#different viewpoints depending on the character | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jedi-enthusiast · 4 months

Note

Genuine question as to why you feel so passionate about being pro-jedi? I definitely wouldn't say I'm anti-jedi, but I think there are some decent criticisms that can be made about them. But overall I'm just interested to understand the dedication to being pro-jedi, cause it is a fictional organisation at the end of the day. Isn't it more fulfilling to look at them from different perspectives so we can get the most out of the story as possible?

Before I answer, I'm going to ask you a question in turn, would you ever ask this question to someone who was anti-Jedi? Would you ever imply that they need to change their view on the Jedi because they're "not getting the most out of the story?"

Now, I'm going to preface this answer by saying that I'm not angry with you, I'm just very passionate about this topic---so don't take any of this personally. You seem like you're genuinely asking, and I appreciate that.

----------

Personally, for me, there aren't really any criticisms that can be made about the Jedi- (keep in mind, I primarily adhere to Lucas Canon, everything else is just an add on depending whether I like it or not). Everything that people criticize the Jedi for or accuse them of falls into one of three categories:

Not true- (the Jedi are a cult, the Jedi repress their emotions, the Jedi were mean to Anakin, etc.)

Done for a reason because the other option would be worse/it was their only real option in a bad situation- (the Jedi shouldn't have fought in the war, the Jedi should've defended Ahsoka, the Jedi are slavers because of the clones, etc.)

Or it's something that's an Eastern concept/practice but people refuse to look at it as such and instead project their Western viewpoint/religious trauma onto them- (literally the entire thing about attachment)

I've never seen any criticism of the Jedi that doesn't fall into one of these categories, so why should I be inclined to "hear people out" or "look at the Jedi from other perspectives" when there's...really nothing else to look at?

----------

Another thing to consider is that, while the Jedi are fictional characters, George Lucas based them heavily on very real religions and groups---particularly Jews and Buddhists.

So when people say things like- "the Jedi weren't allowed to care/love/have emotions because of Attachment™️" -they're spreading harmful misinformation and basically saying that Buddhists can't love/care/have emotions because of their rule against attachment, since the philosophy of non-attachment is literally taken verbatim from Buddhism.

And when people usually pair the above rhetoric with- "-and that's why the Jedi deserved what they got/caused their own downfall" -it's...a very concerning mindset for people to perpetuate---especially when George Lucas based the genocide of the Jedi and the rise of the Empire off of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

When you strip away the fictional aspects of it, a lot of what people say about the Jedi is literally Nazi/antisemitic/Holocaust denial rhetoric. To take an example of something that has actually been said on one of my posts:

"The destruction of the Jedi Order was less a genocide and more of a religious conflict that the Jedi lost. The Jedi Order is a sect of the collective religious culture of 'Force Users,' and their destruction cannot really be considered genocide as the cultural group of 'Force Users' still exists albeit heavily restricted and controlled by the Sith during the Empire Era." - @/ironwoodarl01

And, as @zarohk pointed out:

It’s depressing how so many “Jedi critical” talking points are pretty much antisemitism and Holocaust denial/justification: The destruction of the Jedi Order was less a genocide and more of a religious conflict that the Jedi lost. "The Jedi Order religion of Judaism is a sect of the collective religious culture of 'Force Users Abrahamic faiths, and their destruction cannot really be considered genocide as the cultural group of Force Users Abrahamic faiths still exists…" Similar thinly-veiled antisemitism in the Star Wars fandom also frequently includes supersessionism, the Christian idea that during the (Roman) Republic era, the Jedi Jews had become corrupt and lost their way, and and so finally a divinely created person was sent to show them new path. This is why attempts to read Star Wars where Anakin is a Christ figure or correct where the Jedi have failed (ignoring the fact that he wrecked the lives of most people he was involved with, including himself, and the Darth Vader was never happy) are not just incorrect, but generally have a thick underlayer of antisemitism.

So, while Star Wars is fictional, it's important for people to analyze why they feel the way they do about the Jedi and be critical of the ways in which they talk about/criticize the Jedi---because, like it or not, the Jedi and their genocide are based on real people/things and so your reaction to them/what happened to them can be very telling.

----------

Finally, being critical of the good guys or trying to view everything through a morally grey lens doesn't make the story inherently more interesting, nor does it inherently add anything to the story---so I'm not "missing" anything.

If believing that no one can actually just be good, and everyone has to have some agenda, and "the good guys were the REAL bad guys all along" adds something to Star Wars for you...by all means, go ahead and believe what you want.

But my view of Star Wars isn't "lesser" or "missing something" just because I don't share that view and actually like the good guys and believe in what they taught/did.

----------

I'm passionate about being pro-Jedi because of everything I outlined above and because they were truly good people who tried their best to help the galaxy---they were brought down, not because of anything they did, but because of one man's selfish stupid actions.

There might've been a time when I was willing to hear people out when they criticized the Jedi---because hey! maybe I was wrong---but that time has long passed because nothing anyone has ever criticized the Jedi for has held up to scrutiny, and anti-Jedi people won't just keep the fuck off my page and leave me alone.

So, frankly, this is my blog and I'm allowed to be as passionate as I want to be---and I'm not gonna stop, or start viewing the Jedi as "wrong" or "bad" or whatever, just because you- (and other people, I'm sure) -think I'm missing something by being strictly pro-Jedi

#star wars #sw prequels #pro jedi #pro jedi order #pro jedi council #in defense of the jedi council #in defense of the jedi #jedi appreciation

248 notes · View notes

raven-at-the-writing-desk · 4 months

Note

One massive difference between the western vs JP TWST fandoms that I haven't seen anyone else talk about is that the Japanese fandom seems to dwell in "grimdark" territory while the western one tries to see the best in these characters. From my glimpses into the Japanese fandom, they seem to see these character's darkness as the main appeal. That's reflected in their fanworks, since yandere works or things that dive into their dark sides are more popular there. While there is plenty of yandere content in the west, it seems more like a niche than the most popular way to portray the characters in fics where as in Japan that seems to be the norm on Pixiv. The JP seem to LOVE their grim dark fan theories WAY more than the western one. The western fandom seems like the opposite. Works seeing their humanity, them being decent partners, etc is the norm. Thought?

“I can fix him” vs “I can make him worse”—

Mmm, I have many thoughts on this but before I get into them I want to clarify some things. This is so everyone reading is running with the same definitions and thus can better understand (and perhaps contribute to) the discussion.

Firstly, “grimdark” can refer to any and all materials which people may find disturbing, amoral, and/or violent. Grimdark is NOT just yandere content. Although yandere content is an example of grimdark, not all grimdark is yandere.

Secondly, I want to dispel the notion that “grimdark” and “seeing the best in the characters” are opposites. They are actually not mutually exclusive; it is entirely possible to have the two overlap. For example, it is common for assassins to be after Kalim’s life (which is dark). However, Kalim himself is very cheery despite being cognizant of this (which is not dark, he is able to see the nest of this situation and is often praised for being a spot of sunshine in the cast). There are also much darker takes while staying true to Kalim’s caring nature, such as fandom works which portray his big heart (a strength) as a detriment, causing him to fall into deep paranoia and/or guilt. For the purposes of this discussion, I will still refer back to those two original viewpoints, just be aware that they are not truly “opposites”.

Lastly, the ask is phrased such that it suggests that dark content is “the norm” in Japanese circles. In actuality, the content you see is dependent on personal biases and what the algorithms feed you based on your likes and communities. While it’s true that perhaps Japanese fandoms have more dark content than the western fandoms, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is “the norm”. It is still considered niche, it is just that the fandom culture of Japan is more open-minded about these depictions, as well as fans’ choices to filter out dark content if they do not wish to encounter it. Western fandoms are very different in this regard. Rather than ignoring content they dislike or find disturbing, western fans tend to adopt an attitude of openly renouncing that which they dislike and, at times, calling out those that do enjoy that kind of thing. It is this social stigma and pressure within western fandoms which creates a less welcoming space for dark content to exist and to be publicly shared. Rather than saying one type of content is “the norm”, I think it’s more accurate to say certain types of content are deemed as being “acceptable” or “unacceptable” depending on the fandom culture.

Now then, as to why the western fandom in particular tends to favor works that show the TWST characters in a favorable light rather than focus on their darker aspects? There are many possible explanations for this:

Cultural differences in fandom spaces. I already mentioned this in the opening paragraphs, but it warrants repeating here. Japanese fans are much more reserved in how they express themselves and tend to keep quiet relating to content they dislike or don’t care for. Western fans are more outspoken and may actively “call out” what they dislike. This is typically observed in collectivist vs individualist countries, as conformity with the group/not causing disruptions to the group harmony and standing out and being one’s own individual are opposing ideologies and values.

Japan’s culture is one that stresses the importance of politeness and being proper. The country has strict social expectations of people and especially women (which makes up the majority of TWST’s fanbase). It is only in the realm of fiction where Japanese women are able to freely express themselves and to explore subject matter deemed socially inappropriate, however dark it may be. Fandom is their creative outlet. Meanwhile in the west, it’s the opposite. Overt uniqueness is more acceptable overall, but there is also a present effort of policing online content, often in the name of social activism and inclusion. This makes sense for western countries, many of which sport much more diverse populations than Japan.

Going in with the certain expectations of the game. Many western fans mistook Twisted Wonderland for a dating sim when its marketing materials first released, maybe due to a language barrier. This set them up for the wrong expectations about romancing and potentially “fixing” a villain, even when the game finally came out (due to residual feelings; I know for a fact there are still a handful of fans who want TWST to have a dating sim spinoff or wish the game had been a dating sim from the start).

Changes made in the localization.

I’m not sure what the ratio of westerners playing EN to JP, but the official localization made several changes which “blunted” some details or changed the context of some characters’ stories. For example, Jamil is no longer a “servant” but an “employee”, Kalim is his “employer”, not “master”, and Jamil complains that his parents will be “so mad at him” when he is asked why he doesn’t rebel against the Asims whole the consequences are made much more explicit in JP (his family will be thrown out onto the streets). Cater, Floyd, and Idia have also notably gotten a lot more memey dialogue that was not there in the original. These softened versions the characters may make western fans more likely to see the a less severe backstory or have goofier interpretation of certain characters.

Popular western media’s interpretations of villains. A lot of western media nowadays tries to redeem the bad guys. For example, in many young adult and adult romance fantasy novels, the love interest is often presented as a misunderstood bad boy that has a change of heart because of the protagonist. Disney themselves is also guilty of “softening” many of their more recent villains and giving new backstories to older villains to make them more sympathetic (Maleficent, Cruella, etc). Compare this to “classic” era Disney villains, who are just evil for the sake of being evil. These will naturally inform the general public’s views on villains. (It is also to be noted that Disney villains and specifically their evilness are extremely popular in Japan. They are adored for being fun characters, not necessarily admired for being bad.)

Disney’s reputation, especially in the west. The company is closely associated with fairy tales —and, more importantly, with magic and happy endings. This, too, may contribute to western fans wanting to look on the “bright side” of things and wish for happy endings for characters that are, in fact, part of the Disney brand. The Disney message is perhaps strongest in the west due to having its origins there:

The age differences between the Japanese and the western fandoms. The western TWST fandom skews young overall whereas the Japanese TWST fandom is older (which is why a lot of TWST merch you’ll see is expensive household goods and fashion; this is to appeal to working Japanese women). As I mentioned in the previous point, this means younger audiences in the west may mostly encounter media which presents villains in a more sympathetic light, or at least much earlier (which leaves a stronger impression). This makes them more inclined to view other media in a way which is more flattering for the villains even when they are dark or morally ambiguous in canon.

Younger fans may also be not as informed and thus lack some perspective, which means they may have more limited views. A 15 year old wouldn’t have as much life experience as a 20 year old—that’s not a bad thing, it’s an objective truth that has an impact on their perspective. They may see things more simplistically or see easier solutions to complex problems. Younger fans may, for example, be able to identify circumstances as being traumatic or unfair (such as the case with Jamil’s past and Leona’s desire to introduce new technologies to his home country) but may not understand the full ramifications (ie why Jamil cannot just leave or have Kalim to speak with his dad about it, how difficult Leona’s plans would be to implement as well as the social pushback due to the harm the advances could pose to the environment). This leads to more of a lean to positive content, as dark content would inherently mean problems are much more difficult to resolve and have more factors to them than what was originally considered.

I want to also point out that younger fans are especially concerned with what their peers may think of them, and so they may feel too embarrassed to dabble in darker content. Some dark content may also not be perceived as appropriate depending on the fan’s age. Alternatively, some fans may just not feel comfortable exploring those ideas (and that’s totally fine!).

Western fans project onto/relate to the characters they love. I’m not saying that Japanese fans don’t do this, but I feel like western fans tend to do this to a VERY strong and sometimes parasocial degree (which has its roots in comfort character and kinning culture, things which largely do not exist in east Asian fandoms). Like… western fans can relate to a character so deeply that any criticism of that character can feel like a personal attack on them, the fan. Likewise, if that character is presented as having flaws or doing questionable things (even if it is canon), the fans that are strongly projecting onto the character may feel that they themselves are flawed or somehow “bad” too. This can lead into trying to defend or justify the character’s flaws or actions. Maybe a fan that has shared trauma with a character sees them as a proxy and want to see the character (and thus, themselves) in a positive way or in good situations. In eastern fandoms, it is more appropriate to consider the character a separate entity rather than relating to or projecting onto them.

The western rise in moral justification for the content one consumes. This is a big one, and it has been alluded to in some of the other points. There is this belief circulating in western fandom spaces that “the content you consume reflects your real world values and morals”. So… if you believe that (or are in a social space where it is believed) and happen to like evil or morally grey characters, what does that imply about your own character? Does that mean you are morally bankrupt or that you condone bad things? Personally, I don’t think so but I understand why this way of thinking could make people feel ashamed. They may avoid looking at “dark” interpretations of a character and instead focus on wholesome feel-good content so that the content they consume reflects “well” on themselves. In other cases, fans may try to twist the bad points of a character to make it “morally okay” to like them.

That’s everything I could come up with off the top of my head!! I hope this was interesting to read and maybe helped you see the international TWST fandom from a new perspective. With that, I’ll leave you with this relevant Wreck-It Ralph quote: “I’m bad, and that’s good. I will never be good, and that’s not bad. There’s no one I’d rather be than me.”

#twst #twisted wonderland #twisted wonderland en #twst en #disney twst #disney twisted wonderland #notes from the writing raven #question

231 notes · View notes

seraphinitegames · 9 months

Text

The Wayhaven Chronicles - Update 28/July/2023

Oh, it was a good one this week! It had a little dip but really picked up later!

The dip was just me feeling a majorly overwhelmed at one point. There’s SO much I want to do in the world of Wayhaven, as well as Book Four (Curse of Creek Edge, Book One and Two spruce-up, plenty of other ideas…). But time seems to be against me, and the main series will always be my focus as I write it.

I’ve still not worked out how I’m going to fit it all in, if I can, but I’ve been focused on Book Four’s plans at the moment, and that is just going seriously smoothly! The amount of scenes I’m already bursting with excitement to write is…a lot, hehe!

I was also SUPER happy as I managed to come up with this awesome idea to fill in a gap where I wasn’t sure what to put. I just had ‘Something here’ written in the plan, but as I was typing it up it came to me, and I love what it’s going to be!

Well, actually, what it might be depending on what you pick, hehe! The scene has the same feel to it whichever version as it’s something to help the player start deciding where they want to go on the new Agency stats being introduced, but depending on which characters you choose to be with in that scene should add a very different feel to it and give some very different viewpoints!

One of the other things I’ve been tackling this week is deciding whether to add a certain big thing into Book Four. Vague, I know, but I don’t want to mention it in case I can’t end up doing what I’d like.

Think I will see how planning goes, but I’ll talk more about that if I decide to add it or not!

As you might be able to tell, a lot of big and small decisions happen within these early planning stages. But it’s better to make those decisions now rather than try to adjust anything major once I get to writing! That’s definitely the plan for going forward with Book Four this time—a much more intensely detailed plan so as writing will hopefully go smoother and quicker!

Hope you all have the most amazing weekend! We’ll be offline as usual, so I’ll talk to you all again next week!

#the wayhaven chronicles #interactive fiction #update #twc book 4

324 notes · View notes

scribefindegil · 7 months

Text

Some thoughts on unreliable narrators as I procrastinate on writing several tricky scenes with unreliable narrators:

Every narrator is unreliable. Just like there's no such thing as 'objectivity' in journalism or academia, there's no such thing as a truly reliable narrator. The narrator's viewpoint is limited, they're shaped by their culture and personality and experiences, they overlook things and make assumptions. It's all a matter of degree. But usually we talk about "unreliable narrators" when the gap between what the narrator says and what the reader/author believes to be true is prominent enough to be narratively significant.

Where is the gap?

Unreliable narrators are not all duplicitous. In fact, many are telling the truth as they understand it. But some are not! This is by no way a comprehensive taxonomy of narrators, and even within a single story there are likely to be shifts and overlaps, but here are some Types I find helpful to consider:

Oblivious The reader doesn't get crucial information because the narrator simply was not paying attention. Maybe they were missing context. Maybe they were bored. Maybe they were distracted by a hot girl (Gideon I love you). Alternatively, the reader gets clearly false information (especially about how other characters are thinking or feeling) that the narrator wholeheartedly believes to be true (Breq I love you).

Repressed You the reader can tell that what the narrator's telling you they think/feel and what they actually think/feel are not the same, but the narrator themself has no idea. For narrators that lack self-awareness and don't understand why they do the things they do or for narrators that are really good at not looking at things that make them uncomfortable.

Liar (internal) The "Sure, you keep telling yourself that, buddy" version, where the narrator is on some level aware that they're lying to themself but doubles down on it anyway. Tends to involve a lot of rationalizing or misdirection. It's very common for a character to have a realization about something important partway through a story (that The System is corrupt, that they're in love with their best friend, that their actions are actually more self-serving than altruistic, etc) that makes them switch between Repressed (passive internal conflict) and Liar (active internal conflict). Or, you know, they might have a realization and not immediately start lying to themself about it, but where's the fun in that?

Liar (external) Usually shows up in first-person stories or in-universe writing, since it requires the narrator to be aware that they have an audience and be attempting to intentionally mislead them. In this case, there is a deliberate disconnect between what the narrator's understanding of events and the account of it they're giving for the purpose of spin or deception.

Coerced This is where the gap comes from an external factor, usually magic or sci-fi nonsense that messes with a character's mind and changes their perception of themself and/or reality, (eg they can't talk/think about a certain subject, they've had their memories altered, etc). It's a different flavor than the other sorts of unreliability and can overlap with any of the others depending of how aware the character is of what's been done to them.

How Obvious Is The Gap?

Another thing to consider is at what point, and to what extent, a reader becomes aware that a narrator is unreliable. Is it clear from the beginning? Is it played as a reveal? Is is a slow dawning realization? Is it something that you could overlook on a first readthrough that only becomes obvious once you put the pieces together? All of these can be effective, but it's good to know going in. If you want the narrator's unreliable nature to be a reveal (that is, there's a point where the reader realizes that they're lying and that recontextualizes the whole story), you're going to approach it differently than if you want your readers to be screaming about the dramatic irony from the beginning. If your point is that the reader shouldn't actually know how much of what the narrator's telling them is true, that's going to look very different than a story about a narrator who has an on-page realization about one of the big things they've been lying to themself about and has to navigate the consequences.

#writing #posts that are just me rubber-ducking at myself because i don't want to actually write the Hard Things #(one fic that's just All Repression All The Time with shades of Liar (internal) and one scene that's. um.#coerced dramatic-irony-horror slide from repression to liar while screaming)

312 notes · View notes

yuurei20 · 11 months

Text

Toboso Yana on the creation process for Twisted Wonderland:

"For the main story, first I create a rough plot and submit it to Disney for approval.

After that, I discuss with the development team what elements we want to introduce per scene: ADV, rhythmics, battles, etc., and complete the scenario as a whole.

What I always keep in mind when writing scenarios is that the aim is not for it to be 'loved by everyone'.

Villains are not meant to be loved and cheered on by everyone.

They are villains: they were created to be hated.

That is why there is sometimes something attractive about them…

As long as villains are the basis for these characters, I think it is important that they never become overly good people.

Of course, there are limits.

And in cooperation of Disney we have been very particular about following storylines and quoting dialogue from the movies, so that people who have never seen the original films will want to see them for the first time, and those who have seen them will want to see them again.

The vignettes and event stories are technically spin-offs of the main story, but there are a lot more scenarios involved than are in the main story.

We try to delve deeper into the characters through their daily lives on campus and how they deal with the problems they face.

I think there are actually many players who look forward to these spinoffs more than they do to the main storyline.

That is why we want it to feel like the characters in each subplot are recalling living in the same world as the main story.

But how can we direct all these different stories in such a way that there is a sense of continuity? …this is an ongoing issue.

Vignettes, in particular, are often depicted not from the perspective of the player, but from the subjective viewpoint of the character in question, and the way the story is depicted varies depending on the relationships between them and other characters.

For example, B may be a black-hearted jerk from A's point of view, but from C's point of view, B may actually be competent, dependable and an overall good guy...

It is necessary to reconcile the two viewpoints on a case-by-case basis.

Currently, I can't think of any other way to uphold continuity besides reading through all of the stories and making changes when needed, again and again.

So that's what I do.

It is a daily process of trial and error.

Sometimes the relationship between characters changes completely in the main storyline, which will leave me scratching my head and wondering, 'When did that part happen?'.

However, I am sure that more and more events are going to be held in the future, so I am wondering if parallel and 'if' worlds are going to start appearing.

As for chats, we always try to make sure that involve a reference to the original work that inspired the character in question.

Since the Disney Villains are the 'Great Seven' in this world, it's a perfect topic for the characters to discuss after class.

We thought it would be great if people who like the villains could get excited along with the characters.

On the other hand, if you are not familiar with the movies being referenced, I hope it might feel as if the characters are teaching you."

#twstYana #twisted wonderland #Toboso Yana

317 notes · View notes

nothinggold13 · 10 months

Text

On Peter and Violence

I think there’s two popular fanon camps regarding Peter Pevensie’s relationship with violence, and though there are certainly plenty of others who, like me, would disagree with both of them, it is those two versions of Peter that I keep seeing pop up again and again.

The first is that of the powerful, raging, warrior king: the version of Peter that speaks more to his mythologized persona within the books than the Peter we actually witness and interact with inside the narrative. His temper is hot, and his sword is fast, and his legacy is soaked in blood. It’s this Peter that lends itself so readily to the (equally fanon) idea that Edmund is the more diplomatic of the two.

The second is that of the pacifist. This idea of Peter is opposed to violence, and only fights under great duress, or because he has been given no other choice; it’s the version of his character that people have snatched from a deleted scene in the “Prince Caspian” film in which he claims he is “thinking about a career in medicine,” and in doing so, distances himself from the war back home. (Although, I would also blame the PC film for the angry, impulsive version of Peter who dominates too much of the fandom; that movie’s interpretation of him is a tragedy.)

Now, of the two, I would prefer the second. It’s at least marginally truer to the boy who “didn’t feel very brave” but did his duty in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” and I appreciate that. However, I also have a personal vendetta against the extreme version of this viewpoint which prioritizes Peter’s peaceful nature over his dutiful courage, and this is why I’m writing out what I believe are the nuances of his character that sometimes get overlooked in favour of idolizing either his strength or his softness.

There is a statement in my mind to describe him that I avoid using, because I know it requires more context than I usually want to give, but here and now, we’ll call it my thesis: Peter prefers problems he can hit.

I don’t think Peter is a violent character. Genuinely, I don’t. And so I imagine those two statements seem pretty contradictory, because how can he not be violent, if violence is also the ideal solution to his problems?

Well, here’s the thing: Peter’s growing up in a war. Heck, he’s growing up in two.

He’s thirteen in the first book, and World War II is breaking out above him, and, more than that, there is nothing he can do about it. What could he do? He’s a kid.

And then, suddenly, he’s in a new world. They tell him he’s meant to be there. They give him a sword, and he takes it silently. They tell him he will be king.

We see him in his fight with the wolf: “Peter did not feel very brave; indeed, he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do.” We are told there that violence is not something he takes to lightly; it is a matter of duty for him: to the country that stands behind him, and his sister who is in harm’s way.

He fights a battle. Years pass, and he fights more. He returns to the war he is powerless to fight against, and then finds himself King again, where he comes up with a plan to fight a duel which -- if everything had gone to plan -- would have put no one but himself at risk.

Yes, Peter is steeped in violence. C. S. Lewis tells us at the end of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” that he is a “great warrior,” and when he is mentioned in “The Horse and His Boy,” it is said he’s off battling giants. He is High King, and as such, he has to be a soldier. He chooses to be a soldier. He consistently fights, especially so that others may not have to. He fights to protect. To shield. To provide freedom.

And then he goes back home, and is trapped under war again.

Depending on his birthday, Peter turns eighteen around the time of the end of World War II, meaning I have no reason to believe he ever fought within it; however, National Service continued after the war. And this is where I thought that Peter, ever being driven by duty, would sign up without question. It’s what would be expected of him. And, even more, it’s what he’s been doing for years for a country that isn’t his anymore; how could he not do the same for England?

(I put that in a fic. I had a scene where Peter, freshly eighteen, confessed to Susan he would still have to serve, and Susan said, “But not in the war, and I’m glad of that.” And then -- because it was what Peter did within canon time and time again -- I had him tell her, “But I hope you understand that I’d fight for you. For all of you. If my fighting had any chance of helping to keep you all safe, I would go.” ......And somebody told me that was out of character.)

I don’t mind if somebody really likes the idea of Peter becoming a doctor rather than a soldier. Truly, I understand the appeal. But I do have a problem when somebody tells me I’m wrong for believing Peter would continue to do what he had always canonically done after coming back to England.

Because Peter does have a relationship with violence. He doesn’t have a love for it, but he has been tangled in the necessity of it too many times not to follow through when it needs to be done.

And what happens when you raise a boy in war? What happens when you let him fight it? What happens when he learns the chain reaction: fight the battle, win the war, set them free? And then what happens when you put him into situations that can’t be solved with his hands? Give him enemies he can’t fight? Give him wars he can’t be a part of?

And that’s what I mean by “Peter prefers problems he can hit.”

Not that Peter rushes to violence when it isn’t called for, or that he craves war when he finds himself in peace, or anything else of that angry, vicious nature that some people have come to believe--- Gosh, I think Peter would far rather lay the sword down than ever have to pick it up again.

(But it’s what he does. Time after time.)

Peter is a big brother, ever looking after the others. Peter is the High King, ever doing what Narnia requires. Peter is the loyal servant, ever following Aslan’s instruction. Even if it scares him, it’s what he does.

So I don’t think he likes feeling helpless. I think he likes knowing what to do, and I think intangible problems drive him a little crazy, and I think a sword is a very physical thing that has served him well too many times.

Despite my very obvious complaints against “Prince Caspian’s” movie characterization here, I have to say that this is something I love about “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” Peter’s older in the film than he is in the book. He’s closer to going to war himself. And what do we see him do? We see him distracted by passing soldiers-- not much older than himself. We see him reading on the train: “Biggles Goes To War.” We see him consumed by the war, even up to the point that he mimics WWII battle strategies against the Witch’s army.

This is the Peter I’m talking about: the one who feels sick at violence, and shakes and cries and hugs his sisters when its done, and yet...... does it. Every time.

I feel like there’s a dozen things I may be missing, but I think that’s the gist: Peter’s an unwilling soldier who doesn’t know how to put down his sword.

He’s a great warrior, but not an indiscriminate one. He’s a gentle spirit, but not a passive one. Violence made him, but he is so much more than his violent acts. He’s complex. He’s dutiful. He’s faithful. He’s capable. He fights because he has to, and as long as it’s asked of him, he will continue to do it.

So that’s where I stand. That’s why I may seem to show contradictory versions of Peter throughout my fics and edits and commentary; why I may say he’s not violent and then paint an image of him that ties him to violence anyway.

Whether you disagree is your prerogative. This is, by nature, a nuance-based take, and while I do think there’s wrong interpretations of Peter Pevensie out there, I also believe that there is a lot of room within that nuance for various interpretations to be equally right. This isn’t me making an end-all-and-be-all analysis that everyone else must follow to the letter.

This is just me explaining -- for myself or for anyone else who cares to listen -- what I believe, and how it affects the things I create. <3 So there’s my take on Peter’s complicated relationship with violence: the way it coats him, and yet, doesn’t define him: the way he’s so softhearted, and yet not himself without it.

“For never since we four were Kings and Queens in Narnia have we set our hands to any high matter, as battles, quests, feats of arms, acts of justice, and the like, and then given over; but always what we have taken in hand, the same we have achieved." ~Peter [The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: Chapter XVII: The Hunting of the White Stag]

Disclaimer: none of this is anti-Aslan “look how he traumatized this poor boy” propaganda, and if that is your viewpoint, kindly do not interact with this post. :)

#narnia #the chronicles of narnia #peter pevensie #the lion the witch and the wardrobe #prince caspian #look at me :) I made a new post

385 notes · View notes

orkbutch · 5 months

Text

So I've been seeing A Viewpoint within the bg3 fandom occuring. And I gotta be honest. I disagree that the characters being bisexual in Baldur's Gate 3 means you cannot headcanon them as other sexualities for your own fandom content purposes. I think that's not reflective of how queer people and their sexual identities actually work, and its just antithetical to how fandom has always functioned, which is an exercise of imagination. I wanna clarify up front: I agree that someone saying that a character Can't or Shouldn't or Was Not Meant To Be bisexual because of whatever reason IS biphobic sentiment. The characters in Baldur's Gate 3 are canonically bi/pan, thats made pretty damn clear when you look through all their content. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about headcanons, au's; the kind of imaginitve play that is very much what fandom creativity is about. If you set a standard in fandom that depicting a character as a certain sexuality is Not Allowed, 1. you're kinda flattening sexuality in a weird way, like personally my sexuality is complicated as fuck and has changed over time, and 2. you're limiting creativity. And I think creativity in fandom is extremely important. It's the whole fun of fandom. Creativity is worth protecting and its worth establishing the nuance between Depicting A Version of Character who is X and Insisting That Character Should Be X in canon. Because like... we meddle with character's identities in fandom all the time. That's what headcanons ARE, they change appearance, social position, career, faith, species, traumatic experience, moral and political alignment, and SO much more. I think limiting what people can headcanon within fandom... is less fun! It's just less fun. Imaginative scope lets you do more, weird fun stuff. It lets you depict more complex interesting characters. Example: my Bad Nun AU. In that, Shadowheart identifies as a lesbian. Why is that? Because I wanted Shadowheart's experience within Bad Nun to specifically explore the history and context of lesbians within nunneries, especially how that manifested post Vatican II. These were also eras when 'lesbian' was more ubiquitos, had a different context and more flexibility; a lot of women that would probably consider themselves 'bisexual' now were identifying as lesbians, were in lesbian communities and events and spaces.

On that note: Flattening sexuality. You're gonna say people CANNOT depict these characters as ANYTHING but bisexual? That is not how most queer people's sexualities work. It simply isn't. I've identified as tons of different shit in my sexuality. I'm still not sure about it. For me half the time my "sexual identity" is just the words I use to communicate what I'm looking for, and that changes depends on What I Want at that time, what I'm looking to explore, my social context, ect. ect. like what. This isn't how sexuality works for real people. How are artists meant to be Creative and imaginatively depict real, complex, queer sexuality if they are restricted to depicting only what is within canon?? This is not how any other part of fandom works. Fandom art should work how all art works. If someone makes shit art, it gets dunked on and ignored for being bad or lazy or lame. If someone did Heterosexual Karlach fanfic, I would be like "what the fuck why" because they made Karlach less fucking cool. Het Karlach would be boring and thats More Egregious because they DECIDED to make her heterosexual DESPITE canon. But even then, EVEN THEN, I don't think that should be looked at as off limits shit, because I don't believe art should have many things off limits. Any limits must be very nuanced, because art and creativity is nuanced. Obviously my brain would go "het karlach? you deserve jail time and thats queerphobic", but I honestly believe creative license is more important than those feelings. I WOULD happily comment on their thing, "heterosexual karlach is boring, thats a shit idea" because I'm right

If you want good art and good writing, you need to protext creative license.

#bg3 #I think I'll get shit for this but. I'm right lol

102 notes · View notes

nanomooselet · 1 month

Text

On Narrators

You know what, fuck it.

I've seen a lot of references to Trigun Stampede having an unreliable narrator, and unfortunately it's activated my media analyst trap card. While there's always a degree of interpretation to these things, there is a difference between interpretation and declaring a banana skin to be orange zest. It makes a difference, especially if you're trying to bake a cake.

That isn't at all what Trigun Stampede is doing. Among other things, it doesn't have a narrator.

Narration, loosely defined, is text (or spoken lines etc) that directly addresses an assumed audience, which may or may not be the actual audience (it depends on the needs of the story). Think voice-overs, think Kuzco in The Emperor's New Groove, think the text panels in a comic or manga that list time and location, or describe the situation. The song of humanity continues to be sung is narration. A narrator is the character who performs narration; sometimes from with the story, sometimes from a position adjacent to it.

Honestly one of the most interesting things about Stampede, in my opinion, is that it makes a point of having neither.

There's no framing device, no presenter, no announcer, no chorus, no soliloquy, not even an internal monologue. There's no direct line to the writers, giving away their intentions. Indeed, the imposition of any text at all is almost entirely absent, save some pointed timing on the title cards, and no character's voice is objective. Zazie or Roberto, who come the closest, can definitely still be wrong - Roberto says Vash is "not long for this world" when Vash is longer for the world than almost anyone else; the man he says would kill with a smile was in fact coerced into becoming a killer. Zazie knows much and is always truthful, but isn't all-knowing, nor operating with complete understanding. And on the other end of the scale you have characters like Dr. Conrad or Knives, where the easiest way to tell they're mistaken or lying is if their mouths are moving. (Outside of brain fuckery. Then you're on your own.) Then there's Vash, who doesn't lie, necessarily, so much as he doesn't volunteer the truth, and tends to dodge giving answers when asked outright.

Now, an unreliable narrator is metafictional, taking advantage of the narrator being a character, and therefore capable of having an agenda.

What makes them unreliable is that they exert motivated influence over what we see - even accidental influence like distorted recollection or misconception. But before declaring such influence is occurring, we need a solid reason to doubt. You don't dismiss an account as unreliable just because it doesn't line up with your own expectations or desires - not without something like a clear contradiction, perhaps, or some conspicuous omission. *

We simply have no reason to believe what we see in Trigun Stampede is anything other than the truth (inasmuch as it's obviously fictional of course). We see some events from multiple viewpoints - here is what Vash experienced, here is what Knives saw, here is what other characters are doing - and what one character sees isn't different from what any other character sees when the perspectives swap. It's just from different distances and angles. The same words are said, the same events play out, and the same reactions are demonstrated by the characters, according to their established values and motivations.

The narrative itself is unadorned and unchanged by their viewpoints. Whether a character is being truthful is simply a judgement you're given to make as the events that occur and their actions reveal more about them.

The term for this isn't narration; it's focalisation, and it's hardly some avant-garde artistic statement. It's intrinsic to telling even the most simple story.

For instance, the way Knives evolves from his initial presentation. His introduction as an adult is as a wrathful would-be god and a merciless killer before his more nuanced motivations and origins are slowly revealed. It would have been different if he'd been introduced first, discovered Tesla and was then depicted destroying Jeneora Rock. He'd come across as more of a protagonist. Instead, because the central character is Vash, we see him first, the humanising struggles of Jeneora Rock's people and Vash's efforts to help them, his anguish when it's rendered moot, and all the ways he suffers as a result of Knives's actions. This is focalisation that makes Knives the antagonist, representing what Vash must overcome. A complex, compelling and perhaps tragic antagonist, but still - not the guy the story is about.

Oh, and that has nothing to do with their respective moral positions, good or evil. It's structural. A protagonist attempts to achieve while an antagonist obstructs, and both by nature will transgress.

Stampede isn't exactly free of ways to manipulate sympathy, and exerts strict control over the perspectives it presents. You could argue it misdirects, or lies by omission - but that's not the same as an unreliable narrator. A narrative is always going to impose some kind of order on events to produce a specific effect, and that does come with bias. But it's the nature of storytelling never to be entirely objective.

I'm not sure that I really have a point, honestly, except that Trigun Stampede is a show that's exceedingly careful to show the characters exactly as they are. It doesn't lie. Personally, I find that more interesting to contemplate than the alternative. We have everything we need to know why the characters do as they do. Certainly far more than some would rather have us know.

* There are two times I think something like this is happening. One is Wolfwood's flashbacks to the orphanage, which are coloured as memories of the softness the Eye ripped away from him. Hence the different art style, and the title of the episode they occur in: once upon a time. It's a fairy tale, more emotionally true than literal to highlight the harshness of his life since then by contrast. There's likely more to that story than Wolfwood is recalling at that moment.

The other, big surprise, is within the memory world. It has manipulative editing, clips taken out of context, video noise, ADR, everything. All you'd need to make it more obvious it can't be trusted is a disclaimer in the corner or inconsistent timestamps or something.

#trigun stampede #trigun meta #media analysis #okay SLIGHTLY motivated by a reviewer who said the twins have equal claim to being right/“the hero”#lol no #sorry but knives is straightforwardly the antagonist #he's just not twirling a moustache about it #if this seems meaner than usual i apologise #typing on my phone fills me with hate #man someday i'll figure out how to explain that the show takes knives's viewpoint #but not today

40 notes · View notes

sp-ud · 11 months

Text

I'm trying to imagine what other Showfall Media shows are like.

Like, it seems like the section ran by the Puzzler is probably often a part of it, as he mentions doing this for 30 years and it's likely the Showfall employees who played his Rats are the ones who built the memorial to him.

Which I think means that the Puzzler is an example of what a 'sucessful' character becomes. I mean, just look at how Hetch describes what would happen if the audience chose "live".

"Rescripted, repurposed, and recast." But how'd he get a role as a mastermind who was aware of the behind the scenes? Well of we take what Hetch says about how the show usually goes...

It sounds like Hetch often uses this "reality breaking" as a theme in his scripts, and perhaps it depended on how a character reacted to their reality being shattered if Hetch would deem them worthy or not.

It's not really clear what counts as "being worthy" but I'd imagine it counts as being entertaining, both to Hetch and the Audience... and maybe the Founder? The Founder's motives are super unclear, why does he want these shows? Why did he decide to test this world's Audience in a new experiment like this? Why did he give Hetch this role? How did he-

Ahem. That seems like a different rabbit hole for another time, maybe once we get more Generation 0 stuff (as it's been hinted to be about the origins? Of the Founder). Let's get back to what this might mean for what the usual show Hetch would run could be like.

It definitely involes horrific games and the characters reality slowly breaking around them. But I get the feeling Hetch and Showfall are rarely so explicitly involved in this.

And I think this might be because they werent broadcasting to any of their usual Audiences, they were testing this world for the first time. An Audience who has no idea who or what Showfall Media is.

I'd imagine whatever usual Audience Showfall broadcasts to, is probably either

a) from a world where real people dying for the sake of entertainment is fine, maybe not everyone enjoys it or think it's morally okay, but enough people like it and it's not illegal to watch people literally get physically and psychologically tortured on TV

b) are under the impression it's also fake. They still see the whole "reality breaking" things. But it's presented as completely fictional, maybe Showfall even let's the more successful characters live semi-normal lives in their off-time to give the full illusion all these people are really just actors.

c) a world that's not even remotely parallel to our own in any form, maybe not even inhabited by humans. After all, Hetch makes references to the fact he runs this show for years far longer than a natural human lifespan

d) all of the above separately, we are being told we're getting a viewpoint into infinity. And Hetch clearly has all the time in the world to make any kind of show he wants, as long as it fulfills the purpose the Founder have him.

And ah shit now that I'm reading this again I just noticed they refer to our world as "one of the few we can entertain". Nope not unpacking that here, I still only gave 3 possibilities and when compared to literally "infinity" that still falls under "one of the few".

#i once again just started brainstorming #generation loss #genloss #genloss tse #hetch genloss #showfall media #spud originals

213 notes · View notes

dearwriters · 8 months

Note

Hi there.

I was wondering if you have any advice on balancing an ensemble cast? As in, how do you manage having, say, 6 pov characters without the reader getting bored, impatient, or forgetting a character until it's a chapter of theirs again?

Thank you for the work you do :)

How to Balance an Ensemble Cast

Hey, thank you for your question! While I personally do not have a lot of experience writing ensemble casts, I think the following points would be helpful to consider when planning/writing one:

Getting into the characters Point of View: Lenses and Distinct Voices

One of the most important things about Multi-POV-narratives is to give each character a distinct voice so they don't just bleed into each other. This concerns:

a) the content of their narration: Ask yourself: What is this characters "lense", their specific frame of reference through which they see the events? This can depend on their background, their interests, knowledge, viewpoint etc. How do they see the world differently than the others? Try to imprint the narration of the POVs with the characters personality, especially if you are writing in first person. A very sarcastic character would view the same events quite differently as a very optimistic, bubbly character. Different characters would notice different things. This can be established by something as simple as focus points: maybe an artistic character narrates a lot about the colours around them and a detective character is very perceptive about peoples body language or stuff like that. Maybe the soldier is focused on battle strategies and the details of their surroundings, all while their love-interest is focused on them.

b) the form of their narration: Best case szenario, you would be able to identify who is talking, just based on their voice. This should be noticable in dialouge but also in narration. A very academic character would maybe use a slightly different vocabulary than a character who's more about street smarts. How do their speech patterns correlate to their person and background? Another example: In the popular contemporary novel "The Flatshare" one of the POV characters isn't really talkative. The author chose to reflect that in their narration via a fragmented narration style, using as little adjectives and full sentences as possible, while still keeping things readable. You can find more information about Character Voice in this post.

Overall, when it comes to differentiating between POVs, ask yourself: How can the personality, believes and expertise of a character affect the way they see the world and thus the way they narrate?

Anchoring your Scene

This is a little tip I picked up from the YouTube channel of author Sacha Black (great writing advice, check her out!). Multiple POVs can be quite challenging, especially if there are time/place jumps between the POVS. Thus, to not confuse your reader, it is important to quickly establish who is talking, where they are and when they are. Person, place, time. This needs to be clear so the reader isn't lost (unless it's your goal to confuse your reader, which would certainly be a valid goal). In some books the chapter header indicates POV, which is a very quick and easy way to establish at least one of those factors, but there are other ways to do this.

Making every POV count

If you want to avoid your readers being bored or even skipping POVs it's important to actually have a distinct reason of evers POV to exist. Thus, everybody needs a piece of the puzzle for the plot. Just like in the point about lenses and voices, you can use the differnt personalities, backgrounds and knowledges of your characters to let them uncover and drive different pieces of the story. Every POV character needs a reason to be here and a way to contribute.

Having multiple POVs is actually a great way to create tension, because the reader will know a lot of information not every character knows. It's the old Hitchcock-principle of letting the reader know about a bomb under the table the characters don't know anything about. Use the distribution and retention of information to your advantage.

Furthermore, everyone needs their own character arcs. A compelling character is all abouts goals, motivations and conflicts (more about the whole "GMC"-concept in this post) that tie them to the bigger story as well as having their own wants and needs (check out this post if you like) plus having flaws and the corresponding concequences (more about that in this post).

Those are just some of the big things I'd recommend you to think about. I hope this helped!

Have fun writing!

#dearwriters #writing advice #writing help #writing tips #writblr #multi pov #ensamble cast

90 notes · View notes

maleyanderecafe · 1 month

Text

Get to Know Coffee Date! (Visual Novel)

Created by: Foxin 'Round

Genre: Horror/ Romance

This one is a oneshot in introduction to the character Teddy, and it's a fun little game to play. While there isn't any real big content, we do get to learn more about Teddy's life and point of view, which all climaxes near the end depending on how you view the game. This game is r18 though despite not having any r18 content. You can find more about this game at @foxinround.

I'm going to be using the MC because while Big Chungus is an amazing default name I'm going to die laughing before I can get through the summary section if I use that name.

The story starts out with the MC hanging out at a cafe near their university enjoying the scene when a guy asks to sit across from them. After accepting this, we learn that his name is Teddy and we start to talk to him about various things. He will ask about the type of drink we have and if we choose the sweetest flavor he will agree as he's also a sweet tooth. He will then pick up his drink and the two talk more about their lives, with the MC aiming for a major in Computer Science and Teddy taking care of his grandmother at home. The MC will actually give a recommendation of their own drinks from the cafe that they work at, slying trying to get him to check it out. The two talk about what kind of frappe the MC has and if they choose the sweetest option again, Teddy will stare strangely at them, something that the MC notices but ultimately shrugs off. The two continue talking about the type of languages that the MC will take, with us learning that Teddy is a bit of a romantic and wants to learn French as well as being fluent in Spanish. Teddy will then talk about love and how he wants to experience love in the world, viewing it more optimistically with them asking how the MC feels about it. If the MC responds the same, wanting to see the world in a more positive light, then Teddy will begin laughing, stating how rare it is two have two people connect so easily like this. He believes the two are destined for each other and as his obsession grows, the MC eventually passes out.

If you don't choose all of the viable options with him or have different opinions, then Teddy will ask the MC for their number instead.

The story is pretty short but it does give an idea on how Teddy is as a character as he's romantic, fairly optimistic and family oriented. It's kind of interesting seeing how he thinks considering that you do have to have a similar opinion to even have him get to the yandere ending. It actually caught me off guard for a bit because I did actually match with Teddy's point of view initially which landed me right into the yandere ending at the end. I'm not sure why the MC ends up passing out in that ending, I'm assuming it's just a way for them to end the game, but if they did, I am curious how and when Teddy was able to drug them since we don't get to see when that happens. I'm probably overthinking it though. His design is pretty unique too with one of the few pink haired yandere guys that we have. I am curious how later on his point of view and the MC will have in future games and what exactly Teddy will do to them.

The MC, though brief in this game was pretty fun as well. We get to know that they work in another barista and they seem like a pretty nice person, which does make sense especially if the yandere ending is the most cannon one in this game you would want to have an MC that is able to match him in terms of energy and point of view.

While it was a short game, I do think it was a good introduction for Teddy, being able to see what kind of viewpoint he has. I am hoping to be able to see more of his family in the future and I'm excited for what will be coming.

#Get to know coffee date #male yandere #yandere boy #yandere #recommendation #visual novel #completed

33 notes · View notes

yellowocaballero · 8 months

Text

ORV Characters Ranked by Least to Most Likely to Commit White Collar Crime

You guys said you wanted my ORV takes, and I try not to say things unsolicited, so I'll drop the good meta-analysis and literary criticism that I'm known for. For comedy purposes please pretend that ORV is American.

Omniscent Reader's Viewpoint characters broken down by likelihood to commit white collar crime, least to most:

Lee Hyeonseong: he's convinced that he's never committed a crime in his life. Intentionally, of course not. Unintentionally, he takes shopping for groceries extremely seriously, and is sometimes so wrapped up in the fruit inspection experience that he'll leave without paying. Due to his innocent face, bulk, and sheer confidence, he's never caught. In an economically thrifty maneuver, KDJ always sends him on snack runs for parties and texts him math problems while he's there. He insists it's like couponing. It's not couponing.

Jeong Huiwon: similarly, of course she would never choose to commit a crime. Also similarly, when KDJ says, 'Hey, wanna commit a crime?' she always participates. Since the crime is normally targeted at rich people, KDJ can usually morally justify it to her. She calls this harm reduction. It's not harm reduction.

Lee Jihye: would love to commit a crime in theory, almost never in practice. She has an idealized image in her mind of the ideal high school experience and it involves grand theft auto. However, the worst she ever gets is breaking & entering and trespassing, mostly because she didn't stop to wonder if the building was abandoned or not. She can't even shoplift from Claire's.

Shin Yuseung: the kind of kid who sets the dissection frogs in the school laboratory free. Looks up illegal exotic animal trading on the deepweb and sighs in longing. But exotic pet trading isn't very Animal Rights of her, so she just leaks information to the CIA and busts the rings. Lee Gilyeong convinces her to track down shady sellers on Craigslist and bust their kneecaps. Neither of them view this as significantly different from the dissection frog liberation. KDJ gets her a rescued exotic cat for her birthday as a reward.

Lee Gilyeong: self-explanatory.

Han Suyeong: she's been pirating media since she was eleven and has never stopped. World-class expert in pirating everything. She's the unsung hero who rips the CDs and games and puts them online. Runs the pirating websites. Has never paid for a webnovel or manwha or manga in her life. Despite this, she insists that pirating books is immoral and that people should support small authors. The FBI knows she exists and has been trying to catch her for years. She brags about this constantly.

Yoo Sangah: has committed tax fraud before, will commit tax fraud tomorrow, is currently committing tax fraud. Embezzles her company's embezzlement. Insists that she's only committing victimless crimes, mainly because she doesn't view business executives as people. Her ability to evade the IRS is mythological and it's how KDJ got a crush on her.

Yoo Junghyeok: does not understand adult life well enough to knowingly commit any sort of white collar crime. He is this high on the list because he enables and helps KDJ in literally everything he does, especially using his clout as an influencer. This is because KDJ has convinced him that these things aren't crimes, and he doesn't understand adult life well enough to figure it out.

Kim Dokja: has done every white collar crime under the sun. I can't emphasize enough how much crime he does. He's currently blackmailing SYS's college tuition out of a US Senator. HSY makes the shell companies and launders so much money with him. Alternates between running a pyramid scheme and a ponzi scheme depending on the month. Started a cult that one time but we don't like to talk about that. Runs the betting ring for YJH's esports games. Fixes the games. YJH does not know he does this, but KDJ splits the profits and Yoo Mia also needs a college tuition so he decides not to think about it too hard. Big into crypto and runs every crypto scam you can possibly think of, which is normally where the the ponzi schemes come in. Steals YJH's identity often. Somehow everything he does is technically legal. The only crime he does not commit is pirating. Exclusively targets the wealthy and ultra-wealthy and has never stolen money from a poor person. Sugar daddies all of his friends and pays all college tuitions. Anonymously yet obviously sponsors huge amounts of money to YJH's Twitch streams, mostly in apology for the ID theft. Would really rather be living a quiet life in a big house with all of his friends, but that big house ain't gonna pay for itself.

#omniscient reader's viewpoint #orv #kim dokja #yjh #kdj #orv is about capitalism and systems of power and how they should be broken #and destroying the narratives of the powerful designed to keep us complacent and infighting and bootlicking #fucking shame how nobody's written a leverage au #'why do people tell stories' hope and love and the human condition :)#but also in order to control people determine their futures determine their fates #and even if the story isn't true you can make it true #like the fbi planting coke in black neighborhoods.#also hugely the capitalist exploitation of the entertainment industry #the chinese sweatshop worker makes the idol merchendise for the tired overworked korean #who works for little pay and no credit and overtime in the outsourced korean animation studios #for american cartoons that depressed americans watch because it offers a sliver of joy in our lives #bc the americans are being exploited by fascists and oligarchs #the korean idol is exploited by their superiors and dehumanized by their fans #i should probably make alla that a. different post jklasdf #anyway that's why they do so much crime fuck the system

119 notes · View notes