hi! i always love your MDZS/CQL takes; can i ask what are the questions you think CQL is asking, as compared to MDZS?
I haven't actually revisited either canon in ages, which is making me nervous. what questions the novel is interested in can be pretty contentious all on its own! @mikkeneko has an excellent answer in the notes here which I reccomend to everyone. My own thoughts are honestly pretty scattered- I keep on deleting things and going hm, that's not quite right.
So, for the obvious-to-me example, people reasonably zero in on the creation of innocent doctors/radish farmers who Wen Ruohan is holding hostage. In CQL it's easy to infer that Wen Qing and Wen Ning are maybe the only cultivators and almost certainly the only combatants among the Wen remnants, and their status is much more ambiguous in the novel, which I personally think is asking, essentially, "and so what? were they wrong to run, when they had a chance? Do they deserve what Jin Guangshan will do to them if they go back? Aren't they just people, actually?" Whereas the question that CQL is asking is more to the effect of "What does Wen Qing owe these people, when she is their only defence? What is she entitled to do to save them, at other people's expense? If she fucks up that moral calculus, what then? Does it matter if she's personally fond of some of the outsiders who are going to get hurt? If one of them saved her brother? Later, this question will flip to what Wei Wuxian and Jiang Cheng, and the parallel to Jiang Cheng's situation in particular is, I think, genuinely pretty fun. You're giving up the Wen as soldiers who've laid down their arms in exchange for Wen Qing also grappling with leadership and the question of how many horrors she can stand to look the other way on to protect her own people. one reason I keep deleting so much is that a lot cql's changes were motivated at least in part by censorship, which I think we mostly share a general and justified distaste for! but I also think that within the bounds of that censorship the creative team put a lot of work into actually doing something interesting with those changes. Or, for another example- nieyao! There's a much greater emphasis on the nmj-jgy relationship, it's unambiguously very close and they are clearly extremely important to one another, and I think that's because the cql team has a lot to say about love, trust, power, and the ways those things interact, and that reflects back on all of the other relationships in play, including Wangxian. Almost every time, when CQL chooses change a relationship they make the characters in question closer- that's true for Jiang Cheng and Lan Wangji, for Wen Qing and the Yunmeng contingent, for Zixuan and Mianmian, and Huaisang and Meng Yao. It's even true for Lan Wangji and Wei Wuxian, who have a close and trusting relationship in first life! CQL puts a much greater emphasis on "all right, so you care, what next?" How do you choose someone and then choose to be good to them? What if there's a massive power disparity between you? What if you seriously disagree about your priorities and morals? How do you trust someone who's betrayed you? When is it a stupid choice to trust at all? How do you have faith that you know someone well enough for that trust to be meaningful?
for legal reasons i would like to specify that it's not that mdzs isn't interested in these problems. i do remember wangxian's literal trust fall. cql is asking these questions all the time about everyone. also for legal purposes i'm not suggesting that cql lwj and jc love each other. but! they establish a three month wartime partnership looking for wwx and then jc immediately drops him on wwx's say-so despite apparently having a positive enough opinion of him to tell wwx he thinks they should make up twice. lan wangji will later tell wwx he thinks he should loop jc in on the second flautist! these are people trying to navigate some kind of relationship/shared interest/community, as opposed to a hateful void. cql wants to say hey, how do you go about this? while I'm here and rambling cql also puts a lot of emphasis on wwx's connection to yunmeng and changes things up so instead of feeling alienated right before he leaves our last glimpse of him there is happily picking lotuses and playing with a kid! in both stories the narrative is asking who do you protect? who do you leave behind? can you ever get it back? but the angles are very different.
107 notes
·
View notes
I NEED to know why the transformers fandom is relevant
okay so, assuming you don't know anything beyond like. 4 characters: Megatron is depicted as a revolutionary in several of the continuities which bleeds over to the fandom perception, and he of course falls into that "bad guy makes good points so we need to have him commit genocide so people don't agree with him" camp. The comics published by IDW up to a few years ago had Megatron be essentially at the very bottom of the working class, while Optimus Prime was a fucking cop. Megatron rightfully pointed out the injustices on their planet, but was Too Radial™ about it, so of course he became the evil warmonger and Optimus Prime (canon police brutality enjoyer) went about it the Right Way™.
The comics series has had a MASSIVE impact on both the fandom and franchise itself, with current cartoons continuing to pull from it. It wasn't all bad, there are some interesting characters and in-universe concepts that IDW introduced, but what I've described above has left a really bad taste in my mouth.
So, with the main Transformers fandom on tumblr being a bunch of white 30 year old ao3 addicts whose peak theory moment was reading a Twitter thread, these cunts LOVE to act like they have everything figured out by reading that fucking god awful comics series and having their main takeaway be "yeah Megatron was right to build literal extermination camps, also cops are cool". It's soooooo annoying
33 notes
·
View notes
pacing and muttering again
“cinder, i am going to ask you this one more time, and i expect a clear answer. did you… kill ozpin?”
an unknown amount of time prior to this conversation, salem named ozpin’s death as the most important of cinder’s successes at beacon.
cinder did in fact kill ozpin, by melting his face into the floor, and has no reason to doubt herself on this point.
cinder is quick to claim her victories, even to the point of eliding help she received from others, but reports her failures in whatever manner she thinks will be most advantageous to herself.
salem can tell when people lie to her.
salem has been trying—seemingly for several months—to get a “clear answer” out of cinder regarding whether she did or did not kill ozpin.
which is a yes or no question.
if the answer was “yes” or “no” and salem didn’t believe that, she would be saying “i expect a truthful answer.”
salem does apparently take it as fact that ozpin is dead, or else she wouldn’t have emphasized his death in her praise of cinder’s accomplishments.
the point of contention is whether cinder killed him.
the answer is yes.
salem has repeatedly asked the question “did you kill ozpin?” and cinder has, up until this point, refused to give a straight answer—perhaps saying “he’s dead” or “i beat him”—which is peculiar because 1. salem seems to believe that ozpin is dead, 2. ozpin really is dead and cinder killed him, and 3. salem praises cinder for killing ozpin in front of the inner circle.
why has this question become an ongoing point of contention between them which cinder, evidently, is not willing to answer plainly? why, when salem asks “did you kill ozpin,” is cinder afraid to answer “yes”—despite the glowing praise salem gives her for killing ozpin, which cinder did in fact do?
she wasn’t supposed to.
like—it’s either that or cinder left ozpin alive enough behind herself to think he might have survived, which… do we believe that little miss the floor is lava now left without reducing him to a smear of charcoal first? and then shot pyrrha in the heart and incinerated her for good measure? cinder “no kill like overkill” fall? is it plausible to think that she did not know with absolute certainty that ozpin was dead?—whereas,
”that stunt you pulled; she’d have killed you if you wouldn’t just pop up somewhere else.”
hazel’s perception of who salem is may or may not be accurate, and he’s probably making an assumption here based on the intensity of salem’s reaction to learning that ozpin was back, but regardless: the possibility that salem might have wanted ozpin alive so that she’d know where he is has been textually stated. “did you… kill ozpin?”—and cinder is afraid to answer “yes.”
if those seers are something new salem devised after beacon tower fell, for the sake of being able to contact her agents over long distances without the CCTS—and emerald and mercury do react like they’ve never seen one before, and watts does treat the seer like a novelty in v5—then it is entirely possible that the seer in 4.3 is the first time salem has received a report from summer since the fall.
she leans over, listens to what summer tells her, and then tells cinder point blank, this time you are going to give me a clear yes or no. no, not through her—i want to hear you say it.
cinder, cornered:
either ozpin wasn’t supposed to die that night or salem didn’t want cinder, specifically, to kill him. salem knows he’s dead and that cinder killed him—cinder wouldn’t be this cagey otherwise—but she wants cinder to tell her.
this is probably the first time cinder’s disobeyed salem—or at least failed to follow orders to the letter, if cinder didn’t deliberately set out to kill him but realized their fight wasn’t going to end until one of them was dead—and after months of letting her dodge, salem just backed her into a corner. she’s terrified.
and then nothing bad happens. salem more or less just goes…ok. and moves on.
rolls over.
“i’m not especially fond of failure” / “then i see no reason for your cruelty toward young cinder; she’s become our fall maiden, destroyed beacon tower, and most importantly, killed dear ozpin… so i’m curious: to what failures are you referring?”
<- acquires a completely different subtext if killing ozpin was an act of disobedience that cinder has so far been unwilling to admit.
salem would have preferred ozpin alive as a known quantity over the uncertainty of not knowing when or where he might return, or she had specific concerns about cinder fighting him which are now largely moot; in either case he’s dead and she’s decided to take that as a victory. she isn’t upset or angry. but she does want cinder to tell her the truth.
she’s not stupid. she is undoubtedly aware that cinder is afraid of what salem will do to her if/when she confesses.
“then i see no reason for your cruelty toward young cinder; she’s become our fall maiden, destroyed beacon tower, and killed ozpin”—salem holds eye contact with cinder the whole time she’s saying this. it’s a message for cinder as much as it is watts: i know you killed him, it is of no consequence, i will not be cruel to you. days, weeks, however much longer it is, she corners cinder and then just moves on without so much as a word of rebuke.
compare:
what she does when hazel lies to her. 4.3 and 6.4 are identical circumstances in that salem already knows the answer and what matters to her is that her subordinate tells the truth, with 4.3 demonstrating how she answers honesty (no consequences at all) and 6.4 the spectacle she makes of punishing a lie.
(<- same posture, same intent.)
it speaks to how much lenience salem gives cinder that she does not extend to anyone else, because she gives hazel just two chances (“i would like you to explain to me how it is you failed so spectacularly,” and then when hazel skirts around it, “stop. let me rephrase the question: who is responsible for your defeat?”) whereas she lets cinder evade the “did you kill ozpin?” question for, apparently, months whilst making a point of signaling to cinder that she already knows and will not be angry before she finally puts her foot down and insists on a straight answer.
salem knows cinder lied to her about what happened while she was reconstituting. the exact moment she clocks it is when cinder says “i couldn’t even stop the maiden from escaping without putting the relics in jeopardy”—
—she knows. but she knew in v4 that cinder’s caginess came from a place of fear, and made an effort to allay that fear before forcing the issue. (also: “it can sense your trepidation; don’t fight it, girl. you must make it dread you” is a very thinly-veiled “don’t be afraid”). by the end of v8 salem is aware of both cinder’s fear and the intensity of cinder’s resentment; what rapport existed between them before haven is gone and the relationship is badly fractured.
so she is being Delicate.
which isn’t the same as letting cinder get away with the deception; she’s still going to want cinder to tell her the truth.
but she’s going to handle it the way she handled “did you kill ozpin?” and i anticipate that will be the fulcrum of whatever happens between her and cinder during the beacon arc (villains edition), because salem’s practical interest in the relics is secondary to her emotional investment in honesty. and of course there’s the symbol of cinder being the one who knows jinn’s name—if salem wants the truth she needs to first earn real trust, not just the veneer she gained in v4-5 and then shattered in v8.
45 notes
·
View notes