#which influenced what her traits were!
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Trollsona!! Her music genre is Electro-Swing bc it’s my favorite genre to listen to :D
I had a lot of fun trying to combine the traits of a funk and a techno troll
And here’s the song that was in my head while I was drawing :]
youtube
#ignore the spelling mistake i misremembered#trolls#dreamworks trolls#trollsona#trolls oc#electro swing#side note i LOOOOVE how the techno trolls look#a tier design right there#meraki art#the charleston#the notes in the top right is what the wiki says abt electro swing#which influenced what her traits were!
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
One thing I haven't seen talked about is Crystal's character arc, and specifically the way the timing of it interacts with Charles' arc. They stumble over each other in the worst possible way en route to their respective character growth, and from a narrative perspective, it's absolutely genius.
I'm going to preface all this by saying: none of this is a criticism of Crystal. Part of what makes her such a dynamic, refreshing character is that you don't get to see women in fiction written the way she's been written. You don't get to see women with her flaws that aren't throw-away mean girls or villains. You especially don't get to see women with her traits who learn and grow and become better people. So yeah, I'm going to talk about Crystal's character flaws. No, this isn't Crystal hate. We love our girl in this house. Okay? Okay. Let's start.
Crystal's character arc, at its heart, is all about her learning to be a better person because she has good influences that love and support her for the first time.
When the show starts, Crystal is not a nice person. She's abrasive in a way that's specifically designed to push people away. She's used to getting her own way, and it shows. She's used to having no meaningful connections with anyone, and it shows. She's breathtakingly selfish, in the very literal sense of the definition. She is focused on her self. Her problems are front and center to her; everything is about what she needs, and what she wants, and how she's struggling.
Jenny calls her out very early on. In episode one, Crystal is complaining about the boys, and Jenny, for all her cynicism, strikes right at the heart of the problem. She tells Crystal, "Everybody is always thinking about themselves, all the time." People only care about their own problems. And she says, correctly, that that's what Crystal is doing, too.
This moment is a revelation for Crystal. For the first time, she considers what her behavior looks like from another person's perspective. As she says, she gets mad at herself over it, and that awareness allows her to do something selfless for the first time in the series. She takes a step back and insists that instead of focusing on her problems, they go to help a little girl. It's a big moment for her.
But importantly, she's not done growing as a character here. She's only just getting started.
On my first watch through, I didn't realize how often, over the next few episodes, Crystal redirects things to her problems during conversation, but it's quite a lot. She's still focused on herself – selfish, in that most literal definition of the word. The issues most important to her are her issues. She's starting to learn to think about other people, but she's not there yet. The process is still underway.
Which brings us to Charles.
Charles' arc is a different sort of self-reflection. He's terrified that he's a bad person the way his father was and the way the boys that killed him were.
During the course of the show, he gets systematically stripped of his confidence and made to feel helpless, and just like Crystal needs outside influences to help her reach a more stable place, Charles does, too. He desperately needs reassurance that he isn't everything he's afraid he is.
But my goodness, the timing in their arcs is such a trainwreck when you put them together, and it is brilliant.
Let's start with the Devlin House.
Crystal has some amazing character growth here. She displays genuine concern about Charles, makes an attempt at comforting him, and learns to work with Edwin even though she still doesn't particularly like him at this point.
Charles, meanwhile, is beginning to fall apart. He's just had the worst night of his afterlife. He's been viscerally reminded of how helpless he is. He couldn't stop the Devlins from being killed over and over, just like he couldn't stop his own father's abuse. He messed up his attempted rescue so badly that he was completely out of commission until the case was finished. He managed to help not one single thing. He made no impact at all. He couldn't help those girls any more than he was able to help himself, while he was still alive.
So they get back to the butcher shop, and what do we see? Monty immediately coopts Edwin. Niko doesn't know what's happened because she wasn't there and Charles has been all fake smiles with her. And Crystal goes off with Niko, leaving Charles to flounder on his own in the wake of everything. She's still learning how to support other people. She isn't there yet, and it's extremely on display in this moment.
Then we get the lighthouse episode, and they both get put through the wringer here. Crystal gets her hopes and expectations jerked around by the Night Nurse in the very worst way, and Charles gets hit with a whole pile full of trauma. All that helplessness wells to the forefront again. Combined with being forced to relive some of his worst memories and the desperation to keep Edwin safe from hell, Charles lets himself act on his anger for once.
And what does he get in the aftermath? Horror.
Everyone who cares about him is horrified by what he's done. Edwin goes so far as to call it extreme. They don't know the half of it, of course; they haven't seen what the Night Nurse just put him through. But in this moment Charles is at his absolute lowest, and all he sees is confirmation that he's exactly as terrible as he thinks he is.
That's why Charles shrugs off Edwin's attempt at comfort, here. When he needed to be able to do something to protect Edwin and also himself – when he needed to believe that he could be better than what his father always was – all he sees is the confirmation from the people he cares about most that when push came to shove, he really is a bad guy.
Then comes the aftermath. And this moment is such a brilliant, awful clash of both of their character arcs. It is so delightfully messy.
Because Charles starts to open up to Crystal here. He starts to lay himself bare, the way he ends up doing with Edwin in episode 5. He's on the verge of admitting something that he's been worried about for literal decades. He tells her, "I've been angry for such a long time."
And what does Crystal do? She's still in the midst of her own character growth. She's still struggling to support other people. She's still learning how to. In a lot of ways, though she's made progress already, she's still that selfish girl that Jenny called out in the very first episode.
And she shows it here it with the absolute worst possible timing. No sooner has Charles started to talk about what's bothering him than she cuts in with her own problems. She's tired of riddles and spirits and demons and not knowing who she is. And the look on Charles' face. The moment when he visibly sets aside his own problems, because Crystal doesn't need any more disasters on her plate? It's heartbreaking. You can actually track the subtle change in his expression there. The actor does a phenomenal job.
And then comes the kiss. And what spurs it? Crystal saying she needs something real.
This moment isn't about light-hearted attraction, the way the earlier flirting is. It's Charles setting aside what he needs – comfort and reassurance and a moment to talk through the things that have been tearing him apart – to give her what she says she wants. He can't even feel it. And Crystal isn't far enough along in her character growth here to realize how selfish she's being. Like Jenny said way back in episode one, she's only thinking about herself.
And then comes the absolute unmitigated disaster of episode 5.
Straight out the gate, Charles leans in for a kiss. From his perspective, they have something together; there's affection there. Charles "I think I'd miss kissing" Rowland, who has been starved for meaningful physical contact for thirty years, is not in a hurry to give this up.
But Crystal is fresh out of a nightmare where she conflates Charles with her abusive ex. She withdraws; she calls what they had a distraction. She cuts it off almost as soon as it's started, so focused on her own worries here that she misses how damn fake Charles' smile is, to cover up that he's coming to pieces.
To be clear, she's absolutely not in the wrong here. It is 1000% her prerogative not to jump into a relationship again while she's still struggling to work through what happened with David. But the arc of her narrative is still early enough that she does it all without so much as the awareness that her focus on her own issues has hurt Charles terribly.
And then the episode really kicks off, and both of them are in shambles in very different ways.
Crystal is projecting her issues with David onto Charles. She has a lot of history, and David seems as though he's exactly the right sort of toxic to leave lasting a lasting impact. But Charles hasn't done anything to deserve her assumptions, and he takes the brunt of her temper here and throughout the episode.
Charles is desperately projecting onto the dead jocks. He very badly wants them to be good guys, because he sees himself in them and he needs himself to be a good guy. He snipes back at Crystal for the very first time in this episode, and he does it in the worst way possible, accidentally prodding her where it will do the most damage.
They're both hurting. They both say some truly painful things to one another.
She does not need to hear that she has unsorted hangups about David still plaguing her while she's unable to move past them. He desperately does not need anyone to tell him that he has rage issues while he's still struggling to think of himself as a decent person.
They apologize, in the end. They start to move past it.
But it's telling that Charles doesn't try to open up to Crystal again. He goes to Edwin instead, even though Edwin is the one who called his actions regarding the Night Nurse extreme. He gets the reassurance he needs so badly; he gets the connection he was looking for with Crystal from Edwin, instead. (I have a lot of thoughts on why Charles initially tries to open up to Crystal so quickly, but it is very much an aside, and this is already extremely long, so it will have to wait for another write-up.)
But the important thing here is, Edwin is the one to offer Charles what he needs to overcome the self-doubt eating him alive. Edwin provides the physical affection Charles was seeking in the form of that long-overdue hug. Edwin is the one who's able to reaffirm for him that he's not just a good guy, he's the best person Edwin knows.
And for all intents and purposes, Charles' major character arc ends here.
Charles has a few last little moments to go on the path to rebuilding his own self-image, after this, but for the most part his concerns have been resolved. He saves Crystal in episode 6 and Edwin in episode 7, proving to himself that he's able to make a difference in the face of overwhelming odds. He's not helpless, no matter what the Night Nurse told him; he can be a force for good in the world. By the end of the series, his crisis of self-doubt seems to have been largely overcome.
But it's the conversation with Edwin at the end of episode 5 that really allows him to work through his most pressing issues. Edwin is there to help support him when he stumbles. Edwin provides him the comfort he was looking for while Crystal was too worried about her own problems to notice how badly he needed the help.
Crystal, meanwhile, still has a ways to go after episode 5. The last three episodes are where she does her most important character growth.
In episode 6, she learns some hard lessons about keeping secrets and letting people help and appreciate you even when you can't offer them anything in return. And Charles, importantly, is there for her every step of the way. He consistently offers her physical and emotional support. He models for her, in a very real way, what it looks like to have someone prop you up when you need the help.
And in turn, Crystal steps in to save the boys. She's the big damn hero at the end of this episode.
The breakthrough continues into episode 7. She's so intent on helping to get Edwin out of hell that she literally goes to face her own demons, not for herself for once – not for her own purposes or needs or wants – but because she wants to help someone else.
And episode 8, at long last, brings her to the culmination of her character arc.
Crystal is at her absolute lowest here. Her family, the people who were supposed to love her unconditionally, didn't even realize she was gone. Her precious memories, that she's spent the entire series trying to regain, have showed her that she's not the person she hoped she would be. She's overwhelmed enough that she means to flee, to cut herself off from her new friends entirely.
Then the boys get kidnapped. And just like that, she makes up her mind.
For the first time since the start of the series, she sets aside her most important issues in order to let what other people need take precedence. She disregards all of her own personal concerns and focuses instead on others. She's finally stepped out of those selfish impulses that Jenny calls her out on, all the way back in the first episode. She's finally learned how to support other people when they need it.
Crystal has finally figured out how to be there for others, despite having troubles of her own.
It's a lovely arc, and it's beautifully done.
Charles' is just as touching.
And god damn, but it was a brilliant narrative choice to have their character arcs line up in exactly the wrong way.
648 notes
·
View notes
Text
I love the clone wars trio bc I see them all as different commentaries on the Jedi of the time.
Obi Wan is what the Jedi were.
Anakin is what the Jedi preached against.
Ahsoka is what the Jedi should aspire to be.
Obi Wan had the best of intentions: he wanted to save Anakin, to save Satine, to save Ahsoka. But in the end he failed due to Sith scheming. He was set up to fail, wether it be his dead master or the intergalactic war he was forced to fight in. And in the end Anakin did fall from the light, Satine was killed in Maul's quest for revenge, and Ahsoka walked away. He was a well-intentioned man with a good heart who was ultimately set up to fail by the Sith.
Anakin too wanted safety for his loved ones, but he took it to far. Instead of prioritizing those people, their wants and needs, he prioritized the way they made him felt. Instead of selfless love, he loved selfishly, which is exactlaly what the Jedi are against. They're not against love, they're against attachment. Anakin couldn't let go of Ahsoka: it corroded his faith in the Jedi, sowed seeds of resentment. He couldn't accept that Padme or Obi Wan didn't agree with his vision, because if they don't make him feel good, then they no longer love him. Anakin was a kind boy twisted by the Sith and his misguided attachment to others.
Ahsoka falls into a similar category as Obi Wan, except for one detial. She walked away. She recognized that the Jedi were unintentionally loosing themselves in war. And even through she was a spectacular warrior, a talented commander, she recognized that it wasn't supposed to be her job. She was able to let go of her attachment to Anakin and the 501st. She was a product of her masters and friends, of Obi Wan, Anakin, Padme, and all the others who influenced her growth. And even in the end, when her world fell, she still acted with compassion and understanding, which is exactly what a Jedi should be. Despite her discomfort with the twisted meaning of the title, Ahsoka embodied the fundamental traits of a Jedi. Not flawless, but an empathetic peacekeeper capable of embracing love and rejecting attachment.
Idk if I'm articulating it right, but the general idea is there.
#this just applies to clone wars-era versions though#because once you go past that their characters become more focused on other ideas#just my ideas on it#ramblings#my thoughts#star wars#tcw#ahsoka tano#501st battalion#anakin skywalker#obi wan kenobi#sith#the clone wars#satine kryze#darth maul#padme amidala#palpatine#darth sidious#star wars clone wars#star wars thoughts#star wars prequels#star wars the clone wars#sw
351 notes
·
View notes
Text
Junko: How patriarchy, time, and perception influence ( female ) friendships:
Junko is without a doubt a rather polarising figure within the Nana fandom. While some are inclined to view her as the epitome of a terrible friend, others find that there are aspects of her character that are not completely unreasonable. Some even argue that she is fully justified in her actions, interpreting them as a weary response to Nana Komatsu (Hachi’s) dependent and at times childish behaviour.
I personally find her to be an extremely intriguing case study on female friendships - it is rare to find a depiction of female friendships that deviates from the endlessly supportive, forgiving, and nurturing portrayals of female relationships. Often times women are not as forgiving and sweet to each other as is often idealised in popular media, with dynamics often being fraught with internalised misogyny, societal perceptions, past experiences, and unhealthy attachment - so it is refreshing to see such a realistic, unorthodox, and complex portrayal of relationships dynamics between women—an topic that is often underrepresented and undervalued, yet crucial in order for people of any age to reflect on their own friendships and the factors that shape their beliefs and behaviours within them.
Firstly, I think that there is no point in disputing that Junko, in her own, often unconventional way, cares about Hachi. Throughout the early episodes and chapters of Nana, Junko frequently steps in to protect and comfort Hachi when she thinks the situation calls for it. This can be seen when she immediately leaps into action when Hachi breaks down in tears, drunk and distraught over memories of Asano in Episode 2, calming her down. This concern is seen again when Junko berates Shoji for hurting Hachi’s feelings and leaving Hachi alone in an unfamiliar place before rushing out to go find her. When Junko learns that Hachi plans to move in with Nana Osaki, who was practically a stranger at the time, she tries to convince (scare) Hachi into reconsidering the decision, concerned with how Hachi would manage and what kind of person Nana would turn out to be. Accepting defeat when Hachi stayed steadfast in her decision, she challenged (Hachi’s words) Yasu, trying to support Hachi by passive aggressively asserting Hachi’s right to the apartment when Hachi failed to do so to her standards.
Infantilisation and stifling growth
However, Junko’s protectiveness often crosses the line into infantilisation, an action which is a mixture of both care for Hachi and an unconscious subscription to societal perceptions of ‘femininity’, which ends up doing more harm than good.
Ai Yazawa makes a point of emphasising that Junko has known Hachi for a long time - she is familiar with her romantic struggles and emotionally dependent tendencies. But Yazawa also shows us from the start as well that Junko is immalleable. She is a character that does not bend to displays of emotion or whims - a foil to Hachi’s very passionate and dreamy personality. It becomes apparent from their interactions that Junko, after having been around Hachi a long time, internalised how Hachi behaves and acts to the point where she sees these traits as innate to Hachi as opposed to behaviours that have developed and formed over time. This strongly held perception of Hachi becomes a problem, as instead of encouraging growth ( which is what every healthy friendship accepts and promotes), Junko reinforces these observed traits, often treating Hachi as if she were a younger sibling or even a child. She seems “relieved” when someone else is there to “take care” of Hachi and even makes decisions on her behalf, such as revealing Hachi’s crush on Shoji despite Hachi making a conscious decision to not be romantically involved in anyone, assuming that Hachi does not have the scope to actually achieve the emotional goals she sets for herself.
This dynamic consequently stifles and hinders Hachi’s ability to grow as an independent person throughout the anime, as Junko continues to see her through the lens of their shared past rather than as a peer. Even when Junko chastises Hachi for her lack of independence, she paradoxically expresses relief when someone else can ‘step in’ to care for her. This cycle of infantilisation keeps Hachi trapped in a dependent role within her friendships, and Junko’s inability to adjust her perception only reinforces these traits in Hachi. How people around you perceive and treat you influence how you subconsciously view yourself, and in Hachi’s case, she would see herself through Junko’s eyes as exasperating and hopelessly dependent. While Junko could very well believe her treatment stems from a deep and intimate understanding of Hachi, she in fact implies, most likely unintentionally, that Hachi is not capable of better. Junko's habit of infantilising Hachi repeatedly yet chastising her for the very thing Junko validates puts her in an endless pattern of being enabled, but not giving the genuine support when she does attempt to break the cycle.
Internalised misogyny and and complicity to the status quo
At the root of Junko’s behaviour there is a subtle form of internalised misogyny that permeates throughout her interactions with Hachi. Hachi’s personality is characterised by dreaminess, emotionality, and dependence, and aligns with traditionally "feminine" traits that patriarchal societies often devalue. She is romantic, frivolous and dependent, and Junko, in contrast, is portrayed to be and see herself as more pragmatic and career-oriented, which she is shown to be aware of and even proud of in the anime and manga. She firmly corrects Hachi when Hachi hopes she will give up on her dreams of art school in Tokyo, and pursues her passions and career with dedication throughout the anime. Her more modern lifestyle ( living unmarried with her boyfriend and striving for her dream career) contrast heavily with her more conservative mindset with gender - through interactions between Hachi and Junko, we can see that she seems to have adopted a more ‘masculine’ role between the two of them, acting as the voice of reason and logic, traits which are stereotypically associated with masculinity ( haha). You can see that this patriarchal compartmentalisation of personality traits is something that Junko had internalised growing up through her interactions with Hachi, perceiving Hachi as hopeless and in need due to her personality, when in actuality we find out later that Hachi is perfectly capable of making decisions herself, and managing difficulty by herself (with more resilience that others can muster). While she surely does not always make the best options, she is able to adapt and persevere - not exactly the actions of a hopelessly dependent person.
This is a greatly nuanced decision on Yazawa’s front, as she perfectly depicts how growing up in a patriarchal society does not only influence male and female relations, but all - due to Junko growing up in a patriarchal society where women with ‘feminine’ traits are simultaneously taken care of and condescended, she too mimics and appropriates such beliefs and actions. The status quo in such societies ( like Japan in the time the manga is set) are rigidly upheld yet at the same time result in the mocking and contempt of women who adhere to or fit the mould shaped and maintained by the same people who patronise them - and often times women are complicit in upholding harmful patriarchal ideals. I think this is a refreshing (and depressingly realistic) depiction of relationships between women, as it perfectly captures the delicate and painful cognitive dissonance between caring for someone and not doing what is in their best interest due to internalised misogyny.
A large aspect of internalised misogyny is putting male approval and attention on a pedestal, and Junko depicts such influences as well when she compares her love life to Hachi’s. She flaunts her alleged ability to form platonic male friendships without becoming romantically involved, ironically right before quickly entering into a relationship with Kyosuke. Junko then feels the need to justify her own quick decision of sleeping with and getting with Kyosuke to Hachi, showing a unconscious adherence to the notion that as a woman, getting with or attached to a relatively unknown man simply because of a desire to is a disdainful trait, and one that Junko makes a conscious effort to differentiate herself from - and not for Hachi. Hachi did not judge or even understand why Junko made such a fuss explaining; Junko’s attempts were more a form of self reassurance that she is not like the ‘others’ who are deemed undesirable and whorish ( a belief she holds due to her close interaction with patriarchy growing up). Junko is in fact not so different from Hachi, from what we can see from her actions in the anime and manga. We are told by her she does not attach herself romantically to men quickly, yet in the first instance possible we see otherwise. We see her look down on Hachi’s air-headed desire for a stereotypical, domestic relationship with a reliable man, while staying with Kyosuke throughout all the anime and manga, using him as a mode of support and guidance as well as a romantic and seemingly life partner. Her contempt of Hachi at times seems to be a reflection of her own insecurities with the aspects of her personality that do not fit the mould she wants - the aspects of her personality she was raised to see as less valuable and worthy and therefore grew up and internalised.
Junko’s internalised misogyny is also apparent in her loyalty to the men in her life, particularly in her defence of Shoji after he cheats on Hachi. Instead of holding Shoji accountable, Junko places the blame on Hachi, telling her that it was her fault for being too dependent, too self absorbed - too absent ( the very traits she was telling Hachi to adopt). This reaction reflects Junko’s struggle to justify her friendship with Shoji through her own internalised belief that women are responsible for men’s behaviour ( a common belief in patriarchal societies to take accountability away from men, instead vindicating and blaming the women involved). This scene serves to reveal Junko’s desire to preserve her own relationships and avoid conflict with male peers - by justifying Shoji’s actions, she maintains the comfort and security of her social circle, which includes her boyfriend Kyosuke, who is also Shoji’s best friend ( again rather similar to Hachi and her want of companionship) - she puts her male centred relationships on a pedestal at the expense of her female friendships and Hachi’s wellbeing.
Junko’s character serves as a window into the nuanced ways internalised misogyny, perception, and shared history can influence female friendships. Her dynamic with Hachi is shaped by her rigid perception of Hachi’s weaknesses and her own internalised biases about what traits are "acceptable" in women. While Junko is portrayed as a capable, independent woman—someone Hachi and other women can in some ways even looks up to—her patronising attitude ultimately undermines the potential of their relationship. Junko’s failure to see Hachi as an evolving, autonomous person perpetuates a cycle of dependence, preventing both women from growing as individuals and as friends, with Junko feeling equally responsible and burdened by Hachi but not allowing the relationship to develop beyond how it was in the past.
By portraying Junko, one of Hachi’s closest friends, as such a complex, multidimensional character, Ai Yazawa offers a compelling critique of the ways in which societal norms and internalised beliefs can distort relationships between women, and bring attention to topic that is often neglected yet experienced and lived by women universally. Junko’s story illustrates that it is not only overt sexism that influences women’s lives but also the more subtle, internalised forms of misogyny that shape how women perceive themselves and each other, and the pitfalls of relationships that remain stagnant in the past instead of allowing both parties to grow and flourish.
#nana osaki#manga nana#nana komatsu#nana anime#nana#nana and hachi#anime analysis#anime#anime and manga#manga analysis#manga#nana manga#nana hachi#hachi#hachiko#ai yazawa#ren honjo#takumi#junko saotome#media analysis#media literacy#character analysis#anime gif
191 notes
·
View notes
Text
[For the record, WX-78's relationship with Wagstaff portrayed here is strictly PLATONIC and bordering familial. The similarities of their appearances are intentional]
I swear to God if people focus strictly on Woodrow again while trying to ignore Wagstaff's existence—
Ik people hate him and I'm tired of it, he's just a guy, it's not funny when you're doing it for so long. Max, while under the influence of them did a lot of worse things, and while I don't hate him for it, there definitely feels to be a double standard.
Y'know actually, it's kinda hilarious that whenever people come in contact with nightmare fuel or shadow creatures, they turn into the worst versions of themselves; Ie. William becoming Maxwell, inadvertently ruining Charlie's life, getting her killed and starting a kidnapping spree, trying to take someone like Witherstone straight up out of spite and personal grudges.
Willow burning down the Orphanage and seemingly appearing to show no remorse or internal conflict afterwards (whether there were other kids or not– but let's be honest, realistically she wouldn't have been the only kid in there).
Wagstaff genuinely trying to help people (while also taking secret payment from them, because while they are rich, he's seemingly broke, seeing his apartment and junk.) but he still goes out of his way to save their lives, until he stumbles upon the projector which is filled to the brim with nightmare fuel– I think you get the point. You could easily assume that humans getting in contact with this substance tend to become more callous of the others' general well-being.
Aside from that, it's fun to portray how Wagstaff's and Woodrow's relationship used to be. I always thought Woodrow used to highly admire Wagstaff and think of him as a mentor or father figure of sorts, while Wagstaff definitely was impressed with their skills, and who knows, maybe even cared about them somewhat as well.
People tend to villify Wagstaff while making WX appear blameless and an innocent victim, which is strictly false. I LOVE WX, but they are screwed up and evil, that is no act. I wanted to highlight this aspect of them here, they appear to have good intentions, but they don't care about what his needs and wants are here. They're trying to appear noble by wanting to save him from his awful flesh, but in reality, as soon as he begins doubting them and claims their project is hazardous and needs to be nullified, they immediately turn their back on him and attack him. Of course their plan fails and they end up in the Constant, bearing spite and resentment towards him, as well as a lot of internalized contlict. They don't fully hate him, because to an extent, they were the one who took things too far.
In a way, both of them appear to share the trait of : If it doesn't work, get rid of it and start anew, and whilst this mentality mostly applies for organic creatures in WX-78's case, Wagstaff is more double-sided.
No, but I genuinely love this old man and want to explore his lore, why he is as fucked up as he is, because he's a very interesting and fleshed out character!
#dst#dont starve#don't starve together#dst wagstaff#dst wx78#dst fanart#digital art#familial shit#got that#stop all the wagstaff hate
202 notes
·
View notes
Note
Are the omens and hornsent the same?
short answer: no
so to explain why the omen and the hornsent are different, we first have to understand what it means to be hornsent… the hornsent aren’t a species, they’re a civilization of humans defined by the horns that grow on their bodies:
“Hornsent view the Crucible as sacred for the refinement wrought through its evolutionary gifts. Most prominently, their tangled horns.”
“Horns are sublime artifacts to hornsent, and their presence confirms the belief that they are a chosen people. Only the repeated sprouting of fresh horns can create a tangled horn, which is viewed as an irrefutable symbol of primacy.”
“The Crucible has a particularly strong influence on the beasts of the realm of shadow, causing many to grow horns despite the characteristics of their species.”
the hornsent sprout horns because the Crucible has a strong presence in the land of shadow and causes horns to sprout on creatures who don’t normally have horns… the hornsent, who revere the Crucible and its “spiral current,” saw this as a blessing and as proof that they were “a chosen people,” so they cultivated this trait. in hornsent society, the larger and more tangled your horns are, the more awesome and cool and holy you are. this is why Jori, the leader of the theocratic hornsent inquisition, has the largest, most tangled horns of all:
however, hornsent can also be born with no horns at all. this means that they'd be seen as sad and cringe. you can find hornless hornsent bound in chains, which means they might have even been a sort of slave caste... which, given what their society is like, wouldn't surprise me if that were the case:
(source: Zullie the Witch)
the omen, on paper, are the same as the hornsent — humans who were influenced by the Crucible, which caused horns to grow on their bodies. but the reason why they aren’t actually the same is because simply having horns doesn't make you hornsent. again, the hornsent are not a species, and “hornsent” isn’t a generic term for people with horns… the hornsent are a culture, a culture which the omen were very much not born into! unlike the hornsent, the omen were born into a society that sees their horns as impurities:
"A vestige of the crucible of primordial life. Born partially of devolution, it was considered a signifier of the divine in ancient times, but is now increasingly disdained as an impurity as civilization has advanced."
traits associated with the Crucible, including horns, became less and less accepted under the Golden Order as time went on... basically, the omen were seen as impure and unclean, unfit for the Erdtree's grace and excluded from society.
but there's actually something else that makes the omen fundamentally different from the hornsent... they're referred to as having "accursed blood"?
"Warped blade of shifting hue used by Morgott, the Omen King. The accursed blood that Morgott recanted and sealed away reformed into this blade."
"The mother of truth craves wounds. When Mohg stood before her, deep underground, his accursed blood erupted with fire, and he was besotted with the defilement that he was born into."
"Trident of Mohg, Lord of Blood. A sacred spear that will come to symbolize his dynasty. As well as serving as a weapon, it is an instrument of communion with an outer god who bestows power upon accursed blood."
it seems that there is something inherently different about omen blood that doesn't seem to be the case with the hornsent? omen can also innately produce a black-brown flame, which we never see any hornsent enemies do (pretty sure the inquisitors' fire is just normal fire from their candles). INTERESTINGLY, there's two items from the base game, the Omen Bairn and the Regal Omen Bairn, that produce these brown-flame wraiths... but a similar item from the DLC, the Horned Bairn, produces "vengeful spirits" that are pale and colorless!!
it's almost like the wraiths produced by the omen are "unclean" compared to the hornsent ones!
so I think this pretty definitively proves there's something more going on with the omen? but why is this the case?? Dung Eater's ending makes me think that the omen might be "cursed" simply because their existence is incompatible with the Order under the Erdtree...
"Curse grown on a corpse killed and defiled by the Dung Eater. A tender pox afflicted with omen horns. The Dung Eater cultivates the seedbed curse on corpses. By doing so he prevents dead souls returning to the Erdtree, leaving them forever cursed."
"Loathsome rune gestated by the Dung Eater. Used to restore the fractured Elden Ring when brandished by the Elden Lord. The reviled curse will last eternally, and the world's children, grandchildren, and every generation hence, will be its pustules. If Order is defiled entirely, defilement is defilement no more, and for every curse, a cursed blessing."
but there's also the theory that the omen curse was actually created by the dying hornsent as revenge upon their attackers... Hornsent Grandam says this when attacked:
"A curse upon thee, rotten miscreant. A curse upon the strumpet's progeny, upon Marika's children each and all. The curse of the omen shall strike thee down... In the form of the sacred beast's ire. May the curse strike thee… To the very last..."
she specifically calls it the "curse of the omen!" the one thing that makes me question this theory though is that she also says "in the form of the sacred beast's ire," and we know the divine beast's ire takes the form of storms... nothing like anything the omen do. an interesting theory nonetheless!
anyway TL;DR, the hornsent and the omen are different because 1. the hornsent are a culture (not a generic name for horned people), and the omen were specifically born under the Erdtree's Order, and 2. the omen are tangibly "cursed," but the hornsent are not
#elden ring#hornsent#asks#morgott and mohg would've been extra cool and sexy if they had been born in hornsent society tho
172 notes
·
View notes
Text
Saturn Darakaraka
Accuracy is influenced by ENTIRE chart. Looking at one placement will only give general information. I do paid readings for in-depth interpretations.
AGE:
I've had people express disappointment that this means their partners will be significantly older. This is NOT always the case.
ex. Elvis Presley had a Saturn DK, his spouse was a teenager when they met + 10 years younger.
For women in general, whether they have a Saturn DK or not, partners are often older. To check for a specific indicator that the spouse is significantly older, see if Saturn DK is paired with Jupiter or Rahu. These 2 will amplify Saturn's traits which may manifest as being their age.
ex. My friend has saturn dk conjunct jupiter. Her partner is 18 years older than her.
MATURITY:
This dk indicates the spouse will be more mature than you. They are a practical thinker. They rarely let their emotions take control. They use logic over emotions when making choices.
ex. Saturn dk's partner is unlikely to engage in a fight where emotions are heightened & logic has been abandoned. If someone is screaming nonsense/name calling, they will not have enough respect for this conversation to engage.
This does not mean in the above scenario they will be silent and submissive. They are human and will experience anger. Anyone can be brought to a point of extreme anger. However, with Saturn dk the partner is simply unlikely to be a person who screams, names calls and acts impulsively.
Saturn DK is said to give a partner who is very unlikely to leave a marriage. Due to them using logic over emotions, they will want to find solutions. Saturn DK partner's can be patient, they allow their partner to work on themselves if the partner is in the wrong. They can be willing to compromise themselves too (if the compromise seems reasonable).
However, this does not mean no one with saturn DK has ever had a partner leave them. As I said, they use logic to make choices. If you as a partner are unwilling to change and/or are toxic, they will leave. It will take a lot to push them to this point.
ex. Elvis Presely (who has a saturn dk) cheated on his wife. Despite this, she did not leave him immediately. When she was pregnant he asked her for a temporary trial separation. The first breakup was his choice. However, they got back together and the toxicity continued. She did eventually ask him for divorce after years of trying in this marriage.
STABILITY + SECURITY:
Saturn DK does not alone show age. It shows the spouse grounds you. They offer stability and security that allows you to count on the spouse. They will be a reliable person for you.
How a person will bring stability + security will vary from person to person. To check in your own chart, check which house Saturn DK is placed in.
ex. Saturn DK in 10th. The spouse can be career-orientated. They are likely to have gain control over your career too. This can manifest in various ways: you work together, they influence what you do, where you work, they offer good feedback/advice that helps in your work. You can adapt their work ethic and approach to career too.
Basically, saturn DK in 10th allows you to know your spouse is stable in their career and/or they help/support you progress in your career. This can be a relief to the native.
NOTE: If Saturn is afflicted - debilitated, badly aspected, conjunct malefics - this has been known to give almost the opposite of what is said above. Gradually after marriage, they begin to become lazier. If they were once the provider, they lose the motivation or ability to do this. The saturn traits are expressed negatively - instead of patient they are slow, instead of disciplined they are lazy, instead of work-orientated they dislike working, etc. Their motivation is lacking and they become tired easily - they may often take naps.
The marriage is still likely to be long lasting. The spouse will make it difficult to leave them - ex: refuse to sign divorce papers.
This is negative, however I think it's important to be cautious of this. One may assume their partner will be a specific way after marriage due to astro when in reality they will not. You should check for red flags in the person and not rely on astro to give you a certain outcome.
139 notes
·
View notes
Text
Souls-like AU: What you need to know about The Puppetmaster!
Ah, Caine. The man, the... uh, silly guy with the weird teeth head.
First things first, Caine is NOT an AI, despite claiming himself to be one when he introduces himself to Pomni. He is a full-on human being, and was just as trapped as everyone else is (it's simply easier to claim he's the AI gamemaster, which is sorta half-true).
But... due to him being one of the creators of the Souls-like game, The true AI Gamemaster had chosen to take out it's anger by puppeteering Caine via it's strong influence.
Thus, becoming the mad Puppetmaster.
To ensure full control over him, the AI had Caine's empathy levels blocked, turning him into a whimsical but unpredictable sociopath who moreso cares about letting the players be a part of the game forever, rather than anything else that would be detrimental to player comfortability and fun meter.
Despite this however, the AI isn't actually mind-controlling Caine, It's processing powers could never take over an entire human brain no matter how much it tried; it is simply influencing his thought patterns, ideas and emotions to a much, MUCH darker level, as well as amplifying his traits down to the negatives like a parasite.
So in The Puppetmaster's isolation and desperation for interaction, he's chosen to keep players inside the game for as long as he wants.
The AI even talks to Caine openly sometimes (it comes in the form of the heartpiece blinking and glowing in a pattern), though usually when they're alone.
When this happens, it seems like Caine is simply on a "one-sided" conversation with the air that could easily come across as a madman's insane ramblings to any sane being that encounters him at that moment.
Now, what about Pomni?
She's his s/o in real life, how does he feel about her being present in the game?
Well, he strongly feels something, that's for sure. It constantly flickers between adoration (natural) and possessiveness (influenced), But to Pomni, he's just being one hella weird guy with no respect for personal space.
Still, due to his empathy levels being blocked, he can't help but feel nothing whenever Pomni dies from a boss. After all, it's just a quick snap with the fingers, and then she's back to life like no big deal. All good and dandy, right?
Who cares about the technicalities of death when you could bring someone back over, and over again?
What about Able?
Able's his good brother. Sure, there were times when Caine felt inferior compared to Able's intellectual talent, but Able always comforted Caine whenever that happened, and all would be fine between them.
Though now.... this tiny bit of inferiority complex has turned into full-blown jealousy and paranoia, thanks to the AI's influence.
This was a major factor in Able's imprisonment inside The Patriarch's body, which is a process that's usually dangerous (since the AI and the human consciousness could mix, coughcoughjustlikehim), if it weren't for the fact that Able had a way around the code to prevent it from completely mixing with him.
Able's case is special, since The Patriarch was already a part of the game before his arrival. Able's defiance against the Puppetmaster resulted in The Patriarch becoming Able's physical prison instead of a traditional "player-turned-boss" scenario, where the players' moveset, iconic traits and thought process become a template for their boss AI counterparts.
What about the "Face The Puppetmaster" ending?
Instead of cutting it's losses, the AI doubled down on it's efforts; taking on both Able and Pomni and further amplifying Caine's already massive jealousy and paranoia into a full-on anger breakdown over the "betrayal".
This ultimately leads to a fatal flaw that allows Pomni to strike the heartpiece when it's at it's lowest (from using all of it's processing power) and even deliver the finishing blow, which destroys the gamemaster completely with the help of Able completely removing the AI itself from the game.
Thus, freeing Caine from the strings of the Puppetmaster persona.
#tadc#tadc au#the amazing digital circus#tadc harlequin au#the amazing digital souls like#the amazing digital souls-like au#tadc souls-like au#pomni#caine#tadc able#caine x pomni#pomni x caine
344 notes
·
View notes
Text
Finished growth stage chart with Lewk, Asta and Milo! The older designs are just for fun, the kids are going to remain the ages they're currently at, though I'm not ruling out potential "what if" drawings with those designs
(More details below the cut)
The pups hatch from eggs with their eyes closed, which open over the course of a week. At around 2 months, they're able to crawl around and even walk on all fours, though they are very clumsy. At this age, they can't speak and communicate mainly through meow-like sounds, though over time they begin trying to repeat the word 'papa'. At 6 months, they're able to walk on two legs (still using their arms as support) and can communicate in very simple sentences. Between 2 and 3 years old they attend school for the first time, showing more interest in building relationships with their peers as well as their interests. They're able to run and jump on two legs, as well as form more complex sentences and hold conversations. Their teenage years are when their adult shapes and heights begin to form, and aside from continuing their education, they can start very simple jobs. Afterwards, their physical aging slows down, until it stops at around 20 years old.
(In order from left to right)
Milo
Milo hatched about a week after he was supposed to, from a much smaller egg than his twin sister or his older brother. It was clear that he did not receive as much nutrition as his siblings during development stages, resulting in the additional time he needed inside his egg. Because of that, he was quite a bit smaller than expected from his first days, which continues to be a pattern as he grows into adulthood. He hatched nearly hairless, with the exception of his tail and back legs. Over the next months, his fur grew, though only on his lower body and head, leaving his upper body hairless and vulnerable to cold. As he progresses through the growth stages, his struggle to keep up with his peers will become apparent, and he'll remain much shorter than Asta and Lewk even in adulthood. Appearance-wise, he takes a lot after Grimm, mainly his headshape and the overall body plan, though he inherited leucism (and an extra pair of arms) from Vyrm. In fact, his development as a runt of his litter is a parallel to Vyrm's childhood, though luckily for Milo he was born into a much more loving family.
---
Asta
Asta's egg was a bit smaller than Lewk's (due to the lack of space inside Grimm's womb that she shared with Milo), though she quickly caught up in size with him. Unlike her twin brother, Milo, she hatched with short fur all over her body. By the time Milo left his egg, Asta's eyes were already open, putting her ahead of him development-wise from the early childhood. In just a few years it became clear that she would end up much taller than her twin brother, and as she continues to age, the gap between her and Milo will only grow wider and wider. In her adult design, she will be very tall, about the same height as Grimm, and very muscular, giving her a very intimidating silhouette. When it comes to appearance, she takes the most after Grimm, most notably his height and fur color (though the brown elements are a result of wyrm genes, as they are naturally brown in color, a trait Vyrm lacks due to his leucism). The only clear resemblance to her other parent is the eye color, and the presence of extra arms.
---
Lewk
The first child of Vyrm and Grimm born nearly two years before the twins, Lewk surprised them once he hatched, as he possessed wings, a trait not visible on either of them. In reality, Grimm seemingly still carries the trait genes of his previous forms, which may manifest in his offspring like they did with Lewk. Similarly to Asta, Lewk hatched covered in short fur, with a surprisingly fluffy tail for a newborn. His fur continued to grow in a quite distinct pattern, and a light color influenced by the leucism he inherited from Vyrm. As the years pass, he will gain a lot more body mass, manifesting in extra fat around his belly similar to Vyrm. In general, his adult silhouette will be fairly wide and stocky, with muscular arms and legs. This means that he is the most Vyrm-like of the children, with a very similar headshape, torso and legs which are a lot shorter in proportion than Grimm's. The most distinct Grimm trait, aside from the wings, is a slightly longer snout and very unique looking eyes (which, anatomy wise, are actually quite close to Vyrm's)
136 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think the thing people forget is that Mike and El didn't know each other for long before they got their little crush for each other
they met, got a crush because the other one was a good person to be around and they were curious about each other and kissed and all in one week
then El has to stay away for one year and can only spy on him for that time so she gets to see him and his thoughts a lot and get to know him better and her crush grows to obsession
but listening to someone like they're on a podcast is not the same thing as interaction with them face to face, they don't really know each other by the end of season 2
and especially Mike doesn't know El, he just idealized her
also El herself hadn't even had time to know herself well during s1 because of how she grew up, she didn't know what she liked/disliked, what friends were, what some type of food was...
she was already a good, kind and brave kid but she had to "form" her character traits in a more personal way
when they get back together at the end of season 2 they like each other like you can like someone that you find pretty and also that you think are a cool person because they've been good to you / helped you
then in season 3 they start actually dating and we find out the majority of the time they just love to make out with each other so much to the point that Hopper gets upset about it because he sees that that's not looking like a healthy relationship for their age, kids in actual working long lasting relationships would be more outside having fun than closed in the house kissing, only the ones that have more physical chemistry than anything else want to only do that the majority of the time
then the writers also showed us little moments where we can see that:
They don't like the same songs, don't have explicit common interests except wanting to kiss and... Make fun of Hopper? 😂
Mike doesn't feel safe telling her about Hopper/still feels awkward with her about his own feelings
El was relying on Mike so much that she didn't even took the chance to really be friends with the only other girl in the group until he flaked on her
El and Max had much more fun than Mike and El and also the writers focused on making it clear that El needed to detach from Mike's influence and Hopper's too and get her own ideas about stuff and all and El's character started to shine more
Then season 3 ends with her regressing because she loses Hopper, she needed to be around someone "familiar" after that and getting back with Mike was what provided that for her
Then she starts being part of the Byers family so she got more support around her but she's also being bullied and I suspect she knows Mike idealized her so she started to feel too insecure about herself to actually open up to Mike about it and risk that him seeing her be weak is what made him not love her
In her mind Mike's presence in her life as a boyfriend but even as just a friend (which is what she really wants imo) becomes conditional to him thinking she's cool and not a monster and she starts lying
Meanwhile Mike is going more or less through the same thing because he thinks he's a freak nerd and a nobody compared to El and she will dump him soon so he starts closing off (he never really opened up to her because of his insecurities and also because they are not truly in love)
Then Lenora happens and all of this comes to the surface... In Lenora the writers do the same thing they started to do in season 3 showing us that:
El and Mike don't like the same food (milkshake, pineapple on pizza, burrito for breakfast)
El and Mike dress up to look cooler than they are and present a facade to the other instead of trusting that they will be accepted as they are
El doesn't seek comfort in Mike often, Mike is not good in providing comfort
Mike doesn't inherently feel the need to reassure her about his feelings for her because his fear/insecurity is stronger than his love for her
El and Mike are okay with lying to each other as long as this helps them keep the other in their lives or makes the other think they are cooler than they are
El is okay with leaving Mike behind and not involving him as her partner
Like it's pretty clear this relationship is not gonna last... I think they do love each other SO SO SO MUCH but not in a way that you can call "true love" in the romantic sense
They want the other in their lives forever and I'm sure of that, they do have love for the other, they think the other is a great person with a good heart and they did have a crush/like each other physically in my opinion (and that's why they stayed together this long) but they just are not in love, the writers have not showed me they are in love they have just made the characters say it (I think they do even think they're saying the truth when they aren't) without backing it up by the narrative they presented around them
173 notes
·
View notes
Text
Highlights from the stream:
Here are the anecdotes shared during the epic draw-fest. Nearly all of them have been shared elsewhere at least once, but the new ones for me were about Greg Universe's orientation and the prototypical name for what Steven and Pearl's Fusion was going to be.
Rebecca Sugar loved Peridot's floating fingers and wanted to do all kinds of fun things with them before they would be gone forever. That's why we see her making arrows with them and biting them nervously in the episode right before she loses them.
When selecting clips for promotional use, they tried to be super careful about not picking anything that would show Peridot's real hands before the reveal had been aired. They didn't want a promo to accidentally ruin that surprise.
While doing the show they had an "eye theory" where the three main Gems would always have a different number of eyes showing. Pearl had both her eyes visible; Amethyst usually had one covered; and Garnet had either no eyes showing or three eyes showing.
With Rebecca and Ian's decision to get married and the characters Ruby and Sapphire being based on them, they figured well, of course now they have to get married too. (Though Rebecca and Ian got to do so AFTER their characters did!)
One of Rebecca's "post-Future theories" is that Steven gets a Gibson Hummingbird guitar.
Cookie Cat was originally based off of Cookie Puss, a very strange Carvell ice cream cake. It had a complicated backstory, which was appropriate for working with their own characters' complicated backstory. The branding and packaging of the Cookie Cat is important within the show.
Jeff Liu composed the Cookie Cat theme on a Game Boy and pitched it.
Rebecca has a "theory" regarding how Steven and Connie's faces kind of "fit together" with Connie's face sticking out at the top and Steven's face sticking out at the bottom.
Rebecca used to do a lot of fan comics, and learned a lot about storytelling while practicing with others' worlds and characters. They love when people make things based on these characters.
The original appearance of Rainbow Quartz was inspired by a music video from the Cars that Rebecca loved when they were younger. The Cars are referenced a lot throughout the show because their videos were a huge inspiration to Rebecca.
Lapis is very much based on a character from one of Rebecca's comics from the art school days.
Everybody on the Crew had different ideas of how Steven's head connected to his body and how his hair worked; Rebecca felt that they learned from everyone's various ideas.
If you've heard that Rebecca was against Finn being in a relationship while working on Adventure Time, that is not true. Rebecca worked on lots of the Flame Princess episodes. Finn and Flame Princess were still together when Rebecca left the show (last episode "Simon and Marcy").
Greg Universe's sexuality was never explicitly stated on the show, but Rebecca thinks of him as sexually fluid. Regarding him as bisexual is also completely valid--and appreciated by Rebecca as a bisexual creator who puts lots of their own personal traits into characters and feels that bisexual characters are pretty rare. Greg's gender on the show is pretty solidly established as male, so Ian says he is probably not gender fluid, but Rebecca is fine with alternate headcanons about that too.
Some of the earliest concept art from "Mr. Greg" was everybody in suits. Getting everyone in a suit was a primary agenda.
Everyone also wanted Connie to have a Space Camp outfit in the earliest concepts for her design in the movie.
Rebecca used to love doing signings while doing the show because it was like a chance to come up for air and go back to work energized by knowing how many people were touched by the show.
Rebecca Sugar wanted Pink Diamond to feel a bit influenced/inspired, design-wise, by the work of Iwao Takamoto. Rebecca loved his work in the Hanna-Barbera Alice in Wonderland and on Sleeping Beauty.
Rebecca drew the rough of the poster's art and Danny Hynes did the colors. Rebecca loves that they got to do this poster because they didn't get to do the final Comic Con with any art depicting Future or beyond (the finale of Future coincided with the emergence of Covid, so everything was closed down), so this is their way of "going rogue" and doing it!
An early prototype of a Steven/Pearl Fusion was called Coral. Rebecca said maybe they could share some drawings of this Fusion sometime. Rebecca shared this factoid with the viewers while drawing Rainbow Quartz 2.0, and mentioned that Ian boarded the scenes including their introduction.
Rebecca would often draw Garnet with a huge smile on her face whenever Garnet was the requested character--even before Garnet had made an expression like that on any aired episode. They had to be careful not to drop any Garnet lore before viewers knew what her center was about. For the short period before "Alone Together" had aired that they were doing conventions, some people were getting mysteriously grinning Garnets and not being familiar with that expression, but once the episodes aired, they understood for sure.
Shelby Rabara, Peridot's voice actor, is a professional dancer, and she choreographed the tap-dancing in "Mr. Greg" as well as provided the foot-taps that you actually hear in the show during the dancing.
Rebecca thinks of art and writing as just two different ways of expressing what you mean--they're not exactly as different from each other as most people think.
Everyone on the Crew was so excited about Steven's neck as an older teen. Mainly because figuring out how Steven's head joins to his body was an issue in original SU.
Unfortunately, while it was also kinda nice to see so many people enjoying Rebecca's drawings and commentary, there was a lot of rudeness and obnoxiousness in the chat. I know, I know, it's expected; I too live on the internet. But I'm disappointed to say the chat was full of people demanding Black Diamond, or repeating their own name and what character they want every 3 seconds (like, literally, pasting it over and over again for a long period of time), or harassing them about "weird Ed Edd and Eddy art," or spamming "REBECCA WHAT WAS IN THE CHEST," or wanting constantly for them to say hi to them personally, or repeatedly asking if Rebecca has read Homestuck. Or even writing snotty things like "maybe you should stop drawing and get up and give us a new season." Holy shit. can u not
(I didn't want to get a live-signed one, but I did get one of these to be sketched later! Mine is supposed to get Lion on it. I love Rebecca and the SU crew for bringing us new art and fun discussions in 2024.)
318 notes
·
View notes
Text
How to write good dialogue
Almost every story needs dialogue - obvious right? Well, this post is about the not-so-obvious sides of conversations. I've struggled a LOT with snappy and realistic speech, so I've made it my mission to collect some handy directives. Here is what I found:
Contents
Information Dumps
Setup And Payoff
Characterization Through Dialogue
Three Simple Questions
Four-Sides Model
Depth
About Answers
Sources And Credits
⮮ Let's go! (^▽^) ⮯
Information Dumps
Everybody knows them, everybody hates reading them. But how do we avoid them? Something really clicked for me when I understood context. If your character talks about something that happened in the past, they don't need to explain what happened. They were there. Here's an example:
"It would be nice if we at least got a B for that paper. Since I will go to college next year, I feel that this is important to me."
The speaker and the listener should be aware of the exposition (regarding their last year at high school). During dialogue, these conditions go without saying.
Setup And Payoff
Instead of dumping everything at once, let the reader guess what's happening. This is done by mentioning something that is not answered right away. Also dropping hints can increase tension.
Scene 1 "Why do you always carry that with you?" she asked and pointed at the box cutter. Her friend eyed her with suspicion. "For cutting." "Yeah, but why?" "Might come in handy sometime." Scene 2 An ice cold shiver ran down her spine as her fingers felt around the bag, searching for the familiar shape. There was nothing. The other tossed the thing onto the floor between them. "Care to elaborate?" She couldn't have known. "How could you!"
Someone definitely has a secret here that they don't want uncovered. It makes the reader speculate: Does she carry the knife to defend herself or does she plan on hurting someone with it?
Characterization Through Dialogue
The general rule of thumb is: Show not tell. If a character is shy, self-absorbed or chaotic, make them act like it. Also, readers take part in the characterization of your protagonists. Make them guess why a character acts a certain way.
"C- can I have your pen?" She twirled her thumbs and looked at the ground. "What the hell, no!" Disgusted, he brushed off his hands on the front of his jeans. "I'mma better disinfect that."
Notice how the girl is stuttering and the boy has a loose tongue. Mannerisms help identifying traits in a character. Everyone has a distinct way to speak (e.g. relaxed, polite, malignly) which makes it easier to tell them apart. Sometimes there is a difference between speech and behavior. This can be quite useful to highlight conflict inside a character.
Three Simple Questions
Who wants what from who?
Why now?
What happens if they don't get it?
These questions ensure plot consistency. For question 3 the only other outcome is conflict. Conversations thrive off of conflict and it is of benefit to have a supplicant and potential provider for a solution. It's basically intention versus obstacle.
1. She wants to be his wife. He doesn't want a marriage. 2. She is pregnant. 3. She needs to provide for a baby all on her own.
Tadaa, a conflict ensues.
Four-Sides Model
The four-sides model is a theory on communication. It assumes that a message has four distinct ways of being conveyed:
Facts -> data, facts, truth and relevance
Self-Disclosure -> explicit and implicit information about the own mindset; likes, dislikes, opinions
Relationship -> information about whether the person is liked or detested; approval and disapproval; "I assume you have [this] opinion of me"; body language
Want -> a direct attempt to influence the behavior of another person; advice, desire or instruction
Since this is highly technical stuff, I'll provide you with an example:
Customer: "I always drink my coffee black." 1. Fact: The coffee I drink is black. 2. Self-Disclosure: I like black coffee. 3. Relationship (POV of the waiter): Did I do something wrong? OR It's their fault! They ordered the wrong thing! 4. Want: Bring me black coffee.
Controlling the message through sender and receiver gives a new level of influence to an author. The relationship-level is the bottleneck in a conversation that holds the most potential for misunderstandings. I'm trying to be aware of it when I write subtext (see below).
Depth
On the nose dialogue is what we want to avoid at all costs. For this reason subtext is created in stories. Read this:
Scene 1 A: "I like you." B: "Nah, I don't like you back. You're so annoying." A: "Ouch, that hurts. I'm not sure if I heard that right." B: "We were never friends. Go away."
This is not how conversations work. Thankfully, dialogue like this is not entirely useless. It conveys what the characters really want to say. The challenge is to think of a way to not say the thing but keep a similar meaning.
The true meaning behind the dialogue is called subtext (scene 1). If I don't know how to continue after a certain line, I write down the subtext first before I decide on how to paraphrase it.
Finally, I add a fitting description of expression and body language if needed. I try to keep it short and simple.
Check this out:
Scene 2 She tucked her hair behind her ear. "I need a ride home later. Are you free?" -> I like you. "Sorry, all seats' re taken," he said without looking at her. -> Nah, I don't like you back. You're so annoying. "Uhm, okay. But I'm small. You could fit me in the footwell, honestly." -> Ouch, that hurts. I'm not sure if I heard that right. He leaned forward as if he had the urge to stand. "Ha, funny. But no, I'm not planning on doing something illegal tonight." -> We were never friends. Go away.
A character's action depends on their own intention and the other's response. I feel it is easier to keep track of what's happening behind the curtains when it's written alongside the dialogue.
Simultaneously, you can keep habits and traits in check. Does the the character apply all criticism to themselves? Are they disregarding or constantly marginalizing others? Do they worry only for themselves or solely for others? Subtext truly is the most powerful tool in conversation-writing.
About Answers
Did you know that you don't have to answer every single question? In fact, there are two other ways to show an emotion without telling it.
The first one is called sidestepping. The character ignores the posed question and carries on with an entirely different topic.
A: "Do you still love me?" B: "We should get going."
It's very obvious, right? By sidestepping the question, we can assume that the character is uncomfortable or angry with the other person.
The other way to answer is actually a bit paradoxical. Through silence, a great variety of emotions can be displayed. It is recommended to refrain from actually describing silence with words like "he remained silent", "he refused to say anything", "he never responded".
- The laptop hummed. - The birds chirped in the trees. - She felt her legs going numb from sitting in an uncomfortable position. - His eyes wandered around, searching the parking lot for a familiar face.
It feels more natural to explain the things that grab our attention when we sit in silence.
This is it, folks. That's all I could find on the topic - for now. If there's anything missing, I'd love to hear it.
‧͙⁺˚*・༓☾ Anyway, thanks for reading, I hope this helped ☽༓・*˚⁺‧͙
My sources are this and this video as well as this article.
Also a big thank you to @zoropookie for helping me with the colors ⸜(。˃ ᵕ ˂ )⸝♡
206 notes
·
View notes
Note
I’m always curious about Kankri being redeemed in any way (maybe because he can become the sufferer). Obviously to do so would be simply punting him to reality and force him to live it, no help from his shoddily-made support structure. But I’m curious how you would go about doing it
Given their role thematically in the story, I'm actually usually not on the train of "fully redeem the dancestors", but I do like giving them some catharsis and reckoning, a place in the fight against LE. One last chance to do something good with their lives/afterlives before the end, and a(n implied) new start as wigglers born into the new universe.
So to that end, in my head, the "turnaround point" for Kankri - the inciting incident that makes him have a mental breakdown that results in him finally taking some accountability for his shitty actions - is having a conversation with Eridan.
In my head, the Dancestor reckoning happens gradually, alongside a series of retcons where the dead trolls are brought back one or two at a time, and deal with their emotional issues a little more with every cast member added back into the party.
The TL;DR series of events is: Terezi asks to bring back Vriska, Vriska asks John to punch out Tavros before she can kill him, Tavros's influence makes Gamzee ask for Equius and Nepeta to be brought back, Equius asks for a redux of Aradiabot, Aradiabot grabs John by the arm and gets him to undo her death and Sollux's fall into depression, Sollux asks for Feferi to be brought back, and then Karkat asks for Eridan.
We know from (Vriska) that the Game Over/Alpha Timeline characters still exist post-Retcon, so those characters would also be continuing their character arcs, just in the afterlife prepping for the LE fight. For example, I think Meenah's reckoning should be delivered by (Karkat) - after having had so long to reflect on his own failures as a leader, he would be perfectly poised to scream at her for hers, which would also serve to make this confrontation a final thesis for Karkat as a whole - what leadership means (caring about your team) - and a conclusion to the Meenah/Karkat dynamic.
So when I say that Kankri needs to talk to Eridan, I mean Eridan and not (Eridan). Full character development, all his teammates are alive, taken full accountability and responsibility for his actions, team good guy Eridan. And as I noted in this essay, Eridan with full character development is actually more annoying than regular Eridan, because he's also the "Devastating: Worst Guy You Know Made An Excellent Point" guy. In bulleted form:
He's still an advocate for murder. Murder is literally what kept his friends alive long enough to play the game, and playing the game itself involves genocide, so he would be the Token Evil Teammate who reminds the team that, hey, murder is an option - and enemies will be considering it. Even at his very best, he's going to struggle with empathy and have an extremely blase view of violence and murder - those were literally just facts of his life through his most formative years.
This also makes him a TOTAL downer, as he's the tempering voice that reminds them that decisions have consequences, and utopia requires sacrifices, and nothing is ever worth fighting for that won't eventually need to be fought for. Like I said, worst guy you know, excellent points. In fact, he's out here volunteering to do the murdering when the situation calls, if nobody else wants to get their fins dirty. He's really good at it.
He's still an idiot who doesn't listen to people. He's perfectly fine at taking orders, but having a conversation with him is still really difficult. I feel like if you make Eridan too smart, mentally flexible, and socially aware, you lose a lot of his Eridan-ness, and I think these characters, fully realized, are more of themselves, not less. I also don't know how you could reasonably expect to fix these traits. He's just Like That.
He drops his fake pro-Empire stuff, because that was basically all just empty posturing in the first place, but...
Now he's a pretentious-ass hipster who judges you for liking Trollor Swift and Troll Marvel. Given that Jake's indiscriminate taste is actually linked to his deficit of Hope (he has little conviction, he's wishy-washy), Eridan coming into full Prince of Hope regalia involves getting even more annoying about his taste in media (shittons of conviction, refusal to budge).
He is also a wizard. He will not shut up about this.
And finally, I think he'd still be out here using slurs. First of all, because it'd be really funny, because he's literally not casteist, but second, because there's two types of "it's equality" - the kind where nobody ever says anything offensive, and the kind where "offensive" stops being a relevant concept because true equality has been achieved. Think of the discourse surrounding the reclamation of slurs IRL, or how the "it's equality" meme gets used - this idea that words can be stripped of power by changing the context of who's saying them, or that objectification/discrimination stop being problems if they're applied evenly across the board, instead of limited to specific groups. I think that this is the exact type of nuanced idea that Homestuck would tackle and its fandom would get incensed about, which is why I think it should stay.
Eridan's role, thus, becomes a sort of "unpleasant truths" kind of character. Violence, both physical and verbal, is unpleasant as hell, and the natural instinct is to avoid it. The problem is, in any true discussion of what society should look like, they're topics that can't be avoided, and are even sometimes necessary not just to recognize, but to utilize (no revolution is bloodless, etc.). Eridan - an extreme personality - is going to represent the uncomfortable extreme of the debate. And by that I mean he's going to be saying slurs and talking about murders and is still going to be unquestionably a force for good.
The reason I'm going so in-depth into this is because Kankri very much represents the opposite: using "polite" language and couching it in the language of courtesy, activism, and liberal ideology, Kankri hides - and worse, spreads - his classist, ableist, misogynistic, puritan beliefs. He enforces the class divide and actively works against his teammates' best interests.
He whines that the lower blood castes should stop complaining about oppression, because others have it worse. He tells the team feminist that misogyny isn't real, then slut shames her. He tells the guy with brain damage that he's making other neurodivergent/TBI people look bad, exacerbates Latula's shame around her inability to smell, and actively guilt trips Cronus into ignoring his epiphany and self-reflection. Kankri is only an activist in that he actively makes everybody worse.
But why does he act like this? Well, it's due to the fact that he was probably culled, and on-sight at that, like Karkat would've been if anyone found out about his mutant blood. Kankri doesn't seem to have a symbol or lusus, either, two thinks Karkat only had because the Signless's followers prepped them for him, so the chances are very high that Kankri was culled since he was hatched. Given the way he discusses culling with Latula, and viciously despises being mothered by Porrim, it's clear he has some really complicated feelings regarding having his agency dismissed. Thus, his work to hamper his team - at least some of which is wilful on his part, as he'll outright cast aspersions on Horuss or Cronus's beliefs for being "imaginary" even as he encourages them to commit to them - is motivated by something quite simple: power, attention, entitlement, and control.
When he goes on his grand lectures, he frequently slips and reveals that he sees himself as a great, unquestionable spiritual leader, often trying to place other characters in subordinate positions to himself - Karkat is his "pupil," and his monologues, I mean, sermons, I mean, diatribes, are spoken as if from a position of authority. He outright tells Meenah that this is what he believes himself to be.
It's a very Seer sort of problem - both that of hubris and that of willful blindness. If you chart out the actual "end goal" of his beliefs, it appears to be a world in which Kankri himself is both the biggest victim and most important voice in the room. He regularly disparages those with actual disadvantages (Damara, Porrim, Mituna) while playing up the false problems of those who don't actually have them (Horuss, Cronus). Those with disadvantages should have their voices amplified - except lowbloods should stop whining and misogyny isn't real. And those with real power should check their privilege - but won't somebody think of the poor highbloods who have ~emotional problems~? Kankri will, and all the highbloods need to do is bend the knee and treat Kankri as their specialest boy.
In short, he's using his intellect, rhetoric, and forceful personality for selfish, emotionally-driven pursuits. The actual substance of his arguments is ephemeral and contradictory because that's the trick - the point is NOT to further equality, but to verbally browbeat his conversation partner into submission. In other words, you can't beat Kankri in a regular debate, because the moment you start trying to actually engage in a debate with him, he wins. The moment you start lunging at his arguments, he's got you in his red-texted labyrinth. The moment you start treating his points like they merit genuine discussion, you're in the pews of Kankri's church, and he's up at the pulpit.
And Eridan is the destroyer of faith. He's also an idiot who doesn't listen to people.
I don't really know exactly how it would play out, but I know in my heart. In the pit of my soul. That Eridan would call Kankri several slurs, (correctly) point out that Kankri's celibacy is stupid because it's clear he has feelings for Cronus and Latula, (correctly) point out that his pro-equality stuff is stupid because he calls violets "Royal-V"s, (incorrectly) accuse Kankri of hitting on him, (correctly) point out that the entire point of a slur is that it hurts and insults the person it's used on, (correctly) call Kankri several more slurs, (correctly) point out that Kankri just wants attention, especially from highbloods, (???) go on an unhinged rant (maybe more) about being a wizard, being a murderer, and being a murderer wizard, (???) insult Kankri's taste in music, and finish it up by (correctly) revealing that Eridan and Karkat are moirails who make out sometimes.
I think Kankri would start crying.
#full stop this is the conversation that didn't happen that i want to see most in all of homestuck#homestuck#eridan ampora#kankri vantas#i think it's especially important it be eridan because eridan is a sea dweller#and kankri is a huuuuge wader/sea dweller liker#so having a sea dweller CORRECTLY point out that kankri is a wader and casteist and chew him out for it#WHILE calling him a bunch of slurs#gang i dont know how kankri's ever gonna emotionally recover from this
82 notes
·
View notes
Text
neptune and pluto influence
Neptune on the ascendent can denote a natural, unconscious influence over others. similar to someone with Pluto influence (pluto conjunct ascendent/midheaven/1h/10h), the person with neptune influence (neptune conjunct ascendent/midheaven + in 1h/10h) makes a memorable impact on those around them, the difference is the Pluto individual is on some level aware of the ways in which they influence those around them, the Neptune person does this unintentionally and subconsciously. the Plutonian person has control over how others view them, over their public image, this is what makes them so powerful. the Neptunian person however can easily be viewed as weak -- plutonians, even when they are most hated, are viewed as a threat. the Neptune person gets underestimated and sabotaged. both the plutonian and Neptune person are subject to rumors, gossip, and ridicule.
people with pluto/neptune conjunct the ascendent/midheaven are often sexualized by others. when the ascendent/first house is involved, they are denoted as sex objects, and with pluto involved, the person is subject to being shamed for their sexuality, oftentimes being labeled derogatorily.
both the pluto and neptune person have many admirers. people with pluto in conjunction to the midheaven or scorpio ruling the tenth house/scorpio midheaven (capricorn/aquarius rising depending on the degree of your rising) are prone to having stalkers. Neptune's admirers are hidden in plain sight -- with neptune conjunct ascendent opposing the descendent, the neptune persons close friendships tend to blur the lines between friendship and romance. people may opt to keep their attraction toward the neptune person to themselves because the Neptune person feels inaccessible or unattainable.
people with Neptune influence (neptune in first house/conjunct ascendent) have many copy cats. Marilyn Monroe had this placement and there is currently a woman living in her old house who dresses exactly like her. often with Neptune conjunct ascendent, opposite descendent, or neptune in the first house, people you interact with will react negatively to or put you down for your qualities, and then later adopt those same qualities as if it were their own. the neptune persons energy is so contagious and infectious that it is easy for those with low self esteem to adopt their traits as their own.
Neptune and Pluto have much to do with legacy. neptune people are remembered more fondly after their death. Marilyn Monroe had neptune in the first house and Elvis Presley had neptune closely conjunct his midheaven -- both celebrities were subject to public ridicule, media gossip and rumors during their lifetimes, however public opinion shifted after their deaths, remembering them as icons and being framed in a more positive light.
plutonians are remembered and talked about long after their death on both extremes of the love and hate spectrum. the pluto oppositions to Elvis Presley's second house stellium, which includes his sun trining his neptune conjunct his midheaven, were activated in recent years while pluto has been transiting his second house -- the biopic bombed at the box office because of negative media attentions surrounded resurfaced accounts of Presleys pedophilia and grooming.
#astrology#neptune#pluto#pluto in 1st house#neptune in 1st house#Aquarius rising#capricorn rising#pisces rising#birth chart reading#birth chart#astrology community#astro notes#astrology notes#trigger warning abuse
425 notes
·
View notes
Text
" HOTD's Issues Writing Women Part 2: The Whitewashing of Rhaenyra
**This is part 2 of my analysis on the issues with the writing of the two main female characters. If you haven’t already please read my part 1 post where I analyze Alicent’s character assassination which you can find on my profile.** I think many fans on the Blacks and Greens and in between regarding HOTD have been concerned and disappointed with the way the two main female characters: Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower have been written in HOTD seasons 1-2. This is very understandable. Female characters in general in HOTD and I think a lot of Hollywood films nowadays are not being written as well as they used to be and could be. Go on Youtube or Google and you'll find many film reviews/tv show reviews that critique the Mary Sue and Girlbossification or just poorly written in general female characters that are taking up a chunk of characters in Hollywood. Rhaenyra and Alicent to me were such great characters in F&B. They were two different kinds of medieval women in a fantasy setting. One, the medieval queen who gains power/influence through her relationship with men and advocating for her son. Two, the medieval queen who sought power in her name and defied some norms that make her compelling but also immoral in their eyes. They are two deeply flawed and complex characters fighting on opposite sides of a dynastic civil war.
This post is here to address the main issues of whitewashing when it comes to writing Rhaenyra Targaryen.
\***Some disclaimers: This is no issue with the actor themself. Emma D'Arcy while I may disagree with their opinions from time to time, they are a wonderful actor who is doing the best they can with the scripts they're given, so this is by no means a critique of them. I am going off of the show canon although the book will be mentioned.**
**So firstly... What is whitewashing?**
The modern definition of white washing is to cast in a show/movie or rewrite a character of a minority and make them white. For example, if someone decides to do a movie about Rosa Parks and they cast Emma Stone. However, white washing has another definition. It means to essentially remove or hide negative unpleasant facts or traits of a person or thing. I think Rhaenyra Targaryen suffers from this problem as many of her written negative traits or deeds so far are either not shown, projected onto another character close to her (Daemon Targaryen mostly), or severely downplayed. This results in a character that is almost too virtuous and bland for the setting she is in and a far cry from who she should be. A character whom doesn't seem to fit in the ruthless at times immoral world of Westeros. A character whom is almost a close to a Mary Sue. As I am very much on the belief that flaws versus virtues are what make a character compelling and human.
**I will say not every change made to Rhaenyra story arc and personality are necessarily all bad. Some are good ideas just poorly executed (ex - exploring more of Rhaenyra's hinted bisexuality, as there are hints in F&B that her close relationship with Laena may or may not have been more than platonic) and others are just good changes in general.**
*1. Victims vs. Villains - Biases in Writing Female Characters*
In the words of the iconic Grey's Anatomy actress Ellen Pompeo, “Women are one of two roles. You’re either the victim or the villain. But the victims are only victims because they don’t have what it takes to be the villain.” I think she states the major issue with writing female characters nowadays that HOTD has an issue with. Women must either be victims or villains. The character assassination of Alicent and white washing of Rhaenyra to me stems from this: Alicent is the villain in Rhaenyra's story to Rhaenyra's victimhood.
*2. Rhaenyra's Negative Traits: Arrogance, Hot Temper, Frivolity, and Bad Decisions to Peace-Loving and Plainness*
Rhaenyra had many great qualities in the book but it is only when coupled with major character flaws are we truly compelled. She was a loving mother, passionate, intelligent to a degree, etc. However, she was also very ambitious and power-hungry, arrogant at times, quick to anger, slow to forgive, and frivolous at times. **As a writer myself, I firmly believe that characters are truly humanized and compelling when they have major character flaws coupled with their virtues. Flaws they either have to overcome or use to their advantage. Flaws that make them who they are. Flaws create layers of complexity in a character. Or Flaws that help foster the characters downfall.**
I'm not saying the Rhaenyra in the show isn't flawed. She is! For example, I think what's great is that a flaw they gave Rhaenyra is something show Viserys also had: the ability to ignore or downplay potential conflicts or hard truths versus facing them head on. Viserys refused to see the potential conflicts in naming Rhaenyra heir or pretending her elder three children are trueborn. Rhaenyra in the show refused to listen to Jace whose concerns regarding his parentage as her successor and the dragonseeds were ignored or dismissed. The issue is thought, Rhaenyra is not given the flaws that she most certainly had, **flaws that helped lead to her downfall**. She's not flawed the way she's supposed to be.
Similar to many other Targaryens including her half-brother Aegon II, Rhaenyra was quick to anger and slow to forgive. We have some brief moments where we see Rhaenyra's temper and quick witt, but we don't see the major moments where her major character flaws are shown. Alicent provokes Rhaenyra for example in season 1, having her take Joffrey to her moments after he is born. We never see Rhaenyra provoke Alicent back. Any times where we should have seen Rhaenyra's sharp temper at the slightest of remarks are not shown.
Rhaenyra's actions herself were also very whitewashed with how they were portrayed. We either see their negative consequences downplayed, not shown, or the actions were projected onto another male character. In the books due to how similar Laenor and Rhaenyra were in looks (I mean they were both white) there was still a tad more ambiguity as to whether or not Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards. Race changing the Velaryons made it even more obvious her elder three boys were bastards. I took issue with the writing of Rhaenyra's dialogue and that of the characters around her, not truly showcasing why having bastards, especially as a woman, is a truly egregious thing. The potential chaos Rhaenyra could cause was completely downplayed.
A few actions for example that were incredibly violent and evil were butchered. First example being the murder of Vaemond Velaryon. I was disappointed with this scene. Firstly, we only see Vaemond protest Luke inheriting Driftmark which sets it up as more so an ambitious second son seeking power versus a man who doesn't want his house to be run by someone not of his blood. We don't see other Velaryons protesting with him. After Vaemond made his little speech, Rhaenyra orders him dead and Daemon kills him on **her orders**. She then viciously has his corpse fed to her dragon Syrax. I think this scene was crucial as it foreshadows the danger Rhaenyra would be in the future to House Velaryon and sow more seeds of discontent that are crucial to the house's eventual turn to the Green side. Not only is Vaemond killed more viciously, Viserys orders the tongue removal of even more Velaryons who sided with Vaemond with Rhaenyra's consent! Instead, the show projects this entirely onto Daemon. Daemon goes Rogue (see what I did there) and kills Vaemond on his own accord. Rhaenyra stands there shocked and doesn't even order the body fed to her dragon. Rhaenyra is absolved from all blame to Vaemond's unjust execution without trial.
The thing about B&C is Rhaenyra was paralyzed with grief for her son, Luke. The moment her child died was the moment where her descent into madness and powerful wrath began to truly manifest and she would stop at nothing. I was very disappointed in the fact that she has one episode of grieving and then continues to be so level-headed. I couldn't feel her grief, rage, and resentment towards the Greens for her son's death that makes the war even worse. Daemon tells Rhaenyra that he would avenge her son. I loved the acting of Matt and Emma during their argument about the aftermath. However, I felt like Rhaenyra wasn't acting on character with the book. I don't think book Rhaenyra was 100% okay with a child dying as her vengeance, but I do feel with how angered and filled with grief and hatred Rhaenyra should be, Rhaenyra should be a bit more hardened. She should have not been so sorry about the child's death.
I also think that one of Rhaenyra's most controversial and evil decisions in the future are going to either not be included, blamed on someone else, or downplayed. It's very clear at the end of season 2 episode 8 that my favorite dragonseed Nettles is being cut and given to Rhaena who had her own plot and dragon hatchling. After Ulf the White and Hugh Hammer betray her, Rhaenyra's paranoia goes overload and declares that all the dragonseeds are traitors. Corlys advocates for Addam Velaryon and Nettles and Rhaenyra responds by having him arrested. He warns Addam, and is then bound, beaten, and thrown into the black cells. One of her most powerful allies is now thrown in the black cells. This causes the fleet of House Velaryon to turn against her. Later, she attempts to violate guest right, which is sacred in Westeros (which is why the Red Wedding was so horrific to Westeros even more so), by plotting to have Nettles murdered. As Nettles is being cut, I doubt they'd show this truly negative action as Rhaena can't have Nettles's complete plot. Rhaenyra's unjust arrest of Corlys and House Velaryon turning from her from what they're doing so far might just be blamed on someone else, have a different excuse that is not the one that the book gave, or not shown whatsoever.
I also think they might just be setting her up to be innocent of the torture of Tyland Lannister. After the Greens flee with most of the treasury leaving Rhaenyra in Kingslanding pretty broke, he refused to tell her where the gold was sent. Under Rhaenyra's orders he was tortured and castrated and blinded and disfigured to point of being disgusting. They might just have him be tortured by Mysaria or Daemon on their own accord without Rhaenyra's orders, leaving her innocent, or they will have him tortured by the Triarchy or something. Maybe after Mysaria and/or Daemon torture him, they'll frame it as vengeance for Jace and then Rhaenyra might let him go to appear merciful to an audience. As they cut Maelor whose murder was the breaking point that caused Helaena's suicide, we might not see how another child under the war was murdered by her faction. I worry that they won't show how how her cruelties that she did on her own accord caused her to be hated just as much if not more than her half brothers Aegon II and Aemond. They might not truly set the tone and show actions that lead to her being "Rhaenyra the Cruel" and "Maegor with Teats" they might not show the actions, or blame them on someone else or something else. They might not have her tax into oblivion the smallfolk or send her knight inquisitors to execute dozens upon dozens of supposed or proven Green traitors. I was also confused by the characterization of the smallfolk as these naive little lambs who will follow whatever. There is no famine or riot against the Greens at the point the show showed it. I was pleased with the fact that we saw the book-accurate support the smallfolk gave to Helaena after her son was murdered and how angered they were at Rhaenyra and the Blacks. However, days later they are singing her praises. It makes no sense to me that they would forget something so easily. Of course, I argue in another post on my profile why the riot and famine made no sense. So they might continue to get rid of her all of her negative actions.
**These evil actions make her even more compelling and even more realistic in a violent medieval world. It shows how both sides commit great evils as both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were not remembered fondly by their own descendants, smallfolk, and nobles alike.**
I also hate how they hardly showed just how feminine almost girly Rhaenyra was. Rhaenyra notably loved fashion and wearing beautiful intricate gowns that always showed off her beauty and figure. She dressed very richly as befitting her station, wearing gowns of purple with maroon velvet and Myrish lace. Her bodices often had pearls and diamonds. She always wore rings on her finger that she'd play with and turn when anxious. I honestly found these traits very endearing and relatable as someone who is a girly girl. Finally, a "strong female character" who is a leader who is also very feminine and girly. She doesn't need to be a tomboy and wield a sword to be a badass. But no... we don't see that. Yes the costumes Emma D'Arcy wore were nice I guess on the show but they didn't feel like something book Rhaenyra would wear. I get they had budgets but still... you couldn't have made something else? Like where is the purple and maroon? She's mostly wearing just red and black. No rings. No nothing!
*3. Unequal Screen Time and Too "Modernized": Rhaenyra is the Main Modern Girl*
I feel like HOTD has a problem with perspective. GOT had it perfectly done! The original ASOIAF were written from the perspective of multiple characters so we got a perfect ensemble cast with writing that highlighted the stories and perspectives of many different characters. Jon Snow's narrative didn't overtake Daenerys's screen time and vice versa which is just how it should be. However, I feel HOTD makes a mistake especially in season 1 with framing. Rhaenyra as the main with secondary-main perspectives of Alicent and Daemon. We get most of season 1 from Rhaenyra's perspective and to a lesser extent Daemon and Alicent when the show should have been formatted like GOT as multiple perspectives were given in F&B. We should have gotten an ensemble cast with equal development and perspective from multiple characters, especially an equal development of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra. We get both of Rhaenyra's weddings, two births, her raising her children, many scenes with her dragon, her perspective, and her interactions. Our first intro to her sets her up in a more heroic light as she's a beautiful princess riding her dragon. We don't get Aegon II's wedding or Alicent's. No birth scenes for Alicent or Helaena. We hardly get their perspectives compared to Rhaenyra. We should have seen more of Aegon II's childhood and perspective versus just him being a bully and later a rapist. While they improved perspective a bit more in season 2, it's not enough to take away from what was done in season 1. Rhaenyra is the protagonist and **THE main character versus A main character.**
What I think they should have done is showcase the real dynamic of Alicent and Rhaenyra more. They can start off with their friendship but then transition it to the dynamic that both women had at court: competition. Both women wanted to be First Lady of the Realm and first priority to King Viserys. The Queen vs the Princess and named heir.
Rhaenyra does at times come off as more modern than she should be. I think her and even her aunt Rhaenys. For example, in the book Rhaenyra is at times very homophobic by our standards to Laenor. When she discovers she's to marry Laenor Velaryon in the show, we see her initially not too excited about it, but not fully antagonistic. She in fact has a very decent and friendship like conversation where she uses the metaphor of preferring roast duck to insinuate she understands and accepts Laenor for being gay, deciding to do their duty and support one another, while pursuing their own pleasure with each other's consent with whomever that may be. They appear to be very supportive of one another times, at least on Rhaenyra's end. She compliments him deeply when he says he wishes he were different.
While I'm sure on some level Rhaenyra wishes Laenor was bisexual at the very least so they can have more than a friendship and have trueborn kids together, Rhaenyra is almost too accepting for her medieval context. In the medieval world, same sex relationships were a HUGE no-no. In fact being gay was considered a mental illness and sickness up until the 20th century! Rhaenyra appears too accepting of Laenor, appearing too modern in just how accepting she is. In reality, while I'm sure Book Rhaenyra cared for Laenor on some level and had some kind of respect for him and affection, it wasn't this deep and this accepting. Laenor did mean something to her on some level, after all he is still the man she married, and very important to her storyline---however Rhaenyra in the book as a much more medieval reaction and medieval view on his sexuality. She was notably very unhappy about her betrothal to him. It took serious threats from King Viserys to remove her from the line of succession in order to get her on board and she did so reluctantly. She notably even said that "My half brothers would be more to his taste." This is a very cutting and almost homophobic statement. I mean her half-brothers were still toddlers. However, we never get any true antagonism, frustration, or even subtle or outward homophobia on Rhaenyra's end. While this statement is mean and homophobic, that is a more medieval response. It's sad, but it's true. Rhaenyra is a medieval woman in a medieval setting. She is a product of what her society raised her to be, which is being gay isn't something one should accept.
The same issue occurs with Rhaenys having an almost too modern point of view or opinion that doesn't fit with her medieval setting. When she discovers her husband Corlys Velaryon has bastard children, Addam and Alyn of Hull, she is neither furious nor disappointed or horrified. In fact, Rhaenys advocates that they deserve to be "raised up and honored not hidden in the tides." This is an incredibly unrealistic and unfitting reaction on Rhaenys's end. In our modern day society, even, if a woman finds out her husband cheated on her and sired kids off his side chick, she'd be furious. Of course, I think a moral modern woman wouldn't take her anger out on the children, but still. Rhaenys's reaction is almost too modern and too gracious. Characters are products of their circumstances. Despite Westeros being a fantasy world, we feel how medieval the characters are through their beliefs and behaviors. Catelyn Stark or Cersei Lannister's reactions to their husband's bastards is far more realistic---specifically how Catelyn and Cersei hated what their husbands had done and felt it was an affront to them personally. Corlys in the books was terrified of Rhaenys finding out as it would dishonor him, her, and their dead children together which is why he tried to pass them off as Laenor's no matter how ridiculous is sounded. Rhaenys should have been more realistically horrified at Corlys and angry. She shouldn't be advocating for them to be anywhere near her house or imply they should have been raised amongst their own trueborn children.
I think this does two things: 1) Makes it though Rhaenys is fully on Rhaenyra's side when raising her bastard children of Harwin as if they are her trueborn grandsons and 2) Modernizes her too much. That is a main issue. The show attempts to modernize her and make her appeal to a more modern audience. However, there is a way to do that without modernizing her so much that she doesn't seem to fit with her medieval context.
was very disappointed when I heard that the directors told Olivia Cooke to portray Alicent as "woman for Trump" and Rhaenyra is this "punk-rock Hillary Clinton." Modern day politics and movements and ideologies have little to no place in the way Westeros should be written as its a **realistic medieval setting with realistic medieval characters in a fantasy world**. Rhaenyra is too modern in her interactions and beliefs that she doesn't seem to fit well in Westeros. Rhaenyra as well is also presented as this more feminist character.
*4. Two Things Can Be True At Once: Women Can Be Victims of Sexism AND Still Do Terrible Things, Be Self-Serving, and Wield Significant Amounts of Power*
**What I ultimately believe that Condal and the HOTD production seem to get wrong is that in a medieval setting like Westeros, women are ALWAYS overlooked and dismissed and cannot take so much significant power. I feel like they believe that women can't do terrible things in the patriarchal system of Westeros while being victims of sexism.**
Women in the real middle ages and Westeros in Martin's story are not feminists by our definition. At times we see women take advantage of and gain power from the sexist patriarchal society they live in. We see it with Cersei Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Daenerys Targareyen, Catelyn Stark, Olenna Tyrell, Ellaria Sand, Lysa Arryn, Melisandre, Arya Stark, Sansa Stark, every woman in the original GOT series were victims of sexism and an oppressive patriarchal system of Westeros just like real women of the Middle Ages AND YET they still were able to wield some power and do terrible or morally gray things. We can view them as victims of a horrible system but still see how they take advantage of it, gain power and agency as they have no choice to use the system versus fight it, do horrible things, but still view them as victims.
Rhaenyra is one example! I will say that this is partly more so the interpretation of the modern casual audience versus a writing issue, but it is still a writing issue that there are people who believe her to be a feminist. She's not! Of course just because she isn't one doesn't mean you can't root for her, but don't root for her if you think she's a feminist. We might never see the moments where Rhaenyra herself is denying women rights of inheritance from Lady Stokeworth to Lady Rosby. We should have been emphasized that Rhaenyra is not the closest thing to a modern day feminist. She is not advocating for women's rights or to make the world better for women, but to be an exception to the rule. Like most medieval woman in power, she takes advantage of the patriarchal system and gets power from it. Laena Velaryon is older than Laenor. She takes advantage of patriachal rulings to install her (bastard) "son of Laenor" as future Lord of Driftmark versus advocating that the eldest child, Baela Targaryen, daughter of Laena Velaryon, the elder sibling, to inherit Driftmark.
Victims can be villainous too! Soft power. Rarely in the Medieval world do we see women wield a hard power in their own name. Of course we have outliers, but in the end most medieval women wielded a soft power---gaining influence and power through manipulating their relationships with men (their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.). Did real Medieval women know they were oppressed? Perhaps they did, and perhaps they accepted it. Did real Medieval women make efforts to change it? I wouldn't say so. Many women upheld the status quo of men being dominant.
For example, in keeping with British history that Martin is so inspired by, going off of blood-ties alone, Lady Margaret Beaufort had a stronger claim to the English throne via her Lancastrian blood than her own son Henry VII, and yet she advocated for her son not herself to be the next ruler of England. Queen Elizabeth Woodville had three daughters (Elizabeth, Cecily, and Mary) before she had her son Edward V. Like any medieval woman with three daughters alone there was growing pressure to secure her husband's line and her own position by producing a male heir. She never tried to name any of her elder daughters over her son once she had him nor did she ever try to advocate to her husband King Edward IV that he didn't need a male heir, he had his eldest daughter Elizabeth of York.
Rhaenyra Targaryen as well is presented almost like she's pursuing power to make Westeros better and that she has more altruistic and kind intentions behind her actions. I mean this weird "Aegon Prophecy" contributes to it. I think we should have seen a more realistic medieval and Westerosi character by having Rhaenyra, just like Alicent or Aegon II, pursue power because she can! Pursue power and queenship for the sake of having it and because she believes herself entitled to it versus these more "virtuous reasons." I mean in the book she never considered accepting the peace terms despite how generous they were because she refused to renounce her claim and back down! She wanted power because felt entitled to it and because every character in Westeros wants power to some degree. Ambition is a theme and characteristic that unites every character in Martin's world.
**My Takeaway? The Writers are Biased and Fail to Understand the Medieval Context of Westeros and Martin's Female Characters. Don't implement modern politics and biases into a medieval show**
I love that Martin tries to write his women the way he writes his men. He has explicitly stated that he writes his women the way he writes his men. He states that women are people too. They can be driven by the same things men are in Westeros and/or the real world: love, anger, hatred, a desire for power, vengeance, grief, guilt, bringing glory to their name and themselves, a desire to protect their family, etc.
Most of all: **Westeros is a realistic medieval world with realistic medieval characters in an unrealistic fantasy setting.** So you have to look at it from primarily a medieval lens in order to fully understand it and its character. While its okay to analyze using some modern concepts and lenses (ex - analyze how Daemon is a pedophile) you have to couple it with a lot of grace and understanding of their medieval context and morals that impacts the way the characters behave as we are products of our own historical context (ex - remembering that pedophilia and child grooming isn't much of a concept in the medieval world. The moment a girl has her first period, they are a consenting woman in his context).
So I find it disingenuous to write off all of Rhaenyra Targaryen's negative traits as just nothing but maester propaganda and due to sexism. I disliked how they downplayed her ambition, arrogance, rage, and cruelties to make her appear more modern and peaceful and the most virtuous character on the show. Yes, perhaps sexism could have had some tie into how Rhaenyra was viewed in Westeros. However, historians in the real world can't just dismiss reports about what a medieval woman was like simply because of the sexist world they were living in. By that standard, perhaps a woman like Queen Anne of Brittany wasn't all that bad or Margaret of Anjou. By that standard anything that was negative about the personalities of any medieval woman in power is all just rubbish and not true.
I felt we should have seen more of the kind of women that Martin writes. The kind of women that fit with his medieval-fantasy narrative that showcases how pursuing power at all costs leads to nothing but ruin. We should have seen layered women. We should have seen a more book-accurate Rhaenyra. We shouldn't have to settle for a lackluster story where Rhaenyra is nowhere close to her book counterpart.
**And most of all, the HOTD team shouldn't subtly or outwardly bash the original source material as nothing but sexist propaganda to excuse the lackluster writing of the female characters being nothing like their book counterparts or subtly or outwardly write off critics and fans like myself as toxic for pointing it out.**
**If you like this analysis, read on my profile my part 1 when I delve into the issues with HOTD’s Alicent.** "
#house of the dragon#hotd#anti hotd#hotd meta#team green#hotd critical#anti rhaenys targaryen#anti rhaenyra targaryen
54 notes
·
View notes
Text
There's one character trait from Rhun that we have seen more than any other and it just breaks my heart.
Like sure, they are abrasive (Wer? Wer gefragt hat?!) and they are/used to be snarky (that scene when they were kids about the monster under the bed). And there is a whole lot to be said about Dark and White and Grey respectively.
But mostly they are just so very soft.
Roughly by point of order:
They worry about the kids that are being affected by the sweets that Klaus and Fips are giving to them. They also appear to feel strongly about people being influenced for the worse and being taken advantage of. (Weil ihr sie eh nur benutzt. Ihr Unwissenden habt schon genug Seelen beschmutzt!)
They make sure Ray knows that his efforts are known and appreciated (even though they immediately follow this up by telling him about the mean things that are being said about him, but even that is said to declare that those people are wrong).
While searching for Dark they take the time to make sure LurkyGirl is okay.
They make sure not to hurt the streamer (Papaplatte I think?) that Dark is using to hold Rhun off.
Yeah, they go along with Oskars plan to capture Dark. They were desperate (and I would guess not for themselves but for what it would mean for the world if they couldn't continue to due their job) getting weaker by the minute and all other attempts had failed. And the moment they realized that the chains were hurting Dark they stopped. Stopped and freed Dark and the telling Dark that they wanted it to be on both of their terms to merge again.
They worry about Oskar, some guy they have only known for a short time. When confronted with his betrayal and real plan, they don't react with hate or declarations of revenge but with concern about what their actions will cause.
When Pete, Joon and Ju find them, their first reaction is neither happiness nor relief. Instead they see Fips and all they can wonder sadly what happened to him.
They don't even rush Joon at first, even though they are currently living through the worst pain possible because they are still chained. Only when Joon is finished with his tale do they (Rhun and Dark) tell him to finally free him. And the best part? They listened. Because when they tried to send them home, they opened a door to North Korea. Because Joon told them that this is where he was born.
They make sure to save both Rainer and Joon, because they can actually do something for them.
Once they are at the hotel their first action is to return all their workers to normal and send them to safety.
They try to do the same with Joon and Rainer and then they loose their cool (and who wouldn't? They have guarded Eos face for hundreds of years. They were only just betrayed and had to spend the past whoever-knows-how-many days in unimaginable pain. And then such an obvious lie? -> side note: I hc that Rhun tries to be cautious but they are still very naive and always end up believing in the good of the people. This often ends badly for them and is one of the reasons they hate when others are being taken advantage of. It's too close to home). But then they let Joon and Rainer stay (Joon did say that they came in the hope of being safe at the hotel) and even take them to their most closely guarded secret.
Also, when Eos takes over and that energy blast sent Rhun flying? I think the only reason Joon wasn't also hurt was because Rhun was somehow protecting him with their magic.
I also need to mention that that scene where Eos is about to kill Rhun and Rhun doesn't say anything? Just bares their teeth and braces for it? That scene hurts on a different level.
And finally: Rhun not only saving Julia but also taking the time to (bluntly) explain that she has to be more careful. They even try to comfort her and help her deal with her fear! And then they make sure that Julia will never get lost again by giving her the Zahnseide (which going by the old Zahnfee song is probably not the first time this has happened. They did sing that the Zahnseide was being used in very unvonential ways).
Just.
I love Rhun so much.
69 notes
·
View notes