#this is simplified ofc | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The “We are the 99%” Tumblr blog became the slogan for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

#this is simplified ofc

vilvermin-sqwirl · 10 months

Text

ppl like ponies here wow... check out this fuckign pinkie!!! i was gonna do something with this and the sqwobe gif but i havent.. worked on it for a while.. so maybe someday i'll finish it and upload it but for now <3 take the pingie!! <3

other than this i haven't made a lot of pony art sorry </3 sorry.. *sad ant walking away dot jpg*

after artfight i may draw more ponies they are dear to me but fanart is very hard

#art #digital art #digital drawing #animation #gif #pinkie #pinkie pie #btw i am once again wondering if anyone would be interested in little comms like this #they'd def be more simplified ofc #i am not a machine #animated gif #mlp #my little pony #pony #mlpfim #mlp fan art #fan art #mlpfim fan art #pinkie pie fan art

369 notes · View notes

another-clive-blog · 4 months

Text

Thinking about the Clive and Bill parallels again...

Both started with pretty average goals (gaining money / getting closure). Both became obsessed with said goals to the point of going through with their plans no matter the cost. Both became consumed by the desire to pursue a goal that isn't actually achievable (You can get more money but it will never feel like it's enough. You can lash out in anger but it won't make the anger go away). Both ended up killing innocents.

And yet.

Bill getting rid of his humanity in the hopes of getting money. Clive getting rid of his money in the hopes of getting his humanity back. Bill claiming he despises people like Clive when he has himself killed innocents for his own selfish plans. Clive claiming he hates politicians and scientists but still using science to build a mecha and politics to justify its use. Bill hiding everything, hiding from Claire that the machine isn't ready, hiding his crime from everyone. Clive exposing everything, exposing his secret base to Layton, exposing Bill and Dimitri's crime by his staging. Bill covering up the incident while Clive broadcasted his crime inside the fortress.

I don't know where I was going with this. Maybe that prime minister Bill looks like a honest citizen, just your regular Londoner really, while Clive is so obviously violent and destructive : and yet, Clive is the dove and Bill the hawk. Funny.

#In today's episode of 'Syl states the obvious' LOL #But yeah basically looks can be deceiving for them both I guess =)#This is once again a very simplified version. Hence why I don't go into too many details #Like Bill losing his humanity is the very moment he decided the risk was worth it. It's not even the explosion itself #Clive doesn't feel like a human because he's so alienated. He's ready to kill people. But he's hoping to get saved. Wrong actions ofc #It's actually so very important to me that Clive goes to jail but we aren't told a thing about Bill. Bill keeps everything a secret #Dimitri also has parallels with both. One day I'll write a good detailed analysis about these 3 #clive dove #bill hawks #professor layton and the unwound future #professor layton and the lost future #unwound future spoilers #lost future spoilers #my analysis #This goes without saying but they're both assholes btw. Idc about the actual goals or characters they're both in the wrong and messed up

39 notes · View notes

autistic-katara · 4 months

Text

thinking abt that one tiktok i saw like a year ago that was like “will wouldn’t mind being queer if it didn’t mean being in love with mike/mike wouldn’t mind being in love with will if it didn’t mean being queer” again

#i mean it’s more complicated than that for both of them ofc #but like to simplify it down (at least for them in s4)#yeah…#also going a bit insane over mike again #goddamn this boy will not leave me alone #byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #will byers #ryan shut the fuck up

31 notes · View notes

hualianisms · 4 months

Text

i love how fanghua are so danmei coded. fang duobing as the protective nianxia ml whose life was so monumentally changed and shaped by a shifu he met only once when he was younger but whose small act of kindness moved him so deeply that he spent most of his life trying to get stronger, working hard to finally be able to catch up to and be worthy of that glorious shifu that he so admired.

except he finally meets that shifu again years later as an adult and he's finally caught up to him but now their positions are reversed - li lianhua is now the sickly one, and fallen from grace; fdb is now the (physically) stronger one, the young hero, and he becomes friends with and falls for llh who he now no. longer wants to be the disciple of. instead, he now wants to protect and care for li lianhua like one protects and cares for a lover.

#mysterious lotus casebook #fanghua #fang duobing #li lianhua #莲花楼 #huafang is also danmei coded. incidentally huafang is the most popular mlc ship on lofter by far #either way they are so danmei coded so GAY coded #llh obviously reciprocates; the most obvious evidence is in the deleted scenes in the scripts; so many lines abt how much fxb means to llh #anyway ik i simplified what llh and fdb are to each other in my prev posts but that post was just to explain to western fans who said they #didnt pick up on fanghua romantic hints/coding. but ofc their rs def has layers and complexities #but to me most of all llh (llh not lxy) & fxb are Equals. the show goes to such great pains to establish them as equals #it doesn't have to be romantic no one has to ship them we all have our own preferences #but at the very least theyre literally canonically best friends #in the show they very explicitly are & acknowledge each other as equals. best friends. zhiji. *equals*!!#anyway i love how they reject and transcend social hierarchies to form their own unique relationship on their own terms #their real rs is something that cant be easily defined but the two of them have chosen the word zhiji for it

32 notes · View notes

elipheleh · 8 months

Text

The truth is every queer person has the right to come out on their own terms, and on their own timeline. They also have the right to choose not to come out at all. The forced conformity of the closet can not be answered with the forced conformity in coming out of it.

-Alex, Red White & Royal Blue (2023)

i want to talk about this quote. full disclosure, it’s because i keep seeing some really frustrating takes (some of which veer into queerphobia) and i am getting a bit annoyed with people and rather than directly addressing it with them & appear to be picking a fight im going to make an analysis post in my space. (tbf. its mostly on twitter and i have a priv account so that limits me)

disclaimer; this is my interpretation, im not saying its the only interpretation just something to consider. i am queer & cognitively disabled - don’t assume malice and dont be cruel. i will ignore and block freely.

tl;dr/very simplified summary: it doesn’t mean “dont ever speculate about other people’s sexuality” but rather that ‘coming out’ in the way society understands it shouldn’t be a necessity for queer people to exist openly as queer. full context under the cut & self-exploration questions at the end.

so lets start with the context. alex is talking at a point in time when the world has read their emails and so knows both are queer (bi & gay, specifically), but neither alex/the white house or henry/the palace have commented. so more simply - alex and henry are known to be queer, but have not come out. alex uses the speech to come out as bi, and as being in love with henry. he also uses it to imply that he & henry should have the right to choose not to do this formal coming out alex is doing.

—

okay. lets get into the quote analysis.

The truth is every queer person has the right to come out on their own terms, and on their own timeline.

reasonably self explanatory. each queer person gets to decide their own timing for coming out, and the way that they want to address their sexuality.

They also have the right to choose not to come out at all.

this is where problems with interpretation have started to appear. fundamentally yes, this means people are allowed to not be openly queer/‘out’ if that is what their decision is. but it also means that they can be visibly queer - for example being in a visibly queer relationship; signalling with their aesthetic (e.g. someone being butch, someone who wears only ‘girl’ clothes despite that being at odds to their assigned gender); casually posting about queer things on social media etc - without addressing their own sexuality to others.

it does not mean that you should assume everyone is straight until they explicitly tell you otherwise. and quite frankly insisting that it does mean that is veering into homo-/bi-/queer-phobia because you are insinuating that being not-straight is a negative thing.

The forced conformity of the closet can not be answered with the forced conformity in coming out of it.

some people seem to be interpreting this as ‘you shouldnt force people out of the closet’ and i don’t think thats quite to the nuance of what it means. yes, i do think that is part of it - in much the same way as the previous sentence - but it is not really the whole of it. in my opinion this is actually addressing - at least to some degree - the concept of ‘we should assume people are straight until they explicitly say otherwise’.

the ‘forced conformity of coming out’ addresses the idea that to be “out” you have to follow these steps; that you have to make a public statement that ‘this is my sexuality and i am [queer/bi/gay/pan/ace/etc]’. you are conforming to this precedent of “how to come out” that countless queer people have followed. there’s nothing inherently wrong with doing so, but actually there are different ways to be queer - and even being “out” as queer - that don’t involve following that playbook.

here’s a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. two men, who have never dated any women, live together & spend basically all their time together over 5-10 years. they holiday with each other’s family, they’re always together at events (e.g. weddings of non-mutual friends), but they’ve never told you/the public that they’re queer and/or dating each other. at what point does one start to assume they’re together? and does the answer change if its a man & a woman rather than two men? if a man & a woman did that, people would assume pretty early on they’re probably dating. but yet when it’s two men suddenly it’s invasive to speculate. this is where this concept of the forced conformity of coming out comes in - along with the veering into homophobia i referenced earlier - why must they say the words “i am gay” for it to then be ‘okay’ to consider that they’re together? (the homophobia comes into play because if you think being gay is morally neutral (which it is) then you shouldn’t have any issue with the speculation about people being together regardless of their genders.) the idea that straight is the default is where this forced conformity starts to really kick in.

—

i guess the main things i want people to ask themselves are these (and i have been asking myself these questions, there is no judgement or censure just self examination):

1. do you think people can be openly queer publicly without explicitly sharing that they are queer? (by this i mean in an announcement or in casual conversation. can you be openly queer without ever addressing it explicitly?)

2. if you do, why do you think that talking about the possibility someone is queer is something that should be hushed up? is it because there is an internalised concept that being queer is something abnormal and/or negative? if it was a straight couple would you feel the same way?

3. what does “coming out” mean to you? why does it mean that, what have you internalised to get to that conclusion & is it something that always works or are there other ways to be openly queer (or ‘out’ if you prefer)?

4. is it possible that there are queer people living openly and happily as themselves without explicitly addressing their sexuality to the wider world, who don’t want to address it publicly? does this make them closeted or ‘less’ queer to you? if so, what makes you think that?

#dont @ me ab the summary till youve read the post its simplified #rwrb #red white and royal blue #rwrb movie #elio’s meta #elio’s #rwrb meta #this is a sideblog so all replies/asks will be done publicly. if you want it to be private send a dm #i do have a degree in lit analysis so. yeh. but im happy to discuss this civilly if you disagree #key word being civilly if youre angry at me save your breath i will ignore you #i choose not to talk explicitly on my blog about the topic people are using the quote about #if you want to talk about it dm me thats fine. but i am uncomfortable talking about it where i cant control who sees it #i have been.. grumbling about this vaguely its tagged in my negative feelings tag but ive got to a point now #where this quite interpretation is really annoying me #and i cant stop myself #*this quote interpretation - ofc id typo in the tags on my phone where i cant edit it #my punctuation might be terrible i lost track of what i was doing with apostrophes #ive edited this to death procrastinating posting it so im just gonna post it #who cares anymore

27 notes · View notes

fatsmyname · 10 months

Note

Not the same anon but I’m a nonbinary lesbian and I’m very intrigued by the word boydyke pls explain it sounds rly cool

so I can only really speak for my personal interpretation/application of the word!! But here’s my explanation below :3

My gender as a butch lesbian is very masculine but also feels internally binary. I feel like a man inside and want to be perceived as a man/boy. My own internal gender overlaps a lot with transmen, but I’m still butch. I feel queer attraction as a lesbian! Hence why I love being a butch lesbian. So I wanna be a boy and a dyke! So I’m a boydyke!

I’ve found that boydyke is way more validating, euphoric, and encompassing on my genderfuckery. Not a lot of people get it, but other boydykes usually do lol. If you feel like the word resonates with you, then more power to you!

#anon #you don’t have to do anything to be a boydyke #I’ve just found that being a boy and a dyke at the same time capture the essence of me!#some days I feel a lot of maleness some days less and some days I don’t want to be anything lol #it varies but boydyke has always felt right ever since I heard it #this is ofc my own very personal gender interpretation of it #and I simplified it a lot here because i have a lot of rules standards and ideals that are private to me #but yea that’s the gist lol

25 notes · View notes

asterbats · 1 year

Photo

Rewatched Diancie and the Cocoon of Destruction with my best friend and it made me wanna develop my Diancie character a bit more. In the Starfall universe, Diancie is the result of mutation from the ultimate weapon, which also granted her immortality. She’s the only recorded Diancie to ever exist and has ruled over the Diamond Domain for thousands of years. Because of her mutation, she’s able to compact emera dust into permanent mega stones, though she rarely does this. She’s a bit reserved, but is exceedingly polite and formal to those that approach her. She dislikes fighting.

Because she’s the only one of her kind, she’s simply “Diancie” to everyone around her. But will accept “Didi” as a nickname if they’re close.

#if tpci wont give diancie or their other recent mythicals decent lore then ill do it myself #diancie #didi #pokemon #pmd #starfall #pkmn #pkmnart #also her design is simplified ofc. i cant do the crystals.

40 notes · View notes

swinging-stars-from-satellites · 2 years

Text

Victor Hugo’s Four Archetypes: analysis & overview

Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel Les Misérables is a portrait of humanity in early-mid 19th century France. Through visceral depictions of life amidst the middle and lower classes, poverty and mistreatment, Hugo paints a distinct yet widely applicable and truthful image of what it means to be alive in the world, both as an individual and in relationship and community with others. Though Les Misérables (here on referred to as “Les Mis”) is a fiction novel and the characters therein are not real people, the way Hugo writes about them is extremely true to life and offers insightful understanding of human nature and different personalities. Most notably in this context are four character types that Hugo uses to introduce a secondary set of characters halfway through the novel.

Les Mis contains a great many characters, as it is a novel that spans several decades and locations. The primary protagonist is, of course, Jean Valjean, the escaped convict with a heart of gold. Largely, the story overall follows Valjean throughout his life and growth and struggles. Around the halfway point of the book, however, we are introduced to Les Amis de l’ABC — the Friends of the ABC, a small group of college students of the middle and lower class who have a desire for revolution and change. They wish to follow in the footsteps of the previous great French Revolution of 1789 and the more recent July Revolution in 1830. Their idealism later leads to the sparking of 1832’s June Rebellion — a real historical event, which in fact was what initially prompted Victor Hugo to write Les Misérables — and the deaths of all but one member of their number. They are named, in their introductory chapter, as “a Group Which Barely Missed Becoming Historic” in a pre-emptive reference to the futility and destruction of their hopeful efforts.

In introducing these characters, Hugo also brings into play a set of very vivid descriptions for them. He takes time to introduce each individual member of the group, and in doing so also points out four key players. These four characters, as Hugo presents them to his readers, hold the archetypal placements that this writer will be exploring in this essay. They are, in introduction, the Chief, the Guide, the Center, and the Skeptic. These four delineations of character types describe both the personalities and the narrative functions of the characters that fit them, both the original characters in Les Mis and characters throughout other books, films, and other media.

The first of these archetypal characters in Les Mis is Enjolras, the leader of Les Amis de l’ABC and true spark that lights the students’ revolution. As such, Hugo takes an extra length of time to fully describe him, appearance and attitude. Enjolras is described as full of youthful vigor, with golden hair and face so beautiful as to be almost feminine. He is fiery, yet cold — his passionate fervor for his cause contrasted with the chilly, detached way he often interacts with those around him. Though not all of this is relevant to discussion of archetypes, quite a lot of it remains important, as this character is the basis of reference for the archetype of the Chief.

Enjolras was a charming young man, capable of being terrible. […] A pontifical and warlike nature, a singular thing in a youth. He was an officiating priest and a man of war; from the immediate point of view, a soldier of the democracy; above the contemporary movement, the priest of the ideal. […] He had but one passion — the right; but one thought — to overthrow the obstacle. […] He was the marble lover of liberty. His speech was harshly inspired, and had the thrill of a hymn. He was subject to unexpected outbursts of soul. (Hugo, Les Misérables, pp 575-576. Tr. Isabel Hapgood.)

The Chief, as a character in this narrative, is the fiercely goal-oriented leader. The key points, both for Enjolras himself within Les Mis and for the generalization of the personality of the Chief, are these: “[Enjolras] was a charming young man, capable of being terrible,” and “He was the marble lover of liberty”. These two lines, brief in comparison to much of Hugo’s writing, give a more concise picture of the personality traits of the Chief: they are intent on their cause, the things they believe in, to the point of becoming ruthless if brought to it. They can be someone who seems above, strange, outside of normal relational interactions. Their dedication to their chosen cause can give them an air of coldness or distance, the “marble” that Hugo describes Enjolras as.

There is, of course, much more to a person than simply those aspects of dedication and distance; even within Les Mis, Enjolras becomes must more humanized and grounded over the course of the time readers are given to learn more about him. However, he is the original Chief character type: goal-driven, passionate, unpredictable in his actions but still utterly predictable in his beliefs. The Chief is someone who can be easily understood with an understanding of what cause they have given themselves to.their dedication and fervor is singleminded; other things may often become trivial to them in lieu of giving their whole self over to their mission.

Beside the Chief, bolstering them and balancing them with beliefs just as strong, but more softly held, is the Guide. In Les Mis, steadying and standing amongst the others in this role, is Combeferre.

By the side of Enjolras, who represented the logic of the Revolution, Combeferre represented its philosophy. Between the logic of the Revolution and its philosophy, there exists this difference — that its logic may end in war, whereas its philosophy can end only in peace. […] He [Combeferre] was less lofty, but broader [than Enjolras]. He desires to pour into all minds the extensive principles of general ideas. He said, “Revolution, but civilization.”; and around the mountain peak he opened out a vast view of the blue sky. […] He loved the word “citizen,” but he preferred the word “man”. He […] affirmed nothing, not even miracles; denied nothing, not even ghosts; […] Enjolras was a chief, Combeferre was a guide. One would have liked to fight under the one and to march behind the other. (Hugo, Les Misérables, pp 576-577. Tr. Isabel Hapgood.)

The Guide, often a counterpart to the Chief, reflects belief in a more grounded way; they are far more compassionate and connected to their fellow man. The Guide is willing to fight, if need be, but would rather affect change via the individual man as opposed to in battle. The description of Combeferre, “Around the mountain peak he opened out a vast view of the blue sky,” is essential; the Guide, by their nature, wishes to offer the views of their beliefs to others, to give a chance to see the world differently and to show them the way the world could, no matter what the world currently looks like. The Chief is by nature a visionary, but the Guide may be more so in that their fight is more that of ideaologies than with other people. Their fight is not with those who oppose them so much as it is for humanity in general. The Guide is a softer side to the Chief; this is why often these two character types operate as a pair.

The next personality type is called the Center — a relational cornerstone, or centerpiece as their title implies. In the case of Les Amis de l’ABC, this is Courfeyrac.

Courfeyrac had, in fact, that animation of youth that might be called the beaute du diable of the mind. Later on, this disappears like the playfulness of the kitten, and all this grace ends. […] This sort of wit is transmitted from generation to generation. […] Courfeyrac was a honorable fellow […] [He was] a paladin. Enjolras was the chief, Combeferre was the guide, Courfeyrac was the center. The others gave more light, he shed more warmth; the truth is, that he possessed all the qualities of a center, roundness and radiance. (Hugo, Les Misérables, p 580. Tr. Isabel Hapgood.)

Hugo’s introduction to Courfeyrac hinges largely on comparing him to a character who had come and gone chapters earlier. Felix Tholomyes was described with a cheerful, attractive personality that draws people to him. However, Tholomyes was a cheat and a scoundrel, whereas Courfeyrac, though similar in personality and aura, is “An honorable fellow… a paladin”. Courfeyrac is the Center, the warm, friendly glue that holds the group together.

The Center is defined well by their title: they are the one who most everyone is drawn to, who has individual relationships but binds them all to each other all the same. Because of their warmth and welcoming, the Center rallies a group together by virtue of friendliness. A paladin is “A defender or advocate of a noble cause; a defender of faith” (American Heritage dictionary, 5th edition). The Center’s noble nature acts as an interpersonal glue holding those around them close both to the Center themselves, and to each other. They are a unifying force.

The fourth archetype that Hugo frames out in Les Mis is the Skeptic. The Skeptic is something of a wild card, an opposing force who nonetheless attaches themselves to those they may disagree with. In Les Mis, this character type is represented by Grantaire, a cynical drunkard.

Among all these glowing hearts and thoroughly convinced minds, there was one skeptic. How came he here? Bu juxtaposition. […] Grantaire was a man who took good care not to believe in anything. […] Skepticism, that caries* of intelligence, had not left him a single whole idea. He lived with irony. This was his axiom: “There is but one certainty, my full glass.” He sneered at all devotion in all parties.[…] However, this skeptic had one fanaticism. This fanaticism was neither a dogma, not an idea, nor an art, nor a science; it was a man; Enjolras. […] To whom did this anarchical scoffer unite himself in this phalanx of absolute minds? To the most absolute. In what manner had Enjolras subjugated him? By his ideas? No. By his character. A phenomenon which is often observable. A skeptic who adheres to a believer is as simple as the law of complimentary colors. That which we lack attracts us. No one loves the light like the blind man. The dwarf adores the drum major. The toad always has his eyes fixed on heaven. Why? In order to watch the bird in its flight. […] He admired his opposite by instinct. […] He was, himself, moreover, composed of two elements, which were, to all appearance, incompatible. He was ironical and cordial. His indifference loved. His mind could get along without belief, but his heart could not get along without friendship. A profound contradiction; for an affection is a conviction. […] …he was the obverse of Enjolras. (Hugo, Les Misérables, pp 583-584. Tr. Isabel Hapgood.)

*Caries: Ulceration of bone; a process which bone disintegrates and is carried away piecemeal, as distinguished from necrosis, in which it dies in masses. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition)

The Skeptic, as a character type, is a cynic, a fatalist. They are often, as Hugo’s original text says, found in juxtaposition — not only in the way they challenge and counterbalance others, but also within themselves. The Skeptic is, as Hugo says of Grantaire in regards to Enjolras, the verso of the Chief: they are the flipside, if, instead of how the Chief dedicates themself to their cause and beliefs, they dedicate themself with equal force to the pursuit of a lack of belief. This, the interest of holding no belief, is incongruously a cause in and of itself. They are the opposite of the Chief, of believers, but strangely similar — Hugo refers to Grantaire as “Enjolras’ one true satellite”. The Skeptic’s perspective on the world tends to be darker, more pessimistic — what they themselves might call “realistic,” if asked — but they are likely to surround themselves with those bright, radiant people whose faith soars. “A skeptic who adheres to a believer is as simple as the law of complimentary colors” — they mirror the faith of others, in a warped way, with their insistence on disbelief; they have a need to be surrounded by those with differing views simply because they require someone to bolster them.

By nature of their skepticism, they are drawn to true believers. They challenge and are challenged all the same, and that is what fuels them. Surprisingly, considering their opposition and argumentative attitude, the Skeptic often brings a kind of balance to their narrative. Not all Skeptics are as viciously cynical, however — the character type is simply one with the pessimistic, differing views that offset them from most others. They hold onto their claimed skepticism as tightly as the Chief holds to their mission or cause, though this determination often leads into a kind of faith of their own; they believe they need no belief, but human nature in Creation dictates that they still do, and this often becomes a kind of relentless devotion not to a belief or a quest, but to one individual person. If a Skeptic type gives their loyalty (devotion) to someone, it is absolute and complete, and can sometimes be almost obsessive.

The key affect of these four archetypes is that, unlike other archetyping formats, they are focused on how characters interact with the world and with others, differing from the way Jung’s 12 types are solely based in the individual themself. Hugo’s archetypes deal far more in interpersonal relations than do most other systems. Though likely not intended as a metric for external literary analysis, these four archetypes are a much more relational perspective on what makes a character who they are; you understand a character not only by their personality traits, but also in how they interact with those around them. Hugo, writing so intimately about human nature and how relationships and interactions shape individuals and the world, understood this, and that is the key of why these core descriptions of characters doomed to tragedy function so well as a reference point for other analysis.

One can also apply these archetypes to other characters within Hugo’s masterpiece itself: Jean Valjean fits into the traits of the Guide; Cossette is a Center — in fact, she is the Center of the entire novel as a whole, the one that, over the course of decades, incidentally brings every other character into alignment at the climax they were meant to reach. Inspector Javert, in his relentless mission of merciless justice, may initially seem a Skeptic, but rather fits the criteria of the Chief. Marius Pontmercy, despite his hopeful idealism in the midst of struggles and depression, is more a Skeptic than he originally seems; his personality is pessimistic by default and he seems rather adrift, but when he discovers a personal quest to give himself to, and when he falls in love, the dedication is indeed obsessive and complete. In contrast, Eponine Thenardier, desperate for friendship and someone to care for her, fills the role of both Skeptic and Guide — complete dedication to Marius, the only person who’s shown her much kindness, and longing and hope for a better life and world; she yearns for that clear blue sky opened around the mountaintop.

As an example from another series, one might look to C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. The four Pevensie siblings fulfill each of the narrative roles and personality types of these four archetypes. Peter, though the High King of Narnia, would be a Guide type character; the Chief in this case is, somewhat surprisingly, more likely to be Susan, who can be overly wrapped up in personal goals. Lucy is, of course, the Center — undoubtedly, she is the one who binds them together the most. Edmund is something of the Skeptic, though he certainly develops away from the negative aspects of that attitude.

Other examples include Rapunzel and Eugene from Disney’s 2010 animated film Tangled, with Rapunzel as a Center, though as her development unfolds she begins to become more of a Chief as well, while still maintaining her softness and radiance. Eugene, for his part, begins as a full Skeptic, but over time grows more into parts of a Guide. In Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang is a Center; Katara is a Chief; Sokka is the most like the Guide, with traits of a Skeptic as well; Zuko is also a Chief — which is part of his friction with Katara throughout his redemption arc — while Toph is a more abrasive, unlikely Center. Another interesting example of these archetypes in other media is Scully and Mulder from The X-Files — though their dynamic is clearly and textually that of a skeptic and believer, their character types are not that of the Skeptic and the Chief; Scully, despite her persistent skepticism, fulfills the narrative role (though not all of the personality traits) of the Center, and Mulder’s relentless quest for the truth is tinged with a deep compassion that tends more toward the Guide than the Chief.

In overview, the four archetypes taken from Les Mis are: the Chief, whose fierce passion for their beliefs and goals can lead them to be cold or inadvertently unkind to others as they pursue what they have dedicated themself to; the Guide, whose beliefs are as firm as the Chief’s but who is a softer touch, with more compassion and interest for the sake of humanity as opposed to ideals; the Center, a bright, friendly type who binds together those around them with their radiant kindness and interest; and the Skeptic, whose cynicism and opposition is the very thing that ties them to those they argue with, and whose loyalty is not to a cause, but to a person or people.

As with any attempt to separate people — real or fictional — into categories, these archetypes are fallible and characters can fit criteria of more than one, or can develop and change. There is a common need, or desire, to compare and contrast characters with similar personalities, however, and this writer is of the opinion that the four archetypes that Victor Hugo incidentally brings forth in Les Misérables are extremely useful. These four categories of character type function to describe either the personalities of the characters who fit them, or their narrative roles, and sometimes both, and can be applied not only to Victor Hugo’s characters but also to those from other books, films, and other media. Because they are more based in how characters interact, they give a different perspective than do archetypes that are focused more on the internal workings of individual characters, and thus offer an interesting, somewhat unique approach to character and story analysis

#i wrote a simplified version of this as a tumblr post MONTHS ago which actually functioned as the initial draft of this #but I've been meaning to share this for a while i just thought about it again bc i was talking about these archetypes re: the bear fx #like... all of this is very nuanced ofc but this is just the basic idea of what i mean when i talk about ''Hugolian archetypes''#anyway #Lu rambles #Lu writes #les miserables #les mis #the brick #victor hugo #meta finding tag #literary analysis #idk what else to tag this lol nshxnsjdnc

77 notes · View notes

i3utterflyeffect · 1 month

Note

I should probably play rain world at some point. So many of my friends are obsessed with it, I would probably enjoy it if I played.

if you do play it get downpour for sure, dlc has some fun stuff

ALSO. FAIR WARNING. you may want to play modded if you're not a fan of more hardcore games bc rain world is BRUTALLLLLLL. i have some mods to make it less frustrated tho so if you do get it you can always ask for reccomendations lol

would highly recommend playing with a friend tho- co-op's sadly exclusive to dlc but it can really help if you get lost or stuck

#rain world has a crazy learning curve but once you get the hang of it it's like second nature #and by crazy learning curve i genuinely mean it's insane. so much movement tech......#i use several mods to simplify movement so i don't go insane trying to get it right #and also don't get stuck at the bottom of a wall that requires me to wall jump lol #it IS good i promise it's just very Real about your place in the ecosystem #and it is NOT the top of the food chain #pitch posts #if you only care for story you could always try a let's play ofc or watching someone else play it #genuinely though it's a great experience #i'd offer to let you play with me but i need to do a MAJOR mod cleanup

3 notes · View notes