#critical analysis

[ouroborosorder]

Guide Ahead Means Something To Me

Writing about Guide Ahead is…. extremely difficult, for a few reasons. One is that it is a very dense story, and to fully unpack it would require an essay so unfocused that it would be functionally unreadable. But the biggest one is that Guide Ahead is a story that focuses really heavily on the subjective nature of interpretation. How can I speak authoritatively on the thematic meaning of the plot when even a basic description of its events demands a deeper poetic interpretation?

The answer is “I can’t.” So, let’s piss off my English teacher, and coat an entire essay in the phrase “in my opinion.” Because I have to get personal if I’m going to tell you why Guide Ahead is my favorite video game story ever told.

I was raised Mormon. My mother was religious, but my father was absolutely not. You can understand why I related to Cecilia basically immediately.

Ultimately, the thing that draws me to Guide Ahead is the very thing that makes it hard to write about. Guide Ahead is, in my reading, a story about the subjectivity of divine meaning.

The most obvious manifestation, and the most important, is Law. But, Law’s execution, in traditional Arknights fashion, is kinda unclear, so I’ll recap for those who have hobbies outside of this, unlike me.

Law is the supercomputer buried underneath Laterano, and is the sentient religion that binds all the Sankta together into a hivemind of sorts. The Sankta are actually just Sarkaz connected to Law, given halos, wings, and empathic communication between each other. But, the main thing they gain, is a biological impulse to obey the Lateran religion’s thirteen doctrines. Anyone who breaks these doctrines are marked as Fallen, are cut off from the empathic connection, and slowly revert back to Sarkaz. Law represents religion as a concept and a community. Saints and sinners are just one and the same. But despite that, the laws of religion are created just to perpetuate the existence of a special in-group. One enforced by empathic connection they cannot share with anyone outside of them. That is Patia’s point - the Sankta have created an “us” and a “them,” and even the devout Liberi are not seen as “us.” They’re just converts, not real Sankta.

But, Falling has… weird grey areas. Like how Andoain was able to shoot Lemuen, or draw his gun on the fucking Pope, and not Fall in the process. This is because the doctrines are not actually the guidelines they’re held to. The Doctrines are subjective interpretations of the objective Law that they are all beholden to. That Law being “It must survive.” Law only is interested in the perpetuation of Itself, and, as a result, the continued existence of the Sankta as a societal structure.

This is the first and strongest example of what I mean when I say Guide Ahead is about meaning. Law says that the failure of religion is ultimately that religions supplant any subjective meanings with an “objective” meaning. But this “objective” meaning is just another person’s interpretation of the in-group’s best interest. Laws biologically programmed into the Sankta’s souls are revealed to be nothing but interpretation of Law’s interpretation of events.

People Fall not because they have broken a concrete law, but because Law… because the in-group has decided they did. Or when they broke the rules, they did something that’s good for the church. There is no objective laws within the Lateran religion, no matter what the machine is named. The system just declares sin when it deems worthy, and absolution when sin is a benefit.

It is this very hypocrisy that drives Andoain.

——————————————————————————————————

I remember being pulled aside at church one day. Everyone above 14 was given a sermon about the recent legalization of gay marriage. He said it was wrong, the church would never accept it. I asked him if it was like the time the church refused to give black people the Priesthood. He said this was different. I asked him how. He did not answer. I left and someone followed me out. He asked if I was okay. I told him whatever he was saying in there was not the teachings of any god that I know, and wasn’t the teachings of any god that loves me. I kept going to church after that, but deep down, I think I didn’t believe in it anymore. I didn’t feel like part of the community, I lost that reciprocation with my people. I just… began to think.

Andoain, as an antagonist, is defined by a search for meaning. He was the bishop of an Iberian church, and Iberia is doing pretty bad lately. His request for aid from Laterano was denied, and the message was clear to him. “You are one of us, but they are not.” But that answer just created a new question. Why? Why would those who claim faith and utopia as their ideals reject those who are suffering?

He searched for an answer in exile, and he didn’t find one. Instead, he found another story. The Sarkaz man who died in the watchtower to warn a town who hated him of an invading force. And this story made his question develop. Why would someone who is hated by everyone give their life to protect those very people? And why would those people then cry over the grave of someone they hated?

He had seen the realities of the Sarkaz and Sankta laid bare, but he couldn’t figure out the meaning behind it. He tells Cecilia these stories, knowing full well he doesn’t know what to make of them. I think he tells them to hope he finds the point partway through.

——————————————————————————————————

As much as I hate the Mormon church for dear god everything they’ve ever done holy shit look at them? My feelings are predictably complicated. Years later, my family fell upon hard times. I don’t want to say more than that for my own sake. We were struggling to even live. But… the church helped us. None of us gone to church for years, but they offered a hand. They gave us access to the Bishop’s Storehouse, gave us food and supplies for free, because we were starving. 

And yes, I know. I know they do this in an attempt at creating a false brotherhood in an effort to create a fascist sense of community. I have also read that part of Brothers Karamazov. I have also read Guide Ahead, come to think of it. But… Shit. Most of them tried to pretend we didn’t exist when we met them in the grocery store. And… they still helped us. In their eyes, I was Fallen.

But still, they saved us, and didn’t even ask for faith in return. I still can’t figure out why.

This is why I just… can’t see Andoain as a villain. I mean, yeah, he shot Lemuen, but even she doesn’t blame him for shooting his friends while holding the Stick That Makes You Shoot Your Friends. His entire goal is an attempt to sort through the cognitive dissonance between what the church tells him and what the church does. A dissonance that is, because of Law and the doctrines, innate to what the church is. An experience that should feel damn familiar to anyone who has spent time as an apostate. His plan is to simply confront the Pope about this hypocrisy, to get an answer, to find a meaning.

The answer he gets back is… It Must Survive. Law must survive. The in-group must survive. It doesn’t matter if we cry over the grave of the Sarkaz, because the Sarkaz would die for us. He searched for the answer to a question, the meaning of a statement. You are one of us. They are not. All this time, he searched for the meaning of those words, but in reality, those words were the meaning. That was all they ever had to say. He just needed to accept that.

…but if the in-group is all that mattered… why allow Mostima in Laterano? Why give her her position? She’s not needed for the survival of the in-group, the Law has deemed her an exile.

And… Why not Andoain?

Before he leaves, his gun is taken from him. A gun that, according to the church, has meaning. A meaning he takes as truth. He believes a part of him is left behind there. I don’t think he realizes it, but Mostima and Fiammetta are the question he left behind. They are Not Sankta, but yet they are accepted. And… I don’t know if there is a meaning to that. I still can’t figure out why.

——————————————————————————————————

For a long time, I missed those days spent in the community I had left. I would remember the things I left behind. The churchball basketball games we were destined to lose. The conversations held on the roof of the storage building behind the church. The scouting activities that were clearly an excuse to go bowling. The shitty halloween parties with the game where you ate donuts tied to a string hanging from a fishing pole. I missed it, for a time. I couldn’t help but look back.

Cecilia is searching for meaning to almost everything. When Andoain tells his stories to Cecilia, he tells her that he can’t find the meaning of them. That if there is meaning to be found, she’ll have to find it herself. So. She does.

Cecilia was faced with the same situation Andoain was obsessed with. But for her, it wasn’t hypothetical. She existed between Us and Them. She felt the pull between the community and the love and fun they represent, and the outsiders who were hated and rejected by the people around her. Society told her the meaning of her dual identity, the meaning behind each half, and then told her to choose. But… she’d experienced otherwise. She’d felt the kindness of the Sarkaz from the Pathfinders, and the hatred from the Church. She’d felt things that contradicted the meaning that she was told was true.

Her story isn’t just being forced to pick a side between the church or apostacy, it’s being forced to pick what meaning she ascribes to the world. Ultimately, that’s why her answer can only be her own. Your belief is… subjective.

And she answered… with a bell. A Sarkaz girl, bearing a halo, ringing a bell that has not been rung since the Sankta were still called Teekaz. A bell that once marked the beginning of the new era. A bell that carries the weight of a Sarkaz, hated by the place they called home. A bell that rings with the melody of a Sarkaz lullaby once sung by a Sankta. A bell that asserts her answer. She’s not Sarkaz, she’s not Sankta. She is Cecilia.

Everyone else finds their own subjective meaning within that action. Something as mundane as the ringing of the bell suddenly has more meaning than divine scripture.

No one else understood the nuance of what she said, but they understood parts of it. They understood what they wanted to. Those who know nothing of Lateran culture understand it as just… a beautiful welcome, celebrating the arrival of talks of peace. Most have their meaning determined by the church’s traditions. The pious see it as the beginning of a new era, whatever that signals to them. To the Church, it is that their talks will bring about a new era of peace. To the Pathfinders, it is a signal to begin their attack on Laterano to begin their new era.

There is so much meaning in that action, but in the end, it’s still just a fucking bell. There’s got to be hundreds, maybe thousands of them in Laterano. But this bell meant something more than the other bells. This bell had meaning, and that meaning made it divine.

This, to me, is what Guide Ahead has to say. That there is so much meaning to be found in something as mundane as a ringing bell. Within such a simple action, there is personal expression, liberation, the sound of change. And in all of this, there is the echoes of divinity, the echoes of faith, as if all of these things are, in themselves, divine.

——————————————————————————————————

When I left the church, I couldn’t help but look back, still tethered to a community who hated me. I think I wished I could stop looking back. I don't know if I realized I was.

In the end, everyone else looks back. They still have meaning to be found in Laterano. Andoain looks back, a part of his soul anchored there by the symbol he was told to believe in. Mostima looks back, knowing she’ll return just as she always does. Fiammetta looks back, because she refuses to let herself leave. Ezell looks back, unsure if he will be able to return home after what he has found.

But… Cecilia doesn’t. She has decided that she is not defined by the church, or the meaning they try to give her. She has decided to leave Laterano and see the world outside of it, to explore the world around her and find the meaning for herself.

And the last thing Cecilia does is... defined by ambiguous meaning. She sees Andoain walking in the sunset - and a word appears to her. The title of Martyr. A title she doesn’t understand the meaning or weight of, but that she feels is appropriate regardless. A title that, to other people, would mean something more. But to her, brings to mind the saints she heard of as a youth, a word her mother told her was important.

The story is ending, and they end it with an assertion. Cecilia is finding meaning, and others will find what they will within. Perhaps even she doesn't know all of it.

A while back, during a theater rehearsal, I suddenly remembered a conversation I had years before I left the church. I remembered speaking with my friends outside of the chapel after a sunday service. My friend said a sentence that has stuck with me ever since. “I don’t think science goes against God. I think God uses science and math. I think those things are holy, because they’re… what everything is made of.”

I remember looking around the rehearsal space and thinking that if science could be sacred, then… so is this moment, now. So is my time spent with the people I love. This is sacred. What I missed, what kept me looking back. It wasn’t the actual religion, but instead… just belonging to something. So… I stopped looking back. In that moment, however fleeting it was, I had found whatever it was I needed.

—————————————————————————————————

Look. You probably had a different interpretation of Guide Ahead. This story is just… So goddamn dense. There is so much there that I didn’t even touch on. For the love of god, I just did an analysis of Guide Ahead and didn’t even really discuss Fiammetta?? What kind of hack writer am I? (I just… couldn’t talk about her without being more personal than I am willing to be in public.)

If you have an interpretation that is different than mine, that’s great. I encourage you to hold on to it, and hold it close. That meaning is yours, and yours alone, and that’s a precious thing.

Because to me, what I found… is that very idea.

There is meaning to be found in anything - and a meaning that is yours, and yours alone. All you have to do is find meaning. and the idea that there is meaning to the world, that everything has meaning not because there is a “true” meaning to it, but because we find one there, because we put one there… that makes everything feel… divine, to me.

So… wherever you find meaning, you can find the divine.

You can find divinity in a ringing bell. In a terrible cactus tart. A carnival game you know how to beat. The promises of peace around a table. A cup of coffee. A city you hate. A community you love. A flower growing near a grave. A weapon you carry. A people you surround yourself with.

Those are all… holy to me.

And to me… that meaning is enough.

I hope yours is for you.

#arknights #critical analysis #feel free to reblog #i know this is personal but don't worry I wrote it to be shared #thank you all. #finally i can rest

[tobiasdrake]

You know, I really think that critics and artists need to come together to form the wall against AI art. It's rare, I know, but this is one place where I think we have a common enemy.

As an artist, you don't want your work stolen and used without compensation or credit to churn out soulless consumerist trash.

Me, I'm a critic. And you know what? I don't want to review the mass-produced garbage utterly devoid of artistic meaning or value that would be produced in this manner.

You pour your heart and soul into the art you create. And it's that very heart and soul that I'm looking for when I'm critiquing your work. I know I can be harsh at times. And I know it may sometimes feel as though we are natural enemies. But without that sincere, honest human expression that you pour into your work, my field wouldn't even exist.

And I promise you, even when I don't like what you've put in front of me, I would rather sit through it a thousand times than have to scrutinize a bastardized Frankenstein's Monster of ideas created by a soulless computerized husk that can't even comprehend the words being regurgitated from its automated mouth.

Every critic needs to stand behind creators against this digital invasion of our spaces.

#ai art #creativity #writing #art #criticism #critical analysis #media

[jkl-fff]

GUYS, I FIGURED OUT THE BLACK TURTLES!

It's a detail of OTGW that's lowkey perplexed me since the series first aired. What's with the black turtles that appear in every episode? What role do they serve in the story, and what do they represent?

A small, seemingly inconsequential detail, but just the sort to occupy my mind every time I watch the show.

My first train of thought: Are they manifestations of The Beast's power and influence? If not, why does eating one turn Beatrice's dog into a slavering monster? But if so, why is Auntie Whispers purely benevolent despite eating one (and presumably much more)? Why aren't they themselves monstrous and malevolent? But also why aren't they, on the contrary, beautiful and benevolent? They're just ... sorta there, which suggests there's no supernatural nor moral element to them. Yet they're clearly not natural turtles, either ...

My second train of thpught: Are they representations of the Unknown's liminal nature, moving between land and water just as the Unknown is between life and death? Thus a foreshadow and a reminder of the brother's state? It would sorta make sense, given their omnipresence. Mirrored by the brother's Frog, whose amphibious nature is likewise liminal. And the weirdness of turtles specifically for this symbolic role fits the the weird aesthetic of The Unknown. Still, it didn't seem to quite fit.

BUT TONIGHT, I FIGURED OUT WHERE THEY COME FROM! THE OLD GRIST MILL!

WHERE THE WOODSMAN HAS BEEN GRINDING EDELWOOD TREES INTO A DISTINCTIVELY BLACK OIL FOR THE LANTERN!

SOME OF WHICH MUST BE WASHED OFF, LEAKING, OR EVEN SPILLED OUTRIGHT INTO THE STREAM THAT POWERS THE MILL, AND THUS CONTAMINATING THE ENVIRONMENT!

It's pollution. Industrial Revolution era pollution is the reason for the black turtles distinctive color and weird effects on some people, but not others.

#over the garden wall #otgw #turtle #pollution #environment #literary analysis #critical analysis #literary theory

[pretty-weird-ideas]

If you cannot make a cognizant sentence about racism, you cannot make a cognizant sentence about anything else in this fandom.

Once you admit that you aren’t consuming IWTV’s textual elements in good faith i don’t trust any analysis you could possibly have.

I just saw a post telling fans to stop reading into race in this show, and I shit you not, that the show should be read in a colorblind lens. You know, the narrative about interracial relationships and power dynamics in the 1920s south with a Black MC who is oppressed on screen and verbally describes said thing happening consistently.

“It’s okay to not understand the basic readings of the text” is an insane take when these same people are known for chasing after black fans with a baseball bat over their own theories not being taken seriously.

Anyone who sits up there and agrees with “watching IWTV colorblindly” can go ahead and stop posting their analysis or block me because I don’t trust analysis from people who don’t understand the basic reading of the narrative.

If someone tells me the sky is green… I won’t trust them saying the Earth is flat either. If you believe that race is negligible in a show that centers RACISM as a prevalent theme, you cannot make me believe you understand ANY of the show.

I can’t believe people are proudly saying that they’re intentionally media illiterate and are handing out “passes” to other fans to join them in flagrant misunderstanding of the narrative. Mostly just as a grift to explain why black fans who they disagree with should be ignored wholesale if they tell enough people that it’s hip and trendy to be ignorant of the DIRECTLY STATED THEMES.

Fellas, is it trendy and cool to be intentionally dense and uncritical to win an internet argument against black critics and analysts who have more understanding than you do?

#iwtv amc #iwtv #black fandom #interview with the vampire #louis du pointe du lac #critical analysis

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Okay so this has been on my mind for awhile and I wanted to get my thoughts out there. Regarding the topic of Rauru and Ganons relationship, I feel like rauru has kinda been bashed? people seem think that rauru in memory 6 (I believe) had a bit of a god complex, and that he was disrespectful. I feel as if rauru kinda had a right to act the way he did.

Rauru had wanted to become Allie’s with the gerudo. Not necessarily because he wants them to serve him but more for resources. Or more likely knowing Ganon he was attacking hyrule. The reason why I suspect this is because during the molduga incident rauru and Sonia seem to be very familiar with theses types of attacks. So it’s likely Ganon had ordered monster attacks on them before. Likely the attacks were getting to much for rauru and Sonia to handle; on top of establishing hyrule, rauru sent out messages for Ganon to join the kingdom in order to stop the attacks. Or another reasoning is that the gerudo were likely suffering. Ganon has been shown to not always prioritize his people. And knowing from past games the gerudo desert doesn’t have much resources. We can kinda see this in Totk they seem to only have hydromelon and voltfruit (I highly doubt that the gerudo had men at the time bringing them food from hyrules fields). If you’ve talked to rauru on the sky islands you’ll know that rauru is actually a very sweet and sympathetic guy, so I believe this could be a possibility.

Moving forward to raurus attitude during their meeting.Now rauru wasn’t exactly the nicest during the meeting, but I don’t really blame him. Rauru probably annoyed that ganon has been ignoring his letters and putting his people in danger. Also Ganon was very sketchy during that entire meeting and was rude in his tone.

Why did Ganon bow? Ganon and rauru are not equal, yes they are both kings but rauru has massive amounts of power and has a much larger land mass. (and zonia are kinda gods) but I don’t think the reasoning for Ganon bowing is because he less than or non equal to rauru. More like he was apologizing and giving rauru respect for the countless times he’s ignored him or tried to kill him.

More of raurus tone in the meeting Again I think he was really fed up with Ganon and rauru seems very non confrontational (he apologizes in the sky islands that the constructs attack link, and ask link not to be angry because they can’t understand) rauru likely wanted it to get into ganons mind not to attack the kingdom again because rauru had a lot of Allie’s and power and will attack Ganon if he pulls a stunt.

Ganon vs the gerudo. This part is a little off topic but, lots believe rauru is low key kinda racist towards the gerudo. But if this was true why was gerudo sage working with rauru? I don’t think that the way rauru acts is how he acts to all gerudo. The sage of lighting very obviously doesn’t like Ganon. The reasoning  could be my first point. And later on after the imprisoning war the gerudo still stuck with hyrules side.

That’s all I have for right now, sorry if it’s all jumbled up I tried to make it coherent. Anyways I appreciate you for reading this :3

-🔺

Hi, thanks for the lengthy ask!! I'm sorry for the lengthy answer this beckoned, but I think this conversation is pretty important --even beyond Zelda and this specific case. We're talking themes and tropes and framing!!!!

I will try to reply to all of this in a way that kind of threads through several layers of why people have been bashing Rauru, me included. I will try my best to explain why I dislike this character, and try to parse out why I am this miffed by Tears of the Kingdom's storyline overall.

The long story short is: I don't dislike Rauru as a person (I mean, I also would tbh), I dislike him because of what he represents.

I think the waters did muddy a little in the "discourse" recently, and it's a good thing to take a step back and re-explain where I'm coming from (me personally, not going to speak for anyone but me here).

Also, before jumping in: this is not a condamnation on anyone who enjoys this story or these characters, nothing is unproblematic, it's fine, everybody does what they want, all of the things. I like the game and I keep playing the game in spite of being harshly critical of the ideas pushed forward. Also: it's fine to digest this and come back later (or not at all) if that feels like a lot, or if some of these ideas don't immediately click. But it's also partially why I think it's important: this game is aimed at a young audience, and one who might not have all of the keys to decipher what's going on, which is why I think it's quite irresponsible (which is the charitable interpretation) on Nintendo's part.

Anyway. Too many words underneath the cut.

The Story

So, first of all, I want to say that I believe you completely and fully read the situation as Nintendo intended it to be read. This is the text of the game (aka, the story taken at face value). You picked up on every single safeguard put into place to have Rauru and Sonia act in the most justifiable way possible, and have Ganondorf, on the other hand, act as a duplicitous, power-hungry and downright insane as they could have made him. In the reality of their universe, and only taking into account what is given to us through the narrative, trusting it comes from a neutral place and isn't influenced by anything, everything you said is 100% correct.

Rauru and Sonia WERE acting in self-defense, and were even kind not to turn their incommensurable power against the invading army.

The kingdom Rauru built as a demigod IS a paradise and they WERE very generous to invite neighboring nations to bask in their wealth and its technological and natural blessings (and the results of their extensive mining and why are there killer robots everywhere if this world was such a peaceful paradise uhh let's not ponder about this too much). That Ganondorf was too prideful and envious to accept IS a sin that rests solely with him.

Rauru IS a brave hero that sacrificed himself to seal the invader that killed his beloved wife.

Every single Sage IS extraordinarily devoted to protect both Rauru's lineage and their own lands, and gleefully pass down that duty to their ancestors --all thanks to Zelda, heir of that blessed royal line who returned to the past and made them promise to fight alongside Link to seal the Evil once more.

The gerudo WERE (apparently) oppressed, as they decided to fight under Rauru's authority freely (so against their own chief??) and, also, must make amends for having put Ganondorf in this world in the first place? ( I think we are already starting to see some contradictions --were you always victims or did you start this conflict in the first place? what is your place in all of this? why don't we ever get to know?)

This IS the story of Tears of the Kingdom. A story of a great sacrifice that happened in the golden mythical past (confirmed as unquestionable truth through the archeology motif), done by benevolent godly figures of royal blood and immense power they would never abuse, giving their everything to bring Light into a broken world corrupted by the degeneracy of Evil, echoed by the devotion of nations who swore fealty to that divine being and must now renew their vow in the present to defend their lands and Hyrule at any cost. Also, the impossible and magnificient suffering of the princess, whose tears lead to a trail of truth into the very land, informs the current population about why they're fighting now; she's at once a hero of the past and a martyr in the present, completely incapable of acting on her own, carrying with her the blade that will slay the crushing and violent sway of Evil for good and bring eternal peace into the land (Evil who uses her own appearance to cause chaos and violence against her own people --the blasphemy!!). The title of the game reflects this too: the Tears of the Kingdom are hers. Zelda is the kingdom here, and her pain/the pain of that mythical past is what is centered.

Also Ganondorf IS green so it's not racist okay let's stop right here and unpack all of this mess, because BOY oh boy oh boy oh boy.

oh boy.

The History

Now comes the time to point out the obvious, but that bears being repeated: this is a fictional story. It's a story crafted by a very powerful game company set in Japan. It's a story crafted by a huge number of people, who debated for years how to best tell it, why, and what for. Every single choice made in the narrative is purposeful, has been weighted against other options, and was picked over what could have been virtually anything else. Again, I want to state that I don't know if any single person took these decisions, probably not entirely, and it's even possible Nintendo didn't realize (I doubt it heavily tbh, but I'm sure there are people in the team that didn't get it or didn't see the issue), but a certain kind of story was crafted in the end, and it's the one we got.

One word that has been tossed around a lot as far as TotK's story goes is ✨ imperialism ✨, and I want to pause and take a second to analyse exactly what we mean by that and why I think it's painfully relevant here (and, honestly, I think another word would be very very relevant here also, but it's the kind of word you keep for after you're done with your argumentation not to scare off the unconvinced audience --but, to anyone who reads and might have picked it up already, yeah.)

In our real world of Earth 2023™, we have seen quite the number of extraordinarily powerful nations becoming gradually larger, engulfing neighbors, breaking apart, and leaving the buds of new future empires behind them. Hell, there's a number of them existing right now, even if they don't call themselves empires and don't have literal emperors at their head anymore (though Japan does, and it is important here). Of course, no nation, especially nations striving for expansion, worldwide legitimacy in culture and power, and their own understanding of "greatness", would ever call themselves anything but enlightened and justified. After all, the Roman Empire brings aqueducts and infrastructure to the lands they conquer, China unifies disparaging regions struggling under constant barbaric attacks, France and Spain converts local populations of the "New World" and save their souls from eternal damnation (wow thanks guysss), the British Empire brings industrial revolution uhhh everywhere please don't ask what was the cost, Africa sure loves everybody ripping their culture and lands apart and were so super glad to receive whatever "civilization" is supposed to mean when their literal people were being pillaged away to keep on building said empires using their blood as mortar, the URSS protects neighboring nations from the Evil Capital/West, fascists want to purge the world of anything they consider impure, the US brings freedom to the world and the whole world is grateful forever!!!

Everyone always has an excuse, and everyone is always kind of semi-mandated by God (in the largest possible sense; divine responsibility would perhaps be more appropriate, it's kind of the idea that with great power comes responsibility, while defining what responsibility means and inflicting their conclusions to conquered lands to squeeze even more value out of them) to do whatever the hell they want to others, claim their lands, their bodies, their minds, their culture --and demand gratefulness on top of it all to avoid having to feel bad.

There is a large body of fictional works that are dedicated to boister the image of the Empire. Every single empire has a number of them; their goal is often to mythologize, in some form or another, the story of their expansion. It often flattens every nuance, paints the actions of the empire as the natural order of the world and its opposition as morally malignant, their leaders are charismatic, benevolent, powerful and self-sacrificial. Often, it invokes previous empires to cast the current one as inheriting a grace that was tragically lost and must be restored through war, hard work, and healthy natality --I'll dip into the forbidden comparaison but Nazi Germany loved its greek myths of Sparta and Athens (and modern day fascists still do), or the Napoleon Wars so they could retell the story of their own empire by invoking a legacy of moral diligence and ethnical greatness being restored. But the pattern is often very similar: we used to be Great, a tragic event due to both external invasion and internal corruption precipitated our golden age into chaos and degeneracy, and now we must fight off current day corruption to restore the Glory of the old times we lost --all of this under the benevolent gaze of our leaders, whose mission is a direct or indirect intervention of divinity into mortal lives. It is righteous and glorious to fight/die for the nation (and its leaders) and protect it from the uncivilized, who are inhuman and exist solely to trick us, corrupt us, attack us and assimilate/destroy us.

Are we starting to notice some similarities here :) :) :)

The Narrative

There's two conversations running in parallel here.

The first one is the least important in my opinion, even though it's the one we tend to focus on a lot as theorists/enthusiasts/enjoyers of media: is Rauru oppressing the gerudos, and does that inform Ganondorf's actions?

Honestly? Textually? Probably not.

There are arguments to be made (and that deserve to be made) about the insane power imbalance, there are a lot of suspicious aspects that deserve to be picked apart like the address and deference of Ganondorf towards Rauru, the whole mining thing that I don't see being discussed much but could be a huge part of it --there are ancient mines in the gerudo region after all; since when? what's the history here?-- the strange masks the Sages are to wear when Zelda, as a direct descendant, isn't wearing any, etc etc. Lots of other posts have been made about the million tiny red flags that litter the game, but I think that if we take the game at face value, they barely matter. I would love them to have been placed with intent (and they maybe were as a desperate attempt by an employee trying to inject grayness back in the equation and if that's the case I SEE YOU random gamedev and I love you and you did the best you could <3), but to me that's more a case of wishful fan thinking (including mine tbh) that any concrete argument that the story is secretely about Rauru being imperialist and this costing him everything. There are some hints of a more nuanced world (the Horned God, the Bargainers, that some NPCs are invested in monsters are creatures worthy of study and awe --tho almost all of them ridiculed in some form), but these demand that you go out of your way to collect them and make the connection yourself. Can this even qualify as subtext? As in: the story under the story? As much as I wish this was the case, I don't think so. We can't make the case that it's a simple story for children that isn't trying to say anything grand while also demanding people to make insane mental gymnastics on their own, without any help on the game's part, for it not to be a blatant endorsement of imperialist thinking.

(especially not the kind of game that repeats 3 different times back to back that Sidon didn't talk to Yona because he was afraid to lose her like he lost Mipha --honestly what's up with this writing I don't get it, BotW didn't act like its players' brain was this unplugged, ANYWAY)

The story is about Ganondorf being duplicitous and monstrous and destroying the beautiful kingdom of the past, and us preserving our modern day kingdom from its corrupting influence by recruiting allies and friends in that fight. We are given a plethora of situations that paint him as inhumanely cruel and chaotic, and none that breath even the suggestion of a critique towards our heroes. He's evil: we must stop him.

Now comes the second conversation, and one I think is more important: is this entire storyline built off imperialist tropes that were created to oppress and exploit marginalized populations in real life while justifying the violence inflincted upon them?

In my opinion, yes. Undeniably so.

I am not so much invested in Rauru being racist towards Ganondorf; I am invested in the real life Nintendo videogame being racist towards the idea that Ganondorf represents: the scary foreigner that will lead to the fall of civilization if we let him in.

(and perhaps this was Rauru's hubris all along: to believe he could let a scary (male) foreigner in and then trust him to remain docile.... a little too much. And then he reaped what he sowed.

checkmate liberal.

This makes an uncomfortable amount of sense and I kinda hate having made the connection tbh)

This is especially true when it's the second time around that this exact storyline is represented, and I believe it to be much more insidious this time around --because now, gerudos are our friendssss and feel great shame and personal responsibility towards that aspect of them that once rebelled. Meanwhile in OoT, a majority of them were onboard with Ganondorf as their leader and explicitely did not want to be assimilated in the kindgom (Nabooru being specifically painted as one of the exceptions). I go more in depth about all of this in this pre-TotK post about gerudo culture. We had plenty of conversations about orientalism and islamophobic representation in videogames since; it was A Thing at the time, the turn of the century was particularly egregious in that regard. But It's not 1998 anymore, and I personally believe it's pretty inexcusable to rethread that same ground beat by beat without batting an eye at any of its implications (especially since they have done better since; even Twilight Princess, who gave him very little grace overall, dared to criticize hylians through Midna, Zelda and even Zant --and Wind Waker towed the line rather beautifully between the part of him that was human and the part that was monstrous, and the tragedy of these two cancelling each other out constantly). I was expecting much, much better than what we got --I didn't even dare to imagine they would just double-down on that aspect and make a worse version of Ocarina of Time to reintroduce the character.

This is also partially why I'm so uncomfortable with the green skin situation: can you imagine how this scene would have felt like, with the single brown-skinned guy having a central role in the game kneeling in front of a white old man with a droopy mustache (which was Rauru's first iteration in the series, and the one I always keep in mind when having these conversations) and his blonde wife, and Zelda being "hmmm he's evil for sure"? And then he 100% is, with no justification or reason beyond an urge to consume the entire world --even this, which is not uninteresting, remaining completely unexplored in a 150+ hour open-world game that decided to focus on everything under the sun EXCEPT Ganondorf's motivations and his relationship to his own people? Can you imagine how obvious of a racist caricature Ganondorf would have been just by keeping his skin a normal brown (not to pretend he's not already super coded as Foreign in every possible way)? The man is intimidating, uncomfortable to be around, he's greedy and power-hungry, he's insane, he comes for our lands and our women and oppresses his own and also corrupts everything through either infiltration or literal disease. Also he's uhhh the Devil, for good measure.

As much as we can rationalize and embrace these parts of who he is as fans, there's no ignoring how icky this entire situation really is.

So, to tie everything together.

There are three readings of this game competing in my head.

The first one is: the textual interpretation. Rauru is self-sacrificial and a victim, Zelda is deeply brave and an icon of the empire's longevity and deep-rooted history, Ganondorf is utterly inhuman and must be destroyed at all costs. What the game says it is --and what it is.

The second one is: the critical interpretation. That this story sounds awfully convenient for the prosperity of the Empire (here the empire being Hyrule), paints Zelda, the current leader, in a weird fanficky way by literally sending her back to the past with her super cool ancestors and allowing a military victory in the present while also being a martyr to the cause and being much more of a symbol than a person, and nobody even bats a fucking eye in the direction that Hyrule might have been questionable in any way --everyone is so happy to be a vassal, see? Let's not unpack why the king of the zoras prefered hiding himself than facing the consequences of what would happen if Zelda really did attack him out of the blue (this plot point is insane, but its potential is too good so therefore it's illegal and immediately dropped). Let's not unpack the absolute insane amount of abuse false Zelda gets away with by virtue of acting as the princess of a sacred bloodline (but she's nice, right? because that's how you want to make a sure a ruler won't hurt you: praying they will be nice). There are enough red flags to doubt this world, its reality, the complexity of these people's inner lives. The rejection of the notion that any sort of flaw or problem could exist within the system makes it borderline dystopian in my opinion (especially when compared with BotW's Hyrule, which had problems who led to its own downfall and were the fault of nobody but their own actions as Ganon is portrayed more as a natural event than an actual, malicious person), and this is the first reason why I don't like Rauru: the entire world revolves around this goat-kangaroo-furry man's chiseled navel. Everyone is, quite literally, a faceless tool in the glorious and tragic story of his lost empire (or they're women here to become sacrificial objects serving the fights of men; or they're Ganondorf, who's a non-person and an antagonistic object lacking any interiority or humanity, and the narrative being completely uninterested in that), and only his bloodline and his vision for the future really matters. Not that Rauru thinks like this --but the game does. And so, it's hard for me not to see him as either the most narcissistic person ever if we accept him as the narrator of this story, or a flat propaganda machine built for an even greater cause (Hyrule, the Empire).

And then, the third one: that Nintendo would put out a game that is so deeply embedded in imperialist and orientalist language and tropes, so invested in its traditional and patriarchal values, so uncurious about the Other and so critical of it while refusing to look inward, is not neutral (yes even if the game is super fun and has other great qualities, I do believe this game is a monumental achievement in game/level design and in optimization/tech art while also being a trainwreck in quest and narrative design). This rethoric is not neutral, especially when addressed at the West at large --especially right now, with such a global uptick in traditionalist values overall, and Japan not exactly being spared. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough about Japanese history and culture to pick up all the little nuances of what is going on here, but I know enough to recognize that such stories do play out a certain understanding of this country's history, its fears and its difficulties to reconcile with its own (very recent) past as a colonialist empire --both the terrors it unleashed on others and the terrors that were unleashed upon it as it was dismantled. Instead of exploring that subject, every potential for nuance and conversation and self-criticism is slammed shut immediately, often at the cost of their own characters and the depth of their quest design/writing. The unearthed past agrees with its current understanding of itself; there is nothing discovered that leads to being questioned and reconsidered. Everything wrong is the fault of a single, corrupting entity that can be identified as Foreign and Other. There is a literal Heaven (zonai and civilized, Rauru's) and Hell (monstrous and corroding, Ganon's). None of this is neutral. Especially when infused in a game targeted for a young audience lacking context.

So I hope this very verbose answer helped a little to parse out what is being criticized at which level! Thank you for giving your thoughts, and I hope mine were clarifying to a degree.

I understand it can get a little confusing; but a lot of the urge not to take this scene at face value is born from the knowledge that nothing is ever that simple in real life, that these sort of self-serving narratives often hide horrific amounts of systemic harm underneath its perfectly curated presentation, and that, well. Some Zelda fans, especially the older generations that were invested in these characters and their re-imagining, expected Nintendo to be less..... like this.

And the wake-up call stings a little more than we would have liked.

(again obligatory disclaimer that I'm not saying TotK is Bad or should be Cancelled or that you're Bad for liking it --but it's still important to explicitly talk about how themes like these are being utterly glossed over when I don't think they would have been if they'd come out of a new IP, and not with the huge nostalgia cloud that envelops The Legend of Zelda and has people being extremely uncomfortable at criticizing the ideas the series can sometimes champion --though the series never veered in that direction nearly as hard before in my opinion)

#asks #thoughts #totk #totk spoilers #totk critical #tloz #ganondorf #rauru #gerudo #gerudos #oot #critical analysis #imperialism #cw discussion of racism #this was a LONG one and I hope it was somewhat clear #I wish I had more concrete examples of imperial narrative in storytelling from when a specific empire was in power #all the ones I have come from the 20th century #or from the Roman Empire #(or maybe crusade texts?) #never thought I'd realize I lack imperialist propaganda culture but WELP

[kairos-polaris]

Strength and humanity in the narrative of jjk

Gojo is Sukuna's mirror but he is not his foil. Gojo being Sukuna's mirror shows most post chapters 222, more so in 236. The most obvious similarity is their strength; Ryomen Sukuna is the strongest sorcerer in history and Gojo Satoru is the strongest sorcerer of modern times. 

Another thing is their hedonistic nature. Chapter 236 makes it more prominent in Gojo, in his desire to reach Sukuna, his satisfaction with dying to a worthy opponent, him "doing jujutsu for the kicks of it". It makes more sense narratively if you view it as Gege making him Sukuna's mirror. I see it as a great disservice to Gojo's character that disregards his desire to protect the youth and rebuild the jujutsu society. 

(And no matter what people say the students aren't prepared for it, especially politics wise. The remaining elders will most likely fill the power vacuum left after the slaughter of the higher-ups while the students are busy exorcizing curses all over Japan. Gakuganji is a vital ally in that but his change is thanks to Yaga and we don't know the extent of political prowess of Utahime or Kusakabe. The only student with any knowledge of the conservative faction is Kamo. Again, no thanks to Gojo. It's clear he expected to be the one leading the political change as the Gojo clan head.) 

Humanity is their ultimate difference. Sukuna has discarded his ease, he doesn't care about love or loneliness. Satoru on the other hand is burdened by it, his desire to form connections with others that he doesn't allow because of him viewing himself only through the prism of his strength, is what makes him want to connect with Sukuna (I still think the teach him love part is stupid and nothing will convince me otherwise 💀). It would be great if Gege showed his care for his students as an example of his humanity (Sukuna doesn't care for anyone - Gojo does) but Gege hates Gojo too much to do that. 

Unlike Gojo, Yuuji is Sukuna's foil and in some instances (e.g. the Shibuya fight with Mahito) his mirror. They have opposing values, strengths and weaknesses. Sukuna's strength lies in his intelligence, his understanding of jujutsu and his techniques (interesting to note, like Sukuna Yuuji masters concepts he was explained on the first try like the black flash or imbuing items with curse energy). Yuuji's lies in his values and beliefs, he doesn't back down no matter what and will keep going even on broken legs. Sukuna preaches about the importance of having an overwhelming sense of self and disregard for others, which Yuuji directly opposes with his cog identity, the purpose of which was to protect others. Yuuji finds strength in his connections with others, whether they taught him (Todo, Gojo) or to carry on their wishes (Nanami, Higuruma). 

Now that we have 248, I can confidently say Sukuna's ideals are weak. When someone weak is able to stand on his level just because of the strength of their beliefs, he finds it unnerving as it forces him to confront the lack of his own ideals. He says he loathed them as a human. 

Yuuji's indomitable spirit is the reason he is Sukuna's equal and why he is the protagonist. Fight me about it <3333

#jujutsu kaisen #jjk manga spoilers #jjk 248 spoilers #critical analysis #gojo satoru #ryomen sukuna #sukuna #yuji itadori #itadori yuuji #character analysis

[suchawrathfullamb]

Since we're on the alana bloom topic: saying will and hannibal's relationship didn't "need to be sexualized" because "it was deeper than that" is inherently problematic for two reasons.

The first is inequality.

It would indeed present a starkly different narrative if both characters were asexual, aligning with a distinct portrayal. However, their identities are clearly depicted otherwise. Despite exhibiting the pinnacle of intimacy and passion in the show, the only instances of sexual intimacy portrayed are within heterosexual or lesbian contexts, seemingly tailored to appease a presumed straight male audience.

The deliberate choice to depict numerous intimate encounters between them and various female counterparts, excluding such intimacy between Hannibal and Will, is not a random occurrence. Rather, it mirrors the influence of censorship pressures and the complex dynamics at play behind the scenes. Those involved in the production navigated within restrictive boundaries, leading to these patterns. The cancellation of the series further underscores the challenging terrain wherein the exploration of Hannibal and Will's intimacy became untenable, drawing a line that couldn't be retreated from without facing repercussions (season 3 had the highest score, it didn't make sense to get canceled).

This discrepancy underscores the imbalance in representation, where heterosexual relationships are often granted more screen time and explicitness, catering to a presumed mainstream audience, while LGBTQ+ relationships are either marginalized or sexualized for the male viewer's consumption.

The disparity in the portrayal of intimacy and complexity between these relationships highlights the unequal treatment of diverse identities in media. The show's tendency to prioritize and depict heterosexual encounters more explicitly while downplaying or withholding similar portrayals in LGBTQ+ relationships perpetuates a systemic issue within the entertainment industry, reinforcing the unequal representation and visibility of different sexual orientations.

The second issue is this false notion of purity.

This notion inadvertently perpetuates the belief that sex is somehow tainted or impure, while implying that emotional connections are more virtuous or pure when devoid of sexual elements.

The comparison drawn between the treatment of their relationship and those with women underscores a double standard prevalent in media representation. While heterosexual relationships are often portrayed with sexual elements, LGBTQ+ relationships are frequently deprived of the same depth of intimacy or physical expression, reinforcing the idea that non-heteronormative connections should remain chaste or non-sexual to be considered emotionally pure.

This perspective not only undermines the validity and complexity of LGBTQ+ relationships but also reinforces the societal discomfort or stigma associated with non-heteronormative expressions of intimacy. It contributes to the erasure of diverse experiences and perpetuates the idea that relationships devoid of sexual components are somehow more authentic or morally superior.

#i am the annoying aunt of the fandom and i don't care #hannigram #nbc hannibal #hannibal #will graham #murder husbands #hugh dancy #hannibal lecter #mads mikkelsen #critical analysis #meta

[writeouswriter]

People out here like oooh I shouldn't be relating to this villainous character, this character who does bad things, this character who has questionable morals; yes, you should be! You should be looking at the warped funhouse mirror and analyzing what you see there! That is not an accident! The world is not black and white, good and bad, us and them; if you start thinking there's a clear dividing line, that you could never possibly relate or end up like them or they could never have ended up like you, that's how they get you!

You and the rest of humanity are a swirling pool of grey and these characters are, in many instances, a way to reflect on yourself... because recognizing the self through the other not only gives valuable insight into you and those around you in general, but also lets you see how you can avoid making the same mistakes or how you could, given differing and worse circumstances, see exactly where they're coming from and become just like them if the tables were turned, making you more mindful, more empathetic, more open to questioning or accepting your own flaws, and just... so much more.

That's inevitably worded fuzzily, and I've said it before, but the point is, it's not a bad thing to relate to these characters, it's an (often) *intended* and invariably human thing because humans are messy and complex and shaped by all kinds of simultaneously unique and yet universal shared experiences, and in the end, people are people are people, bound by the laws of chaos.

And yes, there may be some exceptions in how you may approach this, but not without nuance.

#idk what to tag sh*t anymore if you see it you see it #character analysis #critical analysis #? maybe #media analysis #look my brain hasn't worked in years now but i have strong feelings on this and related topics #as i often see people worrying about themselves when they start finding they relate a lil too much to aspects of morally dubious characters #and i just i worded this poorly but you know you know?? #uh send post or else i'm gonna be finicky editing this all day/week again

[asexualandalwaysshipping]

All this discourse with Saltburn may or may not being an eat-the-rich movie takes me back to when people's main criticism of Parasite was that its writing failed by making the Kim family too unlikable.

If you ask me, I feel like if you went into either film thinking them as eat-the-rich films, then it does come off as bad writing. However, neither story works well as an eat-the-rich film because that was never the intention. Sure, class disparity and social inequality are both vital themes but the main point of the EtR genre is about taking down the system, which neither film even tries to accomplish.

Parasite is a criticism of modern capitalism. It was never about pitting the poor against the rich. Bong Joon-Ho said himself, "It's a comedy without clowns and a tragedy without villains." The Kim family aren't meant to be hailed as heroes, and nowhere in the writing does it come off like that. But you end up asking yourself how come this family, who is clearly very capable and skillful, are just barely surviving off the edge of poverty and has no choice but to resort to scamming an entire family just to make a livable wage. Keep in mind they were barely making a profit—the biggest change to their lifestyle was being able to afford slightly better food than usual. Why is it that the poor will go as far as to fight among themselves just to continue leeching of the wealthy? Who benefited aside from the Parks? You could argue that Mr. Kim stabbing Mr.Park in the end was his way of fighting the system, but the film ends with him stuck in the basement, feeding off the house itself, still contributing to the same system that placed him there. EtR would've been more about the negative effects that come from the Parks from hoarding so much wealth that could sustain three entire families, making them deserved of comeuppance. Parasite instead focuses on how it's the system that keeps these class divisions in place.

It's the same with Saltburn. Oliver Quick does, in his own way, challenge the system. But what people forget is that it's not even as though the system ever worked against Oliver—he grew up in an (upper) middle-class household and managed his way into a prestigious university. He may not have been in the 1%, but he was at least in a position where he could go the rest of his life being comfortable. He just got greedy. He wanted more. He wanted to be on the inside. Saltburn isn't a story where a person painstakingly makes his way up the social ladder after starting from nothing whilst making the rich succumb to their sins; there is no justice or vengeance taking place here. Just a single man who manipulated the system to get more than his fair shares, just like his predecessors of Saltburn did. If it was EtR, it would've shed more light on how the Catton family and their wealth do more harm than good, justifying Oliver's actions. And even though they're unlikable, the most harmful thing about them is their performative charity and willful ignorance of the real world. This doesn't mean Saltburn lacks in substance; it's a compelling narrative on obsession and hedonism which introduces an excellent anti-hero, it just doesn't work as an EtR story. And it isn't supposed to.

#Saltburn #Parasite #eat the rich #Bong joon ho #anti villains #film rant #critical analysis #emerald fennell

[askagamedev]

So hey, about ten years ago there was basically a phase in video game development where manual saves were disabled in place of (often far apart) automatic saves. It (mostly) passed in its own time, but... what was up with that?

The big problem with manual saves is that players can potentially save in a situation where the game is in an unwinnable state (e.g. save before the player is about to die). For players who like to overwrite their own saves instead of rotating save files, this can result in a really bad feeling and hours of lost progress. One major guiding principle in game design is "make it easy to do things right and hard to do things wrong". It's a lot easier to ensure the saved game is in a good state under controlled situations, such as with established save points and automatic saves. Since then, we've reallowed manual saves with attached conditions so that players have a harder time saving in a broken state, but the reasons for the progression should be fairly clear.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

#game feature breakdown #critical analysis #how things work #game design theory

[gaytventhusiast]

(!Warning!- Slight hints at domestic abuse. Nothing that isn't in canon)

(Do not read if you do not want to see a critical analysis of Jmart. Some people don't want to see their comfort ship criticised and I respect that.)

Me on my first listen of magnus (aged 15): Omg omg there are gay people this is amazing. Wahoo Jmart!

Me on my second listen of magnus: Wow Martin is lowkey a bit of a secret gaslight gatekeep girloss. ICONIC. He and Jon are murder bfs :D

Me on my third listen of magnus: Hah. Martin really is kind of a bitch sometimes.

Me on my forth listen of magnus: God Martin can be so condescending wtf. I dont really ship Jmart anymore. And did he just hit Jon wtf ?!?!

Me after my 5th listen to now (Aged 18): Yikes. Martin has so many red flags oh god.

(Disclaimer: I do think these characters and their relationship are still well written and I do not dislike anyone for shipping them. However, I do think the fanon interpretation of their relationship removes how flawed Martin actually is and people don't hold him accountable nearly enough)

(Additionally this is all not to say that Jon is exempt from poor behaviour toward Martin. The way he treats Martin in s1 was dickish to say the least. However, unlike Martin this behaviour isn't perpetuated throughout the entirety of the podcast/ relationship, with Jon quickly coming to respect Martin at a similar level to himself.)

Martin Blackwood is not a kind person.

He never holds himself accountable for anything or so few times I literally don't remember them. In MAG 194- Parting, it is Jon that makes the decision to apologise to Martin. Additionally after Martin hits Jon earlier on he is never seen apologising for it, even after Jon's honestly heartbreaking line of "Thank you for not hitting me this time".

Martin also tends to get pissy at Jon for something he cannot help. Jon cannot help 'giving statements' in season 5 and yet everytime he does, Martin acts like it's some sort of attack on him. He is perfectly allowed to have the boundary of 'Don't do that around me'. However in instances where Jon accidentally does it around Martin, Martin responds with aggression, either lashing out and shouting at Jon or as previously mentioned, hitting him. These can be explained as maybe reasonable responses to high stress situations however Martin never apologises for them as discussed previously.

This also comes in the form of Martin antagonising Jon's well meaning suggestions. In S4, during the 'Gauge your eyes out' scene, Martin immediately shoots back, making it about him rather than the desperate attempts at salvation from a man who's been broken down to all hell.

There's a clear bitterness from Martin throughout. He clearly feels inferior to Jon and is trying to gain as much control over the situation as he can which often means doing all he can to control Jon.

And Martin is right at the end of S5 when he says it took 4 years of the shit they've been through to be compatible. However, what I think is more accurate is that it took 4 years of Jon being broken down and into a state of perpetual emotional vulnerability and loss of autonomy for him to be so alone that he reached out to Martin. And vice versa, Martin (being affected by the lonely and always having had an attraction to Jon) reaches out in return later in s5. Aside from that, they've not got much in common and although I do think that they at least get along as friends and colleagues, I can't really see them consistently bonding outside of the world of the fears.

Now I'd like to clarify that this isn't all to say that the way Martin acts isn't understandable, it is. Having to care for his mother for years has lead to him mothering Jon at times as well as his constant need to prioritise himself and defend himself in response to her abuse. He probably also has some left over resentment (understandably) from the way Jon used to treat him in s1. Along with a bunch of other stuff that explains his behaviour. But that doesn't mean that the way he acts sometimes isn't harmful.

Their relationship is more nuanced than I'm able to fit into a tumblr post. I might write an essay about it at some point. If there is anything i didn't mention it's either because it's been a while and I forgot, or I did not have space to fit it!

Anyways, what do you guys think about all this? TMA is one of those shows I've been a bit apprehensive to critically analyse due to the fandom but I found that Jmart is a lot more interesting than I initially thought.

(SUMMARY: Jmart is not as healthy of a relationship as the Fanon tends to show it. Martin has a lot of red flags and the two aren't all that compatible aside from their trauma)

#jmart #jonmartin #the magnus archives #magpod #magnus archives #tma podcast #critical analysis #gaytventhusing #any aggression towards me due to this post will not be tolerated

[ouroborosorder]

I once heard someone say that because Arknights' disability representation is mostly tied to their fantasy turbo-cancer, then it doesn't feel like real disabled representation, and I've been unable to get it out of my head, like a piece of popcorn stuck in my teeth. So, rather than doing my homework like I'm supposed to be, I want to talk about why I disagree and why I love Arknights' approach to disability.

So, for those who are unaware, Arknights has a shockingly high amount of disabled characters, and characters who are disabled in a lot of different ways, both caused by being Infected and just being disabled in the way that normal people are. Nightingale has chronic pain, Lemuen is the best sniper in Laterano while being in a wheelchair, Akafuyu is mostly blind, Eyja has severe hearing loss, Rosmontis has severe memory loss, Amiya has very severe PTSD, I could go on and on.

And of course there'd be a lot of operators with disabilities! Rhodes Island is a medical organization dedicated towards long-term care of terminally ill patients. Of course many of them would develop disabilities, and of course Rhodes would have the resources and facilities to help them. They even make notes of how to treat them in their medical files, like how Ejyafjalla's has a little guide on how to best have a conversation with her. It makes perfect sense, but I can't say a lot of games would think about it on that level.

And that why I like this game's approach to disability so much. A lot of video games just treat disability as "someone missing an arm" or "someone in a wheelchair because of Their Injuries From Combat. It's usually treated as an individual thing, just someone who got hurt, or who maybe has a frail constitution or whatever. But in Arknights, disability isn't simply treated as a character trait for individuals, but as part of the worldbuilding itself. The world is largely defined by Oripathy, this fatal degenerative disease with no cure. And the Infected are treated as second-class citizens, considered free labor that they don't have to treat ethically because they're dying anyway. The writers realized that this would cause severe disability, both real and fantastical, and worked it into the story and world.

This runs the other way, too! Arknights' worldbuilding follows a sort of social model of disability, in a way. There's a lot of fantasy stories that treat the inability to use magic as a sort of disability, but to Arknights, it's... not. Because Arts require specialized training, and so a lot of people just don't know how to use them, and might not even know they can't use Arts. So it's not treated as such, even though it is still a physical inability to perform things other people can.

But on the other end, Laterano's culture is based around the Sankta having empathic communication between each other. Mostima, as a fallen angel, can't use this telepathy anymore, and she speaks about how othering it feels sometimes, to be physically unable to engage with an important part of her culture. While it's not explicitly stated as a disability to the Lateran culture, I certainly feel like it's treated as one to some degree. Namely that it's explicitly contrasted with Fiametta's PTSD rendering her unwilling to empathize with the people around her, as opposed to Mostima's physical inability. It's the fantasy disability treated with the same weight as real world disability, because within the world of Terra, they're the same thing.

And of course there's just some of the more fucked up fantasy stuff like "On top of her existing narcolepsy, Ptilopsis was forced to become plural after she had to have part of her brain replaced with a computer that forces her to speak and think like a computer or else it causes her severe mental stress to the point of physical pain." Which uh. I don't know where that fits in the conversation but jesus christ someone hug that owl

Of course, its representation isn't always perfect. Just off the top of my head, Nightmare is a pretty rough stereotype, with the whole "Oripathy gave her multiple personality disorder with a violent personality trying to take control of her body!!" trope. And, of course, I'm sure other people have complaints with the representation of their disability in ways that I'm not aware of because I only have the perspective I have.

But... what I remember about this game's treatment of disability isn't when it fails. What I remember is reading Glaucus' module for the first time, the story of the first time she ever put on the mechanical exo-suit legs that allowed her to walk for the first time in her life. And I started bawling my fucking eyes out. I cried because, even though I don't know the specific feeling of walking for the first time in years, I know well what she felt. That feeling of liberation from something you secretly feared was just who you are now. Even though you know it won't be a perfect solution, the physically choking emotion that you're able to get a little closer to a normalcy you've always wanted. The feeling that right now, the only thing you can do is run like the wind.

#arknights #long post #critical analysis #just gonna tag all future essays as critical analysis so that i can find them in the future because i am proud of my writing in these #writing an extremely long essay in order to put off my creative writing homework may be the most on brand thing i've ever done

[warsamongthestars]

Okay, time to confront the thing.

There are No Character Relationships in the Bad Batch of the Bad Batch Show... Besides Omega.

Now this comes from 2 things on my end.

The Clone Wars Show ( Which led into the Bad Batch, thus, is the original show and the TBBshow is the sequel)

Fanfiction (Because nothing shows love more than fans interacting and creating. )

Now you might be wondering, why would I think that? Clearly the characters interact with each other, with talking and typing quirks and witty one-liners--all very expected.

They emote and they have fanciful animations, very much in the spirit of animation everywhere.

Easy.

One question question: Why didn't they have the character of Crosshair's Back?

Not, why didn't they go back. But, Why didn't they Have his back?

According to the Clone Wars, Clone Troopers are very important to other Clone Troopers. You never (purposely with intent) leave someone behind. They emphasize this throughout the Clone Wars.

So let's start with Episode 1 of the Bad Batch.

SERGEANT HUNTER sees CROSSHAIR attack A JEDI CHILD. Sergeant Hunter is established in this moment that he cares about children. He covers the child's escape.

AS A CLONE SQUADRON, established by TCWshow, they are very close with their Squadmates.

So, why didn't Sergeant Hunter confront Crosshair when it was safest to do so?

Such as, on the ship THE HAVOC MARAUDER, during its trip in Hyperspace. The planet of KAMINO is established to be on the edge of the galaxy (By the Very Films Themselves), there would be enough time for any uncomfortable conversation.

TECH, the local omni-technician and the SMART GUY TROPE of the troopers, claims several times that the "REGS" (Regular Clone Troopers) may have had programming that caused them to turn against the Jedi. The group has already noticed that Crosshair has had off behavior.

Where was Tech's confrontation of Crosshair, with the possiblity that there was Programming involved? Or since TCWs Tech was establsihed to not like confrontation, why didn't TBB Tech talk to Hunter about Crosshair's behavior? Or create mitigation himself, if assuming it was "Obvious".

The TBBshow has establish that its Wrecker is not nearly as observant as TCWshow Wrecker, thus we cannot consider Wrecker under the TBBshow...

... But TCWshow Wrecker would've surely lifted Crosshair up by the naps of the Neck, as TCWshow Wrecker proved time and time again that if someone is doing something bad--he steps in and physically moves them.

ECHO would've surely confronted not only Crosshair, but the entire Bad Batch, and in fact, even other Clone Troopers for their behavior. TCWshow Echo was a go-getter when it came to regulations, and there are strict regulations for slaughtering your Commanders and attempting to murder children.

The Lack of Confrontation shows that the Characters did not Notice the Obviously Bad Thing--They did not notice to a point where even if you were that dense, you would be ALARMED, because PEOPLE ARE DEA NOW and CHILDREN ARE BEING ATTACKED.

Since the show did not take steps as to why our characters would be so distracted, such as an attachment to the Order of Things--which the TCWshow Bad Batch proved they are absolutely Not--or a general disregard for any Jedi --which Echo is Not, having sacrificed his life to attempt to ensure the safety of Anakin Skywalker, Obiwan Kenobi, Ahsoka Tano, and a Captive Piell--

Then we must blame the fact that the Writers and Directors, thus the storytellers, said "They did not pay attention because we did not want them to. We wanted Crosshair to be the Bad Guy. Its like this because we said so."

The closest we get to the confrontation, is immediately interrupted by a scene change to the super special awesome totally original character Donut STeel--I mean Omega.

Omega is a cute character. She's a good character... but it comes at the cost of every other character--thus I cannot accept her as a Good Written Character. I have to assume 2000s Fanfic Logic--and call her a Mary Sue, because her good writing comes at the cost of everyone's writing and any reasonable set up.

Your Brother attempting to Kill Children and Kill People Randomly, should never be ignored for a random kid several thousand lightyears away. Omega is imaginary in comparison to the immediacy that is Crosshair, who is right next to you.

( As one scene proves, the Bad Batch have been active with each other since the begining of the Clone Wars--so 3-4 years back. )

( Therefore, even if they didn't grow up with each other, they have a RELATIONSHIP. And it has to be a working, functional relationship, or THEY WOULD BE DEAD BY THIS POINT. Because they lived together on a tiny ship, in each other's space, and they were in a War. )

( If they didn't have a functional communicative relationship, either the enemy would've killed them--or they would've fucking murdered each other. )

( The most basic children's show knows what a sleepover is like, or what its like having to share a room with your siblings. Sitcoms knows what its like to share a room with another person. If you want the military perspective--just look as MASH, or ask any Vet. )

And that's just Episode 1.

What about afterwards?

Oh someone asks about Crosshair, and the only answer is "Its complicated". Nothing else. No "He shot at us so we left him", No "He was acting off and we weren't safe", None of the "Everyone is acting weird and Crosshair was acting weird and it forced us to leave him", not even a "He was trying to kill a Kid and we Have a Kid Now".

And after that? Hunter went "Oh we gotta find a planet to hid out", and no further conversation about the BATCHMATE, who you WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE YEARS OF RELATIONSHIP WITH.

A character whom all your plans hedge on, because he was an intimate part of it. A character whom was reliable, for the above stated reasons of War, Death and Living in Small Spaces with Quirky People.

Not from Tech, who figured about the so called Obvious Programming, and did Nothing.

Not from Echo, who had his whole world ripped away Again. Who had living brothers (as far as he knew), but never once mentioned them. Who had dead brothers, he definitely knows one in particular, and says nothing about "having to move on for now because of the mission / job at hand"...

Wrecker has one "I miss him" and it goes no where. No conversation resulted from it, no actions were changed, not even an opinion was given.

We don't get mourning faces, or emotional outlet.

Like a Someone Falling off a Cliff in a TV Show, if you didn't portray it infront of the Audience, it didn't happen. It is only real when you show us, the Audience, its Real.

So I have to assume that... when Crosshair was left behind, the Bad Batch just, fully left him there. No consideration, none of the interwoven characters from the TCWshow Bad Batch... just, He's Dead to Us Now and We've Moved On Post-Haste.

Confrontation of a Character when their Behavior is randomly off, and performing unacceptable actions to Audience or even empirical evidence, shows that the Characters did not have this Character's Back--or the truth is, the Writers' didn't bother with it.

Refusal to return to a Character, whom by empirical evidence you had Years of Relationship with, shows an unnatural lack of concern.

Let's take it another step.

Echo leaves the Bad Batch.

Was there build up to the leaving? No. I cannot cite an episode where he says "I'm going to leave to do this thing." and someone said "But wait we need you--".

Was there any conversation about attachment between Echo an the Bad Batch? No. It was a pat on the back and a good luck. Was there any conversation afterwards about Echo? Fond memories? Memorable missions?

Wasn't Echo an asset to Hunter in missions?

Didn't Wrecker have some sort of attachment to Echo? Wrecker is a very emotional character, surely he would've had a reaction. He had the most reaction to Crosshair's absence than any of them.

( Omega had feelings about it. But she's a super special awesome original character, Donut Steel, and if I wanted a Donut Steel and a Donut Steel reaction, I would look up Fanfiction. There are plenty of donut steels in fanfiction. Nobody should have to pay for Donut Steels when fanfiction gives them for Free. )

The one confrontation about it, was between Tech... and the Donut Steel. And thus cannot be counted for OC interference.

No steps were taken for this big decision to remove a major character from a group of characters, and no solid sustainable reaction beyond an OC was given.

Echo reappeared three episodes later... like it didn't happen. No impact what's so ever was received or given to the various characters, whom he gave up the 501st (and 5 real world years of TCWshow) for.

And because no steps were given the first time for his character removal, his character impact is now forfeit. His relationships mean little. His attitude to anything is meaningless, because he will simply "vanish" by next episode. His character has become incorporeal... existing only in the imagination from which he originated from.

The characters show that Echo is now not a character, but a tool to be given and removed. Little more than a stage hand. Because when you watch a play, clearly it must be for stage hands.

( You have to take steps to make imaginary things impactful in writing. Because it is just fiction at the end of the day, and fiction isn't real. When you rob the impact, you have robbed everything. )

Yes, we all love Echo... but the Show doesn't, or it would've taken the maintenance and steps required to ensure his impact on the show remains impactful.

Now that we've jumped through time and space.

Let's go the S1 Finale Arc.

Give me one reason why Crosshair could be talked down. Name something that happened prior to the TBBshow that could be named, in order to get Crosshair back to the Bad Batch.

Was there comfortable blankets? Good food? A safe ship? A memory of being bullied by regs and defended by brothers? Did Hunter bite, rip and tear at a trainer for kicking Crosshair? Did Wrecker deck a Kaminonian because they were looking at his squad wrong? Did they run into a bout of geonosis worms that Tech was simultaneous fascinated and horrified by and thus knew the stages of mind control upon the brain? Didn't Echo and Crosshair have snark to snark battles, and maybe an understanding that what Crosshair doesn't actually like about Regs is their Regular Attitude, and the long history of neglect and bullying?

... Now that you have an answer for any of the above questions, or have made one yourself...

Did the Show portray it?

Because if there was a Character Relationship at all, even in the midst of Betrayed Feelings, there would've been History between the Characters.

History would've easily convinced Crosshair back, or set a reaction for Hunter or Wrecker or Tech or Echo to take that wasn't just bitching in the middle of the fucking Ocean.

( When you live in small spaces and survive against enviroments in war, you can't afford to lose your nuts in a sinking ocean base surrounded by adversaries and hungry monsters. )

But History, and Character Relationships, imply there was Character writing at all.

And these? Are just Reactions, with Typing Quirks and a Job attached.

Because if there was anything Solid, anything at all, any Conversation on the matter, any discussion of History, and long missions and long hours, and shared experiences...

... Crosshair could've easily been talked back. He could've been talked back, by Episode 1.

Hunter, being the Rogue, could've easily infiltrated a ship and stolen him. Tech, being the Hacker and Pilot, could've been Mission Control. Wrecker, being the strongman and demolitions, could've brlown the ship up or caused a distraction. Echo, being the stradegist could've planned and directed and even hacked the cameras to watch.

Or if they needed supplies... why not just rob Cid? They're a special secret forces team, they could rob Cid, the nearby stores, most of Ord Mantell, picked a fight with mercenaries and gutted their ships.

Because Character relationships Make History, and History has your Back--because it is Your Back. Its your Back Story. It is You.

Character who share your Backstory, who have comfortably lived in your Space, and faced battles with you and for you, and vice reversa, would be Characters you have a Relationship With.

But.

There are no Character Relationships in the Bad Batch, in the Bad Batch Show.

Because there are no Back Stories. And because there are no Backstories, there are no Characters. These are just props for the current writer's Donut Steel.

And if there was, we'd have a much different show.

( Its the worst aspects of Ahsoka Tano's introduction to Star Wars, without any of the build up or steps it took to make her the beloved character she became in the end. )

#star wars #the bad batch #the clone wars #star wars the bad batch #star wars the clone wars #bad batch hunter #bad batch tech #bad batch wrecker #bad batch crosshair #bad batch echo #clone wars echo #character analysis #analysis #critical analysis

[lolotheparagon]

I always thought it troubling how Lisa always was portrayed as the golden child who had her parents respect and attention, had interesting emotional episodes about her hobbies and how they relate to her relationships with others (Lisa the Drama Queen, Lisa the Vegetarian, Lisa the Greek) growing up to have a successful career in every alternate future episode the Simpsons has had so far (Lisa’s Wedding, Bart to the Future and Future-Drama, Holidays Passed) whereas Bart was always portrayed as the black sheep of the family who’s got no unique talents outside of causing mischief, his relationships with others is nowhere near as focussed on as much as Lisa’s since most of his episodes are either him falling in love with some girl or doing something stupid and facing the consequences. And future episodes always portray him growing up to be either a depressed loser or a divorced man struggling to connect with his own children. There even times where the show was just cruel to Bart for no reason. Like there was a whole episode where the city of Springfield villified poor Bart cos he lost a baseball game. Not to mention there was a 20 year long running gag of Homer strangling Bart for comedic effect.

I think his fame of being a rebel kid from the 90s has really affected his characterisation, even to this day. People forget this but back in the 90s, Bartmania was everywhere. People thought Bart’s devil may care attitude and one liners was peak comedy but because of this, the writers realised that he should always be this rebel who’s book dumb but still had a good heart cos that’s what people wanted to see. Which is fine, but that doesn’t give that much dimension to a main character. And that’s gonna get old really fast. And it did.

He became flanderised and almost turned into the show’s second biggest butt monkey next to Homer. Homer’s antics and him getting his comeuppance is funny cos he’s a grown man with the mindset of a bratty child and that is something that will never stop being funny. But Bart is a kid who may not excel at schoolwork and likes to cause trouble but he is a legit good kid with a good heart.

And the show mostly treats him like the butt of a joke or constantly remarks that he’s never gonna amount to anything in the future.

Even in episodes where he develops new hobbies that would be ideal things to expand with his character are dropped quickly whereas Lisa gets a whole episode about Buddhism and that is implemented throughout the show whereas Bart gets one episode about him taking up drumming as a hobby and the show is like poof gone. Like has no one noticed that Bart got a LOT of episodes of him caring for animals? Why don’t we have an episode where he wants to be a vet or wants to work in a zoo part time but ends up in a crappy cleaning job and makes friends with a beluga whale or something.

I just think Bart gets way too much negative attention and is severely underdeveloped for a main character in a 30 long sitcom show

#the simpsons #critical analysis #Simpsons critical #bart simpson #give bart more unique characterisation please #don’t just make him the flanderised rebel he’s always been #do something different

[bitteraristocrat]

"Sebastian, will you critically analyse these estate tenant tax reports for me?" is code for ass fucking, I don't make the rules.

#sebaciel #critical analysis #shitpost #paperwork? what paperwork (pwp)

[jkl-fff]

Centaurworld and Mental Illnesses

Has it struck anyone else that each member of the Herd could represent a major spectrum of mental illness? The notion has been buzzing around my brain since finishing the series last night. While normally I would take more time to organize my ideas, I figure it’s better to put them all down here and now before I can forget to share them.

(Please feel free to comment, by the way, if you’ve got any thoughts on the matter. A bit of input or dialogue could certainly help refine this little literary theory of mine, perhaps to more cogently articulate it later.)

Anyway, this isn’t to say each member of the Herd is meant to perfectly personify a specific diagnosis. To be clear, I’m not giving one, either, it’s more that I’m trying to identify some broad symptoms and maybe a broad spectrum of kind of of illness (since symptoms often overlap a lot with different specific diagnoses). Nor am I saying that the show is, overall, an allegory for dealing with mental illness. It’s more an observation about another way the show is deeper and more symbolic than it first appears (with its kids’ show antics and its overabundance of dumb fart jokes). Sorta how in a lot of other shows, main characters really typify one of the Seven Deadly Sins or a major philosophy or whatever.

First, there’s Horse.

Chronic Depression (McFreakin’ Episode 8, plus all her other frequent bouts of melancholy and self-doubt).

Second, Wammawink.

PTSD with bouts of Manic Activity (especially related to recreating the family she lost, to protecting and nurturing the family she’s found).

Next is Glendale.

Anxiety, no question. Even her kleptomania is frequently pointed out to be a coping mechanism for how anxious she is.

Then Zulius.

Who would be something having to do with Self-Absorption or even Narcissism.

Followed by Ched.

He has problems with Anger Management, most frequently directed at Horse.

And finally Durpleton.

Who, I freely admit, feels like the weakest link in this theory. But given how frequently he seems to not be paying attention or to not respond in a seemingly appropriate way emotionally, would by Disassociation.

#centaurworld #mental health #character #literary theory #critical analysis #horse #wammawink #glendale #zulius #ched #durpleton #mental illness