#softowl

[burning-thistles-bt]

“He did,” Dawncloud confirmed. “He… he thought the world of you. He said you were his greatest role model, and that he learned all his kindness from you. From all his family in ThunderClan. That… that nothing hurt him more to leave, but that he knew he had to, if he wanted to live up to that kindness you’d given him.”

Sobbed at this paragraph and the next, Dawncloud is making me feel things

Also was very upset over Softwing’s death, I hope Perchwing convinces Pikepaw to run away and be with their mother and siblings :((

At least Softwing and Owlfur are reunited <\3

I'm so excited for Dawncloud's character arc you don't even know <3

what is Perchwing gonna do ;))))

SoftOwl nation rise up <3

[burning-thistles-bt]

gonna be honest SoftOwl is a cute ship don't sleep on it <3

[th4nkyoub3n]

I still think it's messed up that Rachel whitewashed a cat, of all things. She colored the eyes and the boots, but not her fur. I don't understand it.

[bladekindeyewear]

"Inversion Theory relies on the premise that it’s an intentional device being employed by Andrew in this story" THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPROVEN. Or have you forgotten every single time Rachel has talked about the subject?

No. Rachel has SOME inside information, but Andrew has not been specifically confirming or denying theories like this for her. Largely, he does not spoil his own webcomic for anyone who enjoys it, even his significant other. He even asks artists for flash artwork in as piecewise a manner possible, giving none of them more information than they need to know to draw the images, and sometimes editing spoilery things (like blood) onto the artwork himself after he receives it.

So yes, as inadvisable as it sounds, I am still betting that inversion theory will be a thing despite her very reasonable position against it. She has not said “I am against inversion theory because I was told it was wrong”, nor would she.

There IS a possibility she’s been told explicitly that inversion isn’t a thing, despite Andrew’s usual policy with these issues, and is silently using that as an additional reason to oppose it, even though that wasn’t her original line of reasoning against it. There always is; you can never be sure. That possibility is a point in her favor, and is one of the many things I’m metaphorically betting against.

[bladekindeyewear]

Thoughts on Rachel's recent tweets?

There’s nothing to say that either of us haven’t said before. She’s just reiterating her position against inversion.

Here’s a brief conversation I just had with ashdenej about it just now, who was notifying me of the tweet without necessarily falling on either side:

[11/19/14, 3:05:23 PM] Don Ashdenej: https://twitter.com/owlsbuttley/status/535171033561825280 ;0[11/19/14, 3:05:44 PM] blastyoboots: *looks*[11/19/14, 3:06:19 PM] blastyoboots: yep, same old message of hers again[11/19/14, 3:06:27 PM] Don Ashdenej: Yeaaah[11/19/14, 3:07:31 PM] blastyoboots: she basically thinks the system we’re proposing is too complicated, boxes in characters, and that “going against your role” is more likely a flexible process that doesn’t bring you to rigid states that can be encompassed by a single opposite title[11/19/14, 3:08:07 PM] blastyoboots: I disagree and think the systematized nature provides more flexibility and characterization, not less[11/19/14, 3:08:15 PM] Don Ashdenej: It is kind of an extra layer of convoluted complexity[11/19/14, 3:08:18 PM] blastyoboots: mhmm[11/19/14, 3:08:47 PM] blastyoboots: in my mind, the inversion system provides a guiding light for characterization for the author where things might otherwise be too fuzzy[11/19/14, 3:09:10 PM] blastyoboots: for example, if you wanted to write Tavros starting to go against his role, how would you write him?[11/19/14, 3:09:26 PM] Don Ashdenej: Being a little ring-thieving gremlin, probs[11/19/14, 3:09:33 PM] blastyoboots: well, without inversion, it’s a pretty big question mark[11/19/14, 3:09:50 PM] blastyoboots: but if you have “Thief of Blood” as a theme to work with, you can come up with characteristics[11/19/14, 3:09:52 PM] Don Ashdenej: Mm![11/19/14, 3:10:11 PM] blastyoboots: ring-thieving, possessiveness, a large romance-focus where there was none[11/19/14, 3:12:10 PM] blastyoboots: if you didn’t use this system, you’d actually end up with people going against their roles having too much *in common*[11/19/14, 3:12:40 PM] blastyoboots: the differentiation inversion provides thus leads to deeper and more varied characterization

As ashdenej’s responses imply, falling on either side of the issue is very understandable. It’s a difference of opinion, and despite the unwiseness of betting against the author’s significant other, I still think I’ll be the one vindicated. Click the link at the top of this post if you want to browse more about either of our positions.

EDIT: No, she’s not being rude, it’s fine. If I were in her alternate position, surrounded by a bunch of readers yelling “Witch of Heart” around Terezi without fully understanding the nuance to the issue or its implications, I’d have issued a very similar response.

[bladekindeyewear]

Rachels stance is quite understandable(your theories are indeed quite wordy), but why is she being soneedlessly hostile towards you?

She wasn’t being too hostile to *me* (exception below), and quickly apologized regardless. She was being hostile towards *role inversion theory*, because she has to deal with plenty of people who advocate role inversion theory with only the thinnest understanding of what it means or when it happens, constantly speculating “when will Davesprite invert”, or “John likes video games because of his aspect”, or “how inverted is Karkat on a scale from 9 to 11”, or “is Caliborn inverted because he draws things??”.

You know how I talk about the unseen legions of idiots who leave dumb things in my askbox I don’t answer? Imagine if almost all you ever heard about role inversion was exclusively from them. Yeah, you’d get kind of angry, too.

(That, plus reading anything I write is understandably difficult for some people: I have an INFURIATINGLY bad writing style in many places, full of over-formatting and pompous bombasticism. Read what I said in the thread starting with “I have to agree that my writing style is terrible”. So basically, to the extent where she WAS frustrated with what I had to say — particularly with the Past Me in the five-month-old post she read at the start of the thread — it was eminently understandable and justified. Oh, also this time where I thoughtlessly posted a PM from her without asking for permission, which was completely my bad; read my Softowl tag to see.)

In reality, her position is that of very reasonable disagreement, and we’ve publicly agreed to disagree. It’s all in the thread! Also she recommended a great book so check that out.

[bladekindeyewear]

Here, more breaking news about rachel's opinion on inversion. reddit(.)com/r/homestuck/comments/2ik4as/was_this_theory_debunked_or_did_this_guy_know/

It’s not really “breaking news” I’d say, just a clarification of her opinion + her reading my old “response” to her for the first time. Her position is pretty reasonable, and I’m fully aware of the risk I’m taking by staking a position opposed to someone so experienced with the comic.

I just got finished posting some replies in the reddit thread, so you can take a look if you want. (“BlastYoBoots” is me.)

[bladekindeyewear]

quantumlunatic said:

I’m sorry for the asinine inquiry, but who is Rachel, and what credentials does she have to be making such assured remarks?

(Amongst a slew of other impressive titles like Editor-In-Chief of the new ParadoxSpace site, she happens to be Andrew's significant other.)

(No, betting against Andrew Hussie's significant other on a core component of the comic is not a comfortable feeling! But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.)