#writing anaylsis

[silly-cuchufli]

Can we talk about how pantheon weaves the exploration of grief into every aspect of its story!!!!!! Specifically, the show captures the complex nurture of grief by highlighting the different stages of grief through its individual character and how they progress throughout the story

First, you have Ellen, who represents denial. She lost her husband, David, and somewhat forces acceptance upon herself and her daughter. Even though the story picks up after David’s death, we see Ellen’s journey through grief when David comes back. Ellen’s acceptance of her loss is juxtaposed with denial. When her husband comes back, she’s confused and hurt. She doesn’t want to accept he’s back because, well how could she? She’s lived two long painful years without him. She’s gone through so much, having to accept that he’s gone just for hime to come back. She’s terrified with the pain that comes along side embracing him. If she accepts him as alive again, she also has to accept the possibility of losing him again. She has to learn to accept the pain that accompanies love. Even though she eventually accepts David, her denial to his resurrection is still highlighted earlier on in the show.

There’s also Chanda. He is a not so subtle representation of the anger associated with grief. He literally burns a building and kills a family because he was blinded by his grief. He was grieving his life, and how he would never live as he once did. All of his actions are propelled by his anger over the loss of his life. He is desperately trying to achieve what he never got the chance to while he was human. He’s trying to create the world he never got to live in. He can’t accept the way things are because he’s still stuck in his anger over his loss.

Next, there’s Cody. He represents bargaining. He can’t accept the loss of his wife, so he does anything minimize and postpone his sadness. He doesn’t question or deny Laurie when she comes back like Ellen did with David. Rather he accepts her without a second thought. His actions aren’t solely propelled by love, but rather his avoidance to pain. Even before he knew Laurie’s upload was successful, he didn’t accept that she was gone. He still felt that she was alive and the same as she had been. When she came back, he did anything for Laurie because he didn’t want to lose her or accept that things had changed. He did everything in his power to keep things the same and try to live as he did before. When Laurie is prepared to die to spread her message to the world, he doesn’t accept losing her again. Rather, he prepares to “reboot” her and keep thing the way the are, even though they’re not.

Next there’s Capsian, who represents depression. Now the thing he’s mourning is a bit different from the other characters in this analysis. He isn’t mourning the physical death of someone, but rather the death of his innocence. He found out he was a clone and that his entire life was a lie. Everything he thought he knew wasn’t real, and that’s terrifying. While he goes through the other stages of grief, the show draws attention to the depression part of grief through Caspain. He quickly recognizes the true extent of his loss but still struggles to accept and cope with it. Thus, he is easily manipulated by Pope and throws himself into curing the flaw because to him it’s a way to avoid the looming hopelessness of his situation. He’s lost interest and passion for the things he once cared about, and focuses on what he feels he has to do. He feels hopeless, and desperately trying to cure the flaw is his way of trying to reclaim agency. If he solves the problem, he regains some control over the hopelessness he feels.

Finally, there Maddie, who represents the complex journey to acceptance. Throughout the show, she experiences all the stages of grief. The show focuses on her journey to accepting the loss of her father and the life she once had. We watch her go through the stages of grief at her own pace and eventually come to terms with her loss. We watch her grow into the person that can eventually let her father pass. We watch her move forward despite her loss. She still is in unimaginable pain because of the death of her father, but she still keeps moving.

While all of the characters experience all the stages of grief, it feels like the show focuses on specific stages with specific characters. Pantheon displays how grief is complicated and messy, and not just some straight line. It highlights non-linear growth and how character progress and regress throughout their respective journeys with grief. It shows how grief isn’t something that it easily overcome, but rather a long and exhausting process. It shows through its main cast how each stage of grief is its own journey and hurtle to overcome. Pantheon demonstrates that even after you accept loss fully, it doesn’t take away from the immense pain loss causes you to feel. All you can do is keep moving forward.

[sumiieon]

I've heard all sorts of things about Tecchou (especially THOSE things) but would anyone like to hear me out on just how PRETTY and GORGEOUS and ETHEREAL Tecchou is when he's facially serious like in the pictures I've inserted above? I might be on the verge of death if I see that face, but I've never been so captivated by such expression either fr! I've seen clips of the anime despite not watching it all and as a manga reader, dare I say that I was robbed. He's still pretty in the anime yes, but what really sold me off in the first place was the way he was drawn like a literal 'tyrant', possibly or I like to assume it's how the ADA sees him early off into the arc since man was literally slicing the members up (the shadows, the perspectives, his expressions, etc.) As much as I do think that he can be a sweetheart and/or gentleman, I think some people do babify him sm to the point it erases why he owns the title as the Hunting Dogs' strongest unit (physical strength wise). Yes, he can sympathize, but he wouldn't hesitate to draw his blade and take lives too on the other end of that blade in the name of 'justice' had they met his criteria of 'evil.' Just like the rest, Tecchou is his own 'beast' even if he's the lesser cruel. His vision and mindset of justice is so black and white. Add that up with the methods he use to realize it, makes him morally ambiguous (?). Tecchou is flawed from how socially dense he is to deeper aspects like said above, and his character being flawed really charmed 2022 me (still does lol). Tecchou, they could never make me hate you. It really makes his character interesting even if he appears as having nothing to offer because of his emotionless-ness or monotonous behaviour. Need to see his backstory ASAP The way justice, an important element in the Hunting Dogs somehow, is tightly tied to him makes me think he might've been a child soldier back then. Or how in his pursuit of the ADA with Jouno, he wasn't hesitant to end them at first really seems like a 'killing machine/weapon' behaviour to me. Asagiri if he dies, i will die TT

[detergent3000]

these frames from the Beastars final season opening are literally never leaving my mind, they just keep replaying my brain over and over again. The whole opening feels so whimsical in its portrayal of how Legoshi is an adult now so the story takes place in the city rather than it being a school drama. The characters are at different points of their lives despite being around the same age; Haru is going to university, Louis is preparing to take over the company, Legoshi has a job and is living on his own, a few characters are still attending high school. All those characters are still inching towards a future that they have a rough plan for, expect Legoshi. Like Haru and Louis still live with their parents and do not yet having to deal with things like paying rent and what bills they need to pay and how, they still have the security of their childhood home. But Legoshi has been thrust into adult life, abandoning the comfort and guidance of living with his parental guardian, he doesn’t really know how to do anything that adults do yet and he’s figuring it out as he goes. Best example is when his neighbor comes over and, though initially intimidated by him, after he asks what to do when the electricity goes out she realizes that he’s actually just a kid in over his head. Legoshi doesn’t really know what he’s doing but he’s plunging into this new vague stage of his life without instruction and with a cheerfulness that contrasts starkly with the unconfident quiet loner he was in season 1. In the first frame he looks like he’s just waking up and immediately after that he looks shocked and confused about something that caught his eye off screen. He is waking up from his quaint little high school life that only occasionally has disrupted by the adult world and forming realizations of what being an adult is like in the society he lives in and why it’s like that and wether he agrees with the structure and ideas of this society and what he ought to do about what he views as unfair. There’s such a strong youthful feeling of optimism, determination and belief in living with and loving others that courses through Legoshi this season — at times he evens seems naive in his love of and belief in others. That feeling is so clear in the brightness of the opening but the bouncy, almost childish feeling of these frames in particular just stick with me really strongly for some reason. He just looks so bright cute and promising here. He looks as young as he is, like a little kid just becoming acquainted with the world and being couriousily captivated by it’s depth. He looks like his life is just getting started. He looks like he’s gonna come out of this just like all the times before — with a new found understanding of the world and of the people he loves. He looks like he’s gonna live.

[yoursonlucifer]

my favorite (sarcasm) thing about fandom media analysis is when someone presents a fact of the piece of media that is relatively clearly presented but assume that because they've removed it from the context of the media that it acts as analysis

example: jinx and silco have a close relationship because of how she felt abandoned by vander and vi [uses evidence from the show to prove this]

and it's like yeah. that's kind of central to... the whole thing; you don't need to prove it. you're right because the show already told us that and can't exist without that truth. there's never actually an arguable claim involved.

I was going to add to the example, "and he fills a gap in her relationship patterns that has to be filled by a parentified figure" which is true, but one can argue that he didn't actually fill that gap or that it doesn't have to be filled by a parentified figure, because the problems jinx had persisted in spite of the relationship. instead, one could argue that only isha could fill that gap by giving jinx a chance to show someone the love she needed--so there can be actionable analysis there. but it kind of only functions as actionable analysis because I pointed out that one could argue that it's not the case and opened up a different point of view to demonstrate why I'm not just sharing facts and explaining them without ever making a claim.

I developed this example off the top of my head, so you will also see that as I analyze this statement, I poke holes in it and change my claim.

please always keep in mind the ever important "which means..." part of the claim. it cannot just be "[this] and [this] happened, which demonstrates [thing central to the media]." it also has to include your own extrapolation, which obviously needs to be supported by the media in any sound analysis, but cannot be presenting something basically innately true. even the thing that I presented as an example of analysis can fall flat, but I can strengthen it by emphasizing that jinx's love for isha also represents a love for her younger self, giving outside evidence or personal anecdotes to strengthen my claim along with what the show says.

by this definition, "silco and jinx's relationship is strong because silco was a parental figure to jinx" is just facts

"silco and jinx's relationship is strong because of the abandonment jinx felt from vi and vander, leaving silco to occupy a parental space" is better but still really just presenting facts

"silco and jinx's relationship was strong but built on a sense of abandonment and unfilfilled parental relationships. in order for jinx to have a stronger and more healed relationship, she needed someone like isha to exist." I could go further by saying "the show could not have had a resolved ending without a character like isha." with that, I've said something that is actually a claim instead of a fact and said something defensible, which allows me to actually create analysis rather than just listing facts.

the last line of my argument is especially subjective because I could mean lots of different things by "resolved." therein lies a word choice that actually allows me to create a defensible claim

TLDR; analysis is only fruitful when it provides an alternative perspective to emphasize its strengths and must avoid being a compilation of facts. a good way to think about it can be: [event] and [event] came together to demonstrate [fact], which led to [theory].

[made-of-wood]

alright, i got like five people who liked my post about the essay. so here's the ten page essay in apa format. enjoy!

[daisies-on-a-cup]

i don't necessarily think will is a good parent, but i don't think he's a bad one either. he's more just like an adult who is in charge of a child- one who can care for them and provide for them, but not exactly hold all the natural sense of paternity or love for that child. any love he felt for abigail was just garrot's love for her. his attachment to walter is very superficial, and there aren't any scenes given that indicate will actually feels anything... loving towards the boy. he takes care of molly and walter for sure- plays the role really well of provider, husband, and step-father. but he "plays" them. he's not really feeling any of it. i think will really wants to feel it, to have that kind of sure, emotional and loving attachment to a child like a parent should, but in the end, they aren't *his* kids and they come secondary to whatever attachment he had to the adult that was around him first. so, even though i think will certainly attempts to fulfill the role of good parent, it falls flat because he is merely playing at the role and isn't invested in it

[hihopelessromantics]

magical balance, anyone ?

another day of fixing Nakba's mistakes ! aka fleshing out the Themes where he didn't

I think each clan’s existence plays a role in maintaining the fabric of reality as it is, and manifesting the magic that exists. Absence or excess causes intense problems and threatens the world. 

As put by my pal @exrolotus!

Goddesses: life 

Demons: death 

Fairies: flora nature

Giants: fauna / tectonic nature 

Human: willpower 

Basic Diagram of Magical Balance

(you can barely see the goddess clan! Just like nakaba!)

The given reason for humanity becoming more magical and the overall magical health of Britannia declining is plot convenience. But this is what I think it should actually be going on there: 

The goddess clan and demon clan both generally exist at a greater distance from humanity compared to the giant and fairy clan, either in another dimension or other place (my mutuals propose, for instance, that the demon realm exists in either Japan or Ireland); this distance representing how they stand on equally powerful and opposite sides of a spectrum. It’s so clear how far apart they are, how clear at first glance the line is between what they represent. I propose that their link to the magical balance between them is more precarious than that between of the giants and fairies, and much more vital to the manifestation of magic itself.

As for the giants and fairies: their clans’ supernatural relationship is easier to understand in that they both have ties to nature. It’s a more tangible concept - how does the environment exist without the earth? Flora without fauna? And when do we ever see fairies and giants going toe-to-toe? 

We see the Giant and Fairy clans join with Diane and King’s marriage. I’m going to dig for meaning and propose that this restored a balance between them that was always meant to be. That, in the same way that Elizabeth and Meliodas met and bonded soul-to-soul, their souls’ union was able to restore an ancient and necessary balance to their own clans. Elizabeth and Meliodas brought the end to an eternal war. I’m gonna say that King and Diane brought an end to an unnatural silence. An absence of a relationship, to parallel the absence of a supernatural union between light and dark, life and death, which, arguably should coexist without a third force (supernatural racism, the goddesses’ genocide agenda, etc.) attempting to eliminate one from existence. 

Drole and Gloxinia’s relationship in canon has mysterious origins. A lot of us seem to be shipping them, and I don’t think they’re wrong from a narrative perspective. Remember the giants’ connection to the earth and the faries’ connection to nature. It makes sense that their clans should have some kind of relationship, instead of not interacting at all. Love between them, whether romantic or platonic, could represent the same thing. I hypothesize that fairies and giants were always close (not necessarily physically!) in ancient times until the Holy War, and upon seeing the devastation and unnecessary death they “split” in order to prevent history from repeating. An angst disagreement, or a solemn and silent withdrawal. Giants, continuing on as some of the greatest warriors in Britannia, overemphasizing it in the hope their strength will continue to protect them and bring them honor and courage. Fairies, isolating themselves from all other interactions, neglecting their warrior skills to the point where they become as they are in nnt, relying on their king to do everything for them and “discarding their honor” in terms of their powers. Unhealthy war, unhealthy peace. 

I propose that the rifts caused by the Holy War are what sapped the magic from Britannia. When the goddesses and demons lose the ability to interact with the world “in-between” them, the magic drains. Etc. Humans, the “odd one out,” adapted. For fun, I think there should be some natural disasters thrown into the mix every now and again, as well as other phenomena which I will describe later. What happens when the ropes on all four sides, holding together the supernatural balance of reality, snap? This whole thing is inspired somewhat by the idea that in a fantasy realm, there is one more sphere of health you have to keep track of. It’s physical health, mental health, and magical health. Neglect your mental health? Uh oh! Neglect your magical health? UH OH. I think that if you’re not in touch with yourself and your powers, well, there are consequences. And something like that on a larger scale is happening to Britannia with two (?) upset balances.  

Thoughts? :D

[weirdloverwilde]

ive seen several torchwood alternative timelines where owen manages to live and tosh doesnt - probably because owen could survive way easier by just escaping through the door on time. but i think this misses a fundamental underlying part of torchwood in that tosh could never die before owen. as long as she has him to hang on to she will not let herself die.

[slumberpartymakeouts]

david and max's relationship through (mostly) david's pov: a camp camp post.

🚨DISCLAIMER🚨 as i am writing this, i have not seen the new special, so if anything is incorrect or outdated as of that release, plz disregard it. also, im writing this a bit late, so ignore any grammar/spelling errors. this is also transferred from twitter, as well as a bit headcanon heavy.

i believe david sees a lot of how he was when he was maxs age in max. yknow, stubborn and frustrated. david has also mentioned (or atleast implied) he doesn't have a very good relationship with his father (him referring to campbell as "the father he never had"). but then, of course, younger david had found a solace in camp campbell and started to look up at cameron campbell. david looked to campbell as a father figure the same way that he hopes max looks up to him; the difference though, is that campbell didn't care about david, but david really cares about max.

of course, david finds out how cameron really feels, but he didn't let that ruin how he felt about camp. so, he tries to be what he wished campbell was for him, but for max, in hope that max doesn't let his parents ruin his entire outlook on the world. he wants max to know that just because some ppl are bad, doesnt mean everybody is, and that he doesn't have to be bad either. he doesn't want max to completely change himself, he just wants max to be happy, and he knows that he never will be if he is stuck with his parents; so he's willing to be patient, for everything to work out for him and max, to help him.

throught camp camp, we can see the parallels of david seeing campbell as a father for so long because he was the only adult man in his life and he seemed perfect in his naive child eyes, viewing him as an idol and putting him up on a pedestal despite campbell only seeing him as a pawn to get him out of ordeals, because he knows that david trusts and praises him in his mind and how he is able to use this to his advantage (literally just watch szn 3) due to how he has the opposite attitude towards david that david has towards him; he is completely deattatched from david and couldn't give less of a shit about him than he already does. vs. david wanting max to see him as a father figure and max still being somewhat scared of trusting him, because what if david doesnt actually care, and just wants him to be some pawn for whatever sick twisted game he's secretly planning, because he thinks that everything and everyone is a bad person or thing at their core, because that's all he's seen from his parents; why should he believe anything else? (ex. max thinking david was gonna kill him for leaving camp in szn 1 ep 8, him consistently telling david throughout the show, specifically szn 1)

parents day (szn 2 episode 12) had been a big factor in david and maxs relationship, specifically how they viewed eachother. throughout the episode, we see max being adamant about how he knows that neither of his parents are showing up. on the contrary, david is constantly assuring that they will show up, assuming that max is just being negative like usual. its important to note, that at thus point, david is blissfully unaware of how maxs parents/homelife is, which becomes a contributing factor to the building of this episode.

before david reads maxs papers, he blows up at max over his attitude, thinking that he was just trying to ruin this for david. but, after he reads his papers, he realizes that max was likely telling the truth due to his parents lack of effort put into the forms, that they really weren't going to show up and that max hadn't been trying to get in the way of his chance to impress campbell. max seems to attempt to be dismissive of the whole thing, acting like he didn't care, but when david sees him genuinely cry, he is finally able to understand max, which we see when they have their talk in the restaurant. he doesn't berate him over his reaction, like max had expected, but he sympathizes with him, telling him that it was valid for him to be upset about what his parents did to him. he doesn't epexct max to be super mature over the whole ordeal, because he recognizes that max was a child. he deserved to be cared for in a way that they hadn't provided for him. thats why david had tried so hard to get max to enjoy camp, because that's what helped him as a child, when he was like max. he understands that max wasn't a jaded cynical overlord, but a product of the environment that he grew up in. david wants what is best for him because it's what he wanted for himself at max's age.

tl,dr: david sees himself when he's younger and that's why he tries to make camp fun for him and be the person that max can look up to (like campbell USED to be for him), so he can find the same enjoyment in it that david did, because he just wants max to be happy.

[anonameisadditions]

So You Want To Write #2: The Roguish Type

It’s the 1930s in America, and the world is a dim, grimy place. Gone is the Jazz Age- with slick art deco, free-flowing illegal liquor from every speakeasy across the nation, and get-quick-rich schemes smothered under The Great Depression. The Great American Experiment seemed to be over- the rot in the once-great society (In the eyes of the vastly more empowered Caucasian men of the time) had become septic, and foul. The banks had shown themselves just as greedy and selfish as the average American, failing to properly plan for an economic bubble burst and ending up going insolvent within days of the economy crashing. The entire country would be placed out of work- the great boom of industry transformed into a sputtering, dying foghorn in the mist. It is no shock that in this era, our art would turn mistrustful, angsty, and depressed. And nowhere would this deep illness be reflected so cleanly as Film Noire.

These films- seedy, provocative crime films based around smoking, whiskey-swilling private dicks, and smoldering, vicious women would depict the dynamic of a dying society- a place where the police were rotten, the men weak, and the women hard. This is the environment we associate with the icon of the film noire- The private eye.

A “good” man, in a matter of phrase- for they always had some canny sense of right and wrong, a belief that their work was making life truer for someone. But, they’d be shaken- a dame, a woman worth trusting, beautiful and convincing, would lead them astray, tricking them into a deadly tango of treachery that would have them once again asking- Is it worth it to be good in a world that’s so bad?\

In steps The Man Who Knew Too Much.

“The Man Who Knew Too Much” is the common DNA of the modern rogue, in our modern conception of one. It stars Leslie Banks- a man known primarily for playing gruff, menacing bad guys across the pond at this point- and casts him as a leading man. He’s a brawler. He shoots first and asks questions later. He puts himself up against terrible odds- an entire criminal conspiracy to destabilize the political situation in London- and steps through with candor and charm, at each step along the way. He gets way too involved with a situation and ignores all rational advice given to him by the police- all because he trusts himself more than he trusts any institution.

And the audience EATS THIS UP

“The Man” becomes an instant classic, and Hitchcock begins to truly accue stateside appeal- and this only gets refined in his spy-fiction follow-ups, the best known being “North By Northwest.”

What’s the point of this brief history to the topic at hand- The Roguish Type, and how you want to write them? Everything. Because to write is to render fat from meat- it’s to understand how society changes a story as society adapts to it, to understand the underlying psychological underpinnings of motivation that makes an audience resonate with an archetype. And none is as misunderstood and spiritually confused as “The Rogue.” A scoundrel, A criminal, a scumsucking mouthbreeder who sits below the expectations of society- he flits from job to job, obliged to no one but himself- a modern cowboy, perhaps, but without an obligation to protect anyone but themselves. Within the rogue, however, lies an exceptionalist ideal we all wish we could live up to- the idea of innate goodness. 

Art from 2nd ed. Dungeons and Dragons, Kyle Punk and Tim Shepard

Prince Of Thieves

When we refer to “rogues”, the Jungian ideal in our world is drawn to the Tolkienesque, fantasy-focused interpretation of a rogue- a man bundled in leather, with a meaty look to him and a small, sleazy smile. He plays with knives, idly- using the point of his blade to clean out under his fingernails, suggesting a propensity for violence, and skill with a dagger. His eyes size you up and down, boldly, questioning whether a quick robbery could solve some problems that need solving, right, bub? 

But then we see him act. He joins our merry caravan, the rogue- this criminal outcast, this thief, this reject- and we see that he’s more than some petty criminal- he’s a self-styled robin hood, who won’t screw over people he likes, and will actively target those he doesn’t- but he' never given someone something they didn't have coming. He’s a self-styled anarchist- a true believer in individuality, who smiles and accepts the dog-eat-dog world of the undercity- and yet, this dog only eats a meal worth having. This “Robin Hood” didn’t need an education, a religion, a cause, or a care to be good to people- He only needed his wit. 

When Indiana Jones goes deep, deep, into the jungles of some tribal colony to steal their precious Incan gold relic, he does so to do… what? Sell it to a museum? He’s certainly making a buck off this. But, Jones is then contrasted to what a man like Beloq is- unprincipled.

A true asshole, willing to work with Nazi’s as long as they pay enough. He is quite rich from this-- His resources are plenty, his palette refined, his Jordan’s unsoiled. But then, as you see them interact, you realize that Jones and Beloq could not be more similar- The only thing stopping Indiana Jones from exceeding Beloq- no, what makes Beloq unable to win against Jones, with it’s final act, is the fact that Jones, despite his bad behavior and bad traits, still desires to be good. 

This is where I draw the core concept you must adhere to in “The Rogue”. Within our society, we have a strange relation to criminals. Our court system’s biggest inherent flaw- by design- is that ultimately, a jury of your peers will be the ones to convict you. We use this concept because we believe that a man must be considered a true criminal, a malintented traitor, worthy of punishment. This is why the jury must be convinced of the fairness of the charge to cast judgment on the offender, and why we don’t treat manslaughter and murder the same. Criminality is not inherently defined by breaking the law- it is defined by breaking the law for reasons that the state views as invalid.

Some say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the rogue presents a different hypothesis- that one can use the tools of evil and still be good, as long as they can keep their moral code intact. This places the rogue in the place of the outsider- a common character used to question societal norms with pluck, determination, and humor. 

Examples? Right. Examples.

Look, Your Worshipfulness, let’s get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me.

Han Solo occupies an interesting role in the first Star Wars film. He’s a smuggler who’s working under the boot of a powerful fascist army, driving a spaceship that’s widely considered one cherry vehicle, and shows a reluctance to get himself involved with the fleeing Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan. His introductory scene- the infamous “Han shot first” under-the-table pistol blast helps establish Han quite well as a rogue, using an unscrupulous and dishonorable trick to remove an obstacle in his path. But as Luke spends time with Han, so do we, and we start to realize there’s more going on in the heart of this smuggler than he lets on. He implies a background working with the resistance, several times through the film; He quickly bonds with Luke like a big brother. What’s most important for this roguish character, however, is the clash of sentimentality and practicality. Han Solo denies an opportunity to work with the rebellion to strike a major blow against the empire, in what is considered practically a suicide run. But, in the last moments of the film, while Luke is left to perform the trench run, alone, Han Solo comes back, with a quip and a cheery face; For the rogue, despite his dog-eat-dog psychology, sentimentalism and heart is why he lives to fight another day. 

"It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside."

If you thought for a fucking second i was going to use Benedico Cumshlupper or whatever, you have a lot to learn about me.

Hows this for a head teaser? It’s often easy to forget that Sherlock - the insufferable, upper-class advisor for all manner of criminal mystery - is, as accounted by the original short stories and novels, the roguish type. Consider- Sherlock seems to regard absolutely zero importance to the laws and rules of polite society, making an absolute terror to his landlord, doing large sums of illegal narcotics to stave off boredom, and generally treating the police as ineffectual at best and annoying, abusive bullies at worst.

Sherlock may be better off than the average rogue, but do not be mistaken- His interests, as selfish as they are, are still interested in helping his fellow man. Most Sherlock stories have Sherlock professing a lack of care towards the problems of “average people”, save for the mystery- yet most of his stories end with a brief segment of sentimentality, of Sherlock making right what was wrong often at personal expense, and recognizing the humanity in the poor souls who come to him, seeking his help. Sherlock utilizes both the concept of authority and breaks the law to bring justice and truth to people- despite his assurance of having nothing but self-interest in mind. 

"ARGH! The common language doesn't have enough swears!"

Chilchuck, from Dungeon Meshi allows us to explore this tendency further. Chilchuck fits our archetypical rogue- a highly skilled, vaguely illegal operator with a focus on the fine arts of thieving- mainly lockpicking, athletics, trap navigation, and other roguish skills. But while Chilchuck doesn’t typically encompass the criminal miscrent side of the rogue, he does showcase the other commonality between the last few examples- the eruption of sentimentality. Chilchuck constantly comments on how he shouldn’t even be working with the twins, and empathizes, again and again, that there is no possible way that he’s going to stick his neck out for his party beyond what he’s being paid to do. Yet, what does Chilchuck do every time the situation gets tough? He runs to danger. He only threatens to leave when he feels his concerns are unheard by Laius about the state of the adventure. Chilchuck can pretend all he wants that he doesn’t care about anyone but himself- but actions speak louder than words. 

Conclusion

The identity of the rogue is based in a rejection of the concept of nature vs nurture in a work of fiction. The Rogue, despite his background in skullduggery and criminality, showcases an intact moral compass that even the most polished wonderboy can recognize as a heart of gold. He exists in this environment to prop up an element of heroic fantasy- the belief of innate goodness, that one can utilize the powers of evil for the purpose of good and avoid letting it corrupt themselves too far. They work in contrast to other, more pure-of-heart characters to exemplify that circumstances don’t always make the man- and to let us, the audience know that we didn’t need to grow up a soft-eyed farm boy or be promised a great destiny to make a difference- only have our hearts in the right places and to do what we can to make evil lose. If you liked this blogpost, Give it a reblog and a like, and don't forget to follow me for more media analysis and creative endeavors. Below, you can vote on the focus of my next entry in "So You Want To Write" series.  

Yours Paradoxically, 

AN0N

[blackmageeljin]

Something I really appreciate in the Hazbin | Helluva verse is the like, etymology of the swearing. Like the conversational swearing is funny and relatable in general but there are so many good little details.

Like in helluva, where there's a lot more purely hellborn society, you get a lot of swears like 'Satan's taint'- satanic and demonic based swearing inspired by the Sins that are both rulers and low key divinity.

But the sinners and pride folk swear like how they did when they were alive. They still say 'oh my god!' and a weird mix of slang that is a weird hangover from what they said when they were alive and what is currently popular. Regardless of the revelation of the true nature of heaven and hell and divinity. Some people like Cherri make jokes like 'when your double dead' acknowledging their reality but most of the swearing remains a product of colloquialism. Which is very realistic bc as a pagan I mostly curse and swear in terms of 'oh my God' and 'what the actual hell' and other things that don't necessarily line up with my beliefs because from a linguistic standpoint that is what gets my point across the best. The way people talk is very much a product of social circles rather than realism and literalness.

And then there is Lucifer, who is a bonafide Archangel, who swears like he was raised by conservative Catholics (which I mean... You know.) he doesn't really draw attention to God being his dad (not that I don't enjoy those jokes in fics or it won't happen when he has a bigger screentime ratio), but he says stuff like 'by god, Charlie!' and 'what in the unholy hell!?' that realistically make absolute 0 sense for him in a literal sense, but is so reflective of his obvious urge to just adopt colloquialisms and slang to try and fit in and adapt (see: I am going to fuck you!). He is not actually swearing by God, he is saying it for comedic and dramatic effect and because that's how the Sinners These Days talk and he thinks it sounds snazzy. It fills me with so much joy.

Adam swears like a Fratboy because the entire Fratboy person is based on tying to get people to perceive you as a Cool Dudebro for Clout. Charlie swears like a sinner because that's who she spends time with. So on and so forth.

Anyway 1000/10 amazing writing.

[rrainbowrose]

Something Interesting About Snoopy

I've been thinking about Snoopy, and I’ve thought about something interesting about him.

In the first year or two of the Peanuts comic strip, Snoopy was actually a fairly normal dog at first. But around 1954 onward his character changed to him performing fantasies and not wanting to just be a normal dog, albeit they started off as Snoopy pretending to be other animals or other people only, until later evolving into more crazy ones like pretending to be a WW1 Flying Ace, Joe Cool, FlashBeagle, etc.

But what’s really interesting in some of these 50s strips, is that there are multiple strips I’ve seen that show Snoopy actually hating to be a dog.

Even though later on Snoopy can be proud to be a dog, there are actually multiple strips where he used to be really sad/self-loathing of being a dog and even wishes he wasn’t one (There was even one where he thought “If I was a human being I wouldn’t even own a dog!”).

Now think about how later on the strip reveals that Snoopy used to have a previous owner named Lila. Lila and Snoopy really loved each other, he was so heartbroken when she had to leave. It was too much for him to see Lila again when she came to visit, he raced as fast as he could to the hospital to see her, and he burst to tears in Snoopy Come Home.

But if you think about it, when Snoopy was with Lila, he acted completely like a normal dog with her? Aside from playing instruments in a band as a puppy, when he was with Lila he acted completely like a normal dog, even happily playing normal dog games such as playing fetch (While Snoopy later on almost always refuses to play fetch with anyone).

In fact Snoopy only started to refuse to do things like a normal dog like doing dog commands incorrectly, walking on two feet all the time, sleeping on top of his doghouse instead of in it, etc., was right after CB adopted him.

And I know it was different in the strip, but in the the special Snoopy’s Reunion it was stated that Lila had to give up Snoopy back to the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm because no dogs were allowed in her apartment.

It’s possible that Snoopy was so heart broken being left by Lila, along with other things (Other strips show Snoopy struggling/hating the fact that he had to be separated from his family in the first place, getting kicked out of places that have no dogs allowed too, and more stuff like that), so he could have internalized hating to be just a dog, and so that's how he started to become the dog that refuse to be an ordinary beagle we all know and love.

[your-local-uwu-artist]

found this in one of my docs??????????

[fangirlwriting-stories]

Yayyy more Avatar Meta! I'm thinking about leitmotifs!

So I watched that Sideways YouTube video on the music in Avatar, and how the show's leitmotifs are used more for conflicts and themes other than characters, and it got me thinking about that music from the finale. The big, sweeping, triumphant music after Aang finally defeats Ozai, that is. This music.

For anyone who doesn't know, here's my very much not expert knowledge on what a leitmotif is: it's a short bit of music paired with a story element of some kind, that you repeat at appropriate moments.

Now, if we're talking ideal, absolutely perfect scenario for Avatar's music (which, watch the Sideways video if you want to know why that wasn't really possible), this leitmotif would be great to use repeatedly throughout the show, in order to build a relationship with it and have it hit that much harder every time it's heard, especially in the finale. And the showrunners seemed to realize it's really good! Because this music is repeated, though slightly differently for a different Avatar, at key moments throughout The Legend of Korra. For example. They knew they'd written a really powerful bit of triumph music there.

So, if we're looking at other places to put this leitmotif throughout Avatar, it needs an identity. I'm thinking one that fits it, and that fits good for the other ideas I have in mind, is "This is the way things should be." This would be the leitmotif that plays when things go right in a way that the characters have been working for, or a way that fits the overarching narrative of the show. So, if that's it's identity, how about places to put it?

I can think of only one other place in the show where it should be played at full power and triumph, the way it is in the finale, and that's in season 2 when the Gaang is reunited with Appa. Specifically, the theme should be played right here. I have no editing skills, just picture that with the finale music.

But two times does not make for a fully utilized leitmotif, and there are other ways to use it that can make it more effective overall, as well as more complex and nuanced. I think it would be really interesting to play a minor key version after Zuko lets Appa go, right around here. And maybe a similar minor key one during the Blue Spirit episode, after he firebends at Aang and scares him off.

And there are definitely quite a few places where it can be used in a softer, more subdued way, closer to how it sounds right here. It can even be used for the first time in the first episode, as a background sound when Sokka agreees to go with Katara to find Aang and says "Are you gonna talk all day, or are you coming with me?" (Which I can't find a link for, sorry.) I'm also thinking probably a similar one when Toph joins the group, though she'll probably need her own variation on it that's a little more "Toph." It should definitely be played when the Gaang (at least mostly) accepts Zuko into the group as Aang's firebending teacher, probably the first time we should hear it in major key for him.

And of course all the placements in the finale stay right where they're at. Knowing how leitmotifs tend to affect me if they're meant to evoke emotion, if it was all set up this way, and I heard that huge triumphant leitmotif in the final battle, there would have been tears from me. Heck, I might have cried every time it showed up in the finale.

But mostly, this is just an idea I've been thinking about for way too long, and wanted to put out there in some way shape or form, even if I don't have the editing skills to actually put the music in the scenes. Anyway, if anyone else has thoughts on where it might fit, or if you want to argue with me about my placements, feel free! This is far from comprehensive, I'd love to hear other people's thoughts!

[rainbowpiss34]

okay i may or may not have made one for krupp specifically......... lmk if theres anything innacurate lol

also @that-weirdmango2 here!! incase you'd be interested!!

i can talk about captain underpants for HOURS and especially about erica wang, melvin sneedly or george and harold, but ill only do it if ppl want me too 😅

ive yapped about captain underpants on twitter so much i forget to do it here haha

made this for fun while rewatching the captain underpants movie lol

[peacekeeperangel]

The Cards! The Cards! a CRK anaylsis

Alright! Thanks to RoyalMike on Youtube I got the scene I wanted in regards to the Tarot cards used! Let's much on some Worldbuilding! Also keep in mind I am not into Tarot and am purely going into this for the writing being pulled off by Devsis. If I misinterpret things this is a Blind woman not even being led, I'm just stumbling along here. ***WARNING FOR SPOILERS FOR CRK BEAST-YEAST CHAPTER 8! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK*****

Okay let's start with Pure Vanilla- Excuse me- The Truthless Recluse's Card Draw

Oookay if I'm reading this right, that's the Hanged Man- Woman in this case, (poor Strawberry Cookie) and then The Fool and The Hermit in Reverse EDIT: Wizard could also be The Magician, which would make sense so I'm going to include this interpresation just to be thorough. The Hermit Reverse: You've withdrawn from your loved ones in a harmful way OR The Magician Reverse: Confusion, Deceit, Ill intentions The Fool Reverse: Recklessness and a new beginning that borders on irrational. The Hanged (Wo)man: Discernment, Trials, Sacrifice. Huh. Surprisingly straightforward. Pure Vanilla has withdrawn from the Kids to his detriment and is currently playing games with a sciopathic ancient demi-god. Sounds pretty reckless to me! and the trials he goes through in this chapter leads to his Eventuala Ascention. Okay so let's move onto the other Cards the ones Shadow Milk drew for himself.

I'm pretty sure these are The Devil, Death and The Angel. All upward facing so that makes my job easier. Let's see. EDIT: Once again there's also a potential that the Angel could also be Judgement, so again adding this in for thoroughness. The Devil: Temptation no surprise there.... Hm. This is interesting. Living in Fear and Bondage? For being such a Jolly cookie having this interpretation is VERY interesting. It could be referring to his time being a Sealed Evil in a Can but it leads me to wonder. Death: The end of a relationship and the end of an unfulling career. For men specifically it can also mean the loss of a benefactor. The Angel: guidance with greater awareness and peace of mind, encouraging personal growth. OR Judgement: New Beginnings. I think the most interesting things we can interpret here is is that Shadow Milk Cookie might not be as happy as he appears being the Beast of Deceit. I complained a little awhile ago that I rather not the beasts or specifically Shadow Milk Cookie not go through a redemption arc but is it possibly written in the cards? Either way Shadow Milk Cookie didn't seem too keen on it since he immediately changed his cards (with this minions' help) to this:

I'm pretty sure that that's The Wheel of Fortune, The Emperor, and The Empress The Wheel: A change in Status The Emperor: Stability in life The Empress: Creation This sounds like another lie, only this time it's for Shadow Milk himself. - From Prisoner to Lord of a Tower, everything's going to be ok and good and make new things happen? the Emperor and Emrpess together also calls for collaboration, like maybe getting Pure Vanilla into the whole Evil Rule the world Muwahaha-thing. It turned out to be a lot more straightforward than I thought, but Shadow Milk Cookie's Tarot Reading is going to have the Fanfiction author's slavering I'm sure. Especially with the fact I note, the other Beasts at this point in time haven't said a word about each other but Shadow Milk referred to them all as Friends. If that were the case why haven't they tried to re-connect like the Ancients did?

That Devil card is going to leave me wondering for a good long while...