do u think that um. yk Julian was having a rough time in the later seasons. and ofc he wants to talk abt it, wants someone to help him process it, wants someone to just listen. but it's not easy to talk abt. and he wants to talk to Garak, wants Garak to know what's going on in his life, wants to be vulnerable and be met with support and care. but Garak is so emotionally unavailable and so unwilling to break his pleasant facade and so unwilling to deviate from their little social script. he was taught never to show care or vulnerability. and Julian gets so tired of playing their little game when, god, there's a war going on, his life is falling apart, can't Garak even acknowledge how bad things are for both of them? he doesn't need witty retorts, he needs sincerity. and Garak can't give him that. so he withdraws from their friendship. and it's not that Garak doesn't care. it's not that he doesn't want to help. but sincerity and vulnerability were beaten out of him a long time ago, and he doesn't know how to take off his mask. even just acknowledging genuine emotion is practically impossible for him. and maybe that's why ASIT is the apology that it is. it's saying, here, I've learned to be honest, I've learned to be vulnerable. I know the harm I caused you by refusing to acknowledge pain, so here's a whole book of me acknowledging pain.
101 notes
·
View notes
Been a fan of your fics for YEARS. I was just telling my friend how despite how much I read fics I never actually love them, with some of your fics (especially TMA) as the exception. Felt the need to reread some of them and saw you reblogged some ISAT fanart. So. Any thoughts on ISAT you'd like to share?
Hope you have a wonderful day!! So happy I found your fics again!!
I avoided answering this for a while because I was trying to think of a way to cohesively and coherently vocalize my thoughts on In Stars and Time. I have given up because I don't want to hold everybody here all day and I have accepted that my thoughts are just pterodactyl screeching.
I love it so much. I have so much to say on it. It drove me bonkers for like a week straight. I have AUs. It's absolute Megbait. They're just a little Snufkin and they're having the worst experience of anybody's life. Ludonarratives my fucking beloved.
I am going to talk about the prologue.
The prologue is such a fascinating experience. You crack open the game and immediately begin checking off all of the little genre boxes: mage, warrior, researcher, you're the rogue...some little kid who's there for some reason...alright, you know the score. You're in yet another indie Earthbound RPG, these are your generic characters, let's get the ball rolling.
Except then you realize that these characters are people. You feel instantly how you've entered the game at its last dungeon, at the end of the adventure. They have their own in-jokes, histories, backgrounds, adventures. They get along well and they're obviously close, but not in a twee or unrealistic way. They have so much chemistry and spirit and life. I fell in love with them so quickly.
But Sif doesn't. Sif kind of hates them, because they will not stop saying the same damn thing. They walk the same paths, do the same things, make the same jokes, expect Sif to say the same lines. They keep referencing a Sif we do not see, with jokes we never see him make and heroic personality he never shows - they reference a Sif who is dead - and Sif can't handle that, so he kills them too.
They become only an exercise in tedious frustration. Sif button mashes through their dialogue, Sif mindlessly clicks the same dialogue options, Sif skips through the tutorial, Sif blows through the puzzles. Sif turns their world into a video game. Sif is playing a generic RPG. Sif forgets their names. They are no longer people with in-jokes, histories, backgrounds, adventures. They're the mage, the warrior, the researcher, and...some random kid.
I did not understand the Kid's presence at first. I had no idea what they contributed to the game. They didn't do anything. As a party member in a video game, they're a bit useless. Why is the Kid there?
Because Sif's life isn't a video game. Because the kid isn't 'the kid'. They're Bonnie. Bonnie, who the party loves. Why is Bonnie there? Because they love them. There is no room for Bonnie in the boring RPG that Sif is playing. And then you realize that Sif is wrong, and that they've lost something extremely important, and that they'll never escape without it.
Watching the prologue before watching ISAT gave ISAT the most unique air of dread and horror, because you crack open ISAT and you see the person Sif used to be. You realize that Sif used to be a person. Sif used to be the person who made jokes, who gave real smiles, who interacted with the world as if they are a part of it. And you know you are sitting down to watch Sif lose everything that made them a person, to lose everything that made them a member of this world, and turn them into a character in a video game who doesn't understand the point of Bonnie at all.
At the climax of the game, when the others realize that something is deeply wrong and that Sif physically cannot tell them, they realize that there is nothing they can do. So Bonnie declares snacktime. And for the first time they have snacktime.
What is snacktime? Classic JRPGs don't have snacktime. There's literally no point to a snacktime - not in a video game, and not in Sif's terrible life. It's not fixing this, because nothing can fix this. But Bonnie gives Sif a cookie and Sif eats it.
It's meaningless. It's a cutscene. It didn't save Sif and it didn't change a thing. It will make no difference in the end.
But it did make the difference. It made all of the difference in the world. Bonnie is a character who you really don't understand the point of before you realize that Bonnie was the entire point.
ISAT is about comfort media. Why do we play the same video games over and over again? Why do we avoid watching the finale of our favorite shows? What is truly comforting: a story with no conflict, or a story where you always know what is about to happen? Do you want to live in a scary, uncontrollable world, or do you want to play Stardew Valley? Do you want a person or a character?
When I beat Earthbound for the first time (and if you don't know, the prologue/ISAT battle system is just Mother) and watched the ending cutscene where the characters part ways and say goodbye...I felt a little bit sad. I wanted them to be together forever. But that's something only characters could ever be.
51 notes
·
View notes
Something i really like about yohaji is its distinction between relationships with peers amd relationships with superiors.
One thing i thought was kinda silly at the begining was that haruaki was always hanging out with his students lile during breaks and shit (felt most strongly when they get scolded for breaking a window while playimg baseball) and i reason well hes the main character of course hes hanging out with the principal cast and i would have been fine with that.
But no not only does tanaka-sensei provide a in character reason (haru had a terrible school life) they come at me with 'haruaki is jealous of people friends' and what i think is really interesting about that initial chapter is that typically it would end with an 'oohhh but they ARE you're friends' but no it ends with 'even if you didn't make friends as a child you can still make adult friends' with miki and izuna becoming his friends.
This is echoed in the arc where haruaki is a student WITH sano and with his students and he has so much fun but finally he says 'im not your friend im your teacher' the relationships you have with your teachers and adults and vice versa in your life arent without value but theyre not the same as ones you make with your peers and should not be treated as such
27 notes
·
View notes
Nimoma has good emotional payoff and animation but nothing else to really write home about TBH
It's very SPOP in that way, where the arcs and scenes are solid when viewed outside of the media in gifset or clip form but don't work as well when actually watching what they're from
For sure! I think that's a problem she-ra and toh both share with Nimona—they struggle with setup but then go ham on the payoff, which leaves everything feeling somewhat unearned.
The end of the movie bugged me in particular—Ballister's 180 with calling Nimona a monster (something he KNOWS pushes her to the brink) after one conversation with his ex-boyfriend was...I think out of place?
Normally if you have a character make a wrong choice like that you, as the audience, would be questioning the whole movie if they had ever REALLY changed. Was Ballister's loyalty truly to Nimona or to the Institute/Goldenloin? But, by that point in the movie they had really sold me on Ballister's complete acceptance of Nimona and disregard of the institute, so....why would he turn on Nimona then? I'm surprised they didn't do this plot the other way, which would instead have only made it seem like Ballister betrayed Nimona, you know? Like they did in Tangled. That way you don't undo Ballister's movie long arc with one scene, but you can still have Nimona go berserk and make her way into the heart of the city.
There were also a couple of other things that felt kinda dropped by the end. Ballister being the first commoner to become a knight? The Queen's important role in this society? This kingdom's prejudice going SO deep that not even a child would give Nimona a chance after saving their life, yet blowing up the wall changed everyone's minds in the end?
There were a lot of good pieces, but they weren't quite put together in the right ways.
43 notes
·
View notes
LOOK. whatever you think of menelaus or agamemnon or whatever. this lil moment here (from icke's oresteia) is AGONY. because they did come from so much shit. from murder and scheming and freakin' cANNIBALISM. yet they MADE IT. before paris and the dominos that fell afterwards, they would have believed that they were different, that they were safe. they had wives that loved them and kids that loved them too (argue with the wall about it). they had MADE IT. DESPITE EVERYTHING. and most importantly they had EACH OTHER. they weren't atreus and thyestes. things were so good for them. and they did good!! we know that myceneans LOVED aga as their king. and menelaus got a kingdom he NEVER expected to have.
to be descended from TANTALUS you are already losing. to then have ATREUS as a father and THYESTES as an uncle? it would have been so easy for greeks to write them off. for them to write themselves off. BUT THAT DIDNT HAPPEN. and they did SO WELL. it was all going SO WELL.
you can't change a narrative. you can't alter fate. and the reason tragedies are so is because it wasn't ALWAYS that way. but ... things could have been so different for them. i TRULY believe that.
88 notes
·
View notes