[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 you’re saying. I was going off this quote from Calliope:
Along with the distinction of Lords as “Most Active” and Muse as “Most Passive”.
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 worlds–they 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 we’re getting closer, but I’m not sure we’ve “figured out” all the nuances of the Active/Passive scale. There’s 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 don’t necessarily have any thoughts on this right now except that I’d like to hear how you account for Princes being positioned close to Lords in the scale. I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, I feel like I’m missing stuff in my model. I’m just not 100% sure how to square this with the evidence we’ve got in canon.
Any thoughts?
So,this is my current version of the active passive scale.
My theory is that the further a class is positioned horizontally,the more direct control over their aspect they have,and the less likely they are to act in a more passive or active manner,and if they do it usually doesn’t go very well.The further vertically positioned a class is,the less direct control over their aspect they have,and the more likely they are to act in more active or passive manners successfully.So Princes and Bards are very active,just not the same way that lords are,and vice versa for Sylphs and Bards.
hmmm. I like this setup in theory, I think? I guess my main issue is that I don’t see how it’s provable or referenceable in Homestuck’s canon, and if we can’t pin down what Homestuck thinks it means for a class to be (-1) as opposed to (-2), then the whole setup becomes too abstract and theoretical to easily explain to a layperson.
Do you have any thoughts on how Homestuck would transmit these distinctions through its storytelling?
[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 you’re saying. I was going off this quote from Calliope:
Along with the distinction of Lords as “Most Active” and Muse as “Most Passive”.
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 worlds–they 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 we’re getting closer, but I’m not sure we’ve “figured out” all the nuances of the Active/Passive scale. There’s 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 don’t necessarily have any thoughts on this right now except that I’d like to hear how you account for Princes being positioned close to Lords in the scale. I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, I feel like I’m missing stuff in my model. I’m just not 100% sure how to square this with the evidence we’ve got in canon.
Any thoughts?
If Lord being a very active class places them on the far side of the scale, then Witch (which Hussie says is “said to be a highly active class”) 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 we’re starting to understand what the spectrum means, but I’m 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 they’re as active as, say, Princes, then I have to wonder why they don’t seem to struggle QUITE so dramatically when they’re in a Passive state, and why they seem to have an easier time switching back and forth.
It’s quite possible my train of thought wrt how to understand the classes in this regard is completely off, but I’d like to see alternate interpretations for how to understand the classes more holistically to counter the view, if that makes sense.
Yep, depending on what elements you weigh the heaviest, Knights and Pages in particular get complicated. That’s really the only thing that throws me off in determining which is Passive and which is Active.
The reason I currently come down on Pages as Active is twofold. One, I simply think shaking up the current reading of Knights and Pages is important, because most people’s readings of Pages is really off, frankly?
But two, when considering it this way, I keep getting tripped up by other examples. Like, Muse is the Most Passive apparently–but Alt!Calliope has her greatest impact through her own direct action by blowing up a sun. Lord is the most active, yet Caliborn and Lord English have most of their direct impact on the plot through the ways they coerce, manipulate, and influence others. What stays consistent is who benefits, regardless of method. Calliope and Alt!Calliope’s actions are basically always to the benefit of others. Caliborn’s machinations always benefit himself.
It’s possible that’s a quirk exclusive to Master classes and there’s more to figure out about how Active/Passive works for the other classes, but for the time being I use it as a guide and consider the “For oneself” vs. “For others” habitual distinction the most important one to consider for Pages and Knights. Pages tend to benefit themselves, Knights tend to benefit others.
Heya! I think the pairs are explicitly shown to us in the comic through the use of unifying myths that connect two classes under a common symbol language. As far as I can tell, these myths are:
Lord/Muse: Conductors
Maid/Sylph: Fairies
Prince/Bard: Royalty
Page/Knight: Warriors & Butlers, (Lawbringers)(?)
Thief/Rogue: Outlaws, including all variations: Pirates, Bandits, Robin Hood, etc.
Mage/Seer: Prophets
Heir/Witch: Magicians
I outline my views on all of these myths (minus the recently noticed ones, Royalty and Outlaws, which I’m writing tumblr posts for right now) in my essay series on the Classes, Force & Flow.
I do think there are some strong resonances between Maid and Heir and Sylph and Witch, however. But my general mindset is that the Class system is a lot more hyperflexible and complex than we’ve given it credit for so far, and like the Aspects there can be resonances and relationships built up between Classes that aren’t necessarily linked by their established pairs. I can only view this as possible because I think the pairs are established so clearly, in fact.
[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 you’re saying. I was going off this quote from Calliope:
Along with the distinction of Lords as “Most Active” and Muse as “Most Passive”.
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 worlds–they 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 we’re getting closer, but I’m not sure we’ve “figured out” all the nuances of the Active/Passive scale. There’s 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 don’t necessarily have any thoughts on this right now except that I’d like to hear how you account for Princes being positioned close to Lords in the scale. I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, I feel like I’m missing stuff in my model. I’m just not 100% sure how to square this with the evidence we’ve got in canon.
I was reminded last night that Calliope had referred to passive/active classes with a +/- designation– passive is +, active is -. I think this has been a kind of enduring fandom mystery, as to why she chose + for passive and – for active, rather than, say, the other way around? Or why use +/- for this concept at all??
But I was thinking about this question and it hit me like a fucking thunderstroke.
Batteries.
Batteries!!!!
A battery is composed of, and I am likely simplifying this greatly due to my limited understanding but stick with me here, an anode with a negative charge (-) and a cathode with a positive charge (+). The anode has an excess of electrons, which creates an imbalance in a system that really really wants to be balanced. The cathode has relatively few electrons, which makes it the perfect place for all those excess electrons in the anode to go so they can correct the imbalance. When the anode and the cathode are connected, the electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, creating a circuit– and that’s the magic that makes batteries work!
Active and passive classes are distinguished in a number of possible ways, but to my understanding, they can by and large be explained this way: active classes act, passive classes react. Active classes are the source from which most of the action flows, but passive classes facilitate and allow the action to be. In this way, they’re a lot like the anode and the cathode– one being the font of influence, the other being its conduit.
I would super love if dyed-in-the-wool classpect theorycrafters could tell me what they think of this idea, because I mostly just read and very rarely contribute to this sort of discussion. But I THINK I’m on to something here.
Huh, that makes sense.
Good observation. It kind of bashes the theory that active classes are inherently self-aggrandizing and all the actions are directed towards the self and that passive classes are directed toward others as support. Good job!
Well, that certainly wasn’t my intent. My hope was that it could be largely compatible with other passive/active theorizing I had been reading, including that one, but particularly with the Daoist reading– passive/+ as yin and active/- as yang– which was a major inspiration for this post and totally dovetails with the battery metaphor imo. (i am basically indirectly @’ing @revolutionaryduelist here so i may as well @ them directly– this idea came to me while reading up on their classpect writing.)
There’s a decent amount of wiggle room here, I think, so there’s no need to define these terms too strictly. I vastly prefer viewing these sorts of things cooperatively versus competitively. 😀
I’m inclined to agree with this completely. I think someone once told me something similar but I didn’t quite get it at the time, actually? But yeah this seems like it makes sense to me, thanks for bringing it up!
It doesn’t really conflict with the selfish/selfless readings for me, either. Calliope says the active/passive dichotomy is complex and can mean many different things, and I regard the selfish/selfless thing as being indicative of a broad trend or a habitual default for the character, not a hard rule.
Another way to understand the division is that Active classes are simply more self-defined and self-focused, so their impacts on reality emerge much more from within themselves and their willingness to force reality into their ideal shape.
Passive classes tend to conform more to the status quo and tend to act to return stability to a disturbed/unbalanced system, so they’re more sensitive to the influences and nuances of the world around them.
It’s also worth noting that both the Selfish and Selfless extremes are just indicative of trends, in my view. A healthy example of any kind of player will ultimately just come to understand their own thought patterns and reach a balance that works for them & those around them, not just blindly revel in the satisfaction of their natural affinity.
This is worth clearing up for me since apparently I’ve given some the impression that, like, Jake being a selfish jerk to Dirk is perfectly ok because thats just his Class? So it’s worth clarifying that I just think it’s understandable, rooted in actual desire for Dirk and his company, and is a problem they can both work out over time.
This turned into talking about dirkjake again of course so im gonna stop here but bottom line is: good post op i dig this
Yeah I checked out of the anime pretty quickly. It’s possible those are more accurate! Like I said, I’d need to replay the games and finish the franchise to be sure my thoughts are the same as they are now, and I’m not really doin that anytime soon
i guess not really? i’d never considered it, but i’d say any aspect player is going to be a pure version of their class because both class and aspect have their own motifs that interlink.
Actually the wake of that ask spawned a conversation that made me pretty conclusively decide that the unifying myth for Princes/Bards is probably Royalty, or Nobility, which is hilarious. That also makes me much more inclined to regard Thief/Rogue as Pirates or Outlaws in general. Sooo so much for my prior position–see what I mean? There’s always stuff in Homestuck that I’m missing, and my stance changes on a dime once I’m presented with a consistent strand of thought.
Presenting it is going to require me to dive deep into the comic for quotes to be sure about it. I guess I’ll have to make some small meta posts or edit Force & Flow and see if they hold up! Couple other things to do first, though. I guess Stay Tuned™???
Sort of, loosely, but nothing concrete enough that I feel comfortable presenting it. Thieves and Rogues SEEM to both be linked to the idea of a Pirate or Piracy–The serkets are obvious, but Roxy makes a couple references to internet piracy. As for Prince/Bard…I honestly got nothing. They’re maybe all loosely linked to puppets? They’re all called assholes? Maybe they’re loosely linked to royalty by way of Hussie’s prior adventure, Bard Quest?
I entertain a lot of wild ideas when I’m looking for a new angle on the story, but I don’t actually argue the points unless I have pretty strong evidence drawn directly from the comic–and preferably more than one example for something like this. I was originally not going to present Witch/Heir as ‘Magicians’ early in writing that series for example. I remember being frustrated because according to the trend I was detecting there should have been textual references to magicians or wizardry in the text for Heirs (Witches being the more explicit and literal reference to the myth, which is a running theme as well. A Knight is a straightfoward warrior, a Sylph is a kind of Fairy, a Seer is commonly understood as a Prophet, etc.)
but I couldn’t seem to find them, to the point that I gave up on including that section entirely! Aaaand then I came across the references to WV as a familiar and then found that post by the person who just OUTLINED John as a wizard for me. But my point is I put these points through a lot of scrutiny before I decide to present them, so while I have some loose ideas, my current opinion is that since the Steal and Destroy sets were freebies from the canon, they don’t have unifying myths as such.
Unless, of course, I or someone finds compelling evidence to the contrary in the comic. Which is a possibility I can’t discard–again, it’s exactly what happened for Heirs.
PS: oh by the way thanks a lot! I’m glad you got something out of them 🙂
Flying through Storytelling 