#its interesting if complex to dissect | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

that-ari-blogger · 3 months

Text

Reflections? (Yesterday's Lie)

The term “holding up a mirror” usually applies to confronting someone with their own actions and pointing out their flaws. Stories like to do this through foils that share enough characteristics to annoy each other, or villains and heroes that are either the best or worst version of each other. It’s a really neat piece of storytelling.

Yesterday’s Lie is this idea in its most blatant form. Luz literally looks into a mirror and argues with her reflection. Its straightforward and simple.

Except this is The Owl House, it’s not capable of playing anything straight.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD: (The Owl House, Dead Poet Society, Billy Elliot, Gravity Falls)

One of The Owl House’s core thematic is individuality and the joy of complexity. It is a story about taking life as it is and not putting unfair constraints on it.

This is why the show is so tropey and so averse to tropes at the same time. It makes a beeline for the closest stock structure and then thoroughly dissects and subverts it. It’s a satire, a hunter of cliches.

As a way of hammering that home, everything in the series is introduced twice. Whenever any plot beat or location is revealed, you get a first pass and a shallow look at that thing, and you get an obvious trope that this first appearance fits into, then you spend time with the thing, and you start to understand just how much that first impression was deceiving. This happens to everything, even the show itself.

The series opens with the famous “eat this sucka!” line and a fantasy witch story, priming you to expect generic fantasy, but you are then met with The Owl House, which is anything but.

Hey look, a conspicuously hidden character from a family photo. This is foreshadowing for a later episode. But if you think about it, this filmmaking technique is weird, right? Telling you something is important by now showing you it at all. I don't have anywhere I'm going with this, it's just something quirky about cinematography.

This also happens to the characters, and I go into more detail about it in my post about the first episode, so take a look at that if it interests you. But there was one notable exception to the rule. Camila Noceda.

When we first see Camila, she is the distant parent, the stock character in a million coming of age stories. She doesn’t really get her child and is sending them off to a place to make them more “normal”. It's going to be a difficult relationship, and the parent won’t get more depth beyond this.

She fits in with Niel’s parents in Dead Poet Society and Jackie from Billy Elliot. Stern, and antagonistic as a result of the theming. Like I said, the story is about how people can’t be defined, and here is a character who wants to box in the protagonist.

Notably, Dead Poet Society ends with the death of Niel as a direct result of the parental strictness, which isn’t a good sign for how this might turn out.

Then Luz runs away, and we don’t get to see anything beyond the stereotype for a season and a half. We instead get Luz feeling guilty and confronting her fears of betraying her mother through a monster that pretends to be that fear. We still don’t meet Camila.

Until we do, and things are immediately different.

The Camila Noceda from season one was refined and busy. She had a uniform on, and her hair up in a tight bun. It’s a refined image that looks down on you with distain. Now, however, she has let her hair down and wears more casual clothes over that uniform, she’s practical but laid back. She’s had things added to her instead of taken away.

It's also notable that the first thing she does in this episode is help a wounded creature. Camila’s second introduction is one of fundamental kindness.

Meanwhile, Vee is Luz’s reflection, except no she isn’t at all. She is the polar opposite of Luz. She wants mundanity rather than adventure, she wants a new life rather than both lives at once, she actively disguises herself rather than seeking to be understood. Vee is only Luz in appearance. Case and point:

Luz - "Cool, talking rats. Maybe they know something." Vee - "(Screams and runs away)"

Camila is aware that something is up, but she’s not used to the magical world that we are, so she assumes that Luz has changed, and she is concerned that the summer camp thing has worked too well.

Vee also gets the multiple introductions. A few episodes ago, she was shown as a shadowy figure who had replaced Luz like a changeling and the filmmaking heavily implied a Machiavellian air to the character. The musical sting, the shot composition and build up, this was a villain.

Then we meet her and she’s a wus. She’s cowardly, and meek, and I love her so much. Except once again, not exactly.

But that leads into the plot of this episode, because this isn’t about Luz, it's about the world she left behind. Luz is secondary in this story, filling the role of a mentour until the very end. It’s another mention of how Luz operates as a character, inspiring people as a light for them to follow, (Light, do not faulter) but it's also not the point.

Vee needs to learn to be herself and that she has found people who will love her not just in spite of it, but because of it, and Camila needs… well she needs to show off her compassion, but she also needs to confront the fact that she directly caused this entire adventure.

“You and I are not the same. You had a mom who loved you, a home, a life, you had it good! And you still wanted to run away, I didn't have a choice. My real name is Number Five. I'm a Basilisk, and technically, I shouldn't exist.”

Something that blew my mind more than it probably should have here is that Vee’s name comes from the Roman numeral for five, that being V. This might be obvious or obscure, but it is something my brain fixated on, and y’all must know.

This is worldbuilding for Belos as well, and we’re really dropping the subtlety with this episode. Belos is a man who desires to eradicate an entire people because they are not like him, a man who experiments on people because they have something he doesn’t and it doesn’t occur to him that their lives have value, a man who assigns numbers instead of names to people whom he plans to exterminate.

Compare Belos to Bill Cypher. Bill was otherworldly and eldritch, an unknowable evil. Belos is the type of villain whom real world history has known, and people who are still alive today will recognise.

Belos is his own person, sure, but he’s also fascistic eugenicist who thinks he’s G-d because of something he was born with and decided entitled him to everything. Belos is Evil.

The fact that Belos is experimenting on the Basilisks with the hope of learning to drain magic seems like an throw away detail. It doesn't come up again in this episode, but if you've seen the series in full, you know why this is important.

But he’s also mundane, and pointedly so. The thing that caused Belos to get this bad was such a simple thing, wilful ignorance. I’ll get into it more specifically when I cover Elsewhere and Elsewhen and Hollow Mind, but suffice to say this:

Belos ignored so many obvious things in his life because he didn’t want to contradict a worldview that put him on top, and he kept doing it and kept going and going and going until he doesn’t have to try. People aren’t people to Belos.

Which leads me back to what I was saying about character introductions, funnily enough. This is a story about teaching Luz and the audience to look past tropes and preconceptions to see people as complex. Belos cannot do this, and that is directly what causes his villainy.

Belos ain’t even directly in this episode and he’s got me livid.

Still think Warden Wrath is just a quirky little goober? Also, the Basilisks were brought back from extinction. Like in Jurassic Park. Belos is playing G-d.

This does kind of reframe Michaela Dietz’s performance as Vee though, doesn’t it. She goes from jumpy to traumatized. She’s a survivor and a child at the same time. Of course she’s like this, who wouldn’t be?

This is a character whose voice acting and line writing come across as dissonantly weighty. Like this character has seen more shit than she should have at her age, because she has.

I seriously cannot praise Michaela Dietz enough here.

Also, the point at Luz is a point well made. Luz ran away without thinking things through and without the consequences occurring to her. She took what she had for granted, and Vee rightfully calls her out for it.

Jacob is Belos wanna be. He’s a conspiracy theorist but in a really interesting way.

He gets introduced twice, but in reverse order. His traps and cameras are shown first, then he is introduced and he’s just a normal guy, then it is revealed who he really is. Like I said, this happens to everyone in the series.

However, there are a few ways you can run a conspiracy theorist in a story. Maybe he’s wrong and the magical world doesn’t exist and he’s just seeing patterns where there are none. But this is The Owl House, that doesn’t apply here.

Alternatively, Jacob could be right about everything and find his way into the Boiling Isles. Needless to say, this doesn’t happen.

This shot bounces between Vee's and Jacob's perspective, but always with the cage in front of them. As if they are both trapped by their own minds.

Instead, Jacob is actually wilfully ignorant. He’s the “we have Belos at home” of this story and is just what Vee needs to confront. He’s got something in his mind that he believes beyond all evidence, and when something is shown that would challenge his worldview, instead of adapting, incorporates it on a surface level without taking the time to understand what it actually is.

Jacob believes in aliens from Mars, and he is so fixated on his discovery that he doesn’t stop to ask if it actually proves him correct. Instead, he assumes mal intent because the creature isn’t like him, and therefore the creature must surrender all privileges. Most notably freedom.

Jacob is small, and petty, and definitely not as megalomaniacal as Belos. But I ask you this, if he got into the Demon Realm, what would he do?

Enter Camila, who is a direct contrast to Jacob specifically. She is shown information that rocks her worldview, and what does she do? She changes her worldview. Mostly.

There is magic. Ok. This is not Luz. Ok. This creature must die. Hold up.

Camila actually keeps most of her ethics identical. She will not witness injustice and she will never be unkind. She’s a vet, she treats everything with compassion no matter what species.

She gets two lines in short succession to really exemplify this.

“Hello, this is all so confusing, but who knew I had such a strong girl living under my roof this whole time”

It’s affirming and reassuring. Compassion first and foremost.

“I’m the good guy here!” “Yeah. A lot of bad guys say that.”

Essentially, screw your god complex, I will not be told what to think. I have learned, and I reject the wilful ignorance you stand for. It’s also just a killer one liner and it sounds cool.

Even the lighting knows what's up. Camilla is lit from above, like an avenging angel looking down on Jacob's small minded ignorance.

On the other hand, I said “most” in reference to Camila’s changing ethics, and I meant it. Camila starts the story trying to box Luz in, because she thinks it will make her life easier and safer. But she gets shown here that she was wrong in at least half of that. Luz cannot stop being herself, nobody can, so Camila needs to stop expecting people to fit with society’s preconceptions.

Camila gets more background later on in the series, and I will talk about it when I get there, but she learns, and she is willing to change. That’s the important thing.

Speaking of which, I drew comparison to Jackie from Billy Elliot and I know at least one person will get really upset by that. And let's explain why.

Jackie isn't the trope I mentioned either. One main theme of Billy Elliot is the price of freedom, and Jackie spends the first part of the film seeking personal freedom because he thinks that will trickle down to his son. But he doesn't realise that doing that is directly causing his child to be miserable.

I studied this film in high school and I have it drilled into my brain that the sartorial design of this scene reflects Jackie's sacrifice. Usually, he contrasts with his environment. But now, as he breaks down and returns to the mine, he is one with it in colour scheme resigned to be nothing more than a cog in the machine.

So, in the best scene in the movie, Jackie breaks down and sacrifices his own freedom to pay for his son's dream. Its heart wrenching, and its similar to Camila. Both of them start off disapproving and boxing their children in and learn to be better.

These people are similar, that's why the series introduced Camila using the trope, but they both split from it, and they are both their own person. Everyone is an individual.

That final scene is painfully well written. You know exactly why Camila and Luz would say what they say, why they would miscommunicate, and what is holding them back. Who is right here? I would argue both of them.

Camila looks at a place called “the demon realm” and, as a mother, assumes the worst. She wants nothing but the safety of her children, and she hasn’t been shown anything that dissuades that. Instead, you get Luz saying this:

“Staying here was the best decision I ever made.”

Of course Camila would take this the wrong way, of course this would go so badly for Luz. But it also goes badly for Camila, who now has to reconcile the fact that, despite everything else, Luz made the decision to stay in a more dangerous place because it understood her better than her home. That’s a difficult thing to hear for a mother, but it's something to reflect on.

Meanwhile, Luz now has tried her best to be understood by the person she wants to connect with the most, and she has failed due to her own inability to communicate. The series is creating a conflict and creating a duality, Luz must choose at the end whether to stay in the Demon Realm or go to the Human World. Its an impossible decision planted really well, and in my opinion, it will pay off incredibly.

I think there's some symbolism here, but I just can't quite figure it out.

Final Thoughts

I feel the need to remind y’all that this was on Disney, apparently aimed at kids seven years and older. Don’t get me wrong, kids are more intelligent than people give them credit for and can understand complex themes really well, even if they don’t have the skills to articulate that. But there are some things in this episode alone that feel aimed at an older audience.

Maybe that’s why Tumblr likes this series so much. It’s the type of story that appeals to people of any age, but can be understood by someone very young, and can act as role models for kids growing up.

The reason I say this, is that when I looked up the age rating of The Owl House, I did find a review that made me laugh:

One star, 18+ “There’s kissing which is ew”

Next week, I’ll be covering Follies at the Coven Day Parade, which explores the theme of duality, but also gives Kikimora complexity, something I was not prepared for at all. So, stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

#rants #literary analysis #literature analysis #what's so special about...?#character analysis #the owl house #toh #toh luz #luz noceda #the owl house luz noceda #the owl house luz #the owl house camila #camila noceda #toh camila #toh vee #vee noceda #meta #meta analysis

41 notes · View notes

multiverserift · 2 months

Text

I came across the question: If the USA is so bad, and Cardassia is meant as a metaphor for USA, there surely are a lot of illegal refugees wanting to come to Cardassia and become Cardassians, RIGHT?" Let's dissect that. I think the whole question is asked under a false pretense. Because Star Trek cultures are not meant to display "real" feeling cultures. We rarely see cultural diversity in a Star Trek culture. Because they mostly represent an archetype. Klingons all have something to do with honor. Vulcans have something to do with logic. Sometimes those broad strokes of cultural aspects are used to tell the story of a stray (Ferengi scientist Dr. Reyga in TNG: Suspicions) or someone caught between worlds (Spock, T'Pol, Worf, Quark), yes. But the cultures in Star Trek are mostly a canvas for a big problem or aspect, an idea.

The Federation is about hope and humanity. The good in humans won. We did it. The utopia is achieved, it is challenged, from within and without.

The Romulans were about the Cold War. About secrecy, militarism. More about them in a bit.

The Klingons are a bit more complex, because their role in the Star Trek universe changed over the years. Focussing on TNG era Klingons, they were the Proud Warrior Race© of Star Trek, the problems with that culture as a concept. Also, most Klingon stories in TNG were used to grow the character of Worf.

Now to the cultural aspect of Refugees. Ironically, we are first introduced to this concept by the Bajorans, violated by Cardassia. We see them through the eyes of Ro Laren (the one who assimilated into the Federation) and Captain Picard. Refugees, and Picard gives them blankets. How nice of him. Double ironically, we later in DS9 see the Bajorans deal with their own refugee dilemma enbodied by the Skrreeans in DS9: Sanctuary. And it's problematic, to say the least.

Where else do we see refugees in Star Trek? In PIC, and they are Romulans (here they are again). Sadly, PIC isn't very good at tackling those human condition problems, so it's all a bit superficial. Or maybe I should watch S01 PIC again. But I don't want to.

We also have the Caatati, the refugees disenfranchised by the Borg in VOY: Day of Honor, and they are desperate and aggressive, but we get a very Star Trek solution to the problem. Technology and Empathy, and it's kind of okay. Also, there is VOY: Counterpoint. But the refugee stuff is more of a background canvas for Janeway's boyfriend story.

Now to the Cardassians. Short answer to the question "Are there refugees that try to refuge into the Cardassian Empire?" is: We don't know. Long answer: We don't know because it's not the point of the Cardassians. What's the point? Easy: Fascism and Authoritarianism. And the stories about refugees in fascist states are more interesting when refugees try to get OUT from there. Which is what we get in DS9: Profit and Loss and DS9: Ties of Blood and Water.

We see Cardassia lose its authoritarian state to (kind of) moderately democratic rebels, only to get usurped by Dukat, sold out to the Dominion and get eaten by a merciless war machine. Which is ironic, because this is the heart and core of many authoritarian states. Which is, also, kind of the point.

The point is not "refugees". Because that topic isn't a Cardassian topic. Then there would be the topic of the refugees that Cardassia CREATES. Which is also interesting when I'm writing from a western country (Germany here), because, let's face it, we are not exactly the good guys here. Maybe there should be a few Star Trek episodes about this.

So to understand Star Trek, you have to understand that the races mostly embody a central aspect. Ferengi? Predatory Hypercapitalism. Betazoid? British MILFs. Vulcans? Horny math teachers trapped in the bodies of apathetic decathlon athletes. And don't get me started on Andorians, because to understand Andorians, I'd have to get into the context matters of ENT and oboy, it's a deep hot pocket of interesting facts. Lower Decks also did some nice things with Orions and Tendi. ENT failed the Orions. Man, I would have loved to see live action Tendi in SNW. I could ramble on but I stop now. Also, slightly altered repost because I still have no clue how the reblog distribution system of tumblr works.

#star trek #star trek ds9 #star trek voyager #vulcans #cardassians #andorians #romulans #star trek tng #tng #ds9 #worf #jean luc picard

31 notes · View notes

theredofoctober · 1 year

Text

MANNA FIC— CHAPTER ONE: PAPRIKA

Dark!Hannibal Lecter x Reader x Dark!Will Graham fic, TW for eating disorders, noncon, abuse, drugging, mild Daddy kink (it'll all make sense).

Chronologically this is the first chapter in the series.

Keep reading after the cut

Later, when you reflect on your first meeting with Dr. Hannibal Lecter, you will marvel at the Sybilan apprehension that had wreathed the merest detail of that night: the oppressive colours of his office, grey and vermillion from window to wall, the very choice to have you see him at an evening appointment, penning you in by way of the darkness.

Yet, as you sit across from Hannibal in a low leather chair, you contain only a spiteful rancour, one foot jouncing testily as the doctor attempts to extract answers from you beyond a penchant for grudging monosyllables.

“I understand that you have seen therapists in the past,” he says, in a neutral tone.

You stare at the curtains in their dissected oblongs of red and ash, like bloodied teeth against the wall: anything but meet the eyes that seem to have already picked you apart in the mere minutes you have been before him.

“Yeah,” you mutter. “A couple of times. CBT stuff. I hated it. Doesn’t work for me.”

Dr. Lecter offers you a smile so imperceptible that he might not have moved at all.

“Understandable. Cognitive behavioural therapy is a better fit for anxiety and negative thinking— it has its place, but for patients with deeper trauma, their illness may prove too complex for it to be effective. Dialectical behavioural therapy would perhaps be more suitable, in your case.”

Shrugging curtly, you do not ask him to elaborate. There is no therapy in the book that you would warm to; you had set out tonight only to put an end to familial begging, in its absence of dignity.

You resent the nakedness of your secrets before this stranger, before anyone, your suffering made public domain. Like a brow-beaten captive, you are moved to defend your self abuse against all those who seek to extract it from you.

Hannibal watches you with a dry intensity, his gaze rarely straying from your face. He is a lean, polished figure in an impeccable red check suit, dark hair swept back from a face of meticulous and rather interesting beauty.

His brows are low, almost invisible, his eyes small, and as dark as tree flux, the nose—straight, and as debonair as the rest of him—leading down from two furrows that suggest an earnest and curious whimsy.

His air, thus far, has been both tactful and polite, unperturbed by your close-mouthed unwillingness to yield to quizzing in even the most inoffensive line. You should like him, you suppose, yet you have already branded him an enemy.

He is a man; how could you ever be expected to open up to him?

“How long have you struggled with your eating disorder?” asks Hannibal.

You cross your arms over your chest, barring him out, a theological defence against the vampire of such dreaded questioning.

“You’ve read my records. You already know.”

“Certainly, but I would like to hear your experience in your own words. Such documents may represent only the most objective truths, and reveal very little of you, or what you are feeling at any given moment. Besides, they are as fallible as the professionals that create them. If there are any inaccuracies, your answers will bring them to light.”

The implication that you may share, with him, an honesty that you have refused previous therapists bears a quiet arrogance that might have won you over, were you not set so resolutely in your hatred.

“Fine,” you say. “I’ve had it since I was a kid.”

‘IT’; the word may as well be in baleful capitals, the introduction to some eponymous beast. You will give your ailment no other name aloud, have never done so, except in clandestine internet entry, forcing the thorn further beneath the nail.

Dr. Lecter digests your simple answer, finding flavour in its enigma.

“You have no intentions of recovery without intervention. What served you in your formative years, you will continue to savour.”

“I don’t think I’ll ever get better,” you retort. “It’ll always be there, so what’s the point?”

The question had shaken previous professionals into stumbling objection; not so Hannibal Lecter, whose ambiguous calm nevertheless bears the same imperceptible threat as the night.

“Would you say the same to an alcoholic?” he asks. “Many live out their lives through a succession of losses and victories, and likewise, many emerge fulfilled and content in having struck out on the path of self-betterment. Yet, by your logic, you would condemn them all in their relationship to illness.”

“I wouldn’t do that,” you object; your foot bounces so violently over the arm of the chair that Hannibal glances at it, his focus unbalanced by the distraction. “It’s different for me, okay?”

“In what regard? What prevents you from regarding your own struggles with the same grace?”

“It’s... it's not the same. I don't want to talk about it.”

Panic makes you feel almost buoyant in the room, a kite with your string cut, to be devoured by the wind.

“You have not yet reached the point that recovery seems possible, or even desirable to you,” says Hannibal, across your distress. “That is quite normal. For many individuals with eating disorders, recovery can take up to ten years to achieve— a long and difficult road, yet while there is no permanent cure, there is still reward in that destination.”

This you have heard before, in other iterations; he loses you a little, a mistake that he seems to catch in your reply.

“You don’t understand.”

“If you mean that I cannot directly empathise, that is true,” says Dr. Lecter. “I do not share your struggles. Food is a great pleasure to me. Still, I comprehend the crux of your illness— that you once seized a handhold in a rock when you were falling, and still refuse to let it go when there is earth to hold you.”

You continue to jiggle your shoe in a pattern of agitation.

“You’ll never be able to hold me.”

Hannibal leans forward and places a hand upon your foot, guiding it soundly still again.

“That remains to be seen.”

Your breath peters in your throat. It apalls you that he has touched you without asking, that his hand—so warm through the leather of your sneaker—makes you imagine it within the wet turncoat of your cunt.

Suddenly you’re standing from your seat without acknowledging the motion that led you there, like a frame scratched from an old tape.

“I’m leaving,” you say, abruptly. “I’m sorry. This just isn’t for me.”

Hannibal looks up at you, and the still, smooth planes of his features alarm you in their lack of urgency.

“Please,” he says. “Sit down. You will not be leaving here today.”

He is so slim and unassuming in his tailored suit that you feel yourself the red-capped girl of fairy tale, entering an elder’s cabin to the appetites of a wolf.

“What are you talking about?” you whisper.

Dr. Lecter leans forward, speaking with a low and graceful regret.

“I must inform you that your parents have signed a written agreement for you to enter inpatient care, overseen by myself and a colleague.”

Betrayal breaks across you in a death bed sweat: how could they? What have they done?

“No!” you say. “You're lying.”

Dr. Lecter pats a folder resting on the arm of his chair.

“I would be willing to show you the paperwork, if you insist upon it.”

“I don’t care,” you say, your voice a shrill of indignation. “They can’t just send me away without my permission! It’s illegal!”

“As guardians to a vulnerable adult, it is entirely so.”

You don’t believe him, although your parents evidently did, pressed by their earnest desperation to reverse the agonies of time.

“Whatever,” you say, coldly. “I’m not staying.”

Hannibal tilts his head at an angle of frosty amusement, and suddenly you grasp that this is no ordinary intervention, but incarceration, for reasons yet unknown.

Terror snarls through you like thunder, and you run for the door, wrenching at the handle to find it locked against you.

“What the fuck?” you cry, though you had known in your most basic, animal senses that this man—this room—would be your undoing.

Dr. Lecter has gotten up from his seat and is striding towards you, seizing your arms at the wrists, as firmly as a father; you turn your head in a feral reflex and attempt to bite him, stalled by the wool of his jacket in your teeth. He turns your writhing figure towards him, your skirt bunched up to your waist in the struggle, his palm a blacksmith’s tool on your bare skin, a scarring heat.

His expression is scarcely altered by the struggle, his breathing slow, even. You are no threat to him; he has surely restrained patients like this before, a necessary training.

You will not go quietly, as perhaps others have, before you. You bring your knee into his groin until you hear him grunt in the desired pain, but he does not lose his grip upon you, only drives you back against the door, his eyes churning with a wild satisfaction.

“You will learn not to disobey, little one,” he says, and before you can absorb the threat there is a needle at your neck, and chemical night.

You half-wake some hours later to the voices of two men, one of them Hannibal, the other unfamiliar, speaking in a curt and cautious rhythm.

“This is her?” asks the unknown man— through fluttering eyelids you see him, all rumpled hair and scowling good looks, an image from some obscure Brontë novel. “The patient you talked about on the phone? What have you given her? She looks out of it.”

“A mild sedative,” Hannibal replies, “with some additional compounds. It’s alright, Will. She will revive soon, likely in a confused state. This will pass.”

Will hangs back, his mouth an angle of uncertainty.

“Forgive me, Dr. Lecter, but I’m a little confused as to what I’m doing here.”

“Your role will be paramount to the healing process,” says Hannibal, touching a hand to his colleague’s flannel sleeve with familiar tenderness. “Together, we will each be whatever our subject requires from one moment to the next. A healer, a father, a lover, a friend—”

“All while crossing the boundaries of what could be considered valid treatment into an inappropriate relationship,” Will cuts in, sharply. “Surely that’s only going to make things worse.”

Dr. Lecter approaches you, adjusting a pillow behind your head; you are too out of it to object, unsure whether it is a chair or a bed you occupy in your prone state.

“What is appropriate is not always the most effective method of healing,” says Hannibal. “This patient requires complex support. Decisions to be made for her that other professionals would not be comfortable making.”

Will shakes his head, grimly amused.

“And you are.”

“Certainly. Over the years I have seen results from the most unorthodox approaches. I have an interest in observing how she will respond to mine.”

You watch the two men exchange glances, and blearily wonder if they are merely friends, or something more.

“Dr. Lecter, I have no idea how to connect with her,” says Will. “And frankly the idea of trying isn’t something I’m particularly enthusiastic about.”

“Your discinclination to be involved may work to her benefit,” says Hannibal, smoothly. “While my part is to provide gentle guidance and compassion, you will offer the firm hand required to leash the chaos of her disturbed mind and behaviours.”

Will scoffs in disbelief.

“The good cop, bad cop routine? That seems a little obvious for you, doctor.”

“And yet it may be precisely what she craves. Stability. Discipline.”

At this, there is a certain change in the air of the room; one day, you will know it as hunger, so many appetites contained between two men.

“Well, which one is going to come first?” asks Will, relenting. “Stability, or discipline?”

“When she is fully awake, we will know," say Hannibal. "And we will deliver it.”

#ao3 writer #dark fic #manna fic #dark!fic #hannibal lecter x reader #dark hannibal lecter #yandere hannibal lecter #yandere will graham #will graham x reader #tw eating disorders #tw noncon

274 notes · View notes

solar-sunnyside-up · 10 months

Note

"Casualties of violent resistance to violent oppression are ultimately the SOLE blame of the violent oppressor"

Hey, you know what's interesting? I've been following solarpunk blogs for years. And I never saw any solarpunk blog display any kind of apologism for violence until this past month. In the span of a few weeks, the entire eco community has completely changed its tone about violent strategies. Apparently, since everyone is hyped about violence this month, violence is on the table now.

The US government legally classifies pipeline disrupters as domestic terrorists. Now, with our newfound violent rhetoric, we can give the FBI even better reasons to call us domestic terrorists. Everyone has spent a month calling terrorism "decolonization." So now the media will have a field day portraying eco activists as terrorists any time we mention decolonization. This will make attempting to communicate with the public much more complicated and challenging. But oh well. What's done is done. Tiktok decided to associate terrorism with the decolonization movement and now we all have to live with the consequences.

Do you think the eco movement's new political attitude towards violence will help our cause or hurt it? I'm genuinely curious. By the way, oil companies are deeply integrated with the military industrial complex which requires fossil fuel for missiles. So I'll ask again. Do you think violence is a good strategy for resisting the fossil fuel empire? Should we be studying, glorifying, and emulating violent movements? Is that a form of battle that we could ever possibly win? Or is that just a way for us all to martyr ourselves?

Also, how do these violent resistance movements even get off the ground? Do they just conjure their weapons out of thin air? Or are those weapons smuggled across borders by Iran's proxy militias? Do you think Iran or some other country with proxy ambitions would smuggle weapons to eco defenders? I don't know if they would. I'm just curious how murderous violent resistance could ever possibly overlap with solarpunk.

Woah woah bestie feels like we've jumped the gun on the actual post here, you must be new to eco movements it's ok tho! Let's handle this one bit at a time 💕💕

^^^ This is the post this is referring to for context. Now let's get down to dissecting this below the cut bc YIKES this is a lot to discuss but here why dont join me for a spot of tea yeah?

Before I start to tackle this with as good faith as I can let's get some facts in order:

A) I'm from Canada, a country known by its citizens for not respecting protesters/activists. Hell, the first Premiere of Manatoba, Louis Riel was a classified Traitor and was hanged for fighting against the government for the rights of his people and we treat him as the hero he is now. In the mid 2000s a "rebellion" was lead to protect a reservation from the mounties and they stole a tank! While the news and gov ripped them apart give it 10 years and ppl cheer at the idea now. The fairy creek protests and the pipeline protests are more recent examples. They arrested and brutalized people doing nothing more then having breakfast on their own land while blocking construction. So like.... I don't have the illusion of a "peaceful" protest. Here (particularly my province) you go to a protest you simply dont expect to come home. We are functionally a monarchy, we don't have "freedom of speech" and the government was never instilled for our "freedom" or our benefit it was solely to divide up the land and to conquer.

B) this is super not new to Eco movements in particular. They've have "Eco terrorists" on record as early as the 1900s ranging from Treespiking during early logging, to throwing paint on fur wearers in the 1970s. Wiebo Arienes Ludwig is from my Province, arrested for sabotaging Oil wells and went to trial in 2000. This is definitely not a new concept to eco movements and as Solarpunk enters a more Praxis heavy punk scene instead of pure sci-fi this is likely going to be a branch of it there's no avoiding that.

"Choose peace rather than confrontation. Except in cases where we cannot get, where we cannot proceed, where we cannot move forward. Then, if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence."

This additiude comes from a reasonable place in fact here a quote from Nelson Mandela in Gaza, 1999 sums it up pretty well:

Particularly since typically they will blame a peaceful protest just as much as a "violent" one. I think "violence " is something that will happen no matter what we do. If we're as peaceful as possible, they'll still call us violent mobs just to have an excuse to crack some skulls. Even if they're just having breakfast, on their own land, they will arrest and beat them. It won't matter at a certain point bc they want to prove they can be in control.

Now don't get me wrong, I would honestly prefer to slowly adapt. To build as we take down, to show ppl the joy of this and they'll come on their own. But that only works if the goverment and the citizens are equal partners. And idk bout the states since im not from there, but here? It wouldn't matter how many citizens asked for us to go Green overnight the government would ignore that cry for the corpate money.

"People should not be scared of their governments, governments should be scared of their people" and sure this is because we out number them but they should be working for us because that's the point of a goverment in the first place.

Next is: Do I think this is a useful way to spend energy?

Yes! I do, giving something for people to do with their hands, with groups, makes ppl realize how powerful they are and how weak the system oppressing them is. Empowering ppl to do what they can where they can is always good! What ppl do with knowledge is up to them, and if they feel it's needed then generally needed.

Now to the point of weapons: no one has said anything about weapons that something like the oil companies or military would back?? All the weapons endorced by these movements are typically things like using spikes and putting them into trees, or like in France- the energy union cutting off power to the CEOs house (while giving free electricity to hospitals and poor communitis) until they reconsidered the penson plans. Or when they put BBQs on tram lines during a protest. These are weapons, but they are of the ppls trade, they are tools ppl already have not as you said "[weapons] smuggled in to eco defenders" no one is suggesting Guns? That simply won't solve things.

Organizing, communicating, and strategic planning is our best weapons.

I think that covers it, but I'm also doing this on mobile while sick so I might not have covered it all. Although i think my point is made! The final thing I'll say is, if you don't agree with these parts of the movement you don't have to participate or even look at them. Forge your own path! Others I'm sure will follow! My way will never be the only way and we are in charge of our own experiences online. This post original wasn't even tagged as solarpunk, it was under revolution so feel free to block that tag or me if you need to! Have a good day!!! /genuine

#hot takes #apparently??#solarpunk #punk #history #canada #revolution #anarchy #mail #asks #anon #tone tagged

85 notes · View notes

ngdrb · 2 months

Text

Unraveling the Extreme Rhetoric of J.D. Vance

In the political arena, words hold immense power, shaping narratives and influencing perspectives. J.D. Vance, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has garnered attention for his controversial views, particularly on issues concerning women and societal transformation. This essay aims to dissect Vance's extreme rhetoric, unveiling the concerning implications it holds for the rights and well-being of women and the trajectory of our nation.

Women and Abusive Relationships

One of the most contentious statements made by Vance revolves around his stance on women staying in abusive relationships. In a resurfaced statement, he suggested that women should remain in such toxic environments for the sake of their children. This perspective not only dismisses the trauma and danger faced by victims of domestic violence but also perpetuates a dangerous narrative that normalizes abuse.

Domestic violence is a pervasive issue that affects individuals across all socioeconomic backgrounds, with women disproportionately bearing the brunt of its impact. Vance's rhetoric undermines the hard-fought battles for women's empowerment and autonomy, effectively trapping them in cycles of abuse under the guise of familial preservation.

Moreover, his stance contradicts overwhelming evidence that children raised in abusive households suffer long-lasting psychological and emotional scars, often perpetuating intergenerational cycles of violence. By advocating for women to remain in such environments, Vance disregards the well-being and safety of both women and children, prioritizing an outdated and harmful ideology over their fundamental human rights.

Project 2025: A Radical Agenda

Vance's acceptance of Project 2025, a far-right initiative aimed at radically transforming American society, raises further concerns. This project espouses an extremist ideology that seeks to impose a rigid, ultraconservative worldview on the nation, eroding the principles of diversity, inclusion, and individual liberties that form the bedrock of our democracy.

Project 2025's ambitious agenda includes dismantling existing social and political structures, promoting a narrow interpretation of traditional values, and curtailing the rights of marginalized communities. Vance's endorsement of such a radical endeavor not only alienates vast segments of the population but also threatens to undermine the hard-won progress made towards a more equitable and just society.

By aligning himself with this radical movement, Vance demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice the fundamental tenets of democracy in pursuit of an extreme ideological agenda. This approach not only risks polarizing the nation further but also jeopardizes the very fabric of our democratic institutions and the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Conclusion

J.D. Vance's extreme rhetoric on issues pertaining to women and his acceptance of Project 2025 raise grave concerns about his suitability for a position of leadership and influence. His views on women staying in abusive relationships perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and endanger the well-being of countless individuals. Furthermore, his alignment with the radical agenda of Project 2025 threatens to undermine the principles of diversity, inclusion, and individual liberties that define our nation.

In a time when our society grapples with complex challenges, we need leaders who promote unity, compassion, and a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of all citizens. Vance's extreme rhetoric and associations with fringe movements raise legitimate questions about his ability to represent and serve the best interests of the American people.

As citizens, we are responsible for critically evaluating the rhetoric and platforms of those seeking to lead our nation. We must reject ideologies that foster division, perpetuate harm, and undermine the very foundations upon which our democracy stands. Only through informed and responsible decision-making can we ensure that our nation remains a beacon of hope, justice, and equality for all.

21 notes · View notes

seventeendeer · 1 year

Text

TF2 analysis - on cultural references, context as characterization, and how to analyze comedy

-taps mic- HELLO, TEAM FORTRESS 2 COMMUNITY !

A while back, I received an ask requesting analysis of one of my favorite video games of all time and special interest of 12+ years, and you know I just had to go and turn that into a several thousand word essay for the reading pleasure of the people.

Because that shit got way too long, I’ve decided to put it into a post of its own. Hopefully a big title and no previous context being necessary will give more people an incentive to read it. I spent a long time on it and I think it’s pretty cool, and I would love some nice attention for my effort. ;w;

The ask I received went a little something like this:

Below the cut, I will be replying to these questions individually. It touches on everything from Cold War propaganda to the media landscape at the game’s launch in 2007 to first-person shooters as a genre - all to gain a better understanding of author intent, expected audience reaction, characterization and themes.

Anon previously requested help writing more accurate fanfiction, and damn it, that is what they are going to get!! and MORE

Introductory disclaimer:

First of all, for clarity's sake: this analysis is going to specifically talk about TF2 as seen through a fandom lens. I'm going to be talking about the game as a piece of media, creator intention, and the fandom's reactions to the game and extended canon - that is, the slice of the TF2 fandom that is interested in the characters, in the world and in doing at least semi-faithful fanworks.

I will not be touching on TF2's wider playerbase or meme culture. I greatly enjoy both, but they are not relevant to the post I made that sparked this anon's questions (I will link this post in the replies, in case anyone is curious).

I also have to disclaim that any references I make to real world history in this post have to be taken with a hard grain of salt. I've done my best to fact-check everything, but I am not infallible! For a better understanding of the historical elements I talk about here, please do your own research, and approach my claims with a healthy amount of scepticism, same as you would any unsourced social media post. (Readers may notice examples I give below primarily feature Soldier, Spy and Scout. This is because I feel I have the most solid grasp on the historical events and media that informs their characters, compared to the other classes. All the classes contain these contexts and meta complexities, but in an effort to not talk out of my ass too much, I have decided to focus on the characters I feel the most confident dissecting.)

>1) What tropes was the game parodying/what cultural contexts would you say are essential to understand, in order to better understand the game?

The characters of TF2 were specifically designed as satiric takes on national stereotypes depicted in American propaganda media during the Cold War. Two easy-to-explain examples to illustrate:

- Soldier embodies the ideal of a "red-blooded American" who is strong, brave, hyper-masculine, hates foreign superpowers, loves the vague ideal of "freedom" and firmly believes America is the greatest nation in the world. He prides himself on having personally murdered nazis in the past, despite actually having accomplished no such thing (comparable to the US taking a disproportionate amount of credit for defeating Nazi Germany in World War 2; at the time, WW2 was a very recent cultural memory that made for good propaganda fodder). He fears, hates and dehumanizes communists (as Soviet Russia was the US's highly-villified opponent during the Cold War). The satiric angle: he is depicted as so brainwashed by propaganda that he has become immune to facts and logic. He is horribly sadistic, brutal, paranoid and xenophobic. The ideal he is based on is portrayed as shockingly and disproportionally violent and illogical to the point of being laughable.

- Spy is based on how the US viewed France during the Cold War: as a weak, cowardly, “unmanly” nation. At the time, France was depicted this way because they were perceived to have surrendered to Nazi Germany early on in World War 2 out of cowardice. Spy is one of the least macho of the mercs, he is ineffective when fighting enemies head on, and his main method of attack is reliant on trickery and “not fighting fair.” The satiric angle: Spy isn't actually much of a coward - he is more intelligent, more tactical and more resourceful than many of the others, and simply doesn’t feel the need to risk his neck when he could be working smarter, not harder. The other characters are portrayed as a bunch of meatheads for picking on him. The negative stereotype he is based on is portrayed as largely unearned and ridiculous. (Though note that Spy is also depicted as an upperclass prick to contrast with Engineer being working class; in that dynamic, Spy is depicted as a pompous asshole, while Engie is depicted in a more favorable light. The characters are multi-faceted and no class is universally “better” or “worse” than the others, but right now I'm specifically focusing on the "Cold War stereotype" aspect.)

Notice how, while these two characters have different nationalities in-universe, they are both based on stereotypes seen through an American lens. Notice the way the American character is based on a comedically deconstructed ideal, while the character from a nation the US did not view favorably at the time is depicted as falsely judged by an unfair and ridiculous metric.

The entire TF2 cast and universe revolves on this axis! It takes old American ideals and prejudices and uses them for comedy, adding exaggeration and caveats to make those ideals look absurd.

It’s a parody of media produced in the US during the Cold War, which contained massive amounts of propaganda. It satirizes the political ideals that were glorified in said propaganda media.

Very important extra cultural context: this satiric depiction of old war propaganda was specifically designed to be instantly recognizable to TF2's central demographic at the time of release in 2007.

Older Valve games like TF2 were very specifically made to appeal to pop culture-savvy, nerdy young adult gamers. This demographic was expected to see the characters and think "oh hey, it's like a funny version of X character type I've seen in movies!"

Because those kinds of movies were still everywhere at the time. The Cold War ended in 1991. TF2 was released only 16 years later. To put this into perspective: the Legally Blonde movie came out 22 years ago, in 2001. Think about how many Legally Blonde memes are still floating around the web today, how fondly remembered this one movie is and how often it’s still referenced in contemporary media. Now consider that media produced during the Cold War was fresher in the cultural memory at the time of TF2′s release than Legally Blonde is for us today.

TF2 was never meant to be seen in a vacuum. It was always meant to be in conversation with old media that it expected everyone playing to be extremely familiar with.

I'll say that again: the cast of TF2 are based on Cold War stereotypes - comedically exaggerated - so they would clearly read as parodies to people in 2007.

Those are 3 different overlapping lenses to consider when approaching the characters.

The characters are more than just funny cartoon men with guns and an unusual amount of differing accents. They are commentary on older media trends.

Now, someone might ask - why did the developers choose this specific aesthetic and tone for their online shooter video game?

The developers have stated multiple reasons, including wanting the characters to be immediately recognizable both physically (they generally look like the stereotypical depictions they're based on) and audibly (the differing accents and regional dialects make it easy to identify which class is yelling in your ear mid-combat during gameplay).

However, I also have another theory:

It's been confirmed TF2's comedic tone was designed to combat a lot of negative aspects of shooters in the genre at the time of its creation. I have seen developers discuss that they were going for a lighthearted atmosphere to discourage player hostility.

I, personally, also think it is extremely likely the developers opted for satirizing old war propaganda partially in order to combat the tendency of other shooters often being war propaganda. Valve has always been a politically left-leaning company, with a history of depicting military-like forces and unchecked capitalism in a negative light (see the Half-Life and Portal series, respectively).

By depicting the cast of TF2 as generally unhinged, illogical and clownish, they were able to communicate to players: "War is dumb, nationalism is dumb, whatever Call of Duty has been telling you is cool is actually illogical and copying it makes you look like like an idiot. That being said, we all sometimes wish we could beat the shit out of other people in the desert with a shovel, so let's get our aggressions out in a safe, non-serious environment with no consequences. Come play pretend you're a murderous sadist blowing up equally unhinged people with us, it's silly, but it's so fun."

I believe everything from the cartoonishly over-the-top, non-permanent deaths to the deserted, remote environments, to the lack of any truly innocent or defenseless characters was all a carefully crafted foundation made to encourage players to make the informed decision to leave their inhibitions and moral hangups at the door. They wanted players to have fun and go nuts engaging in military-like violence, without encouraging pro-military attitudes in their playerbase.

For an example of a game that royally screwed up doing the same thing, just look at Overwatch - it tried to preach a "wholesome" vibe that was completely mismatched with its gameplay. Overwatch tries to justify extreme violence as Okay When Good Guys Do It To Bad Guys, which ... yeah, again, that is straight up modern military propaganda, on purpose or not (and knowing the US military’s tendency to pour money into video games that glorify war, “on purpose” isn’t as much of a stretch as one might think). Paradoxically, TF2 comes out both looking and feeling better to play, because it handles aligning player emotions VS in-game actions much more elegantly. It accounts for common pitfalls in its genre. OW jumps into those pitfalls with both legs and instead ends up looking shallow and nauseatingly twee.

Of course, all of this is personal speculation. Whether or not this was the reading that Valve intended, I do believe it's a big reason why TF2 has remained so profoundly loveable over the years - it uses its writing and art direction to put the player in the perfect mindspace to Fuck Shit Up.

It's a fantastic example of how to carefully and artfully craft something extremely stupid for maximum intended effect. It uses the strengths of comedy as a genre to its absolute fullest.

Unfortunately, because of cultural shifts since the game's release, newer fans do end up missing out on a lot of what makes this game so expertly done. Many newer fans don't come into the game with the base cultural knowledge it expected of its original audience. To gain a better grasp on the characters and enjoy this piece of media as it was intended, I think it will be extremely helpful to familiarize yourself with the material it is referencing.

For an introduction to media produced and influenced by the Cold War, I would recommend the Wikipedia article Culture during the Cold War as a starting point.

(I have skimmed, but not read, the full article; I encourage readers to be especially source-critical when engaging with pages like this that detail themes of history and propaganda - it's a starting point, not a finish line!)

>2) What themes/layers do you feel the fandom has lost sight of, over time? (or never really managed to acknowledge to begin with?)

Some of this is covered in the previous section, but I'll use this question as an opportunity to talk about another thing I feel is overlooked by fans (and, frankly, the writers of the newer comics too), especially when creating fanworks:

The fact that the characters are extremely dependent on their setup and narrative context to be likeable.

Something I think fandom culture struggles with in general is interpreting and handling fictional characters not as real, independent people who exist in a vacuum, but as the sum total of countless moving parts inside a narrative all working together to create the impression of a real person.

In a comedy, characters are especially dependent on presentation to feel like themselves. It is not enough to loyally recreate an arbitrary list of personality traits in order to create accurate fanworks - recreating the sorts of situations they get into, the kinds of people they interact with, and cherry-picking the information they have access to is neccessary for bringing out what makes the characters so charming!

This is especially important when interpreting and handling a cast made up exclusively of characters who are mean people with bad intentions, bad opinions and a complete lack of adequate self-reflection across the board.

Canon makes them all come off amazingly likeable, but this is because the writers were manipulating tone, relationship dynamics, setting, and much more to show off the characters at their most distinct, least detestable and absolute funniest.

Overlooking this aspect of writing comedy characters often leads to a very common pitfall in many, many fandoms out there - following the logic of a character's canon personality to a place they don't like, and getting rid of those personality traits to combat their own discomfort.

Making characters too kind, too understanding, too progressive, etc., is an endless source of micharacterization in fandoms in general, but especially in fandoms of media where the characters are a bunch of dicks in canon.

To be clear, I fully understand where this is coming from. Fans get attached to characters like these because they're funny (and intended to be loved!) - realizing that a character you really like would logically react in an unlikeable way if you put them into certain situations feels bad. No one wants to turn a character they love into something they find they don't love anymore.

But this is where carefully engineering your setup and narrative comes into play.

Example:

A lot of TF2 fans are queer. Queers flock to TF2 because let’s face it, the campy vibes and silly fun masculinity and weird women are like catnip to us.

But a lot of queer fans go into the fandom aspect of the game and find that ... wait, shit, these characters are not exactly pillars of progressiveness. Reconciling some of the extremist political views of the characters with queer narratives, with queer values, seems a daunting task to some. Because what’s a queer fan to do? Portray a character they love in a way that makes them unloveable? Painstakingly depict shitty, uncomfortable characterization in the name of “realism” that ultimately detracts from their own and other people’s enjoyment of the story? That’s not fun. Fandom is supposed to be fun. So, what, do they just portray the characters as miraculously having perfectly amicable social politics by the standards of the larger queer community in 2023?

Some do, of course, for their own comfort, and it’s understandable, but it’s not good storytelling. It’s an excessively shallow way of interacting with media - the fanfiction equivalent of confidently sitting down to write an in-depth, flowery review of a horror movie you watched with your hands over your eyes during all the scary parts. You cannot create fanworks that are even remotely faithful to the spirit of the canon while deliberately ignoring the core themes and author intention of the canon you’re working with. These things are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive. TF2 characters are meant to be wrong about most things politically. Hopefully my reply to the first question in this post adequately illustrates why that’s so important.

But the good news is that bastardizing canon in order to avoid making characters unlikeable also isn’t necessary.

There’s a reason Soldier, in canon mocks his enemies for everything from failing at masculinity to being disabled, yet doesn’t have a single homophobic line:

The people writing his lines figured it would detract from the character. It would hurt real people’s feelings and make the character less fun to play as, so they didn’t include it. No excuses, no explanation; it is simply omitted for the sake of likeability.

(For contrast, notice that the writers did not extend the same kindness to certain other minorities, like fat people - playing as Heavy fucking sucks when you’re fat, because every other class hurls fatphobic abuse at him. This is a fuck-up on the writers’ side; they failed to identify this type of humor as meaningfully detracting from the experience for a significant amount of players, and so ignorantly decided to include it.)

This is what I mean by “setup and narrative context.” I also like to call this “maneuvering”, because it involves selectively portraying a character in contexts and situations where they shine and instill the intended audience reaction, while steering them away from situations where they would logically act in ways that counteract how the audience is intended to feel about them.

Fanworks can absolutely do the same thing! Fanworks can even take the technique further, because they’re not bound by limited time and focus, the way the original work is!

Sticking with the above example of wondering What The Hell To Do when portraying a character who, due to the ideal he’s satirizing, should by all rights be on the wrong side of history in relation to queer rights, let me make a bold statement:

Soldier TF2 is not homophobic. He's a nationalist, a right-winger, a sexist, a xenophobe - but he's not homophobic.

Why? Because he just so happens to never encounter any gay people in canon. They happen to never cross his mind. He's thinking about other shit. If there's a Pride riot in Teufort, he just so happens to be looking the other way.

Soldier TF2 is not homophobic, because he can't think for himself. He's an idea, a fraction of a bigger narrative that he does not exist outside of.

And if he needs to encounter gay people in a fanfiction, don’t just passively follow the logic of his character to that uncomfortable place none of us enjoy going to - use that maneuvering! Make him misinformed, make him misunderstand, give him incomplete information - the character is not only a face with personality traits attached, his soul is also in the context of the story!

Make him homophobic, but he's pretty sure only Europeans can be gay (just look at them!), and it's already so damn sad that they weren't born in beautiful, paradisical AMERICA, so he pities them instead of hating them. Make him think he's successfully being homophobic, but he has misunderstood what a gay person is and thinks it's a particularly venomous type of snake (men who kiss other men are fine, why would he care about that when there are HORRIBLE HOMOSEXUALS slithering around in the desert that he needs to go blow up right now before they bring this glorious nation to ruin). Make him homophobic, but literally "phobic" - he's shaking and crying hiding inside a cupboard, and his newly-outed gay friends have to lure him out with canned meat and a trail of small American flags, treating him like a feral cat that needs a little time and space to get used to people.

That's funny. It's likeable, it's charming. He isn't portrayed as a good person, or woke in a way that clashes with the themes of his character, but with a little maneuvering, he is faithful to what makes him such a legendary character in canon - being a silly caricature that brings us joy.

If Soldier himself needs to be gay? There are ways to make it happen. Same approach. Get creative. Make it silly. Go for thematically appropriate comedic explanations, not cop-outs or realism*.

That is what I think the TF2 fandom is lacking - understanding of how to manipulate context to make a character feel like their own unique, lovable selves.

Characters are not just visuals and personality traits. They are also what happens to them, what they conveniently find out, what they happen to miss.

This is the same for every story, but it is especially important to understand in a comedy. Doubly so in a whimsical, hyper-violent, morbid comedy like TF2.

It's one of the most important layers to be able to recognize, and an even more important one to be willing to try to recreate.

*Unless you feel like doing a deliberate deconstruction, in which case, go ham, sometimes actively engaging with canon means doing some real weird stuff to it to make a certain point on a meta level. This is obviously different from the issues I described above.

>3) "even the newer official comics don't even seem to really "get" the original game" … I've had a nagging sense for years now that the TF2 comics don't really match the game, tonally -- which has admittedly soured my enjoyment of them -- but I've never been able to put two and two together and fully determine why that is. What would you say they've failed to "get" about the work they're based off of?

While I very much love the newer comics on their own merits, I do think they are wildly removed from the game, and lack a lot of depth by comparison.

I believe the greatest failing of the comics, especially the long-form comic, is that the writers do not seem to be aware of either of the subjects I covered above.

They do not handle the satirical aspect well. The newer comic writers don't even really seem to be aware that there is a satirical aspect - they treat the world as just a silly version of mid-1900′s media, with a narrow focus on silver age comics (which were primarily superhero comics, not an easy genre to match with TF2′s more grounded setting - see the comic’s limp attempt at doing a Superman parody with Sniper) + a dash of the Man’s Life magazines (would have been a good match, if not for the fact that it’s primarily used as aesthetics, with no attention given to themes the way the game does with its own media references). They attempt to write parody only, and even the parody aspect is a hollow effort. Crucially, the writers don't seem to have much of an opinion of the old media properties they're parodying, and without opinions to guide a parody, it becomes shallow and lifeless. "Mid-1900′s media was a bit silly, right?" isn't enough of a hot take to justify its existence. It needs an axis on which to spin to feel complete.

Reiterating the point I made in my answer to question 1: the game's satirical aspect circled the point that was "American media made during the Cold War pushed a narrative that was illogical and ridiculously misaligned with reality."

Its absurd humor is grounded in reality and follows a thematic red thread that the comic does not. As a result, the comic (again, primarily later entries) loses a lot of the sting and edge of the game.

Even though the comic attempts to be more serious and "dark" at certain points, the much more silly and easy-going game (and Meet the Team videos, not to mention) comes out looking more mature, interesting and layered, even though many of the layers remain subtextual. The game is fully married to comedy and has no intention of "getting real", but it is loyal to the spirit of satire. It has opinions. It has bite.

In the game and early supplementary material, there is a dread and horror in the subtext that the comics tried to bring to light later on, but the comic writers didn't know what the scary thing behind the curtain was.

The scary thing was - is - the Cold War.

The scary thing is the dread injected into the genre it's satirizing by people who wanted American readers and movie-goers to be afraid. Scaring people into compliance, into finding a sense of safety and comfort in their national identity, was the entire purpose of many, many pieces of media released at the time.

The comic writers didn't notice the subtext and figured they had to make up their own reasons for why the world of TF2 is so utterly fucked.

They didn't understand the cultural context, and they missed the mark entirely.

This also hindered the comic writers' ability to reproduce the game's humor and characterization. Without understanding where exactly the game's humor was coming from or why the characters were so likeable despite being horrible people, they lacked direction. They made the characters at the same time too impassionate, too stupid, too uncaring, and too nice. All together, the characters became less interesting, less likeable.

Example:

- In the game, Spy was not intended to be Scout's father. Spy having a relationship with Scout's mother emphasized Spy's craftiness and intelligence (undermining the enemy team not only through brute force, but through infiltrating their personal lives), and showed off the strengths of his aforementioned "softness" and sentimentality (he's the only mercenary shown to have consistent luck with women). It also emphasized the flaws in Scout's worldview, and his status as the team underdog, and showed a clear contrast to Scout's non-existent love life. Spy came out of the situation funny and likeable because he 1. was portrayed as cool and capable in a way the other mercs aren't, and 2. his softer side is simultaneously humorously endearing, consistent with the rest of his characterization, and highly informed by the satirical aspect of his character in a way that clicks perfectly thematically. Scout comes out of the situation likeable because his ego is balanced out by his bad luck - you can simultaneously see that he's trying too hard and why he's trying too hard. Spy and Scout's dynamic in-game is also fun and interesting, because you have a tough, hyper-violent, wannabe-macho young man who is desperate to gain the respect of both his team and his enemies getting freaking owned by a guy who is nowhere near the impressive-tough-guy ideal Scout strives to embody. The game's satirical points inform the characters and their actions, which gives the comedy depth and nuance, which in turn makes all characters involved fun to watch and easy to get invested in. It is the establishing of and subsequent pointing-and-laughing-at an ideal that produces engaging, character-driven comedy in this situation.

- By contrast, the comics decided that Spy was Scout's father. Spy's motives for getting involved with Scout's mother is no longer about gaining intel on his enemies. In this version of events, his motives are reduced to merely wanting to reconnect with an old flame. This completely undermines the dynamic described above, for multiple reasons: the situation no longer shows Spy as having a particular skillset that sets him apart from the other mercs, he is no longer portrayed as emotionally "softer" than the others (in fact, having left a poor woman to raise and feed 8 kids on her own while he was off enjoying his upperclass life makes him look incredibly cold in a way that is distinctly unfunny; I don’t think the writers thought this part through), Scout's comedic poor luck is no longer on display, and the "macho character is humiliated by the type of guy he respects the least" satirical aspect no longer works. There is an attempt to replace it with a mutual "ugh, I'm related to this guy?" running gag, but it's a very pale substitute for the layered, strongly characterized, thematically appropriate dynamic present in the original game. Spy comes out of it looking like more of a cowardly, cold-hearted fuck-up than a hilariously brilliant tactician with a heart. Scout comes off way too pitiable, because he is not responsible for his own misery here, and the person horribly bullying him and picking apart his self-esteem on the battlefield is his absent father who abandoned him as a child. He's not an objectively badass character who nonetheless fucks himself over in humorous ways trying to chase an ideal that objectively sucks - he's just a regular shitty guy who ended up in bad circumstances because of things outside of his control.

The comic writers didn't understand what Spy and Scout respectively represented in the game, and because of this, they didn't realize they were taking the characters off the rails and making them much less interesting as a result. They didn't realize they were killing off an endless source of comedy that supported the game's satirical angle in a fun, unique, dynamic way.

It resulted in a flat, flavorless subplot. It had some superficial attempts at "heartwarming" moments ...

... but here's my take: if the writers wanted to include more warmth and sincerity in the comics, wouldn't it have been way more heartwarming if Spy started treating Scout as his son even though he wasn't?

Would it not have been way more endearing to see him look out for his girlfriend's child, not because he has any personal ties to him himself, but because he knew if anything happened to Scout, his mother would be devastated?

Why not build from there? Why not make it an active choice? Why not preserve the existing dynamic and themes, and just follow that narrative thread to its logical conclusion?

Spy has an established sentimental side. Scout is desperate for approval. The reluctant surrogate father/son development practically writes itself. It would have been such a good way to explore TF2's themes more explicitly, too!

But again, the comic writers did not seem to realize the game even had themes.

I do like the newer comics. I do think they're really fun, and I did even enjoy the "Spy is Scout's father" subplot in its own way. But this complete inability to identify the game's themes, and thus the source of all its comedy, and thus the red thread defining characterization - it resulted in supplemental material that was lackluster, directionless and unable to scratch the same itch the game does.

They're good comics, but they're hardly TF2 comics.

>4a) … Sheerly out of curiosity, how do you feel Expiration Date holds up, in comparison?

Similar to the way I dislike Spy being revealed to be Scout’s biological father for coming off as a stilted, superficial attempt at being “heartwarming,” I also immensely dislike later supplementary material trying to promote Ms. Pauling to Scout’s recurring love interest for the exact same reason. Expiration Date pushes this subplot way past its breaking point and shows off extremely well why the “jerk characters are secretly a bunch of softies” treatment is so deeply, deeply out of place in TF2.

Back in the early comics, Scout hitting on Miss Pauling was played as a joke at his expense. He was an idiotic, sexist guy incapable of talking to a pretty woman without trying to fuck - she was a highly skilled and deviously manipulative minor character who mostly existed to show off how dangerously competent the Administrator and her people were. Scout acting like an utter dumbass too entrenched in his own limited worldview to notice what was happening right in front of him was important characterization for him, Miss Pauling’s quiet, calculating efficiency was important characterization for her boss, and their clashing personalities set the tone for the dynamic between the entire team of mercenaries and the conspiracy going on right under their noses.

Expiration Date chose to eliminate these layers and invent a completely new conflict for these two specific characters to go play with in a corner, which had nothing to do with their original characterization or the larger plot. Scout is now portrayed as being genuinely in love with Pauling, even noticing small details about her mannerisms and knowing about some of her interests, even though the entire point of their original interactions were that Scout was so busy trying to live his tough-guy-with-a-pretty-girl-on-his-arm fantasy he did not bother to listen to or learn anything about the women unfortunate enough to cross his path, allowing Pauling to carry out her job without causing suspicion.

Instead, Scout’s sexist approach to interacting with women is played for sympathy (”he’s actually a romantic underdog because the lady he likes accurately clocked him as an idiot!”) and inadvertently validated (”once she gave him a chance, she found out he’s actually a pretty okay guy!”).

In the process, Miss Pauling loses far too much of her usual competence, being visibly freaked out over having to perform a job she’s been shown to handle with grace in the past, and being taken aback by what should by all rights be routine weirdness in this world, all so she can have an eye-roll-worthy forced positive reaction to the entire experience at the end of the short, in a weak attempt to justify why she comes to like Scout more despite all the trouble he’s caused for her and wants to spend more time with him in the future.

The romance subplot is only made possible because the characters are heavily edited compared to their past portrayals, is only able to develop in the direction it does by aligning itself with the values of a character who existed to be a laughable, obviously-mistaken caricature, and is only able to distill a happy ending to the whole mess by stripping the other character of personal standards and agency.

Scout and Pauling are frankly two halves of a whole shitshow in Expiration Date, because the writers either didn’t notice or didn’t care about what older works were gunning for - all they saw was that Boy Liked Girl, Girl Did Not Like Boy, and that just wouldn’t stand! After all, everyone likes romance, right?

Scout, as he is portrayed in the game and in the early supplementary material, is one of my absolute favorites of the mercs. I find him incredibly funny, and the way his hyperactive, fun-loving, jokey traits overlap with his intense bloodlust (literally - he’s the class with the most weapons available that cause bleed damage!) and barely-suppressed rage makes him fun and fascinating. The little man has so much unchecked ADHD and cultural trauma he just has to go and kill people about it, which is just so intensely relatable in the “forbidden mood” way TF2 handles so well.

Unfortunately, I get the impression he has in later years fallen victim to the curse of being a skinny young white guy character, making him a target for writers who think every series needs a relatable everyman protagonist for either themselves or the audience to project onto (and who think skinny young white guys are the most relatable people around, for reasons you can probably imagine I’m not personally very fond of).

TF2 absolutely does not need a character like that, and butchering Scout’s established personality in the name of “relatable” and “wholesome” is first of all Some Bullshit, and second of all a lost cause. The character simply has too much baggage as an over-the-top caricature to be comfortably rewired into an author- or audience-surrogate. He’s always going to come out looking like an asshole - whether this aspect of his character turns out likeable or unlikeable is entirely controlled by whether the story itself acknowledges it.

I did find Scout and Spy's dynamic to be quite well done, though, especially if you ignore the "Spy is Scout's father" reveal from the later comics.

The idea that Spy didn't have to go and do all that, but has grown a soft spot for Scout purely because his girlfriend clearly loves her incredibly annoying boy and her happiness is his happiness, is perfectly in-character. Scout has also long been established to desperately crave approval from his teammates, and on paper, the idea of putting him in a situation where he had to let go of some of his macho man dignity, imitate Spy more closely and ultimately win a tiny bit of that approval he's been looking for is interesting and plays well with the game's existing themes.

It's just a shame Scout's motivations ended up being conjured out of thin air, in direct conflict with past characterization, for the purpose of enabling a schmaltzy, tonally dissonant romantic subplot.

tl;dr, I'm conflicted on the subject of Expiration Date. It's funny, it's cute when it's not trying too hard, and seeing the mercs dick around off the clock getting into stupid shenanigans together is something I've always wanted to see in a longer animated format. It’s largely a good time and a fun watch, despite its questionable gender politics and trope-y execution.

However, like the newer comics, it suffers immensely from writers who are simply unable to identify the themes, characterization and comedy style of older material, and thus, in my opinion, falls way, way short of its potential.

>4b) I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on Emesis Blue, should you end up watching it.

I'll be sure to share my opinions if I ever get around to watching it!! I'm super curious about it. As I mentioned in another post, what little I've heard of it seems much more on-point thematically, and even with the characters being so far removed from their official characterization, I really get the impression this is a deliberate, informed choice, in stark contrast to the newer official supplementary material. I’ll be sure to drop some words on it if I ever get around to watching the full thing!

Anyway, that about wraps up my thoughts! If you’ve read this far, thank you for sticking with it, and please do consider reblogging - I’ve spent an insane amount of time writing and re-writing and fact-checking this, and I would love for it to reach just half of all the people who were curious about my initial posts on the subject. :’)

Follow-up questions are very welcome, though to be clear: I’m not really interested in “debating” the subjects I’ve talked about here. I know I posit a lot of hard opinions in this post and not everyone is going to agree with me and that’s fine - if you feel differently, I invite you to simply ignore me and write your own take on your own blog. No hard feelings, I just don’t enjoy those kinds of discussions. (Corrections on any factual mistakes I’ve made are of course encouraged).

#team fortress 2 #tf2 #tf2 analysis #tf2 meta #tf2 comics #soldier tf2 #spy tf2 #analyzing comedy #analyzing satire #deerchatter

162 notes · View notes