#with a lot of unreliable point of views and narratives on things

[headfullof-ideas]

Unrelated to my HTTYD/The Deep story, but I have a hot-take that might be an unpopular opinion for all the Alpheus fans out there. I like him too, he’s not my super favorite character, but he’s fun to write and work with. HOWEVER, I’ve been thinking, and I came to a conclusion that some people might not agree with.

Alpheus wouldn’t be the best dad. Hear me out.

He’s not the WORST, he’s not abusive, he’s got an idea from Proteus and the Guardians on how NOT to raise a child…but he’s not dad-of-the-year either. He’s not super involved. He’s got paranoia from the Guardians and Lemuria, and a tendency to pry and eavesdrop on business that he has no business knowing. He is a young adult in the show, and would be older as a parent, so he’s grown a bit, but I also don’t really see him going to therapy and fixing a lot of his internalized issues because of a repeated mantra of ‘what if someone breaks into the therapists office and steals all their notes on our sessions, what if it’s over a call and someone plants a bug, that’s something I would do, so why wouldn’t anyone else?” And also, what therapist is going to believe half of the stuff he talks about? Sea monsters aren’t real.

He’s not the worst. He’s not abusive. But he’s not great either. He assumes he knows everything about his kid because he softly stalks them when they���re away from him, maybe reads through their journals or diary when they’re not at home, because he never learned healthy communication skills and just falls back on what he knows to learn about his kid. And if they’re dealing with something bad on the inside, have insecurities or doubts, anything like what he felt with the Guardians, well, he has to know, he’s their dad. But he doesn’t actually talk with his kid about it. He might have some controlling tendencies due to paranoia about the Guardians or the Nektons, or any legal body that he pissed off in his youth coming after him years later, and so he has to know where his kid is at all times, via trackers on their phone, and frequent updates on when or where they are or have left.

He’s half helicopter parent and half barely present at all, because he doesn’t have a good reference for healthy communication and won’t go to therapy for his issues due to stubbornness and paranoia. He assumes the worst about everything, and if his Benthos attracted-to-the-water-like-their-cousins-the-Nektons expresses any interest in the ocean or a field in that area, he shoots it down, because he doesn’t want his past with Lemuria, the Nektons, and the Guardians to catch up to him and land on his kid. Only, he doesn’t tell them this at all, he insists that it’s just for the best. He doesn’t tell his kid anything important, habitually keeps secrets and information from them because in his mind, they deserve to be a kid and not worry about it. Only he can’t tell the difference between actual I’ll-tell-you-when-you’re-older stuff and stuff that actually involves his kid that they should have a say in. He might be slightly controlling, because he wants his kid to have a normal childhood, not like he did, but it twists into him assuming that, as the adult and parent who’s been through everything, he knows how everything will go and so therefore knows what’s best.

He’s not the WORST parent…but I don’t see him being the BEST parent either. He’s got too many issues and not enough like someone who’d go to the necessary lengths to fix those issues for me to think he’d be the best parent.

[blindmagdalena]

In gilded cage homelander is thinking to himself at one point about how he's glad he doesn't have to deal with y/n having an "adjustment period" but like what they did have one? Hear me out! So y/n has been kidnapped, their life is suddenly flipped upside down and their just expected to "deal with it" basically, but thats traumatic! And humans don't just "deal" with trauma easily! so what if they started dealing with random panic attacks, or skin picking/nail biting, or PICA, or Dissociation? People often resort to these things when under massive amounts of traumatic stress and/or pressure. Like not necessarily are they trying to fight or argue about about the situation, nor are they "trying to be difficult" like, it's completely involuntary. They aren't trying to, but their still having to deal with an 'adjustment' period.

so, something to keep in mind about Homelander is that he is the MOST unreliable narrator. he made an assumption that there was no "adjustment period" because our MC, still in shock, went into survival mode and started just agreeing to whatever he said. this is actually a trauma response in and of itself: fawning.

fawning is a trauma response that uses people-pleasing behavior to appease or supplicate an aggressor, avoid conflict, and ensure safety. she is terrified of him, but he's viewing this as acceptance rather than trauma, which will most assuredly blow up in his face.

i left most of that in his POV to give the reader the ability to put themselves and their own thoughts in the situation, but i absolutely believe the MC was dissociating through that noncon cuddle session.

i don't want people to feel like the MC isn't experiencing trauma here. she very much is! that was something i tried to convey during her breakdown with the television. she's just also in a mode where she is fighting for her life by trying to appease the object of her stress: Homelander.

that said! he would address it very directly if the MC started responding with any kind of self harm. he wouldn't like that at all. it doesn't fit in with the fantasy he's constructing. from the beginning Homelander doesn't really see the MC as her own person with agency. he projects onto her a LOT. and her specific trauma response plays into that. but it's only been a day! i promise you'll see things break down more as our MC continues to struggle and Homelander is forced to see the sides of her that don't fit in with his narrative... for better and for worse!

[yurtb0y]

Ted infodumping:

OKAY. Ted is so horrifically mischaracterized that I don’t even really know where to begin. I’m fresh on my Ted lore because I spent the whole night listening to the audiobook and tweaking out like a nerd 😭

Book Ted is so interesting. Without considering game lore, a lot of people seem to think of him as just a cold, self righteous misogynist. However, the thing is that Ted HATES himself. All of his paranoid delusions stem from insecurity, but the way he frames it in the narrative sounds like he’s ’bragging.’

“They hated me because I was the youngest” and “I was the least affected” both sound like points of insecurity for him. Not that he wanted to be tortured more, but in the sense that he was aware he suffered less, and he was insecure of the fact that it was obvious. Ted watched as Benny was transformed from a handsome, normal guy to a straight up ape, and he seems to use that as a comparison point for the other torture they experience. Like, “Well, I don’t have it as rough as Benny, and my mind is still intact because I would know if it wasn’t!” is essentially what Ted was getting at.

Based on how the canned food incident was mentioned in the game during Benny’s route, it can be assumed that the game takes place shortly after the book (seeing as it’s still only been 109 years), and obviously Ted and Ellen didn’t get to kill everyone.

Ted’s route and section in the game strategy guide highlight the reasons why he is the way he is. He was basically groomed by an older woman when he was 19. He had no education, and was forced to work as a mechanic. Then, this woman shows up and shows him the high life; he doesn’t even realize he’s being used by older women for his body.

Notice in his route, Ted never offers to sleep with the maid or the witch.. they offer it to HIM. And it’s not necessarily even an “offer”, it’s in exchange for something. Ted has always used intimacy as a way to get something, and that explains why he has such a cynical view of Ellen. She services the men to try and keep them sane, but Ted can’t seem to fully understand how it’s a selfless act. He has always attributed sex as a means to barter, and here’s a woman having sex with them for “no reason.” Seeing as he couldn’t make her finish, that furthers in his mind that she’s not getting anything from him, so WHY is she doing it? It doesn’t help that AM altered her to make her crave intimacy more, but Ted can’t escape his own disturbed views of sex, and so he blames Ellen for her service.

Then in the game, the reason I think he’s suddenly switched up so fast was because he saw the opportunity to be the fairytale hero that he always imagined being. In the game strategy guide it mentions how he felt cheated because he already saw Ellen as /his/ partner (or something like that), so now he had an opportunity to play the part of a gallant knight for the damsel in distress.

FUN THING TO NOTE!! In Ellen’s route she’s obviously very self-sufficient and intelligent. She’s strong, too. However, every time Ted narrates something (such as the book or his route) he perceives her as weak and emotional; when she doesn’t seem the type. She’s KIND, compassionate. Ted sees that as a form of feminine weakness. It makes you wonder if you can ever trust anything he said about her in the book, from her crying to her “emotional outbursts”. Ted is 100% an unreliable narrator, but people don’t seem to realize just how unreliable he is.

Another thing worth considering is that Ellen has Ted’s infatuation purely because she is the last woman on Earth. There is no other woman for Ted to run to, and he desperately needs the company/affection. Instead of coming to the terms with the fact that he’d never truly have something genuine, he deludes himself with the IDEA of Ellen (I assume his ideal version of her is the one in his route — pliant and submissive). He doesn’t love her for her, he loves this handcrafted idea that he’s built of her.

I personally think a lot of Ted’s inner hate towards Ellen in the book was also because he was jealous. She gave Benny a lot of attention because he was objectively the one that had the most shit going on (I mean… monkey 😭) and Ted immediately assumed the only reason she must like him is because he’s got a big package. This all ties back to Ted viewing sex as a bartering tactic. She doesn’t give Ted that gentle attention, and he can never make her finish. “Therefore, Ellen must give Benny tons of attention because he’s a good lay!” Is what I think his thought process was.

Now, this might be a crazy take, but I also think Ted projects his potential sexual trauma onto Ellen. He was used by older women throughout his young adult life, and he may not know it, but having sex with them to maintain his finances and social status must’ve been traumatic to some extent. But, he could never realize that, this happened in a time period where people were even more likely to not believe a male victim. Ellen takes him out of turn to thank him for going with them to get the canned goods, and all Ted can seemingly think about is how she MUST be using him. She was just trying to do something nice for him, but Ted is so tangled in his own paranoia and delusion that he can’t fathom why she’d do something nice for him.

Sorry if this doesn’t make sense I just woke up but ooooh I love Ted lore so much ugh!!!

y’all get him so well and this was sm fun to read THANK YOU!!!!

[danlous]

I've probably said this before but when considering the unreliable narration in iwtv i think what we don't see is much more important than what we see. Like i think people have been since the beginning focusing too much on what is a 'fake' memory or narrative or lie. Especially Lestat fans have a tendency to do that when trying to explain away things he does saying that isn't 'real Lestat'. But there is actually very little in these first two seasons that contradicts Lestat's established characterization; what we lack is Lestat's point of view and more information. It's not about the existence of all the negative things and memories, but the absence of positive ones. We know there were good things in Louis and Claudia's relationship with Lestat but we see very little of it. There is nothing in Lestat's abusive and cruel treatment of them that contradicts that he loved them and that good things existed too. Even if he had been a hundred times more abusive it wouldn't have dimmed the reality of his love in the slightest. But that love, especially the love he has for Cladia, isn't necessarily clear for viewers or characters other than Lestat in the show because it's not shown.

When we get Lestat's version of the story in s3 it's going to be different than Louis' or Claudia's or Armand's version - but i think probably less so than most people assume. In 2.07 we already see that Lestat's version of the revisited scenes is more like an extended version and doesn't really even contradict Louis' and Claudia's story. In Lestat's version of Claudia's night of turning Louis begged him more desperately and he warned Louis more strongly, but it's actually very similar - we just didn't see everything they said. In ep5 flashback he's vague and doesn't tell everything he did (if we only got Lestat's version you'd have an impression that the assault was less violent than it was) but doesn't deny anything either and openly admits that he 'broke' Louis to hurt him. The additional scene is just what Claudia didn't see because she wasn't in the same room and it doesn't change anything, it just tells us more about what Lestat was feeling. In the same way i think Lestat's narration later is going to give his perspective and clarify his motivations and emotions, but it's not going to erase anything we've seen before. You can already guess that Lestat felt extremely lonely and abandoned and paranoid, and that he was worried and protective of Louis and Claudia and tried to control his fears and insecurities by controlling his fledglings. We'll see much more of him being vulnerable and loving and learn a lot about his past and trauma. But none of that means that everything we've seen didn't happen, and likely Lestat isn't going to claim it didn't happen either. And it most certainly doesn't excuse anything.

For example in 1.06 when Lestat forced Claudia to return, in addition to dragging her home so that Louis would stay with him i think he was also genuinely trying to protect her because he knew that other vampires in Europe would likely kill her quickly if and when she found them. But that doesn't make the way he treated her in that scene any less horrendous and abusive. The depiction of Lestat and Claudia's relationship in the show has actually been in line with their book relationship, where in Interview Lestat is often cruel to her, threatens to kill her, and indicates that he only made her to keep Louis with him. We only learn later from Lestat's own narration that he actually always loved her. The scene at the end of Interview where he's crying while clutching Claudia's dress after her death is arguably the first time we see proof of him loving her. I think it's pretty likely they're going to include that in the show, with Claudia wearing a similar yellow dress and Santiago pointedly snatching it from her ashes, and that is going to be a reveal to viewers that Lestat's feelings for Claudia were much more complex than shown so far.

I think Lestat's love for Claudia, which i'd argue is a core part of his character in the same way his love for Louis is, is the most significant part of the story that has been erased, and that erasure makes sense since Armand's narrative relies on the presumption that Lestat hated Claudia and wanted to kill her. But it's Lestat's own doing that narrative is so believable that even Louis believes his husband wanted their daughter dead. This is a tragedy that Lestat created himself. The greatest horror of the story is the continuous coexistence of deepest love and deepest cruelty. The most upsetting thing isn't that Lestat was a victim of some false narrative and didn't actually do the things he was shown to do, or that he didn't really love Louis and Claudia, but that he loved them, both of them, and still did those things

[ghostinthegallery]

So a thing I’ve noticed about necron books…

I do not think it is controversial to say that Robert Rath and Nate Crowley really defined how a lot of us (especially me) view necrons in modern 40k lore. They did so much heavy lifting to take the faction that was literally just Terminator ripoff (aka Tyranids but worse) and make them into characters.

But they did it in such different and almost contradictory ways. And I think it boils down to this:

Rath's necrons are gods who were once mortal. Crowley's necrons are mortals forced to become gods.

(disclaimer: I don't think one author is "more correct" or whatever. Different characters experience the universe in different ways, embrace a little subjectivity does objective truth even exist?)

Let's start with Crowley. In both Severed and Twice Dead King, memories and bodies are defining features of their narratives. Oltyx can and does revisit his memories at will (not without consequence get your pins out and put em in). He is haunted by disphorakh, this feeling that he should have an organic body but does not and that this disconnect is actually killing him. The flayed ones' whole existence is steeped (literally) in flesh and blood and disphoria.

On the slightly less extreme end, in Severed Obyron remembers the flesh times vividly: the battles, the people, who and what he's lost. They are fighting the manifestation of what Obyron fears becoming: a mindless machine, “severed” from his past experiences. And the ultimate stakes in a Crowley book? Loss of memory. Loss of self. Obyron and Oltyx pay this price throughout their stories, and it eats away at them. Necrodermis makes their physical selves immortal, but their minds? Just as mortal as ever. If not even more so. The people they are were formed in flesh times, and all immortality does is wear away at them as they desperately try to cope.

Robert Rath's necrons? Not so much. Sure, Trazyn and Orikan angst about their loss of memory, but the memories of flesh for them are so distant and unreliable that they could not build their personalities around them even if they wanted to. Trazyn's link to the past is external: objects he has collected. Orikan... what memories he has of his past are fuzzy and in some cases straight up manipulated. That's distressing, but not enough to totally rock his sense of self. That’s a stark contrast to how Crowley’s necrons operate.

We all know the iconic Old Man Fight from Infinite and the Divine. Where Rath describes Trazyn and Orikan fighting and points out how stupid it would be back in the flesh times? Just two nerds hitting each other with canes. Well the flip side of that is that what is actually happening is NOT two nerds slapping each other but two immortals with incomprehensible power battling on a scale mortals cannot process.

Rath’s necrons operate on scales mortals barely understand. Oh, the Greek gods destroyed one city? Troy took em ten years? Trazyn and Orikan wiped out a planet's population by accident. And they are both so divorced from mortality that they don't care. Sheesh, Trazyn is so alienated from the idea of a body that in War in the Museum he informs a woman that he’s filled her up with her own dead sisters organs and I legit believe he thought this would make her feel better.

I adore both approaches! The differences in character and perspective, how they relate to the world and themselves. Yes, it creates contradictions in the lore (like why doesn’t Trazyn lose his shit knowing people like Zahndrekh or Oltyx just…remember necrontyr society perfectly clearly) but I aggressively do not care. I love the varying explorations or power, the nature of the self, the truth that none of these people have survived immortality “in tact.” Those are exactly the things that make necrons my favorite 40k faction. Hell, one of my favorite sci if aliens ever. Because both approaches are haunting and hilarious and poignant and so damn cool.

So…uh…thanks guys. Yeah.

[essektheylyss]

Okay here's the thing though. Actual play is not like other narrative forms, because the amount of chance involved in the game play means that the ending, in most scenarios, is not already written, and even when it is, as in EXU: Calamity, how you get there is not yet set in stone.

But notably, what is set in stone, the past, only goes back so far. In theory, character backstory is pre-written, but anyone who has played TTRPGs with an emphasis on story and character will recognize that backstory is a lot more fluid than we might imagine, and certainly more fluid than the history of a real person. As you really begin to play the character, you find the ways the backstory doesn't quite mesh, what needs to be cut or fleshed out, and you can make those edits over time so long as they haven't yet been brought out explicitly in game.

But the farther along you get, the more you have to make explicit, and the less leeway you have (at least without significant, usually clunky, retconning) to change that past to suit the future that you're developing.

At the same time, though, the backstory that does get set into stone over the course of the game is still in many ways virtual, in that it is often, if not exclusively, filtered through the point of view of the character's memory. Even in the flashback sequences of this chapter of Candela Obscura, the emphasis tends to be on how the characters remember it, and what they choose to remember—Sean doesn't know, will never truly know, if the children he killed were monsters or not; Nathaniel doesn't focus in his memory on the fact that he tried to save his brother, he only remembers having failed.

In this sense, there is generally an element of unreliability to backstory. Because it exists in memory (even for the players, who usually have not played out every one of those moments as if they were living it, only having remembered it), it is subject to the fallibility that memory always involves.

This kind of restricted timescale, the entire world contained concretely only within the context of game play, is a mechanical reality and limitation of TTRPGs in general, and much like the laws of physics, it's not really malleable. One could play out certain pieces of backstory, but cannot ever live the entirety of a character's experience, and even then, the larger context of that experience will always exist outside of the world until it is made concrete in the course of the game.

This is the brilliance of Marion's breaking of time. The manipulation takes advantage of the fact that this memory is only a memory, because even as played out between him and Jean in "Flesh and Blood," it is still filtered through how the Marion of the game remembers it, and not a concrete experience.

That ability of the Medium, to manipulate reality and change oneself in the process, as though it had always been this way, is a mechanical acknowledgement of the already slippery flow of time in game play. It is a beautiful mechanical form of retcon that doesn't feel like a cheat or a copout, and it's simultaneously a very clever way of managing the tension between these limitations of form and the common fantasy archetype of diviners and seers.

Using it to then literally rewrite the past, because the details of the past are still fluid until they are explicitly written, is nothing short of poetic.

[darkfictionjude]

I definitely think there's sexism at play with Nia (although not quite as overt it was with Carmen), people are less forgiving towards female characters across all types of media. Especially ones who aren't humble/modest, morally good, supportive of or even subordinate to male characters (especially if the protagonist is male), conventionally attractive (I know Nia is, but just making the point generally), etc.

But in this specific instance, I think it's also because Nia is the only one with a prior positive relationship with the MC. I could see the MC feeling more strongly about Nia's actions than Lorcan's (who they never had a positive relationship with) and Imre (who they didn't even interact with or care about lol). With Nia, the MC has actually lost something, one of the few positive relationships they had. Maybe the only one if you consider Sally's to be “positive” but unhealthy.

Generally readers tend to feel protective over MCs against characters who hurt them. Sometimes to the extent that isn't viewing the situation fairly/logically, or giving the same grace to other characters as you do for the MC. I've seen authors receive hate over that for characters that are gender selectable too (e.g. Infamous). And this MC is an unreliable narrator and we haven't gotten an explanation from Nia yet or seen what she's seen firsthand, we didn't get a full conversation with her until recently. I think these factors make it harder to judge the situation and easier to view Nia negatively, because as the reader we're missing important pieces of the puzzle right now.

It also could be that what Nia did (distancing herself, ending their friendship, not seeming to care about them anymore (before the end of this chapter)) is something that's more relatable to real life and might even be something people have personally experienced. I see people hate bully characters more than outright murdering villains, because the latter doesn't feel real to most people, whereas there are a lot of people online who have experienced bullying at school. And whilst I understand that Nia doesn't actually like or respect any of that popular group apart from Imre, she's still willingly associating herself with people who are bullying Crown, someone they were friends with for most of their lives.

(I'm saying all this as someone who's looking forward to my MC and Nia rekindling their friendship. But I can understand why some people feel sour towards her, even if her actions are understandable and justified from her perspective. I would probably do the same thing as her tbh, probably even earlier on when she first witnessed a violent outburst. But even if you're being reasonable, your actions/words can still hurt someone else, and I don't think it's unreasonable for that person to feel negatively towards you as a result.)

Like I’ve said many times before I understand the anger over the abandonment, I think it’s extremely valid. My issue is with how the boys are given more grace in everything they do. It just seems hypocritical to be angry at Nia but then coddle the boys as if they’re little babies who don’t understand right and wrong

Imre is friends with those people too, he’s the king of the bully group and even though he doesn’t partake he associates himself with them willingly. Like I really appreciate you writing this all down, and I agree with it it’s just any form of media I’ve always hated how women are held to higher standards than men who are sanctified when all three of them aren’t that great. You want to say “fuck you” to Nia? Good. Deserved from the POV of Crowny. But like there’s no point in twisting the narrative to make it seem that anyone of them is worse than the others when all of them have issues and have not treated Crowny the best

[jacksmusesdrv3]

Your twin theory stuff has been going on for quite some time, have you considered making a run down on it because it’s a bit hard to find all your points and information on it because of how long you’ve spent on it and I’m very curious but struggling to put it all together

(Alright, take two since I got stuck for a loooong while)

This is a basic explanation of the Ouma-Monokuma twin theory! I will do my best to condense the concepts down in a way that flows simply and is easily understandable, but it will be hard to cover everything while keeping to the most relevant information. So if this doesn't do the job, I might finish the much longer meta on ao3 at a later date, in which I will cover… everything I possibly can, no holds barred and without the blog links. Which will take considerably longer and need very careful execution. (Yeah, this is the short version…)

General disclaimer: this is a view informed by at least six years of trial and error, ruminating in canon for patterns and their meaning. Through all this, I recognise that it is still a theory, and it doesn't make others’ ideas less meaningful. All the same, I need you to understand that this theory and its analysis is fundamental to my view of Danganronpa as a whole, not just my feelings about Ouma. And in my opinion, the presence of bad writing in DRV3 does not negate that view, either. So if you believe that it does, I hope we can agree to differ on our reader responses instead, after all is said and done. Thank you.

Alright, with that out of the way, dropping this under a cut as it's lengthy. Though rather than a lot of detail on what this means for Ouma's character right now, I'm going to dig through the surface with the basis of reframing, roles, academy history, psychology, narrative style for the mastermind, and the broader consequences, with feelings from my perspective to wrap up. I hope that will help give a perspective of the theory world, so that any evidence I give should fit easier in the future.

⚠️ Reader discretion is advised- this content details abuse further on and will be marked like this! ⚠️ 

[‘Then this story's not over.’]

The way I see this situation is basically like a 3D sculpture with two different pictures- ‘the fiction’ and ‘the conspiracy’. That is to say- in the ‘fiction’, there are things that are effectively motifs or throwaway remarks (such as, Ouma's comment about having a brother in his FTE), but in the ‘conspiracy’, they become clues to a hidden interconnected situation. A puzzle in the meta, essentially.

To begin, I’ll outline components of this framing, as these are necessary to understand how this turnabout works.

Catbox world: the question hanging in the air, 'is HPA fiction, or is it real'? What would the consequences of the latter be for the game and outside world of DRV3? In order to begin answering this, I think this way:

Domino effect: 'when you learn a new fact, you learn something else along with it'. Ex: if HPA is real, a very large and clandestine organisation may also be real, since one was connected to HPA's library. With that possibility opened, there are… a lot more potential threads coming from it.

Unreliable narrator: is there something Shuichi is missing? In Ouma's lab, along with the complete history file there are monitors and a hatch, and in his dorm room there’s a whiteboard with pictures and notes scrawled on, the latter two Shuichi doesn't even notice. There are things he cannot verify too - such as Rantaro's odd memory of the forgotten Prologue - which is left up to us, the players.

Contextual reframe: with the new information, we can infer for example that record keepers of the past are made obsolete, and since the HPA history was in Ouma's lab, this could make him a viable record keeper. If TDR's agenda is with historical record, its identity may be the secret society involved in conspiracies. This can greatly affect some of Ouma's comments in hindsight- one relevant to this is his FTE remark about ‘tricking the entire world’.

With doubt already on the most basic aspect of the 'fiction' narrative (that is, ‘HPA is fiction’) we can apply this principle to the Flashback Lights and by extension, the idea that the cast must also be fiction, too. 

Ex: Shuichi and Kiibo were made to see the Flashback Light panel in a way that was rigged up to be seen- it should not have been visible to multiple persons, so it's likely to have been tampered. We know Shuichi to be helpless with computers, so he would not be able to verify if anything else is amiss (ex. Kubs Pad and other options being withheld). What's more, with ‘fiction things’ - such as the Shukuchi method for Ryoma - being relevant in both the ‘weird backstory’ and in the main narrative, there's a possibility that some of the Lights are real memories or at least closely based on their real experiences.

[‘A liar like me knows their own kind.’]

When you reframe the context in an excessive manner like this, it can also affect known roles, even events and relationships. I reason it beginning like this:

Tsumugi becomes a patsy for Monokuma. Just like the fake Makoto in DR2 led the narrative to trap Hajime, Tsumugi misled others similarly, with incomplete knowledge of her own cospox. That is, her cospox being real in the sense of the effects on her person, doesn't necessarily mean that HPA is fiction, because it's about her perception

Kiibo becomes a patsy for Monokuma, someone whose true (military) nature was obfuscated to himself on a metaphysical level, via code-hijacking. This means that high-powered functions he has are strange to him, and he’s easily manipulated into believing lies about his function (such as ‘strength of a senior citizen’, and the ‘audience surveys’ that he cannot verify) 

Ouma becomes Monokuma’s double, like Mukuro taking the identity of Junko, as the monitors and hatch are a direct parallel to Junko. This means that Ouma has a deeper relationship and notably intrinsic connection to Monokuma as well as less freedom from him, likely has extensive knowledge of everyone, and has his own memories. And from that, an incentive to guide people he considers his friends, to minimise himself and his own struggles while working against Monokuma subtly, even to manufacture his disappearance in ch5 to take the fight to Monokuma alone

Shuichi becomes the ‘shadow mastermind’, like Izuru- the ‘traitor protagonist’ who sealed and sabotaged the group’s will to live, while losing his memory of that. This is reflected by Chapter 1's case, wherein he had created the perfect setup for Kaede to enact her own plan to kill, and had conflict over his actions that he had tried to shut away. It also provides context for Ouma being especially wary of Shuichi, noting on the whiteboard to ‘be cautious’ of him, especially if he has a relationship with Monokuma as well.

These are the big four as far as the mastermind agenda is concerned, but another interesting role-reframe is the Monokubs. Remember that Shirokuma and Kurokuma were fragments of the mastermind, and Shirokuma’s role in UDG is to deceive the player? What if the Monokubs had such a situation, split up into comedic personality fragments? Were the melodramas telling some sort of story as well- the story of Monokuma?

If so, there may be some clues from them. But first…

[‘Designed like a school’]

As to the academy’s lost mystery, it’s possible it was originally an experiment. Rantaro’s hunch was that there was ‘someone behind Monokuma’, and in Salmon mode he points out that Monokuma could have ‘taken over the facility’. A bunch of files in Shuichi’s lab suggest that the culprits of the scenarios were noted for their ‘tricks’, likely pertaining to their Ultimate talent. 

A concerning matter is that the details of the Gopher Project’s plans were crossed out, with us unable to see why youngsters of Ultimate status were required. Doubly concerning is that Ouma himself appears to have amazing, even supernatural ability, demonstrated in ch5 with his scripting- a talent such as that is in line with Junko’s abilities. 

Speaking of that, it must be said that Junko's true ability was left a mystery by the game's end. It was also a subject of much curiosity by HPA, so if Ouma is a supernaturally talented person, that could speak volumes as to his own position. His status as an 'invisible Ultimate’ alone raises questions as to why it has to be hidden, or rather, why he has to obscure it. It could be that he is oppressed by the talent system itself, and if that's the case, perhaps he is its guinea pig along with V3's Monokuma. But it's not just about Ouma's ability- if Monokuma too had a similarly strong supernatural talent and/or circumstance, that could explain not only his posing as a ‘god’, but Angie’s mysteriously intimate knowledge of others' personal ideals through such a ‘god’. That is, if she was possessed by someone with knowledge of the cast's ideals, and who was exploiting them in the Love Hotel. 

Moreover, if Ouma and Monokuma were supernaturally gifted, there's a good possibility that if the vault clues were a layered clue symbolic of them- the ‘light’ and ‘dark’ Monokumas depicted on the ‘twins’ clue for the vault - then they were not only siblings, but twins- identical twins. This allows for another ‘report card misidentification’ a la Junko-Mukuro, while the Flashback Light panel refers to the ‘Gamemaster’ rather than ‘ringleader’ (meaning an identical double could interact with it), and from a lore perspective, twins were known in Danganronpa Kirigiri to be the subject of (highly unethical) research, and identical twins would be the most sought after for genetics reasons.

Such research could eventually wind up creating Ouma and his brother - seemingly the highest of any known talents - through a form of eugenics, not unlike Byakuya’s backstory. From there, there's no telling what could have happened…

[‘Eh…?’]

Now I can get to the psychology behind the bear. If a person behind Monokuma had such a past with this academy, traits can be speculated:

⚠️ Content: incest, child abuse, sexual abuse, psych torture/institutionalisation. ⚠️ 

Vengeful: in ch2, Monokuma suggests he may hate the cast for something, and tells them to ‘work for the answer’. Interestingly, Monotaro (leader persona) makes note of ‘red lies’ in the Salmon mode, and red lies are for revenge. 

Extremely traumatised and mentally ill: if it is Ouma’s brother, and he’s wearing a straitjacket, this could imply institutional abuse. Monokuma’s behaviours in ch3 (a mental shutdown) and ch4 (depression) could denote severe mental damage, and having the academy cleared of bugs gives credence to him having an affliction with bugs like Ouma ( foaming at the mouth and passing out).

Depraved: in ch4, Ouma noted he would ‘strangle the one he loves’ to ‘keep his eyes on him’, and appears to play a similar threatening, possessive role in the Love Hotel. Implied in the Monokubs’ melodrama, Monokuma may have coerced his own sibling into having relations- though he may have forgotten his sibling entirely due to trauma.

People pleaser: Ouma says that he ‘lies to entertain people’ in his Salmon mode ending, which could reflect his persona (Monokuma)’s desires. It may be that his desire to ‘not be boring’ feeds into this persona, too, as it's something so serious to him that it was shown as basically a dying wish.

In this sense, the mastermind can be similar to Monaca- as she took control over the city (while Monokuma stated to have taken over the country), became mentally ill as a result of the abuse inflicted on her, lied (about an injury) in order to make her abusers nicer to her, and became depraved in a way childish and sadistic (in how she toys with Kotoko and Nagisa, for instance). There's also the narrative effect of obscuring her trauma with unreliable narrator, and even Monaca’s own warped sense of humour that obscures it in tandem.

[Twin with supernatural talent (Junko Enoshima), a result of experimentation (Izuru Kamukura), childishness complex (Monaca Towa) and all combined (Kokichi Ouma)]

For narrative styles, DRV3's Monokuma is a culmination of approaches to make the game’s mystery truly warped to its core. Taking the masterminds’ actions from the past games:

Junko selectively picked photographs to sow discord about the group’s reality

AI Junko (a plant by Izuru) tried to lead Hajime into making a choice without proper context

Monaca led Komaru through a growth journey to use her for impact at the end

These can be attributed to: 

the Flashback Lights- some real, others ‘rotten apples’, but overall context is dubious 

the ‘It is fiction’ declaration- may be a leading question, again with dubious context

Shuichi’s ‘confidence growth’- that makes him more credible to those watching outside

(As for ‘context being dubious’, it should be noted that the Twilight mystery has a similar vibe in terms of how it is chopped up and misrepresented on the first viewing. This is particularly interesting when you factor in the mixed Kubs Pads giving other characters information.)

Speaking of ‘using’, Monokuma talks about how someone could be used by expressions of gratitude. In parallel to this, Shuichi is talking about how he was happy to be ‘useful to others as a detective’, and regards their gratitude personally. But it’s concerning that Shuichi and his history is a topic for ‘Monokuma Theatre’, when you factor in what Monaca did in UDG.

The basic concept is: with Monokuma’s agenda towards the end being to throw out foreshadowing and mystery - to deny its purpose - he wants you to make the decision of ignoring the heart, discarding the mystery and the path to the answer. In this sort of vague and unnerving way, a ‘hidden mastermind’ is like a progression of Monaca’s style. Symbolically, Shuichi’s journey seems to be one where he is on the fringe of going astray the entire time, and in this reading, he ultimately does with the loss of the game's mystery. 

What follows is the player's re-examination of the canon context and in this case, a ‘salvage effort’ of what was lost. And ultimately, in the quagmire of broken context, Ouma's mixed relationship with Shuichi is fuel for thought, because his cryptic behaviour - like the game he plays in his FTE - keeps you guessing on what he's been trying to say.

[Members… of what?]

So, factoring in earlier recontextualisation - of the large organisation likely spanning the world - is the idea brought up during Ouma's FTE, that I question like this: could Shuichi have joined a nefarious organisation after all, and following in Salmon mode: is there any indicator Ouma has concerns about Shuichi’s intentions in general (that is, regardless of whether or not his past self would have been capable of less-than-moral decisions)? 

What about others in the cast- a Prime Minister who had run away from her post, a military robot, a super inventor, an assassin? An artist with odd brainwashing powers, a musician with the ability to connect to others’ hearts through music? Because given that the DR2 group had affected the world with their talents after being manipulated, it's possible that the V3 group’s talents had a similar part to play, too. For instance, Kaito’s FTE detailed the possibility of communicating with aliens, and trading technology with them- and as it happens, there is notably a very weird technology in the academy, capable of ridiculous feats. This kind of unknown in the narrative speaks of a whole world that we barely know, even now. 

If this kind of world is what Ouma is burdened by, something beyond the protagonist's understanding, that too is a story waiting to be told. And his strange interactions with Shuichi could be at the heart of this story…

[‘Just hit the reset button on your feelings’]

As for the relationship with Shuichi, that is particularly difficult to give in evidence- partly given the culprit in his backstory, and how if Monokuma was that culprit - someone with a strong agenda against Shuichi - that might link to both twins. But due to the death of one of the siblings in that backstory, it warrants a supernatural idea such as resurrection, that has yet to be proven viable in-universe. If we remember Angie having a weird supernatural air about her though, and that she was implied to be in a cult, you could still infer that cults were involved in the supernatural. It’s entirely possible that a high-profile cult had come to the point of using resurrections, although that’s very much deeplore, as is the supernatural in general.

So while I can’t say too much about technical lore, like with the organisation, I can talk about the vibes I have with the theory, to focus on a sense of grounding in character instead: 

“Ouma and Monokuma are both sidelined by the narrative. A not-insignificant part of that was caused by Shuichi in his past, even if he was led into the cause unwittingly, and the actions of Shuichi’s present self in missing memories. As a result, Ouma is in a nerfed position during the game despite his supernatural talent. Unable to say anything without surveillance, he is under a great deal of stress and pent up, ambivalent feelings - not least towards Shuichi and Monokuma -  that he tries mostly to deflect. After all, it would not do to give too much away, and ruin his own plans.”

I have a detailed ‘song lyric analysis’ of sorts to tie to this, as a way of exploring feelings. Part of the reason I’d go this far, is Ouma as the designated ‘narrative scapegoat’ has always just fit well for me, given that the cast is shown to struggle with their treatment of him. Even leaving analysis aside, I feel it would be very satisfying (cathartic, even!) to explore an angle where he was suppressed, and that his position was legitimately the consequence of others actions right from the start, making the whole ‘pretending to be a villain’ situation even more painfully ironic. 

Plus it would be a welcome change from the notion of ‘misguided morally-grey antagonist who needs to change’, in my opinion, as Ouma’s unchanging self is something I hold particularly strongly. So instead of the arc of drastic change, the thing to explore would be how he functions and struggles with others (in mundane as well as grand ways), and also gets them to change, to understand him. It would also be interesting to expand on the theme of talent abuse, to have a Monokuma who was a product of the corrupt talent system- rather like Izuru was, but this time fully present in the narrative, and in tandem with someone else connected to him.

Overall, I feel that a situation where the protagonist thinks he’s won, while a mysterious someone has been struggling in the sidelines to affect change, is a real goldmine for a mystery situation. Especially from replaying the game, and picking up odd signs that something may not have been what it seemed. There may not be much to go from there (as things stand right now, at least) but the palpable frustration means that through this perspective, I can - at times very viscerally - imagine Ouma’s frustration and powerlessness. That alone colours the game and the interactions in a whole new light for me.

I hope this helped clarify at least some of what the heck is going on- and why I would even see Ouma this way at all, if it’s so convoluted. I have struggled to put it into words all this time, but with the pieces flying in my face from every direction, it’s hard to not try putting them together. I usually don’t game on Hard Mode like this, but something about Ouma compels me- whatever Kodaka’s intentions, I believe him when he says Danganronpa V3 is without end.

Thank you for reading!

[drivingsideways]

I'm just here to post a terribly earnest rec for AMC's Interview with A Vampire, which, er, you may have noticed, I've become a little insane about in the recent past (has it even been ten days?!)

Side note: You don't have to know the Anne Rice books or the previous movies to enjoy this show. In fact, the show makes some great and fundamental changes to canon which really elevated it , imho.

Ok here goes:

1) It's a really fun gothic melodrama, which really enjoys being all three things, but especially the last. And it's good at being all three, very good, actually. And it's really fun. Did i mention that. FUN.

2) If you like twisty, non linear narratives told by unreliable narrators, this show is near perfect at it. The entire story is structured around multiple layers of performances - stories within stories within stories- but never in a incoherent way that will leave you hanging. It's very clever and has fun being clever without being obnoxious about it, if that makes sense. The theatrical feel isn't a coincidence- the show runner and much of the writer's room are or have been playwrights, and many in the lead and supporting cast have theatre backgrounds, and that makes it incredibly compelling and just- fun.

3) There's so much to nerd about! It's non apologetically literary and artistic, but in such a joyful way. It's costume design- ranging from late eighteenth century to contemporary- is just delightful; and I can't sing enough praises about the set/production design in the way it enriches the storytelling and the characters. Every little detail seems to have been thought about, from a crew that's really just having a blast, I think. In fact, I'm doing an entire rewatch of two seasons just to savor all the stuff I rushed through the first time as I got more and more caught up in the whirlwind pace of the story.

4) The performances are great! Both the leads are charismatic and great performers- and yeah, there's a lot of extraordinarily pretty people in this- but it's the total commitment to their characters that really shines through. There's a casting change for a major character in season 2, but oddly enough, it's a change that fits MARVELLOUSLY into the story itself. Season 2 especially brings in some amazing guest performances, to add to a crew that's already firing on all cylinders.

5) It's queer as hell you guys! Not a single straight couple in it, but its queerness is not just about specific ships or couples, it's just fundamental to the story itself; a point of view rather than sexual orientation.

6) What I very much love about the main romances in the show is that the queerness is essential to their story but it's not everything. There's more to these people and their difficult and often toxic loves than being queer in a homophobic world; they are allowed to be failures at love, to be angry, happy and sad, and most of all: they are all horrible people! They just are. It's GREAT.

7) On a more shippy note: there are so many great canon ships. My personal fave is the problematique "Loustat" ( Lestat/ Louis), which is also the abusive, toxic , dramatically epic love story around which the show revolves, because ngl, " they make each other worse" is where it's at in 2024, but there are other, possibly even more toxic ships to enjoy! 🍾🎊🍹💕

8) Watch it so you can come scream with me about it. To quote show runner Rolin Jones, " It's made to make you insane. Feels first."

[gffa]

I finished Rise of the Red Blade this morning and I think I genuinely liked it, to the point that I started mentally composing essays about the main character's journey and the parallels she had with other Star Wars characters and how so much of this book supported everything I've been saying about the dark side and what it does to people, as well as unreliable narrators, and even things where I thought they might be swerving into unfair critical territory on the part of the narrative wound up ultimately being almost delivered to me on a silver platter for how I was fucking right. But I don't think I would recommend it and would even anti-rec it to fellow Jedi fans who have had their nerves scraped raw, unless you are into sharp-edged female characters as much as I am. This book is for all the fans who want a hot mess of a female character who is allowed to be cruel and mean and wrong and all up in her head and unreliable and have moments of absolute yearning that made my heart ache for her and moments of awesome and that she gets to fail and be consumed by the dark and her story is worth telling. If I can love Anakin Skywalker through his descent into the dark, I can love Iskat Akaris through her descent into the same place. This is a book about what it's like to choose the dark side, to believe she's right and that she's free and that she'll get everything she wants--except it's all just kind of nothing in the end. She believes so strongly that the Jedi wronged her, that they never cared about her, that their beliefs were empty, but she says this deep in the dark side and everything we can see outside of her perspective shows that they were trying to help her, she just isn't allowed to go around embracing anger and violence. And it's a book about how mental illness makes it hard to see things clearly. As someone who has struggled with it for my entire life, who only really began to make progress once I accepted that my brain lies to me when it tells me that my friends and family find me to be a burden and would hate me if they knew the real me--ohhhh, do I see a lot of myself in Iskat Akaris. And it's a book about how it doesn't half-ass that descent. She gets to be genuinely cruel. She gets to be genuinely whole-hearted about her beliefs in the dark side have set her free and is good. She gets to be genuinely a giant ball of uncontrolled emotional thorns that she uses to hurt herself as much as other people. This is a book that's not afraid of making its main character unlikeable and, through that, making her beloved to me. If you're not into a book with sharp edges and hissing lies about the Jedi, then skip this one, just don't even read this review, because it's not going to change your mind. But if you're like me and love drama and love when a narrative doesn't actually spell things out for you, but provides all the context you need if you actually watch what the Jedi say and do, not what Iskat says they say and do, it delivers a story that I think supports my view of the Jedi pretty well. This is a story about choosing the dark and all the darkness that comes with that. It's not nice, it's not gentle. I mean, it's still a Star Wars book, but if you like awful women getting to actually be awful in ways that you can sympathize with, the ways that male characters so often get to be, then I genuinely enjoyed this book for that.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Do you think Louis' passion for photography might turn out to be plot relevant, or are they just including it for symbolic reasons? I think that's such an interesting hobby to give him, especially with the central theme being him (and Daniel!) grappling towards the truth through all these unreliable memories. Do you think at some point he and/or Daniel might happen upon a photo that sparks an important memory or solves a riddle? I think that'd be pretty cool if it was done well.

Ohhh, I think it will be very important, as well as an important narrative device.

I mean Claudia was recast... Back then there was a lot of speculation if they would use that and I can easily see Daniel finding a picture of her now, and then the view reshaping.

Maybe Armand will get one out of the folders for Daniel.

If I'm right and they filmed the "real murder night" already, then that would be Bailey still - and after that the narrative could reshape. Personally I would love it if they would include that, for example.

So yes, I do think they will use it not only as a prop.

It's too prominent in s2 already.

And I also think that for Daniel for example it might be audio records, or maybe even videos.

Louis will have proof for some things in photos... Daniel will find proof of some things in another format. I think^^

[julietasgf]

bro I use tiktok a lot and I saw some videos that made me so uncomfortable, saying they related to snow's thoughts and stuff and like... sometimes he's a funny bitter teenager, I agree, but...

really, why does no one think abt why exactly he hates the plinths so much?

snow hangs out a lot with the other kids from the capitol. tons of them are filthy rich. he complains abt them, but never as much as he does about the plinth family. he thinks extremely mean stuff abt sejanus' ma, who did nothing but be gentle to him. he calls sejanus' family names, he thinks they are not worthy and backwards and just unworthy of their money. he thinks he deserves that money, and that's what he gets in the end. but why does he deserve that money and the plinths don't?

because he's capitol. they are district. they are less than him. they worth less than him because they are "animals" in his view.

everything he says about the plinths is not only mean like he is to the rest of the characters, and it's not only bc they are rich that he's resentful. it's because they are district rich. it' because they are part of a group he hates with all his guts.

suzanne couldn't even be more obvious about what she was trying to imply here and still people are so obtuse.

I understand liking him as a character, bc, as I said, there were moments I also laughed at the completely unhinged things he thought. but again, I feel very uncomfortable seeing people saying they related to him, specially when they mention the things he says about the plinth family.

suzanne collins really did prove her point tho by writing a book from the pov of an unreliable soon to be fascist and people still falling for his narrative and charisma, that's insane to me 😭

[steddieunderdogfics]

This week’s writer spotlight feature is:  Cchapsticck! @cchapsticck has 9 fics posted to AO3 in the Stranger Things fandom and all of them are in the Steddie tag!

@dreamwatch recommends the following works by @cchapsticck

UNTITLED RECORDING rcd ca. 1987-1988

ANACRUSIS ca. 1987

RED ATMOSPHERES rcd. 1995

THE UNENDING HOWL EP rcd. 1999

wait, runner

"cchapsticck's Eddie is one of my all time favourites. It's one of the most complex depictions of Eddie I’ve every read; every work is a beautiful character study. Eddie’s history and trauma are laid bare; it feels real, and it hurts. cchapsticck’s writing is just insanely good, lines hit like massive gut punches. I love the METALHEAD series so, so much, and if you're a fan of 'musician Eddie' fics then it's a must read. Every fic is incredible, hit after hit. Writing this good deserves to be celebrated." -- @dreamwatch

Below the cut, @cchapsticck answered some questions about their writing process and some of their recommended work!

Why do you write Steddie?

I’ll be honest, it's probably exclusively because of Eddie. I’ve been a fan of Stranger Things since its original release but wasn’t really participating in the fandom side of things until season 4. As a Dungeons and Dragons nerd with an abrasive taste in music myself, of course there was the kindred spirit-ness of Eddie’s introduction to the series, but more than that he made the normal midwestern town of Hawkins feel more a character than a setting to me than it had been previously, and that really amplified my interest in his character and the space he takes up in the narrative environment that were only just then learning about. There were so many implications about him and about Hawkins that were just left on the table that I couldn’t get enough of. Prior to season 4 Steve had been my favorite character, I’d always been invested in his little redemption roadtrip and his “otherness” stumbling blocks over the seasons. How he’s cultivated this arc of rallying against an archetype that’s comfortable but worse for him in the long term - and I found myself really excited by Eddie’s sort-of inversion of that same journey as Steve’s. Both of them still sort of stuck in their ways assigning social value based on arbitrary factors and are comfortable in the more judgmental impulses they have when they first really meet, but they’re coming from opposite perspectives on the nerd/jock hierarchy and the self imposed tensions between them there and what it might take beyond the actual end of the world to overcome those things. I love a mess.

What’s your favorite trope to READ?

I wouldn’t say that I’m a reader who specifically seeks out any one particular trope over another in the strictest sense, I have the capacity to be just as invested as an enemies to lovers as I am a childhood friends to lovers, kind of thing. But generally speaking I love a character study - I genuinely enjoy works that have the creators really deeply held headcanons and making a whole world with and around it, I love some angst - I’ll never say no to a little melodrama. I really enjoy work with a really strong point of view, and I like to be sad.

What’s your favorite trope to WRITE?

I love an unreliable narrator, I love a flawed perspective, I love a narrator who lies to themselves (and you, dear reader) a little about what’s going on. I have a lot of fun as a writer getting into the way we talk to ourselves about the things we’re living with and the shapes we bend ourselves into to do the living.

What’s your favorite Steddie fic?

This is hard, I have read so many impactful fics I could easily fire off 5 right now but for the sake of brevity I will say this: I rotate afterlight by Kostas around in my head like a rotisserie chicken on the regular. There’s such a deeply felt and embodied sense of Eddie’s past throughout, and how it manifests in his present - as well as some genuinely charming details about Eddie’s present and his benign quirks that have only helped compile his bad reputation and how the life he had prior to getting wrapped up in the supernatural fits into the public narrative of canon events. The very nostalgic vibes of fall and what we of the American midwest get up to at that time feel so real. And it's so genuinely sweet, the getting-togtherness, while also being not-that-simple. It has so much going for it, really truly, and navigates and emotional complexity and honesty that I’m envious of as a writer.

Is there a trope you’re excited to explore in a future work but haven’t yet?

I’ve written very little about Dungeons and Dragons in all of my writing about Eddie and Stranger Things (I guess a lightweight AU not withstanding?), and that feels like such a missed opportunity for me to have a lot of fun. I’ve been playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was in high school, I have such a deep love for ttrpgs and collaborative storytelling but man, 1e of D&D is so dense and incomprehensible part of me wonders if it's actually really boring to write about to-hit statistics and spreadsheets but alas it stands as a really nerdy sirensong to me.

What is your writing process like?

It's a whole mess. It’s genuinely a wonder I get anything done. I tend to get fixated on granular character things that I want to explore and it all sort of explodes outward from there. I’m almost entirely a stream of consciousness writer, and I usually only loosely have specific beats or emotional landmarks I want to hit when I begin writing but it's a pretty amorphous sense of what I’m trying to write. I tend to write mostly chronologically while I’m in that first pass of story dumping and it’s pretty rare the structure changes dramatically after that. From there I make several editing passes to fix anything from grammatical errors to character voice. I’m pretty sure I could be in the “nit pick it to death” phase forever and have to bully myself into calling it quits in order to publish.

Do you have any writing quirks?

My perspective might be a little flawed, but I think I tend to write without an abundance of plot? I think it's a product of how I write; where there aren’t a series of events that I hope to navigate, but more a series of emotional car crashes I wish to describe? I also make playlists for everything. Sometimes a playlist is 3 hours of music, other times it’s about 4 songs I listen to on a loop while I write. Each of my published works have a pretty distinct “theme song”.

Do you prefer posting when you’ve finished writing or on a schedule?

Oh, finished writing - no question. I cannot be held to a schedule, I’m so allergic to it. I am horrifically at the mercy of my fickle creative drive. I struggle with writer’s block not infrequently and I’ve definitely put myself in situations writing on a schedule where I felt like I had to brute force my way through the block to meet a publishing goal and ultimately wasn’t happy with what I put out there because I didn’t give myself the kind of time I need to work.

Which fic are you most proud of?

I think that goes to dog at the door. It definitely was the fic that gave me the most trouble, and challenged me the most with what I wanted to accomplish and how it forced me to deviate from my normal writing process, I’ve never written suspense or horror before and I genuinely do not have an objective read on how successful that was. I have mixed feelings about the piece as a whole, but I’m proud of the work and of myself for sticking with it and getting it out there despite the way it challenged and frustrated me at times.

How did you get the idea for UNTITLED RECORDING rcd ca. 1987-1988?

I grew up in the Great Lakes area in the not too distant future of the events of the show in a semi-rural/semi-suburban town that Hawkins always reminded me of. Similarly, I spent a lot of my teenage years in go-nowhere bands and driving around the state at basement shows for other go-nowhere bands and I had been thinking about the kind of community that experience that built for me at that time, and at the time - in the fandom, I was seeing a lot of Rockstar Eddie and I was very charmed by this desire a lot of people in the fandom seemed to be having about affording him a kind of positive notoriety, for once in all of our various hypothetical futures. And that personal reflection of a period of my own life, plus what was spinning around the ecosystem of the fandom at the time sort of coalesced into this character study I wanted to do about The Midwest and Alternative Music and Finding Yourself Authentically within the boundaries of those spaces. Steddie wormed its way into the concept because one, I like it. Two, as much as it's clear that Hawkins is a burden to Eddie and his character, I think the same can be said for Steve, but again, a little in reverse. It's good to leave your hometown, even when you’re comfortable and welcome there. It felt like an appropriate experience for them to both have, together, to different ends.

When writing UNTITLED RECORDING rcd ca. 1987-1988, what was something you didn’t expect?

That there was going to be so much of it! METALHEAD, the series, was initially just the first UNTITLED segment and when I’d wrapped that up I realized there was more I wanted to do. Both with form and I just felt like I wasn’t quite done with this version of Eddie I was writing, it didn’t feel like the whole story even though I felt like I’d written the whole story. No idea if that even makes sense.

What inspired ANACRUSIS ca. 1987?

Honestly, I think I mostly just wanted to try to write Steve’s voice and perspective. I only briefly described the “getting together” moment in UNTITLED and I thought it would be kind of fun to have that exist more concretely, but I’d already established Eddie’s perspective on it by that point and to retell that moment from his perspective felt needlessly repetitive, so there really seemed like there was only one appropriate narrator. And while I was writing it I think I realized I wanted there to be some kind of indicator that despite things going well and being good in UNTITLED, they were still sort of missing each other where they were at, in that moment.

What was your favorite part to write from RED ATMOSPHERES rcd. 1995?

The periodical segments! I actually had a lot of fun looking up back issues of genre magazines from the time. I definitely lost a lot of writing hours just reading Metal Edge. I used to read Kerrang! and AP when I was a teenager and I remembered the articles in those magazines always had a certain kind of journalistic voice and I wanted to try to capture some of that from those periodicals. Ultimately I think I ended up abandoning a lot of that specific tone and erring a little more contemporary with the focus and tone because I wanted the journalistic perspective on Eddie as a sort-of public figure to serve a specific contrast to the reality of his inner life, but it was a fun research project to be sure.

How do/did you feel writing THE UNENDING HOWL EP rcd. 1999?

I think HOWL had about 3 or 4 false starts, I had all these ideas for it to be a lot of different things when I first set out to wrap up METALHEAD and I stalled out on every single one of them. The scope was really broad and I was struggling to pull out anything that felt important in what I was writing. It was really discouraging for a long time because I felt really committed to this final element of the series and I wanted this sort-of catharsis at the end of it all, fragile as it kind of ended up being, but I just could not write something that was working for me. I couldn’t say why or how, but it was actually a The Wonder Years song that made everything click into place about funerals and closure and yadda yadda yadda but up until that moment there was a lot of doubting myself and floundering to finish the series. I think my relationship with HOWL is still a little fragile, as a result of me feeling really insecure about its process, but I think ultimately I’m proud of being able to just to finish an undertaking like METALHEAD.

What was the most difficult part of writing wait, runner?

Fighting the desire to make everything okay! runner started its life as a lot of scrapped sections of UNTITLED and some cut material from my first ST fic, sunflower broke because it became clear to me I was preoccupied with certain elements of Eddie’s inner life; staying in Hawkins, being a pariah, self medication, etc. and so much of that and its place in a post-canon-Eddie-lives world is tremendously bleak. So it felt dishonest to make some kind of unambiguously and clearly happy way forward, but the self loathing and self doubt I was writing in that piece felt so oppressive I kept catching myself trying to mitigate some of that and make these characters happy and I kept having to back down from it because it wasn’t really the point of any of these writerly meditations on this character.

Do you have a favorite scene and/or line from any of your fics?

I really enjoyed writing the very low stakes banter in head line, particularly Steve and Eddie being able to talk about their respective reputations without getting too deep into it: “Well then let me fill you in: I’m bad news. Headline bad news.” “Sure, but I like you.” Sure, like he agrees. But, like it doesn’t matter.

Do you have any upcoming projects or fics you’d like to share/promote?

Not so much! I have a few fics in the works that I’m hoping I can massage into something fit for public viewing but I’m not really working on a timeline right now.

Outside of these questions, Is there anything YOU would like to add?

Oh gosh, not much. Just a thank you to who nominated me, I am genuinely touched. But also to thank the mods of this blog, this is really wonderful work you’re doing here!

Thank you to our author, @cchapsticck, and our nominator, @dreamwatch! See more of Cchapsticck's works featured on our page throughout the day!

Writer’s Spotlight is every Wednesday! Want to nominate an author? You can nominate them here!

[telewarp]

i do agree with the notion that the crows in veilguard have been sanitized to some degree, but there's a few things i feel just aren't being considered when i see it talked about

1) lucanis is a nepo baby assassin, so his view of the crows is likely more forgiving than zevrans was. this and his narrative in tevinter nights shows you even then he was heavily manipulated and abused by his grandmother the first talon, and that's what happened to her FAVORITE. lucanis is in denial of this abuse because it's so normalized for him, making him a deliberate unreliable narrator

2) the branch of, and families of, crows we see in veilguard are an entirely different branch from zevrans, and therefore likely have different training methods, something we get very little actual insight to

3) zevrans account was more than two decades ago at this point, and a lot of those people are likely dead because HE killed THEM for going after him

4) not that long before veilguard a bunch of crows had a civil war and killed each other, meaning a lot of the bad (well, worse) actors were recently killed (i haven't read tevinter nights yet but this is what ive heard happens)

would it have been nice to get more nuance? yes, absolutely. but we also have to keep in mind that lucanis is the main POV through which we see the crows, and not only is his POV one more privileged than the others, but his main writer was unfairly laid off and likely didn't have time to do everything she wanted to do with his story. of course we don't get a view into the actual mechanics behind crow training and recruitment in the main story when you consider all this and the development hell the game went through, making it a miracle it was ever completed in the first place.

[nanistar]

i saw ur nightheart posts and i noticed u hate him quite a lot and im curious for the reasons why! i hope it doesnt sound rude! its a genuine question out of curiousity not an attempt for you to justify ur opinion, personally im aloof when it comes to nightheart i think hes just an edgelord tbh

nah you're not rude dw i get it. tbh i don't hate HIM as a character, i mean he's kinda annoying but whatever. instead i hate everything about him as a written extension of the authors and their views. nightheart isn't real, and doesn't have opinions but they authors do and they speak thru him to a young and volatile audience that might not know better. (which is also why i don't buy the "unreliable narrator" thing)

they twist the female characters around him to fit their narrative of "poor misunderstood sadboy" surrounded by "cruel mean women". squirrelflight, sparkpelt and even finchlight already had personalities, squirrelflight especially is known for bending rules for what she views as "the right thing", so why would she turn around and scream at him for wanting to change his name? why would finchlight, in one book, support his name change and stick up for him, only for in the next book to completely turn around and call him disrespectful and selfish. they needed to create more drama for him. before his warrior ceremony, he pulls off dangerous stunts trying to show off during his test, and it ends up blowing up in his face and fails, and he doesn't see this as HIS failing, he blames squirrelflight and his mentor for "expecting more of him because he's related to firestar" which??? and for that plot point to be given to him instead of his mother sparkpelt who is multiple times described as the spitting image of firestar? but she's like, totally fine with it. she's never given anything to do ever until she becomes a mother, (except disagree with alderheart like once and be the "rude misunderstanding woman" for his story too.)

and speaking of mothers... sparkpelt lost her mate as she gave birth, two heavily traumatizing things happening simultaneously. she had post-partum depression for a while, which is a serious and debilitating illness that KILLS people. yet she was still able to feed the kits, she didn't abandon them. they had plenty of attention from their family and from the other nursery cats. they were never once neglected. she was only out of commission for about a month before squirrelflight helped her back on her feet but that doesn't matter, because for the narrative, (and by the fandom) she is treated like a horrible abusive mother who neglected her kids on purpose. which. first of all crookedstar couldn't even LOOK at his daughter for the first week of her life and he is heralded as nothing but a loving father. second, nightheart goes on and on about how she left him and how she is hardly his mother because (lilyheart? i dont remember) one of the other queens helped raise them for the first month. the erins tie the worth of their female characters to how good of a mother they are, and any deviations from the nuclear family with a working husband and a housewife are automatically bad in their eyes,( yet they killed off ferncloud because she was "too annoying" for being a loving nursery mom.) (also think about how anti-adoption they are. the second the po3 secret was out, suddenly brambleclaw and squilf were never their parents despite literally raising them) they are horribly misogynistic, and their female characters are just pawns for either manpain or to be baby machines. this doesn't even begin to touch on how boy crazy the female protags have been lately, bristlefrost was interesting at first but eventually just turned into a wife for rootspring and then fridged for manpain, and sunbeam suddenly deciding shes in love with nightheart even though he stalked her and creeped her out???

adding on to this point, during ashfur's takeover, sparkpelt is EXILED from thunderclan (after being mauled by dogs, and by who she believes to be her father btw) she BEGS imposterstar to let her stay because of her family but he refuses. finchpaw chooses to go with her mother but flamepaw stays behind. then in his POV parts, he goes on and on about how she walked out on him!

again, nightheart the character: not real. he's a puppet for the authors to speak their misogynistic rhetoric. i would LOVE if he was just kinda a whiny emo dirtbag, or an actual unreliable narrator and whenever he complained everyone around him rolled their eyes and was like "ok nightheart" . remember that scene in meet the robinsons where bowler hat guy is telling his tragic backstory and he's talking about ppl at school and his narration says "they alll HATED me" while everyone in the scene was like "hi goob cool binder!" or "hey wanna come hang out with me later?" THAT'S (hilarious) but also what an unreliable narrator is. if that was nightheart it would be so funny. but instead, he HAS to be right, he HAS to be mistreated by all these mean horrible women. sorry for ranting, i promise im not mad at you.

[empressofthewind]

Hello! I’ve been reading some of your meronia fanfictions and wanted to say you are an incredibly skilled storyteller and really make the characters feel true to their canon counterparts. Thank you so much for your absolutely amazing writing, you are a blessing in this fandom ❤️

There was a question I’ve been wondering about if you don’t mind. In a few of your AU Mello lives and begins working in partnership with Near fics, it’s mentioned that in the outcome of the Kira case Mello lost completely and Near was the winner.

I was curious in your AU what happened at the end of the Kira case that made it turn out this way?

And why do you position Mello as the full-out loser instead of something more similar to the OG canon where his skills and ability to see and contribute something Near couldn’t was the only reason Near won?

If you are willing to share I would love to know your thoughts! if not it's oc totally fine and understandable so feel free to ignore haha

Hello! First of all, thank you very much 🥺🫶 this is really really kind!! Second of all, this is an excellent question and you are perfectly welcome to ask - I'm always happy to answer questions about my fics :-)

My best answer to this is that the way I characterise the ending is highly dependent on the specific POV I'm writing from. I write all my fics in third person limited, which is structured in such a way that it gives a glimpse into the character's inner world. As a result, there's always bias in the way they perceive things. My interpretation of Near is that he's wired to view things as objectively as possible in most cases, so his narration is generally trustworthy. Mello's inner workings are a lot more chaotic, and I tend to write him as a fairly unreliable narrator. On that basis, the idea that he would have "lost" after the Kira case is entirely his perception. His goal was always to catch Kira and bring an end to the case with his own hands, as exemplified by the line "If you can do that, then I'll get Kira myself", which he says to Near in Chapter 79 (in reference to their interrogation of Mogi). At this point in the narrative he's directly working with Near, but he never thinks of it that way. He rationalises this as "using Near", and the competition as far as he's concerned is still alive and well.

He definitely has some character development by the end, but I don't think enough has changed for him to accept the idea of a joint victory. Rather, the development that happens is in him accepting the idea of losing. As much as I do think he kidnapped Takada with the intention of saving Near's life and ensuring Near's victory, I tend to assume he saw this as surrendering, not as a collaborative effort like Near does. I very strongly believe that if he had survived long enough to see the end of the case, he would have considered himself the loser. Ultimately, Near was the one in the warehouse, Near was the one who got to put Light in his place, and Near was the one who ended up with L's title. To Mello, that's more than enough to constitute a loss.

I hope this answers your question!!!