Interesting as hell, nice š I will definitely take a look though Iām pretty busy rn, but Iām really excited to hear this! Feel free to update me if you come across anything particularly interesting, too.Ā
[2]Then wouldnt it follow that princes/bards and sylphs/maids would switch places with the heirs/witches and mages/seers
Hrmmm, I see what youāre saying. I was going off this quote from Calliope:
Along with the distinction of Lords asĀ āMost Activeā and Muse asĀ āMost Passiveā.
My logic was that the more intensely Active/Passive classes had more dramatic impacts on their sessions, while the less Active/Passive classes were more versatile and able to switch back and forth from Active to Passive easier, making them more flexible.
The Master Classes, then, have the best of both worldsāthey can have incredibly high impacts like the far-end classes, but they can also reap the benefits of both Exploiting and Allowing their aspect as necessary like the closer ones.
But that may be inaccurate. I think weāre getting closer, but Iām not sure weāveĀ āfigured outā all the nuances of the Active/Passive scale.Ā Thereās a couple things that are still puzzling me, and questions like this one shaking or playing with the model are definitely helpful for helping us figure things out.
I donāt necessarily have any thoughts on this right now except that Iād like to hear how you account for Princes being positioned close to Lords in the scale. I donāt think youāre necessarily wrong, I feel like Iām missing stuff in my model. Iām just not 100% sure how to square this with the evidence weāve got in canon.Ā
Any thoughts?
If Lord being a very active class places them on the far side of the scale, then Witch (which Hussie says isĀ āsaid to be a highly active classā) should also be towards the active end of the scale instead of the middle?
hrrrrm, yeah. My logic I wish I could find something in the text that helped us at least figure out how the structure works :[ I think weāre starting to understand what the spectrum means, but Iām not even sure that class pairs would be placed on it symmetrically.
All I can figure is that Witches are said to be highly active in context with all of the classes, including Passive ones? My mindset being that If theyāre as active as, say, Princes, then I have to wonder why they donāt seem to struggle QUITE so dramatically when theyāre in a Passive state, and why they seem to have an easier time switching back and forth.Ā
Itās quite possible my train of thought wrt how to understand the classes in this regard is completely off, but Iād like to see alternate interpretations for how to understand the classes more holistically to counter the view, if that makes sense.Ā
Hmm ok. Unfortunately holistic doesnāt come very naturally to me, as Iām more of a bottom-up (vs top-down) kinda thinker and I prefer to throw details at each other in the hopes that some conclusion will fall out eventually, maybe after a few years or so. Unifying myths or some other overarching key idea that Hussie included to clue us into the system is not an assumption Iām willing to throw into that mix so readily.
So here I am again, back to niggling at those details. Specifically, you mentioned classes at either ends of the active/passive scale have the worst and the most unhealthy difficulty if/when they attempt to swap to the other side, and youāve defined the destroy/create classes as the very ends of the scale. But Dirkās swap to a passive Knight doesnāt seem to be a bad thing for him, by your analysis? It demonstrates Dirkās deep love for Jake and his friends, or something like that, and he even gets immortalized in Grandpaās memories as a knight.
Additionally, Iād like to suggest that destroy/create are the classes who actually swap with each other as a matter of course, since destroying an aspect creates its opposite and vice versa. (This is again by your theory, according to that post a while ago where I argued that destroying Hope doesnāt automatically create Rage or vice versa? Although I donāt know if thatās a theory you still hold.)
Obviously thereās a lot of fine tuning required, but if youāre looking to shake up your class scale then this might be somewhere to start?
All kinds of thinking are useful to understanding Homestuck, imo! I hope I didnāt come off as talking down or anything, i was just trying to explain how I typically think about this stuff.Ā
Yeah, I regard Dirk as a unique exception to the general trend of Roleplay Being Bad For You. The main thing that enables this is that Pages naturally invite Knight-like behavior in other classes, and Jake is a Hope player, which enables some good old powergamerĀ cheating, of the sort that successful Sburb players often use.Ā
AR would actually be a pretty good example of unhealthy roleplay. Like Dirk, he ends up roleplaying permanently, but his Knight imagery is decidedly darker: after his heroic sacrifice to save the alphas and stop Caliborn, he spends like, an eternity as LEās personal Butler, serving for LEās benefit for like, forever.
Which sucks and I hope AR is revived or something but, you know. It fits the mold.
As for that theory, I think you kind of swayed me back then? In that lately I think itās more flexible. Like for example AR destroys Heart by getting Dirk to kill himself, but that doesnāt really result in the creation of Mind?Ā
But I will admit Iām pretty tired and might be misunderstanding you. To be clear, youāre suggesting that a Prince of Heart will typically tend to act like a Sylph of Mind, and vice versa, simply due to the inverse meanings of their verbs?
Yeah, my writing on roleplay is strewn all over the place. I really need to write about it as itās own mechanic in more detail, which I suppose Iāll be doing for videos.
Hereās a couple of the sections that are most relevant:
The Serve part of this essay outlines how Pages tend to inspire characters to act like their Knights, and how Jakeās summoning of Brain Ghost Dirk fits that mold.
And here I go on about how AR was the clear winner of the power struggle leading to Unite Synchronize and Dirk didnāt do like 90% of the shit people pin on him, which Iām dumping a link to as well because like, why not? I love dirk thanks
Man this stuff is going to be a nightmare to condense into a single video. rip
[2]Then wouldnt it follow that princes/bards and sylphs/maids would switch places with the heirs/witches and mages/seers
Hrmmm, I see what youāre saying. I was going off this quote from Calliope:
Along with the distinction of Lords asĀ āMost Activeā and Muse asĀ āMost Passiveā.
My logic was that the more intensely Active/Passive classes had more dramatic impacts on their sessions, while the less Active/Passive classes were more versatile and able to switch back and forth from Active to Passive easier, making them more flexible.
The Master Classes, then, have the best of both worldsāthey can have incredibly high impacts like the far-end classes, but they can also reap the benefits of both Exploiting and Allowing their aspect as necessary like the closer ones.
But that may be inaccurate. I think weāre getting closer, but Iām not sure weāveĀ āfigured outā all the nuances of the Active/Passive scale.Ā Thereās a couple things that are still puzzling me, and questions like this one shaking or playing with the model are definitely helpful for helping us figure things out.
I donāt necessarily have any thoughts on this right now except that Iād like to hear how you account for Princes being positioned close to Lords in the scale. I donāt think youāre necessarily wrong, I feel like Iām missing stuff in my model. Iām just not 100% sure how to square this with the evidence weāve got in canon.Ā
Any thoughts?
If Lord being a very active class places them on the far side of the scale, then Witch (which Hussie says isĀ āsaid to be a highly active classā) should also be towards the active end of the scale instead of the middle?
hrrrrm, yeah. My logic I wish I could find something in the text that helped us at least figure out how the structure works :[ I think weāre starting to understand what the spectrum means, but Iām not even sure that class pairs would be placed on it symmetrically.
All I can figure is that Witches are said to be highly active in context with all of the classes, including Passive ones? My mindset being that If theyāre as active as, say, Princes, then I have to wonder why they donāt seem to struggle QUITE so dramatically when theyāre in a Passive state, and why they seem to have an easier time switching back and forth.Ā
Itās quite possible my train of thought wrt how to understand the classes in this regard is completely off, but Iād like to see alternate interpretations for how to understand the classes more holistically to counter the view, if that makes sense.Ā
Yeah I don’t really think Horrorterrors are transformed players either, that point got a little away from me a bit. My main objection was the line of assumptions described in the first paragraph. From my POV, Occam’s Razor better suits the “explanation” that “Gamzee has no ghosts because he’s an unkillable clown” rather than coming up with any deeper explanations like infinite loyalty to LE. I’d be interested in reading that future post!
Sure, but my point about his allegiance to LE came about from attempting to resolve the tension betweenĀ āGamzee never dies because heās an unkillable clownā andĀ āEveryone dies in a doomed timelineā. Those are apparently contradictory facts that warrant some way of being bridged if you want to assume Homestuck is coherent, like I do.
As far as I can tell, theĀ dreamselfĀ mechanic is the only explanation the comic gives able to resolve said tension, and it works out pretty neatly if you go with it. What followed was my interpretation of his actions taking into account the sheer scale at which they operate.Ā
Like I said though, I think thereās at the very least additional context that casts that interpretation in a murkier light, without changing the fact of what Gamzeeās done. Hereās hoping i get to present that view soon.Ā
That Gamzee explanation is pretty convincing, but it relies on the assumption that Gamzee has no ghosts + dream merger mechanics -> Gamzee never successfully saved his friends -> Gamzee is a murderous asshole who never chooses his friends over his murderous tendencies and LE loyalty. Note, of course, that I inserted the word āsuccessfully.ā Perhaps Gamzeeās immortality is a separate mechanic due to being a ārascally clownā as Hussie says, rather than simply out-surviving (or killing) the others? Aradia notes that the beta trolls fucked up their session multiple times, making victory unobtainable, without actually implying that Gamzee was responsible for each fuck-up. It seems plausible that the other beta trolls are perfectly capable of ruining their own session without Gamzeeās interference or even with his cooperation, considering how many Aradiabots had to step in and help Karkat here and there just due to his own stupid actions. Or something just didnāt loop correctly despite perfectly good yet still incorrect behavior, triggering a doomed offshoot that resulted in the surviving trolls all eventually dying of old age and leaving Gamzee. Several possible explanations, you know?
Anyway, what Iām suggesting is a scenario kind of like that old tumblr post with a picture of a Seer of Time standing alone on the Battlefield surrounded by their dead friendsā corpses, followed by a lot of speculation about immortal god tiered players in doomed timelines. Or a different post that suggests all doomed Gamzees become purple-blooded Horrorterrors rather than ghosts. Both fan-created theories, of course, but not theories that are contradicted by the source material (yet). (I can probably dig those posts up if you need them, just let me know.)
My theory in turn relies on Gamzeeās immortality being solely and independenrly due to his clownishness, rather than as a result of various other actions. Hussie āconfirmedā on his formspring that Gamzee doesnāt die because heās a ārascally clown,ā but who knows how serious his formspring responses are. Maybe his being a juggalo actually refers to being a disciple of the juggalo religion, which brings us back to LE loyalty. In-comic Hussie tells Caliborn that āyou canāt keep down the clown,ā which Gamzee seems to support by taking an entire automatic rifleās magazine and still being alive – but I guess you could argue that he was expressing his loyalty to LE in that scene, hence unable to die while in pursuit of that task? Itās theories all the way down. Anyway what do you think.
My main issue isnāt so much that such scenarios are impossible as it is that I think theyāre begging the question a little. Occamās razor, you know? While stuff like players turning into horrorterrors and stuff is fun, yeah, and theyāre potential explanations…theyāre also explanations the canon never brings up.
I tend to part from the starting premise that Homestuck is in most things a coherent and well-structured story, that tells the audience what it thinks is important for the audience to know. So coming up with fanon explanations for something we HAVE a canonical explanation for, just one that leads us to some conclusions that are pretty unpleasant, just doesnāt really mesh with my particular methodology too well.Ā
I do think Gamzeeās immortality is due to his clownishness, but I view the link between those two things as Gamzeeās Rage aspect. Immortality=Clowns works because, well, itās contrived and infuriating, and infuriating plot contrivances are part of the language Rage exists to describe.Ā
All of this said, @hussianphilosopher raised some good critical counterpoints to that Gamzee post that Iām looking to incorporate into an expanded piece on Gamzee when I port that little post to Medium. I donāt really think that post is the most accurate take on Gamzee anymore.Ā
Iām just not sure when Iāll get the chance to present this slightly different context š¦ As soon as I can, I guess.Ā
Hey I totally forget if I already asked you this, but I was reminded by your recent post that I had a question for you about Sylphs and fairies and Vriskaās roleplaying.
Hussie said on his formspring once while talking about god tiers that āVriskaās true form is that of a pesky, murderous luck fairy,ā which seems to go against your theory that Vriska is unhealthily roleplaying her ancestorās god tier and is not, herself, a fairy at all.Ā https://classesandaspects.tumblr.com/post/130602203382/hussie-god-tierĀ
How do you reconcile Hussieās statement with your theory? (Death of the Author is an acceptable answer.)
If you did ask, I never saw it! I think Iāve seen this quote before, come to think of it.
I wouldnāt really use DotA to discard theories because Iām primarily interested in trying to understand the comic as cohesively as possible, and Hussieās quotes re: mindset with developing it has helped me consider how best to read it many times.
Iād really only say that this particular quote kinda has to be taken in context. The thing is, Vriska IS definitely a fairy for the entirety of Act 5. Itās coded into the language sheās presented with both textually and visually across the whole deal.
When I say Vriska is aĀ āfalse fairyā, I donāt mean that sheās incapable of creating a version of herself that plays the role. What I mean is that the roleplaying itself is toxic and unhealthy for her (holding to her Mindfang persona literally kills her, after all), and so itās ultimately discarded as her character grows.Ā
The question for me is: why was that element so completely dropped later? And why is the myth of the Fairy so consistently tied to the Maid and Sylph classesāwith the exception of cases like Vriska and Tavros, for whom behaving as fairies ends atrociously?
Hussie has always been cagey about telling us exactly whatās going on. So weighed against the evidence in the comic, Iām inclined to think heās just leaving stuff out here, given that this quote is from Act 5ābefore we even knew the Dancestors and could put this stuff together.
I like the crumbs and hints approach, personally! Partly because understanding Homestuckās referential/symbol language is crucial to understanding itās broader themes anyway, and partly because…Iām a SoulsborneĀ addict and this type of storytelling has natural appeal to me so Iām not really an objective judge xDĀ
I would be really happy to get more crumbs though. Given my model, Iām really interested in knowing if Xefrosā relationship to Butlers implies any relationship to Knights or Pages, either because he is one or because itās a case of roleplay. If neitherās the case, I might have to reconsider everything, which is always exciting.Ā
God I want Hiveswap. Iām so excited all the time ;w;
Counterpoint for the Hope/Rage part, though: lack of Hope is hopelessness, not anger. And lack of Rage is apathy, not hope. Thereās a pretty clear destruction of Rage early in Act 5 when Eridan is talking to Gamzee. Several things are happening in that conversation, but the most obvious is Eridanās sudden turnaround on Faygo. He goes from
CA: i dont havve a fuckin faygo you stupid fuck wwhy wwould i keep that disgusting shit on hand
To
What.
Itās just soda. Not great, but not that bad either. Whatās the big deal?
We all need to settle down here.
To
FCA: i mean
FCA: its not evven that bad
FCA: its just soda but wwhatevver this isnt the point
If the destruction of Rage was equivalent to the creation of Hope, then that scene could have been presented in a way to make that connection more obvious – convincing Eridan that Faygo might actually taste good, for example. But (aside from Gamzeeās prattering on about miracles) that conversation has nothing to do with Hope. Eridan isnāt given any hope that he might be able to talk to Karkat later (Gamzee clearly isnāt willing to interrupt Jack Noir), nor that Feferi might get back together with him (he resigns himself to the fact that Feferi cares more about Sollux than himself at the moment and that sheās right in doing so). And Eridan walks away from that conversation with neither positive nor negative opinions of Faygo.
Overall, Eridan does not sound like he gained any Hope from the destruction of his Rage.
TC: ArE YoU SuRe i cAnāt hElP A bRoThEr Up iNtO HiS MoThErFuCkIn cHiLl?
CA: i dont knoww
CA: it probably doesnt matter
CA: my feelins seem petty and meaninless noww
CA: she had better things to wworry about than my ovverwwrought bullshit
CA: like the dead guy wwho savved her
CA: so forget it thanks anywway
You could definitely argue that Hope and Rage, as positive and negative emotions respectively, are mutually exclusive. Thatās reasonable. I just disagree that the absence of any one aspect defines the presence of any other aspect (except Void).
(I guess you could also argue that hopelessness is a negative emotion that falls under Rageās domain? Or that Gamzee was really trying to create Hope by encouraging Eridan to believe in miracles, and itās not classpect theoryās fault that Gamzee is a shitty Maid (or whatever) of Hope? I donāt agree with those, but I think theyād be interesting arguments to make.)
Oh yeah, thatās a pretty good point. Gotta say Iām inclined to say youāve swayed me on this one–what would you say the destruction of an Aspect brings about, then? Equilibrium or total balance or Void in this case, as well? This is gonna keep me up tonight and i have a flight tomorrow rip me
i think that escaped my inital point somewhat but itās far more interesting territory to discuss just how exactly every aspect relates to all the others, more than just its opposite
I agree completely, yeah. I figured Time and Space were standouts re: Void just because they describe physical dimensions, if that makes sense? Like. Destroying Space doesnāt really create Time, and in the Furthest Ring the absence of one means the other is also non-existent.Ā
But if someoneās Hope is destroyed, it doesnāt typically result inĀ ānothingnessāāit results in negative emotions. Either fear, despair, sorrow, or Rage, or so on. All of that stuff is under Rageās purview, and so it makes sense for me to say the absence of Hope is Rage to a degree, and vice versa.Ā
Do you see what I mean by Time and Space not necessarily having that relationship? It seems different in a subtle way.Ā
I guess you could also argue that hopelessness is a negative emotion that falls under Rageās domain?
In that I would. When I consider the Aspects I always err towards the broadest interpretation possible. No other approach makes sense to me, because the Aspects by definition describe everything that reality could possibly be.
If we donāt ascribe negative emotions to Rage, then what Aspect claims them?
I donāt think Jake crying in a cell is Jake like, inverting into a Rage player or w.e, but I do think itās telling that the things Jake strives hardest to avoid are all Rage things–the possibility of letting down his friends, or hurting someoneās feelings, or having people be mad at him, etc.Ā
If you want a unifying thread for all those negative emotions, I would say that negative emotions tend to center us in the raw, definite mundanity of our own suffering, and have us stop considering alternate possibilities or ideas.
In other words, Rage is fundamentally linked to the mundane and the physical, and with the emotions that bring your emotional center into the physical plane as opposed to Hope, which centers itself primarily in the realm of ideas.Ā
Flying through Storytelling 