Okay my copy of agit came in the mail today and I just read the whole thing, so now I can finally share my thoughts.

First of all, love it, literally the only thing I was iffy about the whole time was the fact that they used smartphones and contemporary slang instead of keeping everything from the shows original time period. I personally would have preferred it maintain the 2005-ness of the original show, but I can understand why the author chose to modernize it.

Secondly, the whole two doors thing at the end where his choices were “no powers” or “no phantom planet” very obviously only existed so phantom planet could be retconned out of existence—not that I’m complaining, I’m just saying it was not subtle. (But also phantom planet no longer canon can I get a fuck yeah)

And lastly thank you AGIT for canonizing that Dan calls himself Phantom as his only name because goddamn it is so hard to write anything serious or emotional when the main character’s name is fucking Dan. I’m sorry ppl named Dan but I cannot take your inner turmoil seriously (not when I’m writing in third person, anyway. It really takes me out of the moment. The vibes are awful.)

@theneutralmime

First off, don't watch the Ahsoka show and even if you do, it's immensely anti-Jedi so none of it should be considered worthwhile content in figuring out how relationships work between the Jedi normally, especially since Ahsoka herself doesn't consider herself OR Sabine Jedi (she doesn't even WANT Sabine to be a Jedi). The only other Master/Padawan relationship in the Ahsoka show is Baylan and Shin who also don't consider themselves to be Jedi.

Here's the thing with "found family" as a concept. A lot of people like putting people into certain labels and going for a basic nuclear family mom/dad/kids kind of set up. But it does not HAVE to be that way. A "found family" can be a bunch of people who consider each other friends, with no familial feelings at all. It can be literally anything.

Rebels does go for more of a sort-of mom/dad/kids deal, particularly with Kanan, Hera, Sabine, and Ezra. Zeb however lives in a somewhat more nebulous gray area where you COULD see him as a fellow "child" in the dynamic, but he doesn't really care for being considered a child during the episode where he and the other Lasat find Lira San and he's clearly older and more experienced than either Ezra or Sabine, so he could just as easily be considered an "uncle" of sorts if you wanted to, or an older cousin or something maybe.

The other thing to consider with Rebels is that, while the group does include two Jedi, none of these relationships would necessarily be typical representations of how Prequels Jedi relationships would have looked or how they would've thought of each other. Kanan and Ezra's relationships to the rest of Ghost crew is impacted by that difference, especially since Ezra specifically did not grow up in the Temple among other Jedi and spent most of his childhood and early teens in a very different situation. And Kanan, by Rebels, would've spent more time WITHOUT any relationships with other Jedi than he would've had WITH them.

So with all of that in mind, I think that the Jedi's relationships aren't NEARLY as clear cut as people seem to want them to be. They're a family, yes, but they're a family that is 10,000 strong at least. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time keeping like less than 50 members of my family straight, what their names are and who they're related to, much less ten thousand people. I think it's very likely that all Jedi would feel a kinship to fellow Jedi, but that they probably don't personally know every single Jedi. In TCW, Ahsoka seems to need to be introduced to Tera Sinube for the first time when she's 14 years old. So while she might see someone like Plo Koon as a closer parental figure, she's not going to feel the same way about Tera Sinube who she barely knows.

I think any Master/Padawan relationship is going to sort-of vary depending on the individuals involved. Some of them might be quite close, some might be more professional. Some might be pretty close in age and so their dynamic leans closer to friends and siblings than it would parent and child. Others might have a larger age gap and so the dynamic could lead closer to parent/child or even grandparent/grandchild. Some of them might shift over time, too, or have layers of more than one of these dynamics. For example, Anakin calls Obi-Wan "the closest thing he's ever had to a father" in AOTC, but Obi-Wan calls him a brother twice in ROTS. So their relationship may have had shades of both dynamics given the age difference, the relationship dynamic could have shifted over time from a more parent/child relationship to a more sibling relationship, or they each may have seen the relationship slightly differently with Anakin looking more for a parental dynamic while Obi-Wan is perhaps going more for a relationship of equals (at least by ROTS). It could be any of these three things combined, too.

There's a comic where Obi-Wan is asked whether Anakin is his son and Obi-Wan responds that no, Anakin is his Padawan, his student. While this isn't strictly canon, I think it fits quite nicely into my interpretation that the Master/Padawan relationship is its own specific kind of dynamic and while it can be SIMILAR to other kinds of relationships, it is very much its own thing. It's not a static relationship, it's not just the Jedi version of parents and children, it is a distinct relationship that changes and grows with the individuals. There is no 1:1 comparison for all Master/Padawan relationships.

As for Ezra and Jacen, you could apply a similar concept. Kanan, much like Obi-Wan with Anakin, fills a parental role for Ezra, but he's also growing and developing ALONGSIDE Ezra and could be considered a younger brother of sorts, too. Jacen is family to Ezra, but I don't think you HAVE to place a particular label on what that dynamic is, whether they'd consider each other like brothers or whether Ezra would be more of an uncle. And it doesn't even have to specifically be defined by their respective relationships to KANAN, either. Jacen and Ezra might come up with their own dynamic that has nothing to do with how they each feel about Kanan and is specific to their own relationship. I don't think you have to be super specific about saying that because Kanan was Ezra's Master, this automatically makes Ezra basically his son and so Ezra and Jacen should consider themselves like brothers and never have an uncle/nephew dynamic. I think Ezra and Jacen can be whatever you want them to be to each other.

Hello, it is me again with a question for you regarding your Ganrauru series 😁

I was just thinking about how you have framed Rauru's relationship to power, that there is a part of him that does seek the sort of friendship and genuine connection it brings while also bristling at the idea of someone opposing him and discarding his attempts at making said peace and friendship. That being said I was wondering, given Rauru's very complex feelings and mental gymnastics around Ganondorf and his refusal to submit, in your opinion what would have Rauru felt compelled to do had Ganondorf refused his advances? What if he had continued to refuse his invitations to Hyrule? How about in the case where Ganondorf does give his false vow of fealty, but refuses Rauru's more sexual advances, seeing them for what they are? How do you think Rauru would handle this situation, and how would he justify himself in the sort of framework he has set for himself as a just king? (For the record I don't think for a second that Ganondorf would have refused, just because I see him as an opportunist and he would absolutely take the opportunity to exercise some form of power over this so-called king in his mind, even if he is deluding himself in the process and choosing to forget that Rauru is essentially keeping him like a prisoner and objectifying him. But, it is something I do think about, even in the context of canon itself. What would Rauru do if Ganondorf and the Gerudo dug their heels in and refused allegiance with Hyrule?)

Ooooh this is such a great question. Consent issues ahoy, let's get into it

I was thinking about something similar the other day from a slightly different angle; if I argue that the Gerudo's previous chieftain was leading Rauru on, maintaining diplomatic relations and humoring his overtures, what would have happened if she had eventually said "No, actually"? And I think with either negotiating partner, Rauru's first emotional response is a petty, confused indignation. Excuse me I am benevolent and my rule is beneficial, why are you not responding to me accordingly?. We see this kind of pettiness canonically, I think--Zelda introduces herself and his response can be interpreted as "No, I'm king here, you want to try that again?"; Mineru tells him he can't defeat the Demon King alone and he gives her such a look. My guy, what is going on with you.

How this plays out with Ganondorf and a protracted refusal from the Gerudo to join up is of course a slightly different question of course, and I can't really see any answer to it other than that Rauru just... will not hear a no. Hyrule just keeps pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. The shrines are already in place on Gerudo land but what if there were, you know, a military outpost or two as well. How much control over trade does Hyrule have, and how do they exercise it? Is there eventually an attitude of, well, if the Gerudo want nothing to do with Hyrule, then Hylians shouldn't be marrying Gerudo? I'm spitballing here, but a lot of this has an air of punishment to it, yknow? Retaliating against the Gerudo for not responding positively to Hyrule's invitations/incursions, for not playing into Rauru's self-conception and thus revealing the ways in which it's not fully true. Wow, so benevolent.

I don't see any world in which Rauru escalates to armed conflict first but I see many, many worlds in which he escalates to a point that armed conflict is an understandable response from the Gerudo. I mean. Is not "I have decided I'm gonna be king of this new kingdom I just made up :) You're invited!" already pretty close to that point? If we're being honest? I do feel like it is. (And I wonder if there's any world in which he loses the support of the allied tribes, if this pressure ever could have been perceived as the imperialism it was.)

How does Rauru justify this to himself, this refusal to acknowledge the Gerudo's no, this inch-by-inch encroachment? By conflating, I think, his personal sense of injury with the threat of harm. Ganondorf does not want the Gerudo to become part of Hyrule is shrunk down to the petty, personal terms of Ganondorf thinks of me as an enemy and then expanded again into Ganondorf is an enemy of Hyrule. He's right about that last one because Nintendo is so very boring about this, but he's making a series of logical fallacies without realizing it. I don't see a lot of propensity towards self-reflection in Rauru. Not without Very Bad Things Happening to Him first. So he trusts his own feelings without questioning them.

As for what would have happened if Ganondorf had turned down his sexual advances... oh that would just be awkward for everyone, wouldn't it? In the sense that: I think that part of what keeps Ganondorf from pushing back when Rauru is being petty and imperious is Ganondorf's own recognition--conscious or not--that Rauru will not necessarily listen to a no. This is his experience of Rauru thus far, of someone who receives an implicit no and rather than respect it simply keeps asking and thinks himself right to do so (canonicallyyyyyyy). And so there is a risk for Ganondorf in saying "no": that of winding up in a situation where he has drawn a line in the sand that he cannot defend. One that Rauru will coldly step over. Rauru doesn't want to be in this situation, either: he doesn't want to see that he is a person who will only accept a "no" if he thinks it's justified. His mind squirms around admitting how coercive he's being, even to himself. But on some level he does know what sort of position he's putting Ganondorf in. He knows that Ganondorf is not in a position to say no, and that's a balm on the ego-wound that Ganondorf's political refusals have inflicted. One that reveals that the true nature of the ego-wound is not he does not think I am good but he does not acknowledge my power. (Again I gesture towards "I'm the only king Hyrule's got, who r u" and "excuse u, wat do u mean I can't defeat the Demon King")

So if Ganondorf did actually say no? In ACNOC, after that first kiss, a cold, "I don't want this, Your Majesty"? There is a part of Rauru that flares with the desire to take anyway, to say have you not come to offer me your submission?, but so early in the situationship maybe he is able to recognize that desire for the cruelty it is. ...Maybe. But god, can he afford to? Can he afford to apologize to Ganondorf for overreaching? Mm, absolutely not. Even if he ceases to try to goad Ganondorf into a sexual relationship, I think the answering dialogue is along the lines of "Then what makes you think you have the right to invade my personal space like this? Your actions belie your claim that you have come to offer submission to Hyrule." There's still very much a need to put Ganondorf in his place--an increased need, even, having just lost a bit of face by allowing Ganondorf to refuse him something.

(consent issues get louder)

At the end of UAWTATR, though, hhhhhhhh. Many times I have turned this thought over in my head. At that point. I think there might be some phrasing of the sentiment I don't want this that would stop Rauru in his tracks with the realization that hey this is WAY rape-ier than I wanna be, but I'll be honest. I haven't figured out yet what phrasing would do it. I think most protests that Ganondorf could have offered would have been met with something that boiled down to I know you don't want this, but your position relative to mine means you're going to do it anyway.

How he justifies that to himself later, I don't know. Ganondorf did try to assault him just the night before so that comes into it, probably. That Ganondorf immediately tries really hard to kill him keeps him from having to look to closely at it, either. He's still left with a feeling of nauseated shame and horror but he's got other things on his mind.

God. Nintendo cannot possibly have meant to make Rauru like this but then why did they make Rauru sO CONSISTENTLY LIKE THIS. I know I am expanding things. But I am expanding things that DO exist. Why is he like this.

Ranger Academy: The First Arc

So! Ranger Academy has given us four issues, and as we're getting a break next month, these four issues are clearly meant to be seen as the first arc or chapter of the story. While I didn't really expect to give this series most of my attention, apparently I do have a lot to say about it, so let's discuss these four issues and my thoughts on the series so far.

Ranger Academy's kind of in a weird place, at least from my experience. As far as I'm aware, there's really not much discussion or hype for it in the fandom? Which, in some way, makes sense - the series is completely disconnected from the main series and from the beginning was stated to be skewed more towards younger readers; almost as an introduction to Power Rangers as a whole. And it does that job well......for the most part.

Before I get to the writing though, I just want to take a minute to highlight the art, since I don't talk about it enough in my recaps/other discussions. It's great! Drawn by Jo Mi-Gyeong and colored by Fabiana Mascolo, the art for the PR comics in general continues to be a high point. Every character, even the background teachers, have a distinct memorable design with a lot of personality in their poses and gestures, and the numerous settings we've already gotten - Sage's moon home, Ranger Academy's different campuses, the planet Chromia - all look fantastic. My only nitpicks would be I wish we got more non-humanoid cadets, and sometimes the way faces are drawn in profile look a little odd - especially when they have their mouths open - but those are nitpicks.

When it comes to the writing, things get a little trickier. For the most part, I think the story is good. The basic premise to all this in case you're new: a young girl named Sage lives on a remote moon with only her adopted father Rhianth and a herd of weird goat-like creatures. One day two cadets from the titular Ranger Academy, Mathis and Tula, crash-land on the moon and tell her about the Academy. Sick of living alone under her father's rules and wanting adventure, Sage stows along with them on their return journey and becomes an official student. So now instead of herding goats, she's making new friends, discovering secrets of the Academy, how her father connects to all this, and becoming a Power Ranger.

As I said, I think this is a solid premise for Boom's first ever completely original Power Rangers book (I count Power Rangers Universe as a sort of test-run for original stories, but that was still pretty connected to the main series and using established canon concepts.) The mysteries they've introduced, such as the lost Green campus, the implication that certain Ranger colors were purposefully erased from history, Rhianth's past, and Tula's interest in these secrets, all help build on the somewhat basic premise and are slowly giving the book its own identity. Sage herself is a very likable and relatable protagonist; a kid wanting more out of her lonely, isolated life so she takes the first opportunity she can to escape, but is now realizing that it's not going to be some fun adventure. The supporting cast is a little underdeveloped, but everyone's perfectly likable and I'm interested in seeing how they grow. I think for me there are two main problems that drag the book down: the setting itself being underdeveloped and the Ranger alumni cameos.

Ranger Academy itself? Meh

A criticism that immediately came out following the book's release, that I agree with for the most part, is the book pretty much follows the structure of a "magic school" story to a T. A "normal" kid who wants more out of life gets thrust into this new world by some kind of outside force. The school has a category system where kids get put into select campuses based on personality or skills. The main character doesn't fit in with everyone else until they find some friends to take care of them. There are secrets about the school that are being kept from the students, and secrets of the main character's family being hidden from them. Also, there's a bully.

During my first read of the issues, I agreed that this was a detriment to the book, but now rereading it again, I think the problem is less that the book follows these tropes and more that it speeds through these tropes REALLY QUICKLY. You can tell they want to move things along to the good stuff where Sage morphs, and I understand why - this is a Power Rangers book, and people want to see Power Rangers. But at the same time, you really don't get much of a chance to get to know the school outside of its basic layout of its campuses and that the headmaster is literally a giant floating head. You don't learn any of the non-cameo teachers' names, outside of the librarian, and that's mostly because he was part of Rhianth's old friend group. You see some of the classes Sage has to take, but there's no discussion on if each color campus focuses on a particular subject. We establish that first years are on a rotation schedule of attending classes in a different color campus each day, but what's the difference between classes in the Blue Campus and classes in the Pink?

Now this might seem trivial, and it kind of is. It does help the reader feel Sage's overwhelming new situation by not giving her, and therefore the reader, the full picture. And there's nothing saying that these concepts won't get developed down the road. Sage has three and a half years left of school, after all, assuming the book continues long enough to cover that length of time. But when it comes to these kinds of stories, the school's operation is a huge part of the charm - what makes THIS magic school stand out against all the others on the YA shelf? You basically have to turn the school itself into a character. Hogwarts is so iconic because that series does this perfectly. Ranger Academy simply doesn't have that yet - it still just feels like a generic school, really an army training camp more than anything due to the hostage negotiation and survival classes she takes, with nothing to make it stand out except for the promise that we'll get to actual Power Rangers stuff soon.

Oh, and.....the cameos.

The Cameos

So.....yeah. This is a big one for me. I think there's time for the series to fix my issue of the school itself feeling underdeveloped, but it's already too late for the cameos

Back when Ranger Academy was first being advertised, they were quick to show off that the book could cameo any ranger at any point in the franchise - the book itself accomplishes this through the Rangers using tubes as a sort of interplanetary, interdimensional Zoom........or just kind of.....showing up, as is the case with Cruger, Yale, and Katie. (I don't really know what constitutes a cameo physically being there as opposed to a tube hologram. It's another thing the book hasn't explained the rules for yet.) And for the most part, this is a fine idea. It makes sense, and fun for the simple novelty of "look!! it's my blorbo!!!" that no one is immune to.

But they get more and more out of place as the story of Ranger Academy starts to pick up.

Like I said before, the book is starting to hint that the school only having five colors isn't COMPLETELY MMPR pandering - the school is, indeed, intentionally erasing certain Ranger colors from their students' awareness. As someone who would love for the big twist to be this school and its system is inherently corrupt, this is a good start.

HOWEVER. In order to make this work, you have to assume that a) the Ranger histories that the students learn about just don't mention ANY rangers that aren't red, blue, black, pink, or yellow and b) the Ranger alumni who teach there don't mention them either. And that's just too much for me to believe, I'm sorry. For some colors like orange and white, maybe, but gold? Silver? GREEN???????? There are too many of those guys to believe they can get covered up. And I really don't see the ranger alumni being okay with erasing their teammates from history. Green is the third-highest ranking at SPD. Hello? SPD? I think these guys would have heard of SPD? Since Cruger teaches there? (And if not at school then certainly once they're out and traveling the galaxy.)

I've mentioned before that the cameos are starting to feel more like a higher-up mandate than something the author chose to do, and that'll only be supported by a lack of explanation as to how this works with the narrative they're weaving AND if none of the cameo rangers actually.......play a real part in all this. Not that I want the canon characters to overshadow the new characters, but it would feel like kind of a letdown to have access to ALL of these characters and not give them anything to do besides generic exposition (there's really nothing specific to their characters in.....ANY of the cameos' dialogue, besides the five hundredth "uh, is that a CAT???????" joke with Yale.) or not take the chance to develop some of them by, say, assigning them a mentorship role to a specific student. I LOVE seeing Katie, after BOOM kind of ignores her in favor of Jen, but is all she going to amount to is being their bus driver? I didn't even realize it was her until people pointed out that they called her Professor Walker. Nothing about her suggested that she was Katie. So I worry about the aforementioned "it's my blorbo" novelty to wear out pretty fast if the cameos start to feel more and more like just fanservice for people to post about online.

But overall.....it's fine. I'm going to keep reading, and we'll see where this goes. I don't think everyone will like this - as seen by how I barely see anyone talking about it lol. But I'm cautiously optimistic now that we're getting into the meat of things with Sage's new, FORBIDDEN!!!!!!!!! color.

(Just don't bring in Dark Specter oh god please)

Misc Thoughts:

= For all the build-up that the First Trial would be this HORRIBLE LIFE-THREATENING OH GOD HELP ME event, it was actually pretty...lowkey. They literally had no trouble until someone broke their ankle, which....could happen anywhere, at any time. Fern did that, you ain't special. We didn't even see any of those cool monsters they kept bringing up

= So after all my confusion about when and where this series is set, going back in my reread helped me notice that there IS a clue towards setting in a scene where Sage is going through yearbooks: a shelf labeled "Class of [X]498" (the first number is obscured by one of Sage's narration boxes.) So it's.....tentatively set in the far future of the PR universe?

= I've said it before that I don't blame the author for apparently not knowing that previously the books established Xybrians like Kartyr follow a name pattern of a one-syllable word (Trip, Star, Ace, Trek, etc) but it is a little funny to imagine the possibilities. Jerk, Dick, Twerp

= I think a joke could have been done with Cruger, a dog, and Yale, a cat, being in the same room together

= I hate that the Academy was founded by Zordon. It's too low-hanging fruit for me. I'll say it again that I wish it could have just been founded by some OC team

= #Lindy4Orange2024 and FUCK the Bandorian Monks!

I have never vibe with an MLB critic essay so hard as yours do. People put salt on a lot of different things of MLB, but you hit every point of that really hits home of why the show is a dissapointment for me; from the Love Square wasted potential, the expectation of a Magical Girl show that wasn't delivered, the messy incoherent themes that is not represented well in their powers or villains, the umbalance power dynamics complete with comparison.

Too bad you drop it though (reasonably), I really wish to read what you think of Sentimonster!Adrien or even the Finale.

Something interesting happens when I completely give up on a show. And that's that...I really stop expecting anything from it.

When the Sentimonster thing came out, I genuinely just sighed. I couldn't even form an opinion because all I could feel is "this is such wasted potential".

The idea of a child being created via an object - and having said object tied to them, is such a good one. And it raises so many interesting and profound ideas. It could speak about how parents see their kids as nothing but dolls. It could be a very cool concept of Adrien someone who has the power to DESTROY, not only having a gentle soul but having to protect this object.

All things get presented to us for a reason - even if that reason is purely aesthetics.

Why are the girls in Tokyo Mew Mew animals? Because the creator thought catgirls were cool.

Why do we have witches in madoka? Because witches are the evolved form a "girl with magic" aka a "magical girl". And that's a cool thought.

Why is the Princess Tutu inspired by the swan lake ballet and why does it chose "defying destiny" as it premise? Because in real life, the swan lake ballet has multiple endings, some tragic, some happy. The tragedy aspect of it, enhances the princess tutu aesthetic.

Why was Adrien introduced to us as a Sentimonster?

And that's the thing. I can't even wrap my head around why would you make that creative choice.

It's an interesting idea, but one that feels more rooted on someone seeing a headcanon of it online and trying to pander to the audience with it. A sort of torture porn (which in a vacuum isn't something I'm opposed to), just to hammer home how shitty Adrien's life is. How abusive his dad is. Which, btw, doesn't even make sense when you think abt how he got redeemed in the recent episodes.

My point is, I can't have an opinion on "Adrien being a sentimonster" because I can't see why. Why they did it. And my lack of interest in the series, makes it so that I don't wanna spend pondering the "why".

What's the point? What themes did it introduce? Does it tie to the miraculous stuff somehow? Does it coherently expand upon the known lore?

Like, Katherine from Genshin Impact - it recently got revealed she's a doll controlled by the Fatui. This serves the purpose of allowing Nahida, an extremely kind archon, to have a vessel she can control. It shows insight of Marionette's powers, and how likely the adventurer's guild is to be related to the Fatui or Snezhnayan politics, as well as have an in-game reason as to why there's a Katherine in each region.

While it's also an out of left field bonkers thing getting revealed, it MAKES SENSE. There's a reason why she was made this way.

But with Adrien, there isn't. It's just /there/. Not really related to anything, no foreshadow, or anything. This is all, obviously, tied to the terrible writing of the show. But this is just insane. I do not understand it. I seriously can't.

https://www.tumblr.com/rawliverandgoronspice/718014251940315136?source=share

Ill be honest and say i think the removal of sheikah related lore was not for internal weird racist reasons and instead simply for game design reasons, why the zonai tech is so similar in concept and execution. totk is a sequel and also a redux, they needed technology for mechanics and a reason for the world to change and introducing an entirely new race of characters would be the perfect scapegoat. it feels like it ignores botw almost entirely because 1) new players 2) to be a finished version of botw more mechanics and more content. the narrative was barely a thing in this game because what mattered the most was design and gameplay above all else. i don't think caring about gameplay first particularly bad, it's a fun game they will probably revolutionize the industry once again, and that nintendo doesn't care about lore at all but it really wasn't the priory here at least that's how I felt when i play the game. i adore the overworld and the npcs but the main quest (tears) story itself is very stale. best praise i can give to it is character design and zeldas sacrifice/how they handled her and link that's literally it (vague because i don't know if you've gotten there yet, it's after the completion of the tears quest and getting the master sword). zelda lore at this point is a sandbox and us fans will do what we want with it. sorry for the ramble!

Hey, thanks for the ask!

So I sort of agree, especially on the first part. I absolutely believe that yes, sheikah were not sidelined for malicious reasons, and the ease of just having one super-powerful ultratech culture you rely on was cleaner than having the old relics hanging around. I actually think it's the cleanest choice to make (one that would have been *even cleaner* would have been to write a story and think of a world that reinvent its landmarks based on that new ideas of archeology and the past bursting back into the present, which is theme that coats the game but doesn't ever permeates it). I still think any acknowledgement that it used to exist would have enriched a world that has, ultimately, very little new things to teach us about itself (I have scoured the Depths a bunch, and it's a combat/exploration hotspot, and that's cool but also what a missed opportunity to try some proper FromSoftware-style worldbuilding down there!). I don't think this would have confused new players; if anything it could have hinted at more and gave the new players any reason to pick up Breath of the Wild? But: the world is a playground! That's cool. I think it could be a much more meaningful playground, that's all. There's a category of players who kind of need some light modicum of internal consistency to be invested in exploration, and will just get bored otherwise (I have seen a bunch of people making this exact remark, and honestly... yeah, there are areas in the game I'm not interested in exploring just because I know it's a consequenceless challenge in the end --I'm just not the kind of player that is hooked by a game loop on its own merit, I need to understand what I'm building towards or I lose interest. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't have changed anything to a regular TotK's enjoyer experience, but would have greatly enriched the experience of players like me)

Still think that making Sheikahs a subset of hylians was a very weird choice. Not an outright malicious one, but one that does build up with all of the other weird choices and make this Hyrule feel like a revisionist Hyrule; and one they simply... didn't have to make.

(I'll maybe do another post about this, but there are so many things in this game that would be very confusing to a new player either way also --but that's kind of going into another territory)

I disagree about one general point, however, and I may get offtrack here a little but I guess you gave me an excuse to rant a little about how narrative design is perceived by the general public and what has been frustrating to witness in regards to the conversation surrounding this game from my perspective.

Mainly, this notion that "they had no other choice" because they chose to prioritize gameplay. I'm going to overshare a little (again sorry) but I work in gamedev in real life; I am actually a narrative designer that did quest design and game writing on a couple of games, some of them that also qualify as AAA open worlds. I think it's completely fair to see this game from a player perspective as a series of compromises struck to privilege the aspect of the game they were the most confident with --however, it is literally my real life job to walk through situations that can be extremely similar to this one and find solutions that weave narration with fun experiences game and level designers managed to put together. It doesn't mean that story has to swallow gameplay: if anything, narrative designers always try to privilege mechanics first and treat them as narrative devices in their own right before whipping out the actual cutscenes and the constant writing (and this game was somehow under AND overwritten in my opinion, especially in English --so I don't think it even solved this aspect?). This is not at all aimed at you in particular but at the internet at large; it ends up being quite grating to see assumptions being made about what can and can't be done in non-linear narrative as like, a fact of the universe instead of it being a specific field that deserve research and investment just like any other graphical advancement or intricate interactive feature, and explain away poor design decisions by the strange notion that they had no other choice, as if Nintendo studios aren't comprised of a bunch of humans who made active and passive choices. Like, I worked on very similar issues. There are solutions to how you feed information to the player in a non-linear way. There are ways to maximize impact and depth, even when you let the player guide the story. Again: it's fine if it doesn't bug you or a lot of people --but there are flaws. It happens. It's gamedev. It's a miracle any game is made at all --and this one is its own sort of miracle. What strikes me as strange is that I never see that level of excuses made for companies that do not cultivate that same image of being an unapproachable, united workforce, that get instead torn to shreds at the slightest sideway brush --but that's another subject maybe (maybe).

Narrative design is this thing that, when it's not there, people don't realize it could be; and when it is there, people take it for granted unless it's very visibly front and center like in Edith Finch or Disco Elysium or any other number of indie games (generally it's the indies who do all the research and development and take all of the risks on that front --like seriously I worked in narrative-driven studios, known for their narrative games, where 2/3 of the game designers couldn't care less about emotional impact beyond satisfaction/frustration/boredom, and it's infinitely frustrating (heh) to have your specialization considered optional fluff when you know how far thematic cohesion can push a game when handled well ANYWAY anyway). So: I was always going to care about the way they handled narrative, because it's how I'm wired, what I research, and I also played this game in part because I was very curious on how they'd push their explorations of BotW's possibilities, which were very interesting if a little limited. Needless to say, this was a let down. And I think it's not unreasonable to have higher narrative standards than this.

I do want to autocorrect myself on a statement I put out before, however, that being the notion that not enough research was put into narrative. I think I want to push forward a new theory that sounds much more plausible to me (again based on nothing but speculation and weird déjà-vu vibes, which is perhaps why I care that much :) :) ), and that being: a lot of research was done, and then cut. It seems very plausible the narrative used to be much more ambitious than this --and then, for one reason or another, somebody panicked, or the thing got out of hand, or they couldn't get it to work exactly right, and everything was downscoped pretty late into production. Six years of development is a long time, and I don't think anyone with the standards of a Nintendo employee would have been happy with handling the storyline the way it was. It kinda feels like a rushed cobble-up of loose threads after a massive downsizing, leaving plot holes and suboptimal emotional experience. Again: just a theory, no proof at all. But I absolutely wouldn't be surprised, and it would explain a lot of things.

the big lesley headcanon post

today i woobify lesley. i support women's rights but i also support women's wrongs.

so i talked abt my theory for what lesley is in this post. tl;dr she is not the original lesley (aka the creator of the in-universe show) but a "host" character who was played by the creator. because of her position in the original show's narrative, she has awareness and power over the world, but she is just as trapped by the narrative as the students.

so here's some headcanons i have about how she relates to her position in the world/with the students + some contextualization of my hcs for the show-world. one day i will make a big ol’ headcanon post for all of dhmis

show-world contextualization

the in-universe show was a Real Show On Earth that got canceled several decades ago, but probably through some sort of fraught emotions tied to its production, the show-world we see manifested and the characters were brought to life. it's kind of like a restless spirit going through the motions of its life, except it's a whole anomalous children's show.

some of these fraught emotions include creator!lesley's concept for the show being inspired by her dead son + the passion that went into creating it + the degrading of the original themes and mistreatment of the show's cast and crew (including creator!lesley) by executives toward the end of its run, which led to its cancellation. the show-world's ultimate objective is to keep itself going at any cost, because so many people were invested it its continuation.

lesley's role

our lesley was one of the characters who came to life when the show-world manifested. she didn't gain control over the world until after the unplugging in "dreams," because before then, the world was thrashing to life and reliving the events of the cancellation in a dreamlike way. and creator!lesley had already lost a lot of control over the show by the time it was canceled.

but after that, the world settled into a format more like the original show and our lesley gained the control she currently has. however, she is also beholden to the show-world's desire to keep going, so she runs through hosting the lessons because That's What She's Supposed To Do. she is definitely reciting a little whimsical introduction to the lesson topic before each episode and a little whimsical rhyming moral after it, but we as viewers just don't see it.

she is very aware of the reasons for the show-world's existence, but she isn't sure how long it's been since the original show ended. she knows of the outside world, but she believes it's not worth it. this cynicism comes from her residual memory of the mess that was the show and the society that created and destroyed it.

she has mixed feelings toward creator!lesley. she has echoes of the person creator!lesley was, but she is NOT the same person. she has bits of memories and a similar personality and love for the show, but she resents having to bear the emotions of someone who is not her. her mood swings are because of this, as is her insistence that yellow is NOT her son. she doesn't have kids! yellow wasn't even the original lesley's actual son! why does she also have to project motherly feelings onto him! she just wants to like him like she likes her other friends.

she doesn't fully control the lessons; oftentimes, the world generates the script, and she creates the teachers and sets the lesson in motion. sometimes she designs the lessons herself, though. it varies.

she has the power to reset the students. the world itself does the softer resets, but she does the harder wipes.

the existential despair of being lesley

even though she's never been allowed to interact with the students (by the time the show was canceled, the host role had gone from directly teaching them to just introducing and ending the episodes, so the world doesn't let her), she sees them as her friends. when she told yellow that he's "one of her favorites," she really means that all three are her favorites. yes, even duck. i do not think lesley hates duck.

she doesn't want them to leave because she sees the outside world as dangerous and wants to protect them. however, she also has a selfish reason: she is so very lonely. she never gets to talk to anyone except the viewers, but they're not even here anymore. the only time she talks to someone is when one of the trio finds a way up, which is why she keeps letting it happen, even though she knows she needs to reset it. she loves them a lot, and she loves watching the rare moments of peace between episodes because she almost feels like she's there with them.

but this is a world where love is twisted, and her isolation and power twists her point of view further.

i don't necessarily think she likes torturing the students, but because she's never been subjected to the lessons, she underestimates how psychologically damaging they are. obviously she knows that they can be frightening, but i think she has a very hazy distinction between "teaching someone a lesson" in the educational sense and "teaching someone a lesson" in the punitive sense. she thinks it must good for them, right? wasn't this show supposed to be good for kids?

well, the show might have once been good in some parts, but the rotten lessons it taught were there from the beginning, even before executive meddling worsened them. creator!lesley was a bit fucked up because of how her son died and thus had a patronizing overprotective attitude about the good of children. our lesley has an unfortunately rosy, nostalgic view of the original show's value.

she is more similar to the students than you might think. she's not sure of her own identity and is subject to desires and memories that aren't her own; how much is her and how much is from the person who made and embodied her? and how much is of her is just the role?

she both enjoys and resents the duty she's been given of keeping the show going; she's chained to a duty she believes necessary, but she hates that it is necessary. she likes getting to create, but is it really creation if all she does is remix someone else's ideas? even she sees what she does as a shadow of what the show once was.

at this point, she just wants to keep it going for the sake of her friends. it must be good for them, right? and if she doesn't give them something to entertain them, they'll feel the horrible weight she feels alone with nothing all day. even with the horrors, they always end up safe at home and they get to experience so much! even though they're not experiencing anything truly real and they can't remember everything. but it's good that they don't remember everything! they don't feel the despair of this endless life! they don't remember the trauma of the lessons! even though they carry the scars in their brains despite their lost memories.

but she must keep going or she will be all alone. she will have nothing. they will have nothing. it's for their good, you see. isn't it?

#

Hey, I really love your posts about Izzy (and for introducing me to the idea of CJizzy, honestly hadn't occured to me before), but I'm curious how you feel about the show as a whole... You've mentioned that you don't like Ed or Gentlebeard, so what kept you watching S1 until you, how do they put it these days, fell into the Izzy Canyon? Or did you fell in love with Izzy's character from the very first watch? If so, props to you, that's honestly impressive, I think most of us only started liking Izzy from our second rewatch or even later!

Yeah! So, to start with, I feel the most draw to participate in fandoms for media that I feel just okay about--if it's something I love, then I'm not interested in transformative works or headcanons or anything like that, because the source material stands on its own to me; and of course if I just don't like something I don't really want to engage with it at all. OFMD falls perfectly in that space between good and bad for me, where there's so much to like--just the concept of gay pirates is already amazing, and then you have so many interesting, compelling characters, and the vibes of it being a romcom--and then there's stuff I don't like, which as you noted is mostly Ed.

I can appreciate that Stede and Ed are a compelling, well-written love story, and absent my personal feelings about them I think they're a great couple; it's just that there are so, so many different things about Ed that I, personally, feel very strongly about (in a bad way) that brings the show from being amazing to being just okay in my eyes. My first watch I actually did like him and the main relationship; what I think happened--and I know this sounds like a joke, but I haven't been able to come up with a better explanation--is that I was so distracted by how attractive I found him that I didn't really notice Ed's personality. Later, when I was rewatching the show, I realized that he of reminds me of a lot of different people who I've disliked for various reasons, on top of just generally having the type of personality that I don't really vibe with, and then I got caught in a sort of feedback loop where seeing him at all kind of annoyed me, which made me dislike him more, which made me even more annoyed to see him at all, and so on (aka the bitch eating crackers phenomenon; Ed is a supreme BEC to me).

Izzy is actually the other big issue I have with the show--he's too interesting and compelling for what his role in the story demands, and that's why I was so drawn to participating in the fandom; I wanted to give him the attention I felt like he deserved. I liked Izzy from the beginning, I thought he was funny and relatable, but it wasn't until a rewatch and noticing the way he and Ed interacted (which is one of the many things about Ed that hit way too close to home for me) that I started to become an ardent #izzydidnothingwrong truther. I didn't get to that point completely independently, though; the other Izzy Enjoyers back in the early days of the fandom definitely helped.

And again, I do want to stress that me feelings about Ed are just my personal feelings, based on my own bullshit, and I don't intend to make anyone who does like him feel bad about that.

tell us about the hennessy and jordan greywaren plotline !!!!

thanks for humoring me legends!!! yeah. YEAH! about hennessy and jordan!

first off, i think hennessy's plotline in many ways was the most complete and enjoyable in the last book, i liked everything we got. she was great. her friendship with ronan was great, her dynamic with farooq-lane was hot, her fucken MOUSE! <3, her broken, broken, broken heart! the art-making was great, the lace scenes were great (although kind of abrupt), her scenes with jordan, what we got, WERE GREAT! and i think what little we got with jordan was nice as well, her and hennessy, her and declan, her resourcefulness being called back in the nathan scenes all very cool!!

however it was soooooo disappointing to see zero resolution to them and their relationship, LMAOOO! just no words to explain the missed chance there, especially because it started off so strong! the fight, the way they are so so present in each other's thoughts...it was set up so good for some sort of reckoning or working together plotline, or really anything, but then it just tapered out. I just felt I was promised a lot more of them on the onset lol

i think the concept of what it means to dream a person to life itself was something sorely neglected in this book, in just general actually, but also specially in hennessy and jordan's case. i love the implications of hennessy dreaming a version of herself with no memories of jay. it's haunting, crazy concept, and would have been amazing to delve into--all the dream people we see are dreamt WITH specific qualities: matthew, aurora, the new fenian, bryde...what does it mean to be dreamt WITHOUT something though, like jordan? in a book which speaks so much about how memories make a person, how being made to hide away parts of yourself mould you into different persons...we got zilch from jordan about it! mister impossible ends with jordan thinking about the missing memories, it ends with the story resolution seemingly hinging on jordan! but then there’s nothing come greywaren :( also reducing (or well, not reducing exactly, but somewhat making it come down) it to jordan being capable of living life because of not having jay’s memories is a choice that would have worked better had we got more from jordan in this book. who has her own brand of fucked up ness related to this. as it stood it just felt like minimising that complex question of what makes a person a person.

it just felt like a nothing storyline in the end! they didn’t even have to explore the delicious concepts that were introduced in mister impossible, they just could have at least shared page time in any way at all. more fighting. a heist. clonefucking. feeding ducks. anything at all. SIGH. i wish we could have got 100000 more pages on the both of them

Your thoughts on the trailer??? Who's your favourite ???

First off I actually liked the concept of both trailers tbh. I get the "don't pick a side thing because it's the infighting which destroys them from within and they're all messed up" and tbh I'm all for it but I also do have a preference for one side more than the other (Green) despite enjoying characters belonging to both.

That being said I liked the teaser firstly. Having Tom and Emma introduce the trailers was amazing! It builds up the whole Aegon vs Rhaenyra thing.

For the green trailer: I think Aegon's involvement blew me away the most. I didn't expect them to focus so much on him and was pleasantly surprised. TGC was the highlight of the trailer for me and I cannot wait to see what he does with Aegon this season. Alicent was serving as usual. She's in her sad girl hours which is honestly relatable but I want a bit of bite from her too this season so I'm looking forward to seeing if that happens. Aemond slayed his three seconds of screen time. There's nothing more to be said other than the fact that he's serving and way in over his head. I like how we're getting more of book Aemond with the season's progressing and I would love to see him descend into paranoia fueled by ambition, hatred and revenge. I think Ewans going to do wonders with him. Lastly Gwayne was unexpected. I'm excited to see if he's quite similar to Aegon. Criston going wild defending his found family was "chefs kiss" and I can't wait to see Otto get fired.

Sunfyre and Dreamfyre were such a bonus! I'm glad they're finally getting their due.

For the black trailer: I think the highlight of the trailer for me was Rhaenyra. She seems in charge, with the planning and making decisions and honestly I'm quite hyped to see what changes they make wrt her character. Love the new outfits and the braids, its giving book Rhaenyra trying to emulate Visenya with her attire. I am also excited to see Jace's winterfell arc. Love the Starks and even though I'm kind of dreading the prophecy repitition, a change of scene would be great. Daemon in Harrenhal would be the next thing I'm excited to see mainly because he looked almost disturbed at the eeriness of the place and I want to see Alys. Lastly I'm looking forward to more Velaryon politics. Ideally speaking I'd like to see sort of a rift between Vaemond's side and Corlys with bringing up what happened but anything works at this point. I'm just interested in that house.

Sorry if this is too long and thank you so much for asking 💕

Todays rip: 11/07/2023

Knowledge of the Depths

Season 5 Featured on: The SiIvaGunner Spooktacular Halloween Horror Special: Curse of the Fallen Angel

Ripped by Heboyi

Requested by an anonymous reader!

About a week or so ago, I got a request to discuss some of the channel's storylines more in depth on this blog. The ongoing storytelling on the channel has always been one of its biggest draws to me, and at this point I've been following the lore for so long that I could write pages upon pages on speculation, interpretations, theories, et cetera. However, this blog is specifically about individual rips, so I'm only going to be discussing story events in relation to individual pieces of music. That may change in the future, but for now this is how I'll compromise.

In the midst of Season 4 Episode 2's All-Star Summer Festival, we were introduced to Woodyana Stones: Raider Made of Lost Bark, an Indiana Jones parody in the form of an audio drama starring channel protagonist Wood Man. This kind of storytelling was somewhat new to the channel, and is sort of the spiritual successor to the King For A Day tournaments of the prior two seasons: More self-contained stories featuring an ensemble of characterized memes, whilst still serving up small nuggets of lore here and there. Season 6 would later clarify that these events were Wood Man using his powers of interdimensional travel to visit alternate universes as a way to keep himself occupied before returning to SiIva's main universe. A cynic could call them filler, but that would be disregarding the insane amount of effort that's gone into each of these stories, and all of the weight they still hold, both as beíng genuinely quality and funny and in serving some very interesting pieces of lore for the channel as a whole.

The storyline that today's rip is from - Curse of the Fallen Angel - currently sits as my favorite, though I admit the others are also due for a relisten. For me, a big part of that is due to the intriguing lore concepts it introduces that were directly tied to the channel's ongoing status at the time. Masked Wolf's Astronaut in the Ocean and Lady's Yankin were two themes that had become feared by commenters after infecting the channel's regular uploads during Season 5. The reasons for this dislike are many and long-winded, so for the sake of summary: Think of it like The Bean from Season 1, a type of rip that had commenters work together to warn one another to move to different rips. What this audio drama does is establish these themes, "Figments" in SiIva lore, as "Cursed", holding some sort of abnormal dark power beyond that of normal figments. The audio drama sees Wood Man and a band of companions journeying to hunt down these Cursed before their powers can be used by "The Fallen Angel", referring to the most powerful Cursed of them all in Yankin'. One day I will go further in talking about Yankin' in particular, but trust me: Of all antagonists in SiIva lore, I don't think it would be exaggerating to say that she's the one the fanbase fears most due to her overwhelming presence on the channel in Season 5.

With the mood now set, what I love about todays rip in particular, Knowledge of the Depths, is the atmosphere its able to instill with this background knowledge in mind. It sets the stage to the third act of the audio drama, with Wood Man and c.o trying to find this accursed entity submerged deep underwater, with powers completely foreign to both the characters and us in the audience. Like most of the storyline's soundtrack, its a fully original composition, but uses elements of Astronaut in the Ocean's progression and vocals to keep its presence known. A theme otherwise only known on the channel for its low quality rips is now able to set a genuine mood of suspense and fear, with a sound akin to Kenji Yamamoto's Metroid music or Super Mario Galaxy's Drip Drop Galaxy theme. Its immaculate stuff!

Its even more interesting hearing this theme come from Heboyi in particular, based on the impression I've gotten of them beforehand. They're behind a lot of the funniest rips on the channel in recent memory, often using ironically-bad sources much like Astronaut in the Ocean itself, yet here do a complete 180 in emotional reaction. Its very funny to learn that the person most apt in wielding the Astronaut's power for comedy is also just as capable in wielding it for atmosphere and mood-setting.

Webby Reviews Horror: Glorious (2022)

Glorious is a movie about the humanity in the divine, and the divinity in the human. It’s about the pain of heartbreak and the deep well of regret that flows from selfish choices. It’s about the selfless sacrifices given in the name of love.

It’s also about a rest stop bathroom with a glory hole in the stall.

Review under the cut, and of course, SPOILERS!

Glorious is a pretty short movie at a little over an hour and fifteen minutes, but it feels longer to me, due in part to the slow pacing in the first part and then the anticipation of the second. The payoff is worth it in the end, though, and I think the pacing gives the audience a better chance to really start to sympathize with and relate to our protagonist.

The first half introduces us to Wes, your sort of ‘standard’ movie protag. You know, the nearing middle age, average build white guy, brown hair, somewhat unkempt facial hair situation. Not exactly thinking outside the box, casting-wise. HOWEVER, I think in this particular instance, having him be the ‘Societal Default’ actually works in the story’s favor. That is, if they did it on purpose, of course. They want us, the audience, to really feel a connection to Wes, maybe even project onto him a little.

After all, who hasn’t felt the grief of a broken heart? The urge to call our ex’s phone even if only to hear their recorded voice telling us to leave a message? That’s what’s going on to begin with: Wes, an exhausted and miserable man, decides to pull into a rest stop so he stops falling asleep on the road. He’s Going Through It something fierce- he about loses it on a vending machine that denies him a candy bar (once again, who among us, etc) and he looks like hell. An enigmatic trucker gives him a hand and some advice, and on her way back to her truck, she stops and smiles at a strangely colored flower with goop on it, which gives me the impression that she has some kind of idea as to what’s about to go down; then she drives away. (Maybe not, but it’s never made clear, and I like the idea that she does.)

The next morning, Wes wakes up to a stomach full of regret and consequences- he chugged a lot of whisky last night and burned a lot of his stuff, including his pants. Listen, I get it, heartbreak and alcohol can really screw with what you think is a logical set of actions. He stumbles into the main stage of the story, the filthy men’s bathroom of an unattended, way out of the way rest stop. 

On the wall of this particular stall is a very creatively decorated glory hole which you can sort of see on the poster- it’s some kind of Lovecraftian beast that’s part monster, part humanoid, which is pretty representative of our story and our two main characters, the second of which we are introduced to once Wes has finished emptying the contents of his gut. 

 Is bathroom horror a genre yet? Between this and the first Saw, I’d say it should be. There’s something about the contrast of a familiar place being so grimy it’s revolting that works so well for horror. People who can articulate better than me could probably explain why, but I’m getting off track.

An unseen person in the adjacent stall, voiced by the very talented JK Simmons, strikes up a conversation with Wes, who is understandably a little skeeved out by this. His name is Ghatanothoa, and is pronounced in a fun way: stick out your tongue, hold the tip of it with your finger and thumb, and slowly say “Got another one”. 

Ghat is DELIGHTFUL to me. He doesn’t understand turns of phrase, he takes things very literally, and seems to have no concept of societal rules (such as getting chatty with strangers in a public bathroom). It’s what could be described as autistic-coded, though I can’t say for certain if that was the intent in his characterization, since it turns out he’s an ancient, lonely god, and hasn’t exactly spent much time in the company of mortals. 

Wes responds in a pretty expected way: he’s not in the mood for whatever this weirdo has going on, even if he is a little curious. He tries to look at Ghat even when warned not to gaze upon the god, for his mortal mind could not safely perceive his true form, and the resulting consequence is enough to chip away some of his skepticism. He remains stubborn, though, and tries to leave in whatever way he can think of despite being told it’s impossible. As I’ve said, Wes is a pretty relatable guy, almost too relatable in some ways. I believe this is intentional.

 Ghat gives us his origin story- his father, god of creation, accidentally gave life and form to some of his thoughts and went ‘oh no kill it’ as he much preferred the vast nothingness that he had before. The newly formed children fought back and spilled more life from within their father’s wounds, then came to a compromise. They’d stitch him back up as long as he allowed the new life to remain. But they were all of them deceived, for another life form was made, a god of destruction that would one day wipe out the universe so the great emptiness would return- Ghatanothoa. He is compared to the Christian God and Jesus a few times, though not blatantly so. Example: “I am he.”

Ghat is an ethereal caterpillar morphing into a corporeal butterfly, and when he finishes this process, he will, unwillingly, carry out the purpose he was given and destroy everything. He doesn’t want to do it; he feels connected to the world and its mortal inhabitants, and wants to return to the ether to protect them. And Wes has been chosen to help him do it. 

Wes gives the usual ‘everyone’s a shitty selfish person maybe we should all die’ cynicism, then gives us HIS origin story. His dad was a piece of shit who shrouded his cruelty in perceived selflessness, resulting in his wife’s suicide and a warped worldview in his son. This is probably our first hint to Wes’s secret.

No matter what Wes tries, he can’t escape, and getting someone else involved only results in the bathroom getting a fresh coat of red paint. There’s no way out of this except give Ghat what he needs or let the entire universe die. 

And what Ghat needs is for Wes to satisfy his physical form. He believes Wes can rise to the occasion and perform this great service for the good of all life.

The bait and switch of Ghat NOT wanting Wes to stick his dick in the glory hole is so god damn funny I almost choked the first time I watched this, pun intended. JK Simmons saying “You thought your human penis was going to save the universe?” lives in my head rent-free. Wes hyped himself up to do it for like three minutes of runtime which was probably over twenty in-universe or longer only to be told his genitals are of no significance. Absolutely incredible.

No, what Ghat wants is for Wes to willingly give him his liver, or at least part of it. Wes for some reason was more willing to give Ghat the D than he is about the liver. This is /hilarious/ to me. Wes is so offended by Ghat’s dick dismissal that it takes even more convincing to get him to agree, which he only does after Ghat takes the memory of Wes’s ex, Brenda, away. If everything is destroyed, then so is her memory, and that thought is enough to change Wes’s mind.

Wes takes the shard of glass from the mirror he’s provided, and makes the cut which is interrupted by one last joke (he almost cut into the wrong side. I probably would have, too.). He makes the sacrifice as Ghat’s father rends the world in pursuit of his child-weapon.

The bloody, noble sacrifice scene is spliced with the big reveal of Wes’s secret- he’s a serial killer. He’s been killing his girlfriends once he determines they don’t fill the emptiness inside of him, a void that’s implied to have been created by his abusive father. Brenda was his latest victim, and the only one he seems to regret, because she actually did make him feel something. The love he was feeling scared him so bad that he killed her anyway, her last expression one of betrayal and heartbreak as she’d discovered his trophy pictures of his past victims.

Ghat accepts the offering, and the total annihilation of the universe is prevented. Ghat’s father retreats and Ghat himself is returned to the ether, never to be a part of the world he loves. Wes, lying on the floor in agony, proudly declares himself a hero, but he’s wrong. Ghatanothoa tells him he was chosen for this not because he’s a hero who will be remembered, but because he, too, is a being of destruction, and it’s better for the universe that they will both be forgotten. “It is finished.”

Wes and Ghat are parallels of one another yet so opposite- Ghat was created to destroy, but he felt so much for others that he chose to return to the ether, never to interact with the world he loves in order to protect it. Wes, on the other hand, chose to become a murderer because of how little he felt for others, only making the sacrifice out of a selfish desire to have one more chance to see the face of the woman he killed for making him feel something at long last. Ghat, who was more human than Wes, and Wes, who was more of a god of destruction than Ghat, two beings who gave their lives and saved all of existence.

I mentioned a couple of times about it being intentional with Wes being this super-relatable, sort of ‘everyman’, the assumed societal default, and here’s why: Usually, the audience is supposed to identify with, sympathize with, and root for the protagonist, this isn’t a new concept. But when we spend over an hour doing this, especially to such a degree, it can really feel like the floor drops out from under us when we realize that this guy that’s just like us fr is a cold blooded murderer and has been the entire time.

Most horror ends one of two ways, right? The hero pulls through despite it all and we get some kind of relief or even hope that the evil is defeated. Or, despite it all, the evil prevails and will strike again, even if the hero survives. But in Glorious, there’s no real hero, and the evil is thwarted with no relief to be found, no satisfaction in the end. There’s just Wes, Ghat, and the quiet finality of their demise. The world will continue to spin as if nothing had ever happened, and as far as everyone else knows, nothing ever did.

Glorious leaves me feeling introspective and a little sad, as I really ended up liking Ghatanothoa, and seeing some of myself in Wes makes me a little uncomfortable (as it should). It’s a great twist on the chosen one trope, and the humor is well placed and doesn’t break the flow of the story. The beginning is a little slow, as I said before, but slow burn can really bring out the flavor of a good story, and this was a tasty meal for me. 

JK Simmons really steals the show as Ghatanothoa, selling me on both the more human aspects of his character as he talks about believing in the goodness inherent in humanity, and the underlying current of power he struggles to rein in as Wes tests his patience and time runs out. 

I wouldn’t call this one ‘scary’ necessarily, though the cosmic horror is absolutely present, and there’s some gore involved. I don’t subscribe to the idea that horror has to scare you to be considered horror, so while some don’t consider this a true horror movie, I do. 

Ten outta ten (holy?) ghosts for a story I greatly enjoyed, JK Simmons, and the bait and switch with the glory hole which I am STILL laughing about.

Review: The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures

Capcom • Capcom • 2015 • Nintendo 3DS Played in The Great Ace Attorney: Chronicles Read it on Backloggd: (x)

With every Ace Attorney I play, I become more and more aware of just how excellently crafted and set up that first game was with its original four cases. They may seem kind of quaint nowadays in terms of scope, but the pacing from case to case felt damn near perfect. A first case introducing characters, relations and game mechanics in a short-and-sweet way. A second case raising the stakes of the story and setting up things to come, remaining decently tame in solvability. A third case that introduces somewhat more elaborate schemes, whilst also giving you a break from the "main story" with something more zany, sort of helping you swallow the more outlandish murder method while also putting more focus on character dynamics than core plot progression. And then finally, a fourth case, that takes aspects from all of the above and combines them into one climactic final act.

For how tride-and-true the structure seems to be, the only games so far to really follow them are the first two games. With everything else: Trials&Tribulations, Apollo Justice, and indeed the game I'm gonna get to in a second, they've tweaked with this formula a bit. In my opinion its all been to somewhat mixed results, but with some really satisfying highs: T&Ts changes make it just the right kind of shake-up for a final game in a story arc, but it doesn't feel like it was thought through well enough, leading to a somewhat dragged-out middle half of nothing much happening. Apollo Justice's opening act is one of the best executed cases in the entire series and earns its far longer length by being genuinely climactic and affecting our characters in a noticeable way, but...then the second and third cases are thoroughly mediocre.

All of this is to say, that The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures is another one of Takumi's shake-ups to the original structure, likely the biggest one, and while its respectable in its ambition I can't help but feel like it stumbles just like, if not more, than the prior two games in doing so. Now of course, all of what I've been talking about has just been pacing and per-case quality: Let me just flat-out say that this game nails almost everything else it sets out to do. I finally do get the appeal and love for these games: The atmosphere of London, Susato and Naruhodo's banter, the music, the Jury system (mostly), the Deductions...Herlock in general! They were all absolutely stellar and it was easy for me to both see and experience why so many people have fallen in love with these games.

Yet everytime I think back to this game, specifically, on its own...it circles back to the story and its pacing, both of which still feel pretty half-baked to me. Don't get me wrong, its not thoroughly rotten or whatever, and Case 3 is one of my new all-time favorites. But then you have Case 1, that feels insanely dragged out despite not really doing anything to earn its length a la AA4. You have Case 2 that pulls a plot-beat that it in my opinion shouldn't have done until far later into the story, is overall mostly boring to play and predictable to watch unfold, and ends on one of the cruelest notes in the series that's brushed over weirdly casually. And then you have Case 4, which is quite possibly the most vapid and pointless case I've ever played in the series. It does nothing to forward any of the characters or raise stakes, it doesn't escalate the possibilities for how cases could be solved like the "typical" third case does...really, it mostly feels like its here for the sake of giving you another Deduction, which comes so early on and is so seemingly unrelated to the case that by the end of it you've pretty much figured out the whole (surprisingly simple) story of what happened.

Case 5 picks things up again as expected yet doesn't really...go anywhere. It takes up some interesting concepts to be sure, has some nice character moments and really funny parts, and parallels Turnabout Goodbyes with your relationship to the defendant. Yet the case itself was so thoroughly bogstandard and simple, with a character you have pretty much zero attachment to or against serving as the big bad antagonist. They did one somewhat-cool thing near the tail end of things involving a side character, but it felt far too late and as if the game could have made Case 2 and 4 build up more smoothly to this moment, rather than have "the core game" basically just be Case 3 and 5.

Character relations in general feel oddly unfinished here and there. SLIGHT SPOILERS: -Hosonaga just kind of disappears from the plot at a certain point -Stronghart doesn't do much other than tell you what to do and be the most predictable villain for the next game I've ever seen (written before playing Great Ace Attorney 2) -Kazuma doesn't get to do much at all before he's out and (unlike Mia) does nothing after that point beyond be flashback material.

And I get that its all for setup to a sequel, and its going to make that sequel a far better game, to be sure. But I believe each installment should still be a satisfying package on its own: Those loose threads should look good without being tied up by a separate game. And yeah, it does do a great job of investing me in the universe of these two games, and preparing me for things to come. I love these characters now and I'm already theorizing what all of these loose ends will lead to, but the game on its own, in my opinion needs more than that.

Last note on the pacing: The way there's not a single case with more than one Court or Investigation segment feels extremely bizarre to me. Rather than having cases split across multiple days with jumping back and forth between court and trial, it's all one huge block each per case. It's a bizarre break in the series' typically structure, especially given how Court sections later in the game end up dragging because of it. Case 3 somewhat makes up for it by making fantastic use of the evidence-examination mechanic, letting you examine the whole crime scene during the trial, but other cases (...4 and 5) feel like they do nothing but suffer from the lack of splitting court sections up properly. It also left me feeling like there wasn't as much investigating as there usually is in the series which, isn't really a complaint per se, but is just an odd thing to think about considering the game as a whole.

The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures is a weird little game. Simultaneously overachieving yet not doing enough, shaking up the formula yet paralleling past beats, and it has Herlock Sholmes in it.

The result is a game that made me fall in love with The Great Ace Attorney as a whole far more than it did make me fall in love with this first Adventure on its own. And if nothing else, that makes me thoroughly excited to play the sequel.

[Playtime: 30 hours] [Keyword: Unrealized]

tfs plot related ask under the cut! you know the deal, read at your own discretion, spoilers ahead o7

i'm still reading updates too and not too exited about some things as well, i feel you anon 🫂

for one thing, i just rambled a bit about Patty in another post and how i'm not really happy with them seemingly setting her up to be in s5. introducing a character that has such a big influence a villain outside of the main story where most people won't see it isn't the best move imo. it'll just make it look cheap if there's suddenly a new girl who shows up out of nowhere and is his childhood best friend and all. it'll feel contrived and last minute is what i'm saying

and with the whole mindflayer thing, to be fair, it's not That shocking to me, but that's maybe because i kind of expected them to go that route post s4. i know the general consensus on tumblr is that Vecna is the main bad guy, not the MF (i think. it used to be at least, don't know if it's changed). and i agree that having the human guy be the primary evil would be the most interesting from a writing pov. but there is some set up for the MF to be the BBEG too to some degree and it does fit the writing style of the show. so i'm not really Shocked shocked you know?

things like having henry draw the mindflayer in s4 before running into it (most likely for the second time with what we know of tfs canon) (and where he presumably shapes it? with the play info we can kind of question if it was always shapeless or if it was spiderlike when Henry was in dimension x originally, i guess) result in the MF being the most consistent theme in all seasons, which does look like Main Thing set up, and works well on a rewatch (only excluding s1 where we only see the demogorgon)

and with the MF also being introduced to the audience so early on and with s4 having multiple discussions about who the bad guy is, Vecna, Brenner, (even Mike asking El why he's the bad guy lmao), it would make sense from a writing angle to have it end up being none of them and it ultimately being the Other option. when everyone thinks they're the bad guy it's potentially none of them type beat

you're right though it's a really big thing that changes what we know about the characters massively. which is why i'm. not the happiest they did it in the spin off play

the thing is, i think you can get something interesting out of both Vecna and the MF acting as the "primary evil" of the show. it's just a different way to get there and a different overall flavour

a Vecna big bad would be a human evil. so the classic idea of a "fallen hero" with all his similarities to the main characters. would be interesting to show how the worst evil can sometimes just be people. would also fit with how Brenner or the homopohic and conservative Hawkins people, or El's bullies in Cali all also just people

with a MF big bad you'd circle back to the MF being a physical manifestation/stand in for the above concepts. especially season 2 and 3 set so much of the fear/conformity theme around the MF up. but instead of having a human final villain who opposes society at large, you'd have the physical manifestation of those fears be the final boss form

so i do think both concepts will eventually boil down to the same conclusion, just with a different journey. like how much agency Vecna had etc. with the MF as the big bad they'd almost definitely lean into Henry being a victim too again in s5 and so on

i think the reason why the whole "MF isn't the big bad" was so big is that it's kind of the writing choice that would give you more interesting characters (specifically characters with more agency and internal development in a case like Vecna). but purely from a writing level, i do think s1-4 lay a basis for foreshadowing Henry And setting the MF up to exist as a sort of looming presence. so in that regard i think they'll be able to wrap things up at least (unlike with the whole Patty thing, i'm still side eying that)

so if you're worried or unsure right now. i do think that Vecna or the MF being the "bigger evil" won't really change the potential themes of s5. those should play out similarly no matter if they write their societal oppression metaphor through One guy (see what i did there haha) or though the cosmic horror entity behind him. i'd change the characters ofc so i get your concern, totally, but i think they'd be going for the same message in both cases. in case that helps you in any way rn <3

also i do think the "main villain"ness they could be going for is pretty vague, so i'm curious how that will look in s5. like what relationship Vecna actually has with the MF as so on. if the powers to "vecna" people are really from the MF which i've seen play spoilers say then Vecna seems to have fully embraced it by s4 and really works in unison with it. so depending on how they want to lay out Vecna's connection/relationship with the MF it could also result in Vecna being a vessel or even big boss the whole time and essentially BE the final big bad by choice in the end. just based on the play i think it's hard to say what they want to do with it. re Patty i'm unhappy, but re MF and Vecna they still have a lot of ways they can take it that would be interesting

but seriously i do get you so much, it's weird when we get glances of what s5 will be and have to shift theories and interpretations around because now we're actually getting new information we couldn't have guessed with only s1-4 to go on (like Patty existing, i keep going on about her but i'm genuinely still not happy about how they'll have to deal with her). we're at a point right now where we're starting to get an actual glimpse into the direction they want to take s5 in so now theories and ideas are starting to get disproven and impossible and move to "what if" and fanon territory. which is always weird in any fandom, especially after over a year of hiatus where we had SO MANY theories and concepts for s5. but also i'm kind of glad that's starting now and not closer to s5, because by then it would be even harder to go in with no expectations and an open mind

this is kind of a long ramble, i'm still having more thoughts too. specifically about the way they set powers up in the play (which btw! unsurprisingly same as with Patty! not a fan of them doing that in the play?? that has to go in s5 100% so them revealing it in a non main property is so silly to me. they kept the origin of powers unaddressed for 4 seasons so you'd think it's important and will be a reveal or big moment in s5, only for them to now explain it in a play over a year before s5 is released. so by then it won't be new and interesting anymore but it will also have to be reexplained because most of the s5 audience won't have seen the play... i would not have done that if i were the writers but who knows maybe they won't touch on the powers origin in s5 at all and they just wanted to mention it Somewhere so in the play it went. just my personal thoughts on this)

Ok another thing!

I really like how... feminine Jack is. It's sort of an extension of his manic-pixie-dream-boy status. He's kind, soft-spoken and Rose generally makes him pretty nervous (though he's socially talented enough to work through that really well). This particularly stands out to me during their sex scene. I think it's my favourite sex scene of all time, actually. That may be a weird thing to have, but still. Rose is the one who initiates it ("Put your hands on me, Jack" is a GREAT line) and we immediately see Jack at the most nervous he's ever been. Then when they're done he's literally shaking so Rose asks if he's okay, and then SHE holds HIM as they (mostly Jack tho) calm down.

The movie is so conventional and so unconventional at the same time which speaks to its genius.

Reversal of gender roles isn't something that didn't exist before Titanic though. (and I KNOW that's not what you're saying here, but hear me out) LMA has done it in 1860s!!!!!!!! Greek mythology deals with gender themes (where do you think the term hermaphrodite came from?) In my opinion, Titanic didn't handle the concept in an innovative enough manner (and everybody knows I'm a BIG fan of that concept). It's cool! It's great! Blockbusters introduce the wider audience to great many things, but that doesn't mean they should be praised for every remotely unconventional idea that's a part of the story they're trying to tell. (making the already existing concept your own? that's another thing entirely and I LOVE IT!) What makes a good movie for me is taking what's already there and crowning it with your own unique perspective. What you're praising Titanic for is actually what I appreciate about Lady Bird (2017). It makes you think that it's all about tropes and cliches and everything that's stereotypically meant to speak to the female audience, but then it surprises you and does this fantastic spin on everything you've ever known without disregarding the tropes completely. But it's not just about simultaneously defying and celebrating the tropes (and here's the main difference), it's about this very personal viewpoint that Gerwig incorporated into the film. It's kinda like when you're adapting a book, you shouldn't try to make the movie resemble the source material (because that's NEVER gonna work, you simply can't meet everyone's expectations), you should make it resemble your own understanding of the source material. That's what makes it feel more personal to the viewer. Titanic didn't feel personal to me despite being meant to appeal to people. My point is: it's a movie that was made to be liked and appreciated which yes, isn't inherently a bad thing, but maybe I'm just too into modernism and avant-garde to appreciate that. It really is a personal preference! I like it better when the art I'm consuming doesn't make a big deal out of itself and ends up hitting the emotional mark without meaning to. (the main goal is usually to send some kind of message that tends to be controversial in some way) I don't like it when movie directors assume I'm going to relate to something because "everybody relates to it in some way". You CAN'T know that. (it puts a pressure on people, like you have to be a part of that specific circle or you're not human enough or whatever) This feels like that literature discussion about supposedly pointless overanalysing of motifs or claiming that classic lit is inherently difficult to read or whatever... Maybe it's not just propaganda coming from the male dominated world, maybe I LIKE long discussions on life and death and politics in my movies. (and just because something is problematic in one regard, it doesn't mean it has no significant value or worse, that it shouldn't be explored. you can always learn! from everything!) Which doesn't mean that I don't like a good coming of age story about a teenage girl. Or spend my time watching a teen soap. Or that somebody can't enjoy a romantic comedy if they love Dostoyevsky. Or that these art branches necessarily cancel each other out. (I'm referring to some of the points you made earlier, sorry for drifting away djsjdkkd)

What you can always do in film is present your own unique perspective and celebrate that uniqueness. That's something people can connect with, regardless of the topic. If it makes its way to the heart of ONE person, it's a winner. And Titanic is definitely a winner in that respect! It just didn't get to me. And that's fine too.

Also! The intention behind a certain line doesn't make the line itself good (same goes for film in general)!!!!!! "Put your hands on me, Jack" is just... it's funny. I laughed when I heard it. This movie is just... way better in theory. I LOVED what you had to say about the ideas that went into it, but I didn't really catch that on screen. Both the characters and their love story failed to be compelling in my eyes, the aesthetics got in the way of that even if it wasn't supposed to. That's what happened if you ask me. Oh and disliking traditionally feminine tropes and plot directions and things such as grand romantic gestures or melodramatic confessions of love doesn't immediately mean that you're sexist or have internalized misogyny? Society is responsible for giving those things a bad rep, but disliking them doesn't always have to go beyond disliking them.

I'm making a lot of points here and I'm not wearing my contacts, dear tumblr forgive me. (I don't need you to, I'm just trying to be polite dhjdjdi)

Inner Monologue Shitpost Breakdown A.K.A. Review of Chapter 2 of "A Court of Thorns and Roses"

Commence Chapter Two

Even though just a few minutes ago narrator gave us that whole concerning spiel about how her world has no color in it anymore, the moment something good finally happened her world is "a living painting" once again. This is textbook catastrophizing, and I will say it again: protagonist absolutely has BPD. I love this, because it makes her more relatable as a heroine. But also...seek therapy, please. There is a less compelling counter-argument to be made for the possibility that she's simply suffering hallucinations in color due to starvation and/or hypothermia, but overall I'm feeling confident about my prognosis.

In chapter one narrator foreshadowed her two sisters as these sort of...2D villains...but now she's walking into the house and catches their muffled talking from inside and she's like (paraphrasingly), "I don't actually need to hear what they're saying to know it's something stupid about like boys or ribbons" which is so cunty but I love it. Like, this sort of knee-jerk condescension where she minimizes them to silly, shallow, frivolous little idiots without even HEARING them...chef's kiss. It's this implication that our protagonist isn't such a black and white instrument of morality that makes her character more likable in my mind.

She extends this same flavor of contempt to their father in the very next paragraph, because it turns out he's also wildly incompetent, and gullible to boot. We learn that this is a combination of their family's unfortunate financial situation, a smattering of PTSD (courtesy of some kind of evil banker crony guys attacking and crippling him), and what reeks of depression-induced executive dysfunction. Dad has basically fucked off and given up, sisters are essentially useless.

Verdict: there's definitely some weaponized incompetence going on in this household, and everyone just assumes narrator is going to pick up the slack (she does). She also vaguely hints at the fact that she's only DOING it because she has to. Reader (me) is not surprised to hear this. Narrator takes promises very seriously, and is constantly burdened by this promise she made to their dying mother. Their dying mother knew to place this burden on narrator, because...well...quite frankly the rest of the household fucking sucks. Dad is fruitlessly chasing the "someday I'll be rich" dragon, courtesy of the book's real-world parallel of our capitalistic brainwashed poverty regime; he is doing little wood carvings no one fucking wants because he's a freelance whittler in a destitute village where nobody can AFFORD HIS SILLY CURIO CURIOSITIES. Sister Elain is pretty and brainless and probably just needs to marry a rich man with a big garden (she loves flowers). Obviously this one is Dad's favorite, which is just an extra sting to the narrator's piling list of injustices. Sister Nesta is...a cunt? There's a line about how she deliberately places Dad's cane out of his reach, which is funny but also, what the fuck? This could also be some manifestation of her just being really unsatisfied with his mediocre parenting, which is pretty understandable in retrospect.

This chapter is...better than the first. Thank the forgotten gods. Author struggles with the concept of nuance. This is less of an issue for the narrator, because the author overtells everything the narrator thinks and feels (to an extreme degree); but once we are introduced to characters whose perspectives we aren't given directly, it becomes a problem. For example, I know I'm not supposed to hate the narrator's sisters. The only reason I know this is because the narrator has explained to me in exact words that SHE doesn't hate them. But are they WRITTEN as irredeemable villains? Yes, absolutely. Can I forgive the fact that they don't notice the narrator is covered in blood, or offer to help with any of the meal prep, but immediately both jump to what she can buy for them with the money she gets from the wolf pelt? No. But I get the sense that I'm supposed to, in that EVENTUALLY the narrator will insist that I root for them.

If the author had chosen to make the sisters CHILDREN, I would feel a lot differently here, because, despite being the youngest child, the narrator is shouldering the brunt of the household's emotional and financial needs. She promised her dying mother she would play mother once she was gone, which...is not fair to her, obviously...and now I SEE why she took 3 years to leave the forest and has a branching inner monologue that rivals Homer's Odyssey and a very pronounced, undiagnosed borderline personality disorder. They do SEE her as the mother of the household. But considering the narrator is 19, and they are both OLDER than she is, their lack of empathy just makes them look like fucking monsters. Do I hate them? Yes, I've been urging narrator to burn her house down with her entire family inside since I started reading this chapter.

I'm thinking there is probably some significance to the faerie wards on the threshold, but I also just generally like the implication that even in this world of forgotten gods you still get a bit of good old-fashioned fundamentalist inspired fear-mongering. I also like that this is lore-accurate based on the way Celtic fairy faith was very much driven by a similar fear. Families were constantly seeking ways to defend themselves against the fae, be it with religious symbols or iron or salt or open scissors above a newborn's crib. This is why you don't keep welcome mats on the doorstep, this is why you need protection runes and throw your infant in the fireplace if you suspect it might be a faerie changeling. Some of it seems so silly, yes, but it does conjure up a sense of real fear, and how it is deeply-ingrained into the MORTAL side of this book's world, but we also see where the protagonist deliberately separates herself from the DELUSION of it. She's like, "Yeah these wards are obviously fake, everyone knows we don't have magic, we can't even hope to defend ourselves against the power of the High Fae." Protagonist is a realist; she is not indoctrinated by the false sense of security provided by these carvings on the threshold. It is very significant that narrator CHOOSES not to weaponize this secular understanding of the world around her, she CHOOSES to let her father live in this naive bubble he's created for himself. Just like she acknowledges the blind, shallow, selfish nature of her sisters but CHOOSES not to confront and unpack those issues. It's the most multi-faceted element we've gotten of this heroine thus far, because we know now that only part of this is out of kindness and empathy. The other part of her ENJOYS the advantage she has over her family members. They ARE absolutely inept, incompetent, naive, shallow, blind, shackled sheep in a pen, and narrator gets some small satisfaction from that. She is smarter than they are. She is more responsible than they are. She spares them the burden of being held to a higher standard because it keeps her on this pedestal, and the resulting sense of self-worth is literally ALL she has, that is her ONLY sense of self-worth, no matter how she may resent it. These two halves of her personality are held together by obligation and guilt. It's not that she ENJOYS playing mother to a grown man and two grown women; she feels like she has to, and at this point, it's all she knows HOW to do.

Narrator’s name is Feyre. I had a hunch because I am both clever and wise, but it’s nice to finally receive confirmation. Author makes certain to include pronunciation directly after, because author realizes most readers will not skip to the pronunciation guide at the end of the book.

In short, things I do like: The deepening of the story’s morally gray protagonist, the impending burden of responsibility versus guilt, the name “Feyre,” a deeply fearful human settlement built on the outskirts of faerie territory, whose only line of defense from their hostile neighbors is…ineffectual carvings in the windows (and probably like bits of iron or something), details like the brassy hair narrator shares with her sisters—juxtaposed by the disparity of things like eye color, and how her sisters and father all have a “clean” face—while she comes home, the contrarian, covered in blood,

Things I don’t like: lack of effectual character development for narrator’s sisters and father, the way two people in the same two-room house asked narrator the same dumb question about “where she got” the two animals she very obviously hunted and skinned herself, author’s hyperbolic over-use of adjectives, and this sentence: “My father’s deep rumble came from the fire.”