#like minds media

[laurelwen]

Obscure Media: Encore VFX Article

Brought to us courtesy of @widowswinter, who's been working hard to dredge up these gems from the past.

We've all seen this cover by now, but in case you didn't know, Encore was an Australian film trade magazine. It switched to an online format and then seems to have ceased publication around 2013. Some of their articles can be found at https://mumbrella.com.au/, but none going back to 2006. Widowswinter accessed this article via the National Library of Australia, which houses physical copies of the magazine and will make copies/scans of some of their collection.

Full Article and a plain text version below the break:

ENCORE I 22 I V24 ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY, 2006

Digital effects were integral to writer/director Gregory Read's Like Minds, the UK/Australian psychological thriller starring Toni Collette, Richard Roxburgh, Eddie Redmayne and Tom Sturridge.  

With production split evenly between Australia and England, where the story is set, the dual role of the DFX was to heighten the in camera drama, and to solve problems created by on-set limitations and impracticalities. This was especially true for the film's opening train sequence during which schoolboys hang outside the door of a train travelling at 80 km/h, playing 'chicken' with the rapidly advancing stanchions (posts that support the overhead electric wires).

"Even if we could shoot the whole scene on a live train travelling at speed, getting the angles in and out of the train with the presence of real stanchions isn't realistic, not to mention the danger of attempting such a live sequence," said Read, who consulted with DOP Nigel Bluck and VFX supervisor Dave Morley, of Sydney-based VFX house Fuel International, to determine the best way to shoot this scene. "The upshot was to have two shoots; the first being the boys on a live train minus stanchions, travelling at its top speed of 20km/h. We used a wind cannon and lighting rig to emulate speed. The boys were cabled into the train, which gave them the opportunity to hang out, feel the 'rush' and give me the performance I wanted . The rest of the scene was shot in a shed with two very big guys rocking the train."

Like Minds features Collette in the role of a forensic psychologist appointed by police to determine whether there's enough evidence to lay murder charges against 17-year old Alex (Redmayne), accused in the shotgun death of his schoolmate Nigel (Sturridge).

The train scenes were initially earmarked to be shot in Adelaide but the unavailability of a suitable 1970s-style electric train meant the production shifted to a train museum located in Cessnock, NSW. Fresh stumbling blocks at the new location included a train carriage without a front engine and the absence of on location electricity; factors which necessitated the deployment of a bright yellow ex-BHP locomotive to propel the 'electric' carriage backwards and forwards at a maximum travelling speed of just 20km/h.

Fuel's task included the creation of the CG stanchions, which Read wanted to "crash into frame very close to the carriage then vanish into shadow".

"The shot required the stanchion to race towards the boys, barely missing one of them. However, when the stanchion was put in it just didn't look right so David [Morley] gradually scaled up the stanchion to 300 percent as it raced towards us so that it worked, visually and dynamically. As an added effect, when this stanchion slams past it actually hits the camera on which David introduced shudder."

Morley's team rigged up a series of par cans (stage lights) attached to a programmable lighting desk that enabled them to set the speed of lights turning on and off in series to simulate the feel of the stanchions travelling past the carriage at the desired speed of 80 km/h.

"Each of the CG stanchions has its own light pointing down towards the train and we used the par cans to give us the motion of the light travelling past," Morley said. "We built CG stanchions to match the style of what they have over in England, and from reference gathered off the web and footage Greg shot in England, then tracked them in and composited them all together."

When working on shots looking down the length of the train, the ground plane was sped up 400 percent. This was done to disguise the fact that the train was actually only travelling at 20 km/h.

"That would get put back in and then we'd have the CG stanchions over the top of that," said Morley. 'There was normally only one extra carriage behind the one that we were working on, so we ended up having to extend extra carriages as well. Because we only had one train rigged with the lights we ended up shifting the camera up one carriage length then duplicating this carriage for the two missing carriages."

The variance in visible rainfall during the Cessnock shoot presented another problem to be solved.  

"We'd set up to get the master shot, which was a very large crane shot moving down onto the railway tracks from about 30 feet up," Read explained. "In this environment we had two large rain towers with rotating heads which produced heavy rainfall, however when we swung  around to shoot reverse shots there was very little backlight and the rainfall was barely visible. We knew we didn't have time to move lights - let alone the travelling train in the background where the lights would need to stand. It was a matter of placing CG rain into the background of those shots so they matched the master."

Like Minds is set in the middle of the English winter. Obviously, Cessnock's 45-degree temperatures created obstacles. Among the challenges were short night shoot hours, actors having to wear heavy fur-lined clothing and the need to frame out all 'summer' foliage - especially gum trees.

In addition, while the English shoot took place in wintertime, Read was keen to include a shot of the school location in summertime. Fuel was called upon to make shots filmed in winter appear as though it was summer. This was done with sky replacements, adding leaves to trees and replacing snow with grass. Among these was an interior shot of the exterior through a window.

Fuel worked on 89 shots in total including the opening title sequence, which sees a camera move along a darkened surface before rising to show raindrops falling on this surface, which is revealed to be a train track.

"Suddenly a train rushes over the track and we cut out to a wide shot and there's the boy hanging out of the train," said Read. "I thought we could use a motion control rig and then put in the CG later but then practicality and cost came into it and I faced with the reality that this shot was too much of an indulgence; we didn't have the budget and so I turned to David and said 'Help! This is the shot I want to do'.

Armed with Read's storyboards and a second unit, Morley directed the title sequence himself, opting to use a live train to give it authenticity.

"We had to carefully choreograph the timing of both the camera tracking back and the train barrelling down the track straight for us with quite a few dry runs separately with both train and crew until we were confident we had the positions the camera needed to be in relation to the train," explained Morley.  "We still had several safety people standing by to quickly rip crew out of the way of the impending train if they had not reached the agreed ‘point of no return'  position. In the end we got exactly what we wanted."

Once the shot had been captured, Fuel scanned the image at 4K, smoothed the camera move and retimed the sequence. In addition to the titles CG sparks were added to the undercarriage as the train passed by.

[Like Minds Masterpost]

[spooksier]

passages that make you whisper "oh my god"

[kreepykutieuwu]

Gay ships from video games and other media that have fanbases full of dudebros and 16-year-old boys that would get pissy about said ships are my bread and butter

[dayurno]

sometimes i’m sooooo blown away by the fact that kevin is so smart……. like yes he is the fox with the highest grades despite being also the fox with the tightest training schedule and yes he canonically gets called an obsessive genius and yes the extra content explicitly says he is both very smart and very willing to teach people. but really i am thinking about kevin playing reporters like fiddles, jean calling kevin too good of a liar to ever let anything slip, kevin going up to andrew post-game and wordlessly helping cover up the fact andrew is off his medicine by pretending andrew’s racquet had broken (and then proceeding to discreetly crush it in his hand when the foxes gather around andrew), kevin living a lifetime of walking on the edge of riko’s knife, kevin hiding french, hiding thea, kevin spotting potential from a mile away, kevin who even riko thought was brilliant and sharp-tongued. yeah……..!

[jamesheathridge]

SPENCER REID Criminal Minds | 14.15 "Truth or Dare"

[donutdrawsthings]

Out of every Classic Who serial out there, Fury From The Deep is by far the funniest serial to only survive in audio format with a few telesnaps.

[jesbiblesworld]

If you're the type that genuinely gets upset that bl actors are in relationships with ppl other than their on screen partners, I need yall to (and I'm gonna touch your hand when I say this), find new hobbies outside of bl. Y'all have let yourselves get entirely too invested in these men to the point where you get genuinely upset and heartbroken, even ANGRY over them having other relationships, and that's not normal. None of them are doing anything wrong and treating a "dating scandal" the same as if they were found to kick puppies and punch orphans in their spare time is fuckin absurd

[asexualandalwaysshipping]

Guess who just made their first letterboxd list

[miekasa]

they could never make me hate him. sorry but i'm not arguing with a guy with brown hair and green eyes whatever you say handsome

[otaku553]

Haha

[lewiscarrolatemybrain]

The fact that werewolves are the absolute perfect allegory for feminine rage and being queer and trans and disabled but every goddamn werewolf movie is somehow the blandest cis straight white dude grimdark angst mcmanpain bullshit ever should be classified as some kind of hate crime

[laurelwen]

Obscure Media: Macabre Myths and Psychological Puzzles: Gregory Read on Like Minds

by Rjurik Davidson, Metro Magazine #151, Jan 2006

Once again a little gem brought to us courtesy of @widowswinter who managed to pull this one up before I could figure out how to get a copy. Working some serious magic out here.

This article comes to us from volume 151 of Metro Magazine, another Australian film publication. This particular article isn't available on their archive, but you can find the issue listed on their website here. I also found this site listing the article, but wasn't able to access it personally.

I have a lot of thoughts about Greg's responses here, but I will save my editorializing for another post. While there are some bits here that are actually illuminating, it's mostly just Greg being peak "Gregory J Read" about his movie. Ultimately: the author is dead. Greg has his own ideas about the movie he made, and the rest of us have ours. His intentions mean little in face of how everyone else approaches and interprets the film.

Below the break is the full text of the interview.

You’ve said that if you’re going to make a film, make it about something fascinating. What is it that excites you about this film?

Rather than say ‘fascinating’, I think you should make something that you can sink your teeth  into, something that, I hate to say, you can ‘relate to’ – especially because it’s about sociopathy – but that is going to be engaging for an audience. There are so many projects out of America, where the film means nothing to the makers, it’s just homogenized, plastic rubbish. I find so many films really are just perfunctory. I wanted to explore a story which drew on psychology; rather than just shooting frame by frame, ask ‘What’s actually behind the frames?’ And that’s what appealed to me about this particular story.

It’s deeply interested in the macabre, in the occult, religious history, in half-forgotten histories. What attracts you to these elements, and what do you think attracts viewers?

I think it’s a fascination in psychology, a fascination in our own history and our identity – where we come from. All those elements are to do with obsession and control and Alex’s understanding of history and his lineage. For Nigel it was a matter of knowing where he came from also, so he could understand his own identity and give himself a place in the world. I think that sort of fascination appeals to all of us. We’re all curious about where we originally came from, what our lineage is, what is history, and how it informs our existence and us as individuals. How did we come to be where we are now? And the darker side of history too is quite fascinating – certainly for me – because it’s something which has existed forever and a day. Go back to the dawn of man: we’ve always had these myths, and this look at life, that are quite frightening. But they do inform us of where we are and where we come from.

It strikes me that these macabre stories involving say, the occult, or in this case the myth of Maraclea, touch a part of the modern psyche.

You know these fables – that one’s a twelfth century fable – it’s incredible how they do exist in our society, how people do draw on those sorts of ideas. Not necessarily Maraclea, but certainly other fables and ideas about history. I don’t see Maraclea as being [about] the occult. I see it more as a very strange look at how people believed that they could garner power from obscure and strange and mystical events. [Drawing] power from something as macabre as Maraclea is quite disturbing, and if you’re going to have someone who’s a sociopath who wants to draw on history, and is obsessive about history, what an amazing fable to draw on. Because you can utilize that and create something in the modern world that draws back off that original fable. And there are people around today that do still believe in these old world ideas and try to draw them into some kind of modern context. I think that’s quite disturbing – very disturbing.

Which is the case in the film. It’s what’s going on with the character of Nigel.

Well, he’s using it for a number of reasons. He’s using it to draw Alex into his world, as well – because he was aware of the fable, but without the help of Alex, he could never fulfill it. So it’s part of his obsession, but [also] part of his controlling another being. Sociopaths like to be in control of their environment. So when someone comes into close proximity they try to draw them into their world …

Which brings us to one of the other main ideas in the film, which is Gestalt psychology. The two boys are in some ways latent psychopaths or sociopaths, and they bring this out in each other. It’s a fascinating idea – in your research you discovered that most psychopaths are latent.

That really intrigued me. The American Psychiatric Society released some figures that said that four per cent of the population is sociopathic: one per cent female, three per cent male. I thought, ‘My God, that means they’re everywhere!’ If you take two latent sociopaths, who are going to go on to become merchant bankers or tops of industry (they’re saying most of the sociopaths are actually heads of industry. Because they’re remorseless, they’re without conscience). These are the individuals that you’ve got to watch out for because they don’t give a fuck: they’re going to take you for everything they possibly can, and they’d be happy to cut down companies and close them up. If you have that many people in society it means we’ve all come into contact with one in our time. That’s where the genesis of the story came from, because if these people exist, what would happen if you threw two of them into a room? And you end up with something like gestalt. Would it create something bigger between them, and then, what would that be?

The script has a real density to it – there are a lot of elements to keep under control: the history of the Knights Templar, the myth of Maraclea, Gestalt psychology, and how these relate to the situation of the two boys. Can you say anything about the process of writing it? What were some of the challenges?

I had to really delve into the characters first. So I read material on forensic psychology, on juvenile psychology, on sociopathy, psychopathy and APD (anti-social personality disorder), which is what it’s all under the umbrella of. And then I tried to understand: was it nature versus nurture? I studied forensic psychologists’ notes on case studies, but tried to get into the heads of these sociopaths so I could understand what their true motivations would be, what would happen if you threw them together.

Once I’d done that – it was quite deeply disturbing; your head goes numb with this material – I wrote a treatment and understood how these characters would bounce off each other. I wrote the script, and realized it had to have a strong narrative flow to be able to engage the audience. Otherwise, if it was just an intensive study of psychology, people would be yawning in ten minutes because it’s just not interesting. So I decided to weave two storylines and I thought I should make the story gestalt: to have a fore-story and back-story but weave them in such a way that they create something bigger than themselves. So my storyline is going to be a gestalt flow-through and I decided to tell some of the story out of context. Some things are told back to front, some things are forwards – a lot of people don’t necessarily notice that, but it’s a psychological puzzle. That was part of the process of writing it as a challenge, to see whether it would work.

I sent it out to a producer to look at it, and he just said, ‘Yeah, that really works well.’ He sent it in to the AWGIES [Australian Writers’ Guild Awards] and that’s when it got nominated for the Monty Miller [Award for an unproduced script]. I was so surprised when that happened. And I thought, ‘OK, it works!’ But it was a long process. Even though I wrote it over a six-week period, it took years to really hone it. The original draft was about one hundred and thirty pages and it was too dense and too complex, so I had to simplify elements, but at the same time not to lose the integrity of the story … that it is a psychological study. And that everything that’s told is real. I didn’t want it to be red herrings. I didn’t want to have the situation where Alex is telling a story and then you realize, ‘Oh, it’s all a lie.’ It’s not. The thing about psychology is it doesn’t have to be a lie. The mind is dark and dense, and why can’t a story do the same thing? Whether some people get the depth of it or some people don’t doesn’t really matter. Everyone’s welcome to take it the way they want; people come to me afterwards and say, ‘I got that through line’, or ‘I really got into the psychology.’ It was a challenge but it paid off.

You managed to get some really strong performances from the actors, especially Eddie Redmayne and Toni Collette. How did you go about working with them?

Pretty closely. I sent a lot of material to Toni explaining to her how forensic psychologists truly work. She’s an amazing actress. She’s a chameleon, but I wanted to give her information that was from real forensic psychologists. So I sent her reams of information: studies on psychology from forensic psychologists, papers from forensic psychologists, to inform her of the characters that truly exist out there, and then let her bring what she wanted to that character. At the same time I made sure that it was in tune with where I wanted to be, where I wanted her to sit in the story. It was wonderful. The first day of rehearsal I was thinking, ‘Ok, here we go, I don’t know how she has interpreted this.’ I hadn’t really spoken to her. She sat down in front of me and she started saying these wonderful passages of dialogue perfectly. I just sat there and went, ‘My goodness, that’s exactly where I want you to be, give or take a little bit here.’ It was a matter of honing her rather than [getting her to] create something new.

With the boys [Eddie Redmayne and Tom Sturridge], it was a whole new experience for them. Eddie had never worked in film before, so he really needed to be moulded a little bit more. He was like clay: he allowed me to get into his head and inform him of where that character would be, and I’d give him motivation and concepts that may not necessarily be on the page, but ideas that would put him into that frame, that headspace. He’d start to feel that and you could see it in his posture, his emotional state, which is testament to a wonderful actor. Then I’d say, ‘Action’, and he delivered his lines in that state and he did it every time, even when we cut between a shot we did three months before. We did shots in Australia because I needed the wideness of the location, but we couldn’t possibly shoot the close-ups on the same day, because we had a very strict shooting schedule. We ended up doing them in Leeds at the end of the shoot. It was the last part, we’re doing these close-ups and they were just spot on. I just put him back in the space, he knew the script, he’d worked out his beats. He was just wonderful.

This is your first feature film, before that you were a documentary director. How did you find the transition?

It felt fairly natural, maybe because I’d written the script … I’d had the characters in my head [and] it was more a matter of making sure that’s what I got – a truthful performance. I was so focused on that and the look of the film and the sense of the backgrounds, the sets, the cinematography. Everything for me was part of the mise en scène. I wanted to let the set and let the cinematography be part of the psychology of the film. So I was so conscious of all of that, I was so conscious of my performances being number one, and just being truthful to what was on the page. It wasn’t till I finished shooting: ‘Oh my goodness, I think I just did it!’

I did storyboard the whole film, from go to whoa, every shot. It’s not exactly how I shot it.  Sometimes you get the location and it’s not going to be exactly like that, but it was a good process, to take the screenplay, put it in a drawing form that informed the cinematographer and the production designer about what I wanted to do. I had visual references from other films and things: style, colour, texture. Working with people like Steven Jones Evans, who’s an amazing production designer, and Nigel Black as the DP and the music by Carlo Giacco – all of those elements – it was a wonderful process of collaboration. I think that’s where my head was at mostly. Coming from documentary to that felt strangely natural. And it’s normally not.

Can you tell us a bit about your next projects?

I’m working on a number of different projects, at different stages. I’ve just got back from L.A. where I’m represented by a great agent and I’m seeing lots of people … It’s great to be in a situation with these great producers who really enjoyed my film and are willing to consider me. I don’t like talking about future projects at all, unless they’re actually signed on the dotted line. A lot of people do talk about them, and I don’t agree with that. That’s why no one knew anything about Like Minds. It’s just personal. I think you’ve got to focus on what you’re doing and you move forward. I’m thrilled that the Americans enjoyed the film. I’m thrilled it’s sold all over the world. It just means it’s a universal story that people can relate to. What will I do next? I’ll see what opportunity fronts itself first that I can do something with.

[Like Minds Masterpost - Main]

[alliemonade]

I kinda hate doing fanart but Fields of Mistria is getting the worst of me.

I already imagined him similar to Haku from Spirited Away, I had this in my mind since I played the demo so that's the reason for the green hair.

(If ended up looking like his leaked icon, well it happens...I wanted to make my version of him before the official release but unfortunately I got this big spoiler too :/)

[3416]

was revisiting this little gem of a post..... first of all, why did tkachuk see a picture of mitch and steph and his first thought was to go to the comments and ask for AUSTON'S thoughts on the matter... second of all, flkjsihfujdksfjlkdsjflks.

[fluffyartbl0g]

The one piece reread only makes the hardest moments hit even harder,,,, even when you’re rereading it poorly in portugese

Or AKA, i found out today that HINATA SHOYO reads one piece and I haven’t recovered since

[lucabyte]

i'm so curious about your character gender reads now tho 👀👀

(You enter the kitchen and see me, eating shredded cheese out of the fridge by the handful)

(I turn around to face you.)

Hi. Do you want me to sell you on amab NB Siffrin? I'm going to try and sell you on amab NB Siffrin. And maybe even a little bit of tranfem siffrin and/or loop. as a treat. just for you.

So, (I put the cheese back in the fridge.)

This read of mine comes from a number of things, a lot of them to do with the game's themes, and to do with Siffrin being a narrative foil to the other characters. And Vaugarde as a whole.

(READMORE WARNING: THIS IS LIKE 6K WORDS LONG. YOU ALL SHOULD KNOW BY NOW I DON'T MAKE POSTS WITHOUT UNCONSCIOUNABLE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION. IF ANYTHING I'M BEING RESTRAINED HERE. THUMBS UP.)

(Pre-readmore note: this is in response to me having given an analysis of how I personally percieve Sifloop in relation to asexuality and shipping. Which you can look at here. (x))

It is however, not what my like, no-holds-barred no-rules just-for-me headcanon for Siffrin would be. (which is intersex 'head empty no thoughts' siffrin, for the record). This is instead my close-reading-of-the-text-and-themes interpretation of Siffrin. This is why I'm gonna be saying Read and not Headcanon, to distinguish the two. (Anything I consider a little bit too much of a stretch vis a vis interpretive hard reads I will call a headcanon. But those are for the last bit of this post.)

Unlike *gestures at mass media* All That… ISAT is already packed to the gills with queer rep, to the point where I feel no need to grasp at straws and make overextended reaches into obviously unintended subtext. Like with, y'know, most media. Since here, the subtext isn't unintended. Like this isn't a Transfem Metal Sonic or Aroace Ash Ketchum situation where I know none of the evidence is on purpose and I'm just having fun making a conspiracy theory pinboard out of it. This is like… There's intentionality there. And I want to engage with it on its level, see what the text itself suggests. It's my personal preferred method of expressing deep respect to a text. (Not that it has to be anyone else's, obviously. This is just my way of showing I love a work.)

So yeah, I am, in general, very interested in hearing hard-fought arguments when it comes to interpreting texts. I'm glad ISAT has a lot to pick at here, and so, I will. (and since not a lot of texts ever have anywhere near this kind of depth in this arena, i don't wanna squander it… i'll try and keep my own biases as in check as i can, and already have done by hashing quite a bit of this interpretation out with two people of very different gender identities to mine. To put it mildly, binary-aligned or transfem I am very squarely Not.)

(Now that the cheese bag has been removed from the equation, I drop this framing device, sit you down at the table and begin to dredge up evidence from below it.)

Okay, so. What are my like… Core reasonings here? I think I can split it into three categories. Broadly, with an amount of overlap, so bear with me…

SIFFRIN AS A FOIL AND CONTRAST TO MIRABELLE, ISABEAU AND THE CHANGE RELIGION AS A WHOLE.

SIFFRIN'S HABITS OF CLINGING TO 'KNOWN QUANTITIES', SCAPEGOATS, AND THEMES OF RACIAL IDENTITY INTERSECTING WITH GENDER IDENTITY.

SIFFRIN, LOOP, DE-PERSONING, DEHUMANISING, APATHY AND SURVIVAL.

Okay so up top I'm going to split my argument for Siffrin's gender identity Present and Future here. This means, for now, I'm arguing for AMAB NB Siffrin alone. The transfem stuff is for later (and more for loop, in my mind, too).

I have a few direct observations of the text here that set things up. Here are the things in-game that make me assume that Siffrin, as of the start of the game, has not yet undergone any radical change to their identity in their life. Not on purpose, at least. These are ordered in a messy but logical flow, so uh, try and keep up. I'll synthesise at the end. I Prommy.

SIFFRIN AS A FOIL AND CONTRAST TO MIRABELLE, ISABEAU AND THE CHANGE RELIGION AS A WHOLE.

CHANGE & THE UNIVERSE: PERCEIVED OPPOSITES

When interacting with most objects in the Changing Room in the house, they express a genuine curiosity toward body craft. It seems they are legitimately unfamiliar with it on a deeper level than having simply heard of it.

Despite this curiosity (explicitly stating they've previously wondered about it), they dismiss it as too much work early on in the game. These points combined seem to suggest to me that they have never previously sought out any kind of real change to their appearance or identity. Either for gender reasons, or other body dysmorphia reasons. (Which, despite the dismissal, they do refer to their body as a 'meat prison', which is not particularly positive) However...

This changes in Act 3. In acts 3 and 4 they flatly state: "You're thinking about crafting your body. You seem to have all the time in the world now." While still never spoken aloud, their declining mental state corrosponds with a worn-down, almost nihilistic reckoning with the feelings they masked with the 'meat prison' joke in act 2.

[Image: Interactions with the change craft textbook in acts 2 and 3/4.]

In talking to Mirabelle, they are very self assured that one can stay the same/be comfortable with their born identity. They also seem a little unsettled by the change religion's flippancy in general, which makes sense, as they have been clinging to the famliar (even when painful) to cope with other traumas. (More on this later, section 2)

The Universe Faith appears to heavily disincentivise Wanting for oneself and other expressions of Free Will due to safeguarding against Wish craft. This seems to have impacted Siffrin's mental state majorly, even if they do not recognise it. The followers of the faith are (if Siffrin is to be believed) incentivised to 'go with the flow' and take paths of least resistance, and those that DO make big decisions will tend to justify things as being The Universe's Will. (See: The King's entire Modus Operandi, and the way Loop (and Siffrin) do the same rote actions, constructing worldviews (the play analogy, the Universe's Will) and justify that as what the Universe Would Want (despite a total lack of evidence to prove as such)) As such, it seems as if a follower of this faith as neurotic as Siffrin would be unlikely to act upon any Wants to Change Themselves without a lot of turmoil and backwards-justification. (Of note, Loop's forcible change coinciding with a dropping of pronoun. But that is again for later, section 3) As of the start of the game, they do not appear to have broached this kind of turmoil directly.

[Image: Act 5 interaction with the star journal, emphasis on it being a cautionary tale against reckless usage of wish craft, instilled so deeply to be a children's bedtime story]

Siffrin, in act 5, grows frustrated with both The Universe and The Change God, feeling abandoned by the former. They struggle with simultaneously anthropomorphising the Universe as a cruel onlooker, while also seemingly acknowledging them as a cold, almost scientific fact of nature. This would heavily imply that the 'blame' put upon the Universe by Siffrin in these moments is known to them, at least a little, to be potentially meaningless. It seems that somewhere in Siffrin's belief system is something, be it the core or merely a creeping worry, that the Universe is not a thinking, feeling, thing. And thus that their invocations of "The Universe's Will" are merely rationalisations of random chance and consequence. This is in DIRECT contrast to the Change God, proven to be an emotive sapient entity, who merely refuses to offer a helping hand. (Similar sentiments are, too, spoken by the Change God itself.)

[Images: Interacting with the window in the observatory in act 5, text from the change god meeting]

So. These are the bulk of my observations when it comes to how Siffrin is positioned in contrast to the Change Belief. It would seem to be that Siffrin, inkeeping with their role as an outsider, is a complete fish out of water in Vaugarde's change-centric world. This makes sense! It makes them a compelling foil to the Vaugardians in our cast, and allows the Vaugardians to challenge Siffrin's worldviews merely by existing. It also, more importantly, makes Siffrin an interesting lens through which to inspect our two most Change-driven characters. Mirabelle and Isabeau.

MIRABELLE.

Mirabelle and Siffrin's differing faiths are put on display the most frequently. Interactions like the circle key and the party's disbelief of Siffrin's facts about the stars make this clear. These interactions other Siffrin from the group further, and are another avenue through which Siffrin can ignore their own needs, not communicating with the party and allowing them to dismiss things he deems important.

Obviously, the friendquest is primarily about Mirabelle's struggle with her aromanticism and asexuality. But there's an implicit undercurrent of gender there too. Mirabelle has never made a big change, not like Isabeau. She has never 'changed completely', by her words. And Siffrin distinctly finds this an odd thing to be worried by. Whatever culture he carries has no pressure to explore these avenues, it seems. Siffrin is able to help her by sharing their honest opinions, that he's never felt the need to change these things, and he's happy (allegedly). Why should she?

[Image: Mirabelle's friendquest text] Siffrin is not thinking particularly hard when he first does the friendquests, they are just being themselves. By positioning Siffrin as this unchanged yet confident object, they are in the perfect position to help Mirabelle by being in her almost exact position, both sexuality and transgender status (albeit, with the caveats of potential alloromanticism, and a they pronoun), that they become her ideal foil. (And in fact, the subtle differences between their positions in canon add to this, showing a display of Perceived Genuine Truth, rather than simple in-group camaraderie)

Whereas…

ISABEAU.

When Mal du pays speaks as Isabeau, it says the following;

"I don't want to know someone who won't even try to change, who luxuriates in things staying the exact same like you do."

I don't want to know someone - Shame of being known, that's Isabeau's insecurity. Reflected back at Siffrin, who has become the worst thing imaginable to each of their friends, in Siffrin's own mind. He absorbs their insecurities like a sponge and incorporates them into himself. Empathy turned ill.

Who luxuriates in things staying the exact same - Now THAT'S interesting. This is not Isabeau's insecurity, it's Siffrin's own. But also, it appears as if, Siffrin, whom to Mirabelle was unflappable in that not changing was alright, has internalised some of her worry. That it is MDP's Isabeau saying this, though, shows this is about Personal Change, perhaps even Specifically Gender and Self Image, rather than Mirabelle's spiritual side.

Isabeau and his distinct change in personality and gender, to become someone who he actually likes… Diametric to Siffrin, who has been stagnant for a long time, presumably as far as they can remember. It would seem to imply they have no recourse against this argument. Siffin becomes, in his mind, the opposite to Isabeau, a man he deeply admires the bravery of when told the story of his Change. These are Siffrin's words against themselves, that they consider themselves to have never even 'tried' whatever it is they think Change to be.

So. These are my main points vis a vis: Siffrin as a foil. This reading would posit that Siffrin's He/They status is, well, almost accidental? Which I would imagine befitting of them. They are, at the start of the game, still the mysterious rogue who never elaborates upon anything. They aren't going to be correcting a they/them from a teammate who is likely far more cautious about assumptions.

Notably, Mirabelle excludes Siffrin from the label "man" in the bathroom monologues… But as does Siffrin when in the prologue poem room. Though one needs remember, Siffrin only expresses these thoughts internally.

[Image: Bathroom conversation featuring Isabeau identified as the party's singular man]

[Image: Prologue!Siffrin expressing that they are not a man in very certain terms.]

While I do wonder what Mirabelle's knowledge (or lack thereof, potentially! Did Siffrin actually divulge this to her, once? Or is she making assumptions again?) is here, this is pretty clear evidence that Siffrin doesn't see themselves As A Man. (that, and Adrienne's word of god "fella" comments). I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this… but.

The thesis here is, that Siffrin may want to explore their gender further; doesn't feel connected to Masculinity, and yet, keeps that He pronoun around? Well, the Universe does not, in Siffrin's mind, really allow for personal wants and desires. If their friends start they/themming them, then cool. They like it, but never requested it, so it's the Universe's will. But, asking? Making decisions and requests and rocking the boat? That seems to scare Siffrin a lot. It seems to scare them so much it causes a lot of, if not all of, the conflict in the game. I feel like it's a fair deduction that this aversion to humour their own desires pervades a lot of their existence.

Plus, I think there's meat there. By only allowing Siffrin to reckon with any potential desires to change only after growing closer with the family, you get to explore things like "How does Mirabelle feel that even the person who said she didn't have to change is changing." and the slightly less potentially harrowing (OR MORE, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE? IDK. I'M NOT YOUR BOSS.) "Isa's continued changing allows Siffrin a space to explore it, maybe even just by proxy, or maybe by joining them."

But mostly, this section is about how Siffrin not having Changed Yet makes them delightfully strong narratively; allowing them to relate to Mirabelle, and get cold feet when comparing themselves to Isabeau. I love this as a narrative strengthener. It's very rare in media that we get to explore a nonbinary character's thoughts and insecurities on whether or not they're "doing enough" to be nonbinary. Even less so Aligned nonbinary people. And reading that alignment and insecurity through the lens of a nonbinary person not fully disconnected from their assigned gender at birth? It's a very compelling exploration of a very common and raw and yet underdiscussed feeling, much like the rest of ISAT. I think this is an extremely potent element should it be read this way, and is only strengthened when taking Siffrin's other themes into account.

Speaking of which.

2. SIFFRIN'S HABITS OF CLINGING TO 'KNOWN QUANTITIES', SCAPEGOATS, AND THEMES OF RACIAL IDENTITY INTERSECTING WITH GENDER IDENTITY.

HOLDING ON TO WHAT YOU KNOW. (OR KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT.)

I explained above many of my thoughts on the Universe Faith, and trying to keep these two sections separate was difficult, but needed to be done for the sake of clarity. But this section and the above are deeply intertwined.

Siffrin… Holds on to the things they know. They do not know much. But man do they fucking hold. And yet, paradoxically, they are also avoidant about it.

It is made clear in the text, to the point where I really don't feel the need to rehash it here, that Siffrin's disconnection from their homeland is incredibly painful, but that they consider that culture utterly and irreplaceably important to them. They cannot face it, it is too painful. They cannot let it go, it is too important.

Knowing what we know of the Island's irl inspirations (though, word of god, the exact location is not supposed to matter, one can infer it from the text (and I did! within reasonable proximity!)), Siffrin is of an indigenous peoples of some description, more than likely. And at the very least, Siffrin carries with them inherent biases and ignorances that show that Vaugarde's conceptions of things don't quite mesh with their own. Bowing to the Vaugardian way of things could very easily be seen as assimilation, in this way.*

And identity? Gender? Presentation? Role? All of that has a cultural element. There's no telling what specifics Siffrin has lost in that arena, and that's the problem. Neither do they. How paralysing, the feeling, to know that should you change yourself you risk unknowingly erasing another piece of home? I wouldn't blame them for locking it off. Keeping their old clothes, keeping what little they can remember of themselves… It doesn't seem to me a conducive or safe mental space to get experimental.

And the Universe makes for a perfect scapegoat. As referenced in the section above, a lot can be justified should you call it "The Universe's Will", because who's there to call you on it? Hardly anyone. Your divine right to Freeze A Place In Time; Your Deserved Punishment for Wanting to be Loved: All of it the Universe-- If you want it to be. And thusly, if the Universe wanted you to be a certain way, wouldn't you already be? Wouldn't it make you so? (Wouldn't it take away your body, that which makes you human? If that is what it thought of you?) So best to put it out of your mind. Wouldn't want to accidentally wish anything.

But as the game itself puts it, personified by The King, you cannot stay mired like this forever. As Loop themselves puts it, they can "get so fixated, sometimes." At some point they need to allow themselves to grow in whatever direction they need, because in the end, they need to live their life. They don't need to abandon their country, their culture, but they can't let it restrain them either.

(* MASSIVE CAVEAT: im white as fuck boyyy. i cant say shit. im like technically Of The Land im like 90% pictish or something ridiculous like that so my particular line has never moved anywhere but. this is notttt something i have input or insight on. this is all gleaned from reading and listening to indiginous perspectives from wherever they may be. i am simply trying to infer from what the game gives us without inserting my own feelings on the matter.)

3. SIFFRIN, LOOP, DE-PERSONING, DEHUMANISING, APATHY AND SURVIVAL.

Alright, here's some less heady and purely-thematic points to round things out. And where we'll also address the fucked up star being in the room; Loop.

My last couple of reading points are the most potentially-transfem to me. Or at least the ones that really hammer home, to me, a seeming lack of want to be masculine-aligned.

ANOTHER NOTE ON THE 'NOT A GUY' THING.

Obviously, there is the aforementioned "Not a man/not that you're a boy" thing. This is rather straightforward, but also still pretty ambiguous. You can be masc-aligned and still Not A Guy. But it does seem to be of note that being a guy very much does not seem to be a goal of Siffrin's. I would posit this in direct contrast to… Isabeau.

But not Isabeau's masculinity. I would instead hold it up against Isa's femininity.

ISAT, as a text, has its characters have genuinely different levels of security in their gender identity, and Isabeau, despite still having insecurities, seems super chill on the gender angle specifically! Their internal strife comes not from their 'not feeling like a man enough' or 'hating being a woman', but instead from their self perception as a friendless nerd! Something that seems to be only tangentially related to Isa's gender, really?

The big dumb bruiser thing is certainly aided by being a dude, but Isa still seems completely comfortable referring to themselves with feminine language, calling himself a "mother hen" (prologue) and having "the heart of a fair maiden" (cookie snack time). (However, they also take being excluded from Mira's girly book club as a surprised compliment, implying they weren't expected to be excluded, and find it affirming.) And even further so, Isa states they want to continue changing further and exploring their identity more, being rather blatant that they might lean back into femininity (and more importantly, let themselves be outwardly smart again), since they're starting to feel hurt by everyone assuming they ARE genuinely stupid.

[Image: Prologue Isa calling himself a mother hen]

And man, this is such a breath of fresh air vis a vis representation. I don't think I really need to explain that. A character who's gender identity is driven by chasing euphoria, even if it started out by trying to drive out misery. Isabeau's character is so damn good. But this essay isn't about him, so get back in the crate, boy.

... So here we have Isa, who is genuinely comfortable reclaiming things about their birth gender, and Mirabelle who loves her traditionally feminine traits to the point where she feels a little guilty that she isn't rejecting them to foster change. And then we have Siffrin… who seems to reject masculine language…? Hrm… (… And then we have The King. A Masculine Title. Someone who Siffrin increasingly sees themselves in and deeply, deeply dislikes this.)

APATHY AND SURVIVAL

It should be clear by now that I see Siffrin's core character as being driven by avoidance and survival. This seems to lead to a lot of apathy, brushing off emotions that are too intense or events and occurences that are too painful. (See: just absolutely everything with Bonnie)

It's all Siffrin really seems to be able to do to Survive. They've travelled, seemingly alone, for what would be around a decade by what the game says about the island's disappearance. They've lived alone on the road as a traveller in a country that so openly welcomes strangers that THE KING and his whole motives can happen. Siffrin is avoidant and refuses to acknowledge problems or strive for help and comfort.

So. That line about the dress. Let's unpack the line(s) about the dress.

THE DRESS LINE, AND THE WAY IT CHANGES BETWEEN PROLOGUE, ACT 2, AND ACT 3.

Good god where to start with this. Full disclosure, the first draft here was way more vague in how I approached this line because I remembered it (and another line, I'll get to it.) way more tame, but going and getting the screenshots..... Siffrin. Buddy. We gotta unpack this.

In act 2, we have "You haven't worn a dress in forever!". This is a neutral, if seemingly a little joyous statement. All we really glean from this is the information that Siffrin at some point, wore 'a' dress. No real inferences there. (Maybe you could say that the singular as opposed to plural makes it more likely that they borrowed/only owned One Dress rather than owned several? But that's a massive stretch...)

Then, act 3/4 shuffles this off into a more general "You wonder if you'll ever wear different clothes again." Which is a more despairing and distant statement. Considering Siffrin seems to travel with only the items they can carry, and owns sleep clothes... It's unclear how many changes of clothing they have. The party seems to consider the cloak a pretty permanent fixture, anyhow. But this line doesn't really say much aside from 'oh god i'm losing myself to the time loop malaise'

NOW THE PROLOGUE. Prologue Sif, buddy, pal, Loop, if I'm allowed to call you that....

Thousands of loops in. We are wistful for specifically dresses. You've forgotten almost everything. You dream about someday seeing the sun again. To be anywhere but here. You want to wear a dress again.

I. Kind of do not know what to do here but point at it. Like I said, my first draft had me half-remembering the progression of this line and as such I was far more vague on what I thought it could imply. Instead this is just straight up yearning.

To, try and segue back to what I had initially written, we'll pick up here...

Siffrin expresses a want to wear other clothes, explore changing their body... But instead, they wear a ratty old form-covering cloak that keeps them warm and safe and is a last reminder of home. They are shapeless, formless, hiding their face under the brim of a wide hat. They do not voice their desire to wear a dress aloud. They once again, keep a desire to themselves, because they do not allow themselves to want publicly. Apathy is safer. Apathy and quiet means you do not risk retribution or hurt.

While I do not think the above is exclusively a transfeminine feeling, it really, really reads like one when taken part and parcel with assuming Siffrin has denied themselves prior exploration.

... And here I have to break my first draft again. I was being, once again, restrained in my reading when writing this. Because I had convinced myself I had maybe straight up imagined one of the lines I was basing my reads on, because I couldn't find it. Because it was a line that read so strikingly desolate to me that my brain had slotted it in during Act Five, meaning when I went looking for it neither me nor my friends could find it.

It's in acts 3 and 4. It's a line I already brought up.

"You're thinking about crafting your body. You seem to have all the time in the world now."

good fucking christ. sorry to break the academic tone but Jimminy Fucking Willikers, Siffrin. What's with that bit. The resignation and despair and guilty comfort we know the timeloop brings them, bleeding into the gender.

This. *taps my finger harshly on my desk* THIS, this feels transfem. this feels so wildly transfem to me. The knowledge that they've never changed before this line lends. The admission that they've been holding back because it's 'too much work'. I spent a lot of time during the game relating Siffrin not to myself but to my friends.

If I'm honest, really, truly, I'm not all too often in Siffrin's shoes. I'm the stable one, of my group. I'm the rock people ground themselves on. And I see so much hesitance, all the time. Denial of joy because what if it's taken away, again? Or futilely out of reach? It hurts more to try, and to fail, than to never try at all.

I wanted to shake Siffrin by the shoulders this whole game. Grit teeth beg them to accept help because for fuck's sake people are clearly offering it get it through your skull--

*coughs* Ah. Ahem. Right. The uh, academic tone.

Right. What I mean to say is, this read as transfem to me because of the way it relates to real-world experiences of denial. And this combo of the Dress line, and the progression of the Meat Prison line, the constant evidence of never having strived for what they want, and that insistance that you're not a man, seem to dislike being percieved as a man, but not being able to shed the outward signifiers?

Individually, yes, these points can be read in different ways. The total opposite ways, even, I'm sure! But as a gestalt it feels really, really transfem. Even if yeah, sure Vaugarde is a magical setting where being transgender is accepted, and this hesitance, specifically, around gender, might not 'make sense' in 'the lore'...

Diegesis isn't everything. Sometimes something that reflects a real-world feeling is important, even if it doesn't 'mesh' with 'the lore' of the world.

TANGENT: DIEGESIS AND READING INTO NON-REAL-WORLD-SETTINGS.

This is a Watsonian vs Doylist spectre that's been haunting this whole argument. In-universe (Watsonian), Vaugarde has seemingly no discrimination between genders, sexualities, and a lackadaisical approach to most things in the arena. Reading our own patriarchal/heterosexual/amanonormative/perisexist society unto it does not make sense, not in this context.

In the real world, however (Doylist), ISAT is a text made in our prejudiced society. A text that is distinctly flavoured by those bigotries which it is kicking back against. Because of this, it is not the whole story to simply read the text while discarding our real-world-informed inferences. Isabeau is a big example of this. While perfectly accepted in Vaugarde, he is very obviously a revolutionary character in our real-world space! He has so much to say, specifically BECAUSE things about him that are not readily accepted here, are accepted there! Same with Mira's struggles, and yes, Siffrin's too.

ISAT was written with the knowledge of how it would play against our real world in mind, we know this, clearly, from many an interview. This is most present in how it engages with asexuality and aromanticism (and immigrant identity), but make no mistake, it influences the Whole Text.

Ergo, just because I view certain writing choices here in the context of Our Real World Perspectives On Gender and not Vaugarde's In-Universe Perspectives, it does not make them an invalid read. They are simply a Doylist read.

There's been an admittedly loosey-goosey lack of delineation here between things I'm reading with either lens, because for the most part all of these points have been a vague synthesis of both that I can't quite decouple. Unprofessional, I know, but I'll admit to not having written my thoughts down like this in a good long while. Usually I just hash this out verbally over discord voice to a small number of weirdo literature and classics student friends who are willing to humour me. I'm an arts student too, but animation hardly required I actually write an essay to a literature degree's standard. Lol.

DE-PERSONING. AND LOOP. OH JESUS . LOOP .

Siffrin de-persons themselves a lot. I say de-person rather than dehumanise because, well, there's a subtle difference there. Siffrin doesn't see themselves as vermin or an animal or an object, but they do seem to see themselves as lesser, not requiring the respect they grant others. They aren't, you know, a 'real person'.

People get to have things like thoughts and wants and identities. Siffrin is, at best, Just Siffrin. They have what they have and they don't ask for more and they don't (CAN'T) feel too strongly on what they do have!

When Loop at first offers their pronouns they offer the Royal 'We'. This is at least a little bit, a joke. A nudge toward their true identity, a potential dig at themselves for becoming so understanding of The King. Mostly though, a joke on the first thing…. and a sign that they do not see themselves as a separate entity to the Siffrin stood before them.

When Siffrin rejects this, they settle for they/them. Loop drops the he/him, presumably partially to cover their tracks, but… They just showed their hand with the 'Royal We', and if you wanted to go even further with this, there's no way for us to know whether Loop is treating this pronoun as singular or not. They presumably are, but it is still a potentially plural pronoun.

Loop… Clearly does not see themselves as a person. It's, I would say, a completely reasonable assumption that the form they have taken reflects implicit feelings toward themselves as less than a person, an actor, a monster, a tool, a means to an end. They are rendered inhuman by The Universe, frivolous distractions removed. No mouth, inventory and clothes confiscated, nothing between the legs. Formed roughly in the shape of a person to allow them to do their only job: Help.

Loop's body does not make logical sense, given their continued ability to sleep, dream and their continued habit of deep breaths to self-soothe. It would seem to me, it was made in the image it was, with only the tools it needed to Help Siffrin. Why obfuscate their identity? Because giving the game away too early would likely make them lose hope. Why so deeply, thoroughly star themed? An instant signal, that even if a stranger, they are an ally. They are home.

[Image: Loop saying that they take naps and dream, and evidence of Loop habitually attempting to breathe in the twohats lose-to-loop ending]

And they… Degender themselves. No longer with any bodily signifiers of masculinity, and cruelly disallowed the ability to hide themselves beneath fabric, they are null. The spoiler Q&A (paratext, as it were) states that:

Q. Is Loop: 1. Actually comfortable with both he and they, but only gave the one pronoun to emphasize the distance? 2. Only using they/them because a large life event led to a shift in identity/ how they’d like to be perceived? or 3. time lops stole he from they they :( A. Mostly that first one. But all three of those reasons have a bit of truth to them.

While the 'mostly the first one' comment does imply that Loop would not baulk at being he/him'd (similar to how Siffrin does not), the other reasons, especially the second, having 'a bit of truth' does lend credence to this reading. That Loop's self-perception has shifted, and what I posit, is that this shift is in tandem with a disconnection with humanity. Due, presumably, to the dehumanising experience of the timeloop.

Loop has no biology to speak of, and yet they remain blind in one eye. I take this as an implication that they considered this so core to themselves, to who they could remember being, that it stayed. Even if they had forgotten their own face, trapped in a part of the house with no mirrors, they knew they couldn't see. They kept this, and yet seemingly they, or The Universe, or both of them in tandem, discarded all else.

This isn't like…. Healthy behaviour. That is for certain. But it is interesting that Siffrin and Loop seem to hold on to their masculinity by a thread, and that Loop, when actually given the excuse to make a choice, chooses the Neutral Option. Siffrin might de-person themselves, but Loop, Loop is absolutely dehumanising themselves. From Loop's own mouth (or lack thereof) do they call themselves a Corpse. That's… pretty damn bad.

TANGENT 2: POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE JAPANESE TRANSLATION.

Did somebody say 'distance'? Yeah turns out that has some more potential evidence. In the form of First Person Pronouns. See, English, with its third person only pronouns relies on others to gender you. Japanese, you get to gender yourself. And Siffrin specifically has an interesting discrepancy in the way he refers to himself.

(DISCLAIMER: I . DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT JAPANESE. THIS IS SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE. SOURCED FROM THIS TUMBLR POST AND OTHER QUICK SKIMS OF WIKIPEDIA)

Loop and Siffrin use the same, very neutral "mostly male but could go either way" pronoun of 僕 boku. Safe, soft friendly pronoun. Used by people on the younger side of adulthood, not so impolite that you can't use it in a formal setting. Such a neutral all-rounder that female singers in japan tend to use boku in their songs to relate to the audience with quiet confidence.

And in their internal monologue? Siffrin uses a completely different pronoun. In his head, for himself, he uses 自分 jibun. Now, this may be an artefact of the monologue's english second-person "You", since jibun can also be used to mean a very neutral "self". A "myself/herself/himself" type 'self'. But when used as a first person pronoun, it has a connotation of being… distant, introspective. Which is… a fascinating implication, if that was the intent.

But I don't know anything about japanese so ! If I'm off the mark, discard this!

LOOP, PART 2: MAYBE NOT A GREAT STATE TO BE IN.

While Siffrin I can comfortably argue that they can like, keep their current gender presentation, whatever you may perceive it to be, once the game is over, Loop, I cannot.

Siffrin's potential issues with their identity are ones that honestly feel like they would best be explored with gentle refinement and searching. They don't need to violently seperate themselves from what they are now, far from it, in fact. They need to learn to grow comfortable in their own skin, and with the people they love. To become open and trusting, with an open mind to where it may lead.

Loop has already lost this battle. They don't get to refine anymore, just pick up the pieces. While I don't necessarily think radical change is Good for Loop, I think they may Need It. For them, resting will probably become stagnation (see: napping all day under the tree, resigned, really, to the idea they're stuck there forever.), they need a shake-up in order to re-find their feet. Even if they end up right back where they started, they still need to do the actual painful process of soul-searching first.

Problem is, they're still rather avoidant. So it basically becomes a question of getting them into a situation where this exploration is forced upon them. At which point, that's a whole new plotline. This becomes fanfiction. Hence, why while I think Transfem-Egg Loop is a Valid Read when extrapolated from Siffrin… I must concede any actual adventures into them acting upon that as headcanon territory. I just do not know how you would get them there without making a whole new Thing, at which point it stops being Just A Read of the text haha. It doesn't help that Loop and Siffrin (grudgekeepers supreme) both have reason to spite the Change God after who was phone.

As for whether this egg-read reflects directly back on to Siffrin? Maybe! They are the same person. But I think that, especially with Vaugarde's lax views, and their actual differences (Loop's general worse mania // Siffrin's incentive to stay a reminder to themselves and Loop of their country) means they could easily go two different routes, along the road to becoming their own distinct individuals. (And in all honesty, growing into their differences is probably the more healthy option in the long run if you're keeping Loop around? But again, we are going so far into the future here this is no longer a read. And I am not here to dispense baseless headcanons without massive disclaimer, so…)

Tl;Dr:

Siffrin's Survival-Apathy and hesitance to change feels really thematic to their being 'what's left' of their homeland

They seem unsettled by the flippancy of the Change Religion at times, clinging to the familiar to cope with the trauma of displacement.

Mal du pays speaks of them that they have not 'tried' to change, showing an insecurity there, even outside of the literal stagnance of the loops.

They are self assured to Mira that one does not have to change, in a very genuinely personal impulsive statement.

They and others exclude themselves from being "A Man", but Siffrin keeps desires to explore their expression to themselves.

The Universe belief, seemingly in Siffrin's view of it, disincentivises Free Will and Wants very heavily. It is not hard to assume they extend this to all elements of their life.

They have self-admittedly never pursued tangible change, likely due to this aversion to choice. Despite this, they express interest in changing, seeming nonplussed with their body, and house at least some desire for more traditionally feminine expression.

Oh Good God. Loop Sure Does Not Treat Themselves Like A Person. Why Does That Come With A Pronoun Change? What Does That Mean?

But most of all:

It makes them such a fascinating foil and lens to Change and characters who believe in it! It makes them eerily similar to The King! It opens up such fascinating debate between characters like themselves and Mirabelle, Isabeau and Loop, on whether or not they want to change in future, or if it truly is okay to never radically change yourself! What genuinely fertile ground for dialogues. And man if I'm not heavily drawn towards dialogues.

(End of essay! Congratulations for making it the whole way! 🎉 I hope this nightmarish deep dive helps with understanding some of the ways I've been writing Siffrin and Loop too. Since while I've not ever focused on the gender side of it (and probably won't in comic form) this does pervade my view of the two, since it would be impossible for it to Not. As you can see, I do think it is pretty relevant to both their themes.)

(Now for some bonus material)

ADDENDUMS:

PERSONAL BIAS NOTE:

Not included in this analysis since this is more a Pet Theme of my own (usually kept quarantined to the realms of my OCs), but something else I see in Siffrin is a reflection of the Dude Issue(tm) of patriarchal irl society disincentivisng Dudes(tm) from ever fucking introspecting ever.

I'm curious about nonbinary/trans characters who have no idea they’re nonbinary/trans because they’ve been disincentivised from thinking/doubting their identity due to societal power structures or simply tradition. I dig around the themes of “a lot of guys are trapped in a societal prison without ever knowing and it makes them miserable but they can’t escape because they don’t even see the cage” like, a lot, in my personal work. It intrigues me. So bleh, cards on the table there. That mode of interacting with nb/trans characters is one I'm inclined to.

This kinda goes hand in hand with the watsonian vs doylist situation i took an aside to mention. But it is so far along the doylist side that I didn't want to include it, since it is a little too assumptive of the text for my comfort. I don't think the game necessarily has much commentary on this specific Societal Bind. But if it does, then hey, there's my thoughts on it.

STRAY SIDE NOTES AND HEADCANONS ABOUT OTHER CHARACTERS (AS A TREAT FOR GETTING THIS FAR):

MID-GAME OBSERVATION ABOUT BONNIE AND ODILE THAT I NEVER WENT BACK TO VERIFY:

I got the impression that Bonnie heavily favours they/them pronouns for Siffrin, and Odile he/him, as a bit of presumed character voice. I don't know that I am right, literally at all, in that observation, because it very well could've been confirmation bias.

BUT! It did give me the impression that one of the things Bonnie was idolising about Siffrin was a degree of "wow!! older person with my gender!! wow!!", which is just like, cute. I like it even if I don't have any solid evidence.

ODILE, WHAT'S HER DEAL?:

Oh she stays just as mysterious as she intends to be, huh? Even with her comments in the Changing Room alluding to knowing things about underground changing operations, you can't draw much of a conclusion about her. I appreciate verily that she's word-of-god unlabelled and also poly. That shit's great. Woman who has stopped drawing lines or caring what she's up against. Nice characterisation flavour I think.

Anyway, I do think that transfem Odile is a really, really nice take. I have no evidence in either direction for her in either direction, and her being a woman of any description makes her relationship with her absent mother something interesting to chew on, but the idea that she pursued womanhood intentionally lends an interesting texture. I've not much to say, but it's a thread to pull on. Makes you wonder what other female role models she had in her life instead. Anyway she's mysterious as fuck I can't extrapolate Jack nor Squat. Shrug! I'm also made curious by the idea of her potentially moving away from womanhood as she feels the weight of her history lifted. This goes either way, really. Diagnosis: mysterious.

HEADCANON NOTE: INTERSEX SIFFRIN

I don't have any in-text support for this so this entire thing is an unbased headcanon to me. but i DO like it because 1. fun and 2. potential for more thematic exploration

haha gotcha its fuckin themes again. its always themes with me.

But yeah. Not much to say here besides drawing a parallel (that I believe I've seen drawn elsewhere in the fandom already?) between ISAT's comments on how a society that values change would view Aroace identities, and how Mira feels about not wanting to change with the real world experiences of Intersex people having alteration and conformity forced upon them, saying the Change Belief would likely be just as bad for them as it is for aroace people.

So, adding it to Siffrin's situation further drags them into the opposition-to-change foil role. Which like I said, think has a lot to explore.

HEADCANON NOTE: A POTENTIAL METHOD FOR GETTING LOOP OUT OF THEIR GOD DAMNED COMFORT ZONE

I think utilising Loop's contrarianism is an effective and funny way to get them to explore their gender. I personally think running with them trying to hide their identity from the party is a hilarious way to do it. Having them try to position themselves in direct opposition to Siffrin to "throw the party off their trail" (not that i think they really need to?), going full feminine-revealing-clothing because it's NOT what a Siffrin would do and accidentally growing accustomed to it. Funny to me. Especially when the party eventually do find out who they are and go . "????? what was the girl stuff about ??? is that something you wanna do now ???".

[Isabeau] "Ohhhh it was a bit! Haha you really are Sif, still a jokester!" [Loop] "HAHA YEAH . JOKES. LOVE THOSE. LOVE TO MAKE JOKES!" [Isabeau] "Yep! Anyway. Tell me if you need anything!"

Bonus bonus:

[Siffrin] "Okay, so, if you're a girl. Does this reflect on like… me?" [Loop] "No doubles. Get your own gender, parasite~!"