#which isn't really a direct criticism of myself more just that i don't think i'm structurally built to be a romantic partner

[elytrafemme]

i have a really weird relationship with relationships too, huh. i guess if we’re gonna just talk about shit tonight. like not even that i’m a bad person to be in love with, though i guess that too, but like. in the past i have a history of being really self destructive in relationships, and also (albeit to give myself credit, this would be more reactionary to a feeling of entrapment rather than just straight up) pretty unstable around my partners. which is maybe weird to admit but i feel like relationships are such a core part of my life since i have had like. so many issues with them and related subjects since a really young age. 

but also like, more recently it’s less destructive behaviors because i am actively trying not to do that shit again. but more like. i get really insecure about things when i think about the person i’m in love with, which is odd because i’m not a very insecure person at all. one of my biggest annoyances actually is when people assume i hate myself more than i do, because if i ever do hate myself it’s a very strange fluke of a day and in general i love myself debatably to an unhealthy degree. like my friend the other day said that my ego was too low and i was too shocked to even laugh because she was like so deeply off about that. it really bothers me.

anyway. being in love makes me insecure and has historically made me do weird things. which would be fine if i wasn’t such a fucking hopeless romantic.

[utilitycaster]

I think something important to remember in actual play is that character backstory is neither an itinerary for the GM to follow nor a to-do list for the player to check off, but rather a means to provide context for the character's motivations, how they got to where they are now, and how they will respond to whatever comes up. It's not a scripted work, so you can't just make a character follow a specific arc.

It's an extension of something I've said before, that creating characters outside the context of a specific D&D game has never really made sense to me because the GM's direction should be integral to your character creation. At best you can have a very loose concept that you drastically expand upon to fit a particular game. If you're about to play Curse of Strahd, for example, you aren't going to be exploring a complex personal history in Candlekeep. You can certainly be informed by a complex personal history in Candlekeep, and quite honestly should be informed by some kind of complex personal history somewhere! But in the game, you're going to be going into Barovia and dealing with Strahd. And you made a character based in Candlekeep because your GM said "we're playing in the Forgotten Realms". Your character is in that context as well: someone who'd have reason to go to Barovia, from the world in which Barovia exists.

Unsurprisingly, I'm talking about this because of Critical Role Campaign 3, and look, if I am wrong about what I say in this paragraph please feel free to bring up this post and say "you were wrong" but I just do not think this campaign is ever going to not be about the moon and the gods. I think there's ways it could have been about those things and still have had room for more downtime or personal excursions. I think that "pulpier and deadlier" wasn't wrong, but perhaps the cast could have benefited from more guidance in the same way that "this campaign is going to be spookier and deadlier" would not necessarily be a good way to tell your players that they're going to be playing Curse of Strahd, but it is what it is. That doesn't mean character backstories won't be explored (and honestly, I think they've all had at least a moment in the sun) but it isn't the focus, it's never really been the focus, and speaking only for myself that's been apparent for, at minimum, nearly 18 months.

It also doesn't mean you have to like it, nor that you can't complain. But there's always been hanging threads or unexplored elements. There's the obvious limitations of Pike's story given that Ashley was unable to be at the table much of the time, but we never really went deep into Scanlan's parents - and we didn't have to, because the purpose of Scanlan's mother being killed by goblins wasn't "we're going to avenge her"; it was to explain why he'd become a wandering bard and to inform how Sam played him. The Robert Sharpe plot for Jester never got much play because really, it was mostly as an establishing character moment and the reason why she left Nicodranas, not something that needed an extensive arc (nor something Laura seemed terribly interested in pursuing). We've never met Sabian or Tori; the twins never went back to Byroden during the campaign; Keyleth didn't find Vilya herself; Percy ended the campaign still with a lot of damage.

Which brings me to the final point which is that as anyone who's played a character-centric, GM-ed, longform advancement-style TTRPG should hopefully know, if there is a disconnect with what you as a player want to explore and with what your GM wants to play, and it's not in conflict with what was made clear from the start (ie, you didn't show up to the game the GM said would be Curse of Strahd and get mad that it was Curse of Strahd) it is the responsibility of the player to signal both in and out of game that this is something they want. If they don't, the GM will not know. But also, if you're wishing your favorite C3 character's backstory was explored in more depth, that character exists within the context of the moon plot. That is a part of who they are; they've grown around that plot and extricating them from it would necessarily destroy parts of them. You can tell a butterfly effect story, certainly, in which things were different, but that's ultimately fanfiction and neither a theory nor what should have happened nor is it an injustice to the character that it didn't happen. It's just what you wanted to have happened.

[jewishvitya]

Tal Mitnick, an 18 years old Israeli that refused to serve in the military:

It's not just a couple of soldiers that are bad soldiers or that enact violent occupation on Palestinians, it's actually a whole system of violence. Of pulling people into the army and making them work for the occupation and for oppressing Palestinians.

Militarism in Israel is very entrenched in society. And the military is some golden goose that you're not allowed to touch. You're allowed to criticize the government, you're allowed to go out for gay rights, for women's rights. But when it comes to criticizing military action against Palestinians or other oppressed communities, this is totally out of the norm. You cannot speak against the military because it's so entrenched in society.

A lot of conversations start with the military, and because most people did serve, it's seen as this kind of thing that everyone needs to pass in order to become an Israeli.

So. Yeah. When you're older you don't feel ostracized as much because after a while it's less relevant to daily life. At least in my experience, I didn't serve and it's not really talked about much at this point.

In Jewish Israeli society, the military is trusted more than most other institutions. Tbh, more than any other institution I can think of. And it's seen as a right of passage. Some people will be okay with you if you volunteer for a social service instead - work at hospitals, schools, etc. Others think you shouldn't get the choice, and unless there's a medical issue you should be going to the military.

The narrative of self defense is absolutely believed, so by refusing to serve, those kids are seen as saying "I will enjoy the sacrifice made by others, but I will not contribute myself." It's seen as ungrateful. But that's if you don't express a moral objection to the military.

If you challenge the military itself, you're challenging Israeli society. And that's how it's taken. "I refuse to participate in the occupation" - "So you're saying I did something bad by serving. You're saying I'm a bad person." And when most of Israelis served in the military, and those that didn't serve often still support it or have loved ones that did or still do, this is challenging the moral character of pretty much all of us. Which, it should.

The military nurtures a mindset of dehumanization to a scary degree. I listened to a few interviews with stories from Breaking the Silence, an organization meant to bring to light the way the military abuses Palestinians, and there's something described by Yehuda Shaul.

He tells the story of serving in Hebron, in the West Bank, and he describes the daily stated mission of soldiers there.

While on patrol at night, they pick a random Palestinian house - explicitly one that they have no intelligence against, a civilian family - and they get in, wake the family up, separate men from women, search or something, get on the roof, jump to the next roof, get into that house, wake that family up, treat them the same way.

Again, at random. And he described two goals for this:

One, to create the feeling of being persecuted, and two, to make our presence felt.

They want Palestinians to feel beaten down and powerless, and they want them to feel that the military is everywhere, so they're too scared to resist.

This isn't random rogue soldiers, this is what the military does there on a normal day. And he said it's impossible to treat a population this way without seeing them as less human than we are.

I don't know if I can just say that the military is another tool for indoctrination in addition to everything else it does. But as a kid, I had a left-leaning friend from the Tel Aviv area, and we'd argue a lot. Because you don't need to be a full on leftist to disagree very strongly with a teenage settler. And as I was going through the process of changing my mind, I saw him going through the same process in the opposite direction - he became way more right wing during his military service. He told me the stories of why, and all those stories did was make me feel like I don't even know this person. I wonder sometimes how many young people go through the same.

[kindnessoverperfection]

Feel free to ignore this, but I'm a disabled writer who tends to focus on representation in my works, and I came across your posts about having npd while doing research for a side character in a story of mine. I really appreciate you taking the time to write out a description of npd that shows the roots of the issues and the way they affect the people who have it rather than how outsiders perceive it. I just wanted to ask if there were any traits of npd that you personally would like to see in npd representation/ if you have any thoughts on how you'd like to see characters with npd represented in media? I know at current there's basically no positive npd rep, which sucks for sure, but in a hypothetical situation where there was a character with npd who wasn't villianized for it, what sort of aspects of npd would be comforting for you to see reflected in a story?

Once again, feel free to ignore this ask if I'm overstepping at all, and I hope you have a wonderful day <3

Hi!! ♡ Apologies for the late reply, I wasn't on tumblr for a few days, then my alter was out for the next couple days and I wanted to be the one to respond-

I really appreciate that you're taking the time to research and create thoughtful representation, and I'm glad my posts could offer some help with that!

My first two thoughts are:

Characters whose symptoms present differently than the common portrayal of NPD

It's super common for people to not recognize NPD because they have this very limited view of what it is and how it can present - so it would be nice to see representation that shows variety in the way it can manifest.

For example, it's actually very common for someone with the disorder to primarily "lash in" rather than "lash out", but I never see that represented (intentionally, at least).

There's also a very limited perception of narcissistic characters being blatantly arrogant, grandiose, braggy, selfish, power-hungry, etc. But really, there's an unlimited number of ways someone can present outwardly, because the only thing that's crucial to the diagnosis is the internal experience - how if affects the person who has it. How they appear outwardly to others can vary wildly.

(I'll admit, some of these "stereotypical NPD" characters feel very relatable due to shared symptoms and vibes and power fantasies. To the extent that I have one of them as my pfp on some accounts lol. But if you met me IRL, my vibes are just "confident and bubbly, polite, quiet and distant, fashion-oriented, straight A student, cutesy, braggy, adventurous", and I always make the effort to be kind to people even though I can be somewhat distant and goal-oriented.)

It's also common to think of someone "flying into a rage" when they feel criticized - but anger (whether external or internal) isn't an inherent part of it. The issue is that someone perceives criticism as a threat, so their fight/flight/freeze/fawn response kicks in, and there's a large multitude of ways that can show up.

(Personally, I go into either fight or fawn mode. But the vast majority of the anger I've felt has been entirely self-directed, manifesting in the form of self-criticism, self-hatred, self-destruction, overworking, eating disorders, etc. I will occasionally feel outwards anger, but when I do, I give myself time and space to process it by myself so that I don't upset anyone. And even for those who feel external anger much more often than I do, it doesn't mean they'll express it in an aggressive or harmful way.)

tldr; I'd love to see a variety of outwards presentations, with the NPD being shown via their internal experience, rather than only displayed through stereotypical external behaviors.

2. Humanization for characters with NPD who make mistakes

People with NPD are human just like everyone else, which means that mistakes happen. Everyone accidentally fucks up, hurts someone, lacks self-awareness in certain areas, etc.

The level and type of interpersonal struggles, and the reasons behind these struggles, are all across the board. That's understood with any other disorder (or any sort of identity), but there's so much extra baggage and stigma applied when NPD is involved for some reason.

So for characters with NPD with higher interpersonal conflict, I'd want them to be humanized in the same way that anyone else with any other identity would be humanized. And I'd also want it shown that characters who don't have NPD can have high interpersonal conflict as well, that it's not limited to this disorder.

"what sort of aspects of npd would be comforting for you to see reflected in a story?"

In terms of specific aspects-

Personally, I'd love to see a character who like... tries to be perfect. Is externally very put-together in some way - maybe they're very kind and soft-spoken and sweet, or they're silly and happy and energetic, or they're quiet and serious and protective, or calm and mysterious and self-assured, doesn't matter. But everything seems okay on the surface.

But internally, they put so much pressure on themself. They hold themself to impossible standards, and feel like they HAVE to be seen a certain way and never show weakness. They have to handle everything perfectly. Just... so many symptoms and struggles that are hurting them internally, and overtime it ends up bubbling out in small ways, or like. Tbh I'd love it if someone would just... notice.

Notice the perfect bubbly happy straight-A student who's always kind and never shares their own opinions. Notice the quiet, highly-skilled protector of the group who somehow always knows the right thing to say and the right way to act.

And give them permission to be imperfect. To be human. Show them that they aren't their reputation or their skills or how impressive they are, they're so much more than that.

They can see the pain they're in, and instead of treating them as this untouchable perfect being, they treat them in a human way.

The super bubbly character seems completely unaffected by recent tragedy? Okay. Their friend doesn't ignore that. They don't push and prod, but they don't ignore it. They sit with them, spend time with them, hold them, they know it affected them.

I'm imagining a scene where the character w/NPD fucks up somehow, and they seem fine, but someone close to them suddenly Realizes and they just. Go to find them. And they're just having a massive breakdown, but the moment they see their friend, they quickly try and shove everything under the surface and act cool and unaffected and "normal", but their friend goes over and just holds them and. Ungh. 10/10

Couple months ago I did actually see an episode of a show like that, and both times I watched it, I bawled my fuckin eyes out lol.

Different people may have different answers in terms of what they'd feel most comforted by, but for me personally, I'd love this so much, because this is how I present and I desperately want to be Seen and Loved and have someone see my self-worth as being inherent and not tied into how "perfect" I am.

Closing thoughts:

Personally, there's not much that I'd feel offended by. To be honest, in addition to characters who fit the above points (various presentations, average-level interpersonal conflict, etc.), I also write characters who have that "stereotypical" presentation. I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as it's not done maliciously, especially if there's other types of characters shown. (Similar to having both gay villains and gay protagonists or side characters, y'know)

The only thing I'd dislike / that would hurt my feelings is like... seeing a character be heavily demonized for their traits*, or the only characters with NPD being horribly abusive, or the usage of stigmatizing language (aka, if the character is spoken about the way buzzfeed articles speak about us).

*aka, demonized for the symptoms. Totally fine if someone does something shitty and it's pointed out as being shitty / if people dislike them for that lol.

Hopefully this isn't getting too long, but to give an example of what I mean, something I saw that did hurt my feelings was like-

There was an episode of a show where a character got super braggy and confident, and was relishing in the praise and admiration she was getting. Hinging her self-worth on that recognition and success. And her friends got annoyed and pissed off, simply because she was braggy. There were a couple of things here and there she did that were kind of insensitive, but that was never really pointed out or seen as the main issue, it was only her bragging that was being demonized for some reason.

And then her friends all ganged up behind her back and did something to intentionally trigger a crash and make her feel insecure and terrible about herself, all to "knock her down a peg". And the narrative framed that as being justified, framed her friends as being correct in this situation. They never once showed concern for her mental health or the fact that she was hinging her self-worth on other people's opinions of her, they tore her down for her bragging instead of either a) supporting and uplifting her, or b) showing concern for unhealthy mindsets, and they never even tried to approach her or communicate with her about the things she was doing that actually were insensitive.

Hopefully that wasn't too much of a tangent lol, but that's the type of thing I mean by "being demonized for their traits". Hate when all a character is doing is bragging and feeling good about themself and the narrative frames them in an extremely negative light for it :(

Okay I will wrap up the post here as it's already pretty long, but hopefully this helped a bit!! Thank you for the question, and good luck with your writing! ^^

[olderthannetfic]

I know about the origins of the Bechdel Test, but I do think it's inaccurate to say it's not meant as a criticism of movies that don't do that. I think that when people stop thinking in binary terms of "is this feminist?" or "is this anti-feminist?" and instead look at things more holistically, that you can recognize both that a character like Mako Mori is great, a step in the right direction for female characters in action movies and especially WOC, go forth and stan her and write all the fanfic you want.... but yeah, it is also a valid criticism of the movie (and many others like it) that she doesn't talk to or have relationships with any other woman in the film.

I think one thing to help people realize just HOW much of women's lives are being left out of media representation when we never talk to other named women about something other than a man in movies, is to just think about your own life. I talk to my mom every day, and if we are not talking about my stepdad or my brother-in-law (and I don't think we've ever had a conversation that wasn't at least IN PART not about them or another man), then it passes the test. I'm a professor and when I talk to a female student about her homework or project (which is, again, something that happens pretty much every day I teach), that's passing the test. If I order food from a female cashier and she has a name tag, that's passing the Bechdel Test! It's literally just constant for the vast majority of women on the planet, and that's what's being left out of our stories.

Like, I like the takes I've seen about how part of the joke in Dykes to Watch Out For is that this is *particularly* alienating to lesbians - as a lesbian myself I agree - but I also think it should be frustrating to straight and bi and ace women as well, because like unless you are like exclusively interacting with your husband or male relatives every single day + you work in a workplace where you are literally the only woman, you are almost certainly passing the test constantly. That's a pretty big part of women's lives that Hollywood is leaving out!

But I think it's important to view it as just one piece of the discussion about feminism and women's representation in film, not the final judge on if a film is feminist or not. Which it wasn't intended to be - as you said, it was mostly a joke on the extreme maleness of 80s action movies. Honestly, I do not miss those days on Tumblr where people were obsessed with declaring certain movies/TV shows/other fandoms they liked as "feminist" or "anti-feminist" and the really bizarre granular discussions people would have between two works that BOTH had a long way to go in terms of representing women. I remember people in the Fullmetal Alchemist fandom would use this to argue about if the original anime or Brotherhood/the manga was better - when both have some fantastic female supporting characters, but are ultimately male-centered stories where even a lot of those women's lives and stories are centered around their male love interests and family members. It's better than a lot of shounen, but if that's your bar for feminism - either version - you have a long way to go (and need to watch WAY more anime because there's sooooo much of it that is female-centric). I also remember people coming up with other tests that were blatantly silly: like I thought the Mako Mori test about "if a woman has a motivation/story that isn't centered on a man" was fair because it did point out a legitimate criticism, but there was that ridiculous "Tauriel Test" where it was "a woman who is good at her job." And it was entirely about someone just disliking that movie critics and feminist commentators alike were down on the Hobbit movie trilogy, which a) were bad movies, sorry you have bad taste, b) are absolutely not where you should focus your attention if you're so concerned about women's representation in film, Tolkein has always been a sausage fest! And her big thing was being mad that people thought Judi Dench's M in Skyfall was a better female character, and so she arbitrarily decided she was "bad at her job" and Tauriel was "good at her job" even though that's completely subjective and can be challenged in both cases.... but also, once again, why are you looking to the fucking JAMES BOND franchise for movie feminism! There's nothing like comparing the relative "feminism levels" of JAMES BOND and LOTR to make it obvious that this is 100% about validating your subjective taste preferences by giving it a "progressive" excuse, not actually about feminism and not actually caring about women's representation beyond how it makes you look good. And yet SO many people took that transparently stupid post seriously. I'd see professional articles mention the Tauriel Test as "one of the new tests" like there was anything serious about it.

And then on the flip side, over-reliance on the Bechdel Test alone led to some clueless conclusions especially in anime fandom, given that anime has an abundance of shows that exclusively feature female characters in school clubs being cute, where those characters are nonetheless two-dimensional archetypes designed for the male gaze. Someone like fandomsandfeminism did a presentation at an anime con that called one of those types of shows "feminist" and some Japanese user eviscerated it, but that just led to the equally shallow fandom analysis of "everything a Japanese person says about anime is automatically more valid" and "any Westerner who wants to criticize anime on feminist/progressive grounds is culturally appropriating and ultimately coming from a place of ignorance, even if they literally have a degree in Asian studies."

Wow, this turned into a rant about the history of bad "feminist media criticism" on this website. Sorry about that, I think I had a point in here somewhere. I guess that the Bechdel Test is indeed a joke and those origins should be understood, but also, I don't think it's wrong to say that it identifies a real problem and one that people could probably take MORE seriously than they do - but as just one part of the conversation, not the Feminism Litmus Test, and certainly not as a dick-measuring contest about whose fandom gets them more progressive brownie points.

--

I think as long as we grasp that the joke is "The bar is so far under the ground that we might as well go home and eat popcorn there", it's fine.

The real issue with the test is that people started thinking a pass was meaningful.

If you say something like "X% of 2020s movies can't even manage this weaksauce level of women existing", that's a meaningful statistic. Even if you got a couple of data points wrong, you're not factually wrong enough for it to matter because X is going to be some massive, massive percentage, and the overall trend is so clear.

But a pass is nothing to celebrate, and that's where we went wrong.

Like you say, litigating which of two big franchises that barely do anything with women wins on tumblr points is idiocy.

I think people are so unaware of what media that genuinely centers women even looks like that it's hard for them to even begin having a discussion.

I personally have been a massive fujoshi type from adolescence, and media that centers female characters isn't actually what I typically want. (Though media that is by and for women and that doesn't give a fuck what men think of this is.) I am also not much of a fan of slice of life in general...

But when I was coming out and figuring my shit out, being able to go buy collections of Dykes to Watch Out For was incredibly valuable to me.

Ditto the other lesbian comic books that were just sitting there in the bookstore. I'm sure if I went back and reread them all now, I could find things to nitpick or ways they were more for lesbians and less for me as a bi girl, but the really distinctive thing they did was let me exist in a world where media isn't all 80s sausagefest action movies where women are not people.

In fact, they were a world where men don't matter terribly much—not because they're dramatically rejecting men in some facile and reactionary way but because... who cares? They just had other priorities... and this was normal.

It feels like people who've never taken a vacation from really mainstream media just have no concept of what it would feel like to exist in some other space.

And I think that's a pity even if, like me, they later choose to go read mostly BL later instead of focusing on female characters or they genuinely love trash 80s action movies despite everything wrong with them. It's not just sexist media that's the issue: it's that feeling like the fish can't see the water it's swimming in.

[richea]

Arise review

After buying the game at launch, I finally, finally finished my playthrough of Tales of Arise. Normally I would just write a few thoughts on Twitter and leave it at that, but I found I had a lot of things I wanted to touch upon with this game. With the prior two entries in the series, I kind of just rushed to finish them and then let them collect dust in my brain afterwards. However, back then I had other Tales games I wanted to try for the first time, so part of it was I was itching to get to ones I knew I would enjoy more. I got all caught up with the series before Arise was even announced, so there's no excuse this time!

With Arise, I took my time (well, maybe too much time), and let myself really process the game before I let myself finish it, in order to give myself a more solid basis for how I will feel about this game going forward. To that end, I wanted to really write down my feelings on the game in depth, touching upon all the various aspects of it and how everything made me feel.

Quick warning: if you don't accept criticism of Arise well, this isn't the review for you. I am approaching the game from the perspective of somebody who has played every other entry in the series and ruminated on all of them for years on end. I will be critical of the game in this piece. I'm not trying to tell people how to feel on the game, this is all purely my own thoughts and feelings, from the perspective of a long time Tales fan who deeply cares about the direction the series is going, and more importantly, its rich history.

I am also not looking for people to change my mind on the game, so please do not try to tell me my feelings are "wrong" or that I'm not appreciating certain things properly. I'm not looking for discourse.

That said, if you are someone who is interested in my perspective, then by all means enjoy the essay that is to come.

―――

In this post I want to dive into all the different aspects of the game and talk about each in depth, namely the story, characters and gameplay. I think it's more interesting to judge a game by balancing all these traits rather than just pinpointing one specific thing and basing my entire view of the game on that one thing (for instance, I tend to value interesting characters first and foremost when I indulge in media).

That said, for a quick TL;DR of my feelings on various things, when compared to other entries in the series:

Story: 2/10 Characters: 1/10 Character designs: 3/10 Other UI designs (such as monsters/menus/etc): 0/10 Battle gameplay: 4/10 Other gameplay: 4/10 Music: Undecided, which in its own right may not be a good indicator of how I feel about it Graphics: As a video game it's a 10, for Tales specifically it's a 9/10 for the graphics themselves and a 1/10 for the lack of anime portraits and the portraits we got just look awful (how does Ufotable only get worse with its Tales designs?)

Visual presentation

I want to start by acknowledging the graphics, as it's something that has zero relevance to how I feel on video games. Arise is a very pretty game! There is no denying this. I found myself stopping and just moving the camera around to admire all the pretty landscapes and views in the game. The character models are also very nice.

That said, like all modern Tales games, the battles are a bit overly stimulating on my eyes, because there's so much going on and lots of flashing lights. The actual effects were very pretty though.

The skits are absolutely horrible to watch. Even setting aside how I feel about the lack of skit portraits, the thin white text on top of the off-white backdrop was a horrible design choice. I think this is probably my least favorite aspect of the game. I get headaches very quickly from playing video games even just normally, and watching a ton of skits with intense eye strain did not help! There's also way too much movement with the skit... boxes? as well. Were they thinking about accessibility at all when coming up with them?

On the same topic, the subtitles for general cutscenes were also awful. The outline around the text needed to be much thicker. I could probably read 30% of the dialogue in the game. Thankfully I know a decent amount of Japanese, but still, I was interested in reading the actual translation of the text and I was having a really hard time. I feel bad for people who wanted to play with Japanese voices and don't know as much as me.

The menu UI was also very disappointing. It felt really barebones and had next to no personality to it. The big portraits drawn by Iwamoto were a nice touch (though if you're going to make such massive paintings, at least make the art itself more interesting to look at?), but it wasn't enough. They just felt like something to fill in the empty space which there was a lot of; the menu layout really did not utilize the space on the screen well, and it's double annoying when you consider how microscopic the font in the game is and how they could've used that space to make things more readable. Everything was hard to read, and again the lack of portraits was just utterly disappointing. Every time I opened the menu I just felt sad at how lifeless it felt.

Gameplay

My feelings on the gameplay are mixed. I'll start with the elephant in the room: the gald system in this game is not good. Only getting gald from chests and sub events is just a massively poor game design. Fishing helps but it's more time consuming than doing battles would be and there's really no other incentive to even doing it (at least battles would work towards EXP and getting battle proficiency things!).

The owl system was fun and was definitely a highlight of the game for me. It took me back to looking for attachments in Xillia, which is something I really enjoyed in that game as well and made the long traversing in the game more bearable. I just went from point A to point B in both Zestiria and Berseria, so this was the first game since Xillia 2 that I actually touched every corner of the map.

The battles are also a mixed bag for me. I will be completely transparent and state here that I mostly only played Shionne and Rinwell, so my feelings on the melee gameplay is very limited. My committed team was Shionne, Rinwell, Dohalim and Kisara. Between them you could hit every element weakness, on top of Kisara's high defense (and the fact that I just liked her more than Law and Alphen). From the perspective of a caster main, the battle gameplay was fine. Like other entries, you could do fun manipulation strategies to speed casting time. By the end game I was just spam casting Rinwell's highest tier spells instantly which was fun.

The healing is definitely... not great. There were a few times where I would run out of Orange Gels and then have to do a story progressing map action and it would eat the rest of my already gone CG bar. It was really infuriating. I only used First Aid the entire game, never anything else, because why would I use a better healing arte when it would just drain my gauge faster? It was a mess.

The monsters I did not enjoy. It felt really hard to stun them so it never felt satisfying fighting anything. Their movements felt WAY too grand. If every single boss is huge and epic and has moves that hit the whole map, the whole game starts to lose its impact. I also feel like they did way too much damage in a single hit, which made the healing issue even worse, and it felt more like I was trying to perfectly dodge every attack than it did managing my health in a natural way.

The skill system was just fine, no real commentary to make there. I wish there were more titles in the game however, and that they would display on the status screen (even Graces did this despite them both having the titles and skill systems merged).

Some quick other things

The campsite system was fine

I liked that the sub event indicators were really obvious, as someone who's really bad about doing sub events especially on my first playthrough (the actual sub events themselves are a different issue)

Like with fishing, I never really understood the point of the ranch

Did this game even have minigames?

I actually really liked the weapon skins system, that was super fun

Story

This is where I will start to nitpick things because I play Tales games for the story and characters first and foremost. And, having played every other game in full, my feelings on the story and writing in this game are... not very high.

To start, I do at the very least think Arise had some interesting starting concepts going on. Namely, a protagonist trying to figure out his amnesia and a girl who zaps everything she touches are pretty cool concepts! However, even from the first promotion trailer I was concerned about Shionne's story hinging too much on Alphen. The "he can't feel anything, she hurts everything she touches" plotpoints felt really, really convenient to me from the first trailer, and was a setup for having all the impact on the game being reliant on Alphen being a decent character (as well as, well, almost forcing him to be Shionne's hero, rather than him gaining that honor through actual hard work and emotion), but I was more than willing to give the game the chance to prove me wrong on that aspect.

I have too many feelings on the character writing so I will be giving them their own section below.

Anyway, sadly, I think those are the only two interesting and unique things in Arise's narrative. Everything else the game has done has been done in a prior Tales game but better. Let me go down the list (non-comprehensive as I can't remember every single theme from every single game, but I will name games that at least have these as the major theme that I can recall):

Two worlds vying for power (I could name games that don't have two worlds faster than I could name ones that do), and one world is trying to suck power out of the other one (Symphonia, Hearts)

The plotpoint about "when humans lose all their power they turn to dust" is literally exactly what happens in Hearts, while the "making people feel strong bad emotion to provoke them into our gains" is what Zestiria and Berseria's entire lore was about as well as Rebirth

Racism, oppression, slavery and colonialism (Phantasia, Destiny, Symphonia, Rebirth, Legendia, Tempest, Hearts (R removed this but there's literally an NPC who flaunts about enslaving the "lesser beings"), Berseria)

First half of the game is fighting a series of specific enemies, second half is focused on lore, especially figuring out stuff with the second planet (Destiny, Eternia, Symphonia, Vesperia, Hearts)

Do I think Tales rehashing tropes is a bad thing? No, not at all. It's something they have been doing for a long, long time. But what made it work in other games is that each game had at least something completely unique to it to balance that feeling of repetitiveness out. For instance, Hearts shows up a lot on this bullet list, but it is the only Tales game to have lore based around entering people's hearts, and the whole story is based around a fairy tale. Even the fact that it has a robot as a playable character was a first for Tales. Legendia rehashed a lot of plotpoints from Rebirth, but it had its own unique spin on things and the worldbuilding in it is completely unique with the focus on marine themes and the story structure being unique from any other game. Symphonia even keeps the same worldbuilding from Phantasia but the feels of the games are completely unique from one another due to how different the themes the stories tackle are. The issue with Arise is that I cannot think of anything unique in the game, aside from Shionne's thorns, that wasn't done in another game. And even then, all of the writing regarding her thorns is a big rehash of heroine tropes and situations in the series' past. I will go over that when I discuss her though.

Another glaring issue with the game is the skits. Normally, Tales skits have roughly 4 purposes. In order of prevalence: fun skits to show off the character's personality that the story can't showcase, the characters discussing story events to showcase the full depth of their feelings on the events as they happen, skits going over worldbuilding to explain in better detail if you didn't catch it from the story scenes (or just giving more information!), and navigational skits. Skits were always meant to be lively and engaging, even if things felt dull in the story, skits existed as a pick-me-up, and as a way to show how the characters were having fun. Skits are one of the most famous parts of Tales storytelling, specifically for this reason.

What's wrong with Arise's skits? In a franchise where the fun:dull skit ratio was 6:4 give or take, Arise changed those numbers to 2:8. Most skits were dedicated to rehashing events. Even in those rehashes, the characters were near constantly bringing up plotpoints that happened 30+ hours ago in the story. Over and over! Alphen was still talking about the first 5 hours of the game when you're on Lenegis!

Watching the skits, it genuinely felt like I was having constant deja-vu. I think I actually was worried I was going crazy at some point, because of the sheer extent of times they would have the same conversations over and over and over again. It got to a point where I would joke about Alphen and Law being on the screen together and I would say "countdown to them bringing up Zephyr" and every single time I would say that, the convo would turn to him. This was 55 hours into the game!

It's not bad for characters to reflect on the past events, but when that makes up the vast majority of their conversations, and one singular event makes up the entire personality of the character, the game feels dull very, very quickly. Skits transformed from a thing that I would usually open to find fun shenanigans between the characters and silly banter into me sighing about having to hear about Zephyr's death for the 200th time in the past 5 hours. It was very exhausting. Can we talk about something else now? My rant about this could be endless, but I genuinely want somebody to do a study on just how many times Alphen and Law bring up Zephyr throughout the game, and how many lines in the skits were dedicated to things that weren't just recapping events.

(Even then, there were cooking skits! However, I can only hear so many conversations about preparing food before I start getting bored. I know that eating and food is a BIG cultural point in Japan, but did every single "fun" skit need to be about eating? No.)

Speaking of, let me go over my feelings on the actual story and its events.

While the game did have a slow start, it wasn't that bad. The game eases you into what's going on, with the slavery and meeting Shionne. Nothing really of note to mention here. Rinwell and Law's character introductions were nothing special, but that was fine, it was still early in the game. My first major issue with the game is Zephyr's death. As it may be obvious from my above rant, the game places way too much importance on him as a character. A game mourning a character is nothing new. For instance, fractured Milla's death was a big turning point in Xillia 2. However, the entire game, as well as two entire characters, did not revolve around her death. Arise's issue is that Zephyr is barely a character, and yet the game constantly reminds you of how great and wonderful he was. We barely saw the guy, and no number of skits dedicated to Alphen and Law talking about him changes the fact that he is no more memorable than any other random NPC in the game. His death is unceremonious and was one of the most predictable deaths in the series to date.

(As an unrelated note, I am someone who loves a lot of NPCs in Tales. I love a lot of characters who have very little screentime. Two of my favorite Tales characters are Stella and Marian, who actually have a lot of similarities with Zephyr in narrative importance! The difference, however, is that you are not constantly having it drilled in that they are the epitome of nuance and the stories are not dictated by either character's morals, of which we never got to even see. Arise has Alphen claim Zephyr has the best moral views in the world and his entire life is dictated by those morals he was taught, and he pushes them on everyone else. Including the player.)

Zephyr's death aside, the other non-party characters are barely characters. I don't even remember any of their names. Especially the lords. To sum up my feelings on this instead of subjecting you to a long tangent on the lords, let me just drop these posts I made while playing:

One of Arise's lowest points however is how it handles its themes of racism and colonialism. I have a distinct memory of Alphen telling Rinwell to shut up when she brings up Renan oppression to him, Law tells Rinwell she's not allowed to want revenge due to her oppression, and there's this not-so-great scene on Lenegis where the party reflects on how... one of the lords was "only human" for wanting to enslave the Dahnans and how they can "see" his point of view? NOT GOOD! One of the comments I made while playing the game was "Alphen would stop Cless on his quest of revenge and he would also tell Velvet she's over-exaggerating is kind of my feelings on him at this point" and I still stand by it.

In general, the story is just very predictable. At no point in the game was I surprised by what was going on. Well, no matter, there's other predictable things in Tales games! ...But the difference is that other games, I at least was compelled by the characters and their reactions to those predictable events. Or, their personalities alone would carry me through plotpoints I otherwise found boring. Arise never endeared me to its cast, yet it expected me to find shock value and importance in its very predictable storytelling. I remember when the party takes on the lord who kills Rinwell's family, they said "we'll spare her life" (which is its own long rant but I digress) and I went "oh well someone DEFINITELY won't kill her one second later" and then Vholran showed up as I was saying it! Then, Alphen JUST so happens to get his feeling back in his body after Shionne walks right into Vholran's arms! This was truly the point in the game where I completely gave up on enjoying it and I started to only push myself to beat it just so I could get it over with.

The story sadly saw no improvements after that point either to remedy my soured feelings. The only two things I enjoyed after that point were the little bit with Dohalim's past and him making the speech on Lenegis, and Rinwell touching Shionne's hand in the final scene in the game.

I could go on forever about the story, but I will leave it at that.

As for the sub events, you couldn't really call them "events" when they were just one or two lines about defeating monsters. I did every sub event in the game up until before the final dungeon. I was very unimpressed by them.

Characters

This is absolutely my least favorite part about the game. As I stressed at the beginning, what I go through media for is for the characters. Good characters can salvage just about anything for me. When I watch story scenes, I'm always thinking about how it makes the characters feel. I went into Arise thinking "even if the story doesn't cater to me, at least I can fall back on enjoying the characters and their banter".

As you can already tell, I was utterly disappointed with the cast in Arise.

Alphen

He is easily the contender for my least favorite Tales protagonist, hands down. The issue with Alphen is he never has any original ideas at any point in the game. He always attributes any of his morals to Zephyr. He would go on tangents, explaining how other characters should feel about things, but when asked he got all of his ideas from Zephyr. It seriously felt as if he never thought for himself.

Making this worse is the fact that he would explain how everyone should feel. He would tell Rinwell to stop being mad about her oppression, he would tell Law to listen to his feelings on Zephyr and change his view on him based on his view of who Zephyr was, he would tell Kisara how to feel regarding her place as a woman.

Worst of all, however, was how he would talk to Shionne. Any time she would have an issue, he would make it about himself. In her most important scene in the game, where she's talking about how her thorns make her want to die, he made it about himself. She said what she wanted for herself and he said "whether you like it or not, I'm taking matters into my own hands". Yes, Tales has done this before, with the heroine wishing to die and the hero telling her he won't allow that, but it's infuriating in this case when he never lets her think or act or move or do anything without his input. There's countless scenes in the game where she would be upset and want time alone and he would force her to talk to him about her feelings. Shionne was not permitted to ever exist without Alphen forcing her to talk to him about it and expecting her to go along with what he wanted, and his feelings about her situation. Again, past Tales game have had this, but when it's so constant and so prevalent, and is the only thing the character has to them, it becomes exhausting and annoying.

Also, his only "unique, fun" trait was that he likes armor, but this dialogue only ever showed up... when you made armor?

I was really disappointed with Alphen. Which is really not good when he is the protagonist, and Shionne's entire character also hinges on him. Especially given the grand finale to the game was their wedding, when I saw no romantic tension between them, because all he ever did was explain how she should feel. He was such a mess. I have more I could rant about with him but I need to leave it at that.

Shionne

Shionne is a big bundle of wasted potential to me. That said, she is probably one of the only characters in this game who felt like a character.

Like I said above, her thorns are an interesting concept. However, the handling of it really was standard Tales heroine tied to a cursed fate. The damsel scene, the way she wants to die but the protag talks her out of it, etc. That said, I did think her trauma with never being touched in her life was interesting, and it did make me emotional at points, even if the execution was poor.

I just really, really wish she could've been a character separate from Alphen. Her writing truly was doomed from the start with him being the only person who could touch her. Again, it felt like she bonded with Alphen because he's the only person who can touch her, rather than them actually making a proper bond as people.

Rinwell

Rinwell is... fine? I honestly don't have a lot to say here. I think it was nice that she got importance as the spiritual person in the party, and her banter with Dohalim was nice. I really disliked her relationship with Law however, and again, I hated that Law and Alphen tried to talk her out of her revenge. She was in the position as a "spiteful" person who "needed to grow out of it" but... her family was massacred? Why is Law allowed to be furious about his dad dying, but she's not allowed to be mad about her family being killed? The hypocrisy in regards to Rinwell seriously infuriated me and I felt really bad for her.

Law

Hoo boy. I really do not like Law either, for many of the reasons I don't like Alphen. He does with Rinwell what Alphen does to Shionne. What is with Arise men and mansplaining everything to the girls and refusing to let them have any agency or thoughts without their input?

He was also supposed to be the "mood maker," except his only mood making scenes were Hootle pecking him in the face or him saying something dumb and Rinwell calling him an idiot. It really wasn't that funny and felt like borderline bullying.

Law falls under a Tales archtype I normally really really like (Tytree, Spada, Hisui, etc), so I was expecting to like him quite a bit, but sadly I just... do not. See my Zephyr rants above as well.

Kisara

Kisara is probably the most unfortunate character in the cast. In theory, I really like Kisara. I'm a big fan of knight ladies, and I always enjoy the older woman character in the party (even if only in her 20s). In practice however she just... completely misses the mark. All of her scenes are dedicated to one of three things: working (or not working) under Dohalim, her brother, or how she can be a proper woman. Yikes! It's not good when a female character's entire character revolves around what she can do for men! There's many skits where she asks "what can I even do if everyone cooks for themselves" and her conclusion is... to follow her brother's dream? Kisara, can't you find your OWN dream? And no, bringing up how she can help Dohalim also doesn't count here.

I don't hate Kisara for being who she is, but I really just want to have a stern talking to with whoever wrote her. A female character should not revolve around men and being in the kitchen. Seriously. This game came out in 2021, you should've known better.

Dohalim

While I didn't like his introduction scenes much, he grew on me a lot throughout the game, and he definitely felt the most like a Tales character to me. There was a lot of humanity and nuance to him, and he had the honor of actually having his backstory shown on screen. He had a lot of facets to him: the part of him that was a Renan leader, the part of him that supports the party, his own goals, his own motivations, interesting relationships with other characters, as well as (and maybe most importantly) fun things about his personality via his breaks from seriousness as well as his fondness for music and artifacts.

Overall he felt very fleshed out, and I really wish he had been put in another game. I came out of Arise quite content with the character that was Dohalim, which I cannot say for anyone else.

Closing thoughts

Overall, this is probably the most disappointed I have been with a Tales title. Of course, I don't think every game is perfect, and there are games that I will admit just don't click with me personally that others adore, and likewise there are games that I think fall flat in some regards but resonate with me for the characters.

For instance, I think Tempest is a perfectly fine and even charming game, despite it being more on the barebones side of things. I do not hold Tales games to unrealistic expectations when it's not necessary, and I always think of a lot of things when I base how I feel about the game: crunch time, what the creators had in mind when making it, what heart was put into the story, what fun I am able to find even in the game's flaws. Things to that effect.

Where Arise differs for me is that many of the decisions I dislike about the game were intentional. The lackluster, yet overbearing monsters were intentional, the lack of skit and status portraits were intentional, the story not being that compelling, but taking itself way too seriously and acting as if it's the pinnacle of Tales writing, is also what the producer of the game flaunts when he discusses it. All of these things negative attribute to the quality of the game. Arise scratches away the charm that Tales games have, yet it is flaunted as being something groundbreaking when the story never attempts a single new trope.

It's not one deviation from series staples, it's a whole cluster of them. Why was there any reason to remove post battle dialogue, when that is something everyone absolutely LOVED about the series? Why are skits, which are part of what brought Tales to fame, boiled down to recaps of story scenes and not fun moments, which is what everyone is excited for when they go to open a skit? Why are the cute and iconic monsters completely gone, when every single game used the same designs? Why does the producer for the series actively hate the things that the fans love about Tales?

Arise is essentially a long laundry list of bizarre decisions made by the producer with awful execution, and then sadly the writing does the game absolutely zero favors. I came out of playing it feeling hollow. I've been revisiting some older games after playing it, and I've been getting legitimately emotional at how the characters in these other games actually talk to each other like people, and don't just bounce recaps of events back and forth to each other. Other games know how to have fun, and they have compelling characters, which is really what has always been the thing bringing people back to this franchise.

Would I like Arise more if it wasn't labeled a Tales game? Honestly, no, given I only ever played it because it's under the Tales branding. And I shouldn't have to even ask myself that, given I play Tales to enjoy Tales, and its tropes, and all the fun little things these games provide that no other series can give me.

If and when the next Tales game comes out, I will still probably play it. But so long as it is under our current producer, I will go in incredibly cautious, given he seems adamant about hating all of the things I love most about Tales. At the very least, I hope the next game is more innovative with its writing and characters, and brings back some of the charm that even Zestiria and Berseria had.

[my-mt-heart]

Thoughts on TBOC Trailer

I'm issuing another trigger warning (for mention of abuse) and another gentle reminder that if you're happy with the trailer, then I’m genuinely happy for you. This post will not resonate with you though, so I encourage you to keep scrolling or to just block me. I really won't be offended. If you aren't happy with the trailer or you're still processing the trailer, well, let's talk about it...

There are three major issues for me. The first is the way it positions the story as Daryl's despite all the promises offscreen that it would be Carol's story this season. He gets the first appearance, the name drop, and the spotlight in 90% of the shots while Carol's side of things is like an undercurrent. I love Daryl. I love that he has his own spinoff to explore his character more deeply, but this is supposed to be Carol's spinoff equally. She may not have been marketed as much as Daryl has been over the years, but her popularity and Melissa's critical acclaim have more than earned the same amount of narrative space that Daryl has. Her being sidelined in S11 and then removed entirely from the Caryl spinoff upset an entire fanbase.

Finding out about Carol's/Melissa's return on the other hand offset that pain and started generating (organic) buzz for the show, so it baffles me that AMC wouldn't keep following that path to maximize viewership. If TBOC really is Carol's story, and I'm not saying she won't end up having the most screentime, why wouldn't they want to sell that to the Carol/Caryl fans who left, the Carol/Caryl fans who feel uncertain about the storytelling (hi 👋) and the GA who love Carol, but may not realize she's back because all the media coverage keeps leaving out "TBOC" and using Daryl as the thumbnail? When you have something amazing, like Melissa's acting and Carol's story development and Caryl's chemistry, then it only makes sense to show it off. But instead, the positioning triggered my fear of Carol being sidelined again, of her being treated as insignificant to Daryl's story and the story overall. Whether that's valid or irrational, it's still not the visceral reaction I want to have when I thought I was being treated to the epic return of the character who taught me everything I know about resilience and strength.

My second issue is the heavy-handed positioning of Daryl, Isabelle, and Laurent as a nuclear family, not just when Daryl tells Laurent that he and Isabelle want to take him to America, but the classic American image right after that of the three of them playing baseball together. Whether it's a misdirect or not—I'm having a hard time figuring out which to be honest because I know Zabel and Nicotero are more than capable of taking it in a direction that might seem wildly absurd from our POV—I'm very uncomfortable with any representation of Daryl in a manipulative relationship/friendship/nun-ship, especially if the manipulation isn't going to be addressed. And I don't expect it to be addressed going off of what Zabel and Norman have been saying about Daryl needing to open up his heart to his new family.

I have to refrain from giving out any personal details about myself on my blog, but I'll share this because I think it provides important context for my position on Daryl and Isabelle (trigger warning). I was terrified of my dad when I was a kid. He wasn't a monster like Ed or Daryl's dad, but when he was angry—and he was angry a lot—he was mean and loud and destructive. That was my frame of reference for how men naturally behave, for almost all of my adolescent life. When I started watching TWD, I recognized some of my dad's worst qualities in Daryl at first, but then Daryl grew in ways my dad never could. He overcame his predisposition as an angry redneck because he "opened up his heart" to Carol and saved all of the violence/aggression for killing zombies and fighting villains (usually). When Isabelle accused him of being like his dad to get him to stay in France (106), it cut deep because Daryl isn't anything like his dad. He's not an abuser. He's not selfish. He doesn't abandon anyone or intentionally hurt the people he cares about. He's the male role model I never had. A man of honor who deserves to be loved by someone who sees that without a doubt. Carol sees that. She was the first person to help him nurture that, whereas Isabelle keeps him in the cycle of abuse by gaslighting him into becoming a father figure to a kid he barely knows. So unless the EPs are telling a clear story about that, which they aren't, they're just glorifying toxic/abusive relationships.

Caryl is the relationship that fans have invested in for more than a decade. It's one of the most iconic relationships on television for a reason. They represent hope for their fans, some having endured hardships in their own lives similar to Daryl's and Carol's. Their fans seek comfort in a love story between two damaged, middle-aged people who thought they couldn't heal from their trauma and thought they weren’t worthy of love. Their fans have every right to expect Caryl-centric storytelling in a show that's being marketed as a Caryl show (see AMC's hashtags), especially considering they've had to wait more than two years after some assholes underestimated Melissa's value to the franchise.

I personally went into SDCC wanting to know what I could look forward to for Caryl's shared arc in addition to their individual arcs. I think a lot of people did judging by all the questions they dropped on AMC's/TWD's social media accounts leading up to the con. Side note: All of those questions were ignored in favor of questions geared toward TWD fanboys. We only got the tease at the very end of the trailer, and that tease doesn't tell us anything new. Only that, once again, it's Daryl's story and Carol is in the periphery. We already know Caryl are going to reunite. We've known for over a year and even for those who don't track filming updates, it's not a difficult conclusion to come to. The trailer can't spoil how and when and what happens after, but it can show us how Daryl and Carol remain spiritually tethered despite being physically separated. It didn't do that. It played on anxieties instead of desires, which is both tiresome and unethical.

My last issue, which we've been talking about for a while now, is the excessive friendship positioning. Yes, Daryl's and Carol's bond is rooted in a deep friendship. No, it doesn't mean they can't also be romantic. But when that word shows up in every tweet, every synopsis, and every interview, it's not only deliberate, it's targeting a specific viewership and judging by Melissa's mandated (yeah, mandated) use of it as well, I think it's less about telling Caryl fans to set their expectations (AMC thinks we're already guaranteed viewers), and more about trying to appeal to dudebros/fanboys, which is ridiculous because those fans aren't going to invest long-term anyway, not without a catalyst for more Rick stories and action-adventure stories that aren’t in Zabel's wheelhouse. It's just going to make a portion of the fanbase who will invest long-term less hopeful for what they want, plus erase the romantic potential for the GA to see. It's obviously not wrong for AMC to try to maximize their viewership. It is wrong to invalidate the profitable viewership that they have in the process. I have no idea if the show intends to surprise Caryl fans with canon by the end of the season or if certain EPs will get their way, but I do know I can't make any sense of a platonic friendship for Caryl. Insisting on that would be a huge retcon for me. A dealbreaker, as I’ve always said.

AMC started off on the right track with the very first teaser we got, showcasing the significance of Caryl's relationship in the tagline, "To find home is to find each other.” The SDCC trailer feels like we've taken three giant steps backward. I came out of it feeling like the story Zabel, Nicotero, and some faction of AMC want to tell isn't for me, that my favorite characters aren't for me unless I'm willing to forfeit my understanding of them to make the fanboys and certain EPs feel justified in their biases. It doesn’t feel good.

That’s all of my SDCC coverage for now. I appreciate everyone for giving me the space to voice my honest opinions. It might be a buzzkill, but it’s the only way for AMC to properly assess what’s working and what’s not working for their audience 🤷🏻‍♀️

[yuurivoice]

The question about how you write characters reminded me of a question I'd been meaning to ask you for a minute!!! I've noticed almost all the boys have veryyyy distinct diction, which I thought was really cool. It's not just a difference in voice or accent. This was first super obvious to me with the Auron penthouse tour audio when I knew just a moment before he said it, that he'd describe something as "preposterous."

SO my question is how do you do it + maintain it? And is there ever a point where it comes subconscious as your writing a character's script?

That's something I've become more and more conscious of as I've added characters and sometimes it's not the easiest thing! Sometimes I actually think it's a weak point of mine I need to focus on getting better at and am actively conscious of as I'm writing nowadays.

We run into the "creative vs. worker" situation I'm in where as much as I want to be really good about that sort of thing, sometimes I just need to get the fucking work done if I wanna eat so I better stow my ego and perfectionism and trust that it's fine and I'll get another crack at doing a better job of it next time around. There are times where I'll be deep into a recording session, second guess myself, and want to re-write or do another take of the WHOLE THING and it's like...no dude we gotta go. lol

Familiarity with characters matters a ton. I think I did a great job with the most recent Faust stuff, where he felt really unique among the roster of boys. His speech, mannerisms, and character in general gets me further away from what I'm familiar with. I knew it was something I wanted to nail with him, and I think just being aware helped a ton as I worked through it.

Alphonse and Charlie suffer from my unbearable enjoyment of having that accent say big words. It's just fuckin funny to me and will never not get me to giggle, even if it shouldn't really be in their everyday vernacular. Charlie has the added lore excuse of being lowkey smart (Jessie mentions he should have stayed in school) and being Auron's beta reader. Alphonse isn't necessarily well read, but he knows words. Perhaps too many at times, but it's something I'm aware of.

Auron is right in the sweet spot, him being a bit arrogant + desperately romantic allows me to go directions that don't necessarily fit with the rest of the roster.

Seth is similar in that the southern sweetheart approach opens up its own language opportunities.

Finn is one that I'm still playing with. I like when he gets poetic and thoughtful. I think the sweet spot with him was in the hiking/bug audio. Shoutout to that commissioner btw, because I really tucked some lore in that thing years ago. He gets the most "dreamy" of the lot, I think? He romanticizes the mundane the most, and I don't think that was even a conscious choice at first.

As I tackle Echoes and other projects that involve more characters and variety I'm definitely becoming more and more aware of my habits. I actually think that aside from "cook with this mf narrative", ensuring that my individual character voices are distinct and strong is priority number one in the writing room for me right now.

Saying ALL OF THAT to say thank you for thinking that, I'm a tough critic when it comes to myself, but if I've managed to make someone think I'm decent at what I've identified as a weakness, I can at least know that I don't have to beat myself up over it lmfao.

[sweatandwoe]

bioware da:v stuff

Ohhhhhhh, I forgot about it being multiplayer originally urrrggHHGGG nightmare nightmare

EA/BIOWARE execs I hate your flaccid brains.

They do claim to "have a mastery of the frostbite engine now" but an RPG should never have to be forced into that FIFA engine! It looks so "bloomy" & waxy, the camera jerks around to be "immersive" when the character runs. It feels like they were told to keep adding post processing effects so some suit could say he punched it up.

I still hope the gameplay will be fun/wellmade but I have to admit I personally don't care about how heavily the story is going in on elves as the one important™️ race to the world setting.

I'm playing BG3 & DOS2, trying to tell myself I can't compare Bioware to Larian as they are very different styles of RPG studio but oogh more time passes & the more I enjoy the way Larian does it. As an ancient Bioware game fan, it stings.

BIOWARE CRITICAL (I ranted more than I thought)

Frostbite Engine is probably why we also got an art direction change, that feels closer to Fifa. It wouldn't surprise me if that's also where the hair physics comes in, as Fifa does have that. It doesn't look bad to me, however, I saw someone describe it as Pixar-lite and I can never unsee it. Also, the Megamind Qunari was certainly... a choice.

Also Frostbite used mostly for multiplayer games and the scrapped live service/multiplayer DA game, also got used here. From just a lot of elements that I don't wanna go into here (this post is already very long)

I think the combat actually looks fun but I've seen people call it CRPG still and no, it's an action RPG. I wouldn't expect anyone to go and expect BG3 combat (Or story elements). I do wonder if it'll get old quickly though, and also that the monster designs aren't scary at all and look really goofy. The Ui/hud stuff during fights is also pretty messy and I hope they have options to remove things from it at launch.

Putting the rest under a readmore, I went in depth lmao

Elves are taking certain front, but also it feels like in a weird direction. We're in Tevinter, Dwarves have strong relations with Tevinter but there isn't even a faction related to them? Also, we have a high focus on the elves, which is to be expected with the plot of the last game.

But also we're in Tevinter and I haven't seen, ya know, any mention of the slavery, which elves are a major portion of. Like none of the ads talk about it (which could make sense). No articles I see mention it. It feels... weird. Especially given we're seeing Solas' backstory in this game, and how he freed slaves was important to his character but yeah little to no mention of it

That being said I also have heard nothing about the story spoilers, besides what some people posted on Twitter, and it was scraps. A lot of people who just played the first 7 hours, are releasing their reviews and say the story is good, but won't go into details because of spoilers? Make a spoiler video, I'll watch it, but I wonder if Bioware/EA didn't allow the mention of any story elements to preserve "their surprise choices" (and any story elements hardcore fans would get pissed at)

FOLLOWING IS A SMALL SPOILER (TWO LINES) FOR VEILGUARD, I think it's important to see before you buy it but BE WARNED

God this line pisses me off so much

Solas should have negative traits, actually, and make huge mistakes, like he was known to do in the last DLC released, a decade ago. No matter how many plans he has, he usually fucks it up by going too big.

He literally was chumming it up with Mythal, "she was the best of them", yet here he is pointing at (probably) her and Elgar'nan as they become Gods. I think making him fully against the system from the start and not someone who once enjoyed some benefits of the system, even if he didn't engage in the slavery aspect of it, to become friends/rivalry with the Evanuris but as they grew in power, and eventually murdered the only one of them he considered actually good, the light bulb went off in his head, is like, really a big character retcon to me.

Despite how bad they were, Solas didn't want to lock them away. He despised and loved them. He never killed them, he couldn't, either do to his limited power or due to his friendship with them. He loved his People, that he would cast everything he loves, all away for their freedom.

And when he returns, he doesn't even see the Dalish as elves. He think he's failed them and wouldn't care if they all died, if he could bring back the power to restore his People, even if it means bringing back the Evanuris. And if they go "well he was going to break the veil without trying to actually awake/unlock them", that is dumb writing. He understands that they are the consequences that he will unleash onto the world at the end of DAI and that he thinks life with magic is better to bring back the People, even at the cost of the world itself or the People's freedom at that. The People who he doesn't even consider are modern elves. He doesn't give two shits about modern elves, only the ancient ones he's lost. He seems them as his failures and instead of, ya know, actually trying to help them regain their lost cultures and lands he jumps to "actually you all are horrifying, you can die while I regain my own world"

The Elf!Inquisitor is the only elf he truly sees as a person, the potential to be a member of the People in his eyes. Everyone else is a fool or a tool to him.

BG3 and DSO2 are such healing things for the RPG fantatic soul. They have their problems, but the quality is so much higher than I ever expected to see. The way choices actually matter and have direct consequences in the one game vs having to wait until the sequel to see if collecting ten bear asses for that one dwarf lady gets you a special dialogue option.

Larian has got my support always, they made DSO2 so good, that I pre-ordered BG3 all the way back in Oct 2020. I have no desire to ever pre-order another Bioware game, except maybe some remasters.

[merp-blerp]

So I haven't seen Disney's Wish myself (I'm waiting for it to assumedly go to Disney+, theaters are a lot of money to spend too often), so I can't speak on the film from my own point of view yet, but I have seen the reaction to it so far and I wanted to share my thoughts on why I think some of these reactions are happening, based on my own experience of watching and listening to the Disney fandom's critiques over the many years I've done so. These are just my observations based on my experiences and it's okay to disagree, just be cordial.

Opinions below the cut ↓

I feel like a part of why Wish is the way it allegedly is has to do with something that has been plaguing Disney for a while: trying to prove bad-faith criticisms wrong instead of knowing their strengths.

I'm sure they still happen, but especially in the early and mid-2010s Disney had a lot of half-baked criticisms directed at their stories and characters. Wish might be another one of many attempts to quell these critiques. For example, I remember a common piece of writing advice would be to make villains complex all the time, with villains who are evil for evil's sake being seen as less well done (this was towards media in general, but it applied to Disney too), so Disney began the surprise villain and/or the sympathetic villain trend in their films. Now people have seen that shtick so much they want traditional villains back (me too). It's now overdone and no longer shocking or subversive in their movies anymore. [And as a little add-on, I understand why people want King Magnifico's design to be more "traditionally villainous" but I'm actually happy he isn't, as it's really hard to design a villain like that without perpetuating some kind of bigoted stereotype that a lot of traditional villains have. Even Mother Gothel, one of the last, if not the last of the classic villains Disney has attempted, had a lot of antisemitism baked into not only her design but also her actions. Disney's done that a lot, which is likely accidental, but still bad. I'd much prefer him to look and act like some guy over an awful Jewish stereotype or something similar.] People also called princesses with the temperaments of, say, Aurora, Belle, or Cinderella "boring", or hell, "sexist" in their characterization, so the heroines were made more relatably quirky, as that type of humor towards/by girls and women were very popular in the 2010s. Asha is allegedly somehow both socially inept and socially competent, which arguably isn't a flaw at all, just contradictory. (My neuro-spicy brain wants to somewhat lean towards neurodivergence when I hear that, but I haven't seen the film, so what do I know?) Now people are souring to that too, understandably, as that humor's kind of dated and overdone with Disney's heroines. These traits aren't bad on girls automatically, especially if they make sense for the environment they grew up in like Anna or Rapunzel, but they've just been done to death with Disney. Ironically, now when I see people suggest alternative traits for Asha they propose a more "sophisticated", "mature", or "self-assured" type of personality, aka, what the "sexist" traditional heroines had a lot of the time.

The newer tropes Disney tried to do in place of their old ones don't have as much staying power as the old. Once they're done so much they get stale. If they're based on trends in media rather than being actually captivating in writing, they become timely. People can digest characters like Cinderella, who are interesting and aren't overly worried about upholding trends in their characterization, for centuries whether they realize it or not. But characters like what Asha is allegedly like are based on trendy, shallow politics that aren't as deep as they sound, maybe sometimes even circling right back into the bigotry it was trying to combat (like the girl-boss stuff), and become overdone and/or dated if they aren't done well or in a new way. I feel like because of the poorly made assessments that people used to make towards Disney, Disney is almost embarrassed by their past films when they really shouldn't be. This is why the recent remakes tend to over-correct the originals. In the original Beauty and the Beast, it was not a flaw that Adam was eleven when he was made to look like a beast in my opinion, it just made it more interesting, but some reviews saw it as a bad thing, so they changed the line in "Be Our Guest" that implied his age. It was seen as a flaw that the original Cinderella didn't have a clear reason to stay with her abusive family, even though that's how familial abuse works often and it's really rude to victims to ask "Why don't you just leave?" or something like that; so Disney gave Ella the explanation that she stays because it was her father's home in the 2015 remake, which only added more flaws when you remember that she does leave the house in the end anyway. What was the point in saying that? People wanted strong female characters, so Mulan in her remake is a flawless, emotionless girl-boss. It was seen as sexist when female characters wanted romantic love because "girls don't need a man, so romance is sexist", so Disney stopped telling love stories and focused more on issues of the self, which isn't bad, but now people want Disney to tell love stories again and are disappointed that Asha didn't have a romance with the mostly cut "Star-Boy" character in Wish (again, me too, I love Disney's love stories). All of these are overcorrections to things that were never flaws to begin with, just nit-picks from bad observations of their films. There are too many examples. It's like Disney is insecure.

If Disney understood that these things weren't bad in essence, Wish would be more liked by its critics; if Disney wasn't afraid to let their female characters have actual flaws, not see romantic love as something dated, not continue to listen to these types of shitty judgments, or just take more risks again because that's what shaped the company—taking risks against the odds, Wish would be better (I assume all of the former based on what I've heard, again I haven't seen Wish myself). The pseudo-feminism and CinemaSins type of critiquing from the 2010s has mostly died out. The culture's changed. The tropes people once condemned are now being begged to be brought back. What goes around comes back around. It showcases what was truly timeless and what was just a trend in media.

In my opinion, old bad-faith "fan" responses are partially to blame for these themes in recent films, but of course, Disney is ultimately at fault because they make their own choices. There could also be plenty of other reasons why Wish feels half-done to some, like the alleged poor treatment of employees behind the scenes.

By the way, if you were a Disney fan who had these types of opinions in the past, you shouldn't be hard on yourself about it, especially if you were just a kid listening to and trying to appeal to the adults that were around you or influenced you. The latter is the boat I was in once, and now I've grown up past that. Needlessly cynical film takes and pseudo-feminism were all the rage for a while and many have had that phase of being really into those mindsets. You're not bad if you've been in it at any time in the past as long as you are learning and growing.

I'm choosing to be optimistic about Disney. Somehow I still am. They have been in a creative rut for what seems like a while now. Disney-creative doesn't seem to be allowed to tell the stories they want to tell, instead being made to cater to the wrong people. The people who like to insult Disney more than they like watching their films. They should make movies for the fans of all ages who love them. But I believe Disney can bounce back from this. Disney has been through rough patches before, but these rough patches in the past have led to eras like the Disney Renaissance. I'm hoping the backlash from Wish will lead to Disney making changes once more. They've done that repeatedly in their complex 100 years of establishment. Gone are the times when the Disney remakes were panned by fans but still made tons of money that justified their continued production. And long gone are the days when fans were actually excited about the prospects of Disney recreating their movies (because yes people felt that way once upon a time). Now the remakes aren't making as much as Disney wants and sometimes even flopping. Gone are the days when their animated films were their critical lifeline, Wish proves that they are not immune to being received poorly. It's time for something new. Or old done new. Just something different. It would be one thing if this were just another bad movie, but this was their 100th-year celebration, you think they'd be more careful to not muck it up. But apparently, all it did was reflect all the flaws that have been in Disney's storytelling as of late. That's why the backlash is so great. It feels like the last straw. Once time goes on past the 100th-anniversary era, I think the hate for Wish will die down, but that wouldn't make it less potentially flawed. When I first caught wind of this film, way before we had a trailer even, I was very excited that it seemed like a return to form for Disney, but apparently, it might not be, and that's got a lot of people disappointed, especially since this movie was meant to be a celebration. I've loved Disney for as long as I can remember and I know a lot of people are the same way. People wouldn't be so disappointed in the state of the company if they didn't care deeply about Disney and believed that they could do better. I still think Disney could be great. I still believe in them. They just need to believe in themselves again.

If you made it this far, thank you so much for reading! ♥

[aphfanficwriters]

Every month we will pose a question and collate responses as a fun and informal little exercise in getting to know each other and spark discussion. This month's question is:

“Which writing rule do you most enjoy breaking?”

relmu / @iamnompuehuenu: this is my personal preference, but i absolutely adore flowery writing that borders on purple prose. maybe it's because the literature i grew up with is filled with metaphors and decorations and that rubbed off on me, but i just find it extremely beautiful and dramatic… I've come to learn that English-speaking writers are more direct and that purple prose is not seen with good eyes, but i like it so much i have to remind myself to not put too much emphasis on descriptions and metaphors when writing lol. it sometimes becomes heavy to read but for me it's a joy, though i understand it's not for everyone 🙏

prush / @proosh: you can take run-on sentences from my cold dead hands

Wasps / @petiolata: "Avoid epithets" is the one I enjoy breaking the most. To me, it's very similar to "show, don't tell". Like every writing practice that people get told "don't do that!" about, they have their time and place. Both telling and epithets can create distance, or emphasize certain qualities about the character. They can also convey information faster. I think a lot of the criticism of them comes from a lack of understanding that people read fics for different purposes and so writers will write with different effects in mind. If a fic is meant to be an extremely fast-paced suspenseful ride—and that's more important to the writer or audience than elegance of writing or creating deep POV closeness—and an epithet best serves that, then isn't it the best choice to use the epithet? What makes good writing is widely debated, but what makes a good writer in my opinion is intentionality. The ability, skills, knowledge, to accomplish exactly what effects you're going for. And sometimes that means making choices that serve pacing or kink appeal over elegance or POV depth. I probably don't use many epithets in my fics, but knowing how much unfair flack they get makes me celebrate every single one.

Tama / @delgumofics: I generally try to follow the rules since I'm always trying to grow as a writer. I think mine is run-on sentences though. If I'm writing a scene where a characters understanding of the world is supposed to be different in some way, like they're really high, or they're very emotionally charged, I use a lot of run-ons to express that. I try to put myself in their heads pace and think how they'd think, and when someone is fucked up or really emotionally charged, grammar and pacing kind of go out the window. Thought becomes one long stream of ideas and feelings so I try to express that sensation with words. That usually results in run-ons dotted with short snappy single or two word sentences mixed into the paragraph.

WhiteWings / @smuttyandabsurd: "Write what you know" seems to be taken as "write only what you know" which is a terrible rule. Write what you don't know. Push the limits of your knowledge. Deep dive into research and learn things you didn't know so you can write about it… Or don't! Revel in making it up and writing with terrible inaccuracy, it's called artistic license babes. It won't appeal to everyone, of course, and you may very well annoy a bunch of people, but you can't please everyone and you shouldn't try to.

Didi / @teaedon: first draft is the final version, and i don't cut anything out (well, rarely).

Yukihitomi / @arthurhonda: Writing rules? Don’t know em. Too busy destroying the English grammar. Punctuation besides commas, periods, exclamation points, and question marks don’t exist.

And there were those who didn't understand the assignment... 😅

Eru / @eruverse: Wasn’t aware there were rules, I do what I want and what fits best

@folightening: I'm not even aware what the rules are so I've no idea. I just write how I want.

Beetroot / @council-of-beetroot: Does anyone have a list of writing rules to reference?

Mossman / @one-more-mossman: I don't even know what rules the writing has [...] Uneducated swine I am

[leoparduscolocola]

hey, it's me. i'm not coming back to tumblr permanently, but i figured i'd post this here as a virtual diary entry of sorts (and because i don't know anyone irl that wants to talk about cetaceans at the moment). maybe this post will change people's minds, or at least get them thinking. this isn't directed at anyone or anything; it's more to clear my mind and hopefully inform others about orca captivity, seaworld, etc.

the past six months have been very difficult for me. i'm doing better now, but i'm just not at the place in life i thought i would be at right now. throughout my struggles, one of my biggest sustainers has been my passion for animals, and orcas have been my predominant obsession for a while now. the felidae family, especially lions, will always have my heart—they're the first animal i fell in love with, and they will always be incredibly fascinating and awe-inspiring to me. however, orcas have seized hold of me in a way that i can't really describe. everything i've learned about them has blown me away, from their uniquely stable, mostly nonviolent and matriarchal social structure to their incredibly diverse hunting techniques to their cultural behaviors to the wide diversity of their physical appearance. i just love them so much.

as such, it is inevitable that i would encounter debates about captivity in the course of my internet travels in search of ever more information about these animals. for most of my life, i was unapologetically pro seaworld, viewing them as no different from any other zoo or aquarium and their critics as simply having been bamboozled by the film blackfish (although i staunchly refused to actually watch the film until a few months ago, only listening to how seaworld and its supporters depicted the film to me). by the time i started this blog, i had grown more critical of them, as reflected in my pinned post. at that time, i was more critical of killer whale captivity in general than of seaworld specifically. however, after i had to leave my former college in the middle of the semester due to my mental health, i found myself with a lot of time on my hands before the start of the semester at my new college, so i started doing some more research. as a history nerd, i have always been interested in the history of human interactions with wildlife, and the history of human interaction with orcas is unique from an anthrozoological perspective. i became particularly interested in the era just before and after the release of blackfish in 2013—how seaworld, the scientific community, the animal advocacy community, and the public at large responded, and the lasting reverberations of that era today. i fired up the wayback machine and began painstakingly examining any website i could find from that era that had to do with that topic, from awesomeocean.com to seaworldofhurt.com (neither of which are credible sources, btw: awesome ocean is basically a seaworld-funded buzzfeed clone and seaworld of hurt is run by peta). what i found blew me away in the worst way possible.

the website i spent the most time on was askseaworld.com/ask.seaworldcares.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20160110084856/http://ask.seaworldcares.com/). i cross-checked the information posted there with a little-known website i urge everyone to check out, https://www.seaworldfactcheck.com/ (which i didn't have to use the wayback machine to access, because seaworld has attempted to purge pretty much everything related to the blackfish era from their websites whereas anticap websites haven't). only a handful of the sheer volume of questions they received were fact-checked by seaworldfactcheck, so i had to check a lot of them myself. i was flabbergasted by the responses seaworld posted on askseaworld. they ranged from just your typical corporate pr messaging to outright lies. a common thread running through all of them was a complete refusal to admit that they ever did anything wrong in their entire history. that's something that the entire zoological field has trouble doing, but never had i seen it on such clear display. for example, they audaciously claimed that kohana's calves weren't inbred, and that the degree of relatedness between kohana and her calves' father, keto, is standard practice in ex situ breeding programs. meanwhile, the aza says that inbreeding is to be avoided here and here. additionally, these two pages, while they focus on pedigree dogs, stress that a coefficient of inbreeding (the likelihood of having identical alleles from a common ancestor on both sides of the pedigree) over 5% leads to problems, and kohana's calves had an inbreeding coefficient of 6.25%. i'm no geneticist, but sw's response to that question is questionable, to say the least. when asked about the whales they captured from the wild, they only used the word "collected", which came across to me as corporate doublespeak attempting to obfuscate the trauma and utter cruelty of ripping these complex, cultural, family-oriented animals from their families permanently for the primary purpose of entertainment—which, regardless of their current messaging, was undeniably the purpose of seaworld when it was founded (see page 9 of that link, which is also an incredibly well-researched and well-referenced argument against marine mammals in captivity that cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it comes from an anticap source). they refused to offer even a semblance of regret for how those captures were carried out—even a halfhearted "society's standards for animal welfare were different back then" or "at the time, we had no idea how this sort of thing could impact these animals" would be better than what they said, which was simply that "those were a long time ago". ok, but just because we didn't know it was wrong back then doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. it was just as wrong then as it was now, and seaworld doesn't even say it would be wrong for them to do so now; they just repeat the same line over and over about their last captures being decades ago.

however, none of these are as bad as the askseaworld response that appalled me the most. it genuinely made me question every positive thing i had ever heard about seaworld. unlike most of the questions, the name of the person who asked it was not stated, giving the impression that seaworld perhaps posed it to itself as a sort of preemptive strike. this was their response:

this is one of the most unacceptable and heartrending things i have ever seen written by any person or entity related to animals. nonhuman animals are not a monolith; there are millions of species of animals out there, each one with its own unique behaviors, social structures (or lack of social structures), role in the broader web of life, and ways of thinking. to suggest that the social dynamics of all the animals in the world are so similar that they can be crammed into the word "most" is utterly presumptuous and incorrect. at the risk of sounding like a vegan activist, i will dare to say that this statement enforces a harmful anthropocentric worldview that implies that humans are the only species that could experience distress at the loss of a loved one. by declaring that most animals just get over a member of their social group dying without a second thought, seaworld dismisses years upon years of science revealing the social lives of animals from cows to rabbits to, yes, orcas. including parents in this statement is especially ironic, considering that mother orcas undeniably demonstrate some of the strongest bonds with their children in the animal kingdom, arguably even stronger than humans—after all, when's the last time you met a human who has never left their mother's side their whole life? with this statement, seaworld revealed a callous indifference to the rich inner lives of their animals, focusing on the grief their human employees feel when an orca under their care dies over the far greater grief the orcas themselves probably feel when a member of their actual family dies. orcas have inherent worth and dignity and that deserves to be acknowledged, not dismissed so we can all go back to empathizing with the trainers. i'm not dismissing the trainers' grief in any way; i'm not trying to say the reverse of what seaworld said. rather, i'm saying that their grief shouldn't be seen as more important or more valid than the grief of the orcas.

some might say that this single response, no doubt composed with the help of a public relations firm, should not be taken as representative of seaworld or its trainers as a whole. to that, i would say that while individual employees (i.e., orca trainers) of seaworld may not agree with this statement, it can be presumed that this is or was at the time the official stance of the corporation that is seaworld parks and entertainment, incorporated. personally, i do not think it is possible to separate support for the trainers from support from the larger corporation running the show, as financially supporting seaworld inevitably supports the corporation (which has asked its employees to do some pretty unethical things) and its stakeholders, not just its employees. customers' money is not going into the pockets of trainers; it's going into the corporation first and foremost to pay the CEO and stakeholders before a paltry amount per dollar is redistributed at the company's whim to their trainers and rescue efforts.

as i processed this response, i decided to do some more research into the anti-cap side of things. i found that, despite seaworld's constant claims that they are a science-based organization, i could not find a wild orca biologist (meaning somebody who researched orcas exclusively in the wild, without a personal connection to seaworld or any other captive entity) who supported keeping orcas in captivity in general or seaworld specifically. of course, i don't know all of the wild orca biologists in the world, so i could be missing somebody, but all of the big names who conducted the most groundbreaking research on orcas in their natural habitats condemn orca captivity, as these links show: michael bigg, alexandra morton, ken balcom, deborah giles, naomi rose, paul spong, erich hoyt, and ingrid visser. these are not peta activists—they are experts in their field with phds and decades of experience! pro-caps often accuse anti-caps of only listening to their emotions instead of science, but how is it valid to dismiss all of these esteemed scientists as being biased when their research and experiences in the field with orcas are the reason why they are against captivity? seaworld tends to portray itself as objective and rational and their opponents as emotional and irrational, but how can all of these orca experts who have nothing to gain financially from opposing seaworld be completely incorrect when it comes to captivity and the corporation that profits off of having them in captivity be completely correct? the most praise directed towards orca captivity from a wild orca researcher i could find was robert pittman referring to them as "sacrifical animals" who display obvious signs of poor welfare but need to be kept in captivity anyway so the public will fall in love with their species; hardly a glowing endorsement. in her presentation at the california coastal commission, naomi rose said something (starting at 10:36) that really opened my eyes. she said that she does not believe that seaworld and its trainers are being intentionally cruel to their animals, but that they simply do not understand them: "if they don't know what normal is, then they cannot know what abnormal is." she's saying that in order to build a solid foundational understanding of a species' normal behavior, one must spend as much time as possible observing that species in its normal, evolutionary, default way of living, i.e. "the wild". without doing this sort of firsthand research or drawing upon the scientific literature produced by those who have, one cannot claim that an animal of this species in totally abnormal conditions is displaying normal behavior. the aim of captivity for any species should be to replicate an animal's normal way of living as much as possible to allow the optimal amount of normal behaviors to be expressed, and what the scientists i have mentioned claim is that orca captivity is failing at replicating this way of living.

the institution of orca captivity in its current form takes away almost all elements of what would be considered an orca's normal lifestyle, from hunting to staying in their matrilines to communicating with other orca pods to moving large distances on a daily basis to choosing who they mate with and when to experiencing changes in water depth, light level, pressure, salinity, currents, waves, and weather. they destroy their teeth , exhibit increased aggression levels with each other (compared to their remarkably stable social structure in their natural habitat), and experience dorsal fin collapse, a phenomenon that seaworld has declared has no implications for these animals' well-being despite conducting zero research on it (seriously, imagine if all male lions' manes fell out in captivity and zoos shrugged their shoulders and said it was fine without ever exploring why). manmade enrichment and training can supplement this, but in my opinion it can never replace it entirely because these animals live such active and complex lives in the wild. basically the only natural thing that they are allowed to do in captivity is breed (but again, they can't always choose when they mate and with whom). i and the above scientists believe that orcas' welfare is already so compromised in captivity that removing this element is worth it to protect future orcas from having to endure this and to reduce demand for wild captures as genetic diversity in breeding programs runs out (to my knowledge less than 30 orcas worldwide are part of captive breeding programs) and, as we're seeing in china, new parks opening demand more orcas faster than they can be born. more and more and more breeding (chimelong has been breeding especially rapidly, forcing katenka to have 3 calves in just under four years when a wild orca would only have one calf in that time frame, and shanghai and kamogawa sea world are breeding as well) does not quell the need for wild captures; it drives it. the success of seaworld parks in the usa is likely a major factor in why businesspeople in other countries (china, russia) have started majorly investing in capturing orcas in the past decade.

that brings me to something that has really disturbed me lately. over the months since chimelong spaceship opened in china, i have seen a continual backwards shift in what the pro-cap community has considered acceptable. the number of pro-caps that i have seen praising chimelong while giving mere lip service to the fact that most of their orcas were traumatically ripped from their families is astounding. you cannot praise a facility while ignoring the source of their animals, and you cannot condemn the fact that these orcas were wild-caught while throwing your support behind the industry driving demand for these captures. i highly doubt people come to a theme park that is literally shaped like a giant spaceship with any intention of being educated or supporting conservation; they come there to be entertained, just as people came to seaworld solely to be entertained for much of its history. also, pro-caps must not ignore the fact that spaceship's parent company, chimelong, operates a deplorable circus, chimelong international circus, that abuses wild animals and forces them to perform dangerous and demeaning tricks. chimelong also operates zhuhai chimelong ocean kingdom, at which cruelty and neglect have been documented (china cetacean alliance may be connected to animal rights groups, but that doesn't mean the results of their investigations are completely invalid). this report about chimelong and shanghai, including concerning animal behavior and misinformation being spread by chimelong trainers, is also incredibly concerning. even if no outright orca abuse has been recorded at shanghai, chimelong, or other new facilities yet, it is still concerning that their sister facilities engage in such blatant abuse with other animals. if three out of four restaurants in a chain have been caught on camera serving moldy, spoiled food to their customers, it's a pretty safe bet that the fourth one will eventually be caught doing so too.

anyways, that about wraps up what is by far the longest post i have ever made on tumblr. nobody i know irl really cares about cetacean captivity, so i wanted to vent here. i am not the most anti-cap anti-cap out there for cetaceans, but i definitely am more so than i used to be. heck, i'm not even universally opposed to something like the whale sanctuary project being constructed—wikie, inouk, and keijo are likely going to be transferred out of marineland antibes soon, and even though the sanctuary model is totally unproven, i can't help but feel that their welfare would be better there than at the places they are rumored to have been sold to: kobe suma sea world, kamogawa sea world, and port of nagoya public aquarium. the former two feature tank complexes that are barely bigger than tokitae's infamous "whale bowl", and kamogawa still does waterwork. also, it is rumored that marineland antibes wants to split up their orcas between these facilities, which wouldn't happen at the wsp and would make the stress of the move even worse. however, i absolutely cannot stand the wsp's messaging; they spread a lot of poor-quality information. as many others have said before, the sanctuary model could be super risky, and it's doubtful they could construct it in time if the french government allows the orcas to be moved, considering marineland antibes wanted these orcas gone yesterday. as usual, captive orcas are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

however, i want to make one thing clear: i'm not an expert or a scientist, nor do i wish to portray myself as such. i'm just a bored college student who is obsessed with animals and has too much time on her hands. i try to get as much of my information from experts and scientists as possible, but i do not claim to be an expert and i'm always willing to learn from the scientific literature and from people who can engage in respectful discussion. in regards to captive orcas, i would certainly love to be wrong.

[hopeymchope]

I almost always seem to have the minority opinion on media. And I'm really sick of it now.

I've been on a Fire Emblem kick again lately. But unfortunately, as much as I love all of the Fire Emblem games on 3DS? That's approximately how much I hate Fire Emblem: Three Houses on Switch. ....which is, of course, the most popular/successful game in the series to date.

Okay, look: In Fire Emblem, I really like the strategy-combat stuff and the storylines + support conversations. THAT'S the tasty meat. Anything else? Is irritating busywork to me. So if I spend between 2/3-3/4 of a supposed Fire Emblem game doing the other shit? You've crafted a great recipe to make me feel like I'm MOSTLY doing stuff I hate, and thusly I shall hate your game. And that's the START of the issue with Three Houses. (I must resist getting into the protagonist being a mute cipher OR how multiple side activities require blind luck or a guide to succeed OR bitching about the weak battle map design... oh shit oh SHIT I'M OUTING MYSELF, RUN FOR IT MARTY!)

By comparison, this year's Fire Emblem Engage feels like a step back in the right direction! I'm playing it a lot right now, and I'm mostly having a good time! Still more busywork than I want in these games, but it's at least back on the side of "more good than bad." So of course, if I look this game up and read any fan reviews or watch any videos... they're all about how disapppointing and sucky it is in comparison.

God. Of COURSE they are.

I really don't know why the advances they made with Fire Emblem Echoes haven't carried into the newer games. 3D dungeons you can explore for items and enemy encounters in a Persona-like fashion? Genius! Make it the template going forward! ..... What's that? Not even most fans bothered to buy or play that game??? So no one fucking cares about that feature?

.........fucking hell. Of COURSE they don't.

See, this is how it always goes for me. If I fall in love with a movie, I'll later learn it's either hated or ignored by its own fandom or by the masses at large. If I get emotionally invested in some weird game and its characters? There's a high probability that almost no one played it. And those who did? They didn't like it as much as me. If I think a game is really annoying and full of boring shit? Great reviews, huge fandom, etc.

I could make an utterly wild fucking list of things I like/love that other people hate. And the same is true in reverse. Sometimes, even when I agree with the hate on something, I don't agree with ANY of the reasons for WHY other people hate it!

Before you ask: It doesn't matter whether I know the "majority opinion" in advance of seeing/experiencing something, or I have no clue wht people think of something until I look it up later. I've gone to many midnight premieres of movies that weren't yet screened for critics, and I typically always wind up on the wrong side of the majority. I've played obscure games just because the premise sounded good, fallen in love with them, gone looking for a fandom... and found out that everybody thinks said game is utter shit.

So I'm not just being contrarian; this shit comes NATURALLY.

However, I should make some caveats about this weirdness clear:

Sometimes I feel like I'm on the wrong side of JUST the outspoken part of the audience... but there's evidence to support that my own stance maybe ISN'T so weird. For example: My family and I have always loved 2009's Avatar. We never were dressing up like the goddamn Na'vi or anything so fanatical, but we've rewatched it many times over the years. We regularly quote it to each other around the house. And the massive success of that movie (and its recent sequel) seems to back up that this admiration/enjoyment isn't THAT crazy or esoteric, RIGHT? It's just that the Internet is extremely outspoken about Avatar supposedly being lame and totally unmemorable. Remember how people in 2022 kept being like "You can't remember even three character names from that movie! Nobody quotes it!" and shit like that? I was one of the people going "I will list you NINE characters and spew DOZENS of quotes at you."

My "minority opinion" thing only stretches so far. It's not like I thought The Room was the best movie I'd ever seen or angrily felt Tears of the Kingdom was the worst game I ever played. That would be beyond "minority" and more "MADNESS." There's a limit to this weirdness; it has to be within a certain degree of reason, you know? Some things just aren't POSSIBLE to totally flip the script on. Birdemic will always be embarrassingly terrible, and I refuse to believe anyone would legitimately feel otherwise. OK?

This isn't completely universal, either. There are always exceptions where I actually wind up on the right side of the majority. They're just... rarer than the other thing, honestly.

It gets exhausting to always feel like I'm on the defensive or at worst, utterly alone in how I think among the larger community. I don't want this anymore.

But I don't get a say, clearly. I'm just going to keep doing this. I'm going to go see a movie on opening weekend and think "Wow, what an awful piece of shit" only to find that DECADES LATER, people still cite it as one of the best movies in its genre. I'm going to adore a modern revival of a classic comic book, then I'll go online and find that it's widely considered an abomination before god. This is who I am. It's just REALLY tiring to be here.

[genericpuff]

Same anon as before talking about writing stuff and worrying about if people will find it (but not the same anon as the other asks before that) - I think many people who are budding writers and artists have these concerns and bring them to you because you A). Are a creator yourself so you know what you're talking about in a verified sense and B). Idk about other anons but some of us (like me) take your reasoning (and critique) in regard to writing seriously because of your experience and how you analyze stuff such as LO.

I think at least some of us (again I can't speak for everyone nor can I or should I) wants to make sure they're not making mistakes such as the ones RS does in writing.

Also I might just take you up on your offer of Zelda fanfic - I do so love LoZ 😅.

ugh god, am I y'all's role model now or smthing? why would you do that to yourself (ㆆ_ㆆ)

okay but jokes aside, obviously people can't help who they look up to and I'm not gonna be a dick if y'all look up to my work and what I do here, just remember also that you're not obligated to agree with everything I say or take it to heart, you also shouldn't take my analysis of LO and how it's written/drawn personally because so much of that analysis is within the VERY specific definitions in which LO exists, definitions that don't really apply to many other webtoons on the platform. If there's anything I say or criticize LO for that speaks to you and your own work on a certain level, try not to take it as a direct personal attack towards you and more just like... if the things I'm saying about LO feel like they apply to your work, take it as advice for improving your own craft.

Or don't! You can literally ignore me and do what you were gonna do anyways. I literally cannot take that away from you and you absolutely shouldn't let me. I have no real power over anyone here, that's what I mean when I say I'm just a guy participating in their hyperfixation so don't feel like you gotta take me too seriously lmao

Also, yeah, okay, I'm a webcomic creator myself, but to put myself on the cross for once - I've never succeeded at this gig. Rekindled is the most consistent audience I've had in years, I think the last time my work was in a banner rotation was in 2015 (and it wasn't on WT), and I somehow make something like $20/month off Patreon. I've had small victories along the way, it hasn't been all bad, but this isn't my living and chances are low I'll ever find mass success with it. Everything I said about not taking my opinion too seriously because I'm just a random Internet guy applies to people like Rachel as well, while I criticize her work on the basis of it being a commercial product that should know better and I DEFINITELY harp on her for a lot of shit, at the end of the day she's in no way obligated to pay even a second of attention to me because she's made way more money in webcomics in the last 2-3 years than I could ever dream of making in the 10 years I've been doing this, that's something I can't take away from her and that was never the goal when it came to discussing her work. All I have to show for my own efforts is experience and rhetoric, and a few odd readers who have been around so long I wonder why they even still follow me LOL I am your typical "can never live up to the success of those who they criticize" chronically online shitposter. I don't think I should have to be on Rachel's level to be able to discuss her work, mind you, that's half the function of an audience to begin with, but it's not like I have any real legitimacy in this industry that you should worry about what I have to say. It's not like I'm capable of robbing Rachel of her awards or the money she's made lol

And by all means, go ahead and look for my fanfiction stuff, but I'm not providing any eye bleach because I wrote it when I was like, 13 years old, so search at your own risk lmao

(and if you do find it, no you didn't （︶^︶）/hj)

[vidreview]

VIDREV: "Tim Burton's World of Sadboys" by Infinite Snow Productions

[originally posted april 29 2023]

Not only are you the exact brand of person who Neon Genesis Evangelion is about, you are also the exact brand of person who would completely and confidently miss the point of Neon Genesis Evangelion.

sometimes you come across an essay that says everything you've always wanted to say about a thing but could never quite work out how to fit together all in one place. this is one of my those. like a lot of film-loving millennials who went through an emo phase, Tim Burton holds a very special and deeply complicated place in my heart. the bizarre gothic aesthetics of his worlds brimming over with eccentric freaks captured my imagination as a deeply closeted trans teen who didn't feel normal anywhere [she] went. yes i wanted to be Lydia from Beetlejuice, no i never sat down and questioned what that might say about me personally! some of my earliest childhood memories are of playing with a plastic action figure of Catwoman from Batman Returns. that's not really related to anything, i just wanted to mention accidentally stabbing myself in the hand with one of her ears so hard it drew blood when i was a toddler. so obviously as an aspiring writer with dreams of maybe one day directing movies, Tim Burton felt like the perfect role model for the kind of creator i wanted to be back in 2002.

but as the years went on and Burton revealed himself to be maybe the biggest sellout of his generation, i stopped really thinking about his films and kind of felt embarrassed for having liked them as much as i once did. i think people who grew up with his stuff had this feeling that, like, Edward Scissorhands or whatever was their own personal secret, this little missive from Burton to you that no one else understood, that only you were smart enough to get. but then time happened and suddenly you realized that actually most people liked his stuff, you just didn't get out much. it's sort of like how when you're a teen in 2004 Neon Genesis Evangelion is this niche special interest no one's ever heard of that people would make fun of you for liking if their eyes didn't glaze over halfway through the title, and then you grow up and learn that Eva is the eighth most financially successful anime franchise on planet earth and you're like what

narratively Burton's films are about as socially conservative as you can get while still retaining a veneer of liberal plausible deniability. a couple years ago Maggie Mae Fish did a video dissecting Burton's work that helped clarify a lot of this stuff for me, and ever since then i've been waiting for someone else to pick up that ball and really barrel down into the psychology of the man. don't get me wrong, psychoanalytic media criticism can be dangerous and should only be deployed with excessive caution (and please for the love of god Do Not Quote Freud Jung or Lacan), but Burton's own brand is so surface-level personal and his work far too juiced up with extremely telling themes not to merit at least a little bit of psychoanalysis. i've often idly considered doing it myself, in that "this would make a really good video essay" kind of way when something isn't really in your wheelhouse but maybe would be a fun challenge if you could motivate yourself to care enough, knowing you never will.

enter Tim Burton's World of Sadboys, an essay which does all of this and more. i'm not sure i actually have a whole lot to say about this one, besides that it's everything i hoped it would be from the thumbnail. host Delaney Jordan very succinctly conjures the eternal specter hanging over the Burton oeuvre: that he's one of the vanishingly few directors this century who has had carte blanche to make just about anything he wanted, yet he's consistently chosen to make films about lonely white boys who are sad they can't wear their The Cure t-shirt into the office, and who are honestly quite sick of being unfairly associated with those freaks in the goth scene. the sad truth about Burton that we all had/have to come to terms with is that he's just another boring rich conservative suburbanite, except he wears black and doesn't pay anyone to touch his hair.

this essay does a couple of really smart things structurally. we kick things off with a legendary Orson Welles quote tearing down the scoundrel Woody Allen (read by the hosts of Oddity Roadshow and Critical Bits, the only actual play podcasts i still listen to), a choice that works even if you don't really know anything about Welles or Allen or Burton, and only works better the more you know about them. of course the thumbnail and section titles invoke Evangelion, but you don't really know how this could be relevant until later on when Burton is explicitly framed as a Shinji Ikari type. making that specific historical connection to Welles, within this specific overarching intertextual connection to Evangelion, is just so smart. it's such a galaxy brain framework for an essay and it's why i decided to write up this review.

it works because it gets out of the way. Jordan wastes almost no time hedging bets, making apologies, clarifying asterisks-- i spent most of my time nodding along, delighted for once to be the choir she's preaching to. sometimes i think essayists can let The Point They Want To Make eclipse the simple joy of deconstructing someone else's art. if there's any crime i've committed most as a video essayist myself, it's probably that one. what i appreciate here is, again, Jordan gets it. she gets that it's fun to rubberneck a career like Burton's. he's an easy target that you don't have to feel bad about being kind of mean to, and his work is popular enough that you don't need to waste any time doing recaps. somewhere in the middle i was disappointed to realize she wasn't structurally devoting time to Every Single Film, but by the end i was glad of it. the compulsion to Say Absolutely Everything You Can Possibly Think To Say is strong in the video essayist's heart, and let's be real most of the time that makes for pretty fucking boring essays. maybe it's weird to talk about pacing and flow in the context of a video essay, but here we are. this one just scratches an itch for me with its front to back competence. you can always tell when an essay has been brewing in someone's head for a long time, likely practiced in chunks at parties and social gatherings for years and years until the day of its final refined delivery, and oh how sweet it is when that's an experience you share.

i guess i'll end this on a serious note.

nostalgia has engulfed Hollywood. nothing new can be made because nothing new is a sure bet, so all the big developments in creative tools these days are about composting the culture that already exists. deepfakes, chat-gpt, algorithmic image generation, things of this nature. given this moment in history, i think it's more important than ever that we as adults seriously interrogate the media we're nostalgic for. Disney's place at the center of all this can't be ignored, because it's spent the better part of a century embedding its products into american childhood and thus today has an army of devotees who will defend their frankly kind of mid fairy tale cartoons to the death. Tim Burton, on a much smaller scale, has done precisely the same thing: equating his art with himself, equating loving his art with being on Tim Burton's side rather than simply, you know, enjoying a movie that you saw on tv once. and god, oh dear god, please for heaven's sake let us not even Begin to conversate on the matter of Harry Potter. we live in a moment when the average human person has been so thoroughly dispossessed of any material influence on or connection with the systems and bodies that actually drive civilization, that fiction is the only thing that feels like it belongs to us anymore. it quite demonstrably doesn't, of course, but that's the illusion Disney et al deliberately peddle in order to maintain public acceptance of their monopoly.

given all this, i'll never fail to appreciate an essay that cuts right through the blinders of nostalgia and isn't afraid to dig deep into the core of the issue. i think it's good to be a hater sometimes actually. i think it's good when a critic refuses to humor our culture's simpering deference to corporate robber barons of intellectual property and their endless stable of lazy sellout toadies like Tim Burton. idk man, there's a reason these ghouls want you to love them unconditionally and i really don't think it has anything to do with filling your life with selfless wonder and joy de vivre

anyway it's a good essay with some good laughs, go watch it

[thescentofwhiteroses]

Really curious why people keep consuming media they don't seem to enjoy anymore

Like, I get that spite is a powerful motivator, but there comes a point where it's like "What the fuck are you even getting out of this???????"

I know that sounds aggressive, but I just truly struggle to understand why people consume media in that particular way.

And I am talking about a very specific way of interacting with content. A very active way. Not just idly keeping up with a long running series out of curiosity to see if the story goes back in a direction you like better.

The way I frame things for myself is that sometimes things just aren't for you, and that's okay!

That's what I said to a friend once about the... I think it was the captain marvel movie? Like, it was meaningful to me, but it clearly was not for them, and that's okay!

So, some unsolicited advice:

Don't fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy, just because you've invested a lot into your enjoyment of a story, doesn't mean you have to continue to sink your time/energy/money/whatever into it when it no longer brings you joy.

You can always go back to it later.

And also, keep in mind that false expectations are what leads to disappointment.

If you've built up an idea of what something will be, or where a story is going, etc etc, and you hang all of your hopes on that...

And then things go in a different direction...

It can be really hard to not let the disappointment color your perception of the story.

It's also easy to have it go in the opposite direction, where you expect to hate something, and so you do. You can only see the worst in it because you've primed yourself to notice it to the exclusion of the things you might have otherwise liked.

And this isn't a "spoilers are bad!!! Leave everything as a surprise!!!" message.

Because, actually, in my opinion, sometimes having some spoilers makes all the difference in being able to enjoy something.

And it's also not a "people can't be critical of the media they consume" thing either.

It's more a statement about how important it is to be aware of how you're being affected by the way you're consuming media.

I have fallen victim to the mindset of "Oh, I'm having FUN being a hater, it's okay! It's not detrimental to me, I promise!" before.

That's a fucking slippery slope, and it's real easy to just fall into a pit of pure negativity under the guise of other more lighthearted or well meaning motivations.

Don't accidentally act in bad faith out of a lack of awareness of your own feelings.

Criticism, much like whatever it is criticizing, does not exist in a void.

There is no truly objective lens through which one can view the world. There is no way to completely be free of your biases or preferences.

You can only do your best to be aware of them and acknowledge how they might affect your perceptions.

Be open and honest with yourself and your "audience"

Are you just venting? Do you just need to get this off your chest, have some people validate you, and then you'll be able to move on?

Are you looking for a discussion? A debate?

Are you trying to get people stirred up?

What are you hoping will come from this?

(As for me, my motivation with this post is partially just to help me articulate my own thoughts on this subject and express some frustrations.

And also I would be lying if I didn't admit that I'm hoping it resonates with someone else.

I don't expect this to be a sudden break through for anyone, but it would be nice if someone else reads this and goes, "Oh hey, I've experienced/witnessed this too.")