#one character exists within the context of the setting and the other is a reality warper

[tmae3114]

the other day, a friend of mine invited me over to testplay a paper-and-pencil storytelling game he's been working on for a while and feels like he's finally got a workable version of and one of his mentioned reasons was that "you're a fellow storyteller, I want to see what you'll do with it"

I promptly created a character which violated exactly zero (0) rules but nonetheless obliterated one of the core intended mechanical limitations of the game and I didn't even do that on purpose

after the game, when we were laughing about this, he admitted that one of his other reasons for asking me specifically to testplay was because he knew that "if there was anything that could be broken, you would find it and break it"

[howtofightwrite]

I love picking at plot holes like scabs so i want my fight scenes to be as realistic as possible. However. There’s a creature in my head that says a buster sword is SICK AS HELL. What modifications would it need to be even remotely wieldable while still keeping its central appeal (huge sword big blade cool and sexy) intact?

You’ve made a mistake. You mistook suspension of disbelief for realism. This is a common problem that gets in the way of a lot of fantasy and sci-fi authors. So, don’t worry. It isn’t just you. However, realism vs believability is where your hangup is. Stories don’t need to be realistic to be believable.

The quick and dirty (and possibly unhelpful) answer is to create a world that justifies your buster sword, not a buster sword that’s trying to justify itself in a world that doesn’t want it. You step back from the sword itself and away from a world where reality dictates that it’s too heavy, too clumsy, too slow, and ask yourself: “in what type of world does this thing make sense?” And there’s about a billion different ways to create that.

The hangup with the realistic argument is that all of fiction is a lie. Good or bad, that’s what stories are. They can be very compelling, addicting, manipulative, feel incredibly good, and still be fake. The goal of a creator isn’t just to create stories that are believable, but for your audience to want to believe in them. Storytelling is always a joint venture between you and your reader. You are the salesperson asking your audience to come along for the ride. To keep their attention, you’ve got to spin up a good yarn. Build trust. The world has to feel right, but it doesn’t have to be right. Reasonable, not right. The goal is to take a cool idea and work backwards to how your society got here so that when seen from an outside perspective, the choice ultimately looks like a reasonable conclusion given the surrounding context. One of the better ways to build your reasonable conclusions is by studying the history of technological invention from the beginning to the midpoint rather than starting with the end point—the results.

History is full of weird, wacky, wild attempts and failures at creation. You’re not the first person to look at a human sized sword and wonder if it could, in fact, hit good. Or, really, better than swords that currently exist. Or, fulfill a battlefield role the sword was currently not occupying. Or, as we like to say, have real battlefield applications. The Claymore, the Zwhihander, the Zhanmadao are all real weapons that saw real, if not necessarily extensive, use. Like all weapons, they were specialized tools meant for particular battlefield uses. In this case, mainly as anti-cavalry support.

Ask yourself, why? Not just, why would I want it? Ask, why would I use it?

What actual purpose does the big cool blade serve beyond looking big and cool? What function does it fill on the battlefield? Why use the big cool blade instead of other weapons? What does it do better? What are some offsets which might account for the massive size? Technology? Superhuman enhancements, mystical or otherwise? Gravitic fields? Magic? Why is the big cool blade better suited to ensuring a character’s survival? What advantages does it provide? What is its practical value to warriors within your setting?

The initial defensive reaction is that we don’t need a reason because we have the Rule of Cool. That could be the reason, but I challenge you to go deeper. Go deeper than, “this was the weapon my character was trained to use.” The followup question is: why were they trained to use it?

In the real world, we can answer these questions both from a personal and from a larger social perspective. We may not be able to answer whether we’d use a gun, but we understand why humanity developed guns, why we use guns, and the purpose they serve both for personal protection and in their military applications. The answers don’t necessarily need to be good or smart. What matters is that an answer exists to feed your audience. When your reader starts struggling to believe, they begin to ask questions, they pick at the fabric of the narrative trying to figure out why their mind has rejected the story they were previously enjoying. What we, the writer, want to create is a chain of logic underpinning the narrative and its world. This way, when questions are asked, a reasonable answer is ready and waiting. While we won’t win over everyone, trust that your audience wants to believe. Trust that they’re smart enough to figure it out without being spoon fed. That way, you won’t fall into the trap of infodumping.

Worldbuilding always involves a lot more happening under the surface than ever makes it onto the page. Your characters will be the ones to demonstrate and act on the internal logic that’s been created for them without needing a billion questions to lead us from Point A to Point B.

If we look at human history in a wide view, we find that weapons are a fairly steady march forward that matches a civilization’s technological growth. We keep what works and discards what doesn’t. The crossbow replaced the bow as the main form of artillery in martial combat, but we still kept the bow. The bow still had practical applications. Guns eventually replaced the crossbow just like they replaced the sword, but it actually took a very long time. We had functional firearms in the Middle Ages.

Ease of Use

Ease of Training

Lethality

From a military standpoint, these are the three most important aspects for widespread adoption of any weapon. Easy to use. Easy to train. Lethal. The longer it takes to train a soldier on a weapon the more time your army is losing out on using that soldier and the more effective the weapon needs to be in order to justify its expense. Why give your soldier a big cool sword if they’ll never get close enough to reach the forward line to make the assault? Why have them use the big cool sword if operating the laser cannon is more efficient, effective, and keeps them alive longer? In the coldness of battlefield calculus, it’s often better to have cheap, efficient units rather than more expensive ones that might be more lethal but take longer to produce. No matter how good they are, you’re eventually going to lose them. Therefore, easy replaceability becomes a factor.

If you can answer those questions (and the myriad of other similar ones) you won’t just have a weapon, you’ll have a world. You’ll have more than a justification, you’ll have battlefield strategy, tactics, and a greater understanding of how the average layman characters in your setting beyond your main character approach warfare and possibly a technological history. You might even have several functional armies.

Ultimately, this is a game of value versus cost. Most settings that use big cool swords sacrifice ease of use and ease of training to amp up lethality. The weapon having a specialized function or only being usable by a specialized unit helps if that unit’s battlefield effectiveness is justified. Or, you could just have a weird technological outlier where its effectiveness doesn’t quite justify its cost even if the individual warrior is effective. A good example of this is in shounen anime where one character has a specialty that no one else has, a really cool, effective weapon that never appears anywhere else, because the length of training, high skill floor, and finicky nature of its use make it difficult to justify widespread adoption.

The danger is assuming there’s a right answer. There isn’t one. The value in learning the rules of real world violence is so you can break them. This way you can tell the difference between the vital rules necessary for suspending disbelief and don’t accidentally break the ones you needed to keep your audience invested.

-Michi

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[essektheylyss]

Okay here's the thing though. Actual play is not like other narrative forms, because the amount of chance involved in the game play means that the ending, in most scenarios, is not already written, and even when it is, as in EXU: Calamity, how you get there is not yet set in stone.

But notably, what is set in stone, the past, only goes back so far. In theory, character backstory is pre-written, but anyone who has played TTRPGs with an emphasis on story and character will recognize that backstory is a lot more fluid than we might imagine, and certainly more fluid than the history of a real person. As you really begin to play the character, you find the ways the backstory doesn't quite mesh, what needs to be cut or fleshed out, and you can make those edits over time so long as they haven't yet been brought out explicitly in game.

But the farther along you get, the more you have to make explicit, and the less leeway you have (at least without significant, usually clunky, retconning) to change that past to suit the future that you're developing.

At the same time, though, the backstory that does get set into stone over the course of the game is still in many ways virtual, in that it is often, if not exclusively, filtered through the point of view of the character's memory. Even in the flashback sequences of this chapter of Candela Obscura, the emphasis tends to be on how the characters remember it, and what they choose to remember—Sean doesn't know, will never truly know, if the children he killed were monsters or not; Nathaniel doesn't focus in his memory on the fact that he tried to save his brother, he only remembers having failed.

In this sense, there is generally an element of unreliability to backstory. Because it exists in memory (even for the players, who usually have not played out every one of those moments as if they were living it, only having remembered it), it is subject to the fallibility that memory always involves.

This kind of restricted timescale, the entire world contained concretely only within the context of game play, is a mechanical reality and limitation of TTRPGs in general, and much like the laws of physics, it's not really malleable. One could play out certain pieces of backstory, but cannot ever live the entirety of a character's experience, and even then, the larger context of that experience will always exist outside of the world until it is made concrete in the course of the game.

This is the brilliance of Marion's breaking of time. The manipulation takes advantage of the fact that this memory is only a memory, because even as played out between him and Jean in "Flesh and Blood," it is still filtered through how the Marion of the game remembers it, and not a concrete experience.

That ability of the Medium, to manipulate reality and change oneself in the process, as though it had always been this way, is a mechanical acknowledgement of the already slippery flow of time in game play. It is a beautiful mechanical form of retcon that doesn't feel like a cheat or a copout, and it's simultaneously a very clever way of managing the tension between these limitations of form and the common fantasy archetype of diviners and seers.

Using it to then literally rewrite the past, because the details of the past are still fluid until they are explicitly written, is nothing short of poetic.

[heartbeatbookclub]

I think it's sorta weird how the Protagonist (MC, Y/N, Stinky, whatever you wanna call him) is treated within the context of DDLC's meta.

That sentence came out weird. What I mean is that on terms of DDLC playing with the 4th wall (in other words, on terms of its actual existence as a visual novel in universe), the nature of the Protagonist's...well, entire existence, is up in the air.

Dan Salvato literally stated that he doesn't actually see him as a character in the same way as the girls. He's a "blank slate that says whatever is convenient." In a different statement, he's described as the "nameless, faceless self-insert character that you find so commonly in romance games", which I think is a good way of putting it. It's a good way of justifying why he kinda...sucks, because he's meant to be a typical VN protagonist. He's shallow, and responds with little more than what makes sense in context, because he doesn't have much character on his own, which is what makes him pretty bad at dealing with delicate issues like with Sayori.

In DDLC+ (spoilers, I guess?), it's a little bit vague about it, but in one of the mails, it states that Monika has literally "manufactured" a new character to "force interaction between her and the user". This character is heavily implied to be the Protagonist of the main DDLC visual novel that we know, and he is, as stated, noticeably absent from the Side Stories, because Monika didn't actively create him to be there.

Except...he isn't.

He doesn't physically appear, but in Trust, though he's obviously not mentioned by name, it's implied that he does exist, because when asked to act like a "normal person" responding to the Literature Club, she imitates a friend of hers who says "Literature is stuuupid. I'm joining the Anime Club."

...Remind you of a certain someone?

I feel like I'm overexplaining this, but my point is, it suggests that the Protagonist as a character isn't just something Monika invented out of thin air, or at least he's heavily implied not to be.

I think there's a larger conversation on the vague way the game itself treats the world outside of what is defined within the limited scope of Doki Doki Literature Club. Fans have filled gaps of different characters and events, but it's important to acknowledge that they're gaps filled by fanon, not canon. I think those gaps are left very intentionally empty, mostly to play into the conceit of the world, being that literally nothing actually exists outside of its boundaries, because it's a visual novel. It's a limited, constricted reality, where things are implied to exist outside it, but they actually don't.

In other words, Monika did apparently generate all that makes up the Protagonist as a character and vehicle for the player in the main game, based off the limited concept implied by their interaction in the Side Story. Or, rather, probably by something else, since the side stories are inherently a "Control Simulation" where Monika doesn't have any sense of meta awareness. It's a prequel set before the main story, but...well, if you really think about it, it's implied to tie into the main story, but they don't directly link up, do they? If it's not explicitly shown on screen in the main line Doki Doki Literature Club, did it even happen?

Either way, the Protagonist is a character independent of Monika's creation, he's just given absolutely nothing, and technically doesn't even exist outside of what's implied of him. Technically, the character Monika creates as a vehicle for the Player has no real relation to him, outside of being Sayori's friend and wanting to join the Anime Club. Or, depending on your view, he does! Since he's the literal manifestation of that character concept where it didn't exist previously, it's fair to say that he is that character given life!

I don't know, I think it's just kinda fascinating in context. I don't really like a lot of the extra lore surrounding the whole thing in +, but there are plenty of interesting things like this which have been given just enough flavor to be interesting.

Obviously I don't think this means the Protagonist is a complete non-character and any & all fan interpretations of him should be defenestrated (quite the opposite actually, reality can be whatever you want, I have a few concepts with him floating around my head which I find fun to play with), but I think this sort of thing is probably important to keep in mind on terms of actual investigations of canon.

[vilevampz]

Character Development: Inspirations & Techniques (Part 2)

Where to gain inspiration from

Movies/TV shows 

Visual storytelling in movies/TV shows provides a rich source of character inspiration

Character interactions and evolution spark ideas for unique and dynamic personalities.

Detailed portrayal of emotions, dialogue, and body language aids in conveying complex traits and relationships.

Setting and costume design inspire character backgrounds and aesthetics.

Plots and subplots offer examples of character arcs and growth.

Analyzing favorite characters helps identify compelling traits to apply to your creations.

Reimagining characters in different contexts or blending traits from multiple characters results in fresh, original personalities.

2. Dreams

Unique Scenarios: Dreams often present bizarre and imaginative scenarios that can be the basis for intriguing storylines or settings.

Emotional Depth: The intense emotions experienced in dreams can provide insight into character motivations and relationships.

Subconscious Creativity: Dreams tap into the subconscious mind, revealing unexpected ideas and creative solutions that might not emerge during waking hours.

Symbolism and Themes: The symbolic nature of dreams can inspire themes, motifs, and symbolic imagery within stories.

Character Development: Dream figures can inspire new characters or offer fresh perspectives on existing ones, enriching their depth and complexity.

Exploration of Fears: Nightmares and anxieties manifest in dreams can be explored and transformed into compelling narratives.

Surreal Elements: Dreams' surreal and fantastical elements can add a unique and captivating dimension to writing.

Creating Character Profiles

1. Importance 

Consistency: They help maintain consistent character traits, behaviors, and backstories throughout the story.

Depth: Profiles provide a detailed understanding of characters, making them more three-dimensional and relatable.

Development: They aid in tracking character growth and development throughout the narrative.

Motivation: Profiles clarify characters' motivations, goals, and conflicts, enhancing plot coherence.

Interaction: Understanding each character’s personality helps writers depict authentic interactions and relationships.

Creativity: They inspire creativity by encouraging writers to explore various aspects of a character’s life, including past experiences and future aspirations.

Efficiency: Profiles save time during the writing process by providing quick reference points for character details.

Backstory: Detailed profiles provide a comprehensive backstory for characters, enriching the narrative.

Facades: They showcase different facets and layers of a character, revealing their complexity and making them more realistic.

2. What to include 

Hair color, eye color, or anything that describes what the character looks like

Traits to offer a glimpse of their personality and/or quirks

Their family tree and history, education, and any other relevant background info

Their motivations and goals, What drives them? What do they want to achieve? 

Relationships with friends, family, or partner 

Example Character Sheet: 

Character Name: 

Age: 

Sexuality: 

Gender:

Education: 

Eye color: 

Hair color: 

Traits:

Fears:

Strengths: 

Weakness: 

*This is how I do it but you can make it more complex or visually appealing, whatever works best for you. 

Using Programs to envision characters 

Programs like the Sims can help greatly when envisioning characters as you can create exactly what they look like (mods and CC will make that a reality) I use this all the time to create what my character looks like and what their voice sounds like. I know their voices are in similish but I can get an understanding of how high or deep or what tone I am going for in my head. I can also see what they would dress like casually, formally, etc. so if a scene needs my characters to dress a certain way, this helps figure that out. Visualing your characters through a program like this helps but if you can draw your characters that is awesome. There is a good chunk of writers or poets who can’t draw so this helps us be able to see our characters.

[tinyozlion]

The Char Aznable Problem 

Here’s a take for the MS Gundam fans in the audience: Using the Zechs-as-Char analogy will actually hinder you in understanding the finale of Gundam Wing.

I know there are unavoidable reasons for the comparison! Zechs is a deliberate homage, that's not in question. But I’d like to argue that taking Zechs’s actions on their own terms is the only reasonable way to evaluate them. Understanding Char’s Counterattack will certainly make Zechs’s performance more nuanced and recognizable, but expecting him to be the same person with the same copy-pasted goals is to miss the purpose of his character. 

Neither of their goals make sense outside of their respective settings and character arcs, in the same way that MS Gundam and Gundam Wing are related thematically but are both telling very different kinds of stories in different ways.

Zechs doesn’t do a heel-turn and become a Char just because the hand of the franchise swooped in and forced him to; he does a heel turn and puts on a Char Costume (…mask?) because he is playing the villain, and the villain he is playing is Char. 

Why? Because Char from Char’s Counterattack has no place in the universe of Gundam Wing. Standing up and saying Char Stuff™ in After Colony 195 makes you sound like you got the space madness. 

White Fang Milliardo shows up out of nowhere with this new kind of racism he just invented and delivers a treatise about how humans from Space have become biologically superior to humans from Earth within a couple generations... in a setting where Newtypes aren’t a thing. There is no established precedent in AC 195 for declaring that space colonists are a super-evolved utopian master race OTHER than to blatantly manufacture conflict.

 And like... ding ding ding, that’s the point. 

Char from Char’s Counterattack is a complex, disillusioned, flawed man who is trying to make the earth uninhabitable for complex, flawed reasons that he genuinely plans on carrying out.  

Milliardo is a complex, disillusioned, flawed man pretending very hard to want to make the earth uninhabitable because it’s an Ozymandias Gambit intended to galvanize all remaining forces to take part in a war that will ultimately burn through all of their military resources.

 Char from Char’s Counterattack exists in a timeline where the earth is a polluted wasteland, and the space colonies are pristine, self-sustaining eutopias with ten billion people living in them. 

Gundam Wing is a timeline where the earth is pristine, and the space colonies are oppressed dystopian slums with marginal populations still largely dependent on earth’s resources. Staging the KPG 2.0 in this context would be a death sentence for the colonies as well as the people on earth.

Char believes it’s his destiny to punish the people of earth for their selfishness and their inability to change or allow future generations to evolve. Milliardo believes the only thing he’s good for is to rid the world of people like himself, SO that the future generation has a chance to change for the better.

I’ve found that the more I know about MS Gundam, the deeper an appreciation I have for what Wing chose to adapt and where it diverged; I think that some of Wing’s greatest achievements are born from the moments it purposefully broke from its predecessor, and some of its greatest flaws come from when it chose to adapt things that just don't make sense outside of their original context-- I don't necessarily think that Milliardo pretending to be Char is one of those moments.

On the whole, what Wing feels like to me is a poignant echo of the Universal Century, as if we are seeing the reflections, the shared rhythms, of people and struggles across time and reality. Zechs is like a variation of the Char leitmotif transposed into a new composition.

…And anyway, Zechs isn’t even the Char Clone of Gundam Wing. Zechs AND Treize are the Char Clone of Gundam Wing. 

The Red Comet is an ace pilot simultaneously admired and hated for his abilities and the respect he commands as a soldier. He has the luxury of being chivalrous on the battlefield because no one can compete with him, and because his ultimate goals differ from those of the ruthless organization that holds his reigns. He has the burden of a spotless reputation hiding a dark, secret purpose. He eventually turns coat and becomes Quattro, a mentor figure to the talented pilots who idolize him and walk the same path he does. The complexities of war erode his confidence and understanding of what is right, of what is actually worth fighting for in a world where the grind of battle never stops, and the same points have to be made over, and over, and over again, paid for in the blood of young people– people just like him, who he encouraged to fight, who had bright futures ahead of them– each and every time.

The glorious Neo Zeon leader is a wheeling and dealing homme-fatale who can play the game of politics, who knows how to put on an inspiring show for the adoring masses, all while getting what he wants through deceit, charm, treachery, abuse of his charisma, even his sensuality. He is willing to do anything for what he views as the best future for humanity– particularly for the humans he thinks are worthy of that better future, all while knowing he is not one of the chosen ones. He will always carry a seed of self-loathing and insecurity with him. He knows that the version of him that people idolize is only a mirage, but he is willing to use that mirage to steer the future where he believes it should go, sacrificing whoever he needs to for an end that justifies any means.

Zechs is the ace pilot. Treize is the glorious leader. They’re both variations on theme of Char.

Char’s story takes place over the course of his lifetime, spanning multiple series-- Zechs/Milliardo simply doesn’t have time to be everything Char was in the time frame of Wing. Instead his influence is played by two people, representing different eras of his life, existing simultaneously and in coordinated opposition to each other.

Nobody can really be Char except Char, and Char can't really be substituted for Zechs or Treize within their own universe. Even clones grow up differently when they're raised in different environments.

[ganondorf]

man no shade to this person or whatever but this is what really annoys me in the whole Madoka Magica Being A Deconstruction conversation because. it's not. and i think a lot of the mislabeling of pmmm as a deconstruction just comes from general audience's misconceptions of the magical girl genre. like the idea being described here has already existed in the magical girl genre

(aside from the fact that no characters in pmmm actually overcome any of their flaws like what's being purported here and in homura's case she actively Gets Worse but let's disregard that and pretend that it's true even)

through these discussions, there's a tendency to paint the genre as one where wish-fulfillment reigns supreme, nothing ever goes wrong, obstacles are minimal and there's only fluff and fun to be had. but like this literally is not true

the main problem with the term "deconstruction" as it's used in discussions within anime fandom is that it presupposes authorial intent with regards to an entire genre. the second most important issue is that it often relies on arguments from ignorance and people lack the full or even basic context of many of the major works that influenced the shows that are typically called "deconstructive." like evangelion gets commonly referred to as a "deconstruction" of mecha shows by western fans but in reality it was actually well-stepped in the mecha and tokusatsu genre, as anyone who has actually watched any gundam and familiar with Kill Em All Tomino already knows

so the third problem is maybe a lack of understanding as to what a "deconstruction" actually is. what a deconstruction of a genre would look like is something that points out the compromises, logical conclusions, and questions that arise from accepting the widely accepted rules/tropes that are established in the genre. an example of an anime that actually functions as a deconstruction would be utena, which can be read as a deconstruction of the shoujo romance genre, particularly the sorta Fairy Tale Chivalry Romantic archetypes

pmmm does not deconstruct anything about the magical girl genre itself. it subverts audience expectations by initially setting itself up as a Cute Fun Pretty Cure-esque Magical Girl Show and then flips that on its head. but not all magical girl shows are precure. dark themes are definitely not unheard of in the magical girl genre. even sailor moon, THE blueprint for, not magical girls as a whole but the "fighting" magical girls, had many a dark moment in the manga. death, grief, selfishness, and other negative emotions and calamities have accompanied the magical girl genre since its inception

[therealturbovicki]

I haven’t really seen anyone talk about this yet so there’s a possibility I could be the only one but I hate Chevreuse and how they wrote her

Even if I ignore the fact that she’s a cop and most cop-like characters piss me off anyways, within the context of the region she’s apart of, she’s just plain boring. As it stands we already have a good handful of characters in the game, a lot of them from Fontaine already, with the exact same motivations and high held personal morals; the law is there for a reason, if people enact revenge and take what they think is just and right All The Time, then there would be chaos and unfair violence everywhere. And from a real life ethical lens it WOULD be really chaotic if anyone, anywhere at anytime could take their views of justice into their own hands.

but that’s the thing!! kind of like how it is In the real world, Fontaine is not a wholly just and fair nation (e.g. the Entirety of the Fortress of Meropide, the trafficking and various other crimes that constantly happen within the nobility of Fontaine and the fact that it has yet to be thoroughly investigated/solved and continues to happen, the extreme economic and social juxtaposition between the court of Fontaine and its underground Fleuve Cendre area and Poisson) And it really sucks that the game fails to admit that or acknowledge it because then you have characters who they Want you to believe are doing the right thing and fighting for the right causes, but it winds up feeling meaningless when what they’re fighting for is the law of Fontaine.

Chevreuse would’ve been an Infinitely more interesting and compelling character if her passion for justice wasn’t rooted in upholding the law and order of the nation, but rather what justice means for individuals. How the injustice and discrimination happening in that nation breeds people’s want for revenge and justice outside of the law.

And yeah I get that they wanted another character who fights against evil and is unwavering in her beliefs of what’s right in the very conventional and legal way, but I find it really funny that Chevreuse herself says what makes the argument for her character being boring In the same event quest; when asked about possibly changing the ending and meaning of the Two Musketeers, she says she wants to keep the ending the way that it is because fiction exists in a realm separate from that of reality, where things like the morals of what’s just and unjust can be explored. and like!! that’s it’s!!! I’m literally sitting here playing a Fictional game that has the opportunity to showcase just how fascinating it can be to talk about those kind of things in a fantasy setting where your main player character has literally Killed mostly innocent human people before because they betrayed someone they cared about deeply. but whatever. WHATEVER!!!

[spock-in-awe]

Hey, so, I made up a term and wrote a whole thing. Hope you enjoy.

Inspired by the concept of liminal spaces, liminal space characters are narratively stuck, their subjectivity seemed rendered inert. They are resistant to transiting to the next phase, on the brink of possible transformation if only they could figure out the how of transforming. However, this arrested character growth is designed by skillful hands to be temporary, and the resulting arc of change is heightened by that seemingly fixed–and problematically so–starting place.

An inherent trope among these characters is a bridging multiple worlds, identities, or contexts. They inhabit an “in-between,” a space of discomfort, uncertainty, waiting, and denial (relating to the personal, the public, or reality itself). Narratively, there might be an impending change on their horizon that they work to avoid, sacrificing pieces of their own ethical system to reach that aim. They might be running from their past actions, straddling multiple spheres of existence, or haunted by what they’ve done but unable to face the consequences. Others might be so committed to completing a task bestowed upon them they barely assess whether they are capable of even doing so. In worse emotional places are those characters who complete the task set before them, only to realize it was a horrible mistake.

At the root is their relationship to subjectivity. Who directed their understanding of self? When did that occur? Was it purposefully manipulative or purely environmental? To move through the liminal space, they must define their own subjectivity, and take control of their own identities after being buffeted by expectation, lineage, or limited opportunities.

One of the most persuasive liminal space characters of the last ten years is Ben Solo, or Kylo Ren, in the Star Wars universe. He is born under incredibly traumatic circumstances, his lineage being a splinter of the light side and the dark. Impossibly high expectations are thrust upon him before he enters the world, so too is a sinister invasion intended to corrupt him in the womb. He is purposefully kept ignorant of his grandfather’s actions, deprived of an opportunity to come to terms with the damage wrought those decades prior. Ben’s parents don’t quite notice how calculating the dark side is, or avoid doing anything about this understanding, until they send him to his uncle’s Jedi Temple. Even under his Master-level uncle’s observation, Ben struggles to integrate everything that is seemingly at odds inside him; the pull to the light, the pressure of the dark. Consequently, he is left in a state of fractured identity, split between what is acceptable and unacceptable, unable to find his place in a galaxy ruled by strict binaries. This tension boils to the surface as rage, violence, hopelessness, and subservience to those he turns after his family members fail him.

Another excellent example is Spock in the Star Trek universe. He is born half human, half Vulcan, a duality that leads to lifelong struggles not only within himself, but in the galaxy, as well. While he must suppress his emotions through training and social expectation, his internal system of rationality is encouraged during his childhood on Vulcan. Despite his father’s choice to partner with a human woman, Sarek seems to resent Spock’s individuality. In Vulcan schools, Spock is bullied by his peers for that part of his identity of which he has no control. In a more recent iteration of Star Trek, it is revealed that Spock also has a form of dyslexia, setting him further apart from those he might otherwise find a connection with. He is a unique individual, someone whose adversities aren’t recognized by those he encounters–let alone seen and validated–and so he is left to find a balance within himself with little support. His world is also one of defined boundaries, clear parameters for acceptable behaviors. This path isn’t easy for him, especially when he seeks to relate to those he finds himself drawn to, or forced to spend time with. Depending on the era of Star Trek, he deflects the advances of those around him, or falls under the influence of an alien biologic, for example, wherein he is allowed to express emotions, and later confesses that being under the pollen’s influence was the only time he felt happy.

Both these examples share a commonality: they are pushed a certain direction in response to family obligation, social expectation, or environmental constraints. This can even go as far as childhood abuse or neglect that carries on through their lives. From the clay of their childhood experiences, the liminal space characters are taught it doesn’t matter what they want for themselves; they must accept and perform an identity according to what people around them dictate as acceptable. For Ben Solo, it is dutiful Padawan to his own detriment, while as Kylo Ren, he is a conflicted tool used by those he bows to. Spock defaults to appearing as a distanced and capable science officer, hiding any internal tumult he may experience. Both have suffered for their struggles and crave relief.

For some, there is a distinct lack of agency often assigned, something that happened at the start of their journey that was entirely out of their control. Ji-Ah, a liminal space creature from Lovecraft Country, is possessed by a spirit that wreaks havoc on those she encounters. She did not consent to the spirit’s arrival–her mother invited it in for reasons all her own–and the human Ji-Ah loses her identity in the process. What is intriguing about this arc is how the spirit is the one to change, not the negated human within. That person was lost, replaced by a spirit who transforms for the better.

San, from Princess Mononoke, was abandoned by her parents in the forest. She was discovered by the Wolf Clan, whose leader Moro takes the human child in as her own to raise entirely as if she were a wolf. As San grows up with deep hatred of humans, she must confront the truth of her existence; that she comes from them, was abandoned by them, and now commits her life to stopping their destruction of the natural world. Her transition through the liminal looks similar to her starting place, living as a wolf, yet her internal conflict finds resolution through connecting with a human man she can trust.

To achieve their goals (which are usually not intrinsically motivated but outwardly so), they may suppress their innate tendencies. These often include compassion, empathy, tenderness, or caretaking. This leads to immense conflict, both externally as they aim to reach certain objectives, or internally as they combat or try to eliminate this intense intrinsic struggle. This conflict may cause violent behaviors, mental instability, or emotional chaos. When these characters are coded as “villains,” they often cause intense harm to others and themselves. They do this usually out of desperation to survive, to fit in, or perhaps to avoid perceived judgement. Depending on the narrative, they are given an opportunity to make amends for this harm. But usually in western media, they are not redeemed, let alone offered the chance to atone for the damage they inflicted while they struggled to actualize as their true selves.

The heroic versions, of which the Star Trek universe has many, benefit from extra layers of character depth, which offers an arc that builds effectively over several seasons. Whether it is an android who observes humans around himself and wishes to emulate their mannerisms, or a previous human-machine hybrid forced to sever herself from the greater machine organism, these characters depend on the external to define their identities. It takes much longer for them to find that truth within themselves.

Other characters fall into a middle ground between villain and hero coding. One such example is Ed Teach, or Blackbeard, in Our Flag Means Death. He inhabits the world as a fulfillment of his own stereotypes and exaggerations. He claims to care about little and presents a bravado to match the fearsome illustrations in history books. But eventually we see his immense dissatisfaction with the role he has been performing. His liminal space, similar to the rest, is that of moving away from this project front toward authenticity.

Joel Miller, a character originated in the Last of us video game and portrayed in a streaming show of the same name, begins as a regular man. He has a daughter, a brother, a job. It is only because of horrifying circumstances that he is forced to transform. He makes himself cold, violent, and ruthless. There can be no remainder of his previous self. Until he encounters someone to protect, and protect, he does, much to his own aggravation. His circumstances are some of the most dramatic across narratives, and how he integrates, or fails to integrate, his warring selves has fascinated audiences for over a decade.

Neither of these previous two examples have conclusions in their streaming narratives at this point. Both are left on the cliffhanger of violence, of rejection of social expectation around them. Both revert to a previous state of being, but in different ways: Ed to his Blackbeard persona, Joel to his protective father role. Whatever results from these decisions (however conscious or reactionary they are), is inconsequential. And therefore, potentially read as villainous once more, buckling under the pain of the past and fear of that suffering’s return.

The character Spike in Buffy the Vampire Slayer willingly suffers for his previous actions. Over time, he begins to recognize what he has done, takes action to make amends, and fights for his redemption. Though by the closure of the show he is deprived of what he most craves–connection–his final actions are entirely the opposite of his original ones. He countered the vampire tendencies within himself, found wholeness, and dedicated himself to a goal that was selfless.

As Spike was for some time, these characters can be confused about where they belong and crave that understanding and connection. There is a deep ache to be understood, though few of them acknowledge this desire. In fact, many go out of their way to deny it, to pretend otherwise. 

The character of Nimona, originating in the graphic novel of the same name, traverses the murky landscape of being a shape shifter. She camouflages her deep interest in finding a companion by presenting herself as a “sidekick,” someone for the villain mastermind to rely on and trust. She is uncertain of herself, carrying the wounds of centuries past, convincing herself that violence and domination are paramount. When she bonds with her new friend in unexpected ways, her deeper needs rise to the surface. But these are frightening. It is only when she is shown radical acceptance and safety does she integrate her various parts at the end of the story.

Killian Jones in Once Upon a Time jostles between presenting his desires in a joking manner, and hiding them beneath layers of anger. He is bound by revenge and denies anything in conflict with that goal. His swagger is an exaggeration, a front or projection, which is a common detail across these stories. If he claims to be a heartless villain, no one will discover just how victimized he once was.

These characters may herald chaos or drama within the narrative, amusement or disquiet for the audience. A character like Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter series is written from the outset as a direct–if youthful–antagonist. Yet later in the story, insight into his wounded mental and emotional state arrives, eliciting the reader’s compassion. He was inculcated in an environment of bigotry and toxic superiority, of which he must decide personally to move beyond. 

Liminal space characters can appear unique in their behaviors and presentations when compared to those around them. Perhaps this is because of a heightened defensiveness, or anxiety, or refusal to engage with typical romantic situations. 

For those who are deliberately off-putting and aggressive, sarcastic and aloof, or extremely isolated by design, the audience must confront their own biases, as well. When the narrative is effective, we as consumers may empathize with these struggling individuals. We may understand why they have taken the steps they have, protected themselves, lashed out at others. 

What I love most about liminal space characters is the potential for them to heal the dueling perspectives within themselves. These characters at some point must question themselves, and when done successfully, the audience does the same: How capable are we of forming our sense of self? What does harm look like? How do we live with our mistakes? How do we shape ourselves? Is it possible to make a new choice after a long pattern of harmful behaviors? Where does this character go after discovering they have wronged so many? When is that redemptive effort enough?

Both the characters questioning themselves, and not questioning themselves (ie following external demands), may lead to feelings of loneliness and rejection. Prince Zuko of Avatar the Last Airbender rotates entirely around his father’s acceptance, and whatever he must do in order to receive it, he will. There is no cost too high, and he questions nothing. Until he stumbles into a bond with a supposed adversary, which begins to shift his perspective. This is a common trope within these stories, as well, the mirror opposite coming into sharp relief by comparison.

Frustratingly, there are far more male-presenting liminal space characters than female ones in the duality of Western media, so the “adversary” is often portrayed as female (I’m optimistic this will change as more diverse writers share their stories). In a compulsory heterosexual context, there is potential for romance, as well. This is perceived in the canon text and also by fans through their own stories. An opposing character–such as Kitara in Avatar the Last Airbender, Rey in the last Star Wars trilogy, or Captain Kirk in Star Trek–may help these liminal space characters realize they are not a lost soul, no longer a victim to their circumstances. They can offer an opposing viewpoint: what if you took a different path? You’re not required to stay this way. It’s never too late.

Hope gives the liminal space characters the sense they can make new choices and change. Hope is the kernel, the light slanting through clouds, the assurance nothing is permanent, not even a limbo state of the mind.

[she-is-ovarit]

I wish I would have learned this before age 26/27. Observe men in how they approach problems: they are extremely confident. It does not matter whether they fully understand what they are doing or not. One woman described it as "dumb confidence" because it's a type of confidence that isn't necessarily reliant on possessing the knowledge or skills needed for a given situation. It's a confidence that, if you have any self doubts, is likely to absolutely fool you because it reads as genuine. We believe people who behave like experts even when they're not.

As they grew up and interacted with different people in different contexts throughout their lives, men figured out that operating out of dumb confidence came with a lot of benefits. It was mastered because in boyhood or even manhood, if they presented any self-doubt they were likely to be bullied by other men, but if they approached every situation with confidence then other men were drawn to them as leaders. Dumb confidence is what leads men to "fake it till you make it" in their professional fields, and when dumb confidence fails them they don't generally get their entire character described as "stupid" and their reputation tanked like women do.

It also, incidentally, plays a central role in unequal power dynamics between men and women within heterosexual relationships. We trust men because we lack confidence within ourselves and carry a lot of self-doubt, and everybody (man or woman) is socialized to perceive men as "smarter" than women on a nearly invisible, subconscious level. When a man says something with conviction, with confidence, we assume he is being genuine. This "dumb confidence" can be maladaptively applied not just in relation to knowledge about material things (cars, building structure, etc.) but also to relationships (such as genuinely assuming out of dumb confidence that a girlfriend or wife will like or appreciate him doing something when in reality she might be upset by the action because he did not ask for permission first, etc.).

For most men, "dumb confidence" seems to generally exist as a more subconscious form of manipulation or thinking. As I've mentioned in other posts, I don't mean "subconscious" as a coded excuse for "oh he doesn't know so he can't be held responsible" - subconscious, manipulative behaviors are just as dangerous as conscious ones (arguably, sometimes even more), and setting boundaries against these behaviors is what helps people unlearn them. In other words, "giving him the benefit of the doubt" can reinforce the pattern. I think "dumb confidence" is not always inherently a bad thing, because in certain contexts it can really help to have this rather than self-doubting. But when it becomes maladaptive and creates power imbalances on a widespread scale due to the male sex practicing it while the female sex does the opposite (frequent self-doubt), this contributes to the oppression and exploitation of the female sex.

TL;DR: Men have confidence, even when they shouldn't, and especially in interactions with women. Women have self doubt, even when we shouldn't, and especially in interactions with men. Both of these behaviors and patterns of thinking are often subconscious, with exceptions. This creates societal power disparities.

[captainkupo]

some rambley thoughts on quake as a franchise's identity and continuity

the quake franchise is a strange beast in regards to identity. its largely been iterated on the mechanics from the first quake but whatever form that takes will wildly change from game to game. you can clearly see even if it was meant to be a new ip that quake 2s gameplay and design are developed off of how quake 1 plays, whether just becaues of the engine, an id house style that had started developing. whatever you want to call it

but something quake champions and call of the machine for quake 2 bring in regards to continuity is the idea of all of quake existing in the same "multiverse" . a bunch of different worlds connected to each other, sharing connections to lovecraftian dimensions or what have you. that the strogg have some deeper arcane connections to "quake" as a nebulous entity/dimension. that different planes of reality exist whos playable characters in quake champions have reached the 4 dimensions that existed in quake through different means (artificial slipgate for ranger, black hole generator explosion for strogg & peeker etc) (basically just applying narrative cohesion and context for quake 3's arena eternal

as much as multiverses as a concept are a worn out trend thats largely been used recently for endless fanservice (in cases both good and bad), its very much the perfect idea for a franchise like quake, where its entire concept and influences are built around different worlds and universes and planes of reality, but instead of being excuses to have a billion spidersmen or to bring back some actor who played some character one time its to provide context for potentially infinite play spaces and level themings (trending towards horror obviously) like a really good example is something like arcane dimensions or to an extent the machinegames quake expansions. theyre presented as vignettes designed by different people with different design styles and themes and content. but provided in context of quake and the start level you reach all them from, it presents the idea that theyre all worlds that could exist in continuity, diifferent realities with their own histories and cultures and magics and technologies. mods in general for quake kind of seem that way to me (probably biased based on my experiencec with quake mods being mostly AC and the MG sets). it could be any of an infinite number of realities that ranger has ended up in and has to fight his way through. id like to hope going forward that whatever game studios end up working on quake in the future keep leaning in that direction. despite only getting one proper game and a mp title, the lovecraft setting feels so much stronger and with so much more potential than the humantiy strogg war we've had across two full games and a mp spinoff. if they even wanted they could do a completely "new" setting and ground it within quakes multiverse if they wanted, though its not what id perfer

it does kind of suck that doom 6 is creeping pretty hard into quakes territory with a more medieval fantasy setting, but in practice it still feels -more- modern doom than quake, and id hope its not a sign that quake is being largely abandoned (id's shooters do trend towards a "house style", even with the new dooms being developed by completely new people, its still following alot of those same design and thematic elements that got codified in the 90s).

[mariacallous]

In the early weeks of 2023, as worry about ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools was ratcheting up dramatically in the public conversation, a tweet passed through the many interlocking corners of Book Twitter. “Imagine if every Book is converted into an Animated Book and made 10x more engaging,” it read. “AI will do this. Huge opportunity here to disrupt Kindle and Audible.”

The tweet’s author, Gaurav Munjal, cofounded Unacademy, which bills itself as “India’s largest learning platform”—and within the edtech context, where digitally animated books can be effective teaching tools, his suggestion might read a certain way. But to a broader audience, the sweeping proclamation that AI will make “every” book “10x more engaging” seemed absurd, a solution in search of a problem, and one predicated on the idea that people who choose to read narrative prose (instead of, say, watching a film or playing a game) were somehow bored or not engaged with their unanimated tomes. As those who shared the tweet observed, it seems like a lot of book industry “disruptors” just don’t like reading.

Munjal is one of many tech entrepreneurs to ping the book world’s radar—and raise its collective hackles—in recent months. Many were hawking AI “solutions” they promised would transform the act of writing, the most derided among them Sudowrite’s Story Engine (dubbed in a relatively ambivalent review by The Verge’s Adi Robertson as “the AI novel-writing tool everyone hates”). Story Engine raised frustrations by treating writers as an afterthought and, by its very existence, suggesting that the problems it was trying to bypass weren’t integral to the act of writing itself.

Last month, Justine Moore, a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, provided a sort of bookend to Munjal’s “AI-animated books” proposal. “The three largest fanfic sites—[Archive of Our Own], Fanfiction.net, and Wattpad—get 3 billion-plus annual visits in the US alone,” she wrote. “Imagine how much bigger this market could be if you could chat with characters vs. reading static stories?” The thread was likely a reference to Character.ai, a startup that lets users chat with fictional heroes and villains; Andreessen Horowitz led a $150 million funding round for the company in March. The comment also came after the revelation that large language models (LLMs) may have scraped fanfiction writers’ work—which is largely written and shared for free—causing an (understandable) uproar in many fan communities.

Setting aside the fact that fandom role-playing has been a popular practice for decades, Moore’s statements felt like a distillation of tech’s tortured relationship with narrative prose. There are many kinds of fanfiction—including an entire subgenre in which “you” are a character in the story. But those are still stories, sentences deliberately written and arranged in a way that lets you lose yourself in an authored narrative. “Imagine having such a fundamental misunderstanding of the appeal of reading fanfiction—let alone reading fiction more broadly,” I wrote in response to her thread. What’s so wrong with people enjoying reading plain old words on a page?

The tech world has long been convinced that it understands the desires of readers better than they do themselves. For years, VCs have promised to upend books and the structures around their creation and consumption. Some came from within the publishing industry, but like their counterparts “disrupting” other sectors, including film and TV, many more did not. And for the most part, despite tech’s sometimes drastic (and often negative) effects on other industries, book- and reading-related startups failed to alter much at all. People are still buying books—in fact, they’re buying more than ever. Pandemic lockdowns brought a perhaps unsurprising boom in sales, and even though numbers slipped as restrictions lifted, print sales were still nearly 12 percent higher in 2022 than they were in 2019, and sales of audio books continue to increase dramatically year over year.

One reason books haven’t been particularly disruptable might be that many of the people looking to “fix” things couldn’t actually articulate what was broken—whether through their failure to see the real problems facing the industry (namely, Amazon’s stranglehold), or their insistence that books are not particularly enjoyable as a medium. “It’s that arrogance, to come into a community you know nothing about, that you might have studied as you study for an MBA, and think that you can revolutionize anything,” says writer and longtime book-industry observer Maris Kreizman. “There were so many false problems that tech guys created that we didn’t actually have.”

Take, for example, the long string of pitches for a “Netflix for books”—ideas that retrofitted Netflix’s original DVDs-by-mail model for a different medium under the presumption that readers would pay to borrow books when the public library was right there. Publisher’s Weekly keeps a database of book startups that now numbers more than 1,300; many of them are marked “Closed,” alongside a graveyard of broken URLs. There were plenty of practical ideas—targeting specific demographics or genres or pegged to more technical aspects, like metadata or production workflows. But many more proposed ways to alter books themselves—most of which made zero sense to people who actually enjoy reading.

“I don’t think they’re coming to that with a love of fiction or an understanding of why people read fiction,” Kreizman says. “If they were, they wouldn’t make these suggestions that nobody wants.”

The “10x more engaging” crowd has come in waves over the past two decades, washed ashore via broader tech trends, like social media, tablets, virtual reality, NFTs, and AI. These tech enthusiasts promised a vast, untapped market full of people just waiting for technology to make books more “fun” and delivered pronouncements with a grifting sort of energy that urged you to seize on the newest trend while it was hot—even as everyone could see that previous hyped ventures had not, in fact, utterly transformed the way people read. Interactive books could have sound effects or music that hits at certain story beats. NFTs could let readers “own” a character. AI could allow readers to endlessly generate their own books, or to eschew—to borrow one particular framing—“static stories” entirely and put themselves directly into a fictional world.

AI isn’t remotely a new player in the book world. Electronic literature artists and scholars have worked with various forms of virtual and artificial intelligence for decades, and National Novel Generation Month, a collaborative challenge modeled after NaNoWriMo, has been around since 2013. Even now, as much of the book world loudly rejects AI-powered writing tools, some authors are still experimenting, with a wide range of results. But these bespoke, usually one-off projects are a far cry from the tech industry’s proposals to revolutionize reading at scale—not least because the projects were never intended to replace traditional books.

“A lot of interactive storytelling has gone on for a very long time,” says Jeremy Douglass, an assistant professor of English at the University of California, Santa Barbara, citing everything from his early career work on hypertext fiction to the class he’ll teach next year on the long history of the pop-up book to centuries-old marginalia like the footnote and the concordance. “These fields are almost always very old, they’re almost always talked about as if they’re brand-new, and there haven’t really been a lot of moments of inventing a new modality.”

To VC claims that AI will totally alter books, Douglass takes what he calls a “yes, and” stance. “What people are actually doing is creating a new medium. They’re not actually replacing the novel; they created a new thing that was like the novel but different, and the old forms carried on. I’m still listening to the radio, despite the film and game industries’ efforts.”

Tech entrepreneurs rarely pitch “yes, and” ideas. In their view, new technologies will improve on—and eventually supplant—what exists now. For all of his interest in the many forms of interactive fiction, Douglass doubts that most books would benefit from an AI treatment.

“There are extremely pleasurable aesthetic systems that aren’t intentional,” he says. “But how often when I’m reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X or The Joy of Cooking do I think, ‘If only a chatbot could augment this on the fly’? And it’s partly the fact that some communication is deeply intentional, and that’s part of the pleasure. It’s handcrafted, it’s specific, there’s a vision.”

That isn’t to say that Douglass thinks there’s zero appetite for AI in literature—but it’s “probably a very small slice of the pie. So when you say ‘all books’? Almost certainly not. For the same reason that we’re not reading 100 percent pop-up books, or watching all of our books on YouTube, or anything else you can imagine. People are doing that too, but it’s extra.”

The exact size of that small pie slice remains to be seen, as does the general public’s appetite for instant novels, or chatting with characters, or hitting a button that will animate any book in your digital library. But those desires will likely need to come from readers themselves—not from the top down. “If you just give the tools to everybody, which is happening in spite of venture capital, as well as because of it, people will figure out what they want it for—and it’s usually not what the inventors and the investors think,” Douglass says. “It’s not even in their top-10 list of guesses, most of the time. It’s incredibly specific to the person and genre.”

The recent history of publishing has plenty of examples in which digital tools let people create things we couldn’t have predicted in the analog days: the massive range of extremely niche self-published romance, for example, or the structural variation and formal innovation within the almost entirely online world of fanfiction.

But when the tech industry approaches readers with ways to “fix” what isn’t broken, their proposals will always ring hollow—and right now, plain old reading still works for huge numbers of people, many of whom pick up books because they want to escape and not be the main character for a while. “That’s a good thing,” Kreizman says. And as AI true believers sweep through with promises that this technology will change everything, it helps to remember just how many disruptors have come and gone. “In the meantime, tech bros will still find VCs to wine and dine and spend more money on bullshit,” Kreizman predicts. But for the rest of us? We’ll just keep on reading.

[oof-i-did-it-agaaiiin]

I think it’s really interesting how all of Ride The Cyclone’s songs are treated to be completely diegetic.

For those who don’t know, diegetic means something that is literally, actually taking place within the context of a story. A non-diegetic song isn’t literally happening, it’s just a musical representation of what is happening.

For example, in The Sound Of Music, The Lonely Goatherd is diegetic, Sixteen Going On Seventeen is not, and So Long Farewell is a sort of middle ground.

Musicals often blur the lines between what’s diegetic and what isn’t, but most musicals treat the majority of their songs as non-diegetic, often having none or only one diegetic song.

But since the characters in Ride The Cyclone are already in this strange limbo space, the rules of reality are more blurred. Karnak is able to materialize set pieces, costumes, props, and the characters themselves into this world that he controls.

By having control over the actions and words of the choir, Karnak allows the children to express themselves through their songs in whatever manner possible, just as any musical does, but Karnak’s existence and involvement in the story solidifies these occurrences as diegetic within the story, rather than representational.

This is further confirmed through the character’s treatment of the musical numbers. Ocean refers to Noel’s Lament as “Noel’s song” and references the “f-bombs in the chorus” and it’s confirmed by dialogue after that same song that Ricky was actually playing the accordion during it. Lyrics from Ocean’s song are also referenced in dialogue, and nearly every song I can think of is treated similarly, as if they actually happened.

This is interesting because I think this choice actually supports the general themes of the show.

These children died tragically and suddenly, only knowing they would die mere seconds before it was over. But by pausing time and placing these kids in a sort of limbo it allows us to have an introspective moment with each character, allowing them to interact and bond before they die. The events of the musical serve as a time for the kids to grow, and understand each other, and come to terms with their unfulfilled dreams, and imminent death.

If the musical numbers were all mere representations of these characters’ internal dialogues then whose to say the whole musical couldn’t also be classified that way? If none of this actually happened then was it all for naught? Did their short lives really not get any closure? Did it mean nothing?

But it didn’t mean nothing. It wasn’t imaginary, and it did happen. It happened in this strange blend of reality we call theatre but it was real. The choir’s lives and the choir’s songs did have meaning and they did give closure, even if it’s meaning and closure that only them and us are privy to.

[lgbtshannon01]

My first aphmau’s theory post. Hope you guys like it

Theory: The Connection Between "Aphmau: MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries"

**Introduction**

"Aphmau: MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries" are two popular series created by the YouTube content creator, Aphmau. While they appear to be separate narratives with their own unique characters and storylines, fans have speculated that there may be deeper connections between the two universes. This theory explores potential links and shared lore that suggest "MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries" are interconnected within a larger multiverse.

1. Shared Characters and Alternate Realitie

One of the most striking connections between the two series is the presence of several characters who appear in both "MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries." Characters such as Aphmau, Aaron, Garroth, Zane, and Katelyn exist in both series but with different backstories, personalities, and roles.

- **Alternate Realities:** This suggests that "MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries" might be alternate realities of the same universe. The characters are essentially the same individuals but living different lives due to the divergence of their worlds. In "Minecraft Diaries," the characters are deeply involved in a high fantasy setting with magic, mythical creatures, and kingdoms. In contrast, "MyStreet" places them in a modern, slice-of-life context.

- **Reincarnation or Parallel Lives:** Another possibility is that the characters are reincarnations of their counterparts in different timelines or parallel lives. The memories and experiences of one life might subtly influence the actions and choices of their alternate selves.

2. The Role of Magic and Mystical Elements

Magic plays a crucial role in both series, but it manifests differently.

- **Minecraft Diaries:** Magic is overt and prevalent, with characters practicing various forms of sorcery, using magical artifacts, and encountering mystical beings. Aphmau herself is a powerful mage and a key figure in the series' lore.

- **MyStreet:** While magic is less prominent, there are still significant mystical elements, such as the Ultima werewolf curse affecting Aaron. These elements suggest that magic exists in the "MyStreet" universe but is more subdued or hidden from everyday life.

- **Connecting Element:** The presence of magic in both series could imply that the worlds are connected through magical dimensions or ley lines. Characters with strong magical abilities in "Minecraft Diaries" might still retain a latent connection to magic in "MyStreet," influencing their abilities and experiences.

**3. The Shadow Knights and Theories of Convergence**

The Shadow Knights are a common thread in both series, representing a dark and mysterious force.

- **In "Minecraft Diaries,"** the Shadow Knights are a malevolent group that poses a significant threat to the protagonists, with a complex history tied to dark magic and ancient curses.

- **In "MyStreet,"** the Shadow Knights appear as a gang with a sinister agenda, often clashing with the main characters.

- **Theory of Convergence:** The recurring presence of the Shadow Knights suggests a convergence point between the two universes. They might be an interdimensional threat, capable of crossing between worlds and affecting the lives of characters in both series. This could imply that events in one series have ripple effects in the other, with the Shadow Knights serving as agents of chaos that bridge the two realities.

**4. The Timeline and Multiverse Hypothesis**

- **Timeline Divergence:** It's possible that "MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries" are set in divergent timelines of the same universe. At a critical juncture, events in the world split into two separate paths—one leading to the high-fantasy world of "Minecraft Diaries" and the other to the contemporary setting of "MyStreet."

- **Multiverse Hypothesis:** Alternatively, both series might exist within a multiverse, where each universe is a distinct reality among many. Characters and elements can occasionally cross over or influence each other due to the thin barriers between these worlds. This hypothesis aligns with the concept of infinite possibilities, where every choice creates a new branch of reality.

Conclusion

The theory that "Aphmau: MyStreet" and "Minecraft Diaries" are interconnected within a larger multiverse offers a compelling explanation for the shared characters, magical elements, and recurring themes in both series. By viewing them as alternate realities or parallel lives, we can appreciate the rich and complex tapestry of storytelling that Aphmau has created, where each universe enriches the other through subtle connections and shared lore. But hey. It just a theory. A APHMAU THEORY!

[moorishflower]

Wanted to let you know that I LOVE the conversation with Desire in Here there be dragons (which, btw, the title, the meditations on how to make the map infinite again in the face of like, current small/limited-world angst, woven together SO well). First off, excellent emotional beat, of course it would be Desire themself who could make Hob most clearly go "forget what everyone thinks is reasonable or possible for me, I *want* to understand wtf is happening right now". But honestly just kinda delighted at the other viewpoint into the Endless family drama about, apparently, this whole entire universe's existence.

Like, the whole multiverse premise (if I read it right), of a world in which Dream comes out the other side of being able to pursue what he wants AND change, AND do what he needs to do without self-destruction, the idea that he chose to do this so that he could have a universe within him where those two versions of him were one and the same, and maybe even possibly help bridge gaps between those versions of him in other realities? Fantastic.

But like, having Desire there for it for a bit also brings out some of the inherent comedy in the situation too because like. It is Just Like Dream to be on a universe reset and go "what would it take to make a universe where I circumvent the most tragic aspects of [canon events]" and to (somehow) go "ah yes, clearly the only solution for this problem is that we all be sea creatures". I just love love the irritation in Desire here as they all regain broader understanding/consciousness of their function and take a new form and then look around at this universe with new eyes and now have the context to go "Yo, Dream, what - and I cannot stress this enough -- the FUCK?"

Idk, it was just such a fantastic little extra moment of levity I was reading into the wonderfully somber vibe of some of these moments that is just so fitting for all the characters involved.

Ahhh hello hello! I am SO so glad you liked the fic, I've got a lot of feelings about the "change or die" aspect of Dream, and how that's his tragic flaw is that he either CAN'T change or can only change very slowly! He's set himself in a fixed narrative and, because stories are all he is, he doesn't have the authorial power to change it!

But you know who WOULD? Daniel.

I've made a big point to say that Daniel DOES NOT appear in Here there be dragons, because he doesn't! But there's another reality out there where everything proceeded according to canon, that Dream prepared his elaborate suicide attempt, that Daniel Hall the child became the vessel for Dream of the Endless and meanwhile Morpheus was allowed at last the chance to rest. Leaving behind people who loved him.

And what if Daniel, who was once human, who has a spark of human imagination and free will in him, decided to try and change that? There are countless aspects of Dream of the Endless, of which Daniel is only one, so what's the creation of one more? All that's needed is for someone to dream it hard enough. Say, someone like Hob, grieving his friend? Someone like Death, grieving her brother? Dreams only need a little push to become new stories. Stories very easily become reality.

Daniel doesn't appear in Here there be dragons because Daniel, in another time and another reality, is tapping his fingers together and wondering why the FUCK everything turned out sea monsters, but this is the most successful iteration of Morpheus-merged-with-Dream to date, and so he's just. Not going to poke at it too hard.

(The difference is the satiation of hunger and longing. Being allowed to be monstrous in your wanting. Being encouraged to be too much!)

(In another reality, Desire is HATING this entire thing because the thing that's allowed their least favorite sibling to actually grow and flourish as a creature? Is fulfilling his DESIRES? Is indulging his WANTS and his HUNGERS? What the FUCK, Daniel? Daniel shrugs. I don't know why you're so upset, he says. Look how much happier this other version of Dream is!

I don't care if he's happy, Desire says, I want LEGS again.)

[marshmallowprotection]

Here thinking...

Hello Kait, I hope you are well. It’s been a while since I visited your blog, but it’s always nice to see how you keep the MysMes fandom alive with your incredible character analyses. I would like to share a thought that has been on my mind for some time, but recently I feel the need to express it; Like everyone here, I am a lover of fictional stories… And what makes us immerse ourselves in these imaginary worlds? The characters! They are like the heart of every story, inviting us to explore alternative realities with their conflicts, dreams, and challenges. They make us laugh, cry, get angry, and sometimes even question our own perceptions of life.

Between the lines and dialogues, characters take us by the hand through their lives until we reach a turning point, an unexpected question. A while back, while discussing the details of my favorite characters with a friend, some heroic and others with more questionable behaviors, he asked me a question that left me speechless: “Would you still be enchanted by those characters if they were here, in the real world, in front of you?” At that moment, I found myself silent, without an immediate answer. It was a question I had never considered, making me reflect deeply on the line between fiction and reality, especially when it comes to characters who, though fascinating in narrative, could be problematic in real life. As fans of fictional stories and characters, we are often captivated by their complexities, traumas, and even controversial behaviors. We immerse ourselves in their lives, empathize with their motivations, and sometimes even hope for their possible redemption. Take the example of Saeran Choi (specifically in AS) in Mystic Messenger, a deeply wounded character whose toxic behaviors, though reprehensible, can be explored with depth and nuance. The game never justifies his violence towards the protagonist but provides contexts that originated it, inviting us to understand him without necessarily excusing him. It is precisely that level of understanding that can sometimes blur the line between fantasy and reality. 

We must remember that Saeran, like any other fictional character, exists within a carefully constructed narrative world. His circumstances and opportunities for change are predetermined events that cannot be directly transferred to the real world. If we were to encounter a person exhibiting similar toxic behaviors, it would be a mistake to directly equate them with our favorite character or any other fictional character. Every human being is unique, with motivations, traumas, and life trajectories that will shape their behavior and capacity for change in unpredictable and unrepeatable ways. More importantly, we should never justify, minimize, or romanticize violence and abuse, neither in fiction nor in real life. If someone is causing us harm, our unwavering priority should be to preserve our own well-being and set boundaries, regardless of possible explanatory reasons. It is true that some find in fiction a space to explore extreme behaviors and personalities, and I suppose they have the right to do so as long as they are fully aware of the line separating reality from fiction and do not desire such things in real life. Now, each of us has the personal freedom to decide whether or not to give a chance for change and forgiveness.

But that can never be an external imposition, but an act of personal healing that only we can determine based on our experiences.

I would like to pause here to talk about my personal experience with Ray’s route. Although Ray and Suit Saeran hold a special place in my heart, I cannot ignore that both have shown behaviors that are, let’s say, less than ideal. Their actions, though explained and contextualized within their story, are not excusable. That’s what draws me to this route: it allows me to walk in MC’s shoes, who remains firm and composed, without resorting to violence or submission, unless one is seeking a bad ending. I admit that at first, to unlock Ray’s route, it was challenging for me to adopt a rude and distrustful attitude towards the RFA. But I consoled myself by thinking that, after all, in the story, MC thought they were just artificial intelligence in a dating game, with no real emotions at stake. But when Ray confesses that they were real people already in the route, I would feel embarrassed with all of them! 

Haha. But as I progressed in the route, I was able to regain my kindness and earn magenta hearts by helping and supporting the members and Ray.In my first playthrough, I chose not to suppress my feelings when Ray showed his more obsessive side. His comments, like wanting to hack my mind so I only thought of him, or claiming that I was ‘his’, made me genuinely uncomfortable. I couldn’t just please him by telling him what he wanted to hear all the time. Therefore, I responded honestly: 'I’m suffocating ’ or 'I’m not yours’. And yet, I managed to get his route. It was a relief to find that balance where I could be honest about my feelings towards unhealthy behaviors without being rude and move forward in the game. Regarding Suit Saeran, this character emerges when Ray is forced to take the elixir for violating Mint Eye’s rules imposed by the Savior. Under the pain and suffering caused by the drug and everything that has happened, Suit Saeran takes control, and the situation becomes complicated for MC. 

Despite insulting them and locking them up, and although his actions are inexcusable, deep down, it is understood that he does it to protect them and Ray. In a state of extreme fear, fearing being hurt again as they did with Ray, Suit Saeran thinks that by locking up MC and maintaining the facade of a torturer, he will keep them safe from the Savior (still struggling to understand what he wanted or not with all this), who planned to get rid of them. Despite everything, Suit Saeran realizes his mistakes and, towards the end, tries to do the right thing, without expecting forgiveness from MC. This is something that deeply moves me: even in the darkest moments, there is the possibility of change and redemption without forcing forgiveness, a theme that is further explored in Ray’s After Ending.

This is my experience and perspective on the character and his story, and it does not imply that everyone should feel the same. Each player has their emotional journey and reactions to the story. For me, forgiving Saeran was an act of understanding towards the character and giving him a chance to do better, not an excuse for his actions. 

And although I chose to forgive, I understand that others may not feel ready or willing to do the same due to heavy experiences, which is VERY VALID. The important thing is that each person has the opportunity to understand the story in their way and make their own decisions, whether to stay and explore the character’s redemption or walk away if their hearts so desire. In real life, we also face decisions about whether to forgive those who have hurt us or give second chances. Each person has their process for dealing with pain and harm, and each must have the freedom to choose the path they feel is right for themselves and others. No one else can dictate how we should feel or act in response to the harm we have suffered. 

Forgiveness, unforgiveness, reconciliation, permanent resentment, distancing or closure are personal and deeply individual choices. What is important is that each of us make choices that lead us toward healing and wellness, whether in fiction or in our reality. Don’t forget the importance of taking care of your personal well-being in all aspects of life! Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts, Kait, take care of yourself!

—SUBMISSION

That’s the ticket. It’s important to ask ourselves what feels right for us. We can’t focus on others all the time, and while what we choose may not be what others may choose, we have to do what’s right for us. If you decide to forgive someone, that’s your choice, and nobody can take it from you, just as you can’t take what another person chooses away from them. If you can’t forgive someone, that’s a choice for you, but if someone can forgive them, that’s a choice for them. That’s something that’s hard in this world when we’re confronted with forgiveness. So many societies teach us to forgive and forget.

But, you don’t just have to do that.

Forgive and forget is only one answer, not the whole.

I am sad when people claim that there’s no choice in Ray Route, or within the After Ending, when the theme embraces the notion that your autonomy is yours and nobody can take it away from you. You don’t have to forgive Saeran, nor do you have to forgive Jihyun or Rika after that, but the game gives you choice for that and it doesn’t shame you for it. I’m glad Cheritz took the response from V’s After Ending to heart because forgiveness is your choice, just as much as your judgement is. You shouldn’t be shamed for being angry, nor for choosing to be someone who never forgives, and vice versa.

I forgave Saeran with the knowledge that he proved to me that he was willing to better for himself. I saw the remorse in his actions, not just words, and that’s the path that compels me to have faith in him. I’m not the forgiving type in real life by any means, I’m more akin to Saeyoung’s belief in hard lines when I’ve been hurt a great deal. But, I’m more likely to muse on my feelings if someone is actively... and I mean, ACTIVELY, trying to do better. 

Suit Saeran apologized and promised to get you out of Mint Eye to start his journey of atonement. Before his apology, he tried to do what he could to get Rika away from you, but when that failed, he knew something had to give and that was his fear of the outside world v.s. his fear of the Savior. Those actions don’t excuse his wrongdoing, but it proved to me he wanted to do better, and it wasn’t to make himself feel better.

Ray began to realize he was wrong near the start of the Route, and he tried to backtrack on the worst of his actions. He was afraid to see you leave, but he did what he could after damning you to Mint Eye seemingly. He made a fake elixir to protect you, he lied to the Savior knowing the risk, and he came close to thinking about leaving willingly before the kiss. Again, it doesn’t excuse his choices up to that point that were wrong, but he began to do the right thing once the pieces in his life became clear.

I choose to love and forgive them because I saw them try to do what’s right, and I could see underneath their pain that they were good people who wanted to do the right thing underneath the manipulation, drugs, and torture they suffered at Rika’s hand. That was my choice. I know what they are and I know what they’ve done. But, in my heart, I forgive them and accept them into my life knowing they proved to me they could do better than their lowest moments.

Does that mean anyone else has to forgive them?

Nope!

You don’t gotta forgive those boys for anything.

This is a game where we can suspend our belief in reality and that means how we feel towards the story may not apply to our real world. Would I feel the same about these two if I lived the situation? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone in the fandom could know for sure unless they were thrown into the story without a drop of insight on the matter. I’d like to think I would still have my heart ready to choose kindness but never ignorance. I’ll never know for sure, and neither will any of us. But, that’s an interesting thought!