Homesuck: Vriska Rising

[Specterbane]

Originally Posted by Aldurin

And here you guys got me panicked with all of these new posts and the fact that the MSPA site had problems. I thought I was missing out on a huge update.

Yeah, no kidding. I go to play a game for a bit and pages, freaking PAGES, are added to this thread.

Anyhow, regardless of what you think about characterization you have no right to question a character's actions in this case, in my opinion; because if the author did it Hussie's got the ultimate say, if characters should "live and breath" in their own way then it was them who made those decisions and who are you to say "NO THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WERE REALLY THINKING THIS WHOLE TIME! I KNOW BECAUSE I AM CLEARLY PLOT PSYCHIC!" Regardless it's a moot point because that's what's cannon now.

Case-in-point: Equius. He was a joke character and he stayed a joke character through his end. You might have liked to have seen him grow and advance beyond his short comings that made him a joke character, but that has to stay in your fanfic because that's just not what happened.

But hey, this is the internet. So as everything, that's just my OPINION.

[Loyal]

Originally Posted by BardTheFifthLightWarrior

Terezi's "luck means nothing" line really just gives me the feeling that Vriska is going down for the count. Maybe some will survive, what with John reaching the Scratch all cheery, but Vriska is pretty much being set up to fail incredibly. Although I guess you have a point Loyal, the reamining one's may survive.

edit: Although, Tavros died twice as well going by the dreamself argument. So did Fef, Nepeta, Equius, Kanaya?, and any other victim so far. If we do go by the dreamself thing though, then Sollux has already died twice and is pretty much safe as far as the near future goes.

Well, the thing is, even though the prophecy said everyone would die "once," even if we discount "passive" dream-deaths (that is to say, those dreamselves who've died while their waking world counterparts were active), Tavros, Feferi, and Nepeta have all lost their dream selves while they were asleep, prior to getting killed off while awake. Because of this, and Sollux "dying twice," we can only assume that (a) dreamselves count toward the death tally, and (b) the prophecy does not guarantee safety for those who've already died. Basically it's probably meaningless now.

Anyhow, regardless of what you think about characterization you have no right to question a character's actions in this case, in my opinion; because if the author did it Hussie's got the ultimate say, if characters should "live and breath" in their own way then it was them who made those decisions and who are you to say "NO THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WERE REALLY THINKING THIS WHOLE TIME! I KNOW BECAUSE I AM CLEARLY PLOT PSYCHIC!"

You're right, what was I thinking. Clearly I should just sit here quietly, watch the show, and make no action except a tacit nod of approval. I thank you for showing me the light!

Case-in-point: Equius. He was a joke character and he stayed a joke character through his end. You might have liked to have seen him grow and advance beyond his short comings that made him a joke character, but that has to stay in your fanfic because that's just not what happened.

It's not Equius dying that bothers me (Though I still don't buy that his stupid fetish would so override his desire to protect the remaining trolls), so much as the increasingly ham-fisted and l00dicrous fashion Hussie's been handling the deaths. Tavros, okay. Fef, okay. Kanaya, um. Equius, what the fuck. Nepeta, run goddamnit, and why the hell did Gamzee mutilate his own face?*

* That is to say, why on earth would Hussie foreshadow THE CRITICAL MOMENT with Gamzee's slashed face if it was going to be some red herring via Gamzee slashing himself?

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Specterbane

Are you trying to say that characters have a life of their own beyond the compression of the one who created them and manages their actions?

Originally Posted by Krylo

That's not how writing works.

However, that's a difference in what one finds justifiable. No one goes on to accuse the doucher of being a psychopath, or doing what he does because he's just narcissistic or whatever.

At least no one who actually spends the time paying attention to the story line.

The difference of opinion comes with whether escaping to their fantasy dream world is terrible or not. He thinks it is and believes he's doing the right thing for all of his friends by pulling them back into the real world. No one who has even the vaguest understanding of the story or the character is going to argue otherwise.

The argument is that he's wrong and it was actually a totally terrible thing for them to do. Which is fine, because you aren't rewriting a character, you're simply disagreeing with the conclusions that character came to from their motivations.

FOR INSTANCE: Vriska is wrong about how pushing Tavros to go up a bunch of stairs will make him stronger if he succeeds. She's wrong that it would absolve her guilt in crippling him in the first place. She's wrong that Terezi being able to smell things makes it ok that she blinded her.

However, her motivations are what they are, regardless of whether we as readers agree with the outcomes.

There may be some kind of argument if Hussie hadn't used a reliable narrator character to explain what Vriska's dysfunction was, or if her dysfunction didn't fit with what she did. However, neither of these are true.

Thus, her motivations are what they are. It's up to us to interpret whether her motivations make her actions worse, or better, or whether she's a pitiable or hatable or just amusing character.

That's where the difference lies here, and why Fifth is just wrong about Vriska, not having a different interpretation that is totally equally valid as everyone else's.

HE'S FURTHER wrong because he's been nothing but a total douchebag about how he PRESENTS that interpretation that is not actually justified in the story at all, with comments like:

All over the goddamn place.

I'd be willing to let him keep on being wrong and pat him on the head and say "Yes, Fifthy, your interpretations are equally valid as the author's even though they are considerably weaker from the standpoint of the story placed forth than these other interpretations that the author has done everything he can to beat us over the head with," IF he wasn't such a goddamned asshole about it, or even if he didn't bring it up at EVERY POSSIBLE GODDAMNED OPPORTUNITY.

Because at the end of the day, if Hussie HADN'T gone out of the way to beat us over the head with what, exactly, is wrong with Vriska it would be a matter of opinion, and hey, Fifth's shit still stinks like everyone else's. And, frankly? I'm tired of having it rubbed all over my face every time I look in this thread.

Originally Posted by Krylo

The author is still giving them that 'life of their own' and their motivations. They aren't living beings that have lives outside of the author's mind.

Which of course I haven't said. They are however fictional characters in a fictional story that exists as that story is written and should be interpreted based on what's presented. My argument about Vriska's motivations has always been based on her actions in the story.

Regardless of whether Andrew Hussie believes that Vriska's character should be some deeply sympathetic story of a character who can't help that she abuses and then murders cripples, the character as he's portrayed her is consistent with the characterization of someone who is utterly lacking in empathy and acts purely out of selfishness and for the sake of manipulating others.

I mean I get that you have literally no idea how fucking stupid you sound every time you write that she was absolutely positively 100% sincerely only acting out of concern for another character's well-being when she repeatedly assaulted and belittled him, but that behavior is, actually, not consistent with a person who sincerely cares about someone else's well-being, and is actually entirely consistent with someone who is coming up with a self-serving justification for lashing out violently at other people.

If that's not what Andrew Hussie meant to portray, then oh well, because what actually matters is what is actually portrayed in the story.

This is the most obtuse you've been since "nigger-cracks" and you're getting near being as much of an asshole as you were when you dropped that. And amazingly it's for much the same reasons, because you can't help flipping a shit over the suggestion that statements have meaning beyond what the person saying them says they intend by them.

[Krylo]

This is the most obtuse you've been since "nigger-cracks" and you're getting near being as much of an asshole as you were when you dropped that. And amazingly it's for much the same reasons, because you can't help flipping a shit over the suggestion that statements have meaning beyond what the person saying them says they intend by them.

Oh hey, look at that dragging up my not representing a Wanda Sykes bit as well as Wanda Sykes did, what, four years ago?

Good job.

I'm impressed with your ability to dig up ancient history in an attempt to shame me.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Which of course I haven't said. They are however fictional characters in a fictional story that exists as that story is written and should be interpreted based on what's presented. My argument about Vriska's motivations has always been based on her actions in the story.

Regardless of whether Andrew Hussie believes that Vriska's character should be some deeply sympathetic story of a character who can't help that she abuses and then murders cripples, the character as he's portrayed her is consistent with the characterization of someone who is utterly lacking in empathy and acts purely out of selfishness and for the sake of manipulating others.

I mean that you have literally no idea how fucking stupid you sound every time you write that she was absolutely positively 100% sincerely only acting out of concern for another character's well-being when she repeatedly assaulted and belittled him, but that behavior is, actually, not consistent with a person who sincerely cares about someone else's well-being, and is actually much more consistent with someone who is coming up with a self-serving justification for lashing out violently at other people.

If that's not what Andrew Hussie meant to portray, then oh well, because what actually matters is what is actually portrayed in the story.

Except for the part where you described her actions yourself as part of the cycle of abuse, which actually requires guilt and remorse.

Except for the part where we had a reliable narrator explain this shit.

Actually, fuck it. You started being the asshole here, EVERY FUCKING PAGE.

But, you know what:

I mean that you have literally no idea how fucking stupid you sound every time you write...

Anything on this subject at all.

I'm done.

For about a hundred more posts, then we can do this again.

[Fifthfiend]

Except for the part where you described her actions yourself as part of the cycle of abuse, which actually requires guilt and remorse.

Nope, just expressions of guilt and remorse in order to maintain control of the victim.

Except for the part where we had a reliable narrator explain this shit.

I said what's actually portrayed, not Andrew Hussie arguing for his interpretation of what he's portrayed using a character as a mouthpiece.

If Vriska were someone who ran away from every confrontation and Hussie had Terezi saying she was motivated by courage, or if Vriska gave everyone hugs and listened to their problems and gave them real good advice all the time and Terezi said she was just being a selfish bitch, then those interpretations could also be rejected on exactly the same basis that I'm rejecting Terezi's interpretation of why Vriska likes to torment kids that she's crippled.

Actually, fuck it. You started being the asshole here, EVERY FUCKING PAGE.

^
|
|
I'm just looking at this under every one of your posts,

Makin' this look, like

"hmmm"

[Aldurin]

Wait, is this all about Vriska's characterisation? Damn, if I tried hard enough I could probably trick you guys into writing persuasive essays for me.

EDIT: Scratch that. I don't want essays filled with "you're stupid, your posting is terrible and you're ugly".

[Overcast]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Fifthfiend]

Or no, better still

Originally Posted by Krylo

Vriska: Having a better grasp on interdimensional temporal mechanics than the average forum goer since 2010.

Yes, I started all the assholing in this thread

its me

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

If Vriska were someone who ran away from every confrontation and Hussie had Terezi saying she was motivated by courage, or if Vriska gave everyone hugs and listened to their problems and gave them real good advice all the time and Terezi said she was just being a selfish bitch, then those interpretations could also be rejected on exactly the same basis that I'm rejecting Terezi's interpretation of why Vriska likes to torment kids that she's crippled.

Learn some shit.

Her reasoning entirely makes sense for what has happened. You are the only person who doesn't think this at this point. You are being stubborn and obtuse.

^
|
|
I'm just looking at this under every one of your posts,

Makin' this look, like

"hmmm"

Does my sig offend you?

Would you like me to change it?

Would you quit acting like everyone who likes Vriska for any reason at all is some kind of mentally deranged person who must LOVE NARCISSTIC MURDERING SOCIOPATHS IN THE REAL WORLDS if I remove it?

Because you were doing that WAY before I made that sig, but if it'll get you to stop thread shitting and being a dick bag in this thread out of hand, well I'll be happy to get rid of it.

Edit: I wasn't impressed with the Wanda Sykes bit. I'm not impressed at the FIRST time I got fed up with you thread shitting like a motherfucker, either.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Overcast

What the hell is wrong with you people?

We disagree strongly about a topic and both feel that the other person's view and the manner in which they are expressing it reflects on them generally as a person.

Also we've known each other for many years and so have a pre-existing set of views about each other which also enter into things in a way that magnifies particular elements of this particular disagreement.