#Soc analysis | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

six-of-cringe · 1 year

Text

I think that one of the reasons why people misinterpret Wylan's character and arc, among others, is because they misinterpret the relationship between him and Kaz. This post has kind of mitosised off from the BFWP (Big Fucking Wylan Post) I'm writing because it's a bit of a different focus and constitutes its own post.

A lot of people talk about Wylan's character and development as though it's meant to match Kaz's - starting out as a nice kid who the city forces to become amoral, indifferent to violence, and well-versed in crime. These qualities are usually talked about with a weird reverence as an irrefutable symbol of "badassery", as though it's always a positive development for any character regardless of the story's narrative, which annoys me but is not the topic of this post. That's part of the BFWP's job.

Following Kaz's exact development is not the point of Wylan's character. The point is that Kaz and Wylan narrative foils - very similar in many ways, but with a fundamental difference that creates the "broken mirror" effect/shows how they could have turned out if they'd chosen differently. I think that difference is how they respond when they climb out of the harbor after their respective betrayals. Narratively, Ketterdam represents a very harsh system that presents the people struggling there with very few options. You can either choose to ditch decency, play by the Barrel's rules, and live, or you can hold on to decency and die.

When Kaz returns to the streets after Jordie's death, he chooses the first option. He copes with what happened through ideas of revenge, and to survive long enough to see it he quickly turns to thievery and violence. He thinks to himself after he robs a kid for money and food that it was much easier to survive when you've left decency behind. He survived through violence, creating the Dirtyhands persona around himself for protection.

When Wylan has to fend for himself, he choses the second option. He finds "honest work" at the tannery, where they exploit workers and expose them to toxins. He wonders if he'll live long enough to use his savings to leave the city, or if the chemicals would kill him first. He was smart enough to steal and survive, but he chose decency, and with it, he chose death. There are a number of reasons why he chose differently than Kaz despite their similarities - his older age and thus more developed moral code, having no one to avenge but himself when he believed himself worthless, his more privileged upbringing, and his relatively low drive to live. Alone, he would have died.

Then Kaz steps in. Kaz's role in all the crow's lives is that, intentionally or not, his ruthless rule of the Barrel creates a sort of haven that allows them to survive where they would have died had they stayed alone. Wylan is a really clear example of this, and though Kaz's intentions were at least partly self-serving, his involvement both kept Wylan from dying of exposure or street violence as well as prevented him from needing to do the more terrible things that it takes to survive in the Barrel. Throughout the books, we see Kaz kind of taking the brunt of enacting violence in Wylan's place - traumatizing Smeet's daughter, killing the clerk on the lighthouse. Wylan could get by making explosives in the workshop rather than having to shoot or stab or beat the life out of people. And at the end of the series, Kaz sees to it that he never will have to. Of course Wylan did bad stuff to survive when working with the Dregs, it's the Barrel. But the extent is greatly lessened because of Kaz's involvement.

Wylan's arc was never about becoming comfortable with violence, or becoming just like Kaz - the way people characterize him as some sort of ruthless murder mastermind is inaccurate and redundant with Kaz's character. He isn't nonchalant or celebratory about crime or death or violence by the end of the book. He doesn't HAVE to become like Kaz, because Kaz himself gave him the space to continue being decent, intentionally or otherwise. Understanding that dynamic is important to understanding what Wylan is like as a character and as a person. If you assume Wylan's trajectory is to become "Kaz 2.0", then you're going to mischaracterize him. I've seen posts about how Kaz was the Jordie that he didn't have to Wylan, and I think that makes a lot more sense. Because Kaz is willing to do the horrible things in his stead, Wylan has the third option otherwise impossible in the Barrel - maintaining his decency and surviving.

#Kaz really do expose ppl to the horrors of the world but simultaneously protect ppl from losing themselves to it #sorry guys. wylan likes math and puzzles and his friends he does not like crime. crime is an unfortunate byproduct of surviving #'we could wake them up' Mark my words you stupid quote i'm coming for YOU this week #does this make sense. does this post Sense???#wylan nearly blows his cover just thinking about a terrible guy kaz killed in front of him. THIS is your ruthless killer?? lol #one thing about me. i like characters with Hope and Gumption. thank you wylan sixofcrows #wylan is a bitch but only when standing up for what he thinks is right. especially against kaz. GUMPTION. the GALL.#glad you didn't bite it in the cancer factory you funky little genius #this pairs nicely with my jesper analysis. he enacted violence but unlike wylan he Refuses to Think About It #wylan van eck #kaz brekker #six of crows #soc #tgt #soc meta #soc analysis #bfwp #crooked kingdom spoilers

277 notes · View notes

violets-and-books · 7 months

Text

JESPER THOUGHTS TIME BECAUSE IF EVERYONE ELSE CAN DO IT SO CAN I

This is a man who longs to be loved. He longs to be loved and to be allowed to love. This is, genuinely, the first impression of him I got from the books. When Bollinger was revealed as a traitor, Jesper didn't react with anger, as you'd expect from someone who, yknow, had been betrayed. All he said was "Oh, Big Bol... you idiot." And it sounds REGRETFUL. He regretted what Bollinger had done, he regretted being betrayed by someone he saw as his friend. He and Bollinger weren't even that close but he acted so regretful and disappointed

He wants to love. He reaches out so desperately to everyone around him. He reaches out to Kaz so much, everyone's analysed that to death, but he reaches out to EVERYONE. Everything about him is crafted so people will like him. The humour, the flirting, the style, the laid-back personality, it's all a way to present a version of himself that everyone will like. And it takes such a toll on him - we see that with his gambling and his intense self loathing - but he doesn't try to change it. Because he wants people to like him so much

Jesper's childhood was so full of love. His mum loved his dad, his dad loved his mum his mum loved him and his dad loved him. There wasn't a person in that house who didn't feel intensely, completely loved and accepted. Out of all the Crows, Jesper had the healthiest early childhood.

And then his mum died.

And he suddenly didn't feel so loved or accepted anymore. Not because of anything anyone did but because his mum's powers had killed her and her death ripped a huge rift through the family. Colm still loved Jesper but he was afraid for him. Afraid that his zowa would take Jesper from him like it took Aditi from him. So, Jesper learnt to hide that part of himself. He learnt that, in order to be loved, he had to hide parts of himself away. He had to hide his power, the dangerous part of himself, the part his mother had given to him.

Then, when he fell into the Barrel, he had to hide more of himself. I'm fairly certain he was only 15 when he dropped out of uni. He was incredibly young and probably absolutely terrified. And so many of the people around him were strong and apathetic and dangerous. So, again, Jesper learnt and he adapted. He's a master of change, he can create whatever image of himself he wants. He knows how to make people like him.

All because he wants to be loved. Because he wants to love. He trusts and loves people so implicitly, so quickly, he treasures his friends. He loves people so deeply and completely, verging on the edge of blindness. And people just don't give him that love and trust back. He fights for it. Every bullet out of his gun, every quip or insult or fist thrown is because he wants his friends to love him. He wants to be useful and needed and wanted. He's got such a hole in his heart, such a well of emptiness, that he doesn't let anyone see. Because if people know he's weak, if people know he's human, they won't like him anymore. If they know he's more (or less) than the jokes and the empty promises and the easy pick-up lines and the guns and the flash, they won't love him anymore and he will be completely, utterly alone with his thoughts

#six of crows #blaize rambles #blaize's thoughts #blaize's analysis #jesper fahey #soc #soc jesper fahey #soc jesper #jesper fahey analysis #jesper analysis #soc analysis #six of crows analysis #six of crows jesper #soc jesper analysis #six of crows jesper analysis

68 notes · View notes

six-of-crows-x-richard-iii · 10 months

Text

The 'Six Of Crows' Duology: An Analysis

Though they are only teenagers, the Crows have all endured extensive trauma and survived major traumatic events and hardships, continuing to thrive in society and forge deep, meaningful connections with others. As a consequence of the Crows all enduring such suffering, they have grown accustomed to this as a norm of sorts, emphasized clearly when Kaz says

“We were all just children once.”

This enhances Kaz’s own moral ambiguity, the clear, detached tone of the statement combined with the simple structure allowing for the density and gravity of the statement to sink into the reader’s mind and take grip. It shows that though all of the Crows were and still are children in age, they no longer are in mind, subtly remarking that the substantial trauma they endured fundamentally changed their character and took away the innocence of their youth as they became hardened criminals in order to survive. This is contrasted in

“When we get our money, you can burn kruge to keep you warm." "I'm going to pay someone to burn my kruge for me." "Why don't you pay someone else to pay someone to burn your kruge for you? That's what the big players do.”

The lighthearted banter in this interaction between Jesper and Kaz highlights the pure nature of their friendship, which contrasts the stark, gloomy environment which consumes the majority of their lives. This evokes a feeling of sympathy from the reader, reminding them the Crows are still young, despite all the trauma they have endured and the profound impact it has had on their character and internal thoughts and morals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city of Ketterdam, and the Barrel in particular, is a harsh, dark and gloomy environment, much like the trauma all of the Crows have experienced, especially Kaz as the majority of the traumatic events in his life were centralised there excluding the deaths of his parents. The majority of Kaz’s character can be encapsulated as a consequence of his trauma, and the suffering which he endured in the Barrel. He himself says

“Kaz flexed his fingers in his gloves. How did you survive the Barrel? When they took everything from you, you found a way to make something from nothing.”

This conveys how Kaz lost everything in the Barrel and how, as a consequence of this, he essentially was forced to destroy himself in order to create something that would survive in the cold conditions of the worst of Ketterdam. In this, Bardugo employs contrast between the phrases “they took everything from you” and “You found a way to make something from nothing” which highlights the stark difference between loss and resilience, and Kaz’s innate ability to transform adversity into opportunity, showcasing his resourcefulness and determination. It emphasizes his refusal to be defeated by misfortune, symbolizing his resilience and his capacity to turn setbacks into opportunities for growth and success. It depicts how after Jordie’s death, rather than letting himself die, he preferred to kill the child inside of him and become something worse; a monster of sorts, with a reputation to be feared above all else — Kaz Brekker, rather than Kaz Rietveld. The concept of Kaz’s brokenness and imperfect healing being a source for his warped sense of morality and immorality is further enforced in

“There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong, and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.”

In this, Bardugo uses juxtaposition to portray how the brokenness which would typically make one weaker instead made Kaz stronger due to his own inherent resourcefulness and determination. Kaz is depicted as someone who has been hurt and broken various times in his life in various ways, but someone who after surviving everything became stronger in character rather than weaker. Furthermore, this can be interpreted as a part of the reason Kaz essentially became a villain in some regards; in order to survive the trauma he endured, he did whatever he had to to survive in the Barrel. Due to the merciless nature of the Ketterdam, Kaz ended up a villain in some aspects. This evokes an emotional response from readers, as they can no longer blame Kaz entirely for succumbing to thievery and the life of a con artist, as it was what he had to do to survive as a child. The reader’s instead of being against Kaz’s villainy, are consumed with an internal conflict in themselves over the circumstances which fostered the environment creating Kaz’s warped sense of immorality, villainy and retribution. Furthermore, Kaz’s villainy is portrayed as something which has consumed him to the point of being outwardly noticeable, as seen in Matthias saying

“Matthias knew monsters, and one look at Kaz Brekker had told him this was a creature who had spent too long in the dark — he'd brought something back with him when he crawled into the light.”

In this, Bardugo employs both foreshadowing and characterisation. Matthias highlights Kaz’s mysterious and potentially dangerous nature through describing him as a “creature who had spent too long in the dark.” The initial statement that “Matthias knew monsters” implies that he has met people previously who exuded similar vibes to those Kaz emits, and hints towards him having some form of hidden, potentially machiavellian traits and/or motivations. By saying “he’d brought something back with him when he crawled into the light” Matthias suggests there is some irreparable corruption and damage to Kaz’s character that occurred deep in his past that carved him into the demon he is now. Kaz’s villainy and immorality is portrayed as a consequence of the cruel, ruthless environment in which he was forced to grow up, creating his own warped sense of villainy and immorality with his experiences making him morally ambiguous.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Six Of Crows’ explores Kaz’s character as a machiavellian villain, with him possessing various archetypal traits of one, including that of internal motivations firing a determination for vengeance. This is explicitly conveyed through

“But learning that his real target was Pekka Rollins changed everything. That night, he lay awake on the floor of the squat he’d holed up in and thought of what he wanted, of what would finally make things right for Jordie. Pekka Rollins had taken everything from Kaz. If Kaz intended to do the same to Rollins, he would need to become his equal and then his better, and he couldn’t do it alone.”

The use of internal monologue in this passage allows for the readers to delve deep into Kaz’s thoughts and reveals his motivations, providing valuable insight into Kaz’s mindset and justifying why Kaz is so intent on destroying Pekka Rollins. By delving into Kaz’s inner thoughts, readers are able to sympathise with Kaz and further understand the reasons for his actions. Doing this creates a concrete motivation for Kaz’s various criminal acts, all beginning when he was a child shortly after Pekka caused him to lose everything. This consequently reinforces his character as a machiavellian villain. This is further emphasized in

“Brick by brick. Brick by brick, I will destroy you.” It was the promise that let him sleep at night, that drove him every day, that kept Jordie's ghost at bay. Because a quick death was too good for Pekka Rollins.”

The repetition of the phrase “brick by brick” reinforces Kaz’s determination and methodical approach to destroying Pekka, emphasizing his persistence and resolve for claiming vengeance. This showcases Kaz's unwavering commitment to seeking revenge and dismantling Pekka, emphasizing his relentless determination and the personal stakes involved. It encapsulates Kaz’s desire for a slow and calculated retribution, rejecting a quick death as too merciful, and highlighting their need to confront the past and find closure. This can be attributed to the suffering he and Jordie were forced to endure due to Pekka’s scam, and the trauma he personally experienced after Jordie’s death. Kaz himself is depicted strongly as a machiavellian villain in character, with strong motivations fueling his intense desire for revenge driving him to become a villain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kaz is a character whose villainy is deeply fueled by his motivations and personal vendetta against Pekka Rollins, and has been so for the majority of his life. He has a strong determination to claim vengeance against Pekka as seen in

“He knew exactly what he intended to leave behind when he was gone. Damage.”

The diction in this (‘damage’ being said as an isolated sentence) emphasizes the significance of the damage Kaz intends on leaving in his path. Furthermore, it highlights his intention and motivation, and alludes to how his past experiences, especially those with Pekka and Van Eck, have shaped his ambitions regarding his future. It expresses how he has been wronged in a thousand ways, and how he now intends to claim vengeance to all who had notably wronged him in the past. Kaz’s vision for the future has always revolved around him claiming revenge for Jordie, his brother, however has never delved into anything beyond. In

“What will you do when there’s no more blood to shed or vengeance to take?” “There’s always more.” “More money, more mayhem, more scores to settle. Was there never another dream?” He said nothing. What had carved all the hope from his heart? She might never know.”

the internal monologue delves into his internal thoughts, for the first time expressing his new desire to tell Inej what had happened between Pekka in detail. Inej’s question provokes thought in Kaz, making him for the first time consciously consider what he will do after claiming vengeance. The question Inej asks being preceded by everything he has done for Jordie’s revenge highlights how Kaz appears mostly driven by this revenge, having no other externally perceivable dream. Her following enquiry alludes to the fact that his revenge for Jordie was one dream, and the only one she could clearly see him working towards. At this point, she already knows his answer somewhere in her heart, and by asking him this question she is asking him to admit it aloud. Kaz struggles to do so, which is shown through his internal monologue; by Kaz thinking about the hope being ‘carved from his heart’ he is essentially saying any other dream he has, he has no hope for as it is something he perceives as unachievable, in a sense. Later in the conversation, Kaz says rough stone.

“Stay in Ketterdam. Stay with me. [...] I want you to stay. I want you to … I want you.”

In this, Kaz admits that there finally is another dream he has, however has no real hope for. This allows for the readers to see him in a rare moment of vulnerability, showcasing how though he is largely consumed by anger in revenge, he is still human and he has desires unrelated to his feud with Pekka. Though Kaz has a personal vendetta against Pekka, his love for Inej is stronger than his hatred for Pekka. In

“You have the money to spare, Rollins. And I saved your life.”

Kaz’s manipulative characteristics as a machiavellian villain are placed on display, with the manipulatory tone Kaz uses embodying his ambition and the clearly defined intention with which he has sought out Pekka for help, despite his vendetta against him, in order to help Inej. Though Kaz has a personal vendetta against Pekka and essentially hates him with every fiber of his being, Kaz sought out Pekka to give him money which he could then use in his plan to save Inej. In this, he does not allude to his feud with Pekka, but directly asks for the money and then manipulates Pekka by referencing the fact that he saved Pekka’s life by unlocking his cell in the Ice Court prison. Kaz does this knowing Pekka doesn’t recognise him, thus highlighting this as an archetypal characteristic of a machiavellian villain within Kaz. Overall, Kaz is a villain who has strong motivations fueled by personal vendettas and desires, and his manipulation tactics, ambition and motivation are all characteristics which characterise him as an archetypal machiavellian villain in literature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ‘Six Of Crows’ duology delves into the exploration of consequences, with Bardugo exploring how Kaz’s constant internal conflict and turmoil combined with his blackened soul and personality consequently cause him to be perceived by others. In

“When everyone knows you're a monster, you needn't waste time doing every monstrous thing.”

Bardugo employs an epigram as a concise message, carrying a clever and memorable statement that offers a deeper insight into human nature or a particular situation. It encapsulates a broader idea in a concise and thought-provoking manner. This in turn reflects how Kaz carefully crafted his reputation through every act and allowed it to precede him. In this scene, Kaz has just threatened Geels, another minor opposing villain, however has not done what he is saying to have done, however Geels still believes him to have done it as a consequence of his notorious reputation. Later, Inej questions him and he admits to her that he had not, in reality, put anyone in danger, and that he had simply allowed for his reputation to create a fear that would allow for everyone to fold to his will. The exploration of consequences in this delves into how Kaz has created a feared reputation for himself by doing unimaginably cruel things in the past, making it possible for him to manipulate people and have them believe him easily. This consequently showcases Kaz’s machiavellian characteristics of having a notoriously feared reputation and manipulative tendencies.

Summary

Ultimately, the analysis of Kaz's character reveals a complex portrayal of a machiavellian villain shaped by extensive trauma and personal motivations. The narrative emphasizes the profound impact of the Crows' collective suffering, highlighting their resilience and the loss of their innocence. Kaz, in particular, embodies the effects of his experiences, as seen in his transformation from a victim to a hardened criminal seeking revenge. The gloomy environment of Ketterdam mirrors the darkness within Kaz, showcasing the cruel and ruthless nature of the city that influenced his moral ambiguity. The exploration of consequences delves into Kaz's reputation as a monster, carefully cultivated to manipulate others and create fear. Despite his villainous actions, readers are compelled to sympathize with Kaz due to the circumstances that molded him. This analysis sheds light on the intricate layers of Kaz's character, revealing the depths of his motivations, resourcefulness, and determination, ultimately positioning him as a compelling and multifaceted machiavellian villain in literature.

#english advanced assignment #six of crows #soc #crooked kingdom #ck #socck #six of crows duology #kaz #inej #jesper #wylan #nina #matthias #leigh bardugo #soc analysis

17 notes · View notes

drieddpetals · 1 month

Text

(i feel like analyzing stuff again so here we go) kaz is smart because he knows people. he loves puzzles, loves locks, loves taking things apart to figure out how they work. he says in soc that you figure people out like you figure anything else out, by taking it apart. kaz is smart because he finds enough out about people to make assumptions.

he knows what people will do, and often times it leaves the ones being duped going "how did he do that? how did he know?" kaz never truely knows something will 100% happen, he's just assuming it will and is almost always right.

in the begining of soc, when the crows are breaking matthias out of hellgate, kaz assumes wrong, though. he knows that jesper has a reputation for being late, so he assumes that jesper will take to the task of releasing the animals like he will anything else he does, and be late doing it. he has, in some sense, taken jesper apart. he knows what jesper does, and he plans around this assumption, however ends up being wrong. nothing extremely consequential happens because of his assumption, but it proves that kaz will assume things with confidence.

a huge aspect to why kaz is so successful in his planning and overall schemes is because he knows how to make a good assumption. he has inej gathering him intel, which enables him to make such confident and correct guesses about how people will act.

one instance of kaz's assumptions being correct is the whole geels and 19 burstraat situation in the beginning of soc. when kaz threatens to burn down geels' lover's home, geels could have not cared, could have shot kaz right there, but he didn't. geels doesn't, and kaz continues very boldly facing him. why? because kaz knows how geels will act.

another instance is in ck when kaz kidnaps alys and uses her to get inej back. at this point, kaz knows how van eck will act. van eck has already duped kaz once, and i imagine after this one of the things kaz does to insure it never happens again is over analyzing and taking him apart. it works in this instance, because kaz has already seen how much van eck cares about a "worthy heir," and alys is literally holding that. kaz has taken van eck apart, and had figured him out enough to make a bold and correct act based on assumption.

all this to say, kaz thinks and thinks and thinks and is always thinking and picking everything apart, and that is the key to why he can get away with everything he does. and maybe one day his assumptions that make him so smart will fail him, and maybe one day they'll be fatally wrong.

#i'm back at it again with the literary analysis #my english teacher loves me #weird statement but yk what i mean #i feel like (and know) that i'm constantly picking apart this duology and i don't think i'll stop anytime soon #i could yap forever but i'll stop for y'all's sake #UGH i just love kaz's character so much #so COMPLEX and so much to ANALYZE #kaz brekker #side note yall i've been spelling brekker like brekkar for the longest time and no one was gonna TELL ME???#kazzle dazzle #six of crows #literary analysis #yapping #yapping fr #six of crows fandom #soc

109 notes · View notes

sunsis · 1 year

Text

We don’t talk enough (or at all) about Jesper and Matthias’ short-lived but very fascinating dynamic. Matthias canonically was one of the few people (the only others being Inej and later Wylan) that see through Jesper’s devil-may-care mask in a way that not even Kaz did.

Matthias had enough time by this scene in Crooked Kingdom to develop as a character and wrestle with his prejudices and self-righteousness through not only his relationship with Nina but with all the crows, and likely saw part of his old self in Jesper. An angry, scared boy that is doing everything he can to hide it, taking it out on the wrong people and/or coping in the unhealthiest ways to avoid facing his feelings of grief, guilt, and fear. And it does nothing but make him more unhappy and anxious.

Matthias is completely right too. Jesper is angry and frightened. He’s angry at his mother for sacrificing herself for the sake of another child when he was a child that needed her, he’s angry at himself for betraying his dad’s trust by dropping out of college and joining a gang, he’s angry at himself for breaking Kaz’s trust, but at the same time, he’s angry at both his dad and Kaz too. Colm for teaching him to hate himself for being grisha and repress a gift that could have been used to better their livelihoods rather than gamble it away, and Kaz for both manipulating and enabling Jesper's self-destructive ways for his own goals, as well as being an emotional black hole that refuses to fully trust and confide in Jesper the way he does Inej.

And on top of all that, he's scared of and angry at this cruel and unjust world they live in that makes life so unsafe for grisha like him and Nina, for young women like Inej, for boys like Wylan and the kid Kaz used to be. There are so many parallels between all the characters, but Matthias with his misplaced anger at grisha is the only one that resonates with Jesper's inner turmoil, that not only sees but quietly accepts Jesper and his flaws, and encourages him (albeit bluntly) to face his demons so he can accept himself too.

#jesper fahey #matthias helvar #six of crows #soc #crooked kingdom #character analysis

456 notes · View notes

elijahs-dumps · 3 months

Text

The Infantilization of Wylan Van Eck (within the soc fandom)

Hi! This is my first tumbler post ever, which is like super scary I wont lie. But I've had this project I've been working on since October and I'd love to share it with people, so here goes nothing!

Infantilization or to infantilize someone means to treat them as a child or in a way that denies their maturity in age or experience, and it qualifies as a form of mental abuse.

This treatment is common in fandoms, although it obviously isn't done in a hateful way on purpose. It’s often directed towards characters who are more innocent, more kind, or more anxious than the other characters within the universe. Or, sometimes these characters are literally just the youngest of the group. Some examples of this include, Entrapta from She-Ra and the Princesses and Power, Varian from Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure, Number Five from The Umbrella Academy, Hunter from The Owl House, Little Cato from Final Space, and even Peter Parker from the MCU.

However, most of the traits found in characters that are infantilized are also traits found in neurodivergent people. These traits include, missing social cues, being easily excitable or restless, often feeling anxious hyper fixating on something (usually related to science or math), being an outcast from the rest of the group in some way, and so on and so forth. Therefore, infantilization within fandoms is pretty problematic on its own. People (usually online) think that characters with these traits should be babied or pitied or demeaned in some way, even though neurodivergent consumers usually relate to these characters because of those same traits.

Some evidence of Wylan being infantilized can include; the fact he's only referred to as cute or synonyms to that, while the other Crows or their actors are often sexualized more. People saying or implying he's smaller, weaker, or even younger than the others. And of course, people saying Kaz and Wylan are father and son... which is something I'll come back to later.

Why Wylan?

To better understand why exactly Wylan is receiving this treatment exclusively from the fans, we need to fully analyze the Six of Crows duology, which is exactly what I did!

When we are first introduced to Wylan in chapter seven (Matthias’ POV) of the Six of Crows, we see him sitting at the table and doodling while occasionally chewing on his thumbnail. He doesn't speak until Inej voices her doubts in Wylan’s demolition abilities. Jesper says Wylan “barely knows his trade”, and Kaz mentions that Wylan is “new to the scene”. Matthias also makes a comment about how Wylan “looks like he’s about twelve”. When Jesper and Inej continue to complain about Wylan being their demo man, Kaz tells them that Wylan is doubling as their insurance policy because Wylan is Jan Van Eck’s son, the rich merchant who’s paying Kaz and his chosen crew 40 million kruge in exchange for breaking Bo Yul-Bayur out of the Ice Court. This immediately makes everyone in the room think less of Wylan because of his privileged past.

This introduction sets up Wylan to the readers. His reserved body language, along with his inexperience and Matthias’ comment about his young appearance gives the impression that Wylan is more childish than the other Crows.

In the next chapter (Jesper’s POV) as the Crows react to the reveal of Wylan’s identity, Kaz tells Wylan that he’s “passable at demo, but excellent at hostage”. Jesper calls Wylan a “baby merch” and insists that Kaz leave him behind, less he slows the crew down. Wylan is annoyed that Kaz and Jpeser are talking about him as if he isn't in the room. Then, Kaz tells Wylan that the only reason he hasn't been mugged or jumped in the three months since he left his father’s house is because Kaz placed him under Dregs protection. In fact, Jesper even says that Kaz has been “coddling Wylan”. Jesper proceeds to call Wylan useless as he and Nina belittle Wylan for living in the Barrel “by choice”. This is also where the nickname “merchling” comes from. When the group continues to go back and forth over Wylan’s skills, Kaz repeats that he’s only bringing Wylan along because he doesn’t want to leave their hostage alone in Ketterdam. This makes Wylan the only Crow that wasn’t hired for their abilities, Wylan’s passable demo skills are simply a bonus. It’s a way for Kaz to keep the crew small and avoid splitting the money even further.

This entire exchange and interaction between our six main characters lays out the groundwork for the dynamic between Wylan and the other Crows for the majority of the first book. Everyone else in the room believes Wylan is just another spoiled rich kid. They make fun of him for his lack of street smarts, and the money he was born into. Wylan never really fights back too much when it comes to comments from the others, which just reinforces the idea that he came from a cushy lifestyle where he never had to learn how to defend himself verbally. Wylan’s inexperience and innocence is often mistaken for stupidity by the characters, and therefore the readers.

Kaz saying, “Always hit where the mark isn’t looking.” Only for Wylan to reply with, “Who's Mark?” is a great example of this. (Still chapter eight, Jesper’s POV.)

In chapter nine (Kaz’s POV) we see how Kaz views Wylan in his inner monologue. He says Wylan seems out of his depth, and even though he’s only a year younger than Kaz (making Wylan sixteen) he still looks like a child. Kaz describes Wylan as a silk eared puppy in a room full of fighting dogs. This pushes the concept that Wylan is more childlike than the others further onto the audience.

Additionally, in chapter eleven (Jesper’s POV), we see Jesper quite literally call Wylan “kid” during the attack at the docks, even though they’re also only one year apart. And in chapter fifteen, Matthias refers to Wylan as “the soft one” within his own inner monologue.

Since Wylan doesn't have his own point of view chapters in the first book, the reader’s entire understanding of this character is formed through the eyes of the other Crows. So, what we’re hearing about Wylan in the first book might not be entirely accurate, which is something people often forget. Part of the reason why the fandom treats Wylan the way they do is because of the way the Crows describe and talk to him throughout the entire series, The reader learns to rely on the others’ opinions on Wylan in order to learn more about him.

All of the evidence I have shown so far, and even some smaller things I haven't included, plants a certain mentality in the reader; Wylan doesn't have the same knowledge as the other Crows, so he must be weak and gullible. Weakness and gullibility are often traits associated with the “younger-one-of-the-group” trope, or the “Kid Trope”. So, since Wylan is displaying behaviors that we as media consumers have grown used to attaching to characters who are literal children, Wylan must be a child, or at least be treated like one.

However, the Crows don’t treat Wylan this way because they truly believe Wylan acts like a small child, because he doesn’t. Wylan’s behavior is perfectly normal, it simply sticks out in contrast to the harsh environments all the others have been exposed to. They treat him this way throughout the book as a sort of condescending joke, they belittle him for the stereotypes surrounding his upbringing and little else.

Still, like I said, the Crows’ mindset on Wylan is all the reader is exposed to for the entire first book, so the reader will subconsciously assume Wylan must be doing something to earn this odd treatment from the others. Sometimes readers don’t understand that it is not Wylan’s wealthy and sheltered background that makes him different, it’s the fact that the others are all criminals, murderers, soldiers, and convicts. Wylan is the only “normal” Crow on a very surface level, so his innocence is bound to stick out more.

As the first book continues, we see that there’s more to Wylan’s past than he lets on. We see first hand how smart and capable Wylan truly is, as his character grows with the story. It begins in the fight at the docks in chapter eleven, where Wylan uses his own flash bombs to help Jesper out. In chapter thirteen, Wylan openly questions and even challenges Kaz after he throws Oomen overboard, which shows great courage on Wylan’s part. This pattern of questioning Kaz when no one else really does is a common theme when it comes to Wylan. We also see Wylan explain who Pekka Rollins is to Matthias in chapter fifteen. This shows that he’s not completely incompetent, and is at least somewhat aware of what goes on in the Barrel. Then, in chapter seventeen (Jesper’s POV), Wylan expresses his natural curiosity and desire for knowledge about anything, from the mechanics of the Ice Court moat to the design of Jesper’s guns. All of this builds to chapter twenty-two, where the Crows are attacked on the ice by Grisha who were sent by the Shu, dosed on parem. Wylan does a lot of heavy lifting in this fight with his bombs, and everyone is impressed. Jesper even makes a comment about how Wylan’s “earned his keep” now.

Small moments like this that showcase Wylan’s natural resourcefulness and strength are crucial to communicating with the readers that the Crows were wrong about Wylan in the beginning. As Wylan’s true nature begins to develop further throughout the first book, we slowly see the Crows and their attitude towards Wylan change. It becomes more positive. In the future, when Wylan makes an ignorant comment, the others don’t poke fun at him as much. They’ll tell him to be quiet at most.

By the final climax of Six of Crows, chapter forty-six (Kaz’s POV), we find out Wylan cannot read. Jan Van Eck is open about his hatred and mistreatment of his son. When Jesper jumps to Wylan’s defense, he goes as far as to say Wylan is smarter than most of the others put together. Jesper is in love with Wylan at this point in the story, so his words might be a little exaggerated. But there’s still truth to them. This entire scene serves as evidence that Jesper and the other Crows have realized Wylan’s intelligence and worth, so they don’t even think twice when they find out Wylan can’t read or write.

If all the Crows’ preconceived notions about Wylan were proven wrong before the end of the first book, then why does the fandom still view Wylan in such a problematic way?

Blame Booktok

This is all mainly tied to modern day book consumption, and the obsession with “tropes”. Online reading communities such as “Booktok” or “Bookstagram” have normalized interpreting even the most complex characters through simple archetypes. This is something all six crows are a victim of, in fact, most characters within all kinds of media are.

A good example of this within Six of Crows is Kaz Brekker himself. Kaz, within “Booktok”, is often lumped together with several other male YA love interests in books, like Aaron Warner or Cardan Greenbriar . They all usually share very few qualities, like having violent tendencies, being extremely protective of their loved ones, and acting cold or mysterious towards others. Regardless of the fact that all these characters are so complex and different, from their relationship dynamics, to their morals, to their backstories, readers still often view them as one in the same because of videos online pointing out very minute similarities. A broader example I would use is the way the Hunger Games series was often marketed and discussed as if the love triangle between Peeta, Gale, and Katniss was the main focus of the story. But really it was just a subplot to a more serious and heavy narrative.

People will often focus too much on singular tropes because it makes books easily identifiable and marketable in this new era of self-publishing and online purchasing. It’s easier to judge a book by its cover if you have a broad sense of what might be inside based on the small character details or scenarios other readers liked from it. But what does that have to do with Wylan?

Well, because people often talk about books or even whole genres on a surface level, they also discuss characters on a surface level. This lazy form of consumption is what often leads to mischaracterization. People can obviously understand complex characters like Wylan, so it’s not a question of intelligence. Fans online are just used to discussing things within books fandoms in such a simple way and viewing a character through the lens of one trope. They’ll put the character in a box, and Wylan just so happens to check all the boxes for a character who would be infantilized. Even though there are interesting things about Wylan besides his “innocence”, people are less inclined to talk about it. In short, viewing Wylan as just another character who falls under the category of a simple stereotype is easier than including and discussing his nuances.

So who is at fault?

When it comes to talking about a more harmful fandom behavior, like infantilization, it’s important to keep an open mind. Sometimes, it’s the creator’s fault for writing a character in a problematic way, not the fandom’s fault for interpreting it that way. So, is Leigh Bardugo at fault here for writing Wylan in this light? Or is it the fandom’s fault for not looking past the obvious parts of a character?

I don’t think it was Leigh Bardugo’s fault. If you take the second book, Crooked Kingdom, into account then you can clearly see that the way Wylan is disrespected in the first book is something he’s dealt with his whole life, especially from his father. Wylan has been taught to believe that his reading disability makes him useless as an heir, and as a human being all together. This is one of the reasons why we never see Wylan truly snap back in an aggressive way in Six of Crows when the others insult and belittle him. A big part of Wylan thinks that the others are right about him being useless. Obviously, Wylan couldn’t have had his own POV chapters in Six of Crows, because then that would spoil his father’s true motives. However, I think the fact we didn't get to see his point of view in the first book serves another purpose. Wylan’s low self-esteem is definitely a major thing he needs to overcome in his personal story within Crooked Kingdom. So for the readers to fully understand this, we needed to view Wylan from an outside perspective. First, we get to view him as the other Crows do, as someone sheltered and weak who’s in way over his head. Then, we get to see why Wylan is the way he is. I think this sort of reverse style of character writing is really interesting and more fun to read. But still, not every reader accepted Wylan just because the Crows started to warm up to him. So by extension, this is also why Wylan is one of the most hated Crows. Nevertheless, I think the way Leigh Bardugo chose to write Wylan is inevitable for the story and vital to his character! It wouldn't feel the same if we didn't get to see how the others viewed him first.

The fault lies with the fandom when it comes to Wylan’s infantilization. But, are people online really just lazy when it comes to discussing characters, or is something bigger at play here? I think it’s both. People do misinterpret Wylan’s strong and resilient character because of laziness and the normalization of oversimplification and overconsumption within the book community. But this treatment is also rooted in subconscious ableism. To better explain what subconscious ableism truly is, I’ll be taking a deeper look at a specific dynamic.

Kaz and Wylan (are not father and son)

Despite these two characters only having a one year age gap, the fandom often views Kaz and Wylan’s relationship as one similar to a father and son dynamic. Which is understandable to a certain degree. Kaz is the very first person Wylan ever told about his reading disability. Kaz had Wylan placed under Dregs protection the minute Wylan set foot in the Barrel, which may have been for Kaz’s own selfish reason, but it still kept Wylan safe for a while. There are a couple scenes in the books where Kaz will give Wylan advice about life in general, or about having a disability, not just about being a criminal. We see Kaz take getting Wylan justice for his mother and stealing back Wylan’s inheritance very seriously. Wylan even starts to pick up some of Kaz’s mannerisms and facial expressions. All of these could be viewed as things a father and son would do, despite how small the actual age gap is. However, the fandom seems to take this relationship to the extreme, from fan fiction and fan art, to getting the characters’ actors involved.

It’s somewhat because of very minute subconscious ableism. People naturally view Wylan as younger because of his demeanor, but also because of his disability. The opposite is true for Kaz. His physical disability makes people naturally view him as older than seventeen in their minds. This is due to long standing ableist tropes within the media. People with mental disabilities are often depicted as stupider in some way, so they need to be babied or coddled. While people with physical disabilities are often depicted as very ill, or very old.

This might seem far fetched, but it’s true. And it’s quite obvious if you look closely enough at anything from books, to movies, to TV, to games! These are just some of the harmful stereotypes we see in our world every day,

How to fix this issue

Now, of course people aren’t just going to stop misinterpreting characters or stop viewing them through small scale tropes all together. But keeping yourself educated and aware is a good way to stop promoting these harmful stereotypes. Listen to the voices that are being affected in these situations! In this case, it’s people with mental or physical disabilities. Be sure to take into account what they have to say on matters like this one. Allow yourself to take the criticism and learn from their experiences or feelings. It’s important to be empathetic and kind to one another, and acknowledge that sometimes we do problematic things without intending to. When talking about characters with disabilities, it’s important to remember what they represent, and the fact that you can't always say whatever you want just because the characters are fictional.

As always, if you’re ever unsure about whether something you feel or think is harmful towards a certain community, never be afraid to ask questions and do your research!

#wylan van eck #wylan hendriks #six of crows #shadow and bone #grishaverse #analysis #jack wolfe #wylan x jesper #soc wylan #wylan van sunshine #crooked kingdom #kaz brekker

120 notes · View notes

glass-adeptus · 1 year

Text

Rn I'm seeing a lot of people losing their minds saying wesper will lose iconic moments from the books and I raise you: they can still happen just in slightly different contexts

A lot of their banter can even be kept unchanged imo! And for certain scenes I really don't think they're entirely lost

In the books we get flashbacks to them first meeting-- what if we get the "not just girls" moment then in the tannery? Because surely they have to breach that subject in order to get to a ons?

We can still get the Kuwei mix up, it'll just be a lot fucking angstier with an established relationship. What if instead of a "get together first kiss" like the books they're in the midst of a quarrel and so Jesper attempts it as a make up kiss which just spirals and makes it worse? (Jesper feeling something is wrong during the kiss on screen holy fuck)

On top of that I have no doubts their relationship will hit rocky points and so imagine if they are having quarrels and they give us the "that's not all I want" moment on black veil? They can still have these emotionally charged moments in an established relationship!

I don't know why people get fixed on the pre-relationship stuff and then act like it's boring when characters are actually together. If anything it just makes the stakes higher!

I seriously think people have given up after seeing it's not a play by play adaptation which makes me so sad! I've had so much fun thinking of all the ways the scenes will be more emotional with them already together.

Just use your imagination for a minute dammit.

#now I'm ranting #but I'm annoyed at the overwhelming negativity #i will defend show wesper with my whole heart #blorbo posting #blorbo analysis #soc #sab #sab s2 #shadow and bone #shadow and bone season 2 #grishaverse #wesper #wylan van eck #jesper fahey #six of crows #six of crows wylan #six of crows jesper #sab spoilers

393 notes · View notes

sleepyzenpanda · 3 months

Text

Wylan’s feelings about his father - Part 1: Denial

I didn’t set out to do a character analysis post when I started taking screenshots of my favorite parts of Crooked Kingdom, but here we are. Once I realized that many of the screenshots I took all revolve around a similar theme this just kind of happened. This will be the first in a series of posts analyzing how Wylan’s views on his father mistreatment of him evolve as events in the story unfold.

TW // this post contains discussions of emotional/psychological abuse and a brief reference to attempted murder of a fictional character. If reading about such topics causes you distress you may wish to skip this post. Please stay safe.

While I’m not a psychologist, I have a B.S. in Sociology and took courses that went in depth about family dynamics, abuse, and explored a bit of the psychology behind how abuse victims view their abusers. I’m basing my analysis on that as well as my personal experience. As person with dyslexia (and other learning disabilities) and who has trauma from a complex relationship with their emotionally abusive father, I relate to Wylan’s character a lot.

Towards the beginning of Crooked Kingdom, even though Wylan’s fathers attempt on his life forced him to go into hiding, which later resulted in him joining the Crows, it’s clear that Wylan is still concerned for his father’s wellbeing as he seems hesitant when Kaz brings up the possibility that his father could be executed. At this point in the story Wylan is shown to have complex feelings about about his father. His feelings seem more akin to hurt rather than anger or hatred.

Despite everything Jan Van Eck has done to him and his friends Wylan is still unable to see his father as evil. At this stage he is still tying to come up with other explanations for his father’s behavior.

When Jesper makes a joke about Wylan’s father Wylan still feels the need to come to his father’s defense stating that his father isn’t evil. Jesper argues that Wylan’s father tried to kill him when he destroyed the boat. He doesn’t even know about the previous attempt to have Wylan killed yet.

Even though this means that his father tried to have him killed twice he’s still unable to admit to himself the truth about his father. Even though logically he can acknowledge what his father has done he’s still unable to process what he’s been through and unable to admit the truth of his fathers abuse to himself as it’s too painful for him to face at the moment.

Wylan’s father’s abuse did a number on his self-esteem. He initially views himself as deserving of his father’s treatment of him due to his dyslexia. He thinks his father’s actions are justified because he can’t read.

This scene stood out to me for several reasons. As I previously mentioned I also have dyslexia. I also remember memorizing stories that were read to me and learning to repeat them to hide that I had trouble reading.

But it also stood out because Wylan is shown reminiscing about good memories with his father. He still longs for the days when his father still treated him with love. His father has lead him to believe that he is defective which makes him unworthy of the love he received from him as a young child.

When you’re a child of abuse, and yes emotional abuse IS abuse, it can be hard to reconcile the good memories of a loving parent with the reality of the parent’s abusive actions. At this point in the story Wylan is not at the point where he can accept that his father’s actions are indeed abuse.

—

That’s all for now. I will link the other posts below as they are posted. Due to work and life the analysis is coming along rather slowly, but I do plan on finishing it eventually. Once each part is completed it will be linked below:

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

#tw // abuse #tw // emotional abuse #wylan van eck #wylan hendriks #wylan van sunshine #six of crows #soc spoilers #shadow and bone #grishaverse #wesper #jesper fahey #wylan x jesper #jan van eck #character analysis

76 notes · View notes