I've literally spent hours at this point trying to articulate how the old/new money condescension in "Such elegant finery. It seems you've overcome the disadvantages of your upbringing." encapsulates everything about why Viren is Like That(tm) at least through the end of s3 but for some reason I simply cannot???
so like just TRUST ME okay, everything Viren does makes 100% actual sense through the lens of deep-seated insecurity over never being an equal of the people surrounding him in a way that isn't afforded purely by their good graces, and knowing that they're all both aware of that and aware that he's aware of it
47 notes
·
View notes
Three houses has repeatedly stated that Edelgard's and Claude's goals aren't that different. (Even if they really are pretty different???) Has Claude be willing to surrender in favor of helping out the empire later when he's got an axe to his throat. Seems to me it's less "This is out of character and bad writing" and more "This isn't isn't what I expected and I don't like it." Also you can't really go "This isn't canon" When it has writers from three houses writing for the game lmao
spoiler talk, mostly for GW and a bit for SB
Nonnie. Pal. Buddy.
If 3Hopes Claude was written in line with 3H Claude, and he is ready and willing to join Edelgard - for whatever reason, even if to backstab her - then why doesn't he... do that. In 3H. Like on CF or AM or SS, where Byleth isn't around to *~guide him~* (which is the most common explanation I’ve seen given to his character portrayal in 3Hopes, but also applies to other possible explanations).
What part of that makes any sense? What stopped him from doing that in 3H, outside of 3Hopes writing his character badly? Why is it when Byleth has no influence on him in 3H, or when he doesn't trust the Church in 3H, or when he doesn't have many friends/bonds in 3H - all those things that are the same in 3H as they are in 3Hopes - does he not do in 3H what he does in 3Hopes? In fact, why does he not flat out join Edelgard genuinely on CF, since he's apparently oh so willing to join Edelgard and/or kill Rhea and on CF there's Byleth to act as a Stamp of Approval?
I mean, I could tell you what stopped him from doing that in 3H; his base, core moral standards, that he always has as part of the foundation of his character. He does not like causing needless bloodshed and always avoids doing so whenever possible, he does not like Edelgard's methods and thinks them too harmful, he does not trust Edelgard in general, his curiosity over the Church's/Rhea's secrets stops him from ever outright destroying it/killing her (along with his acknowledgement that both the Church and Rhea - or someone in her position - are needed for Fodlan). You cannot write Claude properly without keeping in line with these base facts about his character, unless you've established a pretty damn in-depth character arc that dissolve these traits off of him.
So, yes, when I see him cause needless bloodshed, utilize similarly harmful methods like Edelgard, trust in Edelgard's word and nothing else, reject any curiosity he has for the Church/Rhea in favor of just killing Rhea without getting any answers (because Claude certainly gives no shit about answers to mysteries amiright), yeah, I'm gonna call it out of character and bad writing. Because it is out of character and bad writing.
Cuz, like, "[3H] Has Claude be willing to surrender in favor of helping out the empire later when he's got an axe to his throat" those circumstances - and the results of them - are nowhere near comparable to what happens in GW, and is (and sorry if this sounds rude) a bad description of what happened in CF. Claude in CF surrenders and agrees to leave Fodlan entirely and pleads with Edelgard to leave the Alliance - and his friends - alone because he swears they'll be cooperative. Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't sound anything like "hey Edelgard let's team up and invade the Kingdom because Rhea Bad lol” or “I think it’s a good idea to instigate conflict between Faerghus and Sreng to make the Kingdom weaker (you know that thing TWS did for Edelgard with Duscur).”
Claude in 3H does not actively help Edelgard at any point in all of 3H. Ever. The most he does to "help" her is, again, swearing that the Alliance won't stand up against her, and that wasn't to help Edelgard as much as it was him trying to keep the Alliance safe. Because that goes back to his want to keep the bloodshed to a minimum. That core character trait of his that is completely absent in GW, because siding with the one causing the bloodshed and himself causing the bloodshed does literally nothing to stop the bloodshed as 3H!Claude shows is his belief because he never sides with Edelgard *specifically because of her blood-filled methods.* The ones that he is literally replicating in GW.
Because, again, there is literally. No. Reason. Why, if it is in-line with Claude’s character to side with Edelgard, that he wouldn’t just side with Edelgard in 3H (or do the equivalent of that like he does with Dimitri, like giving over Failnaught), because there are exactly zero things that differ between the two games that would explain him not doing that in CF for 3H. In CF, he does not have Byleth to help him open up to others. In CF, he would have Byleth actively feed into his distrust of the Church because of their decision to side against it. In CF, he wouldn’t have many bonds with others. And yet and still, he does not join Edelgard on CF, he does not harm the Church in any way on any route (higher ups or not), he only “invades” the Empire after it’d already made multiple assaults against the Alliance army and never invades the Kingdom in any way - on and off his route we see time and time again him make a resolute stance to not assist the Empire/Edelgard in any direct way, to not cause undue bloodshed, to keep fighting to the minimum he can, and the one “exception” is still not meant to help Edelgard or to take down the Church/Rhea but to keep his people safe from harm.
And it’s just because in 3Hopes, Claude is not written in character. He is going against multiple core facets of his character that was established in 3H with no development - positive or negative - to explain why that is. And given that this is literally a self-described “alternative storyline” - AKA, it is not 3H - then I can in fact say that this isn’t canon because it literally isn’t. I accept 3Hopes as its own story separate from 3H as that is 1) what it sells itself as, and 2) the only nice way to explain away all of the blatant contradictions between it and 3H. Which include Claude lol
67 notes
·
View notes
ok now that the rage is out, actual rational reason for why this pisses me off so much.
if my love & devotion to pandora hearts didn't make it clear enough, my favorite niche of media is alice in wonderland inspired works. if i know something is inspired by aiw, i'm gonna at least look into it automatically. dunno why, honestly. but, it's been like this since i was SUPER young.
that being said, im obviously p versed in alice in wonderland inspired media. i haven't consumed them all, i'm sure there's many i'm unaware of, but. i've consumed enough to confidently assure alice in borderland is the first time i personally have ever seen an alice in wonderland inspired media portray alice as a guy, while still having him be named alice.
and, like! it's honestly SUPER clever to get away with doing this by having alice be ryohei's last name instead of his first. because, obviously, 'alice' is not typically a male name. it can be bc gender is a concept yada yada, but. like. u get what i mean.
so, like. baring that in mind. if somebody who has absolutely zero concept of how japanese pronunciation works stumbled across alice in borderland, & watched w the english subtitles... they'd have no reason to question if 'arisu' is meant to be 'alice'. bc. why would it be? they're expecting 'alice' to be a female character.
& so, like. it honestly rly fucking sucks that this really interesting way of taking the alice in wonderland inspo & portraying its references as it does gets completely sacked & made out as pointless by having alice not be referred to AS alice.
& even more so bc additionally, the white rabbit is a woman in the show. so, we have these two prominent characters from alice in wonderland being swapped. but, like. that doesn't even get to be properly appreciated bc they don't let u know alice IS alice. it genuinely just comes across as 'huh, weird this show named alice in borderland, & that's v clearly inspired by alice in wonderland, has a MALE lead & his name is arisu. weird this aiw inspired media has no alice.'
tbh part of me wonders if that's why they decided to go w that decision. to blatantly erase how silently groundbreaking it is to have an alice in wonderland inspired work where alice is still named alice, but is a guy instead of a girl. the silent way that breaks down gender stereotypes and such. but, nope. that all gets lost.
fucking bullshit.
also yes ik im v stupidly passionate abt this, but again. aiw-inspired works is my FAVORITE niche genre of media ever. my favorite series of all time is literally an aiw-inspired work. ive never seen an aiw-inspired work do this. not saying no others exist, & if they do, pls lmk! but. yeah. it does suck the only example ik of doing this gets stomped by refusing to let alice be named alice.
6 notes
·
View notes
posts about colonization in tlt if u have? ty <3
I actually don't have any on hand, sorry!
I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of Aoteora's history or its cultural relationship with colonization to write one, and we don't know very much about how the world of the Locked Tomb actually functions (yet), so there's only so far we can go with that system in isolation.
There definitely is something there to explore in the way the narrative treats the idea of heritage, blood lineage, and territorial rights. Given that several key characters are coded as Māori, I'm going to be closely watching what Nona and Alecto do with those themes and seeing how it looks through the lens of the research I've been doing into mana whenua, mana tangata, and mana tūpuna. I am still just a little baby when it comes to understanding these concepts, so I can't teach them, but I do encourage you to come down this research rabbit hole with me if you have an interest in examining the way the series is handling its narrative surrounding colonization!
18 notes
·
View notes
some important calvin and hobbes facts in case you haven't read the original comic strip in a long time or only absorbed stuff on it from memes and out of context bits on here:
Calvin's last name has never been given, and neither has any of his parent's names. This was actually why his uncle Max only showed up for a brief storyline; the creator of the comic, Bill Watterson, ultimately felt that while it was fine to have him as someone for his parents to talk to, it felt far too awkward to never have Max refer to them by name and he never made a return appearance.
The general tone of the comic is fairly light-hearted, with a big emphasis on goofy slapstick comedy contrasted by clever wordplay and often surprising adult-centered jokes that'll hit you like a slap. A big part of the comedy is, as Watterson put it (paraphrased) "It's really funny to me when people express deeply stupid ideas with really fancy terminology." One notable example you might have seen is that one bit where Calvin asks his mom for money to buy a Satan-worshiping rock album and his mom replies that there's nothing genuine about them and they're just putting on the attitude for shock value, and comisserates with Calvin as he deplores that mainstream nihilism can't be trusted. He concludes that childhood is disillusioning.
There is a LOT of criticism of the extreme materialism and selfish mentality of the late 80s, when the comic was initially written. This may go a long way to explain how its aged so well; much of what it criticizes resonates well with people today.
Bill Watterson views comic strips a legitimate form of artwork, and repeatedly fought to have more space to draw more beautiful and artistic backgrounds, which was a very hard fight and unpopular even with other comic strip artists. He eventually did win some compromises and a lot of Calvin And Hobbes' artwork shows it, with the use of space to indicate time as well as a sharp contrast between the often plain environments of mundane life contrasted by the wildly beautiful imagery of Calvin's imagination (which often sports realistic depictions in an art shift of sorts).
Hobbes is explicitly not an imaginary friend, by word of Watterson himself. We don't know WHAT he is exactly, and Hobbes is apparently unaware of the strange nature of his reality; people look at him and only see an ordinary stuffed tiger plushie, but he has a tangible effect on the world that would be physically impossible for Calvin to do on his own. He's apparently been around for a while, and was apparently around when Calvin was a young baby.
On that note; Hobbes has implicitly killed (notably treated as both a gag and also with the vibe of 'he's a tiger, duh') and while he doesn't do it again on-screen, he doesn't have any moral issues about it. Calvin claims that he's never had trouble bringing Hobbes to school because the last time he did, Hobbes killed and ate a bully named Tommy Chestnut and simply comments that it was gross and he needed a bath. Calvin's tried to repeat this again, but Hobbes was grossed out at the thought having to eat a kid raw and not being allowed to use an oven first, or complaining that children are too fattening.
Hobbes became gradually less human-like in body language and more like an actual cat in both body language and behavior; this was due to Watterson drawing more inspiration from his cat, who also inspired a lot of Hobbes' running gags, such as pouncing on Calvin when he got home. Several years into the syndication of the strip, Watterson's cat passed away, and he did a tribute to her with a comic strip of the two of them agreeing to try to dream together so they can keep playing when they have to sleep; Watterson's commentary (if I recall right), remarks on his cat: "We can see each other again in dreams."
34K notes
·
View notes