#and I think there is a lot of nuance to be found there

[beauty-and-passion]

This is going to sound really strange but the most recent GRWM video has. Some of the best Janus characterisation I think we’ve seen in a while?? Also he canonically sheds now, so

You are not wrong, anon: this is the best characterization in a while. It's way better than the last one, in which Janus was mostly a drunk idiot, and it's way worse than SvS. This one sits in the middle: it's not bad, it's not amazing. It's good.

Just like Mr. Sanders' last videos regarding Sanders Sides, this GRWM is okay. Not groundbreaking, not impressive, not deep, not stupid. Just okay.

And trust me, this is the best possible outcome! When I found out Thomas was planning a video with Janus and it was a GRWM and Janus had questions to answer... I wasn't just scared, oh no. I was absolutely terrified. I feared to see the destruction of Janus' character. I feared to see him being all like: "YASSS QUEEN all I love is WINE and nothing else, also being SASSY is my religion BIATCH".

And we got a bit of that, sure. But it was a bit, not the avalanche I expected. I was bearable.

After all, this is just a random video. There's nothing plot-related here. Heck, there's not even too much Sanders Sides stuff, because this GRWM clearly was Thomas' attempts to reconnect with the character. I shouldn't care too much about it. I shouldn't overanalyze it.

But you know me: you know I love to over-analyze. And if you know me, you also know that Remus is my favorite child, but Janus has a special place in my heart and if one little thing about him is off I will start rambling.

Hence why I will overanalyze the shit out of these 9 minutes of a video and I will do what I shouldn't do, i.e. look back into the past's characterization. Not for shaming Mr. Sanders for not remembering it (even if the videos still exist and he can watch them too if he wants), but to remind you all of Janus' personality. The public needs to remember what kind of character he was and who he became.

So I'll over-analyze everything and no, you can't escape. You're stuck with me here, so put your seatbelt on, because you're in for one of the things I love the most: talking about Janus.

The importance of nuance

Let's talk about make-up a little bit. Don't worry, by the end you will understand my point.

The current make-up isn't even comparable to the past one. And if a lot of people complain about it and prefer the old one, it's not because they're all demanding: it's because of nuances.

Let me explain and let's start with the current photo Mr. Sanders showed to promote the GRWM video:

If you look at this make-up, your eyes will inevitably be drawn towards that sharp black line. And as soon as you will look at it, you will immediately register it as a drawn line.

It's so clear and so evident it's a line, I can literally see the black liquid eyeliner, the tip and the hand tracing that line on Thomas' skin.

But this line isn't supposed to be a line: it's supposed to be/resemble a snake's mouth.

Now, look at the past make-up:

The line isn't sharp black: the line is nuanced. You can see a bit of brown and a hint of red/pink to give it depth and emphasize the shadow.

Also, this color is very similar to the little shadow given by Thomas' upper lip on the lower one, so it looks more natural against his skin tone. It doesn't seem like something added on him, but on something that was already part of him. And isn't that the goal of make-up? To add something and disappear, so people won't notice it exists in the first place?

Look at the eye as well: the past one is a softer, more nuanced pink. It looks more natural, against Thomas' skin tone. The present one is so dark, it looks more like a bad bruise.

So the problem with the current make-up isn't just that the colors aren't the same: it's that the current colors are too much. They're too sharp, too saturated and, consequently, too fake. It's clear that Thomas wears make-up, while in the past the blend was softer, the colors closer to Thomas' actual complexion. Consequently, the make-up faded and gave us an illusion of reality.

I know Mr. Sanders had skin conditions and everything, but I'm talking about colors and nuances here. Two things a make-up artist should know better than me, an idiot on the Internet who loves art, color theory and learns from artists on the web. You can obtain these things independently of the used products.

So my opinion on the make-up would be: please Mr. Sanders, switch for softer tones, no sharp black and no coral. Too much. Nuance is the key.

And not just for make-up.

---

The fakeness of reality tv

Janus enjoys reality television because nothing about it is real. His specific words are:

I very much enjoy reality television: the scheming, the plotting, the lying. Every person for himself and even on top of that, all of the production none of reality television is actually real. It's just delightful.

I get the idea behind it and I understand why Thomas thought it was a good choice. On paper, it works: Janus should enjoy this kind of show because it's made of lies and he's Deceit.

But if I follow this line of thought, I inevitably meet with Janus from Into the Unknown:

[Patton]: Well yeah I guess you'd like it, everyone all dressed up, disguised as someone else... [Janus]: How is it we've had so many of these visits and you still know so little about me?

Janus himself said that not everything associated with lies is something he enjoys. And it makes sense, because Logan too said the same thing in the last Aside:

"Is that all I am to you? The reading guy?"

So now I'm asking: why does he like reality tv? Just because it's fake? Then why is he so happy about it being fake? Reality tv should represent reality, it should mirror how society works. And thanks to SvS, we know Janus doesn't hold society into high consideration:

[Deceit]: Society itself is a lie! (...) You get enough people to share a piece of land and breathe the same air and... you've got a society. Why? It's just a bunch of people in the same general area. It's an abstract concept, as real as the monster under your bed! But we obey these rules or get punished for breaking them. All in the name of society. It's absurd and terrifying.

Just like society, reality tv has a group of people put together and they make a society. It's an abstract concept, as real as the monster under your bed. And these people must obey the rules or get punished for breaking them.

And yet, Janus doesn't think reality tv is "absurd and terrifying", but "delightful".

Again: why does he like it? Why does he like something so similar to what he hates most?

Maybe you can live with the "It's fake" explanation and that's good for you. But what if instead of liking reality tv because "it's fake", Janus likes it, because it perfectly mirrors the flaws and the emptiness of society? What if he enjoys it, because he loves the irony of society using its own means to unmask itself and show its real face? What if he watches it, not because "it's delightful", but because it's bittersweet to see such an inability to understand your own flaws?

Which explanation do you think is more fitting for his character?

---

Remus eats glue sticks

Of course he does. His digestive system is probably able to digest molten lava, so glue sticks are a walk in the park for him, bless his chaotic soul <3

(Have I already said Remus is my favorite boi?)

---

The possibilities of shedding

Okay, the "Have you considered not having pores?" is hilarious and I love it on multiple levels.

Well, here we are. Janus sheds, two to four times a year. And I know the fandom went crazy over this and I'm happy for you... but I never really cared too much about it.

I mean: it's fine, but I can't really think of anything truly special to headcanon about it. Snakes shed their skin all the time and they just chill around, while slowly peeling their skin off. It's not dangerous, it doesn't hurt, it's just exfoliation time✨. I mean, does it hurt you, when you remove sunburnt skin? Don't think so. The worst thing for snakes is probably not being able to take the skin off with hands, since they don't have hands.

But hey, this is canon now, so I should probably integrate it in my headcanon. And I can do it in two different ways:

The shedding is just part of Janus' routine: twice a year he gets one day off, takes a reeeeally long bath and slowly peels off his skin until he's done.

I can take inspiration from this fanart and imagine the shedding as a real "leaving your body behind" process, in which Janus slowly gets submerged into his room and re-emerges as a form of pure power and instincts, which then solidifies into a new body. I think I like this idea more, because when I go with Janus, I need something that makes him look either more god-like or more monster-like.

And since we're talking about snake traits, how many more does he have? Because I already added a few on my list, like:

sunbathing

climbing trees

laying everywhere (especially on trees)

taking long relaxing baths

And I'm just waiting for an excuse to add "mating". But I suppose only future will tell.

---

What you don't like

"An important aspect of being oneself, in addition to knowing what you like, is knowing what you don't like and saying to that thing: ew get away from me, I don't like you... Roman"

Okay, that was genuinely funny and it made me smile, so kudos for that, Mr. Sanders. It was a clever move and I enjoyed it.

Also, for more reasons I will explain further down, this makes me want to write a conversation between Janus and Roman, to study how they work together, why they don't like each other and their personalities in general. My only problem would be to put it on a timeline, because I don't like to write things suspended in a temporal vacuum. If inspiration strikes, maybe I'll do it.

---

Religion... and self-preservation

Now, I don't know who made that question about Jesus Christ, but you. You. You gave me real fear... but also indirectly confirmed one of my headcanons, so thank you, I suppose.

I was bracing myself, waiting and hoping Thomas didn't say anything stupid, because Janus and religion have a super tight bond and one misstep can lead to me rambling for the rest of my life, all while throwing canon into the trash because no one can say anything wrong about the relationship Janus has with religion, not even Mr. Sanders.

But the answer was... okay. Harmless. A bit simplistic, maybe, but I can accept Janus saying that Jesus is cool for having followers and turning water into wine.

What really struck me the most was when he said Jesus is his style because "he refuses to die".

For me, that's the most important part of the video. You can take away everything else, because this is the only part that matters for me.

Why? Because this is the essence of self-preservation. Because, as I said in the past, self-preservation is that force that protects you from dangers, threats, even yourself. And it protects you from death. It's part of that intrinsic will to live that defines all living creatures.

So, since Janus encompasses this role too, it has always been implied (at least for me) that he's that force that will fight against death until the end, just to make Thomas live a little longer. In my headcanon, he literally refuses to think Thomas can die before his time, because he's built to not make this happen.

Hence why when I saw Janus putting such emphasis on the idea that Jesus refuses to die made me immensely happy, because it's (implied) canon. Janus refuses to die, because he will never surrender to death. Because it's his nature, to never surrender to it.

---

Deceit or Ego?

The snake telepathy part was fun when mentioned, then it was followed by the "memememe I'm gorgeous" part, which is perfect if you're the representation of Ego, a bit less if you're deceit.

Speaking of that, I think there's a bit of confusion in Thomas' mind regarding these two aspects. And since they're represented by two different Sides, the contrast is even more jarring.

Janus is confident and this is part of his personality. But confidence isn't repeating "me" in your head 400 times and telling yourself that you're gorgeous and handsome even when sitting still. This isn't confidence, this is Ego. This is something Roman could say to himself... and he did it, in the past. He looked at himself all the time, called himself gorgeous, asked if his makeup was okay because the prince's gonna slay, said he dramatically serenaded himself in front of the mirror. All these things are a constant reconfirmation of yourself and this is what the Ego does: it constantly reconfirms you're great and cool and gorgeous.

Confidence, on the other hand, doesn't need constant confirmations. If you're confident, you already know you're great, you don't need to repeat it yourself. You just do your things and if others criticize you, you shrug their reprimands off.

One example of confidence from this video? This part:

"What are my guilty pleasures?" Guilty pleasures? Why would a pleasure be guilty? I've got none of those. Indulge in your pleasures guilt-free, people: life is short.

This proves Janus is confident, WAY MORE than him repeating how cool he is. This is the tone he should've had for most of the video, not that "Oh, look at how cool I am".

Also because it may seem a paradox, but the more you repeat how cool you are, the less people will believe you. That's why people who constantly show off are perceived as weak and insecure: because they search for a constant reconfirmation they would probably never need, if they were truly confident.

---

All of the selfcare - and what else?

Aside from the things I already mentioned, the rest of the video is mostly made of advice like "your opinion is the only one that matters/others are less than you/don't give a shit about others".

I don't know if this is Mr. Sanders making a reminder to himself to not indulge in criticism too much, but okay, let's ignore it XD

These pieces of advice can all be traced back to another aspect of Janus' personality: the self-care one. The last canonical one.

And since it's the last, I can understand why Thomas latched onto it and made it be like 60% of the video. It's probably the part of Janus' character he remembers the most.

And it's the easiest too, along with the "sassy" aspect. Put them together and you get the sassy queen who tells you to relax dear, don't give a fuck about the rest of the world.

So I understand you, anon, when you say this is the best characterization in a while: it is, because it's based on the last canonical piece of Janus' character, mixed with the "sassy" aspect that developed more recently. Of course it seems more coherent with Janus' character, compared to him being drunk for an entire video.

But even if canonical, self-care is just an aspect of Janus' personality and it makes most of the video. The remaining part is a huge amount of Ego, which shouldn't even be here, because it's Roman's trait.

And the other aspects? Nowhere to be seen. No distaste for society, no cryptic language, no wittiness, barely any lie, barely any real confidence, barely any body language and zero foreseeing ability.

I know what you're thinking and yes, I said at the beginning that this video is clearly just a way for Mr. Sanders to reconnect with the character. So I understand why Janus' personality is like that and that there are mistakes or incomplete things. I am not blaming Thomas for trying.

I am writing this post, to remind you Janus' full personality. To remind you that he's not just "sassy wine aunt/self-care queen".

On the contrary, I think present Janus is exactly like his make-up: the traits are similar to the original one, but the aspects are too sharp. They should be here, they are part of him, but they're not in the exact shade or nuance to be him. They are similar, but off, because something is missing. And that something is nuance.

In the end, that's what this post is all about: nuance. Past Janus was more nuanced, because he was more than one aspect. Present Janus is less nuanced, because he's stuck between two aspects - which is a truly cruel irony, considering his entire thing is being a gray, multifaceted character.

My only hope is that, just like with the make-up, Mr. Sanders will find a way to bring nuances back into Janus' character and make him at least similar to who he used to be.

[ryuichirou]

I wanna start with I love your blog sm and I’m not trying to jump on the train, in fact I don’t even mind if you just read this and don’t post or even just delete after you read, but I know where the “Rook gaslighter” thing comes from and wanted to explain (I also just LOVE talking about rook even if its negative). Im not explaining to change your mind but rather to inform!! Because I love spending hours analyzing the characters, pls don’t stop drawing rook!! Ever!!

ANYWAYS now that “please don’t hate me I have to uncontrollably explain everything about my favorite character(s) the second someone doesn’t know about one small detail 😭” is over, I will explain! During Vil’s lab wear vignette, Rook asks Vil when he’s going to start his new diet. Vil, confused, is like what??? Tf?? And rook is like “yeah :D you have put on 3 pounds exactly :)”. Vil is lowkey like wtf Rook I haven’t noticed shit and rook is like “okayyy but who do you believe? Me or literally anyone else?” And vil is like “yeah you’re right, I’ll adjust my diet, thank you rook”.

The ‘issue’ with the “rook is a gaslighter” is it’s SOLELY a fandom thing (and maybe with other characters, but still, like. Vil is a world class model he CANT put on weight like a normal person could because it’ll unfortunately affect his career. The beauty world is just like that, irl too. Plus, this is something he wants for himself, even if he admits to hating the diets during his overblot, it’s still a part of who he is). Vil, himself, views rook’s behavior as a helpful thing, he appreciates Rook’s supernaturally keen eye! He might be offended but ultimately he would not have Rook as his vice-prez if he didn’t respect or admire Rook in some way.

I adore the way you draw them together!! The one where vil is like “how dare you! Just because he’s strange doesn’t mean he’s like that!” And rook is behind him with blood on his face, he’s so cute! I recently found another blog that is similar to yours that I also wanted to see if you knew bc they draw rook out the same way you do! @/fadiesismin is so cool and I think you’d love their artwork!!! Also I’m very sorry for the long-winded ask, in my defense, I’m also a Sagittarius. Rook 🫶 Me, xoxoxoxoxo!!

Sagittarius Anon! I’m sorry it took this long to reply.

First of all, thank you for enjoying our stuff and for your support! I am very happy that you like the way we portray RookVil. Their relationship is very interesting and honestly quite nuanced; we don’t usually gravitate towards ships that have this strong of a “they’ve been dating for a while” vibe, but these two are just too charming. Probably because despite them deeply understanding each other and sharing a lot of values and passions, they really aren’t a perfect couple, and we get to see it in moments like the vignette you’ve mentioned, or Rook’s lab wear vignette, or on multiple other occasions. Rook isn’t the perfect boyfriend, in fact, he is quite a menace sometimes without really meaning harm (still, he technically made Vil cry at least once); but there also isn’t another person that would get Vil as deeply as Rook does and support him as well as Rook does. What they have is special, but isn’t perfect at all.

As you already know, we also love talking about characters a lot, so I even though I am late with this reply, I am happy to have an opportunity to talk about these two and Rook specifically. So thank you for sending this ask and waiting!

I’ve seen this vignette being used as an example of Rook being gaslighting/manipulative before, and to be honest, I don’t really get this argument. I understand that the reasoning is usually that Rook sounds similar to a man that lies to his girlfriend about her being fat because he wants her to be even skinnier or just to be an asshole about it, but here is the thing: this isn’t what Rook is doing though. Gaslighter always has ulterior motive behind their manipulations, even if it’s just to mess with someone else’s head for fun or to control this person. But with Rook (both in this vignette and in general), what you see is what you get: the man is brutally honest, sometimes even too honest. Vil himself is very aware of that and has mentioned it multiple times.

It’s just like you said! Vil never lets anyone forget that his looks are important to him (both because of his own standards and because he is a model), so of course Rook would comment on something that he noticed. This is the foundation of their relationship: Rook gives Vil his feedback because Rook sees things that other people don’t. Does it mean that this feedback is always 100% necessary and Vil should change things according to how Rook critiques him? Of course not. Maybe sometimes it would be better for Vil to just take it easy and relax instead of perfecting every single thing, but this isn’t what Vil wants for himself: he doesn’t want to be pampered, he wants to be appreciated for his hard work. Rook enables Vil’s perfectionism, but don’t forget that Rook is that force in Vil’s life that doesn’t let him forget what he is doing all that for (I’ve talked about Rook being protective of Vil’s “beauty” = love for art here). Vil having a toned body is something that Rook enjoys, but this is mainly something that Vil wants himself; I kind of think that as long as Vil’s passionate and unapologetic about things that he does, Rook would find beauty in him no matter how he looks. Remember him at the end of ch6 after Vil’s grandpafication? Yeah exactly.

Alright, I digress. The point I am trying to make is that Rook is very direct with Vil, sometimes even too direct, and this is the opposite of gaslighting. Even when he suggests things “lightly”, he is still upfront about them: he doesn’t try to plant any ideas in Vil’s head.

Rook sounds and acts like a jerk sometimes, but he means well, and it’s not an excuse, just a fact. In Rook’s head, Vil always takes his direct remarks and observations very well, what’s so different this time? Even if you’ve been with someone for years, fuckups are unavoidable, especially for someone who has problems with tact.

To reiterate: could this scene be triggering or upsetting? Absolutely. Are there people who comment on other’s weight to make them insecure or make them doubt themselves? Absolutely. Is this what Rook does? Absolutely not. It just isn’t true to his character: he wouldn’t gain anything if Vil started doubting himself, in fact, he would have hated it. He doesn’t want Vil to be insecure or unsure, this is literally what he confronted him about at the end of Ch5. He also doesn’t need to do anything for Vil to trust him more than others: Vil already does. When he was saying that he knew better than anyone or anything else, he stated the truth, and this is what so fucked up about Rook: he really does know better.

It’s very important to remember that these characters have their own circumstances and their own writing, and we are fucking blessed to have a cast of characters this interesting and complex.

By the way, I am saying all of this as someone who wouldn’t mind Rook being a gaslighter and could see fanon scenarios where it could work, but those need to be very well-written not to ruin his character, because honesty is an integral part of Rook Hunt. For better or worse.

Also, I know you haven’t mentioned Jade, Anon, but since this entire discussion started with comparing the two, I wanted to note that Jade’s Dorm Uniform vignette exists. Vil literally looked at him man and decided not to trust him for one moment, even scolded Rook for even humouring the idea that Jade was telling the truth. And this is just one instance; we are constantly being reminded by everyone in cast about the fact that Jade is shady and we shouldn’t take seriously the majority of things that he says (pretty much verbatim to what Floyd said about him in the Playful Land event). Jade doesn’t care about honesty, he doesn’t care about lying either: all he cares about is what to say to make the others react in the most interesting way possible. He loves messing with people, and the world is his playground….

(I am also pretty sure that he comments on Azul’s diet; this has nothing to do with gaslighting either, just thought I’d mention that since we’re talking about this)

Anyways, thank you again for your ask, Anon! I hope this wasn’t an exhausting read. I always feel like I haven’t said everything that I wanted to say, but fortunately I still have tons of replies to write, so I’ll have my chance..! Probably.

PS. @/fadiesismin’s works are very good!!

[asteria-argo]

are we going to see more of beard being a weird wise wizard, that poor pumpkin pie jamie cannot understand for the life of him but ultimately excepts and also (mostly) appreciates the small gestures and kind (kind of) things he does?

i could have just read the one scene of him last chapter utterly wrong in TATBP but i’m kind of hooked on the fact that beard is secretly a better person than everyone else.

(TAKE NATES RETURN FOR EXAMPLE!!! he acknowledged the hurt nate caused to the team especially colin and his bff for lifer theodore and held his own, it pisses me off that he doesn’t get the acknowledgment and recognition he deserves in life. like this man is a #lover AND a #fighter idec i love him)

this actually ended up just being a love letter to beard and a general rant (i could go on about nate’s return for dayssss especially in comparison to jamie but dear lord don’t get me started on that.) so my apologies PAHA

I don't know about weird wise wizard or Jamie being a poor pumpkin pie seeing as he's a 28 year old man with a house and a job and a mortgage in tatbp, but I do plan on Beard being a voice of reason among the coaches.

Ted and Roy both have very strong reactions to meeting Jamie again, while Beard while not unbias himself has a bit more distance from it all just from a personal stand point, so he gets to chime in when people are being unfair.

A fun thing about tatbp is that character development for almost everybody has occurred over the last five years between Jamie quitting and the events of the story, which extends beyond the show as well because the show only spans around three years and with characters like Beard I get to show case it through how they respond to situations in pretty subtle ways.

In canon, especially in season one, it's pretty rare for Beard to speak out against Ted's decisions despite the fact Beard's opinion is something that Ted holds in high regard and will listen too, even when they have very obvious differing opinions.

I've got my personal headcanons about Beards almost blind loyalty to Ted and how I think that affects his self worth taking their history with each other into account, and I like to think that over the last five years, he's grown a lot from that and is more willing to speak out when Ted is going a bit overboard or approaching things in a way that Beard doesn't agree with since in my mind after five years, they are very firmly partners who are equals, not the main character and quirky sidekick.

what can I say, I like it when characters grow in nuanced and sometimes subtle ways, and Beard is not an exception!

[landwriter]

dead boy detectives is a show whose shortcomings and strengths make total sense when you think of it as a comic on tv, ie terribly goofy expository dialogue that sounds way better when you picture it in comic book font with every other word bolded, panel-paced conversation as our heroes figure out something very obvious, fun enormous monster set pieces that used up all the cgi budget which is why all the rooftop shots look Like That, incredible snap zooms and smash cuts in montages that hit exactly like comic panels, and side characters with bland or brilliant characterization that seems to hinge on the metric of ‘how much cunt did the actor put into their line readings’

[blueskittlesart]

any thoughts on how once again zelda was robbed of her agency because her "father figure" didn't listen to her? even if rauru was kinder to her than her father. and that she had sonia who was patient and loving for a little while before she died (just like her mother). i know rauru apologizes for his hubris but still, i wish we saw zelda be upset about it. and even if zelda was such a big part of the quest she still literally sacrificed her humanity once again because of someone else's mistake- because rauru literally didn't listen to the girl from the future that warned you that shit was going to go down. o know nintendo just loves putting zelda inside crystals and stones but i wish we got something better. even if it was her decision to become a dragon... did she have any other choice? it really just feels like they robbed her of agency again just like botw and the games before

i've been trying to figure out how to answer this one. because there are two ways i could analyze this plot point, either from a writer's perspective or an in-story perspective, but neither of those lead to me fully agreeing with your interpretation? I think there's definitely something to be said about zelda consistently being pushed aside in these games, but. well. ok let's get into it ig

from a writer's perspective, I do honestly have quite a bit of sympathy for the zelda devs as they attempt to navigate the modern political landscape with these games. The cyclical lore, though canonized relatively recently, holds them to a standard of consistency in their games in terms of certain key elements. one of those key elements is that there has to be a princess, and that princess must somehow be the main macguffin of the game. The player must chase her, and the end goal of the game must be to reunite the player and the princess. In 1986 this was an incredibly easy sell. women didn't need to be characters. players were content with saving a 2-dimensional princess whose only purpose was to tell them "good job!" at the end. but as society advances, that princess becomes a much more difficult character to write while adhering to the established overarching canon. (as a side note: i don't necessarily believe that the writers SHOULD be held to the standards of that canon. I think deviating from it in certain areas would be a good change of pace. but i also recognize that deviations from the formula are widely hated by the loz playerbase and that they're trying to make money off these games, so we're working under the established rule that the formula must be at least loosely adhered to.) Modern fans want a princess who is a person, who has agency and makes decisions and struggles in the same way the hero does. but modern fans ALSO want a game that follows the established rules of the canon. so we need a princess who is a real character but who can ALSO serve as a macguffin within the narrative, something that is inherently somewhat objectifying.

the two games that i think do the best job writing a princess with agency are skyward sword and botw (based on your ask, our opinions differ there lol. hear me out) in both games, we have a framing event which seperates zelda and link, but in both games, that separation was ZELDA'S CHOICE. skyward sword zelda runs away from link out of fear of hurting him. botw zelda chooses to return to the castle alone to allow link the time he needs to heal. sksw kinda fumbled later on by having ghirahim kidnap her anyway, but. i said BEST not PERFECT. botw zelda I think is the better example because, with the context of the memories, she's arguably MORE of a character than link is. we see her struggles, her breakdowns, her imperfection, specifically we see her struggle with her lack of agency within the context of the game itself. when she steps in front of link in the final memory, and when she chooses to return to the castle, those are some of the first choices we see her make almost completely free of outside influence; a RECLAMATION of her agency (within the narrative) after years of having it stripped from her. from an objective viewer's standpoint, this writing decision still means she is absent from 90% of the game and that she has little control over her actions for the duration of the player's journey. however I think this is just about the best they could have done to create a princess with agency and a real character arc while still keeping the macguffin formula intact--you're not really SAVING zelda in botw. SHE is the one that is saving YOU; when you wake up on the plateau with no memories, too weak to fight bokoblins, let alone calamity ganon. the reason you are allowed to train and heal in early-game botw is because SHE is in the castle holding ganon back, protecting YOU. When you enter the final fight, you're not rescuing zelda, you're relieving her of her duty. taking over the work she's been doing for the past hundred years. in the final hour, you both work in tandem to defeat ganon. while this isn't a PERFECT example of a female character with agency and narrative weight, i think it's a pretty good one, especially in the context of save-the-princess games like loz.

as for totk, you put a lot of emphasis on rauru not believing zelda and taking action immediately, which, again, from an objective standpoint, i understand. but even when we're writing characters with social implications in mind, those character's actions still need to... make sense. Rauru was a king ruling over what he believed to be a perfectly peaceful kingdom. zelda literally fell out of the sky, landed in front of him, claimed to be his long-lost granddaughter, and then told him that some random ruler of a fringe faction in the desert was going to murder him and he had to get the jump on it by killing him first. the ruler which this girl is trying to convince rauru to wage an unprompted war on has the power to disguise himself as other people. no one in their right mind would immediately take the girl at her word. war is not something any leader should jump into without proper research and consideration, and to rauru's credit, he DIDN'T ever outright dismiss zelda. he believed her when she said she was from the future, he allowed her to work with him and he took her warnings as seriously as he could without any further proof. but he could not wage an unprompted war on ganondorf. that's just genuinely not practical, especially for a king who values peace among his people as much as rauru seems to. as soon as ganondorf DID attack, giving rauru confirmation that zelda's accounts of the future were real, he began making preparations to confront him. remember that zelda didn't KNOW that rauru and sonia were going to be casualties of the war--she didn't make the connection between rauru's arm in the future and rauru the king until AFTER sonia's death, when rauru made the decision to attack ganondorf directly. I think the imprisoning war and the casualties of it were less an issue of zelda being denied agency and more an issue of no one, including zelda, having full context for the events as they were unfolding. if zelda had KNOWN that sonia and rauru were going to die from the beginning and was still unable to prevent it that would be a different issue, but she didn't. none of them did.

I think another thing worth pointing out with rauru and his death irt zelda is that rauru is clearly written specifically as a foil to rhoam. this is evident in how he treats both zelda and link, with a constant kindness and understanding which is clearly opposite to rhoam's dismissiveness and disappointment. consider rhoam's death and the circumstances surrounding it. He died because, in zelda's eyes, she was unable to do her duty; the one thing he constantly berated her for. Rhoam's death solidified zelda's belief that she was a failure, a belief which she KNEW rhoam held as well. his death was doubly traumatic to her because she knew he died believing it was her fault. Now contrast that to the circumstances surrounding rauru's death. Rauru CHOSE to die despite zelda's warnings, because he wanted zelda and his kingdom to live. rauru's death was not agency-stripping for zelda; in fact, it functioned almost as an admission that he believed her capable of continuing to live in his place. With him gone, the fate of the kingdom fell to her and the sages. he KNEW that he would die and still went into that battle confidently, trusting zelda to make the right decisions once he was gone. where rhoam believed zelda incapable of doing ANYTHING without link, rauru trusted zelda COMPLETELY with the fate of his kingdom. several details in totk confirm that when rauru died there was no plan for zelda to draconify, that all happened after rauru was gone. it was HER plan, the plan which rauru trusted her to come up with once he was gone. and I think it's also worth noting that zelda's sacrifice with the draconification parallels rauru's!! Rauru gives up his life trusting the sages and his people to be able to continue his work in his place. Zelda gives up her physical form trusting link and the sages in the future to be able to figure out what to do and find her. these games in general have this recurring theme but totk specifically is all about love and trust and reliance on others. zelda relies on link, link relies on zelda, they both rely on the champions and the sages and rauru and sonia and they all rely each other. reliance on others isn't lack of agency, it's a constant choice they make, and that choice is the thing which allows them to triumph.

The draconification itself is something i view similarly to zelda's sacrifice in botw--a choice she makes which, symbolically & within the confines of the narrative, is a demonstration of her reclaimed agency and places her at the center of the narrative, but which ALSO removes her from much of the player's experience and robs her of any overt presence or decisionmaking within the gameplay. again, I think this is a solution to the macguffin-with-agency dilemma, and it's probably one of the better solutions they could have come up with. Would I have liked to see a game where zelda is more present within the actual gameplay? yes, but I also understand that at this point the writers aren't quite willing to deviate that much from their formula. the alternative within the confines of this story would be to let zelda DIE in the past, removing her from gameplay ENTIRELY, which is an infinitely worse option in my opinion. draconification allowed her to be present, centered the narrative around her, and allowed the writers to reiterate the game's theme of trust and teamwork when she assists the player in the final battle, which i think was a REALLY great choice, narratively speaking.

In any case, I don't think it's right to say that zelda was completely robbed of her agency in botw and totk. Agency doesn't always mean that she's unburdened and constantly present, it means she's given the freedom to make her own choices and that her choices are realistically written with HER in mind, not just the male characters around her, and I think botw/totk do a pretty good job of writing her and her choices realistically and with nuance.

[daily-hanamura]

[decamarks]

The fake game anomalies post is amazing, how did you get the videos to look so convincing as working video games?

AHHH thank you so much!!! ^u^ I think a lot of it comes down to just knowing and keeping the way video games work in mind while animating, as well as being aware of what limitations the 'game' would have.

The games in my post were meant to resemble games with graphics somewhere between the PSX and original Xbox (Playstation 1.5, essentially), so I tried to keep poly counts close to what you'd expect for something of that era, used subdivision sparingly, and composited them with varying levels of pixelation effects to resemble game engine aliasing. Since these nonexistent games are for nonexistent consoles, I didn't try to adhere to what the actual technology would/wouldn't allow, and instead focused on what you might expect to see. Game-like lighting in particular is tricky to nail down and I definitely could've made it more 'accurate' with further adjustments, but overall I thought it was okay. As long as you think it looks visually appealing, I think it's fine. (Also it's kind of hard to be accurate to something that doesn't actually exist, LOL)

That's more about the technical side though, and like I said, you can fudge a lot of that stuff since, y'know—it's not an actual game. I think what really makes something like this more convincing is simply conveying aspects of how the game is played or being played; stuff like seemingly functional UI elements, or a player's actions appearing to influence the game in some way.

Interactivity is what distinguishes games as a medium, so this is the key component to keep in mind. Most media doesn't tend to involve active influence from its observers because the medium simply can't accommodate such a thing; printed ink and paper isn't as infinitely malleable as pixels and bytes. So things should be designed as if they are able to be altered or interacted with, even if an actual 'player' is absent. You don't need to build the engine—you just need to imply that it exists, and operates.

In my little clips, I tried to pay special attention to the supposed 'player' as well. You can't see them directly, but rather through proxy of the character or cursor they're controlling. In the first clip, the player character quickly stutters in movement, shown as a sudden stop and start in their walk cycle. You would never have a character move like this in a normal animation because it's unnatural and nonsensical on its own. But in the context of a video game, this movement is instantly recognizable. The player is pausing, tilting, and flicking the analog stick to get a better look at something—or to get away from it.

The character isn't programmed to stop and squint, and the camera isn't programmed to cut to a shot of their shocked face. The character is only a puppet for the player to interface with the game's world, and the unpredictability of a player cannot be accounted for in a preprogrammed narrative. These movements appear nonsensical and unnatural because they represent something not entirely intended. This is only one manifestation of the infinite movement possibilities within a game engine.

It's something trying to be expressed by someone that does not have the direct means to do so. But even indirectly, you can tell what is being expressed, because nothing would move like this by itself. It implies the existence of certain things beyond what is directly observable: a controller and constraints—the player, and the programming.

I think the moment you assume a player exists is the moment it becomes a game.

[shmaroace]

aspec identities are literally the footnote of the lgbtqia+ community. like if you're lucky, you might encounter information about asexuals, and if you're really lucky, you might learn something completely wrong about aros!

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Stuck In Her Head

short contemporary YA coming-of-age set in Hong Kong, following two teen girls who are friends

one is a musical prodigy but has lost her passion and wants to explore different possibilities for her future

the other is passionate about music but dealing with mental health & family issues

the latter develops a crush on the former, who is aroace, and they have to re-navigate their friendship, while working on a music/coding competition project together and dealing with their own issues

[rawliverandgoronspice]

I think I have the full outline for Thralls. ;;

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

idk why this bugs me a bit but I really don’t like when you see art or writing that delves into the dynamic between characters in a less positive way - like an argument, or clashes between coping mechanisms, or a miscommunication that causes some problems and doesn’t get immediately resolved - and you get people saying stuff like “oh they’re so fucked up” or “this would not be healthy irl but here it’s cute” and I just. what do you think a healthy relationship looks like. it’s never going to be perfect. people disagree. not everything gets resolved perfectly. sometimes there will be parts of a person you will never completely understand no matter how close you are to them. what matters is communicating in the ways that you can (which isn’t always in the way help books or therapists tell you to btw! there are lots of ways to communicate effectively that are specific to who you are as people), making active efforts to show your care (which yes, sometimes isn’t easy. that’s why it’s an effort), and enjoying this person’s company (they should make you feel good to be around overall! clashing a little is okay but they should not make you miserable!)

anyways I guess it also irritates me because I see these kinds of comments a lot under studies having to do with characters struggling with trauma or mental illness and therefore not communicating in necessarily healthy or productive ways and maybe always having issues that do not get resolved perfectly and I really can’t stand it. we already live in a world where people have to pretend to be fine all the time. I’m quite flattered when people are comfortable enough with me to let that veneer go. they feel safe around me! what a compliment! I always feel like that’s so much more than I deserve. sure things can be uncomfortable at times and I do sometimes have to say “I can’t listen or help right now but please tell me later” and that’s ok! because we all want to make sure we’re safe for each other to come talk to. to be honest with. a little personal discomfort at times is worth it. always.

people are messy. you’ve got to let people be messy. friendships, relationships, etc, they take time and effort from everyone involved. learning to manage less than ideal situations actually is going to help you draw better boundaries against things that are actually “fucked up” or toxic than expecting perfection, or for a happily ever after where all the conflicts you started out with get resolved.

idk. it’s just. people you care about deserve to not have to be ideal around you. likewise you deserve to have to not be ideal around them. isn’t that. the whole point of someone knowing your soul? the ugliness? and the way it’s a package deal with the rest of you? I would like to learn you. I don’t just want your scraps. I want every part of the whole I asked for. I will learn to manage the sharper edges.

[highfantasy-soul]

On the one hand, I love weekly drops for episodes because you get time to sit with each section of the story and really dig into it.

On the other hand, some people don't quite understand that characters can say/believe something at the beginning of the series and then - gasp - grow and change through the episodes so that by the end, they don't believe that thing anymore!

Also, what a character believes isn't necessarily the 'message' the writers are pushing - the character could have a flawed world view that turns out to be in need of change.

Anyways, apropos of nothing, Loki s2e4 was great, huh? Nice little debate about philosophy between two characters - neither of which has the 100% right idea at the moment and events might transpire to get one or both of them to alter their 'goals'.

Almost like media isn't there to be a guide to life you need to follow word for word but rather an exploration of fantastical problems and how flawed characters deal with it through their own, limited frame of reference

[citrus-cactus]

Re: Digi-dadfight, I could argue that Kouji and Kouichi’s parents made the initial decision to not tell the boys about each other as a team… but it would appear that they have independently made the choice, every day of the boys’ lives, not to revisit that initial decision (Kouji’s dad was shown to have at least one opportunity where he could have at least considered reopening the dialogue with all adults involved, although the narrative is by nature not structured in a way to show whether he took steps to actually do that, or what the results might have been). Originally, it was a singular HUGE choice, but also became a series of smaller choices that we (the audience) get only the tiniest, surface-level, single-POV glimpse of, despite it having a MAJOR effect on the series.

Similarly, it could be argued that Mr. Minamoto (and, by extension, Ms. Kimura) are better at honoring their spouse’s(/ex-spouse’s) wishes and upholding societal norms than they are are at being the parents of twin boys, even if the decision was (at one point) mutually agreed upon as being in the best interest for all involved. Did they ever check in with each other? Did they ever ask how their other son was doing? Did they regret severing contact, remaining silent, and not being part of both boys’ lives, or did it get easier (after a while) to wall those emotions off, look ahead, and focus on the family each of them had in front of them? Were they ever planning on telling the boys? Arrange for a meeting? Did they ever consider what they would do if the boys learned the truth anyway? Again, we don’t know (and it’s doubtful we ever will, in any official capacity), but I think it’s safe to say, in hindsight, and knowing what we do about Kouji and Kouichi, that mistakes were most likely made, both together and independently.

Also, I am regretting not including Yuujin’s “dad” in the poll, just for the lols.

[dandelight]

petition to stop using “found family” in reference to any piece of media that includes an ensemble cast

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

the thing about Strong Female Characters is I actually like them

[cruelsister-moved2]

yo, re: "that post abt how incels are just poor lonely men", if you're talking about the roadhogsbellyperson, he is very clearly Not defending incels? like idk if ur just hearing about the post second-hand but he stated, verbatim, "the problem with incels isn't that they want to have sex with beautiful women the problem is they view women as non-human". no part of that is defending incels or saying that incels are lonely and misunderstood or whatever. the post is just saying that wanting to have sex isn't somehow inherently evil and that sexual desire isn't evil and that people shouldn't be labeled "incels" simply for having a libido. in addition to this really puritanical attitude towards sex, the post was made to address the fact that there's this belief that anyone who interacts with sex workers is an "incel" or whatever, and that this mindset should be critiqued because demonizing those who purchase sex workers' labor and/or services is really just demonizing sex work itself. which is swerf rhetoric. idk how that post has gotten interpreted in such severe bad faith.

it's because he reblogged an addition which literally verbatim says incels are just lonely men whose only crime is making bad posts and then proceeding to say that people who try to pay for sex are actually worse than incels. which kind of undermines his whole thing. I feel like we're having a very colour-by-numbers conversion here because you can be making a fine, if pretty bland, point that wanting to have sex isn't a bad thing, but you can go about making the point in a way which is misogynistic (and incompetent). I was mad about the addition + the way he spoke to women (including SWs) who responded.