#GREAT META ANALYSIS | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

inbarfink · 7 months

Text

Any analysis of how Undertale deals with Pacifism and how it tries to guide the Player towards it has to take a deep look at Papyrus. Because Papyrus is the one character in the game who will never kill, the one actual ‘True Pacifist’ in the game’s main cast.

I mean, the Player can be an even bigger Pacifist. Papyrus does still FIGHT, and the Player can get through an entire run without draining a single sliver of HP. But… they can also be the world’s biggest murderbastard and literally stab reality to death.

Toriel would very much like to not kill, but she is also fully capable of doing so.

Same with Asgore, but he has a lot more actual blood on his hands. Undyne and Mettaton are both fully 100% willing to kill to accomplish their goals. Sans is non-violent in most runs because he’s too lazy and depressed to do anything, and when he is motivated into actions - it is in the form of a FIGHT to the death. Alphys… the timeline is a bit fuzzy cause both she and Mettaton love lying so much, but it seems like she did sincerely add deadly weapons to Mettaton cause killing humans would make him more 'useful' and then had second thoughts once she developed a parasocial relationship with the Human Child and THEN she and Mettaton started hatching their little play-acting plan. I think??

With Papyrus there is NONE of this ambiguity, we know for sure - no matter what timeline or what may come - The Great Papyrus will always choose MERCY.

And the interesting thing about that is on a Meta-Sense, Papyrus is a very rare example of the game giving MERCY towards the Player.

Because the game starts out being really obtuse with the Sparing mechanic and how it works. If you want to be a Pacifist in Undertale from the get-go, you’re gonna have to work for it. You're gonna have to figure it out on your own and commit to it and believe that it's possible. It's basically a test of your own belief in non-violence and your moral integrity. Then, the RUINS end with the Toriel boss battle - in a way, that’s probably the hardest Sparing puzzle in the whole game. And it’s very very easy to accidentally kill her. (I’d almost say that’s the intention of the battle, to try to goad the Player into Resetting so they can see how the game remembers across RESETs)

And then we have Papyrus, and it’s not just that his ‘Sparing Puzzle’ is something as simple as outlasting him and letting him run out of dialogue - and it’s not just that he’s the only boss that will just give up and let you continue if you lose to him enough times. it’s also that, just as Papyrus is the only boss incapable of accidentally killing the Player - he’s also the only boss that the player is incapable of accidentally killing.

(Okay, fine, to be pedantic, there’s also Asgore)

I mean, the Player can certainly kill him if they want to - but draining Papyrus’s HP just makes him skip through his battle dialogue right to the end of it. It’s designed in such a way that, no matter what Route you're on and no matter what approach you take with Papyrus - you will always end up on this screen.

Unlike basically any other Monster in this game, including the major boss battle just before him - you can’t kill Papyrus accidently. You can't kill him without also having Sparing him as an option. The game kinda treats killing Papyrus as one of the Worst Things You Can Do because killing Papyrus will always be a deliberate, considered action done to a person who will not kill you and who has stopped wanting to FIGHT and has extended a hand of Mercy. With the game clearly communicating what you need to do to Spare him at that moment.

And that means that - even if you killed before, even if you don’t have the patience of a True Pacifist, even if you spent all this time in the game without even trying to engage with the Sparing mechanic… as long as you don’t want to be a Huge Rat Bastard, the game is basically gifting you with the very very easy option to not be. Being a Pacifist in Undertale is usually a challenge - a puzzle to be solved, a test to pass. But as long as you aren’t intentionally trying to be the Worst Person - the game is basically giving you Papyrus.

If you accept his Mercy, you are accepting the game’s Mercy. That sort of benefit-of-the-doubt assumption that maybe all of the LOVE you might have accumulated so far was all due to honest mistakes or panic or an attempt in self-defense. That you still deserve this one chance to prove that you are not intentionally, maliciously cruel - or at least not like the Worst Person in the World. Even if you did kill before, you still deserve at least one friend.

And Sparing Papyrus leads you to his wonderful Hangout/Dating Sequence and to his Phone Calls and they all add so much wholesome charm to the Undertale experience and no matter what happens Papyrus will always think the best of the Player and he will always trust them and it also makes Sans also kinda your buddy by default. And more than just adding a little bit of wholesome charm into even the more LOVE-filled Playthroughs, I think this is meant to try and incentivize these players into trying out the Mercy mechanic a bit more.

Whatever it’s, like, for future playthroughs or Resetting the game right there to try a True Pacifist Run right there and then or just trying to be a little kinder for the rest of this current playthrough - especially since there’s an emphasis about the close friendship Papyrus has with the upcoming boss Undyne, and to a lesser extent with his idol and next-next boss battle Mettaton. It’s like “well, if you didn’t figure out how to spare before, this is how you do it? And isn’t it nice to have a friend? Isn’t it nice to not have to kill this lovable skeleton man? You should do this more often wink wink nudge nudge!”

And it’s like… all of Papyrus’ loved ones care about him so much but they also look down on his pacifism. They see his inability to kill and desire to make friends as simple naivete and that’s why all tend to hide the truth from him all the time. About what will happen to the Human he will capture, about what his new Human friend might’ve done, about the fact that they view him as so naïve.

They admire it on some level, that’s why they want to protect it, but they also see it as a weakness which is why they want to protect it by lying to him all the time. But, you know, Undyne says that if Papyrus goes into battle he’ll be ‘ripped into little smiling shreds’ and that is certainly what happens every time a Player chooses to refuse Papyrus’ Mercy and the game’s Mercy and press that FIGHT button…

But have you thought about all the times that doesn’t happen? All the careless or violent players who were offered that skeletal hand of friendship, accepted it and then carried that offered kindness forward for the rest of the game? All the players motivated to do good for the sake of their buddy Papyrus? All the Murder Routes stopped because the player just didn’t have it in them to kill someone who believes in them so earnestly?

Like, no, it’s not a surefire thing - especially since Papyrus has so much less narrative power than the Actual Unkillable Time God that is the Player. But it happened, and it happened many many times to many players. Papyrus offered Mercy, the game offered Mercy. And much like Frisk’s Pacifism, it comes from a place of seeing the honest goodness in your ‘enemy’ and can inspire them to become a better person - this little sparkle of goodness being passed forwards.

And I think that’s beautiful, even if it didn’t happen in every timeline. Any potential future where Papyrus’ kindness can have such an effect on the Player and thus the entire trajectory of the Underground validates his kindness and pacifism on some level - even if there are also always the potential worlds that it backfires completely.

And there’s also one other way in which the Great Papyrus Proves Pacifism Pays. One that is a bit more practical, perhaps. And one that Papyrus himself is not even aware of.

Papyrus’ boss battle can be a surprisingly challenging one specifically because he is the only one who doesn’t kill the Player.

Like there is a reason why Papyrus will just offer you to skip his Fight after you lose to him three times, because if he didn’t do that - there’s an honest risk that the Player can get stuck in a much stuckier way than anywhere else in the game.

Because, like, for basically any other character in the game, being killed is the Worst Thing that could ever happen to them. For everyone except the actual Player Character because we are an Actual Unkillable Time God and dying is nothing more than a minor annoyance that sets you back to your last SAVE Point. So, leaving aside Papyrus’ admirably kind intentions - there is not much material difference from the Player’s perspective between getting Captured and getting a more traditional GAME OVER. Except…

Except getting Captured does not undo everything that happened in your inventory during the battle. In every other Undertale battle, if you use all of your items but still lose - the GAME OVER at least means you get your stuff back. But because Papyrus doesn’t kill you, any healing item you’ve used during the battle is still used. I have watched so many Undertale Let’s Players waste all of their valuable items on their first Papyrus battle and then have to face him again without them and thus do even worse in their second go… and then their third go... and thankfully then Papyrus offers them to skip the fight.

And while that technically can be circumvented by just manually closing the game and opening it back again on their pre-battle SAVE Point, a lot of players are gonna reflexively Save over it if they pop over to the Shop or the Snowed Inn before their second attempt at the battle. If Papyrus didn’t offer that chance to skip his battle, it could’ve easily become a softlock situation for a huge chunk of players - because he doesn’t kill the Player.

Most of Undertale deals with the value of non-violence from a standpoint of morality and kindness and personal connections. Since most people do die when they get killed. But when dealing with an Unkillable Time God like the Player, Papyrus proves that not-killing might actually be the most practical solution.

Of course, it doesn’t seem like Papyrus is aware of any of this. From his perspective, he is just offering genuine mercy to a being just as ephemeral as he is. But it accidentally turned into one of the most effective methods of blocking the Player’s way… at least he didn’t offer us an opt out so soon after that.

And it’s interesting when comparing him to how his brother Sans - one of the few people actually aware of the existence of SAVEs and RESETs - deals with the Player. Because the Sans boss battle at the end of the Murder Route is entirely based on the concept that death is nothing but an annoyance to the Player. Sans is less trying to kill the Player (the way Undyne the Undying did), he is simply trying to annoy the Player into a ragequit. But he is still killing the Player.

Now imagine a Sans battle where he has all of his usual annoying tricks, but also instead of killing you - he captures you just like his brother would’ve in a happier timeline. And while it’s not a fool-proof plan to stop the Player in their tracks - he could very easily stick them in that sort of softlock situation where they have to battle him again and again without any Healing Items. Forcing them to either abandon the game or RESET the whole world back the way it was - just like Sans wants them too.

But instead, by killing the Player, he is just allowing that perfect second-third-fourth-fifth-sixth-try where they get all of their Stuff back. And he does actually knows that. And why doesn’t he do that? (Speaking here from an in-universe character study perspective. Obviously the Doylist answer is that the game doesn’t want to Softlock you even in the most deliberately-frustrating part of the game).

Maybe, even though he intellectually knows that killing the Player will be of no help - he still does it because he wants to. Because he just wants to get back at the evil murderous monster that took his brother from him and destroyed his entire world even if he knows it’s actually ineffective. And this thirst for bloodshed is, ironically, blinding him from a new exciting way to actually practically stop that murderous bastard who is themself motivated entirely by bloodshed.

Maybe he just can’t do something like that. Reducing an enemy to exactly one HP and then stopping is not a feat anyone else in the game is capable of pulling off - even the ones who would obviously use such a thing (like Toriel or a Player with a Pacifist intentions). Maybe it’s something that requires a lot of hard practice and discipline and carefulness, that Sans never thought to put in because he didn’t see it as a useful skill the way Papyrus did.

Maybe that wouldn’t have worked anyways. After all, and that’s something I kinda touched on in a previous Overly Long Rambly Hot Take - Sans’ War of Attrition against the Player is greatly helped by the fact he can’t remember every single previous try and so he can’t get exhausted the way the Player can get. Obviously, without a GAME OVER induced RESET that will not apply. Which is especially notable because… Sans’ laziness is literally what brings him down at the end of that Boss Battle.

So maybe, while Papyrus, as long as you decline his offer to skip the battle, is capable of offering just the same Battle as before over and over and over again.... It’s possible that Sans just won’t be able to pull off two or three or more battles of the same intensity and difficulty in a row without a RESET to undo his own exhaustion.

But I think it’s at least worth considering the option, y’know? That after all this time of viewing Papyrus’ kindness as sweet-and-yet-kinda-foolish-naïveté - that exact viewpoint made Sans overlook the perfect solution to dealing with his little Murderous Time God problem. Cause he just never considered that while killing might be fully morally justifiable in this situation and very very satisfying, that does not necessarily mean it is actually the most practical solution. And that maybe, in a weirdly twisted way, Pacifism WAS the answer.

#undertale #ut #utdr #under tale #papyrus #the great papyrus #papyrus undertale #papyrus ut #sans #sans undertale #sans ut #sans the skeleton #papyrus the skeleton #undertale analysis #undertale meta #genocide route #genocide run

1K notes · View notes

physical-manifestation-of-spite · 14 days

Text

I keep thinking about Arthur's regression at the end of Season 2 and then into Season 3. I keep thinking about how victims of trauma tend to get worse once they escape their traumatic situation. How their body and mind start to crack and shake under the weight of the horrors, now safe enough to escape the survivorship mindset but now forced to endure the fallout.

I keep thinking of how hard Faroe's death hit Arthur. How his guilt and grief were so intense that he wanted to kill himself, so low that he drank himself into a stupor for who knows how many years to just dull the pain. I keep imagining how hard it was to pull himself out of that, to work with Parker and find a new meaning in life, to walk away from his guilt of killing his daughter, and instead to help people.

(I keep thinking of how Arthur finds a vial of alcohol in the Dreamlands. How he sniffs it and recoils in disgust.)

I keep thinking of how long it took for Arthur to build himself back up from his lowest point, to tuck the guilt of Faroe in the deepest corner of his mind just so that he has enough room to breathe, to live, to be a better person. (And yet, Faroe is every facet of his life. It's his first memory in Season One, when he plays Faroe's Song, when he doesn't even remember his own name. It's the last name on his lips when he dies on that boat. It's his only memory when John is torn away from him.) I keep thinking about how Arthur is consciously repressing her every second of every day just so that he can keep going.

And then John pushes, and asks, and asks again. And finally, after almost dying twice with this entity, after surviving time and time again, he thinks he can trust him. He thinks he can share his deepest secret, to pull open the wound he keeps stitching over to protect himself. How he risks feeling the grief he's suppressed for years to trust someone. I keep thinking how John seizes it and, because he is ancient and young and inexperienced, childlike in his tantrums and his fears of responsibility and consequence, he uses it as a weapon the moment he's backed into a corner. I keep thinking of how not only the trust is torn away from Arthur, but how his wound is stretched and torn, and not only does his guilt and grief come back, but it's like a tidal wave that he cannot suppress this time. He's opened that wound and John has pried it wider, and now Arthur can't shut it. He survives in those pits, but she is all he thinks of. He escapes those pits, and ("Goodbye, Faroe.") she is all he thinks of. He slits his throat and she's all he thinks of.

He enters at icy cabin (a small gurgle, a bundle of blankets in his arm, a warm hum rumbling in his chest as he lulls his whole World to sleep) and he thinks of her to keep going.

And then Yellow enters, a blank slate, a John before he was John, and the pain is too fresh. This is the thing that tortured him. This is the thing that starved him. This is the thing who asked who his daughter was, and when he told him, the thing called him a killer. John and Yellow and the King are all the same in that moment, and Arthur's too fucked up and traumatized to separate them tangibly, as much as he insists that he can. His hatred grows and grows, all from himself, until it bleeds into Yellow, and he remakes this entity in his image, in his self-pitying hatred.

So when Yellow finally calls him a monster (and Arthur knows, he's called himself that the moment he saw the water spill from the bathtub onto the tile below), Arthur holds it close to his chest, and becomes it.

#fuck twitter's limited character amount #so i came here #season three has actually fucked me up #i genuinely thought season three would be my least favorite season when I first listened to it because I was still grieving over john #and then it became my favorite #it's such a great look into ptsd #malevolent #spiteful musings #meta analysis #malevolent podcast #arthur lester #john doe #malevolent john

329 notes · View notes

the-cat-and-the-birdie · 1 month

Text

ATSV Fun Fact!! - Mumbattan Cultural Details

Gayatri & Inspector Singh follow the Sikh Religion

Have you ever heard of Punjabi Sikhs?

If you don't know - Sikhism is a religion that originates in northern India, specifically Punjab.

The turban Gayatri's father wears - along with his last name 'Singh' implies that her father is most likely a Punjabi Sikh.

I notice this the first time watching ATSV and was like 'wow that's so cool :)'

It only hit me today that 'Oh wait I don't think a lot of people know about this very-specific, rarely-mentioned religion maybe i should say something,'

And because I LOVE yelling about world culture, LET'S GO!!!

[a SHORT essay where I explain the basics of Sikhism, a religion built on equality and justice. And details in The Singhs design, and exactly why Sikh Representation matters]

So What's Sikhism about?

Often mistaken for Muslims - Sikhs are actually a non-Abrahamic religion, with 20 million followers worldwide.

But even with so many visible practicing members, most people know very very little about this beautiful religion!

Sikhs believe in equality and unity - and defending the oppressed. Their book of faith, The Guru Granth Sahib Ji, is called 'Guru' for a reason - Sikhs see the book as not just a code of conduct, but as a living, breathing teacher for every practicioner;

From Wikipedia on Guru Granth Sahib: Sikhs since then [1708] have accepted the Guru Granth Sahib, the sacred scripture, as their eternal-living guru, as the embodiment of the ten Sikh Gurus, the highest religious and spiritual guide for Sikhs. It plays a central role in guiding the Sikh's way of life.

The Guru Granth Sahib is the spiritual leader of Sikhism, and it's treated as such.

That's why in Gurdwaras - their place of worship - it's treated as such, being clothed and held in ornate structure, constantly fanned throughout it's readings (the fan you can see in the left picture).

They believe that by following the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, they can cultivate compassion, peace, and harmony in their communities, while diminishing 'Mara' - concepts like hatred or violence.

Sikhs believe that every Sikh should revere themselves as champions of unity. And because of this many Sikhs have the same last name -

Kaur for women (Meaning Princess) and Singh for men (Meaning Lion).

Having the same last name also does away with the Indian caste system, making it another point of equality.

In ATSV Gayatri last name is Singh. However from my understanding, her name would most likely be Gayatri Kaur in reality.

I think they kept her last name as Singh as a deliberate choice to keep her initials as GS, like Gwen Stacy.

So is Gayatri Sikh?

Maybe - most likely.

But we can't be sure. Mainly because of her hair.

Gayatri has a short bob haircut, and while that might not seem like it matters, it does!

In Sikhism there are the '5K's - different aspects Sikhs wear to show their faith.

Notice the first one?

'Kesh' is the practice of leaving ones hair completely uncut. That's why you may see a lot of Sikh men with long, long beards!

And hence, the large turbans.

It's done as respect for God's creation - leaving it unaltered.

[Fun Fact! - Rastafarians, a Jamaican religion, also don't cut their hair for this reason. Think Bob Marley. Rastas call God - Jah]

So, Gayatri having short hair means she doesn't keep Kesh.

However, Sikh is a super accepting and open religion, and it's main focus is on acceptance of difference, not conformity - so she could entirely follow the faith without doing all of any of the 5Ks.

Also, if you're curious about the steel sword K - Kirpan, yes that's a thing!

Sikhs of all genders are encouraged to carry a small ceremonial blade with them.

Instead it's a symbol of the commitment to fighting for what's right - and defending those who cannot defend themselves.

A Kirpan can ONLY be used to defend the life of yourself or others, which is incredibly rare.

Why is this all so rad, cool, and important?

If you haven't noticed by now, Sikhism is a religion driven by justice. Not just in theory, but in really life as well.

That's why you may see many Sikh police officers and politicians, even here in the West. Most of them wearing the emblem on their turbans.

In fact, Canada has SO MANY Sikh politicians, that in 2019 they elected 18 of them.

For centuries Sikhs have been dedicated to justice, and developing systems of support, whether that be political involvement or feeding those in need.

The biggest Gurdwara (a place of Sikh worship) The Golden Temple feeds over 100,000 people A DAY.

For FREE.

It's a practice called Langar. A communal meal anyone can enjoy. And of course, Langar food is vegetarian.

Making Inspector Singh a Sikh - and showing him saving people and being warm to his daughter on screen is great representation for a community so often overlooked! Despite the fact they are over 20 million practicing Sikhs.

It's a great detail for Indian and Punjabi representation in specific. It accurate shows their beliefs and commitment towards helping others, no matter the cost.

And from what we can tell, this choice came later in development. We know this because ALL of his concept art shows him with a turban, not keeping Kesh.

It seems like someone later on down the line said 'Wait if his name is Singh I think he's Sikh and if he's Sikh then we're gonna have to redesign him and make that obvious oops'.

That, dear audience, is why you always have an Anthropologist in the writing room. Or some amateur anthropologist like me :)

-------------

I hope you enjoyed reading this, I really enjoyed writing it!! Sikhism is one of my favorite religions and if you have never heard anything from the Guru Granth Sahib I HIGHLY recommend it, it's very optimistic and compassionate. Sikhnet(.)com is also a great resource!

I have no idea if this will pique anyone's interest, but I hardly ever see Sikhs reflected in media and I know many many people may confuse them with Muslim, especially since many women Sikhs keep kesh and cover their hair as well.

But if you ever wanted to know the difference, here it is! If you read this far, thank you SO MUCH. And if you're a Sikh and reading this, I LOVE YOU SO MUCH.

As usual, here's a photo of Hobie for your travels.

BYE.

381 notes · View notes

super-who-locked-me-in-here · 4 months

Text

Me: All the characters in Hannibal are so well crafted because none of them are just one thing. Hannibal is a killer but also a lover. Jack is someone who cares very deeply about his friends, and sometimes the friendship blinds him and sometimes he destroys the friendship for the greater good. Alana is not just a love interest for the male leads; she finds power and companionship by making her own decisions, and she isn't always right in those decisions either. Even side characters are great. Chiyoh is very much a shield at Hannibal's whims (and Will's for a brief moment) but she's also very self-assured and doesn't follow the whims of others if she doesn't want to. Reba is very much traumatized by what Francis did to her (and rightfully so) and it's easy to put her in the victim category, especially with her disability, but she established early in her relationship with Francis that she is not to be pitied and she's very independent and that she can and will move on from hardships that come her way. Abel was a maniac who killed his own family and also just a little bit of a creep (mainly with Alana) but also he was cunning and sure of himself and had a sense of humor. It's just so cool how every character has strengths and weaknesses. Not one of them is all good or all bad and that's really cool.

Also me: Mason Verger is a despicable human being and the only thing I like about him is that I don't like literally anything about him. He's horrible and I know he already died but he should die again.

#mason is a great villain because i can't think of literally one nice thing to say about him like i can with every other character #except Cordell he can also die #hannibal analysis #kinda #meta #hannibal #hannibal lecter #jack crawford #alana bloom #chiyoh #reba mcclane #abel gideon #mason verger

270 notes · View notes

biceratops7 · 11 months

Text

… let’s talk about “Arrival”

So I was fully intending on making a more general but thorough peruse through the new Good Omens title sequence, because my FUCK aren’t those always a gold mine. But then I thought to myself, “hey wait a minute, I can be even more unhinged and on brand.”

Something I’ve seen nobody talk about yet is that the movie that the procession is marching into is The Arrival, which is a 90’s movie that draws a pretty straightforward parallel. But I think if it doubles as a reference to 2016’s Arrival, THAT has some much more interesting implications. Either way this reference is doing some heavy lifting.

For those who haven’t seen the movie (or that one philosophy tube video about it lol), the basic plot is that a group of aliens later named heptopods arrive on earth scattered across the world, and just kind of invite humanity to check them out. Each country hires a team of linguists who are all tasked with figuring out what the visitors are here for. But the thing is, it’s only about aliens on the surface level. This is really about communicating, cooperation, and how language holds the power to alter your very fabric of reality.

Spoilers for the movie:

Two major revelations occur towards the end of the movie. The first is that an element of fluid time is revealed. Throughout the movie, the main American linguist has been having flashbacks to a daughter that passed away of an illness. But since the heptopod language has no regard for chronological order, we learn that these are actually flash-forwards when she becomes nearly fluent. In other words, learning heptopod, having a genuine curiosity and even compassion for these vastly different beings. has given her the ability to perceive reality in ways thought previously impossible.

Even before noticing the Arrival reference, I’ve been side eyeing these “flashbacks”, but this and the image above confirmed it for me. Any instance of the word “becoming” when talking about the past indicates some sort of fluid time nonsense. The past is fixed unless something ✨happens✨. I don’t think these are simply memories, I think something rather cosmic instead is afoot.

But it’s more than just “there’s probably time travel in this” though. Simply having Aziraphale as a companion has changed Crowley. It’s given him an ability that he’s not meant to be capable of as a demon. He already had it in him to be good and have mutual relationships based in trust and kindness, I’m sure all demons can if given the right nurture… but Crowley is experiencing love. In the show, something tangible to the senses and distinctly angelic. I’m very much hoping that that whole element of things is going to somehow be a driving factor in what’s occurring over all, and possibly involved in time going screwy.

The other element of Arrival’s ending that’s of import, is the heavy emphasis on the importance of cooperation. First of all, we learn at some point that not every country has the same message to decipher, they each have one piece of a whole. Some of the countries begin using games to communicate with their heptopods, and this poses a problem because it causes messages to be more easily interpreted as hostile. For example, the phrase “we brought a tool” can be easily misconstrued as “we have a weapon.” Eventually, the world gets impatient and scared, and a war is imminent. What finally leads to everyone putting down arms and cooperating, is the American linguist sending a message to the Chinese linguist saying “in war, there are no victors, only widows.”

Something noteworthy about this particular march is that the procession never splits like it does at the end of the first season’s. Not only are both angelic and demonic figures marching into the light atop a mountain as a United front, but this actually seems to be a theme this season. Heaven and Hell aren’t working together as far as we know, but they are at least working towards the same goal, which for some reason is getting Gabriel’s ass. There is also a heavy emphasis on mending broken relationships, with Crowley and Azirphale trying to fix a (probably) lesbian couple literally being the B plot.

Now this is where we bring in what’s actually on the movie screen, which is that damn box. So at this point we know basically nothing about it accept for it probably being a Mcguffin. But we DO have the imagery of three feathers, a black one, a white one, and a bluish grey one, falling into it… and it sure as fuck looks like a moving box. So back to arrival, what actually was the message? The heptopods told the linguist that they’re here to help humanity (via giving them a tool or new tech I think?) because in 3,000 years, they will need humanity’s help. So with this and the world eventually being inspired to stand down and share their pieces of the message, it’s this over arching theme of setting aside fear of the other and cooperating indefinitely for the benefit of the whole. The black feather, the white feather… and then something that is somehow both yet entirely unique.

I think… somehow, someway, this season may culminate in Heaven and Hell reconciling. Whether it be against a common enemy, for a shared goal, or in love, there seems to be many clues both symbolic and literal that show them learning to be one again. Learning to understand eachother’s language and see new ways of being neither before could fathom.

#by the way the last image (not the meme) are Aziraphale and Crowley circling eachother in a dance like pattern… like twin stars…#so close they may from a great distance appear as one…#good omens #season 2 #speculation #meta #analysis #ineffable husbands #Aziraphale #Crowley #arrival 2016 #season 2 title sequence #biceratops

294 notes · View notes

orcelito · 11 months

Text

in the Wolfwood side story of trimax volume 8 chapter 6, we see this visual metaphor:

[ID: Three pages from Trigun Maximum. The first pages shows Wolfwood staring up at a flying bird and carving it in wood. He thinks to himself, "Us humans... We look up at them... and feel longin'. But they may look down at us... and envy how we have earth and shade to escape the pain of endlessly flappin' yer wings to survive." The second page shows a new scene where he is talking to Maylene. She looks up at a bird in the sky and tells him, "I... used to be an orphan. I've always depended on others for survival. Mr. Priest... How does the world look when you are able to choose your own path?" As she talks, Wolfwood is shown with a resigned look to his eyes. In the third page, Wolfwood replies, "Knock it off. Look over there." The bird lands, and we see that its feathers are mangled. Wolfwood continues, "That bird... It's in terrible shape. If you could look into its heart, you'd know all it wants is a safe place to sleep, a few scraps of food, and a life of peace. You'd know just how much it would envy yer luxurious cage." End ID]

(all pages from @trigun-manga-overhaul)

even at the time of first reading this, I wondered if it was a metaphor for Vash. at this point in the story, it's just after Wolfwood broke Vash out of the ark. we've seen the horrible truths of Vash's life over and over again... & the fact that at the end of the day, he just wants to live a quiet life of peace.

this suspicion turned into certainty with these pages in volume 10 chapter 4

[ID: Four pages of Trigun Maximum. The first is a single panel of Vash passing by a bloodied Wolfwood with a hand on his shoulder, telling him, "Crush him." In the second page, Vash walks off, leaving Wolfwood to his fight. Wolfwood preps his gun and says to himself, "I'm sorry... Needle-Noggin..." The third page is a wide shot of the sky, followed by a flying bird just like the ones seen in the prior pages. The fourth page is a shot of Vash staring up at the bird. His face is partially obscured in darkness with his eyes out of shot, but he is not smiling and his posture is hunched. The final panel is blank white. End ID]

... yeah. with the same imagery of the bird, we see Vash looking up at it with a hard to read expression. partially obscured, so we don't even see his eyes, but in his posture and the lack of a smile... you can see his pain. he's only just learned that Wolfwood is dying, and he wants so badly to be able to save him... but he can't. he's forced to accept that this is Wolfwood's fight, so he leaves him to it even as it agonizes him.

looking up at the bird that's forced to keep flying to survive... Vash is that bird. for the first time since he was a child, he allowed himself to grow truly close to someone. he found himself wanting to share a future with him, to share their Tomorrows...

[ID: A panel progression of Vash listening to Wolfwood fight. His face is partially obscured until it's revealed that he is weeping in agony. End ID]

but it wasn't meant to be. Vash isn't a being that can settle down like that.

he's cursed to forever fly.

#speculation nation #trigun #vashwood #trigun meta #fanny reads trigun #fanny's trigun analysis #trigun spoilers/#trimax spoilers/#uhm. sorry #if it's any consolation this post brought me Great Pain to write too #i've had this in mind for a while. since when i first read volume 10 actually. but i decided to remake the post #to a more comprehensive version. So.#Vash Is That Bird. i need to lie down now lmao

296 notes · View notes

sapphire-weapon · 1 year

Text

so while it is a cool little attention to detail thing that one of leon’s idle (and sometimes running) animations in RE4make is him stretching out the shoulder where he was shot in RE2, it does add an extra layer of fucked up to his character lmao

like. that gunshot wound happened six years ago. if it’s still bothering him, that means that there’s some kind of permanent damage there -- and it’s probably nerve damage. and since it was a government doctor who patched him up in the first place, it’s not like they don’t know that that’s a thing. so the federal government is basically like “hey leon we’re going to send you into the most dangerous combat situations on the planet by yourself. hope your shoulder doesn’t lock up and/or your arm doesn't go numb at the worst possible moment and get you killed. good luck!”

and then you keep thinking about his nerve damage and remember that las plagas specifically attack the body’s nervous system and it’s like lmao oh that’s why leon’s plaga progressed so quickly, and why it was on par with ashley’s despite her having been injected with one days, if not weeks, earlier than he was -- and why he didn’t have to go through any of the additional “rituals” that she did in order for saddler to take over his shit.

it’s like the RE4make devs looked at leon and were like “so how can we make him even more pathetically miserable” and the animator who’d already decided to retroactively break his nose was like “hey i got another idea”

#resident evil 4 #leon kennedy #meta analysis #kinda #the tradeoff is that that animator also gave leon a GREAT ass in this game #it is the first time in resident evil history #over the like dozen installments that leon's actually been in #that i've looked at his ass and gone #damn bitch #i need a handful of THAT #i used to joke that leon's ass is actually concave #that's how absent it is #BUT NOT ANYMORE #and then they put that ass in jeggings and actually bothered to render out the lines of his boxer-briefs under them #jesus take the fucking wheel #i am also completely and utterly 100% fucking normal about his hair being slicked back in his hero costume #THE CAPCOM ANIMATORS DID THE ABSOLUTE FUCKING MOST IS WHAT IM SAYING

297 notes · View notes

hallwyeoo · 1 year

Text

Ellie’s memory of the golfing scene and what it tells us about her.

🚨spoilers for tlou2🚨

I think Ellie’s flashback to Joel’s death is very telling of how she internalized the event and the meaning she applied to his death. It’s also a good demonstration of her relationship to autonomy. Let’s break down the elements that were inconsistent with the actual event:

The stairs/hallway are much longer than they were. This suggests a sense of helplessness, an inability to get there fast enough. Joel is constantly out of reach.

There is blood on the floor outside of the door. Not entirely certain on this one but my hunch is that she blames herself for not seeing more obvious signs of violence/not knowing something was wrong sooner.

The door is locked, another roadblock in her path to Joel. She can’t access him, she can’t help, he needs her and she isn’t there.

Most importantly. Joel yells “Ellie, help me” (which he didn’t in the actual scene, he just screams. He doesn’t say a word in the actual scene)

Ellie hearing Joel scream for her help, calling for her while being horribly beaten, and her being repeatedly impeded on her way to him suggests that what she took away from his death is that she wasn’t enough. They always helped each other, always had each others backs, always got up. Ellie views his death as a failure. She was too slow, too weak, not smart enough to save him. She failed him when he needed her most. She is absolutely helpless to save him, just like she was helpless to save Riley, Tess, Sam, and Jessie (and Marlene, and humanity, and and and-).

Once again, Ellie makes a decision (staying with Riley, going to the fireflies, staying with Joel, being the cure, trying to forgive Joel) and once again her autonomy and ability to find closure is ripped from her.

This is the inciting incident of tlou pt2, this is the moment where Ellie’s whole world shatters the same way Joel’s did at the start of pt1. Ellie enters into the same cycle (which I like to call the “Joel cycle” because… yeah.) that he did, and throughout pt2 she stays in the “20 years later” phase of the cycle. She is changed, she has lost her light, lost what she fought for. She lost her chance to genuinely forgive Joel and rebuild their relationship. She is stuck in a gruelling and violent world that she has no anchor in, at least not anymore. His death is so sudden and so incredibly violent that it practically gave her (and me as well, tbh) whiplash. She’s in a state of total shock.

On another devastating note, this is one of the three times in tlou that we see Ellie beg (that I remember). The first is begging Joel to get up at the university of Eastern Colorado, the second is begging him to get up and for Abby to stop, and the third is begging Abby to not kill Dina because she’s pregnant. (Two times she begs Joel to get up, one time he doesn’t. Two times she begs Abby to spare her family and one time she does. What a beautifully haunting contrast)

To wrap up, every person creates an internal narrative, a story of their life that is crafted from their context and lived experiences. The meaning we derive from those experiences doesn’t always reflect the truth, and that can sometimes bite us in the ass majorly when we experience a traumatic event. We tend to want to find someone or something to assign blame to, some reason or rationale to why it happened. We tell stories. We write them in our minds about ourselves and what happens to us and what that says about us.

But Ellie is wrong. Joel’s death happened in response to a conscious and willing choice he made. It is in no way her fault, and there was absolutely no way for her to know or to stop what was happening. I think Ellie knows that much on an intellectual level, It just doesn’t change how devastated she is over the whole event. It can’t change the fact that she FEELS as though this was all her fault, that Joel did what he did to save her, that she could have saved him. That she should have.

#this isn’t a new thought #like I’m p much just stating what happened in the game #this is not some super deep meta analysis of tlou #it’s just.#Ellie’s relationship to autonomy is so so so good #ellie the last of us #joel the last of us #ellie williams #joel miller #tlou series #tlou show #tlou1 #tlou spoilers #tlou analysis #I have SO MANY drafts that are like. walls of text #we’re talking Great Wall of China long #tlou2 #marlene the last of us #marlene tlou #basically what I said in previous posts about how ellie picked up Joel’s stoic attitude and emotional constipation.#ellie’s screams lolol. my heart breaking in real time.#joel goes golfing HD!!!#the way her voice breaks as she begs… OWIE #Neil druckmann needs to pay for my therapy fr!!#I edited this because it had some… really bad grammatical errors #syntax??? what’s that????#anyway normally I don’t put much thought or effort into my actual wording of Tumblr posts #because like maybe 10 people will see it. who cares.#but this one is one I actually care a bit about and this whole thing could be written about in so much more depth.#so I went in and tried to clean it up a bit and added some thoughts.

304 notes · View notes

lgbtlunaverse · 2 years

Text

Hero vs villain: Jin and Hawks

So, the anime is here, and with it will most likely come the second phase of Hawks Discourse TM, but right now, I am much less interested in anyone's personal opinions on if what Hawks did is right, if twice deserved it, if this would be morally permissable if these characters were somehow real people, etc, and focus on what the NARRATIVE thinks of this fight. And in particular, the visual framing during it.

So, if you hadn't noticed, whatever you yourself think of this situation, the STORY thinks what Hawks did is wrong. Not the characters in the story (Though I must point out, Hawks himself calls Jin a good person even after he killed him and does not think he deserved to die) I mean the story as its own entity with themes and messages.

And the story is not on Hawks' side.

It undercuts Hawks' victory on several accounts. The most important one is giving Toga Jin's blood, effectively undoing Hawks' primary justification for killing him. He wanted to make sure the villains didn't have double, an immensely powerful and dangerous quirk, on their side? Well, too bad, they still do! Congratulations, you played yourself.

But that's the plot, the story's in-universe events making Hawks' actions have more negative effects than positive, thereby painting it as the wrong choice. What I actually want to talk about is framing, specifically the way the fight itself is drawn.

Because this?

This is not how you draw a hero.

And interestingly, once you look at the Hawks vs twice fight in isolation- especially its first stretch before Dabi bursts in- without the larger context of the story behind it, it is drawn and written like a very classic hero vs villain fight where Hawks is the villain and Twice is the hero.

Let me tell you a story, it's probably one you've heard before.

Our Hero has recently made a new ally.

Some of their other allies are still wary of this new friend, because of their past loyalties, but our hero is trusting, perhaps too trusting for their own good. And the side this new ally used to belong to treated them badly! Our hero wants them to find happiness here.

But then one day, there's an ambush. Their home is attacked, their allies and friends are pulled into a battle they're not prepared for, and this happens:

Their new ally has betrayed them. They never truly changed sides, and were feeding information to the opponent the entire time. They isolated the hero with a false promise, and when they got them alone they immediately put a weapon centimeters from their skin. Our hero hasn't even moved yet, doesn't understand what's going on, but they're already fractions of a second away from death.

The ally, turned villain, is framed in shadows, only their narrowed, almost glowing eyes are visible, as they stare unmoved and unflinching at the hero.

Our hero tries to plead, still hoping there's another explanation, but the villain doesn't let them speak. They monologue, monotonely, about what a threat the hero is to their side, how they had to be eliminated. They mock them for not figuring out the ruse, for being so trusting. They tell the hero to surrender.

And our Hero?

Thinks about their friends. About how their caring nature had gotten one of them killed before, and now it has brought them in danger again. They break down in tears. The villain's eyes watch from the darkness, silent and unaffected.

The villain looms over them, still shrouded in darkness, as the hero thinks back on another friend, a mentor figure. Someone that saved them when they needed it most, someone they went through hell to save in return not so long ago. They think back on what they said about trust, and they lament that they failed.

"Well, thanks" the villain says dismissively.

But then.

Some of the shadows that envelop the villain's face fade away, they think back on their real moments with camraderie with the hero.

Not even villains are immune to emotions. They don't dislike our hero, they don't necessarily want to hurt them specifically. In fact, why can't the hero join them? They could do so much together. (And this is classic villain monologue stuff, isn't it? Straight from the golden age of american superhero comics mha loves to pay homage to. Join the other side! And it’s always based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the hero that the villain just can’t grasp, which is.. exactly what happens between jin and keigo.)

The next panel pulls away, and the rumbling outside reminds us, the readers, exactly why the hero can't.

Their friends. Who are still out there, possibly being slaughtered by the villain's side. Friends are everything to our hero, they can't just abandon them. (And this is that misunderstanding. Hawks thinks twic eis the only oen in the league who is capable fo being saved. But you can’t save Jin if you can’t save the league. I won’t get into it here but this is why izuku, shouto, ochako and their respective villains are so important)

So the hero refuses.

It’s of note here what exactly our two sides look like going into this battle. One is crying, in pain and betrayal, ready to sacrifice their life if it give their friends a chance at safety.

The other?

Resigned. Eyes narrowed. Weapons ready to strike. Not showing any emotion on purpose because showing emotion is showing weakness.

And that unevenness, that contrast, persists throughout the fight. Our villains does not move a single inch as they slaughter a dozen clones of their former friend apart. Everything on the page moving, desperate, violent, except for them. They comment on our hero’s skill dryly, not even out of breath.

Generally as readers we sympathise with effort and like conviction, and repression of emotion is seen as a negative trait. Such an obvious difference in visible effort (No doubt thawks is ACTULLY putting in a lot of work to get his feathers to be so fast and precise, this can’t be easy for him. But it LOOKS easy) also creates an underdog narrative, and we tend to naturally root for the underdog.

And then comes the line that sums up this entire fight:

“I could never allow mere sentiment to trip me up,”

Because ultimately, this is not just a fight between two people. It is a fight between human connection and duty. It is a fight between someone who refuses to hurt the ones they love and someone who will. Who is, in fact, doing so right now. Our hero fights because they refuse to give up on people, our villain fights because they already have.

And if you wanted it to be any more obvious, here are the physical manifestations of all our hero’s friends, being mercilessly sliced apart! How’s that for heavyhanded symbolism? Though, really, if you come to a superhero comic for subtlety, you might as well go to the beach to wash out the sand in your clothes.

So we’ve been looking at this fight ignoring the context, that the hero in this scenario is not twice. He is the villain of this story, even if he is not the villain of this story within that story.

For this next page, that context will come crashing back in. So I want to ask you to read these lines while mentally erasing the word “villain” and “hero” from your mind. What do they sound like now?

“Why do you think I prioritize speed when taking my enemies down? Because it’s the ones who don’t give up that I fear the most.”

In not just superhero comics at large, but the shounen action genre specifically, tenacity, hardheadedness, and never giving up on one’s friends are the classic traits of a protagonist. They’re basically staples of the genre. (Hell, deku, the actual protagonist of this very manga, fits into that mold perfectly) Speaking outright of fearing and hating those who never give up, who have genuine conviction they are willing to die for, is something so classically villainous i’d call it cheesy if it was played straight. That’s cartoon villain shit.

Our hero has no time for this speech either, they start to say “Shut-”

-”Up.”

They don’t even get to finish their sentence.

The shadows are back. Notably, our hero is all dressed in black, but their face is illuminated. While the villain’s clothes are all drawn in light colours, but their face is hidden in darkness. Some very nice traditional color symbolism here.

And what are our heroes last words as they face their imminent death?

Their friends, especially the little girl they’ve grown closest too these past months. They know the villain doesn’t care, but it’s more like a need when they tell them that this girl they dismissed is kind, that she took care of them. This girl, that the world can see only a monster in, they have to affirm, even to a person who won’t listen, that she’s good. That she deserves to have someone be willing to die to protect her.

“I’ll be sure to tell the league that.”

Is it mockery? genuine? Do they even care enough about anyone else in the league to bother to follow through, or is this just a casual dismissal?

It doesn’t matter.

They don’t have to.

And if this were one of those classic superhero stories, or an early more traditional shounen, then the arrival of this friend would have spelled the end for the villain. This whole fight has been about he power of human connection in the face of cold and uncaring order. And what better way to end it than by having the hero’s friend prove him right? Especially the one who’s been rude and distant this entire time, who was the other one to bring this ally-turned-enemy into their ranks, who’s been constantly denying that their friends are even their friends to begin with? But they came, in this moment, and that’s what matters.

But this is not a classic story. Twice is not our hero. And this friendship does not save the day.

It ends with a high five

And a stab in the back.

And a girl’s smile fading.

And, no matter what you think of this fight in context, EVERYTHING on the actual pages of the manga depicting the fight itself is trying to tell you that Hawks is doing the wrong thing. That Twice- regardless of his overall morality- is RIGHT to stand by his friends and not give up on them. Even if those friends are villains. Even if he is also a villain. According to the story, Hawks is wrong, and Twice is right.

#bnha #bnha spoilers #bnha season 6 #twice #bubaigawara jin #hawks #takami keigo #bnha meta #story analysis #please don't think i hate hawks because of this he is my blorbo despite the atrocities he's comitted <3 #i emphasize a lot on how unmoved he looks by everything which is of course because he's so used to repressing his emotions #but out of context and therefore to jin it just looks like he doesn't care #which is another great way this fight plays with tropes #it MAKES him look more uncaring and villainous #which is the whole point #that the corrupt system has made this hero indistinguishable from a villain

626 notes · View notes

stainedglassthreads · 2 years

Text

Comparing Toriel at the beginning of Undertale, deciding for Frisk that the best thing for them would be to stay with her without wanting to explain the real danger of the Underground to them, against Toriel in the True Pacifist ending being the only one to point out that Frisk came from the Surface, and may want to go somewhere else instead of living with their new monster friends, asking them what THEY want to do.

Wanting to keep Frisk with her was well-intentioned, but it did come from a place of trauma. And she’s grown past that trauma, somewhat. She no longer insists on clinging to Frisk tightly so they can’t get hurt, and is capable of letting go. And she remembered that Frisk wanted to go home, and is willing to accept their choice if that’s what they decide. She went after Frisk to help them against Asgore not just because she wanted to live with them somewhere outside the Ruins, but because confronting Asgore and saving their life was the right thing to do, after getting it wrong for so long.

Toriel, like the rest of Undertale’s cast, is flawed. She’s depressed and traumatized, after losing two children and seeing her ex-husband declare war. She can hold grudges for a long time, and still isn’t over her grudge against Asgore.

But she does grow, change, and start overcoming her grief and depression. And I think some people miss that. (Assuming they caught onto her grief to begin with.)

#undertale #undertale meta #undertale analysis #toriel #toriel is a deep and great character #i wish there were more toriel-centric fics and aus about her that didn't involve shipping #maybe i'll make a comic about my pre-war headcanons some day...#i think a lot of people fixate on her grudge with asgore as proof she 'doesn't change'#but she does. just give her some time #i think she just needs to think things over sometimes

548 notes · View notes

inbarfink · 1 month

Text

I think a lot about the Concept of ‘choices that matter’ in video games. Like, in terms of what it is that makes a choice ‘really matter’, what do we perceive as a choice that matters or has a consequence, how do different games with different amounts of branching or non-branching storylines play with those ideas… Especially because Undertale is one of my favorite games of all time, and it has often been hyped as ‘a game where your choices REALLY matter’ and… honestly, I dunno if all of this hype was fully conducive to Undertale. Because the way it handles the concept of Video Game Choices is actually a lot more interesting and complex than that simplistic descriptor makes it seem.

Because Undertale actually has a lot of choices that ‘don’t really matter’! Lots of dialogue choices and silly little decisions that on a first playthrough seem like they’re some sort of moral choice or a branching plotline but end up always leading to basically the same result regardless of what you do!

And the game doesn’t really try to hide the fact that these choices are kinda 'Fake'. I mean, on a first playthrough a player might assume there’s gonna be some Massive Consequences for picking the ‘wrong’ drink on Undyne’s date, but the game’s narrative expects for there to be multiple playthroughs and pretty much every Choice that Doesn’t Matter is peppered with that Undertale brand of wacky character-focused humor that inherently makes the moment memorable. Papyrus leading Undyne straight to you no matter what you do is basically a cross-timeline running gag.

On some level I see this as a sort of gag that serves as meta-commentary about the expectations around Choices That Matter in Video Games. As in, a lot of games have their Moral Choices happen in clearly easily marked ‘this is a Moral Choice!’ moments within the story, while the actual gameplay (and any violence the player might cause as part of said gameplay) is basically entirely divorced from any element of narrative-branching and doesn't effect the story at all. Undertale basically entirely inverts this dynamic; the most important factor for which Route you’re own is how you handle your FIGHTs, and what seems like clearly-marked and obvious Moral Choices are just goofy insubstantial minor changes in dialogue.

But also… there is also a level where you must ask yourself ‘what does it mean when we say that these choices Don’t Matter’. I mean, it’s not like they didn't change anything about the game, the Player still made the character say that other thing, the choice probably led to an alternate piece of dialogue, probably a joke with a call-back at the end of the game… The line between a one-off joke and an actual story-changing moment can be a little blurry if you look at it too deeply.

For example, near the end of the Waterfall part of the game, the Player is given the choice to save Monster Kid even at the risk of having to face down Undyne.

Pretty much anyone who isn’t deliberately trying to be an asshole is going to rush to save them and obviously that includes the Pacifist Route Players. But you can actually leave Monster Kid to die without it 'mattering' in the sense that it wouldn't divert you from the Pacifist Route. Undyne saves them instead of you, and ends up with slightly less HP for her battle (which might Matter for Runs when you try and FIGHT her but obviously not in Pacifist Runs) and… by the end of the game, during the extremely happy True Pacifist Ending, they still clearly remember that you abandoned them and are upset by it.

So… does saving Monster Kid ‘matter’ or not? On one hand, choosing not to save them mostly just changes a few lines of dialogue but… these lines of dialogue kinda recontextualize this happy ending and the Player’s actions in general. Despite the True Pacifist Ending otherwise portraying the Player/Frisk as a kind-hearted and brave hero... they still did this undeniably cowardly (and perhaps even cruel) act to one of their friends .

Was running away and leaving Monster Kid to die a brief but significant moment of weakness that the Player regrets and has cost them what could’ve been the start of a lovely friendship? Or is that simply that being a True Pacifist was always more of a matter of pragmatism rather than ideals? Were they only acting as a Pacifist to get that promised 'Best Ending', and only Monster Kid has an inkling they are not as heroic or kind as everyone thinks they are?

And then there’s the Snowman ‘quest’.

A free healing item given early in the game, with your mission being to carry it along in your inventory for as long as you can without ever consuming it. The only reward you will ever see from it is a few lines of dialogue…

But for many, it is more than enough of an incentive to preserve the Snowman’s Piece. You can do whatever you want with the Snowman without it ‘mattering’ in terms of Ending or consequences. You could carry it through all of your adventures with care and kindness... or you could eat it while he can’t see you and then go back to him and tell him that you ‘lost’ it and then get another piece and eat that as well, you could eat it right in front of his face, horrifying him.

And much like with Monster Kid, you can STILL get the True Pacifist Ending after doing that, all that would change is a few optional pieces of dialogue from the Snowman…

And a total recontextualization of the Player’s behavior and the ending. The Snowman sees the Player as a cruel and heartless person who is just pretending to be good so they can be liked - the way they acted with this immobile, powerless Snowman who could do nothing for them and their reputation reveals their true self. And he says their friends will realize that too one day...

Doing a True Reset on the Pacifist Ending is, by definition, a (almost) consequence-free action and yet it changes future Pacifist Routes immeasurably. Turning the Player into a Hypocrite doing the exact same thing they were trying to stop Flowey/Asriel from doing - trapping all of their friends into a time-loop so they can play with them forever while never actually letting them to enjoy freedom on the surface, simply because they are not willing to move on or put their friends' wishes and agency above their own. Nothing in the game actually changes, not one character can even suspect that you did something like that, and yet for the Player - this choice makes the entire Meaning of the game flip on its head.

Even the most famous and heavily-toted Big Consequence in the whole game - selling your soul to Chara after completing a Murder Route… mostly what it does is just… recontextualize the ending of the Game.

As a game, ‘Undertale’ is very much about the ways in which a Player engages with a game can radically recontextualize it. The huge chasm of difference between the Pacifist and Muder Routes is just the most literal example of it. But, in a way, even the tiny little Dialogue Options - where the lack of real choice and consequences is Obviously a Joke - matter. Because of the way they can recontextualize the Player Character’s behavior.

(Okay, maybe not this one, but hear me out…)

Do you trust Papyrus to not betray you, even after you spied on him with Undyne?

Do you have the integrity to admit you forgot something or got it wrong even when there’s no consequences for just lying about it?

Are you a hypocrite for trying to get Alphys to be truthful with Undyne only to then immediately turn around and lie to Undyne yourself?

None of these choices matter for the ending, some of them don’t even get, like, a call-back joke or anything, but… if you are engaged in this story as a narrative, if you are invested in these characters as if they were people, if you are honestly trying to be the best person you can be, if you are trying to self-reflect at the way you approach this game… even the silliest little dialogue option can suddenly be imbued with deep implications and you can make them matter.

Undertale is one of the best demonstrations of this concept, but this is absolutely not exclusive to it. For example….

‘Ace Attorney’ is pretty much as far away as you can get from a ‘branching narrative’ within the video game sphere. It is a heavily-linear Visual Novel where 70% of the time it won’t even let you talk to random characters at anything but the exact order it expects you to and any ‘Bad Endings’ are basically just glorified Game Over Screens. (... because this is the Internet and something something piss on the poor, I should probably specify that I am talking about ‘Ace Attorney’ because I love Ace Attorney and these are neutral descriptions of the game and not complaints. There’s nothing wrong with a game being linear.)

If there’s any Dialogue Choice in AA, it’s generally a very basic ‘right answer-wrong answer’ choice between Progress and a Penalty, or a total non-choice that just gets you to the same final result regardless. Except… Well… as we just talked about, getting to the same final result doesn’t necessarily mean a choice is ‘meaningless’, does it?

There’s actually a lot of great storytelling moments where Ace Attorney, despite its otherwise strict linearity, uses this exact sort of recontextualizing mindset I’ve talked about with Undertale to make choices with some really powerful emotional impact…. Even if technically, the ending is the same ending. It can be something as basic as ‘even if picking this Wrong Answer doesn’t get me a penalty, it still embarrassed my character and disappointed my friends/rivals and thus I feel bad for picking it’. Consequences as recontextualizing your character as more incompetent than they should’ve come across at that moment.

And then there’s moments like the iconic ending of ‘Justice for All’. That moment before Franziska bursts into the Courtroom with the case-making evidence and saves the day. The moment where it seems like Phoenix really is gonna have to pick between protecting his best friend and carrying out a rightful sentence.

The player gets to pick between the two options, but Phoenix never gets to say his choice out loud before Franziska comes running in... and yet… he, and the player, still made that choice. Even if no one ever has to experience the consequences of your choice, even if the rest of the world has no idea what Phoenix Wright would’ve chosen if the Miracle hadn’t happened, we know what we picked and that knowledge of the choice matters. Because of how we feel about this choice and what it says about our interpretation of Phoenix… and about us.

There’s also a bit of this ludonarrative device in ‘The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures’. During “The Adventures of the Runaway Room”, when you investigate the Omnibus for the second time and start finding things that… don’t quite fit together. When you’re finally starting to make progress with proving McGilded’s innocence, while also maybe starting to notice that something is… wrong with these pieces of evidence.

The unchanging linear narrative of the game is that Ryunosuke does eventually realizes McGilded's trickery, puts truth ahead of victory in court and yet, despite his effort and good intentions - the case still ends with a false Not Guilty verdict. And yet, the Player has the choice to... tweak the details.

There are several points where Ryunosuke can object, where he can call out the inconsistencies even though they help his case, where he can support Van Zieks in his accusations of tempered evidence... or he can not. Not necessarily intentionally misleading the Court as much as subconsciously trying to ignore the inconsistencies in the name of trusting his client.

And yet… in the end it doesn’t matter. Maybe Susato calls out the inconsistency instead of him, maybe Van Zieks does, maybe it remains uncontested but... no matter what you do, the case will end with a Not Guilty verdict (I mean, I guess you can deliberately fail the game but that will not progress the plot), McGilded doesn’t seem like he held a grudge (in the few minutes he had left to live), and a few cases later - Ryunosuke would always be punished for his part at this false verdict.

So it doesn’t really matter what Ryunosuke did back then? Does it matter if he did his best and called out every single inconsistencies or if he kinda half-assed it until he (and the Player) had to? He’s still going to suffer the same consequences down the line. And yet….

And yet, I think there’s something so powerful about giving us that option. About knowing that Ryunosuke, and we, did try and do something about McGilded's dirty tricks- even if it didn’t work. Or alternative, knowing that there was more that Ryunosuke and us could’ve done even if it was not nearly enough. Even if in the eyes of the game and the British Justice system there is no difference, the fact that we know what did and what we could’ve done can radically change the way the player feels about all of the later scenes concerning the truth about McGilded’s trial. It can radically change the way the player interpret Ryunosuke’s feelings about it as well.

Because even though the game itself keeps playing along with the same script regardless, that trial had irrevocable consequences for the Player.

427 notes · View notes

drconstellation · 6 months

Text

The Great War of Tadfield Manor

Future Echoes of the Past #1

One of the books on the shelf that Jimbriel is organizing is Catch-22, by Joseph Heller. I have to admit it’s been a while since I read it, (er, several decades, if I’m truthful about it) but my enduring memory is it seemed like the author wrote it in a linear fashion, then took all the chapters and threw them up in the air and put them back together at random, because it bounces back and forth in time in a confusing kind of way. There is a method to this madness, however, and the structure is deliberate. It’s also dealing with bureaucratic absurdity, but that’s not what I’m trying to explore in this particular meta. It’s the bouncing back and forth in time bit.

Now we have two series of GO to feast on, we seem to be slowly piecing together the expanded history of the GO universe in an inferred kind of way. It’s rarely given to us directly in a chunk, it’s mostly by a comment here and there and then we try to join the dots.

So we’ve learnt that there was a great deal of time that existed for Heaven before time on Earth got started, in 4004 BC, maybe an ineffably long period of time, maybe millions of years, maybe not. Sometime prior to 4004 BC, however, there was a rebellion in Heaven between at least two factions of the angels. This event is sometimes called the Great War - which is what Aziraphale is referring to in S2E6 when he is removing his halo for demon-detonating purposes; he’s not referring to what us humans would call World War 1 in the early 20th century. The result of the Great War led to the formation of Hell. The angel known as Lucifer was the leader of the losing side, and he was known as Satan afterwords. A third of the heavenly host of angels were sent with him down to Hell, and this event is called the Fall. They became fallen angels, or demons. At some point, there is supposed to be a second War, one that will decide who is the winner once and for all time. Well, that’s supposed to be the Plan - God’s Ineffable Great Plan, right? And we all know how the first attempt for that to get started ended up, don’t we?

As we start to look more closely into parallel stories and scenes between the two series, some curious pairs of parallels are starting to emerge. And even more interesting is that some of these pairs indicate that they will get a third presentation - I’m not just talking about the 1941 Blitz scene here, there are others! And I’m going to try and talk about one of them here, that I think has largely slipped under the radar up until just recently.

There was a meta by @newfangledfancy here about the two parallel scenes in S1 and S2 involving miraculous escapes from being shot with a loaded gun, and we should expect a third one in S3. It’s worth pausing and heading over to read it at this point, but if you don’t, I’ll try to fill you in - and I will revisit in the future, as while it contained the seeds of inspiration for this meta, it also reveals something interesting about Crowley's backstory that's worth discussing on its own. You probably know what and where the S2 “miraculous escape” is referring to: the Bullet Catch scene during the 1941 Blitz minisode in S2E4. But where is the one in S1? It’s at Tadfield Manor, in S1E2, after Crowley has turned all the paintball guns into real guns, and Norman, on the yellow team, cracks it, does a big rant about his life and charges into the firing line of the opposing red team, only to be shot straight in the heart.

Let’s rewind this a little bit, because I want to talk about when Crowley and Aziraphale first arrive at Tadfield Manor. All seems calm and quiet. They stroll in side by side – and are each shot by a paintball. Yep, this has been watched over and over, comments made about the colours of the paint, how they represent their various “sides”, and the sexual innuendo in way Crowley miracles it away after Aziraphale makes heart-eyes at him. But you’ve all missed once very important clue about what was about to go down in the next few minutes that was right in front of you all along.

Maybe I should pause this meta just here and refer back to my big colour meta I posted recently. I specifically went to all that work so I could come here and discuss the following event at Tadfield Manor.

Firstly, the paintball colours. There are three: blue, yellow and red.

There is a discrepancy between the colour that book!Crowley and screen!Crowley gets hit by. In the book its yellow, but in the tv series its red. Just at this point I’m going to emphasize that yellow is not the same as gold; gold is one of the colours of Heaven, but yellow is usually associated with fear.

Secondly, Aziraphale is hit with blue paint. That’s consistent with both book and tv. Then Crowley blows the blue taint of Heaven away, because Aziraphale needs help to escape its abusive clutches, its not something he can do on his own. Ah, a cute demonstrative metaphor there, another layer to that little scene.

BUT YOU DON’T SEE A BLUE COLOURED TEAM IN THE FOLLOWING BATTLE! Where is the blue team, that supposedly represents Heaven in the following battle? Did they just vanish when Crowley snapped his demon-miracle into place? I dunno, but we just see a yellow and a red coded team for the rest of the battle. But if blue is always Heaven-coded, yellow is fear, and red, while often demon-associated should be seen more as an indication of passion…what it really going on? Who is at war with who? It can’t be Heaven against Hell, because Heaven is not present, per se, as you know it, and neither is Hell, which is usually green. Oh no, it’s not that black and white…because we are watching a battle where Hell doesn’t yet exist, there is only Heaven at this point. One side, one faction, in fear, the other fighting with passion, and the division that actually creates the ‘blue’ side is yet to occur…

We’re watching a re-enactment of the Great War.

Let’s take another step back, to here: S1E2, around 15.46 minutes in. Newton Pulsifer is about to start a new job (wait, what? What the Hell is Newt doing mixed up in this? To honest, I'm not quite sure...*looks at a certain at note she made IN ALLCAPS again*...oh ffs- that is the worst joke, its got to be one of Terry's...now I can't stop cackling...oh, god now I've spotted another awful, awful joke...poor Newt, I love you more every second...)

*ahem* Back to the impending battle. Because it's here in the office of UNITED WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS (HOLDINGS) - an office *wink wink* of management and bureaucracy, that we establish the tension. As Newt slides into his seat, Nigel the manager arrives to ask who is exited about the upcoming "training initiative." Turns out, not really anyone has much enthusiasm for it.

Janice is going to complain to HR. Nigel points out there is no "I" in team, and Norman, who apparently organized the whole thing, proceeds to pick the three 'eyes' out of the "team building exercise."

This is going well, isn't it? [Newt departs. His role here is done.]

Lets skip to Tadfield Manor and the "training initiative" is underway. The Red team, lead by Nigel the Manager, seem to have the upper hand. The Yellow team see to be pleased at a chance to let off some steam with anyone who has annoyed them, the bitches.

Then God drops in to make an interesting observation.

Firms these days expected more than that. They wanted to establish leadership potential, group cooperation, and initiative, which allowed their employees to fire paintballs at any colleagues who irritated them.

Oh. Right. Lets deliberately cause a little chaos so we can see who's got leadership potential, who works together, and who actually has some brains? Go God! Lets start a little War and we'll pick the new Archangels out of the winners? Nice one. Plus, we get rid of all the troublemakers in the process, and we'll just be left with those who like to follow management's orders...

Then Crowley ups the ante. As the young woman who was the only keen employee to come, and is on the Red team, no less, runs past and asks "Who's winning?" he snaps his fingers and to change all the paintball guns to real guns.

Cr: You're all going to lose. Az: What - what the Hell did you just do? Cr: Oh, they wanted real guns, so I gave them what they wanted.

You're all going to lose.

Aziraphale does his best to protest at the demon's bit of wicked mischief.

Az: But there are people out there shooting at each other! Cr: Well - Lends weight to their moral argument. Everyone has free will, including the right to murder. Just think of it as a microcosm of the universe.

A microcosm of the universe?

Who's universe, Crowley? Yours? The humans? It's a big universe out there...

Things don't seem to be going to well for some, and Norman, on the Yellow team, has finally reached his breaking point. He makes a declaration. I'm only going to quote the last bit of his little speech, as I want to deal with the first bit in another meta. As he takes off his tie, and wraps it around his head, he says:

"They want war, we're going to give 'em war! OK guys, let's go get the bastards!"

Hmmm. Do the visuals remind you of anything?...

He turns around to charge out - and is promptly shot in the heart. While it's Nigel the manager he is facing when it happens, it's actually the young woman from the Red Team who ran past Crowley and Aziraphale inside the Manor, who asked who was winning, that fired the shot. The implications of this? I'm going to save that for another meta.

The sequence moves on to the infamous wall-slam encounter, which I don't think we need to go over here, so lets skip to where Crowley and Aziraphale have finished questioning the past-Sister Mary Loquacious and have decided they've found all they are going to find here its time to leave. The police have arrived and have broken up the fight. The fun and games are over. As they walk, floating unnoticed and serene, through the chaos, Aziraphale starts to ponder.

Az: You'd think he'd show up, wouldn't you? You'd think we could detect him in some way. Cr: He wont show up, not to us. Protective camouflage. He wont even know that his powers will keep him hidden from prying occult forces. Az: Occult forces? Cr: You and me. Az: I'm not occult. Angels aren't occult, we're ethereal.

Crowley refers to the two of them as one kind of entity, but Aziraphale insists there is a difference - they aren't the same. Not any more.

The War is over, and the division between Heaven and Hell has been created.

[Edit: I've since finished a meta on the Bentley and it's connection to crossing the thresholds between worlds. I mention this scene in it, as it is actually a beautiful example of two different times and places existing at once, overlaid on one another, as indicated by the smoke - that's a sign we are in a subliminal space. Its why Aziraphale and Crowley seem to just glide through untouched and noticed, as they aren't really there, in a way.]

Will we see another echo of the Great War in S3? Possibly.

It's the 3-card Monte. Its the three cowrie shells and a lone caraway seed. It's the Professor's Nightmare, where you don't know how long a piece of string rope is.

It's a f*cking Mobius strip that has no beginning and no end, infinitely going around and around.

It's God's game. Only She knows where it stops.

Further reading in this series:

#2: The Newton/Crowley Mirror-Parallel in S1

#3: "Not Even At Gunpoint!"

#good omens #good omens 2 #crowley #aziraphale #good omens meta #good omens analysis #tadfield manor #the great war #paintball scene #miraculous escapes #he did the thing with halo #lucifer and the guys #newton pulsifer #combating the forces of darkness #mobius strip #future echoes of the past

82 notes · View notes

thesherrinfordfacility · 9 months

Note

Longwinded anon again. It's very easy to see where Aziraphale needs to get his act together/get therapy in regards to his belief in Heaven's essential goodness (and it was always very odd to see fans believing that four years would have been sufficient, narrative-wise, for that to happen--four years is nothing to characters who are immortal). Crowley, though, is still doing one of the most toxic things on his side of the relationship: he's being over-protective. In S1, the "damsel in distress" bits, which I know some fans like to romanticize, are harmful to both characters, because they make Crowley feel like he's doing something heroic when he isn't (every rescue in S1 is unnecessary) and encourage Aziraphale to abandon his agency. In the narrative arc, Aziraphale's discorporation, which Crowley fails to stop, is liberating. He does his conscientious objector bit, chucks himself out of Heaven, kicks Crowley out of his depression in the bar, vanishes the soldier, and then has to forcibly remind Crowley at the airfield that /now/, in fact, Crowley needs to do something or there will be irreversible consequences. And then they rescue each other through the body swap.

S2 doesn't have the big swoopy rescue scenes, aside from the 1941 replay, but what it does have is Crowley withholding key information that might well have altered Aziraphale's behavior. He clearly hasn't been forthright about what Gabriel really said at the execution, and he never gets around to mentioning that Aziraphale has put himself in danger of being zapped out of existence by Heaven. (This is very PRIDE & PREJUDICE: Lydia elopes with Wickham in part because her older sisters don't publicize his bad behavior.) Again, he thinks of himself as Aziraphale's protector, and while Aziraphale knows that Crowley likes to protect him--he even says so--in S2 he doesn't fully understand what Crowley is protecting him from. Nina asks Aziraphale why he doesn't stick up for himself, and he shows once again that he can, but in S2 Crowley thinks it's his job to keep Aziraphale safe from any real Heaven-sent nastiness that might puncture his innocence. Which prevents Aziraphale from evaluating his choices once the Metatron shows up.

(As for S3: Gaiman does appear committed to getting them together in their cottage, so I don't think a permanent breakup is on the horizons. I do think something drastic has to happen, whether becoming mortal, becoming a "new" sort of immortal being tied to Earth rather than Heaven and Hell, Aziraphale delivering a full-bore public rejection of Heaven with attendant consequences, etc.)

Longwinded Anon✨, light of my life, you are officially driving me insane with these asks (screenshots of others under the cut); there is so much fascinating insight to talk about. first of all, though, welcome back and i hope you are also Surviving following s2!✨

these two characters are two of the most fun to dissect and examine. they are hugely multifaceted, and every time i watch s2 and ruminate on them, there is more and more to find. the below is the result of those ruminations, and i feel the obligation to warn anyone reading that it is going to be a very, very long one, so ✨buckle tf up✨

further messages from Longwinded Anon✨, my beloved:

aziraphale: insecurity

to me, one of the key tenets of aziraphale's character is a deep-seated and complete sense of insecurity and lack of self-esteem. and it's not unfathomable to think that he's had a lack of self-worth for some time, carrying all the way through to the Feral Domestic™ (FD). bear in mind that all of the below is without reference to the pre-fall scene, which ill cover separately later on.

there is however the fairly obvious element that heaven and the archangels completely disregard aziraphale, and are condescending and reductive in how they perceive and interact with him. aziraphale, i think, adopted this mindset pretty heavily in s1 - one such example being the "I'm soft" line - and it is further explored in s2, but specifically at the later end.

aziraphale in s2 seems much more self-possessed and 'together', and a key element of that shift is not only his liberation from heaven, but also that he somewhat starts to see himself through crowley's eyes as possibly being worthy of being loved. i think that he starts to think of himself as, in fact, having intrinsic value.

this is shown, in particular, in s2 by the contrast between ep2's rock scene (where he starts to question the depth of his angelic allegiance, and that he might have actually done the right thing by following his own personal conviction and helping save job's children), and the majority of ep5 (ie. his absolutely astounding - by aziraphale standards - amount of confidence in himself to get him and the ball attendees out of demonic danger).

this is brought to a head though by shax's comments in ep5, where she really drives a stake into the core of aziraphale's insecurity. she remarks on his propensity for indulgence (sushi/meals), his tendency to be overtrusting and naive ("softest touch"), his lack of traditional angelic quality ("went native"), and the question of what exactly crowley feels for him ("emotional support angel").

setting aside Michael's acting - which was truly mesmerising in this one little scene, probably one of his set-pieces in the show, honestly - that tells us that this really got to him, we know from everything we have seen of aziraphale in GO that these are likely thoughts that he has repressed, or pretends are not conceivable when they absolutely are.

my final interpretation of aziraphale's insecurity, however, is not necessarily that he thinks he is without value or merit whatsoever, but that he is not enough.

he's good enough to guard the eastern gate, but not good enough to keep adam and eve from temptation. he's good enough to guard and monitor the antichrist, but not enough to be truly accepted as part of the heaven hive (his physical sentry post on earth notwithstanding). he's good enough for crowley to run away with to alpha centauri, but not enough to convince crowley to choose to stay and fight with him to prevent the apocalypse.

this starts to wane in s2, and he's noticeably more happy and confident... right up until ep6 when he's good enough to be loved by crowley enough to spend eternity with, but not enough for crowley to sacrifice his hang-ups with heaven and help him rebuild it as a team so noone else ever has to suffer what they both did.

the lines however in ep6 that particularly broke my heart, because aziraphale literally conveys this whole painful, bleeding part of his psyche to crowley, are the following:

a: "if im in charge, i can make a difference."

a: "i don't think you understand what im offering you."

whatever the motive behind metatron's offer to aziraphale (and therefore calling into question the sincerity of his compliments to aziraphale), aziraphale has literally just been told that not only does someone who - whichever way you slice it - is the highest being in heaven that he has the ability to run it, but he has the ability to completely gut and rebuild it for the better.

harking back to ep1 with crowley's statement that aziraphale only calls him for three reasons, one of which is telling crowley something clever ie. his own achievements, it does make me wonder how often this scenario truly happens. maybe it does happen often, but what does aziraphale actually consider to be an achievement? something to be proud of himself for, that is purely reflective of his ability and - by extension - worth?

when aziraphale tells crowley that he might be misunderstanding what aziraphale is offering him, i don't interpret it as anything to do with restoring crowley; instead, i just see aziraphale telling crowley that he is offering up absolutely everything that he is, every single atom and aspect of him, and all crowley has to do is trust him enough to take it. he is saying that he will love crowley, and crowley can be free to love him, but only, in aziraphale's eyes, if crowley can accept aziraphale as he is; that he is enough.

during this whole part of the scene, crowley won't even look at him. won't even face him, sunglasses or not, and acknowledge what aziraphale is saying, right up until this line. you can visibly see that aziraphale starts to get angry that the one person who made him feel any self-worth might in fact have never seen him as good enough in the first place, that crowley didn't in fact love every part of him, and was choosing to cherrypick the aspects of aziraphale that suited crowley, rather than the whole.

this snippet of the scene is compounded by being sandwiched by these two crowley lines which, in my eyes, really highlighted that crowley is in fact only choosing to accept aziraphale in small measures, and that other elements of him are not enough:

c: "...you're better than that, angel!"

c: "you idiot, we could have been us."

aziraphale is enough exactly as he is; he's not perfect and certainly not wholly complete, but for crowley to dig at aziraphale by intimating that he is not reaching the bar that crowley has set for him - potentially subconsciously - is likely be the true end for how much stock aziraphale put in crowley's perception of him, and by extension the worth that he thought he had in crowley's mind. instead, aziraphale is now left to find a way of building his sense of self-worth all by himself - and does so by stepping into that lift.

crowley: salvation

im not going to necessarily talk about all the times that crowley demonstrates an almost pathological need to be aziraphale's saviour, because frankly Longwinded Anon✨ has that covered. but as with all things GO-related, i think it's important to try to understand why.

i truly think that a cornerstone of crowley's romanticism is deeply rooted in the concept of salvation. now, we know that he doesn't appear to give a flying fuck about salvation from heaven, but he certainly seems to put a great deal of import on being aziraphale's hero, and later he seems to question a great deal when aziraphale essentially finds a hero elsewhere.

as LW Anon✨ said, aziraphale is very cognizant that crowley likes to play hero where he's concerned, and seems simultaneously resigned and excited by the matter; resigned because actually, sometimes, aziraphale is smart or powerful enough to keep himself safe, but excited because this is possibly the epitome of how crowley expresses his love for him.

aziraphale shows that he is fully aware of this characteristic of crowley's, and whilst he does play into it (which we saw throughout all of s1e3) to 'make crowley happy' (and, dare i say, also because at this point it is the supernatural, sex-less interpretation of centuries-long foreplay) in s2 it almost starts to become neglectful, overbearing, and dismissive of - as LWA✨ says - any true agency that aziraphale has built since breaking from heaven. this, incidentally, is highlighted in the following exchange:

c: "im gonna get the humans out of here and then im coming back, i won't leave you on your own."

a: "i know, but i have a suggestion-"

c: [interrupts] "ive got this."

whether crowley feels like he is missing any genuine overture from heaven to apologise for making him fall for a minor infraction, or he feels guilty about something that he did (ie possibly what made him fall) and is making his own reparations in the outlet of constantly being aziraphale's saviour, the one that is certain is that crowley has to feel needed, and by extension - loved.

he does have a nasty habit of putting aziraphale down (which ill talk about next), however much in jest, and placing aziraphale constantly under his metaphorical wing. aziraphale going so far in s1 to actually work out the apocalypse and proceed to take what he believes is the right action to prevent it on his own must have, by extension, sent crowley reeling - if aziraphale can in fact look after himself, where does that leave crowley? what else, in crowley's eyes, could he possibly bring to the table that would make aziraphale want to keep him? love him?

i think that this is crowley's own brand of insecurity; that unless he is performatively saving aziraphale and protecting him from harm, and actively dismissing aziraphale's ability to protect himself sufficiently enough, he has no discernible quality that aziraphale would want. so instead he tries to make himself so integral to aziraphale's survival so that aziraphale has no choice but to keep him.

the fact that aziraphale saves himself in s1, and they then reflectively save each other, did wonders for aziraphale in progressing as a character. however, in crowley, i feel that this frightened him so emotionally that it regressed his character somewhat. all coming to the climax of when aziraphale, in good faith, offers crowley the chance at salvation for himself, crowley vehemently refuses it and takes it to insult. there are many other valid and understandable reasons why crowley rejects the prospect, but one of them to me is that it would leave crowley's fundamental role in aziraphale's existence as completely redundant.

both: demonstrating love

essentially what i put in an ask recently, but needed referencing here too.

leading on from crowley and his hero/saviour complex: the thing is that these are two diametrically opposing people in all but a handful of aspects. crowley by large is usually the more obviously demonstrative in his affection, borne out of many different reasons, and he is the ultimate Acts of Service (ft. Quality Time) dude. aziraphale tends to be more subtle, with Looks and Words, in how he displays his, so let's give him the Words of Affirmation (ft. QT) crown.

in s2, it seems to me that this hasn't really changed, but they are starting to cross over into speaking the language that the other understands. and to me, this comes to a head by the time of the ep5, and the ep6 FD. so obviously crowley has finally bridged into verbally demonstrating to aziraphale how he feels. aziraphale did the same action but mirrored by - however misguided - offering crowley the chance to be restored.

but neither want what the other is giving; they want what the other usually does to show their affection. aziraphale wants crowley to demonstrate his willingness to be with aziraphale by coming with him to heaven, and crowley wants aziraphale to acknowledge what he is telling aziraphale and respond in kind. neither are at fault for wanting that; they have simply demonstrated their devotion to each other in different ways, but those ways have been quite damaging.

crowley does do a lot for aziraphale, that can't be denied, but AoS is way more demonstrative, and yet it's easy to miss what those acts are actually saying. WoA can be more casual but the words you choose speak volumes... "our car/bookshop", "id love for you to help me", "my friend crowley", etc.

whilst i don't necessarily subscribe to the psychology of love languages, they're useful for this sort of analysis. aziraphale does even branch out in other languages; he is constantly touching crowley this season; the pub, the ball, the bookshop in early ep6. quality time is a given, and has always been their common ground. giving gifts im not so sure on, but i think the significance of readily offering crowley the bookshop as being his - something that was wholly aziraphale's, not heaven's, and is aziraphale's own sanctuary - spoke volumes.

specifically in ep5 however, aziraphale really goes ham in demonstrating to crowley how he sees love, defines it, and that he could give this to crowley - the pinnacle of this being the dance and the evident romantic implications of it... it summarises all of aziraphale's own romantic idealistic make-up; touching, intimate conversation, choosing crowley as his partner, romantic literature, classical music, etc.

and whilst comedic and obviously reflective of crowley being otherwise preoccupied re: demon incursion, i also thought that the physical imagery of aziraphale literally dragging him to the dancefloor, and crowley questioning when they've ever danced in the past, was particularly telling about crowley's reaction to how aziraphale is trying to convey to him, without saying the words, that he loves him.

aziraphale in s2 truly does give crowley everything that he can. his love is quiet, and gentle, and romantic, and whilst not as high stakes as saving aziraphale's life, it is still valid. however, it seems that where aziraphale seems to have recognised his feelings quite early on and acknowledged them early on, having time to settle them into his soul (even if he couldn't act for fear of heaven), s2 seems to indicate that crowley refused to acknowledge his until the eleventh hour.

but crowley's love has been there all along, ticking away. ignoring his tendency to stick his oar in where it isn't needed (saving aziraphale and treating him as if he were made of glass), he shows his love in his own ways - following aziraphale around soho, silently supportive, admires him for calming down the bookshop and handling the IB situation, tidies the bookshop for him (which also possibly indicates that he's now finally accepting the bookshop as his home), etc.

both of them take a swan dive in the declaring-love endgame in ep6, but neither of them are responsive to the love language that they usually give. aziraphale is given words but wants actions, and crowley is given actions but wants words. the chronic lack of communication between the two of them throughout the show is the main contributing factor to this disconnect, and leads to serious ramifications in their ability to possibly mend it going into s3.

aziraphale: pre-fall

at the risk of daring to contradict LWA✨ in their assessment of aziraphale's feelings towards the angel-who-crowley-was (AWCW) in the pre-fall scene, upon reflection i don't get the sense that aziraphale falls in love with AWCW in this moment. and exactly as pointed out by @assiraphales, we don't have any of the gaps filled in between this scene and The Wall, so it's arguably unknown when exactly those feelings deepened.

there is definitely attraction of some kind (can angels experience physical attraction? presumably they do, if aziraphale thought the "gorgeous" comment was directed at him), an admiration of AWCW's abilities, and an immediate concern for AWCW's wellbeing if he were to question god. but i don't get the sense that he falls in love; more that he's bumped into a cool, attractive kid outside his locker and immediately starts spouting angelic heart eyes, and at the least develops an immediate fascination.

AWCW is presented as being rather classist in this scene, and whilst not outright maliciously rude, he definitely seems to look down on aziraphale, or consider him relatively inconsequential. which is odd, because i think if he actually listened to what aziraphale was telling him, aziraphale actually comes across as having his own brand of status. i can't imagine that any bog-standard angel would be entrusted with helping god with building Her ultimate creation, building humans, and being allowed to see the Great Plan. whilst maybe not the same level as AWCW, i think the fandom is underplaying aziraphale's own significance in this part of the story.

the fact remains however that the aziraphale we see in this scene is still the fundamental foundation of the aziraphale we see later on in the story. AWCW calls for him as he's wandering (rocketing) past, and aziraphale doesn't hesitate to come to AWCW's aid. he's presumably going somewhere, but prioritises helping someone who needs him, and does so out of kindness and then, it seems later on, out of attraction.

he recognises the achievement of AWCW's nebula, asks questions to learn more (and thus demonstrating his interest) of the construction and purpose of AWCW's craft, and outright compliments it for its brilliance and wonder. all behaviours that id say is rooted in wanting to establish a friendship, and meanwhile developing an arguably shallow crush.

i think that these are also general admirations that aziraphale brings forward as he gets to know crowley as a demon, but has to adjust his world-view that he may admire the principle if not the act; he thinks crowley is clever and fun and talented, even if he doesn't condone the new ways in which crowley displays this.

there are definitely times where aziraphale is still caught up in crowley being a good person and concluding that crowley must still be an angel in all but name, but i do not necessarily think that he thinks lesser of crowley as a demon out of maliciousness. i think it's hard for aziraphale to conflate the two ideas that a) crowley has moments of being a good person regardless of hellish or heavenly identity, and that b) crowley doesn't want to be an angel. aziraphale still parallels good with angelicness, holds being good (and therefore being an angel) as the epitome of character, and can't as a result understand that if they were given the opportunity to change and improve the bad bits of heaven, why crowley wouldn't want to help him.

as LWA✨ says, the further we see their story progress, it becomes clear that aziraphale then begins to hold himself above crowley morally, and this is largely lynch-pinned on their separate identities as an angel and demon respectively. aziraphale constantly bats crowley down and puts him back in his place throughout s1, but less so in s2; in this, id refer back to aziraphale's insecurity around his being a good enough angel, but now that we have the context of AWCW having been aziraphale's technical superior, doing this possibly helps him to feel better about himself. this is abhorrent behaviour and is not at all kind, that can't be denied, but i think it is however possible to empathise with it.

aziraphale has spent a long time having an endless reserve of love and not having a lot of places where he can meaningfully channel it. he's got humanity and earth, but whilst he certainly cares for it, it doesn't mean that he candidly loves it. he still feels kinship to heaven and the other angels, but he certainly doesn't love them. in fact the only person he's ever had to fully pour out his love has been into crowley, but faced with the prospect that crowley may still be like his angelic self in that regard (ie not love him back), i think that love has been repressed so much that it's almost atrophied and turned self-destructive and self-sabotaging. in that context, whilst awful and generally inexcusable, aziraphale's behaviour starts to make sense.

crowley: Lucifer theory

i will preface this by saying that despite initial excitement, i don't necessarily think that crowley was lucifer in the colloquialised sense that we regard lucifer in general culture, but perhaps more represents lucifer in the wider sense of having a story that mirrors the one we can somewhat attribute to lucifer. whether or not he will actually be named as lucifer i think is up for debate, but in any case let's take a look at what lucifer's story actually entailed.

now i realise that i am absolutely not an expert on the matter, but there are indeed a wealth of misinterpretations where lucifer as a biblical figure is concerned. i am very behind on this discussion, angelology (shudder) is not in my limited repertoire of specialist subjects, and i welcome anyone else adding in their thoughts on the matter.

but if anyone else has zero knowledge on lucifer, like me, we'll start with the basics as i see them. name coming from the Latin for light- or dawn-bringer, lucifer has been linked to the planet venus in various tellings in roman mythology. given the occasional bright illumination of the planet as seen from earth, this is in part where we coming to the moniker Morningstar when also historically referring to lucifer. so on this base level, we have the link between lucifer and crowley by way of celestial context.

now down to a potential mistranslation, the hebrew for the name of satan, helel, has become synonymous with the name lucifer, down to their respective translations akin to the Latin for 'light-bringer'/'morningstar' as above, but that does not necessarily indicate that lucifer and satan are the same being. so this is where im fairly confident in that whoever crowley was, which is possibly lucifer, his story ran parallel to that of the former relatively unknown being and not the latter more infamous one.

crowley has referenced lucifer in s1, which has led to the debunk that the two are the same being, but when rewatching it, i think it can be completely reinterpreted:

c: "i never asked to be a demon. i was just minding my own business one day and then... "oh lookie here, it's lucifer and the guys!"... ah, hey - the food hadn't been that good lately, i didn't have anything on for the rest of the afternoon..."

this doesn't need to mean that AWCW was the one who came across lucifer and cohort, but possibly that someone else did, or just exclaiming it in the general sense. getting whimsical in the headcanon space, AWCW may well have been enjoying his afternoon, chatting with friends that he thought he could trust, and thought he could share his thoughts on challenging how things are run (same as he did with aziraphale). evidently, whatever happened completely bit him on the arse, and at minimum partially resulted in his fall.

there are multiple references to crowley being at least an angel of import, almost too many to count. however a common theme in many references to venus in various religious and mythological texts is the concept of reaching for higher power, but to be cast down and punished for it. given the indication (iirc) from interviews and also the pre-fall scene that crowley was up for collaborating with god on how to improve things in heaven, it could stand to reason that in a moment of anger or frustration he voices the thought that he could do a better job running the place.

and if other angels were behind him in this, equally dissatisfied with their lot in heaven, and being set aside by god in favour of humanity, it similarly wouldnt be a huge leap to think that this one sentence, this singular half-baked thought, might have precipitated the war. following said war, as LWA✨ suggests, it would make sense that in an effort to lick his wounds and keep a low profile, crowley would take or accept a middling rank in hell, and possibly even volunteer for the assignment of original sin; all the more opportunity to remove himself completely from the narrative between heaven and hell.

which then, now that i think about it, completely recontextualises crowley's aversion to being a part in helping aziraphale rebuild heaven. why would he want to, why wouldn't he be petrified of it, when the last time went so badly? there must be a sense of resentment towards aziraphale in this regard - what makes aziraphale, a potentially lower angel, so special that he would be invited to completely revolutionise heaven, when all AWCW did was make suggestions, and end up being villified for it? if he did join aziraphale, and challenged him, would aziraphale then be forced to cast crowley out again? what would crowley stand to lose this time?

so this is where i think the concept of crowley having a huge secret that he's keeping from aziraphale comes into play, and i agree must come out in s3. it would completely derail any faith that aziraphale had in crowley, for him to have kept such vital information from him, his potential part in the fall. i could imagine aziraphale interpreting the reveal of this secret as being that crowley fooled and hoodwinked him, however false or unintentional that might have been, and it representing the last vestige of aziraphale's innocence and naivety being swept away.

edit, because @baggvinshield has put this theory so eloquently and with far more comprehension and education than i could hope for: Lucifer theory

there are so many more topics that i have sat in various documents and in my notes as concerns these two characters; aziraphale's obsession with control and 'playing god', their shared inability to communicate effectively and meaningfully, crowley and his propensity for unintentional temptation, whether the love between them truly equates to any semblance of trust, etc etc. some of these topics have been alluded to in the above, but i felt that the above essay might be sufficient reading for now. im adoring (if a little bemused by it) the amount of discussion this silly little blog is generating, and im always more than happy to share my thoughts on anything GO-related where people want it!!!

and now - back to answering the hundreds of asks that have accumulated whilst i've hyperfixated on the above. ta-rah!✨💓

#good omens #good omens season two #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #good omens meta #good omens analysis #good omens speculation #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the great go angelology debate of july 2023 #aka 'was crowley an archangel and was he raphael? answer: fuck knows'#the legend of the longwinded anon✨#🚨 lucifer theory🚨

105 notes · View notes