#would be especially clear to people when it comes to characters we as the audience never actually get to spend time with | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

starcurtain · 5 months ago

Note

I wish everyone collectively understood aventurine’s character like you…things would be so much easier! I genuinely don’t understand how people keep getting his motivations wrong??? Could it be because some of the most popular Aven fanfics were written prior to his release? That could have contributed to some of the takes we tend to see about him…thoughts?

I struggled all day to come up with a concise way to answer this and couldn't think of one, so here, have a long-winded ramble:

I don't think early fic writers have much impact in the situation with Aventurine's character now, since most people can look at when a story was posted and go "Oh, this was before we had ____ information."

I think that Aventurine's problem is being a male character in a gacha game. Gacha game characters are designed to sell. Hoyo can sell female characters very, very easily. Give her huge tits and a visible underwear strap and you're good to go. I love all my guy friends, but I'm not gonna sugarcoat it: straight men are not the hardest audience to please. Hit a particular fetish (feet, spandex, dommy mommy), and you're gucci.

Nah, we all know why Jade's trailer is Like That.™

Male characters in gacha are harder to sell because women as consumers are a little harder to predict. Does every woman want a tall, ripped hunk? Shit, no, small cute boyish models like Aventurine are selling better now? Why?! Would a bad boy be more popular than a nice guy??? It's harder to account for women's tastes, especially because they are often (a little) less visually-oriented.

Hoyo is good at what they do though, and they've figured out that male characters sell very well when they possess at least one of two specific traits:

Endearing vulnerability/helplessness

Gay ship tease

Give a character both, like Aventurine? They might as well be printing money.

That sound you hear is Hoyo's stock prices rising.

So, from the very beginning, Hoyo is incentivized to create a character that appeals to people, a character people will want to crack their wallets open for. And they achieved this, first and foremost, by giving Aventurine traits that female players (in particular, but men too), find especially appealing: emotional and physical vulnerability.

We see Aventurine's pain. We sympathize with his grief. We identify with his struggle to make meaning of his difficult life. He's our woobie, blorbo, babygirl, whatever the hell they're calling it now.

He can't hide his suffering anymore. He's on the very edge. He's a dude in distress. He's surrounded by enemies! He misses his mama! He's been betrayed! No one understands him like you do, dear player!

The ultimate feeling evoked is: He needs to be saved.

When people talk about male power fantasies, I think they forget that women can experience them too, and "Emotionally vulnerable man that only I (or my favorite character) can fix" is actually a female power fantasy.

And from there it's really easy, right: the people who shell out cash to buy warps for their harmed-husbando feel like they've saved him; the people who are into mlm ships look for the nearest hot dude to be the savior Ratio was waiting for his time lol.

Morally and intellectually, this type of deep-down-golden-hearted, emotionally-wounded male character is very easy to digest. There is nothing to dislike about this type of character or role in the story: this character is a good guy who has just gone through so many terrible situations, whose victim status makes him endearing, and whose lack of agency means that any of the questionable or downright bad things he does are always the result of someone else forcing his hand, and never something he would have chosen himself.

His motivations are always clear and consistent: get free, heal, and live happily ever after.

Insert the Wreck-It Ralph meme: "Do people assume all your problems got solved when a big strong man showed up?" But to be fair, a big strong man did kind of solve Aventurine's problem, so--

Anyway, it's simple. It's straightforward. Morally, it's pretty cut and dry, black and white: Aventurine is our hero, which means everyone dictating the course of his miserable life is evil.

Hoyo is not remotely discouraging people from literally buying into this emotional appeal.

And trust me, I get it. I'll be the first to admit that hurt-comfort is its own entire genre in fandom because it is so appealing. People eat up Aventurine's tragic backstory like candy! The idea of watching a character go through hell at the hands of bad guys just to finally find a happy end is like the definition of everyone's favorite story.

In fact... people love Aventurine's suffering so much, they have invented whole new ways for him to suffer that aren't even in the game.

This is where we get all the headcanons that Aventurine was a sex slave, every single person he meets hates him because of his race, the Stonehearts are executioners holding knives to his throat, Jade enslaved him to the IPC with a lifelong contract, his material possessions belong to the company, the IPC is forcing him to take only the most dangerous missions where he is being required by his evil jailers to continually put his life on the line... You name it and I promise you, I can find a fanfic where Aventurine suffers from it. 😂

Bro can't even sleep in on his day off; life is so hard for this man.

Being serious: if the game is telling us that Aventurine is a victim... Why not make him the perfect victim?

Why not envision an Aventurine with no freedom, who bears no responsibility for any of the horrible situations he is in or any of the dubious things he does?

It's so natural to like that version of Aventurine, so appealing to see a totally powerless underdog use his own wits and charms to claw his way up to freedom. Or, if you're the kind who really relishes angst: It's even appealing to see Aventurine lose more. To delight in fics where he loses his wealth, where the IPC punishes him for past crimes while he's powerless to stop them... (I assure you, this is many people's cup of tea and the fanfics prove it!)

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with liking characters who are exactly this straightforward! It's completely fine to embrace characters that are intentionally written to be morally above-board, whose primary role in the story is to generate angst by being a good person who suffers, or those characters who never show unlikable traits, bad decisions, or contradictory actions.

The problem is that that's just not who the game is telling us Aventurine is.

Hoyo may be capitalizing off people who love to envision poor Aventurine still living his life as a slave... But the game also needs to tell a complicated enough story overall to appeal to people who don't care about this specific husbando--Aventurine's role in the actual game's plot has to be interesting enough for almost everyone to appreciate it, not just Aventurine's simp squad. (Don't get mad, I'm in the simp squad with you.)

So his character doesn't stop at just being a pure-hearted victim who is still waiting to be saved.

Aventurine is not that easy to label, and I think the biggest struggle in this character's fandom right now is between people who prefer the even-more-angsty, still-a-slave Aventurine versus people who want a morally grey, self-destructive character instead.

To me personally, while I greatly understand the appeal of fanon!Aventurine and the joy of a really juicy angst fic where characters lose it all, I think that missing out on the depth that canon is suggesting would be a real loss on the fandom's part.

The character motivations that Aventurine shows in the game are complicated. They cancel each other out. They're basically self-harm! He makes almost every situation he's in worse for himself--on purpose.

He is a good person, but also a person who has done unspeakable things. He does have morals, but he's not above allowing those who don't have them to use him to their advantage.

He's both the victim and the victor. He's his own worst enemy. He's a lost little boy who's been making terrible decisions for himself since he was like eight years old, and a grown ass man who is barely managing to fake his way through an existence that destiny is not letting him quit.

This kind of character is a lot harder to embrace. He's done things that most people would find appalling--like willingly joining up with the organization that let his entire race be massacred. He's invented a whole new peacock persona to frivolously flaunt riches he doesn't even care about (Poison Dart Frog Self-Defense 101). He actively plays into racist stereotypes about his people to manipulate others through their preconceived expectations. He's made a mockery of his mother's and sister's hopes and dreams by endlessly trying to throw his own life away.

He has flaws! He bet everything he had on a ploy without doing his homework to find out if the people he was risking his life for were even still around. (Maybe he already knew, and couldn't bear to admit it, even to himself.) He's intentionally off-putting and obnoxious to everyone he meets (Poison Dart Frog Self-Defense 102). He terrifies everyone who gets close to him by (seemingly) carelessly throwing himself into the jaws of death without the slightest provocation.

He knowingly allows the IPC to exploit his power and talents for profit. Did everyone forget that his role in the Strategic Investment Department is asset liquidation?! Like, his actual day-to-day job is ruining people's lives. Canonically, Aventurine kills people when his deals go bad.

His motivations change off-screen in two lines of story text. We're told in one line that his biggest reason for joining the IPC was to make money to save the Avgin, then in the next line we find out that's impossible. And... then what? What motivations does he even have now? The whole point of his character arc from 2.0-2.1 is that he was on the edge of giving in to utter despair and nihilism because he couldn't even perceive a single reason to stay alive. He has no purpose in life before Penacony, and that didn't start with the Stonehearts at all??

People keep saying Aventurine was held in the IPC by golden handcuffs, but how do you tie down someone for whom profit is meaningless? What can you offer to a man whose only desire is to bring back something already lost forever? How do you imprison someone whose only definition of freedom is, canonically, death?

Working for the Stonehearts is obviously not healthy. But that's why Aventurine was doing it--because taking dangerous missions allowed him to put himself at risk. The job that he originally pursued hoping to save his people became a direct means to self-harm, and the IPC's only real role in that was just happily profiting off the results.

The journal entries for Aventurine's quests are there deliberately to tell the player what is on his mind, and none of it has to do with escaping from his job:

Like... Work is the least of this man's problems.

At really the risk of rambling on too long now, he's also just a massive walking contradiction:

Aventurine is among the most explicitly religious characters in the game, yet he's one of the only people in the entire game that we have ever seen actively question his people's aeon.

You might be tempted to think Aventurine's risky gambles with his life as an adult are a result of giving up after finding out about the Avgin massacre... Butttt no, Hoyo makes sure to tell us that even at knee-high in the Sigonian desert, Kakavasha was already willing to risk himself in a fight to the death against monsters because even back then he found his own life to have less value than a single memento.

He's the "chosen one" who will lead his people to prosperity... except they're all dead.

He's explicitly suicidal... andddd also a pathstrider of Preservation.

He wants to die... He doesn't want to die. He wants to make it end, yet goes to staggering lengths to continually survive. (Every plan risks his life on purpose--but every plan's win condition is also to live.) He life is the chip tossed down, but his hand is trembling beneath the table. When faced with an otherwise unsurvivable situation, Aventurine literally became a winner of the Hunger Games. He beat other innocent people to death with his own chain-bound hands just to come out alive.

He knows the IPC failed the Avgin and left them to die... and he still willingly sought out a position of power in their organization. Maybe he really is after revenge... but maybe not.

He starts his journey in the IPC with a truly noble goal in mind: to help his people using his newfound wealth and power. He's a good guy who did genuinely want to save the Avgin and repay all those who helped him. But once it became clear he was too late, once it was obvious he would have no use at all for that monetary wealth and power he risked his life to get... What did he do with it? Unlike Jade, we don't see him over here donating to orphanages. (I'm not that heartless; I'm sure he does actually do a lot of good things with his money on the side, but the point is that the game does not show us that--it shows us, over and over again, Aventurine putting on a wasteful, over-indulgent persona toward wealth. We've supposed to feel how meaningless money is to him, how meaningless everything is becoming to him.)

He outright refuses to use underhanded tactics or to cheat at gambles, which is meant to show us that's he's more morally upright than his coworkers. There's an entire exchange where he says that he'll never stoop to using manipulation the way Opal does. But... he doesn't have any issue fulfilling Opal's exact agenda. He was never remotely morally conflicted about denying the Penaconians their freedom by dragging Penacony back under IPC control.

He's willing to risk his own life, which is one thing--but he's also willing to risk other people's well-being. Topaz accuses him of constantly egging their clients on into dangerous situations; we've actively seen him shove a gun into Ratio's hands and pull the trigger with no care for how Ratio would feel about that on their very first meeting... Dragging the Astral Express crew into the entire Penacony plan in the first place was exceedingly dangerous...

To me, I just think it's vital to understand his character through the lens of these contradictions because they demonstrate the extreme polarity of Aventurine's life: from rags to riches, from powerless to empowered by multiple aeons, from willing to kill to survive to killing himself... He has quite literally lived a life of "all or nothing," and while he is the victim of many terrible situations out of his control, his arc as a character involves facing the truth of himself and the future his own actions are hurtling him toward.

Frankly, the Aventurine that canon is suggesting is a little annoying. You want to grab him by the shoulders, shake him, and say "Why are you like this?!" And he won't even have an answer for you, because he doesn't even know why he's still alive.

In the end, to me, this is so, so much more interesting. I can read an endless supply of hurt-comfort fics where Aventurine escapes the evil IPC and Ratio is there to fill the void in his life with the power of love and catcakes and be a perfectly happy clam online, but I want canon to continue to serve us this incredible mess of a man who constantly takes one step forward and two steps back.

Who is fully aware of his role as a cog in the grotesque profit-wheel of cosmic capitalism and still manages to say he never changed from the rags-wearing desert rat of the Sigonian wastes.

Who over and over again flirts with nihility but, ultimately, even if he has to wrest it from the grip of the gods themselves with bloody, chain-bound hands, chooses life.

#honkai star rail #aventurine #aventurine meta #hsr meta #character analysis #listen I see you angsty fic writers who bully our favorite for maximum emotional gain #I am a ratiorine fan with the best of them #so I fully understand the appeal of the “I can fix him” fic #but like #there is so much else just waiting in the text of the game #that makes Aventurine such a rich complex and nuanced character #admitting that the IPC is the least of his issues makes him MORE interesting #not less #I promise #also like #getting so tired of reductive reads of my posts #just because I don't think Aventurine is a slave of the IPC #doesn't mean I think the IPC are good people #I'm not sure how many times I can say #'They're evil and are actively exploiting him for profit'#before people will stop saying I'm an IPC apologist lollll #I promise it is possible for Aventurine to have agency AND for the IPC to still be evil #those two statements can co-exist

251 notes · View notes

hellspawnmotel · 1 year ago

Note

Nah kralsei is weird because ralsei is obviously an anagram of asriel and that's kris's sibling 😭 like...he obviously represents asriel in many ways so it's just weird. Like... yeah

I agree, it is weird! it's weird to look at as an audience. but it is THERE. I think it's pretty undeniable that ralsei has some sort of crush on kris, he's so blatant about it. "are you proposing?" he asks. and there's the whole acid tunnel of love scene. like, it's literally a tunnel of love. ralsei is being set up as kris's love interest, by the narrative or by ralsei himself, if those two are even different things, we dont know yet. or maybe ralsei is in love with us, the player, and using kris as a proxy. that would still be weird though! whatever the case though like, it's there. it's there and it's extremely intentional.

to be clear I'm not saying all this bc I "ship" kralsei or think it's endgame or whatever. I'm not coming at this from a fandom or discourse angle at all. but I do think it's necessary to acknowledge what's being imparted to us by the text, which is both that it's there AND it's weird. if it's making you uncomfortable it's probably on purpose, because the story is trying to tell you something. this is especially important with something like deltarune because it's being set up (from my angle, at least) that the narrative ITSELF is a character and it wants you to question why things are happening the way they are. why is kris being set up with somebody who looks like their brother? why is ralsei in love with kris? if ralsei ISN'T in love with kris, why is he acting like he is? what is ralsei, and what circumstances made him this way? you can't just say "that's gross, don't look at that" and turn away in a situation like this. even if it makes you too uncomfortable to do so, you gotta at least let other people analyze why it's happening and what it means.

er, all this to say, whether anybody ships kralsei sincerely or thinks it's nasty or whatever, I don't really care. I just think it's really interesting as a part of the story lol. you don't like thinking about it, that's fine, I don't blame you, but I don't think it's fair to tell people to not engage with it when it's begging to be engaged with.

#asks #kralsei #incest tw #hold on theres a really good post about this by somebody else I wanna find. i'll rb with it

524 notes · View notes

itslikesearcingforsomething · 19 days ago

Text

elephant in the room

now if we’re being serious, what is about to happen with stranger things is incredibly important for queer people all around the world in our reality today. i’m not comparing it to legal actions but representation is extremely significant and sometimes even more than reforms, because being queer legally doesn’t equal being socially acceptable. with that, i’d like to make my point clear, stranger things has the opportunity to make a real impact on current state of society.

i don’t say anything about actors here, because it’s not what my blog is about, but i would betray my own beliefs and appear hypocritical if i won’t mention one issue, actor that plays the most important character in this context being a zionist, that makes a lot of people hard to relate and feel for will byers, wich is valid. we’re people and we feel conflicted about most things in life, especially when it comes to politics, everything is political. i know that majority of our byler fandom supports this actor, i don’t. i won’t discuss this, but read the rest, it’s not my main point.

with that being said, stranger things just ended filming. no matter what we think, writers already did the thing. honest to heart, i’m really anxious. i’m stressed out thinking how did they handle everything? how did they make a choice, what kind of? ten years of hard work and millions of viewers, the stakes are high. i feel like stranger things in s5 will do a lot of tip toeing around, slowly getting GA warmer and warmer for the big “plot” wich is byler endgame. they have a lot of work and pressure, it leaves me wondering how good they did. they have to make will byers very likeable, so everyone can empathise with him, root for him. they have to make mike’s subtle internal conflict (for byler audience it’s clear) really well written and direct at the same time. they have to make mileven break up right, without damaging characters of eleven, will and mike. it’s hard, it’s scary. i don’t think any show this big did something like that. the power that we have now in our lack of knowledge of what will be in season five is huge. let’s cherish this calm before the storm.

#byler #stranger things #byler endgame #stranger things s5 #will byers #byler tumblr #mike wheeler #eleven hopper #byler nation

89 notes · View notes

geekgirles · 2 months ago

Text

Yugo's Audience with Armand: Moving Past Previous Mistakes

If you think about it, after his sacrifice and his reconciliation with Amalia, his audience with Yugo is the scene that best highlights Armand's character development throughout the season, dare I say, the show. With it, we finally come full circle.

We were first introduced to Armand as he refused to let Joris anywhere near his father, even at the behest of the King of Bonta.

Up until that point, all we knew about him was from Amalia and Eva's retellings, where he was painted as often arguing with his sister, being an extremely difficult person to deal with, and having bad breath. And then we finally meet him and...

Everything they said about him turned out to be nothing but the truth.

But we don't really see the full extent of it until Amalia and Evangelyne pleaded their case regarding Nox to him, when he stubbornly refused to believe his sister, instead assuming her imagination had just gone wild. He didn't even rethink his assessment even when Eva backed Amalia up, which would have still been harsh of him to do—to believe his sister's bodyguard over her just because he has a crush on her—, but it still would have made sense, as Eva is very level-headed and she never would have even entertained the thought of allowing Amalia to joke over something so serious.

That already established Armand as an arrogant and self-righteous prince who believes he is in the right just because of his position as heir apparent and older brother.

We must also keep in mind he actually had ample reason to believe Amalia about Nox's plans. While it's hard to tell the extent of his actions and the repercussions they had on the World of Twelve and his victims before the beginning of the show, the fact remains that Nox had been at large for 200 years. In that time, he probably ravaged countless villages and killed powerful creatures in order to drain their Wakfu. Surely, word must have at least got out about some mad Xelor going around and killing people!

In other words, it wasn't necessarily like Armand didn't have proof that Amalia was telling the truth. At the very least, he must have heard some rumours. And yet, that wasn't enough for him to believe his sister and act accordingly.

Not to mention, Amalia had run away yet came back to warn her people of the upcoming threat. Yet Armand still thought she was making stuff up. Who in their right mind would leave their home only to come back to put everyone on edge over a lie?

One thing is acting spoiled from time to time, and another very different thing is acting sociopathic!

Now, let's compare this to his audience with Yugo when he sought his permission to investigate Sadida ground.

During the time between season 2 and the OVAs, Armand seemed to have developed a deep-seated mistrust of the Eliatropes, most likely caused by Qilby's deceit, and it was only exacerbated when the Eliatrope Goddess introduced herself and made her intentions of controlling the World of Twelve in order to make it safe for her children clear.

It's also worth pointing out that not even Yugo was safe from his scorn, despite being a staunch ally to the Sheran Sharms, and saving his kingdom and the world in several occasions. This I attribute both to the fact that Amalia's feelings for him got in the way of marrying her off (thankfully, he seemed to move on from that mindset in season 4, though he still didn't necessarily approve of Yugo), and the fact that King Oakheart was always so welcoming and trusting of him. Knowing Armand, it really wouldn't be far-fetched to believe he was jealous of Yugo's own relationship with his father.

And yet, when the time came for Yugo to request his help and ask him to place his trust on him, Armand agreed.

This is especially telling of his character development because, unlike in Amalia's case, Armand did have ample reason to distrust the Eliatropes.

It's true, except for Qilby and arguably their goddess, the Eliatropes are a peaceful race, but the Twelvians' experiences with the former two at least justify their unease around them.

Both of them display an alarming lack of empathy towards anyone but themselves or their people. After all, Qilby is responsible for the genocide of the Eliatropes, and all because he was bored and searched stimulation elsewhere because of his divine gift. But at the same time, while he couldn't care less for the World of Twelve and planned to have Rushu and his subjects destroy it right before draining it dry of all Wakfu just to fuel the Zenit, he was equally adamant to have his family and the Eliatrope children with him as he travelled the Krosmoz.

The Eliatrope Goddess, on the other hand, might not have been as outwardly callous as her son, nor capable of even going through with her threats and putting the world leaders in their place, but she is equally uncaring towards anyone who isn't one of her children.

In fact, that was the very reason why she made an enemy out of the Twelvian leaders and they came to resent her presence. Because she chose to override their authority and keep them all under her watch (which, until she revealed herself, had the Twelvians terrorised). But the last nail on the coffin was when she revealed that all that, the Eliaculus, sending the Eliatrope guard to help whenever there was trouble, everything, was solely to ensure her children's safety.

Like mother, like son. Am I right?

Even without saying anything, she made it clear that she cared not for the Twelvians and that the Eliatropes were her priority. And that's without getting into her manic insistence they left the World of Twelve to rot the moment the Nécromes arrived.

Now, there's no denying that most leaders with any significant focus have been revealed to be jerks one way or another (looking at you, Queen Astra, Prince of Brakmar, and the entire Osamodas royal family), but they do have a right to be worried when Eliatrope didn't even bother to hide how, in her eyes, they're second class citizens compared to her own followers.

These first impressions really didn't give much reason for Armand to believe Yugo and to listen to his pleas. However, the most damning evidence of all had to be the fact that the Nécromes appeared with the arrival of the Eliatropes. Between the suspicious timing and the fact that the portal-making race had dealt with traitors before, it sounded very unlikely that both things wouldn't be connected.

And Armand knew this. He was perfectly aware of how suspicious everything was, and he didn't hesitate to let Yugo know. However, he also admitted, several times, in fact, that Yugo had been an ally to the Sadida Kingdom since the beginning. That if both his father and his sister never hesitated to put as much faith and trust in him as they did, then it would only be wise he chose to trust Yugo as well.

A clear contrast to how he refused to listen to Amalia, his own sister, back in season 1, and all because he believed to be always in the right.

Season 4 was Armand's chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the audience, to go from an arrogant, jealous prince to a mature and wise king and brother. And while there are things I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive him for, I do appreciate the character development he went through. As I said at the beginning of the analysis, this scene proves he's come full circle.

100 notes · View notes

ourshadowsmeanomens · 1 year ago

Text

THE MEANING OF THE END OF GOOD OMENS SEASON 2 (SPOILERS UNDER CUT)

I binge-watched this entire new season and immediately unleashed every thought I had about the ending of the show alongside MANY others who were experiencing a lot of feelings. After we all calmed down, we started talking and analyzing- and I think we found something way bigger than we saw on screen at the end of this season. And what this might mean for Aziraphale and Crowley going forward into (FINGERS CROSSED) a wonderful 3rd season.

The biggest complaint many of us in our chat had about the choice Aziraphale made at the very end- to ascend to Heaven, leave behind Crowley and the bookshop, to take Gabriel's place. Everyone is saying that it's out of character, there was so much build up all for Aziraphale to throw it away, etc. But the theory- a miracled brainwash. By Metatron, on Aziraphale. Metatron has proven to be a very dismissive and rude character, especially in regards to Aziraphale, since we met him in season 1. During the literal end of the world he still only spoke as God's voice and never appeared in person. Suddenly, Metatron comes down- IN PERSON- to talk with Aziraphale about a promotion. Before we know who he is exactly, we see him buying a coffee and giving it to Aziraphale- KEEP NOTE OF THIS. When Metatron first talks to Aziraphale, Azi says something to the effect that he has "made his position quite clear." The Metatron insists, pointing out the coffee and insists they talk.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Metatron says "are you going to take it?" and RIGHT BEFORE Aziraphale says "shall I?" you hear the FAINTEST GLIMMER of the sound effect for miracles. I'll be honest I had to turn my sound up and lean in once someone pointed it out, but it's there and you HAVE to listen for it. They both go for a walk.

Crowley clearly believes Metatron is up to something, and watches them leave and walk but doesn't follow- this isn't addressed again. Then Crowley, Nina, and Maggie have their talk, and this is the part where Crowley is meant to confront his feelings. We switch back to Aziraphale with Metatron. Clearly Metatron and Aziraphale have talked about a deal and Metatron asks him to "think it over." Aziraphale has presumed to finish his coffee at this point, because he heads directly back to the bookshop to talk to Crowley. They fight, they kiss, they give each other up because Aziraphale decides to go to Heaven and leave everything behind. Like I said earlier, this is the part that enraged a lot of people- why would Aziraphale do this? This is so out of character. Why would he leave Crowley behind? Why would he leave his BOOKSHOP behind?

The current persistent theory is this:

Metatron has proven to be dismissive and untrustworthy since we met him. It is odd that he suddenly shows a change of heart for Aziraphale and wants to promote him. We, as the audience and fans, know Aziraphale's desire to live a simple, humanlike life with the person he cares about the most (Crowley) with his most prized possession (the bookshop).

The subtle miracle sound effect when Aziraphale took the coffee was the moment the miracle took place, affecting the coffee to brainwash (or at least to make more easily persuaded) Aziraphale so he'd say yes to the offer Metatron was giving him.

Aside from this, they editors/director/writers purposely wrote in and left the entire part about Metatron getting coffee for Aziraphale (as what? Some sort of peace offering?). The entire ending could have done without bringing so much attention to the coffee that Metatron gave to Aziraphale. It was unnecessary.

Unless it wasn't, and we are meant to find that out in season 3. The coffee is Chekhov's gun. In filmmaking, nothing is ever just a coincidence or an accident. They made a point to give us the miracle sound effect without showing any visible changes, made Aziraphale act wildly out of character, and framed it as though it is not, let's say, an institutional issue that is being covered up 👀👀

And let's not ignore that the episode 6 description specifically says "The Metatron brings an oatmilk latte, along with a final offer." Which would be an odd thing point out if the coffee was a mere prop.

All to say- I personally loved the season. I loved every minute, and I want to see what happens next. I think that people are going to be very angry with the ending, but that there's so much more we have yet to uncover and we shouldn't underestimate the wit of Neil Gaiman.

#good omens #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 #good omens season two #good omen season 2 #aziraphale #crowley #ineffible husbands #anthony j crowley #my post

896 notes · View notes

thedesertpenguin · 3 months ago

Text

Saw someone confused on why the coven betrayed Agatha because they were “getting along”

And yeah, the coven got along at certain points but every episode at least one of them expressed some distrust in Agatha. People have to remember that there are centuries worth of disdain to go through. One or two good moments do not erase that and they’ve been very consistent in showing the distrust of Agatha every episode to remind everyone of that.

I love Agatha, she’s a great character. But we see her vulnerability more than the coven did. We know there’s more to it but they don’t and that’s incredibly clear. I get that we love her, but to act as if she hasn’t been an antagonist for so many people does a disservice to her character.

Billy (can we call him that now?) was the only one who tried with her. But Agatha killed Alice (ik people think she isn’t dead but for simplicity’s sake she is here) and we may know it’s by accident but Billy has been surrounded by people who say she’s evil and she’s done nothing to support the contrary because her shield (and probably truly a part of her) is being cold and mean. We’ve seen him slowly begin to show his loyalty fading. Billy was hurt and the fact that Jen and Lilia were seemingly indifferent didn’t help matters.

My point here is that the sudden betrayal by the coven to Agatha isn’t sudden it’s been imminent. The coven believed that if they didn’t betray her, she would betray and kill them. They do not like her and that cannot be undone by a few lighthearted conversations.

It’s easy as audience members to believe that over the course of five episodes they’ve gotten closer because that’s what we’ve come to expect from media and especially Marvel. But we have to remember Agatha is not a protagonist and we can’t treat her like she is precious. It’s fine to believe that, it’s fine to love her but when that interferes with the understanding of the canon media, that’s when it’s a problem. The coven got close with each other but Agatha kept herself intentionally distant.

#why the fuck am I writing essays about this show #does this make sense or does no one else agree?#also im seeing too much Wiccan hate and I need y’all to leave that boy alone #agatha all along #agatha harkness #agatha coven of chaos #billy kaplan #lilia calderu #jennifer kale

81 notes · View notes

nadiajustbe · 2 months ago

Text

I will never shut up about the difference between movie HMC and book HMC fanbase — not because one is better than another, obviously, I'm saying this with zero hatred in my heart, it's just the way audience processes characters shows crystal clear what this pieces of media value and how different this values are.

Movie HMC characters, are similar to all Ghibli characters, more or less idealistic. They have their faults, right, but the whole story often pushes them through obstacles that makes them better people — human, but almost perfect, with spirits in their hearts and love in their hearts. When movie HMC fans say they love Howl, it means they adore him, they genitally want him to be their ""idol"", they want to be him or to be with him because of how perfect (and, because of that rather blunt) he is closer to the end of the movie.

Diana Wynne Jones wrote about people with flaws, people who learn to be flawed, people who come to appreciate their flaws and accept it, in this book especially. Wich is, funnily enough, almost entirely different from what Miyazaki wanted to see in the story. When book HMC fans say we love Howl, we mean he's a jerk. He's an idiot. He's a womaniser. He's slither-outer. He reject all responsibilities and never, ever changes even one percent as much as his movie counterpart does. And we love him, not despite it, not even because of it, but with it. Sure, saying he didn't learn anything would be a lie — he learned to love properly, he took another look at his values, he built a family and had to face responsibilitiies he wouldn't face at any other circumstances. What I'm saying, is he never changed to the exact of rebuilding his character enough for him to become a "better person". He's still a jerk. Still an idiot. Still slither-outer. Still rejects all responsibilities. Still doesn't change much. And we still love him.

When hmc movie fans see romantic and idealistic, hmc books fans see imperfect and flawled.

#...and there's nothing wrong with neither of it #I saw a post that summarises it as “Ghibli characters are all perfect and all DWJ characters are just little shits”#and yeah #that's pretty much it #hmc book #howl's moving castle book #hmc #howl's moving castle #howell jenkins #howl pendragon #howls moving castle

73 notes · View notes

mysteryanimator · 3 months ago

Text

Breaking down Castlevania Nocturne Season 01 - Episode 08 "Breakup Scene" shot by shot!

I've been chipping at this for a while and now I can put this out to the world. While this will be a lot more 'clear' and more put together than a lot of my previous writings (I am so sorry, I have looked at those past writings and I look like a madman, I was trying to hold back all of them and therefore it ended up super messy) however, it is still going to be a very casual document—as if a conversation!

To preface, these are just my thoughts, and by no means is the actual indicative end-all-be-all for these shots! These are just observations based on my special interest (and also I did ATAR for this, which in short I suppose is a specialization study ? I'm not sure how to describe it LOL) in media production and analysis, with a heavy passion for visual storytelling in film! It has been a while since I have written something like this so you may have to bear with me here.

I consider myself still an amateur, but shot choices matter, especially when you have only 8 episodes, a deadline, a budget, asset restrictions and so on. It all has to count. Everything matters.

As a side thing, while we can and very much should criticize media for being poor in writing, composition and so, yet, I've noticed people do tend to forget everything is 99% considered. Everything has its place and everything has intention. Passionate creatives care and there is more than "the curtain is blue just because". Like I can and will talk about how every Mizrak and Olrox scene is placed in green/earthy-colored environments (not here though LOL, this is not the time for it). The times when things slip under the radar and are put there just because are mostly due to executive meddling, budget restrictions, and deadlines.

Now that the introduction part is out of the way, let's start!

The establishing shot!

I think you’ll notice this in many many shows in general, but this is often used to establish a new scene. While some may think there’s nothing too special about it symbolic wise, Olrox is seen literally dragging Mizrak up the hill. Begging the question of why does Olrox shift out to his shadow form?

For a writing/story perspective, for the breakup to hit with those emotional beats, it has to be done face to face, ‘human’ to human. It cannot be done in shadow form because the dialogue and facial expressions that need to happen, it has slap you in the face. Like the crying scene. It also means when you deliberately cut out any expressions from the shots due to the camera framing, you get a more emotional reaction from the viewer. This is because you cannot see the emotions that they are clearly having. It is like the characters do not want to show us it or let us in.

Character's perspective, Olrox is given the chance for Mizrak to fight back and probably somewhat hoping that Mizrak would break out of his arms easily so he can prove to Mizrak he isn’t powerful enough. It's much like how he lets Richter live in episode 01. He often gives chances to people and it's probably going to come up again.

Olrox drags Mizrak into this scene, and we’re getting a mid shotttt, (I think technically cowboy shot, since we do get like waist and hands, though its because their height differences but I might be getting too pedantic with this).

This may not seem too special, but it’s a very nice way to show Mizrak struggling and just set the baseline for the action occurring since from the establishing shot we can’t tell too much because it's so far out. It also now brings the audience into the scene, we are now privy to their most private conversation. We can also see Olrox is literally holding him super easily he’s literally not even trying LOL. We can see the dynamic being established and how that dynamic will shift at the end. So we have established the new setting/characters in the first shot, and now we've established what this side story will be about in the second shot.

THE LOW ANGLE 🫣

Low angled shots are used to make a character appear powerful because the camera is looking up, therefore making the presence in the shot seem like a massive force. Olrox is supposed to be powerful. Yet, even though he’s taller, right behind Mizrak holding him back AND directly mentioned- he’s not in shot scene except for his hands. They are SUPER prominent in this shot, they’re practically in the middle of it and stand out because his hand is lit super differently from Mizrak’s face.

Olrox’s power is being used to hold back Mizrak.

Side note, I think this is just me, but this shot feels suffocating WHICH IS A GOOD THING. While there is some empty space around Mizrak, it's still extremely dark like Mizrak's clothes so it kind of blends in and makes this scene suffocating. It is as if we're being held back too.

This camera angle also makes Mizrak look very powerless and powerful at the same time which is I think is just really neat. With each established 'rule' for camera shots/angles, you can break them to subvert audience expectations. Mizrak is yelling and using all his power to convince Olrox to fight. Convince him that he can do it and fight Ezerbet.

Long shottttt, slightly different from an establishing shot since it punches in more closely.

“She’ll kill them!” And we can directly see the Abbey from here, being loomed over by the eclipse, which is really super nice. It’s telling us he’s practically going to watch them die if he stays where he is.

Also visually the 'weights' on the left and right of the screen can be argued that they are even, almost as if both choices are heavy and hold the same power over each other. The choice to go back and fight, or the choice to run.

Close up shot! Close-up shots allow for the audience to read a character's face, or if not their face, their action, to put extreme importance. The small details matter in a close-up and are the main focus.

This is soooo intentional, but we don’t get Mizrak’s initial reaction. IMO we don’t ever get it, we only get his response to Olrox, and I see reaction and response as two separate things. This is a super hard side view of both of them. It's not 3/4, it's not front- it is side profile, used to amp up the dramatics of the scenes. It's a nice contrast to how it's only one side of his face yet he's revealing an inner thought. As if maybe perhaps, there is more to this truth then he lets on, it is perhaps, maybe only one side, of his guarded truth.

Also, people may call this a corn plate moment but his eyes are open for one frame, and then when he tilts his head down, they're closed. Its a very small detail, but it's being used to set up for his crying scene later because this acts to 'reset' his face before we see it again.

This is Mizrak's response. We don’t get to see his face, but he BACKS DOWN, and I don't believe he does it because he think Olrox will release him if he does (which Olrox does anyway), but its also kind of his reaction.

This is a forced perspective shot, I think this is now a high angle. So the camera is looking down on the characters, making them powerless and vulnerable. Opposite to a low angle shot.

THIS IS CALL BACK TO THE BED SCENE. Olrox holds Mizrak from behind

A rehash of this scene from episode 04 but with 10x the angst.

Y'all are free to call me out on this section because my storyboarding experiences are small BUT i am just throwing in additional context.

Storyboarding scenes and shots is a collaborative process (as is the whole animation industry itself). These boards go through multiple iterations, which you namely you have to get it passed off from your storyboard director but also your fellow storyboard artists, your background artists and so on. While you dedicate yourself to this specific scene, you let previous parts of the story influence your work and vice versa, allowing for things to feel more connected and visually tell a story. This is the last moment we see this 'couple' in this show, and with such heavy scene that breaks these two apart, you are going to want to call back other times where they were close so it makes the separation that much more painful. In this case, it was chosen to have Olrox holding Mizrak as a callback. This then means this will be a common thing they will go back to and it will somehow reappear in season 2 and every season after that (pleasepleasepleaseplease season 3, maybe season 4 guys please). When it does reappear, it's going to be an alternate version that builds upon the last, and who knows, it may be way more subtle. It may be flipped. The way they act around each other when standing behind each other is very important. The way Olrox holds Mizrak is very important (and he doesn't just hold him by just sitting or using his hands, but also I can discuss that on a different scene breakdown if you guys want!)

I need to point this out super clearly. We do not see their faces this time around for that shot and that is intentional because then it forces up to think of what it is like. We have to infer from their previous interactions and what should come to mind is episode 04.

I would love to break down this at some point later (and how episode 04 and episode 06 make callbacks to each other, I've mentioned it before in a tweet somewhere I digress though). I'll briefly go through this now- this image is a (extreme) top-down close-up of their expressions, the perspective is pushed here. In episode 08, we get a top-down view where the perspective is also extremely pushed. This has to be a callback, there's no way that wasn't intentional.

This is what I imagined their faces to be when Mizrak stops resisting and drops his arms.

Now we see Mizrak’s face. Trade off is that we don’t see Olrox’s face. Like a reaction to a reaction. It’s to set up for the next shot to make us go “oh my god.”

THIS SHOT IS SO GOOD Y'ALL😭 (Also a close-up)

Olrox is not known to show any extreme emotions, only time he does was when he forced himself to bow to Ezerbet. So to the audience, this is really shocking because THATS TEARS RIGHT THERE.

The forehead creases are telling me he’s holding back really hard. He’s dead still beside the wind flowing. He’s using his power to hold back.

This is a front view too. Olrox is baring himself out. No 3/4, no side angle, front view. Also, the backdrop has the trees beginning to clear out behind him, which subtly alludes to us as an audience to realize how we're getting a slightly clearer picture of Olrox's headspace, of his views, and so on!

Which… is this a call back to when Olrox said “I’m not in love with you” (?) It is a front having shot but its cut closer and his eyes aren't glowing.

Which, I still have no idea what the glowing eyes mean. Unless there are no rules the glowing eyes follow by it besides what suits each scene the best thematically. I will point out that whenever it glows, its supposed to be intimidating, he's supposed to feel supernatural. When he's vulnerable, take for insistence when he talks about his past and talks gently about it, his eyes don't glow, he feels a lot more human in that scenario.

First of all, choice of shot is to mirror Olrox’s shot. Ok that out of the way.

WE GET THIS LINE??? I remember first watching it my jaw dropped because I couldn’t believe he said this.

He gets called an animal. Wild. Insane.

That’s a set up. It has to be there’s NO WAY IY ISN’T. WE’RE GETTING A CALL BACK TO THIS IN SEASON 2. SEASON 3, pls I’d do anything for a s3. Idk when we're getting a call back to this because Mizrak just backhanded him so hard and that language is so specific, especially since we’ve already gotten Ezerbet going “Gods should know where her dragons are”, you know, treating Olrox like a pet. Like an ANIMAL.

I am going to go on the slightest of side tangents- Mizrak has parallels to Drolta, they're both "guard dogs" for their leader. The Abott simply has to put out his hand when Mizrak is growling (it is subtitled as him growling and barking its kinda crazy) for him to stop. The animal line seems so out of nowhere and it is supposed to feel like that but we've had this bread trail from the very start.

Ok going back to the scene at hand. Mizrak ??? Where’s your normal religious quips ??? Why did you use that line ??? What do you know about losing your soul and being animal-like??? Suspicious 🤨 because there are countless bible verses about, bravery, losing your soul, literally self-sacrifice.

Though I will bring up, the idea of having a soul has been brought up before.

Mizrak recognizes Olrox had a soul before. He recognized Olrox used to live. I think Olrox was a lot more... 'puncher' and 'fiery' beforehand, before his previous lover died. I mean, if he wasn't more 'alive' before, why would he turn his previous lover into a vampire. Mizrak said that so it would hurt and to call him out.

(Though I feel like, religion has been thrown out the window for Mizrak, cant wait to see how Mizrak deals with it s2 LOLOLOL)

Ok now talking abt these two long shots together (the irony writes itself)

The placement of the characters is so important to feel that void and it makes the scene feel so much more empty, which is why it also has to be a long shot. It’s like, they’re supposed to fill in that gap, but they’re not. A general note is that shuffling characters off-center makes the scene feel unbalanced. The center line, the abbey, and the eclipse are already established and Mizrak is running off center. For Olrox's shot, there's a clearing to his right.

To Mizrak, Olrox should’ve run alongside him. There’s space for him

To Olrox, Mizrak should’ve stayed back. There’s space for him.

Now I'm done. My final notes is that this whole breakup scene is a massive setup for something for the next season (if not this season, just for something big later on), and my red strings are tying it to that animal line and holding if that makes sense? Everything in episode 8 IS a setting up for bigger things for season 2. We will get callbacks. (I say will, that is a very strong conviction LOL).

Also to wrap up, shot choices matter heavily. You need to connect with the audience immediately. A picture says 1000 words. Something as simple as maybe someone in a diner eating a burger, and its a close up of them talking may seem not that special but it changes a lot just by having a character in the middle or the left of the screen, especially in the greater scheme of a full scene.

Think of that one quote from Prince of Egypt where the priest says "A single thread in a tapestry though its color brightly shines can never see its purpose in the pattern of the grand design." Basically that LOL.

If I have time, I may go and do their other scenes (or even scenes of other characters)! They all build upon each other really nicely and despite their scenes being about 1-3 minutes long. They really pack in a lot of details. Their lives before directly affect what's happening at that very moment on screen and you can see it heavily influences how they interact with the world and each other!

#mystery talks #castlevania nocturne #mizrak #olrox #olrox/mizrak

69 notes · View notes

misscammiedawn · 1 month ago

Text

The Only Murder Alter I Respect

CW: abuse, neglect, sexual assault, incest, harm to an infant

"Oh, I am one yet many."

In my last article on The Murder Alter we spoke a little about the history of the Murder Alter trope in fiction.

To quickly recap, fiction has a fascination with depicting those with dissociative identity disorder as being inherently evil. The roots of the trope come from misunderstandings of the text of Jekyll & Hyde, assuming Hyde to be a personification of evil rather than the disguise of a man who wished to indulge in socially unacceptable actions.

To cut the long story of the previous essay short; Jekyll loses control of a physical transformation, the potion only draws out "evil" within him in the way that he is able to act without fear of consequence. All the evil of Hyde belonged to Jekyll. Alas, the play version of the story hit London about the time of the Whitechapel murders committed by Jack The Ripper and the public began to compare these real life murders to the plot of the play, going as far as accusing the lead actor of being Spring-Heeled Jack.

To see more, read the first chapter of this essay.

In my view a vulnerable minority of any kind being a villain is offensive if they are handled with no respect. If their stereotype overwhelms their role as a character.

For the case of a murderer or serial killer character we have to ask their motives. Many pieces of fiction will assume that the existence of trauma alone is a motive. In recent years there has been a trend of giving irredeemable characters trauma in their 'sympathetic backstories' to justify their wanton killing without any regard that they are actually communicating that abused people will become abusers or worse killers themselves.

It's not the kindest sentiment to put out into the world.

In Split, a horrible movie that I absolutely despise, the evil "Beast" personality spews out this horrible line of dialogue:

"You are different from the rest. Your heart is pure! Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice."

To be clear, as mentioned before, traumatized victims are far more likely to be the victims of violence, not the perpetrators of it. Trauma does not make someone strong, enlightened or more capable. It makes us traumatized.

Then there is the absolution of guilt which becomes the argument that people with DID have no responsibility for their actions. The first chapter of this essay mentioned the real life cases of Gein and Milligan being unfit for trial by reason of insanity and being held in mental care facility.

In fiction, however, this trope was taken to extremes with the case of Primal Fear (and again, more recently, with the Joker sequel) with the idea that a successful DID based defense would allow "not guilty by reason of insanity" lead to a release upon a miraculous cure of the condition which the fictional characters were faking to escape their crimes.

Not the kind those with the real life condition need the public believing, especially when we currently have the McLean Hospital that specializes in treatment of dissociative disorders assuming that people seeking treatment are faking for attention.

Even if they had a character whose murderous alters motives were not stigmatizing and they took responsibility for their actions, there's still the matter of them being sympathetic. Typically the split personality trope is rolled out to reveal a twist villain in the third act. If there is an evil alter responsible for the crimes they are typically hidden from the audience until the very end to keep the audience in the dark.

For a hyperbolic example of how bad this trope is, the movie Adaptation presents the trope to the audience as lowest common denominator slop wheeled out for a reaction and born from the worst instincts of a dedicated writer.

Donald Kaufman: Okay, well here's the twist. We find out that, that the killer really suffers from multiple personality disorder, right? See, he's actually really the cop and the girl. All of them are him. Isn't that fucked up?

Unrelated to this essay but Adaptation marks the only time an alter has been nominated for an Oscar along with their host. Technically.

The point is, we cannot sympathize with the person depicted as having DID if their condition is kept hidden for the sake of a surprise reveal at the end of the story.

There are other considerations but in tallying some of the reasons this trope is harmful and horrible, I now want to turn the topic to more positive things because I find that a blanket statements are not helpful. The stigma of depicting a person with DID as a killer is harmful, this is undeniable. It paints all with the condition in a negative light.

But surely it is possible to depict a character with justified motive, agency for their actions, a chance for audience sympathy and an accurate depiction of the illness.

Now, for the sake of spoilers, I am going to be talking about a murder alter and thus revealing their identity is going to give heavy spoilers to the media that they are from and for engagement sakes I am tagging this article with that media's name.

So. Below the cut will be a discussion of a character who can easily be read as having DID who fits the parameters of a murder alter and yet I feel is compassionate representation of this mental illness and an incredibly written system.

Be aware that these spoilers will completely break the intended experience of reading this media. But knowing the media is a spoiler alone.

Essentially I've written myself into a corner of engagement because the only people who can safely click through already know half the stuff I'm going to say which means I am encouraging the click from those who have never heard of or enjoyed this media while knowing that I am breaking the entire experience by talking about it.

So we're going to do a readmore and trust y'all to know that there are massive spoilers below.

Tumblr audience, allow me to introduce…

Beatrice, The Golden Witch.

Ahaha.wav ~ Ahaha.wav ~ Ahaha.wav ~ Ahaha.wav ~ Ahaha.wav

Though Beatrice is the murder alter in question, let's talk about who she was prior to becoming the lord of the Golden Land.

Let's talk about...

Sayo Yasuda.

Yasu was a meek and timid young thing, only having known a life at an orphanage which trained young people to become maids and servants for high society families.

Raised in a childhood where they were forced to work, despite being timid, forgetful and clumsy; Yasu did not know the love and affection of a family. Moreover after being brought on to work for the Ushiromiya family, the younger staff of the house, all in their late teens, resented and bullied the young child for being a burden to their duties and because they were inexplicably given favor by the head servant, Genji and the head maid Kumasawa.

Yasu was only 9 years old as this happened. Going to school and working long hours as a servant. Berated for being slow, weak, impolite and forgetful.

Their only ally within the orphanage was an elder maid, Shannon, who was capable and would always advise (but never take over) and encourage Yasu. Young Yasu wanted to be just like Shannon when they grew up.

They shared a room and would talk long into the night, Shannon always quietly encouraging the young kid.

Shannon was Yasu's first alter.

The isolation and bullying and exhaustion of working and studying constantly made it so they were desperate for any company, encouragement and acceptance. The only kindness they had ever known had been given by coworkers. So of course they would imagine a perfect, kind and loving maid to be a friend and keep them company in the endless isolation of their lonely room.

Dissociation, the absence of awareness of what one is doing or what is going on around one, is a normal process that occurs from time to time. Fantasy stories and characters created by the preschool child often take on a separate reality. Imaginary playmates may be an enjoyable fantasy, an expansion of experience, a way to fill loneliness or boredom, or a process for working out fears and ambivalent feelings […] If, however, a child’s experience continues to be either frightening or non-supported (no soothing or opportunity to process the upsetting situations that have happened), dissociative experiences are likely to continue. As dissociation continues, more and more of the child’s perceptions, feelings, physical sensations, or knowledge of the world become stored outside active awareness and the child’s internal sense of self becomes disrupted. The perceptions, feelings, and knowledge are still there—they have, after all, been sensed and processed in some form by both the brain and the body—but they are shut out of active awareness. Because this “shutout” or dissociation protects the child from negative situations, the child is less likely to develop coping mechanisms that do not damage the sense of self. Consistent learning and the building of consistent friendships are difficult for the child. If there is no intervention from supportive, consistent care-giving or therapy, this fragmentation is highly likely to continue and, in many situations, increase as the child grows up. - Sandra Wieland (Dissociation in Traumatized Children and Adolescents)

When a child is bored and left unsupported and under-stimulated they will begin to engage in their imagination. This is a natural and normal part of childhood but without consistent connections, support or care they will continue to dissociate their experiences without building a stable sense of self. These components of dissociation, compartmentalization and a lack of stable identity are what cause a child to develop DID.

Yasuda, without friends or family, was unable to establish a stable identity. In fact they were unable to establish a stable name or relationship to their own body.

Sayo Yasuda was born Lion Ushiromiya. For reasons I have decided to avoid discussing in depth, Lion, assigned male at birth, was placed into the orphanage by the head servant of the Ushiromiya family after a tragic "accident" nearly killed them as a baby and severely injured their body.

The name Yasuda was given to protect the child from their own family, the servants thought it would be kinder to have them raised as a servant than to be raised as an Ushiromiya. Due to the injuries of the child they could raise it as a woman and lowered the age of the child by 3 years to avoid the family seeing a young servant the same age or gender as a baby that died.

Within the orphanage the children are given 'blessed names' that they are called while working. They keep their true names hidden spare for those they love and trust. As Yasuda has no one who will say their name, they instead are called Shannon or 'Yasu' when she is being punished. She came to despise the name.

Shannon, the alter, is the maid that Yasu is being trained to become. The young child hearing this other name imagined it as a completely separate person.

Moreover, Yasuda was weak and exhausted from her constant school and work schedule and would often find herself drifting in and out of consciousness, letting her mind fog while she was working on tasks and forgetting things. A common enough experience within dissociation that I need not elaborate in this essay.

The eldest maid of the island, Kumasawa, would tell local folklore and tall tales, spinning tales like a grandmother would to their grandchild. The tales of a shrine that sealed an evil demon, a ghost of Beatrice the family head's deceased mistress whose spirit is said to reside in the sealed off VIP room.

In time Yasu began believing in this lore and began blaming her forgetfulness and losing track of keys and cleaning items on the ghost. On Beatrice.

In the face of abuse and neglect, especially at the hands of those they love, children need enough psychological distance from what is happening to avoid being overwhelmed and survive psychologically intact. Preserving some modicum of self-esteem, attachment to family, and hope for the future requires victims to disconnect from what has happened, doubt or disremember their experience, and disown the “bad [victim] child” to whom it happened as “not me.” By holding out some sense of themselves as “good” disconnected from how they have been exploited, abused children capitalize on the human brain’s innate capacity to split or compartmentalize. That “good child” might be precociously mature, sweet and helpful, perfectionistic, self-critical, or quiet and shy, but, most importantly, he or she has a way to be acceptable and safer in an unsafe world. Splitting or fragmenting in this way is an ingenious and adaptive survival strategy—but one with a steep price. To ensure that the rejected “not me” child is kept out of the way (i.e., out of consciousness) requires that, long after the traumatic events are over, individuals must continue to rely on dissociation, denial, and/or self-hatred for enforcing the disconnection. In the end, they have survived the failure of safety, the abuse, and betrayal at the cost of disowning their most vulnerable and most wounded selves. Aware that their self-presentation and ability to function is only one piece of who they really are, they now feel fraudulent. Struggling to stay away from the “bad” side and identify with the good side, they have a felt sense of “faking it,” “pretending,” or of being what others want them to be. For some, this conviction of fraudulence engenders resentment; for some, shame and self-doubt. For both groups, the legacy of the trauma remains alive rather than resolved. - Janina Fischer (Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors)

Yasu disowns her experiences so well that when she is punished for not doing her job completely or misplacing items that she zoned out on and lost track of. Over time the existence of this ghost. Of this witch became a firm fact and thus the witch, the ghost of the family head's mistress looking for a body, came to possess Sayo. At first it was misplacement, but as the teasing and bullying persisted she began to believe this witch was real and picking on her. So the witch became real and it began happening.

"This isn't the first time this has happened. Whenever I look away, ...keys, handkerchiefs, pencils, erasers...all of them vanish almost right away. Even though I was planning to use them later, or just wanted to put them in their proper place, they disappear as soon as I turn around. It isn't someone hiding them as a prank. It's happened many times when I'm the only person around. ...Everyone always says I'm too careless and forgetful, they laugh at me... get mad at me. I do try to be alert, but like some kind of bad joke, I lose things easily when I forget about them for even a short while.So, sometimes, I think 'this eraser is gonna disappear sooner or later', and I stare at it. But at those times alone, it doesn't disappear. Nothing disappears when I'm alert.But as soon as I think I'm safe, and the tension relaxes just a bit, then something else will disappear...! Why is it always me?"

The second of Yasu's many alters was born of her shame and frustration. She was only 9 years old and expected to work as an adult while enduring schooling with no friends or familial love.

Having trained herself to imagine the shape of entities not of the natural world, she gives shape to the witch.

"Without turning around, ...I slowly let my range of vision fill the entire chapel. It was as though the viewpoint of my soul was floating out from the shell of my head. ...See? ...Inch by inch, ...my range of vision is floating out of my head..... and drifting upwards. As I looked down at myself, standing there with head hanging and eyes tightly shut... The eyes of my heart....very slowly.... rose to the ceiling of the chapel. And when I looked down from there... I saw myself, standing in the center of the chapel, ...and the witch standing behind me."

This is the experience of dissociation. Particularly in children. To disconnect from the events of the moment and what is going on in our own body and "examine" the area surrounding us. Many have described it as viewing the world through a floating camera.

Our own imagination is painted in this way. Our old therapist, while diagnosing us, noted that the way we described locations in memories was a big hint to them that it was what we were experiencing.

In making friends with the witch, Yasu had a new friend. To one side the ideal maid, Shannon, and the other the witch Beatrice who pranked people by stealing items or leaving windows open. In reality Yasu would switch to Beatrice and play pranks on the other servants. Many would not even believe that it could be the meek and timid girl, especially as she grew older and became more capable as a maid at the house. A mixture of confidence and an interest in mystery novels allowed these pranks to become all the more believable. The servants were mean to Yasu or claimed witches do not exist and then Beatrice would punish them with pranks.

A small start but for the first time in her life a part of the system had a way at lashing out at a world that was so cruel to them and the myth of the witch began to spread through the serving staff and as the superstition grew, the myth continued to grow. Beatrice, both demon of the island and ghost of the master's dead mistress as a single entity, became a known superstition, acknowledged on the island.

"Everything went completely white, and my mind stopped. Once again, that tingling sensation slid up my body. I could feel it all gather in the fingers of both my hands... and come out the tips of my fingers. It was unfathomable, indescribable, ...unknown sensation. My head went blank, and I couldn't think at all. I could do nothing but abandon my soul to the sensation."

From a first person perspective we get to see Yasu switch into Beatrice and punish her fellow servant by stealing her keyring and hiding it.

It's here I address the original thesis of the article a moment. Why is it that this game's use of the murder alter trope is so acceptable and praiseworthy to me when I despise it being used in any other media.

Firstly, I want to address the name Sayo Yasuda. In most of the media mentioned prior to the readmore the identity of the killer personality and the existence of DID is hidden until the final act. Here, we are learning of the existence of DID at the end of the story but we had been introduced to all the alters in the system.

Spare for Yasuda herself. This chapter she is being introduced to us along with her condition and it is not in the way of revealing that the entity known as Beatrice is a dissociated personality. We are taken through a history that justifies the existence of a dissociative disorder and shown how one experiences the symptoms. We are introduced to forgetfulness and zoning out long before we are introduced to other identities as voices that Yasu communicates with and this, deep into chapter 7 of 8, is the first time we have a switch described from a first person perspective.

Though the groundwork of dissociative disorders have been long established. In the essay about Ange Ushiromiya's trauma memories. we spoke about how Ange had learned to maintain alters in her own mind and Maria's personality shifts had been seeded as early as the first chapter.

The existence of DID was not treated as a reveal either in narrative or psychologically. It was carefully presented with respect to the symptoms of people who live with the disorder and treated with care.

DID is not an excuse for the killing. So the minority being a culprit is not stigmatizing, the author has understanding of the disorder and depicts it with kindness.

But that only handles one of our issues with the trope. So it is not wheeled out as a last minute twist and it depicts the disorder with stunning accuracy.

But still, the idea of a murder alter is an ugly and repulsive thing and even here in stealing keys Yasu is abdicating responsibility to this witch. One of the other things that I hated about the trope was the motive being excused because of trauma and responsibility falling to an 'evil personality' that the innocent host cannot control and so far the game appears to be committing both of those sins.

...well, let's continue...

Upon experiencing the power of 'magic' when Beatrice possessed her, Yasu tells Shannon that she no longer wants to live as a servant but wants to become a witch like Beatrice. She decides to become the witch Beatrice.

The witch above is renamed to Gaap and the alter who had the name she hated, Yasu, takes the name of Beatrice the Golden Witch for herself, imagining her new form and changing her behaviors to match, taking on the voice of a lady of high station and decides on weaknesses such as seeing her reflection.

In DID there are no 'original selves' or 'real one'. We spoke about this a bit during our essay on Mr. Robot.

A "host" simply refers to the part that is most active within the system. In her book, Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors, Janina Fisher describes the "host" personality as the most predominant "going about normal life" part. There is no original because the child failed to integrate a stable personality and the "going about normal life" part Fisher describes by definition is a dissociated part unaware of the impact the trauma holds on the nervous system.

It is so important in treatment to understand that all alters in a system are real and equally as important to the functioning of the whole. I bring this up the character we are following had their birth name, gender and age changed by caregivers and now has voluntarily erased their own name; opting to adopt the name of Beatrice.

After co-fronting with the witch she realized how wonderful it felt to let go and not exist, to let herself exist as a magical being of imagination rather than a pitiable servant.

In real terms the traumatized part that had suffered so much retreats from reality to escape her pain, taking all of the negative experiences away from the other alters and sinking into their unconscious mind. There, inside the safety of their imagination, Beatrice begins working on creating her 'golden paradise', an internal world of dream and magic where she can safely reign as the ruler.

We know from other chapters that this coping mechanism is eventually taught from Beatrice to Maria and then from Maria to Ange. If generational trauma is the theme of Umineko then generational healing is too and Ryukishi is well aware that the imagination is a powerful shield for those most hurt by the world.

In changing her 'form', Shannon was left as the new host of the system and as Shannon had never met Beatrice, the dissociative barriers between the parts solidified and Shannon is left alone.

The scene where Shannon fronts for the first time, alone and confused is truly emotional. She is confused by the inconsistencies in her understanding of the world and slowly starts rationalizing. Had she always been alone? In a single bed? She begins adopting traits that Yasu had embodied when she was the host, such as a love of mystery novels. Speaking to herself until she falls asleep.

Shannon was the name of the servant and earlier in the story we learned her real name was Sayo. She adopts the 'legal identity' and the one who had been fronting the entire time until this point opts to exist within the night, pranking the house and keeping the myth of Beatrice alive.

If the responsibility and agency of DID depictions in media was an issue to overcome then here we see that though there are barriers of dissociation between the parts, Beatrice and her pranks are not evil in nature and we see that in all her parts there is communication and genuine care within the system.

Which brings us to motive.

In bad media the culprit is unsympathetic and driven to wanton crime for little reason other than "hurt people kill people" which is inaccurate and a dangerous thing to imply.

Shannon continues working on, unaware of her history as Yasu and the bullying that she had endured when she was younger. She has a hobby of reading mystery novels and speaks about them with the head maid. She sometimes gets praise from the head servant. She's happy.

Right?

But the loneliness had not been dealt with. The Ushiromiya family were still cruel to her. Though Shannon is an ideal maid by design and convinced herself to be happy with her lot in life the unchanged circumstances still trigger the pain that her heart ached and called for salvation.

And so Beatrice's presence makes itself known again within their shared mind and Shannon began imagining a rose garden where the golden witch would share tea with her. She wanted to allow Shannon to join her in the "world of witches", "the golden land" an innerworld she built within their mind.

Shannon rejects the offer, as if such a thing could be and leads Beatrice to become curious as to what could possibly be worth living for in the real world.

There Shannon, with Beatrice in the back of their shared mind, witnesses the Ushiromiya Family Conference where all members of the family gather, including the grandchildren of the family head and there Beatrice witnesses Shannon forming a relationship bonding over mystery novels with the series protagonist Battler, 6 years before the massacre.

The pair discuss their love of novels and in that conversation the mutual understanding of both the fictional characters and the author is that a murder should have a passionate motive.

Shannon takes on Battler's perspective and begins reading all of the books that Battler enjoys, completely infatuated with him. The pair got to have a short fling. Every time Battler visited the island they would talk about their shared passion and enjoy the time stolen. It couldn't work in long distance. Battler says that when Shannon quits service of the family she can come to him out in the world.

Battler promises he will ride in on a white horse and save her from a lifetime of servitude.

Beatrice understands instantly.

"It takes two to create a universe" magic must be shared and love is the most important element. Something that even the endless witch Beatrice cannot create with her magic. It is the first time in their shared life that the system formerly known as Sayo Yasudo has been offered love from another human.

She's enraptured by it.

...and then in the time between visits, Battler's mother passes away suddenly and his father instantly marries his mistress who he secretly fathered a daughter with while married. Battler is disgusted by his father and leaves the family, abandoning Shannon.

Beatrice, wounded for the part of her in deep pain, pulls Shannon into the innerworld and comforts her; telling her that she needs to succeed at a trial to have faith and wait for Battler to return. That if she doubts him then he will not come. She even argues that Battler leaving the Ushiromiya family was an attempt to make it so that he could marry her without the family name being an obstacle.

Magical Thinking is a symptom of dissociative disorders where the mind generates beliefs between unrelated events despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them. Much of the effects of DID, particularly during the denial phase, are born from the ability to rationalize inconsistencies and inconvenient truths in the shared life.

In this case the idea of losing the love that was offered to them for the first time in their life was more than they could handle and thus they chose to believe that it was still there and that if they held faith and waited it would come to them.

When one dissociates from their emotions they are able to rationalize and intellectualize their situations and continue their trained habit of enduring. When Shannon's ability to rationalize the years of silence fails she blames herself, as she is able to rationalize and intellectualize her own actions and has no way of knowing Battler's. Thus if she blames it on her lack of faith she can hold to hope and endure the years.

But the trials continue.

Letters are delivered from Battler to everyone at the family conference. Shannon is neither mentioned nor receives a letter at all (there is a possibility that George destroyed it, but that is a theory). Her faith shakes but the bud of love in her heart simply cannot die.

...and now the love that had once given Shannon so much hope and life had become yet another source of pain and trauma and so once again Beatrice reached into Shannon's heart and claimed the bud of love. She would take it into herself, another trauma for her to hold. Leaving Shannon confused, disorientated but happy again.

In order to keep Shannon's heart saved from pain she created a new alter, a brother named Kanon.

Kanon would be a quiet and guarded boy who was deeply protective of Shannon and who shielded his own heart. Born wary of other people and their motives. He will make for a calloused heart.

Shannon once again allows her mind to dissociate from the pain in her heart and once again became an ideal maid, free from the hurt of her past or the love.

In 1984 Kinzo, knowing he is to die soon, commissions a painting of his former love, the original Beatrice, with an epitaph that once solved would lead someone to the family fortune and chose who would be the inheritor of the family after he dies.

At least this is what the family were lead to believe. It is theorized in universe that Kinzo had come to recognize that his child/grandchild was alive and in the house and wanted to apologize to her and thus make up for the sins he had committed against his mistress and their daughter.

Another part of the tragedy was sealed the moment Kinzo began this process.

With the help of Genji, who knew their birth identity, Beatrice solves the riddle and becomes the inheritor of the family fortune... and she is also given the truth to their birth, their original name and the identity of their father and grandfather.

During the entire sequence the child of many names is disconnected, overwhelmed, confused and not able to summon the confidence of her witch self. She cannot bring herself to take the seat at the head of the family and asks that the servants of the island pretend nothing had happened, opting instead to continue waiting for Battler.

It was said that if Battler did not show up to the island in 1986 or showed up a year earlier or later then the tragedy would have been avoided.

But as it stands. Tragedy was inevitable.

Beatrice largely goes into dormancy after inheriting the family fortune, choosing to let Shannon and Kanon continue their life on the island. Searching and waiting for the magic that is beyond her, Love.

And so we get the events at the start of Chapter 2 and 3.

Shannon and Kanon are living as servants of the family as the tensions between siblings becomes more and more tense. But as time goes on Kanon and Jessica, who lives on the island, become closer... and George proposes to Shannon.

The first 2 hours of chapter 2 depict Shannon, a being who has made to think of herself as nothing more than furniture for the family to use, feeling love bloom in her heart and despair over the fact that the Ushiromiya family would never allow her to marry, filling her ears with poison and abuse; as the family speak of a political marriage with George and Shannon's heart is threatened with heartbreak again she calls out to the witch Beatrice and the alter in her heart awakens again to comfort and guide her.

If Battler showed up a year earlier then Beatrice would have reconnected with him and she would have been able to use the family fortune to ride off with him. If he showed up a year later then she would have married George.

But in showing up while Shannon was trying to handle being proposed to. While Kanon was growing close to Jessica. While all futures existed within the catbox at once. Each member of the system has adapted their personality to suit their partner. Shannon is the type of woman George would enjoy. Beatrice becomes the exact type of brash woman Battler enjoys and Kanon was the aloof and distant type Jessica would love.

Only one of these futures could possibly exist.

Every member of the system is marked by their inability to change their fate, even when handed the opportunity. Since birth they have only been able to act as a servant, as furniture and dive into escapism and magic to cope. The pain was not simply the pain of the heart. It was of being alone. It was of being bullied. Of being disregarded. Ignored. Forgotten.

When presented with the gold and the headship of the family the system, we shall revert to calling them Yasu, were unable to risk confrontation with the family. Much akin to Marta in Knives Out, she was a servant being offered a vast fortune with a hostile and abusive family who would never accept her position and so she backed down and didn't risk further pain.

I said earlier that victims of abuse and neglect are more likely to be victims than the perpetrators of violence. Here Beatrice, formed from stories of ghosts, demons and murder mysteries, retreats into fantasy but she actually has the unlimited resources; the "golden magic" to make her schemes a reality and so she attempts to do so as a form of escapism, as a way of letting the "roulette wheel" select her fate as the system are unable to decide for themselves.

We never know for certain what happens in the catbox, though Eva's journal does give us some clarity. We can say for sure, based on the survivor's testimony, that Yasu didn't go through with it. We never find out if they ever could have outside of dreaming. For all their posturing and posing, they were just an abused child desperate for family and love and freefalling into complete despair.

At the end of the day Beatrice is sympathetic, she experiences accurate symptoms of a dissociative disorder, we get to know her alters and understand their motivations and outlooks and her choice to kill the Ushiromiya family is not informed by her condition.

The fact she never successfully kills anyone in the (most likely) true version of the Rokkenjima massacre, she simply cannot bring herself to follow through when presented with the reality of her schemes, does not change the fact that she planned out the massacre and her actions did trigger the tragedy.

Beatrice The Golden Witch is the only murder alter I respect. But she is also an (attempted) murderer who just happens to be an alter. Those two statements have nothing to do with one another.

Though her motive is based upon the pain of her life, she is not a killer for the fun of it and is far from a homicidal maniac. She has a heart. A large heart.

And I respect the fuck out of her.

Lowkey this one wasn't my best work, especially after the ISaT entry raised the bar so high for us. Umineko is a fairly dense work and I have been struggling for months to find the words after promising to write about it in the first Murder Alter essay and teasing it in the Ange one. In the end I just decided to get it out.

Thank you for reading.

For more media essays on Dissociative Disorders please check out Media, Myself and I tag or check out the following articles:

Accepting Trauma Memories in Mr. Robot Time Loops and Dissociation (In Stars and Time) A History of Murder Alters Discworld and Plurality Incidental, intentional and accidental representation Gender, Dissociation and Clinical Stigma in The Third Person Recontextualized Memories in Umineko Derealization in Night in the Woods and Metal Gear Solid The Dangers of Hypnotic Personality Play in Penlight System Origins in The Incredible Hulk Relationships with Systems in The Incredible Hulk The Healing Journey in Mr. Robot

#dawn posting #spoilers #umineko spoilers #sayo yasuda #beatrice #beatrice the golden witch #umineko #media myself and i #watch me post my trauma in public #did #media essays

57 notes · View notes

sherbertilluminated · 4 months ago

Text

Last night I was talking with my friends @teefigotem and @calypsopond about the pacing of the musical Les Miserables. I think Les Mis' libretto is one of the best foundations for a musical out there, but the first act has so much more plot and more iconic songs than the second, and I worry that top-heavy structure diminishes the ultimate impact of the uprising in the second act.

Caly and Maddy agreed that the 2012 film adaption had the right idea when it swapped the positions of "Do you Hear the People Sing" and "One day More." Transplanting the former to the beginning of Act 2 maintains the balance of revolutionary fervor (and iconic songs) between the two acts, and a serves as a payoff to the tension at the end of Act 1. While "Upon these Stones/Building the Barricade" begins Act 2 in the current libretto, it's high on exposition and low on enthusiasm. Since "Do You Hear the People Sing" has become an international revolutionary anthem, making it the opening of the uprising, rather than the prelude to it, builds on *ahem* that connection.

Just picture it: the audience returns to their seats, the orchestra hums with tension, and the lights go up on a somber street with a single voice—Enjolras, probably—singing. Students emerge from the set, workers join in, the turntable starts turning and it becomes clear that soon a barricade will be built in the street. The subsequent Marius/Eponine conversation that transitions into "On my Own" would still probably work here. In the span of fifteen minutes, the thesis statement of the revolting students turns into the reveal of the final barricade. It'd be pretty damn rousing, right?

The potential problem with this change is the lacuna it would leave behind. In the current structure of Les Miserables, "Do you Hear the People Sing" is an elaboration on Enjolras' claim that "they will come when we call!" and going directly from that rallying cry to a quiet romantic interlude flattens the rhetorical tension between romantic love and revolution "Red and Black" and makes Mairus seem a little silly (which, to be fair, he is. But Enjolras is not.) Although "Do You Hear the People Sing" is a little too bombastic for Act 1, before the uprising actually begins, there's still got to be some kind of transition. Something needs to foreshadow the violence to come. But what?

I proposed that the best transition would be a reprise of Stars. And that Eponine should get to sing it.

Since the Broadway premiere of the musical Les Miserables in 1987 and especially following the 2012 film adaptation, Eponine's character has been a locus for fandom attention and discourse. Because she's really compelling: despite being the daughter of the selfish, abusive Thenardier, she devotes her life to protecting Marius and ultimately sacrifices it for him. But the closest she ever gets to being understood is by the audience; even Marius, one of two people in the show to be kind to her (the other being Valjean), doesn't really understand the full extent of her devotion to him. And that devotion is powerful, whether as a proxy for audience members' own experiences with unrequited love or a representation of the bourgeousie's reliance on unacknowleged suffering. There's a lot going on with her in the musical. But there's even more to her in the Brick.

Unlike my esteemed Les Mis mutuals I'm definitely not informed enough to do original analysis, but I'm a big fan of the Javert/Eponine wolfdog theory. My introduction to it was with this post by @pilferingapples, although I don't know whether it originated somewhere else. The theory posits that Javert and Eponine, who are both compared to wolfish dogs for their ferocity and devotion to their idiosyncratic systems of morality, are character foils who represent the limited choices offered to people excluded from. I definitely don't know the op who suggested they trade methods of death (if anyone does, please let me know!) but that's also in the Brick. And while the musical adaptation doesn't preserve Hugo's canine/lupine symbolism, it keeps Eponine's one-sided committment to guarding Marius. And it keeps Javert's devotion to the institution of Law.

"Stars" is the hymn of that devotion. It's more sinister than Eponine's love for Marius, but in the grand scheme of things it's just as pathetic. Giving a short reprise of that song to Eponine not only explicates that parallel and gives new life to relatively-unused musical motif, it has the potential to tie together the action of the first act and add a new dimension to subsequent scenes.

Imagine if, instead of beginning "Do You Hear the People Sing" immediately after "Red and Black" or transitioning directly to the Rue Plumet, the scene changes to the outside of the ABC cafe. On the other side of the turntable/wall, Eponine is waiting. And worrying. She knows her father's going to rob a house tonight and that the girl Marius asked her to find lives there*. She can't let her father hurt him. She's smarter than him. She'll do whatever it takes to keep him safe, she swears—not to God or the stars, as Javert does, but to herself. The promise is shocking, because the audience heard that melody two songs ago and are just now discovering there is another way to be. There is another vow that can be made.

While she's singing, the ABC society files out the door. Maybe some hand out pamphlets or chat with people on the street. If the production wants to emphasize Eponine and Gavroche secret sibling bond, maybe they interact a little. But no one pays her too much mind. No one ever does.

The last person to emerge is Marius, looking a bit shaken. The timeline of the students' plans has been unexpectedly accelerated, he says. In case it's his last chance—nevermind why, 'Ponine, don't worry about me—he needs to see her once. You've found her, haven't you? Could you show me? Please? For my sake?

Consumed by shame and dread and the sense that he'll probably do something really stupid if she doesn't tag along, she agrees. And the stage begins to turn into the Rue Plumet, where "In my Life" begins. The whole interaction would take maybe two minutes.

There are of course thematic objections to this plan. There's the argument that "Stars" ought to be a unique, distinct song like "Bring Him Home." But those motifs are reused in instrumental form after Javert's and the students' respective deaths, so I don't necessarily think they're scene- or character-specific. There's also the argument that the melody of "Stars" is altogether too rigid for Eponine's character. I think there are a couple moments that would work quite well with the emotion("and if they fall as Lucifer fell," for example) but if you really don't want Javert's and Eponine's motif to cross, the melody of "A Little Fall of Rain" ("and you/I will keep me/you safe") could work for this moment too.

There's also the argument that Eponine already gets "too much" attention in the musical adaptation and doesn't need. But I don't know if that's true either. She interacts with Marius in several short scenes, she's present for "A Heart Full of Love" and "One Day More," she goes on her errand to Valjean, sings "On my Own," goes back to the barricade and dies shortly after. She gets about as much stagetime as Cosette does, and a little less than Marius.

It's true that she stands out as a character, but that's because she's got such interesting writing and is so isolated in the narrative. And while it's important to keep her "on [her] own," for the plot, using shared motifs to emphasize her symbolic similarities with other characters might make her character fit more cohesively into Les Miserables' grander thematic narrative. It could even make "On my Own" that much more powerful if she has a little hope that saving Marius from her father might get him to like her, and subsequently understands that this is not happening. But there's a lot more to her than being Marius' rejected best friend** and this choice has the potential to make that clear onstage.

In conclusion: moving "Do You Hear the People Sing" to the start of Act 2 letting Eponine do a wolfdog reprise of "Stars" between "Red and Black" and "In my Life" would be sick as fuck and maybe resolve some pacing issues in the libretto.

*There is a moment in the show where she realizes that she and Cosette grew up together. I like it in concept but it's a little awkwardly-placed and integrating it into the unnamed Red and Black/In my Life transition song would be great. Overall, her interactions with Marius seem like afterthoughts in between the larger numbers, which isn't fair to either of them.

**And for the record: this not a post pitting her against Cosette! They are both good characters and I wish the best for both of them!

#ok sherb time to list everything this theory is relevant to:#les miserables #les mis #musicals #eponine #javert #marius #red and black #stars #do you hear the people sing #in my life #on my own #rhymes with thaumaturge #sherb's sub sub library

73 notes · View notes

dysfunctionalupsidedown · 5 months ago

Text

Mike Wheeler: Trauma, Insecurity, and "STurn" (Analysis)

In "From the Hair Chair: Finn Wolfhard | Stranger Things", which is available on the official Stranger Things YouTube channel, Finn Wolfhard addresses the question, "What's going on with Mike Wheeler in Season 4?"

Mike Wheeler’s behavior in S4 has confused many, especially general audiences. However, if you look at the bigger picture, his progression (or regression) into the Mike Wheeler we know from S4 does make sense. To get a clear idea of what’s going on with him, we must look at the four seasons sequentially and with a more subtextual eye. We have a few physical puzzle pieces, and for now, we need to fill in the rest with our imagination based on evidence. A Mike point of view isn’t particularly needed to fully understand this, although it would be helpful for the GA and is something I want from S5.

In relation to this particular interview, I’ll examine Stranger Things (2016) for the past and present and “STurn” for the possible future. “STurn” actually does tell us a bit about how Mike’s self-identity arc will potentially continue in S5 and wrap up.

Also, I understand that “STurn” isn’t factual and is not even confirmed to be related to ST5. Though I don’t believe this entire analysis is instantly negated by my use of the playlist, as its only purpose here is to assume a hypothetical future. Aside from the Finn interview, everything else comes straight from the show and holds a reasonable explanation for Mike’s behavior up until the end of S4.

Remember, this post is for fun and speculation, and "STurn" is the best we have right now. Just keep in mind that I’m going into this analysis assuming it’s related to Mike Wheeler in S5. I could be entirely incorrect. Similarly, this interview isn’t wholly factual either, as it’s not what’s in the show, but it relates enough to what we’ve been shown of Mike for me to comment on.

This might be a lengthier post. Be warned.

If you’re still here and interested, I’ll get right into it.

Trauma

Finn first addresses how each of the characters are dealing with their past trauma, and that is a perfect way to describe Mike’s behavior in S4. I think a lot of people, especially the general audience, forget that, yes, while these are all characters, trauma does have the ability to affect them and change their behavior. There was an entire “Your original character before trauma vs. after trauma” trend on TikTok a minute back, and that wasn’t for nothing.

Mike, just in S1, witnessed one of his best friends go missing, watched this best friend turn up apparently dead (as well as see his “body”), went to his funeral, jumped off of a ledge, saw his other newfound friend disappear, and so much more. Don't even get me started on the following seasons.

Mike is afraid of losing. That’s what happened to him in S1. He lost. First Will, then El.

His fear of loss and determination to keep things in his life are significant parts of his character and have been since S1. That’s why he was so intent on finding Will. That's why he checked his walkie for El every night. That’s why he acts out in S3-S4. This isn’t an excuse for his behavior, but an explanation. It’s part of his trauma, and we see this in S4 with his fear of losing Will and El again: “Maybe I feel like I lost you or something,” and “I can't lose you,” respectively. I theorize that he fears being out of control regarding these things.

A lack of control also explains why he was so volatile to Will and El during and after Rink-O-Mania. For Will, Mike addresses this directly to him when he apologizes. It’s made evident to the audience that he acted cold in part because he thought Will was slipping away, but truthfully, he wasn’t aloof. He noticed everything about Will’s behavior and even managed to make the tragedy of that day about their friendship. Now, back to the apology, “About the last few days… You didn’t deserve anything… The truth is, the last year has been weird… Maybe I was worrying too much about El… And, I don’t know, maybe I feel like I lost you or something.” His defensiveness during the argument at the rink seems more like a trauma response than straight-up disinterest, which some people apparently think.

For El, I think this translates into him wanting her to need him. If El needs him, then there’s no way he can lose her, right? We know from the show that she doesn’t need him anymore. Mike also acknowledges this multiple times, and that thought terrifies him. In the last episode, he explains this to her, “... The truth is, El, I don’t know how to live without you… I can’t lose you, okay?”

Before Will shows Mike the painting in the van, Mike explains his dilemma. Will tries reassuring Mike, telling him that El will be fine, and Mike says he understands that. Mike then explains his true concern, “But what if after all this is over, she doesn’t need me anymore?... The truth is, when I stumbled on her in the woods, she just needed someone. It’s not fate, it’s not destiny, it’s just simple dumb luck. And one day, she's gonna realize that I’m just some random nerd that got lucky that Superman landed on his doorstep. I mean, at least Lois Lane is an ace reporter for The Daily Planet.”

Will continues to comfort him, focusing more on the loss aspect of Mike’s trauma, which is made evident here. But those lines also make it clear that Mike is afraid El will realize his inferiority to her and abandon him. This is a good transition into Mike’s insecurity.

Insecurity

I’ve seen people argue against what Finn says here because Mike is part of the somewhat “outcast” group at school. I don’t think trying to argue that takes away from the fact that Mike did, does, and will continue to try and lead a “normal” lifestyle. He’s a teenage boy with a girlfriend and a friend group he fits into. That’s normal. He’s trying to get by.

It was the same in S3. Mike was a kid with friends, a girlfriend, and a new want for maturity. It’s not unrealistic that the character is aging out of or into specific behaviors, especially ones that he’s previously exhibited. That leads us to his insecurity.

We’ve had hints of it starting as far back as S1E3, when Troy injures Mike, and he initially lies about it to El so that he doesn’t seem like a loser. Similarly, these themes pick up with Will in S3E3 during their fight in the rain, “...We’re not kids anymore. I mean, what did you think, really? That we were never gonna get girlfriends? That we were just gonna sit in my basement all day and play games for the rest of our lives?��

Curiously, Mike is shown to be especially “normal” in California. He dresses differently than he does in Hawkins and acts more aloof. As Argyle says, “It’s a shitty knock-off.” Skipping forward to the “... She's gonna realize that I’m just some random nerd that got lucky that Superman landed on his doorstep… at least Lois Lane is an ace reporter for The Daily Planet” line, and we have a good enough view of Mike’s internal conflict.

He is deeply insecure, and it seems particularly so around El. I don’t know if this was addressed in the show, and I wish we had seen some of Mike’s letters, but does El even know about the Hellfire Club? I don’t believe we’re given any indication that she does, which could imply that Mike kept it hidden from her. It wouldn’t be surprising, considering his complete attitude change in California. Also keeping in mind that Mike stopped playing D&D when he was with her in S3 and only continued to play in S4 while El was away.

Mike also displays this insecurity by choosing to distance Will. For what reason, I can’t say for sure, but it’s probably something “abnormal.”

Regardless, his insecurity ties into his fear of loss. The more normal he is, the more things he can maintain in life and the less he has to lose. Especially when it comes to El. It all stems back to his fear, not genuine malintent, and I see too many viewers misunderstand this.

It also works the opposite way, to a different and lesser extent. If he’s out of Hellfire Club, he loses his “normal teenage clique.” Aside from losing El completely as someone he profoundly cares about, if he loses El as a partner, he loses his girlfriend. That’s a blow to his normality.

Will is confusing to me. If he “loses” Will, just like he felt he did at the beginning of S4, he falls more into the pattern of trying to be normal. There’s no impact on his normality. By keeping Will at arms-length, Mike gravitated more towards his “shitty knock-off” version of himself. Something about Will brings out what Mike feels is abnormal in him, so by distancing himself, he could avoid it altogether. That’s likely in part what caused such a conflict at the beginning of S4: Mike’s inability to be “normal” while fully keeping Will in his life and vice versa, his inability to lose Will just to maintain normalcy.

"STurn"

We’ve focused on trauma and insecurity. Now, it’s time for self-identity. I think that's a theme in store for the future. I'll refer back to the “STurn” analysis I previously did.

Many of the songs on this playlist contain themes of a false identity. I’ll start with “Angst In My Pants” first. To quote my "STurn" analysis:

This song is about a person attempting to be someone they're not, suppressing who they really are, and it ultimately leading to dissatisfaction. The lyrics, "You can dress nautical / Learn to tie knots / Take lots of Dramamine / Out on your yacht" describe a faux lifestyle one lives that only serves to hurt them in the end: The idea of putting on a self-harming persona. This could be what Mike is going through in S5.

Next, we have "Substitute":

This track is about an idealized version of someone being put in place of their true self. The narrator describes a scenario in which their partner sees a version of them, "I'm a substitute for another guy / I look pretty tall but my heels are high / The simple things you see are all complicated / I look bloody young, but I'm just back-dated, yeah", that is unrealistic and put on, as seen in the lyrics "Substitute your lies for fact / I see right through your plastic mac / I look all white, but my dad was black / My fine-looking suit is really made out of sack"... The concept of a guise applies well to Mike, as referenced in Angst In My Pants. A recurring theme of hiding oneself really makes me think Mike is going to completely abandon his interests for a different lifestyle. I believe Finn has also mentioned that Mike wants to be as "normal" as possible, so I can't wait to see [how far] they take that idea. It could also be him realizing how he's been acting, and admitting that this "romanticized" version isn't true to him.

Finally, "The Rebel Kind":

Like The Better Side, I couldn't find any lyrics, so I'm doing it by ear. Though, I'm happy to say that this song is about a desire to embrace differences and rebellion. "We'll be free to run with the rebel kind" and "It's not easy, but I don't mind / I just want to run with the rebel kind" establish that. The track appears to tie into Mike's insecurity struggles throughout the playlist. It could be the narrator's struggle to keep up with societal norms before finally giving in to their truth instead of trying to conform, read as "they call us rebels but don't get how hard it is to for us to keep up." On the other hand, it could be the narrator commenting on how society doesn't understand people like them, and, by embracing their true selves, it proves more about who they are than conforming ever would; read as, "you think we're the rebellious ones, but you don't understand that we're more self-secure and strong than you'll ever be." I can see both of these interpretations working for Mike and his connection to the Party. The progression of insecurity in Angst In My Pants and potential realization of this guise in Substitute is wrapped up by Mike's self-acceptance here. I really hope this is how it plays out in S5.

Conclusion

Mike's brewing insecurity, paired with his trauma of loss, seems like it may boil over in S5. I theorize that he’ll drift even more into his “shitty knock-off” self, even if just on the surface, and do whatever he can to maintain normalcy in his life. Whether this leads to more conflict with Will, we’ll have to wait and see.

Besides that, Mike might eventually accept his "differences." He also may be willing to cope with loss for what it is, even if it’s the loss of the normalcy he tries so hard to maintain in certain situations. I can see Mike having a heavy emphasis on self-identity in S5, and as I said earlier, I can’t wait to see where they take that.

Thank you for reading; I hope you enjoyed!

As is customary with all my posts, if anything here is incorrect or you believe there’s something I should add, feel free to let me know. I’d love to have more conversations about Mike and read all the predictions for S5 I can.

#mike wheeler #stranger things 5 #stranger things #st5 #will byers #el hopper #st5 predictions #stranger things analysis #STurn #mike wheeler analysis #byler #<- target audience

92 notes · View notes

ewingstan · 10 months ago

Text

Worm and other media that won't just let you shoot the Joker, part 1:

Worm comments on the structure of stories, especially superhero stories, in some interesting ways. There's a lot of stuff that happen in superhero comics for no real reason than that it needs to happen for the story to be interesting; a huge amount of Worm's worldbuilding is devoted to taking these things and making the fact that they have to happen an explicit in-setting constraint. For instance, superhero stories tend to have more powerful heroes face off against much more powerful villains than their less-powerful allies, to the point where it seems like super-powerful threats are coming to earth every few weeks just because it wouldn't be interesting to read that comic otherwise. It gets weirder when you compare what villains end up visiting the cities of uber-powerful heroes vs the cities of less powerful heroes: Gotham mostly just has to deal with serial killers while Metropolis is a magnet for evil gods. Worm plays with this by having the Endbringers exist only because the big hero needed something to fight in-text: it changes "powerful heroes need powerful villains or else it wouldn't be interesting" from a Doylist justification to a Watsonian one. Then there's the fact that so much of the horrible conflict in Earth Bet is explicitly caused by Gods making sure the powers they grant people lead to increased conflict, the fact that one of the most powerful characters does what she does because the plot path to victory says she needs to, etc.

But the big one is Jack Slash, and how he's only able to get away with his bullshit because he has plot armor as a secondary power. As WB says here, "Jack's a reconstruction of the Joker type character in the sense that you can't have such a character take such a high profile position in the setting, without having there be a cheat." The Joker and similar characters are only able to keep being relevant threats in their stories because the narrative bends to let them win and stops them from being killed. Jack Slash is only able to keep being a relevant threat because his power makes the universe bend to let him win in the same way. Not only does this make for an interesting obstacle (its almost like they're fighting an authorial mandate!), but it skewers the use of similar character's plot armor and how unrealistic and unsatisfying it makes their stories.

But wait, what does it mean for a story to be "unrealistic" in the context of superpowers? Is being unrealistic in those contexts actually a problem? For that matter, what does it mean for a narrative to bend to let someone win? Its not like there's an objective way fighting the Joker would go, which the author is deviating from by letting him survive.

[Stuff under readbelow contains spoilers fo, the movie Funny Games and the book Anybody Home?]

Maybe we could say that if characters like the Joker were real, and put in the situations they are in their stories, they would end up being killed really quickly. But is that a reasonable way to judge stories? A narrative where such a character is killed unceremoniously to satisfy a need for realism isn't any less an expression of the author's deliberate choices than a story where the character keeps showing back up to satisfy a desire for fan-favorite characters. And while Jack Slash's arcs help show why deviating from "realistic consequences" in the service of keeping a character alive can make a story exhausting and screw with an audiences' appreciation of stakes, it doesn't make a strong case against the concept of villains having plot armor in general. A story isn't necessarily worse just for being constructed to keep the villains alive—all stories are constructed, and sometimes being constructed that way makes for the best story.

That becomes more clear when you take the premise of Jack Slash as "killer who wins because the mechanics of the universe says so" and make clear just how much "the mechanics of the universe" really just means "the story". Which is how you get Peter and Paul from Funny Games.

I'd highly recommend watching Funny Games (though for the love of god check content warnings), as well as Patricia Taxxon's review of it that I'm cribbing a lot from here. But to summarize, Funny Games is a movie written and directed by Michael Haneke about a family's lakeside vacation being interrupted by the appearance of two murderous young men, who capture them in their own house and slowly torture and kill them off. At least, that's what it seems to be about initially. It marketed itself as a somewhat standard entry in the genres of torture porn and home invasion thrillers, and played itself straight as one for the majority of its runtime. But then one of the two villains of the pair, "Paul," starts talking to the audience.

It starts small: after crippling the family's father and revealing that he killed their dog, Paul has the wife look for its corpse outside. While giving her hints, he slowly turns back towards the camera and smirks, before turning back. In isolation, maybe it could be interpreted as Paul smirking at Peter, seeming to look out at the audience only because of clumsy blocking. But then it happens again. Paul tells the family, who are completely at their mercy at this point, that they're gonna bet that they'll all be dead within twelve hours. When the family refuses to take the bet, asking how they could hope to win it when he can clearly off them all whenever they wish, Paul turns towards the audience and asks "what do you think? Do you think they stand a chance? Well you're on their side aren't you. Who you betting on, eh?" The audience is being acknowledged; their role as someone invested in the story is being examined by the ones introducing the stakes.

youtube

But the biggest moment comes near the end, when the mother grabs the shotgun she's being threatened with and blasts Peter. Paul startles, grins, and then hurredly grabs a tv remote and presses rewind. The movie itself suddenly rewinds to right before the mother grabs the gun, and plays again with Paul grabbing the shotgun right before the mother reaches for it.

Its a truly incredible moment, in that its the perfect way to forcibly take away the audience's suspension of disbelief. It forces the audience to acknowledge that they're viewing a story, not something happening to a real family. After their moment of catharsis against the villains, Paul makes the confront the fact that the movie will end however the creators want it to, and if they want the villains to win they'll will regardless of how little sense it makes. Fuck you, we can go from being set in the normal world with normal rules to the villains traveling back in time with a tv remote, because a story does whatever its creators want. Haneke just decided to make that obvious in the most jarring way imaginable.

But maybe the best way to illustrate Funny Games effectiveness at this type of artful unveiling is comparing it to its less-effective imitators. I've recently finished Anybody Home?, a recently-published book by Michael J. Seidlinger. It has the conceit of being narrated by an unnamed mass-murderer, guiding a new killer in their first home invasion. I started reading it before I watched Funny Games, and even afterwards took a while to realize the unnamed narrator wasn’t just a pastiche of a Paul-like character but was actually supposed to be read as Paul himself. Seidlinger was having his book be a sort of unofficial sequel to Funny Games, narrated by its star. Once I realized, a lot of the books details suddenly clicked. The big one was the constant references to “the camera" and the idea of murder being a performance for an audience, one that needed to be fresh and original to make “the cults” enjoy it. Take these passages from page 77:

If it happened, it would perturb. It would create suspicion. It wouldn’t end up ruining the performance, and yet, it could have derailed our casing. The camera can have all it wants; either way, it’ll make it look better than it really was. It’ll strip away the cues and other planned orchestrations and it’ll show the action—the actuality of each scene, each suggestion…

This is a spectacle, above all. The craft pertains to keeping and maintaining a captive audience; behind the camera, you’ll never know how it happened—the trickery that made the impossible possible, the insanity so close to home. It is spectacle.

Through online activity, the son made it clear that something is happening at home, yet we cannot be certain if he has noticed the camera.

These all point to the idea that the murders are being viewed by an audience rather than just by intruders, that this is a performance for said audience's benefit more than anything else. But notably, it also reinforces the idea of these characters having an existence outside of the camera: the camera shows the action and "strips away" the cues behind it, the victims have a life outside the camera such that they could plausibly sense that the camera is now here. The victims are sometimes described as playing into their role, but always metaphorically; always as if normal people start acting like characters when put in certain circumstances. Whereas Funny Games posits that characters will behave however the author wants them to, denying the claim that stories are realistic simulations of hypothetical scenarios.

The whole thing is predicated on the idea that there needs to be a guide, that the villain of a home invader movie is really in danger of something going wrong. Paul/The narrator keeps giving directions on what needs to be double checked, what needs to X, and its completely against the spirit of the role Paul served in Funny Games. If something goes wrong for the villain they should just be able to rewind and do it over, because the story was written for them to succeed. Anybody Home? throws out Funny Games theme of the story being on rails, of the winner being whoever the author wants it to be and the events following whatever the author wanted rather than what would "really" happen. It throws out the whole idea that it’s all just a story, by supporting the idea that the characters have lives not captured by the camera—or more relevantly, not captured on-page.

Because Seidlinger using the language of film in a book leads to different things going on with the fourth wall. The way Funny Games and Anybody Home? make the camera explicit are just different, and the former does it much more interestingly than the latter. Seildinger’s characters aren’t looking back at the reader, the fourth wall is never actually breached. Funny Games has Paul look into the camera to address the audience, making clear how it’s a story being set up for the audience's benefit. Anybody Home? invokes the idea of a camera tracking everything home invaders do in general, having it be a third-party force that’s itself an unseen character contained within the story, observing the intruder's crime rather than the reader. Why is it still a camera, if we're in a book rather than a movie? A character in a book talking about a camera watching them does not convey any of the same meaning as a character in a movie suddenly looking into a camera and smirking at the audience!

By the end, you realize that this is caused in part by the book's bizarro take on how horror movies exist in this world. It reveals that in its setting, all horror movies are adaptations of real home invasions, which get recorded by unseen mysterious forces. Killers enter a home and enact violence, are filmed by some supernatural camera, the footage gets leaked to the public, and then the killers sell the rights to the work to studios. The events of SAW really happened, but the movie was just an adaptation. Funny Games really happened, but the Paul in the movies was just an actor playing the Paul narrating this book. The killer's victims eventually realize that they're "victims," but not in the sense that they realize their characters in a story, only in a sense that they realize they got sucked into their world's magical realism bullshit.

Ultimately, while the book does the same trick of being all about how horror stories are “for” us, it gets rid of all the tricks that made it work for Funny Games. It even strips it's in-universe version of what made it special; Funny Games is just another adaptation of a real home invasion. All the meta stuff that makes it interesting in its genre are just gestured at as aesthetics.

So what makes Jack Slash in Worm succeed where the killers in Anybody Home? fail? Both are constructed to be entertaining for a 3rd party who stand-in for but aren't actually the audience; the entities in Worm, the cults in Anybody Home?. But Jack Slash doesn't mix his metaphors. Worm may turn various real-life factors affecting a work into in-story mechanisms of the world in the same way Anybody Home? does. But it doesn't also base itself off a text that takes in-story mechanisms and breaks them to force the audience to see the various real-life factors affecting the work. In effect, WB pulls off a trick Seidlinger tries and fails because WB wasn't taking another metatexual story and stripping it of what made it interesting.

Though that introduces the question: can such meta-moves be mixed? Can you have a text where story conceits become explicit plot mechanics the characters are aware of, while also having characters really look at the camera and tell the audience that its all just a story? Can you actually sell it and make it something interesting?

There is one story that tries this. I don't know if it pulls it off, but it certainly makes a lot of interesting moves that create a fascinating whole. It even comments on the Joker in the same way Worm does, having a character who seemingly cant die because the roll they play in the story is too impor—

Ah fuck.

Continued in part 2.

#wormblr #wildbow #jack slash #parahumans #metafiction #funny games #michael haneke #anybody home?#michael j seidlinger #mals says #mals reads worm #Youtube

165 notes · View notes