#Future-oriented | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

babelrevived · 1 month ago

Text

Back to continue this conversation with the amazing @angelinthefire after putting it on hold for like 7 days (sorry). I have just had a very busy week but now I am here to do what I love doing most: complain :)

I will also get into dialectics at the end as promised

I'm really glad you brought up ideology again because this gets to the crux of why I dislike the Felicia addition, as I was telling op in the other post. I think s1 presents it less as "ideology vs love" and more as "love for your people as a whole vs love for the individuals you personally know". Of course, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but there are definitely times when they clash. Che Guevara himself was from a middle-class family so I highly doubt he was motivated to be a communist out of love for them specifically lol, but he WAS motivated by love. However, when you become a revolutionary, there are many sacrifices you end up having to make for the greater good, especially in your private life. It's Stalin refusing to exchange a prisoner nazi general for his son because "all of them (Soviet prisoners) are my sons". It's Zainab Nasrallah saying she hadn't been able to see her father at all for the past 10 years. A revolutionary is a doomed man, as Huey Newton said.

I want to talk about Silco first since I think you are mostly referring to the infamous "is there anything so undoing as a daughter". Silco is kind of a tougher nut to crack because all his actions and motivations are really clouded by trauma, but I do think he was motivated by love from the get-go (if he wasn't then he would have been motivated by revenge or power, which is just something that we don't see at all). I don't think he was motivated by love for the Zaunites of the present, but those of the past who gave their lives and those to come in the future. He says it himself, "I'm doing this for us, Jinx. All of us. The sons and daughters of Zaun deserve more than their runoff." Except when he is put in a situation where he does have to choose between a loved one and his people, he chooses the former. "For us. All of us" becomes "it's only us." But that "it's only us" was itself a follow-up to "they can all burn". He wasn't giving up on his political ideology, he was merely changing his motivation behind it. And despite the fact that he just went against his principle belief of "letting the monster out", he still believes in it.

When it comes to Vander, in s1 when there was the assumption that he didn't know the girls, he also followed a similar route. He gave up the fight not because his goddaughters were hurt by it, but because he saw two little girls who were orphaned as a result of the fight. His decision to change his ideology was motivated by the same feeling of love that made him want to fight in the first place. This is why I made the distinction between him viewing giving up as a "necessary evil" and as a "failure", because those two terms imply completely different things. Then, when he is faced with the choice to bring out the monster and kill Silco, which would have been better for his people (in his opinion), or saving his daughter, he chooses the latter.

The point is, whether Silco chooses Jinx or Zaunites as a whole, his end goal is still Zaun; and whether Vander chooses his kids or Zaunites as a whole, he still doesn't go back to being violent (against Piltover). This is something that Silco didn't understand about Vander.

Now what s2 implies with the addition of Felicia was that on the bridge, it was his motivation that changed. He gave up because he couldn't handle seeing the people he personally loved get hurt/die. He still believed that Piltover could be defeated (which, in S1, he didn't) but he didn't believe that the cost would be worth it. It does kinda make him look like an idiot tbh like what did you expect lol.

I just think the s1 version of him is more nuanced, better executed, and so much less cliche.

I think you are misunderstanding why I keep bringing up that the tone of their s1e3 conversation was political. That whole part in the cannery was the only interaction we get between them. It is what shapes our perception of their relationship, and what we got from it is that the texture of their relationship is political. The content of their relationship is given to us through its feeling. The fact that the personal/emotional stuff kept threatening to come up and they (mostly Silco) kept shoving it back into the subtext is exactly the point. If we go by what s2 says about them, then their whole fallout had little to do with political disagreements. It doesn't expand or give depth to their relationship, it just makes the tone inconsistent. It ruins the texture; the whole conversation now makes no sense. Like this is your brother who tried to MURDER you because he blamed you for the death of your mutual friend, why are you talking about politics. And if Vander really was looking to patch things up then why not start with that, where was the energy we saw in his shitty letter? Why is he talking about politics? And I'm sorry but the explanation that people can add new things in later seasons is unconvincing and unsatisfying. Because why did they feel the need to change Vander and Silco's story (which people loved and praised) to a story that is honestly boring and cliche in comparison. It doesn't fill the holes in the last season, it just creates completely new ones.

To piggyback off of that, when I watched s2 I initially thought it was an example of what Susan Sontag would call "programmatic avant-gardism," which she described as experimenting in form at the expense of content (ahem. Black rose). But other than that, the... ummm... uniqueness of the form in s2 feels less experimental and more accidental. A product of trying to fit so much in such little time. But the consequence is still that often times, form is very divorced from content, and that's why a lot of characters had to end up giving very on-the-nose explanations of what was happening, whatt they were thinking, etc etc. This is why your idea of the structure in s1 being technology imposing on magic, and s2 being magic causing chaos doesn't really work for me. At least not when it came to the writing. Actually I think this is another example of s2 trying to do something that s1 already did and then failing miserably at it lmao. In s1, we did have a couple of instances where magic does reign supreme and upends chaos, but the main vessels for it were Mel and the hexcore. And that brings me to the Meljay/Viktor dying scene, which was the perfect example of writing and animation working together to create this beautiful scene. Like I felt the seduction of magic and I felt its danger simultaneously. It doesn't outright tell you what's happening, it makes you FEEL what's happening. It is content being portrayed through form, through style (which is what I was trying to get at when talking about the texture of Silco and Vander's relationship lol). Yk I have a lot to say about Meljay because I love it so much but that's a conversation for another time. Another example of this is s1 was when Powder bombed the cannery , which was happening while Viktor and Jayce were harnessing magic through hextech. What's interesting about that scene was that the magical chaos of it was conveyed through slow motion. It is so beautiful and yet it just destroyed Powder's life.

If there was any magic in s2, most of it came from the animation, despite the writing. Compared to s1, there is no meaningful creativity to the writing. Don't get me wrong there were definitely scenes that I loved, but none came close to the meljay sex scene, the amazing ending of episode 2, the Ekko/Jinx fight scene, the drowning, Powder freaking out while the monkey toy is ticking, the whole final scene, etc etc etc. The only thing I saw which could be considered chaotic was the introduction of various plot lines, themes, and character arcs and then the impulsive abandoning of them. And I'm sorry but that's just lazy. I promise there are many better ways to convey chaos lol.

On the theme of duality, I guess "wrapped up" was the wrong term but I can't really think of a better one so I'll just explain what I mean. In s1, the theme of duality was heavily tied in with the theme of "past vs. future," where the latter is more heavily dependent on the former. We see this mostly in Jinx but it's also present in Silco (and Vander before they butchered him but I'll get to that later). At the end of s1, Jinx makes the decision to be Jinx and completely let go of Powder, let go of her past. This was a great set-up to now put more focus onto the theme of "past vs future" and show only the flavors of the theme of duality through it. The inverse of what they did in s1. This would have also given Vi and Ekko a lot to do. Instead what they do is they try to bring back the theme of duality, say nothing new about it, and remove all the nuances from it that were present in s1. I would argue that they are barely even able to portray that there is duality at all, especially in the case of Caitlyn and Vander, but I'll get to that later.

Now for the fun part, dialectics :D

A quick summary for anyone unaware of the term. It's basically the notion that within a system (or anything in which all the parts are connected), it is the struggle between internal contradictions (oppositions that are mutually exclusive but need each other to for the whole) that gives that system its basis for development. Change is not possible without these contradictions. there is more to dialectics than that but this is all that's going to be relevant for what I'm gonna say.

I think where we differ here was that you were using dialectics mainly to analyze the characters' personal philosophies (something that they are conscious of), while I was using it more as a narrative tool. I think it can be applied to both here but I'll focus on the latter.

The addition of Felicia removes any contradictions in Vander that were implied. Vander's personality alternates between "dad" and "dad who feels guilt 🥺". Even in the Flashbacks, before he became a dad, he still acts like dad Vander, but happier. And that is exactly the problem. Where is the "Hound of the underground"? Where is monster Vander? Why is everything so happy in the flashbacks? And you could argue that that's just how Vander remembers it. But really??? That's how he remembers himself? That's how he remembers the past? Everything was really great until Felicia died. Vander being a monster becomes an isolated incident in which he wasn't being himself. He lost his head. It wasn't a part of him. That is NOT duality.

Felicia becomes the external basis for change. And it's not even permanent change lol it's just one incident. You'd think most of Vander's guilt then would lie in the attempted murder since that's the only time where he is a monster, so when Silco offers him forgiveness why doesn't he take it.

Vander is dad until someone he loves dies or his agency is taken away, then he is a monster. The writers said one fridged female character isn't enough, bring in another

(As an aside: I think, based on their actions, that neither Vander nor Silco really believe in duality. That's why it was a failure on his part when Silco chose Jinx because he still wanted to be the "monster". But it wasn't a failure when Vander gave up because he didn't want to be the monster anymore. Both of them tried but neither of them were really able to seperate these two parts of themselves)

I think that instead of the cute flashback and pastel watercolor miners, they should have shown us the Vander who built the lanes, the air that clogged your throat, the struggle. Maybe the drowning from Vander's POV.

I think Caitlyn's arc was fumbled in a very similar way as Vander's was. "When she died, I lost my head. But now I am back to being myself and I'm weawy sowwy 🥺"

Caitlyn was portrayed as not being herself when she was a dictator, the monstrous side of her is not really a part of her. This is fine in and of itself, but it is not duality even though it is clearly trying to be. When they did that anything interesting they tried to say about how her class affects that duality went down the drain. Actually they already said interesting things about it with Jayce in season- (gunshots)

#I really love that Che Guevara quote btw #it reminded me of a Ghassan Kanafani quote #“It is not enough to hate and believe in the past to make a revolution. Hatred and belief in the #past are sufficient prods for the rebellion phase. We must love and be future-oriented if we wish #to carry out the revolution.”#it was included as an epigraph in Leila Khaled's autobiography :)#arcane #silco #vander #arcane critical #felicia arcane

27 notes · View notes

profounddefendorcrusade-blog · 1 year ago

Text

Clover's personality (in-depth)

This thing turned out way longer than intended. As promised, I wrote my opinions in regards to Clover's mbti; I also wanted to include the enneagram but figured it would be too much, so I'll do that separaretly. For those who wanna get straight to the point, just scroll to the end of the post for a pic of the functions I think Clover has. But if you want more details, read the whole thing. Probably not many people will wanna do that, but I had fun, lol. Please excuse me for nerding out

Analysis

Even before they got into the Underground, Clover thought to themselves "Ok, this is a dangerous mountain and I ain't coming back, I'm probably gonna die and therefore not live to see the rest of my life play out BUT I'm gonna follow my values anyway. They're worth the risk." To me, right off the bat, that's Fi over Ti (aka inner values and morals over inner facts and logic).

I've done some research on this stuff and found out how "Fi knows the value of something not by analyzing it but by feeling it deep inside themselves that it is how it should be" Ti has to be as objective as possible, Fi doesn't. So I sat down and thought about how exactly Clover approached situations.

I feel like their main reasoning for being in the Underground were their inner values and beliefs of finding out what happened to the children. That's why I'd say they're an introvert rather than an extrovert (it's not because they're quiet and reserved, although they are, but because Clover's inner world affects their outer world). Now, both Ti and Fi look inward, and those inner thoughts and feelings affect how they interact with the external world. The real question is: is Clover objective enough to be considered a dominant Ti user?

We can see in the Vengeance route that Clover is stubborn with their beliefs and refuses to look at things from a more... logical POV: "Asgore killed five humans. Is it fair to wipe out every other monster in my way who gives me even the slightest reason to do it?" Martlet was the only exception because she was the only one who had tried to be nice and understanding. Clover's dark side is that they're tunnel-visioned and see morality as black and white (don't look deeper as to WHY the monsters do what they do), and blindly follow their own beliefs over what objectively makes sense. Just like Ceroba, who I'm positive is a feeler (she only considers how she felt about Chujin and not how skilled of an engineer he actually was, even when there's clear proof he wasn't the best at his job).

Objectively, it's not fair to kill so many monsters after only five humans were killed. If Clover wanted fair vengeance, they would have stopped after five monsters were killed. But no. According to Clover's own logic, everyone morally imperfect, everyone who's hurt them, who tried to hurt them, or messed up somehow, must die. So, Clover isn't thinking about what makes sense; they're thinking about what makes sense to THEM, and stubbornly hold onto that till the end (again, like Ceroba), even after Martlet's warnings. She says how the Royal Guard will be after them.

The logical (T) thing to do would be to STOP before things become even messier, but once again, no. Clover doesn't care about the consequences, only fulfilling their mission that is driven by their own set of values. No matter which route you choose, you will be presented with Clover's own version of what "justice" means. It's not the objective truth, it's not what's the logical thing to do; they follow their own framework based on their (our) choices.

"If unhealthy INFPs are dealing with threatened values or viewpoints that oppose their own, they can go the other way and imagine that others are all corrupt, thinking badly of them, and deluded. They may see themselves as the only people who see “the truth”, or the only people who really care to make a difference in the world. They can become especially harsh and critical of others and take on a martyr role, gradually secluding themselves from other people". - this feels like geno Clover; they thought they were the hero but they were playing the villain all along

Now that I think about it, the logical thing to do, the one that makes the most sense, would be never to have entered Mt. Ebott in the first place. And if vengeance was what Clover wanted to do, it is fair and makes objective sense to kill only five monsters (since that's how many humans died). But as explained, Clover didn't follow that logical conclusion, but rather their own twisted sense of justice. The same goes for neutral. It's Clover who chooses who gets to live and who gets to die based on their own beliefs and feelings, which are not backed up by facts. Everything they do they do because they themselves feel like it should be done. They are the one who decide who gets to live and who doesn't based on their own opinion/how severe they think the misdeed of the final boss is. This counts for the regular monsters who attack them, too; again, THEIR own subjective decision.

For example, they might see Dalv's actions as acceptable/forgiveable and spare him, but not Starlo's and kill him. Objectively, both characters are messy in their own way, but Clover gets to be the "judge" and decide their fate, not objectively looking at the situation, but subjectively. In short, according to them, Dalv may deserve to live, but not Starlo.

And even if they're a dominant Ti user, which I don't think they are, Clover is more past and future-oriented than present-oriented (N over S). As mentioned, they thought about how much they'd risk by going down Mt. Ebott (potentially dying, and definitely never seeing the surface ever again, or their family) but they followed their heart's desires; to them, morals and ethics (their own morals and ethics) were more important than what the more logical thing to do was (stay on the surface where it's safe).

In other words, they could already "predict" what would happen in the future, while in the present moment (the beginning of the journey).

And right before sacrificing their soul in pacifist, they think about how their death would affect ALL the monsters in the future, whether they had directly met and befriended them or not, even though they wouldn't be there to see it.

Clover seems to be able to easily move between the past, present and future, unlike sensors, who are mainly in the present moment (this is what I've heard somewhere at some point and remembered it, dunno how true it is). They can easily recall the past, and what they remember are things that moved them on the inside.

I've heard some of my friends say that Clover's character arc was to become a kinder person (develop their Fe), which, honestly, I don't think is the case. They simply acted on their inner views of what justice truly means, without further analyzing whatever they believed justice to be.

In pacifist, they're naturally selfless and kind and forgiving: a bit of a prankster, but they're one of "the best souls" according to Martlet. Just look at the ACT options that they used to befriend monsters. Quietly listens to Decibat, offers Dalv a handshake (and friendship), easily forgives Martlet, Starlo, and even Ceroba (+ gives her a hug), endures so many hardships yet keeps their heart pure and selfless.

They were always driven by something bigger than themselves (like Chujin, who I also think is a N user).

ISTPs are more adventurous and independent and flexible and focused on current problems in the present moment; Clover has been future-oriented from the start; they depended on Toriel to take care of them, and didn't try to immediately "adapt" to the monster world. Their 1st reaction was to stay safe and cozy. ESTJs (yeah, at some point I thought Clover could be one) are more "ruthless" in their pursuits, they "force" others to adopt their inner values. Clover doesn't do this in any route; they simply act upon their own beliefs, but aren't demanding that other monsters to have those same beliefs.

That's why I think they're an INFP.

Functions

Fi (dominant) – "If something goes against their moral code, they will not go through with it." It went against Clover’s moral code to spare monsters in genocide and abort the mission, so they didn’t, regardless of Martlet’s warnings.

"Fi dominants are inclined to speak up against beliefs or actions that go against their personal values or express disapproval of certain behaviors." I can't find the screenshot, but in the Mines, if you interact with the character who's in the same room as one of the puzzles, Clover will find out how that character pulled a prank on that guy who later got a promotion in the pacifist end credits (I need to reply the game to find the screenshot). But basically Clover was upset that their own morals weren't met and gave them a "disapproving look" or smth

"Ti dominants most often feel compelled to speak out when people are acting inconsistent (ie: contradicting themselves) or when people are being illogical from the Ti user’s perspective." I think Clover reacted to the above situation as a Fi user

"Unlike Fe users, Fi users are very blunt and direct. Fi and Te creates a person who is brutally honest about their opinions and feelings. If they don’t like a person, they will let that person know." Not a person in this case, but an example of this are the options we get for Martlet's questionnaire. Clover will have no problem honestly giving her the lowest scores for both questions; we also also get the chance to honestly tell Ceroba that we're not into Starlo's training. There are these cases where they're direct as well:

...and blunt:

they would have given at least a smile or a thumbs up, but no, their honest opinion is their honest opinion

"They appear cold and withdrawn, but tend to warm up as they get to know a person."

Ne (auxiliary) – "Ne views a situation from multiple angles and motivations" I feel like this is best seen in pacifist; this is exactly why Clover decided to give up their soul in the end; they saw all the motivations of the monsters, from many different angles. On the flip side, in the vengeance route, it’s the complete opposite situation: Clover only looks at things from their own pov, completely disregarding others. That’s the thing about the INFP dark side: INFPs become "disillusioned or stuck in their ways." This 100% describes Clover at their worst: stuck in their ways is already explained, while we can say they were disillusioned when even Martlet turned against them/gave up on them (in Genocide). That was enough of a reason for Clover not to feel bad about finishing her off. They never liked her, but they definitely liked her more than anyone else, so I’d say it counts.

"Creative, open-minded, and able to think outside the box" We can say Clover’s creative when they build Axis’ robot companion, solved the two puzzles in the Mines, they’re also most likely into role-playing just like Starlo, based on their clothes (and they seemed into the whole larping thing with him), and how they seem to be into drawing; open-minded, definitely (Clover with everyone; the pacifist route in a nutshell); able to think outside the box (this goes hand in hand with them being creative: I forgot to mention the many creative ways they found to befriend monsters)

"Ne lives in the present like Se does but makes connections to past and future." Imo, this is exactly what Clover does (their sacrifice in the future, and all the things other monsters had said to them in the past; however, they DO interact with the present world at the same time. This is what I meant when I mentioned how they "jump from and connect all 3")

Si (tertiary) – "happy in their comfort zone" Is this Clover? Yeah. Initially, this was their "default" reaction/behavior: with Toriel. They subconsciously became more independent thanks to good old Flowey. As I said, their values led them to take the risk and come into the Underground in the first place, not adventure/excitement (the way I see it). Were they also seeking the truth? Yeah again, they wanted to know the truth behind the whole situation, but I think it had more to do with how they had found the fact that no other humans bothered to look for the kids immoral.

"Si users may draw on their past experiences to guide their present actions and decisions" Example, how the detailed lines they remembered everyone said in true pacifist, influenced them to make the decision to die in the present moment. Or when they asked Ceroba if she would date Starlo, after hearing and remembering Crestina mention his crush on her beforehand, wanting to set them up.

"Si users have a strong memory for past experiences and details" Yep, explained above. Also, dunno if this counts as noticing details, but we can make them beat the Shufflers’ game with ease.

"Si users are typically practical and realistic in their approach to solving problems" The Snowdin mini-quests come to mind (although they use past information here too to figure out what each character needs to be helped). Also, how they fixed the elevator by using a pickaxe (most practical & realistic choice). They’re also pretty rational while dealing with Guardener, and in general, while dealing with enemies.

Te (inferior) – I guess this is why I suspected they could be an ESTJ.

"seen as leaders" By everyone.

"Come up with ideas quickly" Pretty much throughout the game. They’re more low-key about this than ESTJs though.

"Ruthlss and domineering" This is them in vengeance route

"Extraverted Thinkers recognize the emotional content, but then they set it aside to focus on the facts" I feel like this inferior function of theirs is mostly seen in flawed pacifist. They recognized Ceroba’s emotional situation, but chose to be fair and just instead.

"Te users are logical" Recognizing the dangers of the Underground and deciding to stay with Toriel. We can also say it makes sense that Clover attacked those who attacked them first, and finished Ceroba off (Te is what is objective, but from the external world)

"Though they are generally free spirits, they like to have a certain order in their lives. They do enjoy structure, just as long as it does not intrude with their feelings/morals/ethics/etc. They like to be the ones to create the structure, not to have the structure to be created for them." Vengeance route and Clover’s "mission" come to mind. Basically, the structure is that, whoever Clover sees as morally flawed, gets to die. And they stick to it

tl;dr this picture pretty much explains the way I see Clover's functions in a nutshell ↓

#another reason i think this type fits clover is bc it is my type too #and i relate to the kid sm #uty #undertale yellow #clover uty #uty clover #clover undertale yellow #undertale yellow clover #clover #character analysis #some part of me still finds it tough to differentiate ti and fi #but that future oriented personality was what steered me towards fi more #clover deff has a certain set of values and that was why they were kind to absolutely everyone in their way #in pacifist #they are such a moral kid #they value truth too but to a lesser extent than morals imo #uty spoilers #ceroba also called them naive #which makes me think Clover didn't have a logical plan #just wanted to right this wrong #and in geno martlet says smth like “you wanted to see the best in those kids”#again Clover doesn't know what they were like but chooses to believe they were good #innately kind that's who Clover is #but in geno they didn't broaden their horizons #long post

43 notes · View notes