#narrative analysis

One of the most interesting aspects of Deltarune's story to me is the way its unique worldbuilding can force its characters to sometimes counteract narrative convention. Here's a great example:

Basic rules of storytelling would dictate that it will feel incredibly contrived for the protagonist to suddenly find the shelter code they need without any foreshadowing earlier in the chapter, making this moment something one could easily consider a mistake... but here it's a necessity.

Deltarune is a story where the audience (player), protagonist (soul), and secondary antagonist (Kris) are forced to share a single perspective most of the time. This means that information the audience learns is also information that Kris and the soul learn, and since Kris is opposed to the soul's objective (entering the shelter), there are times when the audience CAN'T be allowed to learn something to ensure Kris (or the soul) can't intervene. Before chapter 5, it's primarily Kris using this dynamic to deny information from the soul (especially in the Weird Route) however it's deliberately done so in a way that strengthens the mystery elements of Deltarune's story. Chapter 5 is the only time we've seen another character use the same strategy against Kris.

It's about the little kindnesses creatures who are otherwise only thinking of themselves give to one another

When Five Pebbles gives you the mark and the k10, you can literally just spend as much time as you want having fun, finding pearls, looking at creatures, and just exploring the world before you can go to the Void Sea

There's a reason why the Shaded pearl's qualia was shit like "eating a tasty meal" and "watching dust on the windowsill", because it's the small things

And yet, you still have to learn to let go

The echoes are stuck here not because they appreciated the world, but because they cannot leave it behind

The Chimney Canopy echo cannot let go of how much the world has changed. The Shaded Citadel echo cannot let go of their precious memories and what it was like to live in a "flesh prison"

The world is constantly shifting and changing and you have to be able to accept that change and be effortless like the jellyfish, instead of tangling yourself up in your own mind

The world is vast and scary, and its easy to want to stay in the comfort of your own memories, thinking about how good it USED to be. Trying to find what is long gone

Before anyone says anything, yes, this title is meant seriously, but no, this is not a post that is going to claim any part of Noelle's personality is somehow "problematic" or that she's a "bad character." If you're expecting hate for her, look elsewhere; this is a post that's been a long time coming about why I want to love Noelle when, despite her personality and relationships being solid to excellent, I think the narrative as it stands cannot do her justice. For this analysis, I want to analyze how the story balances three major aspects of her: her personality and relationships; her character arc; and her role in Deltarune's narrative. These parts of her are all what make her an incredibly appealing and popular character; she's cute, a bit pathetic, a gifted kid, strong, but put on a pedestal in such a way she buys into the idea that she has little inherent worth beyond that. Her arc, from what I can see of it, is concerned with her reconnecting with her strength and self-worth enough to pierce the veil that's been put around her. Let's talk about that veil.

Noelle Is To Be Protected

This is a recurring throughline of literally every interpersonal dynamic with her, and in almost all of those cases she is also painted as The Damsel. Berdly literally calls her his "damsel in distress" and acts the way he does in Chapter 2 out of a misguided sense of "saving her" and "repaying her for her affections towards him" (nice interpersonal skills there, buddy); Queen regularly plays with her status as the damsel to both make the heroes play along and, oddly, set up things for Noelle (the only possible reason she'd have to sic the Werewires on her in her room is to make Susie feel like her savior); Susie buys into the narrative Queen sets up and plays the savior's part in the story, though she lets up a bit on that at the end of Chapter 2. Kris doesn't seem to view Noelle as a damsel, given their history of messing with her and spooking her, but they are still very interested in protecting her, an act which both Rudy and Carol are promoting, albeit in completely opposite ways. Dess is painted from old stories as Noelle's original protector, whacking Kris with assorted objects until she feels they've been sufficiently punished for making Noelle cry. Everyone in Noelle's life saw her as someone to be protected from the world, someone to be preserved just as she is... and even now, after the events of Chapter 2, things haven't really changed. Rudy and Carol act the same way. Susie and Berdly both keep talking about protecting her from things, though Susie's concern is played straight while Berdly's is comedically ridiculous. In a normal route, Kris is pretty hands-off with her, but in a Weird Route, they're more devoted to protecting her than ever. No idea why the hell Catti's so particularly severe about protecting her from Susie, but that is present and very strongly felt. Noelle has gotten stronger in one way or another, but she is still The One To Be Protected.

2. The Disappearance of Dess

This is a situation we don't know a lot about, but what we do know is that the adults of the Holiday and Dreemurr families and Kris all seem "in" on what's happened, though they all likely have very different degrees of knowledge about it. Toriel seems distant from it to the point of coming off as purposefully ignorant; Asgore is obsessed with the truth; Carol is determined that Dess is missing but not dead; Rudy is trying to move on. Kris appears to feel some guilt about what happened, or something that's given Carol leverage over them in their dynamic. We don't know what Asriel knows about any of this. But Noelle? Noelle seems entirely unaware of what happened. Kris is just inexplicably distant. Toriel is just a friendly fellow choir member. Asgore is just her family's housekeeper. Rudy is just her warm, supportive father who seems terminally ill, the most stable figure in her life who's slipping through her fingers. Carol is her overly controlling and downright oppressive mother who seemingly never interacts with her own daughter at all save to tell her not to do something or cancel school because Noelle would have to walk in the rain. Everyone around Noelle knows a lot and won't share it with her for any of several reasons, but a very significant barrier of knowledge has formed around her. 3. Getting Stronger The idea of Noelle's weakness plays further into this disconnect between her and the world around her. The people around her tell her or have told her that she's weak, that she has the most value as a golden child, that she needs to be protected from other people or environments because she's just not strong. This is textbook learned helplessness, because she is not inherently weak, not even close. She's smart; perceptive; capable of asserting herself; puts the entire hero party to shame in terms of single capabilities in battle except for physical damage. What matters is that, at the start of things, she believed she wasn't strong, and her environment both bought into and reinforced that same narrative in a vicious cycle. Chapter 2's entire arc is how one might break that cycle. In the Normal Route, Noelle reconnects with Kris over braving some of her fears and weathering their pranks, which to me read as bizarre tests of strength given by a Kris that has bought into the narrative of protecting Noelle while simultaneously believing she is strong, and eventually manages to hold a normal conversation with her crush, stands up to Queen, and saves the day, her power revealed to her by those around her. In the Weird Route, we exploit Noelle's desire for strength against her, weaponizing her insecurities and putting into effect what the game hints as things Kris is afraid that they might do, though they'd never do those things because they're so unconscionable, and she saves the day because we exploited her into using her power in terrible ways that just happened to pay off against Spamton. Noelle has become stronger, but the world isn't there yet. This is just the first step of her journey.

So what does this all mean? Essentially, it is that Noelle has demonstrated an arc about surpassing her learned helplessness, which tends towards the idea that she will inevitably break the veil surrounding her and the truth. The truth that she isn't weak, the truth that she doesn't need protection constantly, and the truth of what really happened when she was little, the last of which promises so many answers to so much of what has been set up in this game's narrative. There's just one small problem to all of this: she is now too important. If Noelle fully develops, the major mysteries are solved. All the entangling alliances and different degrees of knowledge of those on the board turn from WW1 cosplay into a neat layout for us to understand. Kris, Susie, and Ralsei will all have to adapt quickly to the fallout in order to bring the story to its completion. Noelle is our narrative key, and her development is the process of undoing the lock. However, this lock cannot be opened too soon, or else so much of the story will become horribly rushed. We'd jump to resolutions for our main cast too quickly. The mystery would deflate and fall apart, leaving a basic trek to the end. This means that there are essentially two answers to this pacing issue: either a) we give Noelle a lot of filler time to flesh out her dynamics without giving them any weight, which is a horrible idea for a character so important, or b) limit her screentime in such a way that she can't intervene with the story. Toby clearly chose the latter, and I don't blame him for doing it. I'd much rather have a character make a lot of impact with little screentime and have it be effective than drag it out for no reason and dilute the effects of what is to come. But it's a catch-22, and it has repercussions. Noelle is thus incredibly, incredibly important to Deltarune's story... but only while she's around. Chapter 2's Dark World. The Holiday house. Nearly every moment she spends on screen is about her and her relationships. She holds the key, and thus will one day use it... but if she isn't around, she can't open the lock, can she? So Noelle barely gets mentioned at all outside of her onscreen appearances, being mostly there for a stray dialogue choice and a one-liner from Susie. She simply isn't around, and that starts to have what I find to be drastic effects on the things about her I should love. Her dynamic with Susie is one the game very clearly wants us to be invested in, and it promises a lot; it gives her a clear motivation, it demonstrates her narrative arc in effect, because it's always Susie's perceptions of her that her growth changes, and it's designed to be enjoyable. High school romances are very popular, and their dynamic certainly has good bones. But when we look at it in effect, they share a whopping two scenes together before Noelle's arc in Chapter 2 is done. They're pretty good scenes! I see why a lot, lot of people love their dynamic. It seems like this is the first step to a much greater journey involving their dynamic... except it isn't, because Noelle can't be around too much, so now Susie and her will interact once in the hospital and not so much as a mention will go from Susie in Noelle's way until Noelle is back on screen, and the game is cramming material in. I think this is why Kris and Noelle get shipped together so, so often, because so much of Noelle's roots and the "tests of strength" are done by Kris, so to establish that, she has to talk about Kris. A lot. We know she really wants to reconnect with them, and we're now in her house getting so much info about their history and watching it inform her dynamic with Susie, then now Carol's here, the sequence is done, and Noelle will be mentioned twice in passing for the rest of the chapter, which otherwise acts as though she doesn't exist.

Hm. I wonder- I wonder what action could be used to narratively demonstrate in the climax his newfound lack of fear. I wonder- I wonder what would represent him not being afraid of his own queerness. I wonder...

Tags are a tool and do not negate the way the topic is presented. They give only a choice — but do not remove the question of artistic approach and its content.

Many forms of violence are also based on power asymmetry and lack of consent, yet somehow they are allowed to be aestheticized. If everything is reduced to subjectivity, the very possibility of analyzing art disappears.

If romanticization is always subjective, why do you recognize an objective framework in the case of incest, but refuse to do so in the case of violence? You don’t notice, but violence is also exploitative, regardless of context.

Arguments are reduced to long-standing interpretations that have no relation to the personal issues of real people and the freedom of art. We are talking specifically about the context of an artist presenting violence now, not in the past. You do not notice one important thing — presentation is also exploitative. The presentation of violence also has an aesthetic side.

Calling this censorship is still a sophism, or labeling others as oppressed. Art is subject to audience interpretation and cannot be exclusively accepted.

This is a hint to reconsider the presentation, not a direct ban on drawing it. But if everything for you comes down to oppression or censorship, it seems everything needs to be spoon-fed, since you lump such questions into one category without considering that you might be mistaken in your own words.

The dialogue sounds one-sided, as if everyone must remain in their opinion, not in a conversation for mutual compromise. If there is no compromise, one side can always control the other.

Again — when there is a request to “romanticize less” — it is not a direct ban on everything a person does. You exaggerated this to colossal proportions, attributing moral panic and directives, as if it were a mass call to censor someone. Calling this moral panic is also incorrect on your part. It devalues others’ moral frameworks.

Calling the same things by different names does not make them automatically separated concepts — it is the same category related to morality and taboo and will always be considered by the audience and its presentation.

You do not put violence in one category, but you put people in the category of moral panic just because of a request to smooth the edges slightly, not to fall into an extreme.

We are not enemies just because of different views — that breeds conflict, which in our case is unacceptable. Do not see this as a ban on everything a person does. A person’s work, even after a request, does not attempt to devalue the author’s vision. It is still valuable regardless of the “moral panic.” Everyone is valuable in their own way.

Here is a metaphor:A person who drinks alcohol — someone asks them to drink less, but they feel their freedom is being restricted, not just a request. Nobody tried to take anything away from them; they were only asked to take a break. Yet they couldn’t grasp that they weren’t being controlled or ordered, only asked.

Yet, try to look at life not only from the perspective of some people. Not for yourself or for others. For Harmony.

There is one side for freedom of expression and another for moral restriction. Complete freedom guarantees chaos. Complete restriction brings boredom and uniformity. But there is a third — when there is freedom, but also constraints.

People’s freedom and morality shouldn’t cancel each other out, but should work together.

This is Harmony.

Merry Christmas 🎄

I’m going to stop this here, because we’re no longer discussing art, we’re discussing whether artists owe strangers “compromise” over their creative choices. and my answer to that is simply no.

you keep insisting this is not censorship because it’s “only a request.” but a request made through moral framing, invoking victims, and routed through third parties is pressure. social pressure does not stop being pressure because it’s polite or philosophical. calling it “harmony” doesn’t change the dynamic, it just softens the language.

you’re also conflating two different things: analysis and obligation. of course art can be analyzed. of course presentation matters. of course violence can be exploitative. none of that creates a duty for an artist to adjust their work because someone else is uncomfortable with how it looks or feels. interpretation does not entitle intervention.

the reason incest and violence are treated differently in discourse is not because one is “objectively allowed” and the other is not, it’s because incest requires the denial of structural harm to function as romance, while violence does not require denial to be depicted. that distinction exists whether you like it or not. acknowledging that is not reducing art to subjectivity; it’s recognizing that different taboos operate differently.

what I reject explicitly is the idea that artists must “smooth the edges” of their work to maintain moral harmony with an audience. that’s not balance. that’s respectability politics. and we are not interested in curating our spaces around the lowest level of shared comfort.

your alcohol metaphor fails for the same reason: you are not a friend expressing concern about harm. you are a stranger asking for behavioral change in someone else’s creative life, framed as benevolence. those are not equivalent situations.

I don’t see this as enemies versus allies. I see it as incompatible values. I do not believe in negotiated limits on fictional expression imposed by audience morality. you believe art should adapt to ethical discomfort. that’s fine, but it also means our blogs are not for you.

this is not about chaos versus order, or freedom versus morality. it’s about boundaries. mine is simple: I do not mediate, soften, or redirect artists’ work on behalf of others’ sensibilities. if that disrupts your idea of harmony, then we are talking about different things, and that’s where the conversation ends :)

A fun persuasive essay by me, Portal Maker! ☺️

Thesis Statement:

I have pondered the evidence, and I believe it would've made more sense narratively for Prowl to have somehow survived giving up his spark in the TFA S3 finale.

Exhibit A: He said 'risk' his chassis, not 'sacrifice' his chassis.

  In S3:E6 of TFA (Five Servos of Doom), we see a flashback where Prowl says to Yoketron, "Why should I risk my chassis for anyone? Nobody ever risked their chassis for me!"

  'Risk' and 'sacrifice' are two different words with very distinct meanings. Prowl risked his chassis for others constantly during the course of the show: fighting the Decepticons and the human villains; rescuing the Dinobots; protecting Bumblebee and Sari from the space barnacles, etc. And the other members of Team Prime put their own chassis at risk for Prowl's sake during the show as well. The most notable example is probably when Bulkhead helped him rescue the Dinobots and agreed to keep it a secret from everyone in S1:E6 (Blast from the Past). When Prowl sacrificed his spark in order to accumulate and contain all the broken shards of the Allspark itself (S3:E13), he didn't just put himself at risk - he sacrificed his very life.

Exhibit B: Yoketron's First Lesson

  The first lesson Yoketron ever taught Prowl was about the rewards that come with opening oneself up to new relationships - an inherently risky act. In the same flashback from S3:E6, Yoketron replies:

"Keeping you out of the Stockade, I am risking something for you. But if you are willing to learn, that risk could be very rewarding."

  This lesson definitely applies to Prowl's personal character flaws, as well as his implied past experiences. Yoketron understood that Prowl's selfish outlook stemmed from an utter lack of healthy, caring relationships with other bots. He was also willing to put himself at risk for the chance to mentor Prowl, and help him grow into his full potential. Throughout the episode, we see more flashbacks that indicate how caring and trustworthy Yoketron was as Prowl's master. And near the end of his training, he declared that Prowl could become his greatest student, as long as he mastered the advanced technique of processor-over-matter.

  We don't know the exact level of risk Yoketron accepted when he took Prowl in. But it was never treated as though he had put his own life in danger. And in the end, both of them reaped valuable rewards as a result of their relationship.

Exhibit C: Prowl achieved his 'character want' and his 'character need' before death was even on the table.

  In the art of storytelling, a single character often has two goals - one they pursue consciously (their 'want'), and one they pursue unconsciously (their 'need'). In Transformers: Animated, Prowl's 'want' is his goal to master the technique of processor-over-matter, while his 'need' is to achieve a sense of belonging with other bots. Mastering processor-over-matter is the final step necessary to complete his training, and officially take his place among the Cyberninja Corps. But Prowl is unable to achieve his 'want' goal until after he achieves his 'need' goal. He finds the sense of belonging and community that he's so desperate for as a member of the repair crew led by Optimus Prime. He also gets much needed closure about his past when he finally discovers who murdered Yoketron. Only then is he able to commune with the Allspark and unlock the full power of processor-over-matter.

  And he achieves both of these goals before facing the problem of protecting Detroit from the self-destructing Omega clones in S3:E13 (Endgame - Part 2).

So what about Yoketron's final lesson?

  The spirit of Yoketron's final lesson doesn't actually apply to the context of Prowl's death. 

  Just before he died in Five Servos of Doom, Yoketron gave Prowl a profound piece of advice that did apply to his doomed (and arguably selfish) attempt to save his master's life:

"You must not sacrifice a piece of the future to bring back the past."

  Prowl's past (what we know of it) was resolved when he achieved both his 'want' and 'need' goals. There were no pieces left to be mis-prioritized over the future that he was finally free to explore. So when Prowl gave up his spark to protect Detroit, he didn't sacrifice the past to preserve the future, as Yoketron advised. He actually sacrificed his own future for the collective futures of his loved ones and the universe. Which, I would argue, is a step beyond Yoketron's final lesson.

In Conclusion: Prowl's Death was an overreach.