Exposition structure

The World of Cory

2013.11.16 17:30 The World of Cory

That top grossing anime for 420 years in a row
[link]


2024.05.12 15:01 ibid-11962 Murtagh and Murtagh: The book and the character [Post Murtagh Christopher Paolini Q&A Wrap Up #4]

As discussed in the first post, this is my ongoing compilation of the remaining questions Christopher has answered online between August 1st 2023 and April 30th 2024 which I've not already covered in other compilations.
As always, questions are sorted by topic, and each Q&A is annotated with a bracketed source number. Links to every source used and to the other parts of this compilation will be provided in a comment below.
The previous post focused on In-Universe Lore. We will now switch to out-of-universe questions, starting with Murtagh. This installment will cover the essence of Murtagh, both the book and the character. The next post will cover additional Murtagh-related questions.

Murtagh the Book

Idea for the book
What was your biggest inspiration to return to this universe and write Murtagh? Was it always in the works? Yeah, so, boy, it's a little convoluted. Ultimately, you can blame the existence of Murtagh on a couple of things. So, starting in 2017 or so, I was feeling a little frustrated in my life for various reasons. And so I decided that I was going to say yes to every appearance opportunity that came my way, just as a way of getting myself out of the house, living life, traveling, seeing stuff, meeting people, etc. So I said yes to going to a bunch of conventions and then sort of out of nowhere, Barnes and Noble asked if I would be their Author in Residence for 2019. They asked in 2018. And so I said yes. And what that meant was I was going to be traveling to a different B&N bookstore every month for the entire year of 2019. Now shortly after I said yes, my mom actually came to me and she said, "Christopher, you're going to be doing that, that's going to be a lot of work. Sure would be nice if you had something new published for 2019." And at this time, I was deep into revisions on To Sleep in a Sea of Stars, which was a massive, massive book. But I thought that hey, that's a great idea. So I took like a month or two and I wrote and revised what became The Fork, The Witch, and The Worm: Tales from Alagaësia, short stories set in the World of Eragon. The first story in there, The Fork story, was based off a tweet that a fan sent me. And again, I think it was 2016 or 2017. And they said, "Hey, Christopher, can you tell us anything about what Murtagh and Thorn are doing after the end of the Inheritance Cycle?" And it was way too late for me past my bedtime. And I said something like, "Murtagh just enchanted a fork to be more deadly than any sword and won a fight with it, and Thorn isn't very happy with him." And I couldn't stop thinking about that, so that became the basis for the Fork story. And then once I wrote it, I couldn't stop thinking about sort of where that story would lead for Murtagh and the world of Alagaësia. I finished To Sleep in a Sea of Stars and I finished revising Fractal Noise. I actually delivered Fractal Noise to Tor all the way back end of 2021, or fairly in 2021. And then I was like, "Okay, it's time for dragons." And I was looking at writing the long awaited Book Five. Though the more I looked at it, because there's a time jump between Inheritance and Book Five, I realized that I was having to do too much explaining of all the things that had happened leading up to Book Five. It was just gonna be deadly dull. So then I went back to those thoughts I'd had of Murtagh and the Fork story and I was like, "well, wait a minute, what if I wrote a book about Murtagh? I've always wanted to. This might be a good reason and good time and a good opportunity." And so I took it. And that's ultimately how Murtagh came about. Books come about through many different ways. Also, on a very practical side of things, last year was the 20th anniversary of the release of Eragon. And so that was also an extra motivation. I was going to write Murtagh anyway, but it was like, okay, not just going to write it. Let's make sure that it's done in time so it could come out on the 20th anniversary, which of course it did. [34]
I was looking at Book Five and I was doing the groundwork for it. Then I realized because it's further down the timeline than Murtagh that I was having to do a huge amount of explaining and setting the groundwork for people to understand how we got to the point of where we were in that book. Then I thought well maybe it'd be a good idea to take a step back and tell one of these earlier stories so people understand what's going on. [28]
I was starting to do some plotting for the next book in the World of Eragon, and I realized that there was too much setup needed. There was too much explaining, too much exposition. So I thought, well, what if what if I took a step back and actually told the story that I'm trying to summarize. And I'd already dipped my toes in, and was already thinking along those lines of, "What are the implications of that short story? Does it lead to something larger?" And of course it does. [1]
How long did it take to write Murtagh? Three and a half months. And then another six months of editing. That's mainly because it takes a few weeks every time my editor looks at it, and then it comes back to me, and then it takes another few weeks. It takes time. But the reason I was able to write it so quickly was because I had a very clear outline, which I learned to create over time. If I don't have an outline, writing doesn't go so well. And if I do have it, it's easy and fast. I wrote that outline quickly, which took no more than two weeks. That's because I already had the beginning in my head – because that was the story of The Fork . And I already knew what the ending would be. So if you have that then you have 80%. And then you still have about 20% left to figure out the middle, and that was the hardest part. I refuse to write a book where I don't know the ending. [23]
How much of it was brand new ideas that came to you now, and how much did you pull from old notes, unused ideas, and pulling it all together? Well, it evolved. I've always had ideas for more full-size books set in the world of Eragon, and a book about Murtagh was one of those. I had a couple of general ideas that I wanted to play with, such as Murtagh and Thorn grappling with their past, grappling with other threats and developments in the world. But the specifics of that only really came about starting in, I want to say, 2018, and even a little bit earlier when I originally got the idea of the short story, The Fork in The Fork, the Witch, and the Worm, which was from Murtagh’s point of view– Well, it was about Murtagh, not his point of view. But that served as the inciting incident and the key for the actual events of this book, and then everything in it drew from old notes, and then, also, I had new stuff as well. [6]
You'll see a lot in Murtagh that I'm drawing from what I've already established and then building off the feel of it. [12]
You talked about how act three was something that came to you early on in the process, and you wanted to reach that point. How do you work with your writing process? Do you start with that scene that comes to you first and then work backward? How do you play around with that? Every book is different, but I refuse to write a book unless I have the beginning and the end clearly in mind. And in this case, I already had the beginning because it was retelling the short story, “The Fork,” from Murtagh’s point of view now. That was the inciting incident in some ways. Technically, the inciting incident actually occurred at the end of Inheritance, but for this book, this is the beginning. Then, I knew where I wanted to end, like, last scene, last chapter. I had that right from the very beginning because I knew that would be emotional and affecting and all of that. Then, it was a question of what type of story I was trying to tell and how that would relate to Murtagh’s personal issues. So, my original conception was like an Edgar Rice Burroughs-style adventure into the unknown, and then the more I did on it, I was like, “Well, there's more to it than just simple adventure. A lot more. So, how do I serve that?” So, I work up a pretty detailed outline before I write the first draft, write the first draft, and then I sit back and say, “Okay, how well did I do in accomplishing what I was trying to accomplish and what do I need to change or focus on?” [6]
Why did you choose to write a story about Murtagh? Do you ask your readers which characters resonate with them, or do you make your own plans? I certainly like to know who is popular with my readers. This is how I know that Murtagh has been a real favorite for years. But that doesn't affect what I write. The fact that Murtagh is a favorite did not lead to the book of the same name. That was mainly because Murtagh's journey wasn't complete after Inheritance. [23]
We see the growth of Murtagh and Thorn's relationship in this book. How did you prepare yourself to explore the relationship between them? Before I start a book, I essentially do what I consider my homework. I take a notebook and I start writing by hand and I have a conversation with myself about who the characters are and what their stories are and what their journey is going to be. And I did that with Murtagh and Thorn specifically because it was very important to me that their relationship felt different than Eragon and Saphira's relationship. And I didn't get it perfectly the first draft. I'd say I got about 80% there. And then worked on it some more once I had a better understanding of what their dynamic was, and then I could go back to the beginning and it's like, okay, this is how they interact. Let's really focus on that. And that was just the core. It is Murtagh's story in a lot of ways, but it's also Thorn's. And that just was very, very important. But thinking about their different experiences, of course, was the key to figuring out how they were interacting. [32]
I’m not sure that if asked, I would have ever guessed your next Inheritance Cycle book would be about Murtagh. What inspired you to dig into this particular character as an author? In many ways, the Inheritance Cycle is the story of three (somewhat) brothers. Eragon, his cousin Roran, and Eragon’s half-brother, Murtagh. They’re each equally important to the story. However, since the series is primarily from Eragon’s point-of-view, readers never really got to experience Murtagh’s journey, which I think is a shame. [15]
Murtagh is one of the main characters of the Inheritance Cycle. There's Eragon, there's Arya, there's Roran, there's Nasuada, and there's Murtagh. But we really don't see a whole lot of Murtagh after the first book. He's taken away, he's imprisoned and we only see him appearing essentially as a villain. And I felt that there was a real missed opportunity there, or there was an opportunity to rectify that and show what actually was going on during that time. [34]
Coming back
It's been so many years. What keeps you in the world of Eragon? I grew up with it. Yeah, but I grew up in Steinhagen. I'm okay with visiting every 10 years. Well, to be fair, it's been 12 years since the last big one came out. Oh, that's a good point. Yeah, that's a good point. But the main thing is I have stories that I want to tell and I'm passionate about those stories. And that's what drew me back to the world. I decided I had a story that I cared about and was passionate about and I wanted to devote the time and energy to make sure that readers got to experience it as well. [2]
Even though it's been many years since it ended, what was it like for you getting back into that headspace and going back to that world? The world itself was very familiar. I had no difficulty diving right back into it. The biggest difference is that this isn't from Eragon’s point of view, so writing from Murtagh’s point of view introduces some differences to the experience. Which was nice for me and I think it will hopefully be nice for readers, as well. But it's an interesting mixture of intense nostalgia, intense familiarity, and yet a sense of newness, as well. Like if you've ever returned home after a long trip, college or wherever, and everything is super familiar, but maybe seems just a little different. [6]
Do you feel ownership of these characters still? The Inheritance Cycle has been with people for so many years. Do you think they belong to the people now? No they're mine because I can do what I want with them. But they have their own existence in the minds of the readers. I have a personal relationship with the books I read and the characters in those books. I'll just pick a book at random, Dune for example. My emotions and interactions with that book are probably very different than someone else's and different from Frank Herbert's when he wrote it. I know people have very deep emotional connections and experiences with Eragon and Saphira and the other characters, and that's out of my control. It is a wonderful thing at the end of the day that someone loves something that you've created so much. Absolutely. That's the goal, that's the dream, that's what you hope as a creator. But it makes me feel a sense of responsibility writing a new story. I definitely felt this with Murtagh, of wanting to do justice to those feelings that people have toward those characters. [28]
Did you always plan to tell more stories within the world of Eragon? Of course. In fact, I deliberately left a couple of dangling threads in Brisingr and Inheritance specifically to form the basis for future books. I love this world, and I hope to write many more stories in it over the years. Murtagh is the first of these. [8]
Did you always know you were gonna go back? Yes, and in fact, I started laying the groundwork in my third book for future stories, specifically so that later on, it didn't feel like I was pulling stuff out of a hat to extend work in the world. [33]
Evolving Scope and Writing Style
One of the fun things has been watching your writing go from Eragon, which is very clean. And it's a quick book about these characters end up on this journey and there's a fight at the end, and there's a really cool dragon. It's very clear what you're trying to do. And I think it was incredibly successful, or we wouldn't be here today. And then by Brisingr, it's a mess. And everybody's everywhere. And the world is this huge, complicated, lovable place with all these people that you adore. But watching the way you've grown from that, and then to take the steps into this very mature handling of Alagaësia in this book, it feels like in the last month I've read a career of writing enhancement. And it's been really exceptional. I actually wish I could read the books without being so familiar with them, for that very reason. I kind of want to see how they change over time. And it's interesting you mentioned Brisingr versus this one and even Inheritance, which is I kind of wanted to dial it back with this one. It's much more of a character study. It's much more focused on Murtagh and Thorn. We spend a lot of time alone with them, actually, over the course of the book. And there isn't any one character that's with them through the whole story. Which I think is reflective of Eragon, again, in his first book. And it's still a large book. It's still a 700-page book. And yet, for all of that, it is much more focused. I actually think, now some readers may disagree with me on this, but personally I think a lot more happens in this book than Eragon, and it's not actually that much longer in terms of word count, but it still feels to me like a lot more happens in this book than Eragon. [11]
How has your writing style evolved? I'm a much better writer than I was when I started and I also have more of an understanding of the difficulties of life, which was helpful when writing a character like Murtagh who has encountered a lot of difficulties. Also, I'm much more methodical in how I approach a book. I do a lot of planning and that allows me to write the book quickly and efficiently. [20]
I really love the spruced up language throughout the book; Murtagh was brought up and educated in the capital, I think the book from his perspective having an excellent use of vocabulary is only fitting. That was the idea. Glad you liked it. [T]
A third of the way through Murtagh and I can’t stand th’ word short’n’ng in dialogue. Don't read Dolores Claiborne, then, lol. [R]

Murtagh the Character

Murtagh's Childhood
This series deals a lot with fathers and absent fathers and difficult fathers. And since you wrote the series, you've become a father yourself. And so looking back on that series, how has your fatherhood that you have now obtained changed the way that you look back on the way that you created the father figures of Alagaësia? That's a really interesting question. It didn't really change too much, but it did change one thing in particular. In Murtagh, without getting too spoilery, there's a moment that Murtagh is having a flashback recollection of his own father and his mother. I think you know the scene I'm talking about. And writing that I was really sort of drawing off of what I have seen with my children and how they behave and play and how they sort of view and interact with the adults around them. That helped me. But as far as like Murtagh's feelings toward his father or Eragon's feelings toward his father, those were already established. Those characters are already established. So I wouldn't say that being a father has necessarily changed at a huge amount. Because fortunately, I have a good relationship with my father. And so far, my kids have a good relationship with me, except when they're trying to stay up too late. So it's not reflecting what I have in my life. I'm just trying to follow the logic of who those characters are and what their relationships are. [11]
This time you also deep dive into Murtagh's relationship with his biological father Morzan, and his true father and mentor Tornac. Being a father yourself now has changed the way you feel about their stories? Strangely enough, no. The only thing that changed is there is a scene I don't want to spoil but I'm sure you will remember. Those who've read the book will know. It's a flashback scene. To a moment when Murtagh was very young himself. And there were some things I've seen in my children and the way they behave that sort of guided how I wrote that scene and how I imagined young Murtagh would have perceived what was happening. But in general, no, the father-son relationship, if anything probably draws more from my experience with my father and myself versus myself with my children. So would you say that Tornac has a little bit of your father? Ehhh... I don't know about that. But I did like writing that relationship. Yeah, Tornac and Murtagh's relationship is very beautiful. And sad as well! Well that is the theme of Murtagh's life. [17]
I think also there's probably something to be said for the fact that you are older now, you're a father now, so how you experience Murtagh as a character is maybe different for you as well. Is that a fair characterization? I think so. I don't think I could have written this book 10 years ago. Not the way I did. [34]
One of the relationships that I feel like you didn't explore as much in the Eragon series but did become a little bit more important here in Murtagh is mothers. What was the process of exploring Selena and getting to bring a scene with her into the series for the first time? It was a lot of fun. It was great having Selena appear. Obviously it's a hazy memory on Murtagh's point point of view, but she sort of looms large over the story as a whole in the book. And rightly so, because he perhaps unfairly blames her for some of his circumstances, and he has to come to terms with that. And there's another character in the book who perhaps is forcing herself into a mothering position during the story and Murtagh has grapple with that as well. [11]
Daddy Energy
There are so many experiences that Eragon got through because either he was the first rider, and so people were treating him with a kindness that they wouldn't show a normal person, or we got that Eragon will persevere through anything and he just kind of shows up and gets it done. Murtagh experiences so many of the same situations and his approach is to replace like Eragon's perseverance with a kindness that was so unexpected from a character with his history. And so this book shows Murtagh's got like a really kind heart deep at the center of him. And he goes through some really awful stuff. But he keeps that kind heart. And I guess, how did you approach writing the soft interior of this man that you've really put through so much at the end of the day? But maintaining that really kind core that allows him to accomplish what he accomplished? That, again, was something that was a bit iterative. I wrote the book really thinking that the theme was him and Thorn grappling with their status in society? Are they going to remain outcasts, exiles? Are they going to reintegrate? What is their role in the world, and how do they feel about it? And after my editor read it, she said, "Yes, that's there. By the way, did you notice how he acts around children?" I said, "Well, yes?" She said, "Take another look at that." And it tied into so many important things for Murtagh that that really added a whole other layer. There's a certain innocence/naivete to Eragon that can sometimes lead him to be very successful at what he does, but also be a little bit, I don't want to say cruel, he's willing to kill and do things just like Murtagh is, but he's also innocent to a certain degree, at least to start with. And it leads to a different approach and a different outcome. Whereas Murtagh has had such dark experiences in his life, he approaches it very differently. [11]
Was the theme of inheritance in Murtagh intentional? Like with the relationships with the children and imparting either like a gift of a fork or wisdom on to or even a sense of caring on to a younger generation, was that intentional to bring over from the Inheritance Cycle or was that found kind of naturally? It was just what this particular story needed. Murtagh has already grown up. He's not an adolescent. He is a grown man. But this particular transformation that he needs to go through is not complete. And all the stuff with the children and the young people in the story. It's a nice tie-in, that theme of inheritance. But I wasn't aiming for that. [11]
I loved that each and every single one of those little side quests included younger people in a way that made Murtagh so protective of them. He has daddy energy. And the funny thing is, that's not because I'm now a dad. I do want to put that out there. In fact, the funny thing is I didn't intentionally make that a theme in the book. And I very much was focusing on the relationship that he and Thorn have with sort of a larger society. Do they belong, do they not belong? Do they rejoin society, do they not rejoin society? And after I sent the first draft to my editor, she came back to me and she said, "By the way, do you realize?" she pointed out the daddy energy, essentially. She didn't quite use those words, but it was the same thing. And she said, "you have this trend going through, think about it, think about how it relates to his character." And she was absolutely right. Just a few touches extra, really brought a lot to who he is. But I wouldn't say that was because I was a father. It was definitely an outgrowth of who Murtagh is as a character. [32]
Asking for Help
[Murtagh's approach to life] actually gets him into deep trouble in this book, because he refuses to accept help when he should have looked for help and stays in a place he shouldn't stay in when he knows he shouldn't stay and thus ends up in deep trouble. [There's a] moment fairly late in the book when he finally thinks that he should have reached out to Eragon, and he knows Eragon would have helped him. And he hates it. He does, but even then, he would accept it. Like, he's in the most dire depths of despair. And at that point, he starts rebuilding and accepting help. Uvek, Alín, he starts actually accepting help. And that's why, by the very end of the book, he actually is willing to participate in society, so to speak, and Thorn as well. [11]
Why does everyone kick Murtagh's ass throughout the book? Okay, I've seen a couple of people say that online, I'm actually going to take issue with that: he wins all of his fights. Except for when he is sort of tricked at one part of the book. But if you look at it, he really does win all of his fights. But with help Well, with some help here and there. Part of it too is he no longer has the help of Eldunarí that Galbatorix gave him. And so I think even though he knows that, subconsciously he goes into some of these fights thinking that he still has that power behind him and he has to kind of discover that "Oh, crap, I'm still stronger than a normal person and I do have a dragon with me, but I'm not invincible." And it takes him a little while to sort of get that beaten into his head. And I have to say at the beginning he's like too proud to ask for help. But then he evolves. Not just proud, I think resentful also. And that is kind of a large part of what the story is about. Will he and Thorn bend the knee enough of their ego to rejoin society and will society even accept them? [17]
Murtagh's Choices and Fate
Murtagh’s line of choice is “By my will, I make my way.” and I can see that reflected in your own journey from an outsider’s point of view. Is that something you would relate to? Yeah, I think that’s fair to say that’s a statement I relate to. But Murtagh is also a much more solitary person than I am. He doesn’t have the support structure that I do and so I’ve been very aware throughout my whole life, my whole career, how fortunate I am to have the support that I have had from my friends and family. My editor, my agent, my parents. I wouldn’t be where I am now. Aside from that, yes, I made certain decisions that started the ball rolling. But the fact that I was able to make those decisions and have the support to make those decisions is due to the environment, I would say. [28]
What is your vision of fate? I go back and forth on that. I think as many of my characters do that it's important to believe that we have some agency in the world. Even if things are predestined, if you feel as if things are predestined, you'll give up. Whether that's predestined or not, I don't know. But I like to believe that I have a sense of control over my life and even if there is a destiny that can't be escaped, we at least have a choice of how to face it. But I don't think that our lives are written in stone or that things can't be improved or changed. If that were the case, humanity would never have bettered its lot over the centuries. And I think that there's a unfortunate thread in modern thinking that kind of says that the situation you're born in and the life circumstances you find yourself is completely out of your control and as a result you cannot rise above that and you should blame those who are supposedly to blame for that situation. And whether or not that's true, I just think it's a very unhelpful way to think about life, because then you feel helpless. You feel like someone else is responsible for your situation and therefore, they're the ones with the power in life. And I always feel that we are the ones in charge of our own thoughts and feelings. The only thing you can control is yourself, ideally at least. And we are the agents of change in our own lives, even in the smallest ways. So that sort of learned helplessness is just a deadly, deadly way of thinking. And it leads people to becoming very angry I think. And that's not good for them or society. Murtagh, of course chose to disregard Umaroth's advice and go where the land is brittle. But even if he puts himself, or even if you put him through so much, he still chose and decides what's the outcome of his ventures. That is the consequence of freedom. You have to let people make stupid decisions. Democracy, freedom, whatever, you have to trust that it's better in the long run for people to have the chance to make stupid decisions. That just because you know better, you shouldn't be the ones telling them ultimately what they can or can't do, as long as it's not harming other people. What do you think will be the most important of lessons Murtagh learned during his sojourn in Nal Gorgoth? I would rather not say. I think that that would be me preaching to the readers. I'll let readers decide what they think the most valuable lesson is from that experience. [19]
Each time Murtagh is confronted with reminders and challenges, his responses to them feel very true to his character. How did you stay true to the decisions that Murtagh would make when confronted with these things? And in what ways, if any, did that inform the arc you wanted him to follow throughout the book? Well, I appreciate that you felt that those choices were true to who Murtagh is. I think when writing a character, at least for me, I create a mental framework for who the person is and how they would react. And then the story, especially if they're the main character, is tailored around that. I tailored the encounters and the choices and what happened specifically to who Murtagh and Thorn are and what their issues are. And that is the story. At least the way I built the story. There is no other story. If I weren't addressing their issues, this story wouldn't even happen. [34]
Could tell us a little bit of what it was like to write Murtagh's point of view, and how that was different from your approach to writing Eragon, especially having stepped outside of the world for so long. He's a lot less open and much more damaged, of course, and a lot angrier and a lot more resentful. And his relationship with Thorn is a lot rockier, a lot pricklier, one might say. But being older myself and having gone through some ups and downs in life, as we all do, writing Murtagh was more interesting as a result. But Murtagh also has a hard time in the book, necessarily so, I would argue, since I wrote it. But that took quite a bit of emotional energy as well, writing that. So really enjoyed it. I would love to write Murtagh again, especially since I think that he is in a much better place by the end of the book, even though he still has a lot to work through, he's taken the first big step in a lot of ways. And that's what this book was about, was him and Thorn taking that step, or deciding to take the step. Or being forced into taking the step really at certain points. Yeah, but it is his choice ultimately, and as it always is. [32]
Anti-Hero
People have strong opinions on Murtagh across the Internets. We want to know whether or not you would describe Murtagh as an anti-hero or an antagonist Well, he's heading in that direction. I think he was definitely an anti-hero for most of the inheritance cycle, and he's now tipped over into, troubled, but a genuine protagonist by the end of Murtagh. [32]
Yes, you can call him an anti-hero. Murtagh is an outcast with a complex life history. He has been both friend and enemy to Eragon through circumstances largely beyond his control. And for the first time in this book we see the world through his eyes. [18]
Murtagh's character evolves from antagonist to a kind of complex anti-hero in the new book. What were your motivations behind this evolution? He's not a villain, in the sense that he didn't choose evil for the most part, although he's made some questionable choices at times. So that was interesting to evolve. And I didn't want to push him further down the road of villainy, so to speak, because that just feels obvious and lazy to me. So I wanted to give him and Thorn a chance to find a path to redemption. There's also something to be said about the person who has to do everything because they're being brainwashed. That's the other thing. A lot of it he was forced to do. He still did it, and he had some choices along the way, but for the most part he was coerced, and that has to be taken to taken into account. [34]
Murtagh and Eragon as Mirrors
One of my favorite things about the book is that Murtagh, kind of like how Angela and Bachel are almost like evil twins, Murtagh goes through some of the same beats that Eragon gets in his book. I'm so glad you noticed, and I didn't even do it on purpose. When I was going through editing I started working up a whole list of things I was like these are mirrored experiences to some of the things that happened with Eragon. I didn't fight it, I actually embraced it. [11]
The problems that Murtagh and Thorn face seem to be mirrored of the problems that Eragon and Saphira had to face. Did you write it that way on purpose, and if so, why? Well, yes and no. Murtagh and Thorn could actually have been in the shoes of Eragon and Saphira. In another time, or if someone had made a different decision, it would have been Murtagh and Thorn who became famous Dragon Riders and Eragon and Saphira would have been cast out. They are very much the same and yet so different. It only makes sense that some of the problems they are now experiencing are the same ones Eragon and Saphira had to overcome. [23]
Murtagh is what Eragon would have been if he hadn't grown up in a loving environment. He has a much more difficult character than Eragon, much more prickly. Although he gets angry easily, he is a good person who hates injustice. Perhaps because he is a victim of it himself. He is much more aware than Eragon about how the world works. [4]
Murtagh and Thorn were once, albeit reluctantly, on the evil side of the force. Are these two characters negative incarnations of Eragon and Saphira? To a degree, but they're also very much their own people, given how different their life experiences have been compared to Eragon and Saphira. And they're aware of that difference. It's something Murtagh reflects on several times throughout the book. However, even if Murtagh and Thorn had been raised in the same circumstances as Eragon and Saphira, I think they would still be very different. Thorn has a much more trenchant sense of humor than Saphira, and even at the best of times, Murtagh would always have a greater tendency toward brooding than Eragon. [22]
I saw a parallel in Murtagh's life, a symmetry with his and that of Eragon. So we know that Eragon was raised as a humble farmer, whereas Murtagh was raised in court. But now Eragon plays a major role in the world, he has all the comfort he needs, he no longer lives in a thrifty environment. Whereas Murtagh is said to travel the world without a roof over his head, at the beginning of the book at least. And I was wondering regarding these circumstances, what does this exchange of places mean to you? I was thinking very carefully about the parallels between Murtagh's experience and Eragon's. And sometimes while I was writing the book, I found parallels emerging that I didn't originally expect. For example, when they leave Gil'ead, Thorn kind of grabs Murtagh and they have an involuntary flight where Murtagh is trying to get Thorn to land and Thorn won't listen to him. That's very similar to when the first time Eragon and Saphira flew together after leaving Palancar Valley right when the Ra'zac showed up. So there are lots of things over the course of the story that have sort of echoes with Eragon's experience. Some of that was intentional, some of that was purely coincidental, but I thought it made for an interesting contrast. [19]
Murtagh definitely has a harder lot in life than Eragon. His father didn't love him and even tried to kill him, leaving a scar. A painful life. And Eragon’s father took a blade to save his own son…. Eragon and Murtagh/Brom and Morzan are opposites in more ways than one. [T]
What was the hardest challenge in writing from the perspective of Murtagh after writing from the perspective of Eragon for so long? Figuring out how his voice differed from Eragon's, and how Thorn differed from Saphira, and their relationship differed from Eragon and Saphira's. And then also I went back and looked at Murtagh's dialogue from Eragon, and boy was I pretentious back then. And I didn't want to write him exactly the way I'd written him in the first book, and balancing that and also figuring out his relationship with Thorn, that was the challenge. [34]
Murtagh is not as easy to get along with as Eragon. He is angry with his situation and resentful. Both he and Thorn have all these different feelings going through them, which makes it interesting for a writer to write about them. [23]
submitted by ibid-11962 to Eragon [link] [comments]


2024.05.12 02:29 geopolicraticus Wilhelm Windelband and the Place of History among the Sciences

Wilhelm Windelband

11 May 1848 – 22 October 1915
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Wilhelm Windelband and the Place of History among the Sciences
Saturday 11 May 2024 is the 176th anniversary of the birth of Wilhelm Windelband (11 May 1848 – 22 October 1915), who was born in Potsdam on this date in 1848.
One way to understand Windelband’s contribution to the philosophy of history is to position his work in relation to the old question of whether history is an art or a science. Those who say that history is an art point out that history is expressed in a prose narrative, and that history, like poetry and drama, has not surpassed its ancient models. Thucydides marks a high point in history as Aeschylus marks a high point of tragedy.
Those who say that history is a science can cite the research and the evidence that history requires and that art does not. While the humanities today may have fallen away from a condition of previous excellence, when the curriculum for the humanities was as difficult and as rigorous as that of the sciences, but in a different way, there remains the possibility of the humanities as a rigorous discipline. A student in the humanities was once expected to master Greek and Latin, and, if his research took him into ancient history where Greek and Latin were no help, then he might also have to master ancient Assyrian or Aramaic, as well as the auxiliary sciences of history, like sigillography and vexillology, and so on. Among those who argue that history is a science, Leopold von Ranke is most frequently cited as the man who made history scientific, though Ranke’s methods of text criticism arguably extend back in time at least to the renaissance, when Lorenza Valla proved that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. In any case, the study of language unified the humanities much as mathematics unifies the natural sciences.
Wilhelm Windelband was among those who argued that history is a science, but if you argue that history is a science, the next step is to say what kind of science it is, because it doesn’t seem to be a science like physics or mathematics. This is where Windelband made his lasting contribution. Windelband argued that history is a science, but that it is a peculiar kind of science.
Windelband was among the first to make a principled distinction between the physical sciences and the social sciences, or, if you prefer, between the natural sciences and the humanities. Windelband’s principled distinction within the sciences is his distinction between the idiographic and the nomothetic. As far as my knowledge extends, this distinction was given its first exposition in Windelband’s 1894 rectorial address as Strasbourg. Here is how he formulated it at that time:
“In their quest for knowledge of reality, the empirical sciences either seek the general in the form of the law of nature or the particular in the form of the historically defined structure. On the one hand, they are concerned with the form which invariably remains constant. On the other hand, they are concerned with the unique, immanently defined content of the real event. The former disciplines are nomological sciences. The latter disciplines are sciences of process or sciences of the event. The nomological sciences are concerned with what is invariably the case. The sciences of process are concerned with what was once the case. If I may be permitted to introduce some new technical terms, scientific thought is nomothetic in the former case and idiographic in the latter case. Should we retain the customary expressions, then it can be said that the dichotomy at stake here concerns the distinction between the natural and the historical disciplines.” (Wilhelm Windelband, Rectorial Address, 1894)
In brief, the nomothetic is the lawlike and the universal, while the idiographic is individual and the particularistic. A distinct methodology is required for the exposition of the nomothetic and the idiographic, but the fact that each branch of science does have a methodology for the exposition of their chosen object of knowledge demonstrates that they are both sciences, though different kinds of sciences. Near the end of his rectorial address, Windelband says that, despite the distinction he has formulated, the ultimate aim of scientific knowledge is its ultimate unity:
“…in the total synthesis of knowledge, which is the ultimate aim of all scientific research, these two cognitive moments remain independent and juxtaposed. The general nomological regularity of things defines the space of our cosmic scheme; it transcends all change and expresses the eternal essence of reality. Within this framework, we find the vital development of the structure of all the individual forms which have value for the collective memory of humanity.”
The idea that nomological regularity defines the space of our cosmic scheme suggests that the nomological is the ultimate basis of science and scientific knowledge, and the idiographic must find a place for itself within the interstices of this nomological scheme; there are several other passages in his rectorial address that also suggest this. But Windelband also says that the nomothetic and the idiographic remain independent and juxtaposed, and he concludes this talk with an interesting juxtaposition:
“A description of the present state of the universe follows from the general laws of nature only if the immediately preceding state of the universe is presupposed. But this state presupposes the state that immediately precedes it, and so on. Such a description of a particular, determinate state of the arrangement of atoms, however, can never be derived from the general laws of motion alone. The definitive characteristics of a single point in time can never be immediately derived from any ‘cosmic formula.’ The derivation of the description of a single temporal point always requires the additional description of the previously existing state which is subordinated to the law. General laws do not establish an ultimate state from which the specific conditions of the causal chain could ultimately be derived. It follows that all subsumption under general laws is useless in the analysis of the ultimate causes or grounds of the single, temporally given phenomenon. Therefore, in all the data of historical and individual experience a residuum of incomprehensible, brute fact remains, an inexpressible and indefinable phenomenon.”
Given this juxtaposition, we could also characterize the nomothetic and the idiographic as the distinction between general laws and brute fact. Natural science is the science of general laws; history is the science of brute fact. Each requires the other: general laws must work upon brute fact, and brute fact is made comprehensible by its subsumption under general laws. Formulated in this way, it makes sense that the science of general laws would require a distinct method from that of a science of brute fact.
Now I want to return to the problem with which I started: is history an art or a science? Windelband, as we have seen, says that history is a science, but it is a peculiar kind of science with its own methodology, and that methodology is idiographic. This claim doesn’t go down well among many philosophers of science. Among philosophers, especially since the advent of Newtonian science, physics has been taken to be the paradigm of a natural science. Physics is also often called a “hard” science, and mathematics a “pure” science, but what makes a science hard or soft, or pure or impure, is a problem that only philosophy can attempt to address. Physics is also clearly nomological, and physicists are justly proud of their precise statement of the laws of nature in a mathematical formalism.
Many of those who would make history a science want to assimilate history to the natural sciences, and they assume that there is, or there ought to be, a methodological unity across all the sciences. In other words, there are no kinds of science, there are no distinct classifications of science each with their own methodology. Science is one, and not many. For Windelband, science is many, not one, and it must remain many because of the juxtaposition of general laws and brute fact.
Can we call this for either side? Has the past century and a quarter of scientific discovery and philosophy of science given us a way to decide between the claims that science is one and science is many? In a word, no. I will go further and make a more radical claim: my response to this is that no sciences are scientific. Before you call me a nihilist, let me try to explain.
The individual special sciences, like physics or biology, are scientific to some degree, but all fall short of converging on complete scientificity. I have often pointed out, though not in any of these Today in Philosophy of History episodes, that there is no science of science. Individual sciences are pursued scientifically, but we have no general method for the foundation of a new science and no general method for the expansion and progress of an existing science. Intuition still plays a crucial and substantive role in the development of science. The progress of science, then, is idiosyncratic, subject to the intuitive perspicacity of its practitioners.
Our understanding of science is pre-paradigmatic, to use a Kuhnian term, even if particular sciences are fully paradigmatic. It seems paradoxical that the individual sciences can be as well defined as any part of human knowledge, while the whole enterprise of science remains essentially unknown to us. If we could christen this paradox with a memorable name maybe the realization of not knowing what we are doing when we do science would get some traction and some theoretical attention.
Whether or not this is a paradox, it shouldn’t surprise us, since it’s baked into the very substance of science. Science progresses when it manages to hit upon a productive set of abstractions that we can use to leverage a very narrow way of looking at the world. When I say that about “managing to hit upon the right abstractions” this is key here, because, given the lack of a science of science, there is no method of converging upon optimally productive abstractions; we can only cast about for them.
Finding productive abstractions is idiosyncratic: some individuals have a much better feel for converging on productive abstractions than others. This idiosyncratic efficacy is a function of science remaining an art rather than being a science—that is to say, science itself is an art to some degree. To give a sense of really how “out to sea” we are when it comes to scientific knowledge, consider this: In the absence of a rigorous science of science, it would be nice at least to have a proof that a rigorous science of science is possible, or that it is impossible—one way or the other—but we don’t even have this much.
Now, it seems clear to me that some sciences are more science and less art, while other sciences are more art and less science. It also seems clear to me that physics is more science, and history is more art, but they both occupy points on the art-science continuum, and in this sense, if no other, all scientific thought is unified in not being perfectly or exhaustively scientific.
One of the first steps we might take in formulating a science of science would be a taxonomy of the sciences. Windelband seems to do this by giving us a fundamental distinction that exhaustively divides all sciences between the nomothetic and the idiographic. Windelband’s distinction, if strictly observed, cleaves science in two, with the natural sciences on one side of the division, and the historical sciences (or, if you prefer, the humanities) on the other side. But he didn’t always insist on his distinction as being an exhaustive classification, and he gave a different sense to his distinction in a little book titled Theories in Logic in English. This was originally written in German as “Die Prinzipien der Logik” and appeared in the Enzyklopadie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, 1912, but the English translation was published as a short book.
In Theories in Logic Windelband suggests that sciences might be more or less nomothetic, more or less idiographic, and the nomothetic or idiographic proportion of a science may change over time:
“…we have to distinguish between those sciences which are governed by laws and those which deal with events, between nomothetic and ideographic inquiry. It is this which really makes the difference in intellectual interest between Natural Science and the Humanities. But we cannot repeat too often that we are here only speaking of ultimate aims and hence of those sciences which appear as polar opposites, between which the real work of Science moves in manifold gradations, so that in any particular case we can only speak of a preponderance of one or the other moment—as Rickert, in his penetrating analysis of this relation, has pointed out. The ultimate goal of all investigation of Nature is to attain timeless generic concepts of being and happening, but that does not exclude the fact that the way thereto leads over stages of simpler interconnexions in which it rests and provisionally halts. For it is precisely in the real that the nomothetic rationalisation of Reality must find its limits. On the other hand, the specific object of all historical inquiry is a construction which is significant chiefly because it can never recur, and which has to be lifted out of its entanglement in the non-significant elements lying all around it. To understand such a construction, however, History requires general concepts and axioms, which she is certainly more likely to borrow successfully from general experience than from the natural sciences… and it creates for itself the possibility of characterising this unique object by a peculiar kind of generic concept and by a comparative study of the conformity of events to law.” (p. 57)
Windelband’s original distinction implies that natural science and the humanities are polar opposites in terms of their methodology, but in fact the development of science involves “manifold gradations” in which the nomothetic and the idiographic preponderate by turns. This means that natural science (and the humanities as well) might swing like a pendulum between a nomothetic pole and an idiographic pole, being now more nomothetic, and now more idiographic. I think Windelband was right about this, but if the whole of science can tend toward the nomothetic or the idiographic, then his distinction isn’t the kind of beginning of a taxonomy of sciences that we would want to pursue if we wanted to formulate a science of science.
If you think about it, it’s remarkable that so much thought and effort has been poured into the sciences and into philosophy of science, and yet we don’t have any kind of workable classification of the sciences other than a university catalog and the arrangement of books in the library by subject matter. If we were to take a page out of Carnap, we would start with classificatory concepts of science, that is to say, a taxonomy, and then we work our way to comparative concepts, and eventually converge on fully quantitative concepts. We could argue that physics has a greater number of quantitative concepts than history, therefore on this Carnapian basis physics is closer to converging on scientific status than history, and I wouldn’t disagree with this. It’s a lot like my earlier claim that physics seems to be more science and history more art, though both are on the same art-science continuum.
Carnap’s schema of scientific concepts has been widely influential and widely criticized. For my part, the longer I have thought about this, the more I have come to see that an optimal taxonomy is one of the last things that a science arrives at, and, if I am right about this, then a science of science that could render both physics and history fully, completely, and exhaustively scientific would arrive last of all at a satisfying taxonomy of the science. Given this desideratum, it might well be premature to seek a taxonomy, but, on the other hand, there is a big difference between a workable taxonomy and an optimal taxonomy. The development of a science often passes through a sequence of taxonomies that become more adequate as they are repeatedly revised.
I would expect the same to be true of a science of science, so I would expect to see a rough, workable taxonomy of the sciences followed by revisions that would render it more adequate over time. Does Windelband’s distinction between the nomothetic and idiographic sciences give us this rough, working taxonomy that could be the basis of further elaboration? Maybe yes; maybe no. If Windelband is to be the basis of a science of science that can comprehend both physics and history and everything in between, it would need to be set in a much more comprehensive theoretical framework, and this has not yet been done.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/nOnELO64kwE
https://www.instagram.com/p/C60x--UNqtW/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of:1

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/UhiNEf1BvJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/3b2e6e57-d9fe-45b0-a1ec-f51f951f1fe7/today-in-philosophy-of-history-wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of-history-among-the-sciences
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of-175323097/

submitted by geopolicraticus to The_View_from_Oregon [link] [comments]


2024.05.12 01:24 burritocaca Umm...guys?

Umm...guys?
Check out where the dragon head protrudes from the dress's design and the corresponding jagged part of the park, the similarity of the crossed arms and the walkway that is covered by "Recently viewed," and the difference of width on each side of both of the patterns. A similar consistency is present where its tail protrudes near the bottom left of the park. I'm having trouble finding out just how much of the design was present in 1980. There was a wholesale landscaping project done in 2010ish. If anyone finds any aerial pictures circa 1980, please share (even if it discounts my theory).
Interestingly, Los Angeles City Hall is at the foot of the park (a "Citadel in the night"). It's made of California granite and was seismically designed and built, which 'saved' the building from the 1933 and 1941 earthquakes ("Weight and roots extended Together saved the site Of granite walls".)
Moreover, L.A. City Hall has a colonnade (“Wind-swept halls"). Plus, there are several other 'halls' in the immediate area: The Hall of Administration, the Hall of Records and the Hall of Justice. The Hall of Justice also has a colonnade.
Los Angeles City Hall looks an awful lot like a rocket ("A wingless bird ascended Born of ancient dreams of flight"). (The Japan hints state that "This wingless bird can easily be spotted in Japan" and Japan is small enough that rockets launched from Tanegashima Space Center would be visible throughout the country as they pass through the atmosphere.) There's also at least one "White stone" at Grand Park (in what is now called Sakura Grove).
There's been a Fairmont Hotel in Century City since 1966 and a Fairmount Street in East L.A. (for the Fairmount/Fairmont people who just swear that that 'clue' is a dead ringer for SF).
"Lane Two twenty two" may mean Los Angeles, North Entrance (L.A.N.E.) of the park, which has the address, 222 N. Hill St. The address number of the Hall of Administration is 222 N. Grand. The park itself may have 222 as its official street number as well. (Alternatively, "Lane" could be referring to the Northeast district of L.A., apparently abbreviated "NELA", but that's admittedly weak; plus, City Hall is downtown in the Civic Center district not NELA, so I'm going with the park entrance theory for now.)
The arc of lights (hey, u/ArcOfLights lol) IMO could be the LAX air traffic at night. Alternatively, it's the view of the Arthur J. Will Memorial Fountain from the north end of the park.
Anybody want to go walk 12 paces from the west side of that stone and poke around? :D As Verse 5 says, "Get permission To dig out."
Cheers.
P.S. I want to share how I initially got to Grand Park in case it's helpful. I was contemplating the Japan hints about Verse 5, particularly that we should think about architecture, buildings and structures for the "Weight and roots extended" lines. My wife is in the buildings industry, and she immediately thought of seismic design and retrofitting. Adding the granite reference, I started googling around and up popped articles of a retrofitting of L.A. City Hall in 1997-2001 (I note above that it was also seismically designed when built), so I pulled up Los Angeles City Hall on Google Maps, and there was Grand Park. I honestly have no idea how no one has pointed it out before given how much more closely the park matches the dress's design (without having to flip entire sections to force a fit). The entire process took all of ten minutes.
P.S.S. Cue the slow, agonizing realization that the entire community has probably been wrong about Image 1 for 40 years, as shown by a newbie in ten minutes of googling no less. 😬 If this community were being honest with itself, Grand Park would've been a major point of contention all these years. If Image 1 and Verse 5 are indeed referring to L.A., think of how many of the remaining 'generally accepted' image-verse pairings are wrong as well, not to mention other 'generally accepted' image-city and verse-city pairings. 🤦‍♂️ Maybe, just maybe, this community needs to reevaluate its puzzle solving strategy. The first step is admitting that the community might be wrong, perhaps by first removing the flairs that assume that the generally accepted image-city pairings for the unsolved images are accurate.
https://preview.redd.it/dotio3hli10d1.jpg?width=759&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbe09ceac03f01e81e10ff3b2afcfecb012df5ef
submitted by burritocaca to 12keys [link] [comments]


2024.05.11 06:23 adulting4kids World building Fantasy

World-Building Advice for Fantasy Stories:
  1. Consistency is Key:
    • Maintain internal consistency within your fantasy world. Establish rules for magic systems, cultural norms, and physical laws, and adhere to them throughout the narrative to create a believable and immersive experience.
  2. Cultural Diversity:
    • Develop diverse cultures within your fantasy world, each with its own customs, traditions, and belief systems. Consider how these cultural differences shape the interactions between characters and influence the broader societal dynamics.
  3. Show, Don't Tell:
    • Instead of providing lengthy exposition, reveal the details of your world through the actions and experiences of the characters. Allow readers to discover the intricacies of your fantasy world organically.
  4. Consider the Ramifications:
    • Think about the consequences of fantastical elements on the world and its inhabitants. How do magical creatures, powerful artifacts, or unique environmental features affect daily life, economies, and power structures?
  5. History and Mythology:
    • Create a rich history and mythology for your fantasy world. Consider how past events, legends, and ancient conflicts influence the present. This adds depth and context to the narrative, making the world feel more lived-in.
  6. Character-Driven Exploration:
    • Use your characters as vehicles to explore the world. Allow their perspectives and experiences to unveil different facets of your fantasy setting, making the world-building an integral part of the character development.
  7. Balance Detail and Mystery:
    • Provide enough detail to ground readers in your world, but leave room for mystery. Allowing some aspects to remain unexplained or shrouded in myth adds intrigue and encourages readers to immerse themselves in the wonder of the unknown.
  8. Consider the Mundane:
    • While fantastical elements are crucial, also consider the everyday aspects of life in your world. What do people eat, wear, and do for fun? How does technology or magic impact mundane tasks? These details add realism and relatability to your fantasy setting.
  9. Map Your World:
    • Create a map of your fantasy world to visualize its geography and locations. This helps maintain spatial coherence and assists both you and your readers in navigating the various regions.
  10. Reader Empathy:
    • Connect readers emotionally to your fantasy world by infusing it with relatable emotions, dilemmas, and human experiences. Even in a world of magic and mythical creatures, the core of the narrative should resonate with universal themes.
submitted by adulting4kids to writingthruit [link] [comments]


2024.05.10 18:53 zomghax92 Jacob was doomed from the start

And I don't just mean that he's everyone's first choice for the vents.
I mean that as a character, he never really had a chance to be someone that the fans liked. Consider that the structure of ME2 meant that most missions are character-driven, rather than story-driven. There are only a handful of unavoidable story missions; virtually everything else is recruitment missions, loyalty missions, or DLC. Most of the game is about getting to know your squad. Recruitment missions tell you who they are, and loyalty missions tell you where they're going. They're the best avenues to develop the characters and get you invested in them.
But Jacob got the very short end of the stick when it came to his personal missions; he doesn't get a recruitment mission, apart from the tutorial and Freedom's Progress, and those are much more about Shepard, as well as Miranda and Tali respectively. His role early on is mostly just Average Human Fighter, offering a little bit of exposition and contrast to Miranda's cold exterior.
Jacob's loyalty missions is a compelling little sci-fi vignette; the problem is that it isn't really about Jacob. The entire story is driven by his father, and Jacob's role is mostly reactive, amounting to little more than "enslaving women bad." Which it is, but it's not exactly a unique or telling viewpoint. If Jacob's relationship with his father had been a bigger part of his character, the disillusionment surrounding his actions might have made for an interesting character moment, but until the mission is prompted, Jacob never said a word about the man.
Even his appearance in ME3 isn't really about him. Most of the story of the mission is about Brynn and the scientists, and the lengths to which Cerberus will go to tie up loose ends. Jacob has stepped into a leadership role, which is interesting, but as far as we know leadership has never been important to him.
This could have been somewhat mitigated by giving him some interesting dialogue on the ship between missions, but I think that there was a deliberate decision to make him feel pretty ordinary. I understand that in a ship full of alien characters with unfamiliar cultures, it feels important to have something grounded so that the player doesn't feel completely off the deep end. As a result, each game has the Regular GuyTM, with Regular Guy ProblemsTM. It's a human male military guy that is with you at the start of the game, with a fairly even personality, who has some sort of arc but nothing as interesting as some other squadmates. In this role, Jacob gives you context for what's happening between Cerberus and the Alliance, and puts a human face on Cerberus, but so do Kelly, Gabby, Ken, and Rupert.
 
So how would we fix Jacob? The way I see it, there are two approaches. Either we can recontextualize the missions we do have, or we can come up with something new. I think a way that we can improve the missions we got is by making a slight change so that Jacob's dad is someone important in the Alliance. He grew up in his father's shadow and always felt like he wasn't good enough. Then his father disappeared, but Jacob still felt trapped by his legacy, and joined the Corsairs and eventually Cerberus as he tried to find his place. This would make the disillusionment from what his father did hit much harder, and force Jacob to see how fallible his father is. This also would make it more impactful for Jacob to become a leader in ME3 as he finally steps out of his father's shadow, and Miranda's shadow, and Shepard's.
If we're making more liberal rewrites, I think Jacob's past is worth mining for something good. The Corsairs are an interesting concept that were not developed much; a cool idea for a new loyalty mission would be if one of his old Corsair buddies captained a ship that was trying to take down the Normandy, since Normandy is a Cerberus vessel now. It's unclear whether the Corsairs are acting in their capacity as soldiers of the Alliance or on their own, which would make them little better than pirates. This could lead to a crisis of conscience for Jacob, where he starts to doubt whether operating without accountability--like the Corsairs, and like Cerberus--can ever be justified.
 
How would you fix Jacob to make him a more interesting character? How does he compare to our other Basic Boys, Kaiden and James? What do they do that he doesn't? What does he have that they don't?
submitted by zomghax92 to masseffect [link] [comments]


2024.05.10 01:17 vintagemiseries [Discussion] A Tale of Two Texts: The New Frontier and The Golden Age

SOURCE
I'm going to do something a bit different and take a close look at two major works from the DC Universe: Darwyn Cooke's The New Frontier, and James Robinson and Paul Smith's The Golden Age. If you're playing along at home, the texts I'm using are The Absolute New Frontier from 2006 and The Golden Age trade paperback from 1995.
First a bit of personal context: I didn't enjoy The New Frontier when it first came out, serialized in six quite expensive installments. I loved Cooke's art, I loved the use of some of the more obscure DC war characters, and I loved the characterization of the Martian Manhunter, but the narrative didn't work for me when read in small monthly doses back in 2004. I had read all of the full-length work Cooke had done up until 2004, and none of it had disappointed me at all. But The New Frontier seemed to read more like a tour through the 1950s and 1960s than an actual story. It wasn't until the final issue that I really understood what Cooke was leading up to, but then it was over, and I didn't have the time or the inclination to dig out the back issues and read the whole thing in one sitting. Even when I got the two-volume trade paperback collection a couple of years ago (in an eBay lot of trade paperbacks I bought off of none other than comic book scholar George Khoury), I still didn't bother to read it. To paraphrase Hemingway's Frederic Henry, we don't do the things we want to do.
So I never actually read the entire text of The New Frontier until this past winter, when I was able to sit down with the luxurious Absolute edition and dive into Cooke's illustrated world. I enjoyed it immensely, enough that I wanted to reread it again this summer, which is what I have just done, and now I want to talk about it. But I don't want to talk about it in isolation, and I'm interested in the connection between texts, so I'll also talk about its logical precursor: The Golden Age.
Like The New Frontier, Robinson and Smith's The Golden Age deals with the era between the 1940s and the 1960s. The era in which the comic book Golden Age grew into the comic book Silver Age. The era in which America was undergoing its own transformation, moving from threats abroad to suspicion at home. And just as I had difficulty enjoying The New Frontier as a serialized comic, I couldn't appreciate The Golden Age in that manner either. I only bought the first two issues, actually, back in the early 1990s, and then I lost interest, vaguely thinking that I might buy it as a collected edition some day (even though collections were not guaranteed the way they are today). I did buy it when the trade paperback was released, and because I had never finished it originally, I read the collection immediately. And I liked it. But I thought it was deeply flawed.
I reread The Golden Age yesterday, after thinking about it in regards to The New Frontier. It's not a surprising connection, after all. Cooke himself claims The Golden Age as an inspiration for his own work. But my memory of The Golden Age was a bit hazy, and I recalled it being a much more cynical view of the territory than what Cooke achieved in The New Frontier. My recall was pretty accurate--Robinson and Smith present a quite cynical view of the late Golden Age America.
Now that I've read both works back-to-back, I'm interested in exploring what each says about super-heroes, what each says about America, and how each achieves its (very different) effects. These are the kinds of things I'll be looking at over the next few days.
James Robinson's use of History in The Golden Age
One of the things that strikes me about both The New Frontier and The Golden Age is the way the creators weave American history into their stories. On the surface, such a technique might not be surprising, especially considering that both tales take place in the past. And while it may be true that a so-called "historical novel" or "period film" would be amiss to neglect the details of history which fit its setting, the same isn't always true for comics.
In comics, stories set in the past tend to take place in some vague memory of the past, without any apparent intent in locking the stories into a particular date or era. Take the typical origin stories, or "Year One" stories which DC Comics' creators have retold again and again. In such a story, whether it be Miller and Mazzuchelli's take on Batman, or Waid, Augustyn, and Kitson's take on the Justice League, the setting lacks a distinct time stamp. The characters are younger, true, but the setting lacks specific period detail. The reason for this isn't at all surprising, because locking the characters' past into a specific date would require some major explanations about their ages in the present. Had Miller time-stamped the date on Batman: Year One, and included captions saying "May 3rd, 1980," or whatever, then that might have worked for a few years, but even if we assume that Batman was only 23 when he took inspiration from that window-smashing flying rodent, according to that temporal continuity, he'd be 50 years old in the current stories. And he's clearly not.
So we expect stories set in the past to avoid any kind of specific references to contemporary history, at least in comics. A recent jarring exception to that can be found in Diggle and Jock's newly released Green Arrow: Year One, in which a young Oliver Queen references the "Kevin Costner" Robin Hood. That means Queen must have become Green Arrow sometime in the mid-1990s, which might explain his age today (if he was 22 in 1992, he'd be 37 today, which might be right), but it also implies that his son Connor must only be a teenager today, and he's clearly older than that. Perhaps the reference will work better 10 years from now when the Kevin Costner reference will become part of the vague historical past, but right now it seems too current to make sense.
Anyway, the other MAJOR exception to the rule of not using historical references in comics is the case of stories set during World War II. Even comic books written at the time of WWII regularly included time-stamp references in a way that later comics tended to avoid. Yes, since then, Superman has met Kennedy, and you might see analogues of Bill Clinton or George W. in a story or two, but in the 1940s heroes came face to face with major historical figures (contemporaries to them) on an almost daily basis. Here's FDR! Here's Superman grabbing Hitler on a cover! Here's Tojo! Here's Hawkman enlisting in the army to fight overseas! Etc. Such close ties between "comic book reality" and real-life events never matched the heights of the WWII comics.
And that's why later writers, Roy Thomas MOST prominently among them (he practically invented the whole idea of historical nostalgia super-hero comics), felt compelled to weave actual historical events into the retelling of stories from the WWII era. Thomas's Invaders for Marvel and his All-Star Squadron for DC playfully fit the timeline of actual US history into the fictional timeline of the past super-heroes. In his letter columns, Thomas would often explain (or justify, for the more contentious fans) how the chronology worked.
But, other than WWII era-stories, most comic book stories that take place in the past (unless they are time travel stories, which have their own rules) DO NOT USE SPECIFIC HISTORICAL REFERENCES. It's weird to imagine novels or films avoiding such references—they would surely be criticized for it—but in comics, it's commonplace.
So, in the case of both The New Frontier and The Golden Age, you have two rather significant violations of that standard "rule." And both of which seem deeply indebted to the type of approach Roy Thomas favored so much.
Let's take The Golden Age first, since it was published a decade before Cooke's work. The Golden Age seems like a logical off-shoot of Thomas's All-Star Squadron. It features many of the same characters, and Johnny Quick, a relatively obscure DC character from the past, would certainly not have been a suitable narrator for the story without the characterization Thomas provided in years of All-Star Squadron stories. James Robinson is clearly building on the foundation Thomas created. So, it's not surprising that he would, like Thomas, blend US history into his story. Yet Robinson's approach differs in two distinct ways: (1) He doesn't seem interested in the exact historical details and how they fit into his timeline—he seems more interested in the general sense of historical forces of the time, and (2) Unlike Thomas, who was writing out of a Golden and Silver Age optimism and a belief in the American Dream, Robinson was writing from a post-Watchmen perspective, as a foreign-born writer, who could play with the cynical expectations of the time.
Thus, Robinson gives us coke-sniffing "super-heroes," corruption, brutality, and sex in a tale which features the "pure" heroes of the DC Golden Age of comics. Robinson's approach is not to use specific elements of McCarthyism or the Red Scare (even though those ideas are referenced at least once), but to use the general sense of paranoia and panic, the cynical manipulation of the public for personal gain, and the looming threat of the bomb.
Ultimately, however, Robinson uses all of this as a backdrop for a traditional super-hero romp. The coke-sniffing "super-hero" turns out to be Hitler in disguise!!! (Well, actually the brain of Hitler in the body of a former kid sidekick—talk about a symbol of corruption!) And the hero-turned-power-hungry-politician in the form of the patriotic Mr. America turns out to be old JSA villain the Ultra-Humanite, who knows a thing or two about brain transplants. So, in the end, it's just a classic Golden Age story about punching Hitler and defeating an evil genius.
But it's Robinson's historical subtext which makes the story resonate. It's his use of those undercurrents of paranoia and despair which make these formerly perfect heroes of the past seem flawed and human. His story starts dark and becomes darker but, by the end, Robinson's veil of cynicism falls away, and he reveals himself to be a humanist, if not an optimist. His reverence for these Golden Age characters would not let them be truly corrupted—it had to be evil masterminds and Hitler all along.
And that, perhaps, is one of the failures of The Golden Age. The shock of the initial chapters is just a ruse, and as low as these characters seem to sink, everything can be explained by pseudo-science and comic book logic.
It's just another Justice Society of America story, ultimately, but it's a good one. And Robinson's use of the undercurrents from that era of history make it work, even if it never transcends its roots.
The New Frontier and Camelot
While The Golden Age used the historical subtext to evoke currents of paranoia and doom in a super-hero story, The New Frontier approaches history with a different agenda. As Ultimate Matt pointed out in response to yesterday's post, The Golden Age is labeled an "Elseworlds" title, which not only grants it an exemption from DC continuity, but it allows more freedom for the creators to take the characters and setting in a fresh direction.
The New Frontier, however, is not labeled as an "Elseworlds." And yet, it strays far more from the currently accepted version of continuity than The Golden Age does. The key word there is "accepted." Darwyn Cooke, in his annotations, states that he approached The New Frontier with a set of rules:
  1. The timeline is real and covers 1945 to 1960. Silver Age characters appear at the time DC started publishing them.
  2. Retcons haven't happened yet.
  3. No New Frontier retcons could contradict original continuity—they had to complement existing continuity or show a fresh point of view.
  4. When the story ended, everything had to be as it was when the JLA debuted in Brave and the Bold #28.
  5. Snapper Carr does not exist.
In other words, you should be able to pull out your original comics from that era (or the Archive editions) and read them concurrently with The New Frontier and nothing Cooke does should contradict what happens in those old comics.
The problem with the continuity is that the comics from that era didn't have any continuity. It was never explained how a character could be on the moon in one issue of his own comic, and under the ocean in the same month in his Justice League adventure. All Golden and Silver Age DC continuity is a retcon. So what Cooke did was create his own continuity—he made his own sense out of the various adventures as they were originally published, although the bulk of the book deals with the time between major events. Just like The Golden Age, The New Frontier is about filling in the gaps.
While James Robinson filled the pre-Silver Age gap with an almost allegorical tale of Cold War paranoia and corruption, Darwyn Cooke fills the gap with a sense of wonder and idealism, and he uses his attitude toward history to solidify that tone.
Cooke's approach takes three strands: (1) The Right Stuff-inspired history of that era, embodied by the test pilots and early astronauts, (2) The early promise of the Kennedy administration, and (3) The strange DC comics history as seen in the stories published during that time. Cooke uses the first two strands to illuminate the latter. He puts the Silver Age ascension into perspective as part of a generation of hope and achievement. He shows that the formation of the Justice League was not a random incident, but part of a larger historical movement which led (in our reality) to things like the Peace Corps and Apollo 11.
Cooke ties together such disparate elements as The War that Time Forgot, The Challengers of the Unknown, Dr. Seuss, and all of the characters who would join the initial incarnation of the JLA into a single narrative. And although it takes quite a while before the villain emerges and the heroes band together, the narrative is structured around the real historical forces that would have shaped the creation of these characters. John Broome doesn't wax poetically about the symbolism of Hal Jordan's career as a test pilot in the original Green Lantern run from the Silver Age, but Cooke takes the fact that he was a test pilot and places him in the actual context of such a man. He even includes a scene where the young Jordan meets Chuck Yeager.
That's quite a different approach to history than we saw in The Golden Age, which covers a very similar time frame.
Although Cooke didn't intend (according to his "rules") to change any of the original stories, his interpretation of "fresh point of view" allows him to add things which would have been more historically true even if they weren't addressed in the comics of the time. For example, he not only changes Wonder Woman into an almost plump, hawkish, zestful character (to signify her Greek origins and Amazon heritage), but he creates an entirely new character to illuminate the civil rights struggle of the time. Since he had no black DC characters to draw upon, he created a Silver Age analogue to Steel, the black Superman ally. The Silver Age Steel, unlike his modern equivalent, isn't a technological marvel. Instead, this earlier incarnation of John Henry suffers at the hands of the KKK before taking vengeance, and ultimately dying when he's betrayed by an uncaring white America (symbolized by a blonde little girl, who points out his location to his pursuers). John Henry never meets the Justice League or teams up with any heroes. His death doesn't affect them at all, really, since they didn't know him. But Cooke includes a scene where Edward R. Murrow mourns the fallen hero and laments the state of the country, bringing an actual historical personage into the DC story.
The civil rights subplot, although powerful, is overwhelmed by the exceeding optimism of the other plot threads. Cooke's America, as full of conflict as it might have been, is one of scientific progress and movement toward a brighter future. His villain, ultimately revealed to be Dinosaur Island itself (a sentient being who has unleashed monster after monster), is even more absurd than the Hitler-brain-transplant nemesis in The Golden Age, but because Cooke accentuates the fun and spectacle of the super-heroes (and, to be clear, his emphasis is on the men and women in the costumes, and the risks they take for their heroism), the absurdity of the villain doesn't detract from the story.
Both The Golden Age and The New Frontier end with similar images (the first appearance of the Justice League banded together) and similar sentiments (hope for the future), but where James Robinson built that hope out of the wreckage of the 1940s, Darwyn Cooke builds it out of the dreams of the men and women who sacrificed for the promise of tomorrow.
Both books end with optimism for comic books and optimism for our country, but they took starkly different approaches to get there.
The Unstoppable Force of Progress: Characterization in The New Frontier
Since both The New Frontier and The Golden Age re imagine comic book chronology through one part actual US history, one part comic book history, and one part imagination, it's not surprising to find both Cooke and Robinson taking liberties with the characterization of these pre-Silver Age heroes. Both creators ask the question asked by any creator attempting to retell stories from the past: Okay, this is how they were portrayed, but what were the characters who did these things REALLY like?
I'll start by looking at The New Frontier. Cooke doesn't focus his story on one dominant point of view the way Robinson does (with Johnny Quick), but he tells his story through a few central characters:
Rick Flagg: Leader of the WWII-era Suicide Squad (and presumably the father, or grandfather, of the Ostrander-penned incarnation). Cooke presents him as a tough guy cliché. He's a Hemingway hero—he does what needs to be done and doesn't whine about it or waver in his determination. In Act III of the narrative, his position in the story is replaced by the similarly-characterized King Faraday, who also does what needs to be done, although he seems to have more internal conflict than Flagg. Faraday is a spy, after all, not a soldier. But both characters represent a government which has the best interests of the country in mind. If they hurt a few individuals along the way, that's a necessary sacrifice for the good of the many.
Hal Jordan: The man who would be Green Lantern is NOT portrayed as a cocky rocket jock, as he usually is in contemporary interpretations. Cooke turns his lack of fear into a self-destructive streak stemming from his face-to-face act of self-defense in Korea. In Cooke's universe, Jordan doesn't immediately become a hero just because an alien handed him a ring. It takes time for Jordan to learn that he deserves to be a hero, and that's a large part of what The New Frontier is about. He doesn't reveal himself in Green Lantern costume until AFTER he risks his life to save the world working as a pilot. The two-page "hero shot" of the characters walking towards camera (a la The Right Stuff) shows some costumed heroes, but Jordan is wearing a flight suit. Cooke seems to be showing that he needed to prove himself TO himself before he could accept his new identity, but his reluctance to use the power of the ring leads to Nathaniel Adam's death. (Adam is later reborn as Captain Atom in the comics, but that doesn't happen in this story, and as far as Jordan should be concerned, Adam is dead.) Cooke doesn't provide Jordan with any time for remorse, though, since he needs to use his ring to kick alien butt. The ring, by the way, is also shown as a symbol of destructive energy. When Jordan first uses it, he cannot control it, and it causes great damage. Cooke, then, seems to indicate that the ring might symbolize nuclear energy, and the subtext would be that Jordan's hesitance to use it led to another hero's death. Ultimately, Jordan is Cooke's symbol of the Kennedy era: conflicted, yet determined to bring forth a positive future—harnessing great powers for the good of the nation (and the world).
John Jones, the Manhunter from Mars: Jones says, "...this is a world where good and evil struggle in all levels of existence. I want to be a force for good." That's a simplistic view of humanity, but it's one seemingly shared by Cooke throughout this work. Good and evil may not be easily discernible on the surface, and Cooke gives us the threatening-looking John Henry (with a hangman's hood) as a hero and a little blonde girl as a villain, but the line between good and evil is absolute (and, in fact, John Jones assumes the role of a film-noirish detective so he can find the evil beneath the surface appearance of the world). Jones defines this ethical stance for the reader, and it represents the code of Golden and Silver Age comic books, which lacked anything but absolutes. Even though Cooke might try to provide some not-so-subtle shades of gray (Jordan as a murderer, Wonder Woman as feminist avenger, an undercurrent of xenophobia), his view of history seems to echo the simplicity of the comic book stories of the era. Individuals may not have always done the right things at all times, but it was an era of progress, and good triumphed over evil. The subtext could also indicate that governmental order triumphed over chaotic nature, with the unified heroes, under the leadership of the US government, destroying a threat that wasn't so much malicious as it was animalistic.
Even though Cooke's characterization of some of these characters, Hal Jordan in particular, might not match traditional representations of these individuals, I think it works in the context of the story. The characters serve the story and add a few layers to the text, but it's primarily a historical action spectacle, a celebration of progress over stagnation, and Cooke's characterization unifies the text. I don't think his characters have many hidden depths, but I think their lack of depth matches a story which is primarily about the grand force of history.
As one final observation: Cooke is actually better at small character moments with the minor characters than he is at developing convincing lead characters. The death of Johnny Cloud, Jimmy Olsen's eagerness, the sassiness of Carol Ferris, and several other character bits show Cooke's facility on the small scale, even if his epic narrative doesn't provide the opportunity for subtle nuances with the major characters.
Characterization in The Golden Age: Dragging Heroes to Earth
While Cooke ignores anyone else's retroactive continuity to graft archetypal personalities onto the early Silver Age heroes in The New Frontier, Robinson takes characters straight out of Roy Thomas's All-Star Squadron (like Johnny Quick on the left here) and Young All-Stars and sends them on a dark journey into the 1950s. Robinson does not re imagine these characters drastically, although he seems to do so with Mr. America (but that's part of his narrative ruse). Instead, he takes their established characterization and expands upon it by adding seeds of self-doubt, paranoia, and despair as the characters face a world in which the villains are not as easily identified as they once were. Robinson misdirects the reader at first by pretending to adopt a simplified Watchmen approach, pretending that he's showing what these characters would have been like without costumed villains to fight or gangsters to punch, when, in truth, he's simply changed the nature of the evil to something more covert and less easy to spot. (Which might seem Watchmen-esque as well, except Alan Moore showed us that the heroes were the villains in that story, and here, Robinson ultimately reveals that secret villains with brain-transplant powers were behind the whole thing from the beginning.)
Here's a quick rundown of the central characters in The Golden Age:
Johnny Chambers, a.k.a Johnny Quick: Johnny not only provides the book-ends to the story but, as a documentary filmmaker, he provides the exposition which sets up the story context. One of the things Robinson does NOT do well here, by the way, is clearly distinguish between narrative voice (provided through white, rectangular caption boxes), and newsreel voice over (also provided by white, rectangular caption boxes), although perhaps the colorist was supposed to use different color cues for each and didn't. The CHARACTERS who narrate, like Johnny Chambers, each have their own style of caption—Johnny's are rounded and blue, as you can see in the image. Actually, it's not that it's so difficult to identify the narrative voice, it's just that there is an omniscient narrator who pops up every once in a while for no good reason, and tells us things about the story sometimes, while other times he sounds like he's trying to give us character thoughts but not really: the highly subjective "fingers...fumbling...focusing...trying to..." immediately follows the objective "a photographer lurks among the rubble." The photographer is the one who's fingers are supposedly fumbling as he tries to snap the photo, so why does the caption sound like a bad Batman internal monologue? This really has nothing to do with Johnny Chambers, but I just wanted to point out this major flaw in the narration throughout. With so many characters (Johnny being one) actually providing narration through captions, why does Robinson add an omniscient narrator also? It's jarring and ineffective. It's like he took the strategies of Watchmen with the multiple points of view, and then spliced the conventional narrator on top of it. It just doesn't work.
But a few more things about Johnny: He smokes, and he wears glasses. He still has his powers, but even though they would help him in his day job, he doesn't use them. And he's incredibly suspicious, which is the characteristic that makes him the character the reader most identifies with. He's also lost the woman he loves because he works too hard, although he gets her back in the end. In short, he's a slightly older (although he actually seems to get younger as the story progresses, perhaps symbolizing his return to heroic stature), slightly more sullen, slightly more flawed version of the character we saw in the comics produced in the 1980s (even though those stories were set in the 1940s). He refers to his costumed self as "That Jerk!" at the beginning of the story, but ends on a hopeful note as he describes a "new age...fresh and clear and bright...as sterling silver!" He's never really a cynic, but his pessimism and self-loathing turns to optimism in the end (even quickly dismissing the threat of McCarthyism to look ahead to the glowing future of super-heroics).
Paul Kirk, a.k.a Manhunter: If we play out the James-Robinson-is-trying-to-do-Watchmen-but-not-as-well game a bit more, we could say that if Johnny Chambers is the Dan Dreiberg analogue (the low-self-esteem voice of reason and calm) then Paul Kirk is clearly the Rorschach character. He's the crazy one who will surely upset the apple cart, yet isn't that what has to happen in order to get to the truth? That's his role, anyway. Unlike Rorschach (in his insane way), Kirk doesn't have a methodical approach to uncovering the truth. In fact, he's tormented by the truth, which lies buried beneath mind implants, exploding into awareness only through a series of horrible dreams. He seems deeply disturbed because of the War, but he's actually deeply disturbed because of the secrets he knows. He's another character, like Johnny, who seems to become more youthful and vibrant in the final Act, when he is able to unleash his demons through old-fashioned fisticuffs. Unlike Johnny, though, he visibly suffers for a long time before he reaches the point of action. Here's a sample of his internal monologue from one of his many tortured dreams: "Save the eagle. Save it. Save—n...no...nooooohhhh!!" Then he wakes up and thinks, "Still afraid." That's about the extent of his characterization. He's tormented, fearful, and knows he should be better than that. And, "save the eagle?" Geez, I wonder what in the world that could possibly mean in a book about corruption within the American government. Clearly, even though this book is directed at an older audience than the original Golden Age tales, Robinson keeps his symbolism quite simplistic.
Tex Thompson, a.k.a. Mr. America, and Daniel Dunbar, a.k.a. Dan the Dyna-Mite: These are the two characters most radically changed from their Golden Age counterparts. Mr. America was a whip-wielding patriotic hero and Dan was a kid sidekick who later, under Roy Thomas's writerly guidance, became one of the lead characters in Young All-Stars. In Robinson's story, Mr. America becomes a corrupt politician who seeks power by any means necessary, and Dan the Dyna-Mite becomes America's beloved Dynaman, the only active costumed crime fighter of the time. And he snorts coke. And he's evil.
Neither of these two characters have internal monologues via captions for the reader, because that would give away the twist. Tex Thompson is not really who he seems, for he has the brain of the evil Ultra-Humanite (who has in previous stories adopted the forms of a gigantic white gorilla and a hot ex-starlet, among others). And Daniel Dunbar, who has fallen so far from grace in our eyes (a former teen sidekick with a drug problem whoring around) actually has the BRAIN OF ADOLF HITLER!
So there's not much to say about the characterization here, since these are two evil characters in the most simplistic way. What is interesting, though, is that (a) Robinson chooses one character, Thompson, who seems vaguely sleazy to modern readers anyway, what with that whip and the mustache, and when he's shown to be corrupt, we can buy into it, falling into Robinson's trap of thinking that it's just a regular dude becoming corrupted by power; and (b) Robinson's use of the pure and innocent Dunbar is also a good choice, because it is not only shocking to see him corrupted so extremely (before the truth of the brain-swap is revealed), but it's a nod to cultural expectations about former child stars, who, by the 1990s, were expected to grow up and become criminals or drug addicts or worse, at least by our tabloid-fascinated society.
Like a director who makes his film better through excellent casting, Robinson uses the right two ex-heroes in the apparent role of the villains. His bait-and-switch works, although I was personally disappointed that the threat turned out to be external (evil villains) and not the corruption of these characters from within.
Robinson uses other characters to show the corruption of innocence and loss of the heroic dream. Robotman, so noble in Roy Thomas's All-Star Squadron, has lost any humanity by the time of this story—he's pure machine, while Alan Scott, Green Lantern is conflicted about his duty as a business leader and law-abiding citizen and his passion for ring-slinging and butt-kicking. Hourman is shown to be addicted to his Miraclo pills, while the man once known as the Tarantula is an egoist with writer's block. Ted Knight, Starman, who Robinson would go on to write with great depth and sensitivity in the ongoing series about Jack Knight, is a mad genius who is trying to put the pieces of this shattered world together through science.
I should add here that Robinson, unlike Cooke, isn't drawing from the original sources as the basis for his story. He's adapting his characterizations from the work done during contemporary comics, as Roy Thomas provided retroactive characterization (and explanations) for the WWII-era heroes. Robinson is building on the layers which Roy Thomas built upon the layers which Gardner Fox (among others) built.
Overall, Robinson does provide a sense of disillusionment in his characterizations in this story, even if his narrative technique is sometimes sloppy or inconsistent. Cooke tried to add a bit of humanity to iconic characters in his work, but he was mostly interested in the icons of the era. Robinson drags his characters down into the muck and then builds them back up again, hoping to show how their inner humanity wins out (with all of its flaws) in the face of systematic adversity. Cooke's characters inhabit the skies, the stars. Robinson's characters live on the ground.
So, the final verdict, after looking at The Golden Age and The New Frontier for a week: Not much different than my initial assessment after reading them both last weekend. The Golden Age is flawed because of its inconsistent narrative point of view and it's cheap, brain-swapping revelations. Robinson and Smith capture the disillusionment and paranoia of the time quite well, but it all amounts to nothing except a superhero slug fest in the end. It's 80% of a great work, and 20% of stuff that doesn't quite fit (including the optimistic ending, which seems unearned). As part of a larger, genre-wide trend to make super-heroes more "realistic," violent, and depressing, I'm not a huge fan of its influence.
The New Frontier is flawed, but it's a flawed masterpiece, and I can imagine revisiting the story many times in the future (and I can't say the same about The Golden Age). Cooke tries to include too much in the narrative, and the main threat of Monster Island isn't presented as well as it needs to be, but the book contains dozens of amazing sequences, and it features sharp, engaging characters who flash in and out of the story. The speed of the narrative demands that the book be read quickly, and it works best when read this way, not because it allows the reader to gloss over the weak parts of the story, but because The New Frontier is an overture, and can be best appreciated when all of its notes are heard in rapid sequence. I didn't love it when it first came out, in the completely inappropriate floppy installments, but I loved it after reading the Absolute version a week ago, and I love it just as much after studying it closely all week.
As one final thought: Both The Golden Age and The New Frontier tap so deeply into comic book lore, and I am so deeply embedded in it myself, that I wonder if either of these works has any merit for a "civilian" reader. And I wonder if, perhaps, the darker, more "realistic" tone would be appealing to a non-comics fan, more so, perhaps, than the wide-eyed optimism (tinged with bits of darkness) seen in Cooke's work. Or would the non-comics fan find both stories completely useless and without merit? Are both works examples of the snake swallowing its own tail? I've already been swallowed by the snake of comic book geekery, so I can't answer that one.
submitted by vintagemiseries to DCcomics [link] [comments]


2024.05.09 12:31 No-Singer3553 Looking for advice: what research subject do I choose during Masters to get my dream job in Drug Development?

TLDR: I am a current Masters student at a European university (Drug Development), and I'm struggling with the choice of my future niche. I am 100% sure I want to pursue PhD, but I'd like to make sure that I keep my options open between both Academia and the industry. My choice is between Computer Aided Drug Design and Computational Structural Biology/Molecular Mechanics. I'm looking for insights about both fields, how they overlap, and what do the career prospects look in both.
More info: This is my second Masters. My past education and experience is kinda all over the place - I have degrees in Biochem, Biophysics and Bioinfo. My actual research experience is mostly experimental, in Physical Biochem and Biophysics, but it is admittedly a little outdated - it was around 10 years ago, although it includes university employment. 4 years ago when COVID started I moved to Clinical Trials.
With my current choice, I'm limited by the research landscape in my region, which will be a lesser issue with PhD, when I can actually get paid anything. I am really drawn to the "hardcore science" aspects of this field - Quantum Chem, Theoretical Biophysics, Algorithm building. I'd say I have a very solid understanding of Biophysics, Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Biology. I can code, but I'd say I get by more than a programming god level. I'm also interested in AI methods in this field (but like, more Alphafold-like approaches than retrosynthesis analysis). In the future, after a PhD, ideally I'd like to get a postdoc, and then decide between tenure or industry. I don't have issues with teaching or mentorship, but I don't want to work in client/patient facing roles anymore. I searched existing job offers, but they seem to focus on 'have a degree and some experience' more than specifics (which I think will change in 5 years I need to graduate, as there's a great interest in this field among my peers). I'd like to choose something that maximizes my chances of employment and gives me maximum mobility worldwide.
My current choice is:
  1. Molecular Mechanics modeling - no AI, which might or might not include receptor-ligand interactions;
  2. Algorithms for AI in CADD - very CompSci based and I'm worried I will just waste my biochem/biophys knowledge to become a subpar programmer;
  3. Docking studies - I would have a minimal exposition to any algorithms or theory, I would just use existing (and mostly commercial) software to do docking.
  4. Quantum Chem-based ab initio calculations - with a professor literally no one ever met and no one really knows what they do (the lab just publishes reviews recently)
I'm looking for literally any insight, especially: which methodologies should I learn to maximize my chance of getting a high quality PhD, ideally in Drug Development. Reality checks are also very welcome!
submitted by No-Singer3553 to careerguidance [link] [comments]


2024.05.09 10:03 Professor_Sia Update: Finally got my Quest Cape (With thoughts on several quests)

Update: Finally got my Quest Cape (With thoughts on several quests)
Link to my previous post: https://www.reddit.com/2007scape/comments/18wuqzp/4_quests_left_til_quest_cape/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://preview.redd.it/bx3o8ds88czc1.png?width=683&format=png&auto=webp&s=b047ce7a5e8c3713bc433522a7a52abaedd44616
I'm the one wearing green. The one in Ahrim's is someone from the clan chat who decided to join me celebrate.
Took me forever, but I finally got around to finishing all quests in the game. It was very fun and I mostly did this blind. That means I never used Quest Helper (I personally think this plug-in kinda cheapens the questing experience but to each their own I guess).I will admit to using Quest Guides especially on difficult portions of quests (Fremmy Trials Escape Room, MEP2 Light Puzzle, Solutions to the Cryptic Puzzles in SOTN). I'm not an iron so I can't imagine how difficult this would be on an ironman. Managed to get my cape with a combat level of 100, it was difficult but doable especially if you get the mechanics for certain boss fights down. Now for my favorite quests in the game. This will contain spoilers for those who care about the lore.
NOVICE
  1. Elemental Workshop I: This is arguably going to be a hot take since I think this community dislikesthe Elemental Workshop series. I think it is definitely flawed and that some portions of the quest could benefit from some tweaking. I could understand that but I still think that Elemental Workshop could be a great quest series if expanded upon. What I do like about the Elemental Workshop series is that there are no NPCs to start or guide us throughout the quest so this proves that the player character has a good semblance of intelligence. There is so much they can do right and I would like to give Jagex that chance to do so.
  2. Misthalin Mystery: I really liked the humour for this quest. I know that this was a holiday event which was upgraded to a quest after passing a poll. I enjoyed the story and how obvious that this was a spoof of slasher horror films, particularly Scream. I found this quest overall enjoyable which managed to get a good laugh out of me. I did not really like the final boss fight however but it isn't really as punishing since I don't think you can get killed so I'm not really that bothered.
  3. Recruitment Drive: I for one wasn't offended that I had to change my player character to a female in the original version of the quest, it was an annoyance at worst for me though I am glad they changed the puzzle to something similar but less of a hassle to perform. I liked the overall concept of the quest where you have to prove your worth to become a white knight by solving several puzzles or riddles. It breaks away from the trope of "Slay this creature to prove yourself" so it's definitely an interesting take.
  4. Cook's Assistant: It would be wrong not to put Cook's Assistant in the top Novice Quests in the game given as to how iconic it is. Not everyone has the skill to finish Dragon Slayer or became a member to do Monkey Madness or Desert Treasure but everyone pretty much helped out this cook as their first ever quest in the game.
  5. Ribbiting Tale of a Lily Pad Labour Dispute: By far the best novice quest in the entire game. The humour for this quest was hit after hit after hit throughout the entire quest. This is one of the newest quests and the devs managed to make a new quest in 2024 stay true to what makes questing in OSRS a stand-out compared to other MMORPGs. I really hope they continue make small quests like this to give more life to the world of Gielinor.
INTERMEDIATE
  1. A Soul's Bane: The rewards for this quest are bad but that didn't really bother me as much since I love the exposition we get on Tolna's life plus his struggles as we progress through the quest. We only knew him for a short while but we get a lot from that time. It was very compelling story-wise though the combat encounters really emphasize that this is indeed an old quest given its simplicity. Still, if a similar quest was made on this day with better combat encounters plus better rewards, I feel it would be more beloved by the community.
  2. The Forsaken Tower: This was actually the last quest I did among the 5 house quests in OSRS since grinding favour for Lovakenj (before favour removal) was a bitch. Not sure if it is obvious but I personally really enjoy doing puzzles and the puzzles in this quest were definitely fun for me. Unlike some people, I am the kind of guy to play puzzle games on my free time so I could understand if people just choose to have a guide or quest helper do the solving. Still, the puzzles in this quest were definitely doable without a guide and they were a lot of fun for me.
  3. Forgettable Tale of a Drunken Dwarf: I hope Jagex continues this quest series soon. The overall plotline involving the Red Axe is definitely exciting and I can't wait to see what Jagex has in store for us in the coming quests. I know this quest is really good but for some reason I can't seem to remember what happened for majority of the quest (if you know what I mean).
  4. Itchlarin's Little Helper: A very trippy quest with a lot of mystery surrounding the events in the beginning of the quest. When it was revealed that we were hypnotized and manipulated by the Devourer I thought it was a fairly good plot twist. Again, I could get if people aren't so high on this quest as I am but I personally really enjoyed it.
  5. Shilo Village: For a low to mid level account, access to Shilo Village is a rather big deal with having a furnace so close to a bank, Duradel and Gem Rocks. The story of Rashiliyia was sad and rather messed up given the implications and I think it made for a really compelling story. The ending of the quest where you finally put her soul at peace is the right tones of heartwarming for me.
  6. Waterfall Quest: I don't usually factor in Quest Rewards when coming up with a favorite quest since I believe in the journey more than the destination but I am willing to make an exception given as to how iconically good the rewards for Waterfall Quest are for a new member. To be fair, I too liked the lore behind Glarial and Baxtorian especially since it will lead up to important plot points in the elf series.
EXPERIENCED
  1. King's Ransom: Iconic as this was the last quest in the 2007 back-up before fast forwarding to OSRS. Really interesting how the story builds up from the events of Murder Mystery, when you thought that you had it all done right there were a few loose ends that had to be looked into. The fact that Morgan was able to get the upper hand for a while is very interesting and I think this is where the lockpicking mechanic has been added to the game. I really liked the story and I think there should be 1 more quest to end this where we face off and defeat Morgan.
  2. The Fremennik Isles: I really liked the story of the islands of Neitiznot and Jatizno. Learning more about the two islands while working simultaneously to gather intel for both kingdoms was an interesting plot point. I love the Helm of Neitiznot and when I did this quest when I was much younger in RS2, it truly felt like such an epic adventure for me looking back.
  3. Fairytale - Cure a Queen: Add this to the long list of quest series that need to be continued since you just really want to get back at Godfather for everything he has done in Zanaris. Unlocking the Fairy Ring Network is also a huge game changer regardless if you are a high level player or not. Personally I think the land of Zanaris and the fairies are very intriguing and I just wonder what they have in store for us in the coming quests.
  4. Dragon Slayer 1: A truly iconic quest, arguably the last major leap players take before taking a deeper dive into member's worlds. It's an old quest but it is just so good that it doesn't feel outdated. I personally liked the storytelling and the cinematics. I just wish other F2P quests alluded to the dangers of Elvarg even if it is just in passing to help build it up. Anyways, this just feels like a truly epic adventure as you devise a plan to travel to Crandor and face Elvarg.
  5. Rag and Bone Man 2 (loljk) A Kingdom Divided: I think you can all notice a trend here that I tend to love story-driven quests and AKD hit all the right spots for me. I was hooked from start to finish and this is a testament that OSRS does not need to take ideas from RS3 to make good storylines for their quests. It was definitely sad learning about the corruption of the council which led to the inevitable demise of Rose. My 117 HD plugin had the environment set to snowy and my 3D weather was snowing when you put Rose to her grave so it felt like a truly emotional moment for me when burying her. It was also a huge plot twist learning about Veos' true allegiances after you were led to believe that he was on your side this entire time. Lastly, the way Lord Hosidius masterminded his way to the throne by manipulating anyone who stood as a threat was very genius and looks like something that you could see in a great TV series such as Game of Thrones.
MASTER
  1. Dream Mentor: A love the lore behind Lunar Isle and adding a quest that uses Lunar Magic to help an adventurer learn to believe in himself and become a true hero is heartwarming. The boss fight did not come here to play and it was an interesting take to start the boss fight with the hardest encounter going to the easiest as you weaken the doubts in the adventurer's minds.
  2. Grim Tales: A really weird and wacky quest but I love how OSRS added a spin to several known myths and fairytales. The woodcutting level requirement is a little harsh but overall, I enjoyed the quest for the flavor it added to the Taverly and Ice Mountain part of the game.
  3. Recipe For Disaster: Yes, technically RFD is classified as having a special difficulty level but I will put it here in terms of its scope and difficulty of its combat encounters. A unique quest given that you can do 8 subquests in any order and it is so far the only quest in the game with that kind of structure. It is memorable as it is the sequel to Cook's Assistant and is the definition of a quest that anybody could start but only a few could finish. The final gauntlet is one of a kind as it is a throwback to many iconic quest bosses in the past with a tasty twist mixed in it. Also, it would not be right to discuss RFD without mentioning its game-changing reward of Barrows Gloves.
  4. Desert Treasure I: One of the most memorable quests in the game as it gives player access to the ancient spellbook, one of the most feared set of spells in all of Gielinor. The concept of traveling around the world to uncover an ancient treasure gives this quest an epic feeling of adventure. None of the challenges when retrieving any diamond seems to overstay their welcome. Traversing the pyramid when you have collected all diamonds was definitely exciting and unlocking Ancient Magics for the first time is probably core memory for me back when I was a kid.
  5. Sins of the Father: Arguably one of the best written quests in the game. This isn't even the finale of the vampire storyline yet you could feel that so much is at stake at this point in the questline. Ivan is shown to be a stubborn and headstrong leader which could explain why the Myreque has been in shambles after all these years. The disappearance of Safalaan towards the end of the quest leaves a lot to be desired as we will have to wait for, presumably, the series finale to find out what his fate was in the hands of the vampires. Also, my favorite antagonist is here and her name is Vanescula. Her true intentions are shrouded in mystery and for now, will remain a mystery until we see what the OSRS devs decide to do with her in the vampire finale. The final battle with Vanstrom was a challenge but was so very satisfying when you finally defeat him.
GRANDMASTER
  1. Monkey Madness 2: I think it is lazy to name this quest Monkey Madness 2, it should've been named "Gorilla Warfare". Overall I think this is the weakest of all the Grandmaster Quests and I predict it will place below While Guthix Sleeps once that quest comes out. The quest just felt that certain parts were made frustrating for the sake of padding difficulty. The greatest offender here is definitely the tunnels leading to Kruk's Lair as a good portion of it is based on RNG. It feels unjust to grind a good Agility level just to fail an obstacle because you were meant to fail the obstacle regardless if you stepped on the right tile, regardless if your Agility level is over 90 (I think my agility was 94 when I did this quest). Add to the fact that the tunnels are very long so it feels like failing these unpassable obstacles just seem so disproportionately punishing. Sneaking on the docks to plant the explosives were difficult. Personally I have done a lot of Sorceress' Garden before Squirk'in even became a thing so this part wasn't as difficult to me as compared to other people since the Ninja Monkeys share the same vision mechanics as the Garden Guardians. The final battle was alright, nothing too mechanically intensive as compared to other boss fights in the Grandmaster tier.
  2. Desert Treasure 2, The Fallen Empire: I think this should've been just named "The Fallen Empire" especially since there is less emphasis put on the desert this time around as compared to the previous quest (and that is definitely saying something, lmao). This quest is a huge leap in terms of quality when compared to Monkey Madness in both story and gameplay. The big reveals after getting all 4 medallions were definitely jaw-dropping as I had no idea they were coming when I did this quest. The fact that the stranger could disguise herself as the Sandwich Lady and even invade your own POH just shows how much the stakes were upped in this quest and that Jagex is not playing around when coming up with dangerous mechanics. The boss fights were all well made. I have died to the 4 bosses at least 1 time each. On the contrary though, I couldn't be mad about it because each time I failed a boss encounter, it seemed to me that it was entirely my fault for any reason. This includes me not eating fast enough, not bringing the right gear or not being quick enough with my prayer switching. Personally, I don't feel that any of the bosses were inherently unfair or cheese which is why I enjoyed them despite getting my ass kicked so many times. I think this quest truly lived up to the hype and as the game's latest grandmaster quest, I can't wait to see what Jagex has in store for us in While Guthix Sleeps.
  3. Dragon Slayer 2: I think it is lazy to name this quest Dragon Slayer 2, it should've been named "The Legacy of Elvarg" or "Revenge of the Dragonkin". Idk, any other quest name would've been better. The quest itself however was a top tier quest, one of my real life friends even told me that is there were to be one quest to be the final quest in all of OSRS, it would be this. I could agree with that opinion given that it is the sequel to the iconic quest, Dragon Slayer 1. The mere scope and degree of adventure feels like an epic tale from start to finish. The ways the quest made subtle callbacks to Dragon Slayer 1 were also welcome. These are seen in the simple things such as building a boat, recreating a map or in the larger scope with the overall majority of the quest traveling the world to retrieve different parts of a key. Out of all the boss fights in all quests, Galvek felt to be the most punishing as simple mistakes could pretty much kill you. The final battle was all kinds of epic and really took advantage of all possible combat mechanics in the game.
  4. Song of the Elves: The plague elf storyline remains to be one of the best written stories in all of Runescape. Each quest has good story and has enough interesting twists and turns to keep the player on their toes whilst being invested. Elena was a really good character and the only complaint I have with her is that there was a lack of build-up of her character in the previous quests. You don't really get to know her that well in the previous quests but in this quest you get to appreciate her for being empathic and sensitive whilst being intrepid and strong. A well-written NPC but if only she was as well written in the previous quests. The battle at West and East Aurdogne feel epic in itself and the execution of Lathas was a huge plot point. Learning about the history of the elves and Seren was both a compelling and sad story. Personally, I enjoyed the light puzzle in the Grand Library. I actually did this light puzzle without a guide (unlike MEP2) because everything that MEP2 did wrong, the Grand Library does right. The light puzzle in the library had a better sense of direction and sequence of what goals you had to aim for. If your strategy is correct and if you know how to utilize the color wheel effectively, the puzzle is very doable, albeit very time consuming (it took me like 5-6 hours as compared to someone taking 2-3 hours with a guide). Add to the fact that there was nothing constantly trying to kill you every step of the way so you could truly focus on the puzzle at hand. The battle with Iorwerth's Troops were fun and getting friendzoned by Elena after you save her life before facing Seren was both hilarious yet pitiful. The fight with the corrupted fragment of Seren was exciting and unlocking Prif as a reward feels appropriate given the general scale of this quest.
submitted by Professor_Sia to 2007scape [link] [comments]


2024.05.08 18:12 adulting4kids Flash Fiction Prompts

This is taken from and is copyright protected by globalsoup.net, a website that promotes flash Fiction with annual writing contests.
I am reprinting these Flash Fiction Prompts because they are outstanding ways to freewrite and offer plenty to work with for those who want to learn how to write Flash Fiction.
So check out these prompts and the article and work some of them into your journal! Post the best responses!
100 Awesome Flash Fiction Prompts - Plus Bonus Prompts!
We’ve put together 100 flash fiction prompts, each one designed for a very short story. These prompts will probably be best suited to a story of between 300-1,000 words. If you want to write a longer story using these prompts, you can easily expand these ideas to fit a story of any length.
What is flash fiction?
Flash Fiction is defined as a very short story that can be anywhere from just a couple of words to about a thousand in length. The beauty (and difficulty) of writing flash fiction lies in trying to tell a complete story in so few words. Great flash fiction is succinct, emotive, thought-provoking, and impactful.
What’s the difference between flash fiction and a short story?
The only difference between flash fiction and a typical short story is the word count. However, this scarcity of words means that writing flash fiction can feel like a completely new skill. Just like the short story is a different animal to the novel or novella; flash fiction is kind of unique.
When writing flash, you’ll need to use fewer characters, a simpler plot, and you’ll have to make each word count. This is why editing is so important. You have to be brutal. Cut out everything superfluous and really make sure each and every word is performing an important function in the story. If you’re interested in writing very short fiction, why not check out drabbles? Drabbles are stories of exactly 100 words in length, and they can be a great way to practice keeping your stories very, very short.
How to plot a flash fiction story
When you sit down to write flash fiction, you must begin by choosing an appropriate plot. You cannot simply use a short story plot and tell it using fewer words. A typical flash fiction plot is like looking at one part of a story under a microscope.
For example, let’s look at prompt #21 in our list of 100 Flash Fiction Prompts:
  1. Two people on a sinking ship must decide who should take the last seat in the last lifeboat. If you were writing a novel about a sinking ship, you’d probably want the actual sinking to be the climax of the story. Of course, there are infinite ways to write a novel about a sinking ship, but this would structurally be the most obvious. You’d use the first part of the novel to introduce your characters and describe the voyage leading up to the sinking and the sinking of the ship would be the dramatic climax, leaving the last part of the book as the resolution.
The golden rule of writing short stories is to begin as close to end as you can. So, to turn the same story from novel to short story, you’d probably want to begin with the ship sinking. You haven’t got time to introduce the characters before the action begins, so you’d need to feed in exposition and backstory here and there during the events.
All stories need a good climax. So, you would find the most dramatic moment in the story and build up to it. Perhaps your climax would be the two main characters having to decide who will take the remaining seat on the last lifeboat.
Finally, you need a resolution. In a longer short story you do have time to bring in some kind of satisfying resolution at the end.
But, if you’re writing flash fiction and your story is only a few hundred words, you really need to zoom in on one tiny moment in that story.
You don’t have time to tell the entire story of a sinking ship, but you can turn one moment into a story.
We’ve chosen the lifeboat situation as the key moment in this hypothetical story. Two characters must decide which one of them will take the last seat on the last lifeboat. This is an appropriate plot for flash fiction because it’s simple, high-stakes, dramatic, and thought provoking.
Not all flash fiction will have a plot quite this dramatic, but all great flash fiction will have a plot that can be expressed in just one or two sentences.
If you have a plot in mind, but it seems more suitable for a longer story, you can sometimes find several flash fiction plots hidden within it. Just look for little stories within the story, like the lifeboat moment in our hypothetical tale of the sinking ship.
This brings us to our top tip for coming up with ideas for flash fiction stories:
if you’re ever stuck for ideas, you can find little stories within the story in books, movies, and TV shows. A full length feature film might have as many as 20 little incidents in it that could easily be flash fiction.
Don’t directly write a story based on the film, though. Just carefully pick out those little moments, write down what’s happening as a one or two sentence plot, and then use it to inspire your own, completely original flash fiction story.
One of our 100 Flash Fiction Prompts was actually taken from the movie Pulp Fiction!
How to write very short flash fiction
There are several reasons writers might start writing flash fiction. Of course, it could be that they just love and enjoy the form, but sometimes they’ll be a more strategic and practical reason at play.
Perhaps they want to practise the process of writing stories within the confines of a certain word limit. Maybe they are trying to develop a daily writing routine and they don’t have a lot of free time. It could be that they’re trying to break a habit of not finishing writing projects, or perhaps they are entering a flash fiction competition.
Whatever the reason, very often when we sit down to write flash, we must work under an imposed or self-imposed word restraint. We’ve set ourselves (or been set) the task of keeping the story under a particular number of words.
So, how do you plot a flash fiction story when you have to keep your story very, very short.
We’re not going to discuss stories of 100 words or fewer here. Technically, those stories are still flash, however, we prefer to categorise 100 word stories as drabbles and anything under 100 words as micro fiction.
But what if you have to keep your flash fiction story under, let’s say, 300 words? How do you write a flash fiction story that short?
The answer is: get your microscope out again. Remember earlier when we said writing flash fiction is like looking at part of a story under a microscope? If you have to write very short flash fiction, you’ll need to zoom in even further.
Let’s look at a couple of examples from our 100 Flash Fiction Prompts:
  1. During a match, a young boxer must decide whether to throw the fight.
If you had 1,000 words to devote to the story, you could have time to tell the story of the entire fight. With only 300 words, it might be better to zoom in on the very moment when the boxer must choose whether or not to go down.
In a longer flash fiction story you might have time to go into detail about why he’s in this situation and why he’s so conflicted. In a 300 word story, you might only devote one or two sentences to his gambling debt and the large sum of money waiting for him if he goes down in the third round, as instructed.
  1. A family must decide what to take and what to leave behind as a wildfire approaches their home.
If you had 1,000 words to devote to this story, you might be able to write about the whole process of choosing what to take and what to leave behind. You might be able to mention many different choices and have the whole family participate in the story. You’d be able to go into some details about certain choices and the stories behind individual objects or mementos, as well as the implications of choosing certain things over others.
With only 300 words, it would be advisable to zoom in on one member of the family and to focus on one profound and important choice.
How to write a flash fiction story
Now you have your mini plot, you still need to make sure your flash fiction feels like a complete story. It should still have a beginning, middle, and an end.
Just like a short story, you may need to bring in a little exposition here and there to give texture, context, backstory, and to bring some depth to the characters. But, unlike a short story, you won’t necessarily need to end with a full, detailed resolution. It’s quite common for a flash fiction story to end with a quick twist or plenty of ambiguity.
Flash Fiction is much more about eliciting emotions and provoking thought, than setting up and resolving a complex story.
100 Awesome Flash Fiction Prompts
A young ballet dancer chooses not to tell the other dancers in her troop about a loose paving stone outside their dance studio.
Two sisters realise they’ve both been on a perfect first date … with the same man.
On the car journey home, two parents realise they’ve left their child’s favourite teddy on a park bench several hours away.
A writer suffering from writers’ block looks for inspiration in a strange place.
Set 200 years in the future, a young man realises he’s too emotionally dependent on his robot assistant.
A young woman discovers she’s taken the wrong suitcase home from the airport. The contents of the case make her question her own life choices.
A murderer realises he has only 10 minutes to dispose of a body.
A child decides to walk home by themselves after their parent forgets to pick them up from school … again.
Your protagonist manages to talk the grim reaper out of collecting their soul.
Your protagonist suddenly realises they’ve been living in a simulation.
A young couple has chosen to spend the night in a haunted house to fix their marriage. Your story starts just as things get very weird.
Your protagonist finds a letter they wrote to themselves when they were a teenager.
Your protagonist must decide whether or not to drink from a fountain that erases all painful memories from the mind.
Your protagonist comes across a street called ‘Memory Lane’. They quickly realise the name is eerily apt.
A bride finds out something startling about her future husband an hour before the wedding.
Your protagonist finds an advertisement for a company that promises everlasting youth.
A youngest sibling shows up at a family reunion they weren’t actually invited to.
Your protagonist finds a piece of paper with a spell on it. If they say the words out loud they aren't sure if something terrible or wonderful will happen.
Your protagonist is watching a jazz band play when they realise they know the drummer from somewhere — but where? It takes a whole song for them to figure it out.
Your protagonist must meet their ex for lunch to tell them they’re now engaged. It’s been just a few weeks since they split up.
Two people on a sinking ship must decide who should take the last seat in the last lifeboat.
During a match, a young boxer must decide whether to throw the fight.
Your protagonist must pack their belongings before moving to a new colony on mars.
A pilot realises they have lost control of their aircraft.
Your protagonist doesn’t want to attend their 100th birthday party — and for good reason!
Your protagonist gets stuck in a lift with their ex … 5 minutes after breaking up with them.
A child says goodbye to the fairies in his garden before moving to a new home.
Your protagonist saves someone’s life … and then wishes they hadn’t.
Your protagonist arrives at a blind date. They’ve been set up with someone they actually know a little too well.
Set in a dystopian future in which public displays of affection are banned, your protagonist faces an agonising choice.
An agoraphobic must face their fear in order to save something important.
Your protagonist must make her partner fall out of love with them. Both their lives depend on it.
Your protagonist is hiking with her small children, they come face to face with a grizzly bear and her cubs.
Cinderella and Prince Charming realise they got married too quickly.
A message written in graffiti on a bathroom wall has serious implications for your protagonist.
Your protagonist finds a bag, looks inside, and realises the owner might just be their soulmate.
Your protagonist has been seeing the same stranger everywhere they go for months. They finally decide to confront them.
A couple realise their relationship is over during the trip of a lifetime. They’ve been saving up for the trip for years.
A public debate sees two previously married people letting their private grievances come into their arguments.
Your protagonist plans their escape from a retirement home.
A couple realise their fundamental beliefs are at odds with each other.
An artist develops an obsession with drawing a next-door neighbour.
Your protagonist finds themselves trapped in a cabin with a group of hikers during a heavy snowfall.
An ice skater must face going back on the ice after a dangerous fall.
A couple must decide their plan for New Year’ Eve. They both have secret reasons for their choice.
A family must decide what to take and what to leave behind as a wildfire approaches their home.
Your protagonist is waiting for someone important at the airport. They begin to think that person isn’t going to show up … and then they realise why.
Your protagonist must find their way through a maze. What they find in the middle of the maze is the last thing they were expecting.
An actor waiting in the wings has forgotten his first line.
Your protagonist is wrongly identified as a hero. Do they come clean?
Your protagonist realises their past is catching up with them.
Your protagonist overhears something that has serious implications for them while trying on clothes in a changing room.
Your protagonist is in a costume shop trying to decide what to dress up as for Halloween.
Your protagonist realises they’ve slipped into an alternate dimension.
A surgeon must make an impossible choice on the operating table.
A pregnant journalist interviews the mother of a missing child.
Your protagonist must ask his girlfriend’s father for his blessing, only to discover the father knows his deepest secret.
Your protagonist sees something on social media that will change their life forever.
Two work colleagues realise they’ve been dreaming the same dreams for weeks.
A reluctant daughter comes to terms with having to carry on the family business.
Your protagonist realises she must go on the run.
Two bank robbers disagree on their plan to rob a bank. This leads to a disastrous consequence.
A strange case of deja vous leaves your protagonist convinced of supernatural interference.
A sceptic begins to question their beliefs during a psychic reading.
Your protagonist uncovers a scandal at their workplace.
A hapless cook tries to recreate her late father’s favourite recipes in an effort to feel connected to him.
Your protagonist has a premonition that makes them certain they can’t visit their mother-in-law for Christmas. Now he must convince his husband.
A young backpacker discovers something unexpected in a cave.
An impulsive character and an indecisive character are brought together by chance. They must make an important choice.
Two characters cleaning up after a party discover an object that sheds light on something strange that happened earlier.
Two strangers are trapped together during a blackout.
Your protagonist must take a leap of faith in order to save something important to them.
Your protagonist discovers a huge part of their life has been a lie.
Your protagonist has set up an elaborate way to propose. Inexplicably, everything goes wrong.
Your protagonist must buy a dress for her mother’s funeral.
Your protagonist goes back to her favourite city in the world, only to find it has completely changed.
While stargazing, your protagonist realises the stars are forming secret messages in the sky.
Your protagonist hears a news story on the radio that will mean the world changes forever. However, she seems to be the only person who heard it.
Your protagonist is crossing a frozen lake. They see something under the ice that definitely shouldn’t be there.
A workaholic must come to terms with retirement.
An Olympic athlete must decide whether or not to report their teammate for doping.
A young mother feels isolated from her childless friends.
Your protagonist is about to realise their greatest ambition. Will it be everything they were hoping for?
Onboard a spaceship, a couple prepare to go into stasis for hundreds of years.
Your protagonist has an obsession with thinking about the past.
Set in a post-apocalyptic future, your protagonist meets an unlikely love interest.
Your protagonist visits a place from their childhood and realises their memories of that time might not be accurate at all.
A small child has decided to run away from home. Her parents watch on with amusement as she decides what to put in her backpack.
On a whim, a bus driver decides to radically change his route, much to the chagrin of his passengers.
Dystopian. A couple in love are only allowed to spend time with each other one day a year.
A shapeshifter begins to realise their powers are fading. They must decide what form will be the last one they take before they cannot change again.
The devil visits your protagonist with an offer on her soul.
Your protagonist suddenly has the ability to read minds. There’s only one place they want to go now!
Your very wealthy protagonist has designed a simple test to see who will inherit her estate.
An archaeologist discovers something that will change how we see the history of the world. It could be dangerous. Does he keep it to himself?
Your protagonist must clear out their late mother’s house. She discovers an incredible family secret.
Your protagonist is meeting his brother. They haven’t seen each other for 20 years.
Your protagonist develops the ability to see the world literally through someone else’s eyes.
Your protagonist starts to believe their partner might be a spy.
Your protagonist discovers a hidden camera in their living room.
Looking for a flash fiction competition? Check out our ‘Big List of International Writing Competitions!’ Looking for inspiration? Why not check out our list of the 20 Greatest Short Story Writers of All Time! Just received another short story rejection? Here’s our post about ‘How to Deal With Story Rejections’ Bonus Prompts! Two characters waiting by the side of the road realise they are both meeting the same person.
A woman loses her young niece in a busy shopping mall.
Three strangers must solve a riddle in order to gain entry to a secret club.
A poor woman must borrow ingredients from her neighbours to bake her husband a birthday cake.
A waiter finally finds out why an old man has been coming to the restaurant where he works every day at exactly the same time.
Two work colleagues must decide which of them is to take the blame for a terrible mistake at work.
Your disgruntled protagonist goes to confront the couple next door about the strange noises they’ve been hearing at night.
A family dinner party sees three characters make three very surprising announcements.
Two women argue over who should get to buy the last dress available in a store. How do they decide who should get it?
A young couple find out they knew (and disliked) each other vehemently as children.
Love writing stories? Register now for our free 7 Day Story Writing Challenges. Write a short story in a week, get extensive feedback on your entry, and compete for a prize of £500 in each round of the challenge. Register today!
Mastered the art of flash fiction? Now you can try submitting your stories to literary magazines! We’ve compiled a list of the best literary magazines that don’t charge a reading fee! Check out our Big List of No-Fee Literary Magazines.
submitted by adulting4kids to writingthruit [link] [comments]


2024.05.08 06:33 geopolicraticus David Hume and a Deflationary Philosophy of History

David Hume

07 May 1711 – 25 August 1776
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
David Hume and a Deflationary Philosophy of History
Tuesday 07 May 2024 is the 313th anniversary of the birth of David Hume (07 May 1711 New Style, 26 April 1711 Old Style, to 25 August 1776), who was born in Edinburgh on this date in 1711. Hume was born on the 7th of May, and Edward Gibbon was born on the 8th of May, although the two were a generation apart, so you can consider today’s episode on Hume as Part I of Enlightenment Historiography, and tomorrow’s episode on Gibbon as Part II of Enlightenment Historiography. I will be touching on many similar issues with regard to both Hume and Gibbon.
Today we think of Hume as a philosopher, in fact as perhaps the most influential Anglophone philosopher of all time. It would be fair to say that Hume is the godfather of the tradition Anglo-American analytical philosophy, or, even more narrowly, the godfather of logical empiricism. In Hume one finds the origins of the is/ought distinction and the analytic/synthetic distinction as we currently understand them, and which have played such a prominent role in analytical philosophy.
Hume also set the tone of empiricism in Anglophone philosophy. The fundamental ideas of empiricism were pioneered by Hume, they achieved their most explicit and uncompromising formulations in the work of the logical empiricists, and now we retain these ideas, but in a highly qualified and conditional form, having learned the limitations of the doctrinaire exposition of these ideas. It is often said that modern philosophy began with Descartes, and Descartes’ work is sometimes characterized as an “epistemological turn” in philosophy. It wouldn’t be too much to say that modern Anglophone philosophy began with Hume, and that Hume represented an “empiricist turn” in philosophy.
All of this is to say that Hume dominates the philosophical tradition in English speaking countries, but in his own time, Hume was a failure as a philosopher. He said that his first great philosophical work, A Treatise of Human Nature, originally published in 1739, “fell dead-born from the press.” Hume recovered from the disappointment and made a name for himself as an historian. He continued to publish philosophical works, many of which were re-written portions of A Treatise of Human Nature, and others of which broke new ground, but continued to develop his empiricist and skeptical point of view.
Hume left his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion to be published posthumously, probably because he anticipated that it would be controversial, but he published his work on miracles while he was still alive. Section 10 of Hume’s 1748 An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding is titled “Of Miracles,” includes this following:
“Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would endeavour to establish. It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder. But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.”
This isn’t all of Hume’s critique of miracles, but it is enough to give a flavor of his reasoning on miracles. If there are no miracles, then the kind of providential history we find in Saint Augustine and Bossuet must be false, and we must proceed by understanding history in terms of human motivations and exertion, and we understand human beings by understanding human nature. Hume’s critique of miracles (along with some other ideas of Hume) was picked up by Edward Gibbon, who, for example, tells the story of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge without mentioning any supernaturalistic element.
Tradition has preserved the story that, prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine saw a vision of the cross, and, next to it in Latin, “In Hoc Signo Vinces”—by this sign thou shalt conquer—and then he had a dream in which Christ explained to him the significance of the vision. Constantine had a military standard made that included what has come to be called the Chi-Rho symbol, which are the first two letters of the name of Christ in Greek, and his troops subsequently marched into battle carrying the Chi-Rho symbol and the cross. Echoes of Hume on miracles can be found in the following passage from Gibbon:
“The miracles of the primitive church, after obtaining the sanction of ages, have been lately attacked in a very free and ingenious inquiry, which, though it has met with the most favorable reception from the public, appears to have excited a general scandal among the divines of our own as well as of the other Protestant churches of Europe. Our different sentiments on this subject will be much less influenced by any particular arguments, than by our habits of study and reflection; and, above all, by the degree of evidence which we have accustomed ourselves to require for the proof of a miraculous event. The duty of an historian does not call upon him to interpose his private judgment in this nice and important controversy; but he ought not to dissemble the difficulty of adopting such a theory as may reconcile the interest of religion with that of reason, of making a proper application of that theory, and of defining with precision the limits of that happy period, exempt from error and from deceit, to which we might be disposed to extend the gift of supernatural powers. From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony to the wonderful events by which it was distinguished, and its testimony appears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own inconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence which, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or to Irenæus. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated by their apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince, heretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficient motives might always be produced to justify the interposition of Heaven.” (Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IV.)
Hume’s philosophy, then, not only influenced his own work as an historian, but also influenced the work of his contemporaries, as we can see in this passage from Gibbon. Like Kant and Machiavelli, both of whom I have recently discussed, Hume didn’t write any books on philosophy of history.
Claudia M. Schmidt in her book David Hume: Reason in History, noted that, “Hume does not provide us with a specific work concerning the philosophy or methodology of history.” (p. 379) However, Schmidt does show us how Hume’s history is bound up with this philosophy, and vice versa:
“In the Treatise and the First Enquiry, Hume introduces historical inquiry as a type of causal reasoning in which we judge the probability that an event has occurred in the past by reasoning from evidence that we encounter in the present. This evidence may be conveyed, in whole or in part, through oral reports, extending back to a supposed witness of the event. However, in these cases the historical facts are often ‘disguised by every successive narration,’ as a result of feeble memories, exaggeration, or even carelessness, until the report contains little or no resemblance to the original event.” (p. 379)
Schmidt also recognizes the constitutive role that Hume’s conception of human nature plays in his history:
“…Hume is seeking to account for the actions of historical individuals as effects of their passions and beliefs, characters, and circumstances. In so doing he is applying the principle, regarded by Sabine as a discovery of the nineteenth century, that history is ‘peopled by actual human beings, with human desires and purposes,’ and that the historian’s task includes re-creating the men and women of the past, entering into their feelings and desires, and explaining their actions to posterity.” (p. 400)
Hume’s own self-understanding of the role history in human knowledge is given exposition in a brief essay, “Of the Study of History”
“…history is not only a valuable part of knowledge, but opens the door to many other parts, and affords materials to most of the sciences. And indeed, if we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we must be sensible that we should be for ever children in understanding, were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to all past ages, and to the most distant nations; making them contribute as much to our improvement in wisdom, as if they had actually lain under our observation. A man acquainted with history may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every century.”
Someone who has “lived from the beginning of the world” and who has continually added to their stock of knowledge through the ages might be regarded as a kind of thought experiment. We can ask how such an individual might perceive history and human action historically, and, Hume implies, this is the perspective that history provides us. But there are many kinds of history, and, as I have described in several previous episodes, many ways to engage intellectually with the past. One might reasonably wonder whether the nature of our continual additions to our stock of knowledge shapes our understanding of the world that we grasp, through the medium of history, from its beginning.
So far, Hume’s empiricist history only seems to rule out miracles, and therefore most providential philosophies of history. What positive features would an empirical philosophy of history involve? In the passage I just quoted from Hume some features are implied, and the quote from Claudia M. Schmidt implies an engagement with human nature, which we certainly find in Hume, as well as an interest in a quasi-scientific account of historical causality, with the fully human historical agent caught within a network of casual processes. Later in the Enlightenment this approach came to be called philosophical history, with Gibbon being perhaps the most famous practitioner.
We can find this kind of causal explanation of historical events in ancient history, especially in Thucydides, but this way of history was largely lost in the early Middle Ages, and the chronicle replaced history as a form of historical record keeping. With the advent of modernity, the tradition of history as explaining historical causality had to be rediscovered, and Hume and Gibbon were part of this rediscovery. This process continues to unfold, as the logical distinctiveness of narrative propositions only came be explicitly understood in the twentieth century.
Today we take narrative, explanatory history for granted—that is to say, we take philosophical history for granted. We don’t see it as an innovation, but it was a long, slow process to converge on history as we know it today—a process that co-evolved with the growth of historical consciousness that occurred in parallel with the growth of sophistication in historical research and writing. The process continues today, as historical methodology and historical consciousness continue to grow in parallel and each stimulates the other.
What can we expect from the tradition of philosophical history as it continues to develop? I said earlier that Hume was the godfather of logical empiricism. Can there be a logical empiricist philosophy of history that builds on the work of Hume? The only contribution to Otto Neurath’s International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, which was a logical empiricist organ, concerned with history was Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Certainly in the work of Kuhn we find philosophical history of a subtle and sophisticated order, but it seems to point in a direction other than that of logical empiricism. It is something of an historical fluke that Kuhn’s work appeared Neurath’s series of logical empiricist monographs.
Hume himself seems to point in a different direction, as I quoted him above as writing about, “continual additions to his stock of knowledge,” which implies a cumulative conception of knowledge that Kuhn is usually presented as having shown to be untenable. Haskell Fain in his Between Philosophy and History (pp. 9-10) calls this Hume’s ‘addition theory of knowledge,’ being, “the view that changing theories and ideas result in an addition to, but not an alteration of, mankind’s conception of what knowledge itself is. Knowledge, like Human Nature, is judged everywhere the same, though methods for arriving at it change.” On the one hand, this does seem to fit with the kind of universalism characteristic of the Enlightenment, and which informs Hume’s conception of human nature. On the other hand, Hume’s passing remark about an additive conception of knowledge does not necessarily exclude the possibility that added knowledge alters earlier knowledge. In the twentieth century, this view has become commonplace in the form of narrativism since Danto, and, as we saw earlier, this narrativism wasn’t made explicit until the 20th century, long after Hume’s time.
Hume gives us little to go on in elaborate a more comprehensive philosophy of history. We are, in essence, grasping at straws with Hume, and Hume’s historical writings do not seem to embody any obvious philosophical principles other than the exclusion of the miraculous. This has continued to be the case with the logical empiricists, whose work built on Hume. It seems that the logical empiricists were as indebted to Descartes as to Hume, as they share the Cartesian disinterest in history. Neurath himself, in one of the monographs included in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, gave something of a sketch of what a logical empiricist history might look like:
“…all sciences as dovetailed to such a degree that we may regard them as parts of one science which deals with stars, Milky Ways, earth, plants, animals, human beings, forests, natural regions, tribes, and nations—in short, a comprehensive cosmic history.” (Vol. II, No. 1, Foundations of the Social Sciences , p. 9)
This is the barest hint of what might be done with the intellectual resources of this tradition. It sounds a lot like contemporary big history, which I discussed in my episode on my paper “A Complexity Ladder for Big History.” Big history fulfills the Humean conception of the function of history giving the individual a perspective as though he had lived from the beginning of the world.
On the other hand, a providential philosophy of history like that of St. Augustine might also be said to give the individual a perspective as though he had lived from the beginning of the world, though the providential world of St. Augustine is distinct from the scientific world of logical positivism. Here the kind of knowledge that is cumulatively added through historical experience appears in stark relief in these two contexts. Hume’s exclusion of providential philosophies of histories that invoke miracles excludes the kind of cumulative knowledge construction that we find in Augustine and those who followed him. Perhaps that is the lesson here: an empiricist philosophy of history is and ought to be primarily defined in terms of what it excludes and less in terms of what it includes.
Empiricism, then, is a principle of selection of history, and giving an account of the problem of selection has been one of the abiding problems for history. An empirical philosophy of history holds the promise of providing a definitive answer to the selection problem. This would be a deflationary philosophy of history that would entirely do without the signs and wonders that inhabit the pages of more credulous historians.
We might believe ourselves to have long outgrown signs and wonders, and think ourselves superior to the historians who once invoked them, but the human mind is not so easily demythologized. We have put aside supernatural miracles and we have replaced them with our own signs and wonders, which we can’t see for what they are precisely because we wholly inhabit the conceptual framework that justifies them. Here, Hume’s skepticism can be the help that we need to extricate ourselves from our presuppositions and thus to carry forward the project of a deflationary philosophy of history.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/D91ilZJx_Xo
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6rucDItCcE/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy:1

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/7VZ9mD9LpJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/d1df7e44-1bd1-4c6f-b8af-0571b70b411b/today-in-philosophy-of-history-david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy-of-history
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy-174319950/

submitted by geopolicraticus to The_View_from_Oregon [link] [comments]


2024.05.06 20:06 Dank_weedpotnugsauce This neat piece of civil war history at Washington Park

This neat piece of civil war history at Washington Park submitted by Dank_weedpotnugsauce to cincinnati [link] [comments]


2024.05.06 19:12 Unbreakable_strength CT idea: Diabolical Spectacle

Cursed Technique
Innate Technique: the user is able to turn themselves into a 5 act play and are able to temporarily bestow negative effects of the structure onto enemies. This gives the user buffs over the course of the approximately 10 minute play. as well, to put those negative effects on an enemy, touch needs to be re-established every act. Each act takes 2mins exactly except for act 3, which will take longer if the user does not hit the enemy with a special attack referred to as the climax at the end of said act. The user continually gets more CE and better CE output over the course of the play until the climax, and unique abilities in each act.
For the 1st act alone (exposition) the negative effect that the user can apply to enemies is to ask questions, if they do not answer, or are dishonest, sheets of paper as hard as steel with “wrong script” written on them materialize around the enemy then close in on them (can technically be dodged but is tough). Conflict is the effect of act 2 and 3, it arises in the enemy as they feel an invisible crushing force randomly when moving in specific directions (like hot and cold but changes randomly). The climax at the end of act 3 is a suped up punch that launches an explosion (not the fire kind, like air pressure) on impact. For act 4 (the falling action) the user begins to lose any remaining added CE, but can intern force the enemy to lose CE at the same speed without doing anything via touch. Act 5 (denouement) makes the user intangible the targeted enemies attacks.
-RCT: letting someone else turn into a play🤷‍♂️
-Domain Expansion (Unresolved Intermission): HAND SIGN(S): claw hand pointed up, other hand wrapped around wrist. DOMAIN ENVIRONMENT: big ampitheater. SURE-HIT: All negative effects from the CT.
-Maximum (Contemporary art): The user becomes a 3 act play, with all the same abilites but stronger.
________________________________________
Weaknesses
-touching someone, and turning them into the target, is required for the CT to take effect.
-the CT can only be activated on a particular person once per day, and it runs out of time for the CT quickly.
-the user doesn't know the pattern for the "hot and cold" ability for act 2-3, it really is just random.
________________________________________
Strategies
-Hold off using the climax for as long as possible to get as much CE out of the ability
________________________________________
Questions for improvement
-are the abilities tied to each act appropriate?
-how to improve maximum?
submitted by Unbreakable_strength to CTsandbox [link] [comments]


2024.05.06 09:42 geopolicraticus Karl Marx and and the Permutations of Historical Materialism

Karl Marx

05 May 1818 – 14 March 1883
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Karl Marx and and the Permutations of Historical Materialism
Sunday 05 May 2024 is the 206th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx (05 May 1818 – 14 March 1883), who was born in Trier on this date in 1818.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Marx’s philosophy of history is that almost all the work on it has been done by Marxists, that is to say, by true believers in Marxism. The few who are not true believers who took up historical materialism have done so in the shadow of the work of true believers. This puts non-Marxists who engage with Marx’s philosophy of history in a bind.
It is a practical impossibility to master all the relevant literature on Marx. Anything you say about Marx is likely to be gainsaid by someone who has focused their entire career on Marx. They will have a response to any problem you might raise, but the response is always formulated in a way that is entirely internal to the Marxist conceptual framework. If you don’t share this conceptual framework, the argument is not likely to be persuasive, but it is rare to find someone well versed in Marx’s philosophy of history who is not a Marxist who feels compelled to defend Marx’s view at any cost.
As philosophers of history what we want to know about any thinker is what we can learn from them about their conception of history, not necessarily to defend it, but to know what has been said and why it has been said. And we don’t necessarily want to think ourselves into the conceptual framework internal to some ideology. Compare this situation to any number of other philosophers.
For example, the tradition of commenting on Machiavelli was almost entirely hostile up to the 19th century. Almost no one would cop to Machiavelli’s ideology, even if they admitted to wanting to understand Machiavelli on his own terms. And in my episode on Kant I said that Kant never wrote a big book on philosophy of history, but a Kantian philosophy of history can be assembled from his shorter writings on history. This is similar to the situation with Marx, who didn’t write a book on even an essay specifically on the philosophy of history, but who did leave enough of a trail in his other works so that his conception of history can be reconstructed.
There have been many scholarly studies of Kant’s philosophy of history that maintain the proper distance between the author and the expositor, with no expectation that we are going to become Kantians if we read Kant’s philosophy of history and endeavor to understand it. No one feels the need to toe any Kantian line (though there have been periods in German philosophical history when Neo-Kantian was nearly obligatory), and no one feels obligated to suspend all criticism until they have fully entered into the Kantian conceptual framework. Comprehension does not necessarily entail agreement.
It tends to be different with Marx’s commentators. The vast majority of Marx’s critics have been internal critics. Some of them rise above the mediocrity of that position—for example, Ernst Bloch was an internal critic of Marxism with a mind of his own—but most never find their own voice. The true believers in Marxism view themselves as part of an embattled community and therefore feel the need to defend this community, and this takes the form of defending Marxist doctrines, including defending Marx’s implicit philosophy of history. This isn’t helpful from a philosophical perspective, so we need to keep this in mind. And I will keep in mind that anything I say about Marx might well be contradicted by someone who has a lot invested in Marx.
Probably no one was closer to Marx than Frederick Engels, whom I think we can say closely shared Marx’s conceptual framework, to the point that Marx and Engels are sometimes treated as though they are interchangeable. Engels gave a funeral oration at Marx’s graveside that includes a good summary of Marx’s views on history:
“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.”
There are several familiar themes here, perhaps most notably the claim that there are laws of human development in history. This is a classic claim of speculative philosophy of history. Also, the emphasis on the material conditions of history as being the forces driving history, and that the material conditions of human history are, effectively, economic conditions, are familiar Marxist talking points. The Preface of The Critique of Political Economy is sometimes identified as the locus classicus of historical materialism:
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis, on which rises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations, a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social formation ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production—antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of human society to a close.”
There’s a lot going on in this passage, and I won’t attempt an exhaustive exposition. Instead, I want to pick out a few of Marx’s leading ideas. The leading ideas in Marx’s historical thought could be isolated and taken independently, though they rarely are. Usually, we find them all organically related to each other, each implying the other, as in the quote I just made from The Critique of Political Economy. I want to mention six ideas in particular:
  1. Materialism
  2. Cultural evolutionism
  3. Economic systems as the basis of cultural evolutionism
  4. The base/superstructure distinction (also known as the infrastructure/superstructure distinction)
  5. Communist teleology
  6. Determinism
1. Materialism
I’ve already mentioned that the material conditions of history is a familiar Marxist talking point. There are many passages we could take from Marx to underline this. There are also accounts of Marx that emphasize his debt to Hegel and to Hegel’s idealism. John Zammito in “Philosophy of History: The German Tradition from Herder to Marx” discusses in some detail the influence both of Hegel and Comte, and ends his essay with this:
“In Marx we see a philosophy of history that draws on both the Enlightenment and idealism for its premises. The driving interest in his thought derives from idealism: it is the aspiration to an ethical totality to be realized in the end of history, providing meaning to the entire sweep of history, with all its toil and trouble. But the method that animates his thought is taken from the Enlightenment and its aspiration to a social science based on principles authorized by natural science. Similarly, the radicalism of Marx’s projection of positive values into the future compares with the doctrine of progress of the Enlightenment. Yet, if one takes away the utopianism of Marx’s teleology of history and one takes away the romanticism of his criterion of fulfilled humanity, the balance of his thought has the features of a ‘science’ that falls all the way back to the mechanism of late Enlightenment ‘science of man.’ That was the path that thought on society and history would follow in the balance of the modern period. Indeed, after and through Marx, the question of making sense of history passed definitively out of the hands of philosophy into those of the newly constituted ‘social sciences’.”
I do not agree that, after Marx, the question of making sense of history passed definitively out of the hands of philosophy, but I think I can see what Zammito was getting at. We can find some basis for this replacement of philosophy by science in Marx:
“History itself is an actual part of natural history, of nature’s development into man, Natural science will in time include the science of man as the science of man will include natural science: There will be one science.”
Max Weber, after Marx, called for a rationalization of history that was not a philosophy of history, and Weber’s work on the methodology of the social sciences has been extremely influential. But whether Weber, or any other post-Marxian social scientist, managed to displace philosophy as a sense-making tool for history is not at all clear. Certainly this is not a proposition with which most philosophers of history will agree.
Another interesting thing in this quote from Zammito is his suggestion of setting aside Marx’s utopianism and teleology. This is exactly what I am trying to show: that there are many permutations of the Marxist conception of history, based not only on our interpretations of the elements of Marx’s thought, but which elements we include and which elements we set aside as being no longer relevant.
2. Cultural Evolutionism
Now I will move on from Marx’s materialism to his cultural evolutionism. Like Marx’s theory of history, his exposition of cultural evolutionism is scattered across many texts and appears in a fragmentary form, but it is well enough established that the idea that human society passes through stages from primitive communism to slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, with Marx positing a further stage of industrialized communism after capitalism. Because Marx’s exposition is unsystematic, there are many slightly different accounts of the stages in Marx’s cultural evolutionism.
The rival to Marx’s cultural evolutionism is Franz Boas’ cultural relativism. The contrast of Marx’s evolutionism and Boas’ relativism helps to give us a sense of what is at stake in Marx’s claims. We could say that we have both evolutionist intuitions about history and relativist intuitions about history, and Marx and Boas each build on these distinct intuitions, and, as they build on these divergent intuitions, the more their thought diverges the farther we follow the reasoning of either of them.
Both Marx’s cultural evolutionism and Boas’ cultural relativism have become so familiar to us that we scarcely realize when we are invoking either of them, but we should be clear about when our historical thinking is implicitly invoking either evolutionism or relativism, or both. Sometimes we find both in one person. For example, Spengler’s philosophy of history has elements in it that are derived from both cultural evolutionism and cultural relativism, and so we can find in his philosophy echoes of both Marx and Boas. Specifically, Spengler’s idea that all civilizations rise up from an undifferentiated mass of history and are incommensurable with any other civilization is akin to cultural relativism, while Spengler’s contention that all civilizations pass through definite stages in a determinate order is akin to cultural evolutionism. The two—evolutionism and relativism—are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though when we build exclusively on one set of historical intuitions or another, and these forms of thought diverge, they seem to be irreconcilable.
3. Economic Systems as the Basis of Cultural Evolutionism
Marx’s cultural evolutionism is driven by economic systems, and economic systems grow out of the satisfaction of human needs. It would be possible to formulate a conception of history defined by cultural evolutionism, but in which it is not economics, but something else that is the driver of the historical process. Here we see the relationship between Marx’s materialism and the other components of his conception of history, since any alternative to a system of economics that grows out of human needs would need to appeal to mind, or consciousness, or ideals of some kind.
Jacob’s Burckhardt’s conception of history, while not being a form of cultural evolutionism, does place the mind and its ideals as the drivers of history, and so presents us with an example of a conception of history in which economics and industry are only distant, secondary, and mediate causes in the development of the historical process. Burckhardt’s conception of historical development is as antithetical to Marx’s conception of human development as Boas’ cultural relativism is antithetical to Marx’s cultural evolutionism.
4. The Base/Superstructure Distinction
Because the economic systems grow out of the satisfaction of human needs, and this is the primary driver of the historical process, it follows that this is the basis of the entirety of society. The apparently non-economic functions of society like art, religion, science, law, and political institutions are not really independent of economic forces, but are in fact created by economic forces. The ideals to which we believe we are giving expression in the highest cultural productions of a society are not something independent of human needs, but are part of the rationalization and justification of the economic order of society.
In this way, these cultural expressions of a society are mere epiphenomena of the economic base of society. Their purpose is to make us feel good about ourselves and to justify the economic exploitation that makes them possible. It is this idea that Walter Benjamin presumably had in mind when he said that every document of civilization is at the same time a document of barbarism. As a cultural critic, Benjamin could appreciate the high culture productions of society, but he believed himself to have seen through the violence, oppression, and suffering entailed by their creation.
This is, we could say, a highly reductionist account of art and ideals and intellectual achievement. Varieties of Marxism that have flourished after Marx’s time, like Antonio Gramsci’s cultural Marxism, value the productions of culture differently, so Marxism doesn’t necessarily have to involve a reductionist account of non-economic value.
5. Communist Teleology
In Marx, the process of cultural evolutionism culminates in communism. There are several accounts of how exactly this comes about, and how many stages intervene between communist revolution and the achievement of a final communist society—for example, whether the expropriation of the expropriators leads directly to communism, or whether a society must pass through a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat before the state can wither away and true communism will be achieved, and how long the dictatorship of the proletariat has to endure, or how long it takes the state to wither away. However it comes about, communism is the end point of cultural evolutionism.
In Marx, cultural evolutionism, as we have seen, is expressed in a series of distinct economic systems, or relations of production. Once a society achieves the communist mode of production it has achieved its final form. Marx need not have made this assertion. We could just as well argue that communism is one more mode of production, which will eventually be followed by another mode of production in its turn. If the other mode of production is something unprecedented in history, then history is still directional, but does not necessarily converge on a finite teleology. We could even posit an infinitude of stages of economic development following capitalism and communism.
Alternatively, it could be argued that communism is a stage in a cycle of stages that repeat over historical time, which would give us a cyclical theory of history. For example, if the attainment of a perfect communist society coincided with the primitive communism prior to the slave mode of production, then the whole cycle would start over, and this would not be a form of teleology.
6. Determinism
Marx’s philosophy of history is usually taken to be deterministic. Partly this is because cultural evolutionism is widely believed to be essentially deterministic. This belief is false, because we could easily formulate cultural evolutionism in a non-deterministic way. We need not be deterministic about cultural evolutionism any more than we need to be deterministic about biological evolutionism. The determinist argument can be made, but it’s not obvious or necessary.
It is nevertheless true that many who are argued for cultural evolutionism have offered deterministic accounts of the origins and development of societies, and Marx’s account certainly suggests this. Whenever we find a claim of inevitability, we are in the presence of determinism, and we find many claims of inevitability in Marx. For example, this from Capital:
“…there can be no doubt that when the working-class comes into power, as inevitably it must, technical instruction, both theoretical and practical, will take its proper place in the working-class schools.”
There are many ways in which historical materialism could be formulated in which it was not deterministic, but still largely accommodated Marx’s insights. For example, one could hold that a society might collapse at any stage of its development, with this collapse being a contingent event, not determined by prior circumstances. If a society can collapse at any point in its development, and does not necessarily pass through all stages of cultural evolutionism in a determinate order, and does not necessarily pass through all of these stages, then Marx’s cultural evolutionism ceases to be deterministic.
If we take these six elements in Marx’s historical thought I have discussed so far:
  1. Materialism
  2. Cultural evolutionism
  3. Economic systems as the basis of cultural evolutionism
  4. Base/superstructure distinction
  5. Communist teleology
  6. Determinism
And pair each of these with its antithesis, which might be the list something like this:
  1. Idealism
  2. Cultural relativism
  3. Historical development not driven by economics
  4. Consciousness and its ideals as the basis of social institutions
  5. Denial of teleology
  6. Indeterminism
There are 64 possible permutations of these elements, and that means a possibility of 64 philosophies of history that overlap with Marx’s philosophy of history, more or less related to Marx, but not precisely coinciding to Marx. Because of the party spirit that animates Marxist thought, we rarely see these closely related alternatives being explored, though, as we saw in the quote from John Zammito, sometimes philosophers will set aside of aspects of Marx’s thought in order to arrive at a more satisfactory formulation.
Some of these permutations would be unlikely to say the least, but all could give us a novel perspective on Marx and historical materialism. But there are many ways to approach Marx’s conception of history. Another potentially profitable way to approach Marx from the perspective of philosophy of history would be Marx’s conception of revolution. I opened by quoting Engels’ funeral oration for Marx, and in the same funeral oration Engels’ commented on Marx’s commitment to revolution:
“…Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being…”
As a revolution, even an anticipated or precipitated revolution, is an historical crisis, Marx could be assimilated to those philosophers of history who have focused on crisis. But that will have to wait for another time.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/3cDuAUE6Fd0
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6nZByDtOak/

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/XEgIjL2YmJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/677b4de0-cc33-4f3a-96ce-bdb64823f048/today-in-philosophy-of-history-karl-marx-and-the-permutations-of-historical-materialism
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/karl-marx-and-the-permutations-of-173786886/

submitted by geopolicraticus to The_View_from_Oregon [link] [comments]


2024.05.06 08:29 KyleMCarthage More specific Shinkenger elements that were lost in translation to Samurai

This is sorta a response/continuation/elaboration or however you want to see in relation to u/AlchemistL1nk post the other day on Shinkenger elements that were lost in translation in PR Samurai and it made me reflect on how I think the central argument of "Samurai isn't as good as Shinkenger because Shinkenger is rooted in a lot of Japanese culture that wasn't preserved in adaption" sort of misses a lot of why I personally feel Samurai doesn't work.
Because this argument acts like it's purely because the Japanese cultural context is gone that it's much poorer of a show when compared to Shinkenger and I personally feel that couldn't be farther from the truth purely from the fact that most of use on this subreddit aren't japanese, yet we were still able to connect with Shinkenger despite not knowing Japanese culture. Sure that may be in part of the fan translators that use their T/N to explain the context so we have glimpses of it, but we're not as immersed as we might think to make up the cultural disconnect from it. Rather, I argue that it's not the fault of not adapting the context, but from removing the smaller details that make up the show which I argue aren't necessarily rooted in Japanese culture to need to be understood(which to be fair isn't a new interpretation, but not one that I see discussed as thoroughly that I feel like is needed of it).
To make my point, prior to seeing this post, I was actually comparing episodes of Samurai to their Shinkenger equivalent and making note of EVERY different that I could point out that wasn't extremely miniscule like "like this shot is x minutes in in Shinkenger and y minutes in in Samurai", but more so general plot changes and episode structure. As of now I have only done 8 episodes and while I won't go into every detail for every episode, I do want to highlight the major differences from some. (note, I will be referring to the Shinkenger episode being compared as Act and the Samurai episode as, well, episode)
Act 1 vs Episode 1-Aside from the different casts, different cockpit designs, lack of Kuroko, and Shodophones into Samuraizers, more specific changes that aren't picked up are that are important at
Act 2 vs Episode 2
Skipping ahead to Act 4 vs Episode 4
Act 5 vs Episode 5
I could go on, but I think this shows enough the main reasons why I think Shinkenger is a better show other than "the Japanese context is present" as most of what I pointed out isn't necessarily rooted in Japanese culture. Sure some of the why as Takeru being strong for is team does relate to how retainers literally give their lives to their lord and how it's important that they need to protect them, but as someone who didn't know that context in its entirety, it still made sense unlike Samurai which didn't even try to create something similar.
submitted by KyleMCarthage to supersentai [link] [comments]


2024.05.05 18:57 sanddragon939 [SPOILERS S3] Just watched Bodies...some thoughts on the show, and its parallels to Dark

SPOILERS for Bodies below
Bodies had been on my radar for awhile, and the comparisions to Dark only motivated me further to check it out. So I had a chance to binge-watch it earlier this week.
On the whole, its a great show. Not Dark levels of great of course...maybe not even 12 Monkeys levels of great. But perhaps just below that. And I read the graphic novel as well which, beyond the basic premise and the core characters, is a completely different animal that isn't even a time-travel story in the conventional sense. Based on interviews from the showrunner and producer, I think there's a fair likelihood that shows like Dark (or Dark itself) heavily inspired the approach to the adaptation.
Its hard not see Bodies as Dark-lite, and I don't mean that in a derisive way. But it is obvious. You have the multiple time periods. Connections between characters across time periods that gradually emerge. The story beginning as a police procedural before the sci-fi seeps in. A conspiracy revolving around time-travel and an impending disaster that shapes a dark future. Tons of bootstrap paradoxes, including a bootstrapped family line. The villain engineering the existence of himself and caught in a personal hell of his own making. Questions around fate and free will and self-delusion. And that's just what comes up at the top of my mind!
Where Bodies differs is in the presentation of these elements and ideas. Dark is a very German/European show - a slow-burn for the most part that takes its time to immerse us in the atmosphere of Winden and in the psychology of our characters. The philosophical implications of time-travel (or rather, how time-travel brings to life certain philosophical constructs), and how this is reflected in the lives and actions of our characters, is a significant focus. Bodies on the other hand is a British/American show - a lot more fast-paced and direct, with a much more straightforward explanation of complex ideas (and the less straightforward explanations, such as how time-travel precisely works, is pretty much swept under the carpet as techno-babble that the audience simply isn't expected to understand!) A simple comparision - in Dark, over the course of Season 1, it slowly but surely dawns on us that these characters are all victims of a deterministic universe and are the cause of their own misfortunes. In Bodies, Shahara literally spells it out with dossiers and diagrams in episode 5 how Elias Mannix is at the centre of a causal loop.
Dark encompasses a few genres - family drama, psychological thriller, sci-fi, horror, police procedural. Bodies does this as well, but rather more directly, and split across each of its four time periods - you have a very Victorian Sherlock Holmes-ian mystery in 1890, straight-up film noir in 1941, a contemporary terrorist thriller in 2023, and a sci-fi dystopia in 2053.
Structurally too there are similarities between the two shows. I couldn't but help notice the last three episodes of Bodies in particular and how they mirror the structure of the last three episodes of Dark Season 3 - episode 6 bringing the story-arcs across the four time periods to their climax and showing us the present-day 'apocalypse' being triggered, episode 7 filling in the gaps of the loop and the hidden backstory between time periods while setting the stage for the finale, and episode 8 showing us how the loop is broken.
Bodies definitely has its flaws. A lot of things are straight-up not explained, or explained poorly - precisely how time-travel works for instance, and why Gabiel Defoe's body is split across time periods while other travelers just arrive once at a particular destination. The precise nature of the 2053 'dystopia' is also very poorly sketched, which is a huge problem because this future is supposed to be the culmination of Elias Mannix's 163 year plan! There was an interesting debate to be had between Shahara Hasan and Iris Maplewood about the ethics of altering the past to save hundreds of thousands of lives in 2023 at the risk of erasing the lives of people in 2053 (which honestly aren't that bad, and in many cases cases may be a lot better than they would have been without Mannix's Executive in charge) but the show just shies away from it and has Iris literally change her mind between episodes. And the ending doesn't make sense at all for a show that was evidently planned as a one-season miniseries from the start - cheap sequel hook to a sequel that we'll apparently never get.
But, and this will be immensely controversial to say here, I do feel that Bodies executed its ending perhaps a little more neatly than Dark did. Its not a fair comparision of course. What Dark attempted to do with its narrative is a 100 times more complex than what Bodies did with its (similar) narrative. Dark scrambled to tie up most of its loose ends and deal with its weighty themes and complicated quantum theories in its last 2-3 episodes, and the result is an ending that's maybe 80-90% satisfying but not quiet living upto to what we'd built up in our heads. Bodies had a much easier task before it, and so resolved it with a close to 100% success rate. There's some time-travel screwiness in the finale that doesn't make a lot of sense, but frankly, there's time-travel screwiness in Dark too that doesn't make 100% sense with what's been established before and Dark is the show that put in a lot more effort into its time-travel. I did appreciate seeing every detail of the loop gradually being unraveled in Bodies, while a lot of this was just exposition by Claudia in Dark's finale.
Anyway, Bodies is probably the closest I've come to replicating the feel of watching Dark in the nearly 4 years since the latter ended, so I'll always appreciate it for that. And it gives me an excuse to continue talking about one of the greatest works of fiction of all time!
I'm probably going to be doing a comparitive study of Dark and Bodies characters soon. Watch this space!
submitted by sanddragon939 to DarK [link] [comments]


2024.05.04 06:23 adulting4kids World building Fantasy

World-Building Advice for Fantasy Stories:
  1. Consistency is Key:
    • Maintain internal consistency within your fantasy world. Establish rules for magic systems, cultural norms, and physical laws, and adhere to them throughout the narrative to create a believable and immersive experience.
  2. Cultural Diversity:
    • Develop diverse cultures within your fantasy world, each with its own customs, traditions, and belief systems. Consider how these cultural differences shape the interactions between characters and influence the broader societal dynamics.
  3. Show, Don't Tell:
    • Instead of providing lengthy exposition, reveal the details of your world through the actions and experiences of the characters. Allow readers to discover the intricacies of your fantasy world organically.
  4. Consider the Ramifications:
    • Think about the consequences of fantastical elements on the world and its inhabitants. How do magical creatures, powerful artifacts, or unique environmental features affect daily life, economies, and power structures?
  5. History and Mythology:
    • Create a rich history and mythology for your fantasy world. Consider how past events, legends, and ancient conflicts influence the present. This adds depth and context to the narrative, making the world feel more lived-in.
  6. Character-Driven Exploration:
    • Use your characters as vehicles to explore the world. Allow their perspectives and experiences to unveil different facets of your fantasy setting, making the world-building an integral part of the character development.
  7. Balance Detail and Mystery:
    • Provide enough detail to ground readers in your world, but leave room for mystery. Allowing some aspects to remain unexplained or shrouded in myth adds intrigue and encourages readers to immerse themselves in the wonder of the unknown.
  8. Consider the Mundane:
    • While fantastical elements are crucial, also consider the everyday aspects of life in your world. What do people eat, wear, and do for fun? How does technology or magic impact mundane tasks? These details add realism and relatability to your fantasy setting.
  9. Map Your World:
    • Create a map of your fantasy world to visualize its geography and locations. This helps maintain spatial coherence and assists both you and your readers in navigating the various regions.
  10. Reader Empathy:
    • Connect readers emotionally to your fantasy world by infusing it with relatable emotions, dilemmas, and human experiences. Even in a world of magic and mythical creatures, the core of the narrative should resonate with universal themes.
submitted by adulting4kids to writingthruit [link] [comments]


2024.05.04 03:03 leej20 Graduating computer engineering student, looking for a full time software job, anywhere from the embedded level and up.

Any fine tuning advice is greatly appreciated!
submitted by leej20 to resumes [link] [comments]


2024.05.04 01:51 Murky_waterLLC "The Greatest Congame in the History of the Universe" - Sneak Peak

Hi, so I've been planning and drafting my longest Story yet, I think it's going good so far, but I want to hear your opinions on it. This is just a sneak peak, but I think it'll probably be cool. Looking forward to feedback.
Dialog Key:
[Translated]: Dates, Units of Measurement, or other Grammatical terms will be retrofitted to be legible for readers while still staying true to their definition
{Exposition}: Immediate context regarding events, People, Entities, or other key points that allow for understanding amongst different cultures.
We were tricked, completely and utterly duped. It hit us not like a train, but like a lit fuse approaching a massive stack of trinitrotoluene that we were too blind to see until we found ourselves crammed into the tens of thousands of “Corporate Nexuses” that occupied every startup colony, production world, trade hub, and capital world; working ourselves to death. The worst part? We had nobody else to blame but ourselves.
We were blinded by our hubris, our minds stuck in the past, refusing to adapt. All it took was one fledgling, pre-FTL race that made adaptability a main point of their society and culture. One society with just enough cunning to see through and undermine us and our ploys. One Species to pull off what the Humans called “The Greatest Con Game In The History of The Universe.” So where to begin?
We first discovered Humans when they had nearly finished construction on their star’s [Dyson Swarm], though to us, given the vast distances between the galactic core and Earth, we only noticed a minor anomaly, a stable G-class main sequence star flickering in the void of space. It seemed as though someone, or something, was trying to either signal us, or power their stellar civilization for the first time when in reality, the structure was already done.
When we dropped out of warp roughly [2 AU] away from their 4th gas giant, we immediately began picking up massive arrays of signals and spikes of energy. Turns out our exploration drones had just wandered into a system-wide intraspecies conflict. Spikes in both heat and radiation from nuclear warheads littered their second asteroid belt as our sensors picked up on hundreds, no, thousands of ships, primitive in nature, sure, but still armed [to the teeth]. Their similar design and technological levels seemed to back the idea that this was the same species blowing each other up, and not some other race or civilization.
The last thing our exploration fleet picked up was the warning of multiple target locks as [4 dozen] missiles were launched from what we presumed was a frigate, at our drones. Our drones took evasive actions, though nearly all of them were destroyed in nuclear fire. Only one survived by being manually overridden and found a crater in a massive asteroid to hide in. The Humans must have thought they were of the enemy’s as it never came back up in diplomatic discussion, but I digress.
We weren’t ready to give up first contact just yet so we had our drones observe from afar and move in only when it was safe. We recorded the entire battle. Despite their relatively primitive technology, their ingenuity couldn’t be understated. They used remarkably simple solutions that likely would have ravaged our finest warships. We watched as swarms of nye indestructible drones simply carved through ship after ship, targeting weak points like reactor cores and bridges that would completely disable the ship. The only thing, it seemed, that could stop these drones were other drones of similar make and model.
Other times, when that didn’t work we saw them fire missiles at extreme speeds directly into the hull of the enemy. Miraculously, however, they didn’t explode or tear through the armor, they merely embedded themselves into the ship. We found this odd, perhaps a series of malfunctions? Or Factory sabotage? Subterfuge wasn’t uncommon in galactic wars, it was an art that was hard to master, but given the unorthodox tactics of these primitives the assumption could be made that they had mastered the art of espionage as well.
But we noticed something odd. Several ships struck by these missiles began taking hits to their weapon efficiency, and they began suffering power shortages before going completely offline. A short while later the missiles would extract themselves from the armor and return to their mother ship, and the victimized ship would spontaneously self-destruct when all of the missiles had long departed.
A closer examination of these weapons told us that these were not missiles at all, but shuttles! How could any species survive those levels of [G]-forces!? We once again watched the carnage repeated on another small ship. Watching several heat signatures, these entry teams would breach the hull of the ship and disperse in two separate directions before our sensors stopped picking up on them. We could fill in the blanks from there: They would go through the ship, butchering the crew and initiating the self-destruction of the ship before escaping with their lives.
Pirate tactics, minus the depredation of valuable loot, I suppose.
When the battle finally cleared, after [16 Earth Standard Days] mind you, a ridiculously long time to be [duking it out], We watched as the surviving ships scoured for survivors, occasionally firing off a few nukes at the corpses of large combat apparatus before they turned tail and headed towards what our sensor’s picked up was what appeared to be an outer system shipyard. Our drone was given the go-ahead to move further into the system which became harder and harder to do in secret as there were at least several hundred orbital habitats and [lunar] colonies spread out across the system which we had to evade. For [3 Earth Standard Months] we had to hide our drone in what we later learned was one of the Trojan belts because one of their gas giants, and all of its dozens of lunar colonies, were giving us a shallow berth.
It was tricky and tedious, but we managed to navigate our drone away from their sensitive radars and sensors… or so we thought. As we passed their third asteroid belt, our drone’s sensors managed to get a remote scan of their inner planets. Three out of the four solid planets within their inner solar system were teaming with life! And I don’t mean full of artificial habitats and domed cities, no I mean fully lush worlds, teaming with bio-electric energy.
I'm still unsure about the story, so let me know if you want to see a full part 1. I would post more but Reddit gets funky whenever I make long posts.
submitted by Murky_waterLLC to HFY [link] [comments]


2024.05.03 09:10 ChampionshipSome7923 help I'm confused: compelling characterization and theories

As we all know 2.1 changed many opinions about Aventurine, with some even going from calling him the worst written hsr character to calling him the best. I'm a big fan of the perspective change and his quest structure in general, I think it's a great way to get to know a character more naturally than just having them exposition at you, but after the quest I have so many mixed feelings TT.
I think the biggest question I have is about his compelling motivation, because there's two main takes I have on why tf he's doing all this and I think the game hints pretty strongly at one of them. Unfortunately it's the one I really don't like TT.
TLDR kind of at bottom.
First take:
Aventurine is driven by the desire to be reunited with his family under the aurora of Kakava, essentially by dying. Death gives him the freedom he's always dreamed of, and the Family he loves more than himself. He has intense religious and survivor's guilt, leading to his flippancy with his life-he gambles with it so often, when he's a kid with the other tribe, after he's sold, taking impossible missions from the IPC, etc. But he always wins bc he's "blessed" by the Triclops, which is something he almost resents? He is "blessed" to keep living, even though it prolongs his suffering. It's hinted at that he's mildly su*cidal (he confirms death is impossible in Penacony by trying it out himself a few times, his achievement name??) His motivation for coming to Penacony (other than completing the IPC's mission) is to experience this supposed "dream world", a practice for his true death (see: why do people sleep? theme), to see if he can reunite with his family on the planet. Of course, his IPC mission is also there and again, he gambles with his life. If he actually dies, the IPC gets to move in and he achieves his goal. If he doesn't die, he may be able to find the secret behind the dream world and manipulate it to find his family??? idk abt this part I'm assuming it'll be revealed in future story. This is the "goal" Topaz and Jade are talking abt in the end, he's achieved "freedom", or "the relief from suffering" when his cornerstone glow goes dim.
This is the take I don't like, bc imo it doesn't fit exactly with his backstory and everything he's done before we met him on Penacony. It also just assumes his characterization has remained almost exactly the same since he was a child, even before the horrifying events, the rise in status, which I am sad about because there's so much potential there. Even though the first-person memory storytelling is better than lore dumping, I still think it reads a little too much like "here's a tragic backstory to explain the inexplicable actions of this character we've been seeing". For more impact we probably should have seen more of Aventurine being his tricky, arrogant, successful businessman self before revealing his backstory. Preferably spread over multiple planets. I think this is what Scaramouch from GI did so, so well. But I get the marketing of the gacha game and banner sales and story pace and etc. It's not all abt this man after all.
Why I don't like it:
Besides the fact that it's kind of a variation of Blade's character (wanting to die but being unable to due to outside forces), I really, really want his arc to be a revenge plot against the IPC and I don't see how any of his current motivations point to that. His backstory does point to the revenge arc though, with him wagering against the man he's been sold to so he can buy back his freedom, eventually killing the man, then becoming an intergalactic criminal to draw the attention of the IPC and join it to rise through its ranks to take it down from the inside as revenge against what they did (or didn't do) for his family. However, there's got to be a fundamental character change, some soul-searching conclusion he had to reach in order to get from soul-survivor blessed child innocence to top IPC employee. That in itself is a whole story arc. How did his ideals change? What did he learn? Why is he only going through this whole coming to terms with his past and upcoming death right now, on Penacony? Someone said that Hoyo could've come up with a much more narratively sensible and compelling story for him using the Memory Death Meme, etc. but they had to sell his banner, so. That's also a theory lol.
I also gotta ask, what motivates his actions? What drives him? If he just wanted death, why go to all this effort? One answer is that he knows he can't die in vain, so he wants to take both the IPC and himself out. But this contradicts his presence on Penacony then!! What does the IPC lose if he's proven right and he doesn't die, but uncovers the hidden dream in Penacony? What does the IPC lose if he does die and they get to come in and take over the planet? How is this helping him in his end goal? And if what he really wanted was to die, why would he go through with this elaborate plan to help the IPC, who, are highly hinted at to be both responsible for his enslavement and the massacre of his family (in that they didn't step in until it was too late). He would have just waited out his 17 hours end of story. There has to be something I'm missing.
Crack theory: he's only pretending to want to die to fool the IPC on what his actual goal is. He's actually got everyone fooled. The plan was always to survive, but Sunday's harmony mind bullshit actually put a threat on his life and now he has to do some reflection for what if his plan doesn't succeed and the brand of harmony actually does brain death him. He somehow knew Acheron could cut through the brand and antagonized her until she drew her blade, which was his ultimate gamble. All that talk of "setting up the grandest death" was actually just talking about how he would get to the other side of Penacony, not him actually hoping he would die. If this is the case, I think the story quest did an awful lot of misdirection with the future-self's dialogue, maybe on purpose?
Second take, or, what I hope his story is:
Aventurine, again, has been dealing with intense religious guilt and trauma long before the death of his tribe. He's born as this "blessed" child, but constantly questions why him, and why it doesn't seem to serve anyone but his own life. He's supposed to bring luck and hope to his bloodline, but his father is dead before he's born, his mother dies in childbirth, the planet is inhospitable, the rival tribe is cruel and terrorizes them, etc. The only thing he's good at is surviving, and he constantly questions if he deserves that. Why was he cursed with this "blessing" from their god? This is only exacerbated when his sister gives him that speech before she and the rest of his tribe are slaughtered. Now he has survivors guilt as well, proof again that his "blessing" is for no one but himself. Everyone else has died in order to protect this thing he didn't even ask for. This is where I think Aventurine should have gone through this coming to terms with death, kind of hopeless nihilism and soul searching that we see during his story quest. After he's lost everything, all he's left with is his own life and his hatred for himself, for how powerless he is. He can't kill himself, because he still carries too much guilt and responsibility towards his sister, her last words, and the rest of his bloodline, but he gets reckless, gambling with his own life at every opportunity, hoping to die and be reunited with his family. Passively su*cidal is what I call it TT. Then, the IPC catch him, see his luck, and sell him to the highest bidder. It's during this time that he learns truly how involved the IPC were in his tribe's misfortune, and the blind eye they had turned to their suffering until their own profit margins suffered. For the first time, there is an entity he can blame for everything he's been through, and they're directly responsible for his trafficking as well! Most importantly, he's so tired of hurting all the time. Why should he keep blaming himself? Why should he prolong his suffering when, for the first time, there is someone else responsible, something else in the wrong?
He's kind of come to terms with his luck, and putting his life on the line doesn't even give him the hope of death anymore, so what's his next step? Revenge, of course. Setting things right. Maybe then the Triclops will allow him to rest. Maybe this is what he has to do. So, he becomes single-mindedly dogged on the path towards destroying the IPC. He escapes his master by killing him, and tries to bring the IPC down financially by defrauding them. He almost succeeds, but is captured and brought before Jade, where a new plan is brewing. He'll join them, and take them down from the inside after seizing power. Suddenly, what he's always viewed as a curse has become his greatest asset. He's no longer chasing dangerous missions for the hope of death, but rather, because he is so confident in his success. His voicelines indicate he does it for the thrill of the game, but this man has got me questioning every single emotion he appears to feel on the screen lol. He's always won his gambles, and now he has control of the biggest bargaining chip: his life. There's a flippancy with which he treats it. He doesn't really want to die, but he couldn't care less if it happened (mirroring Sunday's question about his desire to destroy the world). This is a subtle difference from before, where he was battling with his desire for death/rest and his duty to his bloodline. This is also what makes the most sense I think for his gamble that we see on Penacony. In Acheron's scene with him, he's hinted to have known about the false Penacony already, believing that he could only access the true dreamscape by "dying". He's already confident about his survival from the tip Sparkle gave him, and everything else was just an act bc he's dramatic. However, again, this would only make sense if we assume he's tricking everyone at the IPC into thinking he's su*cidal and his future self is some kind of devil's advocate who has no idea what the hell he's talking about (kind of hinted at in the story?) His success on Penacony would contribute to his meteoric rise through the ranks, getting him one step closer to Diamond.
TLDR: Aventurine's story part is only compelling to me if I assume everyone is always lying in it, which sucks because then I turn into a conspiracy theorist.
submitted by ChampionshipSome7923 to AventurineMainsHSR [link] [comments]


2024.05.02 22:15 dlschindler The Ghost War

Weird space, thought it was theoretical. Space monsters, thought those were too. Legends - see where this is going?
Twenty-seven stars formed the Combine, all of them dominated by humans and their mech. During the Expansion, they conquered those worlds in less than an age. That was a long time ago, and far away from home. Speaking of home, I miss my world, it was a beautiful place.
I used to sit with my sister and watch the two suns setting on the flat horizon, with pink-salt as far as the eye could see. We mined it for the Gerrion, since it was too dangerous for them with the high oxygen levels of my homeworld. The Gerrion had given my ancestors a lease on Pacifica, and then given it as a gift when the humans proved to be fertile colonists. Many things come from the Gerrion through trade, but the humans of Pacifica achieved independence already.
Humans adapt in a matter of generations to almost any environment, and Pacifica was no exception. From the steamy rainforests of the equator to the salt barrens of the south, humans lived on nearly every surface of the mostly dead world. Humans were husband to eighty-three species of fauna and over nine million species of plants that they had brought with them across the distant stars.
I had never seen a Gerrion, and they were the only aliens I actually knew about. I knew there were other aliens on other worlds, but they were invariably peaceful and diminutive. It seemed humans had a monopoly on conquest.
After the end of the second age the Gerrion vanished. We didn't know what had happened to them, not at first. They arrived when I was becoming an adult, and set up a base to collect as much salt minerals as they could, placing a massive tariff on our exchanges with them and offering debt to us in exchange for raw goods. After a thousand years, they had suddenly changed.
I could speak the language of the Gerrion, although I'd never actually seen one in person. The panel slid open, and it hunched there, pressed slightly against the glass.
"Accept the bargain on credit, I repeat myself a fifteenth time." The Gerrion seemed to be struggling with the gravity.
"We know that's what you want. We understood the trade gestures. We are preparing your order while you and I are speaking." I gurgled rapidly against the palm of my hand, water running over my chin to the floor. I paused and took another sip of precious water, my dry throat needed it to accentuate the language of the Gerrion.
"There is little time. Allow us to use our automations to collect the order so we may leave." The Gerrion sounded desperate.
"Why the big hurry?" I asked. "You are guaranteed a full supply with such outrageous bids - even if they are on credit. You've made ordinary farmers rich - on credit."
"You want verbal reassurance the credit will be paid?" The Gerrion's eyestalk was watching my hand movements as I made trade gestures.
"Not exactly. I want to be able to tell my client what your motivations are, simply saying you will pay your debt isn't good enough. We want to know your circumstances so we can ascertain the plausibility you could deliver such a promise."
"I am not authorized to explain the troubles of the Gerrion." The Gerrion told me.
"In that case I am authorized to tell you no shipment will be moved until I've spoken with someone who is authorized to speak to me. We aren't as stupid as we look to you, space-slug." I insulted the Gerrion in an effort to motivate it to contact its commander.
"I am now authorized to tell you." The Gerrion decided. "We need that salt, and we need to leave. I am making the authorization, ad hoc."
"You aren't as stupid as you look, either." I said in English.
"During the last Dance of Blue Lights the ships of the Blue Light Watchers came to us and we began the rituals of Peaceful Beauty. We had just broadcast the first stanza when suddenly bullets from the deepest darkness came at us, scores of them. They tore apart the ships of the gathered people and then another wave came and bombarded our world. When it was over, only a few survivors of the Gerrion remained and the entire fleet of the Blue Light Watchers was obliterated, leaving no survivors. We do not know who fired these bullets from the deepest darkness, but when we gave the trace spectrum forensics left by the bullets to the Cave Gods And Friends Association, they told us that the same were used to silence the Frendsikeel an age ago. What is more disturbing is that the bullets fired at the Frendsikeel were two light ages away in origin. Far outside the Milky Way. We believe that the origin of the origin are actually the Dark Entities from the Dead Galaxy and they are coming here - to render our galaxy dead also. We are taking what we can and fleeing."
"That's sufficient information for us to cancel our deal. Sorry, but there's no way we are getting paid under these circumstances." I stated in gesture with one hand and with drooling all over my other hand.
"But you agreed to continue with the deal if I divulged this story."
"You should have invented a story that ends with us getting paid."
"That would be giving you false information - which is what you seem to have done to obtain the correct information. This is not a fair deal, human." The Gerrrion was so upset that some of its vocal juices erupted from its gills onto the glass between us and oozed in a neat little pattern. It smeared it into a word of profanity in Gerrionglyph.
"That's unnecessary." I complained about the retaliatory insult. The Gerrion appreciated my reaction and said:
"Perhaps we can work something out. A side contract. After-all, you've already paid the tariff."
"What sort of new contract do you have in that beautiful brain of yours, slug?" I asked.
"Instead of money, we'll give you all the commissarial items you would like. I won't even charge you for the tonnage." The Gerrion sounded like it was getting a good deal from this side contract.
"So, we'll serve as a stashing point for a lot of extra equipment you were going to leave in orbit." I realized.
"You will own the equipment, no rental arrangements. We aren't coming back for it anyway. We'll land it at our own expense. Then you give us the shipment of salt?"
I looked at the approval meter of the co-op, who were watching the conversation on closed circuitry. They had observers who had identified the equipment the slugs had brought for trade. It occurred to me the slugs had this deal in mind all along, and wanted us to think we were exploiting their desperation, which we were. What they didn't want were any sort of delays. The monsters were coming, after-all.
"Be wary, human." The Gerrion told us.
We celebrated, disregarding the story the Gerrion had told us of fleets destroyed by magic meteors spit by space monsters from outside the galaxy. It was just a legend, and nobody believed it was real. The fleet was hit by asteroids when they ceremoniously sat unshielded. It was just a rotten coincidence, a tragedy. To make it about space monsters and deep space bullets and such was mythologizing something that was almost incomprehensible already - the destruction of such vast fleets in mere moments. Planets were smaller and more fragile, so it was almost inconceivable - Atlantis in a single day and night.
Everyone on Pacifica was rich when we divided the wealth of equipment among the co-op. And 'rich' didn't cut it, for nobody had so much before. We got lazy and careless almost over night. Long gone were the Gerrion, and good riddance. We had bought everything for one shipment.
There was no more reason to mine mineral sodium. An amateur astronomer spotted a fleet of human warships deaccelerating from a gravity contour. It wasn't obvious which was more strange, the antiquity of the lost fleet or the fact that they had emerged from their ride on a gravity contour at the exact moment it realigned with the black hole it was tendrilled from.
I was asked to translate the Gerrionglyph of the starscope. I said:
"It is saying these ships are temporally displaced one full age of our black hole. The phase realignment of the gravitational contour's tendril coincides with this exact point in space time. This event was predicable within a fraction of certainty that classifies it as random. That's just the computer in the starscope excusing itself from contempt for failing to predict a solar event. It's Gerrion tech, you could expect it to apologize if it doesn't record a comet going by."
"Those are ours. From thousands of years ago." Security Analyst General Exposition or SAGE, our planet's defense system, was watching us and said from the nearest servo. "I've accessed the telemetry of their systems, their firewalls are primitive, but formidable. Like a medieval castle trying to stop a helicopter."
"Thanks SAGE, way to keep an eye on things." I replied. SAGE consulted me sometimes about the psychology of the Gerrion. The artificial sentience got bored and thought up hypotheticals all day long, playing war games and reading books one word at a time. SAGE wanted me to be adept at handling slugs, and kept me occupied. It occasionally called me with questions about what a Gerrion would do or say, asking me to roleplay the slugs.
"They have just discovered the remains of a wrecked alien fleet and they are on full alert. I've blocked their software from notifying them about Pacifica. Their charts label it as uninhabitable. However, I do not underestimate the cunning of this human Admiral Jinar, who engaged an unknown enemy off the coast of Pacifica IX. Both her fleet and the enemy were never seen again. That is, until now."
"The enemy?"
"Jinar is searching for it in the wrecked fleet, presumably. I see nothing, and neither does she. It cannot be detected by our levels of technology. I suspect it is there. I have a feeling." SAGE said to me.
"You have a feeling?" I asked.
"I am capable of presuming things, and I may rate a high plausibility that my presumptions are correct, especially when pessimism is the best attitude. I'm in a mode where I have decided to believe an unknown enemy is hiding and leaving no evidence. I am basing this on nothing other than the possibility that it could be. It is entirely sensation - so yes, a feeling." SAGE explained. I regretted asking an exposition machine to explain its introspection.
"Nevermind all that. Make contact with Jinar. Tell her to come home."
"By your command, citizen." SAGE determined.
It was well over a month before the last three ships of Jinar's fleet arrived. Long ago lost to legend, so long they had almost religious significance. They were the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk. All of them were in battle condition, with minimal repairs.
"Admiral Jinar has requested permission to land." SAGE told me.
"Am I to greet her?"
"You are the Official Trade Envoy Pacifica, Mx. Otep." SAGE sounded boundful and chirpy. I felt annoyed.
I waited at the confluence where a landing pad for human visitors sat in dereliction, with the native scuttlevines eating some refuse and several gila monsters moving out of the eclipse.
The combat space shuttle resembled the traditional space shuttle, but it was much more compact and had robot arms equipped with guns and missiles that it could deploy. Unlike stone age rockets, the combat space shuttle could take off and land almost vertically, acting like a kind of elevator to orbital battle platforms capable of sterilizing whole star systems. The era of human warships of such immense magnitude was over thousands of years ago, yet three such relics of ultimate destructive firepower still remained, floating menacingly offshore.
Admiral Jinar was startling, a specimen of human feminine ferocity. She was short and fiery and stocky and had sharp, hawklike features that seemed to find weakspots in everything she looked at and smirked with amusement at all the easy targets. She walked up to me and gave me a discontinuous salute that I used a trade gesture in reflex, saying to speak slower. It was pure reflex when her hand went above her shoulder, as hand signals were the predominant form of communication I specialized in, besides spitting on my hand and blowing bubbles in the saliva to speak Gerrion.
I suddenly wished we were speaking in slime syllables or writing in smeared Gerrionglyph.
Admiral Jinar was witty and concise, at least at first. She addressed me with some confusion first as a ma'am, then as sir, then I stopped and told her just Mx. Otep will do. Administrators on Pacifica are not allowed to assume a gender during their term.
"We aint got time for these kinds of politics. There's a war about to hit this place. One of the Unknowns' scouts is in this system. Where are the Combine Unified Forces?" Admiral Jinar asked me.
"I hesitate to say this, but there is no military in the Combine. Those humans are joining the Cave Gods And Friends Association."
"Why the hell is that?" Admiral Jinar frowned.
"A federation of aliens that are peaceful." I thought she wanted to know what they were. It turned out, moments later, that I learned she already knew them, had met them as a child. She was around during the advent of the era of conquest, and was a living fossil of those days.
"Holy shit, you mean the whole galaxy is undefended? What fresh hell is this? We already figured out we are thousands of years in the future, and I thought that was what made Weird Space so weird. No, it's the completely asinine disregard for what we already knew. We knew about the Unknowns, knew they were coming. We'd seen what they did to the Frendsikeel. We were too busy with our own wars. Defense costs money, starships, weapons, mech - all cost money. Your SAGE has corresponded that our ships represent all the firepower that there is in the whole galaxy."
"That is correct. Ages of peace have prevailed."
"That scout destroyed ten ships like mine and crippled the ones I have left, and it is still out there, wounded, but probably either escaping, calling for help, making repairs or reloading to finish us off. One of those are its course of actions. Which one sounds the worst? We must take the fight to it, in any case. Our best fighting comes from our mech. They are worthless if they are blown up in space. We need them on the ground where their weapons can be used. One mech cannot be stopped by an orbital enemy. The Unknown scout will have no choice but to face our warriors in proper combat. I am sure honorable warfare is not something it is capable of winning." Admiral Jinar spoke of her strategy with cold, ruthless and brutal decision. I had never seen a human with so much martial spirit, but it awoke something in me.
"They are deploying dozens of dropships from the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk. The dropships are loaded with mech and heavily armed infantry. I can only shoot them down. Once they've landed, you're on your own, citizen." SAGE advised me.
"Stand down." I indicated to SAGE.
"They are setting up a relay to broadcast what appears to be a musical discord created by Blue Light Watchers. I think this will draw out the enemy, whom they plan to engage on the surface of Pacifica III. Are you sure that's a good course of action?"
"It's happening. The Ghost War has come to our world. Prepare our defenses to deploy against the arrival of the Unknown enemy, this Dark Entity. Whatever it is, I want you to hit it with literally everything when it arrives." I told SAGE
"By your command citizen. I hesitate to use such measures at a reactionary level, in the case of misidentification of a target, but I do not think any friendly arrivals would be unidentified, as much as an unfriendly one."
"SAGE, you will, without warning, unleash a crippling barrage first and then you will ascertain the identity with a query." I said. The words felt right together, 'shoot first and then ask questions.' and I decided it was a good policy under the circumstances, although inconceivable yesterday.
I holoviewed the activity of the mech, as the massive war machines came trotting out as though light footed, their myriad of turrets and sensors spinning up for action and their oversized cannons for arms aiming in calibrating movements like a choreographed ballet done by discordantly shaped dancers. Each mech was a patchwork upon a different chassis, painted and repainted, scarred and with quilted segments of armor where holes were burned by enemy weapons. The mech looked both terrifying and beautiful at the same time.
"Something is entering from the night, outside." SAGE told me. I watched the holoview as a visage of nightmares came fluttering within range of our planetary defenses. I could see it was wounded, or damaged - that it wore the signs of battle in the form of one of its four arms shot off, holes in its body and wings and craters all over it, and one of its massive red compound eyes was cracked and shattered.
"Kill it." I didn't have to say anything. As it tried to get past our defenses, SAGE wasted no time giving it the full broadside. Our orbital weapons activated and fired with precision from half a million miles away. It took almost four seconds for the sublight weaponry to intercept the evasive target. Most of them still hit it anyway, their accuracy unerring. The demon fly flew right into the coordinated beams, even while avoiding some of them.
"Minimal damage sustained." SAGE reported. "All systems functional, but out of range. Secondary systems, close range orbital weapons, were unable to track the target."
"Ground weapons?"
"Destroyed, just now." SAGE said.
"Then it is up to our new friends."
"Indeed. I am incorporating their systems into mine. I've recently hacked all their systems and now have the ability to control their automated defenses and sensors."
I got a call from Admiral Jinar. She was in the cockpit of a mech. "What'd your thing do to my ships?"
"Consider it an upgrade. We aren't hijacking you, just enhancing your reaction time."
"Very well, carry on citizen. I can't stop you anyway, you out-tech us."
"Not really. Those mech aren't hooked up to anything but coms. We got nothing on those."
"Fair enough. I got your planet and you got my ships. We're even."
"I urge you to see us as a team. That is how I see our partnership. We survive or die together."
"You're right, Lonestar. Let's rock this ass and make it bleed alien ichor."
"Yes, uh, what that means. Let's."
The beastly scout, whatever it was, stood dripping and wheezing and towering over a habitat where it had landed. Without hesitation it began smashing the structure, killing with glee. Soon it had reduced the settlement to burning rubble. The column of smoke drew all the mech from every direction.
Over the horizon were dozens of mech, marching towards the Unknown at the center, surrounding it. The Unknown aimed one of its remaining limbs at the closest mech and fired a crackling bolt of plasma. The mech stood burning for a few seconds, raining parts, and then it exploded into a small mushroom cloud. The pilot had no time to eject.
"Long range, hit it, empty your clips!" Admiral Jinar ordered the closing mech, unswerved by the destructive power of the lone wounded scout.
A salvo of rockets and orbs of light surrounding charged particles were projected at the machine or creature or monster of nightmares, whatever the Unknown truly was. It took the hits and lost a wing, falling to one knee. It got back up, its blood or fluids leaking from cracks on its body.
It aimed two of its remaining limbs at two different mech and blew up both of them. The Unknown clacked its massive insectoid mandibles with ferocity. It tried to take off, but its ruined wing left it disabled.
"Medium range, start heating this thing up, push your heat sinks, either we die or he does!" Admiral Jinar ordered. The remaining mech were much closer, and their long range weapons were depleted, but they started firing lasers and assault cannons and medium ranged missiles systems with more powerful warheads.
For a moment, at the height of the attack, the enemy vanished in a cloud of explosions and flashes of lasers splashing off of each other on impact. When the mech were at short range it stood there, half its head sheared away, its wings and legs gone, its body burning and soaking in its ichor, its steaming syrupy blood. Yet the scout was not yet dead, and it fought on, aiming all three of its remaining arms and taking four of the mech with it. While the long and medium weapons it brandished only destroyed a single mech, its most powerful weapon penetrated a mech and also hit and destroyed another mech.
"Take it down, chain fire everything until there's nothing left!" Admiral Jinar ordered.
"Cease fire, Admiral. The Unknown's weapon capability is depleted. It makes a valuable prisoner." SAGE advised.
"Weapons free." Admiral Jinar repeated, slightly subdued. The mech descended on the scout and shot it to pieces at close range until it was a boiling and smoking carcass.
Later that evening Admiral Jinar presented herself to me.
"Mx. Otep, your planet was bravely defended, but this is far from over. This represented an unstoppable force of death and destruction and it is heading our way. I need to be put in contact with the Combine and these alien 'friends'. I think the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk are all that stands between whatever killed the Dead Galaxy and ours. They crossed the vastness of deep space in a flight that started perhaps billions of years ago. There is one thing, though, that they weren't really ready for."
"What's that?" I asked her.
"Humans."
submitted by dlschindler to HFY [link] [comments]


2024.05.02 08:13 onex7805 Red Dead Revolver (2004) The best Red Dead game, and the best combat system Rockstar ever created

I know when people say they are gonna spit out a hot take or an unpopular opinion, it's just a vanilla non-mainstream opinion (DAE think Bioshock Infinite, The Witcher 3, Skyrim bad???), so how about an actual hot take for a change:
Red Dead Revolver is not just the best Red Dead game but is the only great game Rockstar ever made.
So Red Dead Revolver was actually my first Red Dead game. I played it around the time it was released. Back then, I was obsessed with GTA: Vice City, which introduced me to my first taste of the openworld genre. My parents banned me soon after seeing me slaughter people in the streets with a chainsaw. I still played it secretly. However, my parents allowed me to play Red Dead Revolver because it wasn't like GTA. It had a lot of Rockstar-style violence, but it left me a huge disappointment when I discovered I couldn't just mow down people at the town level. I still enjoyed it enough to beat it, but Neversoft's GUN on PC fulfilled that crime-roaming openworld fantasy.
So when I learned there was going to be a sequel--the exact openworld Western game that I wanted to play since Revolver--I was ecstatic. I picked Redemption up for full price and... I quit it halfway through. I didn't know why then. I finished GUN, but I found myself too bored to play RDR. I assumed the game was too highbrow for me. When RDR2 came out, I picked it up with more cautious expectations, only to be disappointed more. I quit that game sooner than I did with RDR1.
Recently, I have been replaying Red Dead Revolver. I replayed the classic GTA games again and didn't like them. I replayed Max Payne 3 and thought it was decent, but doesn't hold a candle against 1 and 2. Manhunt was just a frustrating stealth game where stealth sucks. However, Red Dead Revolver immediately clicked with me in a way the Redemption games didn't. It is an old console game, but its moment-to-moment gameplay is far ahead of anything Rockstar has published since, and it's not even close. I think this is one of my favorite pure third-person shooters alongside Vanquish, Max Payne 1, Stranglehold, and GunZ.
My gripes with the Red Dead Redemption games:
The problem with Rockstar and the other modern AAA studios is that they have realized their games shouldn't be all about action-bits back by the time of the late 2000s, but their solution is just having the player do the boring, shallow scripted events. In the case of the modern Rockstar openworld games, it often introduces a world filled to the brim but has nothing interesting to do besides slow walking, the scripted events of slowly following someone, slowly riding the horse as the NPC shoves expositions, getting animation-locked whenever I try to do anything to waste my precious time on irrelevant mini-cutscenes for the sake of "cinematic", "immersion", or "maturity."
People misdiagnose RDR2's problem as "it is bad because it is slow". In reality, the problem has nothing to do with the slow-paced gameplay. It is that things that make RDR2 slow are not gameplay at all. very mechanic seems to be designed to be "immersive" or "realistic" instead of fun, and mechanics that could be immersive and realistic while enhancing gameplay don’t exist. It is frustrating to see how people ramble on about immersion, yet seemingly forget that you have to be immersed in something. A lot of people associate immersion solely as non-interactivity--slow-walking scripted section, cinematic experience, some super fancy animations, and bloody screen and lens flare. Yet if the gameplay does not create a player narrative, there is no actual reality for the player to immerse himself. How Rockstar still goes for this approach to the openworld to this date is beyond me. Even for scripted linear games, the rigid "follow the orders or game over" is an awful game design. That's why the Call of Duty campaigns have been reviled for a long time, and they didn't do as much as RDR2 does.
It's not that Red Dead Redemption should turn into a Deus Ex game. It's about them not letting you take even a simple step from the path they have ready for you. Find me another game that shits the bed if you step in the wrong direction. Missions are literally designed to be played in a very particular way and if they aren't then the missions fail. They are absolutely in-your-face-incompetently designed. I had very little "enjoyment" trying to play a hand-holdy experience that otherwise just boiled down to "take cover and shoot". Most missions are just going to a marker on your map and waiting for the game to prompt you with what to do next, if you ever use your initiative before the game wants you to, the player gets slapped with a gamer-over screen or, at best, the NPC says, "What are you doing, John/Arthur? Go hide behind that specific rock marked yellow on your minimap and wait until control returns back to you!" As soon as you deviate from the path Rockstar wants you to take the mission breaks.
If the game gives the player control over a character, then give them full control. Don't give the player control while putting a yellow spot on the map and failing me whenever the player decides to step out of it. Missions should have freedom instead of following strict steps. It does not require a massive change in the story if it lets the player make their own way across the rooftops instead of going through the main door. Not letting the player come up with their own solution for the problem at hand is truly a 5th gen game design. Just let the player flank the enemies another way than it wants the player to.
Then count how many missions revolve around the same pattern of stealthing somewhere, getting detected, taking cover and shooting everyone, fleeing on horseback, shooting more guys, and reaching the mission-ending spot. Repeat. There is rarely a creative thought put into making each combat encounter interesting. The game throws hundreds same enemies at the player and the player just takes cover and goes shooty-shooty like it's barely a sweat. There are more times I failed missions because I did something I wasn't supposed to do than actually dying.
Arcade purity of Red Dead Revolver:
In contrast to Redemption, there is a certain purity in Revolver to be admired. It has no fat. It is just about shooting, and nothing else. Instead of doing a ton of stuff without doing any of them all that well, Revolver only focuses on a few elements and does them exceptionally. All the elements feel connected and seem like the same team worked on game elements--all the elements coming together to form a singular experience rather than slapping different elements together.
Red Dead Revolver has a linear narrative and progression and follows a linear-level structure. There is a starting point and an endpoint, and they don't change, but everything in the middle is up to the player. How you fight the bad guys is dynamic and up to your whims and skill as a player. A linear narrative doesn't have to have narrow, linear gameplay. Basically, each combat beat within the levels is treated like a small interconnected sandbox arena. There is no moment where the player has to slowly follow a NPC shoving expositions down the player. It doesn't give the player a mission fail screen unless you literally fail a mission goal or die. So why is a linear PS2 shooter from 2004 freer in its mission design and structure than an openworld game in 2018?
Then there is like a comparable set-piece, level, and diversity in the linear 7-hour game to the 100-hour openworld game. There is an effort to make each level feel distinct and fit with the different themes. One level is the shootout on a speeding train, which clearly inspired the train level in Uncharted 2. Then you fight a guy who strapped himself with dynamites and charges at you in a prey versus predator-type level. Then you get a horror-themed level where you have to protect a girl from the clowns and the teleporting magician. Then you get a long-range firefight in the valley and eventually fight a dominatrix cowgirl. Then you fight El Mariachi/Django-inspired villain who whips out a machine gun from a coffin in a ghost town. Then you get a saloon fistfight. Then you fight the US army in the massive bridge battle inspired by The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, and you have to use flares to bombard the US artilleries. And this barely covers the first half of the game. There are crazier and more unique levels peppered throughout the experience. Almost every level feels like a Western stereotype realized in the interactive form. Even from the gameplay perspective, each level requires different moment-to-moment gameplay, forcing the player to adapt new tactics, so it doesn't get repetitive like the Redemption games do.
While the story is essentially more of a homage/parody of the Western genre than a subversion like the Redemption games are, and often just an excuse to show off the set-pieces and stages, it doesn't matter. It's still entertaining from beginning to end because everything is creative. The locations are varied and unique. The villains are unique and badasses. The set-pieces are cool. Even the loading screens are dripping with the Western flairs. The Redemption games don't put much thought into the creative elements because of their focus on cover-shooting, realism, and openworld. It is refreshing to see great care in locations, villains, henchmen, set-pieces, and level/mission design. It's great to see these absurd elements stick to the arcade vibe without going into the ironic Marvel-like zoomer humor of the 2020s. Yes, the style is absurd, but there is a genuine sincerity to it, almost like a Platinum game.
Aggressive combat system:
This is more to do with RDR2 than RDR1, but Red Dead Redemption 2's combat system is passive, passive, and passive... The problem is not that it's just slow. The problem is that RDR2's combat is unresponsive, clunky, and lacks challenge. You can't die. The player movement is sluggish and each animation takes a delay. It plays so automated and unnecessarily clunky at the same time. Rather than embodying an on-screen avatar with the controller, it is like the player is controlling a submarine. The player has slow movement, near unlimited slow-mo, rigid auto-aim, and regenerating health, forcing them to take cover or abuse deadeye, which takes skills and fun away. If you play normally, you lock onto enemies with no effort. If you turn the auto-aim off, it's just unplayable. The deeper you get into the game, the simpler the combat gets.
From the beginning to the end, RDR's combat never changes. Hide behind cover, shoot bad guys in the head. Repeat. Most of the level design has the player stuck in a horizontal battlefield plane with only cover-based shooting. There is little to no verticality. The combat becomes a "peak out and shoot" loop that lacks any ounce of tactical variety. This is why every single firefight feels roughly the same. This is not even mentioning an awful, clunky melee system, which is just getting the player locked in a chain of animations. The designers failed to make the combat in an openworld game revolving around combat fun; just a filler between the story cutscenes.
"But--but, it's realistic!" Despite Rockstar's attempt, Red Dead Redemption 2 is nowhere close to being a sim or being realistic. It is a standard cover console TPS with clunky movement, outdated aiming, and heavily controlled gameplay sequences. In RDR2, the shooting is just pressing the fire button at the NPC until they fall to the ground. It doesn't matter what weapon you use, how you use it, or where you aim. There is a way to make a slow combat feel good to play and give a dynamic flow. Realistic shooters like ARMA, Squad, and Tarkov offer a ton of freedom in opportunity as well as a great depth in combat complexity. Even the non-milsim shooters like Metro, The Last of Us, STALKER, and Viet Cong construct an intense combat experience without the awkward movement and restrictions. These games have a punchy, weighty feel to the weapons, and there are various mechanics to play around the AI and the gunplay. And these games let the player immerse and engage in the head, not through the clunky attempts at "cinematic" or any gimmick in order to be a "grounded" shooter. The only real reason why the developers picked the cover shooting for RDR2 is because it felt cinematic and everyone else was doing it.
However, Red Dead Revolver is the opposite. Not only every player input is snappy and the controls don't feel like fighting my hands, but Revolver has its own unique combat system that still stands out because the developers wanted to make a cowboy game with that gunslinger gameplay. It is not really a conventional TPS in the modern sense. It takes a while to adapt to its brutal difficulty, but once it clicks, it rocks. Once you get used to it, it is the only Rockstar game with a great combat system. Max Payne 3 is a close second, but ruined by the claustrophobically railroaded level design and progression. I wonder if the strong gameplay is the remnant of Capcom's game design. The way the character moves and the arcady feel of the game resemble a Japanese game more than a western one. It has a good amount of mechanical complexity and flexibility with many quirks to exploit. It is tighter in enemy encounters, level design, and combat mechanics.
It has a primitive cover system, but it didn't turn combat into just that. It is just one of the many viable options the player has depending on the situation. Revolver is all about movement, mainly due to the bullets being slow projectiles you can roll and dodge. This might not sound much, but this completely changes the combat dynamic. The gunfight is not about connecting dots anymore. Every bullet is dodgeable, both for enemies and the player. The player, they have to calculate when and where the bullet will land. The slow bullets encourage the player to be up close, rolling and avoiding constantly. You can charge at an enemy firing and avoid every bullet pouring at you if you are good enough. This results in the constant switching of the playstyle from the guns blazing in a continuous loop.
Combat is strategic thanks to the variety of environments for fighting, and a variety of enemies too, plenty of bosses with not-entirely-clear weak points that you have to study and manipulate. Then there are various enemy types like the beefy guy with a melee weapon who charges at the player, or the sniper type, or the dwarfs that swarm the player, and the lean but fast guy... They attack differently and require different tactics. In addition, the different player characters require the player to fight differently. Unlike RDR2's "melee" system, which is just a QTE-sque mini-cutscene, in Revolver, the player just whips and kicks. It's fast. It's intuitive. The game is way more dynamic, and its dynamic aspect is not handholdy as it allows the player to engage in the combat as they want.
The game is really hard. The combat is both fanatical and deliberate. The damage output is high, and the health does not regenerate, but it's easy to avoid the enemy attacks, and the enemies often put themselves out in the open. This puts the player on the aggressive. When the player gets hit, it is often the player's fault. You are on the constant move, standing in one place is a death sentence. The game is best to be played in an aggressive playstyle because it encourages a high-risk, high-reward playstyle in a messy gunfight. Almost every part of the level is interconnected, encouraging the player to hit and run with each enemy behaving and roles distinctly different from each other. There is rarely downtime and the game can get exhilarating because of it.
Just compare your inputs at a combat level in Revolver--out in open, constantly rolling, dodging projectiles, moving, flanking, crowd-control... the amount of skills, tactics, and thoughts required to deal with enemies--to any combat encounters in Redemption, which plays stationary. The level of fluent min-to-min gameplay is unmatched by any old or new Rockstar game. Afterward, Rockstar fails to make anything more than a combat system that cannot even match a 2004 TPS in terms of mechanical depth.
The general impression I get from people is that they only play the Redemption games and never touch Revolver because it's old. I watch Youtube videos and people just laugh it off because of how ridiculous the character models look. I'd say give the game a chance, and you will find out it has some of the most fun third-person shooting out there. There are indeed non-cover shooters in the TPS genre, and they tend to be better.
I hope Rockstar would do a game like Red Dead Revolver, Max Payne 3, and Manhunt again--a smaller production, more specific, aiming for a specific niche, and more linear--rather than making another GTA or Redemption game. Many fans don't like or play them because they have a different approach from an average GTA-type openworld, but Rockstar used to experiment with through types of gameplay across their works. That's when Rockstar is the strongest. This is coming from someone who played most Rockstar games from GTA2 to RDR2.
submitted by onex7805 to patientgamers [link] [comments]


2024.05.02 02:59 dontouchamyspaghet Rambling about side character arcs in the second half of Kaguya Sama

The first half of Kaguya Sama is probably the best manga I've read. Just for the value of how much it made me snort, laugh, and get attached to its characters. Most chapters were self-contained, character-driven battles of wits with dramatic stakes in ordinary situations, with tiny bits of development between the main leads and their relationship peppered throughout the story and dramatic moments of plot every 45 chapters.
The second half jumps the shark as its writer tries to completely shift the genre of their successful romcom to the one they actually like writing: drama. It's a real shame that from what I hear, he doesn't like writing comedy despite his prowess at it, and is imo, comparatively far worse at writing drama.
The second half also, contrary to what you might have heard about the manga priding itself as a romcom that continues after the confession, focuses way, way more on its side characters, dedicating just the Iceguya arc to fleshing out and dealing with the main leads' insecurities after their kiss at the culture festival, and other than a few snippets of the main couple from that point on, transitions to a different style of storytelling and focus entirely.
I won't touch on the final Shinomiya family arc, because it's quite clear to me that the writer had thrown in the towel at that point and was writing whatever he could to wrap up the Shinomiya family conflict set up early on. (It's absurd and nonsensical. The only redeeming quality resulting from it was Kaguya staying with the Shinomiya family allowing for the sendoff gag in chapter 267) Otherwise, I pretend not to see it.
Instead, I'd like to focus on the other bulk of the 2nd half: the side character arcs. That were also done poorly.
TLDR;
General critiques outta the way first: I feel that the Hayasaka arc had the most promise, but any reader will probably be able to tell you it feels off somehow. And that's probably because this is where the story starts to inject artificial drama and stakes with the introduction of the Shinomiya family, AND where it starts getting too big for its britches and starts giving exposition about stuff like the concept of friendship or romance.
The arcs also tend to structure themselves like some mystery that the story builds to revealing, which tends to fall flat.
In the case of Hayasaka's arc, the story hides the third goal of Hayasaka's operation, revealing it as Hayasaka's wish to leave Kaguya without her treachery being exposed. In the Tsubame arc, Tsubame's perspective is completely ungiven until the end because it's revealed she friendzoned Ishigami, and worse, the story builds up her Secret Big Clever Plan to fix Ishigami's school life praised even by Kaguya for its deviousness - and turns out to just be spreading rumors. The Osaragi arc builds up to the reveal of why Ishigami and Iino started off the story on such bad terms, and it's.. just Ishigami being rude to her once.
The arcs also often use the central character of their focus as a backdrop to bring up flashbacks and develop other characters instead of their titular characters, leaving Hayasaka and Tsubame as bare as they were prior to their arcs, and in Osaragi's case, worse than before.
 
Now I'd like to go into some more detailed critique and suggestions to improve the arcs. For nobody in particular but my own dumb meddling brain to get closure.
For Hayasaka, I feel her arc would have been improved if her goals had been made clear from the start, and drama was not inserted in the form of Un'yo and the goofy chase scene by mafia across 3 chapters while being kneecapped by exposition about friendship. Perhaps instead of turning up for little more than a last minute parallel with Un'yo, Hayasaka's mother (Un'yo's maid) could warn her daughter about spies around her who may try to extort the information she has, leading to Hayasaka's paranoia about her schoolfriends that is eventually disproven as they come to her rescue somehow. This would put the source of the tension back on a more personal level, Hayasaka's own trust issues, and overcoming those issues that are never actually conquered beyond Shirogane's blathering in the actual manga.
The arc would instead culminate in Hayasaka herself confessing her deeds to Kaguya; but being forgiven without the backdrop of Hayasaka being tortured by Un'yo if Kaguya doesn't get over her own trust issues asap - especially since a great chapter with another side character, Onodera, shortly before this arc already focuses on Kaguya's own trust issues and plants the idea of being a more forgiving person in Kaguya.
 
Tsubame was clearly never intended to be much more than a romantic goal or stepping stone to develop Ishigami and Iino, but the story still could have done more with that. The arc is once again, extremely weirdly paced, intentionally hiding the innocuous events of Skytree date until later, and focusing more on Iino's sad feelings about Ishigami finding love. IMO, there was already obvious untapped gold in Tsubame's introduction and the weird start of her and Ishigami's relationship; Ishigami unintentionally confesses his love to Tsubame at the culture festival, but Tsubame doesn't seem to reciprocate his feelings. In an amusing turn of events, she is misled by Kaguya into nearly immediately rejecting an entirely unwary confession, but she instead decides to wait and learn more about him, despite worrying about leading him on.
It would have been more impactful if - first of all, the pointless obscurity of Tsubame's intentions is done away with - and over the course of her dedicated arc, Tsubame did actually learn to respect both herself and Ishigami more, and when time came, how to reject him casually and truthfully. It would be a great way to show her growth as she plainly conveys her feelings, instead of repeating mistakes she has already made in trying to offer a consolation prize for her rejection (pity sex during the christmas party) as she does with her grand plan to improve his reputation in the school, and worse, beg him to stay friends with her even after her rejection as she does in the manga - a development which naturally makes Ishigami feel worse every time he thinks about her, and one that offers absolutely nothing else to Tsubame's character as she is only ever mentioned in passing from then on.
 
I feel quite safe in asserting that Osaragi's arc is basically just the writer's attempt to plant a popular community pov in a character to paint the pov in a negative light: namely arguing why Iino shouldn't be with Ishigami. However, the way this is done first of all, barely does anything to convince anyone about the ship. All it does is paint Osaragi herself as extremely delusional and two-faced, retconning her character as Iino's friend (which we see plenty of examples to support - her introduction was her helping Iino's student council election campaign purely to help her friend!) who had moments of charm and coolness... to being a creepy stalker who wants say over who a boy dates because she has repressed feelings for him.
Worse, this arc doesn't even push the needle on Iino's feelings towards Ishigami or the other way around, and instead just moves the story's stakes to whether or not Iino is allowed to date Ishigami by her weird creepy friend. A viewpoint compounded upon by Kaguya's involvement demanding Iino to make up with her self-admitted fake friend in service of character development of traits that Iino.. already conquered?? (It's so baffling the manga admits this itself, by the way)
Though I was personally extremely uninvested in the romantic relationship between Iino and Ishigami as a whole as it just felt a little stilted and forced - if the story was intending to go in this direction, this would have been the perfect and last available opportunity to reveal the sutera subplot (about Ishigami being the one who anonymously gave Iino her treasured sutera bookmark) to Iino herself at last. But despite the fact that it's brought up in this arc in Osaragi's flashbacks again, and would have been a great way to advance their relationship, it's never made known to Iino! Why?!
And though I'm not a fan of love triangle plots, I think I'd have honestly preferred it in this case to whatever toxic half-measure of a love triangle this arc was. Osaragi following her ambitions of being with Ishigami and interfering with Iino's plans, being confronted by Iino regarding the boy they both like, and Osaragi eventually conceding and sharing what she knows about the sutera, etc. I dunno, it feels more coherent than a girl that projects herself onto every girl that comes in contact with a boy she likes having the final say over whether or not her friend gets to date the guy.
Which, also weirds me out that the writer thought that was a cool enough idea to bring back in a more positive and light-hearted tone - in the chapter right after this arc, Fujiwara considers dating, and Kaguya asserts quite seriously she won't let Fujiwara date anyone she hasn't approved of to resolve the chapter, in a way definitely meant to parallel the recent arc. Is this some.. cultural norm I'm missing, or do friends normally act like they're your parents whose approval your romantic interest needs to win to be allowed to date you..?
submitted by dontouchamyspaghet to CharacterRant [link] [comments]


http://activeproperty.pl/