#character and plot and theme analysis

[sillysoliloquyshits]

Things we don't really talk about much on Ne Zha 2 (and the first movie:

1. Ne Zha may seem very impulsive once his temper is on fire, but he can be very focused and clear minded on his responsibilities and loyalties no matter what, as shown when he could've just let Ao Bing die out of vengeance for his dad, but he still rushed to beat Lady Shi up so he can get Ao Bing's problem done for and so he can focus on enacting revenge on Ao Guang

2. In that similar vein it could be interpreted that Ne Zha was taking a gamble in destroying his body to free himself from the curse in the cauldron (instead of following his mom in death), since he may have taken Ao Guang's words that the Samadhi fire in the cauldron is compatible with his own seriously, so even despite the raging grief and agony he still tried his hardest to free himself so he can free his dad and Ao Bing and everyone later

3. Ao Bing learns as quickly as Ne Zha (who literally mastered shapeshifting without his master's help very quickly) and while it's not shown when exactly Ao Bing too learnt shapeshifting, it's clear that with their special spiritual power status they just learn new and difficult skills fast

4. Lady Yin and Li Jing really share a powerful bond where even if Lady Yin spent her last moments with Ne Zha, it's very understandable that she still loves her husband too even without having a chance to say goodbye, and if you're a couple who already gave birth to three outstanding godly children, pretty sure you already knew what your wife was thinking and Li Jing let his wife spend her last moments with her son as he knows all along Ne Zha is her top priority and that's okay, it's called selfless love in unspoken communication

5. Also it must be said that Li Jing does subconsciously listen to his wife, as in the first movie he was persuaded to let Tai Yi Zhen Ren try to kill Ne Zha at birth until his wife came to protect him, and Li Jing was persuaded that no matter what Ne Zha is still his son, and when at the end of the first movie Ne Zha said his only regret with his dad is never having a chance to play Jianzi with him, which broke him as he realised he should've listened to Lady Yin in spending more time to make Ne Zha happy before his death, instead of strictly training him, so yeah Li Jing totally knows what listen to your wife means

7. That being said what's more heartbreaking is that the reason why Lady Yin was the one that threw the oblivion pill away from Ne Zha instead of Li Jing was because he himself couldn't make the choice in choosing his wife or his son and his wife chose for him, which just makes his grief even worse, like when I rewatched the movie I just felt so freaking awful for Li Jing haiz-

8. Ao Guang has ended up being a lonelier figure, with his siblings all betraying him and now having to let his son go with his crush best buddy forever has made his journey as a king more alone than ever, but it's not without logic as he may have figured that with Ne Zha already willing to do so much for Ao Bing, they might as well stick together to ensure Ao Bing's safety, since the Loong/dragon clan being somewhat refugees and hunted down by the heavenly court would bode ill for Ao Bing so yeah

9. I might be delulu but I saw one of the calligraphy ink posters of Lady Yin and someone saw a purple pill floating below her face and at her hair which could foreshadow her fate, but when I watched a second time I saw that bead again at her hair tie when there was a closeup of her face in sending Ne Zha away so if the creative team really hid her foreshadowed fate in her literal hair tie I'm gonna-

10. While Tai Yi is kinda nerfed for continuity reasons (where hundreds of his cultivation years are gone just to protect Ne Zha and Ao Bing's souls), we can't deny that he still has the most integrity out of all the immortals, along with Ne Zha's parents, so yeah hopefully that will be continued for Tai Yi as he's ironically the model of what a cultivator should be like despite his lower levels of power compared to other immortals, as he still has a conscience (and is forced to be a babysitter for both Ne Zha and Ao Bing as usual lol)

11. It's also ironic that while the actual humans and humans-turned-immortals are the truly righteous ones with a conscience and not as discriminatory, it's those immortals who were once spirits who project their prejudices and hatred for their own spirit status on themselves and deepen the divide between spirits/demons and humans and the hypocrisy that comes with it, which really gives a dark reflection on how harmful internalised racism can be

12. One instance I realised was that when Shen Zheng Dao was training his disciples by the waterfall he blamed his students on how their cultivation paths are harder was solely because of their spirit birth, which when internalised sounds harsh as one doesn't really choose their birth and it also hints to the planting of seeds of internalised hatred for their own true nature and thinking that things will change for the better when you're more capable of 'not looking like a spirit/looking human' and cultivation, which really worsens the suppressing of the self in cultivation

13. Shen Gong Bao is a very ambitious character who does misdeeds to get to the top, but at least it's shown that he does work a lot harder than most for his own success, just that he snapped and decided to try and cheat his way through with stealing the Heavenly Pearl then, but at least he doesn't cheat all the way since he didn't really take the heavenly pills to help either, so it's a nuanced take on how as an antagonistic figure Shen Gong Bao doesn't always rely on his trickery

14. With all that what exactly is the purpose of cultivating? And with Li Jing and Lady Yin naively thinking cultivating is all about helping more people and accumulating merits, does that mean with their human nature that so many wished to be born as, does that mean the humans are the ones that are more sheltered from brutal realities spirits have to face in cultivating? When did such a divide start back then?

15. Some people have guessed that it's unfair that He Tong with her powers is only working to serve Wu Liang around instead of doing hunter duties like Lu Tong, and this is either a nudge to gender roles in work, where females no matter how skilled are forced to do more subservient roles, or simply because with He Tong's powers she works better as a defence while Lu Tong's archer skills is much more suitable for attacking

16. Iirc, Ao Run sort of looked like she was holding back when she was fighting Ne Zha and Ao Bing even though she's very swift in her own way, and according to BTS art and sketches of the second movie, the team had thought of how Ao Run favoured Ao Bing as her nephew, so even if she has sided with the villain, she still secretly can't beat to hurt her beloved nephew either even if Ao Bing would regard her as his enemy from now on

17. Ao Run and her other two brothers serve as a dark mirror of what happens when rebellious idealism at youth withers to cruel compliance to reality, and the director has said that Ao Run was once like Ne Zha and Ao Bing, but thousands of years of imprisonment has caused them to side the bad guys they once vowed to fight against out of self preservation, which is understandable, whereas Shen Gong Bao shows us a figure who probably once did that and still tried to fight against the bad guys after having snapped, so it goes to show that with youth and less experience, the young ones will inevitably feel invincible against anything life throws at them, the real question is whether they (Ne Zha and Ao Bing) could still persist on their core ideals and morals

18. Sometimes it's also got to do with one's nature and status as well, since Ne Zha and Ao Bing may be able to do their rebellions against heaven differently with their greater innate power compared to most characters, which pits them in a better position to survive anything the antagonists throw at them, so yeah sometimes when it comes to rebelling against the system, it's not just your morals your own innate abilities are a huge factor in determining whether you prefer to die trying or to prioritise your own self preservation

Some of these ideas are my own thoughts and some of them I heard from other people either on Tumblr or on Rednote but yeah! Super long sorry again-

[aroaceleovaldez]

The himbo, malewife, goofball -fication of percy jackson is such a crime by both the fans and riordan. It has made Mr not like percabeth as a couple because in all posts and in later books annabeth is such a girlboss, while Percy's dumb and can't fight his way out of a paperbag without her. All the posts are about how annabeth will be an architect and percy would love to be a trophy husband.

Even the humor in the books went from Percy's sharp wit and snark to 'my pancakes can't drown because I'm a son of poseidon.'

And now this recommendation letter bullshit.

Honestly now I'd wish percy just separated from annabeth (but they remain best friends.) He stays home with his family, becomes a camp counselor, helps young demigods, holds God's accountable and eventually becomes a social activist. (I also dislike him doing something marine biology related. It's clear he hates academics but he always wants to help people. Him helping demigods and mortals is such a wholesome profession for him.)

I fully agree with the first half of this, though I slightly disagree with part of the latter.

The later-series and fanon mischaracterization of Percy is at least a solid 50% ableism minimum, full stop. He's being warped into a very stereotyped ADHD character and the exact reason why he's being characterized as "dumb" is because of ableism. Percy is a very intelligent character! That's exactly why he's so in sync with Annabeth and they're such a strong duo! It's just generally Annabeth is more book/academically smart.

I disagree with where you say he hates academics - because that's one of the common misconceptions about his character. Percy doesn't hate learning or academic subjects! He's not even bad at them! We know explicitly that when he is in an accommodating environment he is interested in learning and gets significantly better grades! Percy only dislikes school because it is generally an environment that systematically he struggles with. It's literally just he has a learning disability (two, actually)! That's it! When his learning disability is accommodated for he does well! It's almost like that's what accommodations are all about! We know this from the first series! It's discussed pretty in-depth! Percy isn't a dumb character and he doesn't hate learning, he's just been let down by school systems so much that he's inherently distrustful of them. If they actually accommodate him though then he does just fine!

And that's exactly what CHB was all about and why New Rome University was supposed to be such a big thing for him! CHB is a learning environment geared for demigods. NRU is a demigod college. Both inherently imply an environment meant to cater to and accommodate students with ADHD and dyslexia! They are both systematically structured to be able to accommodate him! Heck, CHB and CJ even both address in the wider themes of the series a metaphor about how ADHD and dyslexia are commonly seen as childhood disabilities, and how it can be more difficult to find accommodations into adulthood because of that attitude but those disabilities don't just go away - that's why CHB is a summer camp but they talk about how demigods outside of CHB don't often fare well. The metaphor there is those who are not getting help or accommodations are struggling. Because that's how that works! This is a fully intentional metaphor from the first series! CHB is never framed as being perfect for demigods, because one of the entire central conflicts of the series is Percy and Luke going back and forth about this flawed system meant to help and support them but still letting people fall through the cracks. The "claim your kids by 13" thing is a metaphor about how acknowledging a child's disabilities (and possibly getting a diagnosis) earlier/as early as possible means they will have more time to learn and build up resources and support for themselves to be able to use later in life. One of CHB's major flaws is that it can accommodate demigods to a certain point, but it can only do so much before those demigods have to leave (the metaphor being accommodating school systems when those disabled students do not have any other forms of accommodations in their lives.)

And that's why Camp Jupiter was framed as being so revolutionary for Percy because it had an environment acknowledging that this is not just a childhood disability, adults with ADHD/dyslexia exist too and still need and deserve accommodations, AND is a place where those accommodations are available. That's why Camp Jupiter and NRU are treated as such special and important things to Percy, because it's essentially Percy being shown this type of thing can and does exist and it is available to him. It is an option he never thought was possible. Percy never thought he'd be able to go to college because he would not be able to go through school without accommodations, but NRU proves otherwise.

The part that's absolutely stupid is Rick then proceeded to retcon NRU so that apparently it's not a full college and Percy still has to take classes at normal mortal college which DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF NRU EXISTING. Rick has fully retconned that demigods struggle past the ages of 16-18 when they're on their own (see above elaborated metaphors) and in doing so we have fully killed all symbolism in literally all of that. It's so stupid. And by having the plot of the CoTG trilogy entirely be that Percy is not actually allowed access to NRU in the first place because he is a son of Poseidon and has to do extra to even be accepted is stupid!

All that to say, I agree the marine biology feels like a huge cop-out and a disservice to his character by reducing him to just a son of Poseidon. The literal only reason why it's the default option people take for him is because oh, fish thing, fish guy. But I feel like everyone ignores the really obvious answer for what Percy would want to do which is - writing. Both his parents are writers/authors and he clearly admires that about them. Percy likes telling stories! He canonically is already a published author in-universe! That's what the books ARE in-universe! The first series fully exists in their universe and Percy is the author! This is explicit canonical information! Percy canonically has help physically writing it down (accommodations) but he is still the credited author! Percy is a writer! Already! Canonically! Why are we making him a marine biologist he already has a profession that ties into his character significantly more. Like you said, Percy likes helping people. That's what the books in-universe are supposed to be for! It's point blank at the beginning of the series! Book one! The thing everybody quotes all the time! The books exist because it is Percy trying to give advice to other demigods who don't know what's going on yet! It's Percy's writing down his experiences to help new demigods understand and contextualize their experiences so they can understand themselves better and figure out what's going on - WHICH IN ITSELF IS ALSO A METAPHOR ABOUT ADHD/DYSLEXIA! Because the core of the series has and always will be built around ADHD/dyslexia! Percy as a protagonist EXPLICITLY was created so that ADHD/dyslexic kids could see themselves as a hero!

Sorry that all was a very tangential rant but my point being: Absolutely. Percy in newer stuff in the franchise and in fanon is horrifically mischaracterized in ways that are functionally either fully ableist (shoutout TSATS for just outright claiming Percy is intentionally lazy and skips school out of disinterest, which is like the number one ableist attitude towards kids with learning disabilities) or a complete erasure of Percy's disabilities. Also I think he should be a writing major not a marine biologist.

[wackywatchdotcom]

got reminded of it ... but i think about the symbolism of jax' model a lot bc i think its subtle!!! but its there

and i think the crux of it is that jax' model is very much a prey animal, something that contradicts his general tendency for reckless, mean bullshit. there could be something there about him having front-facing eyes too. and iirc gooseworx said the farm was a lie which i do take into account but also i think it helps w his generally very 'natural' or real-world-nature design components and ideas being evoked. he has clothes and these clothes are very minimal and hes a real animal fairly closely associated with farming or hunting and is very humanlike and his pocket just Has Mulch in it. even if the farm isnt real theres definitely something his design is evoking here

that and an idea ive thought of is that rabbits are VERY much animals that operate on instinct. they do a lot of things based on an immediate need, typically for survival, at least in the wild. and i dont know if id describe jax as fearful (some could argue he is in his own way, which i dont disagree with, but i think the implications can be a bit loaded- but theres many ways a person can be fearful) but he definitely operates on what he immediately wants. he wants to have fun. so he DOES. it doesnt matter what that entails. he wants control, so he takes it out on the others. it doesnt matter what that entails. etc etc. hes also running from something and i think the image of a rabbit fits that well

i think its deliberate that jax is the only design that actually revolves around an animal that we see. theres dobby and that worm on a string in the back but of the main cast its ALL humans or items, jax is the only one whos an animal (and probably still intended to be toy-like, but none of the others have distinct animals theyre meant to be). and it feels purposeful in a way i genuinely think about a lot. i cant place what its implying for certain because i genuinely dont think we have enough information on jax to fully understand his thought processes, but it does make him very connected to the real world, but in a distant way

[crunchycrystals]

i'm like 90% sure irving is reintegrated. i think that irving has been reintegrated for a while and that's what the goo is. mark's seeing gemma first now that he's reintegrated, the most important part of this to him, and irving's seeing his paint. also thanks to this episode we know that reintegration takes some time, at least for innies. we only saw the effects of reintegration from petey's point of view when he was in the outside world, so it's entirely possible that reintegration is different for innies and outies at the beginning.

also we don't know how outie irving knows what the testing floor elevator looks like. innie irving doesn't even know what it is so where did he get this info? my guess is that he failed the input survey (since we know that theres a perfect score for it), got sent down to the testing floor to get his memory fixed, and then when he reintegrated those memories came back with it.

[jeremiahthefroge]

Unironically, IS there anywhere to get a good beat-by-beat plot synopsis of the original Minecraft Diaries without watching it all the way through? I want to get a good idea of all the plot beats and characters and the general timeline to see about writing some fanfic, because the characters are living rent free in my brain, but I'm also like... VERY aware that it's a 2016 minecraft roleplay series... and I fear that I will ruin my own mental image of the series if I try to rewatch it all...

[c-nan]

Wait, wait, wait, I am 100% on board with the Supercorp Bolt thing, would you care to elaborate?

ngl i wrote that post half asleep and it is 4 am rn , so i fear i may disappoint you anon, BUT !! i would love to share my thoughts regardless

so basically what prompted my post about bolt and supercorp was the whole dog vs cat theme that i remember bolt (2008) having due to bolt acting in a movie (or tv series? i cant remember it’s been so long , my apologies) where the main villain has a cat, and how that conflict translates into distrust for the cat (mittens?) he befriends. and idk it kinda reminds me of supercorp and how kara is dog-coded and lena is cat-coded, and how lena is a luthor making her tied to a family who is highly villainized and mistrusted. now of course, kara trusts lena basically off the bat (if i remember correctly, i really need to do a supergirl rewatch) , but bolt makes me think of the dynamic they could of had if kara had not have been so trusting .. IDK !! sorry, this is so lowkey bad but i have more

anyway, then there’s just bolt as a character who gives such strong kara vibes. like, he has such a fixed moral compass !! right is right and wrong is wrong (and must be defeated!) and he’ll do anything to see justice served, so much so that it boarders on recklessness (a trait we’ve seen in kara so many times..) they’ve also got this innocence about them.. like, both believe the best in the world, and that they themselves have the power to create world peace and love and happiness or whatever. and of course they both got that superhero thing going on (even if bolt is just an actor).

and then lena as mittens !!! mittens, who is distrusted literally right of the bat (story of lena’s life), and who has had to work so hard her whole life for everything she has!!! mitten’s whole backstory about having a loving owner, just to one day be placed on the streets parallel’s lena’s backstory of having a great life in ireland, just to be thrust into the cold, unloving luthor household so hard !! like !!! she is mittens !! they’re both also very clever and know how to get what they want. they both also have dry humor and abandonment issues.. it’s like they’re the same person istg. and of course they both crave true connection, yet feel very very lonely .

anyway.. that’s it. if you have any ideas anon, i’d love to hear them!

[cinderella-ish]

Readers and Authors: What We Owe to Each Other

(Okay wow I started this post all the way back in August and am only posting it now 🤣 ANYWAY here we go)

So, I had two experiences in the past year or so that made me think hard about how I appraise the fiction I enjoy (in any form).

I read a story that made me so angry I still think about it sometimes.

I saw people angry about the ending of the JuJutsu Kaisen manga before it was even published.

Both of these experiences were kind of baffling to me, but they helped me articulate something that I've probably always believed, even if I hadn't put it into words yet:

Endings matter.

Okay okay, that's simplifying it a lot, but bear with me.

I've had a lot of conversations with friends and family recently, trying to tease out what makes a story successful in my view. Here's where I've currently landed:

Did the story say what it set out to say?

Did the story say something worth saying?

These are obviously very subjective questions, but I think they become easier to answer when using formal analysis structures.

In three-act story structure, the last 2% or so of a story is called the resolution. The climax is over, the protagonist has either succeeded or failed, and readers/viewers want to see how the outcome of that conflict has changed the protagonist's world.

Now, there are a few ways to understand three-act structure, and my favorites are catalogued on K.M. Weiland's website Helping Writers Become Authors. Here's what she has to say about story resolutions (in a positive change arc):

First is the function of each plot point and/or story beat.

The resolution's main job is to provide a sense of closure.

Second is the relationship of a given story beat to its mirror in the other half of the story.

The resolution should mirror the Hook (the very first scenes) in some way.

Third is the metaphorical "world(s)" of each act of the story.

The resolution gives us a look at the protagonist's new normal world after the events of the story. In this sense, it should feel like a new beginning.

Fourth is the character's relationship to the thematic question, truth and lie in each act of the story.

The resolution is where we see the protagonist's new life/outlook, firmly rooted in the thematic truth.

Notice some things that are missing from that list:

A resolution does not need to answer every remaining question or tie off every loose end.

A resolution does not need to solve all the protagonist's problems.

A resolution does not need to provide a satisfying end to every character's story.

(In fact, I'd argue that a resolution works better when it specifically doesn't do those things.)

So, I think we can't really judge a story based on my two criteria until we've seen the ending, aka the resolution, because the resolution's job is to put a point on the story's theme by showing us a glimpse into the protagonist's future that meaningfully contrasts with the beginning to show us how the protagonist has changed in relation to the story's theme.

And this brings me back to the title of this piece.

What do authors and readers owe to each other?

I think, when someone is telling a story, they're essentially making a promise to the reader (or viewer). What they're saying is "I have something important to say, and I will say it over the course of this story."

When someone reads (or watches) a story, I think they're accepting the terms of that promise and saying "I will trust that you will say what you mean to say in this story, and I will trust that what you have to say is important."

So why did that story make me so angry?

The short version:

I trusted that the author would say something important, and I stuck with their story to the end only to realize how utterly shallow and unsubstantial it was!

The longer version:

The story promised to explore an idea that I thought was really interesting, and I was curious as to how the author would do that. As I read, I thought I was picking up on clues that there was more under the surface waiting to be revealed; that there was some event or idea the story hadn't disclosed yet that would put everything that had happened thus far into perspective.

Nope. There was nothing.

In effect, the story was one big "telling, not showing." There was no basis given for the premise, no reason given as to why the characters made the choices they did. The main characters honestly could've been replaced with any characters from any story and it wouldn't have changed a thing - they were dolls that the author was making do whatever the author wanted, rather than characters with motivation and personalities. They were blank slates who didn't really change or cause the world around them to change.

This made me angry because I stuck with the damn thing until the very end only to finally realize that I'd wasted my time when I got to the resolution and it didn't offer me anything more.

What did the story have to say? That the author wanted this thing to happen. Is that something worth saying? For the author, probably. For me, as a reader, absolutely not.

I felt that I had held up my end of the promise as a reader, and I felt that the author hadn't held up their end. I had stuck with the story in good faith, I'd put my trust in the author, and they squandered that trust.

I read until the ending because I'd hoped the resolution would, at minimum, provide some clarity on the story's theme, but it didn't.

This brings me to JuJutsu Kaisen.

The ending of JJK was good, actually?

On the other side of this, I was really baffled by a lot of the complaints about JJK's ending, especially those that were circulating before the manga even finished!

It really baffled me, because I really thought the author had earned the readers' trust by then. There'd been so much analysis on the symbolism and intention behind so much of the story, I was genuinely shocked that anyone lacked faith in Gege Akutami's ability to, in his words, "...end the story in the way [he] wanted." Especially from people who'd otherwise raved about the story.

When I read the final chapters for the first time, I thought they encapsulated several of the story's themes and gave us a peek at the future of the JuJutsu world for the characters we'd come to love.

To me, the final chapters absolutely served the story well in saying what the author was trying to say.

Let's review what a resolution needs to do:

A resolution must provide a sense of closure.

A resolution should mirror the hook in some way.

A resolution gives us a look at the protagonist's new normal in a way that feels like a new beginning.

A resolution shows us the protagonist's new life/outlook, firmly rooted in the thematic truth.

I would argue that the ending of JJK did all of those things, and it did them well.

This is not to say that there are no valid criticisms of JJK, but that I think the ending followed through on the promise the author made to us.

When I go back and revisit some of the most common criticisms of the ending of JJK, they boil down to a few categories:

people who wanted the author to answer every single remaining question

people who wanted the plot-based conflict (rather than the characters' internal conflict) to be solved more definitively or differently

people who wanted more characters to have a complete arc

I think people in group 1 have clearly never seen a beloved series slowly turn to crap because it kept going long after it should've ended. The questions the author didn't answer wouldn't have helped him make his theme land any better.

Meanwhile, group 2 misunderstood the point of the story. JuJutsu Kaisen is not a story about fighting, or curses, or this particular magic system. JuJutsu Kaisen is fundamentally a story about love, and it always has been. Things like curses, magic, fighting, etc... only matter insofar as they help tell that story.

Group 3 can be split up into some smaller groups. I think some of this group might actually fall under groups 1 and/or 2, in that they either just wanted more content, or they over-prioritized plot-based character goals rather than internal conflict-based character goals. As for the rest of group 3, I think they either don't understand what a character arc is, or they forget that Yuji is the protagonist, and therefore his arc is the only one that must encapsulate the main idea(s) of the story in a satisfying way.

So, what is a character arc, anyway?

In a positive change arc, the character starts out believing a lie, and over the course of the story, they overcome that lie and embrace the thematic truth.

I would argue that both Yuji and Megumi experience a positive change arc in JuJutsu Kaisen.

Positive change arcs are the most common type of character arc, but characters can also experience a flat arc or a negative change arc.

In a flat arc, the character doesn't have a lie that they need to overcome. They already believe the story's thematic truth. Instead of this character being the one to change, they use the truth to change the world around them.

In JuJutsu Kaisen, I'd argue that Nobara and Gojo have flat arcs.

Nobara came to JuJutsu Tech to be true to herself. She already knew who she was. At the end of the story, she's still the Nobara we met at the beginning. With Megumi, Yuji, and her other friends and classmates, she succeeded in growing stronger and helping to bring down Sukuna.

Gojo, as the primary mentor character in JuJutsu Kaisen, also exhibits a flat arc. His desire at the start of the story is to fundamentally change JuJutsu society by teaching the next generation, thereby raising up sorcerers who are strong enough to stand beside him. He does this so well that his students are the ones to defeat Sukuna, and not him. After his death, his students are able to carry on his mission.

In Gojo's Past arc, Suguru Geto experiences a negative change arc.

There are 3 typical negative change arcs:

The Corruption Arc: the character starts out believing the truth. Over the course of the story, they reject the truth and embrace the lie.

The Disillusionment Arc: the character starts out believing a lie. Over the course of the story, they overcome the lie, only to find that the truth is tragic.

The Fall Arc: the character starts out believing a lie. Over the course of the story, they get a glimpse of the truth, only to reject it in favor of a worse lie.

Geto starts out believing that sorcerers' duty is to protect those weaker than them (non-sorcerers) from curses,. Through the course of the story, he rejects that belief in favor of the belief that non-sorcerers are not worth saving and must, in fact, be exterminated because they are the source of all curses in the first place.

Depending on whether you see either of his beliefs as the truth (and if so, which one), his arc could be seen as any one of the negative change arcs. I personally see it as a Fall arc, especially if you include the events of JuJutsu Kaisen 0 as part of his arc.

But what's Yuji's arc? What is the theme of JuJutsu Kaisen?

Well, here's where I say that I'm planning a series of posts analyzing JuJutsu Kaisen using three-act story structure. Because I don't have enough ongoing series, apparently. 🤣

If you read this far, thanks for sticking with it! And tell me, is there a story structure or analysis tool you prefer?

[sillysoliloquyshits]

Another (hopefully short) essay on more reasons why people find teenage Ne Zha devilishly alluring in the last 20 minutes of the second movie: (though it's pretty obvious)

1. The moment Ne Zha walked out of the fire with his rebuilt body in total outrage, it's hard not to be hit with shock like a bullet train (and the background music didn't help), while he also demonstrates much more dominant control over his feelings and his Qian Kun Ring upon summoning so yeah very hot of him literally

2. And watching him punch and kick the big bad with nothing but his wrath and six arms and legs and no weapons really emphasize feels cathartic as we root for Ne Zha too, and it also shows his resourcefulness as he makes do with whatever he has in the moment

3. More importantly Ne Zha isn't just hot he's fucking beautiful like. I'm no artist so I don't have the aesthetic terms to do the description of his face justice but with his softer and more realistic features like his face shape and eyes and nose from the first movie, along with his manicured hands and all, we don't just see a stereotypical buff character often associated with fire powers, as he also has his own warmth and tenderness to his expressions and figure

4. And above all, it's mostly the way that Ne Zha demonstrates his tenderness even with his immense fury, and his first words after rebuilding his body were the tender and broken words asking his dad to take care of his mom now turned into a heavenly pill, before turning to Ao Bing and locking in on channeling his anger to get everyone out of the cauldron and vengeance. Ne Zha's clearly shown even more as he looks older than he doesn't shy away from expressing vulnerability and more gentleness to those he loves, and it gives rise to the multi-faceted experience as an audience is in awe of seeing Ne Zha very naturally embody the badassery in him and the softer side of him, and of course the softer side of guys are very sought out for

5. People often say that in Ne Zha there is a very harmonious external and internal balance of his nature in his teenage form, where he has devilish features and powers in a human body from human (cultivator) parents that still shapes his divinely beautiful appearance, and it compliments perfectly with how despite his temper and impulsivity and vulgar sides, Ne Zha's heart is always in the right place for his loved ones and home and how he never shies away from the rough sides and soft sides of himself anymore, which is the most courageous thing to do: accepting the dark and light aspects of yourself, and it's a Buddhist-like enlightenment he has attainted thus far that cements his own inner wisdom

Tldr: because teenage Ne Zha aesthetically and morally follows the harmonious conventions of balance, thus it makes him captivating as hell, devilishly divine, utmost pure cinema.

[omarwolaeth]

Might be strange sounding, but the card reveals/banlists always come in 2 different perspectives for me, irrelevant of which banlist I'm playing under; because I write fics, I have to contend with the banlist at times (a majority of the time it's based on the sort of half-tcg, half-ocg Master Duel banlist with Anime Specific Additions.)

So when new cards come out I have to judge them not only by what I can figure out from their effects and traits (combined with what's currently meta, and if there's anything that wants to play the new cards, whilst being mindful of banlist differences), I also have the joy of internally discussing the value of a deck when its in a fictional setting.

I don't think anyone normally thinks about if a deck's theme is strong enough to tie a character to it, let alone if a deck's theme is too strong and tying a character to it is like Akihiko Sanada's obsession with protein in anything that isn't mainline persona (Like the Q games.)

Also makes engines less appealing.

[235uranium]

on one hand I always feel highly embarassed thinking about anime crossovers with my Adult American TV Shows, on the other I do think of that one extremely well written hannibal/soul eater crossover

[yououghtaknow]

bravest guy in the whole world (watching something i first watched with someone i no longer speak to)

[captaingimpy]

Review of Silo Season 1: Unrealized Potential in a Dystopian World

Silo on Apple TV+ brings strong production quality and an ambitious premise to the screen, adapting Hugh Howey’s popular Silo series. The show aims to explore themes of control, societal order, and the right to freedom, set within a dystopian underground society where knowledge is tightly regulated and authoritarian rule reigns supreme. While visually captivating, with high-end cinematography…

[esonetwork]

Doctor Who: The Legend of Ruby Sunday Review | Earth Station Who

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/doctor-who-the-legend-of-ruby-sunday-review-earth-station-who/

Doctor Who: The Legend of Ruby Sunday Review | Earth Station Who

Dive headfirst into the Earth Station Who Podcast as we unravel the thrilling Doctor Who episode, “The Legend of Ruby Sunday.” Everything this season has been building up to this captivating moment! Join hosts Mike F., Mike G., and Mary, along with special guests Shannon Clute, Charles Martin, and Chip Johnson, as they dissect the episode’s exciting plot, intriguing character developments, and key themes. Uncover the mysteries of Ruby Sunday and explore the looming darker evil threatening the entire Doctor Who universe. Whether you’re a dedicated Whovian or a newcomer, our lively discussion and expert insights will keep you hooked. Don’t miss out on the adventure—tune in now to the Earth Station Who Podcast for an in-depth review of “The Legend of Ruby Sunday” and all things Doctor Who!

We want to hear from you! Please write to us at feedback@earthstationwho.com. Also, please subscribe and rate the show on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever fine podcasts are found. Feedback is always welcome and much appreciated.

Links Listen to older episodes of the Earth Station Who Podcast ESW on iTunes Earth Station Who on Spotify Earth Station Who on Instagram Earth Station Who on Facebook Earth Station Who on YouTube Make-A-Wish Foundation The ESO Network TeePublic Store The ESO Network Patreon

Promotion Modern Musiccology

#EarthStationWhoPodcast #DoctorWhoLegendofRubySunday #LegendofRubySundayreview #DoctorWhoepisodereview #RubySundayDoctorWho #DoctorWhoSeason14 #DoctorWhopodcastdiscussion #Whovianpodcast #LegendofRubySundayanalysis #DoctorWhocharacterdevelopments #DoctorWhoplotbreakdown #TARDISadventures #EarthStationWhoreview #DoctorWhoepisodeinsights #DoctorWhofanpodcast

[graysoncritic]

A (Negative) Analysis of Tom Taylor's Nightwing Run - Introduction

Introduction Who is Dick Grayson? What Went Wrong? Dick's Characterization What Went Wrong? Barbara Gordon What Went Wrong? Bludhaven (Part 1, Part 2) What Went Wrong? Melinda Lin Grayson What Went Wrong? Bea Bennett What Went Wrong? Villains Conclusion Bibliography

I want to start this essay by admitting I’m actually embarrassed by its length. Why did I spend so much time on something I dislike? The truth is, I did not begin this with the intention of creating such an extensive, formal study of the Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing run and how it reflects the wider problems with DC’s handling of one of their most iconic characters. I was just trying to organize the thoughts that came up during discussions with other Dick Grayson fans. Before I knew it, I had enough material, enough desire to challenge myself, and enough frustrations to vent to properly create this monstrosity.

I did not begin this Nightwing run determined to hate it. In fact, I was ready to love it. As Taylor promoted the run before the first issue was officially released, I was so excited for it. As I read short interviews where he discussed Heartless, I could not wait to have a new, incredible villain. Foolishly, I believed Taylor when he said he loved Dick Grayson. 

Needless to say, I was disappointed. Then frustrated. Then angry. The beginning of any story is a period where writer and reader form an indirect bond, and as the story progresses, so do the highs and the lows of said relationship. As such, a reader’s tolerance for negative factors will either increase or decrease depending on their experience up until that point.

In other words, if the writer fails to earn the reader’s trust and instead takes their attention for granted, even seemingly insignificant details become irritating in a way they would not be if presented in a better story. In such scenarios, the reader can no longer overlook those minor moments because there’s little good to balance them out with. It is a death by a thousand cuts. 

In the case of Taylor and Redondo’s run, along with those thousand cuts are also broken bones, internal bleeding, head trauma, and severed limbs. A weak plot, simplistic morality that undermines the story’s stated themes, and, most importantly, a careless disregard for Dick Grayson and everything he stands for utterly destroyed my enjoyment of this series. 

It is still too early to tell what sort of impact Taylor’s (as of time of writing, still unfinished) run will have on Dick Grayson’s future portrayals. But just because we cannot predict its long term significance, it does not mean we cannot critique it. Currently, we simply lack the benefit of hindsight. 

If this essay were to have a thesis, then it is this: Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing not only fails to tell a compelling Nightwing story, but it also exemplifies a cynical, self-serving, and shallow approach to storytelling that prioritizes creating hollow viral moments to boost the creators’ own online popularity over crafting a good story, honoring the character in their care, and respecting his fans – fans who have, historically, often been women, queer folk, and other individuals who felt othered by a cisheteronormative patriarchal society. Taylor and Redondo’s thoughtless and superficial narrative not only undermine the socially progressive ideals they supposedly care for by propagating a cisheteronormative patriarchal worldview, but they also demonstrate a lack of love and understanding for the character in their care. At best, Taylor and Redondo have no interest in getting to know Dick Grayson, nor any respect for their predecessor and their contributions to this character. At worst, they despise Dick so much that they wish to reinvent him into something completely different, tossing away everything that was special to his fans in order to appeal to a readership that never cared about Dick Grayson. 

I structured this essay so that, hopefully, each part will build on the ones that came prior. Naturally, because all aspects of a story are interlaced, there will be overlaps between each of the sections. As it may have become obvious from this introduction, I’ll be focusing primarily on the writing of this run. That is not to say that I will not address the art, but writing is the field I know most about, and so it feels only fair to focus my critique on that. 

I hope that by the end of this essay, I will have successfully proved that this run’s mishandling of different narrative elements betray a cynical appropriation of progressive ideology and a disregard and disinterest in what makes Dick Grayson so special to so many people. This is an attitude that is present within DC Comics’ current ethos as a whole.

Now, who is this essay for? Honestly, it’s probably not for Tom Taylor fans. I do not believe I’ll be persuading anyone with my writing, and, to be quite honest, neither would I say I wish to do so. Taylor and Redondo’s run has won numerous awards and has many dedicated fans who adore it for what it is. If that is you, then I’m glad. I wish I could be among your numbers. I wish more than anything that I could love this story. But I do not, and I know many others agree with me, and it is to them, I think, that I’m speaking to. As Taylor’s run is praised to heaven and back, I needed a safe space to voice my thoughts. This essay became this safe space. And to others who also feel unseen by the constant praise this run is getting, I think this could speak to you, as well. To be cliche and cringe, this will hopefully let you know that you are not alone. 

Finally, I want to acknowledge some people whose thoughts greatly contributed to the creation of this essay. For around three years now I’ve been having wonderful interactions with other Dick Grayson’s fans, and those discussions were not only incredibly fun and cathartic, but also provided great insight into what needed to be included in this essay. My best friend especially gave me a space to vent when I got frustrated, and my original outline borrowed a lot from the messages I sent her, as well as notes I took for our discussions.  

I’ll also be directly quoting four different Dick Grayson fans (identified as Dick Grayson Fans A, B, and C in order to allow them to keep their anonymity). Their analyses were so critical to the formation of my thesis and for a lot of what will be addressed in this essay that I actually feel like they deserve co-credit in this essay. Dick Grayson Fan B especially deserves a shoutout in helping me track down a couple of pages used as supporting evidence, as I knew what pages I was looking for but was having a hard time remembering in which issue they were located. I’m quoting them with permission, and crediting their ideas and contributions whenever relevant. 

Now, without any further ado, let’s get started. 

[the-crooked-library]

Creative Lineage - Dracula, Orlok, and the others

Here's the thing: the relationship between Nosferatu and Dracula is incredibly interesting - especially considering that Nosferatu (1922) was based on Dracula the book (1897), and most subsequent visual adaptations of Dracula for some reason used aspects of that film as inspiration, instead of adapting the original novel directly. As a result, there have always been endless comparisons between the two; but, in light of our most recent Nosferatu (2024), I must expand on what I personally think is their most significant (in regards to both plot development and analysis) difference.

TL;DR: it's characters. The main source of divergences between Dracula and Nosferatu is that these stories consist of vastly dissimilar characters, stuck in relatively similar situations.

I could go into heavy detail, and I will - under the cut, for the sake of all our dashboards.

At first glance, the stories of Dracula and Nosferatu are almost identical. The beginning sections follow the same essential plot beats - a young, newlywed solicitor travels to a creepy castle in Eastern Europe to assist a reclusive Count in his immigration to the West. This Count is, in fact, a vampire (otherwise known as a nosferatu), and terrorizes the young man for weeks, before departing and leaving him imprisoned; the solicitor escapes, is rescued from the wilderness by a nunnery, and returns home - where the Count has already begun his murderous process of settling in.

Here, in my opinion, is where the similarities end.

The key to understanding Nosferatu is remembering that Orlok is not Dracula; Thomas is not Jonathan; Ellen is not Mina, and so forth; and despite the mutual inspirations that affect each film adaptation of either story, the characters never react to the plot as a viewer would expect, if their precursory experience has been limited to only one or the other version.

Naturally, there are reasons for the continued addition of Nosferatu elements to Dracula adaptations. The most prominent of them is that, quite simply, audiences enjoy a fated, dangerous, inadvisable monster romance. By and large, we are titillated by the taboo; and - without adapting Le Fanu's Carmilla (1872), or adding a vampiric element to an adaptation of Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera (1910), or expanding on the queer elements of Jonathan Harker's sojourn in Transylvania - the easiest piece of classic media to sample for this sort of theme is Nosferatu (1922).

The 1922 film was, in a sense, an adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula (at least, enough to get the creators sued by his estate). In its efforts to circumvent copyright laws, it plays fast and loose with Stoker's lore and characters, renaming the Harkers, the Count, and everyone else - and, crucially, adding an element of erotic fixation that the vampire develops upon seeing a portrait of his solicitor's young wife. While still overseas, he builds a psychic connection with the melancholy and sensitive Ellen; it is both horrifying and sensual, and ultimately what she uses to destroy him - sacrificing her own blood and life to keep him out of his coffin until cock-crow. Ellen dies, but the sunlight annihilates Count Orlok, and the ending is a bittersweet new dawn.

This fixated, possessive, murderous eroticism (first displayed in its currently recognizable form by Carmilla) has become a cornerstone of the vampire genre. Elements of it are recognizable even in relatively modern media like Interview with the Vampire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Twilight, as well as numerous Dracula adaptations (of which the 1992 Coppola film might be the most well-known); it is even present in other, indirect offshoots like NBC's Hannibal TV series. It is, therefore, essential to note that these overtones did not exist in the same way in Dracula the novel; and the reason for that is, specifically, a difference in character.

Count Dracula, while dangerous, vampiric, and psychic, does not possess that same singular fascination with any given character in Stoker's book (save perhaps for Jonathan Harker, temporarily). He does drain Lucy night after night, and his method of killing, like with all vampires of his type, is allegorically sexual; but it isn't personal. She keeps receiving blood transfusions - effectively, refills!.. Other than her blood, he has little interest in her. He has companionship enough already - after all, he lives with three female vampires, who may be courtesans or wives, but are colloquially referred to as Vampire Brides; and, additionally, he maintains ongoing communication with some of the people and animals that live on his land. As such, when he does bite Jonathan's wife Mina, it is a practical decision - made in order to establish a potential spy in a group of people who appear to be intent on hunting him down.

Similarly, Mina herself - despite the usual characterization of her film portrayals, which are in many ways epitomized by Coppola's 1992 version - was not originally a vulnerable maiden. She is confident and educated, she has worked for a living as an educator prior to her marriage, and she knows how to use a typewriter as well as shorthand. She has no emotional connection to Dracula whatsoever beyond pure incandescent hatred; and, frankly, forcing her into any sort of romance with him is deeply inaccurate to her character - because Mina Harker is endlessly in love with her husband Jonathan.

They may be on the lower end of middle-class, but relatively stable and planning a life together - not only as husband and wife, but as solicitor and secretary, as well. It's as close to a power couple as a novel from the 1890s will approach.

This is not the case for Ellen Hutter, largely because her social circumstances are far more precarious.

Unlike Mina, she has been forcibly isolated for the majority of her life. In that, she is yet another in the line of tragic madwomen of the gothic genre - mostly due to her eccentricities and her psychic gift, which (as the Eggers version specifies) manifested early in her childhood and became socially inexcusable during her teenage years, much like any real-world form of neurodivergence. It is implied that she has been institutionalized at some point as a result; and even prior to that, her father kept her confined indoors and away from other people in efforts to control her.

This isolation is what originally leads to her connection with Orlok - who was woken from his centuries-long deathlike sleep when he heard her reaching out into the ether, begging for a friend. Then, later in her life, the same circumstances unfortunately have a direct effect on her relationship with her husband Thomas, too; while she is attached to him, she cannot ignore that she is also utterly dependent on him as her ticket to a stable life, as well as out from under her father's thumb. Again, unlike Mina, she has no marketable skills or opportunities outside of this marriage; and while Thomas never shames her for her past, he still pressures her to ignore and repress it. The manifestations of her psychic ability concern, then unsettle, then frighten him - and, ultimately, there is a transactional aspect to their union. Thomas expects himself to move ahead in the world, like his friend Friedrich; and Ellen is expected to eventually become normal. She is expected to become a happy, pretty wife and mother like Anna Harding - because, while Thomas cares for her and fully intends to provide for her, he refuses to actually understand her.

Furthermore, it must be noted that leaving her father's estate for her husband's house did not entirely save Ellen from her isolation. Unlike Mina, she has no real friends of her own. Her only friend in the 2024 film is Anna, her husband's best friend's wife; and in the 1922 original, even that tentative affection is unclear. As such, Orlok remains the only character that truly knows and accepts her as she is - which inevitably complicates their dynamic.

While Orlok is, by his own admission, incapable of a human love, he is overwhelmingly and exclusively obsessed with Ellen. Unlike Dracula, who even in death keeps the company of his women and his people, Orlok exists in utter solitude. Prior to his death, he was also heavily avoided due to his being in "covenant with the devil." The 2024 film especially makes it clear that Ellen's call, which woke him from his slumber, is exceptional; their connection is intensely personal, and it is as close to love as he can ever feel.

This aspect of the vampire's characterization fundamentally alters the context of his behaviour throughout the film. While Dracula moved to England in search of new hunting grounds and little else, Orlok goes to Germany specifically to find Ellen. By marrying Thomas Hutter, she broke the covenant she made with Orlok in her youth; thus, knowing that his claim has been infringed upon, the Count makes contact with Hutter's real estate law firm, summons him to the Carpathians, crosses the sea, and arrives to Wisborg as a physical manifestation of every dark urge and ability she has been attempting to repress. He torments her husband, tricks him into signing a marriage annulment, plagues the city, and murders the Hardings - all of it for her. She is his unique and all-consuming motivation. Again and again, he insists upon their covenant, reminding her that she has never truly belonged to the human world, and he is not incorrect in his assessment. Ellen's surrounding society infantilizes and binds her, often literally. She has nothing to lose by leaving it, except for her own sense of morality; and that is why Orlok, who represents her own abnormality, remains a beautiful, nightmarish temptation.

The other characters diverge from Stoker's just as much.

Thomas Hutter has little in common with Jonathan Harker beyond his choice in career and his time at a vampire's castle. Despite his careful attachment to his wife, he does not actually take her opinions into consideration when he plans their life - he prioritizes his social and financial advancements, which are of no interest to her, and which he sees as his duties to her and to himself; and, when she exhibits any of her unusual or melancholic traits, he does his best to try and move past them as quickly as possible. He does not experience the same attraction to the horror that she does; he cannot bring himself to understand it; and both in 1922 and in 2024, he is also largely oblivious to her eccentricities, gifting her flowers despite the fact that she does not like to see them picked and dying in a vase. That is a far cry from Jonathan - who knows his wife's love of train schedules, who is practicing shorthand with her, and who is willing to join her in cursed, godforsaken undeath when faced with the possibility of her turning. Ultimately, Thomas exists too firmly within the same societal constraints that Ellen abhors, and their relationship has none of the foundation that is unshakably shared by Jonathan and Mina.

At the same time, while the Anna is a parallel to Lucy, and her husband is a corresponding Arthur, the Hardings (once again) have no particular commonality with them. Their characterization remains undeveloped in the original 1922 film - and while Eggers does grant them some definition, it is still in no way similar to Stoker's.

Stoker's Lucy is a charming, cheerful, flirty, and a little coquettish young girl; she exists on the cusp of womanhood and marriage, and her pre-vampire arc revolves around her choice between three almost-equally delightful suitors. She adores and idolizes Mina, she is childishly excited about her future; and in these things, she is very different from Anna, who is already married, a mother of two with one on the way - and who does care for Ellen, but in a motherly, rather than girlish, fashion.

Her husband, too, is quite different from Arthur Holmwood.

In 2024, Friedrich Harding is - above all else - the film's personification of the trap that is patriarchy. He is the epitome of what a man is expected to be: a successful business owner with a pretty blonde wife and 2.5 kids (I thought Anna's pregnancy was very much on the nose. Quite literally, 2.5 kids!). He is generous, he cares for his family, and he is firmly Rational. On the surface, Harding appears to be an ideal made flesh; and as the film progresses, it becomes evident that this ideal is designed to crumble.

Much of Harding's rationality is heavily hypocritical. While he claims to be making all his decisions based on pure logic, Ellen's - an outsider's - perspective exposes the truth behind his motivations. He ignores her warnings because he does not like her and considers her impudent; he kicks his own sick best friend out of his house with only his similarly sick wife to care for him, because he is annoyed and unsettled by their references to the supernatural; he refuses to listen to Von Franz and ignores the danger his family is in, because he is frightened of losing them to something he cannot comprehend, rather than a mundane, potentially treatable illness. All of these decisions are emotional, rooted in his misogyny and closed-mindedness - and so, Harding loses his daughters, his wife, his unborn son, as well as the unflappable, rational facade he had been so carefully maintaining. He ends the film a wreckage of himself, having committed necrophilia with the corpse of his wife because he was emotionally, irrationally unable to let go of her even in death; he dies of the plague that came to Wisborg through his own ship yard, holding her in his arms. Even under the guise of benevolence, his patriarchal worldview undermines and fails him entirely. It is a terrible thrill to watch him fall apart, and the ruin that is left in his place is one of the most obvious illustrations of the story's principal themes.

The other characterizations follow a similar sort of pattern. Sievers, unlike Seward, has no romantic rivalry with Harding; and beyond a professional connection, they are not really friends. Von Franz is far less knowledgeable about vampires than Van Helsing - for the majority of the film, he is stumbling in the dark with the rest of the cast, only finding a way of destroying Orlok in Herr Knock's codex. Knock, too, is far less noble than Renfield - even though he is just as insane as his counterpart, he sees Ellen as an object to be traded for money and power, rather than a kind soul that he would die to protect.

(Quincey Morris, unfortunately, does not exist in Nosferatu. Murnau hadn't found a place for a cowboy in his production; consequently, Eggers could not, either.)

The point is, really, that while Dracula and Nosferatu share a common premise, a comparison between them cannot be made without acknowledging the glaring differences between their characters. For instance, even though Orlok's relationship with Ellen is toxic in the usual vampiric way - part sex, part horror, part possession, part liberation - Thomas is by no means a perfect partner for her, either, because he is not Jonathan Harker, and Ellen is not Mina. Similarly, Von Franz, Sievers, and Harding are not a brave vampire hunting team - they are all blind, each in their own specific way (Von Franz, lacking straightforward knowledge; Sievers, trusting Von Franz without question; Harding, unable to think outside of societal rules). Expecting them to react to their situation the same way as the cast of Dracula is an exercise in futility.

As such, if you do get the chance to see the film again, or if it merely plays in the darkness of your skull when you close your eyes - instead of fixating on the few surface-level similarities between two different vampires and the people they haunt, allow the story of Nosferatu to seduce you on its own terms. Whether it is 1922 or 2024, we, as viewers, deserve its living blood - rather than the shadow of its predecessor.

[woodbrook-wanderer]

Bits + Bits: A meta discussion on Sam's gender

Hello! This post by @spyjam24 has been itching me for quite a while, and while I could just include this in a post about Sam and in general the queercoding of the BTTWNS world, this seems important enough to talk about on its own. Sam being a woman while presenting masculinely is another point of discussion in my future Nigel analysis.

BEAR HEIRARCHIES:

Being solitary creatures, bears have a simplistic social structure where mature dominant males are at the top, and sub-adults and cubs remain at the bottom. Male bears assert dominance by marking their area with their scent and challenge other males to gain right to food sources or an area. Larger bears roar to scare away younger bears who aren't as strong. While bears are not territorial and learn to co-exist with each other in safe distances, even congregating in places with abundant food supply (streams, coasts, etc.), the male dominance ensures that all the given needs (food, water, shelter, and mates) are streamlined towards them. Females do not have much say in the matter. Although they are tolerant and can live within the territories of dominant males, refusing advances for mating results in injury or even death.

Female bears are most associated with rearing young and defending their cubs when male bears threaten to kill their children in order to get the mother to mate with him. Females do not go out of their way to kill or challenge other females.

Single females and subadults are almost always submissive to mature males but have a loose hierarchy within their own group.

RE-IMAGINING BTTWNS WITH A MALE PROTAGONIST:

Knowing this, how would BTTWNS play out if Sam was a man? The most prominent selling point fans and comic news outlets use to drive eyes towards the comic is its similarities to the TV show Dexter. Similar logline, similar plot, close enough characters. I have not watched the show in its entirety yet but with the knowledge I've gotten through friends and social media osmosis, it's about a mild-tempered investigator who's a serial killer by night. I have heard from a friend that one of the main storylines in the series is a string of murders happens and it is done to impress the titular character.

Sound familiar?

However, coming from a fan of Beneath The Trees and did not read under the advertising of it being "Dexter but Richard Scarry!", I believe it largely undersells and underestimates the message and themes. It also seems to disregard the importance of Samantha being a woman but also being a butch. Her gender presentation is extremely important as to how and why she kills in the first place.

But let's play this hypothetically. Sam is a man. He owns a hardware shop and is well liked in his community. He's the only bear in town. He's secretly a serial killer and goes out to the city to pick and choose his victim. Sure, it sounds similar enough, but why would he still kill in the first place when he knows he's at the top of the food chain or the social hierarchy in Woodbrook in the lenses of the anthropomorphic animal world? More importantly, if he was a man, why would anyone be brave enough to challenge him by becoming the local serial killer?

Nigel challenges Sam because she is a woman.

Caging The Idea:

Of course Beneath The Trees could work alone if Sam was a man but that would take away a lot of the gravity in the implied horror of the series.

First and foremost, Nigel is a stalker. He follows Sam around and obsessively takes photos of her to collect. God knows what he's doing with those photos, but his obsession with her extends beyond the images and into imitation. Aside from becoming a serial killer himself, he tries dressing and acting similarly in Issue 4 where he confesses to the crime in an attempt to become her equal.

But that's the thing though. He doesn't view her as an equal. He's excited at the idea of her masculinity and imitates what he can learn from the violence that comes with it. She isn't as competent because she is a woman and he needs to assert himself under the guise of assisting her or "doing it together".

He throws a fit when he is rejected, similarly to how certain men feel entitled to a woman or a partner and violently attacks her (although in this case indirectly by framing Charlie's murder on her and creeping into her subconscious in the nightmare).

He fights for dominance he knows she can't naturally have because that's how nature is, correct? Females will always be submissive to males and rejection results in injury or even death.

Now imagine all of this if Sam was a man. It does not feel twice as horrifying as it actually is in its plainest form.

Nigel is a predator as we know it in the modern sociological context, and he confidently does this by exerting the violence that comes with masculinity which he ironically learnt from a woman.

WHY DO YOU KILL?:

It's simple. Nigel kills to assert his dominance.

Sam kills to emotionally regulate, but also kills to assert dominance.

Sam is seen to revere wild bears as she sees herself as a bear (she is, but moreso in the sense she is not "human" or social like the other animal folk in Woodbrook) and chooses to be one with what she loves. Her fascination and kinship with the strength and the power they hold in nature is why she chooses to present, dress, and act butch. However, we do see in gaps and moments that she is aware of how powerless she actually is if she was a bear and if she were to be a person. There's the pressure to be good. There's the social pressure that comes with being a woman. There's the expectations of her gender and the exploitation men will have over her in either situation.

And so she kills. She has no young to defend. She's not interested in love, or raising a family or being social so she'll act like a male bear because that is the closest she'll ever get to having power over anyone.

And that power will be challenged in the Spring.

Yes. It's important that Sam is a woman. Don't undersell BTTWNS as a Dexter spinoff.