|
I love it when the thread goes in this direction. It's almost like I'm taking MSPA 314 Intro to Homestuck and this thread is the lecture component.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Well Manicured Man posted:I love it when the thread goes in this direction. It's almost like I'm taking MSPA 314 Intro to Homestuck and this thread is the lecture component. I generally tend to avoid this thread because people say stuff they don't really mean pretty much 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:All the Guardians died real early in the last Scratched session we saw. I'm guessing that's gonna come up! Its seems like its pretty fated that the guardians all die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
loquacius posted:e2: vvvvvvvvvv How is getting off to your own death funny and not hosed up? I mean, it worked for the character, it was striking and disturbing, it was hosed up in a good storytelling way, but it was still hosed up. Honestly? I think it's funny because it's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
This just in: humor is subjective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
In case I didn't make my take on Tavros's character arc and subsequent death clear enough earlier: He really wanted to have character growth, and he almost knew how to do it, but was a little bit off in the exact method, either from being mentally traumatized by a psychopath (and subsequently trying to emulate her) or from growing up in too much Troll Culture. Specifically just far enough off to get himself stabbed to death.King of Solomon posted:Honestly? I think it's funny because it's hosed up. I guess we both liked that scene, but for opposite reasons! ...or maybe the same reason, but it evoked opposite reactions in us?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I guess we both liked that scene, but for opposite reasons! ...or maybe the same reason, but it evoked opposite reactions in us? Honestly, that scene evoked a lot of things. It was funny because of how it's so perfectly Equius, but really sad for the same reason. I laughed, but also felt bad (which isn't to say I felt bad about laughing) because not only will we not get more Equius in the future (unless he pops up in the Dream Bubbles), Equius just couldn't get past his personal issues to stop Gamzee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:This just in: humor is subjective. Every now and then I turn on that knife scene in Saving Private Ryan just for a good giggle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
If you didn't find Terezi's investigation funny you just have a different sense of humor I guess. I'd kind of like to know what you did like about the comic up to that point since none of it was really out of character. Terezi has always been weird and her introduction scene at the beginning of act five is one of my favorite little bits so far. I don't think I can even really agree that Tavros's character arc was ruined, even if that's really the last of him in the story. And there are definitely signs that the dead might have further influence in the rest of the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Every now and then I turn on that knife scene in Saving Private Ryan just for a good giggle. I think we need to regain some perspective here. Homestuck is not and will never be The Greatest Drama Defining Of A Generation, it's just a goofy story about some kids playing a game and dying a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:Logically Tavros knows Vriska is going to kick his rear end, but she's revealed herself to have seriously hurt not just him but all his friends, so he wants to at least try to stop her. The problem is, stop her from what? He had no plan. He had some vague notion that he was going to go kill the big bad guy and save the day, but it's never clear what killing Vriska was supposed to accomplish other than salving his butthurt; he had no concept of actually fixing the situation he and his friends were stuck in. By contrast, Terezi killed Vriska for a very concrete reason which had nothing to do with what Vriska had done or "deserved" and everything to do with stopping the disastrous side effects of her plan. (Coincidentally, if Tavros had succeeded it would have served the same purpose--but Tavros had no way of knowing that at the time. Andrew went to great lengths to justify Terezi by establishing that she knew as absolute fact what would happen if she didn't stop Vriska.) In the broad scheme of things, Tavros's death--while apparently senseless at the time--paralleled Vriska's own later death and served as a sort of cautionary tale. When Tavros got his "confidence" he began parroting a number of suspiciously Vriska-like sentiments, culminating in a plan that was essentially the same as Vriska's (and equally short-sighted), and even died to the same fatal wound. Android Blues posted:Prospitian ideals, if you like! We've seen what Prospitian ideals entail. Would the white king or queen pick up a lance and go charging at their Dersian counterpart? Hell naw, that ain't what they're all about. Tavros died because he turned his back on what the comic consistently puts forward as its version of "good."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Every now and then I turn on that knife scene in Saving Private Ryan just for a good giggle. If all you're looking at is the surface value of "a guy dies" then yeah it's not very funny, but there are layers to Equius's death. It is so heaped with all of his hang ups piled together that it becomes totally absurd. That is funny. It's like if Henry Ford were to die in a busy intersection by getting hit by a Model T Ford driven by Hitler who was distracted while reading a copy of The International Jew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:If all you're looking at is the surface value of "a guy dies" then yeah it's not very funny, but there are layers to Equius's death. It is so heaped with all of his hang ups piled together that it becomes totally absurd. That is funny. It's like if Henry Ford were to die in a busy intersection by getting hit by a Model T Ford driven by Hitler who was distracted while reading a copy of The International Jew. Well I mean that'd be ironic. Equius was a straightforward case of a guy not being able to get past his mental hang-ups, however absurd and fetishistic they be, and dying because of it. Plom Bar posted:Mm. Yase. That is exactly the same as a one-note character whose one note is getting off on hosed up poo poo getting off on his own death. Thank you, you've gotten my point: "this just in: humour is subjective" is a hand-wave that is generally pretty qualifiable. Gabriel Pope posted:We've seen what Prospitian ideals entail. Would the white king or queen pick up a lance and go charging at their Dersian counterpart? Hell naw, that ain't what they're all about. Tavros died because he turned his back on what the comic consistently puts forward as its version of "good." This is exactly the White King's purpose, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:This is exactly the White King's purpose, though. In the only session that we've seen the White King in he surrendered because a pawn asked him to and then exiled himself. Not exactly a do-or-die assault!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
KoB posted:Its seems like its pretty fated that the guardians all die. Geez, that goes without saying. I'm just more sad that he probably won't even get a chance to be badass. That's already the next level up! Nilbop posted:This is exactly the White King's purpose, though. His purpose is to lose so that the Reckoning can start. And to ultimately fulfill the timeloops shown by Skaia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:In the only session that we've seen the White King in he surrendered because a pawn asked him to and then exiled himself. Not exactly a do-or-die assault! And then got his head cut off. That's not a glowing indictment for the theory. The White King leads an army on a battlefield with a sceptre just like the Black King's, he's just nicer about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:but it's never clear what killing Vriska was supposed to accomplish other than salving his butthurt; Yeah I think this is the point where our views fundamentally differ -- the thing is, Tavros really isn't a vengeful guy! He's a doormat! Everyone's been telling him this all comic long, and trying to help him become more confident, and since his main model for confidence is Vriska he legitimately thinks that this is what confident people do. Eridan is the vengeful one, and you're pretty much describing HIS character arc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Cavatica posted:Geez, that goes without saying. I'm just more sad that he probably won't even get a chance to be badass. That's already the next level up! Well, see, Im confused since hes already a badass  Showing how awesome he is would just be going over the same stuff we already know. I'd much rather get the other kids back in the picture than spend time with Dad frankly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:And then got his head cut off. That's not a glowing indictment for the theory. The White King always gets his head cut off. White always loses, by the nature of the game. That's the point. The grand sweeping battle of good vs. evil cannot be won by force of arms, because that is ultimately not the nature of good. I mean granted the players do eventually kick the black royalty's rear end, but that's not what the game is about, it's supposed to be about personal growth and making difficult decisions. The trolls treated the game as an exercise in kicking rear end and taking names, and look how badly they hosed it up. EDIT: Also the players are not necessarily cast in the role of "good guys" in this framework; it's implied that they have the option of winning by being evil bastards if they want to. loquacius posted:Yeah I think this is the point where our views fundamentally differ -- the thing is, Tavros really isn't a vengeful guy! He's a doormat! Everyone's been telling him this all comic long, and trying to help him become more confident, and since his main model for confidence is Vriska he legitimately thinks that this is what confident people do. Oh man but we're so close here  Look, Tavros explicitly phrases his quest in terms of punishing Vriska for being a bad guy. Now, maybe you and I actually do differ on views of punishment--I'm a firm believer in restitution, but tend to view the impulse to punish as being primarily motivated by vengeance--but what you're saying is essentially my whole point, that when Tavros charges Vriska this is not who he really is at heart and that's his final fatal flaw.
the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:The problem with this theory is that SBURB has a point, and that point is to be devoured by Lord English. As I understand it the point of the game isn't to enable an endless recycling of universes but rather to provide oppurtunity for those to exist that are fit to feed the Time Travelling Demon. So logically LE created SBURB. We've never seen it stated that SBURB's point is for the universe to be devoured by LE. In fact, we've seen implications that some universes don't have a DS and aren't eaten by LE. LE seems to be a somewhat new element, and is (presumably) the reason the Horrorterrors are being killed off. I think it's more likely that LE was born in one of the sessions and bound himself to SBURB and the universe genesis cycle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Well I mean that'd be ironic. Equius was a straightforward case of a guy not being able to get past his mental hang-ups, however absurd and fetishistic they be, and dying because of it. Still better than your Saving Private Ryan example, and the absurdity still makes it funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:Still better than your Saving Private Ryan example, and the absurdity still makes it funny. What do you mean better? Are we having a contest? The point of my reference was that humour being subject isn't always true, and I thought I had a handle on yours but I'm less sure now. Gabriel Pope posted:The White King always gets his head cut off. White always loses, by the nature of the game. That's the point. The grand sweeping battle of good vs. evil cannot be won by force of arms, because that is ultimately not the nature of good. Your point was "Tavros died because he turned his back on what the comic consistently puts forward as its version of "good"" which you then went on to imply means seeking victory through non-violent means. But in SBURB there is always a White King and he is always a general, and he is always fighting a war against the Black King on the Battleground. He's a piece on a giant chess-board, and the game is normally fair (barring Jack Noir cancers) as a game of chess. There is no particular reason for White to lose through force of arms, and yet even when the White King yields and flees to the far future (which has already been ravaged by the Reckoning, so his death is not necessary for it) Black follows and beheads him anyway. This isn't a theory that in this story has legs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
 This is loving hillarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Your point was "Tavros died because he turned his back on what the comic consistently puts forward as its version of "good"" which you then went on to imply means seeking victory through non-violent means. But in SBURB there is always a White King and he is always a general, and he is always fighting a war against the Black King on the Battleground. He's a piece on a giant chess-board, and the game is normally fair (barring Jack Noir cancers) as a game of chess. There is no particular reason for White to lose through force of arms, and yet even when the White King yields and flees to the far future (which has already been ravaged by the Reckoning, so his death is not necessary for it) Black follows and beheads him anyway. This isn't a theory that in this story has legs. But White does literally always lose. We're told so upfront by Nannasprite, and once we see more of how the game works it becomes evident why White cannot win, because the Reckoning starts when Black captures the White King's sceptre. If White never loses, there is no Reckoning, which means the host planet never gets seeded with the frog ruins or the player's meteor and there can be no game. And yes, the White King dies even though he remains true to his side's ideals. Being good doesn't mean you won't die, nor does being evil mean you will die. Indeed, a suitably heroic death is one way to satisfy godtier death requirement, and self-sacrifice is a recurring theme for the good guys. All I said was that Tavros made a decision that was 1) fatal and 2) not particularly in character with the game's ideals of goodness. In this particular instance, if he had taken a higher moral road, he
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
I think it's the sandals that really push it over the edge for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:The problem is, stop her from what? He had no plan. He had some vague notion that he was going to go kill the big bad guy and save the day, but it's never clear what killing Vriska was supposed to accomplish other than salving his butthurt; he had no concept of actually fixing the situation he and his friends were stuck in. By contrast, Terezi killed Vriska for a very concrete reason which had nothing to do with what Vriska had done or "deserved" and everything to do with stopping the disastrous side effects of her plan. (Coincidentally, if Tavros had succeeded it would have served the same purpose--but Tavros had no way of knowing that at the time. Andrew went to great lengths to justify Terezi by establishing that she knew as absolute fact what would happen if she didn't stop Vriska.) The White King and Queen are doomed to fight the forces of evil to their own deaths. The victory condition for the game is to defeat evil through force of arms, even! They abdicated in the kids' session because they had foreknowledge of a better way to give the forces of good a fighting chance, but Tavros doesn't know that poo poo. He just sees a bad guy - and she is a bad guy, if a nuanced one - and decides it's finally time he stopped being scared of her. No-one else on the meteor is going to do anything about her, as far as he knows, and if he doesn't try, she's going to get her way. This and the next one are the relevant part of the log. He doesn't say "punish", either - he says "stop". Now he has no clear idea what he's stopping - but he's absolutely right in his deduction that Vriska is a bad guy and that whatever she has planned will be even worse for him and his friends. It's not a case of him being morally wrong at all, it's just a case of him not having the smarts or skill to unseat a malevolent god. Insofar as it's an indemnification of his fatal flaw, said flaw is "Tavros is not wise or powerful enough to back up his ideals", or, phrased another way, "Tavros is not pragmatic enough". The reason Terezi succeeds vs. Vriska is because of her exceptional wit and pragmatism. Her reason for stopping Vriska is identical. She has firmer knowledge of it, but as it happens, Tavros intuited the same thing correctly. Now, I'm not saying that's an unsatisfactory resolution. I think it's very fitting that the goofy, dorky kid with a big heart would charge in half-cocked convinced of his duty to fight the monster. I'm just saying it's still a courageous act on his part, and his death (while funny, certainly!) isn't something he, I guess, deserved for trying to do the right thing. He wasn't acting like Vriska in trying to confront an evil bigger than he could handle because he felt it was the right thing to do - that's pretty much the opposite of Vriska, who created an evil just as big as she thought she could reasonably handle because she felt like it would stroke her ego nicely. He even says in those logs that he's not confident, his confidence is fake, etc, but he's still going to try and stop her as best he can. I'm not saying he's poorly serviced by the plot, either. I actually think it's a very good ending for him - that despite all the bullying and indoctrination by Vriska trying to make him more like her, he remains true to his ideals in the end. What would he change into, anyway? Where would be his arc of personal growth? By all indications, he was already on it - one of the few trolls who talked to his Denizen, wanted to do his personal quest, loved the goofy puzzle poo poo - but was dragged forcibly off-course and traumatised by Vriska's powergaming antics. All the fakey fake confidence acting-like-a-douche stuff was on her, and even that he casts off in the end. He's pretty much a victim of circumstance, but he still manages to get it about as right as he could possibly get it just before his death. I think that's nice, and I don't think it's indicative of him doing something wrong that he could have done right. All his failures are on Vriska's terms - failure to kiss, kill, etc - and in the larger scheme of things, she was the one who epitomised all the ways in which the trolls were self-defeating, while Tavros left unmolested would probably have been one of their session's most successful players. Android Blues fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Dec 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
It isn't exactly a big coup to point out that a funny thing is funny, especially to someone who's trying to disagree in a slightly more nuanced way. Of course it's funny, the first instinct is to find it funny, and if after a moment's reflection somebody wants to talk about what was so funny about it or disagree with you then repeating "Hey, no, it was funny." doesn't contribute much. If somebody wants to discuss the implications of the actual plot elements or found they were more attached to something than you were or just generally has a different opinion, spiking the ball and saying "Deal with it, nerds - Booooosh!" only really works if you're Hussie. I'm all for a snappy comeback and sometimes things are terrible and need to be shut down, but let's not rain on actual discussion, there's some interesting stuff going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
That's a pretty solid and arguably more satisfying interpretation, but ultimately I just can't see it. Here's the thing: Android Blues posted:He wasn't acting like Vriska in trying to confront an evil bigger than he could handle because he felt it was the right thing to do - that's pretty much the opposite of Vriska, who created an evil just as big as she thought she could reasonably handle because she felt like it would stroke her ego nicely. Right before Vriska contacted him he was talking with Jade, and he was in full-on Vriska mode at the time. She specifically called him out on pulling the exact same glory-seeking timeline self-insertion that she did. You say that he casts that off in the end, but he puts up a pretty weak repudiation and then proceeds to go ahead and do the Vriska thing anyhow. How much you similarity you read in his motives is going to depend on how much you carry over from the prior conversation with Jade, I guess--but then, by the time Vriska dies her motivations are not entirely the same either. As far as the nature of the desire to punish Vriska, Tavros still phrases his motivation for going after her in terms of what she did (she made Jack Noir and is a Bad Guy), not what she would potentially do. Even when Terezi did kill her it was not because she was planning on doing anything evil, it was because she was too self-absorbed to realize the unintended consequences of her plan. If Tavros can be said to have died for not being pragmatic enough (which, true enough, is very relevant to his death), then so could Vriska. Again, parallel deaths. Their respective Big drat Hero plans both had their own fatal flaws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:This just in: humor is subjective. Prove it. In other news: I am enjoying the direction the ads are going: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Vriska died months ago but Vriskachat still lives on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
It took me until now to notice that Tavros wears socks with sandals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:That's a pretty solid and arguably more satisfying interpretation, but ultimately I just can't see it. Here's the thing: I think it's important though that Vriska wants to defeat the bad guy for the personal challenge of it and because the bad guy is the most powerful thing she can possibly fight, while Tavros isn't much for fighting, doesn't like violence or aspire to prowess in combat etc, but wants to stop the bad guy because she's a bad guy. And, well, of course his repudiation is weak - as a character Tavros couldn't talk his way out of a wet paper bag, and Vriska easily talks circles around him. To me it reads like a classic "we're not so different, you and I!" speech. Vriska is justifying herself: to some extent she's certainly right that she's left her mark on Tavros, but all the talk about how he's just the same as her really is just that, talk - and its purpose is to bolster Vriska's opinion of her own moral rectitude. The same when she talks about how Tavros' assertion that she has to be stopped is moronic, too black and white, ill-thought out, etc - that's just her covering for the fact that her plan is honestly really selfish and dangerous. It's convincing to the reader because Vriska is eloquent and we have just seen Tavros act like a douche, but over the course of this conversation he goes from "I have lots of self-esteem, honest!!" to "I don't actually know if I have much self-esteem" to "okay, I have no self-esteem, but I have to try and do what's right regardless". If anything Vriska's crowing over how he's just like her serves to make him alter his path. Vriska's fatal flaw is hubris. It's classic, and much more damning generally than Tavros' fatal flaw, which I would sum up simply as foolishness - and a dead fool in drama is generally uncommon and almost invariably sad, without catharsis. Tavros doesn't go after Vriska for any self-aggrandising, hubristic reason - he does so because he believes good should strive against evil, and if he can be nothing else he should be good. Vriska doesn't really give a poo poo about good and evil, she simply believes that she should be counted amongst the good guys because everything she does is right by virtue of it being her that does it. As for her later character development, her tragedy is that she doesn't ever develop enough, in the final offing - despite all her doubts and musings, in the end she still wants to go and fight Jack despite Terezi's warnings because gently caress it, she's Vriska, she's the best and she can do anything she wants. She accepts that she might die and has a vague idea that she might save her friends, but she still doesn't believe that the Seer of Mind, of all people, is correct when she says that going to fight will bring ruination upon all she holds dear - Vriska doesn't think so and her own authority is more important. She develops, but if she had ever developed past her massive hubris, she wouldn't be dead. I think the situation would be more comparable if Tavros had been warned by someone with foreknowledge that going to fight Vriska would lead to terrible things for everyone, and he'd gone charging in anyway. As far as Tavros knows, at worst he's throwing away his own life, whereas Vriska freely gambles with the lives of all those around her as well. Android Blues fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Doc Uzuki posted:Vriska died months ago but Vriskachat still lives on. Vriskachat can only die a just or heroic death. (That said I'm loving all these alternate character interpretations, especially in Tavros's case because I've never found him all that interesting before I thought about his motivations in respect to Vriska's)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
Cavatica posted:Oh no, Dad. Maybe that's just 'cause he's a single parent 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
Doc Uzuki posted:Vriska died months ago but Vriskachat still lives on. It's Tavroschat now, it's just parroting Vriskachat because it doesn't know any better. Android Blues posted:I think it's important though that Vriska wants to defeat the bad guy for the personal challenge of it and because the bad guy is the most powerful thing she can possibly fight, while Tavros isn't much for fighting, doesn't like violence or aspire to prowess in combat etc, but wants to stop the bad guy because she's a bad guy. And that's the crux of the issue, because I don't. I mean, let's put ourselves in Tavros's roboshoes here. He's sitting in the computer lab, getting harassed by Vriska, and getting angrier and angrier. And he stops and asks himself "OK, Tavros, Vriska is a strong person: What Would Vriska Do?" Well, Vriska's answer would be pretty clear: she has wronged me personally, therefore I must kill her. Let's say Tavros rejects that, though, so he thinks long and hard about what morality and justice really mean, and arrives at his own answer: she has done wrong, therefore I must kill her. To you, this distinction makes all the difference in the world. It's a 180-degree reversal. To me, it's hardly a difference at all. It's D&D morality (that's Dungeons & Dragons, not Debate & Discussion.) Sure, when I hear about someone doing something horrible my first impulse is that someone should strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger, and that's natural. It's primal instinct. But that's not actually what's right. I freely admit that my interpretation of Homestuck morality (and morality in general) is not entirely universal; I read pacifistic ideals into Prospit's actions in part because that is what I want to see, although I maintain that the narrative supports this interpretation quite well. Android Blues posted:To me it reads like a classic "we're not so different, you and I!" speech. The problem is that they weren't so different. The similarities between douchemode Tavros and Vriska were glaring long before Vriska ever called him on it; her arguments are convincing because they're true. Whether or not he actually turned around in the middle of that conversation is always going to be pretty ambiguous, since we only got a couple of sentences out of him and then that's the last we ever heard from him (outside of meeting Dave for dreambubble rap-offs, but he's not really interested in talking about it then.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:It's Tavroschat now, it's just parroting Vriskachat because it doesn't know any better. I think key to my interpretation here is the word "stop". Tavros wants to stop Vriska: he doesn't want to punish her, he wants to stop her from doing more bad things and hurting more people. He's absolutely right in the apprehension that she's going to, as well - if Terezi hadn't killed her for just the same reason, she would have. It's not like he's going off nothing here, either: Vriska has been murdering, crippling and blinding folks her entire life, and Tavros knows that well enough. That she created an indestructible monster just to see if she could destroy it is simply the last straw - she's not redeemed herself by playing the game and she's not going to stop doing bad things, so someone else has to stop her. Tavros steps up. He's a silly little dweeb but he steps up anyway. The notion of punishment isn't really super present. Tavros just recognises that Vriska is a bad person, present tense, and will continue to be one indefinitely unless she is somehow prevented from doing so. It actually takes his death to get her to even consider that she might not be perfectly morally justified, and that's still not enough to keep her from hurting other people anyway. He's perfectly right, again, in the apprehension that she needs to be killed in order to be stopped - that's the only way Terezi, with all her avenues of possibility, can see to do it either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:As for her later character development, her tragedy is that she doesn't ever develop enough, in the final offing - despite all her doubts and musings, in the end she still wants to go and fight Jack despite Terezi's warnings because gently caress it, she's Vriska, she's the best and she can do anything she wants. Gonna let Vriska herself tell you why this is wrong: Vriska posted:AG: I don't know for sure, 8ut I'm 8etting that if I go to fight Jack, it will wipe out all the 8ad things I've done. At this point- and who knows, maybe it's temporary- she's clearly past all that poo poo. She wants to fight Jack because she feels bad and thinks it's the right thing to do. She doesn't realize that her own actions would doom her friends. Stopping her is the Just thing to do, since Vriska's death stuck, but that doesn't mean she was going to fight Jack for the reasons you listed. Not anymore, anyways. As for "not listening to the Seer of Mind," Terezi didn't actually tell Vriska what would happen after using her powers. She just killed her. It's a bit different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Gonna let Vriska herself tell you why this is wrong: Terezi did tell Vriska what would happen. It's in [S] Flip - she says "you dumbass, your sparkly fairy trail is going to lead Jack right back to the asteroid!", something to that effect. Vriska doesn't listen because she thinks she knows better than someone who can literally see the future because, despite her desire to atone, she's still got an ego the size of a house. That's why her death is Just - she may have developed but her fatal flaw is still ever-present. She's also confident Terezi won't kill her because hey, she's just too lucky/important to die except in glorious battle with her nemesis!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:As for "not listening to the Seer of Mind," Terezi didn't actually tell Vriska what would happen after using her powers. She just killed her. It's a bit different. Terezi already did tell her the probable outcome and Vriska didn't believe her. Maybe she could try again, but that would be a big risk. Remember, Terezi had a window of seconds in which to stop Vriska, because she willingly bought Gamzee's misdirections. She didn't think of any alternatives beforehand because it had never occurred to her that there would be any need for alternatives--she had become convinced that Vriska was personally killing them all one by one. And if Terezi tried to talk it out and failed, she would have no way of stopping Vriska physically. She needed the coin ruse to get Vriska to lower her guard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Terezi already did tell her the probable outcome and Vriska didn't believe her. Maybe she could try again, but that would be a big risk. Remember, Terezi had a window of seconds in which to stop Vriska, because she willingly bought Gamzee's misdirections. She didn't think of any alternatives beforehand because it had never occurred to her that there would be any need for alternatives--she had become convinced that Vriska was personally killing them all one by one. And if Terezi tried to talk it out and failed, she would have no way of stopping Vriska physically. She needed the coin ruse to get Vriska to lower her guard. Yeah, fair point. I guess I didn't take into account that she said exactly what would happen prior to actually using her Seer of Mind powers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:28
|
|