#whose characterization is complicated and (clearly) easy to interpret in very different ways than i do

[anghraine]

There's something percolating in my head about how sometimes the scenarios and characters we relate to the most are the ones that don't explicitly identify what they're doing in the terms of how we relate to them. Sometimes there are even specific indications that it's not that thing and yet we can still find it there and find it powerful. Sometimes that can feel more affecting and intense than the better representation out there (and not necessarily just better in a purity culture sense).

And I do think it's important not to give credit where it's not actually due, and not to insist on this kind of stuff as a replacement for actual representation. But I also think it's important to ... idk, allow space for the fuzzier depictions that speak really powerfully to some of us.

(I know this is vague! As I said, it's percolating.)

[itsclydebitches]

(1) The issue of what is considered an in universe problem in media is complex and kinda subjective but I wanted to share my 2 cents about Pyrrha being chosen as a new Maiden. Basically, why was she chosen? We're told that she's strong and talented, but she's also a 1st year. Why not choose an older student with more training and experience? You could read it as an indictment on the teachers and Ozpin, or the CRWBY just invented this character for the express purpose of being Too Cool To Live.

I had actually planned to touch on this in a brief meta I’m hoping to do based on a conversation you were having last night (I eavesdrop via the email alerts lol), basically looking at the terminology we use to describe Pyrrha’s arc and Ozpin’s role in it: a “choice” vs. “manipulation” vs. an “ultimatum.” But this was more of a side note so it works to discuss it here instead. 

To provide the always necessary disclaimer: it’s all up to interpretation. You’re right that this problem is both complex and subjective. Based on what the canon has given us and what we know of RT’s writing style, there is no single correct answer here that we can prove if we just work at it enough. There’s no hidden solution to uncover with additional time spent pouring over the material, or watching interviews, or whatever active work we might engage in. Like most analysis, it comes down to what’s the most persuasive. 

Regarding the question “Why did Ozpin choose Pyrrha as the next Maiden?” we have two main answers: 

The Watsonian reading, formed by interpreting the text via the text and the text alone: Ozpin chose Pyrrha because he’s a horrible person, a manipulative headmaster, someone who chooses the easy route over the ethical one, etc. We know thanks to later volumes that older women such as Raven and Winter can become Maidens, ergo it was always possible for Ozpin to choose someone who was not a young, vulnerable student. He didn’t. That therefore says something about his character. This method prioritizes internal consistency above everything else. It doesn’t matter if Ozpin’s characterization doesn’t otherwise suit this manipulative persona, we need an in-world explanation for why he chose Pyrrha, it needs to be logical, and thus far this is the closest we can get to that. 

The Doyalist reading, formed by interpreting the text via the text and knowledge of the author: Ozpin chose Pyrrha because at the time of Volume 3 it’s unlikely that RT had thought ahead to future choices like Winter and Raven being Maidens. In Volume 3 there’s a heavy implication that the powers can only pass to much younger women (especially with Glynda standing there, unable to accept the powers herself), thereby justifying Ozpin’s choice. It has to go to someone of school-ish age, so pick the best option among your list of ethically horrible choices. This context is then contradicted later in the show with the decision to make Winter and Raven into Maidens. How do we explain this contradiction? Unlike the Watsonian reading, which emphasizes that in-world consistency - Ozpin must have been a bastard in that moment by choosing Pyrrha when we now know he didn’t have to - this method prioritizes acknowledging the “now” (stories change) and, by extension, author fallibility. There is no persuasive in-world explanation because the answer here is instead, “The authors fucked up. Their story is not internally consistent. It’s a problem in the text.” Ergo, this tells us about our authorship as opposed to our characters. 

Your interpretation (if I’m understanding you correctly!) is that Pyrrha was chosen as the Maiden because the authors had thematic plans. She’s the Too Cool to Live character whose name is literally a reference to a pyrrhic victory. She was always going to die. RT just needed to find a way for that to happen. Me, I subscribe to that along with other practical influences like, “The authors wanted to use a character we were already emotionally attached to, not a stranger who may have been more suitable from an in-world standpoint, but wouldn’t have been fulfilling for the viewer to interact with that much” and “The authors wrote a story focused on the students, so a student should go through such a major arc. Don’t take up so much time on an adult like Glynda or an older Beacon student who doesn’t have connections back to the rest of the main RWBYJNR cast.” As well as the simple, “I think there’s a TON of evidence to demonstrate that the RWBY universe has never been well planned out or internally consistent. We’ve run into this problem because our writers are not the type to think through the consequences of their choices: ‘If we make Pyrrha the next Maiden in a way that heavily implies she’s actually the best/only choice available, what does that tell us about who the magic can go to? If a 1st year is the best option, then clearly the power can’t go to a fully trained adult. Or there are other limitations that we need to introduce to the audience later on to explain why Pyrrha was saddled with this.’” None of this work occurred. 

Though our interpretation may diverge at times they’re both Doyalist readings. They both answer the question by looking at the author as well as the text, acknowledging that those motivations (should Pyrrha stick around as a character?) and those limitations (are the authors planning ahead?) need to be taken into account to answer this question. By focusing only on the text, a Watsonian reading must, by default, sacrifice other things - like Ozpin’s characterization - in order to explain the currently unexplainable. It’s the difference between coming up with an unprovable headcanon for why Blake never mentioned her parents (She doesn’t trust her team! She’s ashamed of her family! She fears that Weiss will turn on her if she learns about her dad being a former White Fang member!) that you then allow to color your reading of her whole character (It would make perfect sense for Blake to betray her parents. Remember how she didn’t even care about them enough to mention them to her team? I’m then going to come up with more unsubstantiated interpretations to explain the whole volume of them being a loving family together in order to maintain this characterization I’ve become attached to...), rather than just admitting, “I don’t think the writers had invented her parents in Volumes 1-3 yet.” Personally, I find the likelihood of authorial fallibility to be far more persuasive than the amount of headcanoning and outright rejection of other textual facts needed to conclude that Ozpin is this monstrous. 

In reality most viewers are a complicated mix of both types. The text itself is pulling from a complicated mix as well. But when it comes to RWBY I personally think that the fandom relies too heavily on a Watsonian perspective. A good chunk of the fanbase is desperate to explain everything from that in-world perspective, which wouldn’t be a bad thing (trying to come up with those explanations is fun!) if it didn’t so often require twisting their interpretation of other aspects to fit this new narrative. After a couple of years of this, I think that a good portion of the anti-Ozpin sentiment stems less from Ozpin himself and more from the desire to have a story that makes sense. Why did he choose Pyrrha as the Maiden when later canon tells us she was a bad pick? For many fans the answer that Ozpin is a horrific person is more satisfying than the answer that the writers are, to quote, “flying by the seat of their oversized clown pants.” The former just requires you to give up a character. The latter requires you to give up on RWBY as a cohesive, internally logical tale. For those who love RWBY, ditching Ozpin and using him as an on-going bandaid for these narrative problems is preferable to acknowledging that one of their favorite shows is, at times, very badly written. 

Which is why I personally hang out in the “RWBY is an absolute dumpster fire of a show but I love it anyway” corner lol 

[smallnico]

Concerning Good Omens, it's so interesting to me that Crowley is the one most forward about his feelings while Aziraphale keeps them closer to his chest. It goes against trope expectations of their characters imo, since Aziraphale is the "nicer, lighter" one and those character types are usually more open about love. But in another way it makes sense since he probably sees it as giving in to selfish desires/temptation. It just makes their dynamic all the more interesting!

it really does! :> it also contributes to the themes of the book in adaptation by making the two different "types" of person, good and evil, a lot more complicated. it'd be easy to make the kind and loving and good one also very honest and open, especially considering another facet of az's character, that he tends to take other people at their word, but good omens goes the different direction of making aziraphale and crowley People rather than making them Fit -- with good or evil, or with any particular character archetype.

he could see it as giving into desire/temptation! but here's something else to consider, too: crowley and aziraphale both have their own ways of masking their own vulnerability. at the end of the day, both of them are more human because they're vulnerable, despite being immortal and incredibly powerful, and because that makes them more human than anything, they both need to take measures to hide it, particularly from their respective employers. because aziraphale is the sort of person to take people at their word, maybe it's just that he generally assumes others -- particularly other angels -- will believe him as well, when he insists that he doesn't like crowley, or insists that he's interested in stopping the apocalypse for more general "greater good" reasons, rather than showing off his weak spots. another specific example of this apart from crowley is when he talks to gabriel in the first episode, in the sushi restaurant: gabriel asks what he's doing and why, az replies not that he likes sushi or that he enjoys eating, but that sushi is, broadly speaking, good. when gabriel argues that he'd never "soil the celestial temple of (his) body with gross matter", az just doesn't respond, not to defend himself or defend what he's doing, even though in the acting he clearly understands he's being shamed and knows he's not going to do anything about it.

the fact that this is his chosen defense mechanism and he's still so bad at lying, i think, speaks more to the fear of being Discovered or Known rather than any sort of genuine belief in his own denial. he knows he loves crowley -- how could he not know? he admits it in subtle ways all the time -- he just doesn't want to be recognized as having vulnerability, or vices, in az's specific case.

crowley has the same kind of thing. i remember seeing an analytic post about his sunglasses (which i would track down and link but can't, cus mobile is awful) and how they're used as a personal and cinematic shorthand for him disguising his true feelings from prying eyes. crowley can get away with admitting his true feelings because he's better at hiding how vulnerable they make him apart from the feelings themselves. the only thing crowley really outwardly denies is the fact that he's a good person, because he's trying very hard to seem like a good demon, something he never wanted to be in the first place. unlike aziraphale, who By Definition as an angel has to be pure and righteous according to someone else's standards, crowley can get away with having vices because he's a demon, and he can get away with having virtues because he knows how to play it smart so his bosses don't find out and Destroy him.

good and evil are both polar extremities, between which sits humanity and vulnerability. if aziraphale openly admits to liking sushi, that's ammunition to judge him for not being angelic enough. if he openly admits to liking earth, it betrays his human vulnerability, his softness, and it's ammunition to judge him for not being angelic enough. if he openly admits to liking crowley, even without admitting that the two of them are in love, then he gets accused of conspiring with hell, the ultimate evil, cus there's no in-between for angels and demons.

it's easy to interpret az's denial as earnest because of the general vibe he gives off of being a soft and sunshiney classically Good person, and i enjoy that interpretation as much as the next person cus i think he's adorable, but it's like you said, it's not that straightforward. az may not be very good at hiding his feelings and vices to anyone who doesn't trust him at his word (crowley sees right through him nearly as soon as they meet, and so does a generous portion of the audience, cus of michael sheen's acting), but he does massively succeed at appearing pure and simple. like crowley, he's playing it smart. unlike crowley, his boss is literally always watching -- it's god, after all. crowley is allowed to play around his vulnerabilities and act apart from his infernal superiours, but aziraphale isn't allowed to slip at all. he's terrified when the other angels corner him because they've found out he's friends with a demon. the only real admission of personal vulnerability az makes which i can remember off the top of my head is when he says "i'm soft" -- the rest of the time he misdirects that stuff so it isn't about him, or so that it frames him as being in the right/not personally at fault/doing his best anyway. like the scene when he's going to be discorporated during the french revolution, where crowley confronts him for making the mistake of going for crepes during a revolution dressed like a dandy. az's responses during this scene communicate a few things:

1) when confronted with the dress code mistake, az argues that he "has standards" for dress which he isn't willing to relinquish

2) he carefully makes no comment on the fact that he loves crepes so much he's willing to follow them through the french revolution despite his dress standards, instead saying that paris is the only place to get good ones, which doesn't address the fact that he wanted crepes to begin with

3) he blames the executioner for making the mistake of discorporating him, and then blames crowley for the french revolution (before he learns it isn't his fault, after which he says nothing else on the matter)

4) he does absolutely nothing to dirty his hands to get out of the situation he's in. he's supposed to cut down on superfluous miracles, but he says not a word with regards to fashion sense or even the killing of his executioner because he's not the one responsible for either of those things -- crowley is. like he says (more or less) in the climax when they're trying to get into the airbase, "i'm supposed to be the good one, i can't do anything about this guy with a gun who's about to shoot us". he wants to do something, and is pleased when something is done, but if he's the one who does it, then he's the one that ends up judged for whatever it is he does if it happens to be the wrong thing. in the climax, worth noting is that he immediately worries he might've sent the soldier somewhere unpleasant.

i could go on and on about aziraphale and about good omens in general, really. i relate to him a lot, cus that mindset is more or less the root of so much of my anxiety: i'm not an angel, and i'm not claiming to be one, but i am pretty idealistically-minded, and afraid of being condemned by others for just doing my own thing, no matter how much that is synonymous with trying to do things i consider to be good. also like with aziraphale, i've loved humans and human variety too much to be so convinced of my own intrinsic moral/ideological superiority that i don't worry if what i'm doing is the correct thing to do. that's just how it be sometimes.

but back to az's denial of his true feelings on things. i can't be sure that he genuinely feels like his vices and his love for crowley are Bad Things that he needs to cover up, but i feel like given his circumstances and personality, the conflicted feelings of "i love this guy, love is good and it makes me feel good" and "this guy is a demon and he does bad things, ergo i can't be sure that loving him specifically is a good thing, so i'm going to pretend it's not happening because what if it is bad and i don't know it's bad and god makes it so i can't be an angel anymore and have to be a demon as well". really, he's just playing it safe and covering his weak spots in case heaven finds out he's not Good. he's an angel, which means he almost certainly doesn't trust his own judgement enough to self-determine, even though he has opinions galore. you can see it in his eyes and on his face that he believes certain things are right and certain things are wrong no matter whose side is doing it, he's just too afraid of the repercussions to admit it. i love my ethereal son

i'm talking more about the show in this post, but all this is a lot more obvious in his book characterization. lest this post become twice as long, i'll cut myself off here -- if you or anyone else wants to continue the discussion, feel free to! sorry this took so long to respond to.

[firecoloredwater]

Ace representation gives me weird feelings.

This was originally posted on pillowfort, and is being reposted here for the September 2019 Carnival of Aces.

To be 100% clear: I AM ACE.  (And aro, and the concept of gender gives me approximately the same feelings as the concept of being covered in live spiders, which I will grudgingly/squeamishly refer to as being agender or nonbinary when a label is required.)  Relevantly: ace.*

I began to identify as ace when I first heard the word, and had an "oh" moment.  (Or rather, multiple simultaneous "oh" moments.  "Oh that's a thing" and "oh maybe my classmates aren't all just faking relationships to mimic TV" are the two I remember most clearly.)  It was July, and at the time I was fifteen; I'm currently 28, so that's a bit over 13 years.  I'll skip the full journey, but the point is, this is an identity that I've had for a while and am comfortable with.

Despite that, ace characters in fiction give me weird feelings.  I mostly end up metaphorically staring at fiction which I know contains ace characters, going "hrmmmm I can't parse exactly what feeling I'm having, but I'm not enjoying it," to the point where I sometimes end up avoiding them entirely.  I doubt I'll be able to analyze all of why, but I'd like to at least try to start.

I'm also not referring to bad representation, or even to representation that focuses heavily on angst/suffering/prejudice.  Several years ago I read a large chunk of Shades of A (which, for anyone unfamiliar and about to click that link, includes a lot of kink and general adult themes; since it's been years I can't recall exactly what's in it) which was, from what I recall, very well done, and then I hit a point where I just... couldn't make myself keep going.  More recently I've heard several times about Every Heart a Doorway and thought 'that appeals to literally everything I want in fiction that I can think of' and then... not read it.

On the other hand, if a character is called asexual or characterized in a way that I can easily interpret as their being asexual, but it's not a major focus of the story or descriptions/advertisements/reviews thereof, I don't have the same reaction.  So for the rest of this post I'm just going to be discussing the former category (fiction with asexual representation that does give me weird feelings), and not addressing works that have an asexual or easily-read-as-asexual characters without giving me the weird feelings about it.  (The only real explanation I have for why a work falls in one category or another is the 'is it a major focus' question, so I don't think I can get anything useful out comparing them.)

Some of this, I'm sure, is that I'm just generally low on energy; I'm not reading much of anything that isn't fanfic right now.  But I tend to avoid fanfic tagged or described as having an asexual character too, so it's not just that.

The most obvious source is just that ace characters are unfamiliar.  There are a handful around now, even in mainstream media, but that wasn't true until I was in my 20s.  (Unless, of course, you counted the monsters/aliens/serial killers, and even then it was only the monsters/aliens/serial killers that the creator wanted to emphasize were really, really inhuman, even more than your typical monster/alien/serial killer.  And I was never fond of horror anyway.)  So ace characters stand out to me in a way that straight characters (and gay or lesbian ones, thanks largely to the Valdemar series) don't.  That extra attention-catching element can in itself make the representation feel weird and off on a level that's often subconscious and therefore difficult to dissect.  Again, though, while I think this is likely to be an element, I don't think it's the only reason.

I think some of it is the expectation—mine, but absorbed from a more general one—that if an asexual character is present, that should be the character that I most strongly (or even exclusively) identify with and connect to.  But that's often difficult: Anwar from Shades of A, for example, I have prettymuch nothing in common with except for being ace, our general age range, and maaaybe some of the social awkwardness and tendency toward geekiness that 98.5% of characters on the internet have.  I spent a lot of the time I was trying to read the comic being frustrated at every significant decision Anwar made because, while I probably would not have made better decisions, I certainly would have made different ones, and couldn't bring myself to empathize with his reasoning or priorities in any but one minor aspect.

And again, it's not that he's a bad character, it's just that he and I have nothing in common.  But I felt like I ought to empathize with him—I'm pretty sure he was the first ace character I ever encountered, so obviously I should empathize with him strongly and immediately and easily, right?  Not even "I should be able to," just I should, like saying the sun should rise in the morning, it's expected to just happen.  And because of that I couldn't pick another character to identify with (JD is nonbinary!  Chris and I have the same hair color! From what I remember they both have a more similar personality to me than Anwar does!) and I also couldn't just let myself gradually develop an understanding of Anwar's thought processes and start empathizing with him over time, because I was supposed to identify with him yesterday.  (Or rather, at least five years ago.)

(To be clear: none of this is something I was thinking consciously at the time, I was just frustrated with Anwar's decisions and didn't really analyze it further until like, two hours ago.  But from my current perspective, I think this is what was going on.)

Since I haven't actually read Every Heart a Doorway I of course can't be sure the same thing would happen, but I think I've avoided it because I expect it to.  From the summary it sounds like the main character is maybe fifteen or so, and the majority if not all major characters are mid-to-late teens?  So I'd be reading the book more as an observer than projecting myself among them, which is fine and often a thing I enjoy in fiction (because I'm way too empathetic and that distance helps tone down my distress at every little thing ever). But with an asexual main character... well, I wouldn't quite feel guilty about not identifying with her, but I'd be conscious of it the entire time I was reading in a way that would be distracting, and wouldn't be enjoyable.

Another possible element is that I tend to avoid fiction (and fanfic) in which a romantic relationship is the primary plot.  Since the majority of all fiction is romance, logically the majority of fiction with ace characters will be as well, and 'has an ace character' isn't enough to make me interested.  I think there's also a chance that romance fiction is in fact more likely to have an ace character, and/or to be labeled as having one (particularly in the case of fandom/fanfic/original work in fandom-derived areas).  A creator whose primary story focus is the characters' romantic and sexual relationships is more likely to consider the characters' romantic and sexual orientations, and therefore more likely to explicitly call a character asexual (whether in the story itself, a summary/description, or tags). Trying to read a story with an asexual character but being bored because it's a romance gives me about the same not-quite-guilty-but-not-comfortable feeling as being unable to identify with an asexual character does.

When I was in college I explained Asexuality 101 to various people or groups of people at various times, and one of the things I found myself explaining a lot is that "asexual" is actually just as much an umbrella term as "queer" or "trans" is.  Even without including demisexuality and the gray-a spectrum in the term (which at the time as far as I knew, at least, the most common approach was to just say "asexuality and gray-asexuality" if you wanted to discuss both) "asexual" includes asexuals of every romantic orientation and aroaces and people who prefer not to use the construct of romantic orientation, asexuals who are repulsed and who enjoy sex and who don't care too much either way, asexuals who lack attraction or libido or both or who experience both but are asexual anyway, because humans are complicated and sexuality is complicated and human sexuality is, therefore, utterly bizarre, and it would be weirder if asexuality (or any sexuality) were easy to define.**

And I think that's a factor too; there are asexual people whose experience of What It's Like To Be Asexual will have not one single thing in common with my experience of being asexual, and so a character that perfectly represents them will just leave me confused.  Which gets back to the thing about asexuality not really being sufficient for me to identify with a character, and the way that that fact runs into my expectation that it should be sufficient.  Like walking down a sidewalk, pausing to do something, then looking up and discovering a wall half an inch from my nose.  It's not painful, but it's jarring and annoying and I kind of want to look around and check if anyone saw that, because if so I'll be embarrassed about it.

(And I expect that most likely there are other factors, but I'm not coming up with them right now and this is long enough already, so I'll wind down here.)

I don't think this is a problem, or something that needs to be fixed; if "I'm not consuming the fiction that I would have expected myself to consume" is a problem at all, it's definitely the most minor one I've ever experienced.  If it does need to be fixed (or prevented), I think that "have more ace representation so it's not a Rare New Extraordinary Thing all the time" is probably the solution, and I'm pretty sure that aces are already in favor of more well done ace representation in fiction.

But it's still an experience, and it's been gnawing at my brain for months, so I'm posting this and... well, we'll see if and what use people make of it.  Has anyone else had the same or a similar experience?  Any thoughts on other factors which I didn't think of?  Some other related thing I missed?

*I'm not discussing aromantic or agender or nonbinary representation/my reactions to it because 1: asexuality is by far my "primary" identity (in the sense that it's significant to how I define and think of myself, while being aromantic and agender are just sort of... facts that forms sometimes request; probably largely because I settled on both those identities much later), and 2: frankly I haven't encountered aromantic or agender representation enough or in the right ways to experience this dynamic with them.  Or any dynamic, really.

**If you want to argue with me about the definition of What Is Really Truly Actually Asexual and how something I included Doesn't Count, please make a separate post and like, send me a link or something if you really want my opinion specifically.  My opinion is pretty firm but I'm willing to discuss it in good faith, but it's not the point of this post and I'd rather not go off on that tangent here.  Same if you want to argue that gray-asexuality ought to by default be included with the term 'asexual;' I don't honestly care either way on that one, I'm just describing the vocabulary I was familiar with at the time.

[kyuu-rereads-umineko]

Ep6, Chapter 3 (Part 2)

meta in your meta in your meta

The boat arrives at the harbour, and this time, the relatives are greeted by both Gohda and Kanon.

Seeing Kanon putting himself forward like this... makes me feel really emotional. On one hand, it’s heartwarming to see Yasu reaching out like this, in spite of all her bitterness and anger that Kanon carries, but on the other hand... for some reason, it brings to mind Shannon’s acceptance of George’s proposal in Ep2, and what that really meant. It’s complicated.

Rosa and Kyrie comment that Kanon is looking brighter than usual, which... again, brings Shannon in Ep2 to mind. The way she seems to come out of her depression after starting to date George, the way that other people pick up on it...

“...Maybe the real surprise should have been that his normal expression must have looked so incredibly sullen in comparison.”

Arriving in the rose garden, he sees Jessica running towards him, and preempts her by asking if he really looks that different. lol

Kanon admits that he didn’t really have any work to do earlier, then mentions that Shannon is planning on getting married. Jessica reacts... sullenly.

“I decided that... I would stop working here if Nee-san ever quit.” Man, Yasu really did think of everything, didn’t she...?

After saying that he’s unsure of what he’s going to do, Kanon admits his feelings for Jessica, saying, “I have the feeling that, with you, I’d be able to get away from the part of myself that I hate for being furniture.” Yasu...

“So that I can be with you all the time... I plan to stop being furniture. I ask that you give me some time to do that... Please forgive this last bit of weakness.”

And Jessica rightly replies that there’s nothing weak about that at all. Tohya’s love for Yasu is really, really apparent in this episode, even compared to his others.

Jessica asks if Kanon would’ve admitted to anything if it weren’t for Shannon telling him about her engagement, and he’s unable to reply. She asks if it’s because he “wanted to see what love felt like,” and he affirms.

Y’know, I’m still not sure what to think of the premise of this Episode. If I had to speculate, then my guess would be... Sometime before the start of the game proper, Battler got back in contact with Yasu, and apologized for going AWOL for so long. Whether Yasu told him the truth about herself or not, I’m not sure, but the end result was that she gained the resolve to keep on living, and actually be herself, as opposed to one of her characters. That’s not necessarily to say that she’s telling Jessica everything right now (remember, there’s no detective in this episode), or even that she does before the game gets paused, but I’m not really sure how else to interpret Shannon and Kanon’s behaviour so far. Shannon declaring her intention to get married to George and Kanon deciding to be honest about his feelings are part of this - Yasu’s made up her mind to actually confront her conflicting feelings head-on, to find out who she feels strongest about, as opposed to being torn between George, Jessica, and Battler.

That also segues into what happens with Erika later - since she’s not intending to blow up the island anymore, Yasu doesn’t kill anyone, allowing Battler to set up his murder mystery “prank” - but we’ll get to that later.

Anyways. Jessica admits that she was also jealous of George and Shannon, and the narrative says, “[Kanon and Jessica] had been shown the courage needed to speak up and tell the person you love how you feel.”

Kanon decides to call Jessica by her name when they’re alone, and gives her his own name - Yoshiya.

“The red, red flowers of the rose garden seemed to celebrate the two lovers whose feelings had finally connected...”

And we cut to meta, where chick-Beato is watching the scene unfold, clearly unhappy.

“By calling someone by their name, people acknowledge the worth of that person’s soul. That is why names are sacred.” Beato wonders if that’s why Battler’s so insistent she call him by his name, instead of Father. That’s probably part of it, though given the connotations of “Father” in this case...

“When Father sees me, it reminds him of that other me... the past me. And I’m sure that ‘me’ called Father by his name.” It occurs to me now that we probably are seeing a pretty accurate replay of what happened between Kinzo and Beatrice II, aren’t we...? Just, uh, since meta gonna meta it’s a bit less horrifying

Beato wonders how she can make herself useful to Battler, while Ange and Featherine watch the scene... or read it, or something. Meta in your meta in your meta.

Featherine remarks that she never expected to see Ange extend compassion towards Beato. Well, I suppose in a sense, that’s true, but at the same time - Ange’s character arc in Ep4 was all about the true nature of magic and witches, understanding what magic is, who uses it, and what drives them to use it. The way she uses that understanding to destroy Yasu’s Golden Land and drag her back to the game is... Well, yeah, okay, not exactly “compassionate,” is it?

But, at the same time, it’s her own experiences and understanding that allow her to do that. Even if she doesn’t know the details of Yasu’s life, she knows what kind of person must be hiding behind Beatrice - and given that said Beatrice decided to destroy the entire island and Ushiromiya family, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Ange would’ve known that her pain went so very, very deep.

What I mean is - it’s easy to compare Ange’s mindset in Ep4, when she kills the stakes and asks her classmates to kill her, to the mindset that drove Yasu to start playing with the bomb and spinning her roulette. There’s a deliberate parallel to be made there. The thing is - even though Ange is suicidally depressed throughout Ep4 after that, that’s still a far cry from plotting an elaborate murder-suicide mystery. Even if Ange isn’t sure who to direct her anger and sorrow at, she’s aware that the incident was premeditated to a great degree (even if that didn’t really affect anything in the real world, but still).

i’m good at dancing around the point huh

TL;DR - While saying Ange “felt compassion” towards Beato in Ep4 isn’t really right, she did feel compassion and express an understanding of other witches, other people who use magic. If it weren’t for that understanding, she wouldn’t even be having this conversation with Featherine right now.

Ange states that it’d be unfair to call chick-Beato the same person as the original Beato. Featherine reflects that Battler’s probably “very depressed” that his resurrection efforts didn’t work out as hoped.

“I can sort of understand Onii-chan’s despair... However, I can understand how this child feels as well. No person can become a replacement for another... Not even the past version of themselves.” I feel like there’s a parallel to draw here between Meta-Battler/Chick-Beato and future-Ange/Tohya, but my memory of Ep8 is pretty hazy...

Ange and Featherine start talking about Beato’s “purpose,” and Ange expresses confusion - “So, the Beato who was born for Onii-chan’s sake eventually commits a serial murder and drags him into a bizarre game that she calls eternal torture?”

Again, we’ll see if this gets clearer as I read more, but I can’t help but feel that this “Beato exists for Battler’s sake” thing only muddies the waters even further, because for Yasu, that’s really not why Beato exists. Yes, Beato’s the one who’s “assigned” her love for Battler, and that’s a big part of what makes her transform from the ghost of the island to the Golden Witch as we know her, but “Beato the power fantasy” is just as important to her identity.

...Which, I realize, is characterized as Elder Beato later on, so I am wasting my breath here, aren’t I? Oh well!

At any rate, Featherine reminds Ange that “one can become a different person over a thousand years,” so.

“At the very least, Beatrice was once a pure creature who was born for Battler’s sake.” nvm i stand by what i said above

Ange questions the meaning of “a thousand years,” and Featherine says it explicitly: “Six years can become a thousand, and a thousand years can be nothing more than a quick nap.” She also throws in a Higurashi reference, just for good measure!

“So, does that mean something bad happened during those six years that made her hate Onii-chan?” Well, yes and no.

Ange expresses that Beato’s hate must be “misguided,” since Battler’s been away for the past six years, and Featherine just ...’s in response. VERY SUBTLE

Back in the, uh, gameboard-Meta? I guess? yeah let’s go with that

Back there, Kumasawa finds Beato sitting in the arbour of Kuwadorian. Beato asks her about her name, confirming that she is, in fact, Beatrice...

“However... the Beatrice that Father talks about... isn’t me.”

“I think Father wanted me to be that person... I think that might be why... He was disappointed because, no matter how much I looked like her... I am a different person.” Kumasawa replies that no, she’s the same “Beato” as the one Battler loves, she’s just “lost her memory” due to being “reborn.” If what we’re supposed to get out of this is how Kumasawa reacted to Beatrice II’s similar questions... Euuugh. Chick-Beato asks how she can regain her memories, and Kumasawa doesn’t have a reply.

“If I can’t regain them... can’t you at least tell me what kind of person the Beatrice Father loved was?”

“I was born for Father’s sake. So, I want to become the Golden Witch that he desires.” Oooh, I’d forgotten about this line.

This sort of strikes me as a marked difference from the situation with Kinzo and Beatrice II, and highlights one of the critical differences between Battler and Kinzo - while Kinzo was willing to erase his daughter’s “identity” for his own desires (to an ultimately tragic end), from what I recall, Battler... doesn’t. He asks her not to call him “Father,” and reacts negatively to how different she is, true, but as far as I can recall, he never tries to overrule her sense of self in the same way as Kinzo did.

I mean, in the end, we still go from him thinking “I should treat her as Beato’s daughter” to joining in on the love trial despite that, which is certainly... Questionable, but, y’know.

Ange cuts in, commenting that Chick-Beato is “an incredible kid,” without those “thousand years gone wrong.” Featherine says that she’s taken a liking to her, then allows her access to her study. oh man i forgot this scene was this early on

“So you’re going to make her read aloud the stories about her previous self... Yes, I want to know too. The tale of how the Golden Witch Beatrice was created.”

Back in the arbour, Kumasawa turns into Virgilia, “You must choose the path that you are to walk down... Let us call it a path of roses. The beautifully blooming roses may encourage you, and their thorns may torment you... but even so, it is a path that you once walked down. You may pass through the same thousand years. You may pass through a different thousand years. If you wish, you may even return back the way you came.”

Beato states her resolve - that she doesn’t want “to spend a thousand years in this garden drinking tea.” This is definitely evocative of Beatrice II’s decision to leave Kuwadorian behind in Rosa’s flashback, huh...

The two of them warp into Featherine’s study, where they meet Ange and Featherine herself. meta gonna fuckin meta

“The Beatrice you’re trying to become... was suffering from something. At the very least, you’ve been released from that for now... Will you really go on a journey to regain those shackles...?” Beato replies that, yes, she does. “I want to become the Golden Witch... That is the reason I was born.”

virgilia formally asks ange to “make beato’s journey through purgatory a pleasant one” and ange stiffly responds with her own formal reply lmao

Beato asks Ange to tell her about herself, and Ange says, “Sure... And I’ll want you to teach me. Why did you become the person you were?” That’s really the core question, isn’t it...?

Featherine states, quite simply, that solving the witch’s epitaph is a “trial” for becoming the Golden Witch, and that even Beato herself can’t skip it. In a way, that’s exactly what happened for Yasu. She was the “witch of the island” before she solved the epitaph, after all.

Ange realizes that she can’t interfere with Beato’s resolve - she’s simply a spectator. “This was just a bit of directing... to shine the spotlight onto the tale of Beato’s past.”

Featherine says it quite simply - reading the archive isn’t going to make Beato regain her memories. It’s up to her to decide what she takes away from the experience.

and beato goes to think her and trips over her name lmao, she’s too cute like this

“After being welcomed in by Featherine, Beato left on a journey to know herself. That tale connected the old tale with the new one. It wove them together. The thousand year old tale about her returned to its starting point, becoming a snake eating its own tale. [...] The thousand years of the witch born on Rokkenjima... were tied to the island. Was it a thousand years, or just six? ...Or did this tale extend even further back into the past?”

[anghraine]

Love your pnp posts. I don't know if you've been asked this before, but how do you interpret Darcy as an autistic character?

Thanks!

It may be nitpicky, but in some ways, I don't interpret Darcy as autistic. I headcanon him as autistic. There's a lot of overlap, but they're not quite the same.

I think a strong argument can be made that, in canon, he experiences a fairly broad range of persistent social discomfort as well as simple distaste, especially (though not only) in unfamiliar situations or around unfamiliar people. In the context of unfamiliarity, he specifically mentions having trouble catching the tone of conversations or showing an expression of interest, which could be interpreted in many ways (he doesn't have any real struggle and is just making excuses, he does have a bit of a struggle but just can't be bothered to try, etc).

I wouldn't say I interpret it as signaling that he's autistic, which would make little sense historically speaking. But I regard him more favorably than the people in the parenthetical examples do, and I enjoy imagining that he's autistic (like me!). Details of his characterization like this just make it easy to do so.

When he first becomes interested in Elizabeth, for instance, he responds by listening to her talk to other people in order to work himself up to speaking to her himself, even though he's a very articulate and confident (in fact, arrogant!) person. This could be read many different ways. But it fits with an autistic Darcy whose arrogance and verbal skill don't negate how difficult it is for him to navigate a situation like this.

At Pemberley, the grand transformation narrative is complicated by multiple things. Charlotte realized back at Rosings that Darcy must at other times be quite different from how she'd known him based on his interactions with Colonel Fitzwilliam, a cousin he is very close to, and her conclusion is strongly backed up by Mrs Reynolds's account. Some people are very responsive to their environments without being NT, and he could be one of them. There are more unfavorable interpretations possible. But if you're already headcanoning him as autistic, it's another thing that fits.

In this view of him, when he's out of his comfort zone of clearly-defined social roles, most of which he's been trained for, it's unsurprising that he seems cold and intimidating to other people, even by the end of the book, after the "transformation". And that's an impression that a lot of autistic people can give. In a more straightforward environment where he can fulfill direct obligations and very specific roles he knows well, he shines—and that's not intrinsically autistic but does square easily with it.

But even at Pemberley, and even after his character growth, there is a formality about him that he can't seem to shake. Mrs Gardiner remarks on it after meeting him, though it doesn't trouble her good impression of him. In her letter about his various heroics, Mrs Gardiner brings this up again in terms of his lack of liveliness; this and his deep stubbornness are his only real weaknesses in her view.

He could just be a formal and severe person. Some people are! But this consistent strain of stiff formality about his manner and language, whether he's being haughty or pleasant, fits naturally with the headcanon.

I can go on and I have a lot of times, but that's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. It doesn't mean he is autistic as written, or that I'd argue he is, but that I can imagine him that way without difficulty and it makes me happy to do it.

My more formal interpretation of all this would be that Darcy is basically a complex and nuanced version of the kind of man Wollstonecraft pointed out in Vindication of the Rights of Woman:

Where are they [young women] suddenly to find judgment enough to weigh patiently the sense of an awkward virtuous man, when his manners, of which they are made critical judges, are rebuffing, and his conversation cold and dull, because it does not consist of pretty repartees, or well turned compliments?

That's not to say that that's necessarily where Austen got the idea for him, or that she got it from any specific source, just that this was a recognizable type in their social world that P&P is elaborating on and examining (among other things). So it's not incredible that the details of the type are amplified in a way that fits really neatly with an autistic headcanon. It's still headcanon to me, but it's headcanon that the novel makes very easy.