i think the reason why i gravitate towards belos on a deeper level a lot more than any of the other characters in toh is bc my preference in characters and stories is in how they are affected by institutions and the messiness that results from understandable character flaws exacerbated by those institutions, whether they are the oppressed or are enabled to become the oppressor. belos is a mix of both in a way that i like — it's possible to read him as nd & left handed (both heavily stigmatized in his day and society) yet both are possible to hide. in the demon realm he yet again had a trait that made him a possible outcast, as he was a lowly human, yet he transformed himself into a magic user through painful mutilation of his skin all so that he could conform to that society, even when it was one he couldn't stand. his conformity in the demon realm supports the idea of him having to conform in the human realm. but because he was enabled for being a white man in the human realm and could reasonably hide anything that made him a nail to be hammered down, he clung to that power and dominion over others that it gave him for the rest of his life like a security blanket, represented literally with him lording his magical prowess over other witches and demons. it's a lot of layers that i think are very fun and i'm 90% sure are unintentional when put together into this cohesive of a picture for reasons i will state later.
compare that against almost every other character in toh (w maybe the exception of darius??) — every good guy has flaws that can reasonably be blamed on other people as a freudian excuse or that are downplayed by the narrative (eg. amity going from an active bully in her debut to a passive enabler of bullying in understanding willow). there's a dire lack of messiness in them all, from their appearance (all the witch kids could easily be mistaken for humans, fairly good looking ones at that, if it weren't for the ears), to how they deal with pain, etc. it gave me the impression that they really wanted only the villain to be allowed to be messy and ugly because those are traits for villains, when i think it's a lot nicer to see stigmatized traits (ugliness, childishness, hallucinations, mental illness, etc) in everyone. i really wanted the heroes to get in on that kind of action too.
another thing that drew me away from connecting with and trying to deeply understand most of the characters in toh is the lack of meaningful bigotry on the isles. i'm not criticizing the race-, queer-, and gender-blindness of the demon realm on an objective level bc the writers wanted to accomplish a v specific thing w that bit of world building and that's ok and it's a wonderful aspiration for usamerica. it's ok if it's not for Me and the world can't have a million yasuda sayos (i say with difficulty through tears). but because there is a lack of bigotry in what's supposed to be an oppressive society and there's no highlighted underclass in its place (covenless witches should theoretically be the underclass, but the show tends to undermine this aspect of its society, eg. letting wild witches like eda and luz roam perfectly free and having the government-funded school allow witches to study multiple covens without pushback from said government funding them), it becomes just another part of the show that makes it so much more squeaky clean and made me disinterested in a lot of the characters — i connect so much better with characters when i feel their pain and struggle against a world that can't find it in itself to care about them, witnessing all the ways they try to fight for their right to be happy frantically and imperfectly, and that is what makes their happiness so meaningful to me and makes me care abt them deeply.
contrast that w belos: i really love that he came from a society infamous for its conservatism and religious extremism grounded in the real world, and it's so thought provoking for me to think abt the layers of that society and how he interacted with it. which parts he rejected, conformed to, wanted to conform to, etc. that's a challenging character to understand (and then, after having fully understood them, condemn with so much more feeling) and i adore the idea of that being intentional if it wasn't for the fact that almost every other character in toh is boringly easy to understand because they lack enough material in the layers that can make them feel like real, messy people to challenge the viewer in a meaningful way. (side note: a lot of the layers created simply by belos being from colonial connecticut also disappear if you're solely looking at his background based on the text in the show, bc you're expected to fill in the gaps with, like, wikipedia basically lol. similar thing w luz where they show very little of her being bullied/outcasted bc of her adhd and you're mostly supposed to fill that in w your own experience & irl knowledge of adhd.) it results in the show being weirdly liberal about the bigotry/lack of bigotry certain characters have and only being able to halfheartedly say "idk some people are just evil i guess", instead of examining the material conditions that shape people to act the way they do. Bigot Phil vs Weirdgirl Luz could've been "these characters are shaped by their circumstances and have been encouraged to respectively become their worst/best selves through ideals instilled in them" but instead it's "some people are bad and we won't attempt to look at what made them 'bad' in the first place" and then pretending this is a groundbreaking message and not the laziest takeaway they could've possibly written.
basically i like my characters messy with hearts that you have to go out of your way to understand and sympathize with who come from understandable circumstances and i think all girls should be allowed to kill freely. i hope you can understand my position.
21 notes
·
View notes
i feel like ppl (izzy fans especially) rlly get hung up on the toe scene and seeing it like "what if this happened in real life??" or even just "what if this happened in a realistic show that placed moral judgement on characters for enacting physical violence??" and like YEAH in real life i think having your toe cut off and fed to you would be Pretty Fucking Traumatizing and you'd probably be the victim of the situation, not the guy feeding you your own toe. and in MOST shows, if someone's feeding ppl their own toes, that's probably a bad guy
but one of my favorite things abt ofmd is how it DOESNT make moral statements about physical violence. like, ever. this show never takes a stance on when it's okay to kill people, or how much violence you can do while still being a good person. because all the important characters are fucking pirates! if this show tried to take a realistic approach to the morality of physical violence it would get really hypocritical really, really fast!
what matters in ofmd isn't whether the characters are physically violent or not, it's how the characters feel about being the ones to enact violence.
buttons and roach both enjoy violence in a slapstick goofy way that's meant as comedic relief. jim clearly has no regrets about murdering the man who killed their family, but they're not that enthusiastic about going on a whole revenge killing spree and hunting down six (or five, now) other guys. stede at the beginning is somewhat afraid of violence, and is insecure about how afraid he is, but i do think his feelings about violence are changing and will continue to change in the next season(s).
izzy considers violence a requirement to be a real pirate (aka a Real Man) and is loyal to ed so long as he thinks ed is willing to use violence to maintain power and control
and ed. ed actually doesn't like physically hurting people! he's deeply traumatized by murdering his own father, so much so that he's made up weird rules about when someone's death is his fault as a way to distance himself from the violence that is necessitated by his profession! when those rules are called into question, and his responsibility in people's death scrutinized, he gets uncomfortable! all ed wants is to leave behind his violent lifestyle and go enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle for the rest of his life!!
but it's not that ofmd doesn't have a moral compass. in the fictional world of ofmd, "morality" (aka When Characters Are Rewarded/Punished By The Narrative) has two axes: colonialism and emotional vulnerability
the first one is pretty straight forward and has been talked abt a lot already so quick summary: in ofmd, when characters are explicitly and maliciously racist (british navy in e1, rich french people in e5) or side with european colonizers (izzy in e9), they face physical harm. british soldiers in e1 get beat up, the french ppl in e5 get their ship burnt down, and izzy nearly gets thrown overboard in e9, and in e10... yknow. toes.
as for Emotional Vulnerability, that's the whole fucking core of the show. people being their authentic selves, openly expressing their emotions and clearly stating their emotional needs, that's the end goal for every character who's gonna get a happy ending. characters denying parts of themselves, suppressing their desires and contorting themselves to fit into a certain box they feel obligated to get into—that's what our protagonists are trying to unlearn.
in e10, izzy is trying to force ed back into the blackbeard box. he demands ed return to the role that makes him unhappy, a role that requires physical violence to maintain. and ed goes, and we know, we are told, like, multiple fucking times before and after that this is not what ed wants to be doing. ed has stated, over and over again, that he's tired of being blackbeard, that he wants to pack it all in, that he wants to do the things that make ed happy. we learn in e6 that he's actually been traumatized by his OWN PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!!! and he even talks about feeding ppl their own toes as a fucking example of shit he Does Not Want To Do!!!! and the last fucking shot of him we have is him literally sobbing his eyes out!!!!!!!
yes, in real fucking life, and in almost any other story, izzy would be the victim of the toe scene
in the fictional world of ofmd, in the narrative of a slapstick pirate romcom that we're being told, ED IS THE PRIMARY VICTIM IN THE TOE SCENE. ED IS THE ONE WHO IS SUFFERS MORE IN THAT SCENE
392 notes
·
View notes
how much does sonia matter to the story of totk
sonia... is certainly a character in totk, but right now i want to take a look at her appearances within the story and see just how much of an effect she actually has on the narrative of this game. i will only be looking at memories and actual story beats, things such as those floating tablets (idk what they're called i never bothered with them) will be omitted because they are entirely optional content and have nothing to do with the actual story, i'm only considering the memories and present events that most players intending to experience the full base story will see. (i'm not even sure if the floating tablets have anything story-relevant in them, anyways, from what ive seen its just world-building and little character moments.)
it's worth noting that i do like sonia, and i don't particularly think she's a bad character; i enjoyed her, but it's questionable just how relevant as a character she is to the story. i also have a generally negative opinion of totk and its story, so that might alter the way i think about this game and it's story. feel free to take what i say here with a grain or two of salt.
spoilers for a fair bit of totk ig
(post is extremely long yknow how it is 2,581 words under the cut)
sonia is definitely present for the story in the past; she is a comforting presence for zelda and a supporter of rauru. she has power over time (recall, i suppose), and is the queen of the hyrule that rauru has founded, and was formerly a priestess before meeting rauru.
before really starting, i want to bring up that the first time the public got to see sonia was in the 3rd trailer; specifically it is where memory 6 is edited, specifically making it appear that sonia, with her hand outstretched and glowing, is the one therefore shooting the beam of light in the very next cut. in reality, in the actual scene, rauru is the one shooting that beam, but i want to keep this specific edit made in the final trailer in mind, since i want to talk a little bit more about sonia's presence in the story in general at the end, because, again, i personally like her, and am admittedly frustrated with how the game and its story ends up using her.
i consider a character to matter to a story when they do something that impacts or helps move it along. for example, despite being very non-characters, i would consider the old sages to be important as they provide exposition directly to link and the new sage as well as bestow upon them their blessing and their secret stone. they have some kind of effect on the story and other characters and carry out a specific role. if you erased the old sages, you would be missing characters that provide more information to the new sages and properly mark them as their successors in the present. even though they aren't really fleshed out in any sort of way, the old sages play an important role in the central plot of the story. the story needed them to play their specific role in order for the game to progress and for the narrative to continue as intended. they do something to shape the path that the narrative takes, they have an effect.
sonia is a character who technically only ever appears in the memories. i'm completely ignoring her appearing after the final boss simply because she has no dialogue at all and its really nebulous what she and rauru even do. worth noting that she is not alone in that scene; rauru is present with her.
sonia is introduced in memory 3 and then is killed in memory 9, i'm also ignoring her, uh, cadaver in memory 10 for obvious reasons. sonia is therefore active in the world of the past for 7 memories out of the total 15 that take place in the past. sonia is alive for less than half of the memories. furthermore, of those 7, sonia only actually appears in 6 of them, memories 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and has dialogue in memories 3, 4, 8, and 9, barely over a fourth of those memories.
noting when she appears and when she speaks is important, since because of the fragmented nature of the past memories, character dialogue is very important in knowing what they do and what information they impart. sonia has a purpose in the memories where she doesn't speak, but i'll get to those after looking at the ones where she does speak.
what sonia does in memory 3: she is the first to approach zelda and her touch is what wakes zelda up. sonia is much gentler with zelda, giving her her name and reassuring her that she is safe.
what sonia does in memory 4: she's mentioned by rauru to have a secret stone and likely used as the example of a secret stone holder due to her own time powers. sonia is the one who says that zelda has both light and time powers, and also says that she can also somehow tell that she and zelda and blood related. sonia nudges rauru for (i think) being a bit cold, and is once again the one to comfort zelda and provides her with a place in the past. she is gentle and patient with zelda.
what sonia does in memory 6: she has no dialogue, but is present to... i'm not sure what she and zelda do here, but i'll say that sonia is supporting rauru's magic with her own. she prompts zelda to join her, and reacts to zelda's magic, telling us that zelda is unusually powerful by comparison.
what sonia does in memory 7: she does absolutely nothing other than be specifically noted by ganondorf for having a secret stone as well as being a hylian woman that rauru took as his wife, and smiles comfortingly at zelda.
what sonia does in memory 8: she recalls a cup that zelda knocks over (the only the we see her use time powers), inquires about zelda's well-being, gives an explanation on how zelda could learn to use her time powers (as well as this being somewhat of an explanation of how recall generally works?), shes comforting again and brings up zelda's light powers, and is the one to bring up link.
what sonia does in memory 9: before the memory, she agrees to meet with the fake zelda (knowing that it is truly not zelda) and clearly planned with the real zelda to confront it. she is the one to point out that the fake zelda is... fake, and controlled by ganondorf, and then is killed after fake zelda disappears.
sonia, from then on, is not present in any future memories, and only ever makes an appearance in the present at the very end with rauru.
so. how much does sonia matter to the story?
she definitely matters as a supporter of zelda and as the one to truly help her feel comfortable in the past and gives guidance about her powers. she's the queen of this ancient hyrule and rauru's wife and a holder of a secret stone. these have relevancy to the narrative, but they don't mean anything in the long run unless they actually effect the plot. she supports zelda, but it doesn't really change anything major, just helps her feel comfortable until things come crashing down again. she helps zelda harness her time powers, which we really only see zelda use against ganondorf and presumably to collect the master sword (and considering that her time powers never show up again, i guess zelda transfers them to link), but zelda is already shown to have great power from the start, and we never actually see zelda training or even struggling to use those powers, she just talks about not quite understanding them, and the first time she uses them she clearly has great control.
sonia conveys the information that zelda has time and light powers, and that zelda is related to sonia and rauru, both of which are fairly important, but sonia saying zelda has these powers merely spells it out for us, it doesn't affect anything about those powers, and zelda being related to sonia and rauru does nothing except explain the origins of her powers. she brings up link in front of rauru, but rauru could've easily learned about link any other way, most notably from zelda herself, so sonia bringing this up just changes when rauru learns about link.
through memory 6 we learn that zelda is, in fact, especially powerful specifically because she is being compared to sonia, who expresses surprise, though, again, this changes nothing, it merely brings attention to something already present.
sonia is suggested to have caught on to the fake zelda's ploy and we can assume that she had a hand in setting up the 'trap' that she and zelda spring on it. she implies that she, while knowing, agreed to meet with it and set this trap with zelda. after fake zelda disappears, she is then killed and removed from the story, though her death motivates zelda and rauru and marks the shift from a tense peace to outright war with ganondorf, and her death is what allows ganondorf to get his hands on a secret stone.
in a sense, sonia does matter to the story. she conveys information for the player and for other characters' benefits, she is an important person in the world of the past, and her death is a major turning point. but... at the same time, sonia does not really matter to the story.
she conveys information that doesn't really change the course of the story. her biggest decided-upon action was done off screen and with supposed help from zelda (and perhaps even rauru) and the biggest impact she makes, the one thing concerning her that actually causes things to move along or change in the course of the story, is her death. a character's death doesnt necessarily mean that from then on they are no longer important to the story, but with sonia, she is completely out of the picture. she motivates zelda and rauru, yes, but that's not exactly the same as mattering to the story. either way, if ganondorf declares war after stealing a secret stone, zelda and rauru are going to fight back with the sages.
sonia's death matters to the story. sonia herself does not matter to the story.
sonia doesn't do anything. she talks, conveys information, comforts zelda and gives her little pointers, but not once do we see her do anything that matters in the greater narrative. nothing she does in the past has any relevancy to the gameplay the players experience, or the side of the story that concerns link. she doesn't play a role that further aids our protagonists asides from maybe helping zelda learn to use her time powers. any information she conveys could have been learned through other means, or otherwise wasn't actually important to the events of the plot.
the most we really see her do is lure out fake zelda, but even then, zelda is the one to actually act in retaliation of the attack, and the most sonia does in that one scene, aside from convey more information, is die. and it's the only thing she does that actually causes a development in the plot or matters in general.
in addition to this, sonia does not do anything alone. she is always related to another character: she comforts zelda, she's rauru's wife and queen, ganondorf kills her, she and zelda corner fake zelda, she supports zelda and rauru. nothing she does she does on her own, there is always another character involved, she plays an extremely supportive role and does absolutely nothing outside of that. she exists to give the players information, she exists to support and motivate zelda and rauru, she exists as a character for ganondorf to kill to prove his evil and steal a secret stone. she is not an independent character within totk's story. she doesn't matter to the story as a character because she is barely even considered an independent character within that story.
when we see her at the end, the one time she is relevant to the present, she appears with rauru.
you could remove sonia from the story and swap her out with just having her secret stone hanging around the castle somewhere and the major events of the story would not change. sonia being the queen and rauru's wife only matters because then her death can motivate rauru, and by extension, the kingdom. sonia being so tender with zelda only matters because then her death motivates zelda. sonia having time powers and being related to zelda only matters to explain why zelda has time powers at all. these qualities do not matter outside of these characters that she is always shown with. the only thing about sonia that matters to the narrative is her death.
and. i don't dislike sonia! i like her! i think she's a good character, she has a personality and manages to be likeable even though she is always attached to a separate character! but she has no effect on the present and doesn't do anything that is relevant to any plot points. and it's so frustrating to see!
she's a major character in the past, and yet is hardly important, has four scenes total where she speaks, and dying is the most important thing we ever see her do. the only effect she has on the present is that the secret stone that ganondorf has was stolen directly from her.
it's just... frustrating to see yet another female character exist mostly just to die and motivate other characters, to see a major female character's only defining traits be that she is kind and nurturing and motherly and you never see anything beyond that.
and i come back to the game's third trailer.
just with the fact that sonia is shoved in a corner and is yet another female character that does not exist independent of others in this story, that we see her use her unique power exactly once to rewind a teacup, that's enough to frustrate me. sonia could've been a much more important and impactful character, but the most important thing concerning her is her death, and not even in a 'haunts the narrative' kind of way- she dies, motivates others, and is never brought up again.
and yet, in the third trailer of the game, memory 6 is cut up and presented in such a way that implies this at-the-time mystery female character had shot that beam of light, and that she would therefore be a powerful character. nothing is done without a reason in fiction, and this applies to game trailers.
i just don't understand why sonia was framed in such a deceitful way in that trailer. i can understand misdirection for the sake of avoiding spoilers, but... when it comes to characters like sonia, who in reality have very little impact on the narrative in this way, it just feels... almost a little devious, and it's so frustrating to watch that part of the trailer that teased a powerful female character (not a new concept for the zelda series, either!!!) and then, when the game rolls around, all of a sudden not only is she not the one with that power, but she is merely supporting the male character with that power.
there's absolutely a whole thing that can be said about female versus male characters in media and video games just with contrasting that part of the third trailer versus the actual in-game scene.
and i just can't help but feel bad for sonia after all of this, a character who could've been an important figure in totk's narrative, who just ended up being a character defined by the moment they stop being relevant.
so... yeah. sonia doesn't really matter to the story of totk, and it's in a really frustrating way. though i have a generally negative and almost spiteful attitude towards totk, none of that spite or anger is directed at sonia- i really wish she had a better role in the story, and i think she honestly deserves it and i don't think anyone is at fault for being fooling into thinking she would be this important and powerful figure. there's serious potential just with the pieces the story does give us! it's just all squandered to make her exist for the sake of other characters.
this might've gotten a bit off-track from that i wanted to say at the start, but... unfortunately, sonia as a character doesn't really matter to the story of totk, and i really wish that she did.
18 notes
·
View notes