#handwaving of plot points

[nostalgia-tblr]

we're all agreed that the TVA "defend urself to a judge against the charge of breaking time itself" efforts are just show trials, yeah?

[itsbenedict]

tumblr post briefly acknowleding that i finished Trails Into Reverie and it's the absolute worst fucking trainwreck of a story i've ever experienced from a trails game or a video game in general. who the fuck is writing these things and how soon can they be fired

[thehardkandy]

feeling like ms cherryh would be proud of me b/c i have figured out the plot beat i need to address the plot points at hand AND develop the character the way i would like them without resorting to just saying that it happened off screen

[sixth-light]

the thing that fascinates me about the whole Brandon Sanderson episode 2x08 meltdown is that, look. he is EXTREMELY popular with a certain very specific subset of SFF fan who loves 'Magic A is Magic A' type magic systems where it's really sci-fi in fantasy dressing and part of the fun of the exercise for him and his readers is interrogating it to find all the logical loopholes and cool shit that you can do while still being within the rules of the system and so on. and that's perfectly legit.

but it's also...even though WoT does have aspects of this, in that channeling is a very rules-based magic system compared to e.g. magic in LoTR (which is the classic 'no rules only vibes' high fantasy magic) it also co-exists along magic which is MUCH more vibes-based (whatever Min does, Ogier Treesinging, Wolfbrothers). RJ was also never interested in writing the sort of edge-case rules-lawyering that BS obviously loves; it's pretty clear he wanted channeling to have rules to give himself rails to run on when incorporating it into the plot, not so he could logically deconstruct the thing. (like, how exactly did Mierin Eronaile and Beidomon use the One Power to drill into the Dark One's prison the first time when the Dark One is outside the Pattern? we have no idea because it doesn't matter, it just matters that they did it.) there's also plenty of inconsistencies and weird notes in the earlier books because he hadn't fully settled on how things worked yet - famously, Moiraine's staff.

and none of that matters really, because ultimately the internal logic and ability to be gamed out of your magic system is not a sign of writing quality, it's an artistic choice about how you want to depict magic in your SFF setting and also about what helps you as an author to write an internally coherent story. there's a lot of very good fantasy where the magic is EXTREMELY handwave-y and it's fine because that's not the point of the thing.

so to see that BS apparently seems to think that it IS a sign of writing quality and furthermore that the show is bad if it doesn't meet *his personal standard* of magic system logic, which he is somehow 'qualified' to have because...he likes to write magic systems with lots of rules a lot...is just. wild. sir, you have identified a very specific niche of nerd who will give you lots of money for your very specific books, that's great for you but the world of SFF is much bigger and weirder and cooler than that and that's okay.

[trans-cuchulainn]

let's be more positive about books for a while! here are some queer historical romance novels that i've been rereading recently that i think do something interesting with making characters feel historical in their mindset and worldview, but are also fairly progressive, diverse queer books that are, frankly, a delight to read

this is by no means exhaustive and to be honest i could put almost anything by cat sebastian or kj charles on a list like this so this is purely the highlights of what i've reread in the past week to take my mind off work, and why i think they're interesting from this specific angle

cat sebastian, the ruin of a rake (turners #3)

this is technically the third in a trilogy but they're only very loosely connected, so you don't need to have read the others if you don't care about knowing who all the background characters are. the others are also good though

why it's interesting: features a character who has had to painstakingly study and learn the rules of polite society in order to claw his way up to respectability, and is now deploying those skills to help another man repair his reputation. shows the complexity of those rules, the social purposes they serve, and the work that goes into living by them, as well as the consequences of breaking them. also explores some of the financial side of aristocracy, and features a character with chronic illness (recurring malaria following repeated infections as a child in india) whose feelings about his illness are very relatable without feeling overly modern.

kj charles, society of gentlemen series.

this trilogy is closely related plot-wise and best read in order. all three explore cross-class romances and characters struggling to reconcile their political views and personal ethics with their desires, in the aftermath of the peterloo massacre, with a strong focus on the political role of the written word. first book is long-lost gentleman raised by seditionists / fashion-minded dandy teaching him to behave in society; second book is tory nobleman submissive / seditious pamphleteer dominant who've been fucking for a year without knowing the other's identity; third book is lord / valet and all the complicated dynamics of consent there with a generous side-helping of crime.

why they're interesting: close attention to the history of political printing and the impact of government censorship and repressive taxes on the freedom of the press; complex ideological disagreements that aren't handwaved as unimportant; examination of trust, consent, and social responsibility across class differences and in situations with problematic power dynamics; most of the characters are progressive for their time without feeling like they have modern attitudes. the second book, a seditious affair, deals most strongly with the revolutionary politics side of things, but all tackle it to some extent.

kj charles, band sinister.

look i'm probably biased because this might be my favourite KJC. it's a standalone about a pair of siblings: the sister wrote a gothic novel heavily inspired by their mysterious and scandalous neighbour whose older brother had an affair with their mum (causing scandal); the brother is a classics nerd. the sister breaks her leg on a ride through their neighbour's estate and can't be moved until she heals so they both have to stay at the house and find out if the neighbour is really as scandalous as he seems.

why it's interesting: discussion of atheism and new ideas about science and creation (very shocking to the brother, who is the viewpoint character); details of agriculture and estate management via main LI's attempt to grow sugar beet, as well as the economics of sugar (including references to slavery); "unexpurgated" latin and greek classics as queer reference points for a character who nevertheless hasn't quite figured out he's queer; material consequences of society scandal

bonus: wonderful sibling dynamic and a diverse cast including a portugese jewish character, which i don't think i've seen in a book before

i will add to this list as i continue to reread both of their backlists! (bc i have read them all enough times and in close enough succession that they blur together in my head unless i've read them very recently)

[moongothic]

This is gonna turn into some Crocodad Propaganda eventually but putting the man aside for a little bit

Let's be real for a moment. Regardless of who Luffy's other biological parent is, regardless of if they're relevant to the story or not, no matter what has become of that person, if they're dead or somewhere out there alive, etc-- I believe Oda "knows the truth".

Although it took One Piece until post-Enies Lobby to reveal some of Luffy's blood relatives to us, Oda had technically introduced both Garp and Dragon to us all the way back in the East Blue saga. And Ace was introduced not too long after in the Baroque Works saga, along with his tattoo which held that secret tribute to Sabo all along. (Also he was introduced as "Portgaz D. Ace" meaning Oda must've intended to make the two non-blood brothers from the get-go.) All this means that Luffy's family, both adopted and blood relatives, have been in Oda's mind from the very begining of the story. And so if Oda had figured out Luffy's grandfather, father and at least one brother (if not both) from the begining, then why would he not have decided what became of the person who gave birth to the idiot as well? Like considdering how detail-oriented and meticulous Oda can be, would it not be unusual for him to essentially forget about a character that important (in the sense that Luffy literally would not exist without them) and just handwave them away without much thought? Would that not be out of character for Oda? As such, I don't think it is not unreasonable for us to believe that Oda would know what happened to Luffy's other bio-parent. Mind you, it really could be just something like "Luffy's mother died of The Disease when Luffy was a baby", or "the mom fell down the stairs" or "was eaten by a bear in the woods" or something, anything, whatever. Even if it truly does not matter to the story one bit, I'm sure Oda knows the truth of what happened and why that character wasn't a part of Luffy's life.

But at the same time, if the identity and the fate of Luffy's birthing parent truly did not matter to the story at all, then why wouldn't Oda just tell us who that was and what happened to them? In an SBS or an interview? It's not like people haven't been asking about it, because fans and staff alike have been asking about it for years. If the information really would not change anything, be it the direction the story will take or how we view the characters, if it really is just worthless trivia, then why keep it away from us?

Now of course, I'm sure you'd want to point out that one time Oda told Mayumi Tanaka that "A young boy's adventure begins after he leaves his mother's arms. I want to tell this young boy's adventure story, so his mom is not part of it." And Oda isn't known for lying, we do kind of want to take what he told Mayumi Tanaka at face value. At the same time though. If Luffy's other parent did become a plot relevant character in like the final 200 chapters of the story, after a 1100 chapters, they and their potential connection to Luffy would not have mattered to the story for 90% of its run. For an overwhealming majority of Luffy's adventure, that person would not have been a part of it. So if that character did become relevant, and Oda was lying, then it'd be a white lie at worst. But also, if Oda did intend to reveal that other parent eventually, when the time was right, then surely he wouldn't want to get people hyped up about it way ahead of time. If it did turn out to be a big plot twist or an otherwise important plot point, Oda would want to keep it under the wraps and a secret until the right time, you don't want to spoil something like that. Not to mention it could end up working like a distraction and make people not focus on the more important things happening in the story currently. So really, I think we'd all forgive him for a white lie there. Not to mention, technically speaking, if Luffy doesn't even have a mom but two dads, then Oda wouldn't really be lying either.

But that does bring up an important thing to considder.

If Crocodile does turn out to be Luffy's other dad, when did Oda get that idea, and when would he have committed to it?

Because, keep in mind, One Piece began back in 1997. Twenty seven whole years ago. Which means there's two things to considder; the evolution of queer rights over the past near three decades, as well as the fact that One Piece has more than surpassed Oda's original plans for the series. We must not forget how for a manga to remain serialized in Weekly Shounen JUMP, you need to perform well in the popularity polls consistently; if your manga starts dropping in popularity, JUMP can cancel it and force you end it prematurely. Of course, Oda arguably does not have to worry about those polls anymore after all these decades, there's no way in hell JUMP would ever cancel fucking One Piece in this day and age. But that might not have been the case 15 years ago, that was not the case 20 years ago, and that was absolutely not the fucking case 25 years ago. Like we all famously know that Oda originally planned One Piece to maybe run for like a year, then five years, then ten etc etc. That really is because at the begining of his career he had no quarantee he'd be able to tell the full story he was slow cooking at the back of his mind. Back in the early days, One Piece could've been canceled and ended prematurely, so Oda smartly chose to write it focusing very specifically on what mattered to the story at that moment, in the short term. Yes, he did start laying out the groundwork for things to come, but he did it so subtly that had OP been forced to end early, the series wouldn't have been left with too many massive, gaping plotholes or unresolved sidestories. Another thing to keep in mind is how comic artists for JUMP do have editors etc who can have a say in what goes into the manga (famously, Sasuke only existed because Matashi Kishimoto's editor suggested it). So again, while Oda might be able to do whatever the hell he pleases in One Piece at this point, that wouldn't have been the case 20+ years ago. He would have been more or less at the whims of his editors back in the day.

So would Oda have thought about giving Luffy, the main character of the series, a transgender father back in the year 2000? Could that really have been the secret plan from the start? And would Oda's editor(s) at JUMP have allowed that? Or, did Oda maybe come up with the idea later?

Now just so we're clear, I am NOT suggesting Crocodad was Oda's original intent and that his editors didn't let him do it or anything like that, my tinfoil hat isn't on that fucking tight. What I do want to suggest, is that it is plausible Crocodile being Luffy's other dad was an idea Oda was playing around with at the back of his mind from the begining, but wasn't sure he'd ever get to, mainly due to the uncertainty of series' future and partially because he could've been unsure if his editors would even allow him to write that story. And IF this was the case, Oda may not have even started committing to to the idea until around the CP9 saga. Or, it's possible Oda only got the idea sometime after the completion of the Alabasta arc/during Skypiea saga, and started laying down the groundwork for during Summit War so that, if he ever got around to it, he'd be able to commit and tell that story.

Regardless, let's be real.

It is interesting and kind of suspicious how Crocodile does just happen to be introduced around the same time the rest of Luffy's family was first shown to us, even if we didn't know Garp and Dragon were Luffy's family yet (this was also the same time the first canon queer character was introduced; Oda was playing around with queer characters during Crocodile's introduction, possibly testing the waters to see what he could get away with?) During the CP9 Saga we got the Miss Goldenweek cover story, where we see what's become of Crocodile after the fall of Baroque Works. This is of course adding to the world building of the CP9 Saga (where we're told the criminals who go through Enies Lobby are either sent to Impel Down or to Marineford; so us finding out Crocodile's gone to ID is playing off of what we knew would become of Robin and Franky and the Strawhats not come to rescue them. AND it's foreshadowing for the Summit War Saga), but also, soon after we were reminded of Crocodile and told where he's been sent off to, we were finally formally introduced to Garp and Dragon (Garp having already been mentioned by Aokiji at the begining of the Saga). And we close off the Saga watching Ace and Blackbeard have their fateful match. So again, Crocodile was on Oda's mind around the same time the rest of Luffy's family was. And indeed, after Thriller Bark we then move onto Summit War proper, where Oda does all The Things we would considder The Groundwork for Crocodad, most important being the introduction of Ivankov and their Devil Fruit. But again, just like before, Crocodile just happens to be there at the same time as this saga, which really heavily focuses on Luffy's family, plays out. While we learn about Dragon's secretive nature and connection to Iva-chan, Garp's feelings for the boys, Ace's struggle with his heritage and Luffy's love for him, Sabo and Garp... Yeah, Crocodile's just... Also there.

Whenever Oda starts dwelling into Luffy's family, Crocodile is always there. It's a bizarre coincidence if nothing else.

(And oh won't you look at that, Crocodile has once again become a plot relevant character, just in time for The Final Saga where Dragon has also started becoming actually plot relevant as well)

All of this to say, again.

The fact that Oda has refused to tell us anything about Luffy's other parent is sus, and to me indicates that either although unusual for him Oda genuinely just doesn't give a damn about Luffy's other parent, or he's been trying to play it safe for years so that if he ever got the opportunity, he could give Luffy two dads. (Or maybe there's some other twist that has nothing to do with Crocodile, that is possible too, I just feel like if that was the case then why hide it for 27 years?)

Whatever the case, I'm sure Oda knows the truth.

And I'm sure we will find out the truth eventually, be it on the pages of the comic or in the SBS.

[markantonys]

I'm curious how the show is gonna handle Rand's relationship with the Aiel. It should be very interesting. Bookwise he kinda rejects their culture/seeing himself as Aiel cause of him clinging to his old life. They might just frame it differently, maybe he just doesn't feel a right to it cause he wasn't raised Aiel. Overall it seems like the show might be going in the direction of people in general being more receptive to learning about Aiel culture over them just handwaving them away as weird (like Perrin's interactions with Avi when book Perrin wouldn't have done that). Maybe Rand is more willing to learn cause he wants to learn more about his birth parents

yeah i don't know what to expect in this regard! my only particular annoyance with aiel-culture-related stuff in the books is that the books would introduce something as culturally or thematically important, but then shuffle it aside once it became inconvenient to the plot. i.e:

the aiel are introduced as very anxious to tie rand to them so that he doesn't destroy them. but when later plot prevents rand from having aiel hanging around him, they stop hanging around him and aren't overly concerned about him ignoring them (bar complaints here and there, with little attempt to actually Do Anything to make him stop ignoring them).

avirand's relationship is introduced as a crucial binding cord between rand and the aiel and as significant to general aiel-wetland relations, but this is dropped once later plot prevents them from spending time together, and aviendha is never used as a mediator in rand-aiel conflicts when by all logic she should be since that was one of the main narrative purposes of their relationship upon introduction.

the maidens & wise ones are so concerned about keeping avirand together for binding cord reasons that they chase off any wetlander woman who tries to hit on him, but once RJ decided that a) he wanted min to hook up with rand without being obstructed by the aiel surrounding him and b) there would be no opportunity for her to become first-sisters with aviendha before doing so, then suddenly the maidens & wise ones are all about min and becoming top min/rand shippers and aviendha is saying it's totally fine to make an exception to the first-sister rule for min even though she is very adamant about upholding it for elayne. when by all logic, the maidens & wise ones should NOT be happy about another wetlander woman with no connection to aviendha trying to get with rand (they'd have no reason to think min is any different from isendre, cairhienin nobles, etc in this regard) and aviendha should be much more resistant to making exceptions to rules we've been told are hugely culturally significant to her.

so my one wish for all aiel-culture-related stuff in the show is that if the show introduces something as culturally or thematically important, it should commit to that importance for the rest of the series rather than sweeping it aside once it's no longer convenient to the plot. that doesn't mean rand/wetlander-aiel relations needs to be a major theme or plot point of every single season for the rest of the show, because ofc it should naturally fade more into the background as the story goes on and other things come up, but it's gotta be either a) rand is tied securely enough to the aiel by the time he has to go off and do other stuff that it makes sense they're not concerned about things like him ditching them and getting a new wetlander girlfriend, or b) if he's not tied securely enough, then make the aiel react accordingly and actually try to use aviendha to intervene with him on their behalf.

hopefully this ramble makes sense djkjfg and it didn't even end up having much to do with rand's personal attitudes towards aiel culture, so i got off topic a bit! but for me, i am good with whatever show!rand's personal attitude ends up being as long as things remain emotionally consistent throughout the course of the show.

[antialiasis]

Chess (2018 Kennedy Center revival)

So I was just going to briefly mention all the other different versions of Chess I have consumed in the big essay post I’ve been writing on and off, but there was just too much to say about this one which made it really awkward to fit it in, so fine, here is another individual chesspost. Nearly 7500 words of rambling under the cut, oh my god.

This production represents the latest official full overhaul of Chess. It sports an all-new book written by Danny Strong, also known as the actor who played Jonathan on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is some whiplash (Sarah Michelle Gellar is apparently a big Chess fan, too). It was later staged again as a concert with some further modifications in 2021, but I listened to an audio bootleg of the 2018 version. (There exist some videos of it online, but only scattered bits.)

The Story Changes

This version has London’s basic plot structure with the distinctive two chess tournaments (this time four years apart, which is neither the original number nor the actual number of years between world chess championships), but rearranges Act I, adds a lot more quippy dialogue and swearing, reinterprets the characters, and recenters real-world politics in the whole thing — sort of the exact inverse of what Chess på svenska did with the material. It opens with “Difficult and Dangerous Times” to set the scene in the Cold War and features the Arbiter narrating with sardonic omniscient commentary between songs/scenes throughout, which does feel a bit more consistent than the Arbiter suddenly having a narrator role for the duration of one song in Act II.

All the main characters in this version are reinterpreted with significant new background context, which is a very interesting way to rewrite it that I definitely dig in principle. For example, Florence’s first scene here involves Walter threatening her with deportation from the US unless she can make Freddie behave for the duration of the tournament. Most versions of Chess make the political scheming very symbolic and vague — exchanges of mostly unnamed political prisoners or handwaved concessions — but this version is noticeably specific, with specific nuclear arms treaty negotiations that the CIA believes would be negatively affected if Freddie keeps openly antagonizing the Soviets. She tells Walter to go fuck himself (told you it adds more swearing) and that nobody can control Freddie Trumper, but ultimately she doesn’t have much of a choice but to reluctantly play along. This addition recontextualizes her character and her interactions with Freddie in Act I a fair bit — it’s pretty significant, after all, that she is under threat and may lose her home if she doesn’t somehow control what she really can’t.

Meanwhile, Freddie himself here suffers from a full-on mental illness which he takes medication for. Walter asserts on a phone call early that they’re dealing with a “genuine paranoid schizophrenic”, but then later calls him a “bipolar bitch”; I take the blatant inconsistency combined with the obviously insulting nature of these remarks to mean probably we’re not meant to take either of them at face value, but these two lines from Walter are the only ones suggesting any specific diagnosis. (I unfortunately suspect Danny Strong didn’t have a specific condition in mind and research it so much as just slap him with a Generic Ambiguous Mental Illness for which he takes Pills.) One way or another, Freddie’s ambiguous mental illness gives him bouts of intense paranoia, driving him to do things like trashing his and Florence’s hotel room to look for listening devices at one point. Florence keeps insistently, frustratedly telling him to just take his goddamn pills even as he’s in genuine distress; it’s pretty uncomfortable, and also definitely one of those things that are at least more human when his episodes could cost her the only home she has: she’s desperate and in distress too.

(I do kind of feel as if this whole bit would make more sense if Florence and Freddie had a strictly business relationship here to start with, instead of being explicitly portrayed as a couple — when they have a committed intimate partnership going on, one would think Florence getting deported would also be pretty obviously significant for Freddie, and Florence quietly playing along with the CIA and crossing her fingers that she can indirectly coax him into behaving with seemingly no serious thought given to whether it’d be better to just tell him why he needs to stop feels stranger. The scene with Walter sounds like Walter/the CIA are not aware of their romantic relationship and Florence wants to keep it that way — they both refer to Freddie strictly by his full/last name and as “her player” — so I guess Walter would have assumed she wouldn’t tell him, but surely the calculus would at least look a bit different to Florence herself. Even if it just prompts her to realize Freddie would still be liable to react by becoming even more erratic and vocal about his paranoias, that feels like it’d be significant enough, at least for her feelings on this relationship going forward, that it never actually coming up or being suggested within the story starts to feel marginally odd. Not a major complaint, though, just a bit of overthinking.)

Freddie in general is noticeably portrayed much more sympathetically here than usual throughout. Where other versions of Chess tend to present Freddie as an attention-seeking drama queen who plays up ludicrous arbitrary demands for money and press, here things like his walkout from the first chess game are made to come from a much more genuine place: he has major sensory issues and is intolerably thrown off balance by distracting noise and lights (which really are deliberately arranged to sabotage him). “Florence Quits”, the song with the misogyny verse, usually reads as being triggered by his jealousy and inability to accept that Anatoly’s just playing better than him, but this version makes it feel more about how he feels persistently gaslit about the ways he’s being sabotaged than anything else: he accuses the Soviets of having a hypnotist in the front row to throw him off (which they do, and Freddie literally saw him and recognized him) and Florence of working for the CIA (which she has been, if not by choice) while they deny it and brush it off, and the tense opening notes of the song play under him desperately yelling “You’re lying to me! You’re all lying to me!” (Which doesn’t make the misogyny okay, obviously, but it does make it feel more like a desperate, paranoia-fueled lashout where you don’t know how much he really means all that.)

When he subsequently forfeits the match against Anatoly, he makes a speech that sounds absolutely despairing where he says chess has been taking a toll on his health since he first became champion at eleven years old, and he doesn’t feel he can trust anyone, even himself. In Act II, before “The Interview”, he even actually apologizes to Florence for how he treated her; heck, his motivation for going so hard after Anatoly in “The Interview” itself is portrayed as being that he is genuinely disgusted by Anatoly leaving his family so callously (which is a lot of fun given Freddie’s own issues about his father leaving him and his mother behind) and wants Florence to hear the truth about what a despicable man he is, which is still unpleasant to her but clearly comes from a much more sympathetic place than either simple spite or reluctantly complying with Walter’s orders.

As for Anatoly… he was taken from his parents when he was a small child to be groomed by Molokov and the KGB into becoming a chess champion, and he’s well aware from his very first scene that the state had killed the previous Soviet champion after Freddie unseated him. (Freddie excoriates the press early on for not covering why the former champion disappeared off the face of the Earth because they’re too busy bashing Freddie, which sounds like paranoia, but the narrative has actually told us Freddie is right and they really did execute him but no one but Freddie seems to notice or care — another way in which Freddie is jarringly sympathetic here. In general, Freddie is portrayed as paranoid, and the other characters treat him like he’s just paranoid, but the narrative keeps proving Freddie’s paranoia right.)

Anatoly, though, isn’t afraid of the same fate, because “The state cannot execute a man… that is already dead.” (This general sentiment could press my buttons, but it just feels super corny and melodramatic the way it’s presented and performed, especially with that dramatic pause in there.) He is deeply depressed, thinks his marriage to Svetlana is fake and his kids hate him, and says repeatedly in Act I that he hates chess and just wants to be free of it, though he also describes a particular championship match he watched as the only time he’s felt love. At the end of Act I, he defects to the UK along with Florence as usual (his defection fully blows up the treaty Walter was worrying about despite Anatoly’s victory, so Florence’s refugee visa is indeed revoked, and that’s why they end up in the UK). Theoretically he should be free of chess now, but it bothers him intensely that he only won by forfeit (here they never finished playing a single match), resulting in him returning to defend his world champion title, and win it ‘properly’, four years later in Bangkok against Viigand.

Unknown to Anatoly, by Act II, after the election of Ronald Reagan, the Soviets are extra on edge and believe a planned NATO military exercise is actually the US mobilizing for a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. Walter tries to convince Molokov it’s just an exercise; Molokov insists unfortunately the generals are going to believe it’s an invasion and be ready to retaliate unless Viigand wins the championship (if Viigand wins they will take it as a ‘sign of goodwill’ from the US, which will change their minds on the apparent invasion because, uhh, unclear). Throughout Act II, the larger stakes in this version are set up to be that if Anatoly should win the match, the Soviets are liable to start a nuclear war.

Does Walter go to Anatoly to frankly tell him that apparently the Soviets have lost their minds and are basically threatening nuclear war over a chess match and try to convince him to throw on that basis? Does Molokov realize that if he’s telling Walter to go rig the chess match so the generals will call it off, he clearly doesn’t actually believe that the US is about to invade, so probably he should be trying to convince the generals not to go for the nuclear option himself? No, of course not; this is Chess, so we have to have the songs that are in Chess. So instead, Walter and Molokov just go through the same indirect schemes as usual to unbalance Anatoly and convince him to throw the game, with some minor twists. Molokov actually actively threatens Svetlana with being sent to a gulag to die if she doesn’t convince her husband to return — and Svetlana does straight-up tell Anatoly this, only for Anatoly to brush her off and tell her they won’t do that. Florence learns the same from Walter and initially dismisses him, and fully doesn’t believe him about her father being alive, but does ultimately sympathize with Svetlana and worry for her, which I like. But Anatoly is obsessed with winning this championship above all else and fully convinced Molokov is bluffing.

In the end, he plays the game to win, oblivious to the nuclear threat; as he checkmates, Walter makes a desperate phone call to his superiors to call off the training exercise. (Why he didn’t just do that immediately when Molokov told him the Soviets were taking it as an attack, instead of spending all this time playing along with this elaborate chess mind game, is a mystery.) Only… they don’t, and the Soviets watch with their fingers on the nuclear button, but ultimately they don’t fire. The Arbiter’s narration informs us this was the closest the world ever came to destruction, even closer than the Cuban missile crisis, and that this then served as the wake-up call that prompted negotiations about nuclear deescalation.

Anatoly, meanwhile, returns to the Soviet Union as usual, this time successfully exchanging himself for Florence’s imprisoned father, and Walter gives the two of them visas so that they can return to the US together.

Broad thoughts

I feel profoundly weird about the mixing of real-life history and completely fictitious alternate history here — you can’t just assert in narration that the fictional events in your musical were what taught the US and Soviet Union that maybe they should just talk to each other, while making a specific comparison to an actual thing that really happened, after spending the musical asserting that the Soviets murdered chess players for losing the world championship. I think mixing history and fiction can work fine if we can imagine that for all we know this is what really happened, or alternatively that this is what might have happened in some alternate universe similar to but distinct from ours. But here, we’re creating highly significant and publicized events that are obviously fictional, making it absurd to pretend this is what really happened, while also presenting these fictional alternate-universe events in objective hindsight narration alongside real events that happened in the real world and as a supposed cause of them. This ending narration just feels like it’s weirdly trying to have its cake and eat it too.

All in all, though, I think this is definitely one of the most interesting efforts to rewrite Chess. It definitely has something it’s going for, there are several neat ideas in it, and in particular I appreciate that it tries to give extra attention to the characters, more context to their actions, and more messy, humanized depth, inner conflict, and complicated motivators and stressors behind what they do. I genuinely enjoy what it’s doing with Freddie in Act I, in particular, even though it feels somehow both jarringly like it’s woobifying him (I genuinely think he ends up coming across as the most sympathetic of the three mains here, with so much of his erratic, childish and unpleasant behaviour being recontextualized to be more understandable and the way his hatred of the Soviets keeps being validated by the narrative) and like the narrative is weirdly harsh on him (this much more sympathetic Freddie who suffers from an actual mental illness is treated like absolute irredeemable scum by every other character including the fourth-wall-leaning narrator, even more than usual).

I also think the restructuring of Act I was pretty solid for the most part, though there’s definitely some awkwardness, like how Freddie’s expanded encounters with the press sort of clumsily repeat the same beats a bit. On the one hand, I can get what Danny Strong was going for in choosing to introduce everyone first and then go into “Merano” instead of doing several minutes of narrative meaninglessness before the main characters are even introduced; on the other hand, that kind of just half-defeats the sole original purpose of “Merano”, which is to provide a very jaunty more stereotypical musical theater song so that Freddie can be introduced via barging in and interrupting it with his very different vibe, and if I were Danny Strong I would definitely have just removed “Merano” at that point. But the “Difficult and Dangerous Times” opening works great, and it nicely avoids the “almost nothing of note happens for nearly forty minutes” and “several meaningless fluff songs in a row” problems of the London script, introducing conflict and stakes early and keeping the narrative going.

Ultimately, though, a lot of what it’s trying to do doesn’t quite come together to me, and some of it is variously misguided or just strange.

The Politics

To start with, I can definitely get wanting to emphasize the role of Cold War politics in the narrative, and I basically enjoyed the increased political focus and higher stakes in Act I — but I don’t think making Anatoly unwittingly almost start a nuclear war works here, or fits properly into this narrative at all. The Soviet generals have to be holding idiot balls; Molokov has to be holding an idiot ball; Walter has to be holding the biggest idiot ball of all; and most importantly, the ludicrously massive stakes being pasted on top of the match despite none of the main characters even knowing about it means we zoom thoroughly out of the character drama of the situation: “Endgame” just becomes grotesquely trivial with that hanging over it without Anatoly’s knowledge, rendering the actual drama of the climactic song completely irrelevant to what’s really at stake.

I also dislike, in a version that emphasizes the politics, how distinctly slanted it is. One of the things that I like in the London strain of Chess is that Walter and Molokov are both slimy, manipulative bastards in different ways, both sides’ political actors cruelly toying with the lives of the players for their own impersonal ends; the righteousness of each state as a whole doesn’t really matter to this story, only the impact that the whole conflict and the mutual scheming has on the main characters’ lives. But in this version, the Soviets and Molokov are cartoon villains who literally abduct children to force them into chess camp and then murder them if they don’t win the world championship, while Walter may be a condescending asshole who’s willing to threaten Florence but is distinctly the ‘good guy’ in his interactions with Molokov, which comprise most of his screentime, especially in Act II. Walter even gets a humanizing moment where he explains he has a nine-year-old son and has nightmares about him suffering a nuclear winter (Molokov, meanwhile, tells Walter in Act I that Anatoly is like a son to him but could not more obviously not care about Anatoly at all when he proudly presents his new champion material Viigand in Act II). I just find it really detrimental to Chess’s narrative to make it about Soviets Bad, US Good, and more so the more you focus on that — to whatever extent you highlight the politics in this story, it should be done in a way that’s about how the political machinations of the Cold War impact the character drama at the center of it, and it’s distracting when instead you make it into a loosely related B-plot about Walter’s desperate diplomatic efforts to stop the evil Soviets from destroying the world with their shortsightedness.

I think a successful more politically-focused Chess could definitely exist, but I think it’s always going to function best if Walter and Molokov feel at least narratively like just about equal scumbags. It’s not even impossible to imagine nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction coming up in the course of it — but it needs to be using that to make us enraged at all of this on behalf of Anatoly/Florence/Svetlana/Freddie, not enraged at Molokov on behalf of Walter.

The Character Work

Meanwhile, I do basically like the setup and recontextualization done for all of the main characters in Act I, but unfortunately none of them quite delivered as well as I hoped in the end.

Let’s start with Florence. I actually quite liked the deportation threat, putting Florence herself under personal pressure in a way she usually isn’t. I dig characters being put through the wringer and making decisions under stress. But the story doesn’t quite do anything with that other than using it as silent context behind her early interactions with Freddie and technically as the reason she and Anatoly move to the UK offscreen. We don’t, for instance, ever see Freddie learn that that’s why she moved or that he was unwittingly indirectly responsible for that, or otherwise address that in any way, and as far as Florence in the rest of the story is concerned, it might as well never have happened — we never see her having any kinds of feelings on it, or even confronting Walter about that nasty little part he played in her life when she meets him again (she doesn’t even comment on it when he offers her the chance to go back to the US at the end!). To an extent this is, of course, because Florence being deported was never originally part of the story of Chess, so of course it doesn’t come up in any song or have any significant specific impact on the core series of events — but if you’re going to add it in at all, you really ought to be taking that somewhere in the rest of your additions that isn’t just briefly handwaving that she gets to go back at the end.

Like Long Beach, this version brings Florence’s father back at the end — but unfortunately, it feels really unearned here. Compared to other London variants, it actually ditches the bit of “The Deal” where Florence is tangibly emotional and riled up by Walter’s offer of her father — she fully dismisses the idea of her father being alive as bullshit, and instead it’s Svetlana who moves her to have doubts when she sees her begging Anatoly to return on video and realizes Svetlana still loves him. I do really like that, by itself, and it’s probably my favorite thing about this version’s portrayal of Florence; her empathizing with Svetlana to the point of feeling genuinely guilty for having taken her husband from her, and believing maybe the right thing to do would be if he went back to Svetlana for her sake, is actually very good, serves as a great lead-in to “I Know Him So Well”, and makes Florence’s character feel far more sympathetic in a production where she’s otherwise pretty lacking in that department. But it leaves us with no emotional connection whatsoever to Florence’s father — we’ve only heard her mention him twice before Walter’s offer, very briefly, in Act I, and not really with any sense that she misses or is all that invested in him. Seeing her reunite with him means nothing for her or her arc; it just comes out of left field, and winds up being another thing slanting this version towards Good Guy Walter, Bad Guy Molokov, what with Walter offering her visas back to the US for both of them seemingly out of the goodness of his heart.

It would have been possible to actually build up to this in a way that would make it satisfying. Florence and Anatoly have several conversations; we could have used some of those to have Florence actually talk about her father and how she feels about him being gone, and that could have been part of building up her relationship with Anatoly, made it meaningful that Anatoly’s parting gift to her is to ensure her father’s return. I suppose Danny Strong’s thought process may have been that if he built up Florence’s father too much, that should become her main concern once Walter brings that into it, and he wanted her concern to be about Svetlana instead, which I guess is fair; it also means Anatoly only really has to dismiss the potential harm to one other person in his obsession with the winning the game. But if you do make the decision to not build up her father, then bringing her father back is not an ending that makes any sense, and there was no need to do this — they could have easily cut out all suggestion of her father being alive entirely and it would only have made things smoother. I think the only reason she gets her father back in this one is in some hasty effort to make Florence’s ending less bleak, but because it doesn’t have any emotional resonance, it’s just not the right way to do that here.

Speaking of Florence and Anatoly, the romance here… once again has some neat, interesting things it’s going for but doesn’t quite come together as a whole. The two of them do have some actual conversations where they bond a bit, which is already a marked improvement over the default London script — but their very first conversation features Anatoly asserting out of nowhere that Florence has “a way of brightening his spirit”, despite not even knowing her, which isn’t super convincing and just comes off kind of creepy-awkward. Florence asserts a few times that he’s sweet and kind, but we don’t really see much of him actually coming across as sweet or kind — his lines tend to be either melodramatic or sardonic moping interspersed kind of jarringly with awkward jokes. He’s less charming or sweet and more like a lonely, kicked dog, which is fine if Florence is into that but doesn’t quite make her descriptions of why she likes him ring true.

This production actually goes back to the concept album a bit when it comes to Florence and Anatoly — namely, more than political manipulation and external pressures forcibly tearing them apart from the outside, there’s a more substantial internal tension between them as Anatoly genuinely simply prioritizes winning the chess match over her and dismisses her as she tries to question him about Svetlana. The two approaches can both work but do different things for the narrative; this internal approach puts more focus on the personal conflict and character drama and makes the relationship more interesting, which is definitely good, and in principle I think this is built up to in a pretty solid way here — Anatoly, raised to become a chess champion to the exclusion of all else, being maddened by the notion of not actually beating Freddie in Act I and needing to prove he deserves the championship to himself in Act II before he can feel “free from chess” works as a coherent reason for him to be so strikingly, unhealthily obsessive about it.

But I think the biggest problem is that Florence and Anatoly individually don’t hit well enough as characters to create investment in them. Florence is ultimately not developed enough and mostly just acts kind of unpleasant, especially to Freddie, all the way up until that Svetlana bit in Act II. More importantly, I just can’t like or understand or sympathize with Anatoly at all, beyond recognizing that core of what his arc is going for. Part of it is probably down to the writing of his lines, which I’m just not a fan of in general. I already named one example from his first scene. Here’s how Anatoly and Florence’s very first conversation starts:

ANATOLY: It’s not his fault. This game drives us all crazy. FLORENCE: I’m fine. Aren’t you even a little bit scared? ANATOLY: Of Trumper? FLORENCE: No, that they’ll kill you if you lose. ANATOLY: Oh. To quote the great Leo Tolstoy, “Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six.” FLORENCE: What does that mean? ANATOLY: I don’t know exactly, but it is very Russian.

I just don’t find this dialogue very convincing. Why is he reciting a dramatic irrelevant quote if he doesn’t know what it means and just thinks it’s “very Russian”? It feels like a generic quippy exchange off a snarky TV show. Does Anatoly use humour to cope with his situation? Not really; this is pretty much the only time he says anything that might be taken as that. This feels like a joke that’s there only to get a laugh out of the audience, not because Anatoly would actually tell it — and consequently, it doesn’t tell us anything real about Anatoly. Meanwhile, Florence responds to this with “Oh, you’re funny,” as if that’s one of the reasons she falls for him when I would decidedly not name that as a character trait he has. I feel like most of his dialogue just doesn’t have a great sense of character — in stark contrast to Freddie, who oozes character. I can’t get a good sense of who he is and how he thinks. He’s just there. And this also makes it harder to see what Florence sees in him and believe in the relationship.

Moreover, this Anatoly just comes across as kind of a terrible person, not in the fun coherent intentional way Freddie is a terrible person but in a flat, confusing and kind of unintentional-seeming way. Svetlana here is actually really sympathetic, with lovely little additional bits of dialogue that make her feelings hit harder (her voice as she tells Anatoly that “You left us!” breaks my heart), and this is possibly my favorite version of Svetlana in any Chess. But Anatoly is really, really terrible to her, by which I don’t even mean the cheating on her but the bit where he keeps angrily insisting to her face that she never loved him and she brainwashed their children to hate him and of course they’re not going to kill her (hey, Anatoly, guess who’s already well aware that the Soviet government in this universe is not above executing people over chess?).

And even that could be made understandable, given his situation — he could just be in hard denial about it because the thought of them having been suffering with him gone and being punished for his actions is so horrific he just shuts it down — but there’s never any sense that that’s what’s really going on. We don’t see him privately upset about the possibility later, for instance — he just keeps insisting the same and dismissing Svetlana to Florence, too. We know it’s not that it’s true — we see Svetlana admit to Molokov that even though he ruined her life and she never wants to see him again she still loves him, and we hear her sing “Someone Else’s Story” and “I Know Him So Well”. Nor do we ever get any hint at exactly what Svetlana or his kids did to make him think this of them, if anything (his own kids!). Anatoly just seems to sort of bitterly, adamantly believe this for no reason at all. And that makes it impossible to empathize with. Okay, sure, Anatoly, you were taken from your family as a child, but that really doesn’t even start to explain any of this. There could have been ways of making it feel at least believable, tragic in a deeply fucked-up way, but the story here just doesn’t do the work. And once again, Anatoly being so unpleasant for no reason just makes it harder to feel at all invested in his relationship with Florence or sad when they part.

The best fix here isn’t quite obvious, and I can’t say I envy Danny Strong trying to put all his neat little ideas together and make them work. If Anatoly were to appear substantially conflicted about Svetlana and put any real stock in Molokov’s threat, that would render “Endgame”, where he doubles down anyway, kind of jarring and inexcusable as he’d be not just refusing to return to her but refusing to care if she is killed. So in order for this to properly work with “Endgame”, he probably does need to be very deep in denial about whether they’d really kill her. I think what I would do, if I were writing this plot where groomed-as-a-chess-champion Anatoly knows the Soviets killed Boris Ivanovich and they’ve threatened to kill Svetlana too, is to emphasize better how irrational Anatoly is being and try to show it more as a consequence of growing up among the constantly plotting KGB.

Let him go off on a proper paranoid rant to Florence about the reasons why he thinks Svetlana is just plotting against him, and some innocuous things he saw his kids do once that mean she brainwashed them. When Florence tries to challenge him on how batshit he sounds, he just storms out, saying she’s being taken in by their lies and just wants to sabotage him, and disappears — and she doesn’t see him again until he appears at the final game and plays this manic, desperate match while insisting to himself that Svetlana and Florence both just never understood him and hated his success. Afterwards, we can perhaps see him finally, quietly asking Molokov if they’re really going to kill her, showing that on some level he already knew the threat might be real and had just firmly blocked it out (in the actual ending as it is Molokov simply tells him unprompted that she really will be punished unless he comes back, and he just asks why with no addressing of his previous adamant insistence that that wouldn’t happen). His and Florence’s final conversation could then involve a bit more of a reckoning with that and with what his relationship with Svetlana was really like, through a more honest lens.

I’m actually pretty tickled by this scenario because that would really drive home a pretty fun parallel between Anatoly and Freddie — which in hindsight I think this version must in fact have been trying for, but didn’t quite do in a focused enough way for it to really hit. Anatoly and Freddie are both chess players with deeply abnormal childhoods and bouts of paranoia that cause them to behave in toxic ways, which ultimately drives Florence away from both of them.

This production shows the first chess game as the “Chess Game” instrumental playing under Freddie and Anatoly having alternating inner monologues about the game and their issues, deliberately drawing a comparison between the two of them; they both say they hate chess, that they don’t feel like real human beings. It’s not exactly subtle, but I liked the way this was used to build up their respective brain gremlins and was intrigued by the parallel being set up. I didn’t feel they ultimately did much with the parallel, though, because the story then didn’t really continue leaning into it much from there. By emphasizing this Anatoly’s paranoia as paranoia and not just as him legitimately thinking the marriage was never real and the KGB wouldn’t kill her, we could properly build the story around that parallel, and I would genuinely dig that.

The one place after the chess match where the actual thing does sort of try to get at the Anatoly/Freddie parallel again is in the dialogue scene that precedes “Endgame”. This scene is not sung (though it has the “Chess Game” instrumental in the background, which connects it neatly to that previous bit comparing the two of them), but it’s clearly based on “Talking Chess”: Freddie approaches Anatoly to tell him Viigand’s weakness lies in his King’s Indian Defense, and:

ANATOLY: Why are you helping me? FREDDIE: Jesus Christ! Am I the only one who cares about this game? ANATOLY: It’s more than a game now. There is so much more at stake than who wins or loses. FREDDIE: No! No, winning is everything. Fuck politics! Fuck the KGB, fuck the CIA, fuck them all! We are the ones who have dedicated our lives to chess. We are the ones who have given up everything for greatness — our childhoods, our sanity, our loves. Anatoly, we’ve sacrificed everything. They’ve sacrificed nothing. What’s the number one rule of a chess champion? ANATOLY: Play to win. FREDDIE: As long as you do that you can never lose, even if you do.

Much as I love “Talking Chess”, though, this on the surface similar scene just didn’t feel right in this context when I listened to it. In Anatoly’s last scene here, he told Florence firmly that he just wanted to win and that his marriage with Svetlana was never real and it’s all KGB mind games. Him going “It’s more than a game now, there’s so much more at stake” suddenly now comes out of nowhere — if he believes that now, it could only be if he actively reconsidered something offscreen, but he doesn’t say anything elaborating on what he’s thinking now or what he might have reconsidered or why, just that vague, generic line that contradicts everything he’s expressed up until this point. It’s another example of Anatoly’s dialogue just feeling really flat and meaningless to me — his lines here don’t say anything, just serve as vague filler to prompt Freddie onward. And because unlike London proper the setup leading up to this is all about him already being absolutely determined to win the game at all costs, this just feels redundant, unnecessary, going through the motions of something that’s in London without realizing that with the changed context it doesn’t quite make sense anymore.

I think that’s unfortunately the case with Freddie a bit here too. I enjoyed Act I’s quite different take on Freddie, and his establishing narration for Act II petulantly stating Anatoly won the championship last year “by forfeit, I might add”, and “The Interview” is recontextualized in a very fun way as I mentioned before — but after that it feels like Danny Strong doesn’t quite know what to do with Freddie anymore and just has him sort of arbitrarily go through the motions of London in a way that doesn’t necessarily hang together with everything he’s established of Freddie so far. It made sense that this Freddie, despite being decidedly hostile towards Walter and the CIA, conducted the interview to show Florence what a bastard Anatoly is — he’s not doing it for Walter, he’s got his own reasons to want to do it once Walter’s shown him the Svetlana video. But I find it a lot harder to swallow that this Freddie — whose usual problem seems to be that he’s compulsively blunt about how he really feels — would then be easily persuaded to play his part in “The Deal”, which involves exaggeratedly trying to be all buddy-buddy with Anatoly. Maybe if there was better setup around it, like with “The Interview” — but “The Deal” only has seconds of kind of half-assed leadup here, and from there it moves directly into “Pity the Child” (after a segue featuring the recording of Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavad Gita, because nuclear war).

Freddie’s next appearance after that, then, is this “Talking Chess”-esque dialogue where he’s realized the parallel between the two of them, how they’ve both sacrificed everything for chess and the political schemers have sacrificed nothing and that’s why he should play to win. I can appreciate how the low point of “Pity the Child” would trigger that particular realization, contemplating how much he lost and sacrificed to achieve his status in the game and perhaps afterward realizing Anatoly is the only other person here who might understand that. That feels like it basically tracks and is interesting.

But… it also means that fun very specific contempt for Anatoly in particular based on him having left his family like Freddie’s own father did is just kind of… gone, I guess, or at least Freddie doesn’t consider it relevant enough for it to stop him from going out of his way to pep Anatoly up for the game with no mention or hint of it. (At least Freddie probably isn’t aware of the threats made against Svetlana in particular, so he doesn’t know Anatoly winning would shatter his family even further.) And we’ve lost the bit in “Talking Chess” where the notion of the political scheming actually leading to Viigand winning the match just personally offends Freddie because Viigand is not even that good; instead Freddie is just putting forward “Play to win” as some kind of general inviolable chess principle, which is kind of generic and not nearly as characterful, in my opinion. I’m not saying we ought to have had the “Viigand is mediocre” bit here — I don’t think it would quite fit in for this Freddie, whose feelings about chess itself are very conflicted and who is more concerned with showing up these political hacks who have sacrificed nothing while they sacrificed everything — but as a Freddie moment I would really have wanted to end on something stronger there than this vague assertion that “The number one rule of a chess champion is to play to win.”

Like in London, this is Freddie’s last substantial scene, but he does have a part in “Endgame”, and it’s also an interesting one: he gets Sixty-four squares / they’re the reason you know you exist (but not the preceding How straightforward the game…), but also a couple of other verses usually sung by the chorus, and the lines he gets are clearly very purposefully chosen to reinforce that final resolve regarding the sacrifices they’ve made for greatness, which I really appreciate: Listen to them shout / They saw you do it / In their minds no doubt / That you’ve been through it / Suffered for your art and in the end a winner and They’re completely enchanted / But they don’t take your qualities for granted / It isn’t very often / That the critics soften / Nonetheless, you’ve won their hearts / How can we begin to / Appreciate the work that you’ve put into / Your calling through the years / The blood, the sweat, the tears / The late, late, nights, the early starts?

All in all, Freddie is still definitely my favorite part of this Chess, but while the parallel itself is neat it’s too muddled and I find the second half of Act II pretty uneven for him. What would I do if I were writing this bit?

I’m not totally sure how I’d want to tackle “The Deal”, but as for the “Talking Chess”-but-not scene: I would ditch the bit where Freddie is trying to advise Anatoly on strategy and the bit where Anatoly is apparently suddenly not determined to play to win just so Freddie can then tell him he should be again. None of that is contributing anything in what this version has been building up. Instead, they just sort of bump into each other, Anatoly fresh off his paranoid rant to Florence about Svetlana, Freddie fresh off “Pity the Child” and the strange realization Anatoly might be the only person who’d understand him a little bit. At first they just sort of stop and look at each other. Freddie starts, guarded, with some kind of oblique accusatory prod about the leaving his family thing, which he still deeply resents.

Anatoly has calmed down now, but he tells him what he told Florence: that it was always a fake marriage, a fake family, that the video was just a lie set up for him by the KGB, that Svetlana had brainwashed their children to despise him.

This incidentally plays into Freddie’s existing preconceptions pretty well. He’s probably not instantly convinced but it checks out enough he’s willing to reluctantly leave it alone for now. Probably mutters something like, “Fucking Soviets.”

Anatoly says something like, aren’t you going to try to make me a deal to get me to throw the match and go back? Freddie says no, fuck that. Says the whole bit about how we are the ones who have dedicated ourselves to chess, who have sacrificed everything, childhood, sanity, love, and they’ve sacrificed nothing. Why should we listen to those CIA and KGB assholes? Draws out that parallel. The two of them are probably standing in symmetrical positions on the stage.

Anatoly just nods slowly, agreeing. “I would have beaten you.”

Freddie scoffs and says, “Dream on,” but not quite with the spiteful arrogance he would’ve said it in Act I.

Then they part, and we move on to “Endgame”. The scene isn’t about Freddie helping Anatoly, or about Freddie convincing Anatoly to go for the win; it’s about the Freddie/Anatoly parallel, about Freddie realizing it and in his profound loneliness finding a smidge of connection with this guy he hated because he’s the only one who sort of Gets It, and about showing how Anatoly’s conviction has developed since the first chess match where part of his inner monologue went, “I can’t beat him, he’s too good.” Anatoly is so ready to prove that he really is the world’s best chess player.

Conclusion

Man, this version is so interesting. It’s a mess, but it’s a fascinating mess with a bunch of tasty potential and a real sense that Danny Strong had some genuine thoughts on what the show was missing and how to rework it to fix that, even where his attempts were ultimately confused and don’t succeed. In some ways it’s the most me-core version of Chess and in other ways it’s deeply antithetical to me and in most all ways it’s trying to do something neat but does it in a flawed way. Special shoutout to this Freddie, who honestly deserves better than this Florence.

[laufire]

if you're willing, would you mind sharing more of your thoughts on mia/jason? B/c i personally can't see mia wanting anything to do with him (based on the green arrow arc), but i am open to having my mind changed if you have a case for it

sure!

I'll preface this by saying that although I ship them, I don't have A Plot for them yet, the way I do for other of my jason rareships, and thus I have yet to ~envision how I'd personally have it go down. but these are my thoughts on them at the moment.

first of all... the green arrow arc isn't this HORRIBLE, TEERRIBLE, AWFUL thing that happened to mia, or this irredeemable evil jason did, and I'm always baffled whenever I see it talked about that way. like. mia is not a normie kid living her normie life in a slice-of-life teen story. she's a freaking SUPERHERO that risks her freaking LIFE on the regular. jason is this dude one, maybe two years older than her that didn't even want to seriously harm her.

she obviously wouldn't walk out of that encounter with kind thoughts about him. he was an asshole! he wanted to scare her! (and he had a GOAL re: sidekicks and the danger they're exposed to and a point to prove about it, which I always feel is handwaved). but like, jason is not a static character, or not doomed to be at least. he'd have to sincerely apologise, saying that yeah, he was a shit, that was a shitty thing to do, he was projecting some stuff on hers and ollie's relationship that wasn't even true and he's ready to compensate her for it. and again, these are... not normal people. like sorry but I just don't think what jason did in that arc garrants an eternity of hate and enmity to them.

and obviously not hating him forever/seeing his actions for what they were and not more/being able to forgive them in the face of a sincere apology and amendments isn't the same as actually seeing jason as a romantic prospect! but it's a first step into a less than hostile dynamic.

and within that context, I could see mia thinking back on some of the things jason said in their confrontation, about them being alike (also, winick wasn't been subtle in his parallels here, but I've seen people being VERY obtuse about this part of the scene añsldkf). I haven't read mia in a team context/with lots of peers her age yet, but even if she's more likely to find people with commonalities/messed up childhoods among child heroes, common ground is still something to be curious about, to bond over. and such very specific common ground would be something I think she'd value.

I haven't reached that arc yet, but I know mia has also killed, once, in circumstances where she thought she had no other choice. and she doesn't want to do that anymore, she wants to be a hero and stay on the path and raise above. those are things that I find interesting in conjunction to a dynamic with jason, in particular. the way it would lead both to conflict and to a different level of understanding.

also, there's always this sense in posts against these ships where I feel like... mia doesn't have to be perfect. she can be messy and make questionable romantic choices and maybe they pan out or maybe they don't, but it could be something actually fun to explore with her character, to see her in a context like that. less in the "bad boy attraction" sense because really, past aesthetics jason does not fit that role in a romantic sense, but as in getting to explore other sides of her character through a romantic relationship, especially as a character with both a history of sexual abuse and with HIV. and I'm sure there are other candidates for that, both canon and fanon, but it just happens that the first thing I read with her was the Jason Being A Menace arc and that I looooove a meet ugly, especially if it comes with a "recognition through the other (derogatory)" bonus.

anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone because I'm perfectly happy in my rowboat-sized ships and it's nothing to me if other people disagree or judge me for them lol, but thanks for the chance to talk about them a bit!

[nostalgia-tblr]

theory: the prophets got the idea for how to make ben sisko part-prophet from watching that episode where dukat had fucked everyone's mothers. (they are non-linear so it works shhhhh.)

[real-fire-emblem-takes]

Engage haters claiming that people who like Engage only like it cause they "handwave all of the bad writing" while handwaving all of the stupid nonsensical plot points and plot holes in tellius and calling it "super great writing".

.

[taihua]

tgcf=bad writing (based on that reblog THIS ISNT HATE IM JUST GENUINELY CURIOUS I REALLY LOVE U)

Allow me to elaborate! It's my favorite book so I say this with all the love in my heart for the story and characters, but--

She needed an editor: there are large sections of the book that could have been cut without changing the plot. Like Hua Cheng trying on different outfits during the Brocade Immortal arc... I know fans like this scene, but it's obvious word-padding that doesn't contribute to the story or even contribute anything significant to Hualian's relationship development. See also the endless chapters leading up to Mount Tonglu. Bloated cast and characters not contributing anything significant (why were Banyue and Pei Xiu there except to address the fact that MXTX forgot about them after book 1???) and honestly, there's a lot of boring filler around this point in the novel. Reduce and cut.

Another thing that needed editing: loose ends not being tied up. The Brocade Immortal arc is a disaster, difficult to follow, and has no lasting impact besides Ling Wen being in jail for maybe two pages. It's never explained who created Cuocuo and why and Mu Qing's involvement is handwaved even though his explanation doesn't make sense. Xie Lian puts Banyue in a jar and forgets about her for an entire arc.

The descriptions are severely lacking compared to other danmei novels. I'm not a fan of 2ha but I'm reading it anyway because I love the way the author describes the scenery, the food, the clothes, the architecture... Thousand Autumns also has some of the most beautiful passages describing the cultivation techniques. I'm sure some of this has to do with the translation teams, but TGCF also doesn't really give much to work with? The descriptions of the Ghost City are good, but the rest of the book is just kind of like. "Xie Lian was in a room. He looked around and there was a table." versus other writers who are giving us sentences like "The celadon tea set gave an aroma of jasmine where it sat on top of the mahogany table and when he picked up the teacup, it was cool against his palm." Good descriptive writing engages five senses and I don't feel that TGCF does that successfully. What do we know about heaven except that the palaces are golden?

Anyway, what she does do successfully is making an interesting world with memorable characters, even if most of them don't get the attention they deserve, and she's great with dialogue and humor. Plus the romance is good; it's not rushed and it's believable that Hualian like each other (which you'd think would be a given in romance novels, but some of the ones I've been reading lately don't bother to establish that lmao).

tldr version: too many words that aren't giving us the right info :,I

[amorganva]

Putting down my unhinged theories

I voiced all of these during my playthrough but I wanna put them down anyways Lies of P is a game of lies and I often feel like the game itself is trying to lie to us so...... Compiling Theories

Carlo and Romeo didn't die of Petrification disease I honestly believe that something else killed both of them. The Petrification disease is just too much of a convenience and would've been used as a cover up. Why else would the stalker be like "Gemini, get rid of them." "I'm so sorry....I was too late" if it was only Carlo contracting the disease. The pose the body is in to me clearly conveys DEAD. And even if he caught the disease, Mr. Geppetto, the amazing Geppetto of the Workshop Union who sends his son to the MONAD CHARITY HOUSE - Valentinus Monad: Leader of the Alchemists - surely, SURELY he would've gotten a cure for his son/be able to afford it. Hell, Geppetto knew of his daughter, Sophia, and of Simon Manus. He had the connections. Giangio cures Antonia after all and she only dies because her organs were too damaged already so the disease was the thing keeping her alive. If caught early on, Carlo would have lived and given Romeo part of his cure seeing as it's implied that Geppetto didn't very much like Romeo - worded as "a grudge." What this grudge is about - getting his son killed or something else....we don't know yet but hopefully will find out.

2. There's 2 Geminis "Gemini, get rid of them." ...How? He's a cricket guide. Or is he? I honestly think there's a cricket Gemini and a Stalker or puppet Gemini. Or it's one and the same and he's now "atoning" so to speak by helping PCarlo in his cricket form. It feels like Sophia knew Gemini from somewhere because she's like "I see they got Gemini too." And since Sophia knew Carlo as a child from their time at Monad... "Gemini get rid of them" may have been misinterpreted....and subsequently covered up since she was a famous, legendary stalker. Also his name spelled Gemini, to avoid copyright they couldn't go with Jiminy but...they could have also used any other name since most names are based on the original story or versions thereof and the cricket is only ever the cricket. Sticking with Jiminy but spelling it like the astrological twins sign is too much of a coinkydink for me. Gemini was there in the car, the car that Geppetto based his secret workshop in. Mhh..

3. If Camille acted on instinct saving a baby - something beyond her programming - then PuppetRomeo and P are 100% acting on muscle memory from their lives mixed with puppet strength/speed. Which means that Romeo and Carlo were actually pretty good stalkers-in-training. I talked about this in my Romeo appreciation post but I can totally see live Romeo doing fancy moves like that, like he's dancing, and Carlo just wanting to get things done quick and clean. This lends to my theory that something other than a disease must've gotten to at least Carlo because he'd be more skilled than that. (He took down all major puppets and a demigod thing by himself with the occasional Sophia rewind....no way in hell that's just programming, since P is awakening) Then again we don't know how old exactly he was when he died. But Geppetto made him a young adult puppet and the nameless puppet is clearly not a child (assuming it's Carlo's OG body yes?) so it's safe to think he could've handled himself in combat somewhat by that point. Something more powerful did him in and the game is lying to you and I stand by that until the series is finished and I'm either right or have to concede that it just do be like that and his origin story is just kind of "yeah he died. Nothing more than that. Let's get the plot going." But that feels very Un-Neowiz because this world and its characters are full of easter eggs and research and care that I don't think the devs would just handwave something as big as this.

4. Not so much a theory as a comment but imagine seeing the guy you had fun talks with, helped out, nerded out with, listened to music with all of a sudden just kills you and every one of your friends. The evil ending is so devastating and I feel the badest for our girl Eugenie she's so sweet. Eugenie and her country and origin will hopefully get more elaboration, maybe Carlo will sail beyond the seas of Krat. Also that literally no one at the hotel seems to realize P is a puppet. Maybe Antonia since she knew Geppetto. But since you are required to lie and P is a special puppet who can lie....easy mistake to make. Venigni would've realized Law 0 much sooner - that Geppetto can create exceptions. Which also makes the Romeo fight even sadder - because P is exempt every other puppet must attack him...he can't help himself. My bro better be revived with some ergo, we need more of him and I think the devs know by now how popular of a character he is...I think...I hope...(alongside the lords of drip - the BRBH) 5. There's not really a timeskip in the lore. Sophia was trapped for a few years...maybe? She knew Carlo and Romeo since they were children at Monad and she's maaaaybe in her late 20s? early 30s? That means that the time between Carlo's and Romeo's deaths can't have been more than a year or two from when the game started. The King of Puppets was created to cover up the true origin of the Frenzy - that's Romeo and he awakened way before Carlo - his model only looks shabby because he literally exploded into flames, not because it's decades old (if you look at the model textures they might look old and grainy but that's literally everything in this game - look at Ps sock textures).

They were created after Arlecchino - Covenant. Carlo's body proved unstable, volatile - making Geppetto spend more time on a new and improved version of a puppet which is why P looks so human and polished aside from the Legion Arm. I still commend Geppetto for giving his son freckles. He did this for us. Aside from that you'd probably recreate your child the way you knew them and the last G probably heard from his son was the Graduation which would be like 17/18. So he was probably just a little older - like early 20s.

6. Carlo's journey is that of a Heart, a Brain, and Courage. Tying in with the Wizard of Oz, if Dorothy doesn't end up as our player character, I feel like Carlo received his Heart in the first game from Geppetto and Sophia. The second game will focus on recovering more of his memories and personality - the brain. The last game, because it 100% is a trilogy, will focus on the courage to do what's needed to save....Krat? The world? His friends? Who knows - from whatever org Paracelsus belongs to. And then...we go home :)

This is probably why the game has stuck with me well after having played it multiple times. I love it when it gives you material to theorize with but also isn't so open ended that it's not satisfying, that the story is just whatever you want or gives you nothing to work with. Maybe I should do some Link Click crossover doodles mhh.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Hi! Love your metas, so I wanna ask you this question: What if Harry and co. found out through the diary or maybe that telepathic connection to Voldemort that the sorting hat has been infiltrated by Voldemort? To uh sow chaos and discord or handwave. Basically, all the characters' sorting was an evil plot and they're not a true enter their house! How do people react?

Not as much angst as you'd probably expect.

See, Harry has an easy out/this actually makes him feel better. The corrupted hat really wanted him in Slytherin, Harry had to argue hard against it, and as such ended up in Gryffindor. Clearly, Slytherin was the corrupted hat's choice.

As for Ron and Hermione, they didn't end up in the wrong house because they're Gryffindors through and through. They won against Voldemort.

Ron also points out that, you know, the diary could be lying about this.

[eartheats]

//ooc post but god. for my own sake, i'm organizing and trying to set some hard dates for some events. i'm also looking for some volunteers, specifically BBA adjacent for one of them and just in general for the second! i need to stop keeping plots in my head.

no cws up until the third bullet point, where there is talk of kidnapping (successful attempts on adults, failed attempt on a teen), violence (to adults and to a teen), murder (of an adult and only an adult), mind control, and other evil team shit on the horizon. be forewarned! the final bullet point will be in very high stakes territory, given that noriko fully intends to try and end the world, but feel free to ignore if that isn't your jam. live your lives besties <3

(mid-may ETA): Bouton evolution arc. I need to find someone or multiple someones to bother with a very nosy Roselia who is trying to find a shiny stone, and may potentially steal something sparkly thinking that it's what it needs. If anyone wants to volunteer for this lmk, but I can just as easily borrow Carmine for this if nothing else! (CLAIMED)

(may!): Ren goes back to Zapapico! Temporarily. Jacques is going to get his grand festival trophy from Sinnoh and quietly retire. Ren's going to be in Zapapico and getting used to life back home for a lil while.

(early june through august): I wanna work in the Iron Crown sighting/healing arc I have in the works, because while Ren's not going to CATCH the paradox, it's going to be something that works alongside any volunteers for taking care of Noriko's evil team resurgence. Mostly as extra assurance for them to lose! Tatiana reconciliation Arc will probably take place around here too. basically, if anyone wants involvement with zapapico/ren just in a general context, feel free!

(start of september) Ren goes back to Blueberry! Madison and Jacques will be posting some of notes they find from Noriko, which will have some involvement IC if desired since I'll be using Caesar Ciphers to scramble shit up if anyone wants to play detective. :3c They'll also briefly be around to post on Ren's blog/answer questions!

(mid september) The final batch of notes is found and translated, and the opening to Noriko's secret base of operations is opened! But Madison/Jacques are going to end up kidnapped here by Iori, an admin in Noriko's Neo Flare stuff and actually a faller from Hisui! She'll be available to interact with for at least a day. <3 Design coming soon, I need to figure out her nonsense.

(also mid september) yeah so ren is. escaping the academy, even if it tries to keep them constrained. they are going to be meeting their mom on the remains of cinnabar island, where one confrontation may take place. please keep in mind if you try to do a ren rescue party, it is going to fail. (very specifically for ren) it has to fail for the next leg of the plot, but i AM potentially considering getting carmine in on this mess and getting her injured in the process, and while there, noriko is definitely going to think about taking her too so that her kid has a friend. which. yeahno. this one is influenceable, but is MUCH more likely to fail, so if anyone wants to big damn heroes carmine you have my full permission 👍👍👍 save that girl! (CARMINE SAVING IS HANDLED BY THE GIRLFRIEND BLESS)

as a small aside: would anyone like to get ren's very stressed out team to take care of for a bit? noriko's a lot of things but she's not a monster, if anyone wants to take care of the team for a bit/potentially use them against lotus :3c it may be. interesting! (CLAIMED for now)

(october-november? maybe) noriko's neo team flare shit (name pending) will emerge proper and try to be as evil teammy as possible! ren is going to be a mind controlled admin named lotus and have none of their actual pokemon! shit's going to be bad, but! while it might take a bit to organize some losses for them and i may mostly leave that to anyone who wants to fix this mess (we can either handwave or actually play them out, preference to whoever volunteers), but there's gonna be one event specific for camille, one for iori, one for lotus (which can influence how the big admin battle goes), and then what i'm hoping to be a siege on the base. this one i have ways to bullshit a win (for the good guys!!) for, but i wanna see what people come up with, too!

and by the new year, everyone should be recovering, and that'll be the end of team neo flare at least! the rest of the event will decide everyone else but ren's fate. they will end up coming back fine from this, but it's gonna be rough :')

so yeah. basic rubric and very changeable (i gotta ask some players some stuff and things), my only real rule is no instant wins/legendary spam/godmodding really? i want this to be fun but i want it to feel like an actual uphill battle a bit, and i'm still trying to build toward that. this could even be pushed out into 2025, depending, but! yeah!!!

idk if anyone has questions feel free to leave 'em on this post and i will try to get to them when my brain isn't a mess because of retail or other stuff 👍

volunteers (for my ref)

@/suddenlyauntiemaya (bouton evolution arc!!! pushing this one back for this :3b)

@/little-guys-pokemon-central

@/elite-amarys (CARMINE'S SAVIOR!!!)

@/goindownswingin

@/professor-amaryllis (ren rescue party!)

@/electricalflre

@/bee-bee-kyuu (ren rescue party!)

temporary team-ups/team holding:

lulu the orthworm: going to @/professor-amaryllis!

bouton the roserade: @/professor-amaryllis! teaming up to bring lotus back to their senses/back to being ren :3c

coriander the ferrothorn: available! she is not a battling pokemon and is. going to be about as stressed and anxious as lulu, as a warning.

soba the furret: @/bee-bee-kyuu! will be very determined and ready for a fight.

harusame the huntail: available! will also be very determined though a lot more emotional.

any pokemon who is not taken will likely be taken in by amy, and lulu is going to be going to amy instead by default for planning purposes~

[open-hearth-rpg]

Don't Roll: Great RPG Mechanics #RPGMechanics Week Ten (finale)

(author circa 1990 pictured with tie)

This is maybe more a technique than a mechanic, but it represented a significant change in approach and play for me over the years. This has two components– the first is “don’t roll if it isn’t important.” I know this sounds simple, but it wasn’t always the approach in systems and play. 

Like many others, I started with D&D, but very quickly I moved into other games. A large swath of games added on to D&D/AD&D’s approach by including skill systems. They usually had the same emphasis on combat, but included mechanics for handling other kinds of tasks with a discrete roll rather than a saving throw or attribute test. So we had the chain which came out of Traveller and Basic Roleplaying which spawned my early favs like Fringeworthy, Top Secret, Champions, Rolemaster, and GURPS. 

You needed a skill to try something, with the unskilled being given arbitrary big failures by the GM when they made their attempt. Players had invested in their skill choices, spending precious points and advances, so they needed to roll those checks regardless of circumstance. So you got rolls for the dumbest, small things– with the action grinding to a halt for plot crucial roles or moving to escalating violence for other things (like a failed social roll). 

Basically if there was a task and the game had a skill related to that task, you always rolled for it. Some games, like GURPS, recognized a sliding scale of circumstance with a host of modifier tables which could be applied to tests. Usually those got forgotten in play. While we had some handwaving, we rolled a lot of tests. I saw this in my local play groups and at gaming conventions large and small. 

I don’t know which game explicitly said don’t make a test unless it matters, but it shifted our play. It moved skill tests from being gotcha moments and “roll til you die” sequences. We were young and stupid– raised by a generation of punishing GMs who delighted in catching players out when they hadn’t selected the right skill during character creation. 

F*ck the good old days of roleplaying. I wouldn’t go back to the play culture of the 80s or 90s for anything. 

In any case, over time the game advice not to roll for every damn thing took hold. Low difficulty tasks could be assumed to have been handled successfully; more room emerged for play. Of course everyone still rolled perception checks, which remained the last refuge of gotcha gamemasters. 

Which brings us to a refinement: “don’t roll if failure isn’t interesting.” At first this sounds like pretty much the same thing, but there’s an important distinction. Instead of judging whether it affects the plot or moves the story, we’re looking more seriously at the context of the action. What does a failure here look like? What would make that moment have weight and stakes? We begin to consider what kinds of pressures can be there: use of resources, race against time, alerting the opposition, starting a countdown. 

So when a GM calls for a roll, they’re implicitly saying that failure will have some consequences– things will happen. It’s pushing them to make clear to the player that there’s a potential cost. Both the GM and the player have to think about the circumstances now. Which means generally that we’re more likely to cut to the action and have dice rolling moments outside of combat actually add to the game. 

It’s a short step from that concept to Fail Forward, to Success at a Cost, and to player-driven or collaborative choices for costs. It changes the nature of the game– and I think it changes the relationship between the GM and player. That relationship might still be adversarial, but the GM has to back that up by making gotcha moments worthwhile. 

I’m not sure when and how this new play praxis developed– it probably isn’t the result of a single game. I know over time I handwaved more and more– and eventually felt justified in that when I saw it explicitly mentioned in the game rules. There’s been an invisible evolution of play culture over the decades and that’s been generally for the greater good. 

Here’s the thing: I know how stupid this sounds. I know how obvious this appears these days. I thought back to consider if this was just something in my game group at the time. But it was across the dozen different groups I played with and there at every game con I went to (Gen Con, Origins, Michicon, Griffcon, etc.). I can recall sessions where the pressure of rolls added to the tension and drama, but I remember more sessions where the constant rolling wore things down.