Can Town (The Official Homestuck Thread)

[Lin Beifong]

I cannot criticize an authors work if I haven't read it. I'm German, we read other historical literature in our classes than you, like the writings of Goethe. So I've never read Hamlet and probably won't ever do it because old english is ridiculously hard for me to understand for obvious language-related reasons. I actually tried reading Macbeth some time ago and couldn't for similar reasons.

So I'm sorry if you feel like I'm criticizing the wrong author, but I'd rather talk about what I've read and thus actually know about, instead of harping on an author who for all I know might have grasped a narrative nuance that gets lost in retellings of their stories and makes their death scenes less pointless.

Rest assured though, if Hamlet includes death scenes that are just as pointless as the ones in HP7, I am going to look down on those just as much.

 

[SiFi]

Shakespeare in modern English if you're ever interested.

And "comedy" didn't quite mean the same thing at the time. It was simply something with a happy ending, in contrast to tragedy. Hence "The Divine Comedy" also not being a comedy as we understand it.

 

[Lin Beifong]

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out later.

 

[EctoBiologist]

My gut was right about her death being heroic.

...on brighter news the John x Roxy ship is still sailing smoothly.

I feel bad for Rose x Kanaya fans tho.

 

[Spamton G. Spamton]

Jav. i feel like johns death was kind of different: First of all, he didnt latch into jack. Jack kind of just killed him before. And scratch comments on his death saying: What sort of story would this be, with our hero of breath remaining a cadaver? Certainly not one the /alpha/ timeline will allow. Which means paradox space is less likely to give a fuck about your survival in a doomed offshoot.

 

[Walkazo]

Assuming it's doomed. Although Scratch's comment could also lend support to the idea that they won't all remain cadavers if this is the alpha timeline, and will be revived somehow despite the easy deaths.

I cannot criticize an authors work if I haven't read it. I'm German, we read other historical literature in our classes than you, like the writings of Goethe. So I've never read Hamlet and probably won't ever do it because old english is ridiculously hard for me to understand for obvious language-related reasons. I actually tried reading Macbeth some time ago and couldn't for similar reasons.

So I'm sorry if you feel like I'm criticizing the wrong author, but I'd rather talk about what I've read and thus actually know about, instead of harping on an author who for all I know might have grasped a narrative nuance that gets lost in retellings of their stories and makes their death scenes less pointless.

Rest assured though, if Hamlet includes death scenes that are just as pointless as the ones in HP7, I am going to look down on those just as much.

I was just saying that I see HP7 being used as the "kill 'em all" example a lot in general, and the more I see it, the more I think how strange it is, and decided to comment on it because this a forum, where comments are made, using Shakespeare as an example because I know his stuff, and because it's another pet peeve of mine how everyone lets Shake (and other classic writers) get away with stuff that invites derision from modern stuff (all but two of his plays were basically fanfiction, but no one snorts at that). I would've said the same thing regardless of who made the post.

Most native English speakers can't get past the old English either: too much outdated vocab and grammar. Funnily enough, I actually had an easier time reading the old French that pops up in one play than some of the English passages - guess French hasn't changed as much as English since Shake's time, idk...

Coincidentally, the only German lit I know is the Faust story, which was apparently tackled by Goeth at some point, although the version I read was adapted to English by someone else.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

the best foreign literature is don quixote, although you need a good translation to read it (i found a 2005ish translation that's great)

i never had too much of an issue reading shakespeare; i mean i don't claim to understand all the nuances and stuff but i can get what they're trying to say

whenever i read a modern version it just seems dull compared to the old english; many of shakespeare's lines just aren't as poetic when run through our modern-day filter

 

[Lin Beifong]

I mentioned J. K. Rowling because she's the most prominent recent example I could think of. I think everyone is aware that older authors have done this sort of mass killing fest in their works before (just like basically EVERYTHING has been done before by someone), but those authors just aren't on my mind all that much. Like, some people (especially teachers) like to beat others over the head with how legendary those authors are, and so society expects people to believe everything they wrote is automatically good and superior to everything from this age. But for me, those guys are just normal authors in a sea of authors, so if I find a modern story that is fun and interesting, I'm not going to measure it against the works of Goethe just because he is raised on a pedestral.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people set their priorities similarly. Not many people I knew enjoyed being forced to read Goethe in school, but a lot of them did enjoy Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings. So if those stories do something silly, that's going to leave a bigger impact on them than if something they had to read in school did it. And what left the biggest impact on them will be the first thing they think of when being asked about something fiction-related.

So really, I see no reason to get up in arms about people saying "(modern work) did (something dumb) and it was bad", and decry them as people who will let Shakespeare get away with everything. Odds are, they aren't even thinking about Shakespeare because it just didn't leave as much of an impact on them as what they're referencing.

Unless they actively mention something to the effect of "but when Shakespeare does it, it's ok", what's the point of getting mad?

 

[Walkazo]

Dude, I wasn't getting up in arms at all. I don't decry people who say "(modern work) did (something dumb) and it was bad" - my initial post was merely an observation about this particular comparison that keeps getting thrown around, which reminded me of how Shake gets away with murder a lot, since I actually do like his stuff and think about it a lot in general. That pet peeve of mine doesn't make me mad, but rather, is something I like to debate - "Shake actually only wrote two original plays" is my go-to factoid for people who whine about the unoriginality of fanfiction, for example. It's usually pretty fun.

the best foreign literature is don quixote, although you need a good translation to read it (i found a 2005ish translation that's great)

i never had too much of an issue reading shakespeare; i mean i don't claim to understand all the nuances and stuff but i can get what they're trying to say

whenever i read a modern version it just seems dull compared to the old english; many of shakespeare's lines just aren't as poetic when run through our modern-day filter

I had a friend who learned Spanish partly because he wanted to be able to read Don Quixote in its original form.

Once I get into it, I can read it most of the time, but I find how accessible it is often depends on the play itself, oddly enough. And yeah, most modern translations are terrible: I can't read them. I'd love to see one where they just swap out some of the words and update tenses and whatnot without making everything modern and colloquial just for the sake of it, and completely tossing out the poetry in the process.

 

[SiFi]

Well the modern thing I linked to has the original next to the translation so you can compare them and better understand the original knowing what it basically amounts to.

 

[Lin Beifong]

Were such things here as we do speak about? Or have we eaten on the insane root That takes the reason prisoner?

Were these things we’re talking about really here? Or are we both on drugs?

I see now what you mean about modern translation eating the poetic value.

 

[DragonFreak]

That's a good line in Hamlet.

 

[Walkazo]

So Hussie posted a big long thing about God Tier ruling stuff on the News feed:

Spoiler

I don't answer Q's about Homestuck much anymore. It was a practice which I think used to be some people's lifeline for decoding the enigmatic runes of this story. Now, since they can no longer depend on answers which I supply between horse jokes and snappy retorts, they are lost in the woods to fend for themselves against the wolves of dubious fanalysis.

Pulling the ripcord on the Homestuck machine again, combined with recent story events, makes me think something FAQQY may be in order. The thing is, when you make a big story, and allude to rules for a complicated system dictating mortality, people tend to REALLY, REALLY want to understand how it works. Speculation naturally fills the vacuum in lieu of concrete data. Theories are crafted. Headcanons, congealed. Then, when additional data is presented (DEAD KIDS), which happen to chafe with fanon constructs, feelings run ragged, and Bullshit is called. Then Bullshit shows up, and says, you rang? And the fanonistas say, yes Bullshit. Look at this mess. LOOK at it. This in NO WAY jives with my views on what constitutes heroism and justice. Bullshit nods sagely while lighting its pipe.

Earlier in HS when god tier folk were more scarce, the story was more cagey about these verdicts. The Vriska ruling was presented as a close call, which maybe could have gone either way. Then Slick smacked the clock to Just before it could settle, leaving the true verdict ambiguous, and the 'moral debate' intact, so to speak. But now that there are a lot of god tiers running around, with the stakes raised and the body count piling up, the game (or, story) is starting to be more liberal with its rulings. As in, more likely to come down hard on Just, Heroic, or Neither verdicts without intervention or obfuscation, helping us better understand the boundaries of heroic and just action through example. Not necessarily by moral definitions, but as dictated by the rules of a game.

So that turns the story guy (sometimes known as an "author") into something like a ref at a basketball game. He blows the whistle when he sees the basketball guy (the "baller") take a half step without bouncing the ball. The home team crowd does not detect the subtle violation and goes boooooo! Those homers can boo all they want, but you know, the guy is really just some bozo with a whistle. The rules are the rules!

There's reason to think there is a nuanced scale ranging from Heroic to Just inside the clock. There may be many shades of justice and heroism, some forms just barely qualifying to seal one's fate. But there's nothing nuanced about Alive vs. Dead. The result of a coin flip is absolute, even though there may be many subtle factors contributing to which side it lands on. Such as whether the coin is pure of heart, and whether the table it lands on has ever killed a man. You get a sense for the nuance of the judgment when it comes to these "close calls", like with Vriska, or more recently, with Jade. In her case, she was subject to mind control when she racked up her misdeeds, which ordinarily would probably exempt her. But it wasn't ordinary mind control. More like flipping an "evil switch", removing her ethical filter, thereby letting he personality come through, and giving her license to act on impulses which she'd ordinarily suppress. So this gives the clock something to work with. Still, her behavior is compromised, so it's by no means a slam dunk. (BASKET BALL! that is still the metaphor.) So it's very close, and perhaps the clock even spares her... except for Aranea, whose luck lets close calls break in her favor, and nudges that needle one hair to the Just side. Very unlikely that happens if it's not close already though. Jane's situation is basically the same, and so is her verdict.

How about Jake? He's the only player who's had two rulings. The first time, he was blustering Ronald Reagan quotes at the top of his lungs when Jane forked him, which I think we may agree safely disqualifies him from heroism (though the Republican party may disagree). The second time was ruled Heroic, when he took a realmaginary ninja sword through the chest for a friend. This corresponds pretty closely with most people's definition of heroic, so I doubt anyone would consider this one controversial either.

Dave? Probably not much to debate here either. Fighting while attempting to save a dead friend, to bring her back to Jane for resurrection. There's a moral element here, tied to common ideas of heroism, so there's not much in dispute. When factors stray somewhat from moral notions of heroism, that's when there is more fuel for debate. So what about Rose?

Wasn't John killed by Jack under similar circumstances to how Rose died? So why did he survive, and Rose didn't?

The circumstances were very similar, on the surface. But I would suggest that the similarity of the two situations, both leading to different outcomes, helps clarify the rules in play, not confuse them. The reason for this? SCIENCE.

If you were a scientist in this fictional world, trying to test this fictional construct, these are the exact kinds of situations you would seek out to prove or disprove whatever hypothesis you had. Situations that are very similar, with most factors isolated, and varying only in minor and controlled ways. That's how you would start to understand where the line is between heroic and non-heroic conduct.

So what varies between the situations? What line does Rose cross which John doesn't? It becomes pretty obvious if you break the two scenes down. John was standing there, poised for battle with Jack, for all of two seconds before Jack auto-stabbed him from behind. Not even to speak of the underhanded tactic by the villain, I think what's more important is John didn't even get a chance to move. Or specifically, to prove through action that he was prepared to do battle with a foe. In fact, hindsight may tell us he wasn't. He hadn't been through much then. But years later, when he reenacted that scene with Jack through a dream bubble, he was ready that time. He had years to think about that moment, to reflect on the damage caused by Jack, and what he might have done differently if he'd been more prepared, and if the battle wasn't cut short. But during the first encounter, there was no time for heroic intent to translate into action.

Compare with Rose's situation. Her feelings are unambiguous. Her mind is made up, and committed to action in the form of forward motion. Sorry Rose, you took a few too many steps through the paint on your drive to the hoop. Gotta blow the whistle!

The two similar situations illustrate where one of the lines are for heroism (as a game rule, not moralistically), and in this case, that line is action. It would seem it's not good enough just to have heroic intentions or bold feelings. It doesn't cut it to strike a pose and look cool for two seconds. The intent should be expressed through commitment to an action. The action is what proves the intent. For all we know, John wasn't ready to back up his posture. For all we know, he was terrified! Rose wasn't though. Her action proved it.

Why does Rose lashing out in vengeance count as heroic?

If you wanted my personal opinion on heroism, I would say a vengeful act is not heroic by itself. We all have our ideas on what heroism means. But I think this is the wrong question to ask.

The concern here is less about the moral definition of a heroic act, and more about how heroism is defined in terms of a series of rules which a game system can enforce.

Based on some evidence we have, and some things Doc once said about god tier immortality, it's pretty safe to make at least one generalization about heroism as a game construct. The game/story regards your behavior as Heroic if you make some effort to defeat or kill someone who is villainous (or in other words, someone worthy of a Just death). The state of the hero's mind is just an additional consideration, such as whether they happen to be motivated by anger or vengeance.

But let's imagine for a moment that a vengeful act is automatically unworthy of heroism, even if directed against a great evil.

Wouldn't this be a MAJOR loophole for god tiers to avoid dying heroic deaths? It would mean to qualify as a hero, you couldn't feel anger toward a villain who has almost certainly done something to provoke anger. If a hero ever experienced loss at the hands of a villain, their natural emotional state would exempt them from the heroic consequence of the actions resulting from that anger. They would be completely invulnerable to a villain, so long as they maintained a grudge! The thing with villains is, they tend to have a way of inflicting loss on others. If being wronged precluded heroic behavior, villains would suddenly discover heroes to be incredibly rare commodities.

There's a lot to think about here. It's a combination of how you want to morally define heroism and justice, and how to pragmatically construct enforceable rules to that effect. The latter is something that can get very technical, and boil down to hairline actions such as whether one exhibits clear enough forward motion or such, roughly the way sports are officiated. There's no way I'll ever come up with a full list of rules, or even get much deeper into the rules than I have here. But I believe this is a rational outline for the way the subject may be examined, if you wish to do so!!!

So in a nutshell, regarding Rose vs. John, John didn't get to make a move and died lamely; Rose made a move, and died heroically. Which was what I said earlier, hahahahahaha.


Also, my bro read somewhere that the "O" in the Heroic deaths looks like a Pumpkin and that might be the loophole everyone's looking for, either because it's a clue that this is a doomed timeline (what he thinks) or because the pumpkins can be poofed away to undo the deaths (what I say would happen assuming the pumpkin thing is real and not just stylistic text, which is what I think of it, but w/e).

 

[Dr. Javelin]

hmph

i guess we all just assumed the rules were more lax than "you make a heroic action SUDDENLY YOU ARE KILLABLE"

that said, he has good logic and obviously he's the author so you can't really question him

 

[Tyrell Badd]

It's updated.

Spoiler

Not going to lie, when it said "DOOF" in that one Terezi panel, I thought it actually said "DEAD" for a few seconds and I almost died inside.

 

[Lin Beifong]

At this rate it's probably going to happen soon anyway.

 

[SiFi]

I don't really get what's happening in said "doof" panel. At first I thought she was spitting red blood in his face, but that doesn't make any sense, and neither does any other explanation I can think of.

 

[Walkazo]

Headbutt in the nose.

Spoiler

I wonder if she'll use her Seer powers to tell them it's not a Doomed timeline, hence John NEEDS to use his zappy powers to fix it, rather than just giving up like Roxy said. Still hoping for a non-retconny way around everything, but only time will tell what happens either way.

 

[SiFi]

oh oh

see i thought the blood was moving towards his face instead of away

oh

 

[DragonFreak]

It's updated.

Spoiler

Not going to lie, when it said "DOOF" in that one Terezi panel, I thought it actually said "DEAD" for a few seconds and I almost died inside.

I thought she was referring to me.

 

[Lin Beifong]

Headbutt in the nose.

Spoiler

I wonder if she'll use her Seer powers to tell them it's not a Doomed timeline, hence John NEEDS to use his zappy powers to fix it, rather than just giving up like Roxy said. Still hoping for a non-retconny way around everything, but only time will tell what happens either way.

Spoiler

Would that even work? IIRC Her power is to foresee the outcomes and direct consequences of a person's decisions and nothing else. John doesn't have any conscious control over his teleporting (yet?), so there isn't really a concrete choice he could make aside from a vague "Should I try to do something?". It doesn't seem as clear-cut as the last time she used her powers, where her target knew pretty much exactly what they were going to do.

Plus, even if it worked, there's a decent chance her precognition would turn out inaccurate, since John seems to exist outside of time now and has been shown capable of altering predetermined events. Chances are if Terezi saw him in a vision, he'd retcon whatever she sees into something else entirely as soon as he reaches that point in time.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

can we change the name of the story to "sadstuck"

 

[Spamton G. Spamton]

can we change the name of the story to "sadstuck"

Look at the bright side!

Spoiler

Or her corpse I guess.
GET IT? GET IT?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

It's pretty clear John is at least somewhat interested in Roxy though, from how he was unwilling to say "corpsesmooch".

I now pronounce this my Other True Pairing.

 

[Random Blue]

Ah Johnroxy...things may not be doing good but The OTP is alive