I still dunno my opinion on the "if you don't have a reason to live live for me" speech. Objectively wild thing to say, Xie Lian! Wild thing for a Twenty Year Old to say, both more and less wild for a god - you're uncomfortable with being worshiped and treated as above other people but you're fine telling a 13 year old to make you the meaning of his life, Xie Lian? Absolutely bonkers speech in that respect! On the other hand, weirdly, that's... not entirely out there advice? I have heard of something similar (though differently-phrased) used by plenty of people in a state where wanting to live for their own sake is hard to reach - if you can't keep going for yourself, to keep going because you have to feed your dog, or your sister would be sad, or whatever. Sometimes even religion is that external reason! "I can't want to live for myself but I know my god wants me to keeping going so I will" is a perfectly functional reason to keep going until you are in a state where you want to live for your own sake! But then, for one thing, that method is an incredibly delicate thing to advise someone else to use, especially if the advice-giver is using themself as the external reason, and secondly there is still a bit of a difference between that and making someone the meaning of your life.

The last time that I rewatched "The Fellowship of the Ring" (extended edition, of course), my favorite new detail that I noticed is that the characters, once they set out on their journey, are pretty much always traveling from screen-left to screen-right.

It had been a few years since I'd seen the films and I'd learned more about filmmaking in that time. I'm completely biased regarding the LOTR films; they're not perfect, but I grew up on them, I love them. I was trying to take notes on all of the little details that made the world of the films seem so rich and so enchanting to me. The camerawork, character staging, and editing is one of the many things that just happened to jump out at me at this time.

When Frodo and Sam are leaving the Shire, the camera is set up in such a way that they start on the left side of the screen (<- that side) and travel across it to the right side of the screen (-> that side).

This way to go the farthest you've ever been from home. ->

As the hobbits travel from Bree to Rivendell, as the Fellowship travels from Rivendell to the Misty Mountains, all of those gorgeous scenic shots of the Nine Walkers show them moving from screen-left to screen-right. I haven't rewatched the entire trilogy lately, but in "The Fellowship of the Ring", it is so beautifully consistent.

There are a handful of reasons why this is done. In staging and editing, consistency regarding where the characters are placed on the screen is a storytelling tool. For example: the "180 degrees rule" says to generally keep the camera on one side of the characters within a scene, so that the audience can mentally keep track of the characters within the environment and focus on the action/dialogue. If we're watching two characters talking in a diner, even in the close-ups, one character will usually be kept on screen-left and be shown facing screen-right, and the other will be kept on screen-right and be shown facing screen-left. It feels stable. (People will sometimes choose to break the "180 degrees rule". It can be a tool to create a sense of disorientation and/or instability in the audience.)

In "The Fellowship of the Ring", the maps that the audience is shown of Middle Earth tell us that the Shire is located in the West (left side of the map) and everything else of relevance (Rivendell, Moria, Rohan, Gondor, Mordor) is East (right side of the map). As the characters consistently travel screen-right, the audience builds up a firmer mental map of Middle Earth and can better keep track of the characters' progress on their long journey. With every step that Frodo takes towards screen-right (->), we know that he is traveling East, taking another step towards Mordor.

Left to right may also instinctively feel like the way forward in a culture that writes and reads from left to right. Regardless of which way you write: if your film establishes extremely consistently that one direction is forward, then this visual language can be used to tell the audience that something is wrong if the characters start traveling from right to left. They might be lost! It builds suspense in the visual depiction of the characters going backwards and undoing progress! This all suits the lengthy hero's journey of LOTR very well, in my opinion.

There's an old joke that knowing how anything is made ruins the magic, and another old joke that knowing anything about filmmaking makes you insufferable to watch movies with, but I've never felt that way, especially not here. How does that quote go? It's still magic even if you know how it's done. (GNU Terry Pratchett.)

I find it enchanting, honestly, that so many people can work so hard for an effect that can seem so simple. Actors, directors, camera operators, editors, storyboarders, and so many others on the crew of the films consistently placed characters, sets, and props just so! So that the audience could more easily keep track of where everyone was and lose themselves a little more deeply in the story.

It's such a simple rule! And it works so well! Left -> Right. West -> East. Shire -> Mordor. Home -> Adventure. Known -> Unknown.

I personally recommend trying to keep track of character movement across the screen in films, especially if you have any interest in visual storytelling (films or illustration or something else). It's fun! It's impossible for me to unsee, watching "The Fellowship of the Ring" now, and I think it's a wonderful piece of movie magic.

i 100% agree with what theminecraftbox had to add about c!quackity. i might be biased because he's my blorbo, but i think it's way more interesting to have sexual violence be the one line he REFUSES to cross in the prison. almost like it's a way to protect himself from his own corruption.

a;ljsfkdaslf i'm not too sure that's what kat was saying tbh

(more discussion of noncon under the cut)

i think in terms of c!dreamity, right, i think that the probability probably swings towards c!quackity not doing anything physically of a sexual nature--i think comments and threats are pretty damn likely, tbh, but i can see a separation made for him between the violent nature of what he's doing and, well, sex, for a variety of reasons. because he's a romantic at heart and wants aspects of his relationships/love life kept separate from the bloody depths of pandora, because of his own perceptions of propriety and social norms, what have you. that being said, i think it's fair to make an argument in the opposite direction--what's undeniable, as kat has mentioned, is that there is a degree of restraint regarding matters of a sexual nature w/ respect to the prison, in that if anything of that nature exists he is very obviously much less unapologetic about them compared to how he is around violence and torture in general in the context of pandora (like, there's just very little that's unsubtle about hitting someone with an axe), but the existence of restraint to some degree compared to the much more overt nature of the rest of the torture definitely doesn't in itself prevent torture with sexual elements from existing in totality. just bc he's not walking out of the prison covered in another type of bodily fluids doesnt mean that the frustration and desperation of trying to get the book for another bloody day, with noncon sitting between them as an elephant in the room from day one, combined with the obvious social connotations with power and sex and masculinity and what it means to make someone your bitch, couldn't have all boiled over. ykwim?

again, to stress: if we're talking purely in canon, my opinions tend to skew towards the lack of anything physically happening of a sexual nature during the prison arc torture visits. but the fact of the matter, to me, is that it could have existed and that we wouldn't, like, know. the torture has a curtain drawn over it for a reason; we are kind of meant to wonder what "2 1/2 months of continuous daily torture" is really supposed to mean. i think that the prison arc absolutely has the space for it to include stuff like, violent sexual assault.

which is kinda where i have...different feelings about manberg c!schlackity, tbh. the contexts are so different that this comparison is kinda hard to make, but while the sexual harassment and the abuse in c!quackity's relationship with c!schlatt is obvious and undeniable, i think the manberg arc as presented does provide constraints, to a certain effect, on c!schlackity's relationship? it's important to note that c!schlatt was perceived as a bumbling fool before he was elected, and that's literally part of why c!quackity even made a coalition with him in the first place. it certainly wasn't for ideological reasons, considering his wanting to make a coalition with pog2020 literal minutes before--this guy thought schlatt was his best ticket at beating pog2020, and schlatt was also someone that came off as drunk all the time and completely idiotic. again, i've not rewatched in awhile, but i don't really think c!schlackity was marked by this feeling of c!quackity feeling Trapped By Fear in manberg as much as he grew increasingly disillusioned with the relationship--the greatest evidence of fear as a motivating factor imo would have to happen post-red festival, but that's also a point where c!quackity's frustrations towards schlatt and manberg as a whole were boiling over and i don't really remember much of him using the red festival as evidence that c!schlatt was someone he was afraid to fuck with. as kat mentioned earlier, the physical abuse in c!schlackity was obvious and undeniable, but when it happened it was also the motivating factor for c!quackity to murder c!schlatt and run.

obviously, the sexual elements in c!schlackity are Far more pronounced than anything for c!dreamity, and if we're talking the presence of dubcon in general i feel like c!schlackity definitely has plenty of room for it, even if all you take into account is how c!schlatt was drunk 90% of the time. and w/ the context of how part of the deal for the coalition was framed as c!quackity's use of sex to get himself the position of VP and the ... not nonexistent presence of his lying and manipulating c!schlatt for the sake of power, bc their relationship in manberg really was predicated on power and c!quackity's pursuit of it specifically, there's a lot of ways that i think a sexual relationship for c!schlackity can fall that's far more ambiguous and two-sided than what i've often seen in terms of c!schlackity portrayals. but along that same line, when c!quackity's reaction to physical violence was so pronounced and made a point of, in some manners i feel like portrayals of inescapable sexual abuse and violent sexual assault re: c!schlackity don't really feel in line with what i remember of their relationship in canon; i just don't really feel like manberg as a context provides the same room for it, especially in comparison to pandora's vault, which was kind of the point i was trying to make in answering that anon. that's just me tho .

Nekomamushi Smut Anon reporting in. o7 Had a shit ass day but I just hit the blunt and what better way to lift a mood than talking about a 17 foot tall cat monster and how we want to fuck him. Okay, I'm copy pasting directly from the post you made a few days ago--sorry about that btw, I somehow missed it but things are a bit chaotic here right now.

Apologies in advance if you don't vibe with my HCs, but also to each their own, so no worries if you don't.

(Also I'm sorry this got way out of hand, this is so long lmao. >.> )

Modern AU: I don't generally do these so this one I have to think about harder. I could see him being a professional weightlifter. Lifting is something he starts younger, but in his mid-to-late 20s he also gets into mixed martial arts and wrestling as a hobby, and everyone is grateful he started late, because he is a MONSTER, and would be even worse if he had started training in adolescence.

-Does side gigs as a bouncer. It's potentially how you meet him; you either work at a place he's been hired at, or maybe you frequent the locale.

-Later in life he reconnects with Inuarashi and the two of them are looked up to as heads of their community in their town of Zou. They show up to all the small local elections and represent the neighbors who may not be able to stand up for themselves as easily and stuff. /end Modern AU

Sexuality: Tbh, being bi/pan, I HC most characters as swinging both ways to various degrees if it's not explicitly stated in canon. We can't say for sure how Mink culture is with regards to gender/sexuality. There's clearly going to be author biases: Nekomamushi remarks to Bepo, when Bepo states he will defend his home too, "Well, ya talk like a man..."* (depending on the translation you're reading, but it's along those lines) so that could imply a patriarchal structure of some sort.

However, bio/zoology is a special interest of mine, and animals function in vastly different ways than humans w/r/t gender. We can't even say they have "gender roles" because those apply to human social constructs. Minks may have the secondary sex characteristics of humans, but they also display behaviors typical of their animal species. So I can see their perceptions on that sort of thing being far more liberal. Every species is going to have its own tendencies--say, hyena minks tending to have their women taking dominant social role, like with real life hyenas--so as a whole, they don't worry about it so much.

That part got long, sorry. Anyway, as for Nekomamushi... I think he ultimately wouldn't care what his partner was gender-wise. He would like someone he can be his unapologetic, boisterous self with. A friend before a lover. I could even see him skewing toward demisexual.

Bedroom Preferences: Usually prefers to top/take the lead with things. Doesn't like being told what to do, but can come around to seeing the fun in playing a subby role now and then if he's properly convinced, but he has to be in the mood for it.

Kinks: -He can do gentle, and he does enjoy gentle at times, but if he had to choose, most of the time he would rather be feral about it. Pinning you down, holding you still while he takes what he wants, scratching, breeding, etc. He's a warrior, he likes for sex to be heavy physical activity, he wants to be tired by the end. This can be an issue with the size/power difference, but so long as you mind your limits and keep a safe word/signal handy, you can make it work.

-Prefers to finish inside his partner. He also cums a large quantity compared to a human, even disregarding his size. The volume's even greater during rut/heat. Like, by a lot.

-During the worst of a rut/heat cycle, he cannot fuck casually. Heat has a powerful affect on Minks and he's no better about it for being a ruler of the Dukedom. Horny brain trumps logic and he will make stupid decisions or make a fool of himself if it means he can get to his partner. --Normally he thinks it's hot to watch his cum leak out of you. But during a heat cycle, he'll try to keep it inside. Doesn't matter if you can't get pregnant due to anatomy or birth control, he can't help it. After finishing, he'll either just stay inside you, or after pulling out, press your legs closed and then tuck you against himself, purring and grooming you while his stupid horny instinct brain just wallows in the happy thought of you being full up.

- >.> ...... <.< ......His mouth is really big. Big enough to fit your lower half. He likes to eat you out like that, you riding the bumpy plain of his huge tongue, while his teeth scrape your stomach and back, and he purrs of how he could just eat you up.

-He likes ear scratches/rubs and finds them relaxing, but there is a specific spot on the back of his ears that's a sensitive erogenous zone. You get real good at finding it. It's an easy way to get him in the mood if he isn't currently.

-Predator/prey RP. He's already a playful guy while also being wild, so this seems right up his alley. He'd like to chase you around a little or 'hunt/stalk' you before pouncing and taking you on the spot. If the power difference between you is large enough, it might not be as fun for him if you can't run fast... but trying to sniff you out from a hiding spot is also thrilling, so it can be worked around.

-High sex. Occasionally will switch out his usual herbs for something that gives a stronger high rather than just a buzz. Prefers to do this one with his partner, if they don't also smoke, he won't be as inclined.

-Likes when you're rough with him too, by the way! Likes his hair and fur being pulled, being bit and scratched... But again depending on the power difference, like... unless you are a fighter, you just might not be able to pull hard enough on his fur for it to feel good, or even scratch through his pelt... but in that case he still thinks it's cute you try.

-Reverse Monsterfucker. (bangs fists on table) like I said before. He gets a thrill out of fucking a human--it's not necessarily taboo, just almost unheard of, and that's exciting for him. Also thinks it's so hot that you're into him and that you're into the same things. Has a high sex drive and loves if his partner is the same way. Something about a human fucking "like a Mink" makes his brain go brrr, he comments on it all the time at first. "So needy, my little kitten's more animal than most Minks, aren't they?"

-Corruption. After fucking him the first time it's over. Sex with people closer to your size just doesn't get you there anymore. Even giant toys don't do help. You need it how he gives it to you, and when he finds that out he's ENRAPTURED. It really gets him going knowing he's made you kind of addicted. He's a touch self-conscious about how strongly he can get off to that thought, so he doesn't talk about it unless it's during sex with dirty talk.

I believe that's everything off the top of my head. (looks at wall of text) ...yeah.

Also I saw you and @toujouhidetora talking about Sulong form and I'm 👀👀 DID YOU COMMISSION DOE TO WRITE THAT??!?!? BECAUSE HOLY SHIT, MY BODY IS READY?!?!?

tbh I don't know that I could survive fucking Sulong form Nekomamushi, but what a way to go out, amiright?

(I can see how it could happen... you're fucking outside under the moonlight, and his growl deepens and he starts getting rougher as his fur turns white in a wave across his body...

Or maybe he's in Sulong form and can't turn back for w/e reason, so you're like. I know what I must do. (salutes the other Minks) Inuarashi it's been an honor.

This better all send. I'm copy-pasting to a word doc just in case so I dont lose it but god. yeah. ok. Trust me when I say I'll be obsessively checking my phone in between customers at work to await your reply!

Talking about this was exactly what I needed after today. I think that's partly why it got so long. I daresay it's therapeutic even, in that for like the 2 hours it took me to type this up (I am a slow writer) I wasn't thinking about the day I had.

So thank you for calling out to me to talk. I loved it.

I’ve had to retype this like three times now. Tumblr keeps crashing. I literally got home from work and I have been thinking of what to say to you all day. I am so sorry it has taken me this long to reply. I get so excited when you do this . 

This is me literally every time you are in my inbox. I hope you have a wonderful day and I love you so much. I hope one day you were comfortable that you can come off anonymous and be able to message me but if not, that is completely fine I just look forward to hearing from you my friend.

 I absolutely agree with 100% of your head cannons. They are so beautiful. I love them so much!!! 💖💖💖

I feel like in the minx society that everyone is bi/pan. I feel like they wouldn’t really give a shit about what gender the person you are with is and they feel like that’s 100% a human construct. 

I’ve been going horny feral over this post for like the last hour. I love it I can’t stop rereading it!!!

I absolutely love the reversed monster fucking thing it is fantastic. I have an OC that I pair him with her name is Sterling. I love her so much and it’s literally perfect for this exact situation.  i’ve drawn art of her and him together several times. I’m thinking about posting it. 

I really feel like he would definitely be into oral. I feel like he would see it as a challenge to see how many times you can cum on his tongue alone.

YES ABSOLUTELY HE WOULD DEFINITELY BE A TOP!!! I feel like also he would be a playful dom too. I can also see him in certain situations he could be a bottom too but he would really have to be in a very specific mood.

ALSO YES I HAVE COMMISSIONED DOE INTO WRITING A STORY WITH NEKOMAMUSHI IN HIS SULONG FORM CHASING DOWN STERLING AND BREEDING HER!!! (Consensually). I AM TOLD I SHOULD BE DONE SOON I AM VERY EXCITED!!! I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE YOUR REACTION TO IT THE MOST COME GET HORNY MURDERED WITH ME!!!

Once again, I think you so much for taking time out of your very busy day to write such a detailed reply to me. I am literally over the moon about how happy I am. Thank you so much for indulging my stupid little whims. I love you very much for this and I appreciate you doing this, I hope you have the best day and weekend my friend!!! 💖💖💖

“What is this, the Dark Ages?”

Or, Arthurian themes and allusions in the Brotherhood of Steel mythos as seen in Fallout 4. (But that’s a lot of words.)

Yep. We're doing this. 

First, some obligatory caveats: there is no single Arthurian canon, just 1500 years of assorted fanfic based on the whims of whoever was writing at the time. For this extremely highbrow Tumblr meta, I have ignored most of it and drawn on my favorites. Also Wikipedia.

Also, I am not an expert in Arthurian literature (or Fallout lore, come to that), and I preemptively beg the pardon of anyone who is.

Finally, in no way am I claiming that all these parallels and thematic echoes are deliberate or even significant. In fact, I'd break it down into:

Clearly deliberate allusions, whether in or out of universe;

Probably coincidence, but could be someone deliberately capitalizing on a coincidental similarity;

Almost certainly coincidence, but fun to speculate about; annnnd

Blatant Monty Python references. (Because of course there are.)

I'll start with the big one.

Arthur Maxson, boy king and unifier

(source)

So across all the retellings and variations of King Arthur’s life story, there are a few consistent elements, particularly in his early life and rise to power. Some of these threads are echoed in the Fallout universe, specifically (and unsurprisingly) in the person of Arthur Maxson.

Both the legendary King Arthur and Arthur Maxson were born with a claim to power lying in their ancestry, both were fostered away from their families, and both proved themselves in combat at a young age. 

King Arthur united the warring kingdoms of Britain into a single entity, making them stronger against outsiders and receiving general admiration and acclaim. Arthur Maxson united the divided factions of the BoS after the events of Fallout 3 and is held in similarly high regard by his men.

The name Prydwen is a reference to the ship of the original King Arthur. Presumably, Arthur Maxson (or someone in the BoS who anticipated his promotion) christened the airship in a deliberate homage to the Arthurian myth.

King Arthur is associated with his legendary sword. I think it’s notable that Maxson’s legend is associated with a bladed weapon, too. ("He killed a DEATHCLAW with a COMBAT KNIFE!”)

Probably coincidence, but fun: the historical emperor Magnus Maximus, who pops up a lot in early Arthurian legend, was known in Welsh as... Macsen. (⌐■_■)

Round Table, but make it dieselpunk

(Continued under the cut.)

Moving away from obvious allusions and into some looser parallels:

Like the Round Table, the Brotherhood is an exclusive knightly order with its leader being the one able to open it up to his chosen few.

Like the Round Table, the BoS sees itself as defending human civilization against forces of chaos. (I’ll touch on their tech-hoarding tendencies when I get to the Grail stuff.) This idea of civilization in the face of chaos goes back to the BoS’s founding, even though the level of isolationism we see in most of the Fallout franchise is not exactly what founder Roger Maxson had in mind: “Notably, Maxson's ultimate intention was to establish the Brotherhood as an organization that works closely with people outside of the Brotherhood, as guardians of civilizations, not its gatekeepers.” (source) In a lot of ways, Arthur Maxson represents a return to his ancestor’s original ideals.

Renegade knights? Internal politics? Traitors within? We gotchu.

In both the medieval legends and in all chapters of the BoS we’ve seen, there’s a big focus on bloodlines (ew). Ironically, it’s probably Arthur Maxson’s unquestionable ancestry that allows him to be more progressive than either of his East Coast predecessors when it comes to boosting Brotherhood numbers by recruitment (even though you can still see a clear division between “born Brotherhood” and recruited soldiers, but that’s a topic for another day). Maxson sees himself as an Elder who "cares for the people"—however misguided and patronizing that attitude might be—and whatever else you might say about the guy, you can't say he doesn't believe he has a duty. Which brings us to…

Know Your Enemy: Danse as Gawain

Before I start this section, an acknowledgement of authorial bias:

Gawain, as portrayed in the Middle English poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, is my very favorite of King Arthur’s knights. (Other stories aren't always as flattering, but like I said at the outset: I'm sticking to the ones I like.)

That poem is my very favorite piece of medieval Arthurian literature. In this section, I'll refer to the modern English translation by Simon Armitage.

...that’s it, I have no other biases to disclose. 

What? 👀

(Art: Clive Hicks-Jenkins)

All right. So in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, you’ve got this himbo loyal knight of Arthur’s who finds himself caught up in... you know what, let me just paste in the Wikipedia summary. (The Toast, RIP, also did a pretty entertaining and more-or-less accurate recap.)

It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who dares any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain, Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving the lord and the lady of the castle where he is a guest.

Don’t worry too much about the plot details, though; for this post, I’m more interested in the thematic parallels. The Green Knight story is full of contrasts: order vs. chaos, civilization vs. wilderness, mortal man vs. Other... but let’s start with Gawain himself. 

Some stuff to know about Gawain:

He was "as good as the purest gold, devoid of vices but virtuous and loyal". Gawain took his principles more seriously even than the rest of Arthur’s knights, not out of pride but out of humility: "I would rather drop dead than default from duty," he says. 

He’s faithful and honorable and never even tempted to betray an oath, even when offered every variety of seduction and riches, except for a single moment of weakness in a desperate desire not to be executed for random shit by powerful forces for reasons he doesn't understand.  

Even though he doesn’t really understand why he needs to die, he sticks to his oath. Gawain's one weakness is a moment of desperate, private, human desire for survival. He'll submit to the headsman’s axe if he has to, but he'd still rather live. 

Above all, Gawain is the ideal of a human man: he might be the bravest and loyal man there is, but he’s still fundamentally human.

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

A few more fun facts about Gawain that resonate with Paladin Danse’s story:

He’s got a bunch of really shitty brothers. (No comment.)

Gawain (SPOILERS!) doesn't actually end up beheaded, but he does willingly kneel for his execution and gets a cut on the throat as a reminder of his sin. And, uh, Danse can also get his throat cut! It doesn’t end as nicely but it’s, you know, a thing that can happen.

Gawain might be a really good guy, and he tries really hard to be one, but in the end he’s nothing more than that: there’s nothing supernatural about him, he has no special powers beyond his own principles and devotion. He’s just a dude doing his Best. 

Wait, why not Danselot?

Oh, that guy? Here’s the thing.

Lancelot personifies the continental ideals of courtly love that became popular in the High Middle Ages. Central to his story is the prioritization of personal relationships and romantic feelings in a way that you don’t really see in Gawain's, at least in the Green Knight tale. (Later stories hook Gawain up with an extremely delightful lady, but even that is a different flavor of romance than Lancelot's and has more to do with Gawain honoring his word and his egalitarian treatment of women (hell yeah). In the poem, Gawain is impressed by Bertilak's wife but resists her temptation; in fact, the biggest risk is not that he'll yield to her advances but that he'll be discourteous to her, i.e., violate his principles and cause dishonor to his king and his host.)

Lancelot is driven by passions over principles in a way that Gawain never really is (at least in the stories I’m talking about; later writers have committed character assassination to various degrees). Yes, you could argue that both Gawain and Lancelot betray their oaths, but Lancelot’s betrayal is never, um, blind. He knows what he’s doing and makes a deliberate choice to prioritize his love for the queen over his love for the king. It doesn’t make him a bad guy—he too is an ideal knight with one fatal flaw—but his character isn’t as comparable to Paladin Danse. 

Yeah, Gawain is (in most stories) a prince and a kinsman of Arthur’s, but he’s ultimately a native boy who doesn’t break the mold of a Knight of the Round Table. Likewise, Danse is portrayed as competent and valuable to the BoS, but not exceptional or breaking the mold of what a BoS soldier should be: he simply represents the ideal. Meanwhile, Lancelot is a foreign prince who was marked from childhood as special and fancy, and his storyline goes alllll over the place. (Much like this post.)

For example, Lancelot goes to absolutely absurd extremes to prove his devotion for no other reason than to prove it. (“I’ll do any useless humiliating thing you want. I’ll betray every oath except the one I made to you. That’s what love is!”) Gawain would never. Danse would never.

Ultimately, Gawain's tests are of his character and not of his love. And like Gawain, Danse’s devotion is to service and his principles, not to another person—even Arthur Maxson.

All that said, there are some similarities: both are beloved by Arthur, both are held up as the ideal of what a knight should be. And even if their fatal flaws are different, both make the point that no matter how good and brave and loyal they might be, no human being can be perfect. 

(Except Galahad. Who is, as a result, very boring.) 

I’ll conclude this section with a quote from someone else’s take on the Greek Knight poem:

I like Gawain. He’s not perfect, but he’s trying his best which is all any of us can do. He’s not like the other knights in the Arthurian legends who occasionally ‘accidentally’ kill women on their little adventures and then feel hard done by when they have to deal with the consequences of that. Gawain holds himself to a high standard – higher, it seems, than Arthur and his knights hold him to considering how hard they laugh when Gawain tells them how bad he feels about the whole thing.

I think Gawain is very relatable in this story. We all want to be better than we actually are.

And that, more than anything else, is Danse.

The Grail myth

What’s that? Lost relics of power? Better send some large armed men after ‘em!

The parallels to the BoS’s tech-hoarding ways are obvious enough that the games themselves lampshade them (albeit by way of Monty Python). But it also ties into the larger themes of “purity” versus “corruption” and the BoS’s self-image as a bastion between civilization and chaos. (See Maxson's line in response to the Sole Survivor’s quip about the Dark Ages: “Judging from the state of the world, it wouldn't be a stretch to say we're living in that era again.”)

But the ultimate futility of the Grail mission is also worthy of note. The BoS might want the power of prewar tech on their side, but they’re no more to be trusted with it than any other group of human beings. No matter how they try, the “corruption” of humanity can’t be overcome as long as they’re striving to harness power for their own ends. You can only achieve power by surrendering control of it.

The death of Arthur

The nature of gameplay being what it is, it's not guaranteed that the Arthur figure will be fatally betrayed, bringing Camelot down with him—but it's not unlikely, either.

Awkward.

Some final spitballing:

Outside the Brotherhood, there are some fun parallels of the Arthur myth with the rest of Fallout 4. Betrayal by one’s own son, for example.

The key difference between the BoS and the legendary Round Table: King Arthur’s knights, for all their flaws and human weaknesses, are usually presented as unambiguous Good Guys. The BoS is... a little more ambiguous...

...but damn if they don’t think they're the good guys. 

A-ad victoriam, fellas!

just a thought experiment for fun, but lets run down the list of how other fe protagonists would likely interact with edelgard:

marth - he'd have sympathy for her personal plight, that is the experiments done on her in her youth, but that wouldn't stop him from fighting her if need be. Probably have a similar reaction to her as he does to michalis, where he would be saddened by her talent and skill as a ruler being used for evil ends instead of positive ones.

alm - likely to be distaste to outright loathing, regarding her as another rudolf or lima iv in terms of her status as an emperor and general attitude. id argue alm is also a character written whos easily blinded by personal connections and fondness, and considering edelgard would likely have people important to him in her crosshairs, theyd likely end up being enemies.

celica - honestly i feel celica would see in edelgard all her own worse impulses, feelings, bad days and the worse aspects of her personal history since they share a degree of overlap in certain key areas [such as being the kids of royal concubines]. as such i actually kinda feel their relation would have a unique interesting tension to it, being mirror images of the other to an extent with celica devoting time to trying to save edelgard before finally grappling and accepting both edelgard being her own person and that celicas own demons have to be conquered in other ways.

sigurd - in the unique position of likely having a good first impression of edelgard, but being especially hurt by her true motives. less because of a shared ideological basis, and more because sigurd is a character thats easily fooled by nature and doesnt take these things kindly.

seliph - considering hes fighting a continent wide war against an invading authoritarian empire as part of a rebel force, seliph probably wouldn't take kindly to edelgard. evne if hed still be kinda sad about it as well.

leif - same as seliph really, only likely even more hostile given his nature as a character, and his own rage towards say travant.

roy - a character that by his nature overworks himself and thinks the best in people. I think hed want to give edelgard the benefit of the doubt, but once that trust was broken hed be willing to do what needed to be done due to a strong moral compass.

lyn - freespirited but decidedly vicious if she feels slighted, considering edelgards ingrained biases snobbery about adrestian culture i woud imagine the two would be easy enemies, even outside of lyn disagreeing with edelgards actual principles.

eliwood - a soft boy guided by a strong sense of morality, hed tried to talk it out to the end but ultimately would probably end up against her because he deemed it the right thing to do.

hector - hectors tendencies towards brash and abrasive behavior would probably turn edelgard against him honestly, which would lead hector to be against her. either way, like eliwood hed likely side against her on principle but unlike eliwood would be less hesitant about the ordeal. though perhaps questioning of his own qualities as a leader through the shadow of her own principles.

eirika - honestly its a little tedious to reiterate similar points at this point, so well eirika is a character with her own distinctions shed probably fall in a similar camp as eliwood

ephraim - unlike his sister ephraim would probably fall more on the hector side of the equation. though i'd imagine hed be even more competitive about it.

ike - ike has historically not gotten along well with nobles, the only ones he generally seems to like being the select few hes helped out in the past. point being, hed probably dislike edelgard and regard her as something of a sterotypical noble on first impression, and a ashnard 2.0 once her intents were revealed.

elincia - if celica is the mirror verse edelgard, then i would posist elincia as the anti edelgard from the reverse dimension. they're opposed on pretty much every point, and considering elincias own experiences with ashnard and ludveck she'd be wary to say the least.

micaiah - another case of 'from personal experience, reservations would be had to say the least'. ontop of that edelgards biases and prejudice to non human/non pure human forms of life would probably extend to micaiahs branded nature and direct phone line to an actual god, which would grate on micaiah especially considering her protectiveness of those aspects of herself.

chrom - chroms got that hothead and impulsive streak of sigurd in him, but with a degree more scrutiny attached albeit not by much. considering his own opposition to walhart though, its likely even when he did get the jist of edelgards whishes he wouldn't be impressed.

corrin - well their are differences between the three routes corrins, theyd all likely fall into the same pattern of distrust and opposition. ranked in terms of whod fall out with her quicker, i'd say it would go birthright -> conquest -> revelations corrins in terms of level of trust given in the initial impression.

Have you liked the republic commando books? They have great clone lore but I could barely get through the last two because of how they represent/depict the Jedi.

The oversimplified answer would be yes, I like the Republic Commando series but with a long list of objections. My feelings about this book series are very complicated and so far only TCW managed to give me a similar level of conflicting thoughts about any star wars source material.

When the book showed up in my country in 2006, I was already hooked on the clone wars era and clone troopers (alongside Mandalorians and Darth Vader) were my personal niche of interest and then there was the fact that book was tied to the Republic Commando game that I love to this day, so of course I needed to read it. I was a bit disappointed to learn it was not about Delta Squad but Ghez Hokan and the general focus on the clones made up for it for me. The story was quite refreshing after dozens of Jedi-centric comics and books so there is no surprise I welcomed the sequel. Triple Zero and every following part however went deeper not only in presenting the clone trooper’s daily life but also into Mandalorian culture as well into critique of Jedi Order and here my feelings quickly got complicated. There are plenty things I enjoy about this series, starting of course with Walon Vau and Mird who were my main motivation to read all books regardless of their quality, then there is Delta Squad, the general take on clones and their economic and social situation that was rarely brought into question by other sources. There is the military aspect I like and humor that makes me smile everytime I reread certain chapters (mainly just Vau being Vau and irritating Skirata because he can). There is Mandalorian culture that I find amazing in theory but in practice only to some degree for a huge part of it is twisted in a way I do not like at all (which I blame mainly on Skirata's misogyny). 

I will not lie - I do admire the author's guts to bring up to light the lack of proper laws and health care regarding clones but I despite how her own pet characters like Kal Skirata got absolved by almost everyone regardless of the shit he does. And I have a long list of shitty behavior of his to complain about, starting with his awful treatment of pregnant Etain and general misogyny to the way he treats his so-called beloved sons (holding back crucial information regarding Daman’s child is just a tip of the iceberg. His general attitude of treating them as kids instead of men capable of making their own decisions irks me to no end). I can understand Mandalorian biased views on the Jedi Order and Republic even if I don’t agree with everything. I can understand to some degree that other characters share this sentiment once they get under Kal’s influence (albeit to this day I do not understand why everyone seems to fall into the role of Kal Skirata’s loyal fanboy and to be honest, Jusik Bardan is the most annoying in that. Not even as a character but as part of narrative/plotline and another special kid to do the bidding of Skirata. At some point he felt more like Skirata's favorite boy than Ordo, if my memories serves me right and to be honest, I try not to not remember much about Skirata-Nulls-Bardan if there is no need for that, heh).

However what I do not understand and definitely dislike is how women are portrayed and to some degree objectified in contrast to male characters. Which is pretty shame because I like Etain and Laseema and even Besany seems fine (though since she is mainly tied to Ordo-Skirata I’m kinda indifferent to her what comes from my own bias for what I’m not even remotely sorry about) yet if it feels weird that every available adult / relatively attractive woman ends as girlfriend/fiance/wife of clone troopers or main male characters (albeit again, it may be my own bias since romantic subplots rarely kept me interested). The women deserve better than being the “trophy” lover whose whole life orbiting around their men and/or Skirata’s plans for clone troopers. I truly find it annoying how heavily featured is the idea of “man should find himself a nice wife and have kids” that Skirata is projecting on everyone around him. I mean, not every woman must be straight and into clones the same as not every clone must be hooked up with the first - or any at all - female character he met. 

(To be honest, some clone characters felt like having little to none interest in relationships - mainly Delta Squad but they could be unavailable for the author to pair them with anyone? In general, the feeling of asexual/aromantic few clones was intentional, or it is just me or there just weren’t enough female to pair them up is still up to debate I guess)

Similarly, the deeper in the storyline, the more and more clones are pushed to the margin for Skirata’s sake and Mandalorian culture overall. A culture that is pretty neat in theory but somehow works differently in narrative, which is again, related to approach to female characters. This and some weird glorification of Mandalorians, but that may be more the fault of fans who don’t want to acknowledge the brutality of Mandalorian culture? Oh, and I definitely hate how one-sided the books are about True Mandalorians and Death Watch which is really annoying. Understable from Skirata and Vau’s POVs but irritating no less for me.

Personally, I’m not so much offended by critique of Jedi or Republic but I can see why some fans can’t stomach this series, especially since the books don’t give much opportunity and space to discuss controversial matters, there is little to none counterarguments coming from POV of supposedly less biased characters. 

So in general, I liked and still like this series, but I’m also aware of a pretty long list of flaws that are hard to overlook. And to be honest, the fact that after reading the author's ideas / plotlines for the Imperial Commando: 501st’s sequel I was so damn happy that it was in fact the last book speaks a lot about my feelings, isn’t it?

Why Janus Is The Most Unbiased When It Comes To Thomas’ Desires

Let me start off by saying this: I’m not saying that Janus is the least biased in general. I’m saying that he is is the least biased when it comes to what Thomas wants.

Each side has their own way of how they think it’s best to help Thomas-and for Janus, he views lying as the best way for Thomas to reach his desires. He is biased in that regards.

However, he is the only one who’s desires do not differ from Thomas’ at all. The other sides each have their own desires, but Janus doesn’t-he only wants what Thomas wants.

Allow me to explain.

Let’s look at each of the sides’ views of an ideal life.

Logan: In ‘Growing Up,’ Logan really takes charge. He projects his own desires onto Thomas. Logan wants to look and act professional. He wants to pursue knowledge, and has expressed interest in going to University and getting a degree.

Roman: In ‘Why Do We Get Out Of The Bed In The Morning,’ Roman also projects his desires onto Thomas. He wants beautiful possessions, money, awards/trophies, and an extravagant living space.

Patton is slightly less straight-forward, but still very obviously expresses what he wants. In ‘Growing Up,’ he describes what he believes to be the ideal life as just being generally laid-back. He wants to eat, read, and just generally do whatever makes him happy. Additionally, in POF, he seems to value being a good person above any of Thomas’ other desires. Unlike Thomas, he genuinely wanted to go to the wedding, because to him, being a good person is more desirable than going to the callback. The only reason he backed down from saying the wedding was the right decision was because he realized it was hurting Thomas, not because he had a change of heart in his own desires.

Virgil is harder to figure out-but there have been a few hints as to how his own desires differ from Thomas’. He also genuinely wanted to go to the wedding. Because again, to him, being viewed as a good person was more desirable than the callback. He never once voiced any interest in the callback at all. Like Patton, his desires didn’t align with Thomas’.

We haven’t seen much of Remus, but it’s very obvious his desires differ from Thomas’. Remus expresses love for violence, gore, and other graphic things-all of which Thomas has said he is not at all interested in or enticed by.

Now let’s look at Janus.

In CLBG, both Thomas’ and Janus’ desires aligned. Thomas wanted to be seen as a good person, and Janus also wanted him to be seen as such. Their ideas of how to attain that goal was different-with Thomas thinking honesty was the best way, while Janus viewed lying as the best way. Their methods for attaining the goal were different, but their desires were the same.

Now let’s move on to SVS. Janus outright says, “If Thomas wanted to be seen as a good friend more than he wanted the role of a lifetime, well then I'm all for that.”

The only reason Janus showed up in the first place was because he knew Thomas was lying about what he truly wanted. Logically, the callback is the better option if Thomas wanted to forward himself and his career-but that’s not why Janus wanted the callback. He only wanted it because it’s what Thomas wanted. He didn’t even have any opinion on what he himself would prefer-his goals already aligned with Thomas’.

TLDR: Janus is the only side who doesn’t have his own major desires. There isn’t really a specific theory or point here, I just thought it was interesting and wanted to bring it up.

Hi! I have a translation question: what do you mean when you say that if there is a recognizable style, the translator isn't doing their job properly? I know little about translation so I'm just very curious (btw, I agree with your take on mha's official translations).

translators are supposed to be invisible. when you’re translating or adapting a text from a source language into a target language, you need to alter the text as little as possible while still trying to keep true to the meaning / message (or style if you’re translating writing). Caleb not only takes many liberties with the source material (the most obvious one being the “chicken soup for the soul” localization he did in chapter 290 without a real need for it, but in general he tends to embellish things to sound as smart as possible whenever possible), but he also injects his own biases in the translation, like when he purposefully softens the heroes’ harshest lines and instead makes the villains sound more evil

Compare the two versions:

the meaning’s the same, the nuance is different. The fantranslation makes it very easy to see the flaw in Jeanist’s reasoning and recognize that he’s wrong in not seeing Dabi’s victimhood, because there’s a stress on his concern for discretion. He sounds selfish and casual, just how someone who’s brushing off child abuse should sound like. The official translation not only sounds way more demonizing of Dabi’s actions, putting emphasis on how unjustified Dabi’s claims supposedly are, but he also calls him a fiend. If you check the raws here he calls him “ 荼毘め” which just means “damned Dabi”. It’s a simple imprecation that Caleb took as an opportunity to slip in his bias. Nowhere on the text is there a mention of Jeanist calling him a fiend.

Ah, by the way. I’m stating this before someone accuses me of reading too much into it. I’m not making up the fact that Caleb is unsympathetic towards the villains. He freely admitted it himself on more than one occasion.

Just two I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s more. I stopped reading this “notes” when it became clear that he justified a military state that uses child soldiers to kill abuse victims.

Now, I definitely understand not being as incensed as I am about this. For me, this kind of behaviour is unjustified both because he’s the official voice for bnha for the whole western fandom, and as such his opinions are regarded as absolutes, and also because I have a degree in languages & translation and I notice these things and they upset me because that’s my dream job right there, and he’s doing it wrong.

I’m not saying anyone should agree with me, but regardless of my feelings on his ability to translate, it’s still pretty shitty of him to make his bias so obvious. Translations aside, he’s demonizing abuse survivors and he’s doing it as someone who has authority in the fandom (as was just confirmed by the anon coming here like a white knight to defend his honor)

Hello! I've browsed this blog a bit and came across the idea that torturers often develop mental illness because of their repeated exposure to the violence/trauma of seeing another person in pain, which I'd never considered before. A) Do you believe torturers can therefore be a type of victim as well, depending on the circumstances, and therefore deserving of compassion/therapy? B) Can you point me to more information about this/what kinds of mental illnesses develop in torturers? (1/2)

C) Do you think it's possible for a mass murderer/torturer character to have a realistic, satisfying redemption arc? Do you know any media that's pulled it off believably? Thank you so much for taking the time to read/answer this if you do! And for this excellent resource!

-

The most accessible sources that cover this are O’Mara’s Why Torture Doesn’t Work (good grounding, start with him), Rejali’s Torture and Democracy and the appendices to Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth where he describes treating two torturers.

 The most current research is about 600 pages of print on demand untranslated French. If you’re fluent in French (I am not and lock down etc has got in the way of me getting this translated) Sironi Comment devient-on tortionnaire?

 Broadly speaking the symptoms appear to be the same as those survivors and witnesses develop.

 And I will go into this in more depth later but keep in mind there is not anywhere near enough research on torturers for us to be entirely sure about most of this. I’m working with the best information we have right now.

 The other two questions are subjective and sort of complicated. By definition a lot of this is going to be my opinion because well that’s what you’re asking for.

 I think we need to be really careful about describing torturers as ‘victims’.

 Yes they’re put in this situation by social structures beyond their control. It is not their fault that they weren’t given training or support in their job. It’s also not their fault that we have this global message that violence is effective or that so many workplaces are unnecessarily pressured/stressful. Most of the time they are drawn in to abusing others because of the social groups and structures within the organisation they join.

 Oversight (with a drive to eradicate torture), funding, training and clear consistent messages about the right way to handle difficult situations would probably prevent most cases of torture.

 This does not change the fact that on an individual level each of them chose to hurt other people.

 Some of them will have made that choice understanding there was a threat to their own safety if they did not. Some of them will have made that choice just because it was what everyone else was doing. Some of them genuinely believe what they did was the ‘right’ decision at the time.

 They still made that choice. And given that we have records of people in similar positions refusing, even when it put them at risk of attack or death, I don’t have a lot of sympathy with the choice torturers made.

 The fact I’m a pacifist factors into this. Consider my biases.

 Torturers typically show a very low understanding of the impact their actions have had on other people.

 They might regret their actions but this is typically framed in a very self-centred way. They usually don’t express more then cursory regard for the victims. They regret it because they’re suffering now, because they have nightmares, because they can’t keep a job. And oh it’s all so unfair.

 I don’t know why this is the case. But it’s a feature Sironi described in interviews about her work. And I’ve seen it over and over again in interviews with torturers.

 Yes torturers suffer. The symptoms they develop are terrible and have a lasting impact on their lives. They typically can’t hold down jobs and struggle to re-integrate into society in any meaningful fashion.

 And yes I believe they should be treated. I believe that anyone with a disease or condition which requires treatment should have access to care and treatment. Whoever they are. Whatever they did.

 I believe that as fellow human beings torturers are entitled to a degree of compassion. When I say that torture and mistreatment are wrong I mean it. My position doesn’t change just because the theoretical victim is a former torturer.

 I do not think that treatment and compassion should be dependant on a person being suitably victimised. For me the only thing it depends on is their need and their humanity. In the literal physical sense of them being a human.

 But we tend to think of ‘victim’ as a simple category that doesn’t overlap with mass murderers.

 And I don’t believe the position of torturers is that simple.

 Especially when so few of them are charged. Torture trials are rare. Convictions are rare. And sentences are short.

 And their victims deserve justice too.

 I feel conflicted about calling torturers ‘victims’ because of this complex reality. And because in fiction we have a tendency to focus on the torturers prioritising their voices over the survivors. I feel like presenting torturers as simple victims of society could risk adding to that.

 For me the focus has always got to be the survivors.

 And I think all of this feeds into how we handle redemption arcs.

 I don’t think that writing redemption arcs for villains, even torturers or mass murderers is ‘wrong’. In fact I think that it can be a really good idea. Showing how toxic the environments these people are in is a good thing. Puncturing the way it’s romanticised is a good thing. And showing a way out of it, even if it’s imagined, is not a bad thing.

 But if we’re going to do that in our stories then I think we need to think about what redemption means and in whose eyes the character is redeemed.

 There’s also a small problem: we don’t really know what recovery for torturers looks like.

 There isn’t enough research on them. Partly because of lack of interest but partly because the low conviction rates means sample sizes are small. We’re talking about a limited number of individuals who are jailed and we can’t really ‘prove’ that individuals who weren’t convicted were torturers. We don’t really know what the long term outcomes are, what treatments might be effective or- Much of anything.

 Studies on torturers are typically based on very small numbers of individuals. (For a long time Fanon’s work was the only example of a mental health professional talking about torturers specifically. He saw two of them.) They are not statistically sound. And a lot of resources were simply journalists or mental health professionals compiling notes on the handful of individuals they talked to.

 Everything I say about torturers is based on things like interviews, a handful of studies that have flaws and anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately as of right now it’s the best we’ve got.

 Personally I don’t think there’s enough research on torture generally. Or enough attempts to collate relevant research from other fields. But that’s a rant for another day.

 Let’s get back to that central question: what does redemption mean?

 I think that it’s pretty easy to write a character changing for the better. You can build up the character’s level of insight into what they’re doing/did over the course of the story. You can show them choosing to stop. You can show them shifting to oppose their former allies.

 But bundled up in the idea of a redemption arc is this: is it enough? And who is it enough for?

 I don’t think survivors should be obliged to forgive former torturers. I also don’t think they’re likely to interact positively.

 I’ve talked about this now and again when asked about the difference between legally defined torture and abuse. Because of the organised and widespread nature of legally defined torture there are usually communities of survivors. And communities that are collectively moving through a recovery process because even those people who weren’t directly attacked are likely to be witnesses, carers and relatives or friends of survivors.

 These things echo down generations.

 Cyprus gained independence from the British in 1960, my father is too young to have any real memory of the violence during the colonial period. But he referenced it in arguments with my English mother during my childhood. There are people throughout China today who won’t buy anything Japanese because of Japanese war crimes there during World War 2. There are people who won’t eat fish from the Black Sea, because the bodies of their ancestors were thrown into that sea during a genocide over a hundred years ago.

 I know that as a both a Greek Cypriot and an English person there are people all over the world who will not want anything to do with me based on what my people have done to theirs. And the fact I wasn’t alive at the time does not really factor into it.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that this is much bigger, broader and more complex then individual acts of forgiveness.

 Survivors are a highly varied group of individuals. And each torturer can have thousands or tens of thousands of victims. Expecting each impacted individual, and any witnesses and all their family members and friends, to forgive these people is… let’s say ‘unlikely’.

 So does redemption require forgiveness from the wounded party? Is there any possible action that can atone for the sheer scale of these atrocities?

 If we play a simple number game causing this level of harm can be achieved in months or years, but saving the equivalent number of lives takes decades of skilled, dedicated work. If we look at concepts like wergild or jail as ‘paying your debt to society’ then how do we measure something like torture where the numbers are so big?

 I haven’t seen a piece of fiction seriously tackle these questions. But then again I also haven’t actively looked for that fiction.

 I feel like a lot of fictional redemption arcs judge a character to be sufficiently redeemed based on audience sympathy and the main cast forgiving the character. They don’t typically go on to broaden the scope of the narrative and question whether any one else impacted by the former villain’s actions also sees the character as redeemed.

 One of my stories has a former torturer as a major character and I think they are a sympathetic character in many ways. I think that my readers would empathise with them through a lot of the story (which takes place decades after they stopped torturing).

 They’re a mentor figure to some of the younger cast members. They’ve acted as a protector to them and taught the younger generation a lot about the minority culture they themselves are from. And they do genuinely care about these people that they helped to raise, consistently sacrificing to protect these ‘kids’. (The ‘kids’ are 30s-20s at the time of the story.)

 But they’re also incredibly self centred. They don’t really interact with or have a lot of sympathy for the people they hurt. And while this particular family loves and forgives them society at large views them as a monster. Albeit one that is now leashed.

 Is this a redemption story? Is this character redeemed? I genuinely don’t know. In fact that’s part of my interest in writing the story: trying to work out if there is a point, as this character grows, develops and helps others, when I believe they’ve done ‘enough’.

 I think that redemption means different things for different people. A satisfying redemption story is different for different people. And if we can disagree so strongly about it with much simpler, smaller scale crimes then where does that leave us with torture?

 There isn’t a simple answer or a one-size-fits-all writing solution. There can’t be.

 My approach is to try and use the story to see if I can find an answer. Even if it’s only a limited one. For me the story itself is a forum for exploring human complexity and difficult ethical questions.

 I don’t think we have a good solution for how to deal with these people in reality yet. But I do hold out hope that a good solution is possible. Fiction is an arena where we can safely explore possible solutions.

 I guess in the end I’m not sure if there’s any story or arc that will work for everyone. I don’t think there are any hard rules for writing anything and I don’t think there’s ever a way to please everyone.

 Redemption and forgiveness are complicated topics. I think we do a much better job when we engage with that complexity then when we assume a character just has to do a, b and c in order to achieve it.

 When you consider someone to be truly redeemed is an ethical question that I can’t answer for you. I don’t think I should. The chances are you’ll know when you think your character has done enough.

 Just be open to the fact that it won’t be enough for everyone. Consider reflecting that with the characters, because that can make for truly powerful moments.

 In Midnight’s Children Shiva never forgives Saleem, even though Saleem isn’t responsible for Shiva ‘losing’ his life and family because they were both infants at the time. And damn there are a lot of flaws in the movie adaptation but that scene between them in the jail, when Saleem throws that in Shiva’s face hits hard. It shows us so much about both characters.

 And I think that’s a better way to approach it then trying to figure out if a character is redeemed yet: figuring out how they’ve progressed, how others respond to that progression and why.

 I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

Idk if this is more of thermidorian propaganda, but i heard that Saint-Just was a bit... cold? That he was a lot more cruel than Robespierre?

Again, I'm not sure pls don't feel offended nor slap me-

Warning: Just a reminder that I don’t have a degree in history or anything. I'm simply a sixteen year old girl who spends a majority of my free time looking up information cause I’m a nerd like that. I am usually biased slightly towards the revolutionaries, not the monarchy. History is up for interpretation and what I post is a mixture of stone cold facts, my own opinions, and the opinions of others. Any questions about any other aspects of the French Revolution are always welcome. I'll try to answer then as clearly, accurately, and respectfully as possible. Anyone with more information, similar, or different thoughts feel free to voice them.

This post is also a bit long, so bear with me here.

First of all, I would never dream of such a thing Anon! You shouldn’t be punished for asking questions and wanting to be educated. Just the fact that people like you are actually asking me stuff has me super hyped!

Second of all, I don’t know nearly as much about Saint-Just as I do Robespierre, so my take/information here might not be as helpful or specific as you’re hoping for.

Third of all, you’re right! To a certain degree anyway. Saint-Just definitely was colder and more standoffish than Robespierre. He was a little more radically inclined than Max in several cases. I like to compare him to an emo teenager (bear with me if you will). He gives off the dark edgy vibes but doesn’t follow through 100% of the way.

At a young age, he stole his family’s silver in an attempt to run away from home, something young Maximilien would have been too afraid and mild-mannered to do. He had a short career in the army, something I’m sure Max wouldn’t have considered. Saint-Just was in favor of Louis XVI’s execution early on during the trial. Additionally had a bit of a rivalry with Camille Desmoulins, a close friend of Robespierre. Saint-Just was also rumored to have had a temper which probably doesn't help his case.

Much of his behavior can also probably be attributed to his pride and courage. Saint-Just wasn’t one to back down from a conflict, as opposed to Robespierre who could be seen as a bit more wishy-washy. (Although can you really blame the man with all the stress he was under?) There are also several different parts of his private journal which talk about how he was willing to die as a sacrifice to the revolutionary cause, which adds to the dark, radical persona already surrounding him.

Some of the characterizations about him is Thermidorian propaganda as a some of modern ideas about him (like the way he’s portrayed in that French Rev Assassins Creed game. Idk what that’s about.) But I would have to say yes, in general he is regarded colder and possibly more cruel than Robespierre, but still overall not an awful person. Just like Max and all the other revolutionaries he was human.

~Dara

So yeah, seen the premiere and had a bit of time to think things over and see what others are saying. My feelings... I’m not sure how I’d summarise them. I guess I’d say something like enjoying it but in a very distant and sceptical way? I’ll write more about the actual episode soon but to start, I should mention the source of my scepticism and hesitation: whitewashing (cut for a spoiler character).

Even back last year when the Bad Batch arc aired, I saw the mutant clones from Clone Force 99 and all of them but Wrecker looked... way lighter than they should? And the implication is that their genetic alterations is why they look, well, whiter? When these deviant clones are allowed to serve because their mutations turn out to be “beneficial” and “positive” instead of disabling?

Yeah... look, I don’t think Filoni and the folks at Lucasfilm are being intentionally racist, but nobody ever thinks they’re racist even when they’re spreading that very racism (well, except a few unashamed bigots like Nazis, but they’re a very clear minority and not really relevant here). Taking clones of a brown man and having them turn out to be whiter and the correlation of that being with genetic traits that enhance existing features instead of making them unfit to serve... yeah, really not a good look. There’s a reason some people have been using #UnwhitewashTBB. Oh yeah, did I mention that Wrecker, the only one with a normal, darker skin tone is the big dumb muscle of the group? And that Tech, the whitest one, is the brains? Crosshair and Tech both look like white dudes, and Hunter even if his tone is darker still looks paler than he should (same with Omega for that matter). And of course, Echo basically has bleached skin because even being frozen shouldn’t deprive him of that much colour, so what the heck? They can’t even justify that one with genetic alterations to the template, which is already a bullshit excuse because... why does having a brain that process information super efficiently or super enhanced eyesight make your skin lighter? There’s no narrative reason for them to be lighter skinned, it’s such a flimsy excuse with weird correlations that send some kinda unfortunate messages. It’s a shame, because the idea behind the Bad Batch is that differences are what make us who we are and that we should value that... and yes, they ARE different from regular clones (which I guess is why they designed them like this???), but they don’t need to be turned into freaking white people to illustrate this. Like, if you really want to show them be different, convey that in features associate with their traits (aka something that Wrecker’s design does, shame being the darkest skin ruins that >:V).

Oh yeah, speaking of whitewashing... the hell is up with Caleb? Oh yeah, Kanan Jarrus from Rebels is here, back when he was still padawan Caleb Dume. When I was watching the episode I was like “wait, is his skin tone right? or is it kinda light for him? also his hair too???” I then saw other reactions and yeah, this is definitely a whitewashed design. Just... why? The fact that they’re retconning a comic whose version of events I honestly prefer doesn’t help at all. How are they gonna excuse this one? That years of being on the run blasted his pasty white skin with too much UV? That he’s stuck inside the temple too much?

It’s apparently an issue that some fans have discussed for years, and I’m glad it finally became clear to me. The most I got concerned about clone whitewashing was when people tried to claim Rex was that dude on Endor, and... no? Just because they both have fucking Santa beards doesn’t mean they’re the same person. But I mean, suddenly hearing these voices all come together with the hashtag finally brought things into perspective. It seems like it’s been an issue for a while, little thing that had me going “huh that’s weird” like 99 looking awfully white even as he’s deformed (oh yeah I also think he’s written in an ableist, even inspiration porny way, but that’s ANOTHER story), the clones in general seeming to have lighter skin tones in places (in TCW it never bothered me tho I have seen criticism of it there, it’s mainly in Expanded Media and Rebels I was asking questions). There’s also Boba Fett in the episode Deception looking weirdly pale?

People have even brought up that Dee Bradley Baker, a white man, voicing these Maori men brings issues, especially with how his accent... isn’t very accurate. Like, I do think he’s a great voice actor, even with the clones and how he’s able to individualise all of them even with the same voice, but... his accent honestly sounds more like a bad Australian one than a New Zealand one, lol. Again, this is something I always noticed and found weird, but only with the recent movement has it really been giving me perspective. Even this took me a while to process, because in voice acting there seems to be more flexibility with who can play who (even if many recent conversations like the one about Apu from The Simpsons have gotten people to ask if when this happens we lean into caricature, which is what people are concerned with here).

Okay this post was actually meant to be a general reaction to the episode, but my whitewashing rant really got out of hand. I do feel like I could’ve been more vocal in the past about some of these things, especially as a white person myself. It’s easy to be complacent out of fear of conflict, and it’s something I do feel I need to work on. I also do want to specifically hear opinions of Polynesian and of course especially Maori Star Wars fans and what they have to say about this, if anyone has anywhere to direct me in that specific regard.

Anyway, that’s all for now. Lucasfilm has a whitewashing issue. I don’t believe there’s deliberate malice, but that makes it even more important to fight - things like this can be normalised to a degree we don’t question it. It’s much harder to unpack unconscious biases and things that are normalised in society than it is to confront the open bigots.

a friend asked me to give a shot at doing an entry in this tier list they linked me to, of the video games inducted into the World Video Game Hall of Fame since 2015, and I opted to give it a shot!

My rankings are generally biased towards games I personally enjoy playing, though I will give some commentary on their historic relevance:

S-Rank

Super Mario Bros: The game that repopularized video games in the US, that arguably began the entire platforming video game genre and all its imitators and spin-offs, that spawned a new generation of video games after the Atari Crash in the US, and still a DAMN FUN game in its own right! I simply had to put this at the top ranking. After the disillusionment caused by Atari’s failures, this game brought home consoles back in a big way to the US. 

World of Warcraft: Now, I’m not much for MMORPGs. Nevertheless, I’ve followed the lore and general information in the Warcraft setting for years now, and a couple years back, my brother asked me to play it with him. I had a ton of fun, honestly! Playing a goblin mage, I believe. WoW is notable for being THE MMORPG, and still going strong. Admittedly, nowadays many games do what it does better, and the time when it was dominant as THE single game to play is past, but it was still an enjoyable experience and I really have to like how sincere the game is about its aesthetics and campy vibe. Given that the entire setting is reputedly a reskin of a Warhammer Fantasy Battle video game that went south, it’s cheery and colorful, morally gray tone is... an interesting complication in its history. (Also, HORDE. I STAN THE HORDE VERY HARD.)

The Sims: A bit of history; I did not play this game as enthusiastically as a kid as my sister and mom did. We ALL spammed the hell out of the Rosebud cheat, though; not until recent times did I actually wind up playing the game properly, when the most recent iteration of the series was free for a while. My mom didn’t care to play the game, she just liked building houses. In any case, while my attention drifted from the game now and then, I always am fascinated by the actual gameplay of caring for your simulated humans, and the way you don’t actually control them directly. This sort of hands off experience is actually a bit similar to the ‘dungeon simulator’ genre, and while the game is notorious for enabling cruelty (something I never saw the appeal of!), it’s a surprisingly wholesome experience, and it can’t be understated how unique this gameplay was at the time.

Legend of Zelda: It’s actually rather interesting how different OG Zelda is from modern games. Not just the top down perspective (which DOES pop up, now and then); the game is non-linear and allows you to go to any dungeon at any point, completing the game at your leisure, and the story is extremely barebones compared to what we may be used to. It’s quite a far cry from the linear gameplay of gradually collecting tools and working through plots that the games are known for. Breath of the Wild is, in fact, a return to form rather than an upheaval of the formula. I’ll also admit that I have a lot of affection for the gameplay of this one, as well as Link To The Past.

Donkey Kong: When you’re talking old school, as far as what you might call the modern generation of games goes (which is to say, the games that resurged after the Atari Crash), it’s hard to go wrong with Donkey Kong. It’s certainly notable for being a weird stage in Mario’s character and something that is generally ignored; it’s just strange thinking that at one point he was supposed to be abusive towards a pet ape that went in an innocent, well-meaning rampage! Personally this one kind of breaks a mold for my S-class rankings because while I like this one fine, I don’t like it THAT much; i mostly played it in the DK 64 game, and found it very difficult and that’s stuck with me. Still, I place it here for its momentous position in placing Nintendo on the map, with the influence and revolutionary technologies and gaming mechanics they would introduce, to this very day.

Pokemon Red/Blue: Hoo boy. HOO BOY it is honestly something of an oversight that I didn't immediately shove this beauty straight to the front of the S-line because good god I love this game. It's been years and years, long since I was but a whee Johnny playing a strange new game for the first time just because there was a cool turtle creature on the cover (because I was super into turtles back then), and I still love this game. Even with the improvements made to the formula since then (getting rid of HMs, the fixes and new types introduced since) there's still something lovable about this game, even as something as basic as the official artwork that just tugs my heartstrings. This game is highly notable for being an RPG that popularized the monster collecting/befriending gameplay (so far as I know), and as an autistic person, i really appreciate knowing the whole thing grew out of an autistic man's bug collection hobby from when he was a child. Pokemon is an absolute juggernaut of a media influence, and THIS is where it all began. It's first stage evolution, you might say. And not like a Magikarp or anything. This one's more like one of the starters... appropriately enough. Final Fantasy 7: This is probably a bit of a controversial take, but FF7 was not actually one of my favorite Final Fantasy entries back in the day. I never played much more of it than the beginning missions, as my cousin owned the machine in question, and I moved out before i could play it much. Final Fantasy 3 (in the US; it's more generally referred to as 6 now) was my favorite for a long, long time, and that game pioneered many of the traits that would be associated with 7: the epic story, the complex ensemble cast, though 7 really expanded on that basic idea, and previous games were hardly shabby in that regard. 9 is my favorite of the pre-10 era, with its extreme shake ups to the mechanics of the game. No; what makes 7 stand out is that it was a shift towards making Final Fantasy a constantly shifting, unique franchise where every entry was its own thing; it introduced 3D graphics with a fun and cartoony style mixed with a story that wouldn't be out of place in a cyberpunk story, and heralds Squaresoft (as it was called at the time) splitting off from Nintendo, with its censorship policies, and doing its own thing with Sony, with a great deal more freedom to write as they pleased. The party design also stands out, which each character having their own unique function in the party while the Materia concept allows a degree of modular skills to be installed, customizing them in ways that, in my opinion, the best entries in the franchise (on a gameplay level) would revisit. Colossal Cave Adventure: I'll be honest; I never played this game, and I don't believe it's particularly familiar to me at all. However, I chose it for this vaunted spot in S-rank because games of this nature, of text-based prompt and responses, are some of the most interesting things imaginable! Games like AI Dungeon are similar in some respects, and its impressive to think just how dang old this game is, and yet it managed to pull off basically being it's own DM. It has an interesting history; created by a man who worked on the precursor to the Internet, the game was made to connect with his daughter and was inspired by recent entries into Dungeons And Dragons, and later expanded upon by other programmers. It's notable that while Zork is the sort of game that would probably involve more immediate recognition (I actually mistook it for Zork at first, from the screenshot), this game was the first of its kind, and that always deserve some recognition. Minecraft: I absolutely LOVE Minecraft, and it's rightfully one of the most popular games, if not THE most popular game, of the last couple of decades, and it's interesting to think just how unconventional it is; the game is, effectively, a LEGO simulator, and as someone who honestly always wanted tons of LEGO sets as a kid but could never afford them consistently, there's something genuinely very appealing about Minecraft's basic set up. It's open approach and lack of a goal, just gameplay mechanics that encourage you to build and do as you please, makes for a very relaxing and unusual mentality not often seen in games until this point; it doesn't even have a storyline, it simply gives you a world to play around in. Of note, Minecraft's entry seems to have relevance towards video games becoming a cultural touchstone; Minecraft's visual aesthetic leans towards both blocky LEGOs and retro graphics, and certainly proves that games don't need to strive for hyper realistic graphics to be appealing. ----- A RANK Doom: I genuinely like Doom, a lot! I still have memories of replaying this game frequently, long before Doom 2016 and Eternal were glimmers; it's just genuinely very fun to play. That said, I feel that there's other games that are a bit more historically notable and while i like this game, not quite as much as other entries. But it cant be understated that this was THE first person shooter, and more to the point, was fundamental towards game design as we know it. Of note, it pioneered the idea of a game engine, which has had tremendous impact down the road in terms of making a flexible baseline system that latergames were programmed around. Additionally, the first three episodes being free, with the additional ones being purchased as part of the full game, this was, I think, the first demonstration of a demo. Back then, we called this shareware; a game which was free but had full features locked off, but otherwise you could play it however much you wanted. There's a REASON Doom winds up on more systems than Skyrim! Ultimately, while it's not one of my favorite games, it's impact on the business of gaming and the functions of game design cannot be overstated. Pac-Man: This game, is THE game that made video games a phenomenon and its worth thinking about that and how video games as a modern institituion can be drawn, however broadly, from Pac-Man's commercial success. I should note that while I've played this game extensively, it's not something I'm particularly good at; there's a LOT going on here and its a bit much for me to handle. That's probably a strength; there's a reason people had to fake their accomplishments and falsified high scores. It's worth noting that Pac-Man is a unique thing in that it has been rereleased many times over, and every generation has found it enjoyable and fun, unlike other games that set trends only to be lost out in the end. (Goldeneye, for instance!) The Oregon Trail: Like many other people I assume, I first played this game as something available on school computers. Purportedly made as an educational game to teach students about history, this game may be notable for, among other things, being an entry point towards the idea of resource management in video games (as well as being hellishly difficult, by the standards then, but that DOES illustrate a point, does it not?). It's also the oldest, most continuously available game ever made, even now being ported to smartphones, or so I hear! It seems to be a very early example of edutainment games, and a genuinely great one at that. It probably helps that a selling point is that it doesn't really mince around with its subject matter; anyone who's played this game knows that total party kill is the default assumption, as it was in life. Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat: I place these two together as I feel that they form a duo of sorts, and defined fighting games of my childhood and modern gaming experience; name a fighting game, from Injustice to something as deliberately different as Smash Bros, and it has SOME relation to these games, even if its in terms of doing something completely different. These games set a mold for fighting games! Among other things, both games feature iconic characters as a selling point, and to this day fighting games make their mark based on how signature their characters are. Mortal Kombat is of course an incredibly violent game (though very tame, by modern standards), and its fatalities and depicitons of violence sparked thought and arguments on what video games ought to be allowed to depict, for better or for worse. It's not implausible to suggest that the overly strict restrictions on what video games could depict go back to Mortal Kombat's fatalities, specifically (since there's far worse games predating it, though too graphically primitive to be obvious). Street Fighter, conversely, strikes me as having more characterization and depth, especially as far as fighting systems go; I find it hard to be interested in many fighting games now, if they don't offer as much depth as the likes of Street Fighter 2. Street Fighter stands out for innovating multiplayer play, initially in the arcade, and its not implausible to say that the likes of Smash Bros is a descendant of sorts of the specific mentality Street Fighter brought to the table. Consider also that it is STILL a mainstay in the remaining arcades and cabinets in service today! Tomb Raider: This is a game i legit liked back in the day, and there's some part of me that's sad that the platforming, puzzle solving and focus on exploration has not really made it back into the modern Tomb Raider series, last I checked. There's probably something interesting in that Lara Croft represents a bit of an intermediate period between platforming mascots and modern Edgy Protagonists; you know the ones. Balding white dudes with vague dad vibes, but this is not a slight on Lara; she definitely has a ton of personality, even just at a cover glance. This game had a strong focus on exploration, and that's honestly something I really like. Super Mario Kart: I'm going to be controversial here; complaints about the Blue Shell are kinda overrated. It's not that different from, say, a red shell hitting you from behind when you're close to the finish line. But, jokes and old 90s memes aside, this game has some interesting status in that it started the idea of making spin-off games in dramatically different contexts; Crash Team Racing and Sonic Drift, for example, are listened as similar games. On a franchise level, this began the trend of Mario becoming a truly flexible character who could do pretty much whatever was required of him, not just the original platforming games, and its possible his imitators never quite learned the same lesson. Though one wonders what Miyamoto might have thought if he'd known how many thinkpieces he would spawn with 'why does mario go-karting with Bowser when they're enemies?'. For my part, I favor the idea that the other games are in-universe fictions they're actors on and this is their actual dynamic, or that Mario is a relaxed dude who doesn't mind playing kart games with his foe. (I mean, he's not Ridley. Bowser's easy enough to get along with.) Animal Crossing: Again, I have to emphasize that I've never actually played this game, at least on a consistent basis (and by that, I mean I MIGHT have played it on the Gamecube, once, in the early 2000s), and have to speak from what I've seen of what it sparked. And I really do like the way it really codified the sub-genre of relaxed, open-ended games where the player is free to do as they like, without much stress or fear, which is something I think more games could stand to do. On my personal list of features that my ideal video game would have, Animal Crossing would definitely offer a few ideas. I am reminded of farming simulators, such as Harvest Moon or Stardew Valley; while they are different beasts entirely, there's a familiar sense of non-combat relaxation that's pleasant to see. Spacewar!: This machine is GODDAMN old, and like an old fogey predating modern humans, it deserves our respect. It's so old, it predates Pong. Supposedly created as part of predictative Cold War models, with an emphasis on emulating sci fi dogfights, producing a game that soon proved popular, for over a decade remainign the most popular game on computer systems, and a clumsy foray into arcade gaming (that didn't pan out, unfortunately) led to the creation of Pong by its creator, which is another story all its own! And Pong is directly responsible for the idea of the video game itself; this game launched the entire video game industry as we understand it! No small feat, indeed. ----

B RANKED Sonic The Hedgehog: I must state that I DO like this game, though not as much as later entires like Sonic 3 and Knuckles, or the Sonic Adventure series; the fast paced action seems a bit hobbled by the traps and need to be careful of surroundings, which would seem to run counter towards the whole idea of GOTTA GO FAST, y'know? But the game presents an interesting viewpoint on the nature of mascot gaming; created specifically, so it is said, as a rival to Mario, Sonic was designed as a mascot with attitude, and inspired a host of imitators; he's probably the only one to escape the 90s more or less intact, and this may have something to say about his flexibility, star power, and also the fact that he's a pretty mild character, all things considered. This game certainly has its place in gaming history, giving an important place in the console wars of yesteryear. Believe me, I was a kid in the 90s, Sonic was a HUGE deal. Space Invaders: This game is noted to have catapulted games into prominence by making them household, something outside of arcades, and it shows! An interesting detail of note is that supposedly, the Space Invaders were meant to all move at high speed, but this was either too hard to play against, or too costly on the processor; it was found that by making them speed up as they were defeated, it created an interesting set of challenge. You have to appreciate game history like that. In general, its success prompted Japanese companies to join the market, which would eventually produce what I imagine was a thriving, competitive market that would eventually get us Nintendo and it's own gamechangers down the road. Grant Theft Auto 3: I'm going to be honest with you. I don't much care for this sort of game. The Saints Row series, with its fundamental wackiness, is the kind of game I really DO like if I'm going for something like this, and GTA sort of leaning towards the 'cruel for fun and profit' gameplay is really unappealing for me. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't address this game, and what seems to come up is two things: the game's sheer freedom in its open world (which certainly pushed the bar for games of that nature, and has made it a byword for gamers screwing around in a game just to see what ridiculous things they could or couldn't do) and the infamous reputation from the mature aspects of the game. Personally, I'm not much for this game's take on maturity (if I wanted to discuss a game of that nature, I'd suggest, say, Spec Ops: The Line) but I really do appreciate what this game and its series did for the open world genre, and the sheer possibilities presented for letting you do what you wanted. King's Quest: I've never played this game, but I am a HUGE fan of the point and click genre (also known generally as the adventure game genre) that it spawned; without this game, there's no Monkey Island, no Sam and Max, no The Dig or Full Throttle, or Gabriel Knight. This game was similar to previous text-based games, with a text parser to input commands, but with the distinction of a graphical interface to move their character around, which would be the seed of later games such as the SCUMM engine of Monkey Island and other Lucasarts games (which, to me, ARE Adventure Gaming). The puzzles, comedic sensibilities, and interface innovations originated with this game, and codified those later adventure games i love so much. Starcraft: This is another one those list of 'games I should have already played by now'. I'm not much of an RTS person, barring forays with games such as Impossible Creatures, Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, and more strange entries such as Brutal Legend, and I contend that the combat aspects of 4X games like Civilization DO count on some level; the specifics of troop movement and unit strengths/weaknesses are a bit beyond me, when you get to more complex stuff. Starcraft, reading between the lines, really introduced the idea of multiplayer culture especially for RTS, pioneered the Battle(dot)net system (which I mostly recall from Diablo, if I'm being honest!) as well as the idea of relative strengths and powers for individual factions so that they became characters in their own right. It's still a very popular online game, and that says SOMETHING. Also, I tend to use zerg rushes, so I would probably play Zerg. Probably. (There is much speculation on whether or not, like Warcraft being a failed Warhammer Fantasy game, if the same holds true for Starcraft and Warhammer 40k. I lean on the side of 'probably not'; the differences are too notable. The Zerg and Tyranids have some similarties, but that's probably because they're based on the same broad hive mind evil insect aggressor trope, and they have enough differences from there to be very distinct from one another. It's not like how OG Warcraft's orcs were very obviously warhammer orcs with less football hooliganism.) Bejeweled: This is a firm case of a game that I don't play, but I really have to respect its influence on gaming as a whole. Apparently it started as a match three-type game with a simplistic formula that proved wildly popular (perhaps making a point that simpler can be more effective, in game mechanics), with a truly explosive record of downloads; over 500 million, it seems. Thus its fair to say that this game set the precedent for casual games, which have become THE market. Regardless of your feelings on that genre, this one was a real game changer. (Pun intended, absolutely.) ----

C RANK Pong: "By most measures of popular impact, Pong launched the video game industry." This line alone saws it all, I think. It wasn't the first video game, but it was one of the more early ones, and its the one that really made video games and consoles successful, gaining widespread attention from the mainstream audience, as well as getting Atari recognition (for better or for worse, but perhaps that was just a development of being on top, so to speak; maye the console wars at least kept the big three honest). It also started the arcade revolution of games, and this humble game is essentially responsible for the entire state of video games as a concept, as we know it today. Halo: No disrespect to Halo, but it's just a game series I've never quite been able to get into. Those games are very hit and miss for me; games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Gears of War and everything like that are just... hard for me to get into. It takes something specific like Borderlands or the Besthesda Fallout series, or something else, for me to get hooked, and Halo just doesn't do it for me! Nevertheless, I would be QUITE remiss if I simply dismissed it, and there's reasons for it to be inducted into the hall of fame barely three years into the hall of fame making inductees. Firstly, it was Microsoft's big entry into the console wars, and it must be said this was a MASSIVE upset and a completely unprecedented shift in the assumptions of the console wars back then; NO ONE expected microsoft to actually do this, let alone redefine gaming out of Sony and Nintendo's favor like that. At the time, PCs dominated FPS games, and Halo showed that consoles could do it just fine. It must also be said that it has a very intricate and complex system of lore, backstory and material that was quite distinctive for a new setting back in the day, and while I've seen people object to it's gameplay, I suspect that its with the benefit of hindsight; Halo offered an extremely unusual degree of freedom in achieving the goals set out for you. (Cortana also didn't deserve getting her name slapped onto that search assistant that eats up all your RAM.) Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego: Surprisignly enough, based on the article, this game was NOT an adaptation, but the source material of this character. This is where the fancy, mystery lady in the red coat started! Evidently this game was originally an edutainment game with a cops and robbers theme, and inspired by Colossal Cave Adventure from higher up on the list, and one must appreciate the effort that went into it. This one is ranked low, mostly because it didn't seem TOO notable to me. Honestly I'm surprised this is where Carmen Sandiego started. (And that she doesn't get enough credit as an iconic theatrical villain who won't go a step too far, but that's another rant.) -

D LIST

Here we are. The D LIST. The bottom of the sorting pile; the lowest of them all, the... well, the ones that I honestly don't necessarily dislike, but couldn't place higher for reasons of notability, personal interest, or perceived impact on the history of gaming. John Madden Football: Sports games, as a whole, really do NOT do it for me. I don't like real like sports at ALL (with, as a kid, a brief interest in boxing and that was just because they had gloves like Knuckles from Sonic the Hedgehog) so its hard for me to say that I find the history of this one all that compelling. Even so, there's some interesting elements in how this game was a sequel to a previous failed attempt, with a bold new attempt at a more arcade-style action game with a more dramatic take on the players, who would in turn be rated in different skill sets. The Madden series is STILL going so... it worked out pretty well, I'd say. (FUCKIN EA WAS BEHIND THIS ONE??? wow, EA is older than I thought.) Microsoft Flight Simulator: It's honestly a bit painful sorting this one so low, since I had many happy times as a wee Johnny playing this game back in the old days. I mean the OLD, old days. This was like, the days when Usenet was the preferred way for people to talk online. (Not me, though. I didn't talk to people, then. I was even less social than I am now, which is saying something!) All the same, I suppose that it was important to not crowd too many entries in a specific folder, and statistically, something had to keep getting knocked down, and in the end, I couldn't honestly say I still enjoyed this one enough to place it higher. Still, credit must be given where it is due; this game stands out for being an early foray into simulator gaming, showing a realistic depiction of actual flight. It has apparently been updated and rereleased many times since, which is impressive! Tetris: I like puzzles. So it might be surprising to hear this seminal game ranked so low; firstly, I like different KINDS of puzzles (like weird ones where you have to fling your sense of logic to the moon and back, or make use of gaming mechanics) and honestly this game is kind of stressful for me. You gotta keep an eye on a lot of different things flying around all at once, and constantly move things around, and that kind of attention and quick thinking does NOT come easily to me. All the same, I really have to admire how it was born from it's creator's pleasure in solving mathematical puzzles about sorting shapes into boxes, in a manner strangely remniscient of Satoshi's bug collecting that became Pokemon. Certainly the game's simplicity has proven a universally appealing thing, and may say something about the value of keeping it simple. Microsoft Solitaire: This game apparently became pay-to-get some time ago in recent computer generations, and let me tell, you, it was genuinely depressing to find that out. I remember younger decades, from the 90s and on, when this game was a regular and free feature in Windows computers fir MANY years. You got a computer, this game was on here. I was a kid, and i remember watching my mom play this game and makign the cards go WHOOP WHOPP all over the place and marveling, because I couldn't ever do the same thing. (A related note: I am terrible at this game. Go figure!) Of note, this game was massively widespread, and just EVERYWHERE, and I think everyone who ever played a computer back in those days instantly remembers it in some way. It was just... ubiquitous. Centipede: Oh, ol' Centipede. I don't mean to be mean to you. But between the likes of Pokemon and Super Mario Bros, even the arcade Donkey Kong, someone had to keep dropping down the leaderboard that is this tierlist, and unfortunately, there were other games that felt higher up than you. All the same, you're a very good game, and honestly, I like you more than some other games ranked higher for reasons of relevance to gaming history. Certainly more than anything else in D-listing. The colorful and appealing palette is noteworthy. That trackball controller! Amazing! (More games should use trackballs. They're fun and easy to use.) At the very least, Order of the Stick did a joke with you once, and that's better than anything I can do for you. All the same, you're a cool game.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars: “Shattered” -Review

The true tragedy of The Clone Wars makes itself known in the tense and traumatic penultimate episode of the series.

(Review contains episode spoilers)

Darth Maul is in custody. With his puppet government ousted, Bo-Katan and her loyalists once again have control over the planet of Mandalore. Her mission complete, Ahsoka Tano prepares to deliver the captured Sith Lord to Coruscant. However, the arrival of clone Order 66 upends her reality and forces Ahsoka to confront dark secrets.

I compared last week’s episode “The Phantom Apprentice” to a horror movie. Nathaniel Villanueva’s direction created an eerie and doom filled landscape that not only sold the high stakes action of the narrative, but also made the audience fully aware of the horrific events that were just around the corner. It’s rare that dread has been the key emotion of a Star Wars project, but that has certainly been the case here.

This feeling of unease carries into “Shattered,” the third episode of The Siege of Mandalore and the penultimate of the series as a whole. Director Saul Ruiz continues the atmospheric tension of “The Phantom Apprentice” into this chapter before shifting full on into emotional terror. “Shattered” builds to and continues on from the event that viewers of The Clone Wars have dreaded since day one. Order 66 has arrived. And it will change everything.

The final moments on Mandalore are a surreal experience. There is a temporary victory at hand. Maul and his loyalists have been supplanted, but there is nothing but uncertainty in the future. Bo-Katan Kryze is now left with ruling a planetary a government, a task that she is hardly prepared for. Katee Sachkoff has consistently given one of the most understated and nuanced voice performances on this series and watching Bo-Katan take stock of the planet she has now inherited is a sobering moment. I’ve talked before about the cyclical nature of Mandalorian history. Change is never permanent for people whose primary language is violence. It’s a quiet moment in an episode where so much happens, but Ahsoka asserting that Mandalore will need new leadership only for Bo-Katan to express doubt that that can even happen is perhaps the perfect summation of everything that Dave Filoni and his fellow creators have done with these sad lost warriors to date. We know now through Star Wars Rebels and The Mandalorian the painful route that these peopleface over the next two decades. There may be the semblance of hope now, but Bo-Katan like us know it’s a false one.

Also, can we just acknowledge that creepy Mandalorian sarcophagus that Maul is trapped inside? It’s an eerie artifact that turns Maul into a devilish Hannibal Lecter that is carted around like a deadly caged animal. Ruiz directs these moments with a certain degree of foreboding, with numerous haunting shots of and through Maul’s furious eyes and his trapped panting. It reads like a visual red herring. The visual language here tell us to be wary of this trapped rogue Sith, but the real horror lies elsewhere.

Filoni and Ruiz smartly hide the true warning signs elsewhere. Ahsoka walks into a briefing with multiple Jedi including Mace Windu and Master Yoda. Obi-Wan has engaged General Grievous and Anakin has left to inform the chancellor of these developments and the deciding moments of the end of the war at hand. Mace Windu has long been positioned as the Jedi that is perhaps the most lost in the twisted new reality that the Jedi have found themselves in. His wariness of politics and war have lead him to be a full participant in its actions and it has hardened him as a person. If the Jedi are lacking in compassion, it is Windu that is devoid of it. His callous response to Ahsoka’s questions serve as reinforcement of all of her existing biases of an organization that turned its back on her when she needed it most. Their paranoia in this case may be warranted, but that’s invisible to Ahsoka who is justifiably frustrated and angry with them for their actions. One of the quietest of the many tragedies in “Shattered” is that Ahsoka once again lets her loyalty to Anakin and her distrust of the Council prevent the halting of the pain that is to come. She doesn’t share Maul’s suspicions of Anakin to the Council, just as much because she worries what they might do with this information as she distrusts it herself. Even Yoda’s kind hearted request of a message to give to Anakin falls on unwilling ears. In this moment, the failures of the Jedi, even the ones that are the closest to their ideal like Yoda and Obi-Wan, have doomed their fate and driven away the people that may have been able to save them.

The moment arrives all the same. The end of the Jedi and the rise of the Sith were doomed to occur no matter what. After a heartfelt discussion about the ending of the war between Ahsoka and Commander Rex, Anakin’s betrayal is enacted and the galaxy is upended.

It’s maybe the one moment in “Shattered” that doesn’t completely make work. The decision to mix in the actual audio of Revenge of the Sith for Ahsoka and Maul to sense from across the galaxy is an inspired choice, but there’s an uncanny feeling to it that can’t be escaped. While Corey Burton and Samuel L. Jackson’s Mace Windu performances are close enough in style and cadence to ignore, Matt Lanter’s Anakin was purposefully designed to be a more empathetic and heroic take on the character. Hearing Hayden Christensen’s dialogue is jarring and off putting. It’s an intersection of film and animation in a way that feels a little too awkwardly grafted for it to have the needed effect. It’s made even stranger by the layering effect of Lanter’s voice over Christensen’s for the final line of dialogue. There may be a reason for this choice, but I’m not sure it was the right move to make.

We are given little time to ruminate on this though before it all goes belly up and Rex and the rest of the clones begin the execution of the Jedi Order. It was always going to be a shocking moment, but in a moment of out of context cruelty, many of us given the events of Star Wars Rebels were led to believe that Rex would escape this sadistic fate in full. Even as he resists pulling his weapons on his friend, it becomes clear that we never got the full story from our clone hero and there are darker and sadder futures ahead.

Ahsoka’s escape and evasion of the hunting clones is a tragic and tense set piece. The visual irony of clones that were once so loyal to her that they modeled themselves in her image now forced to hunt her to the death is unnerving and effective. It takes a sweet moment from the start of this arc and turns it into a cruel cosmic joke.

I’m sure many of us clone junkies did find some justice in Rex finally finding the truth in Fives’s discoveries from last season. While it will never take away the hurt that such a determined and empathetic clone died as a disgrace in the eyes of his friends and allies, there is a welcome payoff that Rex’s final words before being subsumed by his programming is a recognition of his friend. It gives Ahsoka a mission to hopefully save her friend while also providing needed payoff for one of the darker moments in this series.

Ashley Eckstein has been killing it all season as Ahsoka, but the directions she takes her in here are new and unexpected. This is a more desperate, angrier, and more determined take on the character. At this point she has pretty much lost everything that has mattered to her, but instead of wallowing in despair, she meets it with resolve and unflinching competence. Her utilitarian use for Maul’s escape is a fascinating beat as it shows just how clear the limits of Ahsoka’s compassion are. She still cares about those that are close to her, but now faced with this all-encompassing tragedy, she has little faith in self-serving operatives like the unstable Zabrak.

Maul’s escape though does end up unleashing one of the most brutal set pieces in the history of the series. In a bone crushing combination of Darth Vader’s hallway massacre from Rogue One and the unstoppable determination and kinetics of some of the best Magneto moments from the X-Men films, Maul plows through a hallway of resisting clones. It is maybe a little indulgent in its violence and certainly is some of the most intense imagery we have seen on this show this season, but there’s a base pleasure in how Ruiz directs this carnage. Maul is the wild card here. We have mostly certainly not seen the last of him.

Ahsoka’s desperate rescue of Rex’s autonomy alongside a trio of loyal droids feels like a desperate battle for hope in the darkness of the final days of the Clone Wars. While we know that these two are destined to escape, Filoni and Ruiz still sell it all with heartstopping tension. Even when Rex awakens from his murderous trance, it only serves a small victory. Our heroes are far from out of the woods.

Kevin Kiner’s musical score is operating at the top of its game here and it may be the best sounding episode of the series in that regard. Kiner continues to play with the unsettling and eerie drones that were so prominent last week, but also mixes in the electronica of the series’ earliest days and cues from John Williams’s operatic Revenge of the Sith score. It creates a unique and tense audio landscape that sells the violent tragedy of it all with masterful precision.

Thank the Force we only have three days to wait. I’m sure nothing but more pain is on the way, but hopefully there’s catharsis too. I really hope there is.

 Score: A

A bit about Jaster Mereel

Anyone who follows / visits my blog for Mandalorians most likely noticed by now I don’t talk much about Jaster Mereel, even though he is, Legends-wise, an important figure in their history. In general, I’m not a big fan of him or True Mandalorians and for sure I hate how tie-in materials glorified Jaster even though, from my perspective, he didn’t show anything that special in the main source (Jango Fett: Open Seasons).

Anyone may argue how comics is a very limited medium to present everything in great details, that the story was about Jango’s past, so it makes sense that Jaster, Montross and Tor were the supportive characters driving the plot and fulfilling important roles in Jango’s life (a mentor/father, rival/betrayer and enemy). But at the same time, even with limited space, Tor managed to lay two devastating traps (and one by using Jedi as a tool of doom, something that rarely happens, even less for Mandalorians), outmaneuvering both Jaster and Jango at some point in the story and showing good fighting & tactical skills. You don’t need to like him, you may disagree with his philosophy of life, behaviour and etc, but the comics built Tor as someone’s that leaves a strong impression based on his action that we actually could see with our own eyes while Jaster is mainly praised by tie-in materials as a great leader and some sort of reformator (what for me seems to argue with original source a lot) and sometimes, if remembered at all, by other Mandalorians. At the same time, comics didn’t show much Jaster in favorable circuments. I mean, we met him on the run from Death Watch and hiding in field crops that belonged to Fetts, then saving Jango only to almost die in fire and in the end being saved by Jango’s quick thinking. With the help of orphaned boy, he scored one victory on Concord Dawn then timeskip happened (sadly omitting the years of raising Jango) and finally Jaster led his men straight into trap, got betrayed by his own man and was killed on Korda VI. Understandable, Tor and Jaster played different roles thus comics made Vizsla the “active” character while Mereel was more “passive”. 

And you know what? Even with my despiste for the biased source materials that treat Jaster as some epic character while demonizing Tor and tons of personal jokes about Jaster / True Mandalorians shared with my close friend and fellow Tor fan (and god knows, we joke about them as much as we joke about Jedi), I do think that Jaster Mereel has a great potential as character and it is a true shame his story is not exploited beyond few basic informations. I mean, a former Journeyman Protector (a man of law) joining Mandalorian Mercenaries that kill for money / personal ambitions on right and left? The term a “reformed murderer” sounds intriguing on its own and there is the whole conflict with Tor Vizsla, the uneasy(?) relationship with Montross and family bond with Jango to explore.

And the sad thing about Jaster Mereel is how, despite the cult of True Mandalorians, he is almost forgotten. I know, hoping for New Canon to bring Legends Mandalorians to life is too much to ask when Jango Fett (and Boba) is barely recognised as Mandalorian in the first place but there is some irony that right now the true Mandalorians are tightly tied to Death Watch and TCW additional materials at least mentioned that Pre’s relatives / clan members were warriors of Death Watch and there was Bounty Hunter Code with Tor Vizsla’s Manifesto.So, Tor’s existence is/was to some degree confirmed even despite the drastic changes that happened to Mandalorian lore thanks to The Clone Wars & Disney.

And yeah, BHC did mention Jaster Mereel and True Mandalorians but in all fairness? The Bounty Hunter Code was so great but wasted opportunity to flesh out Jaster, who had/lead a company actually called “HeadHunter”on Korda VI

which may suggest Mereel’s True Mandalorians also took more typical bounty hunter jobs (and seeing how both Jango and Montross went into business, it seems logical to assume they both already had some experience in this field). This in turn could nicely connect Jango’s past to the career of Bounty Hunter, as in a way to explore the time he spent with Jaster Mereel, what he learned from his mentor/father figure and would absolutely make sense for Jango to pass the book/notes to young Boba. Especially since he wanted a clone for himself to pass the Jaster’s Legacy.

I understand that the Death Watch’s Manifesto was a means to connect the old lore with changes made by TCW. Even as a non-objective source, it has its own value but frankly, including it into stricte book about bounty hunters feels a bit off. Jaster’s own notes could give the fans the same information about Mandalorian history and even about the conflict between Death Watch and New Mandalorians, as a third (less involved?) party and it would make sense for Jango to have it in the first place (as a memento because Jango was sentimental enough to keep Jaster’s stuff years after his death) and pass it to Boba who from the start was meant to carry on Jaster’s Legacy.

And yeah, sure, it was possible for Jango to get hold of a top secret Death Watch book and pass it to Boba “to know your enemy”, but I personally think that Jaster’s notes would carry more emotional impulse. And well, I’m curious about Jaster’s mindset. And I’m saying that as a fan of Tor Vizsla because frankly, the manifesto doesn’t sound much like him (or at least the impression of him built for me by comics) and even Jango shares similar doubts about the authenticity of the author. So yeah, in regard to this one source, I would rather have Jaster’s POV than one dictated for TCW for Tor.

The other wasted opportunity happened in the latest Marvel comics (what is the real reason for the rant). You know, the War of the Bounty Hunters - in one of the issues, Boba had a sidequest and worked under the name of Jango. 

And I know this was supposed to be an emotional scene, a son using father’s name and canon remembering about elder Fett and so on. But the only thing I felt at that moment was how Jaster Mereel felt from grace and how it was easy to make a callback to all the older Legends sources (retcon?) of both Jango and Boba using Jaster Mereel’s name while working undercover. As you know, keeping the memory of a man supposed to mean so much to Jango and Mandalorian history - and by that allowing Boba to fulfil his own father’s desire. 

Yeah, I know, I wish too much and hope is overrated anyway. It is just bizarre how the perception of Mandalorian lore changed in the last 20 years.

I never thought there would come a day to say this, but Jaster Mereel deserves better than being some idealized symbol or obscure character forgotten at every turn. 

what is captain harlock and how do i look into it 😳

ALRIGHT. so he's space pirate captain harlock, and, believe it or not, he's a pirate... and he's also in space. this is my only interest i feel like i can actually discuss to some degree of accuracy so here goes!!

tl;dr harlock is a space pirate captain, popularized by anime and manga released in the late 70s and early 80s, who fights for his ideals, rebels against the government, and saves the world a few times. no big deal

i'm mostly familiar with harlock anime, but you could start with the original series space pirate captain harlock (42 eps) or you could watch endless orbit ssx (22 eps).

space pirate captain harlock is the main character of the eponymous 1977 manga by leiji matsumoto. he looks like this lol:

i still haven’t read the original manga, but the first harlock anime, also called space pirate captain harlock, was adapted from it! it was the first harlock media i consumed, and it is 42 episodes of PURE space opera. UNADULTERATED galactic drama. set some time in the distant future, an alien race seeks to claim earth as their own. with an apathetic populace and a government that refuses to acknowledge the threat, earth is fucked. or it WOULD be, were it not for captain harlock and the crew of the arcadia. the motley band of space pirates gains a new member at the beginning of the story, and the audience learns about the arcadia's mission along with him.

i personally thought it started off strong, like in the first few episodes it absolutely intrigued me, but others have said it starts off very slowly and has a lot of filler eps. a lot of blatant worldbuilding happens at the beginning, but once the setting is well established things start to pick up. if you're not interested by maybe episode 3 or 4, it's probably not your thing. which it very well may not be, i guess it might be what you would expect from the 70s!!

i think you’ll be able to tell right off the bat whether or not you can handle watching the animation. some of the space backgrounds are very pretty though, and the old tech art is an aesthetic of its own.

i’d have to do a rewatch to list more specific triggers, but there’s some violence and death, nothing too graphic. some, maybe most, of the fighting is done in space though, so there are spaceships exploding and that kind of thing. there are also a few instances of nudity (just tits out i’m pretty sure).

BEYOND THE ORIGINAL SERIES, there's a movie and another, shorter series from the early 80s. 

arcadia of my youth is the prequel to this second series and tells harlock's origin story. i should say ONE of his origin stories because there are quite a few variations of literally everything regarding harlock. and ok this is going to sound fucking horrible but. i paid absolutely no attention to the movie when i watched it. i don’t remember this movie at all. i honestly can’t tell you whether that’s due to me just being an idiot or the movie just not being any good. (will update you when i watch it again?)

anyways. you don’t have to watch the movie (you probably should, i just forgot everything that happens in it because i’m built different), but it sets up for the plot of endless orbit ssx. this second series, at 22 episodes, is much shorter than the original series; it was supposed to be around 40 episodes as well, but it had to be cut short because cultural focus had shifted from this type of romanticized space drama to shows like gundam (which is why i have yet to touch any gundam stuff—i hold a slight grudge against the mecha genre in general for this lol). i was expecting a really shitty ending due to that, but as a whole the show is still very enjoyable and the ending is fine, if clearly rushed.

endless orbit ssx was i think a bit heavier than the main series. earth has fallen under control of aliens, so this time harlock & co’s goal is to find arcadia, the mythical planet where they can all just live in peace and whatnot (a change of pace from the original series, i guess they know there’s no chance of saving earth this time around?), but along the way, as you can guess, they're opposed by the reigning alien race.

admittedly, i'm VERY biased when it comes to how good ssx is, simply because tochiro gets a lot of spotlight in the show. you should recognize him from somewhere ;)

he is just a fantastic little guy, i adore him, and his design in ssx is very very good (he just looks like a weird little man in some other media. full offense). he's smart, impulsive, and has a sense of humor, which makes him an excellent complement to harlock, who is often shown as the stoic, emotionless hero. they're best friends, like they have this bond where they’re pursuing their shared dream and all that. pretty cool i think :)

even aside from tochiro, ssx is still very good. in terms of writing and plot, i think it’s about on par with (or maybe better than) the original series, and there’s less room for filler. also, things get going much faster, so i’d say you could only give it an episode or two before you decide whether to keep going or drop it.

ALRIGHT SO. that's what i have to say about harlock, condensed as much as i could manage (and hopefully put in words a normal person might use). there are plenty of gaps in my knowledge, and a few shows and movies i haven't even bothered to watch myself. obviously the harlock stuff isn't for everyone, so. good luck i guess

you can find everything i’ve discussed here on 9anime.to!