Hi I’m Bee! She/her I sometimes make art, and I love to ramble and my brain tends to bounce around, hence the bumbling… Currently obsessed with: Journey to the West Lego Monkie Kid🐒🍑
Do you have any advice for someone else who is in the very beginning stages of the "life is a precious gift rapidly escaping me, I have to change to become someone better and be happy before I've wasted all of it" transition? I'm tired of losing so much life and joy to grief and trauma and I also want to start creating and seeing and enjoying as much as I can for my tiny time as a carbon based lifeform but it's overwhelming to say the least
Actively seek out things that inspire wonder
Look for the good parts. There are good parts. There are interesting parts. There will always be good and interesting parts.
Treat yourself kindly. This one is difficult.
Do things out of ridiculous whimsy.
Practice cog itive behavioural exercises to self-examine and address beliefs and behaviors that are causing suffering.
Don't argue when people compliment you.
Don't rush yourself, and don't assume it'll be like this forever when you have a backslide. These things happen. Over time, they happen less.
Be honest with the people you love and trust.
Tell people how much they mean to you and what you like about them.
Help others and find satisfaction in being the stranger that did something good
Consider speaking to a medical professional, my antidepressants and anti-anxiety medical took some time to figure out but life is WAY better.
Have a silly little craft or hobby.
Let yourself be bored sometimes. Stand outside in the rain and let yourself get wet. Go on a walk. Put your phone in a different room and wander off. Meet up with a friend and go on a long walk together to nowhere in particular
Start doing things because you want to and it feels good, not just because you think it's something you should say yes to.
Say yes to things.
Take a random day of the week and go into a store or a business you've never been in before.
Compliment strangers when something about them is striking.
Read books and watch movies that make you feel the exact right amount of ecstatic and embarrassed, and make all the silly noises about it.
Collect scraps of fabric and little trinkets and all the little textures and colours you love and stash them in a shoebox or something like a tiny dragon's hoard.
Start a collection of something small and inexpensive. Like corks.
Make food with ingredients you've never used before
Make long lists of all your favorite things- flowers, bugs, songs, foods, places
Start a trash-book to fill with scraps of neat wrappers and bits of paper and colored fabric from old ruined clothes
Imagine yourself as a alien from a dead and barren world who has just arrived on this planet for the very first time and imagine how excited you would be by every little thing
Cannot recommend enough that you befriend a creature
Okay but like for most species of monkeys males have no part in raising the infants, so young are cared for entirely by their mothers and the other females in the troop and see that would mean Wukong has no instinctive/ingrained cultural understanding of paternal affection and while he does call Tripitaka his father figure in human terms that wouldn't translate neatly back into monkey terms because as I said before they don't have father figures and what I'm getting at here is that Wukong probably subconsciously understands Tripitaka to be his mother.
I was re reading the found family guide manual and like
I keep thinking how weird it must be for Tripitaka to sleep hearing essentially barn noises between AO lie, Bajie and Wukong
And then I was thinking how he would react if they had to sleep together while glamouring as hunans
And probably our beloved monk would feel so weirded out by his disciples looking... Normal
Right? Still, by a few years in, he's so used to the sounds of his disciples at night that he wakes up if he can't hear them.
But I do really love the idea that Tripitaka, who was terrified of his disciples when he met them and was always apologizing for their scary appearance to the locals, gets to a point where he straight-up dislikes seeing them in human form. Sandy's not too bad, it's mostly size and color shifting, but Bajie is really jarring: he spent a lot of time crafting his human form to be appealing, back in his courting days, which means...well, not to put too fine a point on it, but there's almost no resemblance to his actual face.
Wukong has a whole roster of human forms to choose from, but the one that looks most like him is a wizened old man, bandy-legged and very short, with a reddish cast to his hair like the western tribesmen sometimes have. He likes this one because he gets referred to as Elder by people who are also cautious of his "barbarian" background. Oddly, the next closest match to his true appearance is when he shifts into an impish ten-year-old kid with big ears and freckles.
Tripitaka gets frustrated with both forms because it is equally awkward trying to introduce either one as "my eldest disciple."
Neither one is as bad as when Wukong decides to try "the human version of handsome." (It's just a muscular Tripitaka with a lot more hair.)
Fortunately for Tripitaka's chan, that one time in the book where they're all disguised as human horse traders and have to hide inside a wooden chest to sleep (ch 84?), they all still sound like themselves. And it's too dark to see any different. Because they're locked in a trunk. Which gets stolen by bandits in the middle of the night. BECAUSE OF COURSE IT DOES. C'mon, guys, where is your genre savviness.
(How in the world the bandits succeeded in lifting that thing is a question that plagues me, but not nearly so much as the question of: what would it be like to be locked inside a wooden trunk with Zhu Bajie all night long. Isn't it hot. What if the bandits tip it on its side and he rolls onto you. What if he farts. Why would you choose to do this, guys.)
Still noodling on designs for the Monkey King! I am brand shiny new at this digital art thing and hoooo, you guys, I have so much to learn. Color is HARD. But also, oh my word, super fun!
Rewatching Treasure Planet (great movie, watch it) made realize something about the way that stories convey information to their audiences. There's been a lot of discussion on the overuse of plot twists and how many stories prioritise surprising their audience over telling decent stories. However, if you instead reveal the "twist" to the audience before it becomes known to the characters, you can build tension and stakes.
Treasure Planet comes right out and tells you that Long John Silver is the main villain almost immediately after his introduction (And even before he's introduced we're warned about a cyborg, so you'd have to be pretty dense to not put 2 and 2 together and realize he's a bad guy). So when the audience watches him and Jim bond and grow closer, it builds tension for when Jim finds out and it highlights the tragedy of their friendship, because we all know it's not going to end well. Then, after the truth is revealed, stakes are created because we want the friendship between Jim and Silver to be repaired, because we know it was real, but we don't know if can be after what Silver's done. And all of this would have been lost if Silver's true nature had been a cheap plot twist. The tragedy would be completely overshadowed by the surprise and betrayal, and any investment in their relationship would have been built on the false impression that Silver was a good guy.
Another good example of this is Titanic. Even if you were somehow ignorant of the ship's sinking, the film makes sure you know that it sank with its framing device of Old Rose telling her story to people salvaging the Titanic's wreak. And Titanic's plot structure could only possibly work if you know the ship is going to sink. I'm not just talking about building tension, tragedy, and stakes for the characters like with the above example, I mean that if you didn't know that the Titanic was going down walking into the film, the abrupt shift from romance to suspense-disaster would be an increadibly tough pill to swallow. But it works because we expect it. You don't walk into a film called Titanic without expecting the damn boat to sink.
However, the sad thing about both of these examples, is that despite all the benefits that came from telling the audience these things ahead of time, I think the main reason the creators didn't make them plot twists was because they couldn't have. Treasure Island is the single most influential piece of pirate media out there, and you'd have to have been living under a rock for over a century to not know the Titanic sank. So, the writers had to work around the fact that these important turning points in the narratives were common knowledge, and they wound creating incredible stories as a consequence.
I want to see more of this style of writing in stories where the writers aren't forced to do it. We've clearly seen that you can tell some really damn good stories by giving information to the audience before the characters learn it, and I just wish more works would do that instead of trying to surprise people with shocking twists.
This is also why most adaptations of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde don't follow the mystery plot structure of the original book, since everyone already knows they're the same person, no one will be surprised by that twist nowadays.
As a consequence, most adaptations of the story are told mainly from Jekyll's point of view, and the conflict between Jekyll and Hyde becomes the main story, which makes for really compelling drama!
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation.
The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one.
In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: “You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!”
In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense.
The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.
--Alfred Hitchcock, on the difference between surprise and suspense.
I've been wanting to write this since…since I came across some good ol' Tripitaka discourse in the LMK fandom ages ago. Couldn't remember the specifics, but as y'all probably know, it falls under the "Is him an abusive master" and people's strongly worded retort to that question.
On one hand, I dislike the "abusive" take because so often, it is an excuse to reduce a character to an 2D caricature for cheap angst purposes, and both JTTW and its historical context deserve more nuances than that.
On the other hand, I don't agree with some of the defenses either——that Tripitaka is Kind and Wise and The Virtuous Monk, Actually, and people who said otherwise just had their views colored by adaptations, or were ignorant westerners misreading the book.
Because trust me, Chinese readers absolutely have gripes with Tripitaka too, and sass him mercilessly.
We may have a better idea of the historical context, namely, the common usage and acceptance of corporal punishments, but quite a few of us don't think he's a good Buddhist either.
Instead, I'd like to focus on his allegorical role, and how it ultimately forms the basis for my interpretation of his character.
It is commonly acknowledged that each pilgrim represent an aspect of the enlightenment seeker: Monkey is the Mind, Dragon Horse the Will, Pigsy the Desire, Sandy the Determination/Ideation.
Tripitaka is either the enlightenment seeker as a human, or the Heart, the Compassion.
But how can someone represent Compassion when his behaviors don't look all that compassionate, when he seems to care more about what a good Buddhist looks like on paper than in spirit?
How can a compassionate man punish his disciple with a migraine spell and disown him twice, be okay with some violence but not others?
Well, to answer that question, I feel like you have to look at Tripitaka in conjunction with SWK, and what the monkey represents. He is literally the Mind Monkey, the boundless potential of human intellect, and that, by itself, is neutral.
In the word of one of the best poems in JTTW:
"He could be good; he could be bad; present good and evil he could do at will. He'd be an immortal, a Buddha, if he's good; wickedness would cloak him with hair and horn."
To put it simply, SWK is one's wits, one's problem-solving skills, the ability to discern good and evil on a cognitive level.
Whenever Tripitaka, the Compassion, is deceived, it falls to the Mind to see the opponents as they are, and take action to protect the human from harm.
But just as blind compassion without judgement can be exploited by evil, the reverse is true for a mind without compassion, driven solely by their own ambition and whims and practical knowledge.
The Mind knows that robbery is a crime, so these robbers deserve death, but has no idea how disturbing it is for a regular guy to witness six people being brutally murdered in front of him.
The Mind knows that abandoning your wife and family to become a bandit is shameful and unfilial, but cannot comprehend why the bandit's father may not want his son killed for these offenses.
The Mind knows right and wrong, but has trouble seeing the human behind those acts, and why one should care in the first place.
And to see what the Mind looks like without any of Compassion's restraint, one needs to look no further than SWK's "Second Mind", the Six-eared Macaque.
Just like how "Heart" sounds like a lame power for a character, Compassion isn't flashy, nor as useful in a strictly ultilitarian sense. In fact, having compassion makes you vulnerable. It hurts. And unscrupulous people will absolutely use it against you.
So why hold onto your weakness and wallow in it? The world doesn't need another sanctimonious wuss, it needs strong, clever people making hard sacrifices, ruthless, logical decisions! Tough up! Stop caring, and you'll never be hurt again!
Much like a certain crowd who think basic human decency is somehow political propaganda, perhaps, when SEM struck Tripitaka, he was trying to do the same thing.
Kill the embodiment of compassion, the sniveling, useless, fragile human that keeps holding SWK back. Replace him as the true Mind, the one strong enough to break all bonds and seize glory with his own two hands.
But without compassion, without humanity, one is no longer a whole person, and cannot reach enlightenment. In fact, just like how Buddha would only give the True Scripture to Tripitaka, if you are not brave enough to make yourself vulnerable, to suffer and feel other's suffering, you will never transcend it.
At best, you can have some pale imitations of the parts you have willingly shut out from yourself.
And that's what SEM does. He thought he could do it on his own, singlehandedly replace SWK and reap the benefits of enlightenment, but he is no Monkey Awakened to Emptiness.
He is just empty; cut off desires because it is base, cut off determined ideation because it is foolish, cut off compassion because it is weak, cut off the altruism and curiosity and creativity from the mind, and you are left with a grand total of NOTHING.
A shadow of a self, desperately clinging onto external validation and stolen stories, reading the pilgrim's travel paperwork out loud as if that would actually make the journey his.
Tripitaka needs to trust SWK and learn from him, because compassion, much like good intention, doesn't solve problems on its own, and mercy is not the same as enabling harm.
SWK needs his master's guidance, because even at his most selfish and impulsive, he cares, and only by extending that care to others and accepting the vulnerability that comes with it can he truly mature and become awakened to the ultimate truth.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
One last bit of ramble: I feel like there is something to be said about Tripitaka's tendency to trust Pigsy, and how the pursuit of enlightenment is often derailed by worldly desires.
Unlike the demons they encountered, however, Pigsy is not the personification of mental obstacles that must be destroyed, because you cannot destroy bodily needs, nor the very human tendencies to slack off and avoid trouble.
You should stop listening to its advice, sure. Poke fun at it, absolutely. But what Pigsy represents is part of the human condition, just like every other pilgrim, and also something one must make peace with.
Hey, beautiful JttW fans! Remember when I asked how often everyone thought Sun Wukong got whammied with the migraine spell?
Well, I wanna talk about the results, because I find them fascinating. 74% of respondents guessed a number higher than the one in the novel. So, let's explore the many (and valid) reasons for the difference between canon and popular perception!
But first, the actual numbers from the book:
Tripitaka used the golden fillet to punish Wukong (drumroll please)... eight times.
He also used it twice more, once at Wukong's request, to differentiate between doppelgängers. Guanyin also recited it once, making a total of eleven. I have posted the details of each incident here. (Once again: if Tripitaka recited the spell multiple times without stopping, I am counting that as One Incident, in the same way that being stabbed more deeply on one occasion than on another still counts as One Stab.)
A full half of respondents felt that Wukong was probably punished with the fillet fifty times or more. A quarter felt it was 100+. That would be a Monkey Migraine happening at least every 2-3 weeks, for 14 years.
So why do so many of us JttW fans believe the number is so high?? And what effect does this have on our characterization--and mischaracterization--of Sun Wukong? I have THEORIES!
1) All eight times Wukong is punished occur in the first half of the pilgrimage. This somewhat mundane and depressing theory also explains why adaptations and abridgments are way more likely to cover, say, Lady Bone Demon or the Ginseng Fruit than Jupiter’s Rival. Namely: quite a lot of people never make it all the way through this very long book. If you haven’t personally read through the final forty-two chapters of westward travel in which Tripitaka never once recites the spell… yeah, of course your perception would be a bit skewed.
Further, if all the adaptations are focusing on arcs from the first half of the journey, you’re going to get the impression of Many Migraines even if you have read the whole thing!
2) The scenes in which the fillet gets used are extremely memorable. First, they’re just straight-up shocking: we’ve gotten used to the Monkey King being nigh-invulnerable, shrugging off axes and armies with equal ease, so the fact that something is hurting him at all is jarring, both on a power-scaling/logistical level (wait, the merely mortal monk can hurt him?) and on a gut-sympathy level (someone is hurting my favorite character! I don’t like this!).
But most importantly, there’s the element of injustice. Nothing will lodge in an audience’s mind more firmly and annoyingly than injustice. It is the popcorn kernel in the molars of your thinking.
I have written a bit on the Lady Bone Demon arc, which is one of the most famous and oft-adapted arcs in JttW—in part because it’s got some of the strongest emotional stakes, and in part because it takes place fairly early on in the Journey (see Theory 1). But I would argue that this arc sticks in people’s heads most strongly because it isn’t fair. Tripitaka did have some valid reasoning behind his mistake, but that nuance gets forgotten in the reader’s indignation that he hurt Wukong, both physically and emotionally, when Wukong was genuinely trying to help him. The takeaway for many readers is not only, “hey, screw that guy,” it’s also, “wow, the monk is a fundamentally unjust person.” It is an extremely easy leap from there to the assumption that he would probably do this kind of thing all the time.
Basically: “he committed an unjust act” —> “he is an unjust person” —> “he is a trigger-happy hypocrite and Monkey regularly suffers for it.”
2.5) Cultural dissonance contributes to the aforementioned shock. You all know the oft-repeated defense of Tripitaka: “corporal punishment was the norm in that time/ culture; Wukong himself believes in corporal punishment of his underlings.” Since this is both clearly true and explored better in other essays, I won’t get into it here. What I want to point out instead is the way that this cultural disconnect makes the scenes where the fillet is used more memorable.
The author/ compiler of JttW clearly thought Sun Wukong getting his skull bent into gourd-shape was hilarious. Probably he expected that his audience would also find it funny. But modern readers reflexively recoil. The disconnect sticks out, because we're abruptly alienated from the author/ text: “I don’t agree with you here. Actually I kinda disagree with you on a fundamental moral level, and that feels isolating.”
So yeah, that’s gonna make the fillet scenes more memorable, too.
3). The popular LEGO show making some time-saving choices in their depiction of Heaven/ the Journey. Certain complex arcs are altered/ simplified by necessity in this fast-paced adaptation, including Wukong earning the circlet. @itsabouttimex2 explained all of this much more insightfully than I could, here. Also the (very smart) decision to make Wukong still flawed instead of an enlightened Buddha interacting with MK has the unfortunate side effect of suggesting that the circlet didn't really accomplish much. Since the show makes him very likable and sympathetic pre-mountain, and not significantly more enlightened post-journey... yeah, we're back to the "memorable injustice" problem: he got his skull squeezed for what, exactly? Funsies?
4). A Gap in Character Likability: Oof, this one. I have…probably several essays’ worth of thoughts on this topic, but quite a lot can be summed up in these two fascinating TVTropes articles. Highly worth reading, but the gist of ‘em is that fans have a tendency to exaggerate existing flaws in characters they already dislike, and ignore canonical wrongdoing from characters they love (or think are hot). This is on full display in the fans’ responses to Wukong and Tripitaka. Wukong is competent, funny, uninhibited, and drives the journey--and more crucially, the narrative--forward by overcoming any problems that arise. This makes him enjoyable to read about/ watch, regardless of his flaws, and our own enjoyment colors the way we judge his actions.
The inverse is often true for Tripitaka: in the place of combat skills, he has a stick up his butt. Plus, he frequently stalls narrative progress by being kidnapped. Where Wukong is a power fantasy, Tripitaka is the opposite: he reacts to violence and trauma in the way we, non-super-powered readers, would probably also react: ie, freezing up, crying, yelling, and needing rescue.
None of this makes him Bad, but it does mean that many frustrated readers are inclined to be extra annoyed by his flaws and mistakes.
It doesn’t help that, although this story advertises itself as a journey to religious enlightenment that happens to incidentally be an action-adventure road trip, we don’t actually see the bits where Tripitaka is teaching his disciples Buddhism. So Tripitaka’s primary contribution to the Pilgrimage, being a teacher—the reason any of his disciples signed on with him in the first place—gets overlooked and forgotten.
(I have further Thoughts about the way Tripitaka is given some very feminine coding/ roles by the standards of fiction (repeatedly referred to as beautiful, serves as the “moral compass” and the “damsel,” is framed as delicate and emotional and pure, gets subjected to S.A.), and how there might be some buried misogyny showing up in the way people react so strongly against having a guy like that exist as a main character, never mind one with--gasp--authority over the more masculine-coded disciples. But that is an essay for another time.)
5). C’mon, angst like that is a goldmine. I almost don’t need to elaborate here. I draw fanart and write fic myself, guys; I get it. Sun Wukong is so incredibly powerful that we are inherently interested in anything that can bring him down. If the fillet is not being actively explored in the adaptation/fan work at hand, it’s a useful point of past angst to be referenced. See, for instance, all the gorgeous art of Wukong with scars around his brow, or the stories in which a sympathetic love interest defends Wukong from his unjust Master. Pain points in fiction are fascinating; it makes sense there’d be a fannish tendency to explore this one. But because so many people’s primary interaction with/ exposure to JttW is via these fan works instead of novel canon, the perspective ends up skewed—and furthermore, skewed in a self-accelerating loop.
Why Any Of This Matters
So I guess all the above is to say: I get it. It does make sense, on multiple levels, why so many people come away with this same perspective on the fillet. And it honestly wouldn’t bother me an inch, if it weren’t for one thing:
People use this incorrect idea to support rampant mischaracterization of BOTH main characters in JttW.
Tripitaka's the obvious one. And listen, you will not hear me make any claims that Tripitaka is perfect. He ain’t. He is…a long way from perfect. He honestly embodies a fussy Confucian bureaucrat a lot more than the ideal Buddhist holy man the text tries to present him as.
But if you take your (wrong) idea that Tripitaka was punishing Wukong every other week, and use that to fuel some (extremely wrong) characterization of Wukong’s beloved Master as a cruel abusive stupid hypocrite who jumps on any excuse to hurt his student…
…Well, there’s nothing I can do about it. Sometimes one interpretation just speaks to you. But it makes me sad, because you are then:
(1) missing out on so much fascinating nuance and symbolism in your enjoyment of JttW, honestly, the whole mind-heart dynamic is brilliant.
(2) missing out on fantastic story potential (a flawed and misguided character who is trying to be good but screws up is 100% more interesting than A Big Meanie, always, and I will die on that hill).
(3) also mischaracterizing Sun Wukong.
The first and obvious layer of mischaracterization: Sun Wukong is profoundly devoted to Tripitaka. He may get annoyed with him, especially early in the journey, but c’mon: Wukong is the guy who randomly stops flying to look down at the monk and compose poems about how admirable he is. Portraying Tripitaka as abusive not only warps/ belittles Wukong’s love and sacrifice on his behalf, it also, more crucially, misses the whole point and impact of Wukong’s arc.
At the time Buddha sealed him under the mountain, Wukong was a genuinely selfish, arrogant person, with no impulse control and little to no compassion. But at the point Guanyin finds him, Wukong has had 500 years to think. He freely admits he was wrong and wants to do better. So he is delighted to have a Master to rescue him, not just from the mountain, but from being stuck in his old ways. (Allegory!)
…but then he throws a tantrum and storms off the very first time he’s told he acted wrongly. He comes back on his own, because he really does want to achieve enlightenment and the dragon king points out to him the genuine nobility and honor to be found in discipleship, but as soon as he understands there are going to be actual consequences for his actions going forward, he tries to murder his Master.
Which makes sense, because until the Buddha arrived, Sun Wukong never once, in his entire long life, made the connection that his actions had consequences…or at least, consequences he couldn’t just hit very hard with a stick.
It is Tripitaka’s job to teach Wukong that he is not above consequences. And Wukong needs--and wants--that growth. He hits a point where he realizes he needs to start listening to his Heart in order to be a whole person.
And it works! Despite all of Tripitaka’s blundering and foolishness and fear, he understands things Wukong does not (see @Ryin-Silverfish ’s fantastic essay on this topic), and so is able to curb the worst of Wukong’s terrible impulses. This culminates in Wukong’s personal midpoint—the Macaque arc—when he kills off the part of himself that wants to have it all without sacrifice or compassion. (I’ve got a post on that here!) The fillet is never used again after that.
And at the end of the story, the fillet disappears of its own accord. Because he doesn’t need it.
I get so mad at adaptations that frame the fillet as some kind of shock collar that got removed by Authority once Wukong proved he was Obedient, but could be buckled back on if ever he strays. (Looking at you, Black Myth: Wukong. You're gorgeous, but...Argh.) That misses the entire point. The fillet represents discipline, the disciplining of one’s mind that is crucial to being a good person, and Wukong proved that he could discipline himself. At which point the fillet (external discipline) naturally ceased to exist.
And Wukong didn’t even notice it had gone until Tripitaka pointed it out to him.
(The allegory is so freaking perfect, ugh, I love this book SO MUCH.)
Sun Wukong needs his Master in order to succeed, just as much as Tripitaka needs his disciple. That is literally the point of the book. Both of them screw up and hurt each other. But you shouldn’t cut out your heart because it hurts, anymore than you should stop thinking because you sometimes think terrible thoughts. You can’t yell at your own feelings and claim they’re bullying you and still expect to be a healthy person. You have to accept that your own heart will hurt you, sometimes wrongly or illogically, and learn to be a better, more compassionate person because of the hurt you’ve gone through.
Which is what Wukong does. It's what he actively wants and pursues. And that is admirable as all hells. Reducing Tripitaka to a trigger-happy abuser with nothing to offer the Journey is also a reduction of Wukong’s agency and hard-won humility and genuine desire to improve himself.
