#big thoughts

And follow up question, what do you think about the whole “it’s up to the reader (or in some cases, listener) to make their own conclusions and interpretations and that does not make them wrong”, versus the “it was written this way because the author intended it this way, and we should respect that” argument?

This is a question I've given a lot of thought over the years, to the point where I don't know how much I can respond without it becoming a literal essay. But I'll try.

My main principle for this stuff boils roughly down to: "The only incorrect way to respond to art is to try and police the responses of others." Art is an intensely subjective, personal thing, and I think a lot of online spaces that engage with media are somewhat antithetical to what is, to me, a key part of it, which is sitting alone with your response to a story, a character, a scene or an image and allowing yourself to explore it's effect on you. To feel your feelings and think about them in relation to the text.

Now, this is not to say that jokes and goofiness about a piece of art aren't fucking great. I love to watch The Thing and drink in the vibes or arctic desolation and paranoia, or think about the picture it paints of masculinity as a sublimely lonely thing where the most terrible threat is that of an imposed, alien intimacy. And that actually makes me laugh even more the jokey shitpost "Do you think the guys in The Thing ever explored each other's bodies? Yeah but watch out". Silly and serious don't have to be in opposition, and I often find the best jokes about a piece of media come from those who have really engaged with it.

And in terms of interpreting characters? Interpreting and responding to fictional characters is one of the key functions of stories. They're not real people, there is no objective truth to who they are or what they do or why they do it. They are artificial constructs and the life they are given is given by you, the reader/listener/viewer, etc. Your interpetation of them can't be wrong, because your interpretation of them is all that there is, they have no existence outside of that.

And obviously your interpretation will be different to other people's, because your brain, your life, your associations - the building blocks from which the voices you hear on a podcast become realised people in your mind - are entirely your own. Thus you cannot say anyone else's is wrong. You can say "That's not how it came across to me" or "I have a very different reading of that character", but that's it. I suppose if someone is fundamentally missing something (like saying "x character would never use violence" when x character strangles a man to death in chapter 4) you could say "I think that's a significant misreading of the text", but that's only to be reserved for if you have the evidence to back it up and are feeling really savage.

I think this is one of the things that saddens me a bit about some aspects of fandom culture - it has a tendency to police or standardise responses or interpretations, turning them from personal experiences to be explored into public takes to be argued over. It also has the occasional moralistic strain, and if there's one thing I wish I could carve in stone on every fan space it's that Your Responses to a Piece of Art Carry No Intrinsic Moral Weight.

As for authorial intention, that's a simpler one: who gives a shit? Even the author doesn't know their own intentions half the time. There is intentionality there, of course, but often it's a chaotic and shifting mix of theme and story and character which rarely sticks in the mind in the exact form it had during writing. If you ask me what my intention was in a scene from five years ago, I'll give you an answer, but it will be my own current interpretation of a half-remembered thing, altered and warped by my own changing relationship to the work and five years of consideration and change within myself. Or I might not remember at all and just have a guess. And I'm a best case scenario because I'm still alive. Thinking about a writers possible or stated intentions is interesting and can often lead to some compelling discussion or examination, but to try and hold it up as any sort of "truth" is, to my mind, deeply misguided.

Authorial statements can provide interesting context to a work, or suggest possible readings, but they have no actual transformative effect on the text. If an author says of a book that they always imagined y character being black, despite it never being mentioned in the text, that's interesting - what happens if we read that character as black? How does it change our responses to the that character actions and position? How does it affect the wider themes and story? It doesn't, however, actually make y character black because in the text itself their race remains nonspecific. The author lost the ability to make that change the moment it was published. It's not solely theirs anymore.

So yeah, that was a fuckin essay. In conclusion, serious and silly are both good, but serious does not mean yelling at other people about "misinterpretations", it means sitting with your personal explorations of a piece of art. All interpretations are valid unless they've legitimately missed a major part of the text (and even then they're still valid interpretations of whatever incomplete or odd version of the text exists inside that person's brain). Authorial intent is interesting to think about but ultimately unknowable, untrustworthy and certainly not a source of truth. Phew.

Short answer: very very love hate. hate for all the usual sherlock is garbage, here's why reasons that I'm not gonna bother to repeat. love because as I said a while back, they're lab grown to be perfect fandom material. They perfectly fit into any and all tropes in a way that acd johnlock just can't.

But it’s 2026 and I’m bored so here is my general view of the dynamic of FirstWar (Linked Universe: FirstxWarriors)…

The whole thing primarily works under three head-canons that are vital to the entire thing working…

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁.

٠࣪⭑ First went on two major adventures (like Wild) with one being unspecified but vaguely heroic for sake of plot- and the other being that of the Skyward Sword Prequel Manga! The time where First meets The Chain is following that 1st unspecified adventure where First did generally heroic things and hasn’t been put in prison yet (like he was at the start of the manga).

٠࣪⭑ First (at this point in his life) is a bit immature in the way he thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips. Bro just saved The Land of Hylia and everyone’s treating him as a great hero because of it - thus the fame and treatment lowkey goes to his head. His personality at this time (atleast in the time period of most of Weeevil and mine’s art) is a kind of mix between Kuzco (The Emperor's New Groove), Prince Naveen (The Princess and the Frog), and Tamaki Suoh (Ouran High School Host Club) at the start of all their respective stories. Narcissistic and self-absorbed (kinda)- dumb puppy/jerk types who eventually grow a heart and brain.

٠࣪⭑ Warriors is deeply pissed off when First appears at the start - because The Entire Chain treats him like “The Cooler Warriors” because bro is canonically very attractive and has a whole thing where he (on the surface) does everything Warriors does - but better.

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁.

This introduction sets up a pseudo one-sided rivalry/love.

Warriors hates this guy who is TOTALLY stealing his look and doing it better - while having an absolutely awful personality that everyone else just takes wayyy too lightheartedly!

On the other side- First is completely head over heels for this beautiful and mysterious stranger who brushes him off every chance he gets! This guy fights so elegantly and clearly knows what he’s doing- just who is he? Double points for Warriors being totally uninterested in him - it draws him in more because First is so used to people obsessing over him... Too bad Warriors is just not having any of it.

Relationship kinda an in-between of two gay peacocks fighting each other while trying to court one another - and someone who really likes animals trying and consistently failing to get a stray cat to like them.

A lot of it just leads to funny shenanigans because haha silly…

HOWEVER romance does eventually ensue when First begins to have a character arc and stop being so self-obsessed on the surface and becomes more openly caring/kind over time. This leads to Warriors taking notice that mayybbbee bro is more than meets the eye… and they start having their true will-they-won’t they romance with Prince-type x Tsundere vibes :)

so fun fact: my first AO3 published fanfic was actually a Sans x Reader fic I started in like 2015 and was still updating (slowly) until like 2022. I orphaned it in 2024 when I spruced up my account to start posting Hazbin stuff ashajhdjsf

AND then I did attempt a "HD remaster" rewrite of that fic I think... last year? Yeah. And I got as far as one chapter posted before I got self-conscious and embarrassed and deleted it and never looked at it again

MAYBE I will go back to it again... and actually finish it and post it... thinking big thoughts

This makes me consider what drives each individual character. Or person. I'm going to do my thoughts on six of crows because I am in SO deep with this series:

Kaz Brekker: Love (and tearing down the system) I think that Kaz's motivation, on a very surface level, is revenge. But WHY is the boy so dedicated to avenging Jordie? Because he loved him, of course. I don't want to romanticize him too much, there's definitely a part of Kaz that did it out of greed, out of a need to prove himself as powerful and therefore turn the tables of the system. The disabled boy, life spit at him and yet he picks a love, Jordie, kruger, then Inej, all of these loves are what motivates him. Kaz is driven by his own stubborn love and his need to cause a bit of chaos in a system that hates underdogs.

Inej Ghafa: Freedom. I feel like Inej's is kinda self-explanitory? She craves freedom, almost to the point of flight. Even before her "debts" to the Menagerie or the Dregs, she wanted to be on the wire or the swings, an acrobat free to go wherever she pleased. Her nationality lends to this, being Suli she travels and is not tied to a single place. Inej just NEEDS freedom, which makes her imprisonment at the Menagerie, or by Van Eck so much awful-er. Kaz essentially holding the keys to her freedom is also such a significant power dynamic within their relationship. It definitely leaves a bit of resentment towards him, as he traded her cage for a leash. This is resolved by the end, but it is apparent at the beginning of SOC.

Nina Zenik: Duty To Her Love. When we're introduced to Nina, we understand that she's a soldier, but she's never been the best at following commands. She does, but not because of Ravka, because she cares about fellow people. She's bound by love, love for Grisha, love for the Crows, love for Matthias. Nina's driving power, the very basis of who she is, is rooted in love and care for others. She isn't as self-sacrificing as Matthias, but all her actions are rooted in her love for others. When she betrays Ravka for Matthias, she commits to a new love, and her duty is to save that love. If she love something, she does anything to protect it.

Matthias Helvar: Equality. All Is Fair In Love And War is a sentiment Matthais deeply disagrees with. The man follows the rules, whatever rules are established, either by the Drüskelle or by Nina, he doesnt believe love or war are permitted exclusion from fairness. Under it is the belief in others, this childlike faith that everyone value fairness as much as he does. Matthias's driving element is the equality, he strives to level the playing field. When he joins the Crows, Matthias learns that life isn't fair, but he understands the Crows are the underdogs, so he is willing to take others down to bring his crew up.

Jesper Fahey: Escape. Not to be a bummer, but I believe Jesper's main motivator is escape. Gambling = escapism. Flirting with no end goal = running from serious relationships. Leaving university = yet another escape. It shows through in all his actions, the boy's goal is to run away. What was it Matthais said? 'Angry and scared', was it? Jesper is a runner. His conversation with Wylan about his grisha power brings what he's being trying to escape to the surface. He tries to stop escaping them, to push against what he's been doing his whole life, but escaping is all he knows. Wily little man.

Wylan Van Eck: To Be Enough. If i were to simplify Wylan I would say respect, but he doesn't want respect because he's never even been allowed to be human. He cant want respect because he doesn't even exist. To ask for respect would be to skip a step in understanding his struggle. His main goal is close to being wanted or needed, but he's never been able to simply exist without being taken down. Wylan's time with the Crows not only allowed him to be enough, but opened the possibility of being respected or needed. Of all the Crows, I think Wylan was the closest to actually getting what he wants him at the end of CK.