#oops tfc meta

[evil-diabolical-oops]

I've been thinking a lot about Kevin Day and his competitive spirit lately. He has a reputation for being a coward, but Neil Josten comes along, stands up to Riko, and Kevin refuses to be outdone. He tells the press he's never been skiing, replaces the 2 tattoo with the queen chess piece, and scores the winning goal in the last 2 seconds to defeat the Ravens.

Give Kevin something/someone to compete against, and he will find his backbone.

[evil-diabolical-oops]

WHATSUP. Just finished reading your meta about Neil and Identity and I am living for it. Wow, that was such a good analysis and I fucking love how much more I could appreciate the story. Like hot damn. ty. Anyways I wondered if you could explain a little more on 1) what you meant by Uncle stuarts rescue not weakening the story and 2) im still a little hazy as to the negation of the negation and what exactly the stakes raised even further would be? Tyty <3

Aww, thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it! <3

This got….a little long……

I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to start with your second question first. And before I get to negation of negation, I’m going to talk a little about story values. According to Robert McKee, story values are “the universal qualities of human experience that may shift from positive to negative, or negative to positive, from one moment to the next.” They are things like love/hate, life/death, good/evil, etc. If written well, each scene in a story will result in a change in a story value. (You can have more than one story value per story, obviously.)

You can take a story value and break it down. First is the positive. The opposite of the positive is the contradictory.

Love (Positive) -> Hate (Contradictory)

Between the Positive and Contradictory is something that is a bit negative but not the opposite, and that’s called the Contrary.

Love (Positive) -> Indifference (Contrary) -> Hate (Contradicotry)

The Negation of the Negation is “at the limit of the dark powers of human nature.” It’s worse than the opposite. You can generally get a version of it by this formula: Contradictory + “masquerading as” + Positive. (Or you can do “perceived as” too.) In the example above, that would make the Negation of the Negation: Hate masquerading as Love.

Love (Positive) -> Indifference (Contrary) -> Hate (Contradicotry) -> Hate Masquerading as Love (Negation of the Negation)

The idea is that adding the lie (the “masquerading as”) makes the Negation of the Negation worse than the opposite (Contradictory). It’s much darker to deal with someone pretending at love when they actually hate.

Another variation that makes it more internal would be:

Love (Positive) -> Indifference (Contrary) -> Hate (Contradicotry) -> Self-hate (Negation of the Negation)

Neil’s story value for his internal story arc is “truth.”

That breaks down as:

Truth (Positive) -> White Lies/Half-truths (Contrary) -> Lies (Contradictory)

To get the Negation of the Negation you can make it “Lies masquerading as Truth” or like the love/hate example above, you can have the variation “Self-deception.”

Neil’s story value then ends up looking like this:

Truth (Positive) -> White Lies/Half-truths (Contrary) -> Lies (Contradictory) -> Self-deception (Negation of the Negation)

Not all stories reach for the Negation of the Negation, but stories exploiting the highest stakes should. Neil’s brush with self-deception, the Negation of the Negation, is when his POV switches to Nathaniel. After Baltimore, he struggles with whether or not he can really be Neil Josten. But Neil isn’t just the constructed identity he was at the beginning of the story, and Andrew reminds him of that.

“Can I really be Neil again?”“I told Neil to stay,” Andrew said. “Leave Nathaniel buried in Baltimore with his father.”

Neil is the “truth” and Nathaniel is the “lie.” Nathaniel is the boy that was scared of his father and couldn’t get past that. Neil isn’t that boy anymore.

Which gets to your first question about my statement about “Uncle Stuart’s rescue not weakening the story.” I’ll caveat and say that Neil not saving himself does weaken the story a little because you always want the main character to have agency, but it isn’t crucial to his internal story arc. Life/death is the external story value at the moment he’s with his father, but despite Neil’s conviction that he was going to die throughout most of the series, very little of the action in the story hinged on life/death. Life/death is typically the driving force of action stories, which TFC isn’t. Neil surviving that moment with his father is big, but it’s not as big as Neil choosing Neil over Nathaniel for his identity. If Nora failed to deliver that decision, we as readers would have felt like there was something missing and been disappointed. To speculate, a failure to deliver that moment might have simply been Neil accepting his new identity as Neil Josten without ever undergoing that struggle. He spent the series moving from lie -> half-truth -> truth. It’s the natural progression, but we’ll feel like something significant is missing without that moment because nothing arrived to challenge that final transition into truth. It would seem almost too easy. Instead, we get something even better because he is SO CLOSE to becoming the truth when he is faced with the absolute worst.

In the face of the deus ex machina rescue by Uncle Stuart, we only shrug a little and move on. That minor disappointment of Neil not rescuing himself doesn’t linger and make us wonder what went wrong with the story.

Edit to add: you can find the beginning of the original series of neil and identity posts here.

[evil-diabolical-oops]

(1/3) If you down to still talk about tfc, I have something on my mind. What do you think of Andrew's "Don't ask the question you already know the answer to"? Was it trust-I believe at this point Andrew trusted enough of Neil, with Kevin and everything that had happened. Was he trusting Neil to not ask for things Andrew won't and can’t give?-mixed with a challenge if Neil could make Andrew say yes to his offer mixed with also that self-destructive instinct that made Andrew made Neil put his

(2/3) hand on him 4 months after Drake mixed with the expectation that Neil would fail this so Andrew can tell himself he’s a pipedream after all? or is it something else entirely? I know the fandom are throwing the idea that Andrew would give the world and more for Neil, but I just don’t really see it at this point. Andrew would burn the world for Aaron and he chose Neil in the end, but he shut Kevin down for offering what he actually wanted. I picture Andrew would have no qualm saying no if he

(3/3) really didn’t want to, regardless of who asked. I just really like your metas, and thought of bouncing the thought on you, if you don’t mind? :D

I don’t mind at all. Thanks for asking! <3

I’ve talked about this scene (and it’s partner scene) a little bit before. Andrew has already made a deal to protect Neil, and he’s willing to wager his life to do it. It sounds like a high price. What more can he give? But Andrew doesn’t value his life that much.

Subconsciously, Andrew might have been ready to burn the world for Neil, but he hasn’t had to acknowledge that yet. It isn’t until Neil goes missing that he is forced to confront the fact that he does indeed have the thing he’s been trying to avoid the most: feelings.

Now to your question: Was it trust? I think it was trust in the sense that he trusts that Neil understands how deals work with him. Neil seems to be the only one to understand what deals mean to Andrew. So he can trust Neil to keep up his side of the bargain. He also trusts Neil to accept when he says “no” to something.

The challenge, if there is one in his reply, is that Andrew is simply looking for something interesting to fill the void of his apathy, and Neil tends to be good at being interesting. I don’t think the exchange was Andrew engaging in self-destructive behavior. What DOES happen is that Neil targets Andrew’s self-destructive streak and asks him to stop taking cracker dust.

As a side note, I don’t think Andrew placing Neil’s hand on his chest was entirely self-destructive, at least, not on a conscious level. He was certainly giving Neil a chance to take, just like Neil had been willing to let Andrew take on the rooftop during their first kiss. It’s a test Neil could have easily failed if he was anyone else, and it would have messed things up between them. But Neil won’t be like them. It was also partly something Andrew wanted, I think, prematurely. He wasn’t ready for it. It’s Andrew wanting things without dealing with all the awkwardness that comes with his issues. He doesn’t want it to be a big deal, but Neil’s always been happy with whatever Andrew is willing to give. So if Andrew isn’t ready for him to touch more, it’s not a big deal.  The big deal is knowing Andrew’s boundaries and then respecting them.

[evil-diabolical-oops]

I have a surprising amount to say about this short bit after they pick Andrew up at Easthaven. First, Neil takes a literal back seat when Andrew returns. After months of basically leading the monsters, he passes control right back to Andrew. He doesn’t even get shot gun. And he does this without protest, nothing to disrupt Andrew’s reintegration to the group. He’s not going to “take” from Andrew.

Second, Neil’s in pain (thanks, Nicky, for gripping his wrist) from the abuse he suffered at Evermore. Plus, the music is giving him a headache, but Neil “I’m Fine” Josten isn’t going to complain. He’s been through worse. He’s used to this, which I find incredibly sad. 

Last, Neil is also aware that Andrew is under the microscope, so to speak. Everyone wants to see how Andrew is going to act now that he’s sober. Neil’s reluctance to complain is most likely driven by the fact he knows Andrew needs that sound barrier against the others in what has to be an incredibly awkward car ride for him. Neil is prioritizing Andrew above himself.

What a pipe dream.

[evil-diabolical-oops]

It’s a fact that Andrew likes word play:

He does it even when he is angry, as he is with Kevin. You could blame it on the drugs, but here he is sober:

Andrew is good with words, when he chooses to use them, if he thinks they are worth the effort. He can be uncomfortably blunt: “That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t blow you.” And of course, with his eidetic memory, he doesn’t forget. 

Which is how you know just how affected he is here:

[evil-diabolical-oops]

Righteousness is for people who don’t know any better

Everyone knows Neil has an attitude problem, and that he says what he thinks. For example, in the first book when they take Neil to Eden’s:

“Drugs are stupid.“ "Ouch,” Andrew said with a cold smile. “That’s judgmental.” “I’m not going to apologize for thinking you’re being idiotic.” “Is your spine the spine of the righteous?” Andrew wondered. “Are you trying your best to step on my toes because you’re feeling the tragic weight of the holier than thou?” “Righteousness is for people who don’t know any better.” 

What’s interesting about this is how (probably unintentionally) honest that last line is. Neil often doesn’t know any better, but that doesn’t stop him from running his mouth and meddling when he thinks he is right.

Neil lecturing Riko on friendship is one of the funniest things in the series, imo. Because not only does Neil roast Riko on live television:

“I thought friends were supposed to cheer each other on,” he said before Kathy could answer Riko. “Believing in him now is the least you could do after completely abandoning him last winter.”

But Neil spends most of the series freaked out about friendship, especially when it is applied to him:

“I’ve never had friends before. I don’t know how this works. I’m trying, but it’s going to take time.” 

He doesn’t know anything about friendship, but there he is preaching to Riko. At least he added the caveat of that’s how he thought friends were supposed to behave?

Neil’s fight with Riko is just the beginning. Neil quickly moves on. He ultimately tries to repair things between Andrew and Aaron. Now Andrew is no stranger to meddling. He does it himself. It’s something he and Neil have in common. Where they differ is that Andrew tends to plan his (when he can be bothered to intervene). He made sure to get the permission of Matt’s mother before tempting Matt with drugs. He had a key ready to hand to Neil when they made their deal. He gets Neil a phone and then has Nicky text Neil until he is comfortable using it. 

Both of them tend to be motivated into these actions by “righteous” reasons, and perhaps importantly they aren’t meddling for their own gain. Andrew wants Matt to handle his drug problem because it’s putting strain on Aaron. He wants Neil to stop running because he’s not going to survive that way. Meanwhile, Neil stands up to Riko to protect Kevin, and he interferes with Andrew and Aaron to unite the team. 

Which is all to say, Andrew is on to Neil. While Neil makes his case to Andrew to let Aaron go in TKM:

“Let him go now if you ever want him to come back.” “Who asked you?” “You didn’t have to. I’m volunteering my opinion.”

Andrew has already faced the consequences of Neil interfering (at Nicky’s parents, with Drake) in these situations and Neil not knowing better, and that’s why he says:

“Don’t,” Andrew advised him. “Children should be seen and not heard.”

Neil is a child who doesn’t know what he is doing. To Andrew, he’s asking for something he doesn’t understand. But Neil doesn’t want to give up. He’s on a mission.

“Don’t dismiss me for lying to you then ignore me when I tell the truth.” “This is not truth,” Andrew said. “Truth is irrefutable and untainted by bias. Sunrise, Abram, death: these are truths. You cannot judge a problem with your obsession goggles on and call it truth. You aren’t fooling either of us.”

What I like about this exchange is how it is complicated by the fact that they are both right. Neil is being honest, he’s telling the truth as he believes it, and that’s not a luxury he’s had much of in his life. Worse, he’s sincere, but Andrew’s not impressed by Neil’s narrow focus, his “obsession goggles” that blind him to all of the facts except the ones he cares about, so he calls out Neil’s bias. And then Neil pushes too far:

“If you ask for half the truth, you’ll only get half the truth,” Neil said. “It’s your fault if you don’t like the answers I give you, not mine. But as long as we’re talking about obsession and Aaron’s life, what are you going to do about his trial? She’s going to be here for it, isn’t she? Cass, I mean,” Neil said, though he was sure Andrew knew who he was talking about. “You’re going to have to face her.” “Seen and not heard,” Andrew reminded him. He sounded bored, but Neil knew a warning when heard one. Neil let it slide and went back inside.

Bringing up Cass here is a strong reminder of Neil’s meddling and unintended consequences. Andrew has had enough and warns Neil off. 

There’s one other exchange that I think is interesting in this light. It follows after Neil’s interview with the press in which he stated Edgar Allen should have Coach Moriyama step down. Andrew’s come to Neil’s room to get some to tell him Kevin won’t be at night practice.

“They don’t have a choice anymore. If the Ravens don’t let us run our course there will always be room for doubt and speculations. The Ravens can’t share their throne with what-ifs. They have to be supreme victors.“ Andrew gave that a moment to sink in before saying, "I’m undecided.” “About our chances this spring?” Neil asked. Andrew held his hands palm-up between them. “The thought that you’ve unintentionally conned them into this corner is intolerable, as it means you’re stupider than even I gave you credit for. If you did it knowingly, however, you’re cleverer than you’ve led me to believe. That means the Ravens aren’t the only ones you’re playing with. One of these is the lesser evil.”

Andrew can’t believe Neil’s been so successful at blundering on like he has, but to not believe Neil’s been blundering through it means that it’s intentional, that what happened with Drake might not have been the unintended consequences of Neil’s well-intentioned meddling as Andrew had assumed and instead is something a bit more sinister…

And even if Drake had been unintended, an accident in some other plan Neil had, it doesn’t mean Neil isn’t playing him.

“Not everything’s a con,” Neil said. Andrew didn’t answer, but Neil read his calm expression as disbelief. Neil considered defending himself and decided it a waste of energy. Andrew wouldn’t believe him anyway. “Which one is the lesser evil?” “I’m undecided,” Andrew said again.

It’s hard to know if Andrew is hedging here and doesn’t want to answer because he’d have to explain or because he thinks the likelihood of Neil actually being more clever than he thought is rather low or because he really is undecided. 

Why would he be undecided if one option seems to clearly be the worst choice? Because Andrew is used to people letting him down. That’s easy. If Neil turns out to be genuine, the pipedream that seems an impossibility, well, that’s an emotional landmine.

“That’s helpful,” Neil muttered. “You could just ask.” “Why bother?” Andrew asked with a slight shrug. “I’ll figure it out eventually.”

And Andrew does figure it out on a hotel room floor in Baltimore. As it so happens, he can’t live without a righteous idiot who doesn’t know any better. 

[evil-diabolical-oops]

Remember that time Neil and Kevin were insulted by a couple of Breckenridge players….

And Neil was so worried about Andrew ruining everything that he didn’t think to run his smart mouth in response….

But Andrew was either annoyed or wanted to be amused….

So being the smart person that he is, he made a move to show off Neil’s highlight-reel worthy speed and in the process proved to Breckenridge how wrong they were.

Yeah. We’re on to you, Andrew.

[evil-diabolical-oops]

GMC in TFC

A summary of the character stakes in The Foxhole Court. I probably can’t stress enough how well constructed the stakes are for the series. I reference stakes several times in my meta and have a few more meta planned with them, so I figured I’d create a master post explaining how I came up with the stakes. And create a list of them.

What is GMC*?

Goal - what the character wants

Motivation - why they want it

Conflict - what prevents them from having it (why not)

The stakes formula:

A character wants a goal because motivation, but they face conflict.

Want is the keyword in the sentence that signals the goal is about to follow. Stakes aren’t the goal by itself. Stakes are what is gained by a character achieving their goal. Or stakes are what is lost by a character failing to achieve their goal. (It could also be lost/succeeding or gained/failing depending on the story.) In other words, the stakes are the consequences. 

Because is the keyword in the sentence that signals the motivation is about to follow. Motivation is why we care, why we cheer for (or against) a character page after page, why that goal matters to the character. Stakes don’t matter without the motivation of the character. 

But is the keyword that lets us know the conflict is about to follow. Conflict is all of the obstacles that stand in the way of the character reaching that goal. Conflict raises the stakes. 

Goal, motivation, and conflict combine to highlight the stakes.

Stakes can either be external or internal (which I refer to as personal). If the stake belongs in the realm of the physical senses, it’s external. Otherwise, it’s personal (emotional needs, spiritual needs, life lessons, etc).

A Look at Neil’s External Stake

Following the formula we get:

A lying runaway wants to play Exy for the Palmetto State Foxes because it’s the only thing that makes him feel real, but after being thrust into the spotlight, he risks exposing his true identity and betraying his whereabouts to his crime lord father.

Character - a lying runaway

Goal - to play Exy

Motivation - it’s the only thing that makes him feel real

Conflict - being thrust into the spotlight risks exposing his true identity and betraying his whereabouts to his crime lord father

I’m using the dominant impression for the character here, instead of Neil. In this case, I feel it helps explain the conflict. I could have gone with “cowardly runaway” but using lying allows me to contrast with the “feel real” and “exposing his true identity.” Using cowardly doesn’t, and it’s a bit redundant paired with runaway.

Reworking the external stake a little and moving the situation to the front, we get:

When offered the chance to play Exy for the Palmetto State Foxes, a lying runaway decides to stop hiding for the chance to feel real playing the sport he loves, but after being thrust into the spotlight, he risks exposing his true identity and betraying his whereabouts to his crime lord father.

What does this look like? Well, if you are a writer, it’s pretty close to an elevator pitch. This isn’t the only formula to use for an elevator pitch, and if I were going to use my sentence above, I’d probably tweak it some more. But you get the idea. Neil wants to play Exy. No surprise there.

Personal Stakes for Several of the Characters

Some of these might look familiar because I’ve posted them before. Personal stakes are focused on an internal value. It might not be the only one the character struggles with, but it should be the main one. For example, Neil also struggles with not running, not being a coward.

Neil

Neil doesn’t want to die alone because he wants “Neil Josten” to be real and remembered. But in order for that to happen, though, Neil has to be a true person. And the truth about himself is his greatest fear. He’s afraid of resemblance to his father.

Value at stake: Truth/identity

Andrew

Andrew needs a purpose. It’s why he made his deal with Kevin. Because he hasn’t found anything interesting enough to live for except the promises he’s made. But he can’t have that until he lets something or someone in. And that is his greatest fear.

Value at stake: Purpose/meaning

Aaron

Aaron wants someone to love him because his mother never did, but the pact he made with his brother to stay by each other’s side and not let anyone close (in hopes that Andrew would fill that missing role) gets in the way when Aaron falls in love with a girl who does.

Value at stake: Love

Kevin

Kevin wants to escape Riko’s shadow because he’s been forced to be number two for most of his life, but Kevin must find the courage to stand up for himself as Riko tries to stop him any way he can.

Value at stake: Courage

Riko

Riko wants to be the best at Exy in order to get his estranged father to acknowledge him, but Kevin Day’s existence threatens to take that away from Riko even after Riko cripples Kevin’s dominant playing hand. 

Value at stake: Acknowledgement

Wymack

Wymack wants to give troubled young adults a chance at success using Exy because of his own rough past, but the strongest team in Exy is prepared to do anything they can to harm the Foxes and guarantee their failure.

Value at stake: Success (could make a case for reputation too)

Note the use of fear as the conflict in many of these. High stakes involve a character overcoming their greatest fear to get what they want. 

These are obviously how I see the stakes, but I am sure you could take a slightly different angle and come up with your own version.

Meta I’ve written discussing stakes:

The Airport Scene

Last Few Lines of Dialogue in TKM

Aaron’s Character Arc

Neil and Identity: Part 1 | Part 2

* GMC: Goal, Motivation, and Conflict is a book by Debra Dixon. She doesn’t quite put it in the same terms of stakes as I do, but it is still a useful book.