, a while ago and I have to admit, I have some pretty mixed feelings. On one hand, I totally get why she’s praised: her ambition and the themes she writes about like colonialism, identity, and power, are undeniably important. She doesn’t shy away from addressing these big issues, which is bold ofc. But at the same time, there’s something about her execution that really didn’t land for me. I wanted to connect with her characters and stories more than I actually did.

The Poppy War, for example. Rin’s journey is intense, and the story itself is brutal in a way that forces you to confront the cost of war and trauma. But for me, Rin’s character arc felt more frustrating than complex. I get that she’s supposed to be flawed and deeply affected by everything around her, but her decisions often felt predictable. By the time I got to the later books, especially The Burning God, I found myself less invested in her fate because it all seemed like a downward spiral with no real moments of reflection or growth. Yes, it’s tragic, but without that emotional depth, it became exhausting rather than impactful.

Then there’s Babel. This book had so much potential, especially with the setting in academia which i love, and the themes of colonialism and language. The concept itself is super interesting for me, and Kuang clearly has a lot to say about the exploitation and erasure of cultures. But again, I felt like the characters took a backseat to the message. Especially Robin’s struggle to reconcile his love for academia with the reality of its colonial roots is central, but his character felt flat to me. The dynamics between him and the other students had so much potential for complexity, but they nothing ever developed in a way that felt natural or believable . It was like everything was building up to this explosive conflict, but the tension wasn’t fully earned. Instead, it felt forced.

That said, I do like how Kuang challenges the reader. She’s not afraid to dig into uncomfortable topics, and her books definitely make you think. There’s a lot of depth in how she tackles themes of identity and belonging, especially in Babel, where Robin’s experience of being an outsider in an institution that simultaneously reveres and erases his heritage feels very real. But sometimes the way these themes were presented felt too heavy-handed for me. It was like the messaging overtook the story, and while I appreciate the points she’s making. Whats the point of the story if the message is the story, i want more moments where the characters could just breathe.

I think that’s where my main issue is,

I wanted more from the characters themselves. I know they’re meant to be complex and morally ambiguous, but a lot of the time, they felt more like vehicles for the plot rather than fully realized individuals. Nezha, for example, starts out as this arrogant figure you almost hate, but then we get glimpses of something deeper. Still, it felt like we never really got to explore that complexity in a meaningful way.

Kuang’s work is undeniably ambitious, and I respect her for that but I couldn’t fully connect with her stories in the way I wanted to. The themes and the politics are important, but they ended up overshadowing the characters and the emotional core of the narrative for me. I know she has a big following, but personally, her style and approach just didn’t resonate with me as much as I’d liked.

[raayllum]

I know you like to analyze thematically in TDP a lot and you write top down the same way, so I’m curious, what are some of the themes/motifs in your upcoming novels? and do any of them coincide with TDP?

(GASP you get a gold star oh my god thank you!! and i will try to not make this too Long but i'm very excited!!)

Basic premise for ppl who have never heard of my novels before:

Latest generation of a reincarnated group of chosen ones have to grow up in a world of increasing violence and political instability that they're supposed to fix while also facing their own choices and demons. The main character, Ally, starts off as an 'unchosen one' — she lost her powers as a young child and has been trying to get them back, which kinda makes her resent her chosen one friends just as much as she loves them. The other two co-leads are her twin sister, a former child soldier with death powers she doesn't want, and her friend / one sided rival, a draconic-powered prodigy looking for redemption and to escape her past.

The funny thing is that when I was writing out my series (2014-2017 has all the pieces we currently have, though things have ofc been finessed since then) only ATLA existed as an inspiration point, which was, "How do you always know the Avatar is going to be a good person (and what if you didn't? What if they weren't)?" + "what if there was more than one running around?"

The rest was all from my head. There's a mystical magical heart broken into pieces. A continent divided in two with a long history of war. Characters anchored to the idea of Autonomy who then go through a loss of powers arc (hi Callum s2) and then brainwashing/possession arc (hi arc 2 Callum) that was probably by far the funniest coincidence. Circles and cycles and children and choices. The fact that these all just also found their way into TDP shows just how much it feels like the show was Made For Me in the best way creatively, and one of the reasons I think I've found TDP so personally rewarding to analyze—happy coincidences all around.

There's other coming-of-age themes of course that are shared between the two—grief, identity, friendship—but being prose I get to lean more into religious and political worldbuilding in much more detail.

I think my novel(s) are also more grey and angsty (especially later on) than TDP was at the start, too. A good chunk of my protagonists don't have any moral reservations about assassinations or killing/torturing people push come to shove while also still wanting and trying to be Good People, but that just makes the ethical dilemmas more interesting to explore. That said, everything is ultimately more Hopepunk, I just prefer to never pull punches on the way there

Motifs I like to use:

a tarot inspired in-universe version of chess for foreshadowing purposes

stage motif (who are you when you're performing for everyone around you / constantly fronting?)

birds / ravens

wolves

knives

eyes / the ouroboros (snake eating its own tail)

Themes: gods vs monsters (vs humanity), complex family and friend dynamics, living vs survival, grief and cycles, loss of sense of self, idolization and scapegoating as two sides of dehumanization, etc.

I also wanted to have unique power sets (Moon is one of my favourites with leaning into shadow magic and being able to make things temporarily out of moonlight, or Life not just being all fuzzy plants and animals and showing more of the well, brutality of being alive).

People have said my main protag is basically if Claudia and Rayla were the same person and yeah that's a fair assessment, Unfortunately for her.

I feel like I blabbed enough here but if you want more info on writing things from a top-down approach / what it's like to build from theme first I'd love to talk about it more in relation to TDP (and also my books, mayhaps!)

[justatalkingface]

I just saw your recent rant on the manga and i couldnt agree more.

My main issue with the current manga chapters is the fact that the characters are not fully developed enough to the point where the main themes and arguements can be handles correctly.

What i mean is, the LOV initially starting out kind of aimless and mad at the world to confronting the fact that the problems they faced were systematic would better help their arguements as well as if they were allowed to be morally grey and showcase compassion and empathy for people who suffered as they did then we would feel more sympathy for them and make the conflict more dynamic. Instead they are saying all the right things but it all seems to be surface level and not like the characters fully contemplated this.

Likewise, the heroes havent been allowed to consider the corruption and ramifications of hero society prior to the war arc in a meaningful way. It all came during the war arc and when it did it felt flat, like there was little depth to their arguements at all. Like Hori didn't really consider the deeper implications of his themes here. This is extreamly prominent in the side characters such as Monoma, Shinsou, Shoji and Tsuyu. All have themes of discrimination they discuss and showcase but Midoriya nor they contemplate it any further which renders the heroes feeling so shallow in their arguements. The most moral greyness we get is Monoma saying that they cannot be heroes the typical way to Shinsou and must act unheroicly to compensate for it.

Its all there. But it hasnt been explored well enough so we end up with Bakugou and Endeavour getting more focus without contemplation for how hero society helped create this and Midoriya being wierdly naive and hypocritical. All the heroes end up being hypocritcal alongside the villains and not in a 'oh theyre just as bad as the other' intentional way but in a 'i did not consider the arguements in their totality' kind of way.

This and the entire premise and consequences of the Nomu's not being acknowledged (thats a whole different rant) feel so underexplored and end up making me very fustrated with the manga. Because the building blocks were there, but for whatever reason it ended up being so underdeveloped.

I've said it before, but a lot of the villain/hero dynamic is built off a situation Hori seems actively afraid to explore after the manga progressed to a certain point.

Originally, MHA was built off the idea of flaws in society, the failures it causes, the people it alienates... deep ideas, and deeply interesting ones. But the thing is, looking at that kind of thing makes the good guys look bad. If heroes are flawed, if they fail people because of their own issues, then that makes them harder to root for, and at some point, probably because of Endeavour and Bakugou, Hori started almost running from that happening.

But, its so baked into the story's lore that he can't ditch it, so we get surface deep nods to 'failure' of heroes, while we watch heroes do and say everything right, all the time. No indivision, no selfishness, just all in devotion to the cause of making everything better.

At the same time, though, the villains are supposed to have a point, but if they go into that, if they seem like rational actors, again, the heroes look bad. So, the villains double down into cartoon villainous bullshit, before spouting out empty sounding platitudes about how unhappy they are... that everyone response to like that makes sense.

It runs the overall narrative, but more than that, without these imperfections, without the real people in the bad guys, it destroys their character development as well. No one like a one dimensional character, they want the interest and depth of a person to connect to, doubly so when this one dimensional character seems to be so wildly disconnected with the actual reality they're living in.

If the heroes, the perfect, selfless heroes, willing to give their lives amass to save one person, live in a society so corrupt as to make these monsters, to the point where that corruption surrounds their day to day life... why aren't doing something about it? Why are they fine with this status quo? Why is no one trying to reform the heroic system, however that works in reality? Why aren't they fighting the HSPC?

If the villains have all these causes and ideas and grievances, why don't they do something about it beyond just killing people? Shigaraki (who lived an absurdly sheltered life before being lead by the nose to losing his shit about reality, before he stopped being a relevent character/villain) and Dabi (who had executed a plan to solve his problem, even if it got fucked up by writing changes later on) have excuses, but why don't Twice, Toga and Compress, these big, dramatic personalities, broadcast... anything about what they want to say? Being part of the League, these big time villains, gives them, among other things, a platform to spread their message to all of Japan, and this is by design on their parts; they joined to fulfil these dreams and ambitions, and fight everything that oppressed them.

Why doesn't Toga, like, break into news stations to spread her message? Why didn't Twice flash-mob an elaborate graffiti manifesto onto an entire city? After all, a hint of them talking would bring slavering reporters to televise everything in droves, there's no way the heroes could suppress the sheer amount of publicity they could so easily generate.

Why? Because then that ruins the story. Not the actual story, but the little one Hori has made inside of it, where the good heroes beat the bad villains, then everyone cheers and goes on with their lives, the end. No depth. No deep thinking. No villains you can truly sympathize with, or heroes you can despise.

[hopalongfairywren]

For the ask game, 🥚, 🔪, and 🏳️‍🌈?

🥚 - To what extent should the Eggpire's former members be held responsible for their actions under the Egg's influence? Oooh special interest, be prepared for a long-ass answer. Also, since this is gonna be so long, I'll just reblog my answer to the other two questions. TLDR for those not interested in individual explanations: It varies character to character but for the sake of angst, drama, personal enjoyment, and enjoyment of seeing my favorite characters going through it, I love incorporating this very question into my own stories as a very real side-plot and moral question between revenge and rehabilitation, which would tie in well with the other concurring arcs' themes of retribution, what the line between justice and revenge is, redemption, loss of trust... Ugh talk about waste of potential in canon.... (God forbid the dsmp ever let multiple plotlines intersect in a way that is cool and ties the whole story together) Anyways, I answered this a long time ago, and since then the egg finale happened, so I have a new opinion. c!Hannah, Ponk, even Ant (although he was a blood thirsty little murder kitty) stay the same in that, they were all desperate people taken advantage of (and sometimes even abducted) into being egg-controlled, much like a real cult. Unlike a real cult though, where no matter how brainwashed someone might be we generally treat them as responsible for the crimes they committed, the egg has mind control at it's disposal.

I still don't know how the egg is supposed to actually work in canon lore, like as an ancient parasite, as a fungus, as a supernatural curse...? And at this point we'll never find out, but the point is these people- all of them but especially those three, were under the egg's complete control of their minds, and if not that then at least their was some version of TLOU cordyceps-esq type scenario, but where even if the egg's influence on their minds could at least wane somewhat, (I'll get back to that with the other three offical eggpire members) It still controlled their bodies via muscles. (This probably isn't intended at all, and if the egg solely controlled their muscles, the infected would probably be less able to do things such as plan banquets... but it's a fun concept to explore) Now for the other three, c!Bad, c!Punz, and c!Skeppy (I know he doesn't technically count but I'm ignoring that.) c!Punz is a special case because I feel like they either forgot or didn't care that they were at one point a part of the early eggpire. They weren't at the red banquet. And even though I thought they'd be a Chekhov's gun type situation where he'd come to play in the revival book lore, where it could have been revealed c!stagedduo were working to strengthen the egg as equal-partnership (at least in their minds) allies, in order to distract the SMP by using the killing of c!Vikk and Lazar as a means to feed the egg. Or maybe the Sam Bucket finale stream, or the c!Sam's multiple bodies finale, or the egg finale, or even maybe the finale finale Tommy finale. Which could have with Punz unleashing the egg on c!Clingyduo, betraying c!Dream for it, or idk, something. But nope he was to busy being a walking revival book and god forbid the loose plot threads of the dsmp ever get tied together in a reasonable manor. Also their was that time he was kinda sad c!Tommy died and showed signs of resisting the egg but that just. Doesn't line up with any further characterization we get of him, especially that finale. But even though c!Punz wasn't there at the most memorable egg atrocity, if we're talking about holding dsmp characters accountable for their atrocities, there's a whole other laundry list of crimes c!Punz committed while fully in control of his body. c!Bad is also interesting, because does seem to be able to break out of egg control for a moment so he can yell at c!Skeppy. But that obviously didn't last long enough for him to not go ahead with the red banquet... But it's worth remembering he like the first three was desperate for Skeppy to come back, although that isn't an excuse for any of his actions. But if anyone besides c!Ant was gonna be punished for the red banquet, or c!Sam being trapped, or the multiple Puffy assassination attempts, It would be c!Bad who organized, lead and founded the eggpire in the first place. (Hey c!Sam why'd you demote c!Hannah and treat her like shit for betraying your trust when c!Bad and c!Ant, the men you had carry out one of the jobs you consider most important, keeping c!dream in the prison betrayed you not once but fucking twice, and three times if you count c!Bad giving enderwalk c!ranboo the prison blue prints? And lastly, c!Skeppy, who wasn't a part of the official eggpire but may as well be the reason it formed considering c!Bad's motivation. But i'm not focusing on that, i'm focusing on the last egg lore stream, where it's revealed c!Skeppy made a deal after waking up from his death unegged and killing c!Bad to uninfect him, and then presumably coordinate everything from the red herring evidence being planted to pushing c!Puffy down the hole. And I think he was reinfected somewhere along the way? Anyways by that point I don't really think anyone cares about how in control you were of yourself or why you listened to the giant murder egg, you done fucked up and started the apocalypse.

[girl4music]

Today I’m gonna buy ‘Angel the Series’ BOXSET from HMV. I don’t do streaming and I don’t think Angel is available to stream anywhere anyway. I’m going to finally see what all the fuss is about and integrate myself into the Buffyverse completely. I do hope they do a bit better with the vampire and demon lore in it than they do in ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’. There’s certain characters I never had much interest in but really wanted to follow their story more so I could. Characters that were reduced to plot devices and cannon fodder in ‘BtVS’ but become main in ‘AtS’.

And perhaps I’ll be able to better understand Bangel if not from a shipping perspective - a learning one.

But the main thing I want to watch it for now that I’ve talked myself into it is to learn and follow ALL of Faith’s story and character arc. There is nothing more intriguing and thought-provoking for me when it comes to TV shows than the theme of violence and how it has an extreme affect on the human psyche. Faith is an extremely misunderstood character. I can tell there’s more to her than what Buffy makes of her. And I always thought Angel understood Faith more. Plus, Eliza Dushku is easily one of the best actors. The way she can convey so much emotionally even when her character is supposed to be emotionally reserved and restrained is the mark of great acting chops. Like I keep saying - very much like Willow - she’s another character that just doesn’t allow you to see the real her and yet, because of that, you see so much anyway because the actresses just know how to portray that. Truly great acting is about conveying what’s not there as much as what is. Nuanced expression is everything. Complex qualities in characters - especially female characters - only work when they are portrayed well. And I really could go on and on about how Willow and Faith are practically the same character because they have a very similar character arc but are still so distinctly very different in character representation. You’ve got one that’s really quietly and clandestinely morally grey and one that’s loudly and proudly grey. But where do they end up? Exactly the same place. And there really is so much there between them that needed to be explored that I really wish was in S7.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

I think I would've enjoyed Zoya's character and RoW more if it wasn't a constant rehashing of SaB. It should've been allowed to be an original storyline of it's own without relying on the same old "chosen one" and "darkling comes back" tropes. YA fantasy is oversaturated with the same girlboss badass™️ fmcs I would've loved to see more of Nikolai. But for some reason RoW was just not it. It felt very much like "SEE this was the point of SHADOW AND BONE!!" like ykwim? It felt like it was written in answer to the all the criticisms of R&R in the fandom and I think Nikolai's character arc suffered because of that.

Yeah I feel like the biggest problem with KoS, that carried over to RoW, was this very obvious discomfort and self consciousness with the original material it’s building off of, while also refusing to let it go. KoS kept wanting to fix TGT or make clear that all of those dated embarrassing tropes from the first books? Well we’re not doing that here! Instead we’re going to do the improved updated version!!

I can empathize with looking back on an earlier, clumsier thing you worked on and cringing about it, but truly so much of KoS feels defined by embarrassment. It’s there in little things like the weird retcon about how Grisha are actually named after Sankt Grigori, or in the more pervasive narrative treatment Zoya gets as a girlboss fantasy protagonist.

I want to preface this by saying that I adore Zoya. The misogyny in this fandom is so intense shfhf like Darklinas get real weird about Zoya; Zoyalais gets real weird about Alina. Like let’s just be normal about female characters please! But truly, Zoya is so fun. I love her. But the way she’s handled in the duology feels very… trendy (derogatory). Like she’s this completely hot protagonist who everyone worships, the world revolves around her. She’s the specialest ever, but also isn’t afraid to embrace it. Meanwhile we keep saying she’s mean and ruthless but 404 image not found, sometimes she’s just mildly snippy?

It’s a big contrast to Alina as the mid 2000s-2010s era protagonist where the mousy, insecure, jealous wallflower type is suddenly lifted out of mediocrity with the sudden discovery that she’s been special all along.

Both of these tropes are cringe lol, but they can be fun! But I think it just gets grating in Zoya’s case where the narrative is constantly cringing over how Alina was written lmao. And then there was the clear S&B redux element in the plot with her developing previously unheard of powers, being lauded as a saint, and then getting to keep that power and having her girlboss ending.

But Nikolai did really get tremendously sidelined, considering the duology was supposed to be about him lmao. I do think this also ties back to the uncomfortable relationship with the trilogy?

Because like, at the end of the day, that awkward clumsy earlier story we’re trying real hard to ignore is also incontrovertibly canon! And LB, while very antsy about how bad it is also seems incredibly averse to overturning any of its resolution and ending, or writing anything that might be considered a direct continuation. She seems very firm in her decision to end Alina’s story, and that its resolution is somehow like Ravka’s moral resolution? So most of the things that defined Nikolai in the trilogy just… don’t really carry over with any real intent of engagement because he pretty much existed to explore that moral question. So. He gets nothing lol. What even is his arc in KoS?

Anyway, for all its flaws, and failures in execution, I feel like TGT was pretty deliberately constructed? It’s easy to point to what it’s About thematically, and the characters all have very clear narrative functions. I couldn’t really tell you what the duology is about. I feel like Alina’s absence leaves a pretty big thematic hole in the narrative, and the other characters just don’t quite fill it? Meanwhile the story isn’t different enough to support an entirely different overarching theme that might fit the new cast more. So what’s left is basically an incoherent narrative that’s primary interest is meta commentary on itself.

The Darkling coming back I chalk up more to LB just loving that character too much sjfjfhkgjf she clearly just can’t let him stay dead. But, as I’ve said before, I do think it’s a huge mistake to drag him back if Alina’s out of the story. I do find all of his scenes delightful though!

[smewduck]

#5 and/or #26 for the wip ask game? :3

woah i ended up rambling

5. What are the main themes?

I would say the main big one would be good+evil/moral ambiguity? I really like looking at morality in stories.. because of this reason I could name very few genuinely 'bad' cats in this story lol

plus whatever theme goes with some sort of corrupt system :] I love those (fictionally) :]

smaller themes like power, death, war, hate/love etc and these are all looked at specifically in context/influence of their little corrupt cat society

26. What do you still need to plan?

a whole bunch of stuff! there's many little plot issues that annoy me that I'd love to fix, the main two big things however are Rainpaw's character arc and the entirety of Part 3. um lots of text under the cut

Rainpaw's my main protagonist, he gets pov throughout all 3 parts but. idk what he's really doing. its hard to get him to the end point of his story because I'm not really sure what would change his mindset to get there? His ultimate job is to restore StarClan after like a year of anarchy (a plot problem in itself because I don't want to portray the downfall of a corrupt government-ish figure as bad lol that's a good thing) but he starts SL totally anti-StarClan in comparison to his Clan. Right now I'm kind of passing it off as the inter-faction conflicts he faces after StarClan's fall make him want to restore the Clans as they were supposed to be when they were formed, but I also don't want anarchy (? for lack of a better word I guess) = chaos because that's boring and kinda shallow in my opinion

WHICH LEADS INTO part 3 because I have the end of it etched into my soul but the rest of it is just everyone. existing. totally unplanned I have no idea what will drive the plot of part 3 yet. I want to explore the conflicts between the different factions that are created after the Clans fall apart so that may drive the plot for Petalclaw and Rainpaw/storm but as for Night? I need to plan what she's doing because her one goal is to destroy StarClan. Once she's done that (end of part 2), idk what will lead her to everything I have planned out for her at the end of part 3, which is again her vs starclan :/ it's like when Night is there but StarClan is not there is nothing driving her actions so I need to figure that out...

WOAH SORRY FOR ALL THAT BUT IT WAS FUN. sorry if it makes no sense... it distracted me from the worst history assignment of all time from hell itself so thank you for the ask! :D