Fuck it Friday!
I was tagged by @wikiangela @disasterbuckdiaz @cowboy-buck @daffi-990 thank you 💜💜💜
Imma be honest, I opened the most recent document, scrolled down a bit, and just copied an amount that made sense lol, so have this bit of the eddie begins fic where they are being soft in the hospital while waiting for test results lol prev snippet
"Hey, no sleeping," Buck says, shaking him gently, and Eddie blinks, slowly looking around to find out they're alone again.
"Sorry," he mumbles, eyes finding Buck again, "on the bright side, I don't feel like I'm freezing from the inside out anymore."
"That's good."
"Yeah," Eddie yawns, and Buck's eyes widen with worry while looking at him.
Were his eyes always this blue?
"Okay, am I gonna have to be annoying to keep you awake?" He jokes, but his smile doesn't reach his eyes.
"You're never annoying, Buck," he says, blinking against the sleep that's now threatening to take over and something flashes on Buck's expression but it's gone before Eddie can figure it out.
"Not what it seems like when you throw pillows at me in the bunk room," Buck jokes, poking his arm and he chuckles.
"That's just to remind you that we're there to sleep."
"A pillow to the face is supposed to get me to sleep?"
"One can hope," Eddie mumbles, shifting around trying to get comfortable without being too comfortable, before looking back at Buck, worry creeping up his spine, "you know I don't mind the talking, right? I feel bad falling asleep on you, so if you're talking I'm not going to sleep, hence the pillows," he says and Buck's expression circles through multiple complicated emotions before he nods.
"It's just harder falling asleep on the bunks sometimes," he shrugs and Eddie chuckles.
"I know."
"But I will have to annoy you into staying awake for now," Buck says, adjusting in his chair.
"You're not annoying."
"You know what I mean."
"Still not annoying."
"Not even this conversation?"
"No."
"You sure?"
"Positive."
no pressure tagging <3: @bucks118 @eddiebabygirldiaz @honestlydarkprincess @watchyourbuck @captain-hen @giddyupbuck @try-set-me-on-fire
43 notes
·
View notes
hi! firstly, sorry in advance for the long ask. your blog is very thought provoking! secondly, i wanna say i really appreciate all your writing on totk - i’ve kinda deliberately avoided looking at any critiques of the game because, quite frankly, i had a fun time in the moment while playing it and i didn’t want to sully that experience, but your posts have all been quality and have given me a lot to think about with respect to the narrative, its aims, and whether or not “pure, uncomplicated, escapist fiction” is actually a good thing
i digress though - the subject i wanted to ask about, which comes up both in your general “all the consequences were undone and therefore nothing mattered” stance, and more directly in your post about dondons/humanity/morality (specifically the part about “should we trust the bargainer statues that nothing matters? or should we actually care about light vs dark?”) is kind of the age old sentiment that the journey is more important than the destination, and how you think about this in the context of zelda as a narrative, as a defining game in the adventure genre, and now as a landmark in the open world style
in the case of the bargainer statue, i was thrown by you framing “trusting the statues about morality” vs “being moved by the struggle of light against dark” as an either/or - a grimly nihilistic view. in the game (and, i think, in real life), the message is that the ultimate futility of everything does not invalidate the reality of people living their lives in the present, and a positive nihilism challenges us to try and help people and do good in spite of that meaninglessness. this is why the bargainer statues feel so bizarre and un-zelda-like (or at the very least, un-hyrulian. not a bad thing!) - the universe of zelda has always at its core been about how helping other people is a noble endeavor and is its own reward (with gratitude in skyward sword actually manifesting this physically), and the bargainers’ ambivalence flies in the face of this. it’s obvious to us as the player that towns being destroyed and lives being torn apart is objectively bad, even if everyone ends up as a poe in the depths either way, and the bargainers reading as sinister and alien actually reinforces this more than it calls it into question. the quality of the time spent in life matters, even if the ending looks the same
as a game, i think zelda has always been at least as much about the stories and connections you experience on your quest to deal with the big bad as it is about that actual climactic fight. it’s always leaned into the adventure half of “action/adventure,” and in some ways i do think this is what “gameplay before story” originally meant. as you’ve noted, some of the brightest points of totk are the sidequests and characters for whom you can make a small but noticeable difference, and through which you’re driven to interrogate the world and maybe yourself too. and it’s because of these connections that reverting things at the end doesn’t make everything futile and pointless. link is our connection to hyrule, and if the adventure impacted us positively, then we can infer that it impacted link (and to a lesser extent, zelda) positively as well, and that’s worthwhile even if the external circumstances change
a last quick point is that i think the increasingly open world nature of the series also reinforces this - sure you can run naked straight to castle and beat ganondorf without engaging with the game in any way, and you’ll save the day the same as someone who put in 300 hours on the way there, but your takeaway will be completely different, because that journey is the entire point
anyways thanks again for your thoughtful posts and for reading this far if you did!
Heyy thank you so much for perusing my blog and leaving such a thoughtful ask, it's greatly appreciated! <3
That's interesting you took the Dondon post in that way, as it wasn't what I meant at all haha. But I do recognize it was worded in kind of a cryptic way, and left it up to interpretation perhaps a tad too much (see: the limits of subtext), so I can try and make myself a little more clear (and I also think you bring up really good points that completely deserve to be mentioned and that I personally do not mention nearly enough)
What I meant by the "either/or" isn't what we, as an audience should take away as what's important or meaningful, and completely discard the other part as useless. It's not what we experience ingame, and this contradiction is inherently interesting and sparks some degree of conflict (good! storytelling need those and totk is conflict anemic honestly)
What bothered me is that we are prompted, in the game, to see things in an extremely black and white way in spite of an argumentation that maybe, we shouldn't. It's not bad in itself, I even think it's great that we get to question the moral fabric of the world! It's one of the very rare (in my opinion) compelling things about the narrative weaved out for us. But the endgoal of the game still remains the same: find Zelda, and swear yourself/all of your friends to Rauru's ancestral kingdom by using his powers and his guiding hand. Link's role in restoring Hyrule is never even hinted as being a potential question mark, or something we should ponder upon (Twilight Princess did directly question Hyrule in more ways than one, WW is also there, etc). But moreso than in other games in my opinion: we are doing the bidding of a king's territorial war that happened a very long time ago, and the current state of Hyrule doesn't seem to indicate the need for pushing a unified kingdom back onto everybody, or at least it wouldn't be a problem if not for Ganondorf's presence (which in of itself is still arguable as an argument for royal unity, since people would have been willing to band together for the sake of their own communities regardless of whether or not there was a unifying realm --remove the Sage's vow, and I don't believe Link's friends would have let him handle his fight on his own even without having to swear their alliegeance to what is basically a dead kingdom by this point).
My problem isn't the statues; it's that this Light/Darkness framing is only ever questioned when close to them/the Monster Brothers, and the rest of the world is extremely rigid in what is the correct path --but without the added tragic weight that other Zelda games generally have about this aspect (the Sages in OoT being torn from their previous aspect/your own lost childhood, Skyward Sword's Hylia and the way she enacts her plan through people who never had a choice --and that's identified as something bittersweet, not to mention the infamous curse of Demise...)
I do adore what you mention, this sort of "positive nihilism" as a staple of the series. It's never as apparent as in Majora's Mask in my opinion, where getting people comfort and rest is ultimately without consequence as you constantly reset their minds, but it still feels meaningful to have helped. I think BotW did that really well too --where you help people rebuidling life and meaning in the middle of the desolation, making the post-apocalypse hopeful, a place for potential growth and change and resilience and experimentation. In TotK, however, I don't think your efforts are as centered around making sure these people get a future as they were in BotW (except maybe, as you mentioned, in a couple of sidequests --Lurelin's village being one of them, for example). Maybe it's because Ganondorf's threat is not as clear as the Calamity's was, maybe it's because what guides your adventure is to find Zelda first and foremost rather than defeating whatever threatens the peace (treated narratively as a hindrance more than the core problem, even if it is ultimately the core problem --again, the narration/quest design is pretty messy here and it doesn't help matters), or maybe it's because the endgoal is not for people to make their own way into the world, but mostly for the wayward folk of Hyrule to be ushered back onto the glorious trail of Hylian/Zonai's legacy --but to me, the game has a weird agenda regarding Link/the player's role into this world that is generally tangential to his role as a hero and a balancing force in other legends. Here, he starts the game as a knight. His duty is to Zelda, but it ends up overlapping to what Zelda represents in a far more abstract way than usual.
What I think works in TotK in terms of "positive nihilism" is actually Ultrahand, and this gimmick of "world as playground", which I believe is a very clever and engaging way to imagine an open world. There are a ton of little gameplay moments that are yours to shape and inject meaning into; manipulation for the sake of it, the joy of play, and experimentation being rewarded and never punished. To me, this feels the most like inhabiting the world, making it your own, and doing things because they matters to you --and this being enough. But narratively speaking, this is just not really the story being told to us: we are told, us and basically every other NPC, to conform to a plan laid out for us that doesn't ever need to be investigated or questioned --even though now, at crossroad of what the future could look like, would be the perfect moment to do so.
I think what I ultimately tried to point out in that Dondon post is how jarring this hint that, perhaps nothing you do In The Name of Light actually means anything, and this having zero impact on the rigidity of the pupose you are supposed to accomplish In The Name of Light --and the game never seemingly acknowledging that paradox, which made for a (I think, unplanned) pretty oppressive playing experience on my end.
14 notes
·
View notes