Tag: classpect asks

I’m afraid I’m having a hard time differentiating between the heart and blood aspect, which is particularly rough since I get Sylph of Heart when I take quizzes. You seem as close to an expert as possible so could you perhaps help?

Blood is the aspect of relationships and commitment, both on a personal level and a societal level. it’s about how people bond together and rally under a common banner/ideology. its also about attachment to physical circumstances (being rooted in the laws of outside society is important for an aspect focused on how societies collectively function).

As @theworstpersonintheworld eventually convinced me of, Its also about violence. Not just in physical terms (tho i can see it manifesting that way–the Red Miles are an explicit Blood symbol that emerge from the symbol of a monarch’s Rule over a people) but as the “removal of choice”, as Mike Rugnetta describes it.

In other words, the violence we all subject ourselves to in order to be part of society-everyone gives up SOME degree of freedom in order to enable the collective functioning of the whole.

For example, traditional marriage tends to come with an expectation of exclusivity or at least sticking by your partner even when its not convenient-its a sacrifice of the “freedom” to always look out for yourself, because you’re now bound to another. Marriage is a societal institution and a form of close partnership, so it parses in connection to Blood.

Heart concerns the soul, expression of self, and identity. its symbols are identifiers of unique personhood–nepeta’s blue cat hat, dave’s sunglasses, hats in general as signposts for an individuals’ “Identity”, whether that identity relates to work or interests.

It also relates to romance, but rather than commitment and companionship it focuses on passion and the deep inner urge towards togetherness that comes with Love. It’s concerned with soulmates in the existential sense, relationships as a means of two souls expressing the desire to Be Together.

Hopefully this helps?

What are your thoughts on an alternate arrangement of classes? Namely, instead of witch/heir, maid/sylph as +/- pairs… witch/sylph, maid/heir? There’s canon textual evidence for witches and sylphs being linked, both seem tied to disorder/change in the sense that witches increase it, while sylphs decrease it. maids and heirs both seem tied to provenance, perhaps? maids generate/create actively, while heirs receive/become/are created passively. The terminology’s also conceptually more connected.

at this point, i think the unifying myths I’ve picked up on carry enough weight that I value them over nebulous rearrangements of the class terminology we don’t know. That’s because there’s a lot of overlap between the classes and how they might use their terminology: Thief/Rogue, Knight/Page, and Prince/Bard are all associated with weaponizing, for example.

I wouldn’t be averse to an alternate arrangement, but unless links are drawn from the canon that associate the classes together as strongly and as consistently as the unifying myths seem to, I’d probably continue to regard the setup we’ve developed on that basis as canonical. 

So here’s the theories

https://taksynator.tumblr.com/post/162956042466/homestuck-theory https://taksynator.tumblr.com/post/163353494091/another-homestuck-theory https://taksynator.tumblr.com/post/165287519776/masterclass-thoughts thanks in advance for reviewing them ^u^

@taksynator  No problem, it’s a pleasure! If you don’t mind, I’ll outline my thoughts here:

https://taksynator.tumblr.com/post/165287519776/masterclass-thoughts

https://taksynator.tumblr.com/post/163353494091/another-homestuck-theory

As for these two, I agree pretty much entirely! I think absolute power over a particular domain is well within the description of both Muses and Lords–though I will admit, the thing about Lord English and the sand kind of lost me a little? i didn’t quite follow. I’d say that their domains in Homestuck are, well. Homestuck itself. IE-The narrative. 

I also agree that Lords and Muses find themselves dealing in their complementary (saying “inverse” brings us too close to inversion theory for me, I think, but it’s as good a descriptor as any) Aspect as well, I think that’s a sweet catch on your part. Lord English is demonstrably interested in Space, after all–going so far as to give himself first guardian powers.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1naZNQSZTcpOEABFeh-V6JRmY_YwyLE9DQDMpBQ4A9RY/edit

As for this compilation of the Classes, It was quite the interesting read! For the most part we agree, and I think the Aspect “gauges” are an interesting way to visualize classpect dynamics. I like it a lot! There’s a couple of things I’m not sure I remember too well–I don’t remember Kanaya making clothes for anyone but Vriska, who did most definitely wear the fairy dress she made her, for example.

But the only thing I really disagree with is the conception of Knights and Pages. I’m pretty well on record as thinking Knights and Pages are best described by the verb Serve, and that Knights are Passive, with Pages as Active. 

I also think that “buffs”/”debuffs” as a concept are probably best applied to the spectrum of Passive classes, though I definitely agree the concept applies pretty strongly to the Steal/Serve (in your reading Move/Use) quartet of classes.

All in all these were a fun read and really interesting! Thanks for sharing :))