Tumgik
#(also for context - it hasn't just been two asks - I'm pretty sure this person sent me others. If that's not true then I apologize anon -
sixcostumerefs · 11 months
Note
Long ask ahead, but thanks for taking the time to read this!
Ok so if we go with the hunch that Danielle is now 2nd A/S and 3rd C/P.....do you think it's strange that she's had quite a few S/P shows but has yet to redebut Aragon? Also in general it feels like second cover/third cover shows have rapidly decreased comparing old casts to new ones. (Ex. Vicki Manser had 18 Parr shows, Cherelle Jay 15 P shows, Paisley 14, and now, Monique with.... 1. Or Courtney S with 37 Aragon shows, Hana Stewart with 6 [technically 7 if you count Bway], Danielle with 6, and she hasn't played it since September) It's halfway through the run and both Monique and Leah have had 3 shows as second covers. Whereas in the original West End (and UKT2 to a lesser extent) the alts were debuting within 2 months of opening and had a lot of shows as the other four.
Also I just miss seeing teal, orange and pink costumes :(
We know she's 2nd A/S and 3rd C/P! Leah and Monique had both said theirs outright.
As far as how much she's been on for Seymour/Parr vs Aragon, there's a few reasons: - Statistically, there have been WAY more shows where Seymour or Parr, or Seymour AND Parr covers have been needed. That means she's had a lot more chances to go on for those roles, and relatively significantly fewer to go on for Aragon. I wrote up all those stats here wrt Leah and Monique (since it's in response to you I'm sure you've seen it, but linking for anyone else). - And, a big part of Danielle's Parr shows were just the context. Both Esme and Roxanne Couch were going to be out on holiday for a while soon after cast change which left them pretty show on Parr covers. It seemed like they very intentionally set Danielle up to effectively function in Esme's place as B/H/P swing during that time frame to help with that coverage. She debuted Parr soon before cast change and she actually had some scheduled Parr shows, and she likely was doing additional Parr rehearsals to make sure she could go on for it if needed. And so...her first Parr with this cast was about a week in. She wasn't intended to go on, but it was prior to Leah's planned debut, Rachel was out, Esme had to cover a pre-scheduled Aragon cover, and that left Danielle for Parr. They technically could have sent Danielle on for Aragon and Esme for Parr, but Danielle had just been on for Parr in the last week or two and again I think they were intentionally keeping that track fresh for her, whereas she hadn't done Aragon in about a month. Just given the recency of Parr, it made more sense to send her on for that. Her next few Parr shows were during that period with both Esme and Roxanne out. She just filled in for a few of those shows when Leah had to be on for Seymour or had her required shows off. The rest of her Seymour and Parr covers have just been relatively straightforward: several of the alts had a show off or were already on for other roles, which just left her as the easiest person available to cover those roles. If that scenario happened and she was needed as Aragon I'm sure they'd send her on, but so far it seems like it just hasn't. With regards to why these alts are on so little for second covers...SWINGS!!! I mean, back with original West End, if they had both Seymour and Parr out, they automatically had to send a second cover on. Compare that to now, where they just send on one of the swings for the second role (and even more specifically they can send on a swing who already has that as their priority cover). Five swalts just improve their coverage SO much. Plus, they've had Harriet Watson able to jump in. All of that together just means they've really very, very rarely needed to go on as anything other than their first covers. And even when they're in a rough spot, they still usually prioritize sending alts on for their 1st covers and having the swings cover anything else. With all the relative coverage they have now, the 2nd and 3rd covers are really more of a contingency plan rather than the day-to-day practicality they used to be.
You also mentioned that Danielle got more A cover shows in her first contract! That's true, like you said she did 6 then and hasn't done any this contract. But they had very different circumstances throughout that contract for a few reasons: A. A big one: cast change. Over half of the 2021-22 WE cast stayed for the 2022-23 cast. There was about six weeks of overlap between the 2021-22 cast and the rehearsals for 2022-23. That meant all those actors who stayed on had to do double duty at both rehearsals AND performances. Both contractually and by nature, those actors couldn't do as many performances since they were also in such intensive rehearsals. And since four out of their five alts were in rehearsals, that meant they had significantly less coverage in those six weeks. Those few weeks *rapidly* increased the number of 2nd/3rd covers: Danielle debuted Parr and also did shows as Aragon/Seymour in addition to her primary covers, Paisley was basically acting as A/C/P alt and did more Parr covers than anyone else by quite a bit, and Roxanne only did three shows throughout that whole period with everything else picked up by the other swalts (including 22 Seymour shows!). And because we're looking at those stats now when they've done that whole run, we see all of those covers from those few weeks in the general stats on how much each alt performed. However..that's not at all a scenario that's unique to the 2021-22 cast! It's just the nature of having actors doing double duty. I'd expect the same thing to happen this year if any of these alts stick around for 2023-24! But since they haven't gotten to that point in this run yet, we don't yet know how that might still affect things. B. A few one-off planned absences. In early June, Six performed at the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. The principals couldn't do that and normal performances, so Six had a combination of the West End alts and some covers from the UK Tour join temporarily to do those few shows. Between that and some additional absences, that gave Roxanne 4/13 as Howard and Danielle 2/6 as Aragon. C. Additionally, the usual unplanned absences. Some level of these are very normal with normal injuries/illness in any year, but the 21-22 West End cast got hit harder than normal by some specific events. Covid had pretty significant rates in the UK all throughout that 21-22 run, and the highest peaks of all time were in Dec 2021/Jan 2022 and Mar 2022. Six got hit pretty bad by both Covid and other illnesses several times throughout that run. Then in the summer, the UK had very severe heat warnings, and the West End more broadly was hit by it pretty hard. That was when Paisley started wearing her teal alt, and Roxanne also did quite a few of her second cover shows during that too. All of those circumstances aren't specific to 2021-22, but they were all much more heightened during that period than they have been in the few years surrounding and has specific absences and 2nd cover shows tied to them.
11 notes · View notes
whickerfurniture · 2 years
Note
.· 👫 — 𝑹𝒖𝒃𝒚/𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒏𝒆 . ·
i.
Ruby refreshes Max's twitter at least twice a day. Sometimes, she posts vague things, just so Max will reply. She lives for seeing the notification come up, and can never let it sit for more than a minute. It's a dopamine rush, and then when it's over, she tweets something else. Theres usually a delay between Ruby's tweet and Max's reply, and she tries not to overthink it. Max is busy, she has friends. She does things. She exists, when Ruby isn't thinking of her. She might be the first person Ruby sees as an actual person, seperate to her wants and needs.
ii.
She has Max's address added to her Amazon account because Ruby does not care about the environment or worker conditions you cannot convince me that this rich bitch thinks about people under her so she uses Amazon religiously likes to be able to send things directly to Max's house. Stupid shit, too. Once, drunk, she sent a her new toilet seat. But she also sends snacks, and a hoodie she thought looked warm, or pretty notebooks. She also sent Max a Ring camera, because answering the door is dangerous. Ruby's never lived anywhere without a 24/7 doorman, how can Max feel safe without one?
iii.
Max reminds Ruby of her sister. Something in her smile, or the way she holds her shoulders. It's not all the time, but it's enough to steal Ruby's breath when she realises it. She spends a whole week avoiding her, no contact at all. Because it feels like a betrayal, in a way she can't really describe. It's not even that Stephanie would be mad, if anything she'd love Max as much as Ruby. She'd be happy her sister had a friend. Of course, Ruby never really thought she'd be able to stay away from Max, not longterm. She lies, and says she had to fly home, a family emergency. Can't say anything else, I'm sure you understand, right? She decides she's just not going to think about it.
iv.
She likes Max's friends, at least as far as she's aware. It's a complicated web, and she's not even sure she wants to be a part of it, even superficially, but none of them had been outright cruel to her, so she can't judge. They make inside jokes she doesn't really understand, and reference movies she hasn't seen. And Max looks different, when she's with them. Not worse, not better, just different. Maybe, deep down, she's a little jealous of them, the way they all connect.
v.
She reads everything about Jimmy, about what happened. She sees the forum posts, and the news reports, when she googles Max's name one day. Not much of it makes sense to her, but she reads it anyway. It puts some of Max into context, makes other parts more confusing. There's two opposing sides, and they're so fundamentally different, it's hard to believe they exist in the same universe, in the same girl. She spends a whole night at her computer, flitting from this site to the next, dying to ask Max what really happened. Because if it happened the way they're saying... Well, she never pegged her friend for a bully, even by association. Max seemed too good for that, too kind. And Ruby knew the type. She'd never exactly been Miss Congeniality, making or breaking girl's popularity at her private school with a flick of her wrist... But no one got hurt. This was a different level.
Could she even ask about it, without being nosy? Not really. It wasn't her business. She wipes her browser history, as though that means it never happened. Jimmy even sounded like he forgave her, so what right did she have to judge? Besides, she was no saint. She texts Max, asks her if she wants to hang out. She didn't need to think about it. Max was her friend, and being friends means seeing the worst in someone, and deciding you love them anyway. And Ruby did love Max.
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
Okay, here’s a final answer, just for clarification - 
Firstly, please understand that I’m not angry, and I’m not upset. I just tend to speak very matter of factly, I guess? If I seem cold or something when typing this response, it's not a personal attack towards you or some display of aggression, that's just how I word things sometimes, I don't mean for them to be misinterpreted or want you to think I’m like getting mad with you or etc. Me disagreeing does not inherently equal me being mad about something, it merely means that I disagree, which is an emotion neutral action. If someone said 2+2 = 6, I would disagree, and openly so, but that doesn’t mean I’d also be like, crying about it or upset with them or something lol. 
 I actually even stated so at the end of my tags last time - 
Tumblr media
 So, I apologize if you interpreted my tone as being mean, but I was simply trying to be firm and direct in how I said things so you understand that it's a very serious matter, and I didn't want to be light about it. 
There was a bit of jokiness/sarcasm/exaggeration as well I suppose, but again, that’s not an inherent indicator of upset, just the way I speak - especially when your question can be seen as rude to begin with (which usually leads people to care less about faking positive emotions or seeming polite to others. If a person is not polite to you, you’re not likely to watch how you communicate as much or attempt to display high politeness back). My default state is a neutral flatness as I have a very shallow emotional range (shout out to schizophrenia spectrum negative symptoms and other various issues lol), any excessive positivity or “perkiness” or something that I display is just an attempt to be polite and communicate with others in a simple and kindly manner (in real life I’m often seen as too stoic, blunt, detached, cold, etc. lmao, so in general communication with strangers I tend to overcompensate to being excessively polite instead) - but that also means I can accidentally drop that sometimes if I’m being “real” or whatever. 
-
Anyway, now that concerns over my tone have hopefully been explained, I’ll address this issue about your previous ask in a numbered list. Please read ALL of this, if you are actually taking this seriously. If you don’t actually read, in detail (no skimming), this entire response, then this is not even a discussion since you’re not willing to genuinely engage in the first place. -  
-
Firstly, here is the original ask, for reference  ----
Tumblr media
 As for how your question can be rude: 
(1.) In my initial response (in the tags of your answer), I asserted various things, mostly that the question was rude, and that it’s not appropriate to ask people, for a variety of reasons. I’ll explain those in more length here. 
My main point is that even asking the question in the first place is rude. It doesn’t matter how specifically you word it, it’s not appropriate. Just like any personal issue. At least in my culture, it’s typically thought of as inconsiderate and inappropriate to ask random strangers personal questions. for example, it would be rude to approach a random stranger on the bus that you’ve never even seen before and ask them why the have the haircut they do, who their sexual partners are, if they’ve just had a death in the family, how well their marriage is going, what their gender is, etc. etc. 
-
-
(2.) On top of this personal boundary issue, another concern would be that the nature of the question itself is baseless -- 
Would you ask a cis woman why they're a woman? Or a cis man why he chose to be a man? Would you ask a straight person why they chose to be straight?
Would you find it acceptable and polite if a random stranger approached you on the street and asked you for an explanation as to why you're the gender you are? Imagine that exact scenario happening to you, and if you would find it odd or overstepping boundaries at all.  
I doubt you ask this same gender identity question to everyone in your life, to your parents, friends, the cashier at your grocery store.  Why is it only certain groups that need to explain or justify their identities to you? Only certain groups that you feel the inherent need to question? It's a double standard which further serves to prove the question itself is unnecessary. 
-
-
(3.) Additionally, in case you're genuinely unsure of tone (maybe you have difficulty reading social cues or something, that’s understandable) I will explain - the way in which the question was asked has certain implications. 
The statement “Why are you nonbinary? You seem like a pretty girl to me”, implies that - due to your beliefs about me/how you see me, you find it confusing that I could have a certain identity that you see as not matching your perception of me, or that you see as an invalid label, and are asking for me to justify or explain myself/my identity to you because of that. 
Even if this implied meaning was not intentional, it is what most people will interpret upon reading the question, and would be a commonly held understanding. There are other ways you could have asked the question which would be less condescending, yes, but again, the other points still stand (like that the question in itself is impolite to ask to strangers, etc.)
Again, revisit the imaginary scenario of a stranger approaching you on the street and asking you why you’re the gender you are - would there not be some of this implication present? For example, say you’re a man - would it not feel as if someone were questioning your manhood, or implying you weren’t truly a man, or must not be a man ‘correctly’, or that ‘man’ is not a valid label for how they see you? Why else would they approach you and ask you in confusion for you to justify your identity to them? The implication is that they don’t see you as a valid man, or at least not how they see a man, and thus are having a hard time accepting that someone like YOU could ever be a real man - that it’s hard for them to believe you are what you say you are, because they see you differently.
 -
(3.a)  As an additional sidenote (one which I addressed in the tags replying to you initially), your ask (as well as this more recent one) also made certain assumptions. There are plenty of people who ''look like girls'' or 'look like boys' but aren't as they “seem”, even if you're someone who only believes in a “binary biological sex model” (I’ll include some links at the end about this). It's strange to assume someone's body parts or identity just based off of pictures you see on the internet (which often have specific lighting, angles, or in the case of many people are even edited and etc. I don't do this but it's really common nowadays with phone editing apps and stuff). Just because I appear a certain way to you, in no way implies that I have the physical form and traits you assume I have Consider how you may feel invalidated or uncomfortable if people sent you messages assuming personal things about you that are incorrect or that they have no way to possibly know.
 Your standards and perception are also not universal, various cultures and groups have different ideas about what outward traits would make someone considered a “man” or a “woman”, so making your judgement of someone else’s identity based only on your own (extremely shallow, since it’s only from online pictures) perception of them, is also inherently a bit flawed. 
-
(3.b-ish side tangent) In extension to this, your ideas and how you view me are likely incorrect. Just as it is similarly true that, from afar, any assumptions I make about you would likely be inaccurate as well. We are strangers.
For example, if you really knew me, you would know that I don’t pride myself in costumes and makeup - It’s a fun creative activity for me definitely, but I feel no pride over it, I don’t do it to look good or seem a certain way, and actually I resent it in a way, because often it feels like people mostly only pay attention to blurry pictures of me looking silly in cheap wigs, but don’t give that same level of engagement to the other more important things I do that I personally care about 100x more, like my worldbuilding and other projects lol. Absolutely nothing against the people who like my costumes, I appreciate them of course!!, and I still love doing costumes - BUT, to imply that it’s a primary source of pride in my life or a characteristic that defines me over other things, would be a mischaracterization. 
Anyone who knows me in real life would certainly list a million other stand-out traits to define me, rather than ‘pretty make up woman’ (most people I know in real life would also not describe me as ‘pretty’ or as a ‘woman’, just for reference lol). 
Your one sided perception of me (which I’ll address in the next section) may allow you to have a shallow idea of me as some sweet pretty costume girl or something, but just know that the reality is more like: I haven’t had much time lately to do costumes because I’m working on a game and other art which I see as much more important, I haven’t bathed or brushed my hair in weeks because of mental illness/functioning issues, 99% of the time I’m not ‘’dressed up’’ - I wear the same pajamas and cardigan that I’ve worn for the past 3 years and barely wash to the point that it’s disintegrating and leaves fabric scraps around the house lol, I have a little moustache right now and a unibrow and other “””non-womanly”””” traits (at least by common media western standards, which is what I assume you go by), I’m excessively analytical, detached, and in real life you would probably see me as blunt and cold and cynical (also commonly missing social cues) - as well as being hugely asocial/ a hermit and mostly lacking the ability to form attachments to others (So definitely not  ~pretty and cute and approachable~ ghgg), I have obsessive compulsive disorder and am regularly so anxious that I’m throwing up and have various other issues - I’m also not Fun or Cool or Spontaneous because I’m too busy being rigid and high strung lol (even before the pandemic, I don’t like to leave the house or interact much at all with others, I’d rather be in my little controlled environment where I don’t have overwhelming sensory information and distractions raising my anxiety constantly),, and my favorite activities are literally all just stuff like pacing around my home alone talking to myself in different voices creating gods and fake religions for my fantasy worldbuilding while I eat boiled cabbage and light little pieces of paper on fire over a candle to help me think - not doing makeup and other Pretty Woman Things. 
Which I don’t want to be too harsh or focus on this tangent too much, since obviously as you don’t know me in real life, these are all things you couldn’t possibly be aware of, and it simply comes with the territory of posting publicly online - so I absolutely don’t blame you for perceiving me incorrectly. If “pretty” pictures are all you see, then that may very well be the only impression that you have. I just personally dislike this certain interpretation some people have seemed to have of me (you’re not the first person to think of me as a Pretty Makeup Girl or whatever lol), since it’s so completely opposite from the truth of who I am, I feel the need to explain it like this sometimes. Just accepting the false perception some people have of me without any argument feels disingenuous and like supporting a version of myself that doesn’t exist. 
 So anyway, no issue with you personally, but just trying to set the perception of me straight a little more accurately lol.. now, back on topic -- 
-
-
(4.) Lastly, and here’s the main thing I’d like to stress, there's the issue of personal boundaries. Again, you're a complete stranger to me, I don't know who you are, and you have no idea who I am. Even if you've followed me online for years and read every post I've ever made, you still have no idea who I truly deeply am, only a vague scattering of snapshots over time.  
-
Here are some definitions for Parasocial Relationships: 
“Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships, where one person extends emotional energy, interest and time, and the other party, the persona, is completely unaware of the other's existence. Parasocial relationships are most common with celebrities, organizations (such as sports teams) or television stars.”
“Parasocial interaction (PSI) refers to a kind of psychological relationship experienced by an audience in their mediated encounters with performers in the mass media, particularly on television.[1] PSI is described as an illusionary experience, such that media audiences interact with personas (e.g., talk show host, celebrities, fictional characters, social media influencers) as if they are engaged in a reciprocal relationship with them. The term was coined by Donald Horton and Richard Wohl in 1956. “
-
This is all anyone can ever have with people they follow online. You can perceive them, but you cannot know them or truly understand them. I think this is very important to remain cognizant of in such a massive social media age, as often times people are fostering one sided concepts that are inaccurate or unhealthy (no so much with just you sending me a simple ask, but in a broader sense, how people act towards celebrities, other bloggers, etc. etc. seems to have little boundaries, and often results in a similar manner with people forgetting to maintain acceptable boundaries with those they follow or know about from afar). 
-
-- This next part is very important, I think it’s a super valuable way of thinking about this sort of stuff, so if you take away nothing else from this, at least remember this next portion -- 
A very good way to think about online boundaries that I heard someone mention in a post once (though I can no longer find the post), is to take whatever you're going to say to someone online, and imagine saying it in person, in real life, to a barista. Before you send an ask or make a comment, think about if it’s something you would really genuinely say face to face to a stranger. 
Would you walk into a random Starbucks and ask the dude at the counter a bunch questions about their gender identity? Or about his personal life in general? You probably recognize that that would be strange and socially inappropriate. It's similarly inappropriate in a case like this. 
Even though you may feel a sense of familiarity with someone online from reading their social media posts, or even speaking to them once or twice through asks and etc. etc., at the end of the day you don’t really know each other much more than you’d know a random stranger. 
Unless someone is inviting personal questions (like by reblogging those ‘ask me anything’ posts or etc.), or has the sort of blog where they are commonly asking people about/discussing their own intimate personal experiences or etc. (mine is not this way), then questions like this are very out of the blue and similar to asking a random person working at a store things like that. It can be seen as rude and inappropriate in general to give those sorts of questions to people who are complete strangers, and typically comes off as crossing personal boundaries. Again, think about a random stranger asking you these questions, and how you may perceive it. 
-
-
In summary: 
1. The question itself is borne from an double standard and isn't very good to ask in the first place. 2. The way you asked the question was worded  with certain implications. 3.  Your ask is also assuming certain things that you don't know are true, which can be uncomfortable for some people. 4. Even were it not for the three other things, it's commonly considered rude in many cultures to ask serious questions about the personal details of complete strangers, even if it's online. It could prove useful to utilize the ‘barista test’ to better determine this in the future. 
-
-
Final Thoughts: 
Anyway, I wasn't mad and I have no beef with you or whatever lol. Hopefully you can understand what I mean. I've also explained myself as well as I think I can though, so I don't feel like discussing it any more and won't respond to further asks about this. I have a lot of things going on in my life right now (as I'm sure everyone does given the pandemic and everything, you probably do too, so hopefully you can empathize with that), so I’d like to limit my time spent online, especially discussing topics I already don’t like to discuss or am not open to accepting questions about (I just want to talk about cats and elves and stuff lol). 
 If you still can't at least kind of get where I'm coming from then it's perfectly fine to just agree to disagree. If aspects of myself upset you or cause you discomfort, then there's no harm in just unfollowing me or something! Or if you don't even follow me, I would encourage you to block me so my posts no longer come across your dash (or block/unfollow me on whatever other social media you may be seeing my posts on ,etc)., etc. That way you don't have to see content or hear from someone who makes you uncomfortable that way, and there also won't be any need for this to come up in the future. Part of using the internet in a healthy and productive manner is to know when to disengage with certain content and just cut it off/unfollow/block people/etc. if it’s causing you unnecessary conflict or distress, or makes you uncomfortable or etc. to look at. Thank you for the question! Hopefully this response explained things a little better. 
-
-
Links and Further Info: 
On the off chance that you were genuinely curious, here are some resources where you can learn more about people of different gender identities and also hear them explain their experiences, etc.  Since these people are actually openly discussing their experiences/making educational content and are obviously actually open to talking about it,  that would be a better place to field any further questions or learn about things. :3
Here’s some reading - 
Understanding Nonbinary People (link)
Gender Variance Around the World (link)
12 Questions About Nonbinary Gender Answered (link)
About the Sex Binary (link)
Ask LGBT subreddit (link)
one ‘ask a nonbinary person’ blog i found (I don’t know if they’re still active, it’s one of the first ones that came up for me lol, but I guess could be helpful) (link)
-
And here’s some videos with people talking about their experience, or being educational - 
(NOTE: I just did a quick google search and did not deeply research these people and their entire histories and etc., so I can’t say I stand by literally everything they say or know what type of people they are, but it’s just a general place to start~!)
A video examining the idea of gender in general and how it even exists and nonbinary people (definitely interesting to watch) (link)
video about nonbinary gender/explanations (probably at least watch this one too) (link)
What is a nonbinary gender? (shorter general info) (link)
answering all your nonbinary questions q&a (link)
Video about binary sex/gender/etc. (link)
5 nonbinary people explain what nonbinary means to them (link)
another video about similar stuff (link)
-
#Please stop sending me asks about this now. I just want to talk about elves and cats and fantasy writing and stuff#No personal questions unless I specifically comment on something/initiate the discussion or they're about my art or something else I'm doing#lol... especially with everything going on this year#just a big Let Me Relax I Will Deal With Anything Even Remotely Stressful Later mood#ANd anon if you're still here - go listen to 'And the beat goes on' by The Whispers#no real reason gjhgjhg it's just a good song and I had it playing while I was proofreading#(also for context - it hasn't just been two asks - I'm pretty sure this person sent me others. If that's not true then I apologize anon -#but I definitely got multiple asks that were mentioning similar things/of a similar tone (intentionally referring  to me as a 'girl' 'woman'#consistently and in a kind of agressive way or etc. (which you can block asks even if they're on anon (i think it's just an IP block) so if#it was indeed this anon sending them then they may be blocked from sending any more asks already because I blocked all those weird ones#I got lol. if it wasn't them then they should still be fine though- but anyway. there were other messages being sent#etc. consistently - which only happened after the first initial ask and would happen regualrly so. etc. etc. Just wanted to mention it since#the 'stop sending me asks about this now' comment doesn't make much sense if you think there was only two asks lol. I'm preetty sure#there were more - though of course they're all anon so I can't confirm. ANYWAY - again.. i have no beef with you but if we don't agree then#please just disengage and stop following my content/sending me asks - and maybe watch some of the videos and stuff or go to#other reasources if you really want to know about this stuff because I'm just not the right person/in the correct mindset to explain it to#you. I can barely do basic daily functions like making sure I eat 3 times a day lol.. I don't have the mental energy to write educational#essays and etc. but SOME people do - which is why pursuing other resources is important. ALSO - listen to The Whispers. that is my#final advice.. put on some good music and just dance and eat some cheddar cheese or something. this will soothe every issue )
10 notes · View notes
boydgearloose · 3 years
Text
DuckTales Theory: The Rightful Heir of Scrooge McDuck
With the finale on the horizon, I've been thinking a lot about where they could potentially take the whole "rightful heir of Scrooge McDuck who is destined to find the Papyrus of Binding" thing. After rewatching the whole series thus far a few weeks ago, it's been on my mind a lot, and with all the news we've gotten about the finale recently, I've managed to piece something together that I think is pretty plausible. I want to warn you guys right away that this post will have spoilers for the finale promo that was released on Monday, so if you haven't seen it and don't plan on checking it out, please don't read any further! That being said, let's get into this.
For starters, let's look at what we know about the rightful heir to the Papyrus of Binding so far. FOWL is taking all of the missing mysteries and it's included, but they can't retrieve this one on their own. In The First Adventure!, Scrooge wrote that it shall go to "the rightful heir of McDuck" and "that those who attempt to harm any of them will be incapable to getting it." Therefore, nobody in FOWL would be able to retrieve the Papyrus because none of them are Scrooge's heirs and they've all tried to harm him and his family in some way. Another thing to note on the topic of this particular episode, despite being the finale of the show, The Last Adventure! is a clear parallel title to The First Adventure!, where the Papyrus was introduced, so it's likely to be found in the finale.
Now, let's look back to The Split Sword of Swanstantine! At the end of this episode, it's shown that Black Heron has gotten a feather from one of the McDucks for some mysterious reason. Many assumed this would be a cloning situation, where they need to get McDuck DNA in order to replicate a "rightful heir" who hasn't hurt Scrooge or his family in order to get the Papyrus back. However, a lot of the fandom seemed to think it was Scrooge's feather. I personally don't think that is the case. In the episode, we see Heron swipe at all of the children.
Tumblr media
She very well could have picked up a feather from one of the kids instead. Of course, the triplets are the first to come to mind because they are essentially Scrooge's heirs, so it would make sense if she was after one of their feathers. But then, I started thinking and realized that none of them really take after Scrooge entirely. Huey primarily looks up to Fenton and Donald (if you're looking for someone inside the family) and leans toward being a superhero/scientist rather than adventurer. We know from the last episode that Dewey wants to be a pilot and has always primarily looked up to Della more than anyone else in the family. Louie you could make an argument for, but he only really admires Scrooge because of his money. He doesn't like adventuring and would rather focus on strategy.
So who could the rightful heir be? Well, there's really only one choice and it fits infinitely better than the rest. I'm very certain that Webby is going to be the rightful heir who is destined to find the Papyrus of Binding. There is a ton of evidence hidden throughout the show since season 1 of this, and I've collected all I could find. I'm sure I even missed some.
First of all, let's get into Webby's character. From her first appearance, she's shown to idolize Scrooge and everything about his family. She's invested in McDuck history and dreams of becoming an adventurer just like Scrooge. In fact, the episode of the series that introduces FOWL way back in season 1 is one that focuses heavily on Scrooge's bond with Webby. There's also the part in A Nightmare on Killmotor Hill! where it's revealed that her perfect dream is quite literally turning into Scrooge. She also believed him longer than the other family members in 87 Cent Solution! There's LOTS of stuff in the show about Webby looking up to him, too much for me to even include in one post.
Season 3 is focused on legacy. We've gotten focus or are getting focus on the legacies of each of the triplets: Huey being a superhero (we could get more of this tbh), Dewey being a pilot and whatever's going on with Louie in the next episode. What about Webby's legacy? Well, it's very clear to me that it lies with Clan McDuck. The last Webby-centric episode we got was The Fight for Castle McDuck!, one that heavily focused on why she's a part of the McDuck family and heavily revolved around getting a placement in it (the whole statue thing). This episode really felt like it was leading up to her ultimate legacy being to follow in Scrooge's footsteps and become a great adventurer. It was also very recent and not counting the Christmas episode which was likely out of production order, the last Webby episode before the finale. (Also, I think it's important to note that the first season 3 episode that heavily focuses on FOWL has a Scrooge and Webby B plot. Just food for thought.)
Another important thing that I just noticed is that in the season 2 finale Moonvasion!, at the end of the FOWL reveal, the camera SPECIFICALLY pans in on Webby hugging Scrooge. This is a deliberate decision, as Webby could have easily been shown with the triplets of Beakley in this scene. But they chose to put Scrooge and Webby front and center.
Tumblr media
Another thing to point out is that FOWL's intentions with the feather is obviously cloning, as mentioned before and theorized by many. In the finale for the promo, we saw two new characters with an interesting resemblance to Webby. It's very likely that May and June are the results of them trying to clone Webby through her feather.
Tumblr media
However, they don't look exactly like her. Their color schemes and hairstyles are different, and we know by the casting announcement that they have different voice actresses. Therefore, I don't think FOWL has mastered the art of cloning just yet. They need a perfect clone of Webby, and much like Bentley and Buford (who appear to be clones of Bradford, I'm gonna be real), they're like Webby but not exactly Webby. I wouldn't be surprised if they were sent to the lost library for being "rejects," where they're later found by the family, explain why they were created and open up the exposition for The Last Adventure.
How does FOWL know Webby is the rightful heir? I don't know. I don't think we'll be able to determine that until we know more. But I feel like they somehow do and plan on making the perfect clone of her to retrieve the Papyrus before the McDucks are able to. This is a bit of a stretch, but maybe Beakley knows about this too and is keeping it from Webby because it opens her up to danger. Who knows?
And one more thing before we wrap this post up: remember when Frank said something from Last Crash of the Sunchaser! would come up in season 3? That had to be about him stating Webby wasn't family. It could very well be brought up again in the context that Webby isn't only family but the rightful heir of Scrooge McDuck himself!
Anyway, that's about all I have. I'm sure there's more evidence, and if you have any, feel free to respond with it or send it to me via DMs or asks! This will definitely be on my mind until the finale airs LOL
96 notes · View notes