#your bad faith interpretation of my post is warped

[tragic-obsession]

The problem with the "you can't be a feminist if conservative white supremacists agree with you" thing is that generally conservatives agree with different parts of different types of feminism.

For every feminist, there's a fascist who agrees with her about at least one thing.

The average usamerican nationalist man, for example, probably agrees with radfems that biological sex is immutable, but equally agrees with libfems on their pro-porn stances.

By your logic, neither radfems nor libfems nor anything in between are really feminists, and women's rights activists do not actually exist, we are all just fascists because fascists agree with all of us about at least one thing. Do you see the problem?

“Um, did you know that, um, if you believe that grass is green, and a single fascist also believes that grass is green, then that makes you a fascist too. Sorry I don’t make the rules. Yeah some tumblr user said that when fascists agree with conservative radfem transphobia it raises red flags about their “feminism”. Obviously this means that if you agree with a fascist about literally anything it makes it a fascist belief. Sugar is sweet? Fascism. Cars are vehicles? Fascism. Ocean is salty? Fascism. This is totally a normal and reasonable interpretation of their post.”

You disingenuous, dense motherfucker. *Obviously* when I am talking about “things fascists agree with” I am talking about distinct, extremist, anti-human rights aspects of their ideology. You know, things that your average person is gonna find abhorrent. Maybe you should look at the current events surrounding my post, the context, you might realise that I am talking about some cunt hiding her transphobia behind some thin veils of “feminism” (not actually feminism). Maybe I’m trying to say “Hey, you see this person advocating against the rights of a demographic (trans women). You see those fascists agreeing with her that trans women are sub-human? Maybe that person’s ideology isn’t actually about feminism? Maybe their ideology is more akin to fascism lite. Fascism but with “real biological women” at the forefront.”

But no, sure, just generalise my statement to more mundane things. Compare transphobia to sex work. Tell me that when fascists agree with radfem transphobia, then this also means that feminists fighting for sex workers are agreeing with the fascists wanting to objectify women in porn. Because obviously feminists and fascists have the exact same intentions behind supporting the porn industry [sarcasm]. Feminists want rights for sex workers. Fascists just want to jack off.

Do you see the problem? Do I have to spell it out further?

[everythingseasoning]

Suguru Geto - JJK character analysis (near complete?)

“I gave everything I had, and it failed. It all crashed in front of me. And nobody did anything— not before me— not now. I’m seeing something nobody else sees. I’m sitting in these shadows and nobody cares about me. And here Gojo is, not doing a thing— and they praise him.” - my interpretation of Geto’s thought processes post Riko Amane’s assassination.

Crying about Geto because he went through so much. Geto was compassionate and idealistic before he defected. After such intense, prolonged trauma caused by the darkness of humans, and after growing disillusioned towards the world due to how unhelpful jujutsu society was— Geto felt utterly confused, resentful, and abandoned. The very system that was supposed to represent goodness (Jujutsu Society) simply prolonged the cycle of pain and suffering. It failed everyone— it failed him. Everything he’d believed was a shattered mirror, reflecting the cracks and flaws of humanity— and Geto saw that. Jujutsu Society praised Gojo for his innate talent, whilst neglecting the cracks in its system and the world, and neglecting Geto. In Geto’s turmoil, Geto was overcome by disenchantment— losing his faith and shedding his past sense of self— his good nature replaced with bitterness towards Gojo, simultaneously accompanied with a developed, narrow perspective on normal humans. (As we see with “Are you the strongest because you’re Satoru Gojo, or are you Satoru Gojo because you’re the strongest?” — Geto brings up the age old question of nature Vs nurture. He’s essentially asking Gojo if his power is the reason for his success, or if his power shaped his identity. Who is Gojo? Did he get any choice in defining himself? —He didn’t. Gojo’s whole personality is based off of his power, which determined how he was treated— the Strongest, seen as a functioning tool. —And regarding Gojo’s power: What was once a deep admiration towards Gojo, turned into resentment and envy from Geto’s end, as Geto realized Gojo wasn’t changing the corrupt systems, nor did Geto have the luxury of power to have made a difference. Geto felt spurned, and also believed normal people were unworthy of ruling, and the only way to save the world from its already unjust systems was to overthrow everything and use power to rule. After all, power is all that matters in terms out how you can change the world, which is your worth in the world— and Geto wanted that. He wanted power. He wanted to be worthy the way Gojo was— he was hurting. Maybe if he had Gojo’s level of power, he wouldn’t be in this much pain. Maybe he would’ve been able to stop other people from being evil and actually have had footing in this world. Maybe people would be listening to him, appreciating him. —Or maybe, Jujutsu Society was just a phony, after all. And normal humans were useless to change anything— all they did, in Geto’s mind, was feed into the evil nature of the world. …Geto became resentful, callous, cold, evil because of the wrongdoings inflicted on him, which resulted in his misinformed beliefs about humans and his behavior run wild with blind spite. He truly believed that the pain he inflicted on humans was justified, and he reveled in it because he had been hurt so deeply and saw it as reparations, even.

Do I believe what Geto did was okay? Absolutely not. He had much too rigid a way of seeing humans— as all bad— and that was a fallacy. But he was only 17 when he faced such confusing, extreme, difficult circumstances, and it distorted his worldview. I can’t blame him. He WAS good. But being around constant darkness wore him down, thus he descended into a callous man devoid of empathy. His actions after defecting are deplorable and not okay, however, he truly deserves compassion too. Many others, had they been in his situation, would’ve ended up horribly warped too.

How could Geto have done better, so as not to become the evil, rigid and disillusioned, cold and harmful, person he became? This is an important question. I’m still figuring it out myself. This analysis is to be continued. For now I’d say that he was unable to empathize with humans beyond his own pain and suffering, and it’s a cautionary tale about how wrapped up we can get in our own trauma and suffering— which leads us to being incapable of seeing and understanding things beyond our own individual pain, which leads us to inflicting undue injustice into others. It’s crucial that we take the time to understand the depth and complexity of humanity. The inherent value in humans.

I’m sorry, Geto. For all you went through, and for ever judging you without the fuller scope of understanding. You deserved better.

[tired-fandom-ndn]

I just wanted to say it's nice to see a blog like this! It's really refreshing to see when someone is both critical of media, but in a balanced, nuanced way.

Which is probably my biggest beef with antis, actually. They've warped and mutilated the entire concept of being critical of media, and then made it widespread enough that everyone who is not an anti or anti-adjacent assumes it's in bad faith.

Even when we're not getting into "how fiction effects reality" stuff, it's hard to have a good debate on themes or ships or characterization anymore without worrying some is going to bring in some moral superiority stuff. I know ship wars have always been vicious, but this seems to be scaring more people off from even good faith discussions.

It sucks. I enjoy being critical of media because I like knowing how things work. It's also interesting how a lot of it comes back to knowing how writing and storytelling works as well. There are so many time where you can pin down a narratively weak or unsatisfying element to the creator's biases getting in the way, or how audience interpretation vs what the creator intended can differ so much based on what assumptions the creator thought the audience would have.

But more importantly, it's an important skill to have in general. Navigating media and just society in general is complicated, and it's not a simple good or bad set of rules you can memorize. You have to understand how these things work to be better and not reproduce the exact same toxic bullshit with a different coat of paint

Thank you for this message, anon! I try incredibly hard to approach media critically and thoughtfully and to stay aware of my own biases and the messages being shared in the media I enjoy.

You’re absolutely right about how antis have warped media discussions and meta in pretty much every way. The morality that antis follow has surpassed shipping and now it feels like every single discussion about characters or themes involves accusations of characters being abusive or toxic or predatory for completely surreal reasons. Even in decent discussions, there’s also the way that shipping is brought up solely as a gotcha or to shut someone out of the conversation. There’s been so many points where I’ve made posts about general fandom stuff and gotten people bringing up shipping just to undermine me.

I absolutely love analyzing media. It is one of my favorite aspects of canon, picking things apart to understand the messages and the creator’s biases and the ways that fans interpret different things. I like trying to understand why certain choices were made in the canon, why certain characters are shipped so much, why the author leans on some themes so heavily. Sometimes I don’t always like the conclusions (this ship is more popular because the alternative is one with a Black character and Black people are undervalued as love interests by society, this character is written in this way because the author has ableist biases and sees disabled people that way, this fictional culture is inspired by real cultures but in a way that is disrespectful and appropriative, etc) but I always come out of those discussions with a better understanding of the media in question and the fandom for it.

And I don’t get why people don’t also enjoy that! It’s so much fun! It’s so interesting! It’s great for engaging with other people and making your fandom more diverse and opening up new concepts and theories! Media analysis, in my own personal experience, does nothing except make a fandom more creative and thoughtful and welcoming.

I don’t always agree with the conclusions that other people draw, but that’s what makes things so interesting and gives so much variety to fandom. I wish that meta and media analysis wasn’t so dominated by antis because it really is ruining fandom experiences and making it harder to engage thoughtfully with media and fan communities.

[sorin-sunchild]

Also, I really have to ask why those of you who cling so vehemently and so aggressively to the idea of gay Richie and bi Eddie...do that?

Like, we've shown you how it's written as quite obviously the opposite. We've shown you how deeply emotional and driving both of their journeys (Eddie to being a heavily closeted gay man and Richie an equally tentative bi man). We've told you that whether it was written accidentally or on purpose, the identities are individual and cannot be changed and thrown around meaninglessly.

And your answer always seems to be: "Well in IT Chapter 2 it was different, so from them on that's what I've thought and everything I now read should only support that."

As if ch 2 didn't basically paint Eddie equally likely to be het or ace whilst making Richie 'gay' only insofar as they didn't get a chance in this long ass movie to show his whole history which should have included girls. What I'm saying is, a movie isn't a reliable source of information for characters. There's a general reason movie events aren't considered canon unless they erase a problematic element. It'd be like taking a fanfic as canon.

Every live action version of Richie and Eddie has sought to erase their identities, and this stubborn cling to gay Richie just because a film hinted at such (but again, could very well also mean he's bi, liking one man on camera does not a gay person make) is much in the same. Like, I'm very sorry if you identify more with a gay Richie, but you need to understand that you're erasing a whole part of his identity in order to do that, which is biphobic.

You're taking such an erasing standpoint from years of in depth readings and interpretations. Not headcanons we've gleamed from one line or a short scene. Actual analysis of the text with open minds. Because I once went on the take that they were both bi, before somebody helped me analyse the text. That was just my brain (I have ASD) getting in the way. It's ok to learn from people.

But instead some of you are sticking your head in the sand and don't WANT to budge. So, why? Every reason I can think of involves a hurtful amount of biphobia and homophobia. Or just plain ignorance and stubbornness. This isn't two groups debating a headcanon here.

This is one group saying that 'the characters were written a certain way and we know this from years of analysis of the text and here is all the evidence we have and isn't it all very sad and beautiful?' And the other side going with what a bad movie that incorrectly represented a lot of the material said, for poor reasons.

If you have a bad faith reading/bad take, just keep it to yourself because it's really warping and erasing some of the singularly most well written even by accident gay (Eddie) and bi (Richie) characters identities. Like, I'm so sad that fics and people have to tag which identity they're using when it should just be well known and obvious.

If you wanna argue, I'd also appreciate straight reblogs or messages. Comments on post alone will be deleted.

[hope-grace-serenity]

Hello! I just found your blog and I love your meta about Faith (honestly I just missed that no one really talks about her). Considering that though, I have a question - what do you think her relationship with John and Jacob is like? I often see people headcannoning her as being John's bestie and honestly, the idea never sat right with me. And on the contrary, I think Jacob cared about her more than people usually presume. So I was curious about your take. :D

Hi! :) I’m glad you’ve enjoyed my posts! The question you asked is so interesting because there’s barely any information in the game about the dynamics of the heralds. There are a lot of different ways to interpret or headcanon their relationships, and I think other takes besides my own are equally valid and can be fun to read about. 

As for my personal viewpoint, I headcanon John as having--or had in the past--some kind of one-sided rivalry towards Faith (Rachel). She’s described by NPC’s as being Joseph’s favorite, and another NPC says that Joseph gives Faith whatever she wants. John, on the other hand, is said to be someone who never had Joseph’s full confidence, and we see how distraught he is when Joseph chastises him for giving into his more violent impulses during the baptism. I think seeing Joseph be so full of affection towards this outsider and “adopting” her into the family would make John see red. The fact that Rachel, unlike the past Faiths, makes herself valuable due to her use and production of the Bliss, as well as her talent for manipulation and knowing how to play the game, is something that aggravates him even more, because he knows she’s not going away anytime soon. He knows how Joseph views her and isn’t stupid enough to take action against her directly, so I think any kind of conflict would be more passive-aggressive, like  trying to constantly one-up her. An example of this “competition” can be seen when he tries to paint himself as being a better herald than she is because he believes he treats his underlings better than she treats her angels.

HOWEVER, there is something from the game that makes me feel like there might be another layer to the John-Faith dynamic besides rivalry. Two different NPC’s both express that Faith is going to be angry that John was killed. If he was constantly being antagonistic towards her, then she wouldn’t be that upset if he died, right? So my personal belief is that, after 7 years, the two developed some kind of understanding with each other, to the point where they might be considered friends, even though I feel there’s always going to be an underlying jealousy from John’s end.  Faith is very quick to pick up on what people are thinking/feeling, and I could see Faith being the one to initially extend an olive branch to John  (either out of genuine sympathy and/or more strategic purposes). I don’t think John would be emotionally mature enough to take it at first, but as the years go on I could see him developing a grudging acceptance and respect for her and her abilities. John can be pretty passive-aggressive and petty, but so can she, and I genuinely think he would meet his match with Faith and would quickly see that he couldn’t “win” this one, which would cause him to adapt (just like how he needed to adapt to different situations in the past). The fact that she lasted 7 years with the group is quite telling, and they *do* have a lot in common that they could relate to and talk about. I could see them both trying to figure things out about the other as a way to get an advantage in their weird competition, and unwillingly end up growing closer as a result. Joseph’s presence and influence over both of them would always be the biggest stumbling block and prevent them from having a normal relationship, but I think that by FC5 they’re about as close as they can be, all things considered.

As for Jacob, I think Faith would initially have a much harder time getting a read on him, which would make her cautious at first. I also think Jacob would purposely keep her at arm’s length, especially in the beginning, because of the replaceable, disposable nature of her role. I think he feels the whole “Faith” position and her title as a “sister” is one big farce and somewhat insulting to the brothers’ history and all they went through, but puts up with it purely out of a desire to make Joseph happy. As with John though, I think Faith grows on him as the years go on. While he might first only view her in terms of what she can offer to the Project, he eventually sees that she has a strength and ingenuity to her. This strength is what keeps her in the Faith role for so long, and Jacob respects strength. I feel like their personalities would mesh well and they would be cordial to one another without the strings that Faith’s relationship with the other brothers might have.  I also headcanon that Jacob acted as some kind of mentor figure, even unknowingly, because Faith takes some cues from him in her approach as a herald. I know it’s been discussed on this site before, but both of them focus on breaking down or warping the minds of others--the key difference is that Jacob’s approach is intimidating yet upfront while Faith’s is soothing yet duplicitous. Good cop/bad cop, in a way. 

I do think that Jacob purposely tries to close himself off to a certain degree in order to not get emotionally invested, because as a soldier he always prepares for the worst and would not want to be emotionally compromised in his mission. After Faith dies, one of the NPCs says that Jacob would “happily sacrifice everyone and everything to feed Joseph’s collapse. He doesn’t care about Faith.” Ultimately, his brothers and their mission will always be Jacob’s number one priority. He might like and respect Faith on an individual level and value her more than random canon fodder cultists, but in the end, she’s still an outsider, and if her death is needed in order to achieve that mission, then so be it. It might sound callous to us, but Jacob has an extremely pragmatic worldview, and this reason is specifically why he tries not to get emotionally attached to anyone besides his brothers. It doesn’t mean that he dislikes Faith, it just means that he views her as more expendable to him than his blood relatives, and wants to keep it that way because feeling otherwise would lead to a conflict of interest. 

But those are just my two cents! I know different people have different opinions, and other takes are totally valid as well, especially since there’s so little to go on in the actual game. Part of the fun is seeing all the different ways the characters get interpreted.

[princeescaluswords]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was mainly referring to when Scott talks about how things used to be for him and Stiles prior to him being bitten? Some people seem to think he was longing for the times when it was just him and Stiles, while others take a very critical approach (blaming him for 'calling Stiles a nobody'). I was just wondering how you interpret the things he said?

You need not apologize. You were asking a question in good faith; if we were face to face, I would have been able to tell a lot more by your facial expression, our body language, and your tone. It's one of the limitations of a text-based system of communication.

I appreciated your question, because it enables me to talk about certain things which I like talking about.

I think it's obvious to anyone who actually paid attention to the show that Scott, under a significant amount of stress due to the sacrificial killings, the threat of the Alpha Pack, the mistaken belief in Derek's death, and the possibility that he will become an alpha, that stress magnified by the Darach's wolfsbane-enhanced influence, longs for a time when he didn't have to make life-and-death decisions as a 17-year-old boy. Of course, he’ll continue to do that throughout the show, because he's the heroic protagonist, but this scene is very insightful about what he has to overcome in order to be exactly that.

In my opinion, the show simply needed more scenes like it.

And yet, there is a segment of the fandom that uses Scott's words in a moment of suicidal despair to claim that he was insulting Stiles. It's certainly a critical approach -- critical in the sense of "in the service of an unrelentingly negative agenda with a racist impact" and not in the sense of "analyzing a story to get at its underlying meaning."

When Scott says "We weren't important. We were no one." these people often leave off the we. Scott is stressing their bond as friends and their shared condition of being insignificant kids. And they were. One of the first scenes in the show is when they're going into the school, talking about the events of the night before.

Stiles: Oh, god, that is freakin' awesome. I mean, this is seriously gonna be the best thing that's happened to this town since - Since the birth of Lydia Martin. Hey, Lydia - You look - Like you're gonna ignore me. You're the cause of this, you know.

Scott: Uh-huh.

Stiles: Draggin' me down to your nerd depths. I'm a nerd by association. I've been scarlet-nerded by you.

Stiles was talking directly to Lydia Martin and she just didn't register that he was talking to her. That's about as nobody as you get, and I'm sure it that we're supposed to take away that it sucks for Stiles to be so low on the school's social structure that he's not worthy of a greeting. Just as I'm sure it sucked that Stiles talked to Lydia at the hospital and she wasn't even paying attention. Or the fact that Lydia, girlfriend of the team captain, didn't even know Scott's name.

Remember the surprise on Scott's and Stiles's faces when the Popular Kids sat at their table? The fact is that they were nobodies at school. Scott's comparing what they endured back then to what they were enduring at that moment. It's not an insult, because there's a key change in Scott's next words (which those people with an anti-Scott agenda ignore): "Maybe I should just be no one again."

It's the switch from "we" to "I." If these people were paying attention, Scott is expressing the desire to go back to a time when his eyes weren't turning red. He doesn't even imply that Stiles would be happier the same way. In fact, he doesn't imply anything about Stiles at all.

It's Stiles who says that they're the same, that Scott isn't a nobody and that they're in this together, which brings Scott out of his suicidal state. It's a powerful scene for a reason.

So why do I claim that the particular interpretation is racist by impact? Because it highlights a double standard in the way that members of the fandom look at the show. Scott's statement is taken out of context and used to undermine his relationship with Stiles, condemning him as a bad friend, but they will just as easily take similar statements by Stiles and excuse them as funny or justified.

But you might claim that I do that as well, especially with instances such as the "Some of us are human" speech. I could go in depth about why it's not the same thing, but the point of this post is to outline how their agenda warps their way of seeing the show.

If you listen to people who hold this position, Scott wasn't really suicidal in this scene -- it's just the wolfsbane talking. And yet, even though it's the wolfsbane talking, that out-of-context line is taken as an indication that he's a bad friend. Which is it? Is Scott drugged to the gills, so his suicidal ideation is not worthy of concern or pity? Or is Scott lucid enough to insult Stiles in the middle of a crisis? This contradiction is immaterial to them, because that's not the goal of their agenda.

Their agenda is undermining the relationship between Scott and Stiles in order to portray Stiles as oppressed by his shitty friend. That's why Scott can say something that's a negative fact and it turns into outright condemnation, but Derek can call Stiles a "hyperactive spaz" and it's Eternal Sterek.

[kokkuri3]

Hello! Which books/arcticles/etc can you recommend If I am interested in writing character`s analyses as good as you?

This was SUCH a flattering ask to receive and I'm glad you respect me enough to ask it!! I thought about this question for a while and my answer is this:

There are a few books and articles I can recommend. The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Writer's Journey are both important works among literary analysis circles and their deconstructions of fundamental character archetypes are, in my opinion, very helpful to know. Articles on character analysis specifically are in my experience a little hard to come by, and most focus more on the writing of the essay more than the analysis itself. WriteAnyPapers has a not bad article on it.

The books and articles I linked all explain fundamental character archetypes, and how they fit into a larger work. Having an understanding of these groundworks is important to being able to interpret characters and literature as a whole, at least in my opinion. What you're actually looking for, however, probably isn't what's in those books. What you want to know is probably more along the lines of "how do you come to interpret characters like this." In which case, I think it's better if I just give some advice myself.

1. Consider the greater whole.

This is the most important advice I have. When I say "consider the greater whole," I mean that one must always put any event, line, or character into the context of the story or character as a whole. Everything a character does, says, or narrates is part of their larger characterization. To take it a step further, characters exist as part of a greater narrative, and are part of a larger context. It's important to understand these as a network of interacting elements, and not as singular, independent episodes.

How does this character behave differently from other characters? In what way do they behave the same? Who is important to them, and to who are they important to? Why do they matter to the story as a whole? For this last question, consider not only plot, but themes and symbolism.

Essentially: everything is connected, so you have to consider what one thing has to do with another. (Note: sometimes, this also means taking the cultural context of a character or work into consideration. I don't think that's always necessary for character analysis, though.)

2. Consider more than just what's text.

By which I mean: take into account not only stated or directly shown characterization, but more subtle instances, as well. Not every event in a character's life will be shown, nor will their every thought. Learn to interpret subtext, identify symbolism, and recognize double meaning.

Subtext is a very important part of a narrative, despite being often overlooked or regarded as non-canon. For some purposes, I understand why subtext is held as lesser than canon (for example, I wouldn't call a character who is never explicitly stated or shown to experience same gender attraction 'canonically gay'), but for character analysis, your purpose is already to come to a conclusion that's not immediately obvious. By throwing away subtext, one erases a genuine part of a character's writing, making what they reach a bad faith interpretation (meaning, one made with an agenda).

Symbolism is often used to communicate characterization in a subtextual manner. This symbolism can be associated with particular events, or attached to a character design. If you see a specific symbol recurring throughout a work, try to see if there is any connection between its appearances. Some symbols aren't recurring within a specific work, but are associated with certain qualities across multiple works. I don't do symbol analysis as often as I do character analysis, but here's an analysis that's more the former (on scissors, specifically) and here's one that's more the latter (on white dresses as a symbol of purity.) By learning to recognize and interpret symbolism, one is able to see more aspects of a character than they would have otherwise.

Essentially: Not everything about a character will be explicitly stated, so it's alright to interpret a character based on guesses or assumptions, so long as these are backed by canon.

3. Do not conflate a character and their archetype.

One thing that happens often, and which bugs me to hell and back, is when assumptions are made about a character based on an archetype they appear to be, even when these assumptions blatantly conflict with canon. This rule is less "how to write a good character analysis" and more "how to not write a bad one," but I see this done so often I had to include it.

Is this character actually stupid, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with stupid characters? Is this character actually competent, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with competent characters? Is this character actually flirtatious, or did you just... You get my point.

In many ways this is also about combating stereotypes. You should always check your analysis for traits that are potentially racist/misogynist/homophobic/etc., and make sure canon actually supports these traits.

Character archetypes aren't bad-- they, like all tropes, are tools. Having a framework for a character can be helpful in writing them, and by creating a character that can be easily associated with other, similar ones, one can essentially shorthand to the reader what their position in the narrative will be. But well written characters are always greater than their archetypes. Identify which archetypes you associate with a character, and try to figure out if there are any ways in which they avert, subvert, or otherwise go against traits typical of their archetype.

Essentially: Make sure you're thinking about the character you're analyzing, and not other, similar characters.

4. Don't let personal biases cloud your judgement.

Fictional characters are not your friends. Nor are they your enemies. Developing a personal attachment or relationship to characters is natural, and I certainly do it. When analyzing a character, however, you shouldn't let any emotions you have warp your perception of the text.

Simply because you like a character does not mean you should look over their flaws. Sometimes, analysis can lead you to the conclusion a character you thought was good was actually pretty terrible. That's alright, and you're not betraying anyone by pointing out a character's dubious actions or flaws. Similarly, you can't make up reasons a character you hate is a terrible person. By framing actions not originally written as malicious as though they are a crime, one creates a bad faith interpretation.

And, by extent, just because you find a particular subject difficult does not mean you should ignore it. Bad faith interpretations go both ways, and interpretations made having erased all traces of taboo subject matter are as much made on false pretenses as interpretations made while fetishizing these.

Essentially: Fictional characters aren't real, and thus won't be hurt by your analysis. You shouldn't feel guilty or vengeful in creating a disparaging analysis, nor should you feel supportive or shameful in creating a supportive one. And it's OK to have mixed feelings on a character-- I take it as a sign of good writing.

Otherwise, my advice is a lot more broad. Simply familiarizing yourself with literature and its analysis should help you. Try to learn from other people. In my opinion, being a writer myself and learning to develop my own characters has positively influenced my interpretation. TVTropes as a website... Isn't great, but it is a pretty good way to learn to identify patterns across media to help with analysis and is also pretty fun to scroll through (actually looking at TVTropes character analyses isn't recommended though they tend to be pretty terrible). Wikipedia explains a lot of important analytical terminology (I reference foils a lot, for example). Have discussions with other people familiar with what you're analyzing, and don't be afraid of being wrong. Interpretation of art is subjective, so what's true to you is as true as anything. :)

Good luck !!! If you want any more advice, please let me know-- and keep in mind, a lot is just practice! I've been on Tumblr for 5+ years, and only recently have I begun making any... Decent analysis posts. As you further engross yourself, you'll be more able to identify important aspects of character and other devices such as subtext and symbolism. Even if your interpretation doesn't get much attention, keep going!!

Hope I could help!!

[polygon-streams]

4/20 (nice) - Pat + Faith stream Donk Souls!

Pat plays Dark Souls III set to the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack with a character designed to resemble a Kong. Faith draws her interpretations of Dark Souls characters. A bullet point summary of what you missed:

The stream starts with Faith drawing a nice little crystal lizard!

Pat welcomes chat to the stream and reads off the names of people who have just subbed/resubbed.

Pat decides not to turn on CC for the stream because it would not pick up on Faith.

Pat and Faith briefly talk about Warped Tour. Faith mentions that her brother attended the 2007 Warped Tour and Pat asks her if she can ask her brother who was on the line-up. She says she can try but we never hear back. We will never know if the bands were bad.

Pat tries to plug Badvertising, the podcast he guested on recently, but he misspeaks and calls it Sadvertising. He explains that this is the name of his spinoff of Badvertising.

Faith can’t hear the music on-stream so Pat tells her where to find the playlist, and mentions that it was posted by someone with the username familyguy10. Chat thanks Family Guy.

Someone plays “Ahhh the French!” from the soundboard and Pat recites it word-for-word.

“There is a California champagne by Magnum Kong.” -Pat

Pat mentions visiting California recently and talks about the food he enjoyed there.

Pat and Faith start creating the new Kong in the Dark Souls character creator.

Pat decides to set the characters class to “commoner” and Faith calls him a “Kongmoner”. It’s a good joke.

The Kong looks like a Waluigi at first. Pat and Faith remark that Waluigi is the base form from which all characters are crafted. 

Pat and Faith consider giving the Kong chest hair, but chat determines that all Kongs shave their chests.

Pat struggles with the Kongs nose, as he cannot make the tip look flat enough in profile.

“Is there a way to just turn the nose off?” -Faith

Pat finally manages to set nose to “no”, but it still looks bad.

They decide to accept the nose and move on to the mouth.

“Oh man, I’ve just like not been drawing for two minutes because I’ve just been looking on in horror” -Faith

Pat protrudes the mouth to balance the absence of a nose.

Our character finally starts to look like a Kong.

“He wants revenge on whoever took away his good nose.” -Faith

“How come ‘feminine’ turns the face green?!” -Pat

“Oh, well that’s like- you know how all girls wear a lot of foundation and stuff- it’s because we’re all green under there.” -Faith

Faith suggests that maybe this Kong’s mission is to find his son. Pat chooses a face option that makes the Kong look friendly, and Faith clarifies that the Kong is only on his way to pick his son up from soccer practice.

His backstory is later updated from dad-finding-son to son-finding-dad. This new Kong is Magnum Kong Jr., son of the Magnum Kong from Pat’s playthrough of Dark Souls I.

It is established that Jr.’s mother is the senator’s wife that Magnum Kong fucked in Dark Souls I.  

“He looks just like his mother” -Pat

“He’s got her powdered lips” -Faith

Pat and Faith give Jr. a small tattoo of a horse on his cheekbone.

It is established that Jr. is a soundcloud rapper who goes by the name of “Lil’ Nano”, short for banana.

Pat and Faith move into the hair options.

“This is not your daddy’s Kong” -Pat

They settle on a swept back mullet dyed bleach blond.

They play with facial hair but decide against it, as they prefer a youthful look.

Art update: Faith has drawn a very cool Dancer of the Boreal Valley!

Pat and Faith play with the brows and forehead before finally feeling satisfied with the new Kong.

Stream loses Faith for a couple minutes. Pat focuses on bringing her back.

They finally move into gameplay.

Pat realizes that Dark Souls III will not allow him to remove Jr.’s pants. He is distressed by this and starts looking for armor that will override this.

Pat and Faith talk about 4/20 plans while Pat fights a crystal lizard. Neither have plans.

Binchofthewilds – one of our admin – gets a shoutout for a good username!!!!

Pat and Faith talk about hanging out while Pat was in California. They talk about food again.

Faith mentions that LA weather forecast currently has a high of 69 fahrenheit, so it’s a double nice day.

Pat moves on to the first boss fight after failing to kill the crystal lizard. The boss kills him.

Art update: Faith has drawn a bone wheel chasing a little dude this time. Very cool!

Faith convinces Pat to lower the price on the sound titled “Faith’s Cowboy Button”, which plays the sound of the cowboy yell from the song “Big Enough”.

Pat relents and chat immediately spams the button, resulting in the sound of multiple cowboy yells overlayed on top of each other. Pat raises the price again.

Pat talks about his upcoming projects at Polygon, including more videos like the recent one with Marcus Scribner, as well as Unraveled season 2!

Faith mentions that she just recently watched the Unraveled Pokerap presentation. Pat says it was great to watch live and remarks that it was very cool that Polygon allowed Brian to take a month off of everything else to focus primarily on the Pokerap.

Faith talks about designing a teenage girl’s bedroom at an old job and says that she filled it with katanas, because she believed the girl would collect them. She says that she ultimately had to remove the katanas but was glad to have worked in a place where she felt comfortable being creative.

Pat mentions having a katana saved in his amazon wishlist, but he has been unable to buy it as it has not been available for months.

Faith talks about her rock and mineral collection. She remarks that it is a conveniently aesthetically pleasing hobby.

“All of my hobbies involve piles of cables” -Pat

Pat mentions trying raw beef (steak tartare) at a tapas place during a work dinner.

Faith talks about being vegetarian. She says she only started in high school, but giving up beef wasn’t hard as she rarely ate it due to the mad cow disease scare.

Art update: Faith has drawn a really cool jailer. She remarks that the character fits her personal aesthetic perfectly.

Pat asks Faith which part of the human body is her least favorite to draw. She says that she always gets frustrated while trying to draw foreheads going into noses. Pat says he always has trouble drawing feet.

“I would never draw a toe.” -Pat

Faith talks about the graphic novel she is working on. She is writing it as well as drawing it. It is about a girl who turns into a ball of lightning and it sounds very cool. Pat is excited about it.

Someone in chat dropped ice cream on the FLOOR. Pat starts talking about vegan ice cream. Faith mentions not knowing about liquid nitrogen ice cream until she ordered it in a restaurant and they started pouring “fog” on the counter.

Pat and Faith start talking about Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure. All of the characters are apparently named after bands, including a character just named “Cars”? There is a self-insert character in Jojo’s with way too big of a role. Someone in chat says that Jojo’s sounds like Riverdale, somehow. The admins did not understand this part of the stream.

Final art update: Faith has drawn a very good Winged Knight. He is a Big Boy and we love him.

Pat talks briefly about trying to get back into art. He says that Faith’s art is encouraging because it shows that you can draw anything.

End of stream!

Link to all of Faith’s good Dark Souls art: [x]

[aonemanarmy]

♚ ♤

the mun's interpretation

♚ Do you agree with fandom interpretation of your character?

ooc: That’s a very big no from me. From what I’ve seen of the fandom they have an issue with villain characters in general in which they strip them of all things that make them who they are. Usually they try to make them overly sympathetic and out to be like they’re really good guys deep down that just need the ‘one’ to come along and fix them.

I’m sorry if people like that sort of thing but I don’t, as I think it takes away far too much from the character and essentially dumbs them down namely for shipping purposes (a pet peeve of mine). This isn’t to say I don’t see villains as being incapable of being sympathetic, but just because they are doesn’t mean they still aren’t villains.

It might not have originally been Sephiroth’s fault the way he is the way he is, but when he goes insane there is no coming back from that. He literally burns Nibelheim to the ground and kills everyone there except for Zack, Cloud, Tifa, and Zangan; he nearly kills all of them but the latter too. Even if he might have been a decent guy at first there’s no way in hell he is after he’s nuts and turned into Jenova’s puppet, so I hate seeing people acting like he can change. Sorry, but there’s no way that’ll happen.

Also as I’ve stated in the past I think the compilation games - which were stated now as noncanon - and games like KH and Dissidia did irreversible damage to his character among many others. I honestly blame these games mainly for the warped idea fandom has of him and it’s honestly something I can’t stand which is generally why I avoid other Sephs.

♤ Has your muse developed to be different from their canon selves through roleplay?

I’d say he’s given a bit more background as to why he is the way he is in my interpretation. However, I use this mainly as a means to explain why he eventually snaps and needless to say avoid any association with the dumpster fire that is the compilation and other games outside of the original game.

Other than that a unique way he’s developed is through AUs mainly, such as those I have with @kyouminaine. Still, I like to think that even if they are expanding on canon stuff that he continues to remain faithful to his canon personality and that he’s still nuts and will do bad things and treat people like things. It’s just against his nature post-madness to do things without what he perceives as a benefit to himself in some way.

[elcorhamletlive]

blossomsinthemist replied to your post “blossomsinthemist replied to your post “MCU Rewatch: Iron Man 2” ...”

I do feel like there is a lot of bleed from like, 616/comics fandom tropes and meta into MCU tropes and meta that at times people aren't even aware of, and a lot of the time I don't really care, and it's fun to think about how comics things would work in MCU or how they might be portrayed, but when it comes to meta, especially meta about how characters are framed, it can get really messy, because there are big differences (not least because MCU is a fairly tightly  focused movie series of recent origin and the comics are a sprawling mess of contradictory interpretations going back over sixty years). But there are a lot of differences between the characters that are both interesting to talk about and can be really messy and/or confusing if fans don't draw a clear line between them.  

 And yeah, I agree with everything you said about purity wank in the fandom and how it affects the interpretation/meta about Tony.  That's exactly what I was getting at.  And like, for a while there Tony got a LOT of hate, and I know I at least got really tired of feeling like I had to disclaimer everything I said about him or I was somehow losing "progressive" cred. I know I've done the same thing--tried to frame him in the most progressive terms I personally found realistic because I was tired of the critique, and I am fully aware I myself have gone overboard with it.  In that sort of fandom environment it's so easy to do.  I had a realization a few years ago that I felt like I couldn't just say I disliked a film without finding like . . . social justicey reasons to dislike it, and I started training myself out of that, of trying to justify my likes and dislikes by warping arguments about social issues to support my feelings. 

And I feel like I see that kind of argument in particular a lot in fandom these days, and it's so tempting to take refuge from purity wank in like, NO MY FAVE IS PURE, especially when you know if you try to add in any nuance people who hate the character will take it in bad faith and be like "see, HE REALLY IS THE WORST" and, like you said, make it about the fan's activism or whatnot.  But exactly, both approaches just distort the character in the end.

I’m breaking this reply in two because I wanted to make this into its own post because it’s SO real. Your point about not being able to dislike a movie without finding social justicey reasons for it is really the culture tumblr has build. People in here don’t recommend movies/shows/anything to each other by saying “it’s really good”, they do it by saying “it has representation of X and Y and talks about Z issue”. And I feel like it’s dangerous, and kinda useless, to place all your activism into the media you consume. 

Wrt to protecting faves by making them more progressive, yeah, this is a trend I see with many characters. With Tony it’s more pronounced because, again, his haters harp so much on the privilleged thing, but I’ve seen with Steve too, posts like “if you hate Steve you must hate mentally ill veterans”, and even my Steve-obsessed ass was like “dude, that’s... one hell of a reach”. But in the end, it’s just a lot people protecting the characters they care about with the “weapons” they feel are the most effective. The major problem, of course, is that this results on the increasing banalization of social justice discourse. 

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

@thenookienostradamus

My criticisms are pretty clearly that ROP departed too much from the source material, not that it departed at all. (Apart from my criticisms of Amazon as a company, which you seem to share.) Yes, all movies/TV shows adapted from books are transformative works. I agree that all adaptations are inherently different from their source material, i.e. page to screen, that's obvious. But if you're adapting something, you're setting up a reasonable expectation that you're going to try to be faithful to the source material in some way—and the showrunners kept saying that their guiding principle in making ROP was "always back to Tolkien." In a nutshell: I never said any Tolkien adaptation has to be a "lore-perfect translation." But I do think it should try not to be a trash fire that tramples all over basic premises of Tolkien's works, which is precisely what ROP is and does. You're actually doing exactly what I talked about in the post—you're shutting down a legitimate conversation about whether ROP adheres to canon and hand-waving it away by saying "but but but it's a transformative work!"

I never said I was the "arbiter" of anything. Where did I say that? The original post is my opinion. Do you want me to put a little disclaimer in front of my own post saying "this is my opinion"? In the post, I express my views about what is and is not canon and why I believe ROP failed to portray Tolkien's stories and characters well. According to you, that's the same as me naming myself the "arbiter" of canon. Do you not see how warped your interpretation of this is? Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean I claimed to be the sole authority on what is and isn't canon. You entirely projected that onto me. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Finally, you need to understand that it's very rude to come onto my post like this and call me entitled when you've also totally misunderstood most of the things I even said in the first place. And you never acknowledged how messed up it was to reply to my post and basically tell me I'm "whining" and "foot-stomping" (seriously what the hell?). Your behavior is pretty much a textbook example of arguing in bad faith and immediately resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in legitimate discourse.

The latest bad take on Amazon's Rings of Power is, "Rings of Power doesn't contradict Tolkien's canon, because there is no such thing as canon."

I've seen more and more Rings of Power fans claiming that the show doesn't go against canon because there are different versions of canon anyway, between The Silmarillion and the History of Middle-earth, and The Silmarillion wasn't published by Tolkien, but by his son. They're basically saying, "Canon? What canon?" And I just... No. The idea that "the show doesn't go against canon because canon is so wishy-washy anyway" is SUCH a false argument to make.

Yes, Christopher Tolkien edited and published The Silmarillion after his father's death. And yes, there are multiple conflicting versions of stories in The Silmarillion and HoMe. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as being faithful to Tolkien's stories. A lot of the choices Amazon has made in the show are completely wrong and would be wrong in any Tolkien adaptation.

The characterizations are totally off base. For heaven's sake, Hobbits wouldn't abandon their own people on a journey. Elrond wouldn't swear an oath like that. And the Númenoreans don't hate Elves because Elves are stealing their jobs, they envy them for their immortality—it's kind of the main theme of the Akallabêth. And, in the show, Galadriel—whose people were literally victims of the First Kinslaying—tries to steal a boat??? I mean, hello??????? Amazon hasn't even tried to stay faithful Tolkien's characterizations. Yes, adaptations usually take liberties with the source material, but holy shit.

And the very framing of fundamental issues is completely wrong. In the show, going to Valinor is portrayed as some sort of reward for valor in battle, which is not how it works in Tolkien's books. The show also compressed the entire Second Age into a much shorter span of time, which is absurd and completely goes against what Tolkien wrote. The show glosses over the First Kinslaying, of course (I know it's because they don't have the rights, but it's still their fault for mangling the story and themes), which makes it seem like the return of the Noldor to Middle-earth was some sort of righteous war, and it wasn't. The list goes on and on.

And they can't get basic details right, either. Obviously, the short-haired Elves are one example of this; so is the emblem that resembles a Fëanorian star on Galadriel's armor. And it's astounding how poorly the showrunners seem to understand the nuances of Tolkien's names and constructed languages.

Tolkien was a linguist, and the languages he invented were extremely important to him and to his stories. So what did Amazon do? They completely ignored the internal logic of Tolkien's secondary world. In The Silmarillion, Ar-Pharazôn banned Quenya in Númenor—but Amazon's version of the character names his son a Quenya name. In the show, characters call Galadriel "Galadriel" even in Valinor, despite it being a Sindarin name given to her by her husband, Celeborn. It is anachronistic and inaccurate to refer to her by that name before Celeborn gives it to her, especially during the Years of the Trees when she didn't even speak Sindarin. The show also gave one of the hobbits a Dwarven name, Nori, for no apparent reason. There are many more examples like this.

Amazon has also invented some things out of thin air that have no basis in Tolkien's works at all. I understand that they had to invent original characters and storylines for this show. Inventing original characters could, in theory, work alongside canon instead of contradicting it, even though those characters aren't found in Tolkien's books. But mithril containing the light of a silmaril? What? And what's with that weird bit where Amazon Elrond and Amazon Celebrimbor are talking about the silmarils and they say Morgoth cried when he looked at them and almost repented??? What the hell??? It makes no sense.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. The people who created this show have many many, many choices that completely fly in the face of Tolkien's characterizations, worldbuilding, languages, and themes. (I haven't watched Rings of Power and I don't intend to, but this information is widely available if you read reviews and episode synopses.)

The show is also poorly written and ugly to look at, but that's beside the point. The point of this post is just to say that no, just because there are multiple, conflicting versions of canon in The Silmarillion and HoMe doesn't mean Amazon gets free reign to trample all over Tolkien's stories. There is such a thing as making a faithful Tolkien adaptation, and this isn't it.

[bitter-sweet-coffee]

just some thoughts, warped ones, below the cut

i know myself. i am me, even if i can't define that or explain it. i shouldn't have to.

sometimes, when you're the only person to fucking care for yourself, there comes a time where you know that isn't healthy. so you try to have faith in the help people offer. institutions— careers, dedicated to helping yours.

do not surrender your life to someone who doesn't know you.

yeah, i need to fucking trust outside sources. i need reminders that i exist in a universe alongside others, and retreating inwards to my own personal existential vacuum is going to drag anyone who gives a shit down with me.

but sometimes, even if it's not as often as i once thought... sometimes i know what the fuck i'm talking about. sometimes advice is bad advice.

when someone who knows more about your field but not about your brain tries to advise you, sometimes you can disregard it.

don't get lost in the whole "i need to rely on others more, so even if this feels wrong, i'm going to let them handle everything" because they don't know everything.

"8 courses at one school is a bad idea" well it doesn't fucking bother me, alright? having to take 2 extra courses (8 + 2 = 10 btw) just in case the "easy, other university courses" don't quality (gotta apply for post-transfer credits, after applying for the exams, after completing all the content, which is 6 months of work crammed into 2-3 weeks, meaning there are 7-9 different deadlines to remember) IS MUCH MORE STRESSFUL.

i don't know that school, but i know the +2 profs... and i love them. professors are people, colleagues, friends, too, y'know? so let me stay with the ones who formed my words before i learned how to speak them

there is lost space between me and the creepy man who called me during class to wrongfully interpret fine prints and policies that could have gotten my degree terminated.

there is found family in the man who sends me deltarune memes about medieval drama, or the one who buys original archie comics for me to write my Beatles seminar on, or the woman who likes my mcr arthurian fanart.

let me stay with them, i love them, i cry for them, i don't want them to be forgotten, i don't want to be forgotten, why did i let someone tell me to leave them behind?

it's not easier. 6+2 < 7+1(?)+2+9+03/15+2022

= PHL301 + ENG386

= i see my best friend on tuesday afternoons

= i have fridays off still

= i am home

= 06/2022 🎓

[arkus-rhapsode]

(Was gonna send this as an ask but it got too long)

Hi, I read your analysis on Edelgard and the Church and thought they were really well thought out. I'm personally a huge fan of Edelgard so I disagree on some elements but that's really just a matter of perspective. However, while reading your Church of Seiros analysis I feel like you glossed over two details which I personally believe are pretty important to Edelgards motivation against the church. (Disclaimer, while im spoiled on most relevant plot points, Ive only played Edelgard and the Church routes so far and havent seen every support so my understanding may be incomplete)

The first one being that Rhea has essentially made a Cult of Personality. The Fire Emblem games are no strangers to having random NPCs and minor characters lionizng and deifing their leaders, but with 3houses newer takes on perspective and gray morality and all that, the worship of Rhea comes off as really skeevy at times. The most obvious example of this is probably Cyril, who is probably the most textbook example of a child solider in a game where most of the units are technically child soldiers, but it even extends to a lot of NPC chatter, and characters like Catherine. The issue with the Church in its current state is that aside from having WAY more power than it should, all that power is pretty much centralized on ONE person, who in the eyes of most of her followers, can essentially do no wrong. I get the distinct impression that the church being called "The Church of Seiros" rather than "The Church of Sothis" was very intentional on the part of the writers for more than just the whole "Sothis" reveal. I think this is why Edelgard specifically says that she's "not declaring war on the faith, but on [Rhea]", because Rhea has fostered an enviroment where for a lot of her followers, Rhea IS the church, and her word is the word of the Goddess. Granted, she does step down and let Byleth run the church in a lot of endings but this brings me to my next, arguably more important point.

Rhea is fucking batshit insane.

This is probably more of my interpretation than anything, but I think what sets Rhea apart from some of the other antagonists is that I wouldn't really call her "Evil", at least no in the same way that I would call Thales "Evil" or Edelgard (as much as I love her) "Evil". Rhea's character strikes me as more of a case of just having an EXTREMELY warped sense of morality, which basically expresses itself as "Mother and Family Good, Others Bad", so if someone agrees with her and does what she says then she will show them the utmost kindness and warmth (which is how she's amassed such a large following), and if they disobey her or do something she percieves as a betrayl of her or her mother, then they're filthy heretic who will burn in hell forever (the church route also heavily implies that this is in large part due to the Classic Fire Emblem lore of "Dragons Don't Get Old They Just Get Crazy"). So when Byleth sides with her, she essentially sees it as her mother coming back (in some shape) to reclaim her rightful place as ruler of Fodlan, and steps down to let them take over again. This was one of my issues with the Church route, where instead of humanizing Rhea and exploring her character like Edelgards route did for her, I kinda left with the impression that Rhea just got what she wanted (or close enough for her) and therefore never had any reason to lash out like she did in Edelgards route.

Obviously this is a matter of perspective and I doubt this would really change your mind about Edelgard at all, but I do feel like its a pretty important of Edelgards motivations and why she does what she does. But this is just how I saw things and I felt the need to point this out after reading your analysis.

Okay so this is my response, sorry f its not as coherrent as my others because I’m honestly writig this off the top of my head. Now I’m glad you read both of those (seriously, i’m really happen when people read my work) and hey I don’t expect everyone to fully agree with me. I mean a big point I made with Edelgard is character perspective, but it also involves perspective of the player.

So if you feel certain way about Edelgard that come from a place personal view point that disagrees with my own, I’m not going to take umbridge. I don’t really think there is a “wrong stance” on Edelgard. But onto my own mistakes.

Yeah when writing the Edelgard post I do admit to leaving out more of the personal connections to the church and spent more on observing it as a whole. Kinda looking at the effect of the world and narrative on Edelgard. But I do believe that Edelgard’s own feelings towards Rhea are a factor in her rebellion. Just not as big a factor as the church’s effect on socuety and its crest structure and how it related to her own personal tragedy.

Yes, Rhea has a presence that can basically be seen as her literally making herself an envoy of a higher power, and while there are people who would likely die for her like Catherine and Cyril, I don’t think that position is that different from other instances of religion both in game and out of game. Now in the case of someone like Emmeryn, they are actually incharge of a sovereign power. It would make sense that their reverence goes beyond religious. People like Cyril seem to revere Rhea and not the church likely because they grew up in just this generation where the figure was that all encompassing. That is defintly dangerous, but is someting that comes with the territory if this large an operation. I can see where Edelgard would have a problem with that, but its very likely the same thing would develop with Edelgard as emperor. Listening to her companions speak about her and what she’s doing for the emperor can be seen in a similar vain of worship for the figure and not message.

Now onto the amount of power the church has, the church is continental in scale, but it is still divided among the 3 branches and when you consider the Empire, Faerghus, and Alliance need to live in relative harmony, it doesn’t surprise me on the size or influence of the church. Assuming we went with an ending that was no Rhea and but still a church, I highly doubt that in size it would decrease, but follower count would. So as an organized religion, that I don’t see as out of the ordinary. And if the one in charge of the central church was someone who did believe in the best parts of the teachings of Sothis and prioritized those, then I wouldn’t have a problem. I think the biggest over reach of the church is their right to execute. Not on the battlefield, but taking a prisoner and then killing them. It feels like that should be done with people like Kostas or Kronya who don’t hail from a territory or sovereign state. But with Lonato and the western church, it feels like the punishment or order of execution should’ve come from Faerghus as that’s where their associated with.

But then we have Rhea herself and yeah I did leave out talking about Rhea’s personality. I more talked about her actions. But I agree, this woman is crazy. Like I don’t know if its the dragon deterioration, though I kinda assumed Rhea shows signs of split personalities. There’s a clear difference in states of Seiros, Rhea and the immaculate one. I don’t know if it is actually personality disorder, but I picked up on it.

But in short I do agree with you on Rhea. Though I feel as though I didn’t gloss over the clearly evil shit she did such as experimentation and the preservation of the Golems. And I agree, she’s not “evil” nor really an antagonistic force like Edelgard (in most routes) but that doesn’t mean her hands aren’t clean. I would say the most morally black individual is Thales.

SO yeah, I still stand by everything I’ve said and think most of what I wrote is satisfactory, but I can understand that I didn’t mention everything that I probably should’ve

[bthenoise]

Q&A: Hear Trenton Woodley Discuss Hands Like Houses’ Most Daring Release Yet ‘-Anon’

This interview previously aired on idobi Radio and is for everyone who was too lazy to tune in. Enjoy!

Hands Like Houses are gearing up to release their Hopeless Records debut -Anon this Friday. Now before you think there isn’t much more to that statement than just the facts, really look at it for a second. 

This Friday, Hands Like Houses will be starting a new chapter of their career with a brand new label and a record that some fans might not have seen coming.  

Stepping away from the constraints of the “post-hardcore” genre, the Australian act has really taken a leap of faith with their new release in hopes of shedding any previous notions about the band. 

“The big thing about the record was kind of that idea of Anon [which] came from the idea of us kind of wanting to sperate expectations of what we are, where we come from and what defines who we are,” explains the band’s soft-spoken frontman Trenton Woodley. “It was a big part of our process, just like separating from our own intentions and expectations of others and we very intentionally let go of what we thought we were and what everyone thought we were so that everyone would approach this with an open mind.”

With one of their biggest singles to date, the rock-driven thumper “Monster,” blowing up on active rock radio (specifically Sirius XM’s Octane), longtime HLH fans have certainly had to make an adjustment as to who the “new” Hands Like Houses are. However, does that mean the band who wrote Rise Records staples such as 2012′s Ground Dweller and 2013′s Unimagine are gone?

Absolutely not -- at least, according to Woodley they’re not. 

“I think more people, as they spend time with [”Monster”], are actually kind of hearing that the lyrics are certainly Hands Like Houses and very much us. I guess surface-level, it's quite different and that's kind of where if you listen to it a few more times you think to yourself, “Okay, this actually is the real band I’ve spent the last three, five, ten years listening to.”  

Now before you make any judgments or preconceived ideas of what -Anon is all about, we highly suggest letting Woodley explain it for himself. To do so, make sure to check out our in-depth interview with the multi-talented vocalist below. Afterward, be sure to pre-order -Anon and grab tickets to see Hands Like Houses tour the US with Emarosa, Devour The Day and Arlington here.  

So we're getting closer to release day. What are you like leading up to the release of an album?

To be honest, it kind of snuck up on me but I think I'm ready. We recorded the album back in April -- I'm sorry, back in May I should say -- and in the meantime, obviously, it's just been about getting the marketing, and the videos and the strategy and all those pieces lined up to make it happen. So we kind of got to that point where it's not up to us and we're just ready for it to come out. I'm very excited which is probably pretty predictable. The initial excitement of having it done has kind of worn off and now it's like that anticipation of like, “Alright, let's do it!”

Do you find yourself searching the internet reading comments before an album is released?

Certainly, yes. I usually find the first 24 hours of putting something out is the best time to do that. After that, that’s just when the idiots come out. I feel like trolls generally have about, more or less...  just give it 24 hours cause that's when the trolls and the facepalm comments [are posted]. So the first 24 hours or so is usually the best time to get in and see what people are actually responding to because the first 24 hours are usually the core fans that enable you to be in a band and make a job out of it. Those are the people to first latch on to it and the first to give you honest feedback.

Well it must feel good to know “Monster,” one of your more unique singles, is doing so well despite what some of the comments might say.

Definitely. Certainly. We released “Overthinking” and “Monster” for different reasons. They're both at opposite ends of the spectrum that is the album as a whole so it was probably a bit of a jarring jump for some people to go from “Overthinking” to “Monster” and fans seem to have one clear favorite over the other depending on which stage of the journey they jumped on the wagon. So yeah, we're stoked that both have done such good things. It's almost kind of jilted our release plans a little. We were actually planning to release our third single [earlier] but they're both doing so well that we can kind of -- the third single is the one we’re most excited for; it's my favorite song on the record [and] we think it's got the highest ceiling of where it can go. But having to almost sit on that [song] an extra bit longer has been a bit of an exercise in patience and playing the game carefully because we're so stoked how well the other songs are doing. It's made us kind of rehash our release plans just ever so slightly to give it the best opportunity and give these songs time to play out. Especially now that “Monster” has landed the license and syncs for the WWE Show-Down that's in Melbourne. It's been blasting all over the WWE on TV. Yeah, it’s pretty exciting to be a part of that. Whether it's through [Sirius] Octane or Hopeless or a bit of both, it's pretty exciting to see where that takes us.

It must be bittersweet to want to drop a single but have to wait because the other single is doing so well. It must be even more rewarding considering “Monster” was a bit experimental for you guys.

Yeah, and each song is kind of blowing up for its own reasons. I guess we were anticipating “Monster” kind of doing the most and having the most reach but it’s been 50/50 [between “Monster” and “Overthinking”].  So yeah, it's developing for the right reasons. And there’s some of that initial reaction and I always expected that from “Monster.” I know that we kind of took risks with it and there was very much a reason. It's a very intentional song in terms of what we made it to do. We wrote it for reasons to be a fun rock and roll song that didn't take itself so seriously and I think that's where people, you know, a tiny subset of our fans, have kind of latched on to the seriousness of everything or just the fact that we're having fun with what we're doing. It kind of created a little bit of that, I don't know, not a disconnect but I think it's just kind of people's interpretation. Like, you know, if you're about to bite into a chocolate and it tastes like bacon, it's not that either are a bad thing, it's just when you're ready for one thing and you get the other, I think that creates a little bit of a “hang on” moment. I think more people, as they spend time with this song, are actually kind of hearing that the lyrics are certainly Hands Like Houses and very much us. I guess surface-level, it's quite different and that's kind of where if you listen to it a few times you think to yourself “Okay, this actually is the real band I’ve spent the last three, five, ten years listening to.”

Yeah, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Maybe fans are just on their toes a little after you guys released a heavier song in “Drift” in 2017, a softer song in “Overthinking,” then the radio-ready track “Monster.” Do you like kind of keeping fans on edge as to what you’ll release next?

Certainly. The big thing about the record was kind of that idea of Anon [which] came from the idea of us kind of wanting to sperate expectations of what we are, where we come from and what defines who we are. It was a big part of our process, just like separating from our own intentions and expectations of others and we very intentionally let go of what we thought we were and what everyone thought we were so that everyone would approach this with an open mind. And I think kind of putting people on their toes and kind of knocking them off balance with the songs we put out was very intentional so that the record would have the most opportunity to be interpreted as its own thing, its own animal. It's just like, at first listen, it doesn't matter if you've heard of Hands Like Houses before or you haven't. You still get that same feeling of “What is this?” That feeling of originality, it’s like that idea of falling in love with someone for the first time. It’s not something you can recreate. It’s kind of like having that fresh opportunity and that excitement and that fear and anticipation [which] makes it worthwhile when it does become a part of you. And that’s kind of the hope with how we set up the record and how fans take it.

So talking about the musical style of “Overthinking” vs “Monster,” do you notice as much of a disconnect between the “active rock” and “Warped Tour” worlds in Australia like there is here in the US?

I wouldn't say there's a disconnect here. Certainly, there's always going to be different things and different demographics and different sort of stuff but in Australia we have this unifying thing in Triple J radio -- that is like our government funded station that plays Australian music; it's like a big single radio station that plays alternative music in Australia and it's created this kind of interesting demographic where there are people who will listen to band’s like Tash Sultana and then listen to Drake and Kendrick Lamar and then Hands Like Houses and The Amity Affliction within an hour of each other. And all that gets played on the same station and you'd be surprised how many crossovers there are between those different [audiences] and I think we have, as a country, a bit of appreciation where a good song is a good song regardless of what style it is. Sure, we all have our tastes and we all have our things but in America, everything seems so divided. Like, your entire culture is built around dividing people along the demographic line where if you dress like that, then you listen to this and you hang out in these places. And if you eat here, then you do this and watch that. It’s so broken up and now that the Warped Tour has kind of I guess, let's say ended -- I think there's obviously going to be a continuation in terms of a few select dates or something. But I feel like with Warped Tour going away as a national tour, I think it will kind of be a bit of a settling period where people kind of drift back and forth between other demographics and sort of sounds and there's been an intentional effort to bridge that active rock and Warped Tour world over the last few years. You are seeing bands like us, bands like Sylar and Palisades, crossing over into that world of the active rock and the radio rock and doing quite well in that regards on the stations like Octane. I don't know, I think the bridges were being built before Warped Tour ended so I think that there will certainly be a change in the way people address it but I'm kind of curious to see how it plays out.   

It’s kinda sad to hear you say America is built around dividing people, especially considering who our president is. But talking about active rock vs Warped Tour, you’re going to be going out on tour with Devour The Day (primarily an active rock band) and Emarosa (primarily a Warped band). Was that intentional to kind of help bridge the gap?

Yeah totally. And having Arlington along as well is pretty exciting. Their a unique, young band who just signed to Rise and put their first single out. They’re bringing kind of a cool crossover into the indie rock, West Coast kinda world who kinda dip their toes in the world in Coachella more than say Rock On The Range. We wanted to make a bill that made sense and not so much, “Oh this band only gets to play with this band because they sound like that band.” That was something we certainly wanted to break away from in that sense of genre divides along the demographics. Let's just put together a bunch of great bands that write great songs in their individual genres and I think that will make more sense than having a bunch of bands that sound like us but not sound like us. So yeah, it made a lot of sense for us and I’m pretty excited to see how it goes down because I think no matter which band you go for, you're going to at least enjoy one or two of the others.    

It’s awesome you guys are taking out Emarosa considering they’re on a similar trajectory as you guys sort of branching away from the sound people heard when they were on Rise Records…

Just wait until you hear the new stuff!

Oh really!?

I’ve only heard a couple snippets when Bradley was recording down the road from us. Yeah, it's very different but it's pretty exciting. I think they're feeling [good] with what they’re doing and I feel like this was the perfect opportunity for us to tour with them together on the back of what we've done before but with putting our best foot forward into where we're headed. It's pretty exciting to kind of put that all in one room... or many rooms considering how many shows we’re doing [laughs].   

So going back to the album, can you touch on the title a little more? Where did -Anon come from?

Yeah, totally. For me, I think the idea of -Anon came as I was flying to meet the guys in the studio. And I was kinda going through the whole [writing and recording] process, and I was feeling stress and pressure on me because I was basically coming in with two weeks to write 2/3rds of an album because a lot of the songs that were already written had been kinda dropped along the way and I was kind of freaking out. And I’m like, “Well look, I’m always struggling with figuring out new ways to write about the same thing because I’m still me and I still have my own experiences, my own challenges, my own mental perspectives on how I connect with the world around me, so there's only so many ways to skin that cat” [laughs]. But for me, I don’t know, it came out of the balance of wanting to create this thing that people have no idea -- you don't have to know who we are to get it and if they know who we are that just adds deeper meaning because when you first listen to an album of any band, it’s like when you first fall in love with the band, you can’t ever recreate that. But when you find something and you're like “Hey this feels right,” we wanted to almost kind of recreate that experience as best we could and separate that idea of who we are from what we do and -Anon kind of came from that. Like, as if this album came out anonymously and no one knew who it was, then how would they take it and that kind of helped shape my lyrical input and it shaped the way that we viewed the album and the fans’ expectations and things like that. And it shaped the way that we approached it with this pure instinct and intentions that kind of make it into this thing that no matter who you or what you know of the band, you can still take this on and still kind of be on your toes with fresh expectations like “I don’t know what’s going to happen next.” I guess that was the catalyst moment for me and for the record and I guess that's what kind of gave birth to the title.

So -Anon is short for Anonymous, yes?

[laughs] Yes, I forgot to mention that. -Anon is short for anonymous specifically -- for example, there's a whole lot of anonymous poetry out there from 50 to 100 to 200 years ago and no one knows who wrote it but the reason it still exists today is because there was something about it that's worth sharing regardless of who originally wrote it. So if you remove the context of it and you only have the words -- that's kind of, in a modern context, like memes. No one knows who created any given meme because it's just impossible to know because everyone removes watermarks and removes watermarks and no one knows [who made them]. But the reason it exists and the reason it's shared is not because of who created it but what the actual content is and what it's relatable to and that's kind of what we wanted to recreate. Just that sense of poetry in that if you don't know who and why, it's still worth sharing and still worth relating to because the content is there and not who created it.  

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.