...The Turn-out Of This Poll Surprised Me. I Did Not Realize That I'd Get This Much Interest, So Thank

...The turn-out of this poll surprised me. I did not realize that I'd get this much interest, so thank you for voting everyone. It seems we have a nearly unanimous consensus. Thus...

I will let Rafal degrade himself in the name of the greater "Good."

(Assuming I end up finishing the draft. It's something under 3,000 words at this point.)

⸻

In fact, I've made some interesting observations about my fics, regarding word counts:

The complete AU premise took > 10,000 words.

A happier resolution to canon took about 4,000 words, to "fix" things.

Yet, breaking things seems to require fewer words, which appears to have some semblance of coherent logic to it, in my mind. As people say: "It takes years to build up trust and only seconds to destroy it."

So, as a general trend, fratricides seem to take over 3,000 words.

(Actually, I remember "THE ONE AND HIS BROTHER" taking more thought than the fratricide fics did to write. I had to think of all the loose ends I wanted to tie up.)

Lastly, the experimental, singular-concept or character-study type of fics seem to be the shortest of them all. (And, if I finish my WIPs, there will be more strange alternate ending or "concept" fics in the future, like my "pirate" Rafal draft, for instance.)

⸻

Also, if anyone ever wants to send in fic-related asks, I'd gladly answer them!

Look, I know this is practically the antithesis of Rafal's character (with his whole "pirates are pests and subpar villain material" ideas and pirates being the opposite of his "orderly civilization" line of thought) but...

If I haven't convinced anyone based on premise alone, here's a drafted excerpt for the heck of it:

The iron stench of blood clung thick in the air, clung to Rafal’s new garments.

Craning his neck upwards at the barque, Rhian could’ve sworn his brother’s clothes smelt of blood, but he couldn’t see a trace of blood on him. Just, streaks of—blue—a strange, deep, sapphire blue on his clothes, tinging the edges of his hair, a spray of an inky substance speckling his jawline and the side of his face, and smears of blue on the… Night Crawlers assembled behind him.

And by the Storian’s grace, were those real Night Crawlers? He’d never seen them outside of storybooks. It was like Rafal had dredged himself out of a storybook, out of the deep undersea, like a myth among myths.

Rhian would have concluded it was blood, but it couldn’t be, could it?

Thoughts?

@discjude Yes! I'm so glad you agree with the Rafal-Latin interpretation. In my mind, Evil follows him around like a toxic contagion, like a contaminant, visible fog that everyone breathes and goes insane over. Meanwhile, Rhian's Evil is more insidious. I don't think it would be airborne in that same sense. Rhian's Evil, while dormant, would probably just mark him as a "carrier" of the symbolic disease. And, of course, Rafal (or Rhian) poisoned the entire bloodline.

Also, the Latin-relevance-to-modern-English thought sort of made me think: what if it were forcibly relevant, like at times when it wouldn't occur "naturally"? That could relate to the spirit of Rafal being beaten alive again and again and it never becoming irrelevant to the plot at any point, like you said, ingrained in everything. At some point, after the plot's undergone various cycles of the same after the same, it could probably seem like it's beating a dead horse.

And yet, Rafal himself would probably demand to be brought up again and again anyway, given his ego, so the plot thread never dies since it's not allowed to, in a kind of willful, conscious way possibly? Because, of course, he always has to be relevant. I can just picture him thinking, stubbornly deciding: fine, if I must be dead, I'll do it my way, on my terms, and still remain in the shadows, puppeteering everyone from beyond the grave. End of story, except it's not. The story is still mine. It always was. No matter how far the story gets from me, there's no getting rid of me.

⸻

If you're interested, here's a second Rafal connection. Disclaimer: I barely know anything about this since I just heard about it the other week and most of my sources are Wikipedia:

There is a particular school of thought in literary theory called the "hermeneutics of suspicion," which is actually just a way of saying appearances belie reality, as usual.

hermeneutic (adj.) = "Of, relating to, or concerning interpretation or theories of interpretation."

"The hermeneutics of suspicion is a style of literary interpretation in which texts are read with skepticism in order to expose their purported repressed or hidden meanings. [...]"

"[...] a similar view of consciousness as false. [...] This school is defined by a belief that the straightforward appearances of texts are deceptive or self-deceptive and that explicit content hides deeper meanings or implications."

"According to literary theorist Rita Felski, hermeneutics of suspicion is 'a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths.'"

"Felski also notes that the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' is the name usually bestowed on [a] technique of reading texts against the grain and between the lines, of cataloging their omissions and laying bare their contradictions, of rubbing in what they fail to know and cannot represent."

In contrast, we have:

"[...] a hermeneutics of faith, which aims to restore meaning to a text, [...]"

And then, when it's applied to things like religion or philosophy, not just literature:

"It contends that a hermeneutic of doubt reduces religious experiences (and the believers committed to them) to something distant and 'other,' while a hermeneutic of trust enables scholars to reconstruct religious worldviews."

It vaguely echoes Rafal versus Pen. Or rather, Rafal's literary 'man versus society,' 'man versus self,' and 'man versus fate' conflicts.

"Sometimes a hermeneutic of suspicion may be important for more negative reasons, as when we suspect that texts are not telling us the whole truth."

This negative side to the concept can also somehow extend to fit typically skeptical Evil Rafal and repressed "Good" Rafal. (Sorry. After all this time, I refuse to call him strictly Good because his actions negate his soul's supposed Good status. I would love it if both brothers could each just consciously acknowledge their own capacity for Evil. Messy greyness like that would've been nice to see. But no! Rafal is/has to be "Good." [sigh.])

It's as if all this applied skepticism, this belief that there is something beneath the surface even when something/someone presents itself as trustworthy, (and probably, to some degree, it's also projecting your own untrustworthiness onto others as potential "traitors") is simply characteristic of Rafal. By my subjective interpretation, he probably mentally says: what reason have you given me to trust you? Or, vice versa: what reason have I given you to trust me? Or, at least, I tend to view him as paranoid, which could very well be exaggerating canon.

"The expression 'hermeneutic of suspicion' is a tautological way of saying what thoughtful people have always known, that words may not always mean what they seem to mean. Some forms of expression, such as allegory and irony, depend on this fact."

I do wonder if it's only because of sequential order that Rhian and Japeth feel more, idk, allegorical or "representational" (aside from just the Lion and the Snake roles, Japeth's mimicry of the first fratricide, and so forth) than Rhian and Rafal do? I think, partly, it could be because we get less page time of them overall, and partly because they're not quite "whole" entities, as in, the tale still technically belongs to Tedros and company. And the narrative doesn't always pin its focus on them.

And then, there's the argument against this school of thought:

"In sum, it is sometimes useful to 'see through' things, and suspicion has its place. If we insist, however, on 'seeing through' everything, we end up seeing nothing."

Ergo, Rafal's lack of self-awareness (and moments of misusing trust, like how he never reveals himself as the perceived threat of Fala) are probably part of his very own version of "seeing nothing" as he actively searches for "something" to find fault with (usually Rhian, let's face it) or it could be a case of seeing nothing wrong with his actions.

He starts to distance himself from Evil and turn to Good, doing too little, too late, while also being blind to Rhian's earlier losses and point of view. He thinks he himself is entirely deserving of what's coming to him, and at his most extreme, he's blind or rather, is caught in a sort of one-track mind, self-contained feedback loop? As if he has tunnel vision but in an upwards-ambition direction, that he reinforces with the total excess of pride embedded in the self-image he started out with.

And, this state of mind comes over him every single time he's sought out power above all and/or control over his immediate surroundings, without fail.

⸻

I had a Rhian and Rafal thought since I thought of a way to elaborate on something old. (Not sure if this one can apply to the second set of twins because I've no examples for it currently, but if you've got any thoughts, go right ahead!)

Originally, I assigned Rhian death of the author due to how he interferes with or foils the Storian's will (as the "author") in Fall by murdering Rafal so abruptly. Because, Rhian, especially in TLEA, in trying to rewrite the past and reshape the world, decides to interpret the texts of his world apart from the "author's" intention, imposing his own interpretations onto the texts (tales).

For comparison, return of the author or authorial intent could be seen as Rafal ceding to the Storian in the end, or considering the author as inseparable from his work, and seeing works in the original contexts they once inhabited, as products of their time.

Plus, Rafal would've been the Storian's intent, the One. And, the Storian had been drawing him, not Rhian, initially—well, assuming it had decided on Rafal and wasn't in on the twist, until the eye color change in the illustration, which seemingly could've signaled it knew the One was Rhian all along. Depends on how we interpret the scene, I suppose.

Or, perhaps, less sinisterly than the Pen just knowing and being complicit in the twist Rhian chose for the tale in taking Rafal's face and identity, the Pen could have conceded to Rhian's "interpretation," as a sort of "reader" of its tales over itself as the prime "author." Because, well, Rhian is called the "author of his own misfortune" by the narrative. Maybe, the Pen was handing over the authorship to him, in complying with what Rhian wanted, in that moment, so Rhian could bend the story to his own designs and ends.

⸻

I could see chivalry theory happening in the Endless Woods—that's an interesting one! Though, does Evelyn actually get a lenient sentence? She does die, and the "no longer useful" judgment Rafal barely passes over her is harsh.

Enjambment and caesura fit TCY twins well. If the plot and his plan didn't force him to be conscious of what he said, could Rhian have been as sociable as Sophie was? Do we ever see a side of him like that, like in the Beauty and the Feast chapter of QFG, for instance?

Ooh, the self-fulfilling prophecy and Becker's labeling theory remind me of the Pygmalion Effect (expectations shape behavior and self-image/people return what you invest in them) in psychology. I wonder if they're, by any chance, directly related, with one on a larger societal scale and the other on a smaller individual scale? Though, the Pygmalion Effect is more psychology than sociology, so maybe it wouldn't apply on a wider level? I don't know much at all about sociology, so thank you for the terms though!

The labeling happens to remind me of the concept of our subconscious "thin-slicing" stimuli, when we intuitively parse out new situations in split-second, snap judgments, with how the phenomenon is explained in a book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell. It's not a terminology heavy book though, so maybe some things described in it were more colloquial than truly sociological.

Also, I love the term folk devil! It fits so well and it's in line with the Gavaldon assumptions! In fact, it fits Rafal even better than "scapegoat" ever could, or general moral panics/witch hunts/persecution, so thank you!!! I didn't really call him a "scapegoat" before because it sounded too "innocent" for him, and to be fair, in his case, he is more guilty/disruptive, and wasn't persecuted without reason, honestly. And, he can, unlike other actual victims, be compared to a literal demon beyond just how he's viewed.

Also, I think Japeth at certain points deserves to go into that same media circus kind of category too, considering how Rhian's plan initially forced him to take the blame for all the terrorism publicly as the Snake.

⸻

Ooh, you're absolutely right about the edgework angle being a part of the series, I'd say, and I think I might know how to fit it in!

It could apply to nontraditional villainy, to those who deliberately seek out a type of personal, "selfish" freedom from societal/structural constraints, like the Never kingdom of Akgul's entire philosophy to live by does, iirc, with its endless hedonism.

Of course, this kind of villainy would be the kind that Rafal sometimes appreciates and sometimes looks down on. For instance, he doesn't see as much Evil value/potential in the communal piracy or more social tendencies of the pirates, unlike true villains who work alone, while, at the same time, he does see the point to the revelry at The Black Rabbit—that's the thrill-seeking side of "Evil." (It's also a bit present in the 'No Ball.')

And, the Nevers in the main series are sort of known for their intrepidness, their recklessness, their raucousness. It's actually just their general "culture" of not allowing for cowardice, to the extreme, even at the expense of personal safety, all for the sake of reputation, even when "cowardice" is the smarter option. So, naturally, they have got a lot of grandstanding and brashness. They're all about putting on bravado! (And they also seem to be a dark mirror of the Everboys, in my opinion. They just take things further. Though, I guess they owe it to Rafal's deprivation early on, which must've reinforced the idea that they could do without a lot of the time because they're better than the "namby-pamby" Evers could ever be.)

Lastly, the best in-narrative example I think we have of this type of behavior is probably the cost of entry to The Black Rabbit: reporting sins, and how that practice is likely perpetuated by the very drinks they serve there, so the attendees can party all night long and do Storian knows what that's probably worse!

The Snake Venom drinks contain literal, real-world psychoactive ingredients (i.e., kola nuts and nutmeg/mace(?)). And these hallucinogens really do alter a person's state of mind. So, it's no wonder the Nevers are collectively predisposed to doing crime—just look at what they're being glutted with at mass public events! It's all built into a societal level other than soul.

⸻

By the way, if anyone had wanted to know about the updates to this post above and in all the reblogs, I'll tag everyone who seems to have shown interest:

@ciieli @horizonsandbeginnings @books-and-tears @loverofbooksandhistory @joeykeehl256

@heya-there-friends @2xraequalstorara @arcanaisarcana

@wisteriaum

SGE Characters as Literary Things

(Not all of these are actual literary or rhetorical devices; some are just writing techniques, forms, genres, mediums, etc.)

This is a bit abstract, so I’m curious about how subjective these might be. Does anyone agree or disagree? And feel free to make additions if you think I left anything out, or request another character that isn’t here.

Hopefully this makes (intuitive?) sense. As always, I'm willing to explain my thought process behind any of the things I've listed.

Also, anyone can treat this like a “Tag Yourself” meme, if you want. Whose list do you most relate to, use, or encounter?

⸻

LANCELOT (I know—how odd that I’m starting with a minor character and not Rafal, but wait. There’s a method to my madness. Also, watch out for overlap!):

Metonymy, synecdoche (no, literally, to me, these are him.)

Zeugma

Analogy

Figures of speech

Slang, argot

Colloquialisms

Idioms

TEDROS:

Simile

Metaphor

Rhyming couplets

Rhyme schemes

Sonnets

Commercial fiction

Coming-of-age genre

Line enjambment

Overuse of commas

Cadence, prose speech

Waxing poetic, verse (not prose)

Alliteration

Kinesthetic imagery

Phallic imagery/sword sexual innuendos (sorry)

The chivalric romance genre

AGATHA:

Anaphora, repetition

Semicolon, periods

Line breaks

Terse, dry prose

Semantics (not syntax)

Elegy

Resonance

Consonance, alliteration

Pseudonym

Narrative parallels

Realism

Satire

SOPHIE:

Sophistry (yes, there is a word for it!)

Imagery

Italics, emphasis

Em dash

Aphrodisiac imagery

Unreliable narrator, bias

Rashomon effect

Syntax (not semantics)

Diction

Chiasmus (think: “Fair is foul and foul is fair.”)

Rhetorical purpose

Provocation, calls to action

Voice, writing style

Rhetorical modes: pathos, logos, ethos

Metaphor

Hyperbole, exaggeration

Sensationalism, journalism

Surrealism

Verisimilitude

Egocentrism

Callbacks (but not foreshadowing or call-forwards)

Narrative parallels

Paralepsis, occultatio, apophasis, denial

Hypothetical dialogue

Monologue

JAPETH:

Sibilance

Lacuna

Villanelle (an obsessive, repetitive form of poetry)

Soliloquy

ARIC:

Sentence fragments

RHIAN (TCY):

Unreliable narrator

Setup, payoff

Chekhov’s gun

Epistolary novel

RHIAN (prequels):

Multiple povs

Perspective

Dramatic irony

Situational irony

Chiaroscuro (in imagery)

Endpapers

Frontispiece

Deckled edges

Narrative parallels

Foreshadowing

Call-forwards

Foil

Death of the author

RAFAL:

Omniscient narrator

Perspective

Surrealism

Etymology

Word families or 'linguistic ecosystems'

Latin

Verbal irony

Gallows humor

Narrative parallels

Call-forwards

Circular endings

Parallel sentences or balanced sentence structure

Narrative parallels

Foil

Juxtaposition

Authorial intent (“return of the author”)

HESTER:

Protagonist

Allusions

Gothic imagery

ANADIL:

Defamiliarization

Deuteragonist (second most important character in relation to the protagonist)

Psychic distance

Sterile prose

Forewords, prologues

Works cited pages

DOT:

Tone

Gustatory imagery

Tritagonist (third most important character in relation to the protagonist)

KIKO:

Sidekick

Falling action

Dedications, author's notes, epigraph, acknowledgements

Epitaph (Tristan)

BEATRIX:

Pacing

Rising Action

Climax

HORT:

Unrequited love

Falling resolution

Anticlimax

Malapropism

Innuendo

Asides

Brackets, parentheses

Cliché

EVELYN SADER:

Synesthetic imagery

Villanelle

Foreshadowing

AUGUST SADER:

Stream of consciousness style

Imagery

Foreshadowing

Coming-of-age genre

Elegy

Omniscience

Rhetorical questions

Time skips, non-linear narratives

Epilogues

MARIALENA:

Diabolus ex machina

Malapropism

Malaphors, mixed metaphors

Slant rhyme

Caveat

Parentheses

Footnotes

MERLIN:

Deus ex machina

Iambic pentameter

Filler words

BETTINA:

Screenwriting

Shock value

This was inspired by other dialogue I've seen, so the concept isn't entirely original. Also, as a warning: this contains mentions of sex.

⸻

Texting in a Modern AU:

Aladdin: What's your body count?

James: ??

Midas: 0? How should I interpret the question?

Rafal: Hold on. Let me think.

Aladdin: Betcha it's 0. lol

Rafal: ...I've lost count.

Rafal: Although, I never cared enough to know all their names to begin with.

Aladdin: Wow. That's a lot of chicks.

Rafal: Most of them were mortal men.

James: They WERE? 😳

Rafal: I wouldn't endanger my own Stymphs' broods.

Aladdin: Endanger? Wait, what? Are you a sadist?

Rafal: Yes. I thought everyone knew.

Midas: 😬

Midas: Oh. Wait. Nevermind. I think I know where this is going...

Rafal: Why would you think it was Stymphs though?

Aladdin: Man, I really didn't think YOU of all people were a sex fiend. You don't need to feel ashamed for sleeping with a lotta people tho. Most guys would be impressed.

Rafal: What do you mean "sex"? I thought we were discussing murder.

Midas: Yep. Called it.

Midas: That tracks.

James: Ditto. :/

Haha, I love this one! It fits them so well. And I love The Great Gatsby! Do you think Rhian would do a hit-and-run and let Rafal take the fall by forcing him to switch seats?

(Gavaldon could be the Valley of Ashes, and Marialena or the Storian could be Doctor T. J. Eckleburg.)

random sketch that i did while rewatching the great gatsby last night.

i was thinking about this all day LMAO and only got to doing it while watching a movie

Everything and anything you've observed, even abstract things—aside from the bird motif I already have an obvious tag for—is fair game, if anyone wants to send in an ask. I’m curious to know your interpretations. (And I might give you a little spiel about the thing you send in, if anything ends up clicking in my head!)

if u pay attention there are themes and motifs on my blog

Rafal attempting to use slang in a Modern AU:

Rafal has joined the chat.

Rafal: I am insane. Unhinged. And mentally-ill. - RM

Agatha: Yes, that's true. What about it?

Rafal: I'm wicked.

Tedros: True again. Why are you stating the obvious?

Rafal: No, you misunderstand. I'm colloquially bragging like the youth do?

Agatha: Wut? Are you trying to say something we disagree on?

Rafal: Yes. I have a good argument too.

Rafal: Wait.

Rafal is typing.

Sophie has joined the chat.

Sophie: Apologies, darlings! I TOLD him not to go through my contacts! I've been trying to teach Rafal to keep up with the times as of late. He means "sick," and "wicked" as in "wicked cool."

Tedros has left the chat.

Agatha: And you thought that would work?!!

Sophie: It was worth a try?

Rafal: How's this, my love? I'm DECEASED at the sight of these previous texts!

Sophie: ???

Rafal: 💀💀💀💀

Sophie: What are you trying to SAY???

Rafal: Isn't it obvious? I'm LAUGHING at the princeling's idiocy.

Agatha: ...mood

Sophie: Oh. Slay.

Rafal: Whom?

Sophie: NO ONE. It means continue doing what you're doing because you're stylish and/or successful.

Sophie: He's right, you know, Aggie.

Agatha: Yeah... can't defend Tedros there.

Rafal: 💀💀💀💀💀💀

Sophie: ...We're never going to get him to give it up, are we?

Agatha: Nope

Rafal: These pictographic symbols are great. 🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛

Agatha: 🙄

Rafal: Look at my flock. Too bad there aren't any Stymph ones. 🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛

Agatha: Ok, this is your problem now. Bye.

Agatha has left the chat.