the adversary is such an interesting route because through most of the game routes, most actions you can take are not locked behind specific dialogue options, and the actions usually don't need to be "repeated" to achieve a specific path through the route. for example, the path to freeing the specter only requires that you tell her you want to free her, let her possess you, and that you not stab yourself with the knife, in order to achieve that.
but the adversary has a few unique and somewhat non-intuitive actions you can take with her (flipping her the bird and even having her allow you to stab her in order to prove she can't die) that are locked behind dialogue options, and those dialogue options don't even clearly point to you being able to unlock those actions. additionally, you have to repeatedly choose to fight her in the exact way she wants if you don't want her to evolve into the fury or the eye of the needle.
i guess it fits to have the route most defined by stubbornness and rivalry requring you to pick a course of action and stick to it, but the amount of unique actions allowed within this route (even leaving her in the basement can trigger some unique scenes!) makes me wonder if it was the first developed. most routes in video games have "convergence" points with very few subvariations in order to cut down on having to develop too many distinct outcomes. while it's true that slay the princess has an unusual amount of distinct variations in each route, it's still also got a lot of convergence points that reuse the same art pieces with just slightly different dialogue. it feels significant to me that the adversary has a lot of unique scenes and art compared to some of the other princesses
84 notes
·
View notes
whenever someone reads a prequel or a retelling and complains about knowing how it will end since the beginning I'm like. bro. dude. bitch. however you prefer to be referred to.
✨THATS THE FUCKING POINT✨
It's about the tragedy of reading all the ways the characters are unknowingly building towards the very same fate they are so desperately trying to avoid.
ITS ABOUT THE BITTERSWEET JOY OF KNOWING THEIR STORY IS STILL WORTH TELLING.
REGARDLESS OF HOW IT ENDS.
if your story is only good when reading through it the first time? if the reading experience is spoiled by knowing what happens?? (pun fully intended) it's not that well crafted a story imo.
Sometimes it's not about what is going to happen. Sometimes it's about reinterpreting the characters. Sometimes it's about exploring themes through a story we already know.
Sometimes the storytelling is enhanced by knowing how it is going to end.
71 notes
·
View notes
I think the problem with Chapuys is that the ambassadors aren't really seen as "people", if you will, with agency and biases like everyone else, but just disembodied voices narrating the story, and so for a long time historians and writers just accepted reports at face value, because there wasn't "thought" behind it. You should write a book on him as a response to the other one. You've got a lot of interesting observations.
Omg, you're too kind. But thank you ❤️
Yeah, I actually made a similar observation to you, elsewhere, expanded a bit:
Unfortunately, the practice of using Chapuys' dispatches as the emotional blueprint for all these historical people has become rather prevalent. I think he had credible insights at times, but what's sort of forgotten is that while many of his reports are of what these people said and did (according to, a noblewo/man, or Cromwell, or a physician of a nobleman, or a servant of a gentleman, or 'several reliable quarters', or COA or Mary themselves), many others are simply what he's assuming they thought or said or felt, and have no specific incident or quote or source given. One particularly egregious example informed a lot of subsequent portrayals of Thomas & George Boleyn, namely that upon the death of COA in Jan 1536, they "must have said to themselves, what a pity it was that the Princess had not kept her mother company", with the 'must' (ie, speculation, rather than an actual report of what any of his sources claimed to have overheard) omitted.
[To wit]:
"The King’s mistress had from the very beginning resolved that the Princess should act as her train-bearer, and that she would cause her and her mother all manner of annoyances; but considering that her singular beauty, goodness, and virtue, might possibly induce the King to change his purpose, and that if the Princess were to attend Court, and be seen there continually, she might daily gain the hearts and favour of the courtiers, she has not allowed her to come." Jan 1534, Chapuys to Charles V
[Also, literally a month after this report Anne does invite her stepdaughter to court, the first of three recorded attempts, so...awkward.]
Now, as 'resolved' is not 'said' (it's also interesting that his concern seems to have shifted from the report of the year prior, in which making Mary her trainbearer was the least of what Anne threatened: 'I hear she has lately boasted that she will make of the Princess a maid of honour in her household, that she may perhaps give her too much dinner on some occasion [ie, poison], or marry her to some varlet [a low-ranking servant of poor birth, Chapuys would later refer to Mark Smeaton as a 'varlet']), this would be a case of the 'mind reading' I meant; insofar as some explanation as to why Mary was sent to Princess Elizabeth's household, which was a satellite of the the King's court, rather than the centre of everything, the King's court itself. Granted, I think AB fearing her stepdaughter's popularity is more likely, but the likelier explanation overall would be that Mary was not invited to court for the same reason her own household was dissolved; she defied Henry's appointment and determination of her illegitimacy. Youth and beauty and envy thereof was hardly the determinate factor here, considering [...] that Margaret Douglas, of almost identical age and equal in beauty (according to their contemporaries), was one of AB's preeminent ladies and much in favour...the determinate difference was that MD and her mother acknowledged Anne as Queen, and, for obvious reasons, Mary and hers did not.
Rich pickings for the narrative trope casting Mary as Snow White and AB as her wicked stepmother, tho......
9 notes
·
View notes
"The Shane [Rollan and Abeke] knew would probably have forced people to call him king on punishment of death. It was hard to imagine him as anything but a ruthless leader" (The Burning Tide, 24).
This line is so interesting to me, because it proves just how much Rollan doesn't understand Shane. Shane was a colonizer and was responsible for a lot of people's lives being ruined, but as far as canon evidence goes, he never forced anyone to call him a king or anything like that. He was indirectly brutal and incredibly manipulative, but he always had a tired, gentle demeanor. It was all a lie, of course. Part of the act. But he wasn't the kind of guy to force people to call him king.
"'Whose was it before the Conquerors took it over?' 'It's a palace of one of the lords of the Niloan steppes,' Shane said with another sigh. 'Listen, I'm not proud that we've taken over someone's home. The lord is still alive, and I'm doing my best to make sure the Niloans who work and live here are kept safe and have enough to eat. I'm trying to make the best of this situation'" (Rise and Fall, 3).
Shane could be lying here, I suppose. But I don't think he is. It doesn't really fit with his character. I do believe he truly tried to keep the Niloans alive under his horrible conditions. But I don't think he would have forced the Niloans to call him king. He wanted to rule over them, but as long as they were under his control, I don't think he particularly cared about whether or not they saw him as a king or not. He just wanted to stamp out any rebellion. Him calling the lord "the lord" shows that he does sort of respect the lord's authority and leadership to some extent.
"'You're responsible for the wrecked village west of here?' 'Yes my king,' the captain said. 'We met resistance there, but we overcame it.' There was pride in his voice. Shane slapped him across the face. 'Idiot,' he seethed. 'Those were innocent people'" (The Book of Shane, 97).
Again, Shane does demonstrate a quality that, in his twisted head, likely seems caring and compassionate. Of course, it's not. Caring about people whose lives you uproot only makes you a marginally better person. But it does prove that Shane tried his hardest not to kill people. He felt like he had to to some extent, but I wouldn't call him a "ruthless leader". He did what he felt was necessary from his own twisted point of view. He did, from his point of view at least, try to protect the innocent.
"Achi scowled. 'Sometimes bad people do good things,' he said icily. 'It doesn't mean they're good people.' Shane said nothing, just watched as Achi was carried away" (The Book of Shane, 97).
Achi just showed Shane a lot of disrespect, but Shane let it slide. This feeds into some other things, like Shane's desperate need for friends and validation. But mostly, it shows that Shane tolerated disrespect as long as it wasn't anything physical or too rebellious. He was a horrible person, but he was never the sort of king that would make you go down on your knees every time you addressed him. I wouldn't say he's the kind of guy that would force people to "call him king on punishment of death".
I kind of wish we'd had that chapter from Abeke's perspective instead of Rollan's. I wonder what she was thinking in that moment. Was she thinking that Shane was a ruthless leader that would force people to call him king on punishment of death, too? Or did she have a less aggressive, more manipulative idea of him?
None of this makes Shane's colonization okay, obviously, but characterizing him as a a harsh king that ruled with an iron fist isn't really as correct as saying he's a manipulative liar that did his dirty business in the shadows. A snake, if you will, instead of a lion.
6 notes
·
View notes
also! glad we got some strained stuff with bonnie while i was completing sidequests yesterday.
I'd talked before with my friends about how I thought it was such an obvious point of ongoing tension that the adults were discussing what they would do if someone died and purposely excluding bonnie, and it was great to see that blow up in a big way. bonnie's a kid who's got gigantic feelings about the fact that people get hurt protecting them, and I've so far liked how their storyline has dealt with that concept. also we get more #concerning siffrin control freak behavior with the looping so that's a plus. the writing in act 4 has really won me over on this game.
14 notes
·
View notes
Why was nobleman's guide to scandal and shipwrecks personally difficult for you to read? Did something sad happen in it or did you mean more writing/quality/pacing wise?
The narrator has an anxiety disorder and it is pretty intense. It's pretty cool that the writer managed to hit the nail on the head, but it hit a little too close to home for me to feel comfortable rereading repeatedly ahahaha
21 notes
·
View notes