Discover Top Posts Tagged with #setting analysis

How the Wildsea Produces Culture [TTRPG Setting Analysis]

My latest video is on Felix Isaacs' "The Wildsea!" I borrow inspiration from the work of scholar Stefan Ekman, who is particularly interested in "critical worldbuilding." I think Ekman has some really interesting perspectives on how texts create their worlds, intentionally or otherwise--In particular I loved his piece "World-building through garments and accessories in dungeons & dragons illustrations."

I took inspiration from that kind of setting analysis and tried to apply it to The Wildsea, a game which I've heard a lot about and knew I would love based on the fiction alone. When reading the game, I was thrilled to see how much work Isaacs put into imagining the cultural implications and norms of the setting, and had to focus on that.

Transcript here.

#the wildsea #wildsea #felix isaacs #critical worldbuilding #worldbuilding #setting analysis #ttrpg #role playing games #Youtube

You know if you look at human progression as a form of dialectics (in this case it would likely be Hegelian dialectics, where discourse is not in literature or speech but rather events and circumstances) in the context of HDG, then you get this really cool dynamic emerging. There is the duality of establishment versus resistance, feral versus domestic, individuality versus communality, and you can see this dialectic challenge developing in a really unique way.

First there is the progression -

Terrans bind together in a war effort against the Affini, where concepts of domesticity represent their humanity and integration into society. Simultaneously there is the status quo brought about by establishment, where Terran institutions are trusted and faith is placed in them. Communality is valued, though not at the expense of individuality, but through a collective identity of what it means to be a Terran.

Second there is the regression -

After the Human Domestication Treaty is signed, domesticity is refused in favor of feralism. The status quo via establishment is brought down intrinsically (a literal surrender signing human lives away, if you subscribe to the idea that becoming a floret constitutes a removal of personhood). Resistance takes precedence over establishment, as free Terran movements fracture communality to make way for individuality. I admittedly know little of the lore concerning the immediate response of the HDT being signed - but given the common occurrence of feralists being portrayed as individual or tribal holdouts living in comparably more rustic circumstances, I think a reasonable assumption would imply that feralists aligned Terrans did not form a tight bond of resistance, but rather pockets of dissent circumstantially focused on the more immediate self preservation. Faith is lost in institutions as the signing of the HDT is seen as betrayal - and the dialectical inversion of direction in the Terran government (fighting for the preservation of humanity -> surrendering humanity) is mirrored in the regression of humanity (a largely united society against a common goal becoming a tribalized society, individual preservation taking priority over a more humanity-centric drive for progress)

Next comes the rebuilding -

Following a shock to the dialectic phase between “progression” and “regression”, there’s a return to form. Feralist movements find ways to gather and unite in their common goal, a push is made to get back on track in terms of the advancement of humanity with the focus on preservation of the “Terran spirit”. Establishment becomes a status quo, but in a muted form - where adherence to the systems in place are trusted with suspect acceptance. Feralists are depicted to have contingencies in the fallout. Trust exists with the lining of hesitance, but this also sees a return to domesticity. Trust breeds a form of contractualism now built in the paradigm of the feralist resistance, and in that contractualist framework society begins to rebuild and take a recognizable shape. With that rebuilding, communality arises as feralists work towards a common goal of “preserving the Terran spirit” or fighting to remain “free Terrans” rather than individual preservation. This constructs a sort of plateau, where the common assumption of dialectic patterns provide comfort - the concept of conflicting concepts sparring to reach a more perfected reality is seen, and some peace might be found in the observation that hardship for free Terrans has bred resilience and potential.

Finally comes the cessation -

The “rebuilding” phase acts as a microcosm of the progression phase, but muted. Feralist movements create a simulacrum Terran government, mirroring the goals in the initial progression phase. This, in the context of an indomitable foe embodied by the Affini Compact, is going to enter a decaying repetition where the muted feralist movements iterate through their own waning progression and regression phases, until no noteworthy iterations of this pattern can be detected. At the point the cyclical progression/regression phases are unnoticeable, effectively human society ceases to exist.

—

What I wanted to highlight here is an insight to how the “horror” (or rather, I would call it suspenseful) elements of the HDG universe take shape. Human experience is suffused with a layman’s understanding of dialectic patterns, “what does not kill me makes me stronger”. The recount of human history, and the assumed progression of humanity to reach the characterization of human society in the Terran Accord, implies a defining dialectic pattern to human existence. The archetypical “dialectic refining” presents itself in the common form. This constructs a narrative that is familiar and comfortable to the audience, because it mimics classical storytelling archetypes (something something heroes journey something something the Iliad and the odyssey).

Consequently, the story takes place in the interruption to the comfort assumed by the “dialectic refining” cycle that is assumed. The introduction of the Affini compact poses the question “what happens if an [assumed] unstoppable force (dialectic refining presented through humanity’s progression) meets an immovable object(presented by the insurmountable war against the Affini Compact)?”

This creates an inversion. The dialectic patterns that strengthened humanity - and narratively construct comfort for the audience - are poised not to be strengths, but to become weaknesses. The “cessation” phase of the dialectic inversion presents a corollary to the adage “what does not kill me makes me stronger”. The very core of dialectics - challenge begets improvement - is eroded. The symbol of progression becomes a symbol of decay, where the items that constructed narrative comfort come to foreshadow the root of the (overarching/environmental) narrative’s discomfort.

There’s a lot of ways I could take this thought, but to sum it up

- the narrative’s dialectic pattern is presented as a refutation to the commonly accepted image of progression. What does not kill the Terran Accord (and feralist movement) only weakens it, to make it that much more susceptible to further decay.

- the narrative techniques to present comfort in a story are reversed, instead used to present the ultimate narrative discomfort

These two observations are what creates such a suspenseful setting. Storytelling constructs an expectation of a protagonist finding some sort of realization, inspiration, or plot-relevant Macguffin that reinforces the narrative pattern of trial resulting in advancement. In HDG, the storytelling continually plays off the reader’s expectation of some miraculous boon (I.E. - the trials a protag faces leading to the strengthening of will to overcome said trials) that precipitates a protagonist’s victory and does not deliver on it - it undermines it. The expectation of Terran progress (the continuation of the Terran accord) is undermined quite literally by the trials not leading to advancement. The expectation of progress in preserving a Terran spirt (even in a waning populace) is attacked as the progression and regression phases cycle within the decaying “cessation” phase. The expectation of a personal triumph via a protagonist is undermined as every avenue to advance from each trial is countered by the innumerable techniques of Affini domestication.

As it pertains to creating that theme of powerlessness that resonates in many of the works in the HDG universe, all of this really contributes to constructing that feeling simply because it takes what people are conditioned to see as a strength in humanity as a whole and reverts it to weakness. The things that we are conditioned to see as the indication of upcoming triumph become symbols of impending defeat. The narrative cycles we expect to present to exemplify success in a protagonist’s goals are met with prescient countermeasures to those patterns. HDG constructs the mood of its setting via the refutation of dialectics, to the extreme. HDG serves itself as a sort of dialectic exploration and counterpoint, positing “if the dialectic pattern of refinement is met with an insurmountable challenge, is there progression in response”. In a way it is tautological, “can an embodiment of perfection be reconciled with flawed understanding to achieve a more perfect understanding” - but in a way it also explores finality. HDG presents the circumstance where, upon meeting the asymptotic approximation of perfection pursued in a dialectic process, the dialectic process ceases to sustain itself but rather destroys itself.

#hdg posting #hdg analysis #this was mean to be a shitpost and then it actually made my brain think #human domestication guide #feralist #feralism #affini #affini compact #affiniposting #floretposting #good floret #literary analysis #diving too deep into the leftist infighting smut and finding philosophical ponderings #transfem #transgender #trans #analysis #setting analysis #oc analysis

The more I find out about FMA, the more I love it.

I find the setting really interesting. Amestris is a country based on Germany between the years 1918-1939. This was when Hitler rose to power. I find it interesting that the power dynamics between the fuhrer and the rest of the country is never addressed, because as many know, that power dynamic is what eventually leads to WWII.

FMA is truly a great piece of media.

#fma #fmab #fullmetal alchemsit brotherhood #fullmetal alchemist brotherhood #fullmetal alchimist brotherhood #fullmetal alchemist #analysis #setting analysis

The Hargreeves Mansion fascinates me. It’s so contradictory.

An entire square block, Five says. 42 bedrooms, 19 bathrooms. An eclectic eccentricity born of convenience. The potential for metaphor - abnormality hidden in plain sight; a concrete jungle; upstairs downstairs; facades and appearances. There’s so much history and character to a building like that.

Spaces reflect who we are and how we grow. I bet (and I will definitely be looking into this) you can infer a lot from the different parts of the house - those used by Reginald, by Grace, by the kids.

One thing that struck me today, trying to work out the logistics of the siblings’ bedrooms: Klaus’s room got bigger.

I was confused by the doors for a while, because Five in 1x05 (above) clearly doesn’t walk through the same door that Grace does in the 1x03 flashback. That’s when I realised, it’s Vanya’s old room. Look at the brickwork, and the clear dividing wall in the 1x05 screenshots:

Mystery of the door solved.

I really want to think that Klaus just... took a sledgehammer to the wall one day. Teenage rebellion at its most destructive.

(What could that say about Klaus’s character, though? He wanted something, so he took it? Opportunist? Selfish? Angry at Vanya? Hell, thinks outside the box?) But, more to the overarching point, this also gives us a timeline, told to us by the architecture itself: Vanya definitely left before Klaus did. In fact, Klaus’s room is one of the most “lived in” of all the childhood bedrooms - I wonder how long he stayed around before flying the coop. There’s also a bit of a communal space, seen by the cushions and the armchair in Vanya’s old space. Given how we see Klaus and Ben practising Klaus’s new abilities on the cushions in 1x10, I like to think some of the siblings congregated here. ...After Vanya left, clearly. Ouch. A house can tell us about absence as much as presence.

Which brings me to another observation: Vanya’s room has been assimilated by Klaus, and we never see Ben’s room. I think it’s at the end of the hall we don’t see in 1x03, past the stairs. Meanwhile, Five’s room is upstairs from what I can tell from Vanya’s search for him in 1x02. Separated. Held in higher esteem? Placed on a pedestal?

Get back to me on those thoughts.

Ok so about hxh I don't dislike the show it's a good show. But the reason I prefer yyh is the set up makes more sense. It makes sense for a place like the demon world to have a fucked up tournament like the black tournament. The stuff that Koenma's dad pulled to fuck over demons given the system and that kind of character. You know what doesn't make sense? Giving known assasins and psychopaths more access and power. In HxH becoming a hunter means you get access to all sorts of locations pt.1

That regular civilians dont have access to and a liscence to kill without getting into trouble and all sorts of other shit. And they give that power to Hisoka who never tries to hide the fact he just likes killing people and randomly killed one of the examiners last time. And Illumi a assasin who freely admits that he wanted the liscence for a job. He says this to the people in charge of the exam. And he still gets his liscence what the fuck. Not to mention his family the secret pt2

oldeck family who the public doesnt know their faces have a house so famous that tour guide point it out while going through the city. Like it might have unbelievable security but why would you risk people knowing? Not that it’s a bad show or I dont enjoy it. I’m not that far into the series. But things like that kinda take out of it. It kinda takes me out of it. Especially when this world isnt like this world of chaos its actually kinda like our world. Or supposed to be Pt.3

Yes, I have to confess the setting didn’t sit right with me, either. I typically enjoy fantasy (in fact it’s my #1 favorite genre, and my preferred to write in, whether that’s high fantasy like LOTR or something like Fullmetal Alchemist, or even modern fantasies like stories about vampires, etc. All of my childhood favorites have fallen into this category… aaaand still do haha)

But the setting always did feel strange to me. I never understood who or what was in control of this Hunter licence, and why they were giving them out to children, or what the point of them even was.

More under the cut. Long analysis of character, slightly more productive than what I wrote yesterday, and some more dissing of HxH (I’m sorry) and its poor management of plot, setting, and character. Also, from now on, tagging all discussions and comparisons of HxH and YYH as HHD (for hunter hunter discussion) to keep it out of the hxh tag.

Once again, this is all just my opinion, my personal feelings, and are not meant to grade the merit of the show or insult anyone who enjoyed it!

So yes, I totally agree. For comparison, in YYH, we go through a rather good introduction to Spirit World all before episode 5, an intro to what Spirit Detectives are without learning all the details, but enough to understand, by what, episode 8ish? We learn how Spirit World can bend rules with Kurama and Hiei within the first few episodes, too. We learn Spirit World is a bureaucracy, that it has rulers and managers (Enma and Koenma), that it is occupied by mostly two species (ogres and Spirit World citizens, who are like spirits, neither alive nor dead), that they have prisons, that they take interest in human lives and society, that they have the power to revive the dead but that there are clear rules and procedures. We learn Spirit World citizens can inhabit human bodies made specifically for them. We learn Spirit World can unlock human’s innate spiritual awareness. We learn the Spirit Detective job is sorta a new and untested thing (sending a kid to fight 3 demons… Koenma seriously didn’t think the job through yet). We learn Spirit World houses powerful treasures like the 3 artifacts. We learn they have a freakin’ treasure room to start with. We learn you can break into Spirit World and its vaults. We learn that living creatures, even demons, can enter it. We learn spirits and living creatures can interact with each other as if both were on the same plane, tangible and all, while in Spirit World. We learn Spirit World watches and records events of interest in the Human World, sometimes flat out spying on humans like when they watch Keiko being chased or when the little girl (the investigator) stalks Keiko along with Yusuke and Botan. We learn ghosts aren’t allowed to stay forever in the human world. We learn that the spirit and the body have separate energies that converge together. We learn Spirit World uses actual technology, not just magic, like VHS types and pocket watches. We learn Spirit World citizens can live incredibly long lives and look like babies while being a couple hundred years old or more.

#ask #anon #analysis #meta #character analysis #setting analysis #hhd #yusuke #character arc #mod talk

Okay so my previous post about the presence of dialectics in HDG was spawned from the things I learned on my other previous post on the kotor 2 video essay. And I have ✨thoughts ✨ (heavy spoilers for kotor 2 below, keep scrolling if you don’t want 20 year old spoilers)

—

The video essay I linked previously takes perspectives of Nietzschean philosophy and Hegelian dialectics to analyze the plot of Star Wars KOTOR 2: the Sith Lords. I want to specifically focus on the ideology of Kreia - not as an apologist but as an exploration of her role in the story and her place in the bigger picture of themes in the Star wars expanded universe (if anyone comes saying the game isn’t canon it’s not EU, idc it is to me and I adore this story)

So kreia is introduced as a mysterious character who is force sensitive but neither Jedi aligned or sith aligned. She seems to advocate for this incessantly annoying “bootstraps” libertarian philosophy of stark individualism and personal responsibility… which is reductive imo. Deeper analysis would show her perspective to be more of a condemnation of unintentional action, refusal of the naive approach, and favor of deliberate and pragmatic action toward a well examined goal. Ie: giving a refugee credits on Nar Shadaa is not bad for the reason at face value “you have deprived them of an experience, and only brought about greater pain”, the action is bad because it was performed impulsively and without foresight. The intended goal was not reached because the consequences were antithetical to the goal.

To this point, Kreia left the Jedi (her time in the Jedi order being “the thesis”) because she was not satisfied to “lie down and rot” in the face of allowing the force to influence other’s lives to whatever ends would result. The pursuit of the Jedi for moral purity through passivity became an ascetic refusal to engage in the world, as the Jedi see the pursuit of influence over the “will of the force” as a surrender to emotional reactions in response to the balance of the world. The Jedi embody a “true neutral” stance - the order of the universe is constructed through the chaos of events, and that which is good is a natural reciprocal to what is evil (and vice versa). To the Jedi, there is no point to exercising autonomy as it forsakes their pursuit to moral purity. To Kreia, this passivity in response to this external influence is no different to inaction in the face of adversity - she sees the asceticism as no different from nihilism, where both consequently result in inaction or “lying down to rot” when faced to pursue a goal. The Jedi embodiment of slave morality has been twisted into master morality - where the assumption that humility begetting righteousness is morphed into the assumption that it is because of their righteousness that the Jedi are allowed to no longer practice empathy in favor of an ascetic and cold, calculating, accumulation of influence in the Republic. To Kreia, this is the Jedi letting the pursuit of their moral high ground become the erosion of their foundations, which she observes through her witness of many Jedi pupils falling to the dark side due to the hypocrisy and idealism intrinsic to Jedi teachings.

Kreia at one point says “to love something is to betray it” (paraphrased), which underscores her reasoning for abandoning the Jedi and becoming a sith. Kreia seeks to embrace the refutation of the Jedi order and Jedi code, accepting her power to exert will over the force and influence it to achieve a desired end (the “antithesis”). This constitutes her becoming “Darth Traya”, as she embodies the dialectal antithesis of the Jedi in becoming a sith. Her role with respect to the force is no longer to exist alongside it, as an uninfluential observer - but rather to wield it as an orchestrator. Here she sees, through darth scion, that the pursuit of total power over the force results in dependence upon it. That by wielding the force for power - in darth Scion’s case, in maintaining his literally crumbling body and consciousness in the face of continual death - produces the circumstances for one to be subject to influence of the force upon themselves. Scion adheres to the force because for him to release his power is accepting literal death, and in turn the pursuit of power created servitude and pain. In a way, the sith have flipped from “master morality” (which posits that the powerful exist to enforce a hierarchal existence, and the weak exist as tools for justification of this paradigm - power is obtained through dominance and subverting the less powerful, and achieving power in this way shows it is rightfully gained). The sith, in the form seen in game, exist as an embodiment of slave morality - powerless in the wake of a more powerful entity (that entity being the force), and following a pursuit of righteousness by existing within the circumstances the powerful (the force) has imposed upon the weak. This is mirrored by the mandalorians in the moon of dxun - their dominance over the forest moon proves their justification for power as they subverted the weak (embodied by the environment), yet finding exaltation in their society through service (in which the exile gains respect through performing jobs to help the mandalorians). It is worth noting that the exile already has respect of the mandalorians for the exile’s triumph in the mandalorian war - but does not achieve reverence from the mandalorians until the exile subverts the cycle of “master morality” (wherein the exile takes the role of the powerful for the victory in the mandalorian wars, and the mandalorians make a play at this power by capturing the exile on the moon of dxun) by acting servile. In this pattern, the exile’s exhibition power begets servitude - just as the smith’s exhibition of power via the force begets their dependence on the force and servitude to their hatred/lust for power.

Seeing the sith’s powerlessness achieved in the pursuit of power, Kreia turns from the sith as well. She goes from darth Traya back to Kreia, where she begins the synthesis. At this stage, she is trying to pass on her learnings to the exile. The exile is the ONLY potential student for this lesson, as Kreia saw two things:

- the refusal of passivity in the mandalorian wars in pursuit of Jedi teachings and Jedi code as insulation from Jedi hypocrisy

- the severance by the exile between themselves and the force as an insulation to the pitfalls of the sith.

To Kreia, she sees this as the perfect combination for her teachings to take form. Those teachings being - one should use the force to achieve desired ends, with deliberate action. Refute the invisible hand of influence to create the world you envision, and do not fall to wielding the force for a pursuit at power that becomes a dependence upon it for efficacy.

Kreia is affirmed in her decision to take the exile as a student in her observation of on the trials of the cave on Korriban. Here the exile exhibits knowledge of three key lessons and one culmination:

1 - (the scene of Malach convincing Jedi to join the mandalorian wars) the exile can choose to stand by their decisions in spite of all that went wrong, but has to face the full power of the dark side. This is exile refusing to condemn themselves because their beliefs moved them to the actions they saw as reasonable. The full power of the dark side is self loathing and hatred (not force lightning or laser swords), and accepting one’s role in moving into the war effort embodies radical acceptance despite regret. This is a refutation of self loathing and hatred, as well as a refutation of power (exhibited by the Jedi not becoming a part of Revan’s sith armada)

2 - (the scene where the exile leads soldiers to a minefield and death in a battle) the exile has to grapple with their choice to lead a suicide mission because it was necessary to prevent an early loss in the war. The exile grapples with the choice of enacting an “evil” (leading good people to their death) to prevent a greater evil. This is a refutation of abstention of action when faced with a move towards ascetically fueled moral purity or a flawed opportunity at some idealistic and prospective (but not guaranteed) potential for a desired outcome.

3 - (the scene with the exile and companions facing darth Traya). The exile has to face a decision that has no right answer or true “good” outcome. Fight Darth Traya with the aid of the exile’s companions, or side with darth Traya at the betrayal of those you have taken an active role in influencing for the better. This combines the two previous lessons. The exile can strike down Kreia, forsaking their ideal that anyone can be redeemed. Simultaneously, the exile could choose to make no choice or claim it doesn’t matter - but to do so would be an ascetic pursuit of moral purity that only results in absolving one’s influence and losing any stake in the world. It is tantamount to death. (“Apathy is death” repeated 10+ times)

4 - (the final scene, where a sith version of the exile stands beside darth revan) this scene embodies the expectation of the exile’s alignment through the lense of the light side-dark side paradigm. The exile has taken action against the Jedi code, which constitutes them as a sith. Similarly, the exile’s passion moving them to action characterizes them as a sith in the same way. Fighting this illusion is symbolic of fighting the projection of morals upon the actions of the exile, and triumph over it is representative of a triumph over the dialectic stalemate the Jedi and sith have been in for ages. Kreia encourages the exile to experience her emotions at the end of this - a more caring implementation of Kreia’s philosophy. Abstinence from feeling breeds ambivalence, action through feeling creates servile hatred - experience and mindfulness of feelings breeds wisdom.

After this the exile meets the Jedi in the fallen Jedi temple on Dantooine to learn the nature of their sentence to exile. The remaining Jedi council members reveal they exiled the Exile because through them the Jedi council saw the death of the force. They assert their original goal of standing in hiding to await a sith foe to present itself and wait for some time to attempt to prevail over it. This sith foe, Darth Nihilus, feeds on the bonds living things have with the force and leaves destruction behind. Quite literally, Nihilus and his unending hunger will lead to the eradication of life and anything that can interact with the force. The Jedi cannot stop him. The Jedi, believing the life of the force exists as a continuation of the Jedi, condemn the exile for the exile’s own refusal of the force - and in turn once again choose dogmatic asceticism which will beget the death of everything, including the force.

Kreia, in righteous indignation and with too-tier voice acting, calls out the Jedi council members hypocrisy and dogma. She bids them to see the galaxy through the eyes of the exile, severing them from the force and removing their vehicle to claim moral superiority - forcing them to become actively engaged in the world and live in the muddiness of those subjected to the will of the force with no ability to influence it. The synthesis is almost complete. It is time for kreia’s final lesson - and the means in which it is taught is significant.

Pausing the timeline for a moment - the exile sees the role of the force through many lenses. The exile sees it corrupt Atris for self righteousness and a holier-than-thou look of superiority on all others. The Exile sees the force bind them to Kreia and be subject to a force bond that intertwines their fates with tragic implications. The exile sees the force in use to rebuild a war torn planet, but in a hopeless and bleak endeavor that - again due to the exile’s actions on peragus, is doomed to fail. The exile sees the force torment refugees on Nar Shadaa. The exile sees the force exerting influence over all of these worlds and the way the consequences of war ripple through the force to enact pain upon the population of the galaxy. Kreia sees the exile’s path from the thesis - being a passive observer of the force in their role with the Jedi in an attempt to be a beacon of morality - to the antithesis, a refutation of the force for self preservation and clouded with regret and moral quandary.

Kreia has to teach her last lesson carefully. To pass it down with idealism and staunch directive to adherence to her lesson without question is a failing of the Jedi, and it cannot be truly upheld. To force the lesson upon the exile and instill it via exploitation of power over the exile is the failing of the sith, and will only seed the cycle of abuse. Kreia has to provide the final lesson to the exile by letting the exile achieve this lesson and teach it to themselves. As a result, Kreia embodies the antithesis that the Jedi feared and the the exile dwelled within. Kreia once again becomes Darth Traya, and embodies her hatred of the force. She is a betrayer of the force - the antithesis.

The exile must go to meet Darth Traya on Malachor V, the site of the genocidal super weapon that was fired to put an end to the mandalorian wars at the Exile’s command - the even that caused the exile to sever themselves from the force. The place in which the ripples in the force that caused harm throughout the galaxy originated at the hand of the exile. The exile must choose to take action - forsake the Jedi way and accept redemption is not acceptable for Darth Traya, or inaction - leave a potential for redemption at the cost of the exile’s companions suffering. Then, the exile has to face Darth Scion and teach the lesson to release the cling to symbiotic power and dependence upon the force. The first two lessons of Kreia are reinforced. Then the exile must face Darth Traya, and challenge Darth Traya’s hatred of the force and goal of bringing the death of the force. The exile has to accept that an external influence on the lives of those in the galaxy must exist, lest everyone lose their connections to one another. The exile has to embody the counter to the exile’s own antithesis (the exile’s antithesis being turning away from the force), and choose to continue the influence of the force in absence of Jedi or sith teachings - the exile must choose the continuation of the force in which balance is brought about through wielding the force as a tool, neither being a passive observer or tempted to use it as a weapon. The exile must refuse the death of the force, choose the continuation of the force - and to finalize their decision, they must set off the super weapon that destroyed malachor V and ended the mandalorian wars (along with all of the innocent lives of those upon malachor V) all those years ago once again. This re-ignition of the weapon symbolizes the destruction of the Jedi (repetition of an evil act), the destruction of the sith (via the death of Darth Traya), and the acceptance of being an active participant in the universe even if it means the requirement to choose between one bad decision and another bad decision.

KOTOR 2 is a story of trauma, it is a story that says trauma is unavoidable in a life worth living. That the response to trauma is not to lie down and rot, nor is it to avoid enacting anything that may be problematic. Kreia begs with the player to see that evil and good are not separate embodiments of moral positions, but that evil and good are within everyone and the contention between good and evil manifests as trauma. It is a lesson to not let trauma move one to inaction, nor to let trauma condemn one to self loathing and engaging in a cycle of abuse that reaches outwards to affect others. It took me so long to finally understand this but HOLY SHIT is it such a beautifully told story.

Family Portraits, Parallels and Expectations

Anyone else notice how often Reginald looms over the shoulders of the siblings in episode 1? Not long after Pogo and Vanya talk in front of Five’s portrait, we have Klaus and Allison’s reunion in Reginald’s study, before Luther joins them. As Luther and Klaus clash, look how Allison is standing in the background:

The similarity in her stance to Reginald in the portrait (which, easter egg, is actually a frame in the comic I think?) is uncanny. It sets her apart from her siblings, placing her on the periphery during petty arguments, and it won’t be the last time. During the fight between Luther and Diego at the funeral, she backs off with an eye roll that says, ‘Here we go again, I’ll have no part in it.’ But that’s not the main point I want to make, anyway. Reginald will loom over the shoulders of the siblings at various points throughout this episode (if not more), symbolising his lasting influence on their relationships - which is, in some ways, the core theme of the show.

As Luther asks Allison, ‘Where are Patrick and Claire?’, Allison replies:

See how Reginald is placed almost centre-screen, over Allison’s shoulder? It’s a position that is echoed multiple times in the later exchange between Luther and the rest of the siblings as well:

Also, notice how Diego is sat in the exact position Grace was when Vanya first entered the house - staring into the fire:

Also, his body language is very brooding and closed-off - arms folded across his torso, leg cross away from Luther. At this moment, he’s worried about Grace and Luther’s incessant need to find out the truth. Interestingly, as he stands up to confront Luther, Five’s portrait is positioned over Diego’s shoulder. Almost as if it’s an echo of the logic Five would’ve said. Reginald was a paranoid old man:

(Meanwhile, Allison is perched on the arm of the other chair?? Weird detail, but it does emphasise how she’s tuned into the conversation, angling in towards Luther rather than closing off like Diego. It feels active, ‘perched on the edge of the seat’, ready to intervene, converse, etc. Also, that chair is ornate. That’s got to be uncomfortable.) Also, the antlers at opposing ends of the room (behind Luther, and behind the bar) as well as the mounted deer give the room an uncomfortable, aggressive vibe. Crowded, thorny, butting heads.

And of course, there’s Grace and Reginald’s wife (I assume this is a portrait of his wife, because of a similar portrait in the comics):

This is the most telling parallel by far, because we watch as Grace looks to the portrait, to position herself exactly how the woman she (or more accurately, Reginald) aspires (her) to be is sitting. She wears a black dress with the same neckline, similar hair and pearls.

Portraits speak of ideals and of legacies. Think about the moment in 1x03, when Vanya says to Diego:

“Do you ever wonder... All those moments with mom, the things she said. Like, was it her or was it really Dad?" “What are you talking about?” “Well, he built her. And he programmed her to be a mom, to be our mom. Sometimes when I look at her I just see him.”

So when Diego asks Grace, “Everything you did for us when we were kids, for me... Why’d you do it?”:

the doubt that Diego feels - “Is that you saying that?” - is actually heightened when you consider that Mrs. Hargreeves is centre-screen in the background. It... is actually quite sad. Not just for Grace (”I wonder if she’s lonely?”), but because of the disconnect her very existence tries to bridge between Reginald and the kids. I’ve got a post coming... sometime, maybe... about the overtures the show makes towards empathy for Reginald. The idea that we grieve for Grace, and through Grace we grieve for the father figure the kids never had - or the father figure Reginald failed to be - ties into this scene.

Finally, there’s also the barber shop scene with Klaus and Reginald. Just look at how the portraits of the other brothers and Reginald himself are lined up behind Klaus in a facsimile of salon portraits:

This scene in particular has a lot to do with Reginald’s expectations and standards. Click through [x] for a better scene analysis about these portraits in particular (and if you spotted Dave in there, well, stay tuned for that post too.)

Anyway, I’m sure there’s a lot more that I’ve missed as I’m only really branching off from the first episode here apart from these last two examples. Feel free to add more, or let me know so I can update with more of this portrait motif. (If anyone has some actual film theory or analysis to add, too, I’m all ears.)

Things you'd see on a nightstand, and what they can tell you about a person

》Condoms/other... supplies

Tells you about activeness of sex life, potential (or lack of) partner

》Books

What kind of book- Shakespeare, romance, mystery, horror, etc. Level of reading, thickness, level of use (is it dog eared, obviously read a lot?)

》Religious items

Obviously, their religion, or their level of devotion

》Medicines/Glasses, etc.

Meds- depending on what type, you can tell mental disorders, anxieties, paranoia, birth control?, medical things

》Phone/chargers

Reliance on technology- number of cords, different types tell you what they use, positioning which most often

》Jewelry

Quality and quantity, brands, connections between jewelry and other people/places

》Pictures

Again, connections to other people/places, significant others, loved ones

》Water cup(s)

ArE tHeY hYdRaTEd??? No, seriously, if there's more than one, they have an issue

》Alarm/Clock

A normal thing to have, but level of organization, brand/quality

》Keys

What they own- car key, house key, mailbox key, safe key, etc.

》Papers

Documents, work related? Any sort, really- personal ones, recreation-related (think a play script), what would they have printed?

》Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)

Guns- violent, or very paranoid, knives range from full out to swiss army knives, mace/pepper spray also- personal protection, level of (self) security

》Writing materials (pen, pad, etc.)

What's written down? What kind of pen/pencil/etc.? What size paper? How much is written? What is their handwriting like?

》Alcohol

Easily explained. Brands, types- gin, vodka, beer, etc. Value of alcohol, size of container, amount missing

》Food (or residue/wrappers)

Cleanliness, diet, again quality

Personal items, the overall quality and/or opulence, the overall organization, the size of the nightstand, and the presence of certain things

#character design #setting #why setting is important to character #writing tips #setting analysis