“Well, Mr. Dungeon Master?” Jedd’s voice was soft. But unyielding. I realized I had to talk. What do you say to such a thing?
All The Things Under Heaven and Earth
Friday, December 6, 2024
The Real Point of Crescendo
“Well, Mr. Dungeon Master?” Jedd’s voice was soft. But unyielding. I realized I had to talk. What do you say to such a thing?
Friday, November 29, 2024
Design Journal: Conflicts and Pitches
The Tarot Map
The Chronicle and the Drunk Rule
Hitting the Books
Conflicts and Pitch
Friday, November 22, 2024
Design Journal: Crescendo's Beliefs
There is no mechanic I love more than Beliefs. Pioneered by Luke Crane's Burning Wheel, Beliefs are a subjective statement made entirely by the players. They're used to determine scenarios in the game, making the story tailor-made to what the players want it to be about. The sheer utility of this mechanic can't be understated. Players get to write what they want. The GM gets a statement they get to interpret. Inherently creative, Beliefs give back far more than what are put into them.
Two (Necessary?) Asides
As a quick aside, there's a saying in the art world: don't make portraits of those you love. I love the works of Gene Wolfe. I am trying to capture the feeling I get when I read his books. This is objectively not a good idea at any point. It's a harder project for my emotional attachment. Things that should be obvious can't be. More time is spent is because I can't have an objective view of this design.
As an additional aside, there's a large elephant in the room: Burning Wheel. Anyone who reads more than a few posts of this blog is going to discover that Burning Wheel is my favorite game. Beliefs are my favorite mechanic in gaming. A lot of my thoughts on designing Crescendo are, inevitably, going to be about taking Beliefs and adapting it to my vision. Which means that Burning Wheel is going to come up a lot. Crescendo isn't a hack of Burning Wheel, but it would be stupid to pretend that Crescendo doesn't owe a lot to it. A great deal of time has been spent repurposing Beliefs from the ground up, (usually) to the confusion and (sometimes) delight of my playtesters.
What is Crescendo?
Crescendo's central conceit isn’t a simple one: as character changes so should setting and vice versa. The game is principally based on the works of Gene Wolfe, which are intensely subjective, mythological, and cosmic. If you're going to do a Gene Wolfe game you have to have an intense subjectivity and soaring scale, which form each other. This is Crescnedo's by-line, its mission statement, is:
Belief Has Consequences
Okay, that's nice, but what does it feel like to play Crescendo? That's all very pie in the sky, but what am I going for?
Excellent question! Crescendo feels like this:
Heroes have Beliefs, Traits, and Scruples. Beliefs are what drive the Hero, Traits are how the Hero acts, and Scruples are hidden doubts/obligations that mess them up. The Setting has NPCs with simpler Beliefs, Locales and Histories that chronicle recent events, and Conflicts which rage across the Setting.
The Journal
All participants have a journal, where they log their history and events of the session. The journals are used in a mechanic called Hitting the Books: everyone opens to a random line in their journals, closes their eyes, puts their finger down, and reads aloud their selection. The LW interprets these randomly picked prompts into whatever piece of information that's needed, primarily plot twists. And then everyone writes their interpretation of whatever the LW just said into their journals.
I cannot understate how much Hitting the Books impacts play. No one is driving. The Lore Weaver isn't called a Game Master because he's not in control of where things are going. He's given prompts and says "Well, this seems like a good idea right now". Nobody is driving. If there is a single way that Crescendo has genuinely changed the face of roleplaying games, Hitting the Books is it.
There's various triggers throughout the game to record more lines in your journal. Once you record enough lines you can advance, gaining/ improving a skill or a relationship with an NPC.
The only thing even comparable are FFG's narrative dice, except Hitting the Books is cheaper and more creative. The dice are only marginally faster. Hitting the Books is also qualitative: success and failure aren't really a part of it, but bring in completely unexpected elements from past recordings. The more you play, the more eerily coherent the experience becomes, as past events factor into the present, creating more lines to choose from in the future. Hitting the Books sets up play loops that can last for tens of sessions before closing with a snap... creating a new loop.
Or, as one of the playtesters commented: "Reintegration is one hell of a drug".
Beliefs
The first thing I tried to do was to provide incentives for interacting with Beliefs, Burning Wheel style. And that would be reasonable for me to try! I'm a Burning Wheel vet! People will do what they're rewarded for. Right? Well, hold up. Burning Wheel's by-line and mission statement is
Fight For What You Believe
So, if you cause trouble for what you believe, you will be rewarded. This change at the core has been the hardest thing for me to navigate. Crescendo, if it's to stand on its own two legs, has to be its own thing from the ground up. Beliefs in Crescendo have to be fundamentally different from what they are in Burning Wheel.
Two and a half years have been spent trying a lot of different things with Beliefs, to the point where I was advised by some to just torch the Beliefs, outright!
Well, I did that, Robby, and that game's called Brick!, which I'll release as well. Probably first. We'll see.
The problem, of course, is that Crescendo is about Belief and Setting in the style of Gene Wolfe. And I am going to see that through. NPC Beliefs are based off the players'.
But is that really enough? Heck no.
Belief is Perception
Putting it Together
Sir Mal
Beliefs
Scruple
Traits
Climbing a Tower to Get Royally Laid
Remember...
Here's the Rope
In Conclusion
Friday, November 15, 2024
Pokemon Masters (TCG Hack)
I Want to Like the Official Rules
General Rules of Pokemon Masters
Deck Construction
- If your Basic Pokemon have Evolution forms, you must include one copy of each evolution, to the best of your ability.
- If there are multiple Evolutions of a Pokemon (like Evee evolutions) or multiple versions of an evolved Pokemon (Charizard, Charizard EX/GX), you only need to include one variant.
- If you do not own all the Evolutions on the chain (say, you want to play Charmander, but you only one a Charmeleon, no Charizards) you may include the Pokemon you do have (so you'd include Charmander and Charmeleon).
- You get three Basic Energy per Basic Pokemon. They must be of the same color.
- If one of your Basic Pokemon is Colorless, you must select three Basic Energy of another color from the other five.
- You may include as many additional Energy as you like, in addition to the Energy above.
- If you wish to use a V MAX, V STAR, or any Rule Box Pokemon Card that evolves from a Basic Rule Box Pokemon, it uses your Supporter slot, and must be declared as if it was a Supporter Card.
Playing One on One
Set Up
Basic Pokemon
- You may not start with a Basic Colorless Pokemon in the Active Area.
- You may not start with a Basic Rule Box Pokemon in the Active Area.
Opening Hand
Prize Cards
Whenever your Opponent knocks out one of your Pokemon, you draw one of your Prize Cards. You must take all the top Prize Cards before you grab the fifth Prize, on the bottom.
If you can't take a Prize Card, you lose the match. Whenever a Card refers to your Prize Cards, check the number of your Opponent's Prize Cards instead.
Playing
The First Turn
Drawing
- If it's an Energy, continue your turn.
- If it's not an Energy, you may show it to your Opponent(s). If you do, draw another Card. Do not show this Card to your Opponent.
Energy
Gameplay for Three Players
Two Fronts
The Law of Aggression
What Do These Rules Do?
What These Rules Won't Do
This Isn't the End
Friday, November 8, 2024
Reflections on The Menu
“When you painted on earth—at least in your earlier days—it was because you caught glimpses of Heaven in the earthly landscape. The success of your painting was that it enabled others to see the glimpses too. But here you are having the thing itself. It is from here that the messages came..."
-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
All art, all true art, is always prophecy. Always. And prophecy helps you see the world as it truly is... which may include some element of being able to see the future. The function of prophecy is that the future may help you see the whole picture.
Art of any kind is soul-crushingly difficult. Through some remarkably fallible sense perception you stumble across something. Something good, pure, beautiful, untouchable, incorruptible. It is hard to communicate the experience if you haven't had it. Something explodes in your heart, quietly devasting. Light gently breaks in, and you realize you've been in the dark your whole life and in fact you never saw anything before this moment. And, so long as you keep doing your art, really do it, you can bathe in that light.
But there's a trick. The material you have to work with is fallen. The people who interact with your art are even more fallen than the materials you work with. Some level of mastery of people and your materials is required. The media is a pain, but the people. The people are the worst part. People aren't just fallen passively, but have actively lied to themselves all their lives, to the point of actual blindness of soul. So when they look at your work are they going to see what you tried to put there?
By default the answer is no. At best you'll typically get indifference or a mild reaction. It didn't touch them because they weren't looking. That's to be expected. Humans don't look at the world around them, and those that claim they do are very good at self-deception.
You want to know how I know?
Because to perceive, to truly perceive, is to be changed.
So if someone goes "Oh cool! That's neat." By default they couldn't have actually looked. And yes, that's demoralizing.
The second worst is a sycophant. "Oh I love your work!" Instead, they made the mistake of seeing you as a necessary part of The Vision. The vision is what matters. Can you develop a predilection of engaging with a specific artist's way of channeling The Vision? Absolutely! We do this all the time! I love Ivanka Demchuk's iconography. I see this icon of Christ being betrayed to Pontius Pilate and I can feel The Vision of it. She saw something about this scene with the eyes of her heart, and was faithful to that vision. I love her craft so much I am going to learn how to do it for myself. Ivanka's work has inspired me to do something for myself. I want to learn for myself.
So, I am not talking about a fondness. I am talking about obsession with the artist. You are not on this planet to turn off your own spiritual vision and worship someone, but to find your way Home. That's hard enough without degenerating into fandom. And it is degeneration. There's a reason why the "fan" hangs himself in this movie. He has made nothing of himself and has become such a bootlicker that death really may be the most merciful option. Certainly not the soul-crushing that happens in the film.
That's not the worst reaction to your work, however.
The worst reaction is one of the fully neutered expert. Remember how I said that the materials of this world, whether they be paint or a damnably thick tome on theology, are inherently rotten, if not actively rotting? What could be grosser than someone who wants to get into that mess? To get covered in the rotting feces that is this world and go "I am very familiar with the smell and viscosity of feces, and so therefore I know you didn't use it right"?
All of this world, at best, is straw.
This isn't to say that technical mastery can't help you point people back to The Vision more reliably. But there is a difference between saying "This is what I think got in the way of helping me escape the fallen world for a minute" and "You failed the fallen materials you were working with", when in reality the materials failed you.
The sycophant and the neutered expert can kill an artist's soul so quickly. Listening to the sycophants will get you pride. Listening to the neutered expert will kill your ability to see The Vision at all. And once those two things happen, you're stuck. You either burn out and collapse in on yourself or take it out on everyone else.
And if you're especially dramatic you'll take all those idiots and kill them all in especially earnestly vulnerable, if not sometimes predictable, movie. And yeah, the movie isn't perfect. I saw the twist coming a mile away. But you know what? So what? it showed me something I needed to see, helped me reflect, and helped me process something that I've been unable to work out for myself for years. The movie did its job. It got me to see something I needed to. I changed, watching it. I saw it.
And isn't that the point of art?
Friday, November 1, 2024
The True Narrative
“There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.”GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy
"Learn your own story of salvation, of how God is saving you."
And they all give the same broad explanation. God is acting in your life. He reaches across the eons and pushes Old Father Time out of the way. It doesn't look like it does for others, because He knows you. It is the only truly unique experience you'll ever have. And yet, if you share it with others, you'll notice the least important parts match up.
The Quiet.
The Peace.
Sometimes The Terror.
Everyone has these little moments, even if they only last a millisecond. The advice from between the softcovers is to let these moments and the moments between them form a narrative-- The True Narrative -- of your life. Once The True Narrative is constructed, it's yours. You are meant to hold it in your heart. Think on it. Come back to it. Prioritize it over the massive absurdity that is your life. You're supposed to say "I know the rest of this doesn't make sense but this is what God has done for me so far." The True Narrative isn't going to answer the absurdities. The questions. The pain. Faith is not the pillow placed on your face so you don't feel pain anymore. Your doubts are a part of you, and any attempt to shut those things down is a quiet suicide.
The thing is that, when under stress, it's easy to forget that the light that's inside of you is of paramount importance. This light gives you an ability to find ways and paths that would be otherwise impossible. Without this light there is no hope in the human soul. And without hope all is lost. This light is arational. It can use rationality, but it is not rational itself. Its job isn't to argue, but to shine. Humans are supposed to navigate by the light that shines from within them.
The human, under stress, tries to figure out why they aren't comfortable. This is a rational process. Stress pushes you to find a solution quickly. And if you can't find a solution to a problem quickly? You just stay under stress! And you keep trying to figure out why. And this is good. You should try to figure out why you're in pain, or under stress, or whatever else is going on. Humans don't just have pure light, but an ability and duty to relate to the world in a coherent manner.
But what if you can't right now? What if you can't figure it out... for a long time? The stress doesn't stop. It piles up on top of other stresses atop more stresses and before you know it... when was the last time you were relaxed? You're just exhausted now. How do you come back to normal? Is there a normal?
And then the thought comes. That light was what put you here. Maybe you're better off without it.
There's the endgame.
That thought is the deadly one. This one thought will kill everything within you. And it is so quiet, you may not even hear it on a conscious level.
The problem is, of course, by now you're tired. And you really need to focus on something else. Which takes energy, right? You have to construct an argument, right then and there. I hope you can argue well, because the type of wretchedness I'm talking about is so thoroughly exhausting, so overwhelming, that it would take a miracle to come up with something convincing to yourself.
This is where The True Narrative is meant to intervene. You pull up this history of mercy, of grace, and try to sit in these memories as strongly as you can. It is literally only yours. No one else has it. Go back to those moments, drink in their particularity.
Bask.
If you're still being asked to betray yourself, just go back. And wait. Throwing out that spot of life within yourself is never the answer. I'm not saying there's any good answers. I'm not claiming to solve the problem that put you there in the first place. I am claiming that a better solution will present itself if you bide your time and hold onto hope.
But that ambiguity is pure Hell, isn't it? It's not something humans do very well. We want to be able to relate to everything. Ambiguity doesn't relate to us in a way that we like. We want to be able to control it. To put our power over it. Ambiguity refuses that kind of relationship. It gives pain and darkness, and humanity's form of relationship to it is to endure it until it leaves. But your mind doesn't like doing that.
So give it something to chew on in the interim.
The mark of a mature person is the ability to endure ambiguity by embracing what one knows. Give it something to chew on while enduring. Give it a True Narrative.
Friday, April 26, 2024
Examining Fandoms through Spider-Man and Luke Skywalker
I had written an introduction for this piece... and then deleted it. And then rewrote it. And then deleted it again.
Look, folks, at the above image. I know it's kinda painful to look at, because the art's mostly cringe, but read that dialogue. Peter, badly done hair and all, is saying something that is so basic, so fundamental, that only low art could pull it off: perfect love drives out all fear. No, I don't know the rest of the context of this comic. I've not read it before. I don't really need to, and frankly I'm not sure I want to! Love and fear cannot coexist. This a basic fact of the universe. Love makes us less and less like animals, and more and more people. A person who has love will see the way of the animal, the way of instinct, know it is an option, but ultimately reject it... because they are not an animal. And cannot be. Now, the trick is that no one's love is perfect. There is always a line all human beings have. And that line is unique to them. But even in failure that person is still far more noble than someone who never had love to begin with.
Let us examine two things the fandoms hate and critique them with this lens, shall we? We'll do One More Day and The Last Jedi.
For those of you who are blessed to not know what One More Day is... well, I'm sorry. You're going to find out if you keep reading. I almost recommend you not read on. For the rest of you who are cursed with the knowledge that is One More Day.. well I'm sorry. For those blissfully ignorant, who wish to lose their innocence: One More Day is the story where Peter Parker and Mary-Jane sell their marriage to Mephisto, a second-rate demonic figure in Marvel lore, because he claims he can save Aunt May, when somehow no one else in the Marvel Universe can.
No, I'm not making that up.
Yes, that's stupid. Just at its base, that may be one of the dumbest things a mortal mind can conceive.
But it happened.
How did that happen? Well, in order to start, I have to introduce you to the beginning of the end of Marvel: the Civil War event. See, One More Day really starts there. The story of Civil War begins when a villain by the name of Nitro blows up an entire school of kids. In the wake of a tragedy that has assuredly never happened in Marvel history before, the mob supposedly screams out for the registration, training, and subjugation of all super-powered beings.
Let us stop, for just one second, and think about how stupid an idea this is.
You are trying to tell people who are smarter, faster, stronger, better than the normal population that somehow, some strange way hitherto not done, they're going to be contained? And that somehow it doesn't go dystopian from there? Look, we've been seeing this sorta thing talked about in X-Men comics for decades. We know where this goes. All the Marvel heroes knows where this goes. This shouldn't be a line any Marvel hero crosses, just to begin with. But somehow Iron Man, the one guy who doesn't do governmental overreach, is the one who decides that he's going to step up and be the bad guy? I could go on about Civil War and how it's actually the character assassination of every single Marvel hero, ever, particularly Bishop, who somehow is pro-registration??? That one really made no sense.
But we're not here for Iron Man and Bishop, are we? We're here for Spider-Man. See, Spider-Man went pro-registration at first. Which is a... weird... move for the guy who historically has wanted to live in the shadows and not really be noticed by anyone, if he can help it. In the main Civil War event Spider-Man publicly unmasked in support of the new totalitarian regime. It's this sudden shock move that has no substantial explanation and is barely talked about in the event itself, until suddenly Spider-Man changes his mind mid-way through with the most paper thin of explanations.
However, in the Spidey comics themselves, I personally think this move was built up to really well. J. Michael Straczynski, the writer of Amazing Spider-Man, really took his time here. He first showed Spider-Man transitioning to becoming a team player, an Avenger. Then Tony Stark helps Peter out when his house is destroyed. He takes him in. Gives him a new suit. Helps the Parkers get through the... wretchedness... that is The Other storyline. A lot of people complain/ed that Peter throwing in with Tony came out of nowhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tony Stark was stepping up as a mentor in Peter's life. I actually really liked it. This was actually a really good match, one that I wish Marvel had allowed Straczynski to take years to explore more. Iron Man and Spider-Man's books could have bled together a bit, with Peter having a real impact on Tony's life. It's actually a really cool idea.
So, when Tony Stark decides to become a totalitarian asshole, it is in Peter's character to at least consider it. Peter's actually a pretty simple character in this regard. He has always wanted to support his family and friends, and Tony had more than earned that much from Peter. So, Peter unmasking was an evolution of the concept of Spider-Man. Peter Parker resolved to stop hiding from people. Encouraged by Aunt May and Mary-Jane that he, himself, is someone worthy of being loved, Peter Parker takes the final step. The fundamental formula of Peter Parker as Spider-Man had changed. And it should have. While this isn't a perfect writing decision but pretending that Peter wasn't coming from a place of love, something that Straczynski had taken most of his arc to build, is just raging stupidity. And pretending that this wasn't a part of Peter Parker becoming the Uncle Ben of the Marvel Universe is just as stupid.
Well, this had predictable results, once Spider-Man decided that totalitarianism, surprise of surprises, wasn't something to back.
Peter handles that well.
Yes, he's throwing a Jeep at the sniper. A whole Jeep. Man, I miss competent Spider-Man writing that's not the current Ultimate Spider-Man run.
Peter goes on a rampage. Sure, this part makes sense. Putting on the black costume is stupid, sure, but the concept of Peter Parker having enough and burning the whole world down because Aunt May was shot is... well... yes. Peter, like all of us, gets tired and eventually the animal is going to win out. Fine with that. So far Peter is acting like someone for whom love has transformed, but not all the way. Because nobody ever is totally transformed by love, not in this life.
And then One More Day. Where somehow in a land of mysticism and tech that's so advanced that it is magic, no one can save Aunt May. Except Mephisto, a second-rate demon that has been knocked around by more than a few heroes in the Marvel Universe. Somehow this dude is able to save Aunt May... if Peter Parker and Mary Jane sell their marriage. Suddenly, the man who has been slowly transformed by the love of his wife and aunt is afraid. Going on a revenge tour for Aunt May getting shot is one thing, but to undo the thing that she created because of her love? There's a whole host of problems with this decision, but the biggest one is simply that it wouldn't occur to Peter or Mary-Jane as an option. It's almost like there's a totally different writer here!
Oh wait!
See, Quesada, the editor-in-chief of Marvel at the time, basically wrote this issue, using Straczynski's far greater talent to at least attempt profundity. But... I mean... the shift is so profound that everyone caught it. Immediately. Because low art has only one thing going for it: heart. That's what makes it work. It's not technically proficient the way high art is, but it hits something so true so fervently and honestly that you can't help but love it anyways. And One More Day reeks of a total lack of sincerity, in only the way an editor-in-chief hijacking and crapping on a writer's story can stink.
Now, here's where we get to where it gets complicated. Because the public, the mob, is always wrong. Always. The mob doesn't think in terms of truth, but in terms of comfort and power, which are the eternal enemies of truth. Even when they are right, they are right for the worst reasons. In fact, one of the best ways to see if your own thoughts are wrong is to ask what the popular opinion is. And if your opinion matches up to what seems to be popularly said you are in deep trouble and need to change your mind as quickly as possible. The quickest way to figure out if someone who is popular is a charlatan or not is to ask if they repeat the mob's lines back at them and profit from it.
So, folks who hated One More Day (and there are still a lot of them) couldn't articulate it well, for the most part. Most of the outcry at the time was "Peter wouldn't do that!" or "Mephisto couldn't even provide that sort of thing!" and all sorts of things that are correct but are not right. One More Day's storyline was deeply uncomfortable, so the mob was never going to like it. That's not a guarantee of the story's worth or lack of worth. The mob was ruffled and had some good scapegoats for why it was ruffled. Quesada had invalidated the fundamental law of love, which is that it drives out fear. But mobs don't think, they react.
Now we're going to get to the really offensive spot: The Last Jedi.
See, Lucasfilm had made a fundamental mistake, way back in the day: they allowed books to be published in the Star Wars universe that could be construed as being in the same continuity as the movies. Nevermind that some of the media released was pure excrement and shouldn't be anywhere near Star Wars. Some of it was more than good enough to be considered in the same canon as the movies. Lucasfilm then made another mistake: they kept doing it. Even though some of it is outright character assassination. Then George Lucas made another mistake: he decided he wanted to make the sequel trilogy. And we know, from the plans that have been discussed, that he had every intention on throwing out pretty much all the previously established work in the books, comics, and videogames. Lucas, realizing that his rabid mob of a fandom would eat him alive, but still wanting the sequels made, sold Lucasfilm to Disney.
So now Disney is facing the same problem Lucas did: most of the EU is crap. The good does not outweigh the bad. They don't want to be weighed down by something that's the definition of a mixed bag. Nothing Disney was ever going to do was going to placate the mob, not if they wanted Lucasfilm to actually make something of some notable quality. And, regardless of how cutthroat Disney is, some of them do actually care about making good content, if not art. So, they wiped the EU out, definitively and openly. It had already been done, more or less, by Lucas, but Disney did what Lucas didn't have the courage to do and openly pulled the plug. They then released the safest thing they could in the form of The Force Awakens. And sure, this kept the mob off them for a little while.
But eventually Lucasfilm had to actually do something fully consonant with what Star Wars has always been about. Which meant something doing something both child-like in its fantasy and uncompromising in its examination of human nature. And they found the director to do it, Rian Johnson. They handed him the reigns, and it went about as well as one could expect: the backlash of the mob, who were still clutching their pearls, wasn't actually as hard as it could have been.
Because, surprise of surprises, Johnson actually made a really good movie!
See, the thing is that Johnson had correctly identified who Luke was. Luke, at his core, has always been a man who wants to run away. From the Tosche station joke, to running away from Obi-Wan to find the burning corpses of his aunt and uncle, to just up and leaving to go find Yoda, to running away from Yoda to help his friends, to isolating Jabba so he could take him out more easily, to leaving his friends in the middle of a freaking stealth infiltration mission so he could face Vader (and then giving up midway in the mission and just resolving to die while taking out the Emperor as quickly as possible)... just that there's a pattern here, folks. Luke is also deeply concerned about the welfare of others. Luke is also easily prone to rage.
All three of these are true.
So, Johnson had Luke do the one thing an older Luke would do: almost fly off the handle at his nephew but then stop himself. Luke almost went back from person to animal, stopped himself, and resolved to try better. And he did it much more quickly than he did as a younger man. That's because Luke has grown as a person, but the line back to animal never goes away. It's just something you learn how to handle. And Luke handled it as well as anyone could.
And then his thirteen foster-children were either burned alive or betrayed him.
Now, I don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of watching a woman go through a miscarriage. Something inside the mother dies with the child. But what most people do not track is that the same thing happens to the father too. When the child dies something happens in both parents. Something in them dries up. They can't quite summon the same energy they did before. A great weight is placed on their shoulders. It never leaves.
Ever.
And if this senseless tragedy happens multiple times, you get the exquisitely awful "privilege" of watching someone basically collapse under their own weight. No matter what happens afterwards, no matter how happy they get, their smile is dulled. It will never come back, and you will have the wonderfully terrible experience of remembering that their smile used to be so much brighter before all this. Each of these deaths can take months, years, maybe decades, to accept. It takes everything to do this. I have watched it five times. Each of them piled up on top of the last, until the person was almost unrecognizable due to a back log of the worst tragedy imaginable: the death of five little microcosms that you wanted to protect with all your might but couldn't.
Now imagine if over a dozen of those happens to you, at once, and it was your fault. Directly. How far away from suicide are you? Answer honestly now.
That is a deeply uncomfortable scenario. Anyone who thinks that the mob is going to react to such a thing with compassion has never met people. Or they forgot about 2020. Or they just didn't pay attention. Everyone's going to go "That doesn't make me feel good!" And they shouldn't feel good. But because they're a part of a mob, they're not going to reflect on why they may actually feel badly. They're just going to find the cheapest and quickest explanation to justify why they don't feel good.
Oh, wait, Lucasfilm finally disavowed the EU? Where Luke somehow gets married and has a kid, in the most unlikely and idiotic series of events ever written?
Yup, let's pin it on that.
It's certainly easier than realizing that the death of multiple children under your charge would break you too, isn't it? That requires thinking for yourself. And trying to actually think through things, which means automatically rejecting whatever the mob says, while trying to figure out why the mob is wrong.
Or, you know, you could be one of these charlatans that just feeds whatever the mob spews back at them and call it "reporting" or "commentary".
There are so many ways I could close out this blog that would be less messy. I don't claim, and I don't hope I have never claimed, to be correct in anything. I do claim to be some level of genuine. One could argue that my misanthropy is all that's on display in my blog. As of late I've wondered about that myself. I have never not claimed to be a misanthrope. But, as I continue to go along in my life, I have begun to notice that whatever you may mistake for misanthropy is rooted in something actually quite sane. I have made very wrong decisions with those thoughts. But I am not wrong.
I don't know if anyone reading this agrees or not. I know barely anyone does read. But if you are reading and still see something, thank you.