#this one's a plot and worldbuilding analysis

[unhelpfulfemme]

More random Captive Prince thoughts, because I feel like being a sadist to all of my mutuals these books are living rent-free in my head right now. These ones are more about the plot and the worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding-wise, I loved the attention to detail, because as far as I could tell all the little details of how a medieval-ish army functions and how you would run it and what you would do with the horses and the supplies and the roads etc. etc. were pretty accurate. I mean, these books are by no means a treatise on warfare (in fact they can be delightfully pulpy, which I liked - I grew up on The Three Musketeers and the Scarlet Pimpernell and similar swashbuckling novels, and I got some of the same feelings here!), but there were details in there that most other authors don't bother to put in or inadvertently fuck up (I love ASOIAF to death but historically accurate it is not), and most of the military stuff seemed plausible enough as well, though again not described in too much detail so you can fill it in with your own assumptions or skim over if it's not something that particularly interests you. And I also loved the architectural details and could imagine everything quite well, but again, as I said previously, this may be because the author spent some time living near where I live so we've seen a lot of the same stuff probably.

Actually when I was first reading it and thinking it was going to be bad I was reading it exclusively for the architectural details lol, I was like yeah, yeah, they're all sucking each other off, but Damen please tell me again how you feel about the tiling?

What I also particularly liked is how the... scale of the conflict I guess? was refreshingly accurate for the "historical period".

The worldbuilding is a mashup of Ancient Greece and medieval France, but what it really felt like to me is a world where the Roman Empire never really consolidated to the extent that it did in our world and Italy went on into the middle ages (because these are decidedly feudal systems) with Cisalpine Gaul having the, well, Gallic culture, while the South had a Greek one. I may be thinking this because I live in Italy and so everything reminds me of Italy, but once I thought of it I couldn't unsee it.

I guess I gotta put in a cut somewhere and now's as good of a time as any?

But anyway, back to the scale of the conflict, the actual middle ages were filled with small and mid-sized countries, and petty local conflicts with family members turning onto each other over succession and stuff, and random small territories going back and forth (well, that's just Europe in general, always, TBH), and this is how it all felt like to me. Actual medieval history has a guy who started a rebellion because his brothers threw a pisspot at him and his father did nothing about it and he felt humiliated, and the war was secretly funded by his mother, so the combination of the small scale with a random local conflict that probably literally nobody cares about outside of the region we are in + everything being so intensely driven by interpersonal drama between insane people felt really authentic to me, like the kind of weird historical moment that would get turned into a funny Tumblr post. And of course the royals did a lot more sneaking around than was probably smart, but I can forgive that for the swashbuckling vibes and also because if Cleopatra could sneak into a palace in a carpet these guys can do whatever they want in my book.

Speaking of the petty interpersonal drama, I also liked the emphasis on how in this system personal reputation and the performance of kingship are king. Usually when you have a heavily political story it's much more based on the quid-pro-quo, "rational actor" kind of politics, but medieval politics also had a lot more going on in the cultural sense (and so do modern politics actually but at least pretending to be a "rational actor" IS the modern performance of leadership), and here you had people dealing political blows through meticulous management of their own and others' political reputations, which was fun to see, especially in combination with so many manipulative bastard characters. Like, how Laurent is manipulated into going to the border just because looking like a coward will lose him more political points than he can afford, and Damen's continued wearing of the slave cuff and instistence on not being served by slaves initially deals massive blows to his reputation, because these are cultures that value heroism, of one sort or another.

(And speaking of heroism, the emphasis on the physical activity-related activities that are the centerpiece of noble life in both countries were wonderful, especially since because both Ancient Greece and the European Middle Ages were really into that in their respective ways and it makes the mashup feel really well-done and coherent in how she tied it together.)

What's notable is a lack of any kind of religion, which felt particularly glaring during the whole Kingsmeet thing - in the real world there would likely be a belief in some kinda curse from the Gods or something similar to discourage the drawing of weapons, but since I'm not really religious and tend not to personally care about religion (while ofc recognizing its anthropological importance) I really didn't care and it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the series.

Still, I do have to say that the ending of the last book felt reeeeaally rushed, and that felt really glaring exactly because the rest of the series had such amazing detail work and excellent pacing and very gradual plot development.

I didn't get the part with the doctor and the letter (why didn't he say anything earlier? how would they verify the authenticity of the letter? Did anyone even have the time to READ the thing?) but I'm gonna be honest with you here, I read book 3 under a heavy fever and it was like 2 AM when I got to that part, so I'm not sure that I haven't missed something that makes it make more sense.

BUT even if that part makes sense, I feel like the Regent was dealt with far too quickly. Like in one paragraph he is in control of everything, in the next they've already beheaded him and that's it. I can imagine in my head that a lot of the nobles were probably already sick of him and took little convincing, that they were disapproving both of his meddling in foreign politics and of his likely grave breach of cultural rules via taking an aristo kid as a pet, or that he initially rationally seemed a better choice over Laurent until Laurent proved himself to be more competent and with a more competent ally, or they already had some hints about what happened that the audience didn't and the evidence confirmed what was inconclusive before.

But I feel like in a series that spends so much time detailing the shifting alliances between the characters and the public's opinion on everyone that matters? I really needed to be sold on it a bit more. Like I really needed some discussion over what to do with the Regent, I needed them to keep him in a cell for a while as they decided whether to kill him (and have the leads scared that the Regent will turn them over as Laurent often does to people), I needed them to consider the evidence just a little bit more, I needed some post mortem with the council members where they explain what was happening on their side of the things. It needed to be MUCH longer and more detailed.

Another thing I wondered at was why the Regent was so insistent to paint Laurent's collaborations with the Akielons as a bad thing when he was... also collaborating with the Akielons? Like he is foaming at the mouth calling them barbarians and accusing Laurent of sleeping with the prince-killer but it feels more like setup for Damen's big declaration of love than an actual political strategy because my brother in Christ, you are literally in the Akielon royal palace, in the middle of Akielos to which you ran after your nephew started a rebellion, with the Akielon king sitting next to you as your equal. Why do you think that you can convince your people that YOUR Vere-Akielos alliance is somehow more morally pure than Laurent's? This was also the right moment to pull out all the patricide allegations that seemed to be going around for Damen, but IIRC he didn't use that as much as he could if at all.

Since there were some Akielons in the room as well, I was also wondering WTF was Kastor doing as the Regent was shitting on his country and calling them barbarians and making it like allying with them is a grave transgression? Why was HE allowing this humiliation? It felt like a very unpolitical thing to do from a character whose strength was in his political acumen (obviously meaning the Regent, not Kastor) and the plot just let it slide by.

I feel like a lot of this is due to this being the first time that the story had to fit within the constraints of a traditional book? So it needed a decisive traditional climax and perhaps it was getting too long for a traditional format, or the author got a bit tired of it and wanted to wind it up now that she wasn't getting regular feedback as you do with serialized publishing, or she prioritized emotional impact over plot logic.

I don't know. I still think they're great books, and the conclusion was emotionally satisfying in the sense that the psychological and interpersonal threads were wrapped up impeccably, I just wanted more detail on the political side. It's still grabbed me like nothing else did for a long time, I can take a mid ending, half of my favourite series will never have one at all because the author wrote themselves into a corner and then died lol.

[ishcliff]

the more of moby dick i read, the more i think it's kind of interesting that a lot of the criticism i see for canto V is actually in the ways where it's an extremely faithful adaptation in spirit.

dante seems to be intended to be the book!ishmael to ishmael's book!ahab. dante is the inquisitive one to ishmael's cold dismissal, and they are the one who is drawn into the tale of the hardened, half-mad sailor whose pain is immeasurable at the hands of an entity that stole something important from her. they are the narrator and the witness to the rest of the crew contemplating the safety of their lives with her at the helm of this journey.

in limbus, the journey meanders a bit and explores how people live and die on the great lake. culture and worldbuilding are a focal point, to a degree – if anything, i think even more time should have been spent exploring what it means to live in such an environment.

this meandering of course echoes moby dick. one of the main themes of the novel is how it's human nature to rebel against the cold, harsh, uncaring realities of the world. some people like to joke about it, but the pages on pages spent detailing the structure of ships and the mechanics of the whaling industry is entirely related to the plot. in fact, i would go as far as to say they are one of the most important parts of it.

these ships exist in spite of the ease of simply staying on land, making the unsurvivable survivable. the whaling industry is representative of the collective growth of humans in a technological sense, as whales were integral to many aspects of modernization.

compare this to the laws of the lake – the ways in which nature, the world, or god in moby dick ultimately cannot be defied, even with the power of human nature. as ishmael says, human logic does not apply to these rules. and, said rather than shown, each part of the lake possesses its own culture and identity relative to the others based around that region's specific almighty laws.

the collective whole of the great lake divided into smaller sections resembles the way moby dick is often referred to as "the great (us)american novel". moby dick is also about the importance of diversity, and goes to great lengths to celebrate the different cultures of each state or even city meaningful time is spent in. it's a character study, where the united states itself is the character, and the ways in which social expectations divide but also unite others. and, unfortunately, defiance of that order has its own consequences.

despite the title of the novel, the whale itself is not the focal point of the story; the actual encounter is towards the very end of the book, and is written in a few paragraphs. of course, this echoes the nature of the dungeon at the end of the canto, where we finally get what we were under the impression we'd get.

i dunno. i think it kinda fucking rules, tbh, and is an extremely creative way to adapt the story while staying true to limbus's setting and main idea/message.

in a way, canto V is secretly something of a "fix-it fic" for moby dick's ahab, but in ishmael's name.

this post is getting pretty long for something i didn't intend to be a more formally structured analysis, but i have been thinking about it for a while. so for now, cheers, and PLEASE share your own thoughts!

[specialagentartemis]

Fics about SecUnit 3 to Read Before We Get All Our Headcanons Jossed

Three! SecUnit 3! System Collapse comes out in one week and it seems like Three will feature prominently!

Three has been the subject of so much speculation and fascination for the fandom. We have a lot of different ideas about who it may become and who it might want to be.

Before all of that gets debunked by the new book, here's a rec list and roundup of some of the excellent fics that center Three!

-

Ficlets About Three and Murderbot Figuring Out How To Interact With Each Other

"Feedlog" by OnlyAll0Saw. 599 words. NR, Multi.

ART is a bit of a bully on the feed. MB is having none of it.

A well-done codefic that imagines the rocky early days of Murderbot, Three, and ART all figuring out how to get along with each other.

-

"Murder Mode Modules" by FlipSpring. 948 words. G, Gen.

3 what the fuck is ‘Murder Mode Modules, Do Not Touch Except For Situations That Necessitate Lots Of Murder?'

Hilarious, great voice, and surprisingly emotional for such a short space and silly tone :') Two excellent podfics!

-

"Real Things" by ArtemisTheHuntress. 715 words. G, Gen.

Three admits that it doesn't understand the appeal of fictional media.

This one's mine :) Murderbot and Three discuss media. There's a podfic!

-

Meatier One-Shots about Three Contemplating Its Identity, Who It Is, And What It Wants Now

"pink and green" by CompletelyDifferent. 5,100 words. G, Gen.

During a diplomatic trip to the university's home system to better establish the newly-formed treaty with the Preservation Alliance, Three tries to figure out who it is. Between exploring new hobbies and its sense of fashion, it attempts to figure out what its relationship with Murderbot 1.0 is, precisely. (Murderbot 1.0 ignores this, until it doesn't).

Hot Springs Episode! CompletelyDifferent @elexuscal writes character interactions SO well.

-

"Uncatalogued and Uncategorized" by lick. 3,033 words. G, Gen.

SecUnit 3 discovers that a hot shower is a good place to work out tangled thoughts.

I loooove this one and return to it regularly. The introspectio makes it a fantastic balance of character study, past trauma, and total confusion of what to do now with itself and its life. Includes a podfic by the author!

-

"Unacceptable Topics of Conversation" by lick. 4,500 words. Teen & Up, Gen.

Murderbot gives SecUnit 3 a haircut. They discuss the governor module.

lick does it again! The feelings are so fraught, the conversation held so gingerly.

-

Long, Plot-Heavy Stories About Three Finding Itself In The Universe

"Heuristic Analysis" by thefourthvine. 11,000 words. G, Gen.

Three makes some choices.

Three travels to Mihira with ART and its crew, gets involved in an AI Rights related mystery, and, as advertised, makes some choices. Well-written with some interesting worldbuilding concepts about the Pansystem University of Mihira and New Tideland!

-

"Seeking Safety" by petwheel. 57,000 words. Teen & Up, Gen.

Three assumes a new identity on Preservation, only to discover someone wants to kill it. To figure out who and why, Three has to delve into secrets from Preservation's past.

A plotty mystery, suspenseful and extremely creative, with some bold and unique takes on Preservation's history - and how Three can fit in.

-

"Function" by FigOwl. 65,000 words. Teen & Up, Gen.

"I have worked assignments solo before, and I have gotten used to the absences of SecUnit 01 and SecUnit 02. But I have not reconciled myself to the absence of Murderbot 2.0, though I know it is not logical. 2.0 made its choices, and fulfilled its purpose perfectly, and it seemed satisfied with that. I wish that I had any amount of such certainty and resolve." The continuing adventures of SecUnit03. How does a newly freed SecUnit make sense of everything without having consumed 35,000 hours of media for context?

Three goes off on its own self-actualization adventure after Network Effect.

-

Three On Preservation

"words left behind" by torpidgilliver. 4,400 words. G, Gen.

"How do you stand it?" Dr. Gurathin's tone is slow and even when he asks, "Stand what?" - SecUnit 3 shares its feelings with someone who might understand.

Three meets Gurathin. Also, a cat. Delightfully soft and gently sad.

-

"Social Competition" by scheidswrites. 2,100 words. G. Gen.

It's been a while since the last attempted murder/kidnapping, and life is good. Everyone is gathered for a celebration on the Mensah Family Farm. The rogue SecUnits invent a new sport. Drs Mensah, Gurathin, and Overse talk about work on their day off.

SecUnit sports! Murderbot and Three bonding without being too awkward about it! I love this.

-

"The Tree That Owns Itself" by BoldlyNo. 865 words. G, Gen.

There is a tree in the FirstLanding University Botanical Gardens that Murderbot is not thrilled about.

Murderbot and Three have conflicting feelings about a tree.

-

Miscellaneous But Also Worth Highlighting

"As Your Legal Counsel" by i_have_loved_the_stars_too_fondly. 1,000 words. G, Gen.

Pin-Lee informs Three of its options and legal status, should it choose to come to Preservation.

This one is so fun and sweet! Directly after Network Effect, Pin-Lee talks to Three about its options. Three is a little overwhelmed. Two podfics of this one, one by me :) Also @ilovedthestars your AO3 name is hard to type

-

"Past the Breakers" by Thylacine_Wishes. 5,300 words. G, Gen.

When Three is badly injured protecting ART's crew on a mission, Murderbot finds itself disagreeing with the safety protocols that it had written. It was supposed to be the SecUnit meat shield, not Three. It doesn't have time to figure out how it feels about that before it's diving in (literally) to rescue Three and maybe coming to terms with some things along the way.

Action! Adventure! Edge-of-your-seat drama written SO well! Almost drowning! Murderbot caring about Three!!!!

-

"Team of Three" by Lillow. 5,500 words. G, no category.

How Three of three became Three of many.

The tags say it best: the real team was the friends we made along the way. Or is it the real friends are the teammates we make?

Either way, Three finds a team, and people it belongs with.

[ot3]

Hey I was wondering if I could ask an ORV question?

I don't really understand the significance of the Square Circle or what exactly it symbolizes in the context of ORV. I understand the Square Circle as a mathematical problem but it seems when it comes to ORV analysis I fall short lol.

Ive just seen a lot of ORV bloggers mention that symbol especially and focusing on it, and Im curious why it had such a big impact on people, and honestly I want to feel that impact as well haha

Hope you have a good day!!! Obviously theres no obligation to reply:) just trust your ORV takes

this is definitely a topic you could squeeze an entire essay about it but since im about to go to bed here's a quickie. From chap 454, here's what it says about the square circle:

The 'square circle' here is introduced as something that is logically impossible, but which can exist in writing due to the nature of a thing. Anything that you can claim is true in text becomes true in that novel regardless of the actual possibility or absence of underlying logic. here, they're using this to talk about the worldbuilding of ways of survival and how a lot of it doesn't make sense and is shit. Textually, they're slapping this on top of the plot hole that exists from the events of future regressions influencing past regressions. Sub-textually, they're introducing us to the idea that the 'square circle' is something that can't be imagined as existing in the 'real' world.

then at the end of the square circle chapters, during the company retreat, kim dokja is finally taking a load off to hang out with his companions for once. even though they quite literally have to threaten him with death to get the job done. everyone manages to have a nice evening together before it all goes to shit. and here's what happens

Right here, surrounded by his companions and making one of his first truly earnest attempts to connect with and understand the people around him, kim dokja gets to see a real 'square circle'. something that he never could have imagined, something that, hypothetically, could make sense in written worlds where you don't need to understand how it exists, just that it does.

and on it's own, this feels fun, a little bit of a 'nothing is impossible' sparkle to top off a very cute scene, but i really think this is one of the moments you're supposed to understand much better on a reread. Because it's not until the very last chapter of the novel that they tell us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what 'square circle' they've actually been trying to create in the real world

[skadren]

something i wish more western ff7 fans acknowledged is that this is a japanese game made by japanese devs in the japanese language. by playing in english (or another language of choice), we are playing a secondhand translation that verifiably does not convey things accurately, much less the devs' intent

if you're going to make an in-depth analysis video on the lore, you need to consider the original japanese

if you're going to say that fans weren't supposed to know a certain plot or worldbuilding detail because it wasn't stated explicitly in-game, you need to consider the original japanese

if you're going to mock a character's dialogue as being terrible and evidence for a game being terrible, you need to consider the original japanese

i am aware the language barrier exists and there's no way of truly understanding 1:1 without a ton of difficulty and effort most people aren't willing to invest. that's fine! no one has to if they don't want to! but before people open their mouths and say things as an 'authority' with their entire chest, they need to consider that they don't have the full picture and may be wrong, because in all of these examples i have listed above, the person in question was very wrong because they didn't know what the game actually said.

[aspoonofsugar]

you wrote such a beautiful rwby analysis but unfortunately I think you put more thought into the plot than the entire writers room

Hi!

Thank you, I am happy you found my analysis beautiful!

That said, I am sorry, but I disagree with your statement. It is fine if you dislike the series and even if you criticize it, but as for me, I think the writing is rather strong.

Here are some thoughts, which aren't really directed at you, but rather are born by me seeing a tendency going around where it is somehow "cool" to outloud state RWBY is badly written. I even saw people like... "apologizing" because they enjoy the series. Newsflash...RWBY is good.

RWBY is a series with a writing that goes from decent to very good depending on the moment. I would give it from 7 to 8.5 or even 9 in some scenes. More importantly, it is a story the writers are clearly enjoying writing, as for now. This is why I like watching it. It is genuine, upfront in what it wants to say and it takes risks. Ironically, a series with limited resources shows much more freedom in execution than many other stories, which are economically backed up.

I would also add people keep talking about good writing, but never really elaborate on it... And like, trust me, I do think there is good writing and bad writing. The problem is that people just take examples of "well written series" and decide a series written differently must be bad. This isn't really the case.

First of all, let's focus only on a specific type of story, which is the kind most modern movies, books and series are. This type of story is built on 3 (4) factors:

Plot

Characters

Themes

(Worldbuilding)

I would say the first 3 are more important usually, but there are some stories where the worldbuilding is so strong it becomes its own selling point.

Now, a good story is usually strong in all these departments. The perfect story is top notch in all 3 (4). That is because a good plot usually lets you develop the characters better, which in turns helps exploring the theme.

However, here comes the amazing truth... even the most incredible stories. Even the masterpieces loved by everybody... even them... end up choosing only 1 or 2 of these aspects and sacrifice a little bit of the 3rd (and 4th) one.

Naoki Urasawa's Monster? Its focus is themes. He chooses to go all out on this department, which is why the story is so powerful and resonates so much with people. Still, to do so, he chooses to sacrifice some parts of the plot to the point... some mysteries are not really solved. Some people may be annoyed by it, but I would not call it a flaw. It is a choice. Leaving some things open enriches the themes.

Death Note? If the story has to choose between characters, themes and plot, it goes for plot. This is why despite having so many well liked characters, it is difficult to think of outstanding character arcs in it. The same goes for the themes, which are only touched superficially. This is why btw Death Note is not a fave of mine, really.

Now obviously, many examples can be done and we could discuss forever on some because there is always always always a subjective component. What I am trying to say is... there are different ways to write a story. Not all people would like the same. Luckily, we have tons of stories.

Back to RWBY. I would say RWBY shines when it comes to themes. Characters and plot are good and interesting, but what keeps the story together, despite it playing so much with genre is that it has a very strong thematic core. You can't invent it or fake it btw. See, Death Note's author tries to do it in later works (Platinum End cough cough), but fails. At the same time, there is another department RWBY is top notch and that is symbolism. RWBY has a very rich symbolic system. Again... surely there are coincidences, but like this is a little bit too much...imho.

Now, does it mean, the writers came up with all the patterns I and others find? Probably not, but here is the thing... writing has an unconscious component. If you go earnestly at it, you are bound to unconsciously create patterns. A good writer is able to recognize them (either consciously or unconciously) and to capitalize on them. So far, I think CRWBY has capitalized on the patterns they created. I also think it is clear they are very good at researching and at playing with different sources by going deep into them. Again, you can't come up with the Ever After if you have not read and even studied Alice in Wonderland. It is just impossible. You would end up with a shallow and uninteresting copy cat. The Ever After isn't that because it is used to explore themes, characters and lore in an interesting way. Hence... ladies and gentlemen... it is a fruit of... good writing.

But really, since people are not commenting on it... I would like to point out that in 5 episodes of less than 20 minutes, they have managed to introduce a whole world, with its own lore, set of characters and main story (Alyx's) and to tie it to the protagonists' predicament in a way that hits really hard thematically and psychologically... To do that you need exceptionally thight writing... it is not that simple to do...

Anyway, have a nice day anon and consider watching something else. Thanks God the world is full of stories!

[thebardbullseye]

“Philosophical and Personal Musings on the Wizard Stone and the Axiom of Proliferation” – An Essay and Divinations for Arc 3 of “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One”

From the Desk of The Bard Bullseye

Happy Birthday, Worlds Beyond Number!

Spoilers abound! This is an essay discussing the actual-play podcast “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One” from the fine folks at @worldsbeyondpod It is an expression of my analysis of and engagement with the content of the second arc of the show and also contains some speculation about future plot and current themes. These interpretations are my own, include some reflections on my personal philosophy, and are written in a mostly academic style of writing (be warned, it’s around 3,000 words!). If you do read through it, I hope you find my points interesting and thought-provoking regardless of whether or not any of it turns out to be true (and I have done my level best to adhere to the facts of the story thus far, with transcript pages and timestamps cited when available/applicable).

Abstract (TL;DR, or I ain’t reading all that, but I’m happy for you):

The Wizard Stone’s discovery that the Axiom of Proliferation is untrue has major implications for the overarching story and the direction of the next arc. Herein, I explore my reaction to this moment in Episode 19 and how my experience and own philosophy potentially align with Stone’s. Then, I examine the logic of her argument and its implications for the greater worldbuilding in Umora. Specifically, there is a fundamental problem with the way that wizards are using the lingua arcana that is affecting the link between the Spirit and the Mortal worlds (i.e., the “greater binding”), and this is leading to detrimental effects. This, I believe is ultimately what Grandmother Wren (and now Ame) and Coven of Elders (and possibly the Man in Black?) are concerned with, though they have come to vastly different conclusions about who is at fault and how to solve this problem, which are yet to be revealed in the forthcoming third arc (see footnote 5).

Introduction

Something has piqued my interest and scratched a deep philosophical itch for me in the second arc of “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One.” While the first arc introduced the characters, explored ideas of ‘quest fever,’ and masterfully wove in lore and character motivations for reclaiming Eursulon’s sword, Wavebreaker, the second arc has expanded upon the characters and their relationship to the greater philosophy of the Citadel and Umora.

I don’t usually speculate where stories might go next or craft my own fan theories. Especially for ongoing projects (i.e. TV shows, actual plays, books in a series, etc.), I tend to be along for the ride, and I spend time analyzing the story being told and the characters within. And rarely do I put these thoughts to paper, at least not coherently; I am more likely to ramble endlessly to a friend or lurk on Discord for others’ opinions, chiming in occasionally. However, I have noticed some things brewing in this arc that I wish to discuss at-length and even speculate upon: my perspective and analysis of the philosophy of the Wizard Stone, and the possible implications for the forthcoming third arc.

I don’t often see myself in stories. Not to say that I don’t see myself or parts of myself represented in media: i.e. demographically, socially, politically, etc., but rarely do I find a specific character or character motivation that ‘snipes through the duplex door’ where I go “oh shit that’s me” or “I relate to this on a deeper level.” This happened to me in Episode 19, when Suvi is investigating the records of her mother’s early time in the Citadel: her expulsion from the College of Divination and readmittance to the College of Abjuration because she had accused one of her professors of “treason against magic itself.”

Upon her dismissal from the Citadel, Stone wrote a dissenting missive to the Archmagi of the Citadel regarding one of the three metaphysical axioms, the Axiom of Proliferation, and how this particular axiom “does not describe any actual truth of the lingua arcana, nor does it more broadly describe any facet of the greater binding” (Ep. 19, transcript p. 12). She goes on to posit that not only is it “pure intellectual technology,” but that its continued acceptance as fact is a “danger to the future of wizardry” and “[a] stain on the face of magic itself” (Ep. 19, p. 12). An axiom in this context is described as “simple… laws that are given to young wizards about broad truths of spell casting in general… that are true across spells [and], … different schools of magic” (Ep. 19, p. 13). That is, “the Axiom of Proliferation is essentially that the more times a spell is written down … the weaker the spell becomes” (Ep. 19, p. 13).

An axiom as defined in philosophy is a statement that is self-evidently true and serves as a starting point for reasoning. Therefore, any argument against its truth would call into greater question the philosophical foundation of the Citadel itself. If Stone’s claim that this was not a true axiom had not been dismissed swiftly and discredited, it is possible (though highly unlikely, given the power of empire) that this would have led to a redefinition of the philosophy of wizardry in Umora.

This is what struck me like a bolt of lighting while listening to this episode. I did almost this exact thing when I was in grad school!

Stone is… me? Faulty logic and its effects

As part of my master’s degree, I took a philosophy seminar on bioethics, which covered some polarizing subjects and more fringe points of view. Most of these topics cannot be directly studied or supported by scientific evidence, so the conversation and academic debate is largely conceptual or theoretical (i.e., conducting research to investigate these ideas have varying states of legality and moral acceptability) (see footnote 1). This course was excellent and a bit out of my comfort zone, but it challenged me to think critically about fundamental logic and accepted ideas that often go unexamined until they are taken to the extreme. At one point in the semester, we were discussing a particular topic and the current state of debate surrounding it. Immediately, I was perplexed by some of arguments made to justify it, and at first, I didn’t have the language to express why. Much like Stone, I found myself screaming (internally) “you’re all idiots!” or “you’re missing the point/the bigger picture!” or “that’s not how that works!” Essentially, I had arrived at the conclusion that if this idea were to be implemented broadly in society, it would likely have major negative ramifications, and furthermore, not even achieve the desired and purported effect that they were arguing for! 

Eventually, I figured out what the underlying problem was: a logical fallacy inherent and unidentified within the current debate. Since scholars had just accepted the argument at face value and moved on, most of the debate was concerned with its future implementation or theoretical follow-on effects on individuals and society at large. I did find some existing papers that danced around the idea of fallacious reasoning (i.e., that the theoretical benefits were greatly exaggerated, if not a zero-sum game, or that the negative long-term effects may outweigh the short-term benefits), but none named it specifically or even examined the logical argument the entire debate was predicated on. So, for my term paper, I researched and wrote about this fallacy, and in it, I discussed how the discovery and acknowledgment of it would reframe the debate and perhaps even bring about reform to existing systems!

In the process of writing and researching, I felt incredibly isolated intellectually (this was also peak-COVID so that didn’t help either). Now that I had put the pieces together, it seemed quite obvious to me, but it was difficult to find supporting evidence or other similar arguments to mine (even if they weren’t breaking the logic down so specifically). Was this thing I had reasoned actually true? Why had no one pointed this out before? What if I’m wrong? What if they’re right and I’m a fool for daring to challenge them? What does my professor think? They’re an expert and approved the topic, so I know I’m not entirely off-base, but do they agree with me? I knew that if I wrote a strong, supported, and persuasive argument, that I couldn’t fail, but I deeply cared whether or not I was actually right. It was also probably one of the first times that I wrote with passion (and specific planning ahead of time!), rather than churning out yet another good-enough research paper (that I may or may not have written days ahead of the deadline or the night before).

Thankfully, unlike Stone, my fears that I would not be taken seriously, or worse, told that I was flat out wrong (and be silenced) did not come to pass—my professor agreed wholeheartedly with my argument that this fallacy is pervasive in the current literature. (Though I feel must disclaim that I still could be wrong in some other aspect of my argument, and that simply arguing the existence of a fallacy can be treacherous! In philosophy, no one ever has the only or complete answer—if they claim to, they are either lying or ignorant.) As part of the course, we did a mock peer review in class and my professor sent us further feedback on our papers after we submitted our initial draft of the term paper.

One particular piece of feedback stands out to me upon reflection and comparison to Stone’s experience and the philosophy of wizardry. It said something along the lines of ‘We think that is a very admirable and unique take on this subject. No one found any fault in your logic; however, it is important to consider the practical implications of identifying this fallacy.’ Point taken, of course, that the mere identification of a flaw in logic is not the end of the conversation—it is merely the start of a new discussion and opportunity to surface new arguments.  

In my case, the identification of the fallacy was the concrete thing I felt I could verifiably yell about (academically) to explain why I disagreed so vehemently with current literature (and some truly wild propositions made by certain scholars). Of course, one should not commit the ‘fallacy fallacy,’ which is that simply pointing out a fallacy invalidates the argument. Instead, it was a means to discuss practical implications: some less harmful methods, some overlooked existing solutions, and to pull knowledge from other related disciplines that had not yet been considered because this fallacy had yet to be identified (see footnote 2).

The philosophy of Stone’s accusation of ‘treason’ and treatise to the Archmagi

In listening to and reflecting upon this episode and the conclusion of the second arc, I wonder if Stone felt similarly to me: that she had a fundamental disagreement with the way that wizards (and the Empire) conduct magic. I wonder if she learned about the Axioms and something didn't sit right with her, so she dug into the philosophy or history of it. Moreover, I find it particularly striking that her original specialization was divination. Although it has not been stated outright, I think it can be plausibly inferred that Stone divined some kind of knowledge about the fundamental ‘wrongness’ of current wizardry and the disastrous follow-on effects it would have. She may have been unable to fully convey her revelation in the moment, and so just shouted ‘treason against magic’ at her mentor. As was the case with me, the Axiom of Proliferation was just the most concrete thing that Stone could point at to explain herself.

But beyond my own biases and affinity for Stone, it follows that she may well have examined or done a proof on the Axiom of Proliferation which led to her discovery that the premise of the Axiom was false. Let’s examine the argument that Stone may have made (and the one that Suvi may have done a poor proof of, by her own admission). The argument is as follows:

All Axioms of magic describe a truth about the fundamental nature of magic

The Axiom of Proliferation states that the more times a spell is written down (proliferated), the weaker the spell becomes, which is a truth about the fundamental nature of magic.

Therefore, the Axiom of Proliferation is an Axiom of magic.

This can be simplified:

All A’s have property B

C has property B

Therefore, C is A

This does not necessarily lead to a false conclusion, and while the argument may be valid, it may not always be logically sound, see for example:

All people are mortals.

John is a mortal

Therefore, John is a person.

In the Citadel’s view, there is no flaw here, because they teach (and presume) that the Axiom of Proliferation is true in the lingua arcana. Wizards, of course, are known by their secrets, so it follows that in their philosophy of magic, they would have some kind of justification for keeping magic limited to the select few. But, if one of the premises is false (in this case, premise 2), then this justification is in jeopardy. It stands to reason that Stone must have had serious evidence to declare that premise false, and as she was studying divination, it was likely a vision or prophecy of some kind. Presuming she is correct, then it also speaks to her incredible intelligence (although she did not have the social grace at 19 years old to deftly navigate this accusation) (see footnote 3a).

Although (as far as we know), Stone did not make another public ruckus about the Axiom upon returning to the Citadel, I don’t think this caused her to abandon the belief that the axiom was erroneous. Upon her readmission, she joined the College of Abjuration, specifically studying “counterspelling, dispelling magic, [and] sort of metamagic, … the magic of magic itself” (Ep. 19, p. 11). This might seem to be an odd choice for a backup specialization, but Stone’s issue with the Axiom and metamagic are deeply intwined philosophical concepts, as metamagic is essentially the equivalent to metaphysics in our world.

Wizardry and the nature of magic in Umora

Wizards are defined in Umora to be people that can use a “language of magic” the “lingua arcana” to cast magic, and importantly, that “they believe [the lingua arcana] is the language the universe uses to understand itself,” which was only coined about 250 years prior to the present story (Ep. 19, p. 16). At the end of the first arc, Suvi discovers from her father’s notes that the reflexive indicative, which was taught to her as a necessary component of the lingua arcana, is in fact entirely unnecessary for spellcasting. And further, Stone also doesn’t use the reflexive indicative, which is demonstrated through her unique casting of Mending in the very first episode. It is unclear so far in the worldbuilding (to me, at least) if the lingua arcana is the language the universe uses to understand itself, or if it is a construct used by people to explain, communicate, and more importantly cast magic in Umora (much like math and science are ‘constructs’ that describe the nature of our world, though the fact that it is constructed does not mean it is not true). If it is the latter, then there is likely to be forces at work, be it the components of spell casting (such as the reflexive indicative), the casters themselves, or others yet to be revealed, that are manipulating and restricting the nature of magic in Umora (see footnote 3b).

Thus, I would posit that there is some issue in the way that the restriction of the lingua arcana is affecting the “greater binding,” which is “the theory of magic, that magic is the interplay between the Spirit and the Real—or the Spirit and the Mortal” (Ep. 19, p. 14). Essentially, the lingua arcana describes the nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the Mortal world, while the greater binding is the metaphysical link between them. Stone all but confirms this in her letter to the Archmagi, that if the issue is left unresolved, it would endanger the future of wizardry (Ep. 19, p. 12).

Other pertinent wizarding history and context

Stone and Soft were also part of a group called the Acadator, which was dedicated to rooting out corruption and bad actors within the Citadel. We don’t really know too much else about them, the exact specifics of their philosophy, or if they still exist as a group (given that Steel and Eiorghorain were members). There is also some history surrounding two early wizarding groups pre-Citadel, the Antivoli and the Accordati, that had a philosophical disagreement about accepting the help of the Saraz Imperium for building the Citadel (specifically related to the sharing of magic), which led to a civil war called the Cataclysm of Carrow (Ep. 19, p. 16). In terms of timeline, the lingua arcana was coined in 1423, the term ‘wizard’ was coined in 1456, the Cataclysm of Carrow was in 1467, and three years later, in 1470, the Erien (Citadel) was built. The current story with the three protagonists is taking place in 1670, so it has only been 200 years since the Citadel was created, and the lingua arcana coined only 47 years prior to that (in less than a human lifespan).

Further, the creation of the Irulian Desert, the Erien, and the Citadel is a destructive history—wizards razed a verdant forest and turned it into a hot, unlivable desert with a miles high glass tower at the center. Additionally, the Wizards of the Citadel pool their magic beneath the Erien in an ‘Aerith,’ into which they deposit magical reserves and draw upon its combined strength when in crisis (see footnote 4). Mechanically, we see Suvi ‘donate’ unused spell slots at the end of the day.

We do know that Grandmother Wren’s cottage is located on top of a source of great magical power and serves as her sanctum. Wizards also use the towers of the Citadel as their sanctums, and I believe the following is speculation, as I do not think it has been canonized yet, but it is possible that the Aerith serves a similar purpose as a source of great magical power that previously belonged to the Spirits that wizards alone now use and control. This control is the key difference that may be contributing to, or even causing, detrimental effects on the greater binding.

The Witch(es)’s and the Wild One(s)’s perspectives

Additional evidence to support this theory of the Aerith's origins and purpose comes in Episode 23, when Eursulon meets the Man in Black and discusses their opinions on mortals, particularly wizards and their desire for control. Specifically, the Man in Black states, “that tower is the handle of a knife plunged deep into the heart of this world, a heart that is responsible for… a murder to the world of Spirits” (Ep. 23, 0:09:45-0:10:07).

Later, in a flashback with Mirara and Grandmother Wren, Mirara argues that “the world has burned before” (perhaps in reference to the creation of the Irulian Desert), that “[wizards] cannot be allowed to do this thing” (still unclear what that thing is), and the coven must make some kind of decision before it is too late (Ep. 23, 0:58:46-0:59:00). Wren pleas for another option, points this out as a false dichotomy, that they must not “be forced to choose between one slaughter and another,” and they should work to find common ground and coexist (Ep. 23, 0:59:07-0:59:33). Mirara retorts that she could never imagine the day that she would see “the will of wizards debase themselves” (i.e., that wizards would ever lower themselves from their current position of power) (Ep. 23, 0:59:39-0:59:52).

Wren then asserts a key point that correlates directly with Stone’s perspective: “There is nothing I have seen in the world of Mortals or of Spirits that shows me that there is a path that is wrong to tread” or anything that proves the pursuit of wizardry as inherently wrong (i.e., the lingua arcana), only those who “tread paths hurtfully, with cruel intention” (i.e., those abusing the lingua arcana for political purposes and imperial gain) (Ep. 23, 1:00:08-1:00:28). Wren also questions Mirara’s stance of wizardry as “an abomination against the natural order of the world” (Ep. 23, 1:00:40-1:00:47). Mirara then challenges her to consider her point of view and insists that even Wren cannot deny that “the poison of wizards does not spread so quickly as to choke the life from this world” (Ep. 23, 1:01:03-1:01:09).

My pure speculation and fan theory:

From this conversation, I postulate that Mirara and the Coven has taken an extremist and doomed perspective on the harm that is resulting partially from the Axiom of Proliferation (and perhaps the Aerith as well), while Grandmother Wren took a reformist stance. This would put her and her position as the Witch of the World’s Heart at odds with whatever plan the Coven intends to enact. Given what we know of the Witch Class and the other domains of the Coven, their plan is quite possibly violent, retributive, and holds little to no concern for the Mortals or people of Umora.

The third arc will begin with Ame’s meeting with the Coven of Elders at the North Pole, where they will attempt to destroy her station as the Witch of the World’s Heart. For all of the reasons above, I believe this event will connect directly to Stone’s declaration of “treason against magic itself,” but I will just have to (patiently) wait and see (see footnote 5).

Footnotes:

(1) I am well aware that I am being quite vague and obtuse regarding this subject and what specifically I was researching. Mainly because a) that’s not really the point of these musings, this is just some background info and context to explain my philosophy which is already longer than I would like, b) it would be impossible to do justice to an overview of this complex subject in an essay about something that resonated with me in a D&D podcast (and which does not engage with that subject directly, at least not in this context), c) I’ve already written a paper on this subject and am not interested in regurgitating it here, and d) Nunya Binyess (i.e. I could still be wrong about this fallacy and I’d rather discuss WWW than start a tangential IRL philosophical or political argument on this forum).

(2) Though on a deeper level, I partially disagree with the idea that I needed to account for the practical implications of the fallacy within the paper. I disagree that when challenging the fundamental nature of something (e.g., an erroneous argument, a misinformed policy, or an unjust system), there must be an immediate remedy or solution offered up. In my philosophical opinion, once a fallacy like that is identified for something that we hold to be fundamentally true, we need to sit in that revelation and undo the thought processes created by the incorrect assumptions. You cannot flip a switch and suddenly reverse all of the justifications that have gone into supporting a flawed, ingrained argument. To undo a pervasive, incorrect fundamental idea that has been implemented, internalized, or proliferated, first it must be fully examined for all its flaws, rescinded, and only then do we start from square one and think about practical changes (in a perfect world, of course, I am fully aware that the world does not work this way). I do often wonder about this reactive nature in society to demand immediate alternatives and solutions when norms are challenged, though I recognize this is a result of different lived experiences and worldviews. After all, this reactionary nature is true in Umora as well, and the wizards of the Citadel “tend to be a lot more about praxis and practice” (Ep. 19, p. 14).

(3a) Perhaps Stone rolled a nat 20 on some kind of intelligence check for the vision, but rolled a nat 1 on her Persuasion check against Sleep!

(3b) There is another essay I could write here about the history of science and empire (another grad school course) and the reflection of this in the Imperium, its taxonomy, and the (anti)-democratization of knowledge, but perhaps another time.

(4)  Something that occurred to me when piecing together the Erien and the Aerith was the similarity to Morrow’s derrick that harnessed Naram’s power in the first arc. Both serve similar purposes as well, of generating magic and magical items. It makes me wonder if it was intended for the derrick to be Morrow’s poor attempt at recreating the glory of the Citadel, or if this is just a happy coincidence/connection between the arcs.

(5) I do want to briefly acknowledge the nature of improvisational storytelling in this situation, and that anything can change, be clarified, canonized, etc. at any point. This is partly why I don’t like to speculate much myself, because I trust the creators to tell the story the way they want to and follow the paths that appear, without projecting my own hopes or prescriptions when I listen to their wonderful creation that has been crafted with such care. It is also why my theory in the end is limited to the meeting with the coven- truly anything could happen at the beginning of the next arc, and whatever I might come up with is likely less interesting than what will happen. (NB: There is nothing wrong with fan theories or head canons! It’s just not usually something that interests me!) I merely saw a connection and through-line that deeply resonated with me in this second arc and felt compelled to write about it. Also, Worlds Beyond Number and WWW is just so fucking great, and it truly astounds me that this story is so deep that I have somehow written a 12-page essay analyzing essentially a 20-minute segment of one episode. I pray to Enzo that there are no grievous errors or spelling mistakes, but I wanted to post this on WBN’s first birthday! 🧡

[sixth-light]

TGH/TDR vs WoT season 2: what's in and what's out pt 1 (characters)

WoT's in and WoT's out, that is

I thought it would be fun (for me, sorry to the rest of you) to do a little analysis of where we're actually at in terms of adapting book material and the show, now we have officially passed the adaptation of the first three books. I am looking at this, as the show/showrunner have repeatedly stated they're doing, as a whole-series adaptation question: what happens in the first three books, in terms of worldbuilding, character introductions, and plot points, which is vital for the series arc as a whole? And of that, what remains to be shown on screen and thus might end up getting cut?

This is long, so I'm going to divide it into three posts over the next day or two: Characters (who has shown up and who hasn't), Worldbuilding points (ditto), and Plot points (has it happened or not). Major book spoilers obvs as I'll be discussing which of these continue to be important throughout the series.

NB before I dive in: what doing this has shown me is that despite TDR being one of my top 3 books of the series as a whole and much-beloved more generally, it...honestly has bugger-all in terms of plot that can't be handled by the show in other ways. The structure is a straight repeat of TGH and most of the really memorable scenes are vibes and character work (Mat's duel, Perrin's blacksmithing, Egwene's Accepted test) that the show likely doesn't have time to indulge in and/or that can be used as fodder for character development on the show in different contexts (like, Perrin's blacksmithing scene is lovely and you could do a version of it whenever the show character needs to re-centre himself pretty much...right up through the end of the series.)

Anyway, on with the actual programming!

CHARACTERS

My test for listing characters here is 1) is this character a PoV character and 2) if not, do they have a genuine impact on the plot or character development of PoV characters. For example: Carlinya and Breane Taborwin appear repeatedly through the series but do nothing someone else couldn't, so there's no point in assessing the significance of them not showing up in S2 even though they first appear in TGH. Characters struck through are ones who have now been introduced or mentioned by the show.

Introduced in TEoTW but not S1 of the show

Bayle Domon Elaida Gawyn (mentioned in S2, h/t @hxans) Galad Morgase (mentioned in S2, h/t @hxans) Elyas

Immediately obvious that it's the Caemlyn crew we're waiting on, and since casting has been confirmed for at least two of them and the other two were mentioned on-screen in S2, I think there's no question Elaida, Gawyn, and Galad will be in S3. Morgase is more questionable; my money is that she either won't be in the show and/or will actually be killed by Rahvin. Hate to lose a not-really-dead mum but some characters have got to go and it will make it much harder for show viewers to accept Elayne as Queen in the late series if she's still alive actually.

Introduced/mentioned in TGH

Suroth Renna & Seta Egeanin Verin Anaiya Liandrin (S1) Alanna (S1) Siuan (S1) Leane (S1) Vandene & Adeleas (Vandene now merged with Verin) Sheriam Alviarin Hurin (merged with Elyas in the show) 'Selene' Erith Aludra Masema Uno Mazrim Taim

Of those who haven't appeared in the show, Alviarin and Anaiya are frankly questionable in terms of whether the show needs them/highly likely to be merged with other Aes Sedai the way show!Alanna and show!Verin are book!Alanna x book!Myrelle and book!Verin x book!Vandene merges. ETA: thanks to @vriah for pointing out Anaiya was mentioned by name in 2x06, although I think the rest of this point stands. There's no point introducing Erith or Aludra until the show is ready to follow through on the storylines they are crucial for, which are both late-book storylines. I don't think we'll see either of them until S4-6, although I think we WILL see them.

ETA: I forgot Egeanin first shows up here! (h/t @butterflydm) Given what they did with all the Seanchan characters I think that's a deliberate choice to not confuse the narrative with a sympathetic Seanchan character until a season where we start to ask 'can individual Seanchan be anything except antagonists'. And since we likely won't hit that until S4 at the earliest, no point casting an actress here who might not be available (c.f. Birgitte). As an example, they've already had to re-cast Egwene's mother because the S1 actress was no longer available for S3.

Introduced in TDR

Aviendha Bain & Chiad Gaul Rhuarc Juilin Sammael Be'lal Pedron Niall Jaichim Carridin Faile Noam Rahvin Liandrin's thirteen, including Joiya Byir Faolain & Theodrin Tallanvor Dyelin Berelain Darlin Sisnera Laras (h/t @undeterminedvintage)

In contrast, most of the new-in-TDR characters haven't been mentioned yet!

Rhuarc and Faile: I think you have to have Rhuarc as a male Aiel leader in S3, there's no reason for it to NOT be him, and we know Faile has been cast. Makes total sense for her to meet Perrin in S3 as they will clearly be slow-burning that romance.

Berelain: Key to a bunch of plotlines, a very fun character, but there's no point bringing her in until Perrin/Faile is a going concern (but I think crucially in the show BEFORE they are married) which won't be for a season or two. Likely to be the first example of a ruler proactively pledging to Rand.

Jaichim Carridin, Liandrin's thirteen, Noam: Necessary but also won't be brought in until they're needed, and in the case of Liandrin's crew, will just be Black Ajah sisters as needed rather than a coherent group.

Pedron Niall, Dyelin, Darlin Sisnera, Faolain & Theodrin: I think elements of all of these characters will make the show (e.g. Elayne needs a buddy noble for the Succession, the Whitecloaks have to have a commander for Valda to assassinate, Egwene needs followers within the rebels) but they could be radically different and in some cases will likely take on other roles as well, though more likely than not under these names.

Rahvin, Gaul, Juilin, Tallanvor, Laras: I don't think any of these characters will make the cut for the show or if they do they'll be significantly merged with others. We only have room for two other male Forsaken and one of them has to be Asmodean, Tallanvor only matters if you do a Morgase storyline, Juilin and Laras are fun flavour and that's mostly it, and sorry Gaul fans but really what does he do aside from create sideshow romantic drama.

Be'lal: Out for sure since there's only 8 Forsaken.

Introduced in TSR

Lanfear-as-Lanfear (for Rand) and Moghedien...both don't show up until TSR actually, so we're ahead of the game there! Also possibly with Anvaere if she takes over Colavaere's later role (sob).

One other character note - it is still fascinating to me that the show chose to use obscure or non-existent names for the Brown sisters Verin spoke with in S2, as there are 30+ named Brown sisters in the books, many of whom could easily have filled those roles. The show isn't afraid to use existing sisters and even kill them (c.f. Maigan) so...what drove that decision? I thought it might be so they could be killed in the Tower Coup but now Maigan's dead I'm not sure!

Next time: worldbuilding!

[lazuliquetzal]

Tell me your thoughts about gameplay and story integration in video games :3

(THANKS ILY TOO!)

Video games are a super interesting medium because it's all about leveraging player behavior and choice. A lot of game design fundamentals are about giving the player freedom, or the illusion of freedom. The game maker sets the rules, and the player organically develops behaviors and strategies within those rules. If you want the player to act a certain way, you have to encourage them to act in that way. (Watch one of the bazillion analysis videos on Super Mario Bros. World 1-1 sometime.)

In games there are ways to punish a player (death, losing progress, jumpscares, etc) and there are ways to reward a player (score go up, unlock new thing, get more power, etc). Story can be part of that, and it can go beyond "play well = good end, play poorly = bad end."

I think, if you're going to use a video game to tell your story, you should really take advantage of it, you know? Flex the medium. Leverage the inherent immersion that comes with the player Interacting With The Game. Inscryption and Undertale are So Video Game that you can't adapt it to a different medium without significant rework. They are video games because they have to be video games. That doesn't make them automatically good, but a good storyteller would choose the medium that works best with their story and that confidence just oozes out, in a good way.

You don't even have to get all 4th wall meta with your video game plot. In Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the main Gimmick is that you have a time-traveling dagger. You can use it to make combat sequences easier, you can use it to solve puzzles, but it's also integral to the entire experience. The time travel sets up the framed narrative, which pays homage to the literature that serves as the game's inspiration. The central conflict is resolved with the time travel mechanic. In gameplay, you make mistakes, experience consequences in battle, learn and do things correctly the next time around, which is the Prince's entire character arc. Even basic game mechanics are part of the story -- when you save, you get "tips and tricks!" in the form of visions that will help you solve puzzles, but some of those visions are plot-relevant. The menu itself has flavor dialogue that is part of the narrative frame and is also hilarious.

Some other examples: Papers, Please! explores bureaucracy as a tool of dehumanization under authoritarian governements, and the gameplay is all fine print and form-filling and menus. In GOW 2018, there are enemies that have elemental weaknesses, so you end up having to switch weapons. (This is a really common thing to do: new area w/ new enemies requires new weapon.) You unlock the Blades of Chaos so that you can enter Helheim. The Blades also have a backstory, and using them means something in Kratos's character arc, it's a whole Thing. In metroidvanias, you unlock new abilities so you can access new parts of the story and find things you missed the first time around -- really good for worldbuilding and creating a sense of depth to a location (the world of Blasphemous comes to mind). Majora's Mask gives you anxiety.

A buddy once asked if I thought a good plot could carry a crappy game, and my answer is no. You can't absorb the story if the primary mode of interacting with the story is unplayable. If the gameplay is detracting from the story, then you should make a movie or write a novel. Video games are experiences: gameplay should serve story, story should serve gameplay. *Tetris: Effect Voice* it's all connected!

I just enjoy it when stories are told in mediums that suit them best. It's satisfying! It's fun! Makes my brain go :D

[pokelolmc]

The Ultimate Enemy is a Disappointment (and How I'd Fix It) (Part 1)

A couple years back, I started analysing a list of DP episodes I thought had missed potential--and my analysis on TUE got SO big I made it its own thing. I rewrote it to death and could never settle on something concise enough, so I abandoned it. But I'm BACK baby. I can't remember where it is now, but I came across a poll on whether Reign Storm or TUE is the better special and the discourse reignited my passion for this analysis, and gave me motivation to trim off some of the fat.

Don't get me wrong, at the end of the day I do like this episode--or at least its ideas. I really liked the episode the less I thought about it, but now I see issue after issue in its execution. Hence, the "disappointment": it could've been great, but it missed the mark. This won't just be a one-sided roast of TUE, though. I have a ton of cool ideas for how to rewrite plot holes or fill in the gaps. The best roasts are constructive! (Though I would be rewriting it in a more mature fashion compared to canon's writing--keep that in mind).

Part 2 is now up: you can find it here.

So here we go: Part 1--the general plot contrivances/contradictions unrelated to Dan's character or the time travel system.

The episode introduced taking off the Time Medallions as a way to immediately return to one’s native time period, but then forgot this late into the second act.

Technically this plot hole involves time travel devices, but I'm counting it as a plot hole by character decisions.

The episode gives no explicit rules on lag time between removing the medallion and returning home, but it takes only one to two seconds to return Skulktech to the future after they dropped theirs, and it had to have been instant for Sam and Tucker to return to the past in time to escape rubble falling from FentonWorks (which was only roughly two to three stories high, not counting the Ops Centre).

Danny should’ve been sent back almost instantly when Dan took his medallion off—which would’ve completely defeated the purpose of Dan’s attempt to trap Danny there in the first place.

If they wanted to keep the plot point, they could’ve just had Dan grab the medallion and turn it intangible while it’s still around Danny’s neck…and that’s assuming that making it intangible while Danny’s still tangible doesn’t count as “removal”. That’s it. He never needed to remove it to begin with.

2. The Nasty Sauce explosion just…sucks. In my opinion, it’s too silly for the tone the episode’s trying to go for (and as a cause of major character death), and it wrecks the worldbuilding.

I tried to put it in way more verbose ways in my previous drafts, but I found another post somewhere on tumblr that did what I couldn’t—say it in three words:

“It’s just stupid.”

Assuming that semi-realistic laws exist in-place in the Danny Phantom universe (so it’s BASICALLY similar to ours) the Nasty Burger shouldn’t have been able to stay in business without a LOT of red tape, cover-ups and NDA’s. They had an explosive substance on premises, being taken care of by unqualified, minimum-wage part-timers instead of trained chemical safety specialists. Forget handling it, they shouldn’t have even had it in the first place! If they got it by going UNDER the law and covering everything up, then one of their employees shouldn’t have been able to just CONFESS to it at a public school assembly.

It also sounds ridiculous that a “certain combination of secret herbs and spices” could catastrophically combust in the first place. They could’ve made the explosion ghost-powered/altered; they could’ve made it not the sauce itself, but a pressure issue with its containment vats; they could’ve made it a gas leak or malfunction of cooking equipment starting a fire, or something. They could’ve made the explosion a Fenton invention at their home (where the whole family had reason to be at once, and Mr Lancer could hold the parent-teacher conference there like in Teacher of the Year). They've used more serious threats of explosion in previous episodes (like the Ecto-Filtrator in Million Dollar Ghost).

And instead they decided “Yep! This commonly sold and digested sauce is a dangerous explosive, and even a small handout serving is enough to blow clean through a wall when it’s heated up!” This is how we're going to kill all of the main characters' loved ones to send him on a villain arc!

Like what?

Nowhere else after TUE did the show acknowledge the Nasty Sauce in worldbuilding. There were no consequences of its risk being publicly revealed, nor did it ever pose a hazard again. It’s understandable, given the show’s episodic nature. Bu at least in The Ultimate Enemy itself, they should've thought about how it affected most of the previous episodes.

During his fight with Boxed Lunch, one of Danny's ectoblasts to a sauce packet demolishes an entire section of wall in the Nasty Burger. So how hadn’t any ghost fights ignited any Nasty Sauce before—or damaged the main vat, god forbid—and caused an explosion already?

If the sauce was always a part of the Nasty Burger’s recipe, then the entire restaurant was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off since season one, and nothing short of a miracle could explain why it hadn’t happened before.

3. This episode committed character assassination of Mr Lancer, for the sake of setting up stakes in the plot. And contradicted his personality changes in previous episodes (such as “Teacher of the Year”).

Mr Lancer, in my opinion, is the character done the single dirtiest in the episode. It warps his entire character around the plot, and turns him into a contrived mouthpiece for how important the CAT is. It leaves him even more malicious and mean-spirited than his behaviour in the first episode of the entire show—leaving him even worse than he started.

He didn’t have much character development, but there were some more positive changes happening in his personality as later episodes occurred. He started out as a selfish, corrupt authority figure (think Mystery Meat, Fright Night and other S1 episodes where he deliberately lets the jocks off the hook for their behaviour), but unwittingly acts in favour of the main characters in “Fanning the Flames”—although ineffective and easily taken down by Ember.

By the time of “Teacher of the Year”, we finally got a glimpse into his (albeit scant) ideology as a teacher around helping his students succeed, and his concern for Danny’s failing grades.

It even revealed his personal interest in Doomed, which gave him more in common with Danny and Tucker and humanised him in way a few other episodes hadn’t. Season two even demonstrated his (albeit brief) willingness to stand up and defend his students from a ghost attack in “Memory Blank”. Lancer, for a brief period of time, became more than just his job, book title swears and his frustration with rebellious students.  

We're talking about the teacher who, in the early 2000s, kept a picture of himself crossdressing at school to convince his students to try their best with a "story about his sister".

The Ultimate Enemy, however, took Mr Lancer’s humanity towards the students—particularly Danny—and flipped it all on its head. It turned him into an elitist, mean-spirited asshole who verbally attacked his students (past and present) based on their performances on this single. Fucking. Test.

They made Mr. “there is no cheat code in school, or in life” Lancer into a cruel enforcer of the hamfisted and childish importance of the CAT. Actual “get rich vs dead-end, minimum-wage job” propaganda.

(Teacher of the Year)

And... one season later:

(that sure sounds like a cheat code in life to me)

To add insult to injury, TUE used Lancer’s death as the butt of a joke directly after spending the majority treating him like a total asshole—following up character assassination with literal assassination , and excluding him from the rest of the explosion victims in their memorial.

It feels to me, that it'd make more sense for Mr Lancer to be sceptical of the importance of the CAT based on TOTY. Replace him in the assembly with Principal Ishiyama or something. A stickler-for-the-rules school administrator looking to boost the school's image by pressuring kids on a standardised test? That ABSOLUTELY makes sense.

Mr Lancer could still be seen as a threat (or someone Danny can't reach out to for help), but in the department of simply being an authority figure Danny's used to dodging around with his ghost activities. Someone who'd still enforce consequences for Danny getting caught cheating. Someone who'd get his parents involved. He's the closest thing Danny could have to any level of support at Casper High, and Danny could think he's even lost THAT.

4. The way Danny got the CAT answers was contrived, and broke the previously established rules of ghost intangibility.

To cut a long story short, Boxed Lunch’s fight with Danny shouldn’t have gotten the test answers stuck to Danny’s back. Danny immediately turned intangible in anticipation of the explosion, and was thrown outside the Nasty Burger and through Mr. Lancer’s briefcase before turning tangible again.

That didn’t make sense; the series previously established that ghosts (in this case, halfas) were physically unaffected by explosions when intangible. “Million-Dollar Ghost” even demonstrated it when Vlad escaped his castle’s explosion in the same manner, and was left completely unmoved from his position at ground zero. The sauce packet explosion shouldn’t have even moved Danny out of place, let alone flung him out of the building (especially not compared to Vlad and an Ecto-filtrator explosion).

On top of that, the test answers couldn’t have gotten stuck to his back while he passed through the suitcase, as Danny was intangible and the answers sheet was solid. Even if it were possible for already intangible ghosts to grab onto tangible objects and bring them into intangibility, that’d certainly require conscious intention that Danny didn’t have in the episode.  The test answers got stuck to his back by sheer accident on his part. Bringing other objects into tangibility always previously involved a tangible ghost grabbing hold of other tangible people/objects and consciously willing them intangible together. Ergo, he should’ve simply passed through the suitcase and its contents all at once—go to the other side, pass go, do not collect CAT cheat sheet.

The solution for this one is pretty simple—just remove the scene entirely. Not only does it break the lore, but it’s entirely pointless and redundant (more on that later when I talk about Clockwork—giving Danny the answers was his idea, and it was a terrible one). Instead, it would’ve been much more compelling if Danny stole the answers on purpose with his ghost powers—being put under so much pressure to succeed that he felt like he had to forgo his morals and use his powers to cheat.

[bigbutchtalks]

Big Butch Talks Movies: The Creator 2023

Movie first watched (at the theater!) 9/29/23

“The Creator” 2023 directed by Gareth Edwards.

General likes -> worldbuilding, the sheer idea of it, symbolism, shot framing, soundtrack, language usage, acting, tropes used relative to “western” vs “eastern” politics, propaganda etc!, anti war message, set design

General dislikes -> women are very very relative to being mothers/wives instead of personal independence/agency*, possibly orientalist based on the location (though I am a white american and not the most educated on the topic and believe that some of it is plot relative which doesn’t make it ok, but gives a reason)

Personal thoughts -> absolutely blown away by the worldbuilding relative to the use of technology as shown by the Americans and the RoA/rebels. Acting was fantastic, especially young Alfie (or Alphie?) (Madeleine Yuna Voyles) and how her and Joshua’s (John David Washington) relationship evolved through the movie. The design of the robots, simulants, weapons and transportation was stunning, eye-catching and in my opinion, believable. The concept designers/those involved in design ideas should be cheered for!!!

Ramble -> I wish the character played by Gemma Chan was featured more prominently instead of being more of a simulant + Joshua saint/obsession. However this is a frequently occurring trope in thriller/action movies, woman who is obsessed over and ultimately, not what mc was lead to believe and tragically only important for what she represents rather than who she is and choices she makes. Interestingly enough there are three main women characters; the vengeful mother, hellbent on her delivery of fatal justice for revenge for the children she lost, wife and mother who is a non entity, chiefly a memory and a force used as a Reason To Endure, ultimately a peace maker, the child created as a peace-causing weapon, naïve but gains seemingly language, direction and purpose other than she was programmed with. She is the key to the rebel’s dream so it’s interesting they don’t really use her? That could be explained to be as a result of her tender age or the difference in ideology, if the Americans had a sentient, child weapon, no doubt they’d use her and not lose any sleep bc she’s not “real.” I loved the questions this movie asked: what does it mean to be human or “real”? ethics of robot usage once sentience is gained? how does one justify the use of such weapons? ethics of copying one’s likeness(-could be stretched to be work and other such personal matters)?

The juxtaposition of “eastern” (in this case I’m referring to Buddhism) and “western” (in this case i only mean Christianity) religion was very fun, the integration of the robots/simulants in the republic’s society was such that they were even represented in religious rituals and art/temples! On the other hand, from the Americans we as the viewer gets to observe, only the more shallow sense of Christianity is reflected, the belief (even in the weakest sense of the word) in heaven, sin (to be inferred from the belief that bc Joshua is not “good” and thus “not going to heaven” sin is relevant) forgiveness achieved through actions and absolution through sacrifice.

On IMDB the featured review says this movie is full of plot holes. I fundamentally disagree and believe that through bare bones imagination and analysis one can make plot based assumptions that are relevant to the story and general Vibe the director gives in other relevant works (Rogue One). The only “plot hole” is one that is Consistently used in space based/sci fi movies: the “my arm is stronger than the vacuum of space.” Thats literally the only real plot problem that stood out to me. Some articles are focusing on the AI thing and relating it to the current AI situation with its pollution of art and writing and it’s (in my, a random person’s opinion) such a dumb fucking stance. The problem I have with AI in the arts isn’t bc I hate robots. It’s bc I hate Actual People’s creations being bastardized and glued together in a ramshackle collage of bullshittery.

Detailed Synopsis (INCLUDES SPOILERS) -> the setting is a post-tragedy world where sentient robots and more human looking robots, simulants, have been used for years in harmony with humanity, suddenly a nuke goes off in downtown LA, killing millions and inspiring America (much like post 9/11 America) to launch a nationalistic war on robots/AI. Comparatively, the Republic of Asia is still comfortable with the usage and fully integrates these technologies into society, the home, culture and interpersonal/domestic relationships. This causes America to use the RoA as a scapegoat because the leaders/military believe “Nirmata”, the pseudo-mythical figure said to have ushered in the past/current era of AI-enabled robots/simulants is hiding in the RoA, caused (or at least did nothing to prevent) the attack and is developing a weapon that will end the “West.” This “fact” is used to create and launch attacks from a floating, in-orbit space station that launches bombs, called NOMAD* (*this is visually stunning, incredibly interesting conceptually and HORRIFIC to watch. So much collateral damage and civilian death.) which targets rebel bases and places Nirmata is thought to be hiding. 5 years ago, the main character, Joshua experienced a life altering event and is working a hard manual labor job (that gives the viewer great insight into the worldbuilding), and is contacted by the military saying “hey dude lol let’s go get Nirmata and destroy the weapon it’ll be totes chill and you’ll be a hero and don’t you want to be a hero? Plusbtwyourwifeisalivebro” and so he goes, chaos ensues bc these military ppl suck bananas at following orders, maintaining comms and not killing civilians for no fucking reason. Joshua finds the weapon only, fuck, it’s a simulant in the appearance of an adorable little child (never created before) and appears to know nothing of her purpose. Joshua grabs the kid, hightails it on out of there and goes on a wild goose chase trying to find his wife, in the process learning more about the young weapon, growing to care for her and being hunted by both the local police and the American military.

Ending Thoughts -> would I recommend this movie? Yes! Would I watch it again? Yes! Did it inspire my creativity and imagination? Yes! I found it incredibly entertaining, the action was beautiful, the locations were gorgeous, the devastation of the weaponry was heart-wrenching, the acting was overall quite good and I enjoyed the bittersweet ending and the message. I cried during the ending :)

[luminiferocity]

Here be headcanons

It's happening! Kicking off the first day of 007 Fest 2023 with some MI6 worldbuilding headcanons for Headcanons Day (AKA the HCs crammed into my WIP to make sense of film-world MI6)

Q Branch is just a small part of Six (and everyone else thinks the double-oh programme is more trouble than it's worth)

Q Branch makes no sense. As film!Q is a shorthand for the mission support teams for narrative ease, Q Branch seems to run independently and Q himself is a polymath taking on all the roles.

Eh, I'm okay with genius Q because I love him 🤷 Other Q Branchers are all wildly smart and eccentric in their own ways. That's Q's hiring policy

Most analysis, missions, etc. are run through logical departments with hundreds of staff, which the problem children doubles-ohs and Q Branch build on for their specialist missions

Lots of Six staff don't like the double-ohs and Q Branch by extension – they burn through the budget, cause havoc and get away with multitudes, and a little more secrecy and intelligence in the SIS would be much preferred

Maybe it's for the best that Q Branch is away from HQ up-river at Millbank Pier (based on this excellent post)

Essentially, Mallory has hundreds, maybe thousands, of staff and assets globally, yet it's 1% of his staff that causes 99.9% of his headaches

Heracles isn't the first off-book project and it won't be the last

Mallory was used as a character to hang the Heracles plot on, but it leaves a lot of questions. Why was he even involved? Why isn't it the responsibility of the Defence Science and Technology Lab?

I figure all the UK's intelligence agencies have joint off-book operations like the Heracles research, some farmed out to private contractors, etc. So, Heracles isn't special, it's just that this secret got found out and had big consequences

Maybe Mallory had a hand in Obruchev defecting, so those consequences were extra personal

Also, imagine being Mallory: was Chair of the committee looking into MI6 shadiness, only to get hired as M and get tangled into all this shadiness

Q & Moneypenny besties: great; Q & Moneypenny & Tanner: even better

After Spectre, they didn't know who to trust, except one another. They keep Six running and they're each other's rocks and best bitching buddies

Q, despite what he says, is the most dramatic of the three. Moneypenny, of course, delights in winding Q up. Tanner isn't as catty as those two, except for when the mood strikes and he's the worst

Tanner gets swept up in various antics, often Bond's, along with Q and Moneypenny. However, he's perfected bland-faced innocence and Mallory never gives him grief for it. Q and Moneypenny find this very annoying

[faithfromanewperspective]

sugar coated brain (the fluid ain’t to blame): unraveling Conor Aurelian

I don’t know if this is me admitting to have read embarrassingly little in terms of Actual Books since I turned 18 but. Wow. I loved sword catcher, and for once I was there eating up the plot rather than only relating to the characters so much I was obsessively hoping for a happy ending for them. 

I’ve said before that sword catcher was good, so good it’s almost above fandom discourse (like a Beethoven symphony perhaps, you think twice before making arrangements of a masterpiece like that) but even the best symphonies deserve, actually they’re honoured by, critical analysis of the phrasing and melodies and that which are used. And this is a Cassandra Clare book after all. The beauty comes from beautifully (read: realistic, somehow more human than real humans idk I’m blown away every time) constructed characters, and then from the plot. Which was character-driven and so, so delicious, but we’re not talking those kind of spoilers this early in the game. 

While I’ll admit that Kel was the most relatable character, followed by Lin or maybe Ana, there were some things about Conor that just cut a little too close in ways I hadn’t thought about in years. Taking me back to some worldbuilding of my childhood, a ‘reluctant princess’ I came up with based on feeling trapped and overprotected and that fantasy world has long since been archived in my head and it’s entertaining to think this weird kid in western sydney who didn’t get to run quite as wild as some of the other kids (but still did get to run quite wild) felt like that when we were the furthest thing from royalty. I didn’t expect to be reminded of that in an adult fantasy book, but here we are, and I’m being entertained to see all the different takes on Conor: some driven to fascination, some to annoyance, and somehow in the 5 of us who’ve actually read sword catcher already everything in between. 

But let’s be real for a second: who hasn’t heard the ‘oh you can’t be depressed you have everything you need’ and been like. Really hurt by it?? Who hasn’t sat among know it all adults in their younger years who would just judge the hell out of other young people who supposedly ‘never got to hear no’ and now they have ‘no resilience’ and ‘no wonder they’re having problems’? Referring to people you actually relate to and thought, well this definitely isn’t a safe space to be vulnerable I’ll just suffer in silence? I’ve grown up enough now to see Lin’s trauma behind the way she says this about Conor but part of me is still a little mad at her. As for Conor?? He’s everything I’d expect from someone in his position and I actually don’t think the majority of it comes from ‘never hearing no’ and ‘getting everything he wants’ but rather the things that those try to make up for: a lack of real autonomy over his life, not being allowed to feel Normal Child Feelings, having no one he can relate to and see as an equal, a heavy burden of responsibility before he was ever old enough to understand it, and the many levels of fuckery that’s all done to his parents making them not just emotionally unavailable but frivolous, trying to maintain their own autonomy and connection doing silly little rich people hobbies that just make the divide between and resentment of them vs Every Other Person greater (constant stargazing or Decoration and Control). Sugar-coated brains: how could they not be when everything revolves around you but there’s so little you can actually do but pursue the pleasure you’re told you’re entitled to? 

I didn’t expect to be this mad at the royal family culture within SC but when I look back on it I’m not surprised. Not when the setting of the book is on the edge of a revolution, the unraveling of a society that feels so much like today and allows me to zoom out in a way that makes my little revolutionist heart happy. But oh, the angst and the bad decisions as the world teeters on that razorblade. The lives that are lost in the fray. I don’t know what’s happening in our world now but after Cast Long Shadows and an arc I know that she’s proud of (our dear Matthew Fairchild) I do trust Cassie. And in the meantime I’ll let her convince me of what I already know: the lives of nobility are simply pawns in a much bigger game no one (except maybe Ana) knows how to take the reins of, and the life of a pawn, no matter the luxuries, is a sorry life indeed. 

This little revolutionist brain of the 2000s had one thing right, and I feel vindicated to see it in such clarity here: the relationship between social class and genuine connection. From the stark contrast of the opening with Cas and Kel, even also Mari and Lin, against the disaster that is the royal family, it couldn’t be clearer to me: when you’re nobody, when there are no expectations of you, you can be who you really are. Maybe not in the eyes of the authorities, and that’s an important distinction to make, but there’s no need to pretend around your nearest and dearest and sometimes that’s worth so much more than hypothetical safety. Because yes you can get away with things when you’re rich but you’ve also got more people trying to assassinate you for who you are specifically rather than just running the risk of getting killed because you’re unlucky and too unimportant for anyone to think you’d be missed. When you’re royalty (or just have parents with really high expectations or are a gifted kid even) you’re given a mold to grow into and no one really asks if that’s who you really are: why would they, when their worldview depends on you being exactly who they want you to be? So if you’re not it you pretend and even with those, like your children, who are close enough to see behind the ruse, you never quite show them who you really are either. You can see how that would drive one insane. You showcase that the only way to exist is to mask until you snap, or lose the ability to be yourself at all. Which leads me to the second type of sugar coat. 

(And I’m quoting songs as my inspo behind this post as always, title quote is empty wallets by 5sos and I’m about to move onto sugar coat by little big town aka the band with an irl fairchild in it): this sugar coat is politeness and etiquette. There’s a quote somewhere in Kel’s narration I believe that I can’t find but basically views social etiquette and the like as you know. War strategy or something, which is another little segment of the reminder it’s cassie writing this and there’s a lot of accidental neurodivergence, or neurodivergence existing in a world so very different to ours, because that’s a very neurodivergent way of viewing it imo. And in this case, the sugar coat is like a constructed mask you spend your whole life trying to perfect, wear it as it’s handed down from your predecessors: in Conor’s case, lilibet (passed down from my mum, she wears it so well, put it on my shoulders said it’s colder out there than you think/would I recognise myself, would anybody else, if I took the damn thing off and burned it up?) who does make the frivolity and politics of being queen into her whole personality. She’s equally a pitiable and annoying character for that. 

But as for Conor? He’s a Cassandra Clare Created (TM) young man. Of course he can’t quite manage this kind of sugar coat business. The politeness, the etiquette, the little social dances: he longs for real connection (and now we’re back in empty wallets territory, get you high when I’m high, so we see eye to eye: to me this sums out how he makes connections with those who are nowhere near his equals but he wants to have some sort of equal footed connection with: Kel and *[redacted minor spoiler, see below cut]). He’s snapping from the pressure of it, and that’s exactly the kind of driving force for the narrative Cassie uses excellently. We see him coming undone, and hate it (or at least I do) but hope maybe, maybe it’s the path for liberation for him from the life that’s obviously making him (more) depressed (than he otherwise might be), and as the audience we don’t care if the kingdom burns down for this, as long as it doesn’t cause too much collateral damage. And we know it’s going to be a wild ride to get there. 

I don’t reckon this is obvious to everyone else but it is to me, with my experience of Christianity and life and just everything that if you’re a leader in any way, you’re a better leader for being liberated in yourself, having autonomy and appropriate boundaries and Conor has none of that and he’s coming undone and yes there’s a lot of other characters (who I will post about later) with their own arcs and A LOT going on (seriously it’s so deliciously complex and so much more so than tsc ever was with maybe the exception of tec which is kind of adult fantasy anyway). But oh. She really knows how to deliver, all through the first book and I can’t wait to see what the next one has to offer!! And to me the characterisation of Conor is just proof on how expertly the whole world of Castellane and it’s stories is being carried out. 

BIG GAP CAUSE CUT ISNT WORKING

*and Lin later on, kind of

tagging: @daisymylove and feel free to mention anyone who might like it in comments/reblogs!

[progressive-waves-art]

A Very, Very Unfinished Pile of Theory of Everything Headcanons (Ayreon)

Last semester, my English final was a presentation relating the overall theme of the Forever saga to that of the more popular works of H.G. Wells. Details of that argument aside, the thesis was that Ayreon’s emotional core was the presence of small-scale acts of love juxtaposed against large-scale existential tragedy, balanced in their individual power. That we are messy and self-destructive, and in the grand scheme of things we mean very little in the universe, but we are resilient and alive and human and that has to be worth something.

I really like this aspect of the main story, and it got me a perfect score on that assignment. It had a ten minute time limit and I was fighting for my life to stay under it. While I was downsizing the script, I couldn’t help but think of an earlier idea I had drafted about how The Theory of Everything on its own was a really incredible example of the mad scientist archetype turned completely on its head (it was a science-fiction analysis class). Specifically how that script was almost three times longer than the original H.G. Wells one, that took me a solid twenty minutes to read aloud. 

I literally wrote an hour long lecture about The Theory of Everything. No headcanons. No extra theories. Literally just picking apart its canon plot. 

I think this is why I have so little extra writing for it. The story as its given is airtight and just…fucking incredible. Arjen wrote it with a very clear theme in mind like he did with Transitus, but TToE isn’t missing half of its story because he couldn’t pull in the cash to make a movie out of it. You can feel the intention behind every single character, they feel like real people, it has so many layers to it and it is literally, objectively, the greatest prog album ever made. Fight me. 

But anyways: For lack of better phrasing, there isn’t much to “fix” in that sense. Almost all the headcanons I have for The Source or Transitus boil down to a few things:

I was being self-indulgent with a favorite character and it snowballed into a genuinely informative trait/subplot that informs the main story (a certain hc I have where Henry just fucking shoots Daniel in the back by mistake sometime between Two Worlds and Talk of the Town, turning into this weirdly effective commentary of how Daniel is conditioned to his brother’s shitty behavior and Abby hauling ass to get him out of that headspace)

I am curious about aspects of an album’s worldbuilding and get a little excited while filling in the blanks that were perfectly fine being left alone (doing mental gymnastics trying to build a version of The Source where these five academics, three politicians, two religious figures, one robot and one random spaceman viably know each other)

The rarer option that I am genuinely disappointed by how a part of the story was handled and completely ignore this small part of canon to make the overall story be more effective. Or attempt it, at least (Lavinia’s entire character undermining Transitus’ themes and her contradicting her own motivations, and me, in turn, just writing her character from scratch while keeping with the basic story beats [her seeing ghosts, doing shady shit with Henry, etc.])

But with TToE I’ve felt very little need to do any of these. If I were to really dive into it with intention I think I would start building off of the whole bank robbery plot in Phase III (just a slightly weirdly framed plot point for me), but I haven’t thought about it. It’s not that glaring of an issue and there’s few other places in the story where I think adding anything would make it more effective. 

This isn’t to say that Transitus and The Source are objectively worse in any sense, but they leave a lot more up to interpretation, allowing me to write so many add ons that they become structured and essential to each other’s function. 

It’s fun with those two albums. With TToE I really have to look for cracks to fill and it’s kind of useless. 

Not entirely, though. I’ve got a few hcs, and maybe they’ll warrant dozens of google doc pages of context one day like the other two albums: 

Two central things sparked curiosity. Setting, and how the parent characters came to hate each other that much. Naturally. 

This started four-ish years ago when I was pacing around my parents’ house with TToE on the mind (as it often is), and my brother put on this show called His Dark Materials. I watched the intro to it all of one time and just…knew this was the aesthetic TToE should have.🔗 At least combined with dark academia. It’s an album about physics and ghosts, that seems reasonable enough. 

…funnily enough, as I later found out, His Dark Materials itself has a very dark-academia-esque vibe, and the plot is entirely based upon the intersectionality between science and mysticism and trivial human attempts to make sense of it. 

So. Pretty fitting. 

This really stuck with me, and a handful of the characteristics of the show and books became the basis for the way I picture The Theory of Everything. Mainly the visual aesthetic, like I said, but also the fact that the story starts at a parallel version of Oxford University. I don’t have some giant case study for this like with Transitus/New England. I just think it’d be a cool and vibey setting. Maybe it’s the American in me but there’s something about a thousand-year-old college with a campus made of literal goddamn castles that borders on the fantastic. 

From there, you have a decent excuse for The Prodigy to run off to Ireland, where you can choose from one of like 200 different pretty little isolated lighthouses for him to lose his mind in, far enough away for him not to be found as long as he did. Not to mention it lowkey matches with the overt Celtic influence of the music. Or Scotland, if you want some weather symbolism from the North Sea. 

Solid setting, if I say so myself, and it actually influenced the family’s whole situation. Here, The Father (Mike) is a physics professor at Oxford, and The Mother (Cristina) is the director of the Bodleian Library. It’s how and where they meet in 1991 (though the mother is in an attendant position at the time), as shown by the only part of this I have drawn out:

They hit it off, and marry in 1993. Their first and only child is born two years later and they love him half to death. Everything is more or less nice and normal. 

In 1996, Mike stumbles into “proof,” more or less, of the theory of everything being a singular, solvable equation through his work, practically by accident, and begins focused work on it with enthusiastic support from his wife. Life is going great, Cristina is promoted and the two are balancing things well enough. 

The boy shows little to no social development into his toddler years, but his parents don’t think much of it. His father was similar at his age; they’re not worried. They even go as far to say he’ll turn out just as ambitious and smart as his dad and relatives, coworkers and family friends go along with it, setting insanely high expectations for this literal three year old. Mike keeps working on his theory. 

The boy enters preschool at age four; still no improvement. Just isolates himself and draws indiscernible patterns on everything you put in front of him. His parents finally try to intervene to some degree, hiring private instructors and talking with some other psych/child development people they know through the university, to no avail. Nothing changes. He just stares off into space, doesn’t interact with any of them and supposedly doesn’t pay attention to lessons. He still isn’t speaking. Cristina is finally concerned

Around the same time, Mike makes a significant breakthrough in his work, gaining worldwide attention. He receives massive grants from in and outside of Oxford to continue his work, and quits his teaching job to make more time for the endeavor. Cristina is left as the family’s sole provider. She understands and is in agreement on that decision, that’s not the problem yet. The problem is that Mike is becoming more or less indifferent to their son hits five, not seeing any previously projected greatness he was supposed to have in his father’s footsteps. Cristina, much more conscious of balance in her life and how having kids works, isn’t sure what to make of that. Their relationship starts to strain. 

From there, as Mike keeps working, Cristina takes the kid to all sorts of specialists around England but none of them can pinpoint what’s “wrong” with him. She tries much more actively to connect with him like they’re telling her to (though she still enrolls him in the university’s affiliated primary school program, against their suggestions), bringing him everywhere. Buys him little memory games since that’s all that seems to hold his attention. She’s past any belief of him being some secret genius like his dad, not that her opinion of her husband is super positive at this point anyway. She’s just dead-set on her son having some sense of normal in his life. 

By 2002, Mike has completely secluded himself and works nearly constantly. He has made no progress on his theory since 1999 and the fame garnered from his breakthrough has faded. The family is running out of money and Cristina is exhausted. The boy is ostracized at school and still (almost) totally nonverbal. Her coworkers keep suggesting these weird holistic remedies that she refuses. She knows better than to fall for all that new age, pyramid scheme bullshit. 

The son’s condition, whatever it is, worsens until mom, desperate, puts her foot down in 2008 (or “gives up,” if you wanna put it like that) and drags her husband and son to this private practice in Scotland she was told about by a friend, suspicious but ready to put up with anything at this point. 

😐👍

[approximateknowledge]

Repiton and turning the uncanny vally upside-down: a rant pretending to be an analysis

Vast Error does a great job at making its main world, Repiton, feel truly broken. but more so than in grand shows of devastation or shambling quasi-undead, it shows in the daily lives of the characters. in the mundane. the familiar.

because here's the thing; it's too familiar. that's the genius of it all.

let's step back a bit; i don't think many non-homestucks read Vast Error. it might not be directly connected to it plot-wise, but it is on framework- and worldbuilding level (and technically also directly via the whole Midnight Crew/ Dead Shufflers intermission overlap). you're supposed to know how things are "supposed" to be.

which brings us to Alternia/Beforus. the place trolls came from in "canon". the place where expectations about what is normal formed. both versions of the world have massive differences, but the one thing they have in common is how absurdly a alive they are. Alternia was a death world, but anything but a dead world.

and what's often overlooked is that the drones and biotech and intertwined systems of automation and symbiosis on both versions of these worlds made them functionally post-scarcity! the enslaved alien races under the Alternian Empire were hatesinks, not labor force. all manual labour is automated and done by drones. drones they co-evolved with. i don't think it's far-fetched to claim trolls functionally *evolved* in a post-scarcity environment!

so what's at the core of troll society?

-unstable intraspecies dynamics that turn violent easily, and are often fatal, which makes some sense considering (see next point).

-a complex eusocial r-selected (<explains the ease of killing from an evolutionary perspective) reproductive strategy with 3 ""sexes""; drones, mother grubs, and trolls.

-technology, society, and ecology/biology form a continuum, much more so than it does for humans. computers are alive, hivestems grow.

and by the time you finish Homestuck, even if you never cared much about worldbuilding in such a way, you pick up on that. maybe not the details, but at least the aesthetic, the vibe of it. and despite how weird much of it is in comparison to the human baseline, your brain adapts.

because you know how people often say this story alters your brain structure? this is one of the ways how. when trolls are involved, it flips over the uncanny valley graph, subjectively speaking.

and the bottom of the valley becomes the peak, and that's where Alternia resides (forgive the horrble drawing, im doing this on my laptop's touchpad)

so where does that leave Repiton? on Repiton, there are no mother grubs or drones. on Repiton technology is dead, made of metal and plastic. on Repiton there's ads. there's shortages. Repiton is more familiar from a human perspective than Alternia or Beforus could ever be. and that's why it feels wrong. because the graph is still flipped.

it's way down in the valley that used to be a peak.

im not entirely sure how much sense i am making here but so be it.

[dragonsfromthemoon]

ON ASOIAF, AGE GAP AND RHAELYA

This is a topic discussed over and over on fandom spaces. Often it is brought up by antis as a “gotcha!” against the fans of certain fictional couples — and on this meta, my focus is mostly on Rhaegar and Lyanna, though some arguments can be used for other ships as well.

That said, we have two ways of looking into this subject in the context of A Song of Ice and Fire.

Parting from a doylist analysis, we could rightfully criticize George R. R. Martin for his approach to age and relationships, especially regarding his female characters. In Rhaegar and Lyanna's case, we could object him putting an underage girl in a relationship with a married man about eight years her senior. If I were the one writing this story, I would have aged Lyanna up; there is no narrative/worldbuilding/plot reason for not doing that. Alas, I am not George R. R. Martin, the story does not belong to me.

The gist here, however, is reprobating the author's conscious choices, nor the characters themselves or their relationship. Rhaegar and Lyanna cannot make decisions or be held accountable in the real world, as they are only fragments of George R. R. Martin's imagination and words on a blank paper. The same is valid for any other relationship featured on Planetos.

Nevertheless, a doylist analysis is bound to face some questions and run into some issues as well. The first being, who is the one raising the objections? The answer is crucial, because the objector parts from their own vision of the world — which is dictated by one's upbringing, moral and culture. Needless to say, all of these things vary from person to person. Different fans will approach the matter of age gaps differently, based on their own opinions and experiences. The second one is, who gets to judge what is right or wrong? And this is followed by the question: what is the the acceptable age gap — 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 1 year? Months? We would debate over it endlessly, because there is really no right answer, and everyone would apply their own biases to the issue. Thirdly, why did the objector decide to engage with a material that features such age gaps in the first place? We have the power over what we read and watch, over the fandoms we join; as well as the power of not engaging with triggering content for us anymore. Sanitizing fiction is not the way to go, because it brings more harm than good in the form of persecution and harassment of content creators and censorship (again, who gets to decide what must be censored and why?)

There are two more intertwined factors to take into account when discussing a doylist perspective: George R. R. Martin's historical inspirations and worldbuilding. Though so many times exaggerated and factually wrong, the fact remains that he draws inspiration from the European Middle Age (with focus on England) to build Planetos. And that reflects directly on the issues of age in his work. Childhood, adulthood, marriageable age, age of context are notions that differ drastically from our contemporary ones. We are talking about distincts periods of history, with distinct approaches to social and cultural norms, after all. Here the author himself discusses the issue of ages, if one would be interested to read on the topic.

Which brings me to the watsonian analysis part of this essay. Above all, the in-universe context matters here. And if we hope to understand the characters, their actions and views on relationships in a deep level, we cannot dissociate them from their historical and social in-universe background.

By the time Lyanna met Rhaegar, she was 14 and already engaged to Robert Baratheon. Her fiance Robert, by the way, was also older than her. By all accounts he desired her and claimed to love her, constructed an image of her in his mind. It is safe to speculate she would have been expected to marry Robert not long after Brandon Stark's marriage to Catelyn, if her elopement with Rhaegar and the Rebellion had not happened. My point here is, this was hardly a frowned upon marriage arrangement in A Song of Ice and Fire. Except for Lyanna, that is, as she did not desire Robert nor this marriage. Even so, her issue was not with his age (her distaste for Robert is a whole other discussion).

Well, when Lyanna starts her affair with Rhaegar de facto, she is about 16 (not 14, as antis like to claim; let's get our facts straight). By Westerosi standards, a woman grown, apt to marry and bear children. Rhaegar was about 24. Thus they have a 8 years age gap. This is hardly a remarkable age difference in Westeros, as so many couples have it even bigger. Almost all of romantic entanglements in this story have an element of age imbalance. I will not name these examples; I trust the readers to come up with their own.

My point here is, through watsonian lens, the age gap between Lyanna and Rhaegar is scarcely a problem or something to be particularly condemned. And quite frankly, there are other aspects of their characters and their dynamic that are more relevant to discuss, if we as readers take upon us to analyse them.