i don’t know if anything will beat the feeling i had during april 2020. i was heavily hyperfixated on tss and especially the creativitwins, and then thomas dropped the roman playlist. to this day 3 years later i still think about it
second song on that playlist was wonderboy by tenacious d and i was immediately like ‘haha that sounds like that’s about remus. cool how they team up in the end’ but oh well, i didn’t think that much about it in that moment. the song can easily be about virgil too
i’m vibing to the rest of the songs and then humility by gorillaz comes on and. did the song straight up say twin??? bro that fucking song is about remus. that song is about remus there is no way around it.
i’m not smart enough to directly analyze the songs (plenty of people have already done so. here’s my favorite one) but all i can say is holy fuck yippie doodle this shit still makes me ballistic.
i mean in the series all roman seems to show is hate for remus!! looking at remus is like looking into a funhouse mirror, he’s literally his biggest insecurity, his biggest fear. and yet, (correct me if i’m wrong) i don’t even think there’s a song on there that even implies his hatred of remus. the playlist is all about how he wants to be free of his morality restrictions..
idek man. if the day comes in 2050 when the creativitwins reconcile i will be there in the first row.
oh and also. fun fact about the wonderboy song (and also the entire roman playlist)? thomas and joan purposefully made roman’s playlist into 5 sections: i want songs, character establishment, rising action, climax, and falling action. they didn’t specify how exactly these sections were split up* but that doesn’t even matter. wonderboy is the SECOND song in the playlist, meaning it’s definitely an I Want song. do with this information what you will
*ok if you want my opinion, theres 20 songs, and 5 sections. the math would show that each section would consist of 4 songs, and i think this definitely holds up with the vibes of the songs, too.
conclusion: ieirjrwndijekwfowhhdeh idk. roman and remus are the twins ever and the only main reason i still care about sanders sides after all this time.
The reveal of remus's existence is genuinely so iconic to me in regards to how much it redefines roman as a character.
You watch sanders sides and you're like "lmaooo what the hell is this guy's problem why's he like this" and then the series is like "Oh I'm so glad you asked! ^_^ So basically there's this other guy"
And 40 minutes later you're just left sitting there like
Why Is Dating Scary?: A lesson in writing (part 1)
I've been waiting for this moment. For the perfect time to strike.
Or, well, maybe not exactly “waited”. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to talk about this episode.
But then people asked and I've got a reputation, I've got a name to uphold. So I cannot let this episode walk, or else the world forgets I’m cold.
and cynical and fastidious and that I love to ramble about stuff and-
______________
Obligatory disclaimers
I will be picky when discussing this episode. However, before you start complaining about how picky I am, please take into account that, if I really, REALLY wanted to be picky, I would’ve torn this episode apart word by word.
But I won’t do it, because:
Tearing something apart word by word requires a ton of work and writing this analysis is more than enough work already.
I didn’t fully hate the episode, so tearing it apart without pointing out all the things I liked would be unfair.
Let me also point out that:
Every critique will be about the episode and/or Mr. Sanders as a writer, not about him as a person, his family, or his friends.
Every critique will be about the episode and its characters, not about you, your family, or your friends.
If I point out some writing mistakes, it’s because I want people to learn how to write - and if Mr. Sanders by some miracle ends here, maybe he can learn something too.
I will also point out what is good and what is bad, because I’d much rather be impartial and honest, rather than pretend not to see stuff.
I will use any sort of language, so read at your own risk.
I will also analyze this episode by taking into consideration that:
This episode was not planned at all - it was something Mr. Sanders wanted to make Because Yes. The next episode that should’ve come out was supposed to be the season 2 finale, part 1.
It’s a canonical episode - and I already said in the past that, if the next canonical episode made me feel “meh”, I would’ve considered it negatively.
It took Mr. Sanders one and a half year to make it (it was supposed to come out in July 2024).
The episode hasn’t been written by Joan, but the writers are (as stated in the episode itself): Thomas Sanders, Quil Darling and “Our Patreon Writings Room!”.
______________
Patton and Janus’ relationship: growth sacrificed for jokes
These two are a blessing and a curse.
There are deeply enjoyable things about them, in this episode: Patton’s joke about the tardis the relationship is the perfect example of silly stupidity that makes me smile every time. Roman saying that Janus is Patton’s buddy who came “to bail him out” also indirectly confirms that these two help each other as soon as one of them is in some kind of distress.
But we also have more proof of how they’ve always been on the same page:
J: I might also add, as the one responsible for maintaining the straight façade all those years, dropping the act and adapting to your new identity was intimidating.
P: It did feel like you were leaving an old you behind.
Please notice how Patton’s reply to Janus’ statement does not show any surprise, nor disagreement: on the contrary, Patton supports his words, by admitting that Thomas changing his identity felt as if he was “leaving an old you behind”.
This indirectly confirms Patton was okay with maintaining the straight façade, and he was okay with Janus doing it. And that’s not me saying it, but the episode proved this point when Janus explained that “emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior pattern”.
Their relationship is basically a cycle: Janus does something enabled by emotions, Patton lets him do it because he wants to, Janus does it, Patton keeps enabling him and the cycle goes on.
It’s very fascinating how their jobs are so interdependent. And this makes the recent development (i.e. them interacting and working together) even more exciting to explore: if Patton and Janus were doing all of this without realizing it in the past, now that they consciously work together, their chemistry should be incredible. They should be able to understand each other at a glance.
And we got a glimpse of this during POF’s ending. When Janus dropped his sarcasm, as soon as Patton didn’t realize it. When, in the end card, one glance and a small nod were enough to understand each other so well.
But now, time has passed. Their relationship should’ve evolved. And we got an example of it when Patton finds out Janus impersonated him in the past, before CLBG:
P: Janus? How many times have you disguised yourself as me?
J: I won't sugarcoat it, Patton. That was the one and only other time.
P: Januuuus…!
J: Okay, I've done it a lot.
P: Why?
J: Emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior patterns. It can be the easiest route to justifying my actions. I'm sorry.
Ad this is pure gold.
Let’s start with Patton: Janus tells a lie with the straightest face ever… and Patton doesn’t buy it in the slightest. While in POF he wasn’t able to recognize his lies, now he can see them clearly. That’s a clever way to show how much he has grown and how well he can understand Janus now.
Then we have the umpteenth proof of how mature Patton is: instead of just getting offended, he asks Janus why he impersonated him. That’s the same thing he did in SvS, when he tried to get past the trial to help him reveal his true plans; once again, Patton’s focus is not on the behaviour, but on the reasons behind it.
On the other hand, we have Janus: Janus who, just like in SvS, takes Patton’s bait and admits the truth, the reason behind his behaviour. Emotions enabled him.
However, there is no accusation in his tone, he’s not trying to blame Patton - just like he didn’t in POF (“[Deceit]: He didn't mislead you on purpose, Thomas. I don't think the little guy... or... the big frog is capable of that sort of thing.”).
Most importantly, after explaining himself, Janus apologizes. It’s quite clear he doesn’t regret what he did - he was wrong, sure, but the intentions were good; he wanted to help Thomas, not to go against him.
However, he recognizes that impersonating Patton hurt him, hence he apologizes to him. And that’s a HUGE step forward, for someone so used to working by himself and ignoring everyone else. Someone who, mind you, described manipulating others as a “very funny wholesome prank” (POF).
This also proves how well Janus understands Patton now: in POF, he needed to see Patton’s expression to realize how hurt he was by his words. Now, he doesn’t even need to see Patton’s reaction: he already knows his actions hurt him. And apologizes.
That’s wonderful. That’s perfect. That’s consistent growth and big steps forward in such an important cooperation.
And then, we reach the ending of the episode:
P: Ah, Janus, I still feel like we have work to do.
J: Oh no, Patton. That went swimmingly.
P: Oh, really?
J: Oh, yes. Everything is fine.
P: Okay, if you say so in that strange way of saying things that you sometimes do.
Let’s all thank Mr. Sanders, people, for making my previous praises utterly worthless.
So, according to this stupid ass interaction, Patton can recognize a lie said with a poker face and monochord voice, but cannot recognize a lie when it’s said with the most sarcastic tone in the universe.
And no, it’s not continuity from POF, because in POF Janus’ sarcasm hurt him, and when Janus corrected himself, Patton realized it was a lie. So what, he realized before what sarcasm was, but now he magically forgot?
In addition to that, at the beginning of this episode, when Janus asked Roman how he could be so sure Patton was responsible for Thomas being so hesitant in the relationship, Patton’s reply was:
P: Well, I think Janus is joking. He's having a laugh, right? You're having a laugh.
Accompanied by a slightly scolding look.
So Patton can recognize Janus’ microexpressions and even distinguish between him teasing and saying the truth, but cannot recognize the thickest sarcasm ever?
That conversation should’ve never happened, not like this. Either Janus had to admit that yes, there was still work to do, or Patton had to recognize the lie and offer to discuss this topic in the future. But making him ignore a blatant lie is pure idiocy. And I hate it even more, because I know why this stupid conversation exists in the first place.
And do you want to know, too? That’s because Mr. Sanders had to close the episode and make these two characters leave, but he also wanted to end it on a silly note, so what better way to do it, if not by making Patton stupid again (by reverting his growth) and let’s call it a day?
This is one of the worst mistakes a writer can ever make: prioritize a joke over your character’s personality/growth. There is no joke, no witty line, no funny comeback in the universe that is worth sacrificing a character’s credibility or growth. Change the joke, instead. Delete it, if necessary. But keep your character consistent. The story is about your character, not about how many funny lines you can write.
______________
Janus: how to sell a credible character
I know a lot of you liked how Janus was portrayed here and thought he was perfectly fine. In a way, he was: all he said was coherent with himself and his mentality.
The problem I have with him is more subtle - and, for some people, more petty too. Because it’s a matter of appearance and behaviour.
Usually, this isn’t a big issue: a consistent personality matters more than details. But details are also what make a character more real. And when they drastically change with zero explanation, that’s a big issue. Because you don’t have the same character anymore - you have a new one. One the public doesn’t know.
That’s what happened with Janus. His mentality became simpler, and details about him changed. Details that made him the character he was. Details now different.
*
-> Appearance
I know, I know: “Bea, everyone already talked about his appearance! And personal tastes are not a valid critique!”
Don’t worry, dears, I won’t explain why Janus’ new makeup doesn’t work from an aesthetic point of view. I will explain why it doesn’t work from an anatomical/biological point of view.
Some time ago, dear @logically-asexual pointed out in their post that the black line on Janus’ face is supposed to represent the shadow of the upper jaw on the lower jaw. In humans - as well as all other animals in the world - these two bones connect through the temporomandibular joint in correspondence or slightly below the ear. But not above. Never above.
And this is extremely important, because:
The lower jaw needs to move.
The ear is not just what you see outside: the ear canal goes deep into your skull and is divided into the middle ear (eardrums + malleus, incus and stapes) and the inner ear (cochlea).
The ear is not just responsible for hearing, but for balance too. Hence, it should stay very very still to register any other movement from the body.
Now, what happens when you put the joint of a bone that needs to move, above a part of your body that doesn’t need to move?
You can probably see it by yourself that, by changing this small, seemingly unimportant detail, your character is suddenly unable to listen, to balance… and I am not even sure they have the strength to open and close their mouth, because the masticatory muscles need space and where should they fit, if everything is above the ear?
Moral of the story: every detail matters. You can be a film director, an artist, or a writer: every small change (especially from an anatomical point of view) means a lot of other, additional changes. And those changes can easily influence your character’s personality too!
How? Let’s imagine a character with really long legs. They may:
be more shy, because they’re used to being taller than everyone and always at the center of attention
try to make themselves smaller, because they’re used to bending down every time they go through a door
be used to be ignored, because they’re taller than everyone else and others tend to talk more with people around the same eye level
be the best runner or a great athlete
be more clumsy because of how tall they are
and those are just the first few things that popped into my mind, but they can easily be expanded upon, while developing a character and their personality. All from just one physical detail.
Back to Sanders Sides: I am not saying Mr. Sanders cannot make a character with a jaw above the ears. Sure, he can. But it won’t be Janus - or a character from this planet, for that matter. It would be an interesting alien species, tho.
However, since we’re talking about Janus here, we could’ve solved the problem very easily: by watching the old videos. Or by hiring a make-up artist who actually watched the old videos. Or if watching the old videos is such a cumbersome task for them, they could’ve taken a photo of the old make-up and used it as a base. I know it requires something like 5 minutes to do so, but I’m sure a professional can do it.
*
-> Tone of voice
Let’s look at this interaction:
V: That was not what I was saying.
J: Oh, was it not?
Seems fine. That’s what Janus would say.
But listen to how he talks. Focus on his tone.
OG Janus had a much softer, much lower tone of voice. His voice was deeper compared to the other characters. Now, not only is his tone as high as the others, but he ends the sentence on an even higher note. While OG Janus would’ve probably ended the sentence with the same tone (and maybe a more sarcastic accent), this Janus ends by putting emphasis and accent on the final word. The result is that his voice almost sounds “strangled”, because of how much it rose.
Something similar happens here too:
J: It's why I, too, want things kept hush-hush with Nico. Because, believe it or not, I have come to realize that no amount of social clout can outweigh the consequential aggravation.
Listen to this part and notice how, when the sentence is almost over, instead of lowering his voice, Janus raises it. The bold part is when his voice rises again.
This is weird for two reasons:
it’s not the typical speech pattern of OG Janus
it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a communicative standpoint
Speaking of the second point, why can this be considered weird?
In general, the key concept of a discourse is well explained and conveyed in the middle of a discourse. This is the part where we need a higher emphasis, because we want to introduce or explain something crucial.
On the other hand, when we reach the conclusion, the natural tendency is to lower the tone of voice and be more collected. This follows the natural “arc” of attention we see in narrative as well (introduction-climax-conclusion), and it also reaffirms our confidence: we already explained our point, so there’s no need to be redundant (unless we’re talking about an extremely long speech, but that’s not the case).
Therefore, by making this character raise his voice so much, not only did Mr. Sanders follow a speech pattern that is not the same as the one Janus used before, but he also failed to convey his confidence. And for someone characterized by confidence… that’s a pretty big characterization mistake.
*
-> Non-verbal language (and the importance of intent)
Janus is supposed to be mysterious and unreadable. However, there is a difference between having a poker face and showing such a confused expression you can’t even understand what emotion it is supposed to convey.
Let’s take this moment, when Thomas comments on the “early 20s” case they just witnessed:
T: But I did feel like I lost so much time. I was so emotionally stunted when it came to dating.
P: Well, us emotions do do our own stunts.
Right after Patton’s line, we cut to Janus: he looks on the side, furrows his eyebrows while squinting, while the sides of his mouth are upwards.
This expression is confusing. And please notice: confusing is different from inscrutable. If an actor makes an inscrutable expression, you don’t know what they are thinking, but you know they are thinking something. There is coherence: all the micromovements point toward the same kind of emotion/intention.
But if an actor makes a confusing expression, there is no direction and no coherence. The microexpressions go everywhere and contradict each other. It’s just like when someone writes: “He made an expression of surprise, joy and fear”. What kind of emotion am I even supposed to visualize?
If you want your character to express an emotion, focus on which kind of emotion they’re supposed to feel. Not even the best actor in the world can be, at the same time, three emotions at once. A character may be overwhelmed by emotions, but even in that case, there is something specific that “guides” the other emotions (depending on the context).
In this case, I am not sure Mr. Sanders himself knew what kind of emotion he was supposed to convey. How can I say that? Well, when I tried to replicate that expression, I was confused about what I felt, too. The closest emotion I felt was “bitter agreement”, so… maybe that’s what Mr. Sanders wanted to convey too? Maybe it was Janus’ way to say that, sure, emotional Sides do a lot of stunts because he did some too?
But, as you can see, this is just a guess. I am not sure. And when the public is not sure about something, there are two reasons only:
The writer is making a puzzle, and the public does not have all the pieces yet
The writing is wrong
I learned time ago that, most of the time, the confusion is due to the second reason. It’s very common and very normal: that’s why you need extra care while writing. The public is not in your mind, and they cannot understand every decision you made, if you don’t make them clear enough.
On the other hand, here is what happens, when the intent is clear:
J!P: Of course. Well, I know you're perfect, Thomas
There is a direction here, and you can see it by how fluid, clear, and readable the expression and movements are.
Janus!Patton says Thomas is perfect while shaking his head. His verbal language says one thing while his body language says the opposite. As you probably already know, this is a clear sign of lying - so Thomas is subtly confirming to his public that yes, this is not Patton, but Janus.
Simple. Clear. Straightforward. No guesses, no confusion. This is proof of good writing - and good reasoning.
And, you know, it’s not uncommon for artists to alternate carefully orchestrated parts to confused, disorganized parts. I did the same, too, so I recognize the signs. And I know it’s not easy to keep the same high standard all the time.
But hey, if it were easy, everyone would make art. That’s why art is so complicated to master - and that’s why experts exist.
*
-> The interaction with Remus, aka the past matters
Janus tried to silence Remus. He tried to silence Remus.
We’re talking about a guy who:
allegedly spent so much time with Remus, to perfectly mimic his voice and behaviour (see all small posts Mr. Sanders made years ago)
knows what Remus likes (see the “Sides needs a nice day” video)
plays with him (see them playing DDR in the 5-year special)
So, this guy knows Remus so well, but apparently he doesn’t know that:
[Logan]: You cannot force the Duke to retire a topic of conversation. (DWIT)
What am I supposed to say, here? “Oh but, you see, it’s because now Thomas is more honest with himself and…” and what? Being more honest with himself means forgetting that you cannot stop Remus from talking about whatever he wants?
Also, the way Logan made that sentence implied that you couldn’t have forced Remus to retire a topic of conversation, even before the whole “wanting to be more honest and deal with his own issues” thing.
So, it has always been impossible to force Remus to retire a topic of conversation, but now Janus has amnesia, so he forgot? And instead of using some other clever way to stop Remus (because I refuse to believe he didn’t find any, in all the years they’ve spent together), he keeps closing his hand like a fucking idiot?
This is not something subtle, like a different appearance of behaviour. This is a plain and simple characterization mistake. Janus, who supposedly spent years with Remus and knows him better than anyone else, suddenly forgot he could not stop Remus from talking - something that has been part of his character from the day he was introduced.
Please: if you write a story, check what you wrote previously. So your characters won’t end up forgetting things they were supposed to always know.
______________
Logan and Remus: making sense
Unlike Patton, who became a moron for the sake of jokes, and Janus, who changed so much to become another guy, Logan is coherent with himself and his own role.
When Roman tries to coerce him into joining their discussion, Logan says:
L: The topic of love does not interest me. Not that you’d listen to me anyway.
Everyone focused on the second sense, but it’s the first one that matters.
Why? Because he’s goddamn Logic, of course he’s not interested in love. Of course he cannot understand it. Love is an emotion: hence, the emotional Sides should be more helpful, not the one who is literally the opposite of an emotional Side.
And that’s not me saying it. Logan says it:
L: Oh, great, Scott. Okay, look, I have no doubt I could be of some assistance here, but this is venturing so far into uh emotions territory. And we all know how I fared with dating advice in the past.
(flashback)
“L: We are humans.
V: Yes.
L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate.
V: Yes.
L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me?
V: Yes.
L: There.”
Thank god, someone still remembers the past. And Logan uses it to prove his point, thus creating continuity between then and now.
But he also creates another connection. This time, with Remus’ point:
R: Logan, it's very simple. Thomas would like to fuck Nico.
When Remus appeared and started to talk, I paused the episode to say, out loud: “Finally! After all this useless talk, someone says the truth!”.
The conversation was slowing down. Thomas was desperately trying to find a reason why he wanted to have a relationship with Nico so badly. Then, Remus comes and he says the simplest thing ever: sexual attraction plays a part in this.
And of course it does! I highly doubt Thomas is dating Nico because he feels like he has to / is doing him a favor / it’s some kind of challenge. Of course he likes him.
And if he likes him physically too… what’s wrong with that? After all, as Logan said years ago:
“L: We are humans.
V: Yes.
L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate.
V: Yes.
L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me?
V: Yes.
L: There.”
Sex is one of the driving forces of our species. It’s part of us and our lives. It’s one of the ways we found - our cells found - to live beyond death. We give away part of us, of our genes, of our cells, to make an entirely new being, a creature who will carry what we gave them into the future.
But we also use sex to bond, to experience the beautiful sensations, to have fun. To share special moments with someone we love. Thomas is sexually attracted to men, and he clearly likes Nico: of course, he wants to be more intimate with him. And of course his mind created some dirty fantasies about this. None of us are holy, we all had at least one sexual fantasy in our lives, so there’s nothing wrong or weird in Thomas having some too.
Therefore, when Remus says that Thomas wants, deep down, to fuck Nico, I believe him. And when he says it’s not a big deal, he’s right, because it’s not.
In short:
Logan’s reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.
Logan’s reasoning connects and elaborates on Remus’ reasoning (because both of them mention/consider the sexual component of the relationship).
Remus’ reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.
That’s how you write something good: you remember your character’s personality and write something that makes sense in general and in specific.
And I’m happy to say that during the entirety of the episode, Remus is 100% coherent with himself and all he says is coherent with the character he is. But I can say it, because he appears for 0.2 seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Logan.
And it’s all because of the goddamn young Sides.
______________
Schrödinger’s Sides
V: Did you just call him Vision?
T: Yeah, I did. Like the Marvel character?
L: Keep in mind, this was years ago before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names. This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand. We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.
Okay, let’s analyze one sentence at a time.
-> L: Keep in mind, this was years ago, before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names.
The young Sides come from Thomas’ “early 20s”.
Thomas was born in 1989, his early 20s can be considered the first years after he turned 20 (2009/2012).
In 2016, Thomas started Sanders Sides.
In four years, the Sides changed from these “still not fully formed” entities, to the ones we know and love. That’s possible: Thomas was still growing and developing his personality, after all, so it makes sense the Sides evolved too, and four years is an acceptable time frame for a late teen/young adult.
But why did Logan put such emphasis on how this comes from a time before Thomas “even knew” they had names? Of course, this comes from a time before he knew they had names. He started learning your names in 2017, Logan. And your name was the first one he learned, do you remember? I mean, in SvS, you remembered the exact second Thomas learned something new; now you forgot when he learned your own name?
-> L: We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.
Why is Logan using the word “probably”? Doesn’t he know, if he were a generic entity? He’s explaining it as if the young people they’re watching are not them.
But Patton and Roman acknowledged that the boys are the younger versions of themselves. So they are Patton and Roman’s younger versions, but not Logan’s???
(And yes, I know they’re not them because Thomas joked about “ahah it’s not you, it’s a younger actor playing your role”, but it’s such a useless joke and it destroys the suspension of disbelief so much, I’d much rather ignore it than open this can of worms)
-> L: This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand.
Pardon my French, but what?!
Why should the conversation be presented “in a way we can understand”? You had this conversation before, bro. You were involved in it. Why should it be different, if you were the ones having it?
I don’t know if this is some Doctor Who’s weird reference, but if it is, it’s absolute bullshit. I could've understood this, if we were watching a conversation between the aliens of The Arrival: it would’ve made sense to present it in a way we humans could’ve understood.
But we’re witnessing the conversations these same fuckers had in the past, and the conversation should be changed to make it more understandable for them? UUUUH???
So until now we have:
Sides that are supposed to be Thomas's younger versions, but they are not recognized by all their adult counterparts
Sides that are probably (?) generic and imprecise
A conversation that didn’t even happen like this???
We are literally watching Sides with questionable existence, engaging in a conversation that didn’t even happen. Non-existent Sides having a non-existent conversation.
What the fuck am I even watching.
But hey, since having the Schrödinger’s Sides who exist and do not exist and have conversations that are not recognized by their counterparts is not enough, let’s also mess with another concept that has been already introduced and closed before:
-> Left and right brain
Y!T: Left brain.
Y!L: Yes, Thomas.
L: Really, Thomas? Left brain?
And, referring to young Patton:
T: His name must have been Right Brain.
Again:
Why is Logan still so surprised? Bro, this young fella is supposed to be you. Don’t you remember the name Thomas gave you 10 years ago?
“Must have been”? Thomas, you gave Patton this name. Don’t you know what name you gave him? You are 35, this happened 10 years ago (more or less), not 200 years ago. Also: don’t you remember the name you gave to one side of your personality? I remember the name I gave to my plushies when I was 8, and you don’t remember the name of someone so important to you?
But also… left and right brain? Let’s ask SvS what does it think of this:
[Logan]: Let's see. I am the primary overseer of Thomas' language center. I am the director of activities for Thomas' right arm.
[Deceit]: Just the right?
[Logan]: The left arm is managed by Roman.
As you probably already know, the left side of your brain controls the right side of your body and vice versa. But there are also a lot of additional functions managed by both sides of the brain that can be summarized as follows:
Hence, Logan’s surprise about the name “Left Brain” is even more meaningless, because he perfectly knows he manages Thomas’ left side. He literally implied it in SvS, by mentioning how he controls Thomas’ language center and right arm! Why is he so shocked, when he already embodies the functions of the left brain?
At the same time, Patton being the right brain makes zero sense - even in the context of young, still generic Sides. The right brain’s functions are holistic thinking, intuition and daydreaming. You know, having visions. While Young!Patton was… collecting memories and giving advice to Young!Thomas. That it’s not something managed by either the right or the left brain.
I really don’t have an explanation for this. Maybe young Thomas is an idiot, maybe Mr. Sanders didn’t look enough into the difference between left and right side of the brain, maybe he just wanted to make a joke, maybe he liked “Vision” for Young!Roman and didn’t want to change the name… I don’t know. Pick your favourite explanation, people.
______________
Conclusion… for now
Yep. That’s only part one. Well done making this far, people! :D
However, I still have to talk about this episode, so we will meet again in a couple of days for the second and last part. Hope you will be ready for more writing talk and a more focused analysis on the concepts in this episode. And for Roman.
Spoiler: it will be as long as the analysis you just read.
Why Is Dating Scary?: A lesson in writing (part 2)
Welcome back, everyone. This is part 2 of a 2-part analysis of the last Sanders Sides episode that came out an eternity ago. Why is this analysis coming out only now? Because it takes time to make something, and even more time to explain my points.
For all disclaimers, please refer to part 1 HERE. If I write some more, we will never close this analysis and you’ve waited more than enough. So… let’s get started ;)
______________
Structure of the episode
-> The first question
Let’s recap the starting situation of the episode:
Roman is ready to jump headfirst into a relationship with Nico.
Thomas and Virgil are not
Janus and Virgil both think it’s better to chill
Roman (and Thomas) asks for Logan’s support in identifying the problem with these conflicted feelings
Logan mentions that the problem could be rooted in Thomas’ past relationships
So the question that starts the episode is: Why am I having these conflicted feelings about relationships?
That’s what Thomas and his Sides want to find out. And they successfully find their answers! In fact, over the course of the episode, they learn that:
Virgil gave the “butterflies in the stomach” effect, but not enough anxiety to stop Young!Thomas from doing stupid shit.
Roman’s vision was too clouded by the need for love, to even consider not doing stupid shit.
Janus thought that using the relationship to their advantage could have helped, but it did not.
Patton felt as if: “with every person that comes into our life, with every framed photo we have to eventually put away, there's less and less of our heart to give.”, to which Thomas replies “And that's why I hesitate to give it to Nico.”
We have the answers, now. Good, so the solution is simple: every Side should learn from his mistakes and move forward, by trying to understand each other and cooperate.
But Logan comes up with a different solution instead:
L: Now, this conclusion may be jarring, but given my observations today, there can be no doubt about the answer. You must not date Nico. (...) Ah, my apologies. This does not apply solely to Nico. He He's a nice lad. I'm referring to the concept of dating in general.
(...)
Think about it for a moment. Every entanglement, every romantic relationship with another has brought about fear, intrusion, and sadness. (...)
I suppose at best some have ended amicably with an emotional net zero. That's true. But even when the pairing was able to attain peak stability, the inevitable result was that things ended earlier than would have been expected. No courtship so far has brought about wealth, opportunity, or long-lasting inner peace.
J: As much as I'd hate to admit this, plenty of people have found those things with love.
L: And I'm sure that's true with some people, but it does not seem to be the case with Thomas. That's our disconnect. The experiment has been repeated time and time again with the same result. We've explored this from many angles, but what we haven't considered here is perhaps Thomas would simply be better off alone.
And you know what? This solution makes sense, because it comes from the embodiment of logic.
Of course Logan is going to see Thomas’ past relationships as experiments. Of course he looked at the similar patterns and deduced that, if the pattern is the same every time and it always leads to the same result, changing the pattern will have a different outcome. Simple and easy.
And, of course, he cannot understand why Thomas (and other human beings) keep pursuing new relationships:
L: The Doctor is fully aware of the risk they're taking by bringing on new companions. So, why put themselves through that, perpetually hurting themselves or the people that they care about?
Logan already proved in the past that he’s not able to understand the concept of love. He can understand mating and physical attraction, but the emotion of love, especially romantic love, is something beyond his comprehension.
This has a ton of potential. It can be the starting point of a deeper conversation that goes beyond the simple “finding out why my feelings are conflicted”.
And Logan, indirectly, asks the question that brings the episode to a more complex level.
*
-> The second question
L: Many of the doctor's relationships with their companions were not romantic at all. Plenty of people live absolutely fulfilling lives with no need for romantic relationships. Can't all of the examples you listed be satisfied through friendships?
T: Yes. Yes, they can, Logan. You're absolutely right about that. That is a perfectly valid path to take. But I want something more with Nico.
L: But why? What do you have to gain from pursuing more?
T: Well, I… I…
The bar is officially higher, the question that moves the episode forward has changed. We’re not exploring why Thomas’s feelings are conflicted anymore. The new question - the one we need the answer to - is “Why do people need love?”
And this is great. And I can give you two reasons why:
The answer to this question can beautifully wrap up the entire episode: by helping Logan understand why people need love and, more specifically, why Thomas wants “more” with Nico, we will manage to find a new solution, one that will help all Sides focus on the goal and move forward together.
I personally want to hear the answer.
I am aromantic, hence I do not feel that “need for romantic love” other people have. I understand the need for other people, for friendship, for mentally stimulating relationships. And I understand the love for a family member, a sibling, or an animal.
But the romantic love between two people… is obscure to me. In this scenario, I am in Logan’s shoes and I also want to know: what does Thomas have to gain from pursuing more with Nico? Why isn’t friendship enough?
Remus’ explanation works for me, because I am a living being too. I understand the pull of genes, mating and potentially finding a partner for the survival of the species. And I understand the pull of sex and physical attraction.
But romantic love? The “butterfly in the stomach” shit? Wanting another person in your life all the time, like a partner? I don’t know. I want to know. Just like Logan, I am waiting for Thomas to give me the answer: why does he need love? Why do people need love?
T: I also want to pursue something romantic with Nico, and I can't answer you in regards to what I have to gain from it. Yeah.
P: Maybe maybe an inevitable family, you know, maybe something best friends can't offer.
J: Maybe it's because eventually you two will combine your bank accounts down the road. What? It's practical, especially in this economy.
T: Maybe I'm still overly influenced by what pop culture and literature have ingrained in me. And I selfishly want romance in order to gain my share of that world. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. It is a risk and there are a thousand reasons why it probably won't work out and we're just signing ourselves up for more misunderstandings, uncomfortable moments and yeah, sadness. But it's worth it to feel those other moments, the good ones we wouldn't trade and yearn to feel again.
Uuuuh…
Thomas doesn’t have a clear answer. Maybe he wants a family or just another monetary income (didn’t know this implied love, but maybe it’s just me). Or maybe he’s influenced by the world and wants to experience romance the way it is portrayed in pop culture (so as something shallow, toxic or from a fairytale? Sheeeesh…).
Or perhaps he wants “Maybe nothing. Maybe everything”. Please, someone explain to me what that’s supposed to mean.
But in the end we finally got an answer. And the final answer we get is: It’s a risk worth taking because the good moments are good.
UH?
So, if we strip the conversation to its core, it went as follows:
L: Why do you need love?
R: He wants to fuck
T: I have no idea, but it’s a risk worth taking because the good moments are good
If this was Mr. Sanders’ way to promote how great love is despite its ups and downs… well, let’s say I am not convinced to pursue love.
Thomas didn’t offer any actual reason why love is so great. All we got is “I don’t know” and “the good moments are good”. Which is
barely an answer
not a reason
it can work for everything
And this is probably the worst thing, because Thomas’ “explanation” can be applied to literally anything, even killing: “I don’t know why I want to kill everyone, but hey, it’s a risk worth taking because the good moments when I kill are very good”.
Try it yourself: no matter how stupid the idea is, this explanation works perfectly! “I don’t know why I want to steal monkeys from the zoo, but hey, it’s a risk worth taking because the good moments when I steal those monkeys are very good”. See? It works.
Also, what are these supposed “good moments” Thomas talked about? I never had a romantic relationship, so I don’t know what kind of “good moments” I am supposed to look forward to. And the episode didn’t help either, because all it showed me was:
butterflies in the stomach
buying matching jean jackets
which may be good moments for you, but I am not particularly enthralled by them.
This is the Holy Grail of Writers' Mistakes: tell, not show. Mr. Sanders told me there are beautiful moments and told me it’s worth pursuing love, but he didn’t show me a single thing to convince me to actually do it. He literally said, “trust me bro”.
But I don’t trust you. Just like you all shouldn’t trust any writer, just because they are saying so. It’s as if, instead of analyzing this episode piece by piece and explaining what’s good and what’s bad, I just wrote: “There are problems in this episode, trust me bro”. Would you have believed me, or would you rather have asked for further clarification?
T: You at least helped guide me to understanding my fears about this new relationship.
L: And yet
T: and yet
L: well, I've identified the symptoms. I suppose you all know what's best in terms of the treatment.
We identified symptoms only (because the “good parts” are nowhere to be found) but hey, at least Logan found a new solution! He didn’t get the answer to the question he asked, but at least he knows how to help Thomas now.
And what’s this new solution supposed to be?
*
-> The final solution
L: Yeah. If you really want something to be different on this adventure, then maybe the companion you need to communicate these feelings and expectations with is not in this room.
Are you fucking kidding me.
The solution is something Thomas already realized TWICE. Once in the early 20s:
Y!L: I'm surprised he was in disagreement over you adjusting your online relationship status.
Y!P: That threw me off a little bit, too. I mean, we were so sure about that.
Y!T: Maybe I should have talked to him about it first. I mean, that was a decision that affected both of us.
And again in his late 20s:
R: Maybe it's worth having a conversation. I don't know. Lay out the pros and cons.
L: Whatever decision you make, you'll want to be on the same page with your bae.
T: Okay, I guess I can talk to him about it.
And this is never pointed out. On the contrary, it is presented as if Thomas reached a new incredible breakthrough, a solution never heard before. He even said “Hopefully, I am not a constant”, which is hilariously bad, considering he reached the same conclusion three times.
This ruins the conclusion, because the final solution should be different, it should bring something new to the table (unless we’re writing a tragic story, but that’s not the case).
This solution, instead, proves Logan is right: this is truly an experiment that “has been repeated time and time again with the same result”. The elements are always the same, after all. Even the solution is the same. So what should change, if we don’t bring anything new? Why should the result be different this time, if nothing else is?
Even worse, this solution doesn't answer the question Logan brought, the one that was supposed to wrap up the entire episode: “Why do people need love?”.
Let's recap the structure of the episode:
It starts with a simple question: “Why am I having these conflicted feelings about relationships?”
We find out why, by exploring what the Sides did right & wrong in previous relationships.
Logan introduces the new question, which raises the bar of the episode: “Why do people/Thomas need love?”
Thomas replies “Because Yes”.
The final moral of the episode is: talk to your partner.
I hope you can see for yourself that there is something wrong here.
We have two threads:
conflicted feelings → due to previous mistakes
people need love → Because Yes
And then we were supposed to have a final answer, that wraps up both threads and closes the episode.
But there’s a problem: the second thread doesn’t have a valid solution and the final answer doesn’t wrap anything up. “Talking with your partner” is right and good in general, but in the context of the episode, it comes out of nowhere and it’s not connected to anything.
It's not connected to conflicted feelings. Yes, we identified the reason why the feelings are conflicted (due to previous mistakes), but the natural consequence of this reasoning is not just to “talk to your partner”. It’s to understand yourself first, to realize the mistakes you made. Only after understanding yourself, can you talk to your partner.
It’s not connected to why people need love. This question required a more mature, psychological answer we didn’t get. And talking to your partner is not a solution at all.
*
-> The moral
So, at the end of the day, what is the moral that closes the episode?
T: I suppose the one thing we hopefully will learn over time through romantic relationships or platonic is how different we all can be. We all have obstacles. We all have pasts. We all have idiosyncrasies that can either endear us to someone else or not. And that can be okay if we understand that that's the risk we're taking when we say yes to the adventure. Despite everything, I'm glad for the times we said yes.
“Relationships are all different and it’s always worth to say yes to them.”
Ok, cool. But why? Why is it worth saying yes? Why do I need a relationship? Why do I need love? Why do people need love? What’s the “good” in a relationship?
That’s another example of tell, not show. We found out why the feelings are conflicted, we asked why do people need love, we reached the solution of talking to your partner… and the final message circles back to the “Because Yes” explanation - which is the worst and most useless one.
Once again, no explanation of why is it worth pursuing love or what the good things are supposed to be. I suppose it’s up to my imagination. Great. Cool.
So, this episode isn’t just confusing, because the threads and reasoning are not connected, but it’s also a useless waste of time, because I didn’t learn anything new and there is no actual, useful, real information.
Great, more time wasted. Exactly what SaSi needed, mh?
*
-> What would I have done?
You already know it: I would’ve made part 1 of the season 2 finale.
However, if I had to work on this episode and develop these questions into a structure, I would have chosen just one question and not combined all three of them into a single episode.
“Why are my feelings conflicted?” → This could work for an episode in which the conflicted emotions talk, instead of wasting time with a Doctor Who skit. But this means considering the current relationships among these Sides and expanding on their personalities, which is complicated for a skilled writer, let alone for people who are not writers at all.
Oh, and Logan would not have such a central role, considering he’s not an emotional Side. However, he could be a great impartial judge, while the others take center stage for most of the episode.
“Why do people need love?” → This could work for an episode characterized by a huge discussion that touches as many fields as possible (psychology, society, emotion, biology, etc). That means no Doctor Who skit, but just a long discussion, in which everyone has the right and time to talk - Remus included.
In this scenario, Logan has a central role, because he’s the one that needs to understand why people need love. While all other Sides have to explain their points and try to make him see their vision.
“Talk to your partner” → the Doctor Who idea could work well for this concept, but the premise should be completely different. Instead of starting the episode with “why are my feelings conflicted”, I would focus on a real, actual, specific event happening during the relationship - something that would lead (after a discussion and the Doctor Who thing) to the solution “talk to your partner”.
And, in general, I would’ve worked more with this conversation:
P: But with every breakup, it just takes a toll on me.
I just feel like with every person that comes into our life, with every framed photo we have to eventually put away, there's less and less of our heart to give.
T: And that's why I hesitate to give it to Nico.
This is interesting. This has good potential. And if we make the best use of it, we can develop almost all characters’ personalities, while also solving a couple of issues here and there.
PATTON, VIRGIL AND JANUS
By using this brief conversation, we can explore Patton's character a lot better, find out where his insecurity stems from, and what his reasoning/feelings are. He can show his maturity once more, and by better exploring his character, we can also show how his insecurity connects and validates Janus’ and Virgil’s decision to slow down the relationship with Nico.
ROMAN
Working more on that simple line can change the direction of the entire episode. Instead of ending it with everyone on the same side and Roman saying stupid shit like “I'm just going to overlook the beefs I have with most of you today”, we do the opposite: everyone agrees to slow down the relationship with Nico, everyone is okay with it.
Everyone, except for Roman.
Why does it work better? Oh, just for a couple of small reasons, like:
It exacerbates Roman’s feelings towards everyone else
It makes sense for the overall plot (instead of ignoring it Because Yes)
It prepares for the season 2 finale
It makes Roman a more consistent character
It makes Orange more clever
ORANGE
By now, it’s 99% sure Orange is rage, and I understand why he uses Logan to express himself: it made sense in WTIT.
But in this episode… eh, not so much. Logan plays no role in this emotional dilemma; he’s just trying to help. Hence, there is no actual reason for him to get angry or pissed at anything.
In fact, we see a glimpse of Orange only when Thomas mentions the current situation in the US, which is just a sad excuse to show some orange eyes and remind the public he exists.
However, if we change the ending and make everyone disagree with Roman, we offer Orange a new way to express himself. We put Roman on a silver platter for him: a new, beautiful, strong vessel ready to be enraged. Only an idiot won’t try to bait the guy.
Unless Orange is an idiot, which I’m starting to think while watching this episode, because he literally has a guy ready to get angry in front of him, but doesn’t even try to possess / bait him or whatever the fuck he’s doing with Logan.
Oh and now that I mention him and Logan: when I wrote my take on SaSi season 3, in the season 2 finale I used the same plot used in this episode, i.e. Roman’s need to jump headfirst into this relationship, while the others are more cautious. I did so, because this relationship is something Roman deeply cares about, something big enough to elicit a strong reaction from him that could’ve led to his character arc (also, it’s the only possible plot to develop).
But if this plot has been used here, then what will be the finale about? Logan and Orange? Orange only? Are we literally forgetting about Roman?
(I did not, don’t worry)
______________
Do I really know English?, aka knowing your own language
I need your help here, people.
There is this part, right after Logan explains that the best solution would be for Thomas to stop dating. Thomas says that it’s worth it Because Yes, then they say this:
R: Look, not all of us can be good at romance, Logan. But I would never advise Thomas to give up on being logical just because I don't understand it. But I suppose you tried to shed some light on the situation, which is commendable.
L: Ironically, Roman, I would have thought you would be the one most compelled by my argument. (...) It's what Janus said. He can work the most subterfuge by appealing to emotion. And in what other situation but dating will the ways of the heart play a larger role?
R: Well, I didn't think any of that mattered to you.
L: I knew it was important to you, so I put it in the pros column of the plan.
P: But you- you heard what Janus said about that, Logan.
L: Well, I suppose we'll see.
And this makes me question everything: me, my life, my C2 Proficiency English certificate, because… what is that supposed to mean? I watched and rewatched and re-read this part and looked at it from all sides, but I really cannot understand it.
Let’s try to recap the conversation:
Roman says that he might not understand logic, but “I would never tell Thomas to give up on it”. Well, bro, Logan himself told you at the beginning of this stupid episode that “this is venturing so far into emotions territory. And we all know how I fared with dating advice in the past”. You already knew he would’ve been extremely logical, so why the surprise?
Logan replies that Roman should’ve been compelled by his argument, because dating is something in which lies and deceit play a role and Roman is against it… even though his own fucking role as Creativity implies the influence of lies and deceit. Coherence? Never heard of her.
Logan says it matters, so he put it… in the pros? Uh?
Patton says: “You heard what Janus said about that”. Says what? What did he say? He talked about how social media help people regain control of their private lives - up to a certain point. But that was something he said, like, 20 minutes ago. The last thing he talked about was the shared bank account: was Patton referring to this? Or are they referring to Janus saying that emotions justify his actions? How can this help to prove Logan’s point?
And what does “we’ll see” mean? “We’ll see” what?
I cannot understand it. So, I have only two possible explanations:
I am a total idiot who doesn’t understand English anymore
This conversation looked very good in Mr. Sanders’ mind because he had all the connections, but when he put it on paper, the connections were lost to the public.
And until someone proves to me that this conversation has some actual meaning, I think the confusion is due to the second reason - which is another, very common, writer’s mistake: the missing connections.
In our minds, every story and every dialogue looks perfectly clear, because we have the entire thing inside. But when we put it down on actual/virtual paper, one missing piece is enough to turn everything into an incoherent mess. If in our heads the characters know something we forgot to tell the public, said public would be immensely confusing while reading because… how the heck did these characters find out about that thing?
That doesn’t mean you have to spoon-feed every little detail to your public. People deserve to play and have fun putting together pieces of your story. But you need to give them some clear pieces first! If you give them a piece of sky, a wing, and a scribbled-out piece, how are they supposed to put them together?
Let’s try to solve this issue by making this dialogue simpler and more understandable - while also trying to make Roman more coherent too:
R: Look, not everyone can understand romance, Logan. But I would never advise Thomas to give up on being logical just because I don't get it. At least you tried to shed some light on the situation, which is commendable.
L: Actually, Roman, I thought you would be the one most compelled by my argument. (...) It's what Janus said: emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior patterns. And in what other situation but dating will emotions play a larger role?
R: Well, I didn't think any of that mattered to you.
L: I knew it was important to you, so I put it in the cons.
R: But still… it’s not enough, for me, to give up entirely on dating. There might be some place for deceit… but there is plenty of room for something genuine too.
L: Mmmh… I might’ve been too harsh with my solution. After all, I did mean what I said. Nico has brought about some positive habits in you, Thomas,…
What did I change:
Roman acknowledges Logan cannot understand romance
Logan explains what he’s referring to, when he talks about “what Janus said”
Logan explains that what Janus said was considered negatively (and not positively)
Roman replies with something that makes sense
Logan acknowledges that the solution could be different
It’s not perfect, but at least I read and understand what they are talking about, rather than being confused and trying to guess what Janus said or what “we’ll see” means.
This isn’t just proof of bad writing: this makes me question Mr. Sander’s mother tongue. I mean, if he needs someone who is not even English to correct his syntax, the problem is deeper than I thought. Maybe he needs to re-learn his grammar?
Also, it’s a general lack of respect. People are spending their time engaging with your art: the least you can do as a creator is present them with something clean and polished, not with something a middle schooler might write while bored.
______________
Conclusion: Roman and the reason for this episode
There’s one character I haven’t talked about until now and that character is Roman. And the reason I didn’t talk about him before is because his issues reconnect with the episode as a whole and its existence.
Considering the current situation of the series, Roman is not like the other characters. His character arc is supposed to reach its climax in the upcoming season two finale.
And, considering there should be a third season before closing Sanders Sides, this finale and the subsequent character arc should be heavily important. After all, we’re almost two thirds into this series: things are supposed to reach their climax, before slowly descending into the series finale.
Therefore, everything matters. And everything Roman does should be coherent with the current situation he’s in: his psychology should be spot on, ready for the challenges the season finale will bring.
But what we have here, is a completely incoherent Side.
First of all, this:
R: I just still can't believe Logan would suggest such a thing.
Roman asked for the help of a logical Side, only to be surprised when said logical Side used logic in his reasoning.
It’s as if Roman never talked with Logan before. As if he doesn’t know that Logan is so logical. As if they never headbutted in the past about how strictly logical Logan was and how much more whimsical Roman was (i.e. Why do we get out of bed in the morning).
And before any of you says “But Roman is a himbo”, please allow me to remind you that Logan himself stated even before rising that love was not his thing and he couldn’t understand it:
L: The topic of love does not interest me.
L: I have no doubt I could be of some assistance here, but this is venturing so far into uh emotions territory. And we all know how I fared with dating advice in the past.
He even used a goddamn flashback, to remind everyone how he considers love and relationships. So no, that’s not being a himbo: that’s being stupid.
But you know what? I could’ve turned a blind eye and let this pass. I would’ve just said that Roman is a bit incoherent, talk about the importance of remembering your character’s personality, and move over.
But then, the episode reached its conclusion and Roman said this:
R: You guys, I'm just going to overlook the beefs I have with most of you today because this is what I have been waiting for. I am so glad you all see the vision.
And this destroys everything.
That’s the same mistake Mr. Sanders made with Patton’s growth. But while Patton is a character who already had his character arc, Roman is having it now. Everything about him should be coherent.
But hey, we have to close the episode on a positive note! So let’s just ignore Roman’s character arc and the overall plot, by forcing him to forget he’s pissed at all other Sides!
That’s not good writing. That’s not even writing. That’s slapping your public in the face and telling them “fuck you”. That’s stomping on the plot and the character, because the episode needs to end, and we should wrap it up quickly and do something else.
This is not a writer’s mistake: this. Is. Not. Writing. When you write, your story comes first. Not a funny line, not a witty joke, not a fucking episode that wasn’t even supposed to exist, but you made it anyway because “oh, look at how funny it would be to use Doctor Who!”.
Because that’s the reason why this episode exists: not because of the plot, not to remind people of the season 2 finale, not for any actual, valid reason. It exists just because Mr. Sanders thought it was a funny idea.
And don’t get me wrong here: it’s perfectly valid and good to have fun and add fun things to your story. But only if they make sense within the story. You can add whatever you want, if it doesn’t negatively affect your story and your characters.
Normally, I would be much more lenient. Not everyone is a writer, most of the time people write just for fun and it’s fine to write shit. I wrote shit for most of my life and, when I look back at it, I cringe, I laugh and I fondly remember how bad it was.
But SaSi is a series made on the internet, watched by thousands of people. A series in which people are invested and that they deeply love, to the point that they contribute in multiple ways by keeping it alive with beautiful works.
I understand if Mr. Sanders is not in love with the series anymore and doesn’t care about the plot. But the people who still deeply care… they deserve something worth their time, love and patience. They deserve something well written. Something made by an actual writer, not a wannabe writer. And definitely not an idea thrown to their face, with a bunch of shiny stuff to distract them.
And what I hate even more is that the distraction actually worked. Because most of the comments I’ve read around are about how cool the designs of the young Sides are. Not about the plot, the message, or some memorable parts. It’s about the decoy. The shiny stuff.
Msot of the people in this fandom are young, and it’s completely natural to be distracted by this kind of stuff. It still happens to me too, so I’m no better than you.
But, maybe, since I already experienced this kind of trick, I can recognize it and warn you about it. And offer my help, so you will be able to recognize it again in the future and not get fooled anymore.
That’s why, in the end, I made this analysis, and I made it so long. Because I think people deserve to hear both sides: the one who praises and loves this episode for its shiny reasons, and the one who points out all the potentially good choices and how they have been ruined by incompetence.
Maybe this analysis will just anger everyone, but even if just one person remembers some of my points and develops a colder, more analytical mentality towards future artworks they will enjoy… well, that makes all the time I spent on it absolutely, 100% worth it 🙂
So for you all who reached this end: congratulations. You survived (I hope)! And if you enjoyed your time here, I am extremely grateful. If you do not enjoy it, I’m sorry this ride wasn’t as good as you hoped. Maybe I’ll make a better one in the future, for other stories. Or in 10 years, when Mr. Sanders will finally decide to make another useless episode.
And if you learned anything here about how to be a better writer… you’re welcome. I’m just trying to give it to you what others gave to me when I was younger. Hope it will work for you too.
Have fun, enjoy your life, have passions and we’ll see each other again 💛
Roman Sanders looking at himself in the mirror after he decided to dye his own hair rainbow since Thomas wasn’t going to do it any time soon, bleaching his hair while wondering how he would arrange the colors, and only really looking at himself after he rinsed the bleach out. Also Thomas hasn’t shaved for a few days. :
This piece was heavily inspired by the illustration ‘Primrose and Feather’ by Alphonse Mucha- the original Grimm Brothers fairytale that inspired that illustration is like so interesting btw check it out.
i have a theory that the growing purity culture in fandoms come from the fact that white queers and neurodivergents do not think they have to decentralize their whiteness, which shifts fandom to be a mode of moral posturing and performativism in a way that touches their unconscious want to become a white savior like what evangelical christians want to do
just some context as to why i posted this on my sasi blog and not my main is because i've been in deep reflection about the different states of the sasi fandom for the past 8 years.
one in particular that has nagged me is the 2017-2019 era wherein the fandom was paraded as The unproblematic fandom, because it barely had ship wars or major fandom discourse. but that kind of bubble popped in 2020 during the pandemic + blm movement happened, because it exposed how many white people existed in the fandom that stomped over the voices of poc.
this was peak time where normies also joined fandom so that means a lot of White People. the large presence of uncultured white people within the fandom has really caused it much harm, particularly when it comes to 1.) diminished media literacy, 2.) dogshit writing for characters of color, and 3.) understanding nuance in the context of the show.
we are privileged to live in an era of sasi where we don't have to tag "sympathetic/unsympathetic" sides or "tw deceit" "dukedontlook" anymore. the clear cut, black-and-white perspectives of each character, plus the weird race stereotypes white people made for human au's, really showed that many fans didn't really care for the characters nor the messaging of sasi more than they did for moral posturing and policing.
this has caused many fans to believe criticizing a character, seeing their flaws, or having plot conflicts is tantamount to being bad. i remembered after every episode of sasi, instead of understanding why a character acted poorly in an episode (re. patton in svs.r, logan in lntao, etc.) fans would insist x character is a bad person. and i mean, there's nothing wrong about disliking characters but the black-and-white thinking a lot of fans have in regards to character flaws makes me worried about how they view Actual people, especially those with trauma or damaged by capitalism.
this is especially concerning knowing that one of sasi's main themes is overcoming black-and-white thinking. svs.r and dwit are two phenomenal episodes that examine where Exactly thomas' black-and-white thinking comes from and how it affects self-esteem and his perception of others. it especially talks about the influence of catholic/christian principles as a reason why the sides are compartmentalized as "light" sides and "dark" sides. i cannot believe how many people do Not talk about this aspect of sasi, since it has been very explicit about its criticisms of the church and its effect on our morality.
white supremacy and racism can subtly infiltrate so many aspects of fandom culture and i really wished people were more aware of that. i love sasi as a series so much but in my eight years of being here, i have witnessed so many fans of color get harassed for "breaking the peace" when trying to examine the story or fan culture more analytically.
and for an extra note, nothing now has spawned this exact thought but i just wanted to talk about it in detail because i realized it yesterday while talking with my friend. i have lived every era of Whiteness the fandom has to give. and i guess why it still matters to me now is that i've noticed many fans media literacy to be quite low :( why it relates specifically to purity culture is because the egotistical need to posture overtakes all your senses, detracting from understanding what a storyline is specifically talking about.
so — please stop infantilizing the characters. please understand sasi's themes of black-and-white thinking. for white people, please stop projecting your damn ego and feigned fragility into fandom interactions and content. white queers and disabled people, remember your whiteness also informs your existence, so don't think you're exempt from racism because of that. purity culture in fandom is its own form of prejudice that i think needs to be dismantled
Creativitwins in this episode was so perfect. I mean, look at them
This is not "he is everything I don't want to be" behavior this is SIBLING BEHAVIOR
I stand by the fact that Roman does not hate Remus, he just feels like he cant be nice to him or interact with him the way he wants to because of how it'll be interpreted by the other sides. This is their real relationship, and anyone who has siblings will tell you this is not only normal. but GOOD.
