#ts thomas

______________

Obligatory disclaimers

I will be picky when discussing this episode. However, before you start complaining about how picky I am, please take into account that, if I really, REALLY wanted to be picky, I would’ve torn this episode apart word by word.

But I won’t do it, because:

Tearing something apart word by word requires a ton of work and writing this analysis is more than enough work already.

I didn’t fully hate the episode, so tearing it apart without pointing out all the things I liked would be unfair.

Let me also point out that:

Every critique will be about the episode and/or Mr. Sanders as a writer, not about him as a person, his family, or his friends.

Every critique will be about the episode and its characters, not about you, your family, or your friends.

If I point out some writing mistakes, it’s because I want people to learn how to write - and if Mr. Sanders by some miracle ends here, maybe he can learn something too.

I will also point out what is good and what is bad, because I’d much rather be impartial and honest, rather than pretend not to see stuff.

I will use any sort of language, so read at your own risk.

I will also analyze this episode by taking into consideration that:

This episode was not planned at all - it was something Mr. Sanders wanted to make Because Yes. The next episode that should’ve come out was supposed to be the season 2 finale, part 1.

It’s a canonical episode - and I already said in the past that, if the next canonical episode made me feel “meh”, I would’ve considered it negatively.

It took Mr. Sanders one and a half year to make it (it was supposed to come out in July 2024).

The episode hasn’t been written by Joan, but the writers are (as stated in the episode itself): Thomas Sanders, Quil Darling and “Our Patreon Writings Room!”.

______________

Patton and Janus’ relationship: growth sacrificed for jokes

These two are a blessing and a curse.

There are deeply enjoyable things about them, in this episode: Patton’s joke about the tardis the relationship is the perfect example of silly stupidity that makes me smile every time. Roman saying that Janus is Patton’s buddy who came “to bail him out” also indirectly confirms that these two help each other as soon as one of them is in some kind of distress.

But we also have more proof of how they’ve always been on the same page:

J: I might also add, as the one responsible for maintaining the straight façade all those years, dropping the act and adapting to your new identity was intimidating. P: It did feel like you were leaving an old you behind.

Please notice how Patton’s reply to Janus’ statement does not show any surprise, nor disagreement: on the contrary, Patton supports his words, by admitting that Thomas changing his identity felt as if he was “leaving an old you behind”.

This indirectly confirms Patton was okay with maintaining the straight façade, and he was okay with Janus doing it. And that’s not me saying it, but the episode proved this point when Janus explained that “emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior pattern”.

Their relationship is basically a cycle: Janus does something enabled by emotions, Patton lets him do it because he wants to, Janus does it, Patton keeps enabling him and the cycle goes on.

It’s very fascinating how their jobs are so interdependent. And this makes the recent development (i.e. them interacting and working together) even more exciting to explore: if Patton and Janus were doing all of this without realizing it in the past, now that they consciously work together, their chemistry should be incredible. They should be able to understand each other at a glance.

And we got a glimpse of this during POF’s ending. When Janus dropped his sarcasm, as soon as Patton didn’t realize it. When, in the end card, one glance and a small nod were enough to understand each other so well.

But now, time has passed. Their relationship should’ve evolved. And we got an example of it when Patton finds out Janus impersonated him in the past, before CLBG:

P: Janus? How many times have you disguised yourself as me? J: I won't sugarcoat it, Patton. That was the one and only other time. P: Januuuus…! J: Okay, I've done it a lot. P: Why? J: Emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior patterns. It can be the easiest route to justifying my actions. I'm sorry.

Ad this is pure gold.

Let’s start with Patton: Janus tells a lie with the straightest face ever… and Patton doesn’t buy it in the slightest. While in POF he wasn’t able to recognize his lies, now he can see them clearly. That’s a clever way to show how much he has grown and how well he can understand Janus now.

Then we have the umpteenth proof of how mature Patton is: instead of just getting offended, he asks Janus why he impersonated him. That’s the same thing he did in SvS, when he tried to get past the trial to help him reveal his true plans; once again, Patton’s focus is not on the behaviour, but on the reasons behind it.

On the other hand, we have Janus: Janus who, just like in SvS, takes Patton’s bait and admits the truth, the reason behind his behaviour. Emotions enabled him.

However, there is no accusation in his tone, he’s not trying to blame Patton - just like he didn’t in POF (“[Deceit]: He didn't mislead you on purpose, Thomas. I don't think the little guy... or... the big frog is capable of that sort of thing.”).

Most importantly, after explaining himself, Janus apologizes. It’s quite clear he doesn’t regret what he did - he was wrong, sure, but the intentions were good; he wanted to help Thomas, not to go against him.

However, he recognizes that impersonating Patton hurt him, hence he apologizes to him. And that’s a HUGE step forward, for someone so used to working by himself and ignoring everyone else. Someone who, mind you, described manipulating others as a “very funny wholesome prank” (POF).

This also proves how well Janus understands Patton now: in POF, he needed to see Patton’s expression to realize how hurt he was by his words. Now, he doesn’t even need to see Patton’s reaction: he already knows his actions hurt him. And apologizes.

That’s wonderful. That’s perfect. That’s consistent growth and big steps forward in such an important cooperation.

And then, we reach the ending of the episode:

P: Ah, Janus, I still feel like we have work to do. J: Oh no, Patton. That went swimmingly. P: Oh, really? J: Oh, yes. Everything is fine. P: Okay, if you say so in that strange way of saying things that you sometimes do.

Let’s all thank Mr. Sanders, people, for making my previous praises utterly worthless.

So, according to this stupid ass interaction, Patton can recognize a lie said with a poker face and monochord voice, but cannot recognize a lie when it’s said with the most sarcastic tone in the universe.

And no, it’s not continuity from POF, because in POF Janus’ sarcasm hurt him, and when Janus corrected himself, Patton realized it was a lie. So what, he realized before what sarcasm was, but now he magically forgot?

In addition to that, at the beginning of this episode, when Janus asked Roman how he could be so sure Patton was responsible for Thomas being so hesitant in the relationship, Patton’s reply was:

P: Well, I think Janus is joking. He's having a laugh, right? You're having a laugh.

Accompanied by a slightly scolding look.

So Patton can recognize Janus’ microexpressions and even distinguish between him teasing and saying the truth, but cannot recognize the thickest sarcasm ever?

That conversation should’ve never happened, not like this. Either Janus had to admit that yes, there was still work to do, or Patton had to recognize the lie and offer to discuss this topic in the future. But making him ignore a blatant lie is pure idiocy. And I hate it even more, because I know why this stupid conversation exists in the first place.

And do you want to know, too? That’s because Mr. Sanders had to close the episode and make these two characters leave, but he also wanted to end it on a silly note, so what better way to do it, if not by making Patton stupid again (by reverting his growth) and let’s call it a day?

This is one of the worst mistakes a writer can ever make: prioritize a joke over your character’s personality/growth. There is no joke, no witty line, no funny comeback in the universe that is worth sacrificing a character’s credibility or growth. Change the joke, instead. Delete it, if necessary. But keep your character consistent. The story is about your character, not about how many funny lines you can write.

______________

Janus: how to sell a credible character

I know a lot of you liked how Janus was portrayed here and thought he was perfectly fine. In a way, he was: all he said was coherent with himself and his mentality.

The problem I have with him is more subtle - and, for some people, more petty too. Because it’s a matter of appearance and behaviour.

Usually, this isn’t a big issue: a consistent personality matters more than details. But details are also what make a character more real. And when they drastically change with zero explanation, that’s a big issue. Because you don’t have the same character anymore - you have a new one. One the public doesn’t know.

That’s what happened with Janus. His mentality became simpler, and details about him changed. Details that made him the character he was. Details now different.

*

-> Appearance

I know, I know: “Bea, everyone already talked about his appearance! And personal tastes are not a valid critique!”

Don’t worry, dears, I won’t explain why Janus’ new makeup doesn’t work from an aesthetic point of view. I will explain why it doesn’t work from an anatomical/biological point of view.

Some time ago, dear @logically-asexual pointed out in their post that the black line on Janus’ face is supposed to represent the shadow of the upper jaw on the lower jaw. In humans - as well as all other animals in the world - these two bones connect through the temporomandibular joint in correspondence or slightly below the ear. But not above. Never above.

And this is extremely important, because:

The lower jaw needs to move.

The ear is not just what you see outside: the ear canal goes deep into your skull and is divided into the middle ear (eardrums + malleus, incus and stapes) and the inner ear (cochlea).

The ear is not just responsible for hearing, but for balance too. Hence, it should stay very very still to register any other movement from the body.

Now, what happens when you put the joint of a bone that needs to move, above a part of your body that doesn’t need to move?

You can probably see it by yourself that, by changing this small, seemingly unimportant detail, your character is suddenly unable to listen, to balance… and I am not even sure they have the strength to open and close their mouth, because the masticatory muscles need space and where should they fit, if everything is above the ear?

Moral of the story: every detail matters. You can be a film director, an artist, or a writer: every small change (especially from an anatomical point of view) means a lot of other, additional changes. And those changes can easily influence your character’s personality too!

How? Let’s imagine a character with really long legs. They may:

be more shy, because they’re used to being taller than everyone and always at the center of attention

try to make themselves smaller, because they’re used to bending down every time they go through a door

be used to be ignored, because they’re taller than everyone else and others tend to talk more with people around the same eye level

be the best runner or a great athlete

be more clumsy because of how tall they are

and those are just the first few things that popped into my mind, but they can easily be expanded upon, while developing a character and their personality. All from just one physical detail.

Back to Sanders Sides: I am not saying Mr. Sanders cannot make a character with a jaw above the ears. Sure, he can. But it won’t be Janus - or a character from this planet, for that matter. It would be an interesting alien species, tho.

However, since we’re talking about Janus here, we could’ve solved the problem very easily: by watching the old videos. Or by hiring a make-up artist who actually watched the old videos. Or if watching the old videos is such a cumbersome task for them, they could’ve taken a photo of the old make-up and used it as a base. I know it requires something like 5 minutes to do so, but I’m sure a professional can do it.

*

-> Tone of voice

Let’s look at this interaction:

V: That was not what I was saying. J: Oh, was it not?

Seems fine. That’s what Janus would say.

But listen to how he talks. Focus on his tone.

OG Janus had a much softer, much lower tone of voice. His voice was deeper compared to the other characters. Now, not only is his tone as high as the others, but he ends the sentence on an even higher note. While OG Janus would’ve probably ended the sentence with the same tone (and maybe a more sarcastic accent), this Janus ends by putting emphasis and accent on the final word. The result is that his voice almost sounds “strangled”, because of how much it rose.

Something similar happens here too:

J: It's why I, too, want things kept hush-hush with Nico. Because, believe it or not, I have come to realize that no amount of social clout can outweigh the consequential aggravation.

Listen to this part and notice how, when the sentence is almost over, instead of lowering his voice, Janus raises it. The bold part is when his voice rises again.

This is weird for two reasons:

it’s not the typical speech pattern of OG Janus

it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a communicative standpoint

Speaking of the second point, why can this be considered weird?

In general, the key concept of a discourse is well explained and conveyed in the middle of a discourse. This is the part where we need a higher emphasis, because we want to introduce or explain something crucial.

On the other hand, when we reach the conclusion, the natural tendency is to lower the tone of voice and be more collected. This follows the natural  “arc” of attention we see in narrative as well (introduction-climax-conclusion), and it also reaffirms our confidence: we already explained our point, so there’s no need to be redundant (unless we’re talking about an extremely long speech, but that’s not the case).

Therefore, by making this character raise his voice so much, not only did Mr. Sanders follow a speech pattern that is not the same as the one Janus used before, but he also failed to convey his confidence. And for someone characterized by confidence… that’s a pretty big characterization mistake.

*

-> Non-verbal language (and the importance of intent)

Janus is supposed to be mysterious and unreadable. However, there is a difference between having a poker face and showing such a confused expression you can’t even understand what emotion it is supposed to convey.

Let’s take this moment, when Thomas comments on the “early 20s” case they just witnessed:

T: But I did feel like I lost so much time. I was so emotionally stunted when it came to dating.  P: Well, us emotions do do our own stunts.

Right after Patton’s line, we cut to Janus: he looks on the side, furrows his eyebrows while squinting, while the sides of his mouth are upwards.

This expression is confusing. And please notice: confusing is different from inscrutable. If an actor makes an inscrutable expression, you don’t know what they are thinking, but you know they are thinking something. There is coherence: all the micromovements point toward the same kind of emotion/intention.

But if an actor makes a confusing expression, there is no direction and no coherence. The microexpressions go everywhere and contradict each other. It’s just like when someone writes: “He made an expression of surprise, joy and fear”. What kind of emotion am I even supposed to visualize?

If you want your character to express an emotion, focus on which kind of emotion they’re supposed to feel. Not even the best actor in the world can be, at the same time, three emotions at once. A character may be overwhelmed by emotions, but even in that case, there is something specific that “guides” the other emotions (depending on the context).

In this case, I am not sure Mr. Sanders himself knew what kind of emotion he was supposed to convey. How can I say that? Well, when I tried to replicate that expression, I was confused about what I felt, too. The closest emotion I felt was “bitter agreement”, so… maybe that’s what Mr. Sanders wanted to convey too? Maybe it was Janus’ way to say that, sure, emotional Sides do a lot of stunts because he did some too?

But, as you can see, this is just a guess. I am not sure. And when the public is not sure about something, there are two reasons only:

The writer is making a puzzle, and the public does not have all the pieces yet

The writing is wrong

I learned time ago that, most of the time, the confusion is due to the second reason. It’s very common and very normal: that’s why you need extra care while writing. The public is not in your mind, and they cannot understand every decision you made, if you don’t make them clear enough.

On the other hand, here is what happens, when the intent is clear: 

J!P: Of course. Well, I know you're perfect, Thomas

There is a direction here, and you can see it by how fluid, clear, and readable the expression and movements are.

Janus!Patton says Thomas is perfect while shaking his head. His verbal language says one thing while his body language says the opposite. As you probably already know, this is a clear sign of lying - so Thomas is subtly confirming to his public that yes, this is not Patton, but Janus.

Simple. Clear. Straightforward. No guesses, no confusion. This is proof of good writing - and good reasoning.

And, you know, it’s not uncommon for artists to alternate carefully orchestrated parts to confused, disorganized parts. I did the same, too, so I recognize the signs. And I know it’s not easy to keep the same high standard all the time.

But hey, if it were easy, everyone would make art. That’s why art is so complicated to master - and that’s why experts exist.

*

-> The interaction with Remus, aka the past matters

Janus tried to silence Remus. He tried to silence Remus.

We’re talking about a guy who:

allegedly spent so much time with Remus, to perfectly mimic his voice and behaviour (see all small posts Mr. Sanders made years ago)

knows what Remus likes (see the “Sides needs a nice day” video)

plays with him (see them playing DDR in the 5-year special)

So, this guy knows Remus so well, but apparently he doesn’t know that:

[Logan]: You cannot force the Duke to retire a topic of conversation. (DWIT)

What am I supposed to say, here? “Oh but, you see, it’s because now Thomas is more honest with himself and…” and what? Being more honest with himself means forgetting that you cannot stop Remus from talking about whatever he wants?

Also, the way Logan made that sentence implied that you couldn’t have forced Remus to retire a topic of conversation, even before the whole “wanting to be more honest and deal with his own issues” thing.

So, it has always been impossible to force Remus to retire a topic of conversation, but now Janus has amnesia, so he forgot? And instead of using some other clever way to stop Remus (because I refuse to believe he didn’t find any, in all the years they’ve spent together), he keeps closing his hand like a fucking idiot?

This is not something subtle, like a different appearance of behaviour. This is a plain and simple characterization mistake. Janus, who supposedly spent years with Remus and knows him better than anyone else, suddenly forgot he could not stop Remus from talking - something that has been part of his character from the day he was introduced.

Please: if you write a story, check what you wrote previously. So your characters won’t end up forgetting things they were supposed to always know.

______________

Logan and Remus: making sense

Unlike Patton, who became a moron for the sake of jokes, and Janus, who changed so much to become another guy, Logan is coherent with himself and his own role.

When Roman tries to coerce him into joining their discussion, Logan says:

L: The topic of love does not interest me. Not that you’d listen to me anyway.

Everyone focused on the second sense, but it’s the first one that matters.

Why? Because he’s goddamn Logic, of course he’s not interested in love. Of course he cannot understand it. Love is an emotion: hence, the emotional Sides should be more helpful, not the one who is literally the opposite of an emotional Side.

And that’s not me saying it. Logan says it:

L: Oh, great, Scott. Okay, look, I have no doubt I could be of some assistance here, but this is venturing so far into uh emotions territory. And we all know how I fared with dating advice in the past. (flashback) “L: We are humans. V: Yes. L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate. V: Yes. L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me? V: Yes. L: There.”

Thank god, someone still remembers the past. And Logan uses it to prove his point, thus creating continuity between then and now.

But he also creates another connection. This time, with Remus’ point:

R: Logan, it's very simple. Thomas would like to fuck Nico.

When Remus appeared and started to talk, I paused the episode to say, out loud: “Finally! After all this useless talk, someone says the truth!”.

The conversation was slowing down. Thomas was desperately trying to find a reason why he wanted to have a relationship with Nico so badly. Then, Remus comes and he says the simplest thing ever: sexual attraction plays a part in this.

And of course it does! I highly doubt Thomas is dating Nico because he feels like he has to / is doing him a favor / it’s some kind of challenge. Of course he likes him.

And if he likes him physically too… what’s wrong with that? After all, as Logan said years ago:

“L: We are humans. V: Yes. L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate. V: Yes. L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me? V: Yes. L: There.”

Sex is one of the driving forces of our species. It’s part of us and our lives. It’s one of the ways we found - our cells found - to live beyond death. We give away part of us, of our genes, of our cells, to make an entirely new being, a creature who will carry what we gave them into the future.

But we also use sex to bond, to experience the beautiful sensations, to have fun. To share special moments with someone we love. Thomas is sexually attracted to men, and he clearly likes Nico: of course, he wants to be more intimate with him. And of course his mind created some dirty fantasies about this. None of us are holy, we all had at least one sexual fantasy in our lives, so there’s nothing wrong or weird in Thomas having some too.

Therefore, when Remus says that Thomas wants, deep down, to fuck Nico, I believe him. And when he says it’s not a big deal, he’s right, because it’s not.

In short:

Logan’s reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.

Logan’s reasoning connects and elaborates on Remus’ reasoning (because both of them mention/consider the sexual component of the relationship).

Remus’ reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.

That’s how you write something good: you remember your character’s personality and write something that makes sense in general and in specific.

And I’m happy to say that during the entirety of the episode, Remus is 100% coherent with himself and all he says is coherent with the character he is. But I can say it, because he appears for 0.2 seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Logan.

And it’s all because of the goddamn young Sides.

______________

Schrödinger’s Sides

V: Did you just call him Vision? T: Yeah, I did. Like the Marvel character? L: Keep in mind, this was years ago before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names. This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand. We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.

Okay, let’s analyze one sentence at a time.

-> L: Keep in mind, this was years ago, before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names.

The young Sides come from Thomas’ “early 20s”.

Thomas was born in 1989, his early 20s can be considered the first years after he turned 20 (2009/2012).

In 2016, Thomas started Sanders Sides.

In four years, the Sides changed from these “still not fully formed” entities, to the ones we know and love. That’s possible: Thomas was still growing and developing his personality, after all, so it makes sense the Sides evolved too, and four years is an acceptable time frame for a late teen/young adult.

But why did Logan put such emphasis on how this comes from a time before Thomas “even knew” they had names? Of course, this comes from a time before he knew they had names. He started learning your names in 2017, Logan. And your name was the first one he learned, do you remember? I mean, in SvS, you remembered the exact second Thomas learned something new; now you forgot when he learned your own name?

-> L: We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.

Why is Logan using the word “probably”? Doesn’t he know, if he were a generic entity? He’s explaining it as if the young people they’re watching are not them.

But Patton and Roman acknowledged that the boys are the younger versions of themselves. So they are Patton and Roman’s younger versions, but not Logan’s???

(And yes, I know they’re not them because Thomas joked about “ahah it’s not you, it’s a younger actor playing your role”, but it’s such a useless joke and it destroys the suspension of disbelief so much, I’d much rather ignore it than open this can of worms)

-> L: This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand.

Pardon my French, but what?!

Why should the conversation be presented “in a way we can understand”? You had this conversation before, bro. You were involved in it. Why should it be different, if you were the ones having it?

I don’t know if this is some Doctor Who’s weird reference, but if it is, it’s absolute bullshit. I could've understood this, if we were watching a conversation between the aliens of The Arrival: it would’ve made sense to present it in a way we humans could’ve understood.

But we’re witnessing the conversations these same fuckers had in the past, and the conversation should be changed to make it more understandable for them? UUUUH???

So until now we have:

Sides that are supposed to be Thomas's younger versions, but they are not recognized by all their adult counterparts

Sides that are probably (?) generic and imprecise

A conversation that didn’t even happen like this???

We are literally watching Sides with questionable existence, engaging in a conversation that didn’t even happen. Non-existent Sides having a non-existent conversation.

What the fuck am I even watching.

But hey, since having the Schrödinger’s Sides who exist and do not exist and have conversations that are not recognized by their counterparts is not enough, let’s also mess with another concept that has been already introduced and closed before:

-> Left and right brain

Y!T: Left brain. Y!L: Yes, Thomas. L: Really, Thomas? Left brain?

And, referring to young Patton:

T: His name must have been Right Brain.

Again:

Why is Logan still so surprised? Bro, this young fella is supposed to be you. Don’t you remember the name Thomas gave you 10 years ago?

“Must have been”? Thomas, you gave Patton this name. Don’t you know what name you gave him? You are 35, this happened 10 years ago (more or less), not 200 years ago. Also: don’t you remember the name you gave to one side of your personality? I remember the name I gave to my plushies when I was 8, and you don’t remember the name of someone so important to you?

But also… left and right brain? Let’s ask SvS what does it think of this:

[Logan]: Let's see. I am the primary overseer of Thomas' language center. I am the director of activities for Thomas' right arm. [Deceit]: Just the right? [Logan]: The left arm is managed by Roman.

As you probably already know, the left side of your brain controls the right side of your body and vice versa. But there are also a lot of additional functions managed by both sides of the brain that can be summarized as follows:

Hence, Logan’s surprise about the name “Left Brain” is even more meaningless, because he perfectly knows he manages Thomas’ left side. He literally implied it in SvS, by mentioning how he controls Thomas’ language center and right arm! Why is he so shocked, when he already embodies the functions of the left brain?

At the same time, Patton being the right brain makes zero sense - even in the context of young, still generic Sides. The right brain’s functions are holistic thinking, intuition and daydreaming. You know, having visions. While Young!Patton was…  collecting memories and giving advice to Young!Thomas. That it’s not something managed by either the right or the left brain.

I really don’t have an explanation for this. Maybe young Thomas is an idiot, maybe Mr. Sanders didn’t look enough into the difference between left and right side of the brain, maybe he just wanted to make a joke, maybe he liked “Vision” for Young!Roman and didn’t want to change the name… I don’t know. Pick your favourite explanation, people.

______________

Conclusion… for now

Yep. That’s only part one. Well done making this far, people! :D

However, I still have to talk about this episode, so we will meet again in a couple of days for the second and last part. Hope you will be ready for more writing talk and a more focused analysis on the concepts in this episode. And for Roman.

Spoiler: it will be as long as the analysis you just read.

-> Next post

(How about a coffee? ☕)

_______________________________