#and i have an obsession with seeing EVERY interaction/scene in visual novels so...

[heavensickness]

how i feel knowing that disco elysium is incredibly vast & i'll never be able to see every scene/every single dialogue in it

[winxanity-ii]

CONTINUATION OF CH.40

I ran out of space, so here's all the fanart i got recently ❤️❤️😩😩😩😩

from Rizzlord (@v4mpn11on tumblr)

AHHHHH this piece still has me floored every time I look at it 😭✨ the details??? The shading??? Her EYES??? You captured something so powerful and grounded in her expression—I can see the weariness and strength all at once. And don't even get me started on the hair and those intricate floral clasps on her shoulders?? Like HELLO??? You really snapped with the texture there 😩

I legit saved this straight to my computer the moment I got it. Thank you sm again! She looks like she walked straight out of a manga panel and I'm obsessed 😭❤️

from gab137507

AHHHH-----the symbolism is so perfect 😭😭😭 The way you drew MC's expression—so hollow and calm, almost resigned—it's haunting in the best way. I love how each hand has a story to tell without even needing words. I already went a lil coo-coo in your commnt section of how much i loved/thought each one represented so i'm not gonna bore everyone with it here (may repaste in the comments) but yeah, I just—ugh, it''s so stimulating seeing the strings of all these interactions MC has to navigate drawn to life like this. You nailed the entire pressure of her role in a single, quiet image. Thank you so much again❤️‍🔥

from Acheron

ACHERON???? Be serious. Be so serious. This is actual cinema. The way the light frames him—no, devours him—like a halo and a wildfire all at once??? The motion, the tilt of his head, the drama in that silhouette... it's unhinged in the most divine, tragic way. I'm staring at this like it's an actual animated movie still 😭🔥This is Apollo's tantrum. This is grief-split-open-and-turned-solar. You nailed the energy of Ch.39 without showing anything explicitly, and that's what makes it hit even harder. Like how am I supposed to emotionally recover from this?? 😭❤️‍🔥 Thank you endlessly for this masterpiece.

from DragonWhiskers12

DO NOT EVER APOLOGIZE FOR HOW YOU EXECUTE YOUR ART—like ever. It's the intent, the design, the final result that hits—and this??? This hit me like a meteor from Olympus. I'm OBSESSED with your interpretation of Apollo 😭 the eerie elegance, the chaotic divinity, the multiple eyes??? That's godhood. That's prophecy. That's ✨trauma✨. I'm so in love with this vision I'm be using in another fic i have coming up😭😭🙏🏾 thank you for sharing this with me, truly.

PLEASE. Don't even apologize for the camera quality or anything about this—do you know how golden this page is??? The way I had to squint and then suddenly BURST OUT LAUGHING??? The "No more sun until I get my wife back" Apollo design coming back with extra eyeballs and those reaction doodles of the Olympians??? ICONIC 😭 Like no because the vibe of this whole thing?? Raw sketch energy, chaotic divine commentary, a masterpiece journal page of doom... I'm saving this to my personal shrine of chaos. It feels like something I'd find tucked in the library of Delphi on a scroll titled "Signs That the Sun God is Spiraling" 😭💀

from iconic-idiot-con

OH MY GODDDD I GASPED—THE WAY YOU CAPTURED HERMES' SMUG LITTLE CHARM??? The wink?? The pose?? The delivery??? 😭😭 This entire scene looks like it was yanked straight out of a visual novel and I would pay real currency to read it. Also the way you illustrated MC with such softness in that panel?? Ugh. You get her. You get them. And I am currently sobbing over the fact that this exists in my lil arts folder 🥹💌🪽 Thank you SO much.

STOP—YOU'RE TELLING ME I GET A WHOLE CHARACTER LINEUP??? A WHOLE CAST SHEET??? This is like opening the bonus content at the end of a deluxe edition graphic novel and just sinking into the lore. First off—Hermes??? ICONIC. The exact chaotic-neutral energy. His smirk?? Unmatched. Apollo is serving radiant golden retriever in the best possible way, and I love how you made him look just slightly off-kilter, like there's something behind that smile (which is so him). Also HELEN?? She's giving effortlessly smug and I know she knows it. Odysseus' sadness is in his shoulders. That's storytelling. His "sad, wet, pathetic puppet man" energy literally LEAPS off the page. Penelope looks tired but gorgeous, which is exactly what I envisioned. Telemachus looks like he just got done internally monologuing about duty and also how pretty the MC is. I'm obsessed. And finally, MC?? Soft, grounded, radiant. Just there. And still effortlessly magnetic. I'm sobbing. Truly—thank you for this. It's beyond perfect. Your brain has 100% divine blessing status now.

SHUT UP—Hermes Bird with the lil satchel and cloak?! I'm LOSING it. And MC?? The blank expression? The visible cuts and wraps? That side-eye like she just survived divine nonsense and still has errands to run? Peak characterization. She looks like she's just recovered from a gods-given concussion and is about to commit arson in retaliation. I don't care if it's "unfinished," it's got more energy and story in it than most completed pieces. Post the rest whenever you want—I'm eating this up sketchy or not and WILL be giving the same enthusiasm once done cuz YESSS!

[anotheroceanid]

because you're my writing inspiration, i've decided to pester you with questions about it! >:) if you don't mind ❤️

what's your creative process look like? what normally comes first to you, the idea for a plot, specific moments, vibes/themes, world building, etc.?

what type of character is your favorite to write? what's your favorite relationship dynamic to write?

how do decide a character needs to die? (like a named, known-by-the-audience character, not Red Shirt #3 lol)

favorite type of comment to receive? don't say "any comment" >:) longer, more WTHB-centered questions:

WTHB is shaping up to be a very long story juggling a lot of characters that spans YEARS(i'm obsessed with it—so excited), how do you even begin to break down and organize the story beats for something this big? do you picture it like a series of movies or novels? like tv show episodes? or does it truly just all come together as one massive plot arc in your mind? summing such a large work down into one concise summary sounds daunting

any advice on writing romance? Percy and Apollo have barely appeared together in flashbacks even, most of their love story has been off-screen, but you make them so compelling! i feel their yearning in my soul T-T

i find this question hard to ask for some reason. WTHB!Percy is a mother currently being held hostage, do you ever worry that people will think she's been relegated to a damsel in distress or just "the mom" character?

This will be a long answer but I got soooo excited with this ask

Soooo

1. Yk how people categorise themselves as plotters and pantsers? I think I’m a plantser 😅

Like, my first “inspiration” can be anything (I’ve literally dreamed with things that then became stories), so when I get some idea banging on my head I start to imagine how it’d look like as a story, so I set the tone I want before I write anything.

From then, I start imagining important scenes that will drive the plot. One of the first scenes I imagined for WTHB (once I had defined who the kids would be, because I spent a lot of time making up kid ocs until I ended up with the triplets, with Luke being the only one I was decided from the start) was the boys being taken scene, then Hector meeting Jason, then a few scenes between Annabeth and Milo that didn’t happen yet.

So, like I said, I am a plantser, which means I do plot (a lot) but I still like to keep some things open so I can change if I figure something out while I’m writing.

What I do, I set the main plots and it’s narrators (if there is more than one), since I’m using WTHB as an example, rk we have these

The Greek Arc (Annabeth & Milo)

The Roman Arc (Jason & Hector)

Percy’s Arc

Apollo’s Arc (which is also the god’s arc)

So, these arcs affect each other. What character A does in Place 1 can affect Character B in place 2 and vice versa, so even if these characters aren’t interacting directly, they still cause things to happens in each others lives.

This is relevant because rk almost all characters of WTHB are separated geographically, but their stories are interconnected.

What I like to do, is write each characters arc but using a mind map, so I make a linear mapping using some structure (heroine arc, hero arc, seven plot structure, you can pick whatever you want, I usually use heroine’s arc even for men).

You can use obsidian, miro, or even draw it at hand.

But the mind map give you a visual way to develop your plot, so you can see when each plot point takes place. And the thing is, not always the characters are synchronised, so I organise it in a way that events happening more or less at the same time are aligned, and if some event from A affects B I draw a line connecting them or even explain what happened.

I don’t have my laptop with me rk, but it is more or less like this:

This way, you can figure out the main events of the story without having to write EVERYTHING that will happen. If you need to change something, you know more or less how it’ll affect every characters.

I also make a timeline of events (this because I’m dealing with a lot of worldbuilding, so I better know when things happened even if I’m not using it directly on the story). I also, sometimes, write down some topics like I live in that world and I’m giving myself a class about those events.

Another thing I like to do, is organising the chapters even before I write them. I use scrivener to write, but you can do it on obsidian to (I use scrivener for worldbuilding only). Each character have a different number of chapters, it depends on the arc. Like, Percy and Apollo are the only narrators of their arcs, but both the Greek and Roman arc have two narrators, so the narrators share the amount of chapters.

This is it, then I write. If needed, I go back and re-do something. I’m always re-reading the chapters I already posted, because sometimes I forget a few details.

Sometimes I draw to inspire myself to write, this helps too 😂 and vice versa. I think the hardest part is when you’re dealing with a large geographical space, and your characters are all scattered, specially when they have to move around and you have to make math so it makes sense, specially when it’s not your own country 🤒

2. I like writing the “colateral effect” characters. Like, using WTHB as an example again. I love writing Percy, Apollo, the triplets, ofc I do. I love them. But there’s something so enjoyable about writing Annabeth and Jason because, while they did a not of horrible things, they were thrown in that mess and they’re just dealing with it.

3. 😵😵😵 Okay, harsh. But usually, since I keep going back and forth and imagining different outcomes, so I play with killing characters. Then I consider the impact of their deaths to the other characters and to the story as a whole.

4. As you can see, I love talking. So I loooveee comments I have to answer topic by topic. But I still appreciate all of them, it’s just that I like interacting 😅

5. I kind of answered this one in the first topic, but I make myself a lot of content where I can check my own work. And yeah, I imagine as a show 😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ as a novel 😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ as an animation 😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ as a Bollywood movie 😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ as a broadway musical 😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ as a lot of things.

But nope, even though now I can’t tell the whole arc as block of text if needed, I think that’s counterproductive to me. So I work with mind maps, I use the actual map to have an idea where the characters are and where they’re going, I make sheets sometimes, and ofc, the timeline (I mean, I always say that, but the timeline of the story ain’t linear, so things are happening in different times for different characters, and I need to know 😂)

6. Actually romance is actually hard to me, I just focus in creating a meaningful connection between the characters through their similarities and their differences. I’m a sucker for friends to lovers, so I try showing how character A and B learn things from each other, and appreciate each other beyond a physical sphere. Idk if that makes much sense, but this is it. And to antagonise it, their own faults (in the case of Percy and Apollo, both have terrible self esteem and are always expecting the worst to happen, which lead them to jump into conclusions waaaay to fast).

7. The “damsel in distress” or “just the mom” character usually carries a lot of “why is this female characters who’s obvious in a vulnerable situation don’t get out” that comes from a misogynistic point of view. It’s always the double standard: male characters are manipulated, female characters take dumb decisions, male characters are, among other things, fathers, female characters are mothers, sisters and/or lovers.

So like, I try being truthful to the character because IK this sort of interpretation will exist either way. Ik that Percy, despite being in that state, isn’t reduced to none of those. While she may be way to believing of Gaea, she doesn’t jump into the conclusion Orion and Medea are good people just because Gaea had them on their side. She’s in a place where she have to deal with the circumstances that she had, not with the circumstances that were ideal. From her standpoint, she doesn’t have any other allies.

And yeah, her main focus right now are her three sons, but is she meant to say “yup, not my problem” when they get kidnapped? Like, in canon, Percy was ready to die for his friends and etc. fem Percy too, and now she’s ready to die for her sons. It’s a very male Kronides x Female kronides situation. Demeter? Obsessive, awful mom who wouldn’t let Persephone do anything. Hades? Well, he was in love. Hera? Crazy women. Zeus? Oh, he’s just a man of his time.

So like, maybe some people think she’s falling into mom or damsel in distress trope? Maybe. But there’s nothing I can do about it. I just enjoy my time writing, because it’s not as if any of those people are paying me to write the character arc THEY want to see.

Btw, thanks for this ask. Hopefully it made sense, because I know I tend to talk a little more than necessary 😆

[kismetrose]

Demonheart: The Cursed Trial

I got in on the early access for the latest entry in the Demonheart verse for so many reasons. The first Demonheart is a landmark in my visual novel consumption, and I've played everything she's released since. I love the creator and want to support her work, so not paying a sale price felt right to me.

And Cursed Trial is ambitious, with 8 key characters (including the MC), a locked-room mystery, and some more development in the life of the demonspawn formerly known as Raze. Listening to his snark again made me realize how much I've missed him! I'm pretty sure you don't have to have read the previous VNs to understand Cursed Trial, though. Old lore is summed up well, and there are nods to fans from time to time.

The main character wakes up in a ruined village she doesn't recognize, along with others who aren't sure how they got there. Demonic entities known as demonspawn are involved, but the other captive humans come off as more dangerous, by far. You see, the main character has a dark secret: she's a demonheart, permanently changed through an encounter with the demonic. She's hardier than ordinary humans, but her companions will likely kill her if they discover her condition, if not out of outrage then out of a desire to steal her powers.

Since early access began, I've played each chapter as it's come out, and I've usually replayed them at least once. Since the last chapter released, I've played through the whole thing a few times. I love being able to choose almost every line the main character says; I will seriously never get enough of that. Some choices earn alignment points (you can be Good or Evil, Tactful or Defiant); some also earn approval points with a few other characters. I really enjoy the sense that the main character can have a different personality in different playthroughs. I wish more choices led to further content and/or characters treating the main character differently, but that would have taken a lot more work than the considerable amount that went into this.

I didn't encounter any bugs and enjoyed the music. There are sound effects but few voice lines right now, but there are plans to add some voice work later. I didn't miss it too much because I could imagine the characters' voices rather easily, but if Lamb crowdfunds for more voice acting, you can bet I'll try to kick in for that. Replaying has felt worthwhile, with 2 romance options, 7 endings, and 161,000 words in the final tally.

I've had a great time playing it, and I hope to see more in this universe!

Caveat Emptor

For anyone who doesn't already know: the world of Demonheart is messed up and so are the characters. I tend to think of it as fantasy noir, since her world has magic and monsters, and everyone has secrets and grudges that matter. There's a lot of room for deaths in this VN, and while they aren't portrayed in a graphic way (via text or art), things can get out of a control a few times. I bloody love it, but it may not be to everyone's tastes.

There are two men you can romance, so only heterosexual relationships are available this time. Depending on the options you choose, either of the two men can come off as pushy, obsessed, and dangerous to the main character. One of them will generally soften up toward her, while the other one takes a lot of work to get along with. This is a feature of romances in Demonheart but may turn some readers off. One scene where the main character is helpless seems like it's about to go some very ugly places but it's interrupted before it gets far.

You can flirt a bit with one of the female characters and/or good old Raze the demonspawn, but that's as far as those interactions will go. If you're an old fan of the series and have a yen for Raze or Ari, you may want to adjust your expectations. The demonspawn aren't the main focus; the human mystery and drama are. There aren't many spicy scenes or naughty details in this grim scenario, but romance can be more of a part it, if you choose. Having gotten through both romances, I can say that they're different from previous ones on purpose. The main character is a demonheart, but she isn't Bright. Kaiser is chaotic, but he ain't Brash. Let the new characters be who they are and you'll have a better time.

[gb-patch]

Ask Answers: July 10th

I really let asks get away from me lately. I was super focused on working on that Patreon Moment. With that done I can finally think about doing other things, so here’s a new collection of answers!

Thank you for sending in questions everyone ^^.

For the new Patreon moment, will you be able to reference it in step 4? Or just like a tiny nod to it if you pick certain choices?

There won’t be. I’m sorry if you were hoping for that! The Patreon moment is meant to be entirely optional, it’s not something that gets you extra content in the main game.

Is the new CG artist the main one now? :0 I’ve noticed theres been a difference in the art style recently. Is the old CG artist still going to make art for the game? :0

The original artist still makes CGs for the game sometimes, but he mainly focuses on character sprites.

Are you going to put the NSFW our life moment on a website other than patreon? I would love to get it but I can't use patreon atm.

I don’t know. I'm afraid we can't release the Patreon Moment on a normal game storefront because we can't mix 18+ content with our family friendly game. If there's some other place similar to Patreon where it's not the normal type of full-scale public content releases we'd consider using that, but I’m not sure if there is another site that’s better than Patreon in that regard. I'm sorry.

Out of curiosity, in all of your games so far, which characters in each were the most fun to write? They obviously don't have to be your favorite characters!

Buffalo Seer in AFA, really everyone in XOD/XOBD is pretty equally entertaining to write, The Guide in LoV, and Cove in OL!

idk if you accept "personal" questions, but is there anything you've been watching/ listening to lately

Mostly, I’ve been watching/listening to Authortube videos as of late! It’s people who talk generally about the process of how books become traditionally published and/or share their own experience as they attempt to be published. I don’t have an interest in writing normal text based books, but it’s really interesting to hear about that world. I’m listening to a video about royalties right now as I answer these asks.

Will one of the desserts we get to pick be fudge? That'd be such a cute reference! 

Haha, yeah, it should. Unless I completely blank on it and forget when trying to include the various referential food options.

I don't know if this has been asked previously but what would be the approximate heights for the presets MC can choose from Step 2 ~ 4? Are there any measurement you had in mind? Sorry if I didn't make myself clear kk I've been struggling with my English lately 💀 

I don’t know, ahah. I didn’t have any numbers in mind for that. So it’s whatever you imagine it is!

I noticed a bug with the Patreon moment when it comes to what your character wears. When Jamie and Cove are kissing while my character only had dresses selected, I had both the option to remove the dress or to remove the shirt... Picking one of the options to interact with Cove, after he removed his shirt, it had Jamie remove their shirt followed by ther pants despite only having dresses picked. 

Thank you for reporting ^^

I keep refreshing steam to see when the new doc for xobd will be released. I noticed you haven't posted anything about it in quite some time. Would it be possible to ask about a timeline/potential date? (If it's even this year—) I know you and your team are probably working super hard, I'm just super curious! ~Thank you!~ 

There are more stories done, I just haven’t gotten around to publicly releasing them. Hopefully I will have a chance to spend the time on that sooner rather than later!

hello!! i’m not sure if it’s an update but i’ve just replayed our life and at the end i can’t propose to cove anymore? :(( i’ve actually tried playing twice but the options are not there anymore, did you guys remove the options? i’m sorry if you’ve answered this before!! thank you and have a good one :) 

I’m afraid things haven’t been changed or removed, so I think you might’ve accidentally picked the wrong things somewhere along the way and locked yourself out of being able to propose by mistake. Sometimes you meant to say you want to get married but instead you mis-click and have it so the MC isn’t thinking about marriage or something. All I can suggest is starting from the beginning of Step 3 and making sure to follow the steps listed in the FAQ. I’m sorry for that.

Did yall remove some of the options for when youre making out with Cove in the charity moment? I could've sworn you could grab his bonkadonk and its not there anymore 

This is the same situation as the above. We didn’t remove things and you’re not wrong that there are sometimes those options. But there are various choices you have to make to get those options and it sounds like you accidentally missed something. If your relationship isn’t long-term, you can’t do it for example.

HI IM SO EXCITED I CAN FINALLY GET THE STEP 3 DLC 

Thank you for getting it!

Is Shiloh super totally straight bc I’m very gay and a huge Shiloh fan, would my man make an exception?😩

Sadly, he is one of our super straight characters. I’m sorry.

Hi, I have a very dumb question. In Step 2 does Cove not wanna share his drink with us at the mall (or rather why he stops drinking it) because it's an indirect kiss? Or is it like ...weird to him to share? Because if I remember right he eats off our spoon in the birthday scene right? 

Yeah, he’s awkward about it because he likes the MC and it feels very personal to share a straw with his crush.

Hi! If you don't mind me asking, who is the artist for OL2? Their style is so pretty! 

Thank you for saying so! This is her Twitter- https://twitter.com/redridingheart

Do Beginnings & Always and Now & Forever exist in the same universe? 

Yep! XOXO Droplets also exists in the same universe. It’s one big GB Patch world, haha.

Do Pran's parents regret the way they raised him? Do they feel ashamed of it?

No. They’re the type of people best cut out because they’re not gonna change. Which is why Pran does go very limited contact when he’s an adult.

Hi! I just wrapped up my second playthrough of Our Life, and I absolutely adore it, but I had a question. I went to the gallery and found I was missing 2 CGS (specifically Step 1-3 and 2-3) and I had no clue where they would've shown up. Which moments are those found in? 

You get it by telling Cove about his dad offering you money to be his friend in Step 1 and Step 2. You can’t get both in one playthrough, since you can only tell Cove the truth once. I’m really glad you liked it!

Hi hi! Please, how tall is Baxter and Derek? Love the game so much and I can't wait to see more! 

I don’t know, aha. I think Baxter was around 5′10 and Derek was like 5′8/5′9, maybe. I really am not one who has specific heights for things in mind.

is adult cove a bottom, top, or switch? 

A switch, though would choose the top if he had to pick.

I was wondering if there is a way to transfer save data? Even if through the game files. I wanted to be able to transfer my save data from my desktop over to my laptop so that I could continue playing right where I left off from but I'm not entirely sure how to go about that. 

If you save the save folder/persistent data of the game from your desktop and put it into the game folder on your other device, that could work.

Hi! Is it possible for us to know the date when our life: now and forever comes out on steam? Sorry if you've mentioned it before but I haven't seen it and I'm looking foward to that happening and just wanted to know :) 

It’s gonna be a long time, I’m afraid. There’s no estimate right now.

I started playing Our Life with my sister a while ago, and I think you guys should know that we discovered your secret. >:)

L from death note and Cove are clearly the same person, and this whole game is just an origin story!!

I’ve never seen that show so I’m sorry to say I don’t understand the connection/reference you’re trying to make. I’m pretty out of the loop when it comes to media. I don’t watch movies or TV.

Will OL2 have options for disabled MCs?

I understand if it's too complicated, just curious

Unfortunately, it’s not really something we have a plan for. We couldn’t finish the game if we tried to include every disability and have it be meaningful. It’d just be too much content to create. But if we decide to only include a few, how would we choose which disabilities get to be represented and which are left out? I don’t know. It’ll probably have to be something we don’t include as an option again, sadly. I’m sorry.

playing our life > anything else 

Haha, I’m glad you’re enjoying it.

Honestly, I would like to thank Our Life for helping me come to terms with my sexuality. Before, I never would've actually thought that it was possible to like boys romantically and still be asexual. Almost all of the BL visual novels I've read had unskippable sexual content in them and it honestly just didn't click with what I feel. I'm glad I found Our Life. I love the game, the developers, and this fandom so much. Now, I can safely come out as homoromantic AND asexual (at least anonymously here anyway; my parents are still huge homophobes 😂). 

Aw, it’s great to hear you felt comfortable being yourself in the game! That’s wonderful. I’m really sorry about your parents, though.

Will the demo for OL2 be on android? Really not sure if I could wait any longer than I have to aha 

Yeah, it’ll be available for Android once we eventually release a demo!

Do all these reveals perhaps mean development is progressing ahead of schedule? Please let that be the case I'm already obsessed with Qiu 

No, sorry, aha. Art comes along much faster than script/programming-work for us. It’s gonna be a long time before the game is a finished thing you can actually play. But at least we can look at the beautiful images.

Hey! First of all I wanna say I reallllllyyyyy loooovvveeee Our Life and XOXO Droplets! I have over 300 hours of playtime on Our Life… Anyways, I was just wondering, are the Derek and Baxter DLCs going to come out at the same time? If not, which one do you plan to release first? :3 

They will come out separately and Derek will be first! Glad you like the game.

I keep replaying Our Life to get every possible iteration and I am loving it <3 I was wondering if Cove gets locked out of his confession because MC was talking to Lee, would it be possible to confess to him in step 4? 

Yeah, you can avoid the confession in Step 3 and then get it in Step 4.

Hi, my Cove wears bracelets through step 2 and 3 but I still don't get an option to give him a bracelet? I didn't even know that was possible until I seen someone else ask about it lol 

Hm, did you use the Cove creator? Maybe there’s a bug where using the creator to add bracelets doesn’t fulfill the requirement to give Cove a bracelet in Step 3.

Wait, I'm dense, when does Baxter appear in step 2? Is it from big park firework? I feel so bad since i really love Baxter and waiting to buy his dlc. 

It’s in the Soiree Moment. You have to be just friends with Cove, indifferent, or crushing but not ask Cove to the dance at all. Then while there you can find someone new to dance with. But if you bring Cove to the dance while crushing, the MC won’t wanna dance with anyone else so you can’t get the scene.

In step 2 when we go to the soiree I made my mc go alone and baxter chooses the mc to dance, i'm curious, why did he pick the mc? sorry if this has been asked before! 

Because the MC looked to be around his age, seemed to also be searching for a partner, and had nice legs. A perfect option for him.

I read some of the FAQs, and I saw that we could tell Baxter about the condo that he rented there was previously the mean old grandparents. how do we get the mc to tell him that? 

It happens in the DLC Moment “Late Shift”. If you don’t have a job you instead get a longer scene with Baxter.

I don’t know if you’ve addressed this or not, but are you planning on paying voice actors for our life: now and forever? 

Yeah, we pay our VAs in all our projects.

hey can i ask how you did the moments thing in ol? im trying to get into making visual novels and while im VERY sure its out of my comfort zone and all that atm i kinda wanna know just for the future, bc im p sure it would work well for something i wanna do :O but its also fine if you cant say for other reasons :> 

I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking how we programmed the screen or something script related? Adding Moments like that is pretty straightforward, though. You just have buttons that open to different labels and then the scripts are essentially individual short stories/vignettes. Good luck with your VN!

Since Autumn becomes gender fluid later in the game, will there be a character who remains as he/him to romance in game? 

OL1 has the he/him LIs, OL2 is all about other genders.

I don't want to impose on your creative plans, but a parrot could possibly make a good pet in an OL-type game? They're pretty long-lived and likely to still be thriving by the end even if the MC got them back in step 1. 

I do appreciate the suggestion, but I’m afraid it’s not likely going to happen. I understand there are technically some animals that could theoretically live long enough to last the whole game that or we could have the MC only get a pet after some years have already passed. But the many things that would have to be considered/accommodated for makes it just something we probably can’t manage adding. I’m sorry.

As time passes will we be able to see Qiu and Tamarack's other stage arts as well?

They are both so cute i can't wait to be friends with them!

Yeah, we’ll show content from other Steps in the future. It’ll be a little while from now, though.

Can you date Cove and still have your family comfort you in the car?

You can’t get Cove’s Step 3 confession scene if you have the family comfort you in the car. But that’s not the only way to date him. You can get together with him earlier in the game or later on in Step 4.

Is Mc always going to be the one walking down the aisle or could Cove do it? Also could you choose to have one of your moms walk you? 

No. Cove wouldn’t want to walk down the aisle like that and the MC automatically respects that. And the MC also gets to have their preferences respected, so it’s up to you whether they want to do an aisle walk or not. You also can pick who, if anyone, walks with you.

Once step 4 is out, will you be able to go the whole game on crush/love without either of you confessing? 

Yes, as long as you tell the game you don’t want to progress the relationship. Even in Step 4 it won’t force you to officially get together.

Howdy, so in Step 4, there will be any Romance with Derek that is not part of any dlc? 

He’s only a friend unless you get his romance story.

Will the step 4 in OL2 be one big step or are you considering moments? 

Step 4 is just an epilogue in both games.

hi kind of a weird question but!! we know tht cliff doesn't start dating again but. wht abt flings? like does he ever do 1 night stands or anything? thank u!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Nope. Cliff has a very small interest in sex. If he’s not in a real relationship with a partner he’s crazy about it simply isn’t something he feels a need for, so one night stands wouldn’t even cross his mind.

sorry if you've already answered this, but i was wondering if there were plans for there to be bonus love interests in OL2 like how we have derek and baxter in OL1.

Maybe! There are side characters who could be given romance stories, but whether or not it will happen depends on funding and how long everything else takes to finish.

I don't know if i'm allowed to ask about ol2 here yet, if not u can ignore this or answer it later. My question is can you date one of them and be good friends with the other? I don't want to be strangers with the other bcs i love them both a lot :<

Yes you can!

what patreon level do i have to be to unlock the nsfw moment? im on the $5 one right now, will that give me access to the moment, or just access to the moment progress? 

That’ll give you access! Tier 2 and anything higher allows the player to download it.

[shinraapologist]

light novel reread, vol. 2 ch. 5: right to the points

a lot of characters get a lot of good development and fleshing out in this chapter (this is also the chapter that has homophobic kadota in it. i chose to leave that part out tho lmao)

i feel like this chapter gives anri way more characterization than her introduction in volume one does, and honestly theres about as much personality for anri in this chapter alone than there is in the entire anime. so much of her processing and impact in the story and as a character is internal, and it just isnt something that translates well to a visual medium (or at least not something that translated well this time). the first time i watched through the anime i liked her enough, but she doesn't get as much development or onscreen action as some of the other characters enough for me to really grow attached to her, and the first time i read through the novels i don't think i really paused to appreciate the extra details and differences like i am this time. i think i'm going to end up liking her a lot more as we get further into the series.

like. this is my daughter. sorry

THEYRE! BEST! FRIENDS! YOUR! HONOR!

kadota's fucking brutal and i love him and ill never forgive narita for making him homophobic like. please look me in the eyes and tell me theres a cishet person in the van right now.

kadota: cmon. she's gonna get kidnapped by someone in a creeper van. saburo, lets follow her in our creeper van.

saburo's willing to risk not only the criminal record but the damage to his car to run some rando over to save anri (at this point in time, another rando) and i love him for that.

im a big fan of the way narita can write serious scenes and arcs while still maintaining a humorous narrative voice, its something he does very well in this chapter. ive mentioned before that his style is a big inspiration for my own writing (possibly cringe), and this is one of the aspects i hope to master for myself.

shes such a badass for this but then the next thought she has is how she thinks shinra would be upset to hear she called someone a piece of shit. as if shinra wouldnt wholeheartedly support literally anything celty does. as if he wouldnt try to be horny about it. come on girl use your brain

side tangent about their friendship: i think its incredibly beneficial to celty to have someone in her life who's accepting of her otherness without being obsessed with it or otherwise fetishizing it (sorry shinra). shizuo just takes her as she is; he couldnt give a fuck about her gender, her head or lack thereof, or much of anything else. he just likes her because she's not annoying and she understands him and shes a good listener. from shizuos perspective, it has to be equally beneficial to have someone else in his life that society sees as a "monster" and see celty living her semblance of a normal life with a partner and a steady job and a solid group of friends, as well as having someone in his life that's physically strong enough to not be harmed by him. shizuo and celty share some casual touch both in the anime in the novels, he claps her on the back a few times and interacts with her otherwise in ways he might be afraid to be close to someone else. theyre great for each other and they love each other so much and im going to slowly build a shizucelty army to go with my shincelty army to ultimately create a shizushincelty empire. thanks for coming to my ted talk.

here's haruna's introduction, i dont really have much to say about it to be honest. i like haruna in a very indifferent way. the rest of the chapter goes back and forth every few paragraphs between anri and haruna's conversation at anri's apartment to shinra and celty's conversation about saika and the kitchen knife back at their own apartment. its not the first instance of this kind of bouncing perspective, but it's becoming more frequent as the story is picking up and narita is becoming more comfortable writing the story/characters.

[knightsandjedis]

Let the pettiness commence

Let me be frank here when stating that if the quarantine weren’t happening I would probably remain the type of blogger to just re-blog posts without commenting or making my own posts. I enjoy looking at things more than commenting what can I say? I should say thanks and welcome to all the followers I’ve gained these past few years. You all are awesome and hope you all are staying safe during these troublesome times!

Alright, I’m going from civil to petty here and I should forewarn you if you’re a fan of Sarah J. Maas and her novels you’ll prefer to stay away then listen to my rant. Just being polite and giving a heads up.

Listen, there are periods where atrocious books become a major part of trending pop culture. Eventually, the hype dies down and people can take a deep inhale of relief. Around the 2010s time-period, the hype was focused on Twilight books. No matter where you went you felt suffocated by the hyper-fixation people had on this series. I’ll be honest I was an avid Twilight lover for a period until I wised up and had to recognize these books are horrendous and having a bad influence on teens during my era. Teens were getting Aids from drinking each other’s blood literally, they were drinking someone’s blood literally. While they’re still popular main society’s attention has begun to wane.

Pop culture has an new interest in Sarah J. Maas’s series: Throne of Glass (ToG) and A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR). At one time I was part of the fan-base obsessed with her books. During a bleak period where every book I purchased ending up a dud despite strong premises; Maas’s first books, in both series, were a breath of fresh air. They had characters you found hysterical and enjoyed the story-lines (even though the storytelling was meh at times) and you couldn’t help anticipating future novels to see where the novels took these characters. Both series died for me at the books: Queen of Shadows and A Court of Mist and Fury.

These novels were my wake-up call to Maas’ manipulative storytelling patterns and her inconsistent characterizations. She completely morphs characters depending on the scenario. A noble, decent character is turned heinous to either add unnecessary drama or to make readers turn their affections towards another character Maas’ manipulates into becoming “the hero”- typically a love interest. Usually, the first-or second in TOG- love interests are noble characters with a few flaws but nothing to make readers despise them other than the fact they’re not the prettiest men in the series. Literally, readers adore the male characters that are otherworldly attractive than an average looking male who is humane and unproblematic. Problematic much? The message I’m receiving is you should fall in love with a pretty face rather than explore the person’s entire being (this includes past history, personality, characterization, etc).

People will say I’m petty because I’m annoyed Chaol and Tamlin did not remain the love interests. This is absolutely untrue. I’m annoyed Maas had to pull absolute garbage reasoning out of her ass to make the characters despicable.

Let’s start with Throne of Glass. Celaena (I refuse to call her Aelin because the name visually repulses me, it sounds like something Maas stole out of better high fantasy novels) realizes she doesn’t find Dorian compatible and finds Chaol more of an equal. Chaol has flaws but his main one seems to be he’s good-looking but only average in comparison to Dorian and Rowan- whose sex on legs apparently. Maas realizes people will deny Rowan as a love interest (after he gets into a punching match with Celaena) so she has to make Celaena despise Chaol and interact towards him with hostility despite her recognition Chaol had his reasoning's for certain events in previous novels. Then, Maas takes Chaol’s character, who is known for being awkward around women and loyal to a fault, and make him have one night stands, cheating on women, and apparently the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong because Celaena can’t own up she made mistakes. Nehemia also died to give Celaena that necessary push to go against the king but it’s entirely Chaol’s fault for Nehemia’s death since Celaena can do no wrong. Horseshit I say.

Dorian is not a match, Chaol is the bane of Celaena’s existence so Rowan is her champion. Gag. I actually liked Rowan in Heir of Fire but I found it repulsive how Celaena keeps throwing herself at him in Queen of Shadows and growing dependent on him. When she put him in a bath and started throwing her favorite shampoos in I found it to be the most awkward scene. It’s a moment someone with limited knowledge of sexual encounters would conjure up. “Let me give my love interest a bubble bath!” I’ve read these type of bath scenes in other novels but they’re more maturely done. Although I have to remember these books are written for teens. Then, they become mates. A contradicting setup because he had a mate in the past. But, no one is compatible unless they’re mates in Maas’ world. So, mates are stuck together and seem to have a servant/master relationship in certain portions of the stories. Yuck, just yuck.

Readers if you have to state someone is someone else’s mate so you’re aware they’re a thing then it’s probably not a healthy relationship since you’re staying they own that person in Maas’ world-building.

I’m going to stop while I’m ahead when writing about Rowan and Caelena because they repulse me. Buuuttt not to the same extent as Feyre and Rhysand. I absolutely despise these characters with every fiber of my being. This is one of the most unhealthiest relationships I’ve ever read. Before I jump into why they’re disgusting let me just say I love how everybody hopped on the Feyre adoration bandwagon only when she got into a relationship with Rhysand. Nobody liked her until she got.into.a.relationship.with.Rhysand. Wow!

Listen, I understand why Feyre couldn’t stay with Tamlin after what he did (ahem what Maas decided he should do). However contradictory Tamlin’s characterization was the relationship had turned unhealthy. Yetttt, no one batted an eye with Rhysand was giving Feyre date rape drugs, forcing her to give him lap dances making her sick when she came out of the haze, and her being entirely repulsed when he made-out with her. Plus, I read Rhysand as a gay or bi character when he was introduced. I think he would be a better character as a gay male seeking a friendship than their disgusting love story. He goes from giving her roofies and at least seeming like a morally gray character to Feyre’s champion. Yeah, not buying the bullshit.

I pity Tamlin’s character truly- he was butchered beyond recognition. He goes from allowing Feyre to wander to her heart’s extent- as long as she wasn’t in dangerous areas- to locking her up because he thought it made sense. He’s suddenly possessive of her in the most disgusting ways (but Rhysand isn’t possessive in the slightest even when he calls Feyre his “mate!”). All these details were added to make Rhys’ character more heroic. Rhys goes from being a somewhat tolerable character in his actions to a fucking messiah. Rhysand goes from roofie expert to whisking Feyre away for her own safety. Rhysand assists Feyre under the mountain unlike Tamlin! (Because the queen didn’t give a shit about Rhysand and he wasn’t under her radar to the extent as Tamlin). He loves reading stories with Feyre unlike Tamlin. (Hmm, Tamlin offers to teach Feyre to read which she stubbornly refuses because she’s independent but Rhysand forces her to learn and he’s romantic!). And gasp, Tamlin ended up being the one who murdered Rhysand’s family hence their animosity (hahahaha how desperate are you Maas, I mean seriously how pathetic). Feyre, just like Caelena, was forced into this relationship with another abuser painted as a hero in storytelling. Rhysand and Rowan are constructed into heroes to make their disgusting actions justifiable in comparison to Chaol and Tamlin’s ruined characters.

I’m mostly focused on the main relationships since that’s all I keep hearing about. Changing subjects briefly, Maas’ does not acknowledge PoC or LGBTQIA unless readers are pointing out lack of representation. If they’re introduced you’re guaranteed either they die to promote the white lead’s agenda or forced to become a villain. What kind of statement does that make, Maas???? Also, her world-building is beyond odd. Random characters get introduced in weird scenarios that she has to force into the story-line just for sprucing purposes (Manon and the 12 and the 12 princesses from Earth or whatever). Really, what were the purposes of these characters???? And these kingdoms are written so bad. One realm has everyone wearing Renaissance era clothing while the next realm has people dressing hipster I mean wtf?

The reason for my rant is that I needed to get it out of my system. Lately, I cannot get away from these garbage novels. I’m on my Kindle the books are recommended. I’m on Goodreads her books are recommended and keep winning Book of the Year despite better novels being on the same list. I go on Facebook someone mentions deciding to give the series a spin under quarantine. I’m on tumblr (if you’re a fan then that’s fine, enjoy what you love) and artwork keeps popping up. I love it’s typically Feyre giving Rhysand lap-dances in the earlier part of the series where she’s desolate and sicken by these moments. People are quite forgetful when they want to ignore something in order to make Rhysand babe. I wish I knew how to block anything Sarah J Maas on here because I’m trying to escape. I want to read other authors’ novels and not have Maas’ smug face pop up on my recommendation lists. (Her books are on every list on Goodreads- every freaking list!) Hopefully, when quarantine ends the hype will quiet again but I’m getting ticked off here.

Just had to get it off my chest. I’ll probably go back to quietly ignoring the recommendations and artwork but I’m having a moment here.

[evajellion]

Why Suketoudara is (one of) the most well-developed characters in Puyo Puyo

You ever just look back at how far the Puyo Puyo and Madou Monogatari franchise has come, and think about how much the characters have changed over the years? 

Some have become main stay recurring cast members, while sadly some others have been completely left in the dust or remain in Quest or other spin-off titles. Others become more amazing in hindsight, such as Schezo and Rulue (even if most can argue SEGA dropped the ball on their character in recent times), starting off as slightly minor characters, getting their own arcs.

Witch is also pretty incredible to think about, what once was a mere mook enemy became one of the most popular characters, obtained her own spin-off title, and co-starred in a Madou game with Schezo.

Then you have the most interesting case imo, which is Suketoudara. What makes him so incredible? When you look at his actual personality and character, and how it’s changed across games… for the better!

Since I said I would talk about this after seeing @superbuffalo007​‘s post, I decided it’s time the unspoken truth is finally said-- which is Suketoudara’s character across the games.

So originally, Suketoudara started off no differently than Witch and Draco. The only huge key difference was his character design, in which rather than being a cute humanoid girl… Suketoudara was a funny fish with human arms and legs that liked to dance. His design was goofy albeit uncanny (especially in the PC98 Madou), which probably got some designers at Compile to chuckle, nothing more.

He was a blank slate enemy, nothing more, nothing less. And once we got the first two Puyo Puyo games, which had “Manzai” based dialogue for comedic purposes. We learn that this funky fish prides himself and his beautiful legs. I mean, to be completely fair… he does. Usually in these games (and Puyo Sun), Arle was the straight man while Suketoduara was the goof.

Out of nowhere, the guy skyrocketed in popularity. He, Nasu, and Carbuncle were easily marketable characters due to their distinct, funny appearance which I assume made them very popular with younger fans. In commercials, you would probably often see this character be frequently used-- that’s how iconic his design was. His personality though, was about as shallow as everyone else’s.

This changed of course, in 1996 and onward, where Compile decided “hey, maybe we should do more with this character besides just having him dance”.

In 1996, Madou Monogatari Hanamaru Daiyouchi Enji (Big Kindergarten Kids) would be released for the Super Famicom. Rather than the usual dungeon-crawler, this game took inspiration from the likes of A Link to the Past, Final Fantasy, and Earthbound in terms of its overworld design. More importantly though, it took what was once mere mooks, the most popular characters, and made some of them into full-on major bosses you had to fight.

Amongst those characters are Nasu Grave, Skeleton-T, Mini-Zombie, and Suketoudara (called Jr. in this game).

You know who wasn’t? Uh… Witch and Draco, if you can believe that. Yeah, that’s right. Suketoudara was a major, if not the main antagonist for a good chunk of this game, while Witch and Draco remained mere mooks. That’s pretty incredible if you ask me!

He’s the typical schoolyard bully/delinquent, going around causing problems for several towns and even stooping as far as to steal eggs from dragons. Suketoudara constantly meddles in Arle’s quest, and it only comes to an end one day after sending Arle a letter, in which he challenges her directly at her school. Turns out he just happens to have the last Secret Stone.

And at the end of the game, after Arle defeats Devil, the true main antagonist? Suketoudara has a complete change of heart, asking for Arle’s forgiveness, realizing he focused too much on his training, even saying he wants to be Arle’s henchman instead.

He even calls her “sis”, in a relatively friendly way, after everything he had done.

Whether or not you consider this game canon, it added a lot to Suketoudara (if this is the same as the one in the Puyo Puyo titles, and not Jr. as in a child of his). Suketoudara was a foul-mouthed bully in his youth, a complete contrast to the innocent, playful Arle. But he changed for the better after Arle told him to reflect on himself. That is way more characterization than Draco has ever received.

Suketoudara got fleshed out further in a couple of DiscStation games, both a year before Hanamaru and two years after, we would get some really interesting development, which would of course come from his interactions with another character.

DiscStation Volume 9 is (presumably) when we would first see Suketoudara interacting with Serilly in the game “Madou Sugoroku”, a Mario Party-esque game that seems to have no real story, pairs of characters are just competing while Harpy serves as the game hostess. This would be one of the earliest instances of Suketoudara being shown to have a crush on Serilly.

DiscStation Volume 18 would give us Serilly’s Happy Birthday, a game where Serilly uses a magical stone to go up to the surface in the hopes that she’ll make a friend that will celebrate her birthday with her, rather than leaving Serilly to celebrate it alone.

While I am sadly uncertain about the full details of this visual novel, it seems that in Suketoudara’s route, he collapses due to a drug Witch had made, so Serilly nurses him back to health by making an antidote. This leads to Suketoudara, a normally brash and selfish character, to become warmer and open up to Serilly. Again though, this is a loose translation of what transpires.

Lastly for DiscStation, we have Madou RUN! 

A game featuring Arle, Schezo, Witch… and not Satan, not Rulue, not Draco, but Suketoudara! In this game, our four protagonists compete in a game of tag set up by Momomo, for an object known as the Dragon Ball, which can grant any wish.

Oddly enough, rather than it being about his dancing, the only wish on Suketoudara’s mind is that he wants to be closer to Serilly. Mind you that the other three characters are more interested in the power of the Dragon Ball to become stronger, while Suketoudara just wants to improve his relationship with a friend he has feelings for.

His attitude in this game is notably far less aggressive when compared to how overly competitive Witch and Schezo are, a far cry from how Suketoudara used to be in the earliest Puyo Puyo games.

In Puyo Puyo~n, we have yet another cheerful Suketoudara, as opposed to the grouchy, territorial one we saw in past mainline Puyo titles. Much like the previously mentioned DiscStation games, Suketoudara is primarily just interested in Serilly’s presence, stuttering in a shy manner around her, and feeling crestfallen when Serilly says that he’s only a friend.

He only starts to lash out against Arle once he thinks that Serilly only called him a friend because another person was embarrassing her. To be fair, pretty rude of Arle to make comments or butt in. Overall? It seems that Serilly has had a positive influence on Suketoudara, but he still had some of his temper.

In Puyo Puyo Box, nothing interesting happens, but Suketoudara definitely mellowed out in the Quest Mode. Similarly in Minna de Puyo Puyo, Suketoudara only wants Arle to watch him dance, which she ignores in a rude manner.

After a couple years of going missing, Suketoudara returns in Puyo Puyo! 15th, and is arguably, the most friendly of the returning Compile characters next to Zoh Daimaoh.

Unlike Satan, Rulue, and Schezo, who are rude and dismissive of the Fever characters, Suketoudara seems happy to meet new faces and actively encourages them through dialogue usually related to dance. No mention of Serilly is made, but that just proves that unlike Rulue, he can go without thinking or talking about his love interest for every two scenes.

And also unlike 90% of 15th’s roster, he doesn’t get screwed over by the fake wishing medal. He makes a simple, short wish where he says he wants to be first to do solo dances.

Puyo Puyo 7, in my opinion, is the peak, friendliest Suketoudara has been in any game. Ringo runs into him, and rather than being actively antagonistic, he explains that he was with Arle (possessed by Ecolo) and got lost, so he asks for her help. In exchange, Suketoudara assists for a short period of time. He tries to persuade Rulue out of attacking him, manages to hold a decent conversation with Satan and Carbuncle, even showing concern about Arle’s strange behavior! 

He, along with Satan, are the only Madou characters in 7 that were genuinely worried about Arle. Schezo, Skeleton-T, Draco, and Rulue did not care in the slightest. He has grown from not wanting Arle around at all to being a friend that does care about her!

Puyo Puyo 20th… sadly took a step back, with Suketoudara obsessively searching for his shoes. A lot of the characters were jerks in this game though, so it’s not a problem exclusive to him. If anything, I’d argue he’s the tamest example and just being plain comedic.

Thankfully, in Puyo Puyo Tetris and Puyo Puyo Chronicle, Suketoudara was back to being his cheery self, unlike in 20th. He just wants to show off his dance moves, has friendly enough conversations with Arle, Ringo, and Ally-- playing Puyo just for fun rather than an offense reason…

Ess on the other hand… yeah, she’s straight-up rude to him, and he rightfully defends himself. I should note that through all of these games, Serilly went completely unmentioned, which might mean that Suketoudara actually got over his infatuation for Serilly. Even with her grand return in Puyo Puyo Chronicle, the two never have a conversation.

That being said, I definitely do think that Serilly’s kind personality, and if taken as canon, Suketoudara’s rivalry with Arle in Hanamaru, definitely molded him into being one of the most grown characters in the entire series. He went from being the typical jerk with only thing on his mind, to being an upbeat, helpful character that is willing to put dancing aside when there are greater matters at hand. Puyo Puyo 7, Tetris, and Chronicle are the arguable proof of this.

That’s why I like this character so much. That’s why I feel the fan-base kinda takes him for granted-- they don’t know about his evolution throughout the games. He went from a funny jerk, to a guy with a crush, to someone with a confident and friendly personality.

Because of that… I am honestly completely fine with Suketoudara staying for future mainline games. Even if he doesn’t add much, at least he isn’t as actively unpleasant as he was in Compile’s early run.

[thearkhound]

Kojima Cinema Vol. 3: The English Patient and Vukovar: A Story

Double Feature in Kojima Cinema

I’m always concerned about the movie I will discuss every time I’m thinking about writing the manuscript for this column. It has to be important to some extent and it also has to be relevant at the moment. There were many movies premiering during these past two months. Picking just one movie was very difficult. So I decided to follow Kazutoshi Iida’s advice and decided to cover two movies for a change of pace. While the two movies have different themes, they both depict a man and a woman who are at the mercy of history (war).

Are Academy Award-Winning Movies Actually Good?

I haven’t seen an Academy Award-winning movie yet. Perhaps it’s because it’s not compatible with my personality. Even before actually winning an award, such a movie is given way too much lip service. I really can’t be fond of those big Hollywood epics that aggressively try to push emotions. Therefore, I haven’t yet seen Rain Man, Schindler’s List or even Forrest Gump. I ended up seeing The English Patient because one of my favorite actresses, Juliette Binoche, was in it. I’m glad that she won “Best Supporting Actress” for her role in this movie.

Visiting the English Patient in the Marunouchi Louvre

I saw The English Patient and felt immediately asleep during the beginning, but that’s probably because I haven’t been sleeping well lately. While it has its good points, like its elegant shots and elaborate editing, ultimately it feels like a mediocre movie that happened to won an Oscar. The details in the historical background was also pretty light, so it felt less like the story of a couple affected by war and more like a common tale of selfish adultery.

Anthony Minghella’s Cute Direction

Personally I was more enchanted by the innocent romance between Hana (Binoche’s character) and Kip than I was with the passionate drama between Almasy and Katharine. I’ve never seen any of Minghella’s other films, but I get the impression that his previous title, Mr. Wonderful, was really popular with female audiences. The direction with those characters was pretty cute, much like a Japanese “trendy drama” show, such as when Kip guides Hana with a torch or when they find a painting with a smoke bomb. Perhaps female audiences might be moved.

The Mona Lisa Smile of Juliette Binoche

Perhaps one of the highlights of this movie is Juliette Binoche herself. In contrast to Kathaline (Kristin Scott Howard), who wears a dress and has an erotic affair while living an elegant life, Hana, who is devoted to nursery while covered in dust from the ruins, is pretty and divine. Scenes such as when Binoche cuts her hair or when she washes away the dirt from her body, serve to well-visualize her inner beauty without relying on makeup or fancy dresses. I can even remember her natural behaviors that does not give up her worth as a person even after throwing away her pride. I can feel a beauty that goes beyond sex and a radiance for life. It’s worth seeing this movie just for Binoche’s smile and angelic face, especially when she’s taking care of Almasy and that last scene when she’s on the carriage.

Seeing Vukovar from Cinema Square Tokyu

I saw Vukovar: A Story [Vukovar poste restante] just two days after watching The English Patient. Unlike the nationally released nine Academy Awards-winning Patient, Vukovar was only released in art house theaters. To be honest, I didn’t any expectations for it, so I was overwhelmed by its awesomeness. Even though it’s not a big budget epic, the impact it conveys is unmeasurable. Vukovar is a city in old Yugoslavia that most Japanese people are not familiar with. It starts with a happy Serbian-Croatian newlywed couple. When the Berlin Wall falls, an ethnic conflict that would be incomprehensible to the Japanese ignites and the two are driven apart. People who were friends yesterday are suddenly exchanging fire and even spouses and relatives are becoming enemies. Why did the conflict started? Was it for race? Land? A dispute? Patriotism? Perhaps this is a masterpiece that depicts the sickening Europe as faithfully and as neutral as possible. 

A Movie That Aims to Convey Faithfulness

The structure, which features a lot of news footage edited in, while fictional, feels very much like a documentary. The ruins, sandstorms, bullet holes, dry gunshots, modest explosions and such all feel painfully real. I feel a terrifying sense of dread in the final scene, where it’s an aerial shot of actual ruins that goes on forever. It’s some that is completely impossible to replicate with special effects or CGI. The obsession of the film crew who risked their lives capturing reality is respectable. Even in the final scene, when the couple go on their separate ways on bus, there’s no dramatic reunion between them, just ruins and despondency. War could completely ruin one’s heart completely.

Moreso than being mere entertainment. Vukovar is a movie that educates you.

The Roles of Movies, Novels and Games

I believe movies and novels serve two purposes. The first purpose is entertainment that focuses primarily on amusement that “charm people with dreams.” The other meaning is to “bring attention to historical facts and events that people must never forget.” However, in the game world there still aren’t any titles that have traces of or brings attention to a theme. At the end, games still remain in the realm of playthings. What I want to make is an entertainment that has a trace of theme through interactive media. Metal Gear Solid, which has a theme of anti-war and anti-nukes, will be one step of that ideal. Oh, when will games have the power to appeal to reason?

Source

Game Hihyō Vol. 15 (July 1997)

[wouldyouliketoseemymask]

In this review I discuss my thoughts on Joker, including the characterization of Arthur Fleck, his transformation into the film’s titular role, and how Joker handles some of its more controversial moments. I don’t reveal any major plot points or spoilers, but I do describe some scenes and details--so if you’re looking to go into Joker with little knowledge of how the movie plays out, you may want to avoid reading this post until after you’ve watched it. 

“When I was a little boy and told people I was going to be a comedian, everyone laughed at me. Well, no one’s laughing now.” 

                WARNING: REVIEW AND FILM DISCUSSION AHEAD

A preface: if you don’t like dark subject matter, then you may not enjoy this film (or this review). And that’s okay! We all have different tastes.

But Joker is unflinchingly, unapologetically dark--not because the film seeks to coast along on shock value or controversy, but because Arthur’s life is so frustratingly bleak that misery seeps into his every move. The way he enthusiastically twirls a sign advertising a going out of business sale with sincere joy while indifferent passerby after indifferent passerby never so much as casts eyes in his direction unless it is to step around him, the way he attempts to create a signature smile by using his grimy fingers to manually contort his mouth into a grin more grotesque than gleeful as he stares into his reflection, the way he earnestly dances and stomps and sings for a crowd of hospitalized children only for the routine to go horribly, horribly wrong: they are all glimpses behind the ever-thinning veil Arthur has crafted to hide the desperation and despair he has felt for as long as he can remember. He regularly attends therapy sessions (provided by a social worker, as Arthur lives in poverty and cannot afford to pay for treatment) and takes seven different medications, but still the thoughts--the smothering, negative thoughts--refuse to be silenced.

To look away from this morbidity is to deny him his own self-disgust, for make no mistake: there is absolutely nothing glamorous about the man known as Arthur Fleck. His “joke book” is pasted full of crude magazine cutouts and misspelled observations and philosophies (”I just hope my death makes more cents than my life”), he has a habit of erupting into boisterous, unnerving laughter at the most inappropriate of times, and nearly every interaction he has with other characters becomes so uncomfortable that it is almost painful to witness. During one scene he dances rabidly about his apartment, his too-large underpants sagging on his bony ass; in another he becomes so strangely enamored with painting his face that he applies a coat of white to his tongue. His indignities are numerous: within minutes of the film’s opening a clowned-up Arthur is robbed of his sign, has it smashed over his head during a beating, and is then made to cover the cost of the damage out of his paycheck. He lives with his ailing, troubled mother, who eschews their dismal reality in favor of visualizing her son as a “happy little boy” (something the audience has difficulty visualizing Arthur as ever having been). At one point Arthur is bluntly told that nobody “gives a shit” about him, a remark that is made all the more stinging because, frankly, it is true; any shred of hope he is granted, however menial, is either ripped suddenly and cruelly from his grasp or ultimately revealed to be empty.

Still, Arthur remains ambitious. In a homage to The Killing Joke, Arthur fantasizes about becoming a beloved stand-up comic, though--like his graphic novel counterpart--he struggles to gain footing in the comedy circuit. He is obsessed with his favorite television program, the Murray Franklin Show, and even constructs a mock set in his living room (fanatical details are included, such as a coffee mug with “Murray Franklin” scrawled along the side in marker), where he walks out to greet an invisible crowd and pretends to be interviewed by the titular host. He takes pride in his work as a clown, and when he is terminated from a gig his reaction is melancholic; besides the loss of income (which he badly needs to care for his mother), he is saddened by the prospect of no longer being able to perform.  

But even the most resigned of the downtrodden have their limits, and Arthur’s inevitable explosion is violent and abrupt. The act inspires within him an exuberant rush of confidence he has never felt before, and it is then that he takes the first shaky, adrenaline-wracked steps towards becoming Joker. A series of injustices and terrible revelations serve only to spur him forward, until his escalating behavior reaches the point of no return and he surrenders himself completely to what he perceives as freedom from the society that has inflicted upon him decades of humiliation and harm and hate.

There have been claims that Joker essentially canonizes Arthur Fleck by portraying a villain as a hero and romanticizing acts of brutality. Nothing could be further from the truth. To present a fictional display of violence does not automatically mean that the acts depicted within are intended to be celebrated or condoned; there is not a moment in the entirety of Joker where the audience is guided to take pleasure in the suffering of Arthur or other characters (in instances where characters are purposefully played as unlikable you may not feel pity for them, but neither are you encouraged to bask in their demise), nor are his actions exhibited as anything beyond the behavior of a deeply disturbed man. In one unsettling scene where it is apparent that a character is in great danger, the manner in which it plays out is clearly meant to invoke feelings of alarm, dread, and helplessness--not praise, excitement, or a desire to see them hurt. If Arthur receives any admiration from the characters within Joker, it is only from those who are also participants in chaos; just as Arthur’s descent into villainy is a direct response to the endless wrongs that have been heaped upon him, the corrupt hierarchy of Gotham’s wealthy and elite has inspired similar frustration and protests among a segment of the city’s population. But while the film provides an explanation for the violence that takes place in it, never are the reasons intended to be a justification--for if one were to revel in the destruction of others they would have missed the point of Joker entirely, as it was precisely that breed of cruelty that tormented Arthur Fleck throughout his life and drove him head-first into insanity.  

As a longtime fan of The Joker, I feel that Joker is a very different but also very intriguing take on a character that still holds a lot of mystique despite having been created nearly eighty years ago. Joker doesn’t glorify Arthur, but it doesn’t demonize him either--rather, I view Joker as a cautionary tale of what can happen when a person has been victimized repeatedly and then stripped of any resource that can help them recover. In The Killing Joke, the man who would become The Joker descends into madness after suffering a horrifically bad day. In Joker, he suffers a horrifically bad existence.

[dalekofchaos]

My biggest problems with the Tim Burton Batman movies

Batman 1989 and Batman Returns are viewed as classics and helped restore Batman as a dark hero. And they are far better than the Schumacher movies.  Today, most people remember Schumacher as having ruined the legacy of the cinematic Batman, and with good reason. After all, he is the one that put nipples on the Batsuit, gave Batman a credit card, and showed us all the Batsmile. He took a tortured, haunted character with psychological issues and turned him into a real life cartoon. The absurdity of Schumacher’s films also retroactively made Tim Burton’s films better in the minds and memories of fans. Compared to the colorfulness and camp of Batman Forever and especially Batman & Robin, Burton’s films were suddenly remembered as having been dark and brooding affairs that treated the material seriously. But not really. Tim Burton is a legendary filmmaker, a visual genius whose work has changed Hollywood. He brings strange and offbeat but lovable characters to life within universes that look like something from our imagination. Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish alone are a treat for the eyes. Yet his two films set in Gotham City, 1989’s Batman and 1992’s Batman Returns, were not nearly as profound — or as good — as your recollection would have you believe. They’ve aged poorly, yes, but they were not all that good when they were released. It puzzles me that anyone finds any of these movies better than Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. These are my biggest issues with the Tim Burton Batman movies.

The villains are more focused than on Batman. I don’t like it that we know more about The Joker than we do about Batman. We are never supposed to get a definitive origin for The Joker. And we have less focus on Batman as a character, I mean he’s reduced to a side character in Batman Returns. We barely know ANYTHING about Keaton’s Bruce Wayne, let alone his Batman. Burton not understanding the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is one thing, but he doesn’t even care about him. Perhaps the biggest issue with the films is that he is completely focused on the supporting characters. There are three origin stories in those two films — one in Batman, two in Batman Returns — and none of them tell the story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. All we learn about Bruce Wayne is that his parents were murdered through a flashback and a scene of Alexander Knox and Vicki Vale reading old newspaper articles. Who is Bruce Wayne? What role did his parents play in his life? When did he dedicate his life to fighting crime? How did he come up with the symbol of the bat? When and how did he construct the Batcave? Does he have any training?  We know virtually nothing about the titular character. Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins goes to great lengths to explain how Wayne got his hands on all of the gear and gadgets that he would use in his war on crime, but Burton never once takes the time to analyze how Bruce Wayne turned himself into the Caped Crusader.  I think the worst thing about these movies is Burton doesn't care about Batman as a character. There is no origin movie so we do not see why he chooses to become Batman, the only reason we get is "just something I have to do" no mention of training his entire life. We meet him as an adult Batman and all we know is he likes to play dead, he's rich and a bit crazy and he iis what the plot needs him to be. Every time Michael Keaton tells people “I’m Batman” I cringe, Keaton you were not Batman, you were Burton Murderman.

The Joker is an eccentric mobster, not The Joker. While I enjoyed Jack’s Joker, he just seems like a mildly crazy eccentric mobster. In my opinion The Joker should be a psychopathic killer clown who symbolizes the randomness of crime, who thinks life is the joke and death is the punchline, with Jack’s Joker we get the twisted sense of humor, we don’t get the randomness of a crime we get a crazed eccentric mob boss. And when I think about it, Jack Nicholson just did not play The Joker. He changes from scene to scene, with no defining characteristics. The only really clear thing about him is that he is pining after the same woman as Bruce Wayne AND Batman. Worst of all, we are given a definitive origin of his character, including a name, an explanation for why his skin is white and his hair is green. And in giving him these characteristics, we never get a fully-formed Joker. He always remains nothing more than a mentally-ill gangster, out for revenge. Sure, The Joker is the same villain whose identity is ever-evolving. But here, he doesn’t even seem to remember that he IS The Joker. And this is tragic, as he’s being portrayed by Jack Nicholson. Imagine if Nicholson had the chance to play a version of The Joker who made sense, and who matched the villain we know from the source material.

The Joker kills Thomas and Martha Wayne. I feel like this was solely done just so Burton can have the excuse for Batman to kill Joker and criminals in general. Even screen writer Sam Hamm came clean and said he did not have Joker kill Batman’s parents, it was Tim Burton’s idea. You know it’s stupid when your own screen writer throws an incompetent director under the bus. 

Bad fighting. Batman isn’t that great at fighting. There are very few fight scenes in either film. When we see Batman fighting, we see a slow, lumbering, cumbersome Batman that throws a punch or two and maybe a kick before running away. He also loses as many fights as he wins, getting pummeled by the Joker’s henchmen and having his batarang taken away by a small poodle. Several times, he defeats the bad guys not with skill or training, but through gimmicks or luck. 

Batman kills. Batman kills. I don’t think Batman should ever kill. In both of the movies he’s a mass murdering thug. He  kills Joker’s thugs in Ace Chemicals without remorse and practically blows them up. Knocking that one Joker thug against the cathedral bell pretty much killed him and while he was trying to capture The Joker, he pretty much killed him. Oh god it gets worse in Batman Returns. He incinerates one of Penguin’s henchmen with the Batmobile and straps a bomb to another. Batman killing is boring. Batman not killing is what makes him so compelling, if he kills criminals, there is no moral conflict,  if he kills criminals, there is no moral conflict, he is no better than the Punisher, Wolverine or any other dark edgy hero. Burton making Bruce a killer, making the conflict as simply as Batman wants to stop and kill The Joker because The Joker killed his parents does not do justice to their fascinating dynamic.

I do not like how The Penguin have clown henchmen and The Joker has just regular thugs for henchmen. Seems like it’s reversed.

As much as I love Burtonverse Batmobile, I do not understand HOW the armor functions properly in real life, nor do I understand the pole in Batman Returns fits in the Batmobile like really? HOW?????

Batman and Gordon's relationship. Jim Gordon is made into such a completely irrelevant character. They took one of the most important aspects of the Batman myth and made him into a bumbling, slapstickish cartoon police chief. If Burton had treated his source material with more respect, Gordon wouldn’t be such an irrelevant character. Commissioner Gordon is one of the first two characters in Batman, ever. He and Bruce Wayne appear on the very first page of Detective Comics #27 together. He has a major role in every great Batman comic and graphic novel of all time. Instead, he is made into an incompetent joke who you probably don’t even recall being in Burton’s Batman. He also has virtually no interaction with Commissioner Gordon. Historically, Gordon, the only honest cop in Gotham, and Batman have had a strong bond, formed and fortified through their shared goal of cleaning up the city and their experiences therein, but in Burton’s films, Gordon is just another hapless cop that Batman largely ignores and occasionally tolerates. And in the Schumacher films, Gordon is a bumbling stooge who needs Batman to clean up his mess.

The complete waste of Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent. Has no interaction with Batman and never works with him. He barely has a presence. This could've been fixed by making him Two-Face, but Harvey Dent needed to have a presence in Gotham before becoming Two-Face for his fall to mean anything

The Penguin isn't his own villain. He is a puppet for Max and that's just dumb, as enjoyable as Walken was, his character really should not have existed at all. Being born with deformities is fine, but what is overkill is being thrown down a sewer and being raised by Penguins. Burton took Oswald Cobblepot, an overweight, but well-dressed criminal mastermind with a large vocabulary, and turned him into a dirty circus sideshow, an “aquatic bird-boy.” His vision of the Penguin bleeds black and green, has flippers for hands, lives in the sewer, wears a filthy onesie, rides a giant rubber duck, and is obsessed with sex. He also wants to murder sleeping children, but not before blowing off their genitalia: “Male and female! Hell, the sexes are equal with their erogenous zones blown sky high!” That’s an actual line of dialogue. The Penguin should be a gentleman of crime and mockery of high society with an affinity of birds.  Duplicitous mob boss. A guy who EVERYBODY knows is dirty, but he’s smart enough to make sure that there’s just enough deniability for him to get away with it. And JUST enough too, ‘cause he likes rubbing it in Batman’s face that nothing sticks to him. He is a criminal mastermind who is so smart that Batman considers him to be equal or smarter to him. Cares nothing for money or wanting to fit in, all he cares for is a complex caper, wanting to wet his beak and to rub it in Batman’s face.

Catwoman's origin. After being pushed out of a (tiny) window from the top floor of a building, Selina Kyle plummets to the concrete…only to be brought back to life…by cats? And then she goes home in a zombie-like state, rips her clothes apart, shoves her stuffed animals down the sink, spray paints her dollhouse, and sews together her suit? This is important, but knowing how and why Batman came to be doesn’t matter? Catwoman is a sleek, deceptive cat burglar, but Tim Burton decided to take the name literally, turning her into a half-cat, half-woman that drinks milk, eats birds, has nine lives, and doesn’t steal anything. 

[twentysevenletters]

What If It’s Us by Becky Albertalli and Adam Silvera

You have no idea where the universe is going with this. Maybe the whole reason you’re here is because the universe wanted you to meet me, so I could tell you to throw the box away.

I have read the first page of this book more than the first pages from any other books. You see, a few months before its release, Becky Albertalli shared a screen shot of the first page, while I was living in New York. Feeling too “uncool” to be there. Obsessing over, and publicly singing, Dear Evan Hansen songs while walking through Central Park with my roommate. Even from just the first page, I was already relating to the story. I had moved to New York for the summer to attend a summer program, and I felt overwhelmed, like I didn’t belong there. I was confused about why New Yorkers weren’t constantly flabbergasted by the sky scrapers. I was nervous for my future. I felt like Arthur.

It all started with a box. Arthur, on a supposed-to-be coffee run for coworkers at his summer internship, happened to stumble upon a cute stranger walking into the post office. Box Boy. Ben. Their first meeting is simply classified as two strangers running into one another, both on their errands, but quickly turns into a missed connection. What If It’s Us follows Arthur and Ben as they discover what exactly the universe has in store for them and if it’s even a happy ending or just a one-time interaction.

I was immediately wrapped up in this story. For the two days it took me to read it, I honestly thought of nothing else. Despite it being told in both of their perspectives, Arthur and Ben are so uniquely their own that it’s somewhat unbelievable that they’re fictional characters on a page and not my best friends creaming me in arcade games and karaoke contests. While I found myself relating to more of Arthur’s characteristics - overtalking in any nerve-inducing situation, overthinking small interactions with strangers, and feeling lost while being constantly surrounded by people - I was able to relate to Ben as well, like his persistent need to please others. Ben and Arthur truly breathe on these pages. 

And it’s not even just because Ben and Arthur are the main characters. The side characters are written so incredibly well that I fell in love with each one of them and always looked forward to any of their interactions. Dylan had me laughing through my tears. Samantha had me believing in others. Juliet and Namrata taught me not to take life too seriously. Jessie and Ethan showed me that taking risks pays off, even when it sometimes doesn’t. And Hudson and Harriett proved that even the worst times of your life don’t have to end horribly if you don’t want it to. In books, it can be so easy to only want to focus on the main characters because that’s who you’re “supposed” to pay attention to. But I found myself turning the pages for not only Arthur and Ben, but for everyone else mashed up in their story.

Technically speaking, this book is beautifully written, and the pacing is absolutely astounding. The writing is nearly lyrical, and I was able to visualize every scene and what that street, apartment bedroom, conference room, and coffee shop looked like (and it definitely felt even cooler when Arthur and Ben commented that they were “hopping on the 7″ or “turning on 42nd” because I knew where that was after attempting to navigate the city for the two months I lived there.) I didn’t slow down once while I was reading this book, and I think part of that is due to the fact that the pacing was so well executed. For example, in moments when Arthur was brainstorming who Box Boy was and discovering new information online, his brain started churning a hundred miles a minute, and so did mine; my heart raced, I read faster in those scenes because I could feel what the characters were feeling. Even more so, by the time I reached the last page, I didn’t even realize I was on the last page because I was so caught up in Ben and Arthur’s updated lives.

What If It’s Us is an absolutely stunning love story. And that’s all it is. LGBTQ+ books have become more and more popular in our world, and I am loving the fact that more readers are seeing themselves represented within popular media. I’m even more in love with the fact that so many deserving readers are getting a love story that they can relate to. It’s even realistic in the way that Becky and Adam show that, while we would like it to be, the world isn’t always so accepting. Becky and Adam even found a way to talk about race and racial stereotyping, and if that isn’t incredible I don’t know what is.

Please, please, please go pick up this book. It’s probably one of the absolute CUTEST contemporary novels you will ever read, and it’s so needed in our world. SO needed. This book opens up the door for a number of conversations that need to be had today. And if you don’t choose to pick it up for that reason alone, grab it for the musical references and the overwhelming cuteness that is Ben and Arthur.

Overall: 5,000 hot dog ties out of 5.

Want to talk about this book or see me review your favorite? Just let me know!

[jaggedwolf]

2018 LGBTQ Recs

The usual yearly list of stuff with lgbtq stuff I’ve consumed this year that I thought were a fun time. Probably will be dominated by queer women because uh, I’m the one writing this list, man. Last year’s list is here. Any media with content warnings usually has said warnings listed wherever it’s linked, or wherever you’d get it. 

Games/Interactive Fiction

Heaven Will Be Mine - Made by the creators of We Know The Devil, HWBM is a visual novel about three terrible girls piloting mechas and fighting each other for the fate of space - while occasionally making out with each other. IDK even how to describe how awesomely specific the atmosphere of it is, but it’s such a good spiritual successor to WKTD. If WKTD was about desire that you were certain was an impossibility for you, a forever unsure longing for something out of reach, HWBM’s about having this thing you know you have no right to, power that feels unearned - but you have it anyway, so what are you going to do with it?

Butterfly Soup - Look, it’s literally self-described as a “visual novel about gay asian girls playing baseball and falling in love” do I have to actually say more words about this than that, I guess I can. I adore all four main girls, it gave me the gay high school coming of age stuff I’m always down for + sportsball team feels + two pairings I’m Invested in. I am looking forward to that 2019 sequel so much. 

Hustle Cat - Dating sim where you are an employee at a cat cafe and can date one of the other employees but there’s magic things happening you’re trying to figure out??? A very cute game, you can pick your character’s pronouns and one of six protag designs, there are 4 male love interests and 2 female ones so you can knock yourself out with the pairings your heart desires. Would cat again.

Kindred Spirits - Yuna is a high school student used to eating lunch alone on the roof...and one day she’s joined by two female ghosts that are a couple, and want her help with matchmaking a bunch of potential couples they’ve spotted around their all girls’ school, since she’s the only one who can see the ghosts. Super entertaining, and whole host of pairs to get invested in. 

TV Shows

One Mississippi - It kicks off with Tig (played by, yep, that stand-up comedian Tig Notaro) returning to her hometown in Mississippi after her mother’s death, dealing with her stepfather and brother as they all settle mom’s affairs. It’s darkly humorous little show with a surprising amount of heart. It also had a surprise!duet of a song from Fun Home that like, messed me up a little in a good way. Still sad it got cancelled after season 2.

Comedy Specials

Nanette - It’s a tour de force of talking about comedy, about Gadsby’s specific experience growing up where she did as who she is but also about the general experience of misogyny and homophobia. There’s a part in the middle where she reveals the darker truth behind a funny story she shared at the beginning that still takes my breath away whenever I think about it. The exploration of that instinctual minimization of experiences of bigotry (hahaha aren’t they stupid) which fundamentally, covers up the very real possibility of violence lurking around those stories. You’re funny, until you’re a threat. 

Rape Jokes - idk what to say here, man, it’s a really clever and somehow funny standup special about sexual assault and the culture surrounding it. 

Happy To Be Here - It feels a little like a fault of mine that this is the first Tig Notaro special I’ve actually watched/listened to, considering the ones that launched her to fame. But this is such a happy, funny time of a special, with Notaro talking about family life and her new kitten, all with her usual dry take on things. Way way lighter than the previous two specials in this list.

Movies

The Miseducation of Cameron Post - I had my doubts going into this adaptation. My favorite part of the book was certainly the first half, as much as I loved the whole, and knowing the movie would focus on the latter half’s conversion therapy plot put me off. I’m happy to say I was very wrong. The movie’s focus gives it a purpose it wouldn’t otherwise, there’s good usage of contextualizing flashbacks, and it communicates so well that precise horror of the slow erosion of one’s self. Cameron, Adam and Jane can take the piss out of the camp as much as they want, but being there still takes something from them.

Love, Simon - I watched this in theatres twice. For the record, I usually watch like, 5 movies in theatres a year if I’m not being dragged by family to them, so, uh, I really enjoyed this movie, even the ~mystery~ of which guy Simon was emailing, and him jumping to conclusions every time. Simon looks So Done and Tired in 90% of his scenes and honestly if that’s not the one truth about being closeted in high school what is.

Books

Of Fire and Stars - F/F fantasy YA romance, combined with arranged marriages that have to be snuck around and secret magic powers. There’s a subplot about one of the girls learning to ride a horse, is the level of fantasy tropes we’re at here. A quick, fun read.

Queer America: A GLBT History of the 20th century - Read this for my gay and lesbian history class and liked it as the quick reader it was - lots of pointers to other sources, and like you’d want from any good history book, covers lots of different of viewpoints LGBTQ folks have had about lots of issues without ever doing the bullshit “All gay people thought X at this time period” claims. Intra-community arguing, always been a thing.

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay - Spoilers, but the gay romance subplot in this novel uh, doesn’t end happily, but like, I really like Sammy Clay as a character, and the depiction of his life as a gay man writing superhero comics from the 40s well into the lavender scare and the congress hearings about comics promoting bad behaviour (read: gay) to impressional kids. 

Podcasts

The Strange Case of Starship Iris - Uh, my new fandom obsession, in case that isn’t patently obvious. Tropey space opera podcast with a small disaster spaceship crew, and a clearly telegraphed f/f endgame that constantly delights me. Queer characters, purple aliens, found family feels, what else could I want from a space opera canon? (The answer is more episodes...please...)

The Penumbra Podcast - There are two main storylines, a sci-fi noir one and a fantasy one. I only listen to the sci-fi noir one but I love it, and the protagonist, angsty PI Juno Steel who suffers so well and also happens to be bi as hell. I also really like the Season 1 one-off episode The Coyote of the Painted Plains, or f/f Robin Hood fun-times. [I started listening to it and the other podcast listed below in 2017, but 2017 iteration of this list did not have a podcast section, because I was a fool]

Queer As Fact: Queer history podcast where every episode is the delightful experience of listening to a bunch of Australian history nerds talk about some cool queer person or object while being really smart and delightful. Apparently they sometimes record while sitting in a literal blanket fort and this makes me rank this podcast even higher in my heart.

[jennacha]

here’s a big rant about The Child Thief

ok i have a big confession to make

I’m kind of obsessed with the book The Child Thief.

It’s not a particularly good book. In fact, I would go as far to say it’s poor. The writing has the cadence of 15-year-old-going-through-their-novelist-phase. I guess I could say it reads like fan fiction. The plot is very messy. The characters are badly written. It feels like a book that wasn’t edited. The word “magic” is used a lot, and it’s embarrassing. There’s a part where a character slams their fist on the ground and yells “WHY?!” and it’s embarrassing. The dialogue feels like it came out of a 1990s teen adventure fantasy movie trying to imitate the success of a Corey Feldman/Haim movie. Several times throughout the book the thought, “Why did the author do this?” popped in my head. However, the author is a fantasy illustrator, so the descriptive writing is a plus. He knows how to illustrate the landscape with words as well as he would in painting. The book is not a special unit dumpster fire piece of shit insult to literature; in fact, as far as I know a lot of people like it and it has gotten a decent amount of praise. It’s just not very good, in terms of the surface level writing. But I can easily see a lot of people enjoying it for basic entertainment value.

So that would be my YA-focus blog summary review of the book.

My public outcry summary review of the book is this:

I’m obsessed with the book because it’s so fucking weird.

It’s so fucking weird in that it’s a perfect shitstorm of the author not knowing what he’s doing, and thinking he’s knowing what he’s doing. Like a perfect bad B-movie that exhibits textbook schlock where the director is incompetent and clueless but lacks any self-awareness, in terms of style, layout, and production.

But also, the author thinks what he’s doing is…cool.

The book is about evil Peter Pan.

I could end this whole thing right there. But I must release these hounds. I’ve been needing to let all this out.

My wretched insanity craves affirmation.

This book should be a carbon copy of every other average to below average dark fantasy novel that you see on the bookstore shelves and never heard of and wonder what the author is doing now with all their not-fame. This book should be one that could’ve been written by anybody and it wouldn’t have made a difference. This book should be one of sixty million examples of nothing special. In a way, it is definitely 100% yes definitely yes all those things. The universe decided that I would be the bearer of the burden of having much stronger feelings about it then necessary. I probably feel more strongly about it than the author ever did. It is in my life now.

The biggest thing about this book being so fucking weird is the mind boggling tonal inconsistency. There are a number of shifts in universe-encompassing moods, which go from “Christopher-Nolan-but-also-kind-of-Stephanie-Meyer-dark-gloomy-the-world-is-unhappy-and-I-like-it-that-way”, to “David-Fincher-the-world-is-ACTUALLY-awful”, to “Oh-right-this-is-a-Peter-Pan-story-whimsical-fun-Goonies-meets-Disney-Channel-original”, to “A-worse-version-of-The-Hobbit-movies-with-some-redeeming-qualities”, to “Quentin-Tarantino-literally-wrote-this.” This isn’t hyperbole. The writing language can be REALLY EMBARRASSING and straight out of a Disney movie. That tone of a fun romp for the whole family is cradled by an abundance of swearing, unsettling fantasy-horror, and extreme, shocking violence.

You know when you’re watching Beetlejuice, and you’re like “Okay this movie is for children” and then out of nowhere Michael Keaton goes “NICE FUCKIN’ MODEL” and grabs his dick.

In The Child Thief, THAT washes over you every time you finish reading a sentence. Only, it’s as if you’re watching Hook, and at one point Robin Williams slices a person’s face off, and the camera stays on the faceless person for a minute and Steven Spielberg walks into frame and points to the gurgling faceless head and describes to you how you can still see the holes where the mouth, nose, and eyes were.

(Yes that actually happens in the book.)

Or if you’re watching Neverending Story and at one point you get expository dialogue explaining how Atreyu was pimped as a boy and had to live on the streets because his mother was, uh, a drug addict or something?. 

(That also happens.)

Or if you’re watching Indian in the Cupboard and the film opens with a little girl about to get raped by her dad.

(I’m serious.)

Or if you’re watching Hocus Pocus and Bette Midler is a vampire and she preys on a 6-year-old kid and neither of them have shirts on.

(I swear to god.)

Or if you’re reading a modern re-imagining of Peter Pan and the story involves blatant themes of gore in acute descriptive detail, mass murder, torture, and scenes with naked women and perverted fantasy-creature-men.

(Oh, wait.)

You’re probably thinking, “All those themes are found pretty much everywhere in every medium, especially the naked women and perverts. Big whoop.” I’ll add, then, all those themes, involving children.

Now you’re thinking, “Jenna don’t you love that movie Drag Me To Hell which involves a child being murdered within the first 2.5 minutes?”

Just hear me out and yes.

The Child Thief is entertaining in how CAPTIVATING the strangeness is. The tonal mishmash of kid-friendly meets rated-R is something I actually like, when it's a hit. I like things that have a quality of whimsy amidst dark themes. Movies such as Temple of Doom, Gremlins, Return to Oz, Darkman have this quality…basically almost every movie from the 1980s during the period when audiences had grown up with movies after censorship was abolished and half the world said “think of the children” and the other half said “no.” There are tons and tons of other examples in every medium of how general tonal contrast makes for unique and effective works of art. My point is, this specific type of tonal contrast also can be done well.

But those movies don’t open with attempted child rape, and they don’t end with children literally being mowed down in a grisly battle scene (I’m serious). I’m making a lot of comparisons to movies because the book almost feels like a movie, in that the author isn’t a novelist, he’s a visual story-maker who wrote a book because he knew that no movie studio would pick this shit up. Maybe the films I listed didn’t intend for tonal contrast to be a calculated driving element for their stories, but the subtlety of tones in those movies allows for one encompassing, harmonious tonal blanket to wrap them in. There is no subtlety in The Child Thief.

The tonal confusion of The Child Thief is, I almost wanna say coincidental. I think the author just didn’t know how to write well, but he’s a very dark visual guy and had all these dark visuals in his head ready to be unleashed. All the horrible violence and awful themes are fine in and of itself, but they aren’t earned if the attitude of “I’m gunna turn the children’s book foundation on its head” isn’t committed to, and “I’m gunna subvert everything you know and love about Peter Pan” isn’t calculatedly plotted out. The author has a bad sense of humor, a poor understanding of what is required of an epic storyline, and treats violence, horror and revenge less like a literary device and more like a fetishization of coolness in a vulgar display of power as a writer.

The misguidedness goes as far as the character writing. None of the characters’ motivations make sense. The author couldn’t keep track of either committing to one motivation or the other, a lot of the times for the sake of the plot. Especially with the Peter Pan character. He’s basically literally the anti-christ (this is 100% canon, if the author says it isn’t then he’s a liar and an idiot) and written like a “troubled villain” but then gets these VERY polarized directions of unrelenting psychopathic Cause It’s Die Motherfucka Die Motherfucka Still, Fool villainy and ham-fisted humanism and victimhood. It’s a case of like, the author meant for him to be the charming bad guy who tricks the audience into being on his side because that’s what Peter does to the characters in the book. But the author found him too cool and wanted to be his friend, but in order to justify being friends with a character who wants to murder everybody, he inappropriately gives him remorse and forces the reader to feel bad for him.

And like all the kids in the book are supposed to super love Peter Pan but the version of Neverland is like this horrific, NIGHTMARE HELL of a place and the kids are basically being used to fight in a war, and all the kids are totally okay with it, because their lives in the real world were really awful and the whole thing is that Peter “saves” them and they’ll do anything for him. And it’s like, okay???????????????????? But wouldn’t it be cooler if the kids were like okay this guy is a fucking psycho and Neverland is a horrific, nightmare hell and I’m learning a lot about myself right now having once trusted him???? And then in their retaliation Peter would show his true colors and enforce aggression onto them in serving as his personal enslaved militia? And it becomes like this inner circle of conflict? And since Peter is the only person who can bring them back to the real world, they play ball but hope to steer their own agenda out of the situation? OH, right, that DOES happen, but with ONE of the characters. ONE. Conveniently, the main character. And god knows there can’t be more than one smart human being at a time.

But if you want to SUBVERT the BELOVED CHILDREN’S STORY FORMAT wouldn’t it be fun to do PETER PAN VS. THE LOST BOYS? Instead of MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE PETER PAN AND THE HOT TOPIC LOST BOYS VS. THE ONLY SEMI-SMART MAIN CHARACTER? Like wouldn’t it be GREAT if the characters WEREN'T DUMB? And the author put in some CONSTRUCTIVE, CHALLENGING CREATIVE EFFORT and treated the interactions like a CHESS GAME instead of a CONTRIVED MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN JOEY, ROSS, CHANDLER, RACHEL, MONICA AND THE OTHER ONE? Wouldn’t it be GREAT if ALL THE CHARACTERS TURNED AGAINST PETER but then Peter SLOWLY CHARMED SOME OR ALL OF THEM BACK IN, to make him MORE like an UNEARTHLY MONSTER? Like the lost boys became SELF-AWARE LITERAL VICTIMS OF THE ORIGINAL TALE FORMAT, where Peter Pain is this IMPOSSIBLY CHARMING CHARACTER THAT IS BELOVED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE? ALSO, the MAIN CHARACTER is supposed to be the MODEL OF REASON FOR THE READER TO RELATE TO, but the main character still gets CHARMED BY PETER PAN, WHILE WE KNOW AS RATIONAL ADULTS WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? LIKE THAT’S SUPPOSED TO BE HOW READING BOOKS IS? When we KNOW WHAT’S GUNNA HAPPEN? BUT THE AUTHOR WANTS TO BE PETER’S FRIEND SO HE DOES IT ANYWAY? AND LIKE SEVERAL OTHER CHARACTERS THAT THE MAIN CHARACTER IS FRIENDS WITH ARE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE FIGURES OF REASON BUT THEY’RE ALSO 100% PARTISAN IN SIDING WITH PETER? SO IT’S LIKE HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO LIKE ALL YOU DUMB, DUMB KIDS?

LIKE OKAY, SO HOW IT GOES IS THAT PETER CAN LIKE WALK ACROSS THE DIMENSION BETWEEN NEVERLAND AND THE REAL WORLD AND THAT'S HOW HE GETS THE KIDS? SO AT ONE POINT IN NEVERLAND THEY ALL HAVE TO SCAVENGE FOR FOOD BECAUSE THE VEGETATION IN NEVERLAND IS DYING, AND THEY MENTION HOW PETER USED TO BRING THEM FOOD FROM THE REAL WORLD? AND IT'S LIKE, HOW ABOUT YOU JUST KEEP DOING THAT? OR LIKE, WHY DON'T ANY OF YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE? YEAH THE REAL WORLD SUCKS, BUT IS IT WORTH STARVING TO DEATH JUST SO YOU CAN STICK IT TO THE MAN? LIKE ARE THERE PEDIATRICIANS IN NEVERLAND? ARE THERE AT-RISK YOUTH SHELTERS? FOSTER CARE? NEVERLAND SOUP KITCHENS? NEVERLAND SOCIAL WORKERS? NEVERLAND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES? NEVERLAND POLICE? NO? JUST MONSTERS THAT PAINFULLY KILL YOU, ZOMBIE PIRATES, NO FOOD, AND LITERALLY THE ANTI-CHRIST?

AND THEN THERE’S RIDICULOUS SHIT LIKE, AT ONE POINT ALL THESE MAGICAL FANTASY CHARACTERS HIJACK A NEW YORK CITY FERRY TO GET TO THE HARBOR AND IT’S LIKE, THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS IT SHOULD BE AWESOME, BUT IT ISN’T AWESOME BUT IT SHOULD BE SO WHY ISN’T IT?

AND LIKE ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS A FAT USELESS KID NAMED DANNY AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR HIM TO BE IN THE BOOK BESIDES TO BE THE TOKEN FAT USELESS KID NAMED DANNY?

BUT DANNY IS LIKE ALSO THE ONLY OTHER SMART CHARACTER IN THE BOOK BECAUSE HE’S LIKE WHY DID I SAY YES TO THIS WHY ARE WE STILL FOLLOWING THIS GUY WHY DON’T WE JUST LEAVE AND IT’S LIKE YEAH PUT DANNY IN CHARGE BUT NOBODY LISTENS TO HIM AND HE’S JUST COMPLETELY UTTERLY USELESS?

AND THEN CAPTAIN HOOK ADOPTS DANNY AND IT’S LIKE OH MY GOD THE AUTHOR FORGOT HE NEEDED TO GIVE DANNY SOMETHING TO DO?

AND LIKE I DON’T EVEN REMEMBER THE MAIN CHARACTER’S NAME?

AND THEN AT THE END OF THE BOOK, SO, THERE’S THIS BIG HUGE BATTLE SCENE WHERE CHILDREN DIE LEFT AND RIGHT, LIKE THE “ANTAGONIST” (NOT PETER) HAS A HUGE SWORD AND IS SWINGING AT THE KIDS LIKE HE’S HARVESTING WHEAT, OH AND YEAH, BY THE WAY, AGAIN, THE REAL WORLD IS LOCATED IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE BATTLE HAPPENS ON LIKE THE FRONT LAWN OF A LIBRARY OR SOMETHING. LIKE THE STORY KIND OF TOTALLY GOES OFF THE RAILS INTO FANTASTIC SCHLOCK. AND AT ONE POINT THE BATTLE IS ABRUPTLY INTERRUPTED BY NYC POLICE AND IT’S LIKE ARE YOU SHITTING MY NUTS THE NYC COPS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS FANTASY BATTLE THIS IS AMAZING, BUT THEN THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN AND IT GOES NOWHERE. AND ALL THE MAIN CHARACTERS ARE DYING, AND NONE OF THEM HAD ARCS, LIKE NONE OF THEM REALIZED WHAT THEY GOT THEMSELVES INTO OR WHAT PETER REALLY WAS, AND AT THE ACT 3 POST-LOW POINT THE MAIN CHARACTER DIDN’T GO OFF TO DO HIS OWN THING AND TRY TO SAVE THE DAY, HE JUST GOES WITH PETER TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, AND THEN HIS ARC IS BASICALLY NOTHING AND THEN HE DIES. AND *PETER* WINS. AND AGAIN HE’S LITERALLY THE ANTI CHRIST SO THE BOOK ENDS WITH HIM BRIDGING THE REAL WORLD WITH NEVERLAND, AND BASICALLY BEING THE BRINGER OF HELL UNTO THE EARTH. AND UP UNTIL THEN THE BOOK HAD ABOUT 68 INSTANCES OF THE READER SWITCHING BETWEEN FEELING BAD FOR PETER AND THEN ACCEPTING THAT HE IS HITLER NURSE RATCHED MAO STALIN. SO WHEN ALL THE KIDS DIE, HE HAS A SCENE OF FEELING REALLY BAD AND THE READER IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALL LIKE AW HE REALLY DOES CARE! AND THEN NEVERLAND GETS BRIDGED INTO NEW YORK CITY, AND HE’S LIKE HA HA HA HA I DID IT I WON. BUT IT’S WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT LIKE, THE AUDIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE, WHEEEEEE! LIKE THIS THING THAT HAPPENED IS THE DOOM OF MANKIND, AND THE TONE SHOULD REALLY BE “OH GOD NO.” BUT THE AUTHOR WAS HAPPY THAT PETER WON IN THE END BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE HIS FRIEND, EVEN THOUGH LIKE FIFTEEN PAGES AGO PETER CAUSED THE DEATH OF AN ARMY OF CHILDREN (AFTER ANOTHER 600 PAGES OF ALL KINDS OF OTHER AWFUL SHIT). SO NOT ONLY ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FEEL SAD THAT PETER FEELS SAD, BUT THEN WE’RE SUPPOSED TO FEEL HAPPY THAT PETER FEELS HAPPY. HOW ABOUT GO FUCK YOURSELF? HOW ABOUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE PETER A CHALLENGING UNRELIABLE ANTI-HERO, DON’T MAKE HIS DARK QUALITIES SO INCONTESTABLY EVIL, OR, EITHER CHOOSE TO MAKE PETER HATED BY THE AUDIENCE, OR MAKE THE AUDIENCE FEEL FOOLISH FOR BEING CHARMED BY PETER AND PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE BAD SHIT THAT HAPPENED AND GO FUCK YOURSELF?

...

I’ll give a different example of both tonal incongruence and bad character writing.

So, the opening scene of the book that involves attempted child rape, so. What happens is that Peter saves the little girl in time by killing the dad, and gains her trust to go to Neverland. The way the story regards the introduction to Peter is that of wonder and curiosity through the little girl’s eyes, as if it was derived from the original children’s tale. So the opener is meant to establish: a gritty “realness” to the book (which is never earned but i digress), and Peter as a mysterious magical hero. Then, the story carries on into describing Peter’s motivation in saving (the book uses “stealing”) children, which vaguely mentions his villainous indulgence (he’s saving children to recruit them in an army in Neverland to fight captain hook because his mommy is the president of neverland and there’s almost-Oedipal themes going on). Fine. However, the cadence of Peter actually being villainous is very very…undermined. Like the actual voice of the NARRATION is misinformed. Like the narration sounds more like Peter’s inner monologue speaking in the third person. Like the third person is in on it. Like the author is painting Peter as this wicked wrongdoer as if it’s a cool thing and he wants to be his friend (Oh wait).

This is how the voice of the opener is handled: Child rape —> Peter prevents child rape and saves child —> Peter is a good guy for doing this —> Peter is still a good guy for doing this but he did it maybe not for the right reasons. As it turns out, Peter is unquestionably the bad guy. Peter was the bad guy from the start, Peter was the bad guy while he was saving the little girl.

The rest of the book is handled like this: Peter is cool and badass  —> Peter is mischievous but still the person we want to follow —> Peter is a psycho...but still cool —> Oh shit Peter has a super awful past and his psycho-ness is the result of being a victim so I forgive him —> Wow Peter’s both a psycho and an asshole—> Okay I dunno about Peter —> The author keeps having Peter save people from being raped as if he’s not an asshole but he’s still a psycho and an asshole so I still don’t know —> The plot has a a lot of stuff so I guess I’m still with Peter —> Okay Peter won but everyone is dead because of him and he’s still an asshole so I still don’t know.

Peter tricks victims of rape, abuse, slavery, etc. into thinking they’re being saved when in fact he objectifies them for his personal needs. Remember how I said this book’s insane tonal confusion isn’t subtle? Well, from the book’s perspective, putting a finger on Peter’s good side and bad side...is subtle. Problematically subtle. Which, on a literary standpoint, sounds like a good thing, but...

This is the part when I say the thing you ACTUALLY SHOULDN’T BE SUBTLE ABOUT is PETER. You CAN be subtle about his tragic backstory. Be subtle about sprinkling his good qualities over his CAKE TOWER of BADNESS. Give him some KICK. Have the flavors INTERACT. Make the audience be like “OOOH, is that cumin?? Interesting! HMMMM! INTERESTING! CUMIN! ON DORITOS! YEAh I am definitely eating Doritos, this is absolutely Doritos, but there’s some CUMIN in there! Okay, back to eating my DORITOS! OOOOH, IS THAT CAYENNE?????” But whatever you do, make it CLEAR what you are SERVING. You should not have a MIXED BAG, a MEDLEY, and try to sell it like not-a-medley. You should NOT make half your plate super spicy and half your plate super sweet and make the audience roll the dice on each bite they take. Peter Pan isn’t some complexass Faustian character study, it’s SUBVERSIVE HYPERVIOLENT DARK FANTASY PORN. IT’S DORITOS

This is how the voice of the opener should've been handled: Child rape —> Peter prevents child rape and saves child —> Peter is the bad guy.

This is how the voice of the rest of the book should've been handled: No matter what happens —> Peter is the bad guy.

I don’t have and never will have the literary criticism credentials to say anything with credible boldness, but I’m going to say this anyway: Using child rape to force the reader to feel a certain way about the tone of the world and the first heroic impression of a character is wrong. Forcing an act of heroism (especially for you to then later say “Just kidding not the hero”) in that context is inappropriate and wrong. That’s like throwing 9/11 into the background of a love story to force the audience to feel extra emotional. 1) There are many, many, many, many ways you can establish “realness” in your opener with or without violence. I’m not saying there is a hierarchy of what kind of awful things involving children are okay to write about, but opening your story with attempted child rape is an unnecessary extreme if parts of your story reads like an episode of Saved By The Bell. Revenge alone isn’t cool. John Wick is cool because of the way revenge is handled. Writing about attempted child rape and then immediate revenge on the rapist is the Epipen-shot-to-the-brain method of forcibly getting your audience to go “I LIKE PETER!”, which isn’t at all earned and probably shouldn’t be in your story… 2) ESPECIALLY if you don’t simultaneously establish with slats nailed on a wall that Peter is the bad guy. The author basically deceived the audience into liking Peter in the worst way possible, ironically, which is what he had Peter do to the other characters. If you want to cleverly deceive the audience into liking Peter, do it through his dialogue, personality, the externalized product of the relationship between him and his environment. Be inventive about it. It’s a book. You got words. Use...words to your advantage. If you want to open your story with attempted child rape at the very least as a way to tell the audience this shit’s serious, don’t.

Just don’t. It’s fine.

The Child Thief can’t be pinned as So Bad It’s Good. It’s poor, but it’s not Tommy Wiseau-acclaim-bad. The only way I can describe it is So Disorderly It’s Weird. But it has potential for being SO Weird It’s Kind Of Genius. Which makes it So Almost SO Weird It’s Kind Of Genius It’s Frustrating.

The book’s biggest detriment is that it takes itself too seriously. The author’s motivating in writing the book (this is fact) was that he recognized that the beloved original tale of Peter Pan has a lot of dark elements, but continues to be celebrated as a children’s story. And he wanted to take that notion and run with it. What happened was that he selectively fell in love with elements of that concept, and instead of writing a story that was meant to pull the rug from under us, he ended up writing a run-of-the-mill edgy dark fantasy that he was obliged to pepper with Peter Pan references. Instead of pulling the entire rug beneath our feet and hauling us onto our asses, he took a small handful of rug here and there and just occasionally tugged at it roughly, so that we’d almost lose our balance and get annoyed and tell him to stop.

The book lacks its own conceptual self-awareness that it built for itself, and the result is two different bodies trying to be forcibly shoved into the same book-sized box, when it should’ve been a new gross, satirical, humorous, unique body entirely.

In that sense, I really think this book could’ve been truly unironically awesome. I love the idea of cartoonishly exaggerating the dark elements (especially the violence) of the original tale that have been culturally ignored, like a lot of (or most) (or all) old children’s tales. My ideal solution to this book would actually be making it even more ridiculous in every way, but strung together with self-awareness and intention, where the author could acknowledge that the absurdity is instrumental, not indulgent. There are many aspects of the book that I really like thematically, and none of them are fully (or at all) seen through to their potential. These ideas aren’t really intentionally presented in the book, but: I like the idea that Peter is a sadistic volatile killing machine because he’s cursed with being riiiiiight on the cusp of hitting puberty, and his body is trapped without that natural sexual/psychological release, turning him into an aggressive animal constantly teased by unfulfilled subconscious heat. I like the idea that the lost boys element would be subverted into an inevitable Lord of the Flies esque shitstorm. I like the idea that the danger and villainy are at first generalized in adults but eventually presented in the children. I like the idea that every single possible fucking thing in the world—both the real world (mostly nyc LoL!) and Neverland—are a threat and are actively trying to kill the children, and the children treat it like an adventure before the horror becomes real. I like the idea of illustrating the outcome of blindly following fun naive figures of leadership. There are even a number of character interaction scenes that I like format wise. Just minus the embarrassing dialogue. That stuff's easy to rewrite in your head as you read it. Also I would take out that part in the book that I described as Bette Midler not having a shirt on while preying on a 6 year old. That part was really fucking uncomfortable. Seriously wtf, Gerald Brom.

I must concede this notion: The writer didn’t set out to create a masterpiece. He wrote the book to have fun. He succeeded, and his readers expected the same thing and received the experience they wanted. Of all the things that could’ve landed in my hands and tickled me in a weird enough way to make me wish it was better, for some reason it had to be this.

I could keep going, but...eh, (sigh).

But lastly—again, the descriptive writing of the world is very lush, and at times effectively horrific. The reading experience is a constant stop and start call-and-response of really great potential, really clumsy writing, and really misunderstood tonal directions. All those things put this book directly on the edge of FRUSTRATING. Uniquely frustrating. It couldn’t have been salvaged by the hands of a more competent writer, because the product came to light specifically out of the author’s unintentional confusion, not his laziness. A lazy product with potential can be salvaged through additions and tweaks, but The Child Thief cannot because the story was seen through the way it existed in the author’s head and heart. It is exactly what it...is. It can’t be imitated, or inspired by, or re-re-imagined. This weirdass fucking book is just sitting on this planet, being read by people, and shit. 

…..Anyway. This was all just meant to be the caption for my fan art. http://jennacha.tumblr.com/post/172559227502/i-made-fan-art-of-a-book-i-both-love-and-hate-lol

[ambivalentman]

AN ATHEIST KING: THE LOSS OF BELIEF AND CHARACTER IN MUSCHETTI’S IT (2017)

This essay features several spoilers for IT (2017). You have been warned.

A DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN

I was, at one point, a hard core Stephen King fan. When I entered my 20s, I owned every book written by him in hardcover -- with the exception of special edition stuff like My Pretty Pony -- including several first editions (like a beautiful first of The Shining). My copies of George Beahm’s The Stephen King Companion and The Stephen King Encyclopedia were already dog-eared and annotated. My prize possessions were the four issues of Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction I had which featured the first publication of The Gunslinger, and the other I had which included “The Moving Finger.” My parents thought I was weird, most girls thought I was scary, and at one point even my grandma suggested I seek therapy.

This was until about 2000. Then, an event took place which caused me -- like those in the Loser’s Club -- to abandon childish things. It was a bad decision, but I gave up my Stephen King collection.

I didn't rediscover my love for King until recently. Sure, I dabbled a bit these last few years, reading Under the Dome and 11/22/63, but I never fully re-embraced the hero of my youth. Until I decided to re-read IT, his 1986 masterpiece about a group of wounded people forced to face a truly terrifying force as both children and adults. I saw that Andy Muschetti was adapting the novel for Warner Bros., taking over for Cary Fukunaga, who -- despite being a true auteur -- fell out of Warner’s graces. All news surrounding the new adaptation was overwhelmingly positive, and it had been a long time since we last saw a great movie based on King’s work.

Back in April, I broke my right hip. After two surgeries, being fairly immobile has given me time to read more, so I picked up IT. Revisiting IT transported me back to that time when I was obsessed with King. The experience was overwhelming, like when adult Bill Denborough gets back on his enormous metal steed, Silver, and recalls how he once raced the devil on that bike to save Eddie Kaspbrak. A flood of joy came from reading King’s pulpy prose again. Going back to that tainted town of Derry to hang with the Losers helped make my rehab a little easier. And though I am still on the mend, I am ready to rekindle my love for King.

Which brings me to my other love: cinema. I don't write much about the movies anymore, but I am chomping at the bit to discuss and evaluate IT. There hasn't been a more anticipated film this year for me.

And no film has both pleased and disappointed me more.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD KING ADAPTATION?

Because of The Dark Tower, IT, and the forthcoming Gerald’s Game, there have been lots of clickbait “Stephen King Movies . . . Ranked” lists popping up online. Nerdist had a particularly interesting one, in which their top 10 looked like this:

10. Creepshow (1980)

9. IT (2017)

8. The Dead Zone (1983)

7. Dolores Claiborne (1995)

6. Stand By Me (1986)

5. The Mist (2007)

4. The Shining (1980)

3. Carrie (1976)

2. Misery (1990)

1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Despite the ranking, most King fans and movie lovers alike will agree with this list (although Creepshow over Pet Sematary or Christine? Really? Sincerely?). Two of these films are directed by Frank Darabont (Shawshank, The Mist), and two by pre-what-the-f-happened Rob Reiner (Misery, Stand by Me). And the new adaptation of IT made the cut. So, if we can acknowledge these are the canonical King adaptations, what makes them the best? It's a pretty steep drop off in quality after the top 10. There's Pet Sematary, Christine, 1408, and The Green Mile, meaning that out of 44 movies based on Stephen King’s novels (not including TV mini-series), there’s really only about 14 good-to-great ones. If this were baseball -- King’s favorite sport -- Hollywood would be batting a respectable .318. Be that as it may, this is not baseball, and producing only 1 solid movie for every 3 is pretty awful.

This suggests that adapting Stephen King is tough. Why, though? His books are packed with memorable characters, scenes, and visuals. You could almost say he writes movies. His dialogue is colloquial and specific, and he has a great sense of pacing. While you could easily point out that lots of his stories share only a couple variations for endings -- destruction or aliens -- he is a strong storyteller with a keen understanding of cause and effect and narrative fairness. There's a reason, after all, that he inspired a generation of writers and filmmakers like JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and the Duffer Brothers.

My theory is that King's greatness resides not in his ideas or execution, but in the spirit of his writing. King's voice is the soul of his work. When you read him, it feels like you are sitting down with a friend, listening to him share a great story. King feels familiar, like family. And the filmmakers who get that make films which reflect it.

Take, for example, the number 1 film on Nerdist’s list, The Shawshank Redemption. The use of Red’s voiceover narration immediately brings us into the tale of Andy Dufresne. Stand By Me and Dolores Claiborne also use great voiceovers. But in films like Misery, Carrie, and The Dead Zone, we are given protagonists who become our friends. We find Paul Sheldon to be kind and thoughtful, Carrie White to be sweet and misunderstood, Johnny Smith to be tortured and alone. These films understand deeply what King was aiming for with his characters. So, when Reiner changes events in Misery, it doesn't matter because not only did he truly “get” Paul, he also truly “got” Paul’s relationship with Annie Wilkes. Each of the films on this list, with the exception of IT (and Creepshow because it was an original script), truly grasped the core of King’s characters and their relationships to each other.

King is often considered a humanist author. His characters, including his villains, are often subjects for sympathy. In his work, there is a lot of insight into human nature, both light and dark. King is an observant author, grounding his most supernatural stories in a real world, with real people. This is best illustrated in his character relationships and interactions. Red and Andy develop first respect, then admiration, then deep friendship over their years in Shawshank. It is a relationship founded on honesty as they are the only honest men in the prison. Their mutual trust is what establishes the foundation for Andy’s escape plans, and ensures his success. In The Dead Zone, Johnny’s broken relationship with Sarah is haunted by lust and vitality, the very qualities Johnny loses touch with after his accident leaves him with a power which zaps the life from him with each use. Carrie White’s naive hope she can actually fit in is fulfilled by the compassionate Tommy Ross, which makes the tragedy of her coronation that much more devastating. The films capture these ideas to profound effect, which is why they endure. Once the novelty of plot dissipates, you are left with characters and their connections to each other and yourself. We enjoy a movie for plot; we love a movie for character.

King writes wonderful characters, and the best films based on his work never fail to capture those characters ideally.

Except IT.

Sigh.

THE PART WHERE I EXPLAIN WHY THE NOVEL IS A MASTERPIECE

It is not hyperbole to call IT “King's masterpiece.” Lots of critics have done it. By its publication in 1986, IT was the purest, most ambitious distillation of themes and ideas King had explored since Carrie in his fiction (and even in non-fiction dissertations like Danse Macabre). If you're reading this, chances are you know the story:

Every 27 years, the seemingly quaint hamlet of Derry, Maine becomes the feeding ground for an entity that has dwelled under the town’s surface for centuries. In 1958, after 6-year old Georgie Denborough is murdered by the creature -- assuming the shape of a murderous clown called Pennywise -- big brother Bill and his Losers Club come together to put an end to the evil. They are only marginally successful, as 27 years later, the Losers are called to return to Derry to kill IT for good.

IT is a multi-generational horror novel, spanning hundreds of years. We meet the Losers first as adults, all of whom (with the exception of Mike Hanlon, who chose to stay behind in Derry and become its resident historian and librarian) no longer remember the events that took place during the summer of 1958. Mike’s ominous phone calls, reminding the adults of the promise they made -- to return if IT ever resurfaced -- unlocks each adult’s dormant memory. As the novel unfolds, so does their collective remembrance of summer ‘58 and all the horrors it contained. King uses the flashbacks to highlight the differences between childhood and adulthood.

As with any epic sized novel, there are a myriad of themes to unpack. IT dives deep into ideas about childhood trauma, the power of personal shame, community corruption, racism, generational sin, and the coming of age ideas expected from a novel about kids becoming adults. For me, where the novel finds its most compelling thematic territory is in its exploration of belief. King wants us to recognize it is the purity of innocence, and the simplicity of belief that binds these kids together, and that the jaded cynicism of adulthood, with all its fears and anxieties, is what threatens to destroy them.

This theme hinges on the role of Pennywise. He is a shapeshifting, Lovecraftian monster, tapping into the fears of his quarry to exploit during the hunt. He appears to Ben as his dead father, to Mike as a pterodactyl-like bird, to the germaphopic Eddie as a leper, and to Richie as the lycanthropic Michael Landon in I Was a Teenage Werewolf. When Pennywise goes after Bev, it is by turning her sink into a geyser of blood which only she can see. Bill is tormented by the memory of his dearly departed brother, whose school photograph Pennywise animates and makes bleed. Children have very primal fears, and that which adults see as fake or absurd, kids often embrace as real. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, chupacabras, zombies . . . children do not reject fantasy outright as adults do, making them susceptible to both profound fear and hope.

We see this in the Losers’ response to IT’s attacks. They are terrified, but never stop seeking solution. They find their weapons in objects. Even after he learns his asthma inhaler is a mere placebo, Eddie still uses it to calm his nerves, and later fires it at Pennywise, believing its contents to be battery acid. With Bill’s help, Ben melts down two silver dollars into bearings for Bev to shoot at the monster with a slingshot. When Stan gets trapped by Pennywise after finding himself alone in the house on Neibolt Street, he manages to escape by chanting the names of every bird contained in his field guide. The kids build an underground fort, which they convert into a smoke house to go on a Native American “Vision Quest.” It is during this dangerous endeavor that Mike and Richie seem to travel through time back to a primordial era where they witness IT’s arrival. The Losers’ passionate adherence to ritual and talismans give them a collective power. This power keeps them unified, and even frightens their tormentor. Belief is their truest weapon, especially belief in each other.

The other themes King addresses throughout IT are compelling, but it is this idea about belief that gives the novel its soul. There is no cynicism in King's approach -- he captures the imagination of these children with remarkable affection, and this results in each kid winning our hearts over. Pennywise may be the allure the book needs to attract its audience, but these kids are what inspires guys like me to re-read a 1,000+ page book.

They are also what inspired me to struggle with a movie engineered for my celebration.

IN PRAISE OF MUSCHETTI’S IT

Before I tear apart IT, which is very popular, having made over $200 million domestically in its first two weekends, I want to praise it. Despite having some huge issues, the film does some things very well. There is a good reason why this movie works for so many people.

The major reason IT works is because of its energy and general nostalgia. While these elements often fade on repeat viewings, they are so engrossing during a first one. Being set in 1989 puts the setting during a period Gen Xers remember fondly and for which Millennials pine. Movie theater marquees are showing Batman and Lethal Weapon 2. A poster for A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 is a coming attraction. The kids ride Schwinns, use Kodak Carousels, don’t have cell phones, and wear denim cutoffs. The aesthetic is perfect. Producer Seth Grahame-Smith revealed in an interview with Birth.Movies.Death that he prepped nostalgia lists for all of the child actors, from music to movies to video games to fashion as a way to show them what summer ‘89 in New England was like for him. The work paid off, because the town of Derry is authentic in its nostalgia. It is impossible not to be drawn into this world.

And this world is scary, even without Pennywise. As with all idealized nostalgic perspective on days long gone, there is a darker undercurrent (as if we punish ourselves for embracing such idyllic memories). Perhaps the darkest element are the adults of Derry. Kids go missing and the “Missing Persons” posters are simply papered over as new children are added to the list. A leering pharmacist flirts with Bev. In the library, as Ben investigates Derry’s ugly history, the Librarian lingers in the fuzzy background, grinning maliciously. Not one adult exhibits empathy for these kids, including Bill’s dad or Stan’s rabbi father. Certainly not Bev’s father, who inhales his daughter’s hair like she’s fresh out of the oven, and obsesses over her virginity with a fervor that would make even President Trump uncomfortable (or envious, if we're being honest). In some ways, the more visceral nature of the film captures Derry’s innate badness more clearly than the hundreds of pages King devotes to the subject in his novel. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand pages.

Muschietti and his casting director also got the casting perfect. As with the films of JJ Abrams, criticize all you want, but it's impossible to trash the impeccable casting choices. Each of these kids perfectly embodies the characters they portray. Kudos especially go to Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Finn Wolfhard as Ben, Bev, Eddie, and Richie. Ben’s beautiful sensitivity, Bev’s intense devotion and passion, Eddie’s passive-aggressive resolve, and Richie’s unending stream of bullshit are as sharp and resonant here as they are on the page. Even Jaeden Lieberher, as Bill, and Chosen Jacobs, as Mike, look and feel right. Unfortunately, the script makes some poor choices with their characters that nearly derails the film. But more on that in a bit. Without a doubt, these kids are legit actors. No scene better proves this than the swimming scene in which everyone is stripped to their underwear and dives into the lake from the frighteningly high cliff. The scene could have been incredibly exploitative as the boys ogle Bev, but instead the quality of these performances makes their pubescent sexual discovery innocent and real. Consider this a great contrast with the perverse exchanges Bev has with the adult world. It is both ironic and terrifying that Bev is perceived more as an object by adults than by teenage boys.

While the film finds many of its most effective scares in the presentation of Derry, and the juxtaposition of innocent and corrupt images, the advertisements promise that we will be scared senseless by Pennywise the Dancing Clown. As portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, this Pennywise bears little resemblance to the seductive, menacing clown Tim Curry created for the 1990 ABC television miniseries. Skarsgard’s Pennywise is serpentine, alien, with dead eyes and a slithering voice. His costuming suggests his age, and the cracks in his makeup reveal a facade. This Pennywise is less playful and charismatic, and hungrier. He drools as he corners the kids in the Neibolt house. And his shapeshifting is frightening, especially when he presents himself to Eddie as a relentless leper. Skarsgard’s performance is wonderful and wholly his own. He will invite comparisons to the iconic Curry, but ultimately his Pennywise will stand alone.

IT’s success as a film can be broken down into these three elements: Derry, the kids, and the creepiness of Pennywise. But its failure can also be broken down into three parts, too.

1) The absence of a thematic soul

2) The abandonment of characterization

3) The confusion of style for substance

A LOSS OF SOUL

A great adaptation isn’t necessarily about doing the book, but about capturing the soul of the book (or finding a soul no one even knew existed, ala The Godfather or The Shining). A movie can look the part, but if it fails to reveal that essence of spirit, it will eventually crumble. In the case of IT, the movie is about as hollow as the space behind Pennywise’s eyes.

The soul of this story is the children's belief. Outside of a generic, “We gotta believe in each other!” idea to which much lip service is paid, these kids are bereft of belief in anything. This is an atheist interpretation of Stephen King's story, in which our Loser’s Club prefer brute force over imagination. In the film’s climax, Bill leads the charge against Pennywise by picking up a bat and swinging at the clown’s head. All the Losers join him. The result looks remarkable, as each strike causes the clown to transform into each child's fear, but it is a graceless, uninspired physical solution to a metaphysical problem. It also ruins Pennywise. How evil can he truly be when all it takes is an angry mob armed with sticks to bring him down?

Throughout King's novel, the Losers seek many ways to defeat the demon. They melt down the silver dollars. Eddie’s inhaler becomes a chemical weapon. Stan’s bird book is a shield, the names of the birds his mantra. And the kids buy into Native American rituals, like the Ritual of CHUD, to confront IT. Obviously, the shift in setting from the 1950s to 1980s meant losing some of these talismans. After all, the 50s Wolfman, when compared to the 80s Freddy Krueger, is a flaccid nightmare. But every monster has a weakness, even human ones. The Losers spend no time thinking on this.

Indeed, Muschetti strips them of their creativity completely. Gone is Ben’s architectural acumen, which nearly flooded the Barrens and provided an underground club house. Bill’s storytelling, which keeps the group focused, is generically spread amongst all of them. Even Bev's love for fashion and art is lost. It's shocking to me how Muschetti removed the core elements from each of these characters, leaving only their gimmicks -- Bill’s st-st-stutter, Ben’s girth, Bev’s cigarette smoking, Richie’s humor, Eddie's hypochondria, Stan’s Judaism, and Mike’s blackness. In the need to appeal to every demographic, these characters were stripped for parts.

It is a testament to the strength of the performances by this group of kids that the Losers have any flavor whatsoever. The script provides them no depth, only set pieces and surface sentiment, yet they are convincing for awhile in the dark. But like Pennywise’s many facades, eventually they slide off and there's nothing remaining.

The soul of King's story is belief, imagination, and the collective power of childlike purity. Andy Muschetti’s adaptation is more in love with Halloween maze scares than it is with pursuing these ideas. His vision of defeating our fears involves angry children with sticks, not wounded children with imagination. Audiences may like the cathartic release that comes with beating the shit out of the monster, but it does nothing to feed their souls.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

I already alluded to the surface qualities that pass for characterization in IT, but it goes a bit deeper than this. Character interaction is essential to building great characters, and this is where IT fails epically.

To prove this, let’s take a closer look at Bill Denborough.

Bill is arguably the most important of our protagonists, especially in King's novel. The story begins with him making a paper boat for his brother and sealing it with wax so it will float in the gutter water outside. The death of Georgie becomes a source of guilt and shame for Bill. And since his parents pay little to no attention to him, Bill is made to face these overwhelming feelings alone. It is his determination and inner strength that propels him to lead the Losers in their quest to put an end to IT. But, this quest, while certainly obsessive, is rooted in shame and love. Bill loves each of his friends and often goes off alone because he fears their fate will be his fault, as he believes Georgie’s fate to be his fault. This is the source of Bill’s maturity, which sets him apart from everyone else in the club. Because of Bill’s maturity, the Losers follow him without much question. They are devoted to him as a leader and friend, and willingly choose to lay down their lives if need be.

This is far from the way Bill is presented in the film. He is a Captain Ahab, chasing his white clown into the sewers of Derry. He likes his friends, but often doesn't concern himself with their feelings. In fact, at one point Richie throws a punch at Bill and the two fight over their pursuit of the monster. This Bill is not a leader; he is a dictator. He lacks empathy, and mostly cares for himself. Even worse, his quest is no longer rooted in shame, but in pure vengeance. Bill doesn't express his self-loathing at what happened to Georgie. Instead, at the end of the film, when Pennywise presents Itself as Georgie, Bill just punches IT in the face.

The shift in Bill is a subtle one, but has huge consequences for the story. By changing his leadership style, it makes the other Losers look more like followers of fear than a group of equals. In many ways, Bill is no different than the crazy bully Henry Bowers, whose friends follow him out of fear. Like Henry, Bill is on a mission to destroy, has little regard for the consequences of his actions, gets others involved who don't necessarily want to be, and doesn't listen to reason. Yet, we like Bill and hate Henry because Bill stutters and Henry likes carving his initials into the bellies of defenseless fat kids.

This is not to say Bill isn't the hero, but that Muschetti misfires with Bill by removing his core empathy and giving the character over completely to obsession. While the rest of the characters don't fare as badly as Bill does, each loses something, mainly through the cutting of interactions. On a basic level, we see this in the fact that Bev only interacts with Bill and Ben through most of the movie, yet is presented as the symbol of group unity. She can't even be bothered to share a smoke with Richie, or have a conversation with Stan and Mike.

Bill and Bev certainly present issues in characterization, but no character is more problematic than Mike Hanlon. There have already been several insightful thinkpieces about the treatment of Mike that there is little I can add, but the gist is this: Mike is presented as a token black character for no reason. Granted, most of these characters are tokens in their own way, so it stands to reason Mike would receive no better treatment. It was a struggle for me to watch one of my favorite characters in the novel reduced to a handsome black face that has to face the racist white bully. It was harder to watch Mike's love for history handed over to Ben. Mike deserved better.

All of these wonderful characters deserved better. This is what happens when style trumps substance.

THE NEW HORROR AESTHETIC

IT is the culmination of the trend in cheap seat horror to rely on the jump scare as the source of terror. No horror film of this variety has handled this trope better than Muschetti’s film. Arguably, Muschetti has perfected the jump scare. His film is a maze at Knott’s Scary Farm or Universal’s Halloween Horror Nights waiting to happen. The soundtrack is pitched to screamtastic levels. Put a camera on audiences and every 5-7 minutes, prepare to see people grabbing each other or jumping like William Castle had come back from the dead to put a tingler in their seat.

This reliance on the jump scare is aided by a color palette washed in sepia tones and deeper reds, which enable the clown to do his Jack-in-Box routine in darkness that can't elicit laughter. Muschetti and his postproduction team nailed the look of this film like mad scientists.

The beauty of this is that audiences love IT. This is a horror movie that feels like a horror film. Yet, IT remains safe, like those scary carnival mazes. When you're creeping your way through one, every darkened corner promises danger, but behind all that tension you know none of the masked employees can touch you without legal repercussion. Sadly, IT isn't allowed to touch you either. Promises of danger lurk around every shot, but it is all bark and no bite.

Take the Neibolt Street House sequence. There's a clever moment in which Bill and Richie, separated from Eddie, try to find him before Pennywise gets him and are presented with three doors to escape. The doors are labeled “Not Scary,” “Scary,” and “Very Scary.” Of course the boys take the first one, and are presented with a frightening image. You would imagine they would be forced to take the third door, but instead they double down on the “Not Scary” path and are rewarded for their cowardice. This is the ultimate in style over substance. The scene looks perfect, but says and does nothing.

Still, the aesthetic is convincing. This is how we want horror movies to look, even if they have nothing to say.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT

Since Warner Bros.’s sinks are exploding with dollar bills right now, IT will have a seismic impact on the popular culture landscape. Some things are inevitable: we will get a “Chapter Two” featuring the adults returning to Derry for a final showdown with IT. We can also expect more horror movies. Will we get more clown flicks? I'm sure there's plenty of those being prepared for VOD as I write this.

What I am more concerned about is the state of horror film. Over the last decade, we have seen a renaissance in indie horror. Get Out, It Follows, The Babadook, The Witch, The Invitation, Cheap Thrills, Starry Eyes, Goodnight Mommy, and Raw are a few of the most notable titles. This movement has brought a variety of styles and an emergence of new voices unlike anything we’ve seen since the 70s. Even a big budget haunted house franchise like The Conjuring reinforced the brilliance of James Wan and reminded us of the power in the traditional horror story amidst all the rebels.

IT feels like a sea change, though. The Conjuring made tons of money, but it didn't make this kind of money. And while The Conjuring felt traditional, IT is being presented as something new. People are talking about it like it's different. Joe Hill, King's son and respected novelist, called IT “one of the five best horror movies I've ever seen.” This movie is a hydrogen bomb on pop culture, especially as it arrived on the heels of the poorest performing summer box office in 20 years. This movie isn't just new, it's a savior.

So while we can expect more Stephen King remakes and adaptations, we can also expect less money for horror indies. Studios will want more movies to look and feel like IT, and in this narrowing marketplace, that has the potential to choke out the little guy. This is the true horror.

I hope I am wrong. Horror films are cheap to make. That is their appeal for young filmmakers looking to make a mark. Hopefully this doesn't change.

The Stephen King fan in me celebrates the love IT is receiving around the world. The cinephile in me is afraid of what this means for horror cinema going forward.

[maepolzine]

What is Doki Doki Literature Club?

Doki Doki Literature Club is a visual novel that starts out as if you are playing a dating simulator. You play the protagnoist and you join your childhood friend Sayori to join their high school's literature club where you meet Natsuki, Yuri, and Monika. You grow close to the girls through poetry and reading books, and the club begins preparation for the school's festival to join more members. Here is where the game takes a turn.

If you are triggered at all by depression or suicide, do not go near this game as it will not be good for your mental health. You have been warned.

What Does Doki Doki Mean?

It's a mimick word, meaning it's made after the sound of a heart beating at a quickened pace. It is used to refer to moments when attractive people of [insert sexual preference] stand very close to you, moments of nervousness, stage fright, excitement, near misses, etc.

Plot Overview

This will contain major spoilers! If you want to play the game, play that first then come back to read this. The game is free on Steam and I highly recommend it.

Sayori admits to suffering with depression and her daily poem takes a sharp turn from bittersweet to dark and morbid, with a plea for someone to get out of her head. Which echoes with me personally, as I have Bipolar Disorder and in high school I once went to my sister sobbing the very same phrase over and over again. And then following the club, you discover she's committed suicide. Then the game glitches and starts over from the beginning, only Sayori is not present. Any remnants of her presence causes the game to glitch. And all dialog gets darker and more glitches. Yuri begins cutting herself and the game will only accept interactions that favor Monika. Then Yuri kills herself and Monika apologizes to the player before deleting the character files of Yuri and Natsuki. At this point, the only character remaining is Monika who is aware she's trapped in a game and she can manipulate the game files from alter character's personalities or erasing them altogether. Afterwards, she admits she's in love with the player of the game not the protagonist. And this will repeat forever until you delete the character file of Monika causing the game to glitch once more and Monika panics but she accepts this so you could be "happy" and allows the game to restart from the beginning with her absent. Sayori explains that they are now the president of the club, and they know everything about the game and what the player did. Causing Monika to return then audibly speak to the player (the only spoken dialog in the game). Then the game ends because "there is no happiness" in the club anymore. But you can go back into previous saves or began a new playthrough without witnessing Sayori's suicide where you'll be thanked for trying to help all the girls. 

Who are the girls?

Sayori is your childhood friend and neighbor. She has a bright and vibrant personality. She loves food and is a romantic option for the protagonist but this will not work out due to her suicide brought on by depression and possibly even more driven by Monika.

Natsuki is the preppy and youngest member of the literature club. She can come off as sour and fiesty, but there's more to her character if you dig into it. Her favorite is abusive and neglectful, she is a closeted geek, and loves attention that Monika exaggerates. She's also the only one who doesn't have a mental breakdown. Natsuki is also makes really good cupcakes.

Yuri is timid/shy but speaks up about things she's really passionate about. She loves fantasy, horror novels, and collects knives. She self-harms out of a bizarre sexual fetish though this is exaggerated by Monika who is trying to paint her in a bad light. Which drives Yuri to never want to leave the protagonist alone and kill herself even if you accept her confession.

Monika is the leader/president of the literature club. She comes off as sweet, friendly, and mature. Her name is also the only name that is not explicitly Japanese. She also is obsessed with the player and will manipulate the characters to go "crazy" so the player can't have the protagonist get with them. She's also the only character to have black socks rather than white ones.

Overall Thoughts

I enjoyed this game a lot granted it is really dark. And I love how they twisted the typically "dating simulator" into something else. With the player having to pay attention to the game files, which you can see Monika updating every now and then that changes how Sayori, Yuri, and Naksuki interact with the protagnoist. As well just special messages to the player prior to the glitches. Like one that says "Have a good weekend" followed by you seemingly being stuck on one scene for quite some time. I did play through the game three times, each time favoring a different girl so I could see all of the story. On the third time (really fourth since I played it normally once then kept restarting the game prior to the first suicide) I let it play out and in the end I was gifted with a note from the developer Dan Salvato for taking the time to see everything about Doki Doki Literature Club. Plus it just felt really good to do that over as Monika doesn't try to come back and delete the club. You get all the characters being happy for once, and it just feels really good. Overall, I really enjoyed plus the game is free on Steam if you wanted to check it out for yourself. If you've played this game, what did you think of it?