Homesuck: Vriska Rising

[Archbio]

Not when the author has gone out of their way to make the character a supernatural expert on knowing the psychology of other characters.

Well, actually, it's still a poor way of establishing character. In that case it's not poor in the sense that it's not reliable; it's just poor form. Show, don't tell, ect.

I don't recall exactly what was Terezi's insight about Vriska, by the way.

Er, isn't that like, Lit 101 of analyzing characters? Like "what others say about the character, what the character says about themself, etc etc etc"

I think what characters do is still number 1.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Well, actually, it's still a poor way of establishing character. In that case it's not poor in the sense that it's not reliable; it's just poor form. Show, don't tell, ect.

Yeah I edited when I realized that might have been your intent.

I don't recall exactly what was Terezi's insight about Vriska, by the way.

Exactly what I've been saying. That she'll do something in a moment of anger/sadism/whatever other thing, and then she'll try to make up for it in the worst possible fashion, because she thinks that if whomever she hurt can overcome whatever she did to them, then she won't feel bad about whatever she did to them anymore.

[Aldurin]

Originally Posted by Krylo

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the first thing I would do upon meeting anyone from this forum is punch them in the face, so that's entirely true, but for completely different reasons.

What did we ever do to you?

[Archbio]

Yeah I edited when I realized that might have been your intent.

Well, both meanings usually go hand in hand. It's bad form because it's not really effective. Somewhat.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Well, both meanings usually go hand in hand. It's bad form because it's not really effective. Somewhat.

Yeah, he didn't do a good enough job showing it with just the actions--though I'm not sure how much more he could have done considering the fact that Vriska also does her best to hide that she feels bad about anything she's done is also part of her character--so he wrote in some exposition dumps to just right out say it.

Which, itself, may not have been the best method.

But the two things combined are pretty much the equivalent of him hitting us with a proverbial baseball bat with Vriska's motivations engraved in it.

It's, obviously, entirely possible to interpret them differently, or to interpret the nuances of her motivations and personality differently, but I don't think any other interpretation besides the guilt thing really has much strength behind it looking at the story as objectively as I am able to. Edit: Though the nuances of how much sadism drives her vs guilt and an inability to cope with other people are MUCH more open to debate.

Which may not be THAT objective, because I've always found her to be amusing, so I'll admit some bias probably exists.

Edit@Aldurin: I need a reason to punch people in the face now?

[Dracorion]

... Twelve more wigglers?

[POS Industries]

..."OTHER twelve wigglers"?

[Art of Hilt]

And what about the OTHER twelve wigglers you spawned?

[Krylo]

Blargh, Terezi is going to do something stupid.

There's a pretty high chance that at least one of my two favorite trolls is about to be out of the story.

[POS Industries]

I think I may have an idea: Remember when John did the ectobiology thing and paradox cloned the guardians, then their DNA was mixed together to create the kids?

Well, it can be assumed that Karkat just directly paradox cloned himself and the other trolls, since he doesn't appear to be aware of his or his friends' parentage. However, the ectobiology process would still carry on as usual and combine the DNA from the paradox clones into new offspring, making the other 12 wigglers the genetic children of the trolls.