#long essay

[santacoppelia]

Of fandom, age, and David Tennant being our own personal Time Lord

I read the fantastic post that @davidtennantgenderenvy wrote about David Tennant and aging (if you haven’t yet read it, go for it!) and, as a fan who is closer to DT's age range than to what seems to be the rest of the fan base's age (yeah, being well over 40 is A THING), I had an interesting mix of ideas and emotions. I was going to just reblog her post with some of these musings, but when this started getting longer (and I started searching for bibliography, ha), I decided that I was not going to hijack her post, but rather cite it (and reblog it on its own right, really, read it). I should say that this is a long essay, and it comes peppered with references to one of my preferred fields of study (but I make it light and fun, promise).

Becoming an “old geek”

The first time I came into the idea was when I found a thirst TikTok with that very nice audio that goes “I think I need someone older…” and clearly, the thirst was there, but also… David is 8 years older than me, and when you are 45, thirsting over someone who is 53 doesn’t feel as “edgy” (and thinking about “needing someone older” starts verging on thirsting over people well over 65, which is absolutely fine, but a very different category over all for the rest of TikTok). So yeah, it was weird. You see someone who you feel is "in your range" and everyone is calling them "old"… And you start thinking about aging, inevitably.

Of course, I "don't feel old", but most of my friends are younger than me, and I'm the oldest person in many of my "fun activities". Take, for example, my lightsaber combat team, where every sponsorship is pitched to people under 30, and you should be training at least twice a week and following a strict diet to reach the expected “competitive or exhibition” level (enter the “old lady” who is taking this training just for fun, who needs to take care of her joints and who is not going to be invested in becoming Jedi Master General or anything of the sorts in the near future). Or we can talk about the expectation about fandom in general being a “teenage phase”, and thinking about everyone who still is into it actively after certain age as “immature” or “quirky” at best (hi, mom! Hi, work colleagues! Hi, students!).

Society, aging and social constructs

Of course, this has a lot to do with societal expectations. For almost 80 years, popular culture has been built around "youth" and "young people": before rock & roll, most things (music, clothes, movies, art in general) were targeted to “adults”, and you were expected to be “a functional adult” since a younger age. There was a seismic shift in the way popular culture was built when consumer culture decided to see and cater young people: trends became shorter, being “hip” was desirable, staying younger for a longer period was a nice aspiration (a good, light reading to get a deeper view around this is “Hit Makers” by Derek Thompson. It is written for marketers, but that makes it an easy historic overview and I like that). This has a lot to do with the change of our view about old people, too: while being old 100 years ago (yup, 1924 still fits the bill) made you “a respected elder” and you were expected to be wise, to know best, to be the voice of reason and an expert, nowadays not even us older people like being seen as “old” or “older”.

Frequently, culture becomes entrenched in binary oppositions. The binary opposition between “young” and “old” is… well, old! And while the opposition is sustained, the meanings around it change over time (that’s what the past paragraph was about, really). If in the 1940’s being old meant “mature, respectable, wise, responsible” and being young meant “inexperienced, immature, foolish”, after the 1950’s those meanings shifted a lot: being young became “fun, interesting, in the now and in the know, attractive”, while being old was about being “boring, dusty, passé, uninteresting, dull”.

In reality, being young can be a mix of all of these things (inexperienced and fun and foolish and attractive), and being old can be, at the same time, being responsible and wise and a little dusty and dull, because that’s life *shrugs*, and the wonder of lived experience is that, even if we simplify it, it is complex and rich and sometimes contradictory in itself: we can be old and foolish and interesting and boring, or young and dull and inexperienced and attractive. But, as we need to make “social sense” of things, simplifying them is… easier. That’s why we build stereotypes, and why we use them! We need to have a “base” of signifiers to build upon, so we usually take what we have on our environment and run with it. If you find this idea interesting, welcome to the world of cultural semiotics! *takes her Iuri Lotman picture out of her pocket and puts it on the desk*

(Iuri Lotman, people. He is my "patron saint").

Pop culture versus “real culture”

Another cultural opposition that piques my interest in this area is the notion of “pop culture”, of course. It is opposed to “real, serious culture”, the sort of thing that everyone expects "older, mature people" to enjoy. In the sixties and seventies, there were a lot of studies and writing about "high brow" and "low brow" culture, trying to keep this distinction between "things that make you familiar with the now, but have no intrinsic value" and "eternal things that cultivate your mind, soul and spirit".

Evidently, if you ask me, this is a whole load of horse manure: probably useful to fertilize other things, but with little intrinsic value on its own. My main point is not dolphins, but the idea of culture: historically, it has used to mean a lot of things; from the notion of (exactly) fertilizing something and making it grow to make it come to fruition, to the hodgepodge of practices that a social group creates when they are together and are trying to make common sense of things.

I like the latter better (that is the one I’d ascribe to if this was The Academia TM, but this is tumblr!), but another popular definition, which comes from the Illustration and has been quite prevalent, is the notion of culture as the set of cultural practices that make you a better, more intelligent, far more educated person. For example: if you want to have real culture, you have to read Shakespeare and know what a iambic pentameter is, rather than watching “10 Things I Hate About You”. You must read real books, not listen to audiobooks, and “real books” should be written by “serious authors” like (insert old white Western European or American cis men, preferably born before 1960).

Here comes the notion of “cultural canon”, grinning widely. Yup, that set of practices becomes an expectation of what and how you should experience any area of the human experience, and they become a sort of “nucleus” of the whole experience, with people playing “defense” around them and culture shifting all around and sometimes across them. This is not exclusive to “high culture”: Have you ever heard about “gatekeeping”? Yeah, same fenomenomenon (Shadwell, of course). Whenever something gets this “shape”, it becomes a “norm”, the “common” thing, the “rule” if you participate in that set of cultural practices.

As every cultural set of practices tends to generate its own “canon”, they also have a lot of practices surrounding it, which are ever changing, shifting, learning from new and old practices, and redefining what everything means in their common/shared space. For example: Neil Gaiman, my beloved, was part of the “comics” frontier when Sandman first appeared, but as he and Alan Moore (yeah, I know he did it first, but Gaiman is my study focus right now, so let me be) and other very talented and interesting people started creating fascinating stuff that hadn’t been done, and they found people who loved it, they not only redefined the world of comics, but became part of the new canon themselves. And then, Neil’s presence in the world of literature and fantasy became widespread and recognized and then revered… And then he is doing it again by adapting his own work to a streaming platform in a serialized way… I hope this explains why I’m growing an obsession with studying Neil Gaiman as an author who crosses through different media: a transmedial auteur, an anomaly in his own right. But that is not an essay for tumblr, but a thesis, one that I don’t know if I’d ever have the time or mental resources to write (being a runaway ex academic with ADHD who works on their own is hard, people). Besides, this was about aging and David Tennant, so let’s cut this tangent short and start talking about our Time Lord and Savior: David Tennant, the king of frontiers.

David Tennant as a Frontier Lord

David Tennant is another fascinating case in this sense, mostly because he is an actor who has been able to build a whole very impressive career through crossing symbolic frontiers. Through his massive filmography (161 roles just for screens, as registered in IMDb) and his stage career (I love this gifset for this exact reason), he has acted his way through almost everything, from classical Shakespeare to improvisational comedy, from procedural police drama to wacky fantasy sci-fi. This has a lot to do with his personality (he loves acting, he decided to pursue acting as a career thanks to his love for Doctor Who, but he is also smart and inquisitive) but, as it happens with a lot of “frontier figures”, it also has a lot to do with “unpredictable” circumstances: less of a strategy, more of an instinct.

David has talked many times about how his impostor syndrome made him feel, for the longest time, that he had to keep accepting roles, because you never know if there is going to be another one after. He is talented and open and curious (this is quite a good interview about his perspective), but this… anxiety? meant that he had also lower quandaries about saying “yes” to roles and projects that were “less consistent” with a typecast (which has been, for the longest time, one of the main strategies to build an acting career). Yeah, he has some defining characteristics that make a role “tennantish” (I’m not starting that tirade here, but yeah, you know that almost fixed set of quirks and bits), but he has also worked his way through many different genres, budgets, styles and complexities. And he has usually been as committed and as professional in a big budget-high stakes-great script sort of situation, as he has been in a highly chaotic-let’s see what sticks-small scale project.

That can be correlated by the way he talks about “acting advice”. “Be on time, learn your lines, treat everyone the same, never skip the lunch queue”… Acting is a job, and he treats it as such. Yeah, he looks for interesting projects anytime he can, but the “down to earth” attitude about it is, once again, not-usual, not-common: pure frontier. Then, when David talks about his own self (specially at a young age), he is pretty clear about his “outsider” or “uncool” status (this interview is fantastic), and how strangely disruptive it was to become not only recognizable, but cool and sexy and… everything else, thanks to Doctor Who. He went from living in the frontier to being put in the canon, but he is still, at heart, a person who is more comfortable not defining himself by that “expected” set of rules.

Him being a very private person, who insists on having a family life that seems, form this distance, stable, loving and absolutely un-showbiz just makes the deal (and the parasocial love and respect) easier to sustain; as does his openness to talk about social and political issues that interest him (passionately, again; against the norm for “well liked celebrity”, again). His colleagues also talk wonders about him, mostly because he is this sort of down-to-earth but also passionate about his craft and easy to work with. Again: not the “norm”, not the “rule” of being such a celebrity.

Many of his fans (should I say that I’m one? Or is it obvious at this point?) find this not only endearing, but comforting: he is a massive star, who has acted in a lot of terrific roles in huge productions… But he feels, at heart, as “one of us”. But he is, also, a well-respected thespian, a Shakespearian powerhouse, an international talent. He lives in a very authentic, but very unstereotipical frontier. And he seems happy about that and has made a career from it. Extensive kudos and all the parasocial love and the amateur-actress mad respect for that.

I should mention, just in passing, that a “natural” archetype for this characters that traverse frontiers… are tricksters. Think again about the “tennantish” characteristics. Here goes another essay I’m not writing right now.

Aging: The Next Frontier

This takes me to the original post that inspired the essay: living in a culture where the “norm” is “being young and famous is a desirable aspiration”, we have a fantastic actor, at peak of his craft, who is in the heart of middle age (past 50, nearing 55). Not only that, but he is an actor with whom at least a couple of generations have grown older: from the ones who feel him as “our contemporary” to the ones who grew up looking at him (like Ncuti Gatwa!).

David, being the frontier person he is, has been navigating this transition in a very “unconventional” way: he came back to the role that made him iconic (The Doctor, now with more trauma!), is starring in another fantasy series about middle-aged looking ethereal beings that at times is an adventure thriller, at times is a comedy of errors and at times is a romcom (having another beautiful trickster of a man as his co-star… There goes another tangent that is an essay); he is playing one of the quintessential Shakespeare roles for middle-aged men (Macbeth), and is, seemingly, having a lot of fun doing a lot of voice acting for animation roles (if you haven’t watched Duck Tales, you’re missing a whole lot of fun, really).

Traditionally, middle aged actors navigate that period of their career trying to reinforce their “still young, thus a celebrity” status (for example, doing a lot of action-packed movies and keep doing their own stunts while seducing women 20-30 years younger than them), or strengthening their “prestige thespian, so now a real culture person” position (fighting for more serious roles, going from comedy to drama, or working their way into The Classics©). Sometimes, they face the internalized societal expectation by also becoming a shipwreck in their personal life (yeah… the stereotype of “getting divorced, having an affair with someone half their age, getting another red convertible, getting in trouble…”) because we don’t have a good “map for aging responsibly” yet as a society. We have been so focused on youth, that we have forgotten how to age.

Again, switching to the personal experience. I was raised as a female-shaped person (yeah, being queer is fun), so part of the experience of growing (and then growing old) has been closely related with that concept from the female point of view. I decided, pretty early on (but not so much, probably 25 years ago), that I wasn’t going to conform to the norm… And that included aging naturally. When I found my first white hair, it was a shock (I was 21 or 22), but I had already seen my father fighting his own hair being white since forever. I decided it was a loss of time, money and effort… And the judgement from people in my generation and in the one that preceded me (my mother, my aunts) was stern and strict: “it will age you, and it will date us. You shouldn’t do that”. Men could do it, given the right age (being over 50) but women must not. Same with wrinkles and sagging and gaining weight and getting “pudgy”. But when men grew older, they needed to make a “show off” of their ability to seduce, to “still be a man”. Aging, then, was undesirable by any standard.

As me and my peers have grown older, and my hair has gotten increasingly silver, there have been women that come to me saying that “I look great” and “they wish they were as brave as me”. I would like to state in front of this jury of my peers (hi, tumblr!) that the only bravery it took was deciding, somewhere between my twenties and my thirties, that I wanted to be as myself as I possibly could, so no bravery at all, just the same lack of understanding of social rules that took me to become interested in… you guessed it, cultural semiotics. We’ve come full circle with this. Now, let’s finish talking about what it means for an aging fan to have an aging star to look up to, shall we?

David Tennant as a cultural Time Lord

I am pretty sure that he wouldn’t have chosen this role for himself (as he wouldn’t have chosen being a massive star just by playing his favorite character and being so talented and charming), but he is, as Loki would say, burdened by glorious purpose. Being “the actor of his generation”, and him crossing so many frontiers with such ease and grace, without even thinking about it too hard, just because he is a hard worker and likes to try new things and is just so good at what he does put him in the exact cultural crossroad for it.

He is not in a sudden need to “resignify himself” as anything: he has already shown his very flexible acting muscles through his very long career. He is not bounded to “keep his public image relevant”: he likes to have his personal life clearly separated from the spotlight, and being married to the brilliant and funny Georgia, who herself grew up with a famous father, so she is no stranger to staying sane and in control in the eye of media, and who manages their social media presence with a good mix of humor and well-set boundaries.

Therefore, he is in a moment where he can (and probably will) chose to do whatever he likes. And he has the public support to do so: he is prestigious and respected, but likes to make fun of himself and is not self-important; he has a lot of awards, but he is also a very likable person with whom most people in the industry enjoy working. And he is up to do a lot of things: heroes, villains, morally grey characters; romance, drama, thriller, fantasy, sci-fi, procedurals, historical fiction, classic plays, silly parts, voice acting… We are going to see him aging on screen and stage, with no playbook: the playbooks were written for people that certainly are not him. And I have some evidence to prove it.

He is starring in a groundbreaking series (yeah, Good Omens) where the protagonists are two middle-aged looking entities, full of queer relationships, written by another trickster. This series, in an on itself, is a showcase for characters that are rule breaking in many ways: in the narrative, by being hereditary enemies who are inevitably linked to one another by a loving bond that may or may not be romantic, but that has been in the making for 6,000 years; in representation, by having the protagonists being represented by a couple of middle aged actors who are “not serious” and “not action” coded, in a role where they are delivering romance, banter, intrigue, joy and a whole other range of emotions that are “not your stereotypical” middle-aged male-lead coded.

He also delivered the baton on a relay race with Doctor Who: he came back after almost 20 years, to bring back the generation who grew up watching him in the role, and deliver us into the arms of Ncuti Gatwa’s 15th Doctor, with the promise of taking a rest and working on getting better from all the trauma The Doctor has endured in 20 years Earth-time (which, as any Doctor Who fan knows, account for centuries of trauma in Doctor’s time). Not your usual Doctor Who Anniversary cameo, but one built to deliver some zeitgeisty emotional health promises that made the specials feel… healing. At least, for some of us.

Even when it wasn’t the hit series it deserved to be, his Phileas Fogg in “Around the World in 80 Days” is also a great delivery of an unconventional middle-aged protagonist, who goes from meek and scared and too worried about societal norms, to a lovely, tender, slightly awkward and daring person, with friends half his age who look at him but are also his peers (another kind of relationship that is not very frequent in media).

And, with all fearlessness, he has played a lively old duck in Duck Tales! Scrooge McDuck has never been a middle-aged character: he is, quite openly, an old gentleman. An adventurer, quirky, with a lot of spunk… but also quite clearly an elder to Huey, Dewey and Louie, and obviously older than Donald Duck (who is also not a young adult himself!). When you watch that series, and if you have the opportunity to catch any glimpse of him behind the scenes while recording the part, you can feel the joy he got from playing the part (and he has said time and again that he IS Scrooge McDuck, so it will become his “recurring bit” for the future).

Hopefully, David (and some other actors and actresses, for sure) will dare to build that new “aging publicly without making an arse of myself” playbook, and I (and I can imagine, many other fans in our middle age, but also fans that are right now leaving behind the “young adult” stage and becoming “adults” fair and square, and others who will arrive to this place at a future time in their lives, so I hope) will be there to bear witness, support, cheer… and learn from the model. Because that’s what fandom is about, but also because that’s how culture itself gets shaped and changes, continuously. And that is exciting and a little scary, and that’s why it is better if we do this together.

And I'd love to imagine diverse (in the full sense of the word) role models for this process and this playbook, too!!!

If you read all the way through this, I'm very grateful, take a cookie, have a gold star and suggest names for our aging interestingly role models on the "non-white-male" side of things!

Class dismissed!!

#david tennant #aging #aging gracefully (or not) #long essay #long post #cultural studies #cultural semiotics #I need someone to pay me for writing this sort of stuff really #when I said I was writing again I meant it #this was 6 pages long in Word #and it includes references #look at my (written) child #the doctorate in cultural studies would never #neil gaiman

[voltstone]

ERICSON'S WALLFLOWER

or bpd as a twdg fandom essay, & violet's analysis

[Mar.26-29.2024 | 27,991]

Throughout my time spent within the TWDG fandom—since late 2019, early 2020—, Violet as not merely a love interest but a character exists as the fandom’s staunch polarization. And the funny thing?

I get it. A lot.

Much of what I’ve read into this character has been extrapolated from my own experiences, and those experiences speak to an inherent, polarizing chaos. It’s something that’s quite honestly a purgatory to try and articulate—I have tried—, and another bane to hope that people will get it. At least, enough to not just sweep my words under the rug. This essay is ultimately a trial to see if I’ve done enough work with myself, both emotionally and in writing, to be able to explain this to those none the wiser, or to the some who feel the same things, but have yet to hear it spoken with absolute clarity.

Through a fandom essay, no less. Specifically about a video game character who grows on people—Louis promises so.

Borderline Personality Disorder.

Nobody really likes to talk about it. Too many times in my life, I’ve had people sweep it under the rug because it is not a pretty thing, in times where I was pleading for help; often, in presence of the wrong crowd, it feels like a target nailed to my back.

It’s intrenched within stigma. And what’s difficult about that is…, yeah. I get why. There’s no mystery to it.

…yet there is so much people do not understand because not talking about it is so much easier, and the joke is, talk therapy is quite literally BPD’s primary treatment.

And so let’s talk about it. Allow me to pull away the confusion this disorder brings, and lay it out—as best I can—in a more digestible manner, through a deconstruction of Violet. I’ll have a little fun with it. However, if this essay reads in a more…straightforward tone compared to the couple others I’ve written now, it should. I’ve attempted to write this in a more lighthearted language before, but it didn’t really get the message across well, I would slip to this anyway, so. Yeah. I will still be conversational, just less so.

With that, however, this is another long essay. I hope you enjoy. :)

[Given the subject matter & the inclusion of my own experiences, take heed. This discussion is sensitive. W/ my experiences, I assure you I'm fine. I speak from a place where I’ve worked through my experiences.]

[Also, to stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale: I reference Louis and one of your essays about him, hence the @. But this thing's real long and about Violet, and stuff. Lol.]

[Briefly, but Exhaustively, to Clarify]

Before any discussion of BPD, then Violet’s deconstruction, a few things.

One. No, I’m not outright diagnosing Violet with BPD. She isn’t diagnosed in the game. I’ve not heard anything by Telltale or anyone associated remark BPD either. None of the schoolkids, for the matter, are diagnosed because it’s not that kind of story. The most we’re given is a narrative that explores their patterns in behavior, and then one…“diagnosis” with Willy. That being the, uh, chronic masturbation. (No, I did not think masturbation would be included in this discussion, but here we are. Thanks, you bug-eyed child.) Even then, however, that was likely a symptom of a larger issue with Willy.

Instead, I like this character. I see a lot of myself in this character, recognize the patterns she exhibits, and I’m hardly the first to associate Violet with BPD—since though she’s not diagnosed…, she is a little bit textbook. I’ve also seen a lot of the fandom misinterpret, preemptively judge, Violet for the things she does.

And I don’t mean the confusion and betrayal players feel should they save Louis over Violet. That reaction is normal. Yes, feel confused and betrayed. Because that’s the intention. What I take issue with, and part of why I’ve wanted to write this for a long while, is the…undertones beneath what is generally said. The opinions, too, that go along with it. All of which, ultimately, feed into the stigma that BPD is so intrenched within. The ignorance, and the refusal to understand both why and how.

So I do this through Violet because I adore TWDG, I’m in a TWDG mood, and, she is actually a phenomenal example to use for discussions around BPD. No, she’s not canonically diagnosed, but, it is better to explain a character by using a researched concept, just as much as it’s easier to explain said concept through a fictional example.

…and myself.

This essay will have a lot of commentary based around my experiences. A lot of this disorder’s stigmatization makes it difficult to find good information to understand what it does—specifically from the perspective of the borderline personality, not observers—, because…it’s just not the same as ADHD or depression, which have been big talking points within the recent years. I also have ADHD—runs in the family. That said, conversations in mental health has its fair share of stigma regardless, it’s just that BPD…does not help itself, largely due to the concepts I’ll be going over.

Also, I am very similar to Violet, down to how we dress, but also in personality. We’re not the same, but there’s enough where I feel like I can explain a lot of this character in relation to BPD. Because it’s a personality disorder. In similar personalities, the disorder will—more often than not—present itself the same way.

This does lead me to a third: as much as I’d like to say that this discussion will be the absolute, universal truth, the reality is no, this discussion will likely have blind-spots. It won’t be universal. For a myriad of reasons.

BPD is, again, a personality disorder. Its expression is entirely dependent on the personality, and the experiences established. So anyone who is not an indifferent/apathetic person, who is more extroverted and not the marginal recluse that I am, there will be aspects of this that won’t align. The rudimentary concepts may apply, but the expressions and emotional processings behind these concepts may not.

This also bleeds into the fact that BPD overlaps with many conditions, and traits of the disorder can be found elsewhere. Which, quite frankly, is fairly standard for most disorders, because it’s about the expression and amalgamation of the traits, not the traits themselves. So, as I discuss BPD, you’ll likely find yourself relating to certain points.

Do not take this to mean that you yourself have borderline.

Well, okay. You might. There’s nothing wrong with doing research, and to evaluate all of your resources. Keep in mind, however, there is a difference between one condition relating to another, and one BPD relating to a likewise diagnosis.

BPD overlaps with many conditions (like ADHD); it shares many traits in others.

The reasons for it includes how BPD is developed, where the development will be alongside other conditions—like, say, PTSD—, or other conditions may predispose the condition—ADHD—, or, or, both.

And then, some of this relatability is due to language. There are limitations in the words I choose, especially when this essay is intended for a wider audience. When I say, I go from 0 to 100, you may know precisely what I’m putting down, or, your 0 to 100 is my 0 to 10. And there will be that barrier in understanding because…we’re different people, with different experiences, living alongside different conditions.

Some of you reading will just never understand what it means to get whiplashed by your emotions at the drop of a dime, where you’re perfectly fine one minute, and then you feel like you’re about to have a heart attack the next because someone said something, and you don’t understand why it hurt you the way it did, but it did, and you’ve already lost your shit, but you don’t want to do anything, but you can’t trust that you won’t… All…with the guilt that it is happening again, and you should have known better, and it’s all your fault…

Yeah. It’s okay if you don’t understand what that’s like. And to be quite blunt, if you don’t, be grateful. BPD isn’t fun for anyone. There are slight blessings, but those are gravely overshadowed.

Given that I do expect a lot of people reading this won’t understand, this essay will be exhaustive. I don’t really want to cut corners, even though certain aspects of my experiences will be kept to myself, and not everything about this disorder can be related to a video game character.

I do want to give it its due. The drafts before fell into the trap of not articulating precisely what I wanted, with the transparency I needed.

…hence why it’s long, but with that, let’s start with understanding BPD at its core.

[BPD, in Experience, as an Introduction]

So. Borderline Personality Disorder.

Boiled down, it is purely the complete lack of, or, the severe impairment of emotional regulation.

That’s it.

That is literally all it is. And in understanding that, it explains (in part) how and why many of you may relate to certain aspects throughout this essay—emotions, and the (dys)regulation thereof, are integral to each and every one of us.

However, BPD is distinct, and I will comb through the how and why in this section. It is quite simplistic when boiled down, but this synopsis implicates everything about a person.

It is also. Not. Bipolar Disorder.

(Yeah, let me just kick this out of the way.) 

Bipolar Disorder is about the brain chemistry, and is defined by manic and depressive swings.

Borderline Personality Disorder is a disorder of the personality. It’s systemic to the person. Could someone with BPD also have bipolar? Well, yes, which doesn’t help in the confusion, but to be the least bit informative, those instances often imply a specific BPD type (comorbid).

[Further resources will be linked at the end, for the BPD types, relationship with bipolar, and additional elements to come. For the sake of the essay, I won’t delve into this in-depth.]

This nuance—comorbid-BPD and bipolar—illustrates how complicated of a conversation BPD is. Again, it’s why this essay will be exhaustive, but also selective in what it covers.

Including, but not limited to, this kind of nuance.

To embark what a severe impairment/lack of emotional regulation means, it’s important first to establish the working definition of what emotions are—the definition, at least, which this essay utilizes.

Emotions are the reactionary senses of the body. Where sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing are the immediate feedback from the environment to the body, the emotions are the immediate responses to the stimuli, to prompt our actions thereafter.

Our relationship to our emotions is a very complicated one, because…we physically feel our emotions, which can be conflated with the feedback from our environment. Comprehension is also required to understand what, exactly, these emotions are signaling to us, because an environment isn’t just physical. Social, cultural, and psychological environments are included. 

If you ever wonder what, exactly, a dog with the intelligence of a 3-year-old actually means, it’s their comprehension level of their emotions. These dogs are feeling the same emotions as a 3-year-old, and a 30-year-old. But there’s a catch: dogs don’t do the whole language acquisition thing like we do. Language acquisition being the learning process we undergo in our youth, because we are wired to speak and derive meaning through vocal, then visual, patterns.

I say this because a lot of emotions are, physically, perceived the same way, but we use language to distinguish one from another because contexts do matter. And they matter a lot.

Like, what’s the difference between lust and common excitement? They both feel similar, don’t they? But, lust is specific to a defined context.

And in this way, language absolutely contributes to the complexity of emotions.

But ultimately, emotions are just there to tell you what comforts you, and what doesn’t. It establishes what kind of environment you feel safe within, or at risk; the gradient within that establishes what you prefer, what you can tolerate. So the places you go to. The people you surround yourself with. Your interests. Activities. How you want to present yourself. Your morals, and ambitions. Identity and sense of self.

All of it is prompted by emotion, and your comprehension of that—ultimately through language—establishes how you respond.

How we actually navigate this is through regulation. Or rather, the process of self-comprehension, where an individual has to evaluate a situation, their internal reaction to such stimuli (both in thought and feelings), and the appropriate behavioral response. Dysregulation, then, is where that process is faulty.

So as we mature into adulthood, and our learned behaviors are set in stone (more or less; old dog, new trick or something), we’ve ideally learned how to comprehend these emotions, how to use language to articulate them and relay them to others, and find what is comfortable and what isn’t.

People get in the way of themselves, however.

For some fucking reason, we think we’re so fucking smart because we can talk, and we got thumbs, and we, like, stand on two feet. Or if we don’t got two fucking feet, we can build a wheely chair to sit our asses down.

And? We like to convince ourselves that we know better than our emotions, to the point where they’re disregarded. Of course, social contexts, understanding how your actions may impact others—those are all nuances which, yes, our emotions may not respect, but we do.

In regards to when people refuse to acknowledge emotions for what they are…

Piece of advice, from someone with BPD, emotions run like rivers. You do not decide what that river’s water is, how much there will be, and when it will flood. What you can decide is what canals to dig to retroactively contain that river, when to do that, and to establish how to treat the different flooding waters. You will drown if you think you can just ignore them.

Because the funny thing about water? If you fall high enough, land the wrong way, you might as well have hit stone.

In this way, emotions are devastating, and the mind and body has many mechanisms to deploy should an individual be constantly bombarded, and there is a need to prioritize our primary senses—touch, smell, sight… To prioritize a survival.

Take DID, for instance, where often it’s the mind “divorcing” itself into several identities in order to protect and shield the host from further trauma. There are many, many disorders like this where the brain deploys its failsafe, but that failsafe comes at a price.

BPD is, effectively, what happens when one of these mechanisms deploy, but the cost cripples an integral function to the human experience. It cripples the capability to dig those canals, redirect those rivers, and it can even imply a blindness to what kind of water is flooding.

…in many respects, this implies that BPD is, inherently, a disorder rooted in other conditions, just set to the absolute extreme. But when I say “absolute extreme” to someone who has never experienced emotional turmoil, the wrong impression may be impressed. Again, much of what I say may relate to your own experiences, and it’s why I have to take great care in articulating precisely what I mean because…it can be easily misinterpreted. Everybody has had moments where they are not in control of what they feel, and they do things. However, while the instances may look the same, the mechanisms, patterns and history behind them…are not.

Hence why BPD and bipolar are so often confused, because at the height of those disorders, it can very well look the same. I have had manic episodes that look identical to someone in a bipolar episode within one moment. But the differences are the mechanisms, patterns, and history. For these two disorders, it’s what’s actually going on in the brain, what stimuli we’re actually reacting to, and then timeframe. Mania in bipolar can last months; in me, I plummet into mania for minutes, or hours, or days—a week at most. And I can rocket right back out of it, back to an indifference, or into some other extreme.

And those mechanisms, and patterns, and histories are what make BPD, well, BPD. 

We now get to how BPD happens. And though there is some debate, BPD is a developmental disorder. It’s created.

Through a number of factors. Genetics (like a family history), accompanying conditions (such as ADHD, autism, due to the predisposition to emotional dysregulation), past experiences of trauma, and, the environment.

And that’s the footnote version. Because this disorder, while there are strong patterns observed across diagnosed individuals, again has its nuances. Going into what causes BPD will lead you down a steep rabbit hole—in part because it’s dependent on the person, history, and environment, and in part because…, well, there is stigma, and there’s a lot of unknowns. Borderline, as a name, is not telling of what the disorder is. There’s a long misogynistic history to the disorder’s criteria, despite the fact that there’s a lot of men out there that have stunted their emotions, will fly off the handle when their egos are slightly bruised, call themselves alphas, are vehemently loyal to that alpha identity…

Hm.

That’s a discussion for another day. Point being, I cannot indulge this essay into every kind of way a person can land themselves with the disorder. It’s never ending. I have other priorities to indulge. Such as:

What kind of abuse is commonly attributed to BPD?

The answer? For such a volatile personality?

Neglect.

Funny, isn’t it? How neglect—the absence of—is what often causes BPD, of all things. Most would likely scoff, because our world has groomed the idea that the other kinds are worse, and are what creates monsters. Because it doesn’t make good tv, does it? Like the times where I was sat in time-out for…some reason or another, on a bench beside a chalkboard. Upwards to 10 hours of the day—which is a long time at three years old. That doesn’t make for interesting scenes, does it?

No. And because it doesn’t, and stories like their spectacle, media relies on the other kinds. To the point now where it’s necessary for our idled attention spans.

To be clear, this isn’t to demote abuse types outside of neglect, nor is it to insinuate that they cannot coexist within one circumstance. The fact of the matter is, different traumas with different people in different environments will lead to different conditions. There is no worth in proving to each other which trauma is worse or better, because it’s entirely dependent on the people and environment(s) involved.

What I will demote is the common, ignorant insinuation that neglect doesn’t destroy a person.

It’s why it is ironic, how BPD—an explosive thing—is often born from neglect.

How it does such a thing is…complicated. Lucky for this essay, I’ve lived it.

Within the first handful of years in my life, there were many things like sitting on that stupid bench in my room, for hours upon hours. My parents, at the time, were young themselves and fresh from college. My dad was in the military, so he had been deployed, leaving my mom alone with me, and…her BPD. I suspect postpartum made things worse.

Before you assume, it isn’t that she didn’t love me. Quite the opposite, but it was only through the divorce a few years later was she diagnosed. So, she didn’t have the resources for such a disorder at the time. Which made things worse, because part of treating BPD is being aware you have it.

The thing about these kinds of abuse is that…they come from the people you least want to admit, and for me, it had been my own mother.

And, the thing about neglect, especially mine, is that it’s hard to explain how no…, she was home. It wasn’t like she’d leave me like that. But, even so, I couldn’t tell you what the fuck she was doing when she wasn’t in the same room.

I was left to my own devices. I told myself stories with my stuffed animals to pass the time. I was often hungry too, and there are two accounts from family where, upon visiting, they saw this little toddler know how to work the baby-gate to the kitchen, and start to prepare food—sandwiches for me, and I’d pour food for the dog.

I seldom spoke, was borderline mute. Didn’t really converse until four. But I knew what people were saying before that. I did also pick-up behaviors from my dog as well; I would pant whenever I was happy, and whimper instead of cry.

By the tail-end, as I was getting into kindergarten, my brother was born, the divorce was in motion, and my dad would thankfully win full custody, and my mom, visitation.

You see, through those initial years, those mechanisms deployed.

I had to swallow down the instinct that the parent would be the one to nurture, and I had to find ways to feed myself, then my best friend and true guardian—the dog. Had to learn how to work things like a baby-gate. I also had to be vigilant of her, and know what mood she was in.

It’s these two things, working together, which utterly fractured me emotionally. The feeling of being hungry, truly hungry, is not something I wish for anyone. The realization that it’s not because you’re out of food—not until the separation began, and the weekends with my mom were marked by this hunger—, but because you don’t know how to get that food, and the bigger person is not getting the food, so you try to learn but you are still a small child… It’s even worse. It does something to you. Then, having to sacrifice your own emotional nourishment in order to keep an eye on an adult’s volatility is that final nail.

That was the first stage of my neglect. And it was bad. It was a really, really bad situation. My brother only lived with my mom for a couple years before Dad’s full custody. In that time, from when our mother was the only one to take care of us with my dad helpless in a different country, then to switching every week, he developed OCD tendencies, which are still present.

Twenty years later now, it’s been remarked that I was…kinda the best candidate to survive this out of not just my brother and I, but our cousins as well. And I agree. I’m naturally reserved, and even as a kid, I would push back against my mom. It would ignite her, but the fact that I was confrontation said enough. Meanwhile…, I do not know how the fuck my brother would be mentally if he’d been the one stuck alone with her for those three, four years. I don’t know what my dad would’ve come back to whenever he was allowed to be with his family.

And I would not trade places if given the chance. Because even if I’m a black sheep, my mechanisms allowed me to get away as well-adjusted as I could be.

But… Still. Beneath those remarks…, there is a misunderstanding. When my family says I was the best candidate, it’s because they look at me and see a person who isn’t sick. When I say I was, I mean…my brother would have been worse off.

Granted, now that I’m out of school, it’s slowly dawned on them that…yeah no. There is something wrong.

…as I aged through childhood, I didn’t quite understand what the costs of the mechanisms deployed were, but I knew there was something very, very wrong even back then. And I would tell my family. Every now and again, throughout years, I’d raise alarm because I realized I reminded myself of my mom.

Only to be told that I wasn’t my mother, and that I was overreacting. Told me that, “People like her don’t know there’s something wrong—that’s the disorder.”

Come a mere few years ago, and I am told about times where my mother, as an adult not long before having me, would break down because she didn’t want to be like my grandmother.

There was a family history. My mother knew it. However, she was also diagnosed through the divorce, because she couldn’t take care of my brother and I. Highly doubt admitting her BPD was the reason was because “she didn’t know there was something wrong.”

I was told there was nothing wrong. Meanwhile, I would do things I didn’t understand, and experience the world in a way people around me didn’t, …as it turns out.

For one, which is still true now, I cannot cook for myself, in a kitchen, when it’s dark out. I also cannot cook when someone else is nearby, or already in the kitchen itself. I will wait, because should I cook in those times, there’s a feeling. And I can’t stand it. The feeling of—

Oh. No, the feeling isn’t being watched. 

It’s the feeling where someone may be lurking, and I’m about to get caught. This is likely a remnant of times when I was very, very young, and I tried to feed myself, and I…was caught. And she blew up.

There are other behaviors like that, specific to me. Because the body remembers before you yourself.

In the years after my mom, I found myself in the second phase of neglect—the one, I argue, is what actually creates BPD.

And again. For another time. It came from the people I least want to admit.

The neglect, the denial, in every alarm I raised did something to me. Another thing, though given my experiences, it also did feel similar to the first phase. My family loves me, I understand, and I get why they denied. Because they knew about what was happening to me, then my brother, but circumstances had them trapped in watching from afar. A sort of…they didn’t get to me in time. 

My mom was also a nightmare for my dad. So…, to see that resemblance is not something anybody wants to admit.

But still. I was in therapy (to socialize me), but that didn’t last forever, and people kinda just shrugged and thought it was good. The therapy did its job. Without noticing what was happening.

The mechanism that deployed was still there, never to be acknowledged. So it festered. It scarred my trauma over, and now, there’s a great blemish on my mental health. 

And that blemish has a name, and it’s BPD—the disorder cultivated by the neglect of an aftermath. Where trauma struck, and there was no chance given to process it effectively, and to heal.

All of the nuances I’ve discussed before remain to be true. From what I understand, however, is that the primary reason why Borderline Personality Disorder can look so differently on so, so many people, through a range of traumas is…it’s consequence. BPD has its characteristics, the ones that distinguish, because ignoring the recovery after significant trauma presents itself the same.

Now, I’ll indulge in one of these characteristics.

It wasn’t until recent, as I embarked my adulthood, where I realized the core mechanism I had inadvertently deployed, the one that came with a price:

Alexithymia.

Or, emotional blindness.

This in itself is not considered a disorder, largely because (and for the sake of this essay) it is an associated symptom, a mechanism, of many, many conditions. Depression, PTSD, eating disorders, ADHD and autism (again), schizophrenia, and I can go on, and on, and on.

BPD is included, of course.

There are many ways to be blind. Take visual blindness, where it can be an absolute void, a severe impairment, some colors recognized but not all, or, there’s too much feedback at once, and the light becomes illegible. Being devoid of emotions, or apathetic, is the standard; some people may feel a perpetual onslaught that cannot be deciphered, and others could find themselves in between.

Whatever it may be, alexithymia is characterized as the impaired awareness, explicit identification, and/or articulation of one’s feelings. So, as long as the shoe fits, and the person can’t decipher, convey/express their emotions… That shoe’s not on the wrong foot.

In my case, I fall into the standard.

When I was young, I likely stifled my own emotions in exchange for vigilance. It never left, however. If anything, it got worse the more I neglected recovery. Now, I don’t feel much, day to day. I know I experience emotion, and react to my environment, and have thoughts… Yet, the environment is almost dreamlike. It doesn’t quite register, and the people in my life feel like figments unless I’m right there with them, in the same room. I’m indifferent to most. Memories are a lot like this too—not like I don’t remember anything at all, but in the moment, I kinda just exist. I can think and plan about the future too, but it’s that I’ve realized I have to, not that I feel any kind of urgency.

Because I don’t care. At all.

Or, I do, but there’s nothing in here to tell me that. Because my body, also, is quite null. It doesn’t tell me what I feel. I couldn’t tell you in the moment, so I’ll usually resort to, “I’m fine.” And inside this head of mine? Not much. Kinda like static—the tv is on, there’s a lot of channels going, but it’s just…not there. Beyond static.

So as I write this, and write any of my works, it's less of spilling all the crazy thoughts inside my head, organizing them, and more of me spilling an open wound I don't know how to close, figured I don't really want to close it, because I kinda just like watching it spill across the page and see what I'm thinking, and what I can create.

To be quite honest, being a writer in this way does legitimately feel like I'm a blind sculptor.

If all this sounds like a depressing experience, I'm fine. Genuinely. I am. This is actually quite comfortable for me, and it's also me at my most rational. Plus, it helps that I've developed a fairly strong coping means—this writing thing—that serves to be a therapy in emotional comprehension. Another mechanism, really, that is derivative of what I did as a toddler.

I'm also a hermit. I'm content with being reclusive, and to myself.

And again, I’ve already processed all of this. I wouldn’t be writing this essay otherwise.

So how does alexithymia relate to BPD? In what way is being apathetic mean I can fly off the handle?

What does alexithymia mean for an episode?

BPD episodes vary. Depends on the person, and a trigger, and the environment.

In the traditional a switch is flipped, and the person just loses it, it’s via said trigger. A legitimate trigger, not whatever TikTok is blabbering. Trigger as in to a gun, and it just takes one pull, and you’ve been set off.

When this happens—BPD or not—, it effectively shuts down the reasoning part of the individual’s brain, and sends them straight into fight-or-flight. They are in a very primal state, and will react on emotion alone.

In BPD, our brains are wired to do that in (potentially) a very, very short period of time. Can be literally a blink and you miss it. There’s a look in the eye. If you know, you know. It happens enough times to establish a history of this within the person. Forces people to walk on egg shells to avoid this. Because it’s scary. It can get scary.

Here’s the thing:

It’s scary for us too.

Not too long ago, a lot of changes happened in my life, and on my birthday, I was driving, and I wanted, so badly, to just swerve off the road and down into the woodland—the ditches would’ve been steep enough. Woke up that day wanting to. Didn’t understand why, but I also wasn’t asking because that reasoning part of my brain was switched off. That day, the episode wasn’t explosive, but had I brushed upon a trigger, or someone accidentally said/did something, it would likely have been the case.

I was in an agitated state—straying down the line between stability, and not, where at first glance I’m fine, but…the more you look, there’s something quite wrong.

I was also craving McDonald’s. So I went. I sat myself down on my own, and ate my food.

And suddenly… Literally nothing was wrong. Well, no. I was still mildly stressed from moving from college, but, nothing was wrong that day. I was just hungry, not suicidal. Yet…it felt like I was. Had me believe it for a hot minute.

Had I not had the burger, fries, and McFlurry… I don’t know. Had I had access to something swifter than a car. I really don’t know.

This is what the disorder does. This is why it’s scary for the people around, and terrifying for us.

And in those like me, where everything is null, until it isn’t, it’s terrifying in a specific way. Goes from 0 to 100. Can get to the point where I have pain shooting down my arms, like I’m about to have a heart attack, because everything comes down upon me at once. Or, in episodes like the one I just mentioned, it creeps up on you—that agitated state. To the point where I don’t realize I’m in it, just that I’m suddenly hyperaware of everything, and there is something wrong, but I am not asking why because I can’t. So I just do. Quite blindly. And eat because driving off a road is too much effort.

So it gets scary. In those like me, where emotions just aren’t registering, I can’t tell you what I’m feeling until after the fact, or after considerable thought. Which is also fucking difficult because I don’t rightly know what I’m thinking. But given the situation, that could be too fucking late. And if the situation has me alone, to myself?

With BPD, there are triggers we know to avoid because they are related to traumas. There are things that wouldn’t normally trigger, but somehow did because they were the straw that broke the camel’s back, and we didn’t even know we had a fucking camel. And then. Sometimes. We don’t even know what the fuck the trigger was, and will never know.

The last is very common when we’re unaware of our BPD, but…it also just happens sometimes as well. The world’s big. The shit life yeets is limitless. I dunno.

There’s also a humiliation to an episode. I don't know what's going on. I can't reason like I should, and I don't want you to look at me. I want you gone, especially if I have deemed you the trigger. I want to be left alone. Things will escalate, and escalate, and escalate until that is achieved.

And, there’s a guilt as well. Especially when you know you have BPD, because by then, you should know better, but apparently, you don’t.

This all sounds quite helpless, I realize. However, there’s a reason why talk therapy is the central form of treatment for BPD. Knowing how to communicate does wonders. For those with borderline, learning how to comprehend and articulate emotions, and knowing what triggers to avoid, is a long, arduous process, but it helps. In regulating emotions as best we can, and in explaining to people beforehand what to do—or after the fact, where it’s to explain it wasn’t their fault.

And for those without BPD? Being able to recognize the warning signs on a person is detrimental. Because, believe it or not, there are warning signs. Sometimes they could be the split-second before, however, if there is someone in an agitated state, knowing what that looks like means you know how to avoid an episode, and it gives room to be able to console the person beforehand.

As said. There’s a look in the eyes. I know, because that’s what I spent my first few years of life figuring out.

The arduous process also unveils the…ambiguous sides to BPD. The stuff that people don’t really talk as much, whenever BPD is brought to the table at all. 

For this essay, I will spare a glance at identity. No, identity doesn’t have much to do with Violet. However, acknowledging this ambiguous side to BPD establishes just how far this disorder goes, and it tends to crop up when least expected. (It will do so in this essay.)

A disorder of emotional regulation implicates everything, and sense of self is guided by emotion.

So what happens to one’s identity if there’s no guide to that sense of self?

It’s bleak. Or there’s a turbulence. Either way, it’s hard to decipher what exactly you want out of life, and for yourself, because there’s just no good way to tell what makes you comfortable, and what doesn’t. But you still strive to find stability. So you mirror those around you. To blend in and be accepted. By chance, it can extend beyond humans; me mimicking my dog—panting when I’m happy, whimpering when I’m sad—, it was probably so that my dog would console me when my mom wasn’t around. Because my dog (a lovely boxer) was very attuned to me.

The conversation with identity is…just another complicated thing. And this one is harder to articulate, in part because it’s not really discussed by people who don’t have the disorder. As opposed to the mood swings.

All that to say, when it comes to this analysis, the truth is, there’s not a feasible way to explore the nuances such as Violet’s relationship with identity, or alexithymia, because they aren’t spoken aloud to give us enough insight, and by proxy, these aspects of BPD are not what Violet represents. But acknowledging such nuances provides a better understanding in what this disorder means.

Regardless, Violet is a representation BPD in relationships, and the dysfunction of those bonds. How it’s exacerbated within an apocalypse, and then the self-treatment of.

Or, or, Violet has…a tendency to be a wallflower. More or less.

[Ericson's Resident Wallflower]

The Final Season (TFS) is particular when it comes to Violet. It will be evident throughout this essay, the care that the game and the team behind it devoted for her. From the dialogue to her actions, Telltale did well in illustrating this character. I will argue, however, that the quiet intensity in nuance laid throughout is what evoked the need to write this essay.

Because Violet represents something quite thoughtful in regards to mental health—the reality of what a disorder is, and what it can do.

So TFS is particular, and it begins with her introduction, where there’s this need to recontextualize her. Not once, but twice.

Clementine is first introduced to her silently. She follows Marlon out into the courtyard, and Tenn whistles at the wall.

Because on the school’s wall is a girl, and she rises from her lounging at its height. There’s a glance shared between Clementine and Violet, before Clementine speaks more with Marlon. After that, another glance, where Violet turns away—not before the player can spy a bit of intrigue in her face.

Clementine reunites with A.J, meets Louis, before a recontextualization, where Violet (she does talk) snarks about the crashed car, and the walkers that the accident brought to their door.

And it takes Louis to pry a proper greeting from her:

“Ahem. ‘Hello, Clementine. I’m Violet. Nice to meet you.’” “What he said.” [. . .] “Don’t mind Violet. She, uh…, grows on you. I promise.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | School Gate]

Good job, Violet. Way to be sociable.

Sarcasm aside, yeah, it’s a little rough. Violet is overall dismissive of Clementine, save for the comments. To the point where she has Louis introduce her ass.

Now Louis…is a quiet presence throughout this essay, though he is all the more integral to her character. There will be fewer words compared to other relationships, but those words signify a unique dichotomy between him and Violet, one that the other schoolkids—Minnie and Brody included—do not have with her.

And it starts immediately. That dichotomy. Louis is the one who tells Clementine Violet’s name. He is the one who formally introduces the two. Because he knows how Violet is. Ensures to lingers so that he tell Clementine—promise her—how Violet is worth sticking around for.

It’s just that the girl is troubled. So.

Thereafter, his banter is teasing, and Violet is still sardonic. But, she ultimately does play along. In her own way. When in the woods, and the schoolkids are focused on clearing walkers to have Aasim, Brody and Mitch make a safe return, Louis strikes the conversation, Violet scoffs, but can relent depending on the player’s dialogue choice(s). It is important to note that Violet scoffing doesn’t necessarily equate to her being mean; it’s clear through the card game later that…this is her way of banter, with Louis especially. She takes jabs at him. He retorts. Does the same. It’s on equal footing.

The next true recontextualization presents a taste of what Louis means. After clearing the walkers, and A.J socks Marlon, Clementine is left to acquaint herself with the other schoolkids. Mitch and Willy, Omar and Louis, Aasim, Ruby (where A.J apologizes for biting), and Tenn, right alongside Violet.

And those two are tending to the school’s makeshift cemetery. It brief, but Violet explains they lost the twins, and for the hour, they’re paying their respects.

From the wall, then the gate, then here, at their burial ground, it’s as though TFS wanted to scatter Violet’s introduction across her nuances. First it’s a silent couple glances, with her overlooking the courtyard at a perch, then it’s her being a little prick at the gate, a lightheartedness when mowing down walkers, and then it’s…this, a staunch vulnerability to and for her people. In context to the graves, her people being the twins.

All the moments that night thereafter feed into this. The card game goes back to an apathetic, yet also teasing, demeanor. Her shared conversation with Clementine, as A.J becomes an artist draws, it’s again a vulnerability, this time rattled by the fact that the dorm was once the twins’.

Throughout this first episode, Violet’s standing with the rest is shown to be quite reflective of this almost inconsistent preamble.

Marlon is the most succinct when he remarks, in the rain, after Clementine chooses to ask for Violet’s support:

“Violet being difficult. Why am I not surprised?” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Courtyard]

It’s such a blunt statement, intended to dig at her.

Though, there is truth to it. Violet’s introduction overall says as much. She admits it herself when in the dorm, and she finds that Clementine is housed where the twins were.

“Honestly, I just miss having someone around to talk to. [. . .] And I’m not, exactly, like…a people person. You know? I know I sometimes have a habit… Have a habit of being a little bit too harsh.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Dorm]

Violet is not sociable, so naturally, she struggles to find someone to talk to. But, she is also sardonic—that much we got from the gate, even if it was followed by Louis’ banter which she reciprocates. 

But ultimately, it’s Brody who gives the best context to Violet, and really voices what Louis is getting at.

When Clementine goes fishing, Brody begins a conversation, and within that, she can reveal based off the prompts:

[She’s…intense.] “She’s always been a little bit like that. But after the twins died, she really closed up.” [It wasn’t your fault.] “Still, I was the one that had to break the news to her. And ever since I did, she’s become distant.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

There’s two key things here, starting with the unsociability that Violet’s demeanor and Marlon’s slight reference.

Then, the revelation that Violet has closed herself off. She’s become distant within the past year.

…it implies that the Violet first introduced to us is not truly Violet, in a sense. It presents to the player thatmuch of her arc with Clementine will be about uncovering her, and really bringing Violet from this depressive spiral. Romantically or platonically so. And these lines are intended to both explain the character, and to incite enough intrigue for the player to follow Violet down her route. 

But it’s rather unfortunate that so much of this character is hidden away from the start, because there's the chance that people glance over her, take this initial Violet as Violet, and decide to spend more time with Louis and follow down his route. Because, for the sake of this essay, it's damn near impossible to really appreciate this character when you don't go with her route.

Same can be said for Louis, of course. But, respectfully...

It ain't about him. So. Moving on.

Playing leader.

When Marlon is shot, Violet immediately jumps into action to protect Clementine and A.J from getting jumped by the rest, and she assumes the leadership role. Regardless of player choice. There is an curious point with her being a leader, though that will be set aside to explore later.

Instead, I’ll side-step, and bring about a piece of conversation upon Clementine and A.J’s return. In this, we gather a very telling side of Violet, one that speaks volumes to her character.

[Clementine] “You’re sitting in Marlon’s chair, aren’t you? You’re their leader now. They’ll listen to you.” [Violet] “They don’t, though. They only listen when they want to.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Office]

Again, we’re side-stepping from the playing leader thing. Violet says that they don’t listen to her—says it like it wasn’t a really a surprise, just a point of frustration. Because, of course, Violet’s difficult. The last leader said so. But also, none of them have stepped up to fill that role. They take issue with her, but none of the schoolkids have really challenged her to take the mantel for themselves.

The silent nuance here is…why is it that she’s the leader? Violet made it seem like she really didn’t want to be at the boarding school—what with the contention between most, then the fact that she’s still in mourning. Tenn appeared like he was the only one keeping her there, but by stepping up in this way, not necessarily.

His presence and her need to protect him is a huge factor. Absolutely. Just not the only one.

We return again to Louis, the one schoolkid with the shared dichotomy. He is the other love interest. Him and Violet are often on opposite sides—especially in regards to everything Marlon.

And yet…, the way they speak about each other when one is taken away says everything about such a dichotomy.

To start, we’ll look at Louis:

“I know I’m always teasing her. Trying to get her to do that one eye roll she does—you know the one. Where it’s like, ‘you’re such a dumbass,’ she has to do a full-body eye roll. I do it because, when I actually do manage to make her laugh, it’s worth it. If I needed her, she’d be there. Meat cleaver in hand, ready to chop someone in half if it meant protecting me.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

He brings context as to why their banter is so dogged to tease. Louis does it because it’s reciprocated once he gets under his skin, and she retorts back with the signature full-body eye roll, but also, because he’s striving to reach another side of her, one where she laughs.

Because Louis is a big entertainer. He craves to draw that out from people, so when he has someone like Violet where it’s not easy to do that, it means that much more when she does, because it tells Louis how despite everything, she is there, listening.

Then there’s Violet, and her words for him:

“You know, when I first got here, I hated him. He was so…much. You know? He walks into a room, and it’s like, ‘Look at me! Watch me perform!’ It’s so stupid. But then I realized, under all that, he… He really cares about people, and he doesn’t just feel it, he says it. He’ll tell you every goddamn day how much you mean to him. Shit, he’ll probably sing about it. [. . .] We’ve got to get him back.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

She nods to Louis being this big entertainer. Says that she hated it, and that it’s stupid. And yet, Violet thinks fondly of how genuine of a guy he is.

And between these two quotes, there’s a mastery in storytelling, because there’s an active dialogue between Louis and Violet. Doesn’t matter if one is on the boat, and they’re not. Their words parallel. Had they been in the room together, this would’ve been a back-and-forth.

Louis says that he teases her. Tries to get underneath her skin. Violet says that hated it, and hated him, for his antics. Yet, she then admits that…there’s a genuine nature there, because Louis does care, and he will say and sing it so. That genuine nature is the fact that he just really wants Violet to laugh, and to find that side of her.

Because Violet’s his friend. He values Violet as his protector, because Louis knows that she will be there whenever he desperately needed her.

And Louis is Violet’s friend. Which is why, without a word from Clementine, she states, firmly, that they need to get Louis back. Because in that hour, he was in peril, and he desperately needed Violet’s cleaver at hand.

It’s a tragedy, really, for both. When the other is taken, the one thing that each praise of the other is what’s stolen. For Louis, his knight is blinded; he has to be the one to protect her. For Violet, a comfort goes mute; she can sing in his place.

After spending a few moments with Clementine in the dorm, there’s Ruby’s hootenanny, and through that hootenanny, Violet can tell Clementine what brought her to Ericson’s:

“I spent a lot of time at my grandma’s house growing up, what with my dad being a drunk and my mom working three jobs. But after my grandpa died, Grandma just kinda…shut down. Spent all day and night rocking in her little chair in the den. I’d sit there at her feet as we both watched tv, mostly cartoons, since she never seemed to care. Sometimes I could hear her crying, but I didn’t look back. I’d just feel really weird and turn up the volume, you know? “Anyway, one day she left the den and came back with another chair, and a .22 rifle. Set the rifle butt on top of that chair, holding the barrel back to her chest. So, you know…, she had trouble reaching the trigger this way, but she must have known it would happen… Because she took out this really tacky wooden backscratcher—the real long kind with the one end shaped like a hand—and used that to push the trigger in. So…yeah. Bang, right? Her body folded up and just…kept rocking. “My mom came to get me five hours later. I hadn’t moved. She asked why I didn’t call the police or an ambulance or anything. I just shrugged and told her it wasn’t like Grandma was going anywhere…, and besides, I just wanted to finish my cartoons. She shipped me off to Ericson the next day. I was eleven.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Piano Room]

Through all of what Violet tells Clementine, there is still that flare to make the story more interesting for, you know, a video game. It’s a violent kind of neglect she shares.

But it is neglect all the same.

Violet was born to an alcoholic and a mom who stretched herself thin to compensate, yet even so, she later can admit that their home was a trailer—so the income of three jobs, all her time spent away from her mom, wasn’t enough. Perhaps there were financial troubles. The money might’ve been all drained away by cans of beer, or bottles. Violet did have an escape through her grandparents, though that didn’t last, and she was trapped to the same neglect. This time, with a better house. Probably.

Until her grandmother went and shot herself.

…with Violet in the room. Right behind the child.

And? There was no consolation; she was sent straight to Ericson’s, where the apocalypse then struck, the adults left, and Violet…was the difficult one, designated as this wallflower, or buzzkill. There were the twins, Minnie especially. Yet, even then… That relationship likely wasn’t reciprocated.

The flare that TFS adds to why Violet found her place in troubled youth—the violence, which could’ve dashed the screen she watched for those five hours—, it hides much of what went wrong with her, but simultaneously, it defines the gravity of her childhood.

It describes a mechanism of hers. One undoubtedly developed from her times alone with a drunk, whenever her grandparents and mother weren’t there. A sense of apathy, and with it, a broken moral compass. To not mind yourself, and not get in the way. To let it happen, and just get it over with, in whatever way that could imply.

And, with the sheer gravity, it begs the question…, how far did that neglect go? All of the abuse, if it wasn’t the only kind. Children aren’t born to sit in one place for hours, with fresh gore rocking in a chair behind.

The question wasn’t answered, of course. She was sent away instead. Then there were the adults. And then, other schoolkids. Violet isn’t…a people person, you know, so it’s only natural for her to be the difficult one as Marlon says.

Still, however, with Clementine as they watch the stars together, Violet denotes for the bird constellation,

“A bird is free. It could go anywhere it wanted to. Up and up and up, and never come back. Go south, east, west, doesn’t matter. You could fly straight into a sunset. And see where it ends.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Belltower]

And to that,

[Clementine] “You wish it was you, don’t you?” [Violet] “Sometimes, when it all feels so heavy down here, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like to be weightless.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Belltower]

Violet has struggled to belong, and yet, she remains. Yes, there’s the apocalypse. However, in all the years at the school, she could have left just as well. There’s a version of her, lost in development, where Violet does leave had she not been saved.

So why didn’t she?

The answer to that, quite simply, is one Louis may admit to Clementine, should that version keep his tongue, and the silent nuance behind her playing leader:

Violet is too loyal to her people to leave.

It’s why Louis teases her, to try and find that laugh, and why he knows that if he needs her, she will be there to protect him. Violently, with a meat cleaver.

It’s why she takes charge, because Violet knows none of the others wanted to, but they needed someone to lead. Whether or not they appreciated that it was her.

And, it’s why she acts without thought to stand her ground against Marlon. If she’s asked, the camera doesn’t leave her because it is no surprise that she will stand beside Clementine, as opposed to Louis, where he decides with uncertainty, and the camera has him shuffle to frame; for Violet, the change in her face is immediate. The camera doesn’t have the time to idle in tension. What Louis says is dead-on:

“If I needed her, she’d be there. Meat cleaver in hand, ready to chop someone in half if it meant protecting me.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

Even if she isn’t asked, Violet will then stand her ground once Marlon is shot. She vouches for the outsiders, in the name of reason, and for the twins and Brody.

She doesn’t think when Clementine is in danger—didn’t matter that her and A.J are just exiled. Violet will do as told, trust Clementine—to shoot, or to run.

Takes the helm after Marlon. Backs Clementine every step of the way.

Cannot let Minnie go until she has to, and Violet has seen that the person she clung after is gone.

Violet is too loyal to her people to leave, for her loyalty unbridled.

It’s her strongest quality. It is, also, what marks Violet with borderline.

[Emotional Anchorage]

We slip back to describe BPD at large, beyond this essay and character. However, everything of this section has its place with Violet.

And it begins with emotional anchorage.

Emotional anchors are not inherent to BPD. It’s not unique to the disorder because, instead, I’d argue it is a universal experience. These anchors are anything which triggers an emotional response. These can be specific objects—like an old stuffed bear, a photograph, a house—, or stimuli—like a scent, a song. Tangible things like these are indicative of our nature. Humans like things. We like to collect, and tinker, and destroy. It helps if it’s shiny. It really helps when there’s fire or light involved.

Here's another thing about anchors:

They can be people.

They commonly are. It’s how we distinguish strangers from significant relationships—friends, family, partners. Anchorage is present despite the nuances between friends (just a friend vs BFF), and family (siblings vs parents vs offspring). And, partners—emotional anchorage explains how queerplatonic relationships come to be, because the fundamental element of a partner (being an emotional anchor) is present, it’s just the romantic and/or sexual implications are ambiguous.

Emotional anchoring is the process in establishing the anchor, leaving anchorage as this essay’s way to articulate the concept itself.

Borderline Personality Disorder will naturally encourage these attachments.

Within the community, BPD has a term: favorite person (or FP). It is as it reads. There is a designated favorite for us, and this favorite person can be a friend, a family member, or a partner—anybody, really. With FP, we begin to fall down the well in emotional anchoring as it pertains to the disorder.

Because, ultimately, a FP is either the strongest, or the only, emotional anchor an individual with BPD has. (For the sake of this essay, I will replace FP with primary/prime emotional anchor going forth, to be more consistent in word choice.) And the anchoring of this person is generally not intended. It just happens, where there’s a strike of intrigue, and everything follows thereafter.

The moment I anchor a person, it is a stark change from the indifference/apathy I display to I want to spend all my time with you, and I will literally die for you without a second thought. I will remember everything you value better than I remember my own, and I will present those nice things to you, at every opportunity. Tell me your favorite color once, and I will remember it for decades to come. Tell me to break my nose, and I may very well do it on the spot.

Which. Yes. Is intense.

Understanding the disorder behind it, however, allows me to take the precautions to…warn people beforehand. And to tell them upfront, if ever I am encroaching on boundaries, just say knock it the fuck off, Volt. In exchange…, I don’t take it personally. Because, uh, yeah. I can get intense. I understand. I may feel a type of way in the moment where boundaries are made, but that’s the BPD talking in my ear.

But also, I know I value someone being upfront with me more than a passive rejection. Frustration is what sets me off—the not knowing why—, not the rejection in itself. Because if I don’t know why, that’s how I interpret things as abandonment.

I have been rejected many times in life by people I’ve deemed emotional anchors. And it stung. A lot. Far beyond what I could ever articulate, but if I had to try, they are wounds carved to the bone, or with one, where my heart was quite utterly eviscerated.

There’s a deeper conversation there, with an anchor changing before my eyes. And, yes, it’s ultimately this which the essay will discuss in great detail. Through Violet.

Yet, before that, emotional anchorage is one of the few things that borderline has the chance to gift a person, because it’s not all bad. If you’re like me—where everything is null, and blurry, and static—, having a person suddenly there to awaken my body to speak, sharpen the world, and bring chaos inside my head… It’s a lot. It’s demonstrably a devastating thing, but in a very raw and beautiful way.

Demiromanticism, no doubt, is a reflection of how I express BPD. So to realize my demi ass has feelings, whenever it happens, is nice. …it also means I then have to determine whether it’s that, or a crush. And there is a difference between genuine feelings and a crush, and yeah, I prefer one over the other.

But. (And this can be platonic or romantic.) Having someone be that anchor grounds me, and while the relationship will have turbulence—because the boat I sail is on a river I can’t build canals for—, there brings such a confusing clarity to the world. I have a purpose where I didn’t think I did before.

It’s a high. A borderline addiction.

To not a thing, not a habit, but a person.

When it’s healthy, it’s everything, and I can brave all storms. When it’s not, it’s obsession and mania, it’s my boat trapped in a whirlpool with the anchor at the center of it all; I may break away, violently, or I will sink, and it will be the death of me.

…and when there’s no anchor there at all, I and my boat are to the whim of the river—because there are no canals, I have to rely on my boat to guide me and find an anchor. This can be where people turn to destructive behaviors. Substance abuse. Eating disorders. Everything alike.

Why though?

Why is it this way? Why do people like me sink their teeth and set anchorage like this?

This is where identity creeps its way back.

Because though anybody can develop emotional attachments, to the point of anchorage, BPD again does this to an absolute extreme. My personal anecdote may speak to it without debate. Understanding how identity gets itself involved further speaks to that extreme. BPD isn’t necessarily about the traits themselves, right? So rather, it’s how they manifest, and fester, and the mechanisms behind it all.

With identity, it hinges on what you find comfortable, and what you don’t. It’s guided by your feelings on things, and your comprehensive response thereafter. Passions turn into aspirations. Self-perception feeds into expression. And on and on.

So, if someone does not have a stable sense of self, there is a disturbance in identity. There’s no coherence to the person. Few consistencies, if any at all.

The identity is as stable as your regulation of emotions allow, and if it’s dysregulated, so will your identity.

A broken sense of self fractures a person. So we scour for stability. We do so in people. But with that broken sense, it’s easier to just swap out characteristics and emulate the environment, should there be a promise of stability. When this happens, it can be recognized as masking—because, debatably, it is—, but it can also go so far that people confuse this borderline trait with something like DID.

To those none the wiser, yeah, it might as well be DID. Because, like…, they just change so quickly. And if it’s a matter of mirroring different people, it can also imply that the BPD encourages the person to alter their personality depending on who they’re with at the time. Which. Yes. Has the capacity to resemble switching between split personalities from an observer’s perspective.

However. I have outlined (in quite the broad stroke) what DID is: a split in identities, in order to protect and shield the individual from further trauma. It’s dissociative in nature, where the distinct, established personalities will operate the individual at different times—given the nuances which come with DID.

BPD does come with dissociation as well—my personal experience with how I live day to day is indicative of, for simplicity, derealization and depersonalization. However, it’s not a split. What’s happening is this one identity does not have a stable, set personality. With the incapability to regulate emotions, it indicates a level of alexithymia. So how are we supposed to understand what we want, and don’t want, in everything from interests to moral standing? Things that a personality is grown from?

This copycat behavior is in itself a mechanism that BPD deploys. It’s kinda masking, not to purely to hide from and integrate into social norms, but also to find a sense of self through a very, very desperate act of scavenging.

In BPD, the best candidates to copy are the people who make us feel good—get a high from—, and that we want to be around, and whom we fixate upon—to a manic point: 

Those emotional anchors.

As we go back to Violet, keep this in mind. Again, no, there’s no feasible way to remark for certain what her relationship with identity is like, so the implications that emotional anchoring has on identity can’t really be applied. But the intensity—the level of fixation—can.

Because Violet struggles in her bonds with other people. There’s an idealization present to those bonds, and a devaluation. Both this good and bad, the highs and lows, are via anchorages.

So we’ll start with Minnie.

[Emotional Anchorage: An Obsessive Good Memory]

“Sophie was a good friend. And Minnie… Uh… We were close, me and her.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Dorm]

When we meet Violet, amongst her introductions, Clementine learns about the twins from the two who still tend to their graves—Violet, and Tennessee. Not long after, there’s a card game, and not long after that, Violet finds Clementine and A.J in their dorm.

The one which was home to the twins.

“Huh. I see you’re, um…, settling in.” “Yeah. Is that okay?” “Sure. I guess. I always liked this room. Sophie had, like, paintings and shit on the walls. Lots of color. And Minerva…, she was really musical. [. . .] She had the most amazing voice. Real bluesy. [. . .] That was a long time ago. After they… Afterwards, Brody and Tenn took down all the paintings. And that was the end of it. I shouldn’t have even brought it up. It’s not a good memory. Guess I just lost my train of thought.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Dorm]

The way she speaks of Minnie, there’s an adoration, and a nostalgia made bitter by the perceived tragedy.

Of course, those twins (…okay, well—) aren’t dead, they were traded. So even though Violet has yet to see Minnie, she is now a presence to her mind that isn’t nearly as bitter. She focuses on getting the school prepared for a fight, alongside Clementine, but through it all, yeah, Minnie is still there.

And when looking at the stars with Clementine, if Clementine remains quiet for the fish constellation, Violet comments,

“Bright, pretty, good with other people. Always moving, tons of energy. Sounds like anyone we know? The energy one is easy. Good with people, not so much. [. . .] Y’know, it… Well, maybe this is weird to bring up, but it reminds me of Minnie.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Belltower]

Minnie is a big part of her, despite their time and distance from each other. They grew up together. They got closer.

Another thing:

Violet never says girlfriend.

The only time where it’s “proclaimed” by the season that Minnie and Violet were girlfriends is through Clementine, where whenever A.J sees the carving in the fishing cabin’s wall, she can say,

“It means they were a couple. [. . .] Violet was Minnie’s girlfriend.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

Is it fair to assume that? Yeah. That’s…what carving a heart or potato with initials is supposed to symbolize.

But like.

Let’s be for real. What the ✨fuck✨ does Clementine know? Sure, she’s somehow not concussed after hauling ass in the sky, with a car. But she doesn’t know these people. Point blank.

We don’t know when this heart was carved. Just that it’s V + M (suggesting Violet did it, given the order), it’s out of the way from the school and in the fishing cabin, and it’s just shy from a bed (and alcohol).

Again, Violet herself never says girlfriend.

The heart could’ve been carved with Minnie there with her. Or, Violet was deep in mourning, and decided to brand the cabin—likely because it holds a significant memory.

…and Imma be honest, the cabin has a bed, and it is covered in bottles. Everywhere on the table. Some scattered around. So I will give the benefit of the doubt. Considering the…subtext around the fishing cabin, doing some quick math with my gamer instincts, yeah, if you leave youth (troubled or otherwise) alone, you might get Lord of the Flies, or…exploration. I guess.

It is clear that there was something. There is validity to “[w]e were close, me and her.”

The question then becomes why the ambiguity? Had TFS been made in a different time, and James didn’t have a boyfriend, and Violet and Clementine couldn’t be a couple, yes, it would’ve been Telltale beating around the bush.

Except even in this moment, Clementine outright says girlfriend in reference to a sapphic dynamic.

Because TFS was not made in a different time, James did have a boyfriend, and Violet and Clementine can kiss and hold hands.

The ambiguity indicates something else. That ambiguity is heightened the more Violet talks about Minnie pre-Broken Toys (saved Violet route). Because she speaks so fondly of her, with almost this conviction.

Yet…she still does not say girlfriend.

This is textbook. Given the essay, and what I’ve already exhausted over, it shouldn’t come as a surprise, but it is quite plain:

What Clementine stumbles upon isn’t a mourning over a lover; it’s instead, at its core, a lasting idealization.

With BPD, idealization is as follows:

“[A] way of coping with anxiety in which an object or person of ambivalence is viewed as perfect, or as having exaggerated positive qualities.” [Verywell Mind | Idealization and Devaluation in BPD]

This tracks.

Violet speaks so fondly of Minerva, with almost this conviction, yet she does not say girlfriend. Ever. Because the conviction is the intimacy, but Violet is a pragmatic individual. Though there’s idealization present, referring to Minnie as her girlfriend (for whatever reason) is too far for even her mental state.

Like she mourned Minnie for a year. She gushed about her to Clementine every chance she got. So…why not say it?

With this all established, TFS then allows us to witness how idealization in borderline often corrodes into devaluation—the inverse of idealization, its absolute antithesis.

“Used when a person characterizes themselves, an object, or another person as completely flawed, worthless, or as having exaggerated negative qualities [. . .] because there is often no middle ground for a person with BPD. Feeling challenged, threatened, or disappointed can quickly cause them to devalue the people they formally idealized. Rather than cope with the stress of ambivalence, devaluing functions to minimize the anxiety caused by ambiguity.” [Verywell Mind | Idealization and Devaluation in BPD]

This corrosion has a name. It is splitting.

Like with the previous definitions, I will allow my resource to explain this concept, because of everything this essay has to offer, it is this that the everything hinges on.

“Splitting involves an inability to hold two opposing thoughts, beliefs, or feelings. People who have BPD tend to view others in all-or-nothing [. . .] terms. “This self-protective defense mechanism aims to help people with BPD protect themselves from getting hurt in relationships. By labeling people as ‘good,’ they are able to engage in relationships despite the emotional risks. If they feel threatened, they can then quickly discard the individual or the relationship by labeling them as ‘bad.’ “Like most defense mechanisms, someone with BPD may not be aware that they are engaging devaluation and idealization. Splitting is a subconscious way to protect themselves from perceived stress[, and] reflects the challenges associated with maintain an integrated view of the good and bad in a person under stress. Some researchers suggest that some of the difficulty is rooted in the way the brain, particularly the amygdala and prefrontal lobe, activates in these experiences for people with BPD.” [Verywell Mind | Idealization and Devaluation in BPD]

…again, this essay has to break away from Violet and TFS to provide an insight, a discussion, of what this means for BPD.

I will start by clarifying that splitting from one end to the other is a bitch to deal with. The catch is not every person with BPD is incapable of reading the world beyond black-and-white. I’m one who can, …when I’m not in the midst of an episode. Day to day, I’m apathetic/indifferent—take your pick—, and because of that, I don’t give enough of a shit to really fixate on what is “good” and what is “bad” to me. I take everything as they go.

Because I really, really do not give a flying fuck.

The moment there is any seed of emotional attachment, or anchorage, it changes things. For me, it’s generally that I really adore this person, but they did something that hurt, and it confused me, so I shut down and close myself off. Namely so that I can have the time and space to breathe and process. Because I feel a lot for these people. I’ve gone over how intense that feeling is. And the last thing I want to do is hurt them.

So the moment I get confused, it boils into frustration, but frustration means ire with me. And that’s terrifying, because I don’t know what I can and will do if I’m backed into a corner. Because I know my brain shuts itself off.

The other thing to this as well is…it’s not always such a violent shift between idealization and devaluation. It really depends on how confused I am, the person, and then the time and distance laid between me and them. If there’s minimal distance between me and them, and minimal time between then and now, then yes, it will be explosive. If, say, a year has passed, and I have not seen this person within that time, then the splitting will look very different—largely because I don’t perceive it as an immediate danger, so my brain never shuts off, and I can process in the moment with reason. There’s still significant emotions there, of course, and given it’s still splitting, I do have that shift between the extremes. Difference is,I am able to regulate myself better.

Take note of this nuance, because it is absolutely present in Violet.

And we resume her relationship with Minnie, where we witness the corrosion from idealization, inching towards its antithesis. The process is best explored if Violet is saved, where it doesn’t taken an age, nor a day. It takes mere morning hours.

When spying upon the boat to get their bearings, and formulate a plan, they find Minnie chopping wood. Or, Clementine does, pulls a knife on her, before Violet intervenes. They embrace. Clementine has opinions off to the side. 

Then.

They talk. And Minnie… Um. Well. If Delta was inspired by the New Frontier, Minnie would’ve had a fat branding right on her forehead.

Immediately, it becomes evident that Minerva has no interest in going back to the school. Her loyalty lies with the Delta. And given the prompt, she will have this to say:

[Violet’s in charge.] “Really? The Violet I knew could barely stand to talk to people, let alone play class president. You’re the one who convinced the school to fight back. From where I’m standing, that puts you in charge. Your ‘leadership’ is going to get my little brother killed.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Forest]

Huh.

Not only does what she say about Violet directly contradict what Clementine sees from her, Minnie is also blatant in steamrolling right through the testament, and tells Clementine that no, you’re the leader, and you’re bad at it because you are a threat to my brother.

It’s a little jarring. Because, one, ouch. That’s mean. Mitch died because he ran into a knife, and it was not Clementine’s.

But two, what?! Violet, whose first line to Clementine is snark about her driving, could barely stand to talk to people? Violet. Who stood up to Marlon, cleaver at hand? The one who Louis says (given the other route) will do just that to any threat?

Our Violet, who Clementine gets to know. The one who immediately took the role after Marlon because nobody else did? Despite the fact that, yes, she realizes there’s no promise that the schoolkids will actually listen?

Violet…is openly sardonic, is she not? Does she not confront people with a weapon?

It’s a little jarring, then it’s…dissonant the more you pick it apart. Because what is Minnie talking about? 

I will say, for sure, Violet changed within that year apart. But not to the degree that Minnie implies to us. We have Louis’ words for Violet, and then Violet herself—constantly brings up protecting the twins. And she’s shown she will. Violet will shoot Lilly if told. And Violet, after Marlon’s death, brandishes her cleaver to shield Clementine and A.J from the other schoolkids.

Maybe part of the change was that she vowed to herself that she’d do better after losing the twins. Wouldn’t be surprised.

…but Minnie didn’t like killing walkers, though. Which implies that, yes, Violet probably filled a protector role for her, in regards to the dead.

It’s baffling. I can go on and on and on.

Just as Violet did, between seeing Minnie after so long, and finding Clementine in her dorm.

“The thing is, seeing Minnie… I feel like it should’ve scared me. But it didn’t. The person we ran into in the woods, that wasn’t Minnie. Not really. The way she sounded, and acted… The way she talked about Sophie, and Lilly… I’m…confused, I guess.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

She voices the same sentiment.

But upon various dialogue prompts, the corrosion inches its way to Violet:

[She’s one of them now.] “It sucks, but…I don’t know what else I expected.” [It’s not Minnie’s fault.] “I never said it was. But it doesn’t change anything.” [We can save Minnie.] “You saw how she reacted when Lilly showed up. Those are her people now. And we are not.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

I do think it’s interesting that, even if Clementine says to Violet that Minnie could be saved, she says otherwise. Because Violet is pragmatic. Minerva coming back from the Delta is just not realistic.

So through time and distance, and the wake-up call in the woods, Violet expresses an acceptance of this. The fact that Minnie won’t come back. It’s not quite splitting, because…this isn’t a true devaluation here; it’s the idealization ebbing away.

“Minnie…, the real Minnie…, she’s gone. She’s been gone this whole time, and I…have to stop mourning her. I won’t let her take you or A.J. Or anyone else I care about.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

And she admits it to Clementine aloud. Promises her that she, and A.J, along with everyone else, will be protected from the Delta—from Minnie, if need be.

Not only that, if Violet is romanced, she makes a request:

“There’s something I’ve always wanted to try with someone I cared about. And I never have. [. . .] Have you ever danced with anyone before?” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

I’ve always taken this line to signal how nervous, and how new Violet is to this kind of relationship. Because it is new to her. This is the first time where her feelings were reciprocated. She always wanted to try dancing with someone, but for whatever reason, never had with Minnie. And she’s nervous because…she wants it to be reciprocated, and Violet here is gaging a reaction, testing the waters.

In writing this essay, another thought occurred:

This is Violet moving on.

She’s nervous because there is a lot of weight to this request. She’s gaging what Clementine says, because Violet is invested now. All-in. 100%.

It’s not about Minerva—doesn’t even outright say that she never had a dance with Minnie.

Because by this point, through this dance, Violet’s realized just how unreciprocated her feelings were, because now, she has the chance to dance with someone who does reciprocate. And not just in the dance. Clementine’s loyalty extends further than that.

Another detail that I noticed is perpetuated throughout every interaction with Minnie is who she always prioritizes, and how it contrasts Clementine. With Clementine, of course A.J is first priority, and Violet understands that. And she goes out of her way to help with him. Conversely, Clementine helps with Tenn, and the school, and the other Ericson kids. All of which are who Violet also prioritizes.

Meanwhile, the same can’t be said for the other side of that contrast. Because it’s always what about Sophie and Minnie? from Violet, and never what about Tenn and Violet? from Minerva. It’s only ever Tennessee for her.

With the initial encounter, yes. She wouldn’t be asking about Violet because… Violet’s right there. She’s talking to her. However, we overhear Minnie talking to Dorian, asking to have Tenn join her. Not Violet. Then, further into the night, where suddenly she’s singing her own boss music and a red bar just takes up the whole screen, Minnie goes out of her way to claim Tenn.

And then, for good measure, axe Clementine.

But not because of Violet. Clementine gets axed regardless of who she saves, because Minnie…is far, far more pissed that Clementine put Tennessee in danger than anyone else. Including Violet.

The Delta changed Minerva. Yes.

Yet, Lilly never was able to remove her loyalty to her people. Her people being Tenn.

It’s telling, how (in)significant Violet was to her because all I read is…, it is nowhere close to the significance Minnie had on Violet. Because Minnie had other priorities.

She just happened to be Violet’s primary emotional anchor. And with that comes everything Violet could feasibly offer a person.

Here’s the thing to understand with this essay, and what I’m getting at with Minnie and Violet’s past relationship:

Violet anchoring Minnie is not Minnie’s fault. It’s not Violet’s either; a kid isn’t going to understand why they’re feeling a certain type of way, but when it feels nice, they will follow. Especially when the adults responsible for troubled youth are just…gone.

But what this does bring to light is a nesting place for borderline’s stigma.

Emotional anchors, splitting between idealization and devaluation—these concepts are the source for much of the fear against people with BPD. When gathering articles to reference at the end, some articles I pull from r/BPD on Reddit because having resources that are from people with experience asking and answering questions is incredibly valuable. Many discussions in r/BPD related to this (exchange primary emotional anchor with FP) are frustrating. For myself to read, because several are people not with BPD venting, but, I imagine it was frustrating to type out because…they’re venting for a reason.

Depending on the discussion, however, what is said is ignorant to all of what I know of my disorder. I know where it comes from. I know that the emotions behind all of what I do with anchorage are genuine. But then there’s people who vent, or there’s others who prompt a question because they are nervous that their friend (with BPD) is not genuine.

Of course, I can’t promise how other people with BPD are like. BPD is dependent on the personality, and if you have a shit personality. Um. Yeah. You’re not a fun person to be around. Sorry?

Not really, but, you know.

Stigma aside, it is true. I understand the insecurities, and the need to vent. Being someone’s anchor because of borderline is a lot of fucking pressure, and truth be told, it’s like that because…what if you just can’t reciprocate the intensity? After that honeymoon phase, people without the underlying disorder tend to get exhausted emotionally, meanwhile…, there is no cease from the other.

So people tend to draw away. They either do so quietly, in attempt to not hurt feelings, or, they’ll be direct and antagonize because of they stress they’re under. Either way, if the condition has gone untreated, the confusion this brings will then ignite the individual’s borderline. This is where you get insecurities born within the relationship, which the person can then go further and self-sabotage because there is no regulating themselves. You get constant bombardment whenever they feel neglected. They’re overbearing. You feel that their claws are dug deep, and it’s far deeper than you could’ve ever imagined.

Because there’s an anchorage.

If this is what happened, and Minnie entertained Violet, but never reciprocated the magnitude of devotion Violet brings with her… I can’t blame the girl. And given that Minnie was a troubled youth just as much as Violet was, she had her fair share of issues.

Because frankly, I don’t care if she was brainwashed or what, Minnie still killed her twin sister. You know, the one that has been in the same situations, the same environments, throughout Minnie’s life, yet when she saw the Delta, Sophie did not fold. Sophie actively fought against the Delta, whereas Minnie…complied.

Even before they were caught on the raft that Sophie planned to steal.

“One of the girls saw that this was a place worth fighting for, and her tears dried. But the other twin, she could never forget her old home. She rejected every gift, every opportunity. Stirred up trouble every chance she got. She convinced her sister to help her steal a raft and leave on the river. Of course, they didn't get far. What happened then, Minerva?” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

This Parable of Twins is, of course, by Lilly’s word, and yes, she did brainwash Minnie. So naturally, there will be an element here where the details are lost. I buy that Minnie did accept her place in the Delta where Sophie never did, but I don’t really believe that it was just because she saw it was a place worth fighting for.

The reality of Minerva is she’s a very conflicted person, and she’s passive by nature. She’s a good head taller than Violet, yet, when Violet talks about her (and Sophie), it’s always about protecting her. Because Minnie didn’t like killing walkers.

I also wonder if the reason why she’s so passive is because Sophie…might’ve been the one that got her and Tenn into trouble right with her, if she was more combative. As for the confliction, Minerva may have been caught in between—because there’s a combative twin, and then there’s a younger brother to protect, one who’s passive to a fault.

It’s this confliction and passiveness that has Minnie primed for manipulation. She will seek stability through, well, passive means. With the Delta, do as they say.

…and with Violet, it’s let the girl have her infatuation, maybe entertain it, but don’t cross too far into romantic territory because the girl’s a little too intense.

(Of course, Minnie is also the one who was practically dead herself while leading a herd by voice alone, to kill her brother and maybe do a little slashing. So like, she is just as intense, just…in less of a loyal kind of way, and more in fucking unhinged way. Because she also might’ve been the one to instill Tenn’s beliefs.)

Once it’s revealed what happened to Sophie, Violet snaps. She yells at Minerva.

But even still, there’s a slip of that anchorage:

“Who are you?! Fuck survival! Look at what you’re doing! Minnie, please, I just want to talk to you for a second! I’m sorry we never searched for you, for Sophie… I’m sorry we trusted that fucker, Marlon. If I ever thought there was a chance—” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

Following this, time ticks away with a bomb in a boiler, so Clementine lunges for an escape—to get A.J back to her side. And Minnie tries to stop her.

With a knife near-identical to Jane’s in S2. And it manages to gouge a near-identical scar in Clementine’s sternum. A stark parallel to S2’s ending. Except, Violet doesn’t hesitate. The moment she is out of the cell, she disappears into the backdrop, then an arrow finds its place in Minerva’s shoulder not long thereafter.

She does stay at her side, for when the schoolkids leave. Perhaps for closure, if the previous dialogue gives any indication.

Because even though Violet shot Minnie, moved on from her with a dance, and realized that she wasn’t going to return, that anchor is still there. Minnie was, after all, still a significant part of her, and that…doesn’t really ever just go away. The idealization may have drained, but the feelings themselves do remain.

We then look to another Violet, who was taken rather than saved.

“At least here I have Minnie… [. . .] Don’t act like you know her. She tried to escape. Her and Sophie. They said if I fight back, they’d kill Minnie. Or one of you. All you’ve done is get us hurt or killed. If you fuck this up worse, I’ll stop you myself. And don’t think I won’t. I’m not losing her again, or anyone else.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

And another aspect of BPD, and anchorage, becomes clear:

Borderline primes people for manipulation, much in the same way that a passive and conflicted nature primed Minnie.

There’s a flipside to emotional anchoring in BPD, and it has everything to do with how the disorder forces people to become reliant on their anchors. People who cannot discern nor regulate their own emotions, and people with a bleak, instable sense of identity.

Which is a problem because there are people who’re able to take a person’s emotions, and weaponize them as a puppeteer. They manipulate through any means necessary.

Most, in an effort to avoid being manipulated themselves, try to hide their emotions and keep them out of reach. They suppress them, because suppressing your emotions is how you get the most control, and nobody else.

Right?

Coming from experience, do not do this. Suppressing your emotions is the last thing you want to do.

Especially if you want to avoid getting yourself manipulated.

I felt that I had to suppress not just as a child, but before that, because I was in a fucked situation. And it did this to me.I have no control. Life is a writhing storm at sea, and I just fucking hope I can find an anchor within the storm’s eye—but I know there’ll never be a calm to this storm.

And the wrong people know this. The ones who prey and manipulate to abuse the loyalty I am so desperate to offer, and can pull it from me with ease, should idealization blind me from the warning signs.

When Violet is saved, she sees through Minnie quickly. Because it’s in how Minnie talks. And it’s weird, because Violet also includes how she talked about Sophie, when the most Minnie said was “she died protecting the Delta. A hero” once prompted by Violet’s concern. That shouldn’t have raised alarm, yet…something about it did. To Violet.

So she’s able to let go. Violet still holds the memory of Minnie quite dear to her heart—the one in her head—, but after this, it was more about closure, not bringing her back. And all it took was that one interaction.

But here, back to a Violet taken away, it takes longer. She’s not told what actually happened to Sophie; instead, both Minerva and Lilly feed into a broken trust with Clementine, and condemns Violet back to the girl who sat with Grandma’s body rocking behind her.

Her loyalty blinds her to what Minnie has devolved into, so she goes and tries to stop the bomb, save the boat, and secure a future with her because Minnie is all she knows and trusts.

Yet.

It’s broken when Violet does. Because Violet has her face marred by the bomb. She’s left to defend herself—blindly—as she clambers out of the water with a walker snagged at the leg. She asks for Minnie at first, is led by Louis, and then…it becomes clear what happened when they hear gunshots, clearing away the walkers.

Minnie. Is left. Unscathed.

Well, okay. She does, like, panic and stuff, and then gets bit. So, that explosion had been her death sentence.

But Minnie is not burned. Not like Violet.

Which…implies something. However it happened, Violet was the one closest to the bomb, and Violet was further down the beach, towards the boat, whereas when Clementine, A.J and Louis reach her, Minnie is away, towards the woodland. Getting her ass bit. A bunch.

She either got off the boat at a different (earlier) time, or, she just…abandoned Violet. To defend the last of the boat and her crew. And, probably, to look for Tenn.

Leaving Violet to realize something, and as she struggles to see the world, she begins to try and apologize. To Clementine. Who didn’t lie to her about the fucking bomb on the boat, and given that, it also kinda explains why Clementine didn’t take her sweet time consoling Violet from her episode because. Um. The bomb. 

Whatever it was that happened, it’s enough to rattle Violet to reason. And to snap her out of it.

Within one interaction. (…explosion.)

It’s…the little things like this—the ones that go unsaid—, which indicate Minnie’s sense of priorities, and how even when Violet actively worked to help save the boat, those priorities never were Violet. Before this, she manipulated and lied to her, and (via the alternative path) she never…danced with Violet, despite Minnie being the musical twin. Instead, Violet never danced, but she does sing now. 

Which again has me wonder, was it Minnie entertaining Violet, and/or, if the subtext found in the fishing cabin does indicate this, was it never romantic like how Violet wanted? Just physical?

I’m kinda losing my mind over here?!

There was always an imbalance. Violet always prioritized Minnie, and her sister, and her brother. She prioritized the latter two because of Minnie, and then prioritized Tenn after the sisters were traded off. Prioritized Minnie’s interests—singing, and took it on herself—, and left her own—like the dancing—to…wane in self-doubt. 

And then…, we have Minnie who killed her twin, and then went after Tenn to also kill him. The killing part is, well, the brainwashing and trauma, and stuff, but point being… Violet is still not in the equation. She’s an afterthought to Minnie.

This isn’t to say that Violet and Minnie’s relationship was downright toxic, or abusive, or anything along those lines. All we have is Violet’s word. But given Violet clearly glorified Minnie to herself, her word is unreliable.

What this is all to say is…, it was no mistake on Telltale’s part to have Violet physically blind, or then speak about how she had been blinded figuratively—before reality set in. Down one route, this was done by having the wool pulled from her eyes; down the other, it was the blinding in itself that brought her clarity.

It’s what I mean when I say that Violet’s unbridled loyalty is also her bane. She establishes strong and intense emotional anchors, to the point where should that anchor be lost, she will refuse to let go. And not because she wants to trap herself to that anchor, but because that’s…how BPD is. Attachments like this are really hard to shake off. But also, Violet didn’t know who else to turn to. 

There’s Tenn, sure, but she’s his protector, not the other way around. There’s some of the others—Mitch, Willy, Ruby, Aasim—who we don’t get enough time to really see how Violet is with them. Marlon she tolerates, but there’s a clear strain between them.

Louis— God, there’s Louis, and he’s the one that she is vehement about getting back—indicating that he is yet another anchor for her. Thing is, he was also Marlon’s best friend, and they are…opposites. A lot of conflict comes from that.

…this essay really doesn’t have much to say with Louis and Violet. In part because, frankly, I didn’t really know where I could put him with the points I strive to make. There is absolutely space for him, yet, another thing:

Their words for each other, when the other is taken, are enough. Louis and Violet say everything themselves.

I did give commentary to the dialogue quotes, but it was sparse for this precise reason. I don’t need to get into how quietly powerful their friendship is. Louis is the one who introduces Violet by name. He’s the one that promises Clementine that it’s just her way, because he knows her. If blinded, he’s also the one that she relies on to guide her. And despite Marlon, and perhaps despite even Clementine given the different routes, there is never a malice between them.

Which I adore TFS for doing, because it would’ve been easy to have them be rivals and fight over each other. Especially for Clementine.

But that’s also juvenile, and while those storylines have their place, it is not here.

Never has. Never will.

So there’s Louis. He’s an anchor. Yet, because he is the one grounded anchor Violet has of the schoolkids, not fazed by idealization nor devaluation… That is their dichotomy. It is unique of all other relationships Violet has before Clementine—after Clementine as well, should he be the one saved.

We have Brody. Who does represent a point of devaluation for Violet. The lowest to a volatile relationship.

[Emotional Anchorage: Walking Triggers]

Truth be told, in this most recent endeavor to write Violet’s deconstruction, Brody was who reignited the compulsion. Because there is a deep-seated complexity to what happened between her and Violet, and why it happened. …only for me to find yet another post somewhere that was made by a glanced judgement.

Its criticism wasn’t in any way toxic, which was nice because this fandom…has a mean streak. But it did harken back to borderline’s stigma regardless.

Devaluation is a very ugly mark on someone with BPD. Worse than idealization, in the eyes of many. It in itself is toxic,and this coping mechanism is one of the reasons why BPD a disorder with the stigma it portrays. There’s a dysfunction in the order within our behavior.

That dysfunction, and the subsequent behavior, provokes a defensive ignorance.

Violet is wrong to do this. This is an antagonistic trait of hers, and Brody gets the brunt of it. She had to live with this for a year.

However, making blanket assumptions is reductive, especially in a discussion where it’s about understanding the how and why. There’s a reason why Violet devalues Brody. The path to how it happened in the first place is actually quite apparent. If you know how to read the signs, you can see this happen a mile away. So through understanding the how and why, it’s easier to 1) avoid it entirely, and 2) navigate devaluation if/when it does transpire.

Both Brody and Violet together make one mistake, and the fix is straightforward. Not easy, but straightforward.

Before that, though, we first shall establish a few things.

For one, Violet is…a lot. Don’t let her apathetic demeanor fool you. Just look to the previous section—that alone is enough to prove otherwise.

Along with the apathy, Violet is sardonic. She’s aloof to people when she doesn’t have strong attachments, but, she likewise shows to be pragmatic and reasonable. Which like, same. I wear belts and layer my jackets with vests too.

…and I also know what this kind of character implies: Violet is a little bully. She absolutely has the capacity to be cruel.This is also confirmed later, where at Ruby’s hootenanny, there’s mention of an Erin with braces that Violet would make fun of. (Probably because braces are hard to take off; they are a little goofy in an apocalypse, but also…really unfortunate the more it puts stress on the mouth and dental structure.) Violet then comments that she didn’t know why she did.

I wear belts and layer my jackets too; upon reflection, I did the same thing as a kid. So I have some insight to this which may explain the why here. Given how Violet speaks of this schoolkid, I’m willing to bet that Erin wasn’t someone who Violet had strong emotions for, one way or the other. She likely was pretty indifferent to Erin.

So, if that is true, Violet being a bully here comes from a place of 1) being apathetic, and not reading social cues like she should’ve, and/or 2) Erin was an outlet, but not a personal one. 

Snide comments, and other slighted behaviors like this, they do not register. 

Nothing clicks up here, behind my eyes. The comments are too brief to. So where this lashing out is coming from, it happens so swiftly that, by the time it leaves the mouth, I don’t know where it came from. There’s not much feeling to it. It was an impulse. So I just continue on my way, and never consider why.

In this way, there’s no malicious intent, it’s just cold. But outwardly, cruel.

A lot of times, to me, it was just play. 

This is how a play with you. I make fun of you; you make fun of me. If you get hurt by it? Well. That sucks. Anyway—

Which, yes, is toxic, and I’ve realized, and I’m an adult now and I…don’t do that. Kind of. Social cues are a thing now, and I’ve gotten myself more aware of people. But I still do like poking fun, with the full expectation that it’s dished back.

Granted, I don’t know just how much of this applies to Violet. She has her insecurities, and is nervous when bringing herself to the table. And I am definitely not that—it’s not a confidence; I don’t care enough to be confident, I just do my thing.

But. This does establish a pattern with Violet, and with BPD, the disorder reflects the personality. There are common traits to BPD, but the expression of those traits varies depending on the person. For someone like Violet, who is already rather cold, this means any trait of BPD which stems from a cold demeanor will be present, and elevated. To borderline’s extreme.

Or, because Violet already can be cold to people, where devaluation is concerned, her personality makes it ten times worse. It doesn’t end. She makes comments—except, now, because there is significant emotion behind the comments (to Brody), it is to sting. It is cruel.

But…, it’s also complicated.

The bond between Brody and Violet is first made to be antagonistic, and Violet’s the one who perpetuates. Unlike the night before, where she with Clementine had a nice banter going in the dorm (if a tad guarded), Violet on the way to the cabin is hostile. Her words aren’t aggressive, but they’re instead dismissive at best, scathing at worst.

Brody does push back a little, and tries to brush it off, but it’s quite plain on her face that this does get to her.

In the cabin and away from Violet, Brody gives the context. It’s not just the words themselves hurt, it’s the fact that there’s a history there.

“Hey…, about Vi… I’m sorry she’s being a little mean. It’s my fault. [. . .] I was there when those walkers killed Sophie and Minnie. They were really close with Vi, and…I think she blames me for what happened to them. I mean, how do you even apologize for something that fucked up? I don’t know. Maybe I deserve it.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

Violet is hurt. Brody’s guilty.

Then, there’s a second, damning piece of history that explains why Brody, of all the schoolkids, gives the most insight to Violet’s mental health, and why this is happening.

“We all used to be friends. Guess I kinda just missed that.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

In the same way where it was textbook idealization for Minnie, this is textbook devaluation.

It’s made complicated because they were friends—good ones, considering they’ve been stuck in the same place since the outbreak—, but now there’s a negative connotation. That being the twins.

And remember, devaluation is an avoidant mechanism. Ambivalence is confusing, and that agitates a borderline personality.

Brody can then explain more, depending on the prompted dialogue:

[She’s…intense.] “She’s always been a little bit like that. But after the twins died, she really closed up.” [It wasn’t your fault.] “Still, I was the one that had to break the news to her. And ever since I did, she’s become distant.” [You should talk to her.] “Yeah, right. I tried, I have. It just never seems like the right time.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

Once again, Violet is distant where she wasn’t before.

But we also get a further confirmation that Brody is the one with the negative connotation, and it’s because she was the one who had to tell her. …which in itself is an interesting choice of words, but we can assume Marlon pressured her once the conspiracy is revealed.

Then another confirmation, to the fact that opening a conversation has not been feasible.

Turn to Violet, and she first says this:

“God. Sometimes she just gets on my last nerve, you know? [. . .] I mean, it’s— It’s not like I hate her… I just… ‘I wish we could all go on a road trip together.’ God, she’s so…ugh. You know? [. . .] I don’t know what the problem is between us. With Brody…, I don’t know why it’s like this. Why is it so weird? I can never relax around her. It just keeps getting worse.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

All of this is telling. Violet is very animated here, both in how she says it, her shifting tone, and what she’s saying. First it’s a comment. Second it’s admission. Then there’s that sardonic tongue, an ask to gage whether or not Clementine understands, before it all breaks and she goes back to admission.

The last couple lines say something crucial to know when understanding the dynamic here. And if a player is impatient with dialogue, they will miss these.

I can never relax around her. It just keeps getting worse.

So Brody is a walking trigger.

Within the bounds of splitting to devaluation, this happens when an emotional anchor develops a level of ambivalence, but because anchors do not just go, the anchorage is instead insecure, rather than the source of stability once relied upon.

Yes. Brody is another of Violet’s anchors—just not the primary one.

And what it means to be a walking trigger is…devastating. Not just for Brody, but for Violet as well. She doesn’t have the support Brody gives her anymore. Can’t trust it. Because every time Brody walks in the same room, Violet cannot relax. She is agitated.

Don’t take this to mean in a figurative way.

It is literal.

Triggers rise from people an emotional response. In BPD, this often means that the brain will shut its reasoning off, and prioritize this “survival” instinct. Fight-or-flight.

So when Violet says, I can never relax around her, this isn’t a oh I’m nervous, I don’t know what to do. This is I cannot function when she’s in the same room as me. Maybe she’s hypervigilant around Brody. To the point where Violet cannot stand Brody anywhere near her…

So she sabotages. She’s cruel to Brody in the comments she makes. She does not allow Brody to get close, because it is too much. Rather than a calm, reasonable state of mind, Violet feels things. A cold pit in her stomach. A dwelling ache in her chest, or a knot in her throat. Can’t focus on what she’s doing—Brody’s there.

And the easiest way to stop it is to push Brody away.

And, and, initially, blame the girl.

[Because you blame her.] “Well, that’s what I used to think. I just keep thinking that things might have ended differently if I was there. Maybe I could’ve protected Soph. And Minnie…” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

There’s a confliction here. Violet did blame Brody, until she realized it wasn’t that. Instead, she blamed herself.

It’s the following prompt, however, that gives the best clarity to Brody and Violet. The prompt,

[Because she never said sorry.] 

where Violet tells Clementine exactly what the trigger is—because by this point, a year later, she’s figured out how to articulate what it is:

[Violet] “She tell you that?” [Clementine] “More or less. She wants to talk about it, you know.” [Violet] “I just… I feel guilty about the whole thing.” [Clementine] “Why?” [Violet] “I was supposed to be out with the twins that day. I wanted to work in the greenhouse, so I asked Brody to cover for me. But then… I didn’t even get to say goodbye. I… I wanted to talk to Brody, to tell her I didn’t blame her for what happened. But every time I tried, I was reminded of who we lost. It was easier to just not talk about it.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

If BPD isn’t a lonely experience, or a humiliating one, it can be a guilty life to live.

Violet expresses why losing the twins hurt as much as it did: there was never closure, and she blamed herself. Hence why, earlier, I suspected that seeking closure was what kept Violet at Minnie’s side after shooting her.

She was finally saying that goodbye, regardless of how the interaction itself went.

But it’s what she says about Brody.

Violet wants to talk. She has wanted to. But Brody’s a walking trigger. Every. Single. Time that Violet tried to talk, the same turbulence arose. In BPD, without that regulation, it is unbelievably difficult to talk when…your body’s actively flipping the fuck out.

A cold pit in her stomach. A dwelling ache in her chest, or a knot in her throat. Can’t focus on what she’s doing.

Of course she found it easier to just not talk about it. That is an instinct ingrained by borderline.

BPD is a lonely experience every time you lose an anchor this way. The disorder is humiliating because you do not want people to see you like this, when you’re in the midst of an episode, and you have no fucking control over your body, so you yourself are flipping the fuck out.

And it’s guilty. Because when you’re in Violet’s position, where you know the reason why, you know what you want to do, but your body works against you at every turn…

It devastates a person.

Because it is your fault. You did this yourself. Reap what you sow. You’ve done it again, it’s humiliating, and you are very, very alone because you just cannot stop burning bridges.

…in the apocalypse, being chained to a boarding school does not help. There is no way to give the time and space someone like Violet needs to think, and to process, and to let those emotions relax. Brody kicks up those emotions whenever she’s around, and the dust just never settles.

Violet trapped herself in a cycle. By the hour, or by the day, for a year, it would’ve been a ceaseless agony.

One that did scar over. Violet probably got used to it, and found a routine to the snide comments. It wasn’t like Brody was leaving anytime soon.

Until she does, and she suffers a disorientating last few moments.

I’d like to think they made amends and had a full conversation. I don’t know, however. But, at least Violet does take the first step when walking from the cabin, and she entertains Brody’s fantasies about a road trip, and that she would’ve had her sights on the Grand Canyon.

Because the one mistake they made was they never talked. It wasn’t going to be an easy thing, but it is that straightforward. So when they did, or began to, the devaluation began to ebb away.

Then, a tragic irony.

Brody’s guilt was never just I’m not Minnie, so she hates me, and it’s my fault. Rather, Brody’s guilt was warranted, and quite honestly, yeah. She should’ve be guilty, because it’s I watched as my leader gave this girl’s world away, and did nothing, lied to her, to her face, for a year.

Violet didn’t know this at the time. So for her, Brody was a point of devaluation because it’s her mental health actively jeopardizing things, not the truth and circumstance. The deception, in the conversation of that mental health, instead plays itself like salt to a wound, and then a tragic irony once Brody was murdered for it.

Because Brody knew they had to tell people. If the path to mending their relationship was encouraged, then it could be read that it gave her the inch to confront Marlon. If otherwise, Brody wanted to tell everyone because she needed to, despite what turmoil the truth would’ve caused Violet.

By the time Violet does know, and there’s a funeral, she says this about Brody:

“Brody, she was… She was real sweet. She had big dreams. And we all knew they wouldn’t come true, but we didn’t care. And we didn’t care because when she was talking, whatever she said seemed possible. [. . .] I don’t know if she found the place she dreamed about, but I’m gonna miss her.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Courtyard]

There’s forgiveness. With Brody died that devaluation.

Not a moment thereafter, however,

“Marlon was… I can’t. Not for Marlon. After what he did to the twins and Brody, I—”  [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Courtyard]

The cycle continues.

Now with Marlon.

If Violet devalued Brody, she absolutely vilified Marlon. Because not only was it about the twins, there’s also Brody.

So of course she didn’t give him any peace after the fact. Why would she? Marlon had his own complexities, yes, but those complexities hurt. They brought another ambivalence.

As the essay rattles from the schoolkids, we’ll discuss another relationship now. A new, fresh one. Clementine, through who we see all of it—the emotional anchorage, the idealization, and devaluation. The splitting between. How intense Violet can be, and how volatile.

We have Clementine, who is given the chance to witness what Louis means for this wallflower, and that she grows on you (he promises so).

[VIOLENTINE: The Ship, and its Anchorage]

Platonic or romanced—the difference doesn’t matter in this essay. The shift of context between friend and more than that is just that: a shift in context. Distinguishing the two will have its moment, but it is hardly integral to the fact of the matter:

Violet anchored Clementine, and she did it swiftly. (In record time, dare I say.)

In regards to the arguments against romancing Violet, there’s a lot of people who look to Minnie, then back to Violet, and point to Clementine’s “girlfriend” dialogue. “Violet’s not over Minnie,” is a common one, right alongside, “Clementine’s just a rebound.”

Now. I’ve spent 5.5k words tearing those arguments to shreds in one section, and I still have with me another few things to say about Minnie and Violet’s relationship up my sleeve. In light of Clementine and Violet’s relationship.

Because even though I do buy that they were closer than friends arguably would be, they weren’t girlfriends. It’s why Violet was insecure within their relationship, and why that insecurity devolved into a strong case of idealization. Violet genuinely did love Minnie. Her bond with the twin will honestly forever be there, but that bond wasn’t unconditional. The conditions were at the cost of Violet’s mental health.

Then there’s the rebounding, and I will use this as a jumping off point regardless of relational status.

Rebound relationships are defined by a partner still with a previous relationship’s baggage. They’re not done healing. They haven’t quite let go. It gets in the way for committed relationships where the expectation is that both are in it 100%, and that person just…can’t. Because they’re still fixated on the last partner.

…which yes, does sound like Violet. Cuz it kinda, sorta, frankly is.

However. For one thing, this dynamic doesn’t just apply to a Violet route opted for romance. The rebound applies to a platonic dynamic, in part because I don’t frankly believe Minnie was a true girlfriend, and in part because idealization is not specific to partners. Especially in what we see in TFS, Violet needed to let go of Minnie regardless.

Then there’s the fact that being a rebound isn’t always bad. To rebound, which is where the term “rebound relationship” derives from, means for something/someone to bounce back. Or, it can mean a kind of backfire. Both uses of the word can be applied to relationships like this, which, yes, is why they’re fickle, and why people do their best to avoid.

Here’s the thing: Violet needed a new relationship to pull her out of the old one. Because Clementine is a catalyst for Violet, and she was anchored so quickly because whether Violet herself realized, she did want to move on. She couldn’t, but through Clementine, she got the chance.

And I do confidently say that she did want to, because by one interaction in the woods, Violet is disillusioned from Minerva immediately. She’s snapped out of what image she had of her, and is the one that remains realistic where Clementine can offer supporting words—along the lines of we can get her back.

It’s why Brody, through the cabin’s conversation, observes the same.

“We all used to be friends. Guess I kinda just missed that. But when you showed up… I don’t know, I just haven’t seen her warm up to someone in a long time.” [Ep.1 | Done Running | Fishing Cabin]

I find it interesting that Brody picks up on Violet taking to Clementine so quickly, and is able to read enough into this to try and see if it’s enough of a push for Violet to start healing. She’s right, it is enough, and Violet does take a first step in mending their relationship, and breaking away from the devaluation that was arguably heightened by her idealization of Minnie.

…granted, it’s dependent on player choice. There are Violets running around out there having fished with Clementine, but never did reconcile with Brody.

In any case, I am going to argue against Minnie being Violet’s ex because 1) who the fuck cares, I’m not concerned over purity over here, and 2) it’s likely they weren’t exes at all.

However, I won’t fight against this being a rebound. It is. But, Violet’s arc is about learning how to let the fuck go, she has a problem with letting go, so of course the relationship would be a rebound by proxy. A healthy rebound, at that.

By the time she is forced to let go of Clementine, after two newcomers are voted out, her attachment is made quite plain the moment Clementine is in danger within— What, five minutes, and Clementine is at gunpoint?

Regardless, Violet is there, bow at hand, with Louis behind her. She is ready to shoot, and it is no bluff. Violet will if prompted. Or, she will run should Clementine prioritize getting the two out of it.

Because Clementine’s already anchored. Violet trusts her to make the call, and she will follow without hesitation. Later on, after a weary night with A.J shot, then a morning of crawling back for medicine, Violet calls for Clementine to talk in the office. And in there, the anchorage is confirmed further:

“What happened out in the woods… I saw they had you pinned, and I… Shit, I got so crazy. “I know you think I didn’t do enough for you and A.J, but when I saw you were in danger, I had to do something.” / “When I heard you call for help, I didn’t even think.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Office]

The second line is dependent on whether or not Clementine blamed Violet before, as her and Louis walked the exiled to…exile. And stuff.

But, her account as to why she ran right for Clementine, and pulled an arrow on Lilly says everything I got so crazy, I didn’t even think, I had to do something. Clementine roused a trigger.

This time, in a very good way. Well, as good as the circumstances. In any case, this does count as a trigger because it’s inciting an emotional response, and given Violet’s wording, a fight-or-flight. (I realize triggers are specific for negatives; for the sake of brevity, I don’t care. I still say it counts.) It’s the reason why, before, when I detailed how I personally get with my anchors, I do similar things. No, not literally pull an arrow on someone, but I act on impulse without care, because I just want to satisfy their needs to the absolute fullest. It’s genuine, but it’s also triggering—under a positive connotation.

After this, of course, we push into Violet leading the school as they prep for an attack, with Clementine right alongside her. Whatever happens during this time is unknown, just that the school built-up the walls, laid their defenses, and focused on instruments to help, such as traps and explosives. Shortly after the time-skip, of course, we get the belltower sequence.

Starting with an inquiry:

“I know you came back for medicine, for A.J, but after that, you could’ve just left. Avoided all the bullshit with the raiders. Why didn’t you? Sorry, I know that puts you on the spot. You don’t have to answer. We’ve all got our reasons.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Belltower]

Violet asks something that has likely been on her mind for a while, but then… Not backtracks, but she does relinquish the pressure for that answer.

As their time at the belltower continues, it’s clear where the question came from.

“Sorry, I didn’t mean to just…talk so much. It’s just, I’ve watched people leave before. Family, friends. They never come back. But you did. And now I can’t imagine what it would be like if you weren’t here. Um. Shit, that sounds so much dumber when I say it out loud. You know what I mean.” [Ep.2 | Suffer the Children | Belltower]

Violet’s hesitancy to speak her mind, be vulnerable, is interesting, particularly because it’s about doing so too much. It’s a very specific one, with ambiguous implications. This could be an anxiety she put on herself, or, this was something that she took after a mention that she was talking too much, getting too personal, one way or another. Then there’s also another thing, where it sounds dumber than she intended. As though when speaking her mind, Violet has an idea of what to say, but she doesn’t know quite how to articulate it.

This is a really good line of dialogue, so that latter insecurity is just that: an insecurity.

Nevertheless, this speaks volumes because it’s the first verbal admittance to an issue with abandonment. All the adults left her life, and never returned. Those include her parents, who never tried to get back to the school. Her grandfather died, so not his fault, but her grandmother shot herself right behind Violet. Which is abandonment, and really fucked to do. The teachers of Ericson’s…

Then fellow students. Most probably died, including Brody. And the twins were taken away.

Abandonment is a huge thing.

So we turn to the route where Violet is taken. And it’s not good. Violet reacts as predictably as this essay has outlined.

[Clementine] “Vi? What happened? Are you okay? Violet, talk to me… We’re here to take you home.” [Violet] “I looked for you. When they grabbed me, I saw…you let them take me. I’m just supposed to forget that because you’re here now?” [Violet, if platonic] “Some fucking friend you are.” [Violet, if romanced] “Some fucking feelings you had for me.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

Here we have now a fresh faultline within her and Clementine’s relationship. It brings ambivalence. Upon seeing Clementine, she’s plunged into an episode.

And Violet splits. Her image of Clementine is distorted, so she falls back to the same pattern she did with Brody, and she is hostile.

[Clementine] “What’s wrong with you, Vi? Come on, let’s get the hell out of here.” [Violet] “No, Clem. I’m done. This whole situation is so fucked! At least here I have Minnie…” [Clementine] “You mean the Minnie that betrayed us?” [Violet] “Don’t act like you know her. She tried to escape. Her and Sophie. They said if I fight back, they’d kill Minnie. Or one of you. All you’ve done is get us hurt or killed. If you fuck this up worse, I’ll stop you myself. And don’t think I won’t. I’m not losing her again, or anyone else.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

We also have Violet manipulated on top of that, led instead by Lilly and Minnie’s word, not Clementine. Because BPD primes people to manipulation, especially in times when they’re at their most vulnerable. But, throughout these interactions, we do see Clementine attempt to console her, and talk.

Violet, however, is not open to. She is not in the right state of mind. This is a BPD episode, so Clementine is not able to get through to her here. Violet does not trust her—too much ambivalence. Mitch’s death is fresh on her mind, she’s been lied to by Minnie about what happened to Sophie, and with that lie, she was told that more people would die if they did not listen.

And of course, the more time is spent, Clementine starts to get frantic as everything escalates because there’s a fucking bomb ticking away in the deck down below. So there comes about an urgency, and she can’t spend that valuable time consoling Violet.

So she starts chipping away at the door. 

“What the fuck are you doing?! You’re gonna get us all killed!” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

And Violet does precisely what she said she would do, and she attempts to stop Clementine herself. Because there’s Minnie again, but she also doesn’t want anyone else to die either.

Lucky for Clementine, she is stronger, and she is able to overpower Violet within a minute. However, in trying to get the cells unlatched, then to find her way to A.J, she herself is overpowered by Minerva. The urgency and stress associated backs Clementine to a corner. She still doesn’t want to see Violet hurt, so, she explains,

[Clementine] “We planted a bomb on the boat!” [Violet] “Fuck you, there’s a bomb! Mitch is dead! You just… Fucking go!” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Brig]

…and again, Violet does not trust her. Mitch’s death is still fresh on her mind. Everything that Lilly and Minnie fed to her is still present.

Then, the bomb goes, and it takes Violet’s sight with it. Even on the beach, she asks for Minnie, amidst confusion because, somewhere down the line, they got separated. Louis has to be the one to support her. By this point, and some beats after, it feels like this is another Brody. Like there’s no turning back, not until a long, long year where Clementine would be in the same shoes.

Minnie makes herself known, though. She’s off in the woodland, with her people. 

And that is when this Violet has the wool pulled from her blinded eyes, because she realizes what happened.

The moment is brief. It’s very easy to miss. Yet, the attempts Clementine gave on that boat to console her, before the urgency really began to set in, was not fruitless.

Violet tries to apologize:

“Clementine? The stuff I said on the boat, in the cell, I, uh…” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | Beach] 

It’s not the right time for it. The schoolkids need to get off that beach, but this brief moment is huge.

The thing about episodes is, yes, in the moment, the individual is not consolable. There’s no reasoning with someone who is shut down. However, the attempts to try and console, and/or any verbal promises to leave the door open for when they’ve calmed down, the effort can be recognized and appreciated.

Once Violet snaps out of it, that’s precisely what it was. She understands that Clementine was never trying to hurt her, nor did she come to her disingenuous. Clementine was there to bring her back, because the situation was exactly as Violet herself said—fucked.

But still… Clementine was there to bring her back. 

Either way, Clementine proved herself to Violet, because down this route, she left twice, and came back both times.

Of course, the night does not end there. Clementine loses a leg. Another schoolkid is gone.

So through the weeks thereafter, Violet gave herself the time, and then, she tries again with the apology:

[Violet] “I wanted to wait ‘til you were up and about, but how I behaved on the boat… It was really unfair. My head was so messed up—by Lilly, and… And Minnie. I was so wrapped up in my own shit…” [Clementine] “It’s okay. You went through hell in that boat, and I let that happen.” [Clementine, if platonic] “I’m just glad we got you out of there.” [Clementine, if romanced] “I’m just glad I got you back. I was so worried I’d lost you.” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | School]

In this apology, Violet articulates the position she was in, and admits the kind of influence Minnie was to her—not a good one. And in turn, Clementine acknowledges her. She doesn’t demean Violet for what she did. On top of that, she expresses how she’s just happy that Violet is there in the moment.

This route is bittersweet. We have the beginning, where Violet is guarded, then she warms up to Clementine, finds an anchoring point, and acts upon a fierce loyalty. Which then is hurt when Clementine chooses to save Louis instead. The time on the boat is very bitter because…the truth about borderline is, yeah no, it does not care who the person is to the mentally ill. The disorder is a disorder for a reason. It will hurt, and it will put a strain and test a relationship.

Then you just have the big fuck you axe where Minnie…effectively was the one who managed to wound Clementine, have her get bit, and then lose the leg. Which isn’t really how an eye for an eye goes, but that’s what this route goes with.

But then…, it’s sweet. Because Clementine did the right things, with what stress she was under.

She tried to talk to Violet, and in doing so, she left a door open for Violet to crawl back through when the time was ready. It was sooner rather than later for her, since Minnie… Whatever. However, it’s an apocalypse; a boat was just blown the fuck up. So while it was the time for Violet, it was not the time for literally anyone else. Ergo, a second attempt, to which there was resolve.

Clementine and Violet did not make the same mistake that Brody and Violet did.

And that’s what saves the relationship.

Now, let’s waltz all the way back and save Violet, just to show what Clementine and her do right to build a healthy connection, whereas her and Minnie went wrong. To do this, taking a brief visit to the romantic will help in dissecting an evolution found as the episodes progress.

After the bits of dialogue in the beginning of this section, Clementine can choose to confess her feelings for Violet. It can be solidified by a kiss, or a question for a relationship, or…a meek silence, to which Violet is able to read and feel the same. Clementine can also express confusion, in that she needs the time, but express the interest all the same.

There’s a sweet moment here, and with the kiss, it can also be a touch awkward because…

Okay, they kind of flounder. Violet more so. Which is interesting to note, because Violet “supposedly” was in a relationship before. Sure, the moment on its own doesn’t mean an experienced person wouldn’t be any less awkward, but with the following steps in their relationship, it does support the suspicion this essay has in that she never had a reciprocated, romantic relationship with Minnie.

The moment where Violet asks Clementine to dance, and is nervous to do so, is one of those steps in the relationship:

“When you told me you have feelings for me, I was shocked. Then I started thinking. There’s something I’ve always wanted to try with someone I cared about. And I never have. [. . .] Have you ever danced with anyone before? [. . .] Do you…wanna? Just us. No one else around. I mean, I know it’s kind of weird, but it’s something I’ve always wanted to try.” [Ep.3 | Broken Toys | Dorm]

It’s a step in way of romance (Clementine even remarks after how they’re getting better), but it’s also a step in Violet’s confidence in being vulnerable with someone. She’s still clearly anxious here. Violet still has some of that self-deprecation, and it comes back if Clementine rejects the offer because the idea was stupid, or something along those lines.

But she still does ask. And it’s a big ask, because this is important to Violet. So if Clementine reciprocates the dance, it’s yet another sweet moment, and it builds the confidence within for this relationship further.

Before the night, Violet can tell Clementine how she got to Ericson’s. Then, through the night itself, she backs Clementine every step of the way. Shoots Minnie. Escapes with the schoolkids, only to come back and find her with Tenn and A.J, safe and sound.

During their walk, Violet opens up again. This time, there is none of that self-deprecation, and Violet even gets choked up—but she’s not really ashamed for it, she just continues and says her piece.

“While we were looking for you guys, and I… I thought you might be…gone for good…, um, shit. I was trying to figure out what I’d do if you were gone, and I realized how goddamn stupid I was. About Minnie. For a whole fucking year. I was so wrapped up in losing her and Sophie, I pushed away everyone who tried to care about me. Marlon, Brody, Louis. Even you and A.J. I tried my damnedest not to care about either of you. And I still couldn’t tell you why.” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | Forest]

She admits everything. Is so very open to Clementine, and tells her what is on her mind. There’s Minnie. There’s what she regrets.

[You were afraid] “I was a goddamn coward. I’m not a coward anymore.” [I’ve done the same thing.] “And then you wonder why you fight so hard to stay alive. I don’t wonder anymore.” [You cared about me.] (Platonic) “I didn’t expect to find a friend like you, not ever again. But I’m really glad I did.” / (Romantic) “Yeah, I did. Way more than I meant to. I’m still kind of amazed we found each other, you know?” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | Forest]

By this point in the story, Violet has undergone her arc.

She is a changed person because of Clementine’s influence, and she sees what she either didn’t see before, or did but had forgotten. Through a rebound, because Violet just needed a second chance to redeem herself.

Now…, she didn’t expect to find a friend like Clementine ever again? It’s interesting that Violet indicates Clementine was a second chance with the platonic route, not the romantic. Is this her quietly admitting that Minnie was never beyond a friend, actually? Or is this in reference to Brody and Sophie instead?

I dunno. Just found that interesting, since she could have said an equivalent for the romantic dialogue. In any case…

There is something so profound with how this relationship contrasts the ones which came before. As a friend or partner, Clementine never gets to the point of Minnie’s idealization, nor Brody’s devaluation. Both are antithetical to each other because they balance on the same scale—that being insecurity. Violet cared for Minnie and Brody deeply, and those emotions are genuine.

However. 

Minnie was put on a pedestal because there were faultlines to that relationship which Violet did not want to face. Brody, instead, was degraded because rather than faults, it was easier to ignore the good sides to Brody. And the good sides were a really, really sweet girl who dreamed of a better life—something that Violet could never see for herself after the twins.

Then there’s Clementine.

Even at their worst moment, where Violet’s trust in Clementine waned, she still did trust her. Clementine told her there was a bomb. Violet snapped because Mitch was the one who knew explosives, and he was dead. And yet, she got herself blinded because she knew Clementine wasn’t lying to her. She trusted her enough to know…

Well yeah. There’s a bomb.

Beyond that, however, Violet decides to do some arts and crafts, even though she says they’re stupid. Or Violet’ll ask for a dance that she’s desperately yearned for. She’ll talk to Clementine, a lot, even if she didn’t mean to do it “so much.”

Clementine as an anchor never truly corrodes. It’s tested down one of the routes, yet by the end of it, the relationship is maintained.

…there’s a final note which taps into this.

We come back again to identity one last time. For a brief anecdote—nestled within the shadows of what exhaustion this essay has gone over with Minnie and Brody, and now Clementine—, but an important one. Violet’s sense of identity will remain to be untold because we don’t have that perspective. She never talks about herself like that, so there’s no true insight for Clementine to gather.

Yet there are scant traces of identity diffusion, or an incoherent identity, ceaselessly disturbed by external influences.

This calls back to a copycat nature where borderline personalities will imitate in order to find stability. Ambitions, beliefs, interests—these all go right along with it, because they very well can change, and do so radically. Impulsions in way of severe life choices are made on the foundation this nature provides.

And that foundation is not strong.

There is no way to truly understand and deconstruct Violet’s sense of identity, yet, her behavior and choices made throughout the season can give us something to chew on.

Between the two routes, Violet is…a hair shy from being an entirely different person. The Violet Clementine brings onto the boat is not the same as the Violet she meets there. By contrast, Louis remains consistent; bring him on the boat, and he acts as expected—same with when we find him…without a tongue.

One is Clementine’s Violet. The other is Minerva’s Violet.

In both routes, Violet’s impulsion changes her life’s trajectory. She either shoots Minnie, or, she goes after the bomb and blinds herself. In one route, she’s outspoken, combative to the Delta, and fiercely loyal to the school; in the other, she does behave like how Minnie described her—never could talk to people, never to be class president. The Violet in that second route is withdrawn and quiet…

But she does confront Clementine.

She mimics Minerva’s newfound bellicosity that she dawned from the Delta, and it’s pitted against Clementine by following both her and Lilly’s word.

Going back to the first episode, where Brody tells Clementine that Violet withdrew herself from everyone, a lot of that was depression. Violet also actively told herself to push everyone away (…except Tenn, a remnant of the twins). However, there is a read here that she withdrew herself because there was no one left for Violet to mirror. She reverted herself back to the girl who sat in front of the television, with her grandmother’s fresh corpse just behind her.

Not to say that Violet doesn’t have a personality on her own. No, she still does. Having a weak sense of identity doesn’t automatically mean that there’s no identity at all. It can just mean the self-perception of identity is weak, but given that it is a self-perception, what is Violet going to draw from if she doesn’t…know how to read herself?

So Clementine meets Violet in the midst of this. She’s sarcastic and grates for a minute about the car. She keeps up a wall between her and Clementine. But by the end of the episode, and the start of the second, here Violet is cleaver at hand, about to lead the school.

Marlon scathes when she stands toe-to-toe. Talks about her being difficult again—but that in itself is ambiguous, because does this mean she’s gone toe-to-toe before, or does this mean Violet has a tendency to be inconsistent? And was that night another inconsistency?

But then… Louis. He admires the fact that Violet is like his white knight. He relies on her to protect him, because he knows that there is no doubt—she will.

Then being a leader. That comes as a surprise to presumably everyone. There’s a few points of dialogue that suggest it, others that blatantly say it, and then more few beats where we see the contention between Violet’s leadership and the schoolkids.

There’s conflict here. Violet is inconsistent in who she wants to be.

And it’s just that, isn’t it?

The TWDG community has long since decided that Violet’s arc is about letting go of Minnie (for those who see past the “rebound” thing), and self-discovery. Which is still true, but through the lens of BPD, there’s another layer to this. It’s about learning to let go despite disorder. And then, it’s learning what she wants from people, and who she wants to emulate, again, despite disorder.

What kind of person does Violet want to be?

And this is distinct from Louis, because with Louis, it is also a self-discovery. He is care-free, live in the moment, to a detriment. To be quite frank, the only reason why he got that far into the apocalypse was because he relied on his community. Not because he couldn’t contribute, but because he has his fair share of self-depreciation.

But there is no question. He knows who he is, and he knows the kind of man he wants to be. It’s why Louis does talk about his sense of self as much as he does.

Whereas Violet really doesn’t, perhaps because she can’t. All of what she confines in Clementine is the fact that things get overwhelming, and she gets confused. Quite frequently. But also, her relationships. Everything external for her, because… Again, she struggles to articulate what’s going on internally, because of that confusion. It takes time for that articulation to be feasible.

Violet has a patchwork identity. She’s kept traits of others—such as the singing. Granted, everybody does this. However, there’s her own within patchwork, but those have gone largely unexplored in the past.

Then here’s Clementine, the catalyst to this arc.

Which begs the question, why? What about Clementine has this impact on Violet?

Something about her draws Violet in. 

At first, yeah. Clementine’s new. There’s an air of mystery around a girl who totals a car at Ericson’s front lawn, with a kid in tow. But that mystery alone doesn’t equate to a cleaver pulled, guarding the new people from the rest—her own people.

The answer is rather simple: Violet is mirroring Clementine, so all there is to do is look at that reflection. And we find a leader. We find someone who is compassionate, and does everything to fight for their own. Actually fight. Tooth-and-nail. Someone who does whatever it takes to survive, even if that means rubbing the good ol’ walker jelly, or, taking risks to secure a bag of food.

Clementine’s compassion for people is evident once she wakes up, and she has A.J by her side. Her skills in leadership, her drive to fight, to survive—those are all made very clear at the train station, with both Louis and Violet following her lead.

So Violet mimicked. She found the same traits within herself, then elevated them. Brought them to the surface.

As the relationship continues to build—platonic or romantic—, Violet finds reciprocation. She’s not just emulating what Clementine would like to see. After all, she was sat in the headmaster’s chair while Clementine and A.J were still exiled. That indicates how Violet found, if not a comfort, a consolation in that part of herself.

The reciprocation continues whenever Clementine responds to her, and she validates Violet, she shows interest in what Violet says, and what Violet wants to do. Violet can ramble on and on as long as she wants, and Clementine would still listen. Violet (if romanced) can ask for a dance, and Clementine would oblige. Either way, Violet gives Clementine a pin. Clementine puts it on.

It's that compassion, and it cascades authenticity off Clementine to the people she surrounds herself with. She’s also someone who feels strongly. This character is a very empathetic person. Throughout S1, Clementine was perceptive of the people around her, and she cared. Deeply so. S2, the same thing, even if her morality began to grey. The start to closing herself off to protect herself was present. S3 as well, especially in her drive to find A.J once she learned he was still alive, out there somewhere.

Throughout the seasons, there are also plenty of moments where her empathy shows. Clementine does genuinely feel what the people around her express. Like with Louis, when his tongue is cut. You can hear in her voice how pained she is, regardless of the relationship itself. She’s pained because Louis is.

And given what she’s lived through on top of that? Clementine would absolutely put 100% in a relationship, enough to match someone like Violet.

There is another reason to this why, and the thought struck me when I was reminded of an easter egg during Violet and Clementine’s scene up on the belltower. A constellation, which Clementine can draw for herself, and he’ll wink right back at her:

Kenny.

This connection is an interesting one to make for a scene with Violet. It’s cheeky first and foremost. 

Regardless, there’s a parallel drawn here. Violet and Kenny are very similar, in that…Kenny likely had BPD. TWDGhas two seasons, then a couple flashbacks, where we can read it so. That man was volatile himself. Fiercely loyal, but could absolutely flip on a dime if his perception of the people around did not align with what he desired—it’s why he’s so fickle with Lee, to the point the gameplay reflects it, and then Clementine as well, because this behavior was the ultimate antagonist. His spiral down mental health escalated, and escalated, and escalated.

And he’s guilty. Tells Clementine that to leave him, or to shoot him, is the right choice to make.

But should the two survive together, with dreams of driving down to Florida, we find that he…is okay. He’s stable. His anchorage with Clementine and A.J is strong, without ambivalence. In this storyline, she sees that with people like him, sticking around through the bullshit can be worth the trouble.

Of course, it’s also a testament whether or not it is worth it. Some people, including myself, left Kenny in S2. Because the turmoil through the season was just that significant.

He genuinely cares, but like my mom, Kenny still hurts. Especially in S2. Because despite himself, he just could never seem to get past what he felt, and his impulses.

Clementine’s relationship with Kenny varies across different choices made, and the interpretations thereof. My personal interpretation of Kenny will contrast wildly to another. And that’s okay.

But whatever the interpretation is, and the choices made, Clementine has experience with people like Violet. She’s lived through the type of behavior conditions BPD and alike bring. She knows how to navigate them, and find healthy grounds.

Clementine keeps an open line of communication with Violet. Expresses interest, and accepts what Violet herself has to offer. But she also has her boundaries. For one, A.J. He is her priority. Two, when Violet fights her, Clementine fights back because it’s not okay—do not lay a hand on me. Now, whether or not she would’ve fought like she did if there was no bomb, and A.J was still in the cell…

I don’t know. I assume it would’ve been one of those major choices of the game. Either talk her down, or fight.

…similar to what Lee has with Kenny, up in the attic after the house in Savannah is swarmed, or on the train before that.

Bringing Kenny into the conversation is…funny, in a way. At least to me. I write all this, because TWDG secured its place in my heart by being the very thing I needed through a really, really bad year where my mental health (BPD) reared its ugly head. TWDG as a whole, but S2 especially. I realize why so many people have issues with the season, and I get it. It’s only natural for that to happen when every season has its distinctive personality—not everyone will gel with its voice. That, and it does have its fair share of flaws.

But if it was not for S2, I would not be in the fandom. Because that season was 2019 boiled down to the pure chaos I inadvertently put myself through, and it did so by having me play a character who when she was taken seriously, she just could not do it right, then…, when she wasn’t, it was out of neglect, where the adults put themselves first. Every. Time. And…one of those adults was a blunt reflection of it all.

Up until the final moment. The breaking point.

It’s how I felt inside my head. And still do, sometimes. When I’m stuck inside a season rooted in instability—a winter—, things just keep happening, and there is no end, even though I try to maintain the fantasy of peace in those slow moments. But…there’s just no end. There’s only escalation.

It was something I needed to experience in isolation, where I understood that it’s just a game, and it’s within the scope of 7.5 hours.

Swiftly thereafter, I started writing. Because again, it’s what I’ve always done. So AYDF came to be, where Clementine’s an alcoholic, but not because she’s legitimately an alcoholic in the gameplay. I get she’s not; my Clementine is an alcoholic because…it’s an obscure remark of borderline, and an exploration wherein I thought to use an entirely different disorder to express such a thing. In part because I’d yet to really (re)consider BPD (it wasn’t until some time later that I understood), but also…I’m a storyteller. Having alcoholism represent BPD is interesting.

It’s all why I adore TWDG, and my Clementine, and ADYF. Together, they’re an anchor of mine.

Clementine and Violet’s relationship included, because I did not expect to find Violet. I knew about their relationship before playing—heard it whilst I did light research on which games to buy. But I didn’t expect to find a character who…also emulates what S2 did for me. Just, in a more matured light than who I was in 2019. Also didn’t expect the relationship to provide growth for my Clementine in regards to these personalities, because mine did absolutely struggle the first time—with Kenny, and the devastating choice she made.

Cuz like.

Oops. A.J’s still alive. Um. Whelp.

(…for context—because I know the assumption—, no, Jane was not there. I left S2 with both her and Kenny dead. Clementine just shot the last adult who could’ve helped A.J.)

To see the chances where Clementine is the person Violet needed—to treat her well—, and take those chances, I didn’t expect to find Violentine as this embodiment of a healthy relationship despite borderline. It’s not perfect—obviously it’s not—, but all things considered, it is healthy by the end, no matter the route.

It’s regardless of whether or not Violet actually has BPD. She’s not diagnosed, and I don’t intend to have her be diagnosed. But at the same time…, this essay kinda makes it clear that Violet is a textbook example anyway. A good one to me.

And a good one to A.J.

[A.J, & Serving an Example]

Throughout this essay, the priority has been clarifying BPD, and unveiling what it feels like. A mechanism that may lead to the disorder, then the mechanisms that the disorder itself deploys. How it effects the person, in their identity or, most notably with Violet, relationships.

And the way Violet articulates herself, through the several dialogue lines within this post, it is evident that she’s aware. There’s a self-deprecation to it, but, Violet knows her issues and what it does, whether or not she knows its name—BPD, or something else entirely. Given the ambiguity that the game allows, it is still left unsaid.

But that’s the first thing: she does talk about it. Violet knows herself well enough to.

Not only that, she demonstrates a responsibility in her disorder.

With this essay, there hasn’t been much in the way of responsibility. Because it isn’t until A.J enters the discussion do we truly see this come to light.

I will be the first to say that, while I can sympathize with other people of the diagnosis—even empathize—, I am rather critical when it comes to being responsible of our actions. From knowing a trigger but being around it anyway, to refusing to communicate when a hand reaches out—there’s issues I take. Because there are things that needs to be done with BPD, and those are not it.

The fact of the matter is, sorry, it fucking sucks. But also, it is your disorder, as it is mine. It isn’t your fault that it happened, but it did, and you’re kinda just stuck living with it. It’s not the responsibility of anyone else to fix and manage every aspect of BPD.

Finding people like Clementine, or a support system like the schoolkids, will do wonders because, yes, they can help. But Clementine, and the schoolkids, also have their fair share of shit. To expect them to drop everything is unfair, the same way that being expected to just drop your BPD for someone else’s sake is unfair. 

It’s a give and take. There will be a ceaseless line of dialogue in the name of boundaries, and clarification, and everything in between.

So we return to Violet’s apology to Clementine.

“I wanted to wait ‘til you were up and about, but how I behaved on the boat… It was really unfair. My head was so messed up—by Lilly, and… And Minnie. I was so wrapped up in my own shit…” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | School]

She doesn’t excuse it. Violet gives reason—and that reason is, more or less, she was not in a right mind—, and she articulates what position she was in, but there is no excuse.

Because the difference between an excuse, and an apology, is that one is done with the intention to be forgiven, the other is done with the intention to resolve—the forgiveness is a hope, not the reward.

Being able to do such a thing, unprompted, speaks volumes to Violet’s maturity, and her understanding of her own mental health. For people with BPD, more often than not, it’s easier to blame someone else because…looking inward, and realizing you royally fucked up again is not easy. Or, it’s easier to use apologies to seek a reward—like forgiveness—, and to indulge in a brief gratification that may ensure a person stays.

Well, okay. The same can really be said for everyone. BPD, however, does has its way in amplification.

Nevertheless, A.J is able to witness this moment, take it in. It’s a lesson in itself.

But given Violet is saved, and Louis is mute, there is another moment which not only speaks volumes, but it serves to A.J clarity.

After the last meal shared in the game series, and Violet with Clementine deliberates over a caravan, A.J can ask Violet one thing:

“Aren’t you still mad I killed Tenn?” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | School]

It’s a fresh wound for her. The pain of it is laid clear across Violet’s face. However, in response,

“The thing you said on the bridge…, that he was messing up all the time. It wasn’t something new, you know. Tenn got himself or other people into trouble all the time, long before you guys got here. He was always so lost. He lived in a world that just…isn’t there, you know? And that’s why I tried to look after him. But when I was pulling him away from the walkers, and Minnie, I could also see…he just wasn’t there anymore.” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | School]

Or, it’s complicated, but she understands why. Violet is able to acknowledge where A.J comes from. She does, and she sets aside her emotions. There is no corrosion here. Violet doesn’t devalue A.J for this, even though the gravity of his choice would’ve provided a validity. A warped and intense validity, but one all the same.

They trade more words, and amongst them, Violet asks a damning question, and A.J accepts:

[A.J] “So you’re mad, but sad.” [Violet] “Can I be that for a while?” [A.J] “Yeah, it’s okay.” [Ep.4 | Take Us Back | School]

A.J acknowledges her. She asks for further acknowledgement—the time to heal.

And he understands, and he allows her the room.

…the thing about Violet and A.J, in contrast to Louis and A.J, is that A.J looks up to these characters for very different reasons. Louis is a great guy. I want A.J to be like him, or better yet, a matured version of Louis. He’s charming, charismatic, good-natured, and through the game, we do see that he begins to donate an effort to do better.

Really, it’s not a mystery as to why A.J grew attached so quickly.

Violet, meanwhile, is confusing. She’s not that great with people, is instead a bit of a pill to swallow, and with her trauma comes a volatility.

Sure, she was the one who stood-up for Clementine and A.J when Louis didn’t, but in playing this season, I’ve always gotten the implication that A.J—at least initially—does have a preference for Louis. And I say implication because it’s never said outright, but there are some dialogues and reactions of his that had me wonder. I also don’t mean he doesn’t like Violet, no, but more that he doesn’t necessarily understand what Clementine sees in her.

At least, that isn’t until time passes, and more is spent with Violet, does she start to grow on him as well.

Louis models a more…digestible person. He has his problems, but they are easy to explain and understand. He was a spoiled brat. He sabotaged a marriage over something so very petty. And now, where his upbringing still rears its head through his immature work ethic, he struggles with deep insecurities.

There is a complexity here. One that does deserve its own essay, though I’m not really the right person for that. (Here’s an essay, by @stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale. Pretty good. And they gots a lot of essays like it. …but also, again, sorry for tagging; I know this is absurdly long. Lol.)

Violet, meanwhile, comes with a confusion because her issues are so steeped in stigma. Which is to be expected in conditions like BPD, where…yeah, there’s the chance she will lash out, do things she doesn’t mean, because a switch was flipped.

Where Louis is someone that A.J would like to aspire to, Violet seem to stand as a figure A.J can grow to appreciate. Having her as a model gives A.J the chance to understand that with people like Violet, you give them space and time. Work with them, and if they are genuine people, they will prove themselves worth the effort.

It does take effort, however, and the time spent with them.

And if there is no effort given, and no time spent…

Yeah. Violet will be that wallflower.

[Conclusion]

There’s nothing else this essay really has to say at its core. BPD is a very, very confusing disorder. Both internally, and externally. Stigma doesn’t help. It is, after all, a huge reason why I wrote this.

Because the stigma is quite honestly the worst thing about BPD. In many resources—whether they’re linked below, or you find them on your own—, you’ll find that a BPD diagnosis often comes with others right along with it. Addictions, eating disorders, depression…

To those who don’t know better (or maybe they do), that’s just…natural. It’s how it is.

But I remember going to my family, telling them that there is something wrong, only…to be assured otherwise. Not for my sake, but for theirs. Because BPD isn’t greatly understood, and when it is, realizing that none of them got to save me from my mother in time has its way in denial. What my mother did wasn’t right, however, I could’ve ended up like her. 

Just not through those initial traumas.

Rather, I could’ve, had I made the same mistakes she did with the silent traumas thereafter—decades, now, where the people around me refuse to acknowledge my words, and listen to me, because I know the look in the eye, and I sometimes find it in the mirror. Those initial traumas may have been the first lashing, but it’s the time after which seals BPD within a person. Because the condition goes unchecked. It ferments. People tell you one thing, but you feel another, and as a child, you decide to trust their word, not your own body. Which breaks you. Gets to a point where there’s no real return, because people like me weren’t allowed to learn otherwise.

Understanding what happened to me was a very lonely experience, despite the sheer amount of people I had around me.

…and it hurts, somewhere deep in the recesses of my alexithymia, that my abuse never came from people who hated me. My mother didn’t, not in those initial years. None of my family did, in the decades into adulthood. But still, they hurt. The abuse came from the people I least want to admit, in ways that media would deem too boring for our idled attention spans.

I proclaimed that BPD is when a mechanism deploys, and the cost means a sacrifice of one integral function. It is still true—the mechanism, alongside the personality, and that specific initial trauma will influence how that BPD is expressed.

Yet, Borderline Personality Disorder happens when a mechanism deploys at a great cost, and that sacrifice is never restored. It is the neglect of the individual’s emotional turmoil after catastrophe that does it, where the same mechanism festers until it is there to stay as an ugly, depraved scar.

It is the disorder where a person was never allowed to heal, despite the mind and body screaming that they need to.

So when I hear BPD and the diagnoses alongside, I hear yet another time where someone likely knew there was something wrong, but they chose to find stability by other means, because it wasn’t found in the people around. Addictions bring those dopamine hits that BPD elevates. Eating disorders, where maybe…they can find something about themselves to control. Because there is none day to day, nor in relationships. And depression? Honestly, it speaks for itself; if a person manages to find themselves with a tumultuous anchor, or no anchor at all, it’s easy to slip into.

Or, if the diagnoses are born conditions, like ADHD or autism, or others, like schizophrenia, those speak to a concern where those conditions were left unchecked, and they festered as BPD, they were what predisposed it…

Yet, when I hear a story like Violet’s, it is a true reassurance.

Sure she’s not diagnosed. But still. The game doesn’t hide anything. It doesn’t “assure” the player that Violet isn’t this type of person, that she isn’t literally sick in the head.

TFS shows her issues quite plainly. And it’s because it does, and refuses to lie to make anyone feel better, does the game promise something that is so, so desperately yearned for in those with borderline.

It’s acknowledgement.

To tell someone that, yes, you’re not confused that you feel confused amid a chaos. You are. But there are ways to work with it, and around it. You can, actually, have strong relationships with people, and in those like Clementine, even if/when you fail, they will stay, because they understand.

To tell someone all of that is a first step towards understanding BPD, a disorder so shrouded because of stigma, and little else.

And so you have a character who still has her struggles with it, but she has a support system, and she’s taught herself enough to manage—did it well, considering the circumstances. She was left to her own devices. Sure, she had her grandparents to escape from home, but…, well. Yeah. After her grandma, Violet was then sent straight to the boarding school. The apocalypse struck. The adults left. And though her community still cherishes her, Violet…was designated as their wallflower.

So it’s funny, to have found this character this way, because Louis was right.

Violet does grow on you. If you let her, anyway. She can be suffocating.

Anyway. Hope you enjoyed.

Volt out.

Volt's Library (my writing) Clem Comic Essay #1 (canon stuff) Clem Comic Essay #2 (language)

Links: to start your own research

BPD (General) | 1 ; 2 ; 3 (4 types); 4 (quiet BPD)

BPD (Stigma) | 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 (r/BPD)

BPD (Anchors/FP) | 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 (r/BPD)

BPD vs Bipolar | 1 ; 2 ; 3 (comorbid BPD & Bipolar)

BPD (Identity Disturbance) | 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 (r/BPD)

BPD (in Relationships) | 1 ; 2 ; 3

#volt's library #twdg essay #fandom essay #essay #long essay #TW: this is intended to explore BPD; so with that comes the sensitive topics as mentioned in the introduction #twdg #twdg violet #twdg clementine #violentine #twdg louis #louis & violet 🥺🥺🥺 #twdg minnie #twdg minerva #twdg aj #twdg brody #twdg 4 #the walking dead game #bpd #borderline personality disorder #the amount of times i looked something up and saw myself staring back at me is…too many times #like okAY GOOGLE i GET IT i have bpd #i know #LET ME WRITE ABOUT TWDG IN PEACE #thank you #and also thank the wiki transcripts my gOD #and and gotta love reminding myself that violet's dad was canonically an alcoholic #which is concerning for aydf since…well…gotta love alcoholic clementine #also also i do intend to edit/polish this later but what i wanted to say is here anyway so #im gonna nap now

[popcorn-plots]

@azrail-has-a-vendetta what topic should I do for the long essay in english

"How does Mary Shelley illustrate a god-complex and the dangers of pride and vanity in her novel Frankenstein?"

"How is the fool the wisest of all characters in King Lear?"

"In the work of fiction Requiem of a Nun by William Faulkner, a character states, “The past is never dead. It isn’t even past.” Discuss how this idea intermingles with Gatsby’s view of the past and compare this to Faulkner’s story “A Rose for Emily.”"

#i need to get started but I have no idea what to do for the essay lmao #long essay #school #king Lear #frankenstein #the great #the great gatsby #i'm kind of leaning towards the fool and the Gatsby one but idk #help

[lucere-aeresta]

The Myth of Sherlock Holmes, Told By Frogwares

Some philosophical discussion, or just wildly wandering thoughts of mine, on SHCO and SHTA. Long and...potentially boring...or intriguing, depending on the reader themselves.

Warning: Contains spoilers.

Also warning: If you are the kind of people be like "the bad guy is wrong and immoral so everything they say or think has no merit whatsoever", please please don't open it.

I have long been thinking about writing something about the dialogue in the gallery between Sherlock and Vogel in SHCO, and now after finishing SHTA remake, I realize this new game paints a clearer picture of the philosophical implications of this new FW Sherlock Holmes series, so I can explore it a bit more.

First, a point to make: in both games, the antagonists are correct, in a way. Yes, they are manipulative, immoral, even blatantly cruel and crazy; and no, I am not saying they did something right. But examining only the logical and philosophical aspects of the stories, they both got something right, some core understanding of the world, no less.

In Vogel's case, it is the power and role of human emotions and the absurdity of the notion of truth. In the gallery and the party, he makes it clear that feelings are powerful and irresistible; human rationality is no match for feelings and emotions; everything that matters is what we feel. He also insists that truth is more than what you simply observe; the consequence and influence are part of the truth, which makes "truth", in a way, a matter of interpretation and choice rather than ironclad objectivity.

And he has a very brilliant point there. The social implications of truth and which aspects we choose to reveal or emphasize can not be understated. Moreover, knowing the limit of human rationality is the first step towards real reasoning and a better world. The arrogance of believing everything is rational or reasonable always leads to disasters and the worst form of irrationality.

Then Vogel's view goes this way: the notion of pursuing truth is but an illusion, and it could be undesirable and destructive. We see that too at the endings of SHCO. Even after finishing the story, there is still no absolute truth about Violet's death, which is partly open to Sherlock's (or the player's) own interpretation. He has nothing to say to reproach Vogel's remarks. He says Vogel is lying, but that only addresses the man's motive, not his argument itself.

As for Rochester, at first glance, he shares very few similarities with Vogel: he is a much, much worse man and makes less sense than Vogel. Vogel, at his worst, is to prove himself right by manipulating Sherlock and inflicting pain on him (and you can't deny that he does help Sherlock, intentional or not, to find the truth, which is what Sherlock desires), but Rochester is utmost destructive, a mass murderer, trying to bring an end to the world.

But Rochester, as mad and evil as he is, also grasps some level of truth about the world, about the ancient gods.

The game is amazingly vague about if all the Cthulhu business is real or merely Sherlock's hallucination and the result of cultists' manipulation. But comparing the remake with the original game, one thing is clear: there are more "magical" or supernatural elements in the new one--the mysterious mind-controlling Khaleid lenses, the increasing storms, the things Sherlock sees and experiences...if they are not entirely created by some ancient gods and their worshipers, at least on thing is clear: there are much more mysteries that science cannot decipher exists in this world.

More importantly, in the very end, Rochester makes Sherlock admit that everything he has seen is real. The horrifying legends and lurking danger of an ancient entity truly exist, not pure madness and hallucination, not the effect of drugs. In my opinion, this is more significant than the argument of "if Cthulhu really exists". It's all about Sherlock and his interpretation of the world, reality and sanity. And here, during the confrontation, he starts to doubt it all. In this way, he proves Rochester right--there is no such thing as sanity. Ironically, at this point, between the two, Rochester is the sane one--if sanity is to distinguish false and true, to face and accept reality, and insanity entails denying reality, indulging in delusions and false beliefs that fail to align with the real world, then Sherlock is the one who truly has gone mad.

It sounds absurd at this point--at the end of both games, Sherlock is proved to be wrong to an extent, his rationality tested, belief questioned, and sanity shattered. It seems he has failed in his own pursuit, yet he still persists and fights back--but on what ground? If the antagonists are proven right, then what is he standing for? If he has lost the core of himself, then what else matters?

"Nothing beside remains" is Vogel's assertion. To him, Sherlock has become a "half sunk shattered visage", a man proven to be futilely struggling against the inevitable. Rochester plunges to his death, refusing to give Sherlock the answer he desires. Rochester stands firm on his ground till the bitter end, leaving Sherlock alive, questioning everything about himself. Doesn't that sound like a spiritual failure, the worst form, since he achieves his goal but is left internally shaken and broken?

And for me, THIS is, paradoxically, the entire point of these stories. It's the very charm, the magic of the new FW SH games.

Sherlock Holmes, one of the most popular fictional characters mankind has ever seen, is the personification of rationality and reasoning mind, at least in the original design and/or public interpretation. He was created and celebrated in the new dawn of science and rationality, the age of enlightenment and reason. At the time, human beings worshiped reason as the worshiped gods. Many believed everything was rational and all problems could be solved by science and progress. The all-mighty rationality of humanity could overpower the greatest gods in history.

Well, we all know how that went.

In a way, Sherlock Holmes is a god himself, a myth collectively created by the minds of the Age Of Reason. His methods marked a revolution in criminology and forensics studies. This never existed character is sometimes called "the father of modern forensics". It could easily be one of the most absurd things in human history; nevertheless, evidence-based detection is much superior to the crude and erroneous methods used before. It's no surprise that someone believed justice could be achieved merely by applying those new methods.

We all know how that went as well.

The essence is: human rationality and the ability to reason are limited; humans are always prone to be affected by feelings and other factors than pure reasoning--it's etched in our physical existence. Falsely believing in the equation "reason = correct" is fatally dangerous. I don't mean it in a negative way; on the contrary, only by recognizing the limits of reasoning can humans improve society. The fundamental merit of the scientific method is to question and test existing theories and find breakthroughs from challenging things that used to be believed to be the truth. For a true rational mind, "truth" and "objectivity" are really holding a thin layer of perilous ground, ready to be tipped over by newly found evidence. The very foundation of our existence and all human knowledge could be challenged at any time--it happened before, and it will happen in the future. And the truth-finding time always brought some doubt, commotion, and chaos.

Now, that starts to sound familiar, not unlike what is conveyed in these two games, doesn't it?

In the wake of the ever-shifting understanding of the universe and the chaotic scientific development and new findings, facing the challenge of questioning every piece of knowledge that humans used to hold true, the sense of emptiness, meaninglessness, and absurdity of human existence emerged. Believing in gods, or whatever "irrational" higher power used to be the source of life's meaning and purpose, a way to find comfort despite the dangerous and chaotic state of being. And now all these are shattered--not only the notion of gods but also the mere idea of something we could always hold true, never to be challenged.

Cthulhu mythos is one of the products of this sense of desperation and emptiness--cosmicism, the focus on an indifferent universe and the insignificance of human existence, and the fear triggered by facing the cosmic void.

It may sound gloomy and pessimistic, although Lovecraft himself said it was neither pessimistic nor optimistic, only scientific. I don't think being scientific and pessimistic are inherently contradictory, they are in two different realms. This view is, in a way, scientific and rational, the universe, as we can see now at least, doesn't have a purpose, and human beings are not the center of the "meaning" of the universe, if it ever has one.

Therefore, I conclude that the Cthulhu mythos is the dark side of human rationality. Or being less judgmental, the original myth of hopeful and powerful reasoning power, represented by Sherlock Holmes, and the dismal, pessimistic picture painted in the myth of otherworldly gods, Cthulhu being the most prominent, are the two sides of the same coin.

And here is the very question: where do we stand between these two powers? Or: what is the meaning of life?

In this line of thought, I see SHCO and SHTA as a set of stories exploring the realm of existentialism.

This idea may appear like my overthinking and over-reading the games, which I don't deny entirely--I enjoy digging deep into something until my interpretation surpasses its own intention. Nevertheless, I don't believe I make it all up--the repeatedly mentioning of Sisyphus in SHCO is more than a dim hint, but a strong implication.

In Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the figure Sisyphus represents the human condition of the absurd--the desire for meaning in life contradicting the silent, indifferent universe. Our life is like Sisyphus' predicament--rolling a giant rock uphill only to watch it fall down helplessly, then repeat the same toil again and again. The predestined falling rock could also be a metaphor for the inevitable death waiting for everyone, yet we unfailingly roll it up, without the hope for it to stay even a moment. In the quest to seek reason and ultimate truth, the situation is not unlike the falling rock. We see in history that no matter how perfect a scientific theory seems, it always ends up being challenged and modified, even thrown away.

There are three stages of this journey in the absurd and existentialism realization: first, one is not aware of their meaningless existence, thus ignorantly happy; then, as soon as one becomes conscious of the absurd, they are in the center of a tragedy; yet, only when one is fully aware of the true nature of their being and face it, scorn it, own it, could it be conquered, and only then, true happiness could be achieved. "At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock."

Back to SHCO, in the gallery scene, Sherlock makes two assertions: "Feelings are simply one's animal ancestry trying to wrest back control of the brain." And "Mankind's highest achievement, above all others, is objective and rational thought."

He is not wrong, only too confident, even arrogant. Vogel is not wrong to say "men never act freely and rationally anyway," either. The fact is we can never totally free our brains from our animal ancestry, and when we hold our achievements in too high a position and refuse to reevaluate, we are surely doomed.

At this point, Sherlock is unaware of the absurdity of rationality and holds tightly onto his ignorant happiness and confidence. The end of the game marks his entering into the next phase when he acknowledges his own tragedy, with a trace of hope that he is braving it and taking control.

Later in SHTA, when facing an even larger challenge, Sherlock tries in vain to maintain that everything can be explained by reasoning mind. Yet as he sinks deeper and deeper into madness, he once again goes through the phases of acknowledging the absurd, this time questioning not only his personal history but the very meaning of the whole world. It is definitely a tougher task for him, and the end is gloomier than SHCO since he shows less courage and hopes for a better future.

Nevertheless, in each ending of the two games, in the struggles, failures, and shattered hopes, when he falters, doubts, and fears, he somehow always holds true to his purpose--an obsession, comments Mycroft. Obsession may it be, it is the meaning he attributes to his course of actions.

At the end of SHTA, it is hard to point a finger at what is exactly the thing he fights for. Truth? Justice? Love? Humanity? Connection with another human being? Maybe a portion of each, but that's not all, not the core of it.

On the top of the lighthouse, Rochester convinces him that everything is real. Sherlock is not winning in their argument, just like when he confronts Vogel, not much to argue against the man other than pointing out his intention was malicious. He can't prove Vogel or Rochester wrong.

Yet he tells Vogel, "I remain", which is the most powerful thing he could say, and all that matters. Vogel believes that he has made Sherlock "let go of the rock", but he fails to understand Sherlock--he doesn't see the truth rock he holds.

He himself is the rock. The meaning is in himself and himself only.

That is what he uses against Rochester, not his logic or intelligence, not even his morality or humanity. Nothing matters but his, and the world's very being itself.

There is a very interesting point in the lighthouse scene, in terms of the thinking process and structure of belief, Rochester and Sherlock Holmes are not that different.

Rochester makes it very clear, everything is real, and it is only rational to accept it as it is. He knows Sherlock and knows him very well. He knows what kind of man he is, and what he values the most--his love for knowledge and truth, his deepest fear and weakness. He knows Sherlock has doubt in his heart. He knows exactly how to counter each argument, maybe in a way Sherlock himself would put it. "One must imagine Icarus happy...(ah, another reference to The Myth of Sisyphus, the last sentence being "one must imagine Sisyphus happy.") And were you to ask him of his choice, he would have not a single regret." Doesn't that perfectly summarize Rochester himself and Sherlock Holmes? At the end of SHCO, hasn't Sherlock "plummeted to his death" spiritually as he found out about the truth of his mother's death? Jon died, and so did part of himself. Yet he insists on flying toward the sun, again and again, with no regret, no looking back, seeking only the truth, or whatever he holds true. Rochester, in this sense, is no different. They are but one at this point. It's not only an irony that the most famous Sherlock Holmes quote comes from his mouth, but also the very essence of this story: Now we both know the truth, that I am right about this world. Then what else stands between us, what else do you hold against me?

In a practical sense, Sherlock has John and his brother, and the knowledge he has gained in the journey, all that can help him win the fight. But in the philosophical and spiritual aspects, he is defeated, temporarily at least. He is forced to his knees, admitting everything is real. Also, in the epilogue, we see how much he is suffering, not able to fully recover from the nightmares.

But also in the philosophical aspect, victory and defeat matter little. As Sherlock tells John, "If our future is black, it is better surely to face it like a man than to attempt to brighten it by mere will-o'-the-wisps of the imagination." For him, the notion of hope is meaningless, a wishful thought. He determines to face everything as it is, without dressing them up with his fancies and lies.

As he lets go of everything, he gains it all.

When he finally completes processing the madness of the world, when Rochester believes he can defeat Sherlock this time, Sherlock finds the peace and courage to face it, and tells Rochester, "maybe your god is unstoppable, but you are merely a man. And I know how to stop you."

What is the point, I would imagine Rochester asks, if you know that Cthulhu is bound to come sooner or later? If the world is predestined to be destroyed, what is the point of stopping me here, only to prolong the empty and meaningless suffering of humanity?

And this choice, when facing the same premise, is what I believe to be the fundamental difference between Sherlock and Rochester, and Vogel too: Sherlock chooses to roll the rock uphill despite knowing it will eventually fall down.

Crazy as his behaviors are, Rochester's line of thought is not that hard to understand: If Cthulhu is predestined to destroy the world, then I am only following the inevitable. The world is meaningless thus as well destroyed. Vogel follows the same logic: men never think rationally, then why bother? Better only feel and consume since striving for reason is futile.

In their mind, the rock must stay at the top, or there is no point in rolling it up. If not forever, then never.

Don't we, our society, tend to think the same way? If one changes their mind or changes the course of their career, marriage, hobby, etc., we judge them to be a failure, at least in the previous pursuit.

But when death is inevitable, and everything must be put to a stop eventually, then what and who is not a failure?

The highest rationality, on the other hand, is to recognize this inevitable ending and the futility of maintaining certainty and eternity, and go from there.

And this is the essence of Frogwares' myth of Sherlock Holmes, the one who faces the ultimate meaningless, the absurd, and the destruction at the end, yet still "remains". At this moment, "being" is the most, and the only powerful thing, to stand on one's ground and defy the inevitable like Sisyphus rebels against the gods. It doesn't matter how much Sherlock questions himself, doubts everything, and struggles against the darkness; it doesn't matter his own mind lingering between reality and madness. Just as "there is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night", there is no reason without doubt, no reality without madness, and no happiness without gaze into the abyss of the absurd. Despite all the suffering, he remains, holding tight to the rock--himself. And that's all that matters. At this point his victory is the only INEVITABLE, as Camus puts it, "The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn."

Therefore, one must imagine Sherlock Holmes happy.

#sherlock holmes the awakened remake #sherlock holmes the awakened #sherlock holmes chapter one #long essay #text post #philosophical overthinking #sherlock holmes #spoilers #existentialism #The Myth of Sisyphus #my post

[harleiquina]

Argentina won't turn into Hell that's what the *actual* fascists want you to believe.

A summary (trust me, I left so many things outside this post in a vain attempt to make it shorter) of what is going on in my country and why "the Far Right" has won.

I've seen many meltdowns on Tumblr about how everyone (especially the Queer community) is terrified, asking others to help them out. And it's painting a view of my country that is quite similar to the lives of those under Real Dictatorships (think North Corea, at least) and that makes my eyes roll because if us argentinos are one thing that is over the top. Go ahead, blame our Italian heritage, we do it all the time.

The first thing that I want to point out to the World is that the concepts of "Left" and "Right" are heavily polluted in my country. They've reached the point of "good" and "bad" without any critical thought behind it. And it was possible thanks to decades of a political party sucking the life and money from us: the Peronismo.

At the very begining:

Remember the "don't cry for me Argentina?" whether you are thinking of the Broadway's Musical or the movie inspired by it you are also thinking of Eva Perón. Pity that reality is a thing and nobody is perfect.

The Gral. Juan Domingo Perón came to be after being part of a military coup (something every single peronista forgets) that helped him to become relevant among the workers which lead him to his victory on the elections. He followed Mussolini's footsteps and allowed many Germans *if you catch my drift* to come and seek refuge in Argentina (before the end of the WW2 the Luna Park Stadium in Buenos Aires-usually used for boxing matches- held the largest N*zi meeting outside Germany with 70.000 supporters). He was also known for going after many women (is pretty much confirmed that one of his mistresses was 15 years old when he was over 40... or maybe 50) many of them were actresses that ended up leaving the country to escape from him and the Peronismo altogether. BUT since he approved a few laws -created and championed by the opposition years before- that helped the workers (8hrs shift, paid vacation, and such) and built a few -heavily- needed things he was The Greatest Guy Ever™️.

And Evita does not stay back. She earned the title "the standar-bearer of the poor" because of her many charities... that weren't real charities either. She would call toy or sewing machines factories and others to pressure them to give up merchandise for her to donate. What's wrong with that? That 1) an honest person would buy those items to donate them and 2) that she would send the AFIP (our IRS) to inspect and elaborate cases against the owners that denied to "help her" even if there wasn't a single pencil out of place. That's called blackmail, kids. And somehow (on the President's salary and her savings?) she had the biggest jewellry collection in Latinamerica and always dressed up with Chanel (yes, she was an actress but other actresses at the time were a hundred times more successful and did not spend THAT much money on their every-day outfits). I read her book and she does say that she wore modest clothes when meeting with her "shirtless" (a endearing? nickname both her and Perón used when talking about their followers) and that she "hated" wearing expensive clothes... and she says a lot of things as well that would scare the hard-core feminists that have a tattoo of her face somewhere in their bodies: Evita wasn't a feminist, 👏🏻read 👏🏻the👏🏻 goddamned👏🏻 book!! 👏🏻

The Peronismo built a movement out of an utopy? oximoron? the promise of finding the perfect balance between Capitalism and Socialism. It created the concept of "Patreon Goverment" (had to adapt it to English, the literal title is "Estado Bienestar" that could be translated to "Wellfare State" but it doesn't really encapsulates the real meaning) and the idea that the Goverment shouldn't just care for the overall of people but for every single individual person, so basically to get the State inside the houses instead of securing the good of the country in general. You might think that is ok-ish but in long term is a TERRIBLE idea.

Creating their voters

I once read the line "The Peronismo breaks your legs and then gives you clutches, so you are eternally greatful to them for the clutches" and whoever said it nailed it.

Perón & Evita always gave stuff to people who pledged loyalty to them in return. In here we have the word "clientelism" for this tactic: you give something and people gives you their vote and still happens to this day. And yes, you've guessed, within the Peronismo.

Now bear in mind that I don't mean that the State can't or shouldn't help people with food or basic clothing/items or even money when needed... but they always do it when their popularity is going down. You could argue that Evita gave sewing machines for those struggling women that needed to find a way to provide for their families but the overall endgame was to gain voters. Even in her book she claims that only "useful"* women should have kids... to end up in Perón's ranks. No other reason.

*Evita divides women in 2 groups: The Useful Woman (typical 1950s woman that takes care of herself, her family and is -kinda- well educated, maybe even went to College) and The Un-Useful woman which was basically a lazy one, this kind of woman shouldn't procreate (according to her) because she adds no value to the loyal soldiers of the General. Oh! How the turntables! But we'll speak about this later.

In addition of conditioning the most vulnerable groups to receive stuff in exchange for a vote (in people's minds if they don't remain In-Office, no-one will ever give them anything again) the education began its ongoing decay.

To give you an idea:

My grandmother in the 1940s saw stuff in 1st grade (aged 6) that my mom, in the late 1970s saw in 3rd grade (aged 8) and that I saw in the early 2000s in 5th grade (aged 10).

Education should always make you aim higher and not below average. It used to be normal for kids at the end of the year to see an few basic concepts they would have to study next year but this practice is long gone... kids start the year re-learning things from last year.

Argentina in 1930 practically had eradicated illiteracy, it held (if my memory doesn't fail) the 2% of illiteracy among citizens and it was the lowest percentage in Latinamerica. Even if you watch movies from 1930-1950 you'll see that they even tossed around some lines in English, Portuguese, Italian and even French... and this were the type of movies that everybody could see and understand (so nothing too high brow) starred by popular idols of the time.

Now our kids can't read or understand a text nor do basic math... bah! I keep saying "kids" as if my own generation is any smarter (I'm 31, btw). I was 20something in College, one of my classmates was 33 at the time and he didn't know what an index was or the purpose of it on a book, the rest of the class (about 30 people between 18 to 25) never noticed that 2 lists of 12 rules in Marketing were the same (but written in sinonyms, obviously) that we had to study for Managment and this people supposedly had a better education than me because I went to Public School my whole life (minus College) and they all went to Private Schools.

In 2022 15% of kids didn't end Highschool and we are getting high numbers on those that abandon Elementary School as well. There is no point for them to study because there have been about 3 or 4 generations that receive everything they need from the Goverment... why would they aspire to be something more? There's no need for that. And that's exactly what peronistas want: people too blinded by their miserable lives (that are good lives according to what they are told) to actually care about anything else.. It is a Capital Sin to try and become your own boss in a business or try and own anything at all like a home. Seriously my neighbours hate my family because we are the legal owners of our house... and they want our house for them because they think they are entitled to it -?!-.

So a mass of uneducated people that lives off gifts was created and this is the same people that votes for them every single time.

Of course, there are others that are not *that* easy to convince and this is where the maquiavelic plan is set to motion. Some people are looking to better their lives and their communities', and since these are large communities they equal to a large amount of votes.

That's how women got their vote. Everybody keeps thanking Evita for the female vote but who always championed for it was one of the most prominent feminists of our history Alicia Moreau de Justo (among many others since circa 1914, of course). The reason why the Law of Female Sufrage was approved in 1946 was because there was a strong opposition to Perón after his first term that could mean in him not being re-elected. So he needed more votes... hmm... I wonder how could he get those numbers? Got it! Make women vote, they most likely will vote for that one that allowed them to do so. Something similar happened around 2010 with Cristina Kirchner allowing 16 year olds (and up) to vote when the law was for those above 18.

Over the last couple of decades many social concerns took the spotlight and were legalized (same-sex marriage, abortion, the equivalent to Social Security, you name it) and they are atributed to the Peronismo/Kircherismo (a new branch born out of the Kirchners -husband and wife that became presidents and ruled for 12 years + their return in 2019 with our current president Alberto Fernández. So 16 years in power-) even if this projects were born on the opposition or independent organizations.

Even the Abortion legalization was a result of Macri (president between 2015-2019) a "Far Right" leader that said: "even if I don't agree with this project, its a conversation that our country needs to have" before allowing the Congress discuss it. What kind of "Alt-Right" leader lets such a divisive project be approved? Or better yet: what kind of "Left" leader like Cristina Kirchner, a woman that was in-office for 8 years, didn't send that project to Congress as soon as she took over because she wasn't *that* convinced about it?

The Peronismo/Kirchnerismo has convinced everyone that they are the Left and that anyone else that stands against them is the Right... the Ultra-right... because being just "The Right" isn't scary enough for some.

Corruption

While people is seemingly happy still living in dirt roads, with kids eating literal garbage and with no access to drinkable water, all the money that should've gone to different infraestructures was just there lying around... crying for someone's embrace... so of course the politicians decided that the money would be safe, warm and cozy in their own pockets.

My country is rich. We can have all kinds of industries because we have all weathers and enviroments: jungle, deserts, sea, mountains, fields, lakes, cities... and yet many of my fellow countrymen are starving, especially the Originary People (Native Americans). But the idea that whoever can invest in anything here is a vulture that doesn't care about their workers as long as money keeps pouring into their pockets was imposed throughout generations now by the Peronistas. (Mind you, I am fully aware that this kind of people does exist but it doesn't mean that every single business owner is like that, especially when speaking of PYMEs -Small and Medium Size Enterprises, in Spanish- that are the most popular model in my country. So basically family businesses)

Just last week Formosa's Governor (one of our poorest provinces), peronista clearly, publicly scolded a poor Wichí woman that sells her crafts online to the world (I wasn't able to find her name or her business' but is part of a program named Womek by the Foundation Gran Chaco that connects and educates people from native communities in how to use internet and build a business in it, among other things). I swear if you could either hear or read his words -it's all in Spanish and I don't feel like translating, sorry- you'll see a clear case of Gaslighting... and this happens everywhere.

The message is clear: How dare you go out to find something better if you have everything you need in here? And all of this while they have the most expensive cars, watches, houses and travel around the globe.

In this final election the phrase "what Rights will Milei take away? We don't have any!" Became almost a motto among people in the lower classes (just the few that are opening their eyes to the life they could have)

This meme sums it up perfectly: "Milei will take everything I built away"

The people is angry

Milei won because people is done with the corruption (the Kirchneristas didn't even counted the money they stole... they weighted it. They knew how many dollars equal 1 kilo -half a pound- can you imagine how insane that is? They moved such large amounts of money that there was no time to count it, so they weighted it), the insecurity and also because people is tired of seeing our country falling apart.

Socially, the large uncultured masses don't do anything else but grow bigger (the whole "Un-useful women" came back to bite Eva in her a$$ because these women are the ones that are feeding the Peronista/Kirchnerista movement today), the other half -the working class- always has to pay for the party.

My grandfather retired at age 65, if I'm not wrong, but one or two years later a law was approved where if a retired person kept working, they would receive a bigger compensation once they finally retired. So he went back to work... and worked until I finished College (he would take the bus with me everyday so I wouldn't do it alone due to the insecurity) at his 83 years old. Once he decided to retire "for real" I went with him to the bank and Social Services so he could arrange his compensation. I was there when he was told "Sorry, grandpa, all the money you've made ended up in the different Social Plans. You won't see a cent" and this happened to all retired people.

All the workers have to pay taxes that do not end in needed improvements (like remodeling schools, hospitals, roads and such) every single Peso we give them ends up in Clientelism or in their own pockets (it is very well known fact in Latinamerica that you are not a real Socialist unless you have a Rolex on your wrist and lots of gold at home). Even if you take a plane to travel you have to pay a 2nd ticket in taxes alone to support both things... so of course people is pissed. Of course we want them Out of Office. And this doesn't make us "Far Right".

Is Milei the argentinian Tr*mp?

I'd say no.

As a Publicist, Milei never quite jelled for me. He's eccentric, sometimes agressive (but not in a way that equals violence or physical threats. If I say Agressive I can also mean Passionate), and... bizzarre just to say something. He's laser focused on our economy and nothing else... his team has some... odd... pieces that I don't like and that's where some level of fear might be born. However, is Milei who'll have the last word and the Opposition (a really big one even if he has some allies in it) will not just give in into his every whim.

After watching interviews and hearing him speak I'm starting to suspect that maybe he is within the autistic spectrum. Of course, I'm not the right person to say so... but the way he moves, how he explains everything in so much detail (but still accessible to anyone in his "University Professor" demeanor, something he proudly brings up every time) and the fact that his older sister is his corner stone and guide that keeps him going and coaches him on how he should behave adds up to my theory.

I do believe that he is honest... at least the part that wants to fix our country. He doesn't sugar-coats what he says, which is awful for us but good at the same time because Macri refused to do so back in 2015 and it costed him greatly.

One thing that I dislike about him is that Economy is his jam and tries to apply it to everything. He doesn't think much from any other point of view, but more like "if I cut this off, I'll have money to use in X". The other day in an interview said something like "Why should I absorb the deficit of the State's TV Channels and Radio when I can use that money to feed the kids?" which is not wrong (and by the way, this is not a Right-wing-nutjob type of speech) but in this case it works... I'm not so sure about every single problem around here. Only time will tell.

Yeah... but he is in line with Tr*mp and Bolsonaro and supports Israel.

To be fair, I do not know if he ever said anything about Biden or Obama, not even about Tr*mp (I'm not his follower, I haven't watched every single interview he's ever given). It is understandable that a country like mine would aspire to be like the USA. I do not know if Milei likes any of the economical decisions that *that* administration executed. But, in my opinion, Tr*mp has a lot more in common with the Kirchners than with Milei... even down to the point of ranting in Twitter (sorry, X) at any time. Tr*mp is a populist and Milei is against Populism.

I've heard Milei saying that he is not homophobic (time will tell), I've seen how he trusts and protects the women in his movement so I wouldn't label him as a misogynist either. His team, however, does have some rotten apples.

Why are they there? I dare to say because he needed people to fill in his list so it was a matter of quantity over quality. He's been in the political arena for 2 years... nothing compared to any other politician in my country, most of them started around 1983 (The Return of Democracy) or started with Perón back in the 1940s. Macri was also an outsider, but still, he started in politics in 2011 when he ran for Mayor of CABA (Autonomous City of Buenos Aires) so even now he's been on the field for 12 years and knows better. Hopefully, with time, Javier Milei will be able to pick and choose who he really wants next to him instead of settling for anyone that offers their help.

About Bolsonaro. Yes, he does have a relationship with him... because both countries faced the same enemy: Populism. People, I think the Bolsonaro is a terrible person... still I can't believe that Lula won again. Wasn't there another option? Why going back with the executioner? You were supposed to escape that fate, mate!

The so-called Socialism in Latinamerica is dirty. It steals from people, overpowers the Sindicates and they use that power to jeopardize a country's economy and even bring down goverments (in Argentina, since Perón's first presidency no other political sign ended its mandate. Macri was the exception because Social Networks allowed movements to show him support and the many attempts to bring him down failed) they dumb-down the people and want to close the doors to the world even though we live in the era of Globalization. No country is an island (figure of speech) that can do things on its own. We need to connect and sell our products outside our borders, that's the way to achieve a estable economy.

So, of course that he will try and connect to those that are fighting the same battle. Does it means that they are besties, doing each other's hair and that he agrees 100% to anything Bolsonaro has ever said? No, it doesn't.

About Israel.

Our history with Israel and the Jewish community reached the major peak of support in 1992 and 1994 when the Israel Embassy and the AMIA (a jewish association) suffered a terrorist attack (a car-bomb in each one) at the hands of Iran.

This was 31 years ago, the names of those involved are very well known but they are not in jail. The District Attorney Alberto Nisman was killed (or killed himself according to the Kirchneristas 🙄) the day before he was going to Court to show how the goverments and especifically Cristina Kirchner's were involved in the cover up that allowed the perpetrators to remain free.

So... we kind of owe Israel justice.

Milei is working into being converted to Judaism and if we add our history with both creed and country, of course he'll be on their side.

In any case, he's denying the 30k disappeared and supports the 1976's Dictatorship

As a side note: all media here covers what the international media says about the Israel conflict with Palestine. So just one side of the story and the brainwash is hard. Hell! I've even tried to explain mom about the reality of what is going on but she oversimplified everything to "If the Left supports them (Palestinians), then it's wrong" (because, as I said, the concepts of Left and Right are very contaminated in here and is really hard to get rid of the Peronista Stench).

Just a small personal note here: I'm not Jewish, clearly (I'm Agnostic) so I don't know anything about territorial history and/or rights on land based on that religion. But I do know that saying "X country shouldn't exist", name it Israel, USA, Argentina... or any country in the world -lets face it all of them are based on wars and extermination, no matter how far back you go in history- doesn't ring well (especially when someone is a Public figure) it is almost an invitation to war or genocide altogether because "that country shouldn't exist". I believe that as long as a country doesn't go back to the times of expeditions to gain land or to show power or stir fake-patriotism because its people is unhappy with a goverment (as Israel, Russia and USA -mostly- do) they should be respected. Let their own people choose their fate, like it happened to Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, they decided to split up and create new countries out of it. If they step out of the rules, they of course should be held accountable and there are many ways to do so and trying to erase it ain't one of them (it's usually economical and global punishments. Ask Cuba). Germany didn't stopped existing after WW2, Israel won't stop existing after this... the best next thing will be to educate as many people as you can and pray -if that's your thing- for all it inhabitants to understand and take action on how their future should be and how to make ammends with those they've wronged. End of communication, let us continue.

For those of you that didn't know, Argentina and many other Latinamerican countries suffered Military Coups in the 70s. All of them were part of the Condor Plan elaborated by the USA.

My country suffered many Dictatorships but the one between 1976 and 1983 was the worst of them all.

It all began after Perón's death, when his widow, Isabel, ended up being the President (because she was his vice-president). At the time, the Peronistas had 2 major guerrillas: Montoneros and the Triple A.

Montoneros worked mostly as a terrorist group and the Triple A was more like a Service of Intelligence (allowed to kidnap, torture and even kill those against Perón).

So we had local terrorism and a economical debacle. The perfect Petri Dish for a Military Coup.

In order to "fight" this terrorists, the militars kidnapped, tortured and disappeared many "leaders" BUT once they were being "arrested" their possesions would be taken and if they had a notebook with phone numbers and adresses of friends, classmates (many were university students) or even handy-men all of them would be turned into targets as well and suffered the same fate. Once the Democracy returned, we had the Trial of the Juntas that you can see in the movie Argentina 1985. Many cases landed on the laps of the Distric Attorneys so they decided to stop counting after 8 thousand disappeared otherwise the Trial would never start. So those 8.000 are like the "official" victims. Still the people decided to close the number in 30.000 for those that didn't make it into the final count and those that maybe nobody reported as disappeared. The actual number could be less than 30k, or maybe more... we will never know, but it is not wrong to say that there are 8k victims (that's the confirmed number) or 30k (a simbolic number).

Since our education at school only says "soldiers bad, victims good" a lot of people that didn't lived back then does not know the nuances of why this happened. Trying to bring the true version of History afloat is not denying that it happened but broadening the picture and showing some nasty sides with it.

Once the Militars were losing power they decided to evoke our sense of fake patriotism by starting a war against the UK (mostly England) over the Malvinas Islands (or Fakland Islands), a very old conflict that began in the 1830s. Everybody was on board until news from the front arrived. The Dictators sent literal kids to fight with no equipment to survive the cold, nor food or good weapons (we are talking about using weapons from the WW2 in 1982). Many soldiers died both in the battlefield and their homes because they just couldn't cope with the horrors experienced and took their own lives. We all hate the treatment our veterans had to endure and still go through today because some people is like "they were part of the Dictatorship, they were soldiers and deserved to die because they are fascists" completely ignoring the fact that this kids never wanted to be soldiers, they were drafted to do the Mandatory Military Service just to be sent to war a few months later.

And guess what? Milei's vice-president is the daughter of one of those soldiers. So of course she wants her father and other veterans to be recognized and cherished.

They were kids forced to fight to keep some dusty asses in Rivadavia's Chair. They were not part of the problem, they are also victims.

But once again, our lack of nuance turns everything inside-out.

Milei and Macri are not "The Alt Right" they are Center if anything.

"The Left" is a fascist movement and I will list as much evidence as I can remember about it (in a different post, this one is now far too long).

Yes, some members of Milei's political party are more "Right-Wing" but the party in itself doesn't have any kind of power at this moment (he's got like 8 mayors, no governors and maybe less than 20 legislators and senators in chambers that go above 200 members each) THERE'S NO WAY THAT ANYONE'S RIGHTS WILL BE STOLEN.

● Being against Peronism does not equal to be a "Right wing" supporter.

● Peronism is the real Fascism in here. They hate being out of Office and more than once admitted that they can bring down goverments (5 so far).

● They hate people that thinks differently (or that thinks overall) and use and abuse their own followers nearly forcing them to shed their blood in protests and fights so they can cry later about how they are "The Right's victims".

And one last phrase that I once heard somewhere:

"Dictatorships are dangerous in Latinamerica because they disguise themselves as the Left" so you can't just fight it because then you are the villain.

#argentina #argieposting #anti-peronismo #long essay #is this an essay? I don't know anymore #argieblr #if you are Peronista don't interact... I'll ignore you. Go back to your life and I'll go back to mine.

[katestrophic]

So, The School for Good and Evil Movie

Verdict: Good movie, not so great adaption. 6.5/10. I’d recommend it if you’re curious, but if you are a fan of the books (like me) you should turn your brain off for maximum enjoyment.

If you haven’t seen the movie or read any of the books I suggest you turn back now because spoilers are up ahead.

By itself, the movie stands well on its own. The pacing is good, the story is fine, and the characters and characterization is decent. The movie still has that same cringe-inducing charm of the book (if you’ve read the book you will know). Sure, some characters could’ve used more time to establish themselves so that they aren’t shallow, like Tedros, Beatrix and her princess friend group, and the Coven but I will forgive it as the movie only has 2 hours and 28 minutes to establish everything while the books have 560 pages. Plus, this story is about Sophie and Agatha primarily.

And speaking of Sophie and Agatha...

They’ve completely changed the whole relationship and dynamic of the two. In the books, Sophie was only nice to Agatha as her pet project to add to her list of good deeds and Agatha only tolerated her because Sophie was the only one who showed some care to her besides her mom and cat. In the movie, these girls are considered the outcasts of the town and just kinda own it together. And while I do not mind this change, I find their friendship quite cute.

But it now makes even less sense in the movie as to why Sophie and Agatha were placed in their respective schools.

In the books, Sophie is vain, conceited, and self-centered. She’s only nice just to look good. Her persona is completely fake. This is only a front so that way it increases her chances of being placed in the School for Good, even outright admitting this to Agatha. That way, it makes sense as to why the switch happened. After all, is someone really good if they’re only being good just to make themselves look better?

Sophie in the movie is just...nice. She comes off as “a barbie girl living in a barbie world” kind of gal. Like, okay, I understand you want your protagonists to be likeable, but since they stripped Sophie of her selfishness, it makes the whole “these girls are in the wrong school” plot point make even less sense now as mentioned previously.

Not only that, without her vanity, the moment where she willingly becomes evil has less of an impact now. In the book and movie, the turning point for Sophie is when she got her hair forcibly cut off. In the book, this kinda breaks Sophie where she’s no longer playing around, she’s gonna get what she wants and do what she wants (henceforth, the F is for Fabulous sequence from the book). In the movie, she kinda just mopes around after the deed is done and Rafal now enters the picture for Sophie to begin to sink his claws into her. They have to get the villain, who, in the books I may add, doesn’t start playing a major role until books 2 and 3, to influence Sophie to become evil. The scene just comes off as that “Oh no! Anyways...” meme.

I don’t know how to segway into the general talk of how the movie adapted the book’s events outside of what they did to the characters, so I guess I’ll start talking about it here.

I guess this is as good as a time as ever to discuss the villain. In the book 1 iirc, his only role is to tell Agatha and Sophie to prove his decision wrong and he’ll return both girls home and then doesn’t do anything else. Sophie just plays against herself and turn evil. Again, as previously mentioned, he only becomes an antagonistic force in books 2 and 3. But here, they gave him a bigger role and moved his manipulating Sophie and giving her power plot point from book 3 to this movie. I guess it’s because they wanted a conflict that would result in a major climatic battle at the end? I thought the whole interpersonal drama of the conflicting goals of these girls was enough drama on its own but the movie doesn’t share the same sentiment I guess.

They changed the whole introduction and even the worldbuilding reader world. Outside of including the duel between the two brothers and the change to Agatha’s and Sophie’s relationship, the reader world has no clue about The School for Good and Evil outside of the bookstore lady. And what from the movie says, outside of Leonora (we will get to her in a bit), Agatha, and Sophie, no one else has been kidnapped which is vastly different from the “every four years two kids get kidnapped from this village who turn up later in fairy tales” lore that the book takes out. They also remove any other characterization of the village besides “everyone is a jerk except for Sophie, Agatha, and Agatha’s mom”.

After the girls get kidnapped and dropped off at their schools, it proceeds normally besides cutting a bunch of book events, like the Circus of Talent, F is for Fabulous, the actual Trial by Tale, and THE MIRROR SCENE.

YOU KNOW. THE PEAK OF AGATHA’S CHARACTER. HER MOST IMPORTANT SCENE. OF ALL THE SCENES THEY HAD TO CUT IT HAD TO BE THIS ONE.

Gregory, an original character for the movie, is a nice edition. I’ve only had him for a few minutes and I will do anything for this boy. And a few minutes is all I had for him because they turned him into a stymph and killed him off. This makes Agatha question the real morality of the two schools, seeing the fate of failed students, which I think is a nice touch to the movie.

They also had Rafal be more involved, directly influencing Sophie to be evil and cut a lot of the antics Sophie did to get Tedors’ attention. But, they also added one more unwelcome edition.

They made Leonara Lesso the reader who got kidnapped and have her be in love with Rafal. She was an evil reader who failed Rafal, making him seek out Sophie, They decided to merge her and Evelyn Sader together. LIKE WHY. This change makes the LEAST amount of sense besides further connecting Rafal to the plot and the girls!

Okay, after that gripe is out of the way, the ending. The ending’s fine. Rafal gives Sophie access to his blood magic. The school for good and evil begin to fight and swap places in terms of morality since the Good attacked and the Evil defended. Sophie and Rafal kiss and when all is loss Tedros and Agatha come in to save Sophie. Sophie takes a hit for Agatha and Agatha slays Rafal using Excalibur. At this point I was mentally checked out so I thought it was fine.

And yes, before anyone asks, they included the kiss scene between the two girls.

After that, the girls return home and the status quo is restored. Good and Evil are now supposedly friends. Happily ever after for these two obviously platonic girls.

But, the ending implies the next book, A World Without Princes, will be adapted in the future and I just let out a sigh. I kinda wished this movie was a one and done deal given my thoughts overall with this movie. And, because of this sequel tease, Rafal will inevitably come back.

Overall, this movie was a fun and nice watch, especially as a fan of the book series since I was in high school. I’m glad the movie was made and I could watch it, even though it was a letdown. I will say, those who like making mood boards and enjoy a fairy tale aesthetic in general, you will eat this movie up because the outfits and environment are FIRE.

Ok my rant is done I’m going to bed byeeeeeee.

#the school for good and evil #tsfgae #the school for good and evil movie #tsfgae movie #agatha of woods beyond #sophie of woods beyond #sofia wylie #sophia anne caruso #tedros of camelot #rafal mistral #movie reiview #long essay #long post #spoilers #kate screeches #leonora lesso #clarissa dovey

[genderfluidnae]

Turnabout Storyteller (My Thoughts on it)

So, I’ve heard a lot of people saying that “Turnabout Storyteller” from AA6 is the worst case in the entire AA franchise. Which I agree and disagree, and is why I will write my thoughts about it (and also to pass the time because rn im having a school test lol)

1. Why I agree that Turnabout Storyteller is bad as hell.

I partially agree with people saying that SOJ 4th case is bad, because the whole case is a filler and also so Athena got more content (Why can’t she just got her own game, Capcom?). The whole thing felt like the first case on every AA game where there’s the tutorial and stuff and the whole build up of the case is ridiculous. And! There’s no investigation it! That case should’ve existed in her own game rather than on AA6 because she already got her character development in AA5! Throwing it all away just for a filler case just sucks, dude. Moving on to Athena’s actions in the trial. She gives up too quickly and she loses faith in her client way too quickly that she needs Simon to remind her? He’s a prosecutor and yet he knows more that a defense attorney cannot loses their faith in their client’s innocence! Athena just acts like a literal beginner on their first trial which pisses me off (Honestly she acts like Sebastian before he got his character development in AAI2). Now about the whole case, like I said before the whole case is just ridiculous, probably more ridiculous than Turnabout Big Top. Geiru killed her master (I forgot his name) because he gave her late father’s title to Uendo?? That’s a really shaky basis to kill someone and moreover Geiru jumped into too many conclusions. She thought her master wants to humiliate/taunt her by making buckwheat noodles (which she is very allergic to) just because she didn’t get the title. And that’s her whole motive to kill. Ridiculous. Now to the defendant, Bucky Whet. You know most defendants that I met in the whole franchise I really love them all. But him? Bucky Whet? Hell no. His sprites are annoying, especially the vomitting one. His whole dialogue is hard to comprehend, way harder than Gina Lestrade’s dialogue! His character design is also such a turnoff for me, the brown hair, the orange hoodie is so.. bad. Only thing I like about him is his skateboard sprite, that’s all. Now that I get that out of the way, I would like to write about my thoughts why I disagree that Turnabout Storyteller is not the worst case.

2. Why I disagree that Turnabout Storyteller is not that bad of a case.

Next thing is that some things I like about the case and things that made my rating to that case a little bit high. First off, of course, is because of the witness. Uendo Toneido. Finding out that he has DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) was something that I did not expect at all. And honestly? It was actually a great plot twist. And seeing Ace Attorney placing that in their game is actually a nice one, and atleast they handle it way better than Danganronpa. His cross examination is also very fun to be honest. Next thing is, Simon. Haha, I’m totally not biased just because he’s my favorite character, no I’m not /j. But Simon’s appearance is definitely fan-service, for Athena. Which I will not complain. Also, seeing Simon liking Rakugo was definitely a last minute addition. I really can’t imagine someone like him would like Rakugo, atleast in the english version. But some people say in the japanese version him liking Rakugo was expected because of him as a samurai and his japanese dialogue. But in the english version? Noo. Also seeing Simon in the witness stand, testifying was also something I like. He wasn’t forced to testify about something that made him traumatized for life (*cough cough* wright and edgeworth *cough cough*). AND also seeing him messing with Athena was also so funny, I really crave for both of their moments as siblings more, (When is her game, Capcom! When? I need to see more of these two!). The comedy relief is also one of the reasons why I kind of like this case, Nahyuta remembering all of the Rakugo stories there is and telling one of them in an ongoing trial was hilarious, even the judge was sucked into the story. 

Overall rating for this case for me is a 6/10. Not that bad, not too good. That extra point was because of Uendo and that ends my thoughts on this case. Thank you for reading!

#mythoughts #long essay #turnabout storyteller #ace attorney

[mournfulroses]

Mary Oliver, from Long Life: Essays And Other Writings originally published in 2004

#lit #mary oliver #quotes #writings #words #understanding #typography #fragments #quote #essays #long life: essays & other writings #p

[counting-stars-gayly]

I’m actually LOVING how Rick Riordan, and the other writers of the show, took his initial concept of a Percabeth rivalry fueled by that of their parents and kind of turned it on its head?

Now, instead of Annabeth being wary of Percy because he’s a son of Poseidon, he’s wary of her because she made a callous impression on him. They get off to a rocky start even before finding out who Percy’s father is, and when they finally do, Annabeth doesn’t care. Instead of them fighting because of who their parents are, they’re fighting over their own opposed worldviews.

Then, instead of them arguing over which of the gods is cooler and who was right in the story of Medusa, they realize that, just like Medusa, Annabeth is a victim of her mother and that, unlike Medusa, she is a far kinder and stronger person, unwilling to repeat the cycle of hurt. They realize that, like his father, Percy often acts without considering potential consequences and that, unlike his father, he is a far kinder and stronger person, willing to step up for someone he wronged and whom he cares about.

Instead of Percy and Annabeth’s rivalry being focused on that of their parents, it’s focused on who they are, themselves. But the path to friendship is still the same: a realization that they have each other’s backs, no matter what, because they’re not their parents after all.

#i kind of typed this in my essay voice because I knew it would be long so ignore that #also I don’t actually know which of the other writers are playing big parts in percabeth’s story so threats why I put a focus on Riordan #that’s* #aaaaanyhoo if I’m being honest I definitely prefer this version of percabeth #AND I like that Medusa said ‘‘we are not our parents until we choose to be. you three have chosen’’ implying that she thinks they’ve chosen #to be their parents only for Percy to reveal in the next episode that he’s chosen to be better than his father. #that was a really nice touch 👌👌👌 #percy jackson and the olympians #pjo #pjo disney+ #percy jackson disney+ #percy jackson #annabeth chase #Percabeth #rick riordan #Medusa #pjo tv show #pjo tv series #pjo tv spoilers

[mydairpercabeth]

Im already seeing really bad takes that the show didnt make Gabe “abusive enough”. First and foremost, there are so many different forms of abuse, not just physical abuse. When we first see him, he is instantly belittling Percy. You can see how much of the space he takes up in the apartment. He has a single recliner, a jersey on the wall, and a side table all for him while he gambles with Sallys money. He is immediately financially abusive and verbally abusive.

Second, he answered Sally’s phone and spoke to the principal at Yancy. He is trying to control how Sally raises her son and is giddy at getting another person to bully again. Also, he controls the car. Sally has to negotiate with him and manage his reaction to her taking her son to Montauk. In this scene we see her sass him back and tell him to ask her nicely which I think is a great way to show that Sally still has some agency in the situation. She is able to say she doesnt want to be spoken to disrespectfully.

Lastly, in The Lightning Theif, Percy states “For the first time, I realized something. Gabe had hit my mother. I didn’t know when, or how much. But I was sure he’d done it. Maybe it had been going on for years, when I wasn’t around.” This was in the second to last chapter of the book. People are mad they didnt see him hit her in the first EPISODE??? Be so for real. Give the show time to flesh everything out.

ANYWAYS STAN SALLY JACKSON AND WATCH THE SHOW

#percy jackson #sally jackson #gabe ugliano #percy jackon and the olympians #percy jackson the lightning thief #STOP WITH THE BAD TAKES PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GODS #in this essay i will #long post soz #walker scobell #virginia kull #tim sharpe

[cleric4vampire]

wyll.y.am ravengard, I love you so

everyone loves to put him in gold (rightly so) but my personal style is lots of silver jewelry + heavy eyeliner so that's what I gave him. also roses because he's so damn venusian

#wyll #wyll ravengard #bg3 fanart #bg3 #three color versions because I'm so damn indecisive. I'm experimenting with a more sketchy style and had a lot of fun with it #I have so many thoughts about wyll and his venusian qualities; how he embodies some of the truest and starkest aspects of venus #as well as its most painful and burdensome weaknesses #I could write an essay on it but I don't know how many people live in the intersection between bg3 and classical astrology. so I won't #also - I've had this sitting in my drafts for way too long and it was in danger of entering the ''I changed my mind I don't want this to #see the light of day'' phase so Im pressing the damn button #my art

[fenkko]

one who had dreams of being a hero

This comic is based on Story 3, which speaks of his hobby of ice fishing originating from the days he'd go out with his father on the ice, 'accompanied by his father's unending tales of adventure,' and dream of being the protagonist.

Nowadays, he keeps up the hobby, though only as a method of training... and it seems he fishes alone.

I thought a lot about fairytales and stories told to children -- how they are used to impart lessons and shape a child's growing sense of morality.

I think these stories were Childe's father telling him what kind of man he hoped his son would become.

In Story 5, 'his father had no choice but to hand his beloved son over for conscription into the Fatui' in an attempt to discipline his temper, but was disappointed when Childe continued ascending the ranks, further and further from the gentle boy he was..

His father named him after the hero Ajax. Is he still disappointed in the path Childe has taken? Does he still see his son in the man he sees before him? Does Childe feel in himself the chasm between who he dreamed of becoming and who he is now?

It's interesting, that fairytales should often have a very strict good/evil morality. Childe professes he has no use for such things, and will gladly become a mindless weapon so long as he can continue honing himself for battle. And yet, has he truly given up on being human?

For a Harbinger, Childe is oddly principled, preferring straightforward battles without deceit. He retains a sort of moral code, reluctant to involve those who are defenseless in his plans.

And of course, he deeply cherishes his family. What sort of weapon has a family? Why does he cling so desperately to this identity as a defender of childhood dreams, of being his sister Tonia's knight?

Perhaps his own dream of being a hero died long ago, but a part of him still recognizes the tragedy of it and maybe... in some way, is still trying.

This is somewhat of a companion piece to my Scara comic "one who has given up on being saved". Childe, unable to live up to his childhood ideals of heroism, and Scara, whose pleas for help went unanswered.

A failed hero, and someone who never had one.

ARGHH yknow it drives me nuts. I haven't known peace since I started thinking about it.

#VERY LONG POST sorry i'm really normal about them. please enjoy my essay #childe #genshin impact #genshin impact fanart #childe fanart #teucer #fatui harbingers #my art #my comics #happy birthday childe.. sorry my present is a comic about what a disappointment you are to your father..

[voltstone]

…so about that clementine comic: a (very long, sorry) essay (May 2022)

Getting around to writing this little essay of mine, putting my thoughts down before the comic comes out, has been like finally squashing the damn fly that’s been a nuisance for months. Like, half-a-year-ago months.

Before I get to it, I’m just going to preface and briefly explain what this essay is: it’s me more or less digesting this big change for the TWDG fandom, and articulating a bigger point with canon vs fandom—and just how weird TWDG actually is in how it fits with that bigger point.

That, and it’s an essay that was spurred by my irritation of the comic’s premise alone. To be transparent, this is an essay that’s biased. Clementine as a character means a lot to me, which should become evident given that I use myself (i.e my Clementine) as an example throughout this thing, and then there’s just my fondness of the games. So yeah. I’m biased. But, I’d like to think of myself as a storyteller (in progress) in my own right, so hopefully this essay will be able to articulate my grievances with the comic, and do it well—while still being as unbiased as possible, to boot.

In any case, being that the comic isn’t out yet, I would like to say that I’m not going to tear Tillie nor Skybound a new one. I’m just critical of the premise, to the point that I wish to essay. And it be long (…sorry, can’t help it; neurodivergent passion and all that).

Though because I’m not here to harp on my grievances and bulldoze something that isn’t even out yet, I’m going to meme a little too. Just to ensure that the essay maintains a civil but fun composure. ;)

[Why Comic?]

Okay, so, originally, this was going to be the last section of this essay, but now it’s the first. Because of one article. Lol.

Well, one possible article? Something like that. (Yeah no not really. I am a dumbass, but I’m a dumbass with a point that still stands in this section. Lol.)

Before we get into the article, however, it’s first important to discuss Skybound in relation to TWD and TWDG.

Skybound, or Skybound Entertainment (2010), is Robert Kirkman’s company where the overarching purpose is to provide space for creators with their intellectual property and, well, to create. Which is great! We love that. And this is Robert Kirkman, who, is the storyteller behind TWD, alongside Invincible, Outcast, and a slew of many others.

Skybound Entertainment itself is older than TWDG by two years, so the company has watched Telltale’s story develop since the beginning. And given that it has Kirkman at the helm, there are strong ties between Telltale, Skybound and TWDG that go way back. However, they are considered two separate companies—even with some history of collaboration on TWDG. But, by the time Telltale had to close-up shop, it’s unsurprising that Skybound—through Skybound Games, established in 2018—picked up where they left off—and they did this, from what I’ve found anyway, by giving the team behind TWDG the resources to finish Clementine’s story.

In short, Skybound has just as much skin in the game(s) as the chance of a walker being seen still in one piece, without chunks sloughing off: slim, but more probable than you’d think.

And this isn’t to blame Skybound in any way. It’s just how it is. Telltale had the rights to their series up until mid-Season Four: The Final Season (S4), and S4 was finished by the same team, just with Skybound’s resources (and probably with some of their own team as well).

…the thing is, however, is that Skybound seems to be more like the babysitter for Clementine rather than the parent who has nurtured and watched her grow. They still do care for her and what this character represents—the 10th year anniversary with the documentary and #clemenTEN (lol) shows that quite plainly—, but they never had the time and opportunity to truly nurture her, as a company, in the same way that Telltale had.

Ergo, Skybound is going to make decisions with Clementine that those more familiar with the character may not do—especially given that Skybound has other series and such that they’re working on.

Which brings us back to the article I came across in a meme. This article. 

…which I can’t find? Yeah, I’ve tried to search for it on Skybound’s website, but…yeah no. I have questions if it has been removed, and if it hasn’t, please, someone, tell me where it is so that I can put the link in here. Lol.

[5/20/22 Edit: May not be able to find it because the article never existed or something something where a doodoohead on the internet, like, lied to me?! Making me another shatforbrains. However, it doesn’t really change my point in all of this. So yay. Also am not gonna edit anything because I don’t wanna.]

Anyway. In summary, Skybound announces in this article, “After some internal discussions and some reviews of fan feedback and online, [. . .] Clementine: Book One takes place in an alternate continuity that is no longer directly canon to Telltale’s the Walking Dead series [as] we now see that fans prefer to have their player choices honored in future storylines of Clementine.”

And here’s my response to that, regardless of wherever the article may be: thanks, but no shit, Skybound.

This essay is here to pick apart TWDG in terms of interpretation and what that would mean regarding any sort of adaptation. But ultimately, it is to criticize whoever thought this was a good idea and maintained the comic’s stance of canonicity with TWDG until recently. Because…as I will make very clear in the next two sections, I don’t know how anybody could’ve looked at this story, as a part of a company who wasn’t there to tell it until the end, and came to the initial conclusion that they did. It both confuses and bothers me.

Skybound. TWDG are a choose-your-own adventure story. What do you mean “we now see that fans prefer to have their player choices honored”?! That is the whole point of TWDG: I made a choice with this character, let’s see how it plays out. To the extent where people often have criticisms that Telltale didn’t allow for much impact with said choices.

So yes. I ask this given that I…genuinely don’t understand how this happened. And perhaps I’m a little late with this, but, well, I still feel the need to air everything out for myself, and explain thoroughly why I do not appreciate the comic on a basic level. One, because I think it’s an interesting subject regardless; I go into Clementine functionally as a character, fanfiction being a skill, etc. Two, if there is a chance (a very slight chance that I highly doubt will happen, lol) that anybody associated with the comic’s production sees this, it will (maybe?) serve as both the perspective of a fan and of a developing storyteller. …and perhaps a little jab of “please don’t pull something like this again, with anything.”

I am going to maintain that I don’t have ill-respect towards Skybound. Because I do respect them as a company; outside of this, I appreciate a lot of their work.

This Clementine comic has just left a bitter taste.

I also don’t blame Tillie Walden either, nor do I envy her position. All I can do is point towards my main TWDG fic and say that's the best I can do, which even then would have probably led to backlash of the fandom. Continuing Clementine's story, no matter what, would've always received some level of backlash. Which is kind of what happens after you wrap up a story with a neat bow, and then decide to try and cut it back open. If anything, as I discuss in this, the most I can blame Walden with is being reckless about Clementine’s story. Nothing more.

Ultimately, I find that Skybound underestimated the gravity of Clementine and what she means to people—which says a lot considering that I do think Skybound knows her impact on the video game industry. (And, on top of the history with Telltale and TWDG.)

I doubt that there was sufficient planning for this. I doubt they knew what kind of story they wanted, hence why they gave it to Walden. I doubt their decisions weren’t to cut corners—away from the nuanced, TWDG canonicity. I doubt that their intentions had nothing to do with the cash cow that Clementine is.

But, mainly, I doubt that they knew how to work around Clementine’s nature. Because, functionally, Clementine is a rather confusing character. She’s not the first, and hardly the last, character with Telltale-like qualities, though I do think that Skybound found themselves in new territory because of those qualities. To be honest, I genuinely wonder how Skybound sees Clementine. Do they see her as one singular, whole character? Or do they see her as one character made up of many, many interpretations? Or rather, slices…

Regardless, I feel like the majority of the backlash wouldn’t have occurred if Skybound didn’t maintain that this comic would be canon in the first place. That this is what Clementine does at the end, no questions asked. If they had said that the comic would be one iteration of what Clementine does after TWDG, how many people would be upset? If the games and shows and comics are all different from one another, why didn’t they say that the Clementine comic would be different from the games? Especially given that the games take a choose-your-own-adventure approach.

You could almost say that this comic is not very Telltale of Skybound.

[What…is This? (Brief Rant)]

Alright. Now we get into rant time.

…but first another detour. Let’s acknowledge the games as they are:

As a whole, TWDG stand as the story of Clementine. The odd seasons—Season One (S1) and Season Three: A New Frontier (S3)—are through outside perspectives, those being Lee and Javi. The even seasons—Season Two (S2) and S4—are through Clementine herself. But to explain what that story is, I think it’s better to shift the perspective a little bit. To her signature ballcap.

Because rather than Clementine’s story, TWDG is the story of Clementine’s hat.

The ballcap being the only thing she has of her home from before given that it was her father’s. The ballcap is the symbol of family.

So let’s shift again:

TWDG is the story of Clementine searching for a home, a family.

S1. Clementine dawns her father’s ballcap, borrowing it until her parents return from their trip. But, of course, they don’t, so Lee becomes her surrogate throughout the season. She’s able to have a father-figure for the first half-year in the apocalypse. Even so, much like the hat, Lee is temporary. Clementine wants to find her parents. Though come to find, they’re dead, and so too her surrogate swiftly after.

So Clementine is left without her original family, nor the one from the motel.

S2. The season of chaos—all to bring Clementine to a breaking point. She had Omid and Christa, a small family for quite some time, until they were lost. Omid, to her neglected gun, and then Christa, who was detached from Clementine, leaving S2 Clementine (at 11) with her first line, “Talk to me, Christa.” The woman’s fate remains to be debated, something unknown to Clementine, after they were ambushed and then separated alongside a river in the woods.

There’s then a new group—a potential family—who she travels with. And along the way, Clementine finds a remnant of her old, motel family: Kenny. One by one, the potential family succumbs to the winter—including Rebecca, but not before she gives birth to A.J, yet another ray of hope. By the end, A.J is believed to be dead, and Clementine is once again ignored. The remnant of an old family is at odds with the last of the potential—Kenny and Jane—, and they mean to fight to the death. Between them, Clementine is shoved away, quite literally, despite her shoulder having been shot, and, well, despite Clementine being a child who needed both.

So Clementine reaches a breaking point where she is the deciding factor between which lives: the last old family remnant, or the last of the potential family, or neither. And afterwards, once it is discovered that A.J is, in fact, alive—but was hidden to prove Jane’s point—, she can then decide if she wants to abandon the remaining family to live with her own. A.J…

S3. Regardless of how S2 ends, Clementine finds her way to Richmond alone with varying scars. A.J is still with her, though it’s made clear that she is getting tired—especially with a S2 solo ending. Because raising a kid is a lot to handle, more so when the parent is a kid herself. An offer to join a group comes in the form of Ava, who is a part of the New Frontier. Clementine eventually joins whether or not the initial offer is accepted (i.e. whether or not Clementine is open to joining a group, or not), in order for her to find the medicine needed for A.J, who falls ill.

Conflict arises between her desire to nurture A.J and serve this new, military “family”.

And Clementine is kicked out, once again under the belief that A.J is dead. So by the time we meet her as Javi, we find a Clementine who is hardened, and bitter. Or, a Clementine who’s a scorned kid with the identity of an adult, and a mom.

Through S3, Javi (and/or Gabe) is the one to remind Clementine that she doesn’t have to be alone. She discovers that A.J survived his illness, and with some help, Clementine discovers where he is and aims to reunite with her only family.

S4. After McCarroll Ranch, where A.J was kept, they’re on the road (with a car!). Clementine has found a way to survive with A.J, and has matured since the prior season. They find a new group (the car thing doesn’t last long in this, lol): the school kids.

And through them, Clementine and A.J find their home, in the end. The school kids teach A.J the lessons that Clementine couldn’t, and Clementine teaches them the skills to defend themselves against raiders—who are led by the final remnant of her old family, Lilly.

Clementine is bitten, however.

In her presumed final moments, she consoles A.J as Lee had done with her. But, no matter what, A.J disobeys Clementine’s request. Because A.J is not Clementine, and his love for his surrogate prevails the need to live on. He tells her that they could be like the walkers in the train station—tied to the spot, together in death. And not a minute later, he severs her leg, saving Clementine.

Weeks later, she gives the ballcap to A.J, for Clementine no longer needs it. The past is behind her, set in stone. She has found what she’s been searching for. Rather than a motel, it’s a boarding school. Rather than Lee and her, it’s Clementine and A.J.

Rather than a normal life alongside a treehouse, it’s set in a time where the dead roam, with a fishing house nearby.

Clementine is now on her last leg, but as S4 closes, it’s the beginning of a new life…

With these games and Clementine’s arc laid out, I have to be honest. I never wanted a continuation. Both as a fan of Clementine and as a writer, I feel that a continuation for Clementine would never be the best choice for a comic series. Especially when there’s so many gaps where we didn’t see Clementine.

That, and of course, S4 was perfect in wrapping TWDG up—with a little bow and all.

Now, to clarify before the essay gets into S4 in more detail, what I mean by continuation is what happens after. Yes, a lot of people would want to know, but here’s the thing: like in any sport, you need to end on your prime. S4 was just that for TWDG.

But I get it. At the same time, I do think having Clementine in her own comic would be perfect for her. TWD started out in the comics. By having the TWDG character recognized in this way would be to give the utmost, ultimate respect for Clementine within TWD universe(s).

If the comics expanded on the what happens after, then a choose-your-own-adventure comic should’ve been done to respect TWDG’s format. But, they could have easily expanded on things that, well, we’re curious about. Between S1 and S2—what happened? You could have Clementine be quiet and never talk about what exactly happened to Lee (if he was shot vs left behind). And this is in-line with set Clementine’s character given that remarks on her “being a puzzle” and keeping to herself were made throughout S1. So, that even leaves room for a comic that isn’t choose-your-own-adventure. Especially since Clementine is a strong enough character to not be the focal perspective. She is a strong side-character—in part because that is how she started off. So, a comic between the first seasons could’ve been from Christa’s perspective.

Between the other seasons. What about in the New Frontier? What did Clementine do? What did she learn from a bunch of ex-military surviving in the apocalypse? What about with A.J? What did they do together before they got to Ericson’s?

And outside Clementine’s story?

Kenny, between S1 and S2. The whole S2 squad—I want to see how Nick shot his mom, which traumatized him to the point of drinking in front of a kid. Carver! Christa and Omid before they met the S1 group! Lilly! What did she do?! How did she surpass the boat god and ended up with the boat?! How did she get into child labor?! (Not the pregnancy type, the— Okay, okay, never mind.)

And the school kids. What happened?! There were around forty at the start (according to the wiki), how did it get down to ten? Of course, Minnie and Sophie are a given, but that still leaves a lot of room. How did a bunch of troubled youth manage to survive?

And guess what?! That could’ve been done through Aasim! He has been writing a “chronicle” (diary) in the games, so why not go with that?! (Could even have a bombass title with chronicle in it!!)

Speaking of the school kids, let’s go back to S4.

Because this season is a mark of how TWDG understood a crucial lesson every writer must learn: when to end a story. How to end a story.

S4 is a masterpiece in this regard. And I don’t throw around masterpiece often. So I do mean it here; literally the only true criticism I have of S4 is how the nostalgia over Lee probably got in the way. (I mean, I know his impact, but the dude has been dead for all of A.J’s life plus a year or so.)

So yeah. And that is a nit-picky criticism at best.

Because S4, uh, like I just said, is a masterpiece in concluding Clementine’s arc.

First of all, can we just appreciate the setting itself?

Starting with the train station. The train from S1 was, arguably, where the brightest moments between Lee and Clementine happened. This is where, after losing Katjaa and Duck, Lee teaches Clementine how to shoot a gun, cuts her hair short, and—at another station—the first moment of fighting together and putting those skills to use. The train also led to Savannah.

So, really, where the train is symbolic of the birth of Clementine’s independency, it’s interesting that a train station leads to the school kids. The end of Clementine’s independency alone, with A.J, and the beginning of her independency as a leader.

Then we have the school.

For one thing, it’s the perfect little place for an apocalypse. Walls. Resources for food—from hunting, fishing, to a greenhouse. Land…

And, of course, it was established that Clementine liked school. Sure, she probably was bored since Clementine strikes me as a really smart individual, but she did like it. And Lee was a fucking professor. And, and, the school kids are around her age; kids around Clementine’s age…kinda don’t last in this story. So again, pretty symbolic that a boarding school is the setting.

On top of that, it’s a boarding school for troubled youth. Which…by this point, Clementine kind of fits that bill. (At least, my Clementine very much so does.)

The troubled youth element adds so much to this. It plays with many of the things introduced in this season: such as mental health (like Clementine being afraid of Rosie, though I do think they should’ve pushed that a little further). Because, think about it. The kids were left behind by the adults responsible for them. So what does that mean? Well, it means that they had to find ways to cope with their struggles in order to survive. Like Louis with his confidence, Violet with her abandonment issues, Ruby and Marlon with their anger, Brody with her anxiety, and so on and so forth.

Honestly, I don’t think there was a more perfect setting for S4 to go with.

Clementine has trauma. She has a lot of it. If anything, Clementine probably used that #roadlyfe to run away from confronting it. How so? Well, when you’re on the road constantly, hopping from place-to-place—by foot or with a car—, while taking care of your kid, there’s not a lot of opportunity to dwell on the past and truly unpack what is being harbored. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clementine used that as a sort of coping mechanism.

I also wouldn't be a surprise if that was part of why Clementine and A.J were on the road for so long. To be driving around for years is…a fucking long time in an apocalypse. Given that she would've needed to scrounge around for gas, Clementine would've come across other pre-Outbreak stuff, if not established settlements with people. Other things may have happened, sure, but that is something to consider.

But, yeah. Where S4 left off, there still would be some things that Clementine would have to process through. There would be a story there, albeit short. Arguably perfect for a comic trilogy where she reflects on the things we didn't get to see—like in-between the seasons.

Before we go too deep with that though, here’s another few things that this season taps into:

It was the first time we encounter a Whisperer in TWDG, and with James the question of whether or not walkers are inherently bad. Or rather, if they're monstrosities versus just another element of nature, albeit as a symbol of decay.

It was the first time we saw Clementine with a dog since S2—a Pit bull at that, one who isn't violent or terrifying because Rosie is a good girl and will only attack people who are bad.

Oh, Clementine doesn't need to worry about car insurance.

(No, but seriously, Clementine has a very bad driving record. She crashes two cars, three with Kenny, potentially one for each season after S1.)

And, of course, Clementine finally being bit. Thus putting “I’m still. Not. Bitten” to rest. (Although, “It’ll take more than a bite to kill me!” sounds pretty fun.)

Back to Clementine’s leg and what it means with that #roadlyfe. For one, Clementine is now, more or less, stuck in one place. She has to rely on people again, while leading them. And now that she is in one place, there’s opportunity to watch Clementine as she builds her own settlement.

With S4’s conclusion, questions were raised about how much hope there was for that settlement. Which could be answered with Kent Mundle’s response to the following anon question.

(At the end, there will be a link to Kent Mudle's stuff, including his comic Beret. Because why not?)

S4’s end is hopeful, and the beginning of change for Clementine. No longer is she a straggler on the road. She has graduated to survival within a community.

But…, as much as I love the ray of hope, we do have to acknowledge that Clementine, after her #roadlyfe, would probably have a very difficult time with this change. She is not used to relying on others. She is not used to having one leg, being kept on the sidelines watching other people deal with walkers, nor having to sit and confront all of what she has suffered.

So, yes, I will recognize that there could be conflict to explore with Clementine adjusting from being on the road to staying in one place, and maybe feeling that she isn’t doing enough for the boarding school given her leg. I can see scenarios where Clementine may act a little reckless, like leave the school to try and thin-out a (small) herd to help. With her one leg. And the school kids have to go and drag her back.

But not with Clementine leaving.

So now, with S4 concluded, we have the comic itself…

Clementine is back on the road, looking to put her traumatic past behind her and forge a new path all her own. But when she comes across an Amish teenager named Amos with his head in the clouds, the unlikely pair journeys North to an abandoned ski resort in Vermont, where they meet up with a small group of teenagers attempting to build a new, walker-free settlement. As friendship, rivalry, and romance begin to blossom amongst the group, the harsh winter soon reveals that the biggest threat to their survival…might be each other.

(This is "brief" rant time. Lol.)

What.

The ever-loving.

Fuck is that??

That is bad. That is really, really bad on a fundamental level. Notice the following: “looking to put her traumatic past behind her and forge a new path all on her own”, “journeys North to an abandoned ski resort”, “the harsh winter soon reveals that the biggest threat to their survival…might be each other”, and then, of course, “a small group of teenagers attempting to build a new, walker-free settlement.”

What does that look like? Premise alone, does this sound familiar to you?

It should.

Because everything from this summary—aside from the last quote—is S2.

This comic is not throwing away the last season. No. Oh no, it’s not.

This comic is rewriting Clementine’s journey, except this time, without A.J. But, from what has been released thus far, there will be an emphasis on Lee—S1 stuff. Which uh… Yeah. This is, quite literally, erasing all of TWDG.

So no. No. You can’t just reskin Clementine’s whole fucking story as if A.J never existed. You can’t just pretend that Clementine didn’t already forge a new path with the trauma from S1 behind her; you can’t just pretend that she didn’t already travel north with a band of new people to an abandoned ski resort; you can’t just pretend that she didn’t already find herself in a cruel winter where the walkers were literally the secondary threat to her. And, for the love of a writer’s integrity, you cannot just sit there and smear S4 as if Clementine would trade Ericson’s for another settlement—a settlement, which, would probably serve as an uneasy environment for her given that the last ski resort she went to was where she was kidnapped and immediately sent to work for Carver. Not to mention that, unless you had her journey with Kenny who was desperate to get to Wellington, Clementine went south the first chance she got because S2 was traumatic enough to send her immediately towards Richmond—not. North. There is no fucking reason why Clementine would want to go north. Ever. S2 left that impression on her: North = bad, we don’t like snow.

Like there is a fucking reason why S3 had so much fire, so much warmth to it—including the flashbacks. (Outside of Wellington, of course.) The last thing Clementine needs is to be reminded of how she got the big ass scar on her arm and the bullet wound at her shoulder.

And.

For the love of a writer’s competency.

You cannot just put a little stupid beanie on her head with a dumb little ball to replace the old hat—though thanks for leaving the ballcap with A.J, at least.

This is what I mean by the comic disappointing me as a fan of Clementine, but pissing me off as a writer. As I said before, something that every writer will have to learn is when to end a story. Those behind S4 understood that, and they did so masterfully. Now, I can’t tear apart the comic for that since, well, what’s going to come out this summer is the first of a trilogy. So like…yeah.

However, another thing that every writer will have to learn is when to evolve a story. When a character’s arc has been satisfied, and how the story thereafter will take on a new path. TWDG do this. Between S1 and S2, the change was shifting the story from Lee to Clementine. Between S2 and S3, the change was shifting Clementine from a character still needing others for survival to a character who knows how to survive on her own—to the point where Javi needed to remind her the value in putting trust/faith in others. And then, S3 to S4, the change was shifting from a bitter, angry Clementine without A.J to a Clementine who has matured, become cautiously weathered, with A.J by her side. Despite its flaws, this game series also managed to do this masterfully as well.

And the comic.

Does not.

Do that.

The comic doesn’t want to evolve the story. It doesn’t want to explore what conflicts would arise from Clementine finally being stuck in one place after so many years without a designated home, and being a fresh amputee on top of that. There was absolutely a story to explore there.

But no.

We got this.

Instead, we got a story where the comic blatantly ignores that Clementine already has a settlement of her own, and how the whole of TWDG is her forged path. And on the “put her traumatic past behind her”?! Yes! She absolutely needs to do that! But where has all of that trauma come from?! The road! So putting her back on the road—a few weeks—

The comic is set a few weeks later, by the way. (The wiki says so, anyway. I don’t 100% buy it, but it still seems like she shouldn’t be walking on a new amputated leg regardless.)

But to say that and put her back on the road a few weeks later—her leg is healed?!—is the last fucking thing you want for a person like Clementine with her experiences to do. It is the equivalent of telling a war veteran to overcome their PTSD by plopping them right back in the trenches. Or telling any PTSD-survivor to cope with it by plopping them into the environment that’s the source of said PTSD in the first place.

And sure. Some people don’t have the opportunity to do that. Sometimes that environment is the only place they have open to them.

Like the road was for Clementine.

Until she got to the school.

So are you. Fucking. Kidding me?!

Clementine is no longer the person who doesn’t have the chance to get out of the source of her PTSD—the road. She has a settlement of school kids at a school for troubled youth. Let’s remind ourselves that these kids had to learn how to manage their mental illnesses and behaviors given that they needed to survive after their caretakers abandoned them. They would’ve absolutely had the tools to help her.

Oh, and let’s also remind ourselves how devastating it would be for Clementine to abandon the school. Every single one of the kids probably have abandonment issues because of the adults. What’s more?!

Violet.

One of the two potential romantic interests for Clementine. Regardless of that, however, here is a character who has arguably the most significance to the plot of S4 no matter your choices. Violet is who is closely associated with Minnie, neck-and-neck to Tenn. Violet is the one who had the most conflict between both Marlon and Brody because of it, and is the one that sticks up for Clementine and A.J. She also is the one who takes leadership when Clementine and A.J are voted out. If you save her, Violet sees Minnie alive and realizes how twisted around she was about her; later on, she shoots Minnie with a crossbow to save Clementine, without hesitation, and then the last fight is where it’s a choice between her and Tenn. If you don’t save Violet, she ends up getting manipulated and twisted around further by Minnie (and Lilly, lol), and then acts as an antagonist on the boat as well.

This is by no means undermining Louis’ character as the other love interest, by the way. His role in the plot is quieter in large part because a) it felt to me that S4 was the first push towards his development, not a full arc like Violet (which isn’t bad in itself), and b) while Violet played a bigger role as leader, Louis was kind of pushed aside because he was morning and purposefully distant (again, not bad in itself).

The point is, it’s evident that Violet is the school kid with the strongest character leverage in terms of plot.

Which is why I’m using her specifically to show how fucking dumb it is for Clementine to abandon the school kids.

Violet has had abandonment issues since before she got to the school; Violet was abandoned by her grandmother who killed herself right behind her back, and then, presumably, her parents neglected her one way, shape or form. And then we have how this was probably exacerbated with Minnie—given that she thought she was dead, and, if you save Violet, knowing that Minnie was alive the whole time yet didn’t go back for her would’ve, I don’t know, pushed her abandonment issues further. Of course, if you saved Louis, then Violet with her abandonment issues is a given.

So uh. What. Are you. Doing?! Why?!

Actually, no, I don’t need to ask.

The comic took the route of cutting corners. The idea to continue Clementine’s story blossomed, and Skybound sprang on the opportunity. However, which is what this essay will discuss in depth, they realized how huge of an undertaking this actually is. So they didn’t even try to bottleneck every Clementine, every ending, into one comic—nor try to develop a choose-your-own-adventure series.

They threw away TWDG’s whole story because it was too difficult for them. Even though they are writers. And that is their job…

Now, before I go further, I will say that I am not going to go with the idea that this is all Tillie’s doing and Skybound just greenlit it. For one thing, the comic is also Skybound’s responsibility. They can easily approve or disprove what they want to come out of their company. Two, I don’t think it’s fair to dogpile on one writer for taking a job—especially this one since, again, it’s a huge undertaking—, nor when that writer has written some fair stories before. So as you read this essay, do note that I am not here to drag Tillie down or anything. I’m not happy with the comic, for sure, and I have a lot to criticize from the premise alone, absolutely, but I’m not going demonize a creator for something I can just ignore with my own fanfiction. Lol.

At its core, I doubt the comic understands the games at a fundamental level. Not Clementine’s arc, nor the school’s importance. It’s jarring, honestly, looking at the summary and looking at Kent’s response to the anon question. I don’t believe for a second that anybody from the game’s development actually took part in evaluating the comic. That, and if anything, I believe that if Tillie has played the games to prepare for this, the basic concept of the comics were already realized. Because I can’t imagine anyone could feasibly end the games, knowing that they’d have to continue with the story, with the conclusion that this would be the right step to take. And if that’s how it happened then…well, I learn something new every day.

It is a cash grab, something that plays into the insecurity of letting a story end.

However, as the high of my rant recedes, this isn’t to say that the comic will be a horrible experience. Because I do not know. It’s not out yet. Lol.

(Other than the first chapter which is…um, fine? I guess? Outside of acknowledge that exploring an Amish community within this world is actually very interesting, I’m not going to go into it. Don’t feel like it.)

Perhaps there will be some elements that will be good. Things that people would potentially incorporate into future stuff—assuming that TWDG will have future stuff to offer. It’s just unfortunate that the story has laid itself on a foundation that won’t viably stand the test of time. The concept and framework alone is terrible, and from experience, if the concept itself is terrible, if the story is fundamentally broken, there won’t be much you can do to fix it. Other than, well, scrap it and start over.

One lesson is that if any continuation of your story has to sacrifice crucial elements established beforehand, that continuation should not exist. This is different from retcons where retcons are used to adjust or edit a slip that was done before—like fixing a timeline issue that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

This comic isn't a retcon of the last three games. It's sacrificing ¾’s of TWDG and A.J along with it. For what? An interesting story? Sure. Maybe. But an interesting story that belongs here? I doubt it.

[Tangled Web of TWDG]

Okay, okay. Ranting aside, let’s talk TWDG.

Because…it’s a great series. :D

No but seriously, who actually thought that asking for any continuation would be a simple thing to ask for, and thusly an easy task to accomplish?

And I ask this earnestly: who really thought that would be an easy thing to do?! And do it well?!

Quite frankly, before we go frothing at the mouths, let’s evaluate how big of an undertaking a comic for Clementine actually is.

And I’m going to start this by sharing my Clementine (for brevity’s sake, Clementine bolded will mean my Clementine specifically): Clementine is not a hero. She made mistake after mistake in S2, like chopping a lovely lady’s arm off, and so, by the end of it, Clementine simply snapped. Both Jane and Kenny died. After S2, she lost faith in people and only saw good in A.J. She didn’t trust Ava’s offer to join the New Frontier initially, and only joined once A.J got sick and needed more than supplementary care (i.e. medicine). Once A.J was taken from Clementine, it was yet another breaking point. So, with the guilt of S2’s events—namely Kenny’s murder at gunpoint—, and the guilt of not being good enough for A.J, Clementine turned raider. She began to steal off of others, namely the runners for the New Frontier, and spurred up hell whenever she felt it right. (This stemmed from assuming Javi wasn’t the first person she robbed. Lol.)

Then Javi came along, and he served as the one who reminded her the good in people. He helped Clementine find A.J’s whereabouts, and Clementine tried to clean herself up to be better for A.J. Once on the road with her little goofball, she tried to hold herself together, be the better person for him. By the time she got to the school, however, Clementine realized that she was still guiding A.J down a rocky path. Of good intentions, sure, but she saw her own flaws that she’d inadvertently imposed on A.J. Especially once Marlon was shot—a parallel to Kenny, her greatest regret. Throughout the remainder of S4, Clementine teetered down the fine line between teaching A.J the right thing, and feeding into a nasty side of herself. The school kids were there, however, and they taught A.J when she couldn’t, and they taught her how to deal with that nasty side—since they had to teach themselves the same, after the adults abandoned Ericson’s.

That nasty side being addiction, actually. Clementine’s an alcoholic. And a bad one, at that. I know this element lives purely in my head, shh. Clementine can’t literally be an alcoholic in the games. However, the alcoholism is my own representation for Clementine losing herself, straying away from who she was with Lee. I played S3 and S4 as if she struggled with the addiction, so it still ruled my interpretation, and therefore the choices I made. Thus, she’s an alcoholic.

And for the past couple years now, I’ve been writing Clementine’s story in a fanfiction because, well, the story’s important to me.

But we won’t get into that. Point is, Clementine isn’t a hero. Complicated, for sure, but she certainly played the villain in multiple lives—including her own. Here’s the thing with this: that doesn’t sound like your Clementine, does it? Maybe some of yours are similar to mine, as in you’ve made similar choices, but it’s probably without the alcoholism aspect—which is a central component to Clementine. I do like to push things a little. Lol.

Now, what does that shit have to do with the comics?

Well, this: despite playing the same source material, depending on our interpretations, how our interpretations defined our choices, and how those choices furthered our interpretations (it’s a vicious cycle, really), we are going to end up with different Clementines. Clementine may not be the “correct” interpretation to you, but Clementine is Clementine to me. Clementine is the result of my interpretations, my choices, and my interpretations based off of those choices.

And this is the beauty of Clementine as a character: she evolves throughout the games to reflect every one of us. Clementine the character is a lot like her namesake in that Clementine is but one slice of the whole. She’s but one slice, a reflection of me; given that Clementine is the only slice of my own, however, that slice is Clementine whole. And your Clementine is but one slice, but that slice is the whole of your Clementine.

At the same time, however, those pieces are not made of different characters. They are Clementines, not apples or oranges or lemons. So I’m not saying that a certain interpretation will be unrecognizable, but rather that a certain interpretation will be distinguishable from another. I.e. Clementine may be very different from your Clementine, but both interpretations recognizably come from the same character while functioning as individual wholes in their own right.

I’d like to think that every one of our Clementines has a different last name. They’re all still Clementine, but just different enough to be appreciated individually.

(This line of logic also applies to Lee and Javi, by the way. Aside from the last name thing. Lol.)

The reason why Clementine is this way is because she is a game character shaped by our choices—even those made as Lee and Javi. She’s not the same as a book or film character where, while the interpretations can vary, their presentation remains stagnant. Rick will always say and do the same things no matter how many times you read/watch his story. As will Michonne (ignoring her game), and Daryl, and so on. Clementine isn’t like that, not unless you choose the same choices every time you play the games. TWD comics and shows will forever have the same input every time you open a page or flip on a screen, and thus the same output; TWDG have a variety of inputs (choices) which leads to different outputs. In this way, headcanons do actually bleed into the games but not the comics/shows because of this (take Clementine being an alcoholic where the choices I made, especially in S4, were based off of that premise, and how that headcanon interacted with the game, versus how headcanons don’t impact the comics/shows unless you’re actively working on them). Obviously there’s limitations with TWDG, like how Clementine can’t literally be an alcoholic, but there’s enough there to leave people with vastly different Clementines as a result. There’s limitations to the choices you can make, but my point is more on how those limited choices do have a heavy influence on our perception—which is arguably more important than “oh! What will this choice do?”

So yeah.

Expecting a comic to be able to bottleneck every interpretation of Clementine, and appease everyone, is outlandish. It’s an unfair expectation to have for any creator, and it’s a…really, really risky thing for Skybound and Tillie to have signed themselves up for. It’s quite honestly the same as knowing a bear-trap is there, then to step in it to earn some of that good, good money.

Maybe they thought they could get away scot-free without losing a leg, but Clementine also thought that she’d never get bit and keep both calves, so…

Though I guess it does say a lot about Clementine. She only has one calf left, yet she’s still quite the cash-cow.

…anyway.

As a result of Clementine’s nature—being that she is actively shaped by the player’s interpretation—, on top of us having watched her grow up throughout the seasons, there has been a foundation set for emotional attachment. There is a level of personal devotion that we harbor for Clementine since, again, she’s a reflection of each and every one of us.

So as a fanbase, there is that element at play. Then, there’s how TWDG is a niche of a niche. TWD was extremely popular at one point, for sure, but that popularity has since declined to a small audience, and not everybody is interested in apocalyptic settings. Ergo, TWD is a niche. TWDG are a niche of that niche—and, honestly, I think the fanfiction count found on FF.net and AO3 says that plainly (the TWDG is 10 years old now, and there’s 2,774 fics on AO3, which is slight compared to the 23,553 fics for TWD).

TWDG = niche of a niche. Okay, cool.

What that means is, in conjunction with our personal devotion, TWDG have a smaller community to cater to.

Or, Clementine has a cult following. Lol.

And with cult followings, feeding us is both very, very easy and extremely, extremely difficult. Easy in that you could literally give us a single line (something like, oh I dunno, “Clementine lives” at the end of another comic) and we will go frothing at the mouths after it. Yet, given that cult followings are particularly sensitive to how their character(s) will be represented, you still have to be careful. Granted, no matter what a creator does, somebody emotional will be pissed off. However, so long as the community can see that the development was treated with care and passion for what’s been already established, people will accept it. And I think S3 is honestly a good example of this; the game is the weakest of the four, and people love to hate on it (for fair reason; the script is…something I’d expect from a draft, lol), but S3 still does get the love that I think is deserved. People still do care about it and its characters like Javi. That, and it does some interesting things. There’s passion behind it, and people appreciate that.

By this point, since the games have concluded as a niche (of a niche), the cult following is really the only audience who is aware of the comics, and is who the comics are for. Having a cult following be the primary environment of your audience is a slippery slope for a company to appease—especially a company that, really, did not create the work that the audience follows.

Now let’s consider: Clementine = slices of a whole x cult following

Which is a scary equation for an adaptation. But here, with the slices of a whole, we have a juxtaposition upon us—which will guide the rest of this essay. It’s also something I kind of…skirted around before.

And what a strange juxtaposition it is. Clementine is simultaneously a character flexible to each and every one of our interpretations, but also a character that is, well, her own character. Yes, Clementine’s strength as a character is also a strange juxtaposition. She’s not like Ellie in The Last of Us given that those games are linear—choices can be made, but none that impact the story itself. She’s not like Geralt from the Witcher franchise since Geralt is an established character outside the games, and despite the games having choices that weigh into the story, his characterization is still quite true to what was established beforehand. She’s also not like other titles such as Elder Scrolls, Fallout nor Cyberpunk 2077 where the player characters are the most flexible in terms of characterization.

Clementine is, functionally, a strange character in this way. She’s neither the rigid characters people play as like Ellie and Geralt (though the latter has more wiggle-room), nor the player-inserts like in the aforementioned games. Clementine is a character made for the “Telltale RPGs” where the characters have rooted characterizations beyond the player’s interpretations, but the player interpretations of those characterizations will influence the choices made, and thusly the overall interpretation and conclusion of said characters. …which sounds like it extends to Geralt as well, but notice the made for the “Telltale RPGs”. Ignoring the comic (and fandom stuff) for a second, Clementine doesn’t exist outside the games. She, along with Lee and Javi, are unique in this way—even within Telltale’s character line-up, across the board.

And what does this mean for the comic?

Well.

It means they really shot themselves in the foot—with a rifle. On top of the whole…rant I made earlier.

As much as I would love to see Clementine have her own comic, she is not a character made for it. Unless it is a choose-your-own adventure novel, or it was established, from the beginning, that the comic is but one Clementine, Clementine as a Telltale-RPG character would never be able to function in a linear story because she was designed not to.

But also—and here’s the rifle part—the comic would still have to abide by her set characterization. On top of being flexible with her being a Telltale-RPG character.

This is what I mean by Clementine having a strange juxtaposition.

There are different slices of her—different interpretations—, but those slices are still all Clementine. Not apple, nor orange, nor lemon. We were given multiple choices, but all of those choices were within the realm of Clementine being Clementine. Clementine had the option of leaving or staying to watch Kenny beat Carver to death—but there was never a choice to help Kenny kill Carver. Because Clementine wouldn’t do that, ergo, the option wasn’t presented. Maybe apple would do that, however, or lemon. Clementine had the option of telling A.J that he should apologize to atone for his actions, or back him up after shooting Marlon—but there was never a choice to kick A.J out and leave him to fend for himself, nor start a fist-fight with the school kids for being upset. Because Clementine wouldn’t do either. Ergo. The options weren’t presented.

Now. This only gets more convoluted when you consider that, even though every option presented is in-line with Clementine as a whole, not every option is fit for a single slice of Clementine. For example, Clementine would’ve never accepted Ava’s initial offer to join the New Frontier. Because she does not trust people. If anything, she hates people. However, other interpretations may have jumped on the offer. Which is fine. Good even.

So yeah. Convoluted. Lol.

Either way, then we get to the question:

Would Clementine abandon A.J at the school?

The short, simple answer is no.

Clementine to A.J is Lee to Clementine. Clementine is essentially A.J’s mom, and A.J is practically her kid. She went through hell getting A.J back—even has the potential to have killed a man just to know where A.J was kept. (If you don’t make a choice for Javi when Dr. Lingard asks to euthanize him, Clementine will do it. How do I know this? Because of my interpretation of Javi: I played him as not a coward, per se, but someone who does not like seeing the face of who he kills. Thus, my interpretation of his hesitancy influenced Clementine and revealed something about Clementine’s character: that she would.)

Now, I know I’ve harped on this point long enough, but it’s for good reason.

I firmly believe that Skybound, and therefore the comic, greatly underestimated Clementine as a character—both in our attachment to her as a cult following, but also her complexity as a Telltale-RPG character. To avoid the time and energy that would’ve been spent in crafting a choose-your-own-adventure story, no doubt. Or rather, to cut corners.

And then insist that because they have the rights to the IP now, what they say goes. What they do equals canon. …while furiously brushing the nature of Clementine’s character under the rug. And what canon actually means.

Speaking of, let’s discuss canon, and how TWDG fit into that.

[What is Canon Actually?]

I’m gonna say it. You’re gonna watch me say it:

The concept of canon versus fandom is bizarre.

It is.

Take mythology for instance. Those stories, with a grain of truth or not, serve as a prime example as to what I mean.

And I’ll do this by absolutely undermining all of human, mythology history, but you’ll get the point: person creates story—as a way to document history via oral storytelling, or to express a message—, and that story is told; the story is passed down, and it changes with the interpretations of whoever is then telling the story; the story builds on itself and evolves to encompass every interpretation that has been accepted by the culture—by separating itself into multiple iterations if details being to contradict, or by converging in on itself.

And then.

The stories become ingrained, and the cycle continues on.

Canon is the source material. It’s that original storyteller. Fandom is interpretation. And come to find, throughout history, it’s fandom that ultimately decides the canon’s fate. Fandom will reject things that it doesn’t like with canon, and it will alter the story with time. And as a significant amount of time passes, we end up with stories of Heracles turning into Disney’s Hercules.

In this way, a culture’s mythology is an example of how canon and fandom is actually quite intertwined. And, as I will go over later, we see this with American mythology—comics. DC and Marvel comics being the major two.

Now, this isn’t to claim that there has never been a difference recognized between source material and interpretation. For one, Homer often credited in writing the Iliad and Odyssey—meaning he is the original storyteller, or, more probable, he is the one that documented oral traditions. Homer’s existence and the fact that his name has yet to be forgotten after all this time is, in itself, evidence that people didn’t just wake up one day and decide to finally credit a storyteller for their contribution to culture. This has been something that has been done for a while—albeit in different ways.

What this is to claim, however, is that there are two core reasons as to why fandom and canon are separated as we understand it now: copyright and technology.

And we’ll start with the former. Copyright history is quite interesting. Something that goes back further and deeper than people tend to assume. We’ll start in 1790 (yes, it’s a crusty, dusty law) where it was written into the new U.S Constitution:

“Congress shall have the Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

And, in modern times, that translates to providing the “exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his or her work, [and] a right to publicly perform or display the work” (Copyright.gov). This also extends the creator’s right to give other parties a license to do the same, but, there are limitations, especially as technology has developed. (The Copyright.gov website explains this in more depth.)

What this means is that, already, we see a line dug between canon and fandom. People can’t just write fanfiction and expect to get paid for characters and a story they, themselves, didn’t create. Which, fair enough. I am by no means going to claim that writing fanfiction is a cakewalk, but I do understand why fanfiction is a free service: it is done out of passion, nothing more.

Technology has made its impact as well. And this doesn’t just mean the Internet—even though it arguably has had the largest impact with this discussion. Any advancement that makes it easier for people to communicate and discuss interpretations of material has contributed. Cars. School systems. Conventions. While versions of these concepts were probably present in the past, the sheer convenience of all of these has made it easy to bridge the gap between the creator and their audience. And because of that—at least for the sake of this essay—, copyright was established as a sort of barrier to ensure that the creator is able to be compensated for their contribution.

The Internet, of course, has done this tenfold. I’m sitting in my bed with my cat on lap, snoozing away. I don’t have to be at a convention, or even see anybody of the fandom, to discuss Clementine and TWDG and the comics with others. And because of that, the difference between canon and fandom is simultaneously a slippery slope and a solid border. The way people can interact with a fandom and talk directly to the creator allows for that slippery slope, but at the same time, because of the law, the difference is more defined. Which I find to be interesting, if anything.

So how do TWDG fit into this?

Well, to understand that, it’s best to understand how Telltale fits into this. Without going into too much their history—since, frankly, it’s not really relevant here—, understanding what Telltale Games was (and kind of is now?) will better contextualize TWDG and canonicity. Telltale is known for their choose-your-own-adventure, point-and-click style games. Yes. And, ultimately, that has remained to be the trademark for the majority—if not all—of their time. Another thing? Comic books. Outside of the gameplay and story type, Telltale is known for being the game company that adapted comic books.

Here's a few:

The Wolf Among Us. Bone. Batman. And, of course, The Walking Dead.

Granted, Telltale didn’t only adapt comic books, but for the sake of this part of the essay, the comic-book-thing is another point of interest. And I’m going to use Batman as an example.

We go to May 1939, in Issue #27 of the Detective Comics: The Case of The Chemical Syndicate. Or, Batman’s first appearance, thanks to Bob Kane and Bill Finger. Then, six issues later, we have his origin (you know the one: turned into a rich orphan in a dark, dark alley). Five issues after that, Batman sees the introduction of his very own Watson: Robin, who completes the dynamic duo. In the 1940s, Batman received his very own comic series, starting off with Joker and Catwoman appearing in the first issue.

Oh, and this early batman wielded guns. Which uh…, if you’re familiar with Batman, is really, really weird. However, this is an example of how characters and stories evolve over time, depending on what both the creators and fandom accepts and rejects.

We hop over to the 60s where Batman was associated with a campy, tongue-in-cheek, largely due to the show at the time. As that interpretation fizzled out, Batman was back to his roots with his grim stories rekindled.

And since then, with comics alone, we have a slew of different interpretations that, together, have built Batman’s overall identity: Dark Knight Returns, Batman: The Killing Joke, Batman: Nightfall, Batman: Year One, Batman: A Death in the Family, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Batman: Death of the Family. And a plethora more. The reality is, Batman didn’t spawn from one iteration. He is an amalgamation of a whole evolution: Golden Age. Bronze Age. Silver Age. Modern Age, and 21st Century comics. The New 52. DC origins. My rat pea brain is frothing. Television. Film.

(Also, the interpretation section of Batman’s Wikipedia makes my point plainly. Specifically the gay one, where the argument between whether or not Batman is gay I found to be entertaining.)

And. Of course. Video games.

Telltale’s Batman series is but another interpretation that has added to the mountain of other perspectives that makes the Caped Crusader, well, the Caped Crusader.

TWDG, however, are unique compared to the Batman games. Where Batman adapts both the world and characters from the comics, TWDG don’t (aside from Michonne, and a few character references done in S1, and Jesus). TWDG only adapt the world from the comics. The reason why boils down to TWD, and how it would’ve been redundant to have Rick Grimes be in a new game series when there were the comics and show going on all at once.

So, instead of a sheriff’s deputy, we got a convicted murderer. How fun! :D

But to that point, here is another element which Robert Kirkman himself noted (after being asked if Clementine would be in the show):

“I mean, honestly, like, we love Clementine and those games are fantastic, but I like that there are different elements to each iteration of The Walking Dead that you can only get in those iterations. [. . .] I think if we cross-pollenate too much, it takes away from what makes Walking Dead special in all the different genres.”

Iterations.

Something that has been commonplace in American comics like Batman, in mythology, religious texts, etc. Here, Kirkman recognizes why iterations are so fascinating and important for storytelling, and it’s just yet another reason why I do respect him as a writer:

Iterations bring individual perspective.

By using the same foundations—whether it be with all the characters, world, and storyline, or just the world—, it opens the chance for people to deconstruct and explore nuance. And obviously, Kirkman—as the creator—has given other parties the license to do such a thing, given copyright. Between the show(s) and the comics, the differing perspectives is in the different interpretations of TWD—the original storyteller, and then those who are adapting it. Between the comics and the games, however, rather than interpretations of TWD itself, it’s with the different interpretations of TWD’s world. “Okay, so we’ve followed a cop, let’s follow a convict.” And then it developed from there.

And this does extend to Clementine’s fic in regards to TWDG, though it passes into the fandom space. It’s the same as what’s going on between the show(s) and comics—with the additional, tangled web discussed previously.

So, in regards to this comic, it’s important to acknowledge that TWD—as a whole—has embraced different iterations throughout its time. Here, we can appreciate this layer of complexity with TWD on a grander scale.

On a smaller scale, TWDG have a another layer of complexity that the TWD comics and shows don’t have:

Well, obviously, the tangled web. The fact that Clementine is running around with a bunch of other different slices of Clementine. Those different slices arguably being different iterations in themselves, while being attached to one singular, overarching iteration of Clementine.

What this means for canonicity and TWDG is that it’s…complicated, though in a different way than Batman (and the TWD comics versus show, for the matter), yet with a similar result. Batman is an amalgamation of iterations throughout the decades, now including Telltale’s, which has left us with a multitude of interpretations, a multitude of versions—all of which still resemble each other as the same character. Clementine has one iteration—now two, including the comic. But unlike Batman, Clementine started off as a choose-your-own-adventure character, so she is inherently an amalgamation of every interpretation that has guided players through the games, as a reflection of those players, and each interpretation thrives and are considered canon.

And here’s how:

The games are canon up until a death screen. Between the fatal choice made—or not made, with those damn quick-times—to the red screen doesn’t count. Because, uh, you died. Which leaves the game to prompt you to try again.

So? It means it doesn’t matter how you ended S1, or S2, or S3, or S4, if you ended them, that was the story told to you. A story, which, becomes your source material. Your canon—and thusly your Clementine.

Which, like, no shit. Lol.

But then let’s dive in a little deeper. Dig up another layer:

Interpretation.

Because, hey, it works in a really funky way here. Interpretation in fandoms (which take the form of headcanons) are typically generated in isolation from the canon material. Simply put, copyright. Whoopie.

Another reason why goes back to the idea that there are characters who are stagnant—like Rick, and Michonne, and Daryl—, and those who are not—Clementine, Lee, Javi. Fandom headcanons of the former three can only do so much. They do not actively impact the story, not unless the creators allow them to (but, well, again, copyright). With the latter three? Headcanons do. Like how Clementine suffered from alcoholism as a way to represent her losing sense of self, and the way that interpretation influenced how I played—how my canon, my source material, took shape.

So, again, Clementine is a very, very strange character in regards to canon. When compared to many other characters created nowadays, most of which only have one (maybe two, if there’s a film-adaptation-thing going on) iteration, I can’t help but think that Clementine is reminiscent of characters from mythology. Depending on what story needs to be told, and who is telling that story, gods like Athena, Loki and Oya may do things that contradict what other stories claim, all while being recognizable as Athena, Loki and Oya. Functionally, it is the same with Clementine, albeit within Telltale’s singular iteration rather than centuries of cultural development.

I also like to think that where Batman is a tower, where the foundation will always be that Issue #27 and people have just built on top of that, Clementine is a mirror. Every person who has played the games has a shard of it, and when we look into our shard, we see our reflective Clementine, but when those shards are put together, we see Clementine whole. And Clementine whole isn’t one singular interpretation—not like how Kane and Finger created Batman.

Which, honestly, brings us to interpretation in practice.

And how it’s a skill.

[Writing Fanfiction is a Skill]

Nope, didn't read that wrong. I mean it.

I have almost 6 years and over 1,000,000 words archived on AO3, dammit (and a few more million to come, lol), so trust me when I say that writing fanfiction is a skill.

When you write fanfiction, you are developing the skills of writing which can be applied to your own, original works. Sure thing. You get to learn how to grammar, spell, use fancy punctuation (talkin’ about real fancy shit, now!), and other cool things. All without worrying or spending your time/energy on developing a world and characters from the ground-up.

However, when you write fanfiction, you're also developing other skills that you wouldn't otherwise develop. It’s like a special exercise that exercises one special muscle that no other lame exercises do. Lol.

The fact of the matter is not everyone can pull a character from another person's story and keep all the components of their personality. Well, okay, nobody can keep all components. Naturally, there will always be parts missing, or altered. For one, the original creator might not have included everything that was running through their head when their character was born; things are always cut, that's just how it is. Two, interpretation will always skew as people take the character(s) into their own hands.

If you're writing fanfiction purely as a hobby to express yourself, and you're not all that concerned over maintaining the intended character traits provided in the original piece of work, then this isn't an issue. A lot of people write characters as homosexual/queer, or as trans, or with mental illnesses (or all at once; sounds fun) as a way to simultaneously acknowledge their acceptance of a character and explore themes they wouldn't have otherwise explored. And there is nothing wrong with it. That's a normal thing to do, and I highly doubt that this is just some sudden phenomenon. So if that's how you roll, keep on truckin' along. There isn't inherently anything wrong with using fanfiction that way.

However, there is something to be said about the value in being able to write a character believably—as if you yourself wrote it (but not, like, in a stealing way). Being able to mimic their dialogue. Nailing their little quirks. Acknowledging their complexity. Out of the two directions you can take fanfiction—purely for expression or writing a character as is—, the latter falls more in line with comprehensive skill. You would have to comprehensively read in order to effectively write Percy Jackson as if you're Riordan himself.

Will anyone actually ever be able to do that? No, because interpretation will always skew, and everybody except for Mr. Riordan is not Rick Riordan. Is it constructive to be a fanfiction-copycat? No, because you have your own style in doing things, you have your own views, and why do Riordan's work for him when he could do it himself?

The truth is, for the majority of writers, fanfiction tends to be a meld of both. Writers will strive to emulate their characters, but with certain traits, they'll bend the characterizations set in order to express/explore their own interests. Which is cool. That's ultimately how you find yourself as a writer (or any artist, really) when practicing with fanworks. That, and you'll find people who think of characters in different ways. Which is also cool.

But there is a balance at play here.

When I write fanfiction, I am there to develop my writing skills, and my adaptation skills as well. Largely because it was a way for me to observe how different characters act, and to practice on how to write different characters. When I write fanfiction, I want you to be able to hear the characters speak through my dialogue. And if it’s a fic with minor-canon divergence? I want you to be fooled as to which lines of dialogue are from the show/game, and which are of my own.

In short, I want you to believe that the characters from whatever show, whatever game, would behave this way, talk this way, in my stories.

I want you to believe that Clementine could be an alcoholic, yet still recognize her all the same.

There’s a sweet spot in writing fanfiction. Of course, you may be able to pick apart which trace is of the canon, and which are of the fanfic author’s. But so long as the fic has you believing what the characters are doing are what they’d do, then it doesn’t matter if you’re able to pick apart those traces. Because that’s you accepting the fanfic author’s interpretation—out of appreciation, or even to the point where you adopt the interpretation with your own.

And about the value in being able to comprehensively read a character and then write your own story around it… Well, this comic may be a good example as to why that is actually a crucial skill to have:

The thing about fanfiction is that it's a collaboration between you, the person writing the fanfiction, and the creator. Most of the time, the collaboration isn't direct, and the creator doesn't know about it. And that's fine. (…great, even; most, if not all, fics are just meant to be unseen by the creator because of that legality stuff lol.) But, with the reader and fanfic author, that is typically reversed because you can interact with each other. That, and fandom discourse can and does impact how people write characters in their fics.

And you know what else is a collaboration?

Damn near every single bit of fictional entertainment except for writing. Literature, unless you buddy-up to write a book, is usually a solitary thing. But writing a script for film? Movies or shows? Video games? The continuation of a franchise?

Yeah. Those all require a collaborative effort in some way, shape or form. And it's funny how that skill in being able to mimic another person's character to continue the story, through collaboration, can be found within writing fanfiction—a (typically) solitary thing.

If Tillie isn't a good fanfiction writer, the Clementine in the comic can be, at worst, described as her own character wearing Clementine's skin. Which…I hope not. I’m gonna give her the benefit of the doubt. What I will maintain, however, is that the comic is another iteration of Clementine. Separate from the games. On account of how I don’t see the comics being able to effectively bottleneck every Clementine. That, and it makes more sense. In the same way that Batman can have many iterations, Clementine can as well. And you can pick-and-choose which you want to go with.

With all that said, though, this is the point that will be better judged once the comics are out. I can’t really say if Tillie is good at adapting another character because what I’ve seen isn’t much—especially since it will be 256 pages long.

I mean…from what I have seen, I know that the comic Clementine won’t be Clementine. And because of that, I’m not going to adopt Tillie’s interpretation with my own. My benefit of the doubt is extended to an appreciation if Tillie does end up serving Clementine well. …which isn’t what I saw from the first chapter and all that was released before, but whatever.

In any case.

Writing fanfiction is a lot like playing with action figures. You're borrowing them for your own stories—and that can include your own universes if it's an alternate universe. You could swap out the clothes and detachable limbs to craft a story however you please, or you could keep the action figures as they are and have at it.

More often than not, the action figures will remain how they came in the box, but they will act in ways that are skewed from the original characterization. Some people are better at closing that gap between original work and interpretation, and with very few, it's to the point where you barely realize it. To the point where, if the piece of fanfiction they wrote was published, it could be just a development of the story.

Which is how collaborative fiction works, isn't it? Especially in franchises based off of one creator’s foundation—like Robert Kirkman’s comic book—, which are then adapted as a tv show. Then you have how people are constantly swapped in-and-out of long projects, yet those different interpretations come together as canon.

And with the comic, if what we know as of now isn't a fluke but is instead what the story offers, it's probably in-part due to lacking that fanfiction skill—or, well, skill in adaptation.

But that isn't to say that Walden herself is a bad writer. 

(tillie walden's artwork, with a.j)

[Walden Conundrum]

Let’s start here: do nOT HARRASS HER MY LORD THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE HERE FOR CLEMENTINE WOULDN’T APPRECIATE IT SHE WOULD SEE IT AS A WASTE OF TIME AND DOWNRIGHT STUPID ALSO THIS TUMBLR BLOG DOESN’T STAND FOR ITTTTT—

deep inhale

This does apply to Skybound as well, for the matter, though of course Walden is one person and Skybound is a company so…yeah.

Anyway. Look.

I'm going to be honest. I've investigated a little bit. I've gone around and looked into (some of) Walden’s work (which will be linked at the end).

First, let’s cover her professional career. Walden is a cartoonist, and as of now, she has seven works under her belt starting from 2015: The End of Summer (2015), I Love This Part (2015),  A City Inside (2016), Spinning (2017),On A Sunbeam (2018), Are You Listening? (2020), and My Parents Won’t Stop Talking! (2022). And then, of course, the Clementine comic in not too long.

In the awards department, she has won three Ignatz Awards—for her first two books—, and then two Eisner Awards for Spinning, (Best Reality-Based Work), and recently for My Parents Won’t Stop Talking! (Best Graphic Album—New) . We will come back to the reality-based genre.

So…, yeah. Walden isn’t just this random cartoonist.

Outside of that, Walden is a graduate of the Center for Cartoon Studies, where she now works as a professor. Walden was also a competitive ice skater (sounds fun; it also means she likes snow). And, something that has bled into her stories, Walden is an out lesbian.

So from looking at both her achievements and Walden herself, I can see why Skybound would have an interest in hiring her. For one, she’s young—mid-20s. She’s an out queer person. Both of these mean that, following a line of logic, Walden would be someone who understands Clementine who is a young, bi woman (teenager, whatever) at this point—compared to an old fart who has his hands cramping whenever he draws. Then, you have her achievements. The Eisner Awards are a big deal in the comic industry—think of them as Grammys, but like, for dialogue-pictures.

Okay. Never going to describe comics like that again. Got it.

With this, I dug a little deeper. Turns out, you can read one of her works on her website—free of charge. ON A SUNBEAM (OAS). 20 chapters long. Easy read.

And you know what? It's quite enjoyable. I had a fun time at least.

OAS is a sci-fi novel in which there is space, and there are fishes, and those fishes are fuckin’ rad spaceships. There’s a cat-horse in there, and there’s high school, and a team of people who are in a fish spaceship that go fix some juicy-ass architecture (I do love architecture). 20 chapters. Free to read on her website. I do recommend.

Now, okay. To actually explain the story, OAS is a sci-fi novel where it follows Mia, who is about as flawed as you can get, in two main timelines: one at high school, and the other as she joins a team (on a fish spaceship!) that primarily oversees old architecture projects. In space.

Also, it is quite a queer, feminist story. There are no men, so the lesbianism is a given, but there is a nonbinary character (who’s pretty cool; hi Elliot :D). And with that said, I do appreciate how this was handled. None of it felt forced—especially compared to other, pandering stuff I’ve read. The story is of queer identity. Cool. And the story moves on.

So, yeah. That was a nice aspect of it.

Overall, the comic itself is more or less an emotional journey than anything. All the sci-fi stuff takes a backseat and melds into the environment.

The main character, Mia, is…destructive, reckless, abrasive at times, etc. etc. Yet, Mia's also fiercely loyal. She knows her flaws, and whenever they come back around to bite her on the ass, she's remorseful. I'm going to be honest when I say that it was nice to see. It can be difficult to be able to write such a flawed personality with their redeemable qualities littered throughout.

I’m not going to get too far into the comic, however. One, that’s not the point here, and two, frankly, going in blind was a fun time. I do encourage people to read it if you so choose just to prove the point that, no, I don’t think that Walden is a bad storyteller. So, if you have the time and interest, forget this Clementine business for a bit and read it. Maybe you’ll enjoy it too.

But…yeah. She’s not a bad storyteller. Instead, I believe that Walden was not at all the right fit for these comics.

And I’m going to start with her art-style.

Personally, it’s not my favorite. I love sharp, bold linework matched with vivid colors—see Marvel and DC comics. And if colors aren’t included? Well, that’s cool too. I absolutely love Little Witch Academia’s manga (specifically Satō’s), and adore Kakegurui. And many more, of course.

So, yes, I’m personally not the audience for Walden’s style. Hers is very simplistic overall. The linework is made of thin and “freehand” lines. The shapes are as well.

All to make room for color.

And, if you’re familiar with Walden’s work or have just popped over to OAS, you’ll understand why this is a huge thing:

Color is the blood to Walden’s style. Without it, it’s…dry? I suppose? The best way to describe Walden’s art-style is that it is all color with as little linework necessary to guide that color. The linework is there to show you where the characters are looking, not to be the epitome of detail.

Which…, while it’s not my jam, I can respect that. For one thing, this style worked well with OAS—and I can imagine it goes well with Walden’s other projects as well, outside of Clementine. In other words, it’s good for contemporary, self-reflective work.

If anything, I think this is the main reason why people have criticized the art-style in the Clementine comic as much as they have. Because TWD is known for its greyscale comics, which is why the Clementine comic is doing the same. The issue with this is because Walden’s style is reliant on color—that is truly where the story is being told, and I gotta say, she has an eye for it—, I don’t think that the linework in greyscale is going to be able to hold-up.

Now, to be clear, I have grown to appreciate the style. I don’t take much issue with it for the comics anymore. Partially because of OAS. At the same time, here I was just a week ago gushing about variant covers (especially Michael Walsh’s) because…damn, that’s my kind of shit. And it is very different from Walden’s work. But, again, I do appreciate Walden’s style. I know it has it strengths, because I’ve read it in a full, finished story. So I shall maintain that the Clementine comics won’t truly be representative of Walden’s style.

Another thing: concepts. I have a suspicion that the Clementine comics will tap into some interesting concepts. Well, okay. Less of a suspicion and more of a guarantee; as seen in the first two chapters that have been released (both linked at the end), we have the comics exploring an Amish community.

Which.

Um, yeah. That’s actually a really interesting thing to be looking into. The Amish are quite secluded from everyone else, but, wouldn’t the Amish fair better in an apocalypse an a city-person? They’re already independent. They already know the skills required to live off the land. And in a franchise that has largely explored how people had to change with the world, exploring a group of people who were already a step ahead—despite being behind technologically—is very interesting.

Now, uh, will we explore more of them? Well…no? Maybe? Unless Amos says things here-and-there.

Ah well.

But, that will be a potential highlight of the comics.

Another highlight is actually similar to Walden’s approach to sci-fi—have the genre be the environment, and let the people be people (or monsters).

This is another thing that fits TWD very well. In all honesty, this approach goes hand-in-hand with Kirkman’s refusal to explain how the apocalypse started—which is something that I actually like, and have incorporated in my own (fanfic) writing. Of course, the unknown is scary and interesting, thus curiosity beckons for an answer, but the point of TWD has always been about the people. (Until recently with the show trying to explain an origin, but…I don’t care.)

So…yeah. That is yet another point.

And now we get into characters and plot.

…both of which I can’t justifiably comment on using OAS as an example because, well, adaptations are different than what Walden is accustomed to.

Here we have an interview of Walden’s, given at the end of the first chapter. (The interview link will be at the end, through DomTheBomb’s video(s). I’m not going to go over the whole interview.) For our purposes, there are two questions that are important, though I will reference things from the other questions (there’s only five in this interview).

Tillie, you’re known for writing and drawing your own characters—what made you excited to take on this project and dive into Clementine and the world of TWD?

I was excited by the prospect of entering the world of TWD mostly because it felt so different from all the other work I’ve done. All my past books have been loosely autobiographical, pretty quiet, pretty sensitive. The idea of bashing in the heads of walkers, and writing characters who are shaped so deeply by survival sounded fascinating. And of course in the process of working with Clementine’s character to make these books, I’ve found so many connections between her story, the apocalypse, and my own life.

After I read this…, things started to add-up.

The Clementine comics are outside of Walden’s comfort zone. They’re within a genre that she isn’t familiar with, with a character that isn’t hers… And, yeah. Okay. For what it’s worth, I’ll give her props for branching out. It is an exciting thing for any storyteller to do.

But. It does raise the question of how far outside her comfort zone is she? Has Walden ever written (or drawn) fanfiction? To this level specifically. If so, how much? Has she ever developed adaptational skills to a professional level?

And as I’ve read through this interview, and some others, I’ve realized why Clementine is traveling to Vermont: to compensate for branching out. By plucking Clementine from an unknown to a known, I can imagine it made it easier for Walden to craft this story.

Here’s the thing.

Walden is a (loose) autobiographical storyteller—hence why she was awarded for her reality-based work, which I do think was deserved. Her skills are in slipping elements of herself into her stories. After reading OAS, I can say she does it well—with OCs and original stories, anyway. And if she’s played the games? Well, her Clementine is a reflection of Walden, isn’t she? So…naturally, Walden is going to impose herself onto Clementine—as was designed by Telltale to do, maybe elevated given Walden’s past work.

In regards to the comic, this is an issue.

A blaring one if Walden is not familiar with writing fanfiction to begin with.

When you write characters with comprehensive skill, you develop the ability to write in different perspectives. To write characters outside of your comfort zone—especially when you get to fandoms with large casts. And given that I live in a fucking desert with sand and dust and cacti and shit, I’ve had to spend time and research to write environments I’m not familiar with because most of my fandoms don’t take place in a desert.

Ergo, I don’t believe Walden developed those skills. Not enough for Clementine.

And because of that, we have a Clementine who is warped. She doesn’t talk like Clementine because Walden is writing Clementine’s dialogue as she herself would talk. Or, at the very least, how she thinks Clementine would talk, but through a heavy layer of bias. Clementine left the school for snow because Walden likes snow—even though, Clementine probably wouldn’t (again, Clementine would go fucking insane).

This is what I mean by fanfiction is a skill. Sure, elements of Walden’s personality would end up in the comic regardless. But, the key to fanfiction is being able to get into a character’s head unfamiliar to you. That is the trick to a successful fanfic/adaptation.

Not doing whatever the fuck you want because you’re in charge. We have a name for that. It’s called crackfic.

With that, here is the second question:

Your process as a writer/illustrator is a little different than most. You don’t do scripts, and instead prefer to just dive right into the layouts—why do you think this helps you?

God I hate scripts. I feel like as a cartoonist, our skill is in synthesizing the drawing and writing process. If you separate them, then in my mind, I’m not really making a comic anymore. Of course we outline the book before we start, mostly so my editor knows I have some idea of where I’m going, but then like you said, I go right into making a draft of the book, without scripting or thumbnailing. I think this process works for me for a few reasons. One is that it forces me to build the story visually right from the get-go, and often my best moments of writing and plot are inspired by an image I draw. Another reason is that it’s faster. This is huge, since we’re trying to bring a Clementine book to people each year (it’s a [trilogy]). And I think the final reason is that by writing and drawing at the same time, I naturally create a lot more silent spreads than I think would be inclined to do if I was scripting. “Drawing of the beach, no text” doesn’t sound lovely in a script, but when I see it, I can feel it, and I know it belongs.

Ah.

So there is a lot to unpack here, and I will do this by taking each reason at a time before diving into the meat of it. Because, frankly, this answer is the one that bothers me the most. Now, for one, I am not a comic writer. At the moment my focus is in literature, but I would like to expand at some point. But, I am a storyteller, as is Walden, so at the crux of this, I do have insight as to…what Walden is saying here.

Insight that isn’t just for writers. Lol. I think it’ll be pretty easy for people to pick up what I’m picking up on.

First of all, with this answer, we learn that Walden is a gardener/pantser—both terms used to describe how a storyteller crafts their story. Gardeners are people who write as they go, and let the story develop in the moment. This method is quite messy and unorganized, but that is the point. What you’re doing is letting a story grow organically.

…also, this isn’t as different as the interviewer described. For comic artists maybe, I can definitely see that, but you will run into a lot of writers who take this approach. I have, at least.

Now, I am not a gardener. At all. I am an architect. I outline—to an extreme. So while I do definitely give my stories that time and room to breathe, I don’t just write as I go along. I hop around. I keep an outline. I even script my dialogue for many scenes.

But you know what? This difference doesn’t really matter. There isn’t inherently a right or wrong with being an architect versus a gardener. Here’s why: so long as you can get from Point A to Point B, and the product is good, it doesn’t matter what journey you took. A storyteller’s journey with their story is quite an intimate experience in some respects. I can’t really judge Walden’s process in this regard.

However, it is crucial to understand that one process doesn’t have a leverage over the other in regards to time. Outliners tend to wait a while before actually writing because they are dedicating time and energy in, well, planning. Now, I will usually just plop down and write a few scenes to feel out the style for the story—like first person versus third, past versus present tense, etc.—, but a significant portion of time is just outlining. By the time outliners do start writing, it is rapid-fire. The actual writing (for me at least) doesn’t take that long. I’ve gotten to the point where I can write 100k words in a month easy. But those 100k words came out after a couple other months of planning.

With pantsers, that, of course, is flipped. To my mind, I would think gardening a story would take longer than outlining because you have to keep drafting and editing and catching all the plot-holes you missed before. But, then again, I’m not a pantser, so naturally that process would take longer for me.

So, to Walden’s second point with time, the only reason why it should take a shorter amount of time for her to garden a story rather than script is because she is a pantser, not an outliner. So, as pantsing a story would take longer for me, outlining a story may take longer for her. If the process itself, however, takes significantly less time than an outliner because only one draft is written, and finalized, then…

Yikes.

That is not a good sign. Especially with an adaptation. On Clementine. Where you have to keep track…of the choices made…and potentially incorporating her Telltale-RPG nature…

Walden may be a gardener, but with pumping out a ~200-300 page comic each year, with this process, for this character, is reckless. Not the gardening process itself, mind you, but the implication that this requires less work, less drafts, for Walden to do within a short amount of time—1-2 years isn’t actually a lot.

Then there is the emphasis on the art. While I don’t write comics myself, I would argue from a storyteller’s perspective that comics are more than the art. Yes, the art is the focus, just like the narration is for narrative writing. They are the key components to their respective artforms.

But a key is not the only part in opening a door. You need the fingers to grip it. You need the wrist to turn it. And then you need the lock itself—the story, in which the key is cracking open for the audience.

The art, the narration, is the flavor to the story, not the story itself. If that wasn’t the case, every chicken would taste the same, no matter how it’s been prepared. Every apocalyptic universe would be the same. Sure, there’s absolutely similarities given that it’s the same genre, but try to tell me that TWDG and TLOU are the same thing. Go on. I’ll wait…

Point is, while the flavor is absolutely important, people care more about the meat. Clementine’s cult-following cares more about the meat. We are invested in the comic—for better or for worse—because of Clementine, not the art. In her other works like OAS, people may be there for the art. But that’s the difference between a continuation versus original work, isn’t it? People weren’t invested in the characters of OAS before reading, but they may have been intrigued by the art. With Clementine, no. Cult-following will cult-follow. And being the primary audience, if the meat isn’t good, people will not care about the flavor. At all.

Now. Again. None of this is a criticism of Tillie with her work overall. As I said before, one’s process shouldn’t really matter when it comes to a product’s quality. So if the product is good, it doesn’t matter if you’re a gardener or an architect.

However.

A storyteller’s process does have its impact. It doesn’t matter with solitary work, but it does in certain other contexts. Like adaptation, and or, continuations.

I outline to an extreme because 1) it works for me, and 2) the outline is there to jog my memory whenever I get back to a project after, inevitably, having to take a break and work on something else.

So again, is Tillie the right choice for Clementine? In short, while I understand why she was hired for this—because there's fair reasons—, I don’t think so.

I will be the first to say that I do not appreciate the basic premise. At all. It's quite frankly appalling and a punch right to my spleen—and then some. It makes me want to wear down my teeth to little numbs by eating sand (I live in a desert; it would be cost-effective). And I covered that. Again, Clementine put down her hat for a reason; to just give her another one with a cute lil ball at the top as she goes off into effectively a war-zone is a complete misinterpretation of her and her arc. There are better solutions. So many better solutions. They just aren't as simple as throwing Clementine back out into the world. So in that sense, my knee-jerk reaction is going to be no, she was not. At all.

But, to be fair, it is still early. There is still room for the comic to redeem itself. As in, there is a plan for it that does make sense. And if the fandom doesn't like it? Okay! We'll just kick it under a rug and not talk about it. Skybound may try to promote it, but if it ends up being that poorly received, there is nothing that Skybound, nor canon, can do about it.

After digging around a little, I’ve come to one conclusion: Skybound hired the wrong person for this.

Walden is known for writing non-fictional pieces—or, at least, works heavily inspired by her own life. To the point where she received an Eisner Award for it. Walden is also not a greyscale artist. The crux of her art comes from color, which is why people have said that the cover of this comic looks better than what’s inside.

That, and, Skybound probably hired someone who is not adept at writing fanfiction. Because if that is the case, I can see how her being a (loose) autobiographical storyteller is actually exacerbating that.

This alone, however, isn’t really the core issue. Storytellers can absolutely expand in writing different genres. So I do commend Walden for taking that leap. However, I think she bit more than she could chew because, rather than adjusting her process to compensate for the shift in story type, she treated Clementine the same as her other works. Which is…reckless. For those who don’t know, writing fanfiction does feel different than original work. Because you are working different skills.

There are a slew of choices out there, other than Tillie Walden, that would have done better. But, there is something to be said about how those choices are out there only because other people took a chance on them. Every storyteller has been in her place, once upon a time. And sometimes they flop miserably before they succeed a great success. So if these comics do flop, I hope Walden does fit this bill and is able to come out with great successes later on.

Critique what you want about her work, in and outside of TWDG. I get that her style isn’t for everyone, and that critiquing elements of a story with an adored character is good. That’s how companies learn their audience. Just don't say that Walden’s here to cannibalize the fanbase. Nor harass her. Regardless of whether or not she has the necessary skills of a fanfiction writer as talked about, Walden is still just an artist that took on a job.

[End]

So…yeah. In the grand scheme of things, even though the comic may be "canon", it's still the interpretation of one person—which isn't true to how the games work, nor Clementine as a character. The "canonicity" of this work is…really not strong. I don't care if Skybound will shove it down our throats that it is. It just isn't. Not if we don’t want it to. Not unless we consider the comic Clementine as a different iteration of the character entirely. Clementine is special to us because she directly reflects each and every one of our interpretations of her. The character shifts with our perceptions, and thusly our decisions made. If you're still angered by the comic, just remember that. "Canon" or not, the comic's Clementine still won't be your Clementine—just as much as my alcoholic one isn't. (Lol.)

I get it. The comic stands as a slap to the face and just pisses all over the entirety of Clementine’s journey. And A.J. Who has been around since the second season. Many of us find it absolutely appalling for Skybound to pull with Tillie as the writer. Sure. To the point where the comic’s Clementine has been deemed “Tangerine”.

But, if you're one to give chances and be optimistic, and you feel like giving the comic a shot, go right on ahead. Pre-order it. See to it that Tillie knows what she's doing and winds up crafting a salvageable story. A masterpiece? Um…no. Hopefully I’m wrong, though, and that she has a plan that makes sense, in the end. So who knows? Maybe you'll even stumble upon a storyteller that you actually appreciate, even with all this TWDG game-comic-Clementine nonsense.

Again, though, given the nature of the games, one comic made by a person won't destroy all Clementines. It simply can't… As I said, the comic is another iteration. Something that you could completely separate from the games. Your Clementine is your Clementine, and mine is mine. You know your Clementine; if your Clementine can't perceivably leave the school kids, and do anything she does in the comics, then she won't. It's that easy.

And though I’m not here to tear anyone a new anything, I know Clementine certainly won’t be the Clementine in the comics. Speaking of, I'm going back to my fanfiction. I have an alcoholic to write. ;)

(...when I'm not a shit updater. Lol.)

If you did read all of this, thank-you. I know it's a lot. But, ah well, fandom and passion and all that. Seriously though, I get it, but don't drag down a comic writer for taking on a job—even if it's downright terrible. We live in a society, and stuff. Give any just criticism, sure (this essay certainly did), but don't forget that the comic will not matter if you don't want it to. That is how canon works, in fact. Sure, there’s copyright and stuff, but stories develop overtime with the fandom, given that fandom can last longer than its creator. So yeah. As for myself, I'll continue writing my fics. I'm not interested in the comic, but I wouldn't mind seeing Tillie's work outside of TWDG. Actually do plan to keep an eye out for her stuff, all things considered.

With all that though, here are the links I promised. :D

Clementine Comic: Chapter One | Chapter Two

Walden Interview (with commentary) | DomTheBomb Channel

Tillie Walden: Website | ON A SUNBEAM Webcomic

Kent Mudle: Twitter | Tumblr | Website

PS: I STILL WANT THOSE BOMBASS VARIANT COVERS AS POSTERS I DON’T CARE I WILL DRAIN MYSELF OF MY RESOURCES FOR THEM PLEAAAAASE.

#volt's library #twdg clementine #clementine comic #twdg #notmyclementine #mine is still an alcoholic #fight me #long essay #twdg 4 #twdg 3 #twdg 2 #this essay is dated with the second comic out but oh well #reposted from last account #if this looks familiar it's because i yoinked it from my last (dead) account #tldr fanfiction exists for a reason #and that canon vs fandom is kinda weird #so skybound cant do anything about their canon #they cant do anything about my alcoholic clementine either #they ainT TAKING HER OUT OF MY GRIMEY GRIMEY COLD HANDS

[longreads]

“The most important part of my job is to make the library a safe space. One where kids burst through the door and go running with glee to the children’s area so they can say hello to whoever is at the desk. One where a patron can have a full metal meltdown about the state of the world and still be given resources to find housing, a shower, a meal. One where someone can come in blasted high for years and then return the next day sober and clean, ensconcing themselves in the safety of the books to stay that way.”

Lisa Bubert’s Instagram bio reads "Public librarian who has seen some 💩," and her latest piece makes clear just how much “some” is. When so much of our society has seemingly turned its back on its neediest members, public libraries have never been more important. To read “Safety Net,” head to Longreads.

#longreads #long reads #public libraries #books and libraries #essays

[kagoutiss]

pelican town, ‘72

#stardew valley #stardew valley spoilers #sdv #sdv spoilers #grandpa #mister qi #mr. qi #idk how dates work in stardew universe im just bullshittin #i love qi’s huge fucking eyebrows you dont notice them at first but theyre there #(gives our collective grandpa a ponytail) i think he had one. whatever #’why isnt mister qi blue’ my hc is he is blue from long-term iridium supplementation #and was originally just a regular person #but also it’s nice to see ur fav be like a normal human color #if u read tag essays tho consider this: #qi discovers secret to immortality (consuming iridium in a specific manner) #wants to share discovery with his farmer (player’s grandpa) and in that way. they will have all the time in the world to build #a perfect farming/business empire whose legacy will last forever and ever and theyll be 2gether forever #but it turns out. like a lot of normal people would. his farmer does not want to live forever #and obv he doesn’t #in an attempt to try not to ever lose the thing that means more to him than anything else in the world. qi inadvertantly ensures he will #because his farmer is dead. and he’s going to live forever #but. it’s kind of ok. because he has infinite money and was able to figure out how to talk to his dead bf #and now YOU help them fulfill their joint goal of making the farm’s legacy last forever #smile. heart #sobbing

[fictionadventurer]

I have to talk about Chester Arthur. His story makes me go crazy. A mediocre president from the 1880s who's completely forgotten today has one of the best redemption stories I've ever heard and I need to make people understand just how cool his story is.

So, like, he starts out as this idealist, okay? He's the son of an abolitionist minister and becomes famous as a New York lawyer who defends the North's version of Rosa Parks whose story desegregates New York City's trolley system.

Then he starts getting pulled into politics and becomes one of the grimiest pieces of the political machine. He wants money, power, prestige, and he gets it. He becomes the right-hand man of Roscoe Conkling, the most feared political boss in the nation, a guy who will throw his weight around and do the most ruthless things imaginable to keep his friends in power and destroy his enemies.

Because Arthur's this guy's top lackey, he gets to be Controller of the Port of New York--the best-paying political appointment in the country, because that port brings in, like, 70% of the federal government's funds in tariffs. He gets a huge salary plus a percentage of all the fines they levy on lawbreakers, and because he's not afraid to make up infractions to fine people over, he is absolutely raking in the dough. Making the rough equivalent of $1.3 million a year--absolutely insane amounts of money for a government position. He's spending ridiculous sums on clothes, buying huge amounts of alcohol and cigars to share with people as part of his job recruiting supporters to the party, going out nearly every night to wine and dine people as part of his work in the political machine. He's living the high life. Even when President Hayes pulls him from his position on suspicions of fraud, he's still living a great life of wealth, power, and prestige.

Then in 1880, his beloved wife dies. While he's out of town working for a political campaign. And he can't get back in time to say goodbye before she dies. Because he's a guy who has big emotions, it absolutely tears him up inside, especially because Nell resented how much his political work kept him away from home. He has huge regrets, but he just moves in with Roscoe Conkling and keeps working for the political machine.

And then he gets a chance to be vice president. The Republican Party has nominated James Garfield, a dark horse candidate who wants to reform the spoils system that has given Conking his power and gave Arthur his position as Port Controller. Conkling is pissed, and he controls New York, and since the party's not going to win the election without New York, they think that appointing Conkling's top lackey as vice-president will pacify him.

They're wrong--Conkling orders Arthur to refuse--but Arthur thinks this sounds like a great opportunity. The only political position he's ever held is Port Controller--a job he wasn't elected to and that he was pulled from in disgrace. Vice President is way more than he could ever have hoped for. It's a position with a lot of political pull and zero actual responsibilities. He'll get to spend four years living in up in Washington high society. It's the perfect job! Of course he accepts, and Conkling comes around when he figures out that he can use this to his advantage.

When Garfield becomes president, Arthur does everything he can to undermine him. He uses every dirty political trick he can think of to block everything that Garfield wants to do. He refuses to let the Senate elect a president pro tempore so he can stay there and influence every bill that comes through. He all but openly boasts of buying votes in the election. He's so much Conkling's lackey that he may as well be the henchman of a cartoon supervillain. On Conkling's orders, he drags one of Garfield's Cabinet members out of bed in the middle of the night--while the guy is ill--to drag him to Conkling's house so he can be forced to resign. He's just absolutely a thorn in the president's side, a henchman doing everything he can to maintain the corrupt spoils system.

Then in July 1881, when Arthur's in New York helping Conkling's campaign, the president gets shot. By a guy who shouts, "Now Arthur will be president!" just after he fires the gun. Arthur has just spent the past four months fighting the president tooth and nail. Everyone thinks he's behind the assassination. There are lynch mobs looking to take out him and Conkling. The papers are tearing him apart.

Arthur is absolutely distraught. He rushes to Washington to speak with the president and assure him of his innocence, but the doctors won't let him in the room. He gets choked up when talking to the First Lady. Reporters find him weeping in his house in Washington. Once again, death has torn his world apart and he's not getting a chance to make amends.

Arthur goes to New York while the president is getting medical treatment, and he refuses to come to Washington and take charge because he doesn't dare to give the impression that he's looking to take over. No one wants Arthur to be president and he doesn't want to be president, and the possibility that this corrupt political lackey is about to ascend to the highest office in the land is absolutely terrifying to everyone.

Then in August, when it's becoming clear that the president is unlikely to recover, he gets a letter. From a 31-year-old invalid from New York named Julia Sand. A woman from a very politically-minded family who has been following Arthur's career for years. And she writes him this astounding letter that takes him to task for his corrupt, conniving ways, and the obsession with worldly power and prestige that has brought him wealth and fame at the cost of his own soul--and she tells him that he can do better. In the midst of a nationwide press that's tearing him apart, this one woman writes to tell him that she believes he has the capacity to be a good president and a good man if he changes his ways.

And then he does. After Garfield dies, people come to Arthur's house and find servants who tell them that Arthur is in his room weeping like a child (I told you he had big emotions), but he takes the oath of office and ascends to the presidency. And he becomes a completely different man. His first speech as president mentions that one of his top priorities is reforming the spoils system so that people will be appointed based on merit rather than getting appointed as political favors with each change in the administration. Even though this system made him president. When Conkling comes to Arthur's office telling him to appoint his people to important government positions, Arthur calls his demands outrageous, throws him out, and keeps Garfield's appointees in the positions. "He's not Chet Arthur anymore," one of his former political friends laments. "He's the president."

He loses all his former political friends. He's never trusted by the other side. Yet he sticks to his guns and continues to support spoils system reform. He prosecutes a postal service corruption case that everyone thought he would drop. He's the one who signs into law the first civil service reform bill, even though presidents have been trying to do this for more than ten years, and he's the person who's gained all his power through the spoils system. He immediately takes action to enforce this bill when he could have just dropped it. He becomes a champion of this issue even though it's the last thing anyone would have expected of him.

He oversees naval reform. He oversees a renovation of the White House. He still prefers the social duties of the presidency, but he's respectable in a way that no one expected. Possibly because Julia Sand keeps sending him letters of encouragement and advice over the next two years. But also because he's dying.

Not long after ascending to the presidency, he learns he's suffering from a terminal kidney disease. And he tells no one. He keeps going about his daily life, fulfilling his duties as president, and keeps his health problems hidden. Once again, death is upending his life, and this time it's his own death. He's lived a life he's ashamed of, and he doesn't have much time left to change. He enters the presidency as an example of the absolute worst of the political system, and leaves it as a respectable man.

He makes a token effort to seek re-election, but because of his health problems, he doesn't mind at all when someone else gets the nomination. He dies a couple of years after leaving office. The day before his death, he orders most of his papers burned, because he's ashamed of his old life--but among the things that are saved are the letters from Julia Sand, the woman who encouraged him to change his ways.

This is an astounding story full of so many twists and turns and dramatic moments. A man who falls from idealism into the worst kind of corruption and then claws his way back up to decency because of a series of devastating personal losses and unexpected opportunities to do more than he could have ever hoped to do. I just go crazy thinking about it and I need you all to understand just how amazing this story is.

#history is awesome #presidential talk #i thought about his story again this morning #and was once again struck by the desire to chase people down and make them understand just how amazing this story is #and instead of harassing random strangers i decided to inflict it on tumblr again #my original essay was rather too long and dry and tangled up in too many other details #and didn't quite capture the 'i want to chase you down and look you in the eye and make you freak out about this with me' vibe of this stor #this still doesn't quite capture it but at least it's shorter #and prevents me from rambling to unsuspecting family members #sorry for inflicting this on you again but what else am i supposed to do?