#external frame

[moonsnqil]

been working on a fic and my mother is a nurse so i called her to ask something like 'hypothetically if your leg was partially hacked off with an axe is that a fixable thing?' she answered but she was quite concerned

[sssusuki]

In the story, Who Made me a Princess, Ijekiel Alpheus has his potential as a great character diminished by the way he was not only handled by the author, but those around him and the story. He is someone who has complicated relations with his family, who have only ever seen him as another tool in the family to achieve greatness and therefore uses his intelligence to bury himself in books to drown out that loneliness. Even if his father loved him, and says it later on in the story, it is never actively shown— and if anything, it is assumed that his father abandoned him after his mother died. He had his future decided the moment he was born and he had no control over his own life and that is why he fell so fast for Athanasia. Despite all his high walls and barriers, because she was something unachievable and, like her name, impossible for his father and himself to imagine. If he was given the chance to develop as a character rather than being a secondary love interest, they could've shown his complexities and— if anything, his quite gray morality. As he has shown that he will harm himself and others to get to his own satisfactory conclusion (as specifically shown in his standoff against Athanasius) as well as his more rivalry and forbidden relationship with Athanasia. In this essay I will

[estradasphere]

God i hate Google

[deadlydelicious]

'Eddie's kitchen is the externalization of Eddie's entire emotional state' truthers rise up

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Hello.

You and gay-jesus-probably have successfully made me question everything with your view that Tears of the Kingdom is imperialist propaganda, so that's been fun.

Anyway, I decided to share this discussion with the Zelda fans on reddit, and perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of them disagreed. Here is what they said (I'm Alarming_Afternoon44):

So what do you think? Have I and all these other people just been duped by the game's manipulative framing? Or do they actually have a point?

And if you'd rather not answer this, or would prefer if I censored the usernames, just tell me and I'll delete this.

Hey! Thanks a lot for reaching out, and I'm glad it made you think stuff through!!

Honestly, as I mentioned in this post, I am not super interested about in-world conversations about who oppresses who, because what can be assessed from the game is super vague and more vibes-based than evidence-based. Within the text, of course that the Good Zonais are good and the Bad Ganondorf is bad! But that's my whole point! The narrative has been deliberately crafted so that the zonais and Rauru (and Hyrule) are as blameless as possible (and it's not doing a great job at it overall to be frank; we would not be having these conversations about how offputting it all feels for a non-zero number of people if it did do a great job). More importantly, I want to focus on what sort of real-life narrative it all parallels. Because people make stories, and people live in the real world.

Not going after everyone's throat here, gamedev is hard and the hydras that are AAA game production do end up doing super weird stuff, especially since the thematic ramifications are absolutely never prioritized (and it's also always the same kind of people who make the final calls and push out what can and can't be talked about also). And as fans, we tend to have trouble stepping outside the lens of lore and take a look at the bigger picture sometimes; not as an attack on any individual part of that decision-making process but to just pause, stop, and question our standards, our priorities and the kind of reality (or skewing of reality) the stories we tell each other reflect.

Again: do we want to take videogames seriously or not? If we do, then we need to accept they are a vehicle for ideology, just like any other artform. And sometimes, you push out questionable ideology, sometimes without meaning to, because you didn't unpack your own biases as you did. And it's even fine to do it, nobody is perfect, a 300+ people team spread over 6 years certainly will not be that. But that it wasn't prioritized is, in my opinion, a problem. As a narrative designer, I want games (at least the narrative side) to be held to a higher standard than this. It's literally my job to work with the industry so it can hold itself to higher standards of quality --so the whole TotK situation is quite frustrating to witness from a very pragmatic, work perspective where I already spend my days trying to convince people that things mean things. I have a vested interest here in not having the companies I work for being given a free pass by gamers to do literally whatever as long as it's fun, especially when we're talking about a billion-dollars company suing its own fans left and right for any perceived slight. Nintendo are not underdogs here. It's fine to point out they cut corners and maybe promoted messy ideologies, voluntarily or not.

So long story short: no I don't believe anyone here has a point in regards to what I think is actually important, which is why these choices were made in the first place. If you look at an imperialist text expecting the text to tell you that it's imperialist instead of recognizing a framing used for propaganda by yourself, you're never gonna find any imperialist text ever, obviously not!! I'm sorry if I sound a little gngngn here, but I don't know why audiences have, at large, this feeling that lore and story beat decisions materialize themselves already formed and without any human bias, meddling, intervention, internal politics or approximations (it seems that people can only conceptualize this part if they have actual names to attach to the story, but without clear authors it's like there are no authors and so no bias, which is... a very strange bias in itself). I can promise you that it does not work that way in practice: every narrative department on every big game is a battlefield --some nicer than others, but all of them very emotionally draining either way.

So yeah, I guess that on these grounds, I disagree with every point raised here. Sorry Reddit :/

But thank you for the ask and sorry if I didn't go more into details as to why. The big Why I Dislike Rauru Post and the Gerudo Post might have some more specific rebuttals, but I am not super interested in debating small detail stuff tbh. I feel like it's no use if the frame of reference isn't being understood in the first place.

[toastsnaffler]

weekend melancholy is starting to kick in >~<

[vermillioncrown]

so what i got is korvin probably thinks that tim thinks korvin is replacing him (correctly) which is why he acts so strange with the sparring and obstacle course (like "ahaha im very bad at this i promise!!"). but did he suspect tim was his stalker, or did he just drop the flashdrive knowing said stalker would pick it up, and was actually surprised when it was tim? but then there's also him running from tim - hm. your characters are fascinating. do you have any tips for writing the way you do?

the tips for both reading my characters + writing the way i do is: everyone has biases, has degrees of awareness of those biases, and biases come from one's background.

your guess contains biases, assumptions based on you as a person. do you know what they are? can you trace them to your interpretation of both korvin and tim's rationale and actions?

a few people will be able to clock exactly what's going on. most others don't have the required assumptions to guess right, but can follow the reveal and accept it as sensible.

and some will have biases and assumptions so disparate from mine that they'll never guess it nor make sense of any of my characters' decisions.

=

i like writing characters like that. they each believe in their own reality; their reality is informed by their past, family, culture, society, etc.

not to be uhm. but, it has to be said: you gotta meet people and live life to make it easier to see and imagine others' perspectives. and not just in that gross privileged "oh i love traveling and going to exotic places" type of way (bc you then get insensitive caricatures). if you don't get to know all sorts of people and be put in Situations, it's very difficult to distill and convey that in writing.

sure, we get the examples of writers that are very good at writing something without the actual experience in it. but you'll find that they have analogous experience in something else that helped them extrapolate reasonably how to write the thing they had no experience in.

e.g. why it's usually very easy to clock someone as a young writer. the lack of life experience wills out lol

with actual characters...idk. people aren't an 'experience' that's easy to extrapolate. always helps to have data that you've personally gathered. practice writing interactions. read a lot, see what jives with you and take notes when it doesn't. have others vet if it's 'reasonable' or not--you can't learn and grow in a vacuum, neither can your writing (which, big love and thanks to @rozaceous always and forever)

[slow-drowned-angels]

Saw a post about guns (talking about the morality of shooting someone who is stealing from your house, a typical gun rights/gun ownership argument).

Maybe it’s because I’m brainweird or that I know (?) that statistically having a gun in the house leads to a higher chance of being killed by said gun (fact check this! I’m just going off of memory and stats are… complicated)… but I do not trust myself or anyone I know in the same house as a gun.

I have Constantly Scared For My Life disorder and also various Emotional Dysregulations and neither would be helped by knowing that I or anyone else in my immediate vicinity can have a deadly weapon at a moments notice.

[torao-chan]

me: -rambles about the very first scene we ever get of leander-

my notifications:

[forcebookish]

scratch disks... my worst enemy... my best friend...

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

setrákus fucks me up because like... calling him a massive piece of shit is an understatement. calling it an understatement is an understatement. We All Know This.

regardless of external environment, flavor of trauma, and whatever fundamental parts of his personality happened to line up with the worst circumstances possible, he made A LOT of his own choices about what to believe and how to act on it, and continued to make those choices for centuries. he did this long after he had access to environments, perspectives, and resources that would have given him the opportunity to learn to believe differently, if by that point he'd really wanted to; once he left lorien he had the time and breathing room to do that work, and he didn't. he had light years more moral agency--not the agency to act on your beliefs, but to choose your beliefs at all--than pretty much any other (intentional) alien villain the series. one of the most devastatingly effective weapons he has--and revels in using--is to brutally strip other people of every last bit of moral agency that he can.

the guy sucks, is what i'm saying. and Why He's Like This plays a very heavy part in why he sucks.

but also, god damn if it doesn't make me feel some kind of way that you can sum up the root of so many of his issues with this:

[crumbleclub]

tumblr keeps eating all my media posts, and therefore depriving you all of my trailer analyses

[dreampearls]

the panopticon r-906 collei mv that caters Literally only to me is so so so vivid you dont even know

[geartradeusa]

Explore the relevance of external frame backpacks in today's outdoor adventures. Learn about why some enthusiasts still prefer them.

[styxisms]

// nooo I forgot to get my Chiaki icons.

[star-ocean-peahen]

After watching Cinderella (the original animated movie, which was my favorite as a child), it strikes me how it solves many common problems people have with this fairy tale. Like:

Why did they try to identify the mystery girl using her shoe size? Because the bullheaded king's only clue to her identity was the shoe the Grand Duke picked up off the steps.

Why didn't the prince recognize her by her face? Because his father wouldn't involve him in the process at all, and wasn't the one going around trying to find her.

Why did the prince want to marry a lady he only met that night? Because his father was going to force him to marry someone, and he genuinely liked this woman.

Why did Cinderella want to marry a man she only met that night? Because marriage was her best and most secure way to freedom. Fucked up, but you can't say it's unrealistic for the setting of a fairy tale. She also genuinely liked him.

If they're using the slipper to find her, wouldn't it be more sensible to search for the person with the other slipper? Yes. The King is purposefully nonsensical and the Duke is purposefully terrified enough of him to carry out his orders to the letter. Furthermore, they end up doing that in the end anyway, because the Duke's glass slipper is shattered, and Cinderella brings out the one she has to prove her identity.

Why didn't the stepmother and stepsisters recognize Cinderella at the ball? Because they were dancing too far away, and then left the party to dance in private, which was possible because the King wanted very badly for his son to hit it off with someone and tried to arrange the best conditions for that to happen.

Why didn't Cinderella save herself? Because in real life, abuse victims should not have to shoulder that responsibility, and usually can't. In real life, you need and deserve an external support system. Asking for help, in this kind of situation, is very important. She is saved by others because she is loved. Because she is not alone. Because she has friends who love her, and want her to be happy and safe and free. Because in real life, people who want to help someone who is suffering are like the mice. We can't pull out miracle solutions, but we can provide companionship and if we're in the right place at the right time, we can help the person find a better life.

Why didn't the fairy godmother save Cinderella from her abusive household, or try to help her sooner? Because she's magic, and magic can't solve your problems. Quote: "Like all dreams, well, I'm afraid it can't last forever." This (and Cinderella's dream of going to the ball) is a metaphor for pleasurable things in bad circumstances. An ice cream won't get rid of your depression, but it will provide you with momentary happiness to bolster you, as well as the reminder that happiness in general is still possible for you. Cinderella doesn't want to go to the ball so she can get away from her stepmother and stepsisters, or so she can meet someone to marry and leave with. She wants to go to the ball to remind herself that she can still have things she wants. That her desires matter. This is important because the movie does a very good job of illustrating Lady Tremaine's subtle abuse tactics, all of which invisibly press the message that Cinderella doesn't matter. While going to the ball and fulfilling her dreams may not be a victory in the material sense, it is still a victory against Lady Tremaine's efforts.

Why is Cinderella's choice to be kind and obedient framed as a good thing, when you are not obligated to be kind to your abuser? This one walks a very fine line, but I think the movie still makes it make sense. Lady Tremaine never acknowledges her cruelty. She always frames her punishments of Cinderella as Cinderella's fault. Cinderella is interrupting, Cinderella is shirking her duties, Cinderella is playing vicious practical jokes. Cinderella is still a member of the family, of course she can go to the ball, provided she meet these impossible conditions. Lady Tremaine's tactics are designed to make Cinderella feel like she must always be in the wrong and her stepmother must always be in the right. If Cinderella calls her stepmother out on her cruelty, or attempts to fight back, Lady Tremaine can frame that as Cinderella being ungrateful, cruel, broken, evil, etc. If Cinderella responds to her stepmother's cruelty defiantly (in the way she's justified to), she's not taking control out of Lady Tremaine's hands. Disobedience can be spun back into her stepmother's control. She wants Cinderella to be angry and sad and show how much she's hurting. So since Cinderella is adapting to her situation, she chooses to be kind. Not only because she naturally wants to be and it's part of her personality, but because it is a form of defiance in its own way, and it allows her to keep a reminder of her agency and value. Her choice to be kind is her chance to keep her own narrative alive: she is not obeying because her stepmother wants her to and she has to do what her stepmother does, but because she wants to. It's a small distinction, but one that makes all the difference in terms of keeping her hope and identity. (Fuck, I wrote a whole paragraph about how this doesn't mean you can't be angry at people who hurt you or that you need to be kind to deserve help, and then deleted it by accident. Uh. Try again.) Expressing anger and pain is an important part of regaining autonomy and healing. Although it is commendable to be kind while you are suffering, it is NOT required for you to get help or be worthy of help. If Cinderella's recovery was explored beyond "happily ever after" she would need to let herself be angry and sad to heal. Cinderella is not only kind because it comes naturally to her, but because it's her defense against the abuse she's suffering. Everyone's story and experiences are different, and one does not invalidate the other.

Bonus round for answers that aren't part of the movie:

Why didn't Cinderella run away? Where would she go? Genuinely, in hundreds-of-years-ago France, where would she go if she snuck out of the window with a change of clothes? With her step-family, she's miserable and abused, but she's fed, clothed, and in no danger of dying or being taken advantage of by anyone other than her stepmother and stepsisters. Even if she escapes and manages to find financial security, her stepmother might be able to find her and get her back.

Why didn't Cinderella burn the house down with them inside it/slit their throats in the night/poison their food/etc.? Because that's a revenge fantasy, and this story is a fantasy about being saved. There's nothing wrong with making Cinderella into a revenge fantasy. That's perfectly fine, as long as you acknowledge that the other type of fantasy is also a valid interpretation. (I mean, the original fairy tale features the stepsisters getting their feet mutilated and all three of them getting their eyes pecked out, so go for it.)

Why isn't Cinderella more proactive in general? Because she's a child who has been abused for the back half of her life, who has had to be focused on survival because. you know. she's an abused kid.

How did she dance in glass slippers? Gotta agree with you there man, that's weird.