#textual storytelling

[powerbottomblake]

dungeon meshi is soooo fucking great especially when it hits its stride and all characters have come into play bc it's just like

laios: I want to eat all the fucking monsters i want the monsters carnally

marcille: EATING MOSNTERS???? UNHOLY. UNCOUTH. DISGUSTING. anyway here's all the dark magic and necromancy i've got on the backburner to bring back my dragon-digested gf and also i plan to find a way for everyone to live forever at the cost of my very soul if need be

kabru, normally, in a normal tone he's rehearsed 42000 times in front of a mirror: I'M NORMAL. I'M SOOOO FUCKING NORMAL. I'M THE MOST NORMAL GUY AROUND AND I'M NOT CONSTANTLY PLOTTING ASSASSINATIONS FOR THE GREATER GOOD

senshi: I have all this trauma abt being the sole survivor of the fantasy equivalent of the franklin expedition but that's not important what really matters here is eat yer goddamn veggies or so help me

and the best part is that none of them are straight

#dungeon meshi #dungeon meshi spoilers #I guess?? for anime only watchers?? #I love kabru so much. ND masking at its finest #also there's such idk. casual queerness to the whole story that really makes it very dnd-esque #'but it isn't confirmed!' i need y'all to exorcise the part of your brains that needs a kiss for a storyline to be actually queer #this story slaps of casual queercoding AND textual homosexuality like. namari isn't getting hit on on the reg by the one twin textually for #y'all to act up #the way marcille's most significant relationship is farlyn and whaetever kabru and mithrun have going on #liberate yourself from the shackles of Canon Kiss and start approaching the text based on the storytelling of it i beg you

[arx-aru]

the kindred of rot deserve their own ending you guys are just mean

Look!!! The lonely, unwanted children are really just after affirmation. :( Mommy issues! Just like all of Marika's kids! Come on dawg they're just as sympathetic a faction as any of the others, surely

Like yeah obviously it's a stretch to posit any such hypothetical as a "good" outcome. but certainly no more than it is to wholeheartedly endorse any of the current endings; the in-universe arguments for all of them are made by parties with clear biases and motives, and there exists no concrete lore to prove anybody is the "correct" choice or whatever. That's half the point of Dark Souls/Elden Ring plots--unraveling "truth" from myriad twisted narratives is messy and not always possible. You have to make inferences and judgments informed, inescapably, by your own biases.

And, yes, the pests engage in slavery in mines but nearly every faction in the Lands Between does that(I think the only exceptions are Rykardans and the immediate Miquellans...? But the troll-pulled pilgrim carriage is ambiguous in fealty). If anything, we see most other factions being markedly more abusive to their subjects(omens, demi-humans, albinaurics, everything directly involving Marika, etc).

More interestingly, taking a step back-- the rot worshipers are direct foils to Millicent; they differ meaningfully only in attractiveness and their inferences.

The kindred imagine the presently sleeping Malenia to want something different from what Millicent specifically does... but both parties are assuming; both Millicent and the Pests have specifically only been around while Malenia was comatose and unable to voice her will. so like. nobody has any idea in the moment what her takes during and after Aeonia are. unless Malenia actually was awake before the Tarnished arrived and did object to the kindred hanging out around her(for which there's no evidence afaik)... it's moot, which party was "correct," barring retrospect colored(not confirmed) by information only revealed later and to which only the Tarnished is privy. And that evaluation would be meaningless by nature anyway.

They're not even doing wrong by Malenia--at least, not knowingly. They just want their goddess's favor... like everybody else. They're certainly weird about it, but bear in mind that our(Millicent's) definition of help involves beating Malenia to death soooooooooo are we really in position to judge the pests' plans, whatever they may be?

I mean. I'm just saying. If the pests/gowry/worshipers were sexy ladies or voiced like say Morgott or Rykard, people would be all over them. It is specifically because they're not fuckable that they fall behind other factions in metatextual moral evaluations.

it's not the shrimp agenda speaking i swear it's just that they have cool grooves

#elden ring lore #scarlet rot #yeah the item descriptions aren't necessarily reliable narrators #but they're no more or less so than any other textual evidence #that's the point of the game's storytelling technique

[pochapal]

lrb is probably the funniest way i could have accidentally seen a spoiler-adjacent umineko jpeg. smiling beatrice sprite on a post talking about posthumous pdf conversion...what could she be joyous about

#:) #luckily i'm insane so i already understand beatrice did in fact die and she is in fact already a beautiful pdf #in fact i think this is explicitly and textually her role in the story #because pdf after death is another way of saying 'ghost that only manifests through storytelling'. witch narrative girlies keep winning #idk why she's going ^_^ though. maybe she just got done feasting on the corpses of the ushiromiya family or something idk

[godofsmallthings]

I've seen several people recently use the phrase "physical" for a song of hers or the album. What does that mean exactly?

just like literally referring to the body in some way

#so much of midnights detail/imagery uses her body as a vessel for metaphor/storytelling #and it's that thing she does so masterfully where #it has the textual literal meaning and then a secondary metaphorical meaning #<- not in every instance but i think it's especially present in you're losing me and wcs #ask

[likecastle]

Is it a hidden clue in the text, or are the writers just not that deep?

#like don't get me wrong #i love analyzing media #and fan theories are wonderful etc etc #and obviously a reading that is not intended by the author can often still be well supported by evidence from the text #but sometimes i see people doing textual analysis as if it's going to influence the outcome of future seasons or whatever #and it's just like . . . baby these hacks are not worth your time and energy #you are just going to break your own heart #i genuinely think most television and movies are not nearly as carefully crafted as people want to believe they are #the mystery box approach to storytelling strikes again i guess #i really think that style of storytelling has done incalculable damage to media and also i am realizing to fan engagement with media #i don't know how to tell you they are not doing all of this on purpose #like yes there are lots of people out there writing intricately plotted stories where everything connects in a mindblowing way #but a lot of people are hacks who think they're smarter than they are #and it will really improve your life to learn the difference #and be discerning about what you put your emotional energy into #and learn to distinguish between 'i see these parallels and think they're cool' and 'i see these parallels therefore they're real' #anyway this has been a psa that nobody asked #hopefully it's a psa that nobody following me needed either

[coffeeastronaut]

also like im not like saying that bc im against york and carolina as a couple or anything. like when i see it im not appalled or anything like, i guess like they could be sweet and i do think there is smthn tragic in their relationship just, like, not necessarily in the romantic way. more in the like. yeah he cares a lot abt her, and she is very busy having every problem ever, and so she cant see that. at least not in a meaningful way- like i think she knows, on some level, and that’s why shes willing to rely on him and why the elevator confrontation feels like such a betrayal- but she doesn’t dwell on it and doesn’t like, benefit from it very much. not in the way having a proper friend does, like we see later with wash and the reds and blues, who she’s able to acknowledge (both to her self, and to others) as her friends and can rely a lot more on them as something to rely on or something to guide her then any of her previous relationships

and like in of itself thats really sad!! especially since she never really gets the chance to develop that as a friendship or a relationship, and she only gets to fully acknowledge it to herself in hindsight. it doesn’t really matter if he loved her or was *in* love with her because in the end she never got to really see either until after the fact and either way that’s really just horribly sad.

#mi #all this just so i can say in the tags that rvb is so misogynist but in the insane rvb way where the metatextual sexism creates facinating #examples and storytelling abt textual misogyny and i don’t think any of it was on purpose. #and carolina and york’s whatever that was is defo tied up in that! #not to the degree that tex is for sure like no one is doing it like tex but. still #also im just kind of rambling um a lot of this is not thought out very well like at all.

[onewomancitadel]

I'm not about to put all of my eggs in one basket emotionally either, because I don't trust like that, but I'll admit deep down it is very excting they're going in the more emotionally complicated direction that I think is set up. It's just an idea that's less common to interrogate, and I'm not a trusting reader/viewer, and it's so easy to slide into mindless escapism and/or cynicism/nihilism.

It's why I don't have all my money on Knightfall or even Cinder's redemption; it's just too easy to say that maybe it doesn't really matter.

#seraphina ruminates over V9 #rwby9 #textual evidence vs. mindless power fantasy and lazy storytelling #fight

[iinryer]

i simply do not understand the rabid hatred of lucy… y’all are so dramatic

#‘she doesn’t have a compelling story’ we’ve had her for half a season calm down #’she has no personality’ that’s just textually incorrect #‘she’s taking screentime away from other characters’ that’s. that doesn’t even make sense. how many main cast have we lost this season? #i promise your blorbos are fine on screentime #’she’s a horrible person because of [xyz]’ ok for one you’re being dramatic. she’s literally just a guy #and two—how do you think tv works? what do you think and actor is? how do you think storytelling works? #some of yall need to get on board with mess #mess drives plot bud! i promise it’s fine! #iinryer talk

[shallowseeker]

Misha Collins / Cas became the scapegoat in terms of relying on him to absorb the full weight of the queer that the entire team, from the other actors to writers to editors knowingly bathed in and narratively wrote to. :)

#even singer was like We Gave you Cas #but dean was 1000% more obv queer than cas and I’ll die on that hill #they try to explain THAT part of Dean away by blaming it on cas #dean had WAY more moments with other men #dean comes off as textually in love with cas #narratively #romantically #my conservative military dad noticed it in season 8 and he had been trying to rationalize it before then #basically they are a dumpster fire and the accidental wonderful storytelling WHOLLY came from off-color jokes #So the best parts ARE what you take from it and make of it #but anyway Misha Collins might be a dick he might queerbait he's white he's rich he does locker room jokes #BUT he was the only one confident enough to follow through and that's something #he's weak but the others are ABSOLUTELY fragile #and why is everyone so squicked byt the tangential whiff of queer sex #it's hilarious #like putting a tampon near an adolescent boy

[anticute-marshmallowmars]

i thought once i got to plot

i’d be like

‘oh this is easy’

‘this is just dialogue now!’

‘it’s going to be fine! translate your notes into actual writing! connect your snippert-scenes!’

‘easy!!!!’

it is not

i am now concerned i will not get part 2 done today.

i am so. sleep deprived.

#why is emotion so important in storytelling to inform plot. explain this to me why. #ficwoes: pepperony and royai walked so joongryeon could run. #textual healing

[txttletale]

can you elaborate on the reasons ? what criticisms do you disagree with?

criticisms i disagree with:

"they character assassinated jane" amiguita there was no character to assisnate.

"they character assassinated dirk" dirk is at his most interesting and likeable ever and is just about the only redeeming thing about these

"they were just written to spite the fans" if true tht would have been Epic, and Based. but they very obviously werent

"its too violent and sexual for cheap shock humour" did you. read homestuck, the web comic? what were you Expecting... also like it or not the sexual content isnt just random or gratuitous it is obviously trying to be a conclusion to the whoel coming-of-age theme of homestuck as a work.

"so-and-so is out of character" homestuck characters are malleable little dolls that can be rearranged to suit the narrative at a whim. this is true about all fictional characters ofc but it is like explicitly textually metaphysically true in homestuck

my criticisms:

the heavy-handed political messaging is fucking tedious and awful and so profoundly of its time in a bad way. its clearly a reaction to trump but it doesnt have anything interesting to say about him or fascism or racism or anything, really, except, um. Cheeto in the white house?. the whole Evil Jane plot is too stupid and contrived for the sake of the satire to take seriously but also its awful satire written by liberals who think fascism as invented in 2016 by the orange man

god can we fucking talk about how fucking embarassing the obama shit is. jesus fucking christ. for a start it's a callback to a running jhoke in homestuck that is straight up just super racist. and they decide to pivot from the joke being 'its funny that theres a black president', which is good, but they pivot it to 'obama seems so heroic and magical now that we're stuck with the Orange Man', which, admittedly, is better than Being Racist, but also sucks shit. he killed people amiguitas.

'post-canon' is cheap bullshit. like, the work makes a big deal about tryng to talk about What Canon Is, without ever acknowledging the concept of, like, IP law. claiming to just be a non-canon continuation like any other when it's made by people with the Official Exclusive Legal Rights just feels hollow and detooths any liberatory/deconstructive potential there. unironically my opinion of it would go up like tenfold if it had been actually published in AO3 instead of just joking about it.

in general i think that all of the attempt to deconstruct fiction or storytelling is rooted in a really weird and flawed model of storytelling. a lot of it seems to be taking an extremely long route to writing something bad on purpose and then saying 'see, if you wrote something like this, it would be bad'. Okay. i like deconstructive collapsing narrative shit in e.g. if on a winter's night a traveller because i think calvino has trenchant and interesting insights about literature and storytelling. i do think hussie also has those but they essentially dropped and explored all of them in homestuck and the epilogues just seem like an attempt to connect ohomstuck's disparate and contradictory approaches to Narrative into one overarching schemata and then crtiique that schemata, which i think is a doomed project that results in little of interest to me.

#ask #homestuck

[theweeklydiscourse]

Someone on twitter was expressing their disappointment about how Katara ended up becoming the healer she never wanted to become in Legend of Korra and got absolutely piled on for it.

“She decided to settle down!”

“Are you saying that being a healer is BAD? Why are you looking down on it?”

“She had other responsibilities to attend to, like her grandchildren and community! She would’ve been too busy to fight”

“She was too fragile! She already achieved world peace, what more do you want from her?!”

These are some of the comments I saw people making about that post. I even saw someone citing the comics as an example of Katara doing more than just healing in her old age. It was a scene of her training young Korra and I though it was really sweet but like…if only they actually included that scene in the show. I just feel like we should have to use the comics as supplementary material to cover the flaws in Legend of Korra and should be able to judge it on its own merit.

The comics don’t really matter to me, because the most visible and relevant parts of the story are depicted in the ACTUAL animated series. If we are critiquing the way LOK depicted Katara, we shouldn’t have to be weighed down by dozens of whataboutisms that don’t understand the difference between a watsonian and doylist critique.

Here’s one example:

These are real people, THESE ARE REAL-LIFE ACTORS! These examples are not animated characters that exist in a supernatural world, the characters in ATLA are not governed by reality in the way that these real-life actors are. Furthermore, aging seems to be such an insurmountable obstacle for Katara…but somehow the fact that Toph and Zuko were throwing down well into their 80s is totally plausible.

But these kinds of fans will freak out over the most basic criticism of the text. They can’t handle that questioning it leads to realizing the broader thematic implications of neglecting Katara’s character and ignoring her in the story.

They bring up the comics but I just don’t accept that as proof of coherent storytelling. Like thank you for the textual example! But what if I don’t accept the text? What if I think the text is wrong and has sexist undertones?

#pro katara #avatar the last airbender #anti atla comics #anti bryke #legend of korra #atla fandom discourse #atla fandom critical #katara deserved better #katara #anti kataang

[squash1]

THREES THREES THREES:

Oh hello. I want to talk about the stylistic/textual role of Threes in The Raven Cycle.

Threes – as a general concept and as a number – are a major symbol and motif in the series. Maggie tells us that threes are important from the very first book: from Maura’s favorite saying being “good things come in threes” to Persephone telling Adam that “things are always growing to three or shrinking to three,” threes are discussed at length in the text of the narrative. Maggie also shows us that threes are important as a motif/symbol for important aspects of the story: three Raven Boys, three Fox Way women, three Lynch brothers, three main ley lines, three sleepers, etc. Threes are, textually, incredibly significant in The Raven Cycle, and we know this because we are shown AND told it throughout the entirety of the books. 

We all know the significance that is given to threes in the story itself, but what I want to talk about is the usage of a thrice-repeated word or short phrase (going forward I’m referring to this as “Threes” or “a Three”) as one of Maggie’s writing signatures (across the series, there are 65 Threes). This creates a meta level to threes being an important aspect of The Raven Cycle universe. A classic example of a Three (one of my favorites, in fact) is from The Dream Thieves: 

“As they walked, a sudden rush of wind hurled low across the grass, bringing with it the scent of moving water and rocks hidden in the shadows, and Blue thrilled again and again with the knowledge that magic was real, magic was real, magic was real.” (TDT, 12)

In a way, the Threes join the intradiegetic (what is happening within the narrative itself) with the extradiegetic (what the narration is communicating solely to the reader). The reader and characters are told explicitly that the number three is significant, important, notable, and powerful. In using Threes as a writing signature after giving the reader that information, the Threes are designed to signal to the reader that this line, this moment, is important.    

So the question is: What Are The Threes Trying to Tell the Reader??? 

Amazing question. 

In my recent TRC reread, I was already keeping track of Threes, because I was curious to see how many times they appeared. And then my sister, who was also rereading, said something interesting (after reading this Three from The Raven Boys):  

“He was full of so many wants, too many to prioritize, and so they all felt desperate. To not have to work so many hours, to get into a good college, to look right in a tie, to not still be hungry after eating the thin sandwich he’d brought to work, to drive the shiny Audi that Gansey had stopped to look at with him once after school, to go home, to have hit his father himself, to own an apartment with granite countertops and a television bigger than Gansey’s desk, to belong somewhere, to go home, to go home, to go home.” (TRB, 370)

My sister said: “Adam’s like Dorothy.” And then she said: “Wait. Do you think the Threes are like a spell? Or… a wish?”

Which was……. Interesting. 

What I have determined, after completing my reread and spending way too much time analyzing this, is that a Three is either a wish, a hope, a longing, a prayer – or, alternately, a warning, a curse, a negative promise. 

In either sense, Threes are a foreshadowing of what is to come – whether it be good or bad. Threes exist to signal to the reader that they should be paying close attention to whatever is being said or observed.

Threes in….. Everything Else: 

Before we get too far into TRC Threes, let’s talk about the precedent for three being an important number in art, math, storytelling, etc. I found some interesting information about how three is a satisfying number for the brain: 

Grouping things in threes leverages the power of repetition to aid memory; denote emotional intensity or importance; and ease persuasion (research by Shu & Carlson (2014) found that three positive claims is the most effective for persuasion).

Three is the smallest number that the brain can still recognize as a pattern, and the brain loves pattern and repetition. This is true in visual art – having three main compositional figures to create a pleasing image – and also in storytelling and narrative. Using threes for repetition in storytelling is a very common occurrence. 

Some classic examples of repetitive threes are Shakespeare’s “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” or Lincoln's “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In each of these examples, a repetition of three is used to create pleasing auditory rhythm. There is something inherently memorable about literary Threes. 

Perhaps the most interesting information I found while digging into the precedent for threes is about the rule of threes in folktales. This information happens to come from Wikipedia (side note: Wikipedia is a modern tool of collective consciousness and we should utilize it more). This page describes how in its most basic form, the rule of threes in storytelling is just beginning, middle, and end. Because this is such a common convention, writers tend to “create triplets or structures in three parts.” It then talks more directly about the use of threes in folktales: 

“Vladimir Propp in his Morphology of the Folk Tale, concluded that any of the elements in a folktale could be negated twice so that it would repeat thrice.”

This is especially interesting to me. The idea that an element of a folktale “could be negated twice so that it would repeat thrice” shows up prominently in the plot of The Raven Cycle – a book that is heavily influenced by folktale motifs – but also in so many of the folktales/fairytales we all know. A classic example of this would be Goldilocks and the Three Bears – Goldilocks must try porridge that is too hot, too cold, and then, finally, just right. The journey of these three actions is satisfying to the brain because it is a complete pattern: the third and final result of “just right” porridge is only satisfying because of the two “not right” porridges that preceded it. 

Getting back to Stiefvater Threes:

For anyone who’s seen The West Wing (and even those who haven’t), here’s a good way to explain what I think the Threes are doing. You know that thing they do during a The West Wing “walk and talk” where two characters will be throwing information and little quips back and forth at each other rapid-fire, and then suddenly, they will both stop walking, and the camera will stop moving, and they’ll say a line that contains really important information that you need to know to understand the storyline of that episode? That’s what Maggie’s Threes are doing for the reader. That’s what 6:21 is doing for the characters. It’s intentional: the writers/directors/actors/camera operators on The West Wing know that they’re throwing a lot of information at you, and know that they need to get you to pay attention to the most important parts somehow, so they do it by forcing the viewer to lean in and listen. It changes the focus and energy of the scene from something with momentum to something that pauses, and therefore makes you pause. 

The Threes compel the reader to pause and consider the information being delivered as more important than they might consider it if it was not written as a Three. “Maura’s expression was dark” does not read the same as “Maura’s expression was dark, dark, dark.” And in a text where characters directly state the magical importance of threes, compounded by three as an overarching motif, there is clear intention and meaning behind these written Threes.

In the context of TRC, Threes act as a fourth-wall break.

They are essentially a way to poke the reader and say: “Are you paying attention? Because you should be.” 

These Threes use a symbolic motif – the rule of three – that is already heavily discussed in the text – to get the reader to pick up on the internal motivations of the character who is “wishing” their Three or the narration which is using a Three to foreshadow some important aspect of the plot. 

The Threes are like the literary equivalent of a record scratch. It stops you in your tracks, breaking the established rhythm and making you take notice of what is being said in a new way. 

Let’s Look at Some More Threes (but just a few don’t worry)!

1. We get a classic Three, and a very Gansey Three, right after the group comes out of Cabeswater: 

“‘What about that thing in the tree?’ Blue asked. ‘Was that a hallucination? A dream?’ 

Glendower. It was Glendower. Glendower. Glendower” (TRB, 231).

Finding Glendower is one of Gansey’s core wishes, one of his core longings. Although this line is a literal answer to Blue’s question – he saw Glendower in the tree – in making it a Three, Maggie has given it added weight and meaning. It is prayer-like in its intention. It is almost an incantation: by saying it in Three, Gansey wishes it into being.

2. In The Raven Boys, after Gansey has bribed Pinter to keep Ronan at Aglionby and has learned that Noah has been dead the whole time they’ve known him, we are given this Three: 

“The Pig exploded off the line. Damn Ronan. Gansey punched his way through the gears, fast, fast, fast” (TRB, 311). 

This moment foreshadows what directly follows: a distinct lack of fast as the Camaro breaks down and Gansey is held at gunpoint by Whelk. This Three is not a prayer, but a warning, and an indicator to the reader that something important is about to happen. Had Gansey not been trying to go so “fast fast fast,” the car might not have broken down; because the Three incanted it, disaster follows. 

3. To return to a Three I have already mentioned, but follows the typical Three structure: 

“...to go home, to go home, to go home” (TRB, 370). 

In this scene, Adam’s wish is less about actually wanting to return to his literal home, because his house was never really a home for him. Adam’s wish/longing is for a home that he could return to, that he would want to return to. He is longing for a place/feeling/experience that does not exist for him. The Three in this sentence comes after a string of active wishes/longings, and by ending with this Three, it casts a spell of sorts, honing in on the truest underlying wish that Adam has. In using the phrase “to go home” three times, the narrative is making sure you, the reader, know that this want, this need, this wish, is the most Important to Adam, and will drive his actions for the rest of his story. 

Most of the Threes feel like this. They are often tacked on at the end of a sentence or embedded in a sentence. They’re an addendum to the action of the story. They’re like casting a spell – once to manifest, twice to charge, three to cast. 

…..And Some Other Types of Threes:

Then there are the Threes that don't follow the typical pattern of the same word repeated three times one right after the other, but are still a Three in a different way.

There are short phrases/sentences that are repeated three times throughout a page or chapter. In the prologue of The Raven King, we get this: 

“He was a king…

He was a king…

He was a king.

This was the year he was going to die.” (TRK, 1-3)

In this case, the Three acts as a promise of Gansey’s kinghood, but in ending the sequence with “this was the year he was going to die,” the promise of the three is given a condition: it is not going to be a joyful kinghood, but instead a kinghood intertwined with the death we’ve known is fated for Gansey.

One of Adam’s Threes from Blue Lily, Lily Blue, uniquely breaks the mold of Threes in a format that does not appear anywhere else in the four books: 

“It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father” (BLLB, 242).

❋ (We’ll talk about this one more in-depth later.)

There are also a few “unfinished” Threes: 

In The Raven King when Ronan is having a nightmare (infected by the demon) about Matthew and the mask, he has this Three: 

“Ronan’s throat was raw. I’ll do anything! I’ll do anything! I’ll do anythi 

It was unmaking everything Ronan loved. 

Please” (TRK, 96). 

With the uncompleted Three, there is an uncast wish. Ronan’s wish is about Matthew, yes of course, but also about being willing to do anything to keep those he loves (ie. Adam, Gansey, Blue, his brothers) out of the reach of the “unmaking.” This unfinished Three serves to foreshadow the harm that does ultimately befall first Adam and then Gansey as a result of the unmaking of Cabeswater by the demon: without the Three spell completed, his wish is not fulfilled.

*This is Not all the uncommon/mold-breaking Threes, just a few that are interesting!

Do All Threes Come to Fruition???

The short answer is: No. Or at least not in that way. 

Once again looking at the text of The Raven Cycle, we are given an answer of sorts. In discussing Gansey’s predicted death, Maura says:

“First of all, the corpse road is a promise, not a guarantee” (TRB, 155).

This seems to apply to Threes as well. Threes are not a guarantee. They are a promise. Not all Threes come to fruition the way one might expect – or at all, for that matter. The important part of Threes is not that they will definitely come true, it’s that they could come true, because the Three gives them the potential to come true. 

Structure, Structure, Structure:

The main Threes structures are:

Three of the same word separated by commas: 

“magic, magic, magic” (TRK, 59).

A short phrase/sentence separated by periods:

“My father. My father. My father” (TDT, 369).

A short sentence that is repeated three times throughout a page/paragraph:

“Gansey did not breathe…

Gansey did not breathe…

Gansey did not breathe” (TRK, 209).

A word that is repeated three times and is connected by “and”:

“Round and round and round!” (BLLB, 224)

Italics vs. Non Italics:

Italics in The Raven Cycle are often used for character’s inner thoughts/anxieties. This continues to be true in the context of Threes. A Three that is not written in italics indicates a promise, or some foreshadowing of a plot point being foretold through the Three – it is typically more “real” – whereas a Three that is written in Italics seems to indicate a wish/hope/longing that is unattainable in some way. Italics almost always indicate a Three that may never come to fruition, or at least not in the way the character hopes it will. 

An example of this distinction can be found in chapter three (hah) (I don’t believe in coincidences and neither does Gansey) of The Raven King: 

First we are met with Ronan wishing/hoping to return home:

“That morning, Ronan Lynch had woken early, without any alarm, thinking home, home, home” (TRK, 24). 

This home, home, home, is in reference to the idea of home rather than the reality. Ronan is wishing to return to a home that does exist physically, but is not the same as in his memory – he wants to be at the Barns as it was in his childhood. 

Then, in the very same chapter, Ronan actually returns home and we are given this Three: 

“Slowly his memories of before — everything this place had been to him when it had held the entire Lynch family — were being overlapped with memories and hopes of after — every minute that the Barns had been his, all of the time he’d spent here alone or with Adam, dreaming and scheming. 

Home, home, home” (TRK, 27).

This second home, home, home, is about the actual reality of being in his childhood home – the good and bad that has existed in the years since the childhood he longs for. 

The Addition of AND:

The most notable use of “and” is in Noah’s very last chapter:

“Sometimes he got caught in this moment instead. Gansey’s death. Watching Gansey die, again and again and again” (TRK, 416).

When “and” is added into a Three, it becomes circular, cyclical. The “and” gives the Three a sense of infinity, or creates a loop of sorts. 

This Three operates in the same way “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” does in Macbeth – it is meant to convey the endlessness of time, a relentless cycle of tomorrows.

❋ While there are not many of these Threes with “ands” in The Raven Cycle, there are other examples of Threes or Three-like occurrences that fulfill the same purpose as the “and.” For example, remember this Three:

“It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father.” (BLLB, 242).

In this case, instead of the word “and,” the Three (It was his father) is connected by “he opened the door.” This Three is accomplishing the same feeling as “again and again and again” – the feeling of being caught in an endless loop. 

Another example of an (implied) “and” in The Raven Cycle is: Gansey’s life. Gansey starts out alive and then dies as a child only to be reborn, and then killed again through his sacrifice, and then reborn for a final time. Gansey is Alive, Dead, Alive, Dead, Alive. And so Gansey’s life is a cycle of Three.

As with the Threes that contain “and,” Gansey starts where he ends: alive. 

Other Ways Threes Show up in The Raven Cycle:   

I will state the obvious once again: there are three Raven Boys, three Lynch brothers, three Fox Way women, three sleepers, three main ley lines (the lines that “seem to matter” to Glendower’s story), Gansey the Third (Gansey Three, Dick Three). 

There are also the more obscure: the “three kinds of secrets” in The Dream Thieves prologue and epilogue; each Lynch brother inheriting three million dollars from Niall Lynch; the three figures with Blue’s face on the tapestry and later as a vision in Cabeswater; Adam and Gansey going to DC for three days; the shield pulled from the lake having three ravens embossed onto it; Ronan having dreamt Matthew at the age of three; the door to the Demon’s room needing “three to open” it; Aurora Lynch staying awake for three days after Niall died. 

And of course, we have the ley line symbol/chapter header:

And then there are the 300 (three hundred!) Fox Way “villain” readings. (This was something that was particularly interesting to me.)

The first antagonist we meet is Whelk. When he comes for a reading at 300 Fox Way, he first pulls the Three of Swords. 

When the women all draw cards together, they pull identical cards for Whelk: three of the Knight of Pentacles, then three of the Page of Cups. After drawing, essentially, three threes (the Three of Swords, then two sets of three matching cards) in this reading, the first Three of the entire series appears: 

“Maura’s expression was dark, dark, dark” (TRB, 124). 

The second “antagonist” we meet is the Gray Man, who comes to 300 Fox Way in The Dream Thieves to “observe.” Maura, Calla, and Persephone are predicting which card is on the top and bottom of the stack and the first card, predicted by Calla, is the Three of Cups off the top of the deck that Mr. Gray is holding (a remarkably happy card in stark contrast to Whelk’s Three of Swords). 

When the third antagonist, Greenmantle, comes for his 300 Fox Way Reading he also draws the Three of Swords. The fact that each of the three antagonists come for a reading is in itself a sort of Three, but to further the importance of these moments, each of them draws some sort of three-related card. 

All of the examples I have touched on have been more symbolic references to Three as a motif of the books as a whole. However, Threes also show up in the literal number of times important quotes are said/written. 

I was tracking some of the most well-loved TRC lines to compile them, and noticed that the lines “don’t throw it away” and “safe as life” happen to appear exactly three times throughout the series. This was honestly pretty surprising based on the importance of those quotes – I would have assumed they showed up far more. Actually, they both appear twice in The Raven Boys and once in The Raven King. Threes, and the importance of Threes, is embedded so strongly into the narrative of The Raven Cycle that even the quotes we all think of as the most beloved of the series follow this rule of Threes. 

Now, could you chalk some of these up to coincidence? I guess. But Gansey doesn’t believe in coincidences so I don’t either. So what’s the point of all these Threes?

Conclusion???

In a literal, literary way, Threes are a fourth wall break to make the importance of a moment obvious, but I’m not sure what the larger “point” of Threes is. My best analysis comes from the idea of The Raven Cycle being all about time and Threes playing into the importance of time as a sort of record scratch or loop. The Threes, as a stylistic, written motif, seem to connect the time-based cycle the characters experience to the time-based cycles the reader experiences by reading the books. 

But my conclusion feels incomplete and so I would like to rely on the collective for this one – just about the most Raven Cycle thing you can do. So I’m asking you, the collective you, what conclusion would you draw? What do you think? 

What I do know for sure is that Threes are magic, magic, magic.

For Your Convenience: Here is the textual significance given to threes within the books (chronologically): 

And here are the Threes, Threes, Threes (compiled):

(If you made it to the end of all this, I love you. Have a gold star and a hug <3)

#sorry for the aggressive caps lock i wrote this in google docs #wow this is embarrassing #i'm okay with it #i spent my break writing a 16 page paper #the ganseyism of it all #some people asked for an essay so blame them not me #trc #trc analysis #maggie stiefvater #the raven cycle #the raven boys #the dream thieves #blue lily lily blue #the raven king #the gangsey #blue sargent #richard campbell gansey iii #ronan lynch #adam parrish #noah czerny #gangsey #mine

[queerfandomtrifecta]

How Izzy’s Death Could’ve Made Basic Storytelling Sense

Just to be clear, Izzy is my favorite and I wanted him to live more than anything. This isn’t about that, and that is NOT why I hated his death. Had it served the narrative in a way that made even the most basic storytelling sense, while I’d admittedly have been devastated in a different way (i.e. the character whose queerness was relegated to the subtext in s1 and as soon as it’s textual and his whole arc is that he’s killed, but that’s a whole separate post…), but at least there would’ve been a correctly crafted arc from a surface level narrative standpoint that ended in the death of my favorite character. But that’s not what this is about. It’s is about how the show could’ve actually made the death actually make sense and work effectively. (Also, if you want my unasked for thoughts on how most of the existing plot of s2 (minus 7-8) could’ve easily been adjusted to fix the narrative as a whole and keep Izzy alive, I wrote this)

But. For those in the fandom insisting that Izzy HAD to die, including DJenks who has said as such in interviews (for reasons I do not understand), from an objective developmental editor standpoint, this is what I think needed to change to make Izzy’s death serve the narrative, character arcs and dynamics, pacing, structure, and thematic elements correctly.

It’s about 2K words just so you know what you’re gonna get into. Spoilers under the cut.

Issue 1. Izzy’s relationship with the crew and how they truly became his family this season totally vanished during his death scene. The same crew who he protected from Ed during the later, worse parts of the Kraken phase. The crew who banded together to save his life by hiding him from/lying to Ed about it, and amputating his leg to save him. The crew he saved by crawling up those stairs during the storm, hobbling out into the rain with one leg and shooting Ed before he could shoot a cannon ball through the mast and kill them all. The crew who called him “our dick”. The crew that then banded together with Stede’s half of the crew to him the leg and the new unicorn (aka the figurehead of the ship). That crew didn’t cry a SINGLE tear when he died. What?? Fang sobbed most of episode one and really lost it when Izzy got shot. Where was that when he died?? Izzy’s last speech to Ricky had something along the lines of: piracy is about belonging/family. We are Good. (Forgive me, I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist). Izzy truly did find his family in the crew outside of Ed. That was absolutely fantastic, especially in the first four episodes and episode six. It VANISHED when he was dying and dead.

The fix: To make the death impactful, effective, or even to make it make sense on a very basic acting and writing level, the crew should’ve been utterly DEVASTATED. At least heartbreaking music and like 30 seconds of everyone breaking down and holding each other. At least some of them crying and holding each other in the background when he was dying. Come on.

Issue 2. Thematically speaking, is piracy Good or Bad? Again, Izzy tells Ricky that they (the pirates/his crew) are capital G Good. Yet Ed has spent a lot of time maintaining piracy is capital B Bad. He tells the urchins as such. Here’s some money that I never had, now you don’t have to be pirates. Don’t be pirates. He doesn’t want Stede to kill Ned Low in cold blood. Ed just doesn’t want to be a pirate. Even at the end AFTER Izzy dies telling Ed he’s with his family (implied that this is the crew) and they love Ed, Ed LEAVES THAT FAMILY AND LEAVES PIRACY IMMEDIATELY. We’re left with him and Stede watching the family Izzy swore was Good and loved Ed sail away because Ed thinks piracy is Bad. Which is it?? The death served nothing in convincing Ed he could be happy with his found family on the sea as Ed, not Blackbeard, so the dying words were pointless. The thematic elements are all over the place (for the whole season but that’s another post) and that needs changing to make the death scene make sense.

The fix: Izzy should’ve told him he sees he doesn’t want to pirate anymore, he’s glad he’s found love with Stede because Izzy isn’t going to make it, go run your fokkin’ inn, you twat (affectionate).

Issue 3. Izzy died of bad planning and bad luck. Why didn’t they take the gun from Ricky? Between Spanish Jackie, Izzy, and Jim, SOMEONE would’ve thought about it. If not those three, someone else would’ve, but come one. One if not all of those three would’ve known better. Yeah, Izzy happened to be standing in front of Ed and he got shot instead of him, but you’ve gotta be REALLY looking for that to even be aware it’s what happened. It wasn’t even on purpose unless Ed strategically placed himself behind Izzy (which I doubt was the intent). Izzy didn’t position himself protectively/take the bullet for anyone on purpose. It was just happenstance and you only notice it if you’re rewatching and hyper-analyzing everything (which a lot of us, me included, in the fandom do, but casual watchers don’t. It’s totally unclear as far as the surface level narrative goes) Any sort of “heroism” is not acknowledged, it’s barely even noticeable in the shot. If that was the intent, it HAD to be clearer and acknowledged by the characters so the audience would realize the stakes and repercussions of clear choices. As it is, I don’t think it was intentional. If Izzy HAS to die, it should truly have rounded out his arc in a way that CLEARLY changed the course of the scene, leaving him to protect people he’d put in danger at the end of s1. It didn’t. It just read as terrible planning to the point of it being out of character for more than one character, and bad luck.

The fix: Izzy should’ve saved someone. I personally don’t like the idea of it being Ed. I’s have rather he save Stede (Not really, but it’s better than Ed I guess) But really Izzy should’ve died saving the crew. The crew makes the most sense to me, narratively speaking. He’s their figurehead, he’s protected the Kraken Crew for months and they should’ve been fiercely loyal to him, he blames himself for what Ed did to them (more on this later) so it makes sense for him to fiercely protect his crew. His family. Who should’ve been devastated that it happened because Izzy is the one character of the main three who’s managed to earn that status this season.

Issue 4. The death did not serve to move the plot along. There are literally zero things that would’ve been different for the end of the episode, save Izzy being alive and on the Revenge in his rightful role he earned with his crew as the captain, if he’d have lived. Ed and Stede aren’t partnering with Zheng to go after the guy who killed him in the next season. Nope. They got the offer but nah. They’re running an Inn. Which Izzy would’ve supported based on literally everything we’ve seen from him in episodes 5-8. The crew who Izzy protected fiercely and who viewed him as their leader? Not one tear during his death or the the funeral. Happily sailing away to do presumably more Muppet Treasure Island hijinks. No character development happened. No plot development happened. The season could’ve ended literally the EXACT SAME WAY with Izzy alive aboard the Revenge!!! No stakes were changed at all. No one was impacted enough for it to seem like it was even going to be a plot obstacle next season. It just happened, Izzy’s toxic situationship who maimed him multiple times over the course of months to the point of his leg needing to be amputated was sad for one (1) scene, then we moved on and did not seem sad at all at the funeral. What.

The fix: The plot should’ve been driven by the death. Ed and Stede (but especially Ed), and DEFINITELY the crew should’ve been sailing off plotting to avenge the death and defend piracy against Ricky and the British, especially with Zheng who lost her whole fleet. Ricky and the British are clearly (or so I hope, nothing’s clear here anymore tbh) the primary antagonist for the theoretical third season. No one should be running an whim-based inn for fun or sailing off happily into the sunset after the death of the most major character aside from Ed and Stede, who beyond proved himself a major part of something every character (his family) should’ve cared about this season. If he HAD to die, that death should have furthered the plot. But instead, it seems everyone shrugged it off with tears exclusively from Ed.

Issue 5. Izzy got shot in the left side. The side in which canonically NO ONE DOES FROM BEING INJURED ON IN THE OFMD UNIVERSE.

The fix: Yeah I know this is just too nit-picky but it was also just SO sloppy. Like just shoot him on the other side if he has to die, because this was a very memorable plot point more than once in s1. Like, come on y’all.

Disclaimer: Issues/fixes 1-5 would all need to happen together to truly fix it and make the death serve the narrative correctly. Issue/fix 6 is a totally separate route, which I personally hate, but at least the narrative would’ve made sense this way.

Issue 6. The idea that Izzy had to die so that Ed could be free of Blackbeard makes no sense at this point in the story. Ed already threw away his leathers and gave away his treasure to symbolically get rid of Blackbeard, and Izzy very sweetly encouraged him to follow the feeling that throwing out the leathers gave him. Izzy told Stede that he and Ed were good for each other. They balance each other out. Izzy is on good terms with both of them and their relationship, so Izzy “having to die” so Ed could flourish as Ed genuinely makes no sense and came totally out of left field.

The fix for 6: This one stands alone and is my absolute least favorite option, but if it HAD to happen without the 1-5 fixes, here’s how it could’ve made sense. If THIS is truly the way it was going to end, Izzy needed to be continuously antagonistic or avoidant to at least Ed and actually be shown holding Ed back from happiness until that last second. He wasn’t. He was so much better. Izzy clearly does blame himself (that’s for a separate post because I have lots of thoughts there) but to be fair they were both abusive in that relationship, for years it seems. Although I think by the beginning of s2, the power dynamic has clearly flipped and it was Ed who was doing most of it and Izzy was exhausted and knowingly “reaping what he’d sewed” (I don’t Blame Izzy for his abuse but I think this was his mindset) so the crew wouldn’t get the brunt of it.

If he seriously HAD to die because the writers just had to have it that way, those are the changes I think would’ve made the narrative work/make sense, served all the character arcs and dynamics correctly, and actually driven the plot as fictional deaths are supposed to, compelling things into a third season. Seriously, this season finale was a mess of baffling choices the most series finale season finale I’ve ever seen.

Anyway. There’s my unsolicited two-cents. Now back to hoping Izzy’s in the gravy basket waiting to be sea witch necromancied back by seagull Buttons in season 3. I love this show and I hate hating what I hate hating about it because it’s my absolute favorite and I can’t stand it because it’s fantastic and the worst thing I’ve ever seen. (Also, Izzy should’ve lived).

#ofmd spoilers #izzy hands #ofmd #ofmd season 2 #ofmd season 2 spoilers #ofmd meta #izzy my beloved #izzy deserved better #we deserved better #eyyyy djenks if you need a dev editor for s3 just hmu #david jenkins #ed teach #stede fucking bonnet #stede bonnet

[artbyblastweave]

One theory I've never seen advanced as to the origins of the Gunners is that they might just be descended from the remains of the local U.S. Military detachment. The city was textually under martial law in 2077 and the game draws attention to the corruption, graft, and anti-civilian brutality of that situation at several points- the rationing site and the associated second Boston Massacre, the "will you comply" encounter, the ubiquitous checkpoints, the storytelling in the state house about Lieutenant Governer Graham's attempted coup. Hell, the sequence at the start where army personnel are the ones determining which of your friends and neighbors get to survive the apocalypse. I don't think it's insane to assume that the occupying forces just carried on as stationary bandits without the thin veneer of legitimacy, and in a better game your former U.S. military protagonist might be given some opinions or self-reflective moments in regards to the Canadian Treatment coming home, so to speak

#fallout 4 #fallout #thoughts #meta #vault 75? never heard of it #fo4 #the gunners

[obeetlebeetle]

brennan's choice to bring the authors into neverafter is an interesting move -- on a basic, storytelling level, it adds another dimension to the cosmic horror elements already in place, which is useful primarily because brennan likes cosmic horror and tends to rely on it, so we have a lot of basis for comparison going forward. on another level, and one that i find more fruitful largely because it brings something very new and sharp to the story, is that we now have textual acknowledgement that these tales were recorded or written with authorial intent. we've yet to see if brennan will be invoking basile, perrault, the grimms, etc., but they are present in the text now and can be considered as much a part of the neverafter story as the characters themselves. all that said, i want to start thinking about what that authorial intent was, and how it has developed in our retelling.

much of the horror in neverafter is centered on pinocchio -- he is our most direct link to the stepmother, an entity that consumes other characters (notably, her own children and red's grandmother, and presumably snow white's stepmother) in order to achieve the same power as the authors. so we can demonstrate a link between authorial intent and parental authority, and we can assume that neverafter is interested in the intersections between parent and author as roles occupied in order to control characters or stories and their eventual outcome.

as a character, pinocchio is pinocchio, but acting on an archetypal level he is also the child: his original tale was inspired by and modeled after the "jack" tales, after all. there are two primary roles that the child can inhabit in fairy tales. the good child is rewarded, and the bad child is punished. as a character, pinocchio confuses these roles, and we can see why -- the original intent of his tale was not to reward him, and he was never supposed to become "good" and therefore "real." he was meant to die as a puppet. in nva4, pinocchio dies as a puppet. the dissonance of collodi's tale is recognized in the stepmother's promise to pinocchio, stating that she can make him real when it is impossible for him to be good.

in this, the stepmother takes on the role of both the blue fairy and geppetto in pinocchio's story. but those roles, as written by collodi, were never meant to be gentle -- the parent is not meant to be a source of care, or protection.

brennan is not collodi -- his concerns are less material, less related to the issues of class and poverty and survival present in collodi's tale -- but, consciously or not, he has drawn on the way the original story primes pinocchio to accept violence from parental figures and to understand their anger towards him as a function of a properly told story. in this instance, with the agency of a player behind him, he is able to develop new aims and defy his parental authority -- and we can see that the world of neverafter is unable to function properly when pinocchio cuts his strings and rejects his role as a servant to his father's wellbeing.

so, again, we see the stepmother taking on geppetto's role -- but what about the fairy? what about the fact that our pinocchio was introduced after the end of his tale, and what about the role the fairy has played until now? she was the one that killed him the first time, not the stepmother; she was the orchestrator of his moral adventure and, as neverafter so succinctly put it, the figure in control of whether or not pinocchio is "real."

there has been a clear schism between the fairies and the stepmother in neverafter -- we can see that in the exchange between the stepmother and cinderella's fairy godmother, particularly the claim that "magic was never [the stepmother's], magic is [the fairies']!" but what the fairies seem to resent is the stepmother's authorial role, her ability to take stories and reshape them, rather than the character role she plays within the stories themselves.

additionally, there have been a lot of hints that this was a "good" world, and that there is something to return to, if the stories can be restored to their "real" versions. but by breaking down the original pinocchio tale through the lens of what has occurred in the neverafter, we can see that this corrupted version is not really so different -- the macro effect, the authorial intent through first the stepmother and then brennan himself, has clearly changed, but the effect on pinocchio as character and the child as archetype remains.

i take the introduction of the authors into the tale and the link drawn between them and the stepmother to be our first significant sign that things will not be able to return to the happily ever after -- our first real critique of the conditions of thought created and reinforced within fairy tales, and hopefully, a sign that brennan is questioning not the optimism of the fairy tale but the goals fairy tales set out to achieve.

#ids in alt text #tumblr ate like three paragraphs of this between drafts btw so idk if my argument came thru on the retype #but im getting this out now before ep9 either contradicts this or says it for me #this is my ep8 post disguised as a pinocchio deep dive btw<3 #dimension 20 #neverafter