The Sun And Moon

The sun and moon

So I’m taking a Japanese literature class at my university and my professor explained to us that unlike in most cultures where the sun is masculine and the moon is feminine, in Japanese poetry it is the opposite. 

 This is due to the fact that they believe that the sun is like a woman because she is constant. The sun rises every day, unchanging. 

 The moon, like a man, leaves and disappears. It sometimes rises but it never stays. It fades and eventually vanishes. 

The sun and moon have their set obligations within the universe and due to this they can’t always be together and they become separated for some time. 

 However, every once in a while the sun and moon reunite for a short fleeting moment, 

only to part until their paths cross again. 

 **note: Most of this information was passed onto me via oral lecture so I do apologize for any misinformation or if I may I have forgotten something. However, if you read and study Japanese poetry, it actually makes a lot of sense.

***Side note, though this is more of a joke, anything that takes place on a bridge is apparently not platonic. It also makes sense why so many shoujo confessions take place on a bridge. 

Teen Wolf Articles: Character Analysis - Scott McCall

Scott McCall…or the boy who cried Hero

There are so many issues with Scott, he is what we’d call a flat/cardboard character. He has no internal battle, he lacks motivation, his leadership ability is invisible, and worst of all his stakes aren’t high enough. He doesn’t fit the needs of a proper protagonist. He has only the bare minimum of traits that fit what the plot needs him to be. He doesn’t drive the story…not even from the start (that was actively Stiles and arguably Peter). The story isn’t built on him but instead on the backstory of Derek Hale. He has no foundation other than ‘the good guy (and its a very stereotypical good guy with them glossing over everything he does wrong). A story is only as strong as its lead character, so it leaves little doubt to why Teen Wolf is found so lacking by so many.

Where Characterization is concerned…Motivation is the key

When we first meet Scott McCall, he’s a sweet, naive, geeky, asthmatic, teenager who gets bitten by a were-wolf after sneaking out the house with his best friend (Stiles) to find a dead body. This is exactly where the problem starts…from the first moment he stepped onto the screen. Scott was already a flat character in the making. There was nothing for him to grow from, he wasn’t flawed, nor did he cater to subtle complexities. The protagonist should never be perfect…that leaves nothing for the audience to see, and it makes it near impossible to relate, bond or connect not only to the character but also the story. Characters have flaws for several reasons, they can play as the thing that makes them act (motivation) or the thing that keeps them from acting (internal struggle), it can give them layers – make them more real, more fleshed out and rounded, but most importantly flaws give a character something to grow from. The thing about flaws is you can’t just pick them out of the sky…they should be built from your characters backstory, because it is out experiences that create who we are and how we respond to the outside world. Sadly Scott has no backstory…he’s an average Joe, with an average regular life. He is presented as having no flaws which makes the audience see everything he does as a flaw because for one, theres no accountability on his part yet in story he’s praised as the ultimate being. The resentment stems from the fact that he’s never had to overcome anything, and he still doesn’t now and apparently never will. Flaw does not necessarily mean negative, or bad person. A perfect example is Brennan from the show Bones. Her intelligence was played as both her gift and her flaw. Her brain and its wiring affect her emotional stem, her fascination and obsession with her work often left some member of the group side eying her, and it also created a social ineptness within her. It was important for her to overcome these effects – to create a better her. If they wanted Scott to be the optimist, which is his role. They could’ve easily created conflict and tension within that role. Instead what they did was take his decision which he came to without struggle or reason, and decided he was right and everyone should fall in line and have the only person (who had experience in this world) be viewed as the bad guy even though with his past, Derek was justified having his beliefs. This was one of the worst moves they made for Scott. They reinforced that bad move by having him play the hypocrite. The audience would have been more open to his ‘no killing’ law if he had actually struggle with killing or if it somehow tied to a backstory. Instead what we got was him trying multiple times to kill someone when it fit his needs and just failing and then coming to this point where he’s like…killing is wrong. The audience should have first been subtly introduced to this idea through some form of back story. Then they should’ve presented the audience with a Scott who had to make a decision of life and death through his first desired kill (Peter). Seeing him go through that struggle then actively choosing not to kill because of his own convictions, would have opened the door for the audience to understand his perspective and even those who didn’t agree would still empathize his decision. Instead they created a resentment within the audience because we’re given a person who has no experience, hasn’t even struggle with life and death, and he hadn’t even lost anyone. So who is he to tell people who know nothing but this life that was created for them that they’re bad, they’re evil, they’re wrong…he has no justifications in that claim because he’s never even toed the side of their line. It worst that they have characters fall in line with his views just because it’s him that’s saying it. It’s without conflict, without tension, like everything else it has no motivation behind it. Most importantly it didn’t grow the character at all. A move like this has to be played well…it wasn’t.

A story should always be told from the perspective of the character with the most to lose…and death is not an option when all the characters face death. Scott has nothing to lose…he has no reason to fight…a hero for hero’s sake is not an interesting hero. Why did Spartacus lead the war against the Romans? Because every man deserved to be free. Why does Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead) fight for survivors? Because family is all a man has. These reasons seem so simple…the difference is neither of these characters started out with these ideals so to speak. It was the journey and loss that created their convictions. At first Spartacus had no care for others paths but his own in his seeking of revenge. Rick while he ‘loved’ the ideal of the family of his wife and child…it wasn’t until her death that this ‘family’ aspect began to consume him. Neither of these men are heroes for hero’s sake, in fact neither even wanted to be leaders…they just acted accordingly while everyone else placed them there. As leaders they’re both spoken of negatively and positively within the show. The fact that everyone really only praises Scott within the plot makes the audience more aware of the fact that he’s even create for things he doesn’t even do. It’s those times we’re told that no one cares the way Scott does but we always see someone else saving, or running to help someone while Scott is there on looking or worse indulged in his love life. Its those times he’s called a great leader that makes the audience more aware that he does more lead following than leading. Its those times they have a character open their mouth about how he can do no wrong…and you wonder why betrayal isn’t seen as wrong…The problem is, like I said there is no accountability within the show for Scott’s actions. He uses Derek’s body against his will and that’s presented as okay…theres no backlash and Derek who has been used all his life and has had what he considers a gift used as a weapon…but that’s not dealt with or talked about…or even shown to matter. This is him once again playing the hypocrite because its not okay to kill the enemy but it is okay to exclusively fuck someone over. And it’s deemed as okay because he’s deemed it so. You can’t have it both ways…the sweet, innocent, perfect hero with supposed morals can’t also be the hero whose is okay with stabbing people in the back when it fits his needs…because that’s called a villain. Scott is shown as cruel/insensitive quite a few times but it’s not presented as a flaw its just there and gloss over it every time like its okay. Telling someone that they’re family probably deserved to die. Gloating after you’ve fucked over the victim. Throwing an abuse victim across the room because he has interest in your ex. Its always Scotts way, or he’s showing a new side of himself. It would be different if these were growing points for him but they’re not so instead they just ply as character traits. While they continuously tell us how great he is…they continuously show us quite the opposite.

Leaders are made…not born…but someone didn’t catch the memo

Cause, effect, reasons, and motivations. These things drive characters. Scott unfortunately doesn’t create change (he’s supposed to and we’re told repeatedly that he does but saying and doing is two different things), he’s a reactor to the situation. He follows what the plot needs him to do. This plays out in all aspects of him…even his Alpha-ship. He didn’t earn his Alpha…it was given to him..it was placed upon him for no reason other than the fact than the plot wanted it to be so because he’s the protagonist. I often compare Scott to Bella from Twilight because it is so fitting. His true-alpha is much like her not having to go through the craze. It makes special creatures out of them for no sake other than plot. They took the chance of him learning true leadership…True Alpha was another horrible creation because it was used to once again tell us how great Scott is without him actually being great. Once again no conflict, no reason, no growth. He has no active role in this…like always. The protagonist should be an active creature who makes things happen not someone who just goes along following behind what happens. It would have been better to do something like having him accidentally kill an alpha (or kill out of defense[which is even more active]) giving him the alpha ship they needed him to have but also causing internal conflict within himself because he’s had to go against his own views. That could have developed his growth more and would have had fans on his side as he journeyed through that situation. The reason writers are told to throw every obstacle at their character is because the audience vicariously lives and connects with the character through those situations. Scott is a horrible character because they’ve taken all those chances – the audience doesn’t go through the trenches with Scott because Scott doesn’t go through the trenches at all.

He’s supposed to be an alpha…a special alpha at that but he’s nothing special. He has no thought process. Someone else is always figuring out what’s wrong, how to fix it, and worst of all it’s usually someone else fixing it and Scott playing second fiddle. He has no plan, he doesn’t study himself or the creatures he encounters. He just lets things happen and then reacts to them. His pack is weak because he doesn’t treat it like a pack, he’s not worried about their unity or their growth. He’s a very bad leader. Scott isn’t at stake because he will always come out looking good and if anyone in his group dies or is harmed he’ll shed a tear and move on – their lives meaning nothing in the end. The excuse that they’re at war is just that…an excuse. Spartacus was a show about being at war, there was always battles, always deaths…but those deaths were handling accordingly. The not only dealt with them then but they were used to push the characters forward by the leader himself. As a leader you should never forget those who have died in the battle of your cause. Everyone speaks on Allison but she’s not only one who’s died for his cause…so did the twin. Scott isn’t even the person who helped the twins grow…that was Derek.

No Stakes…don’t mean High Stakes…and when is when gonna happen?

Scott has very low stakes and even that’s reaching. We can claim that the writers tried and failed to creature this character…but it’s still the same outcome. Like I said, theres no tension, no suspense where he’s concerned because theres nothing for him to lose. He gains the world with the sacrifice of nothing. He will be praised even for the acts he did not commit and those he did commit that stand dark no one will speak of. Other characters are weakened for the favor of him, used to sing his praised and make him look better even at the expense of their own characterization. He is a fluff character – he has no struggles, no history, no reason. He was created from the minds of lazy writers who put him on a pedestal of what they need him to be instead of what he is. Scott could have been a great character if they had actually given his some character. Character is not your sex, race, sexuality…character is the response you make when met with obstacles. Character is met through conflict, struggle, and internal growth. Scott is very lacking in all of these things. 

The writers mistakenly thought the wolf aspect would be the ‘interesting’ factor. They were wrong. The Walking Dead is one of the shows who hasn’t made this mistake…they are aware that the zombies play as an outer exterior that makes the characters face who they are internally. It should have been the same with Teen Wolf. The protagonist should be the strongest in character(i don’t mean the best fighter or anything like that)…because he is supposed to be at the front fall meaning everything that’s thrown at them hits him in some way or form – forcing him to have to go through more challenges than everyone else. As the protagonist he’s the automobile we travel through. We should know him, fully, intimately. He should be worthy of our time. So Scott’s a nice guy (supposedly)…so what? When will he be an interesting character? When will he be a dynamic character? When will he start catering to complexities and layering? When fill his flatness fall giving way to his evolvement? When does this character gain the power to make the audience care? When does he stop following and start leading…in ways other than these micro-manipulations? When does he get an appropriate backstory? When does Scott McCall become accountable for Scott McCall and most importantly when does Scott become an active protagonist worthy of being called such?

The writers has failed Scott McCall and Scott has failed the audience.

Note(s): So this is of course my first Teen Wolf Analysis Article (th first of many) where I break down where they went so wrong. The first set breaks down the characters (I might do multiple parts for each character I don’t know yet). The second set goes into the relationship (friendship, romance, enemies). And the last set of course is about the plot lines in the show itself. I started working on these acrticles for several reasons. I often see a backlash of questioning what someone means when they say teen wolf is poorly written. It amazes me when people can’t wrap their mind around what story is and what story isn’t story. It bothers me that people act like there is not a category for what is well written verse whats considered poorly written. Teen wolf with it’s poor characterization, plot holes, plot devices, poor world building, etc is amongst the poorly written. The sad fact is it didn’t have to be that way. There was so much potential that goes to waste. Even with Scott…he could’ve been the ‘good guy’ yet still had depth to him, but instead they overthrew character building to make him a sock-puppet that folds to the plot…capable of doing whatever they need him to.

I haven’t decided who to write next, Stiles or Derek. I know most people would think Stiles because he’s second main lead, but Derek was often played as the offset to Scott…so I basically I don’t know yet. They’re both issued out but they’re a bit more complex than Scott, they actually have backstory for example. Which pisses me off cause how do you give the other characters fleshing but not your protagonist?! Characters down the fucking line have backstory (recycled backstory but backstory all the same). I don’t know when I’ll post part two…so if you’re interested just be on the look out.

-Akria

Teen Wolf Articles

Scott McCall

Stiles Stilinski

Derek Hale

Sterek: Foundation

Sterek: BWRWW: Derek

Upcoming: Sterek BWRWW: Stiles

Okay so I have talked about author's intent before. I am going to expand on that in this post.

Manga is basically a moving picture without the moving in it. It's basically a film with all its features including images, dialogues, narration, sound effects, special effects, and editing.

Just like a film, it also sets up a certain narrative and story with a commensurate pace, mood, context, action (or inaction) and characterisation which then informs its style and visual approach. It's basically a very detailed storyboard of a film. Storyboarding happens at the pre production stage of a film, for ease of the cinematographers, and directors to set up their location and sets accordingly. This is what a storyboard looks like. This is Star Wars btw.

Is Kishi inspired by films? He is a huge fan, it's his favourite hobby. There's a reason his work is considered cinematic by critics.

So for a certain scene or panel to make sense, or for it to stand out, the mangaka will set its background up. And when you look at Naruto manga, the author does everything in his power and uses everything in his skillset to tell this love story. Everything that happens in this manga regarding Naruto and Sasuke's relationship has a certain context behind it, and it's important to notice this, because the information that the author gives you prior to a significant panel or a certain dialogue, or a certain visual, it can be any little thing. But with Naruto, it's everything.

Kishi spares no effort to get his point across. Of course, audience that wants to see it will see it. Those who don't, will prefer their own reading, however lacking, single mindedly ignorant and uninspired.

Anyway.

So this scene here is an important scene. Why? Because it gives us important information about Sasuke's feelings for Naruto. Trying to protect Naruto here was a really pointless move by Sasuke, given it would have only caused a bruise at most. But Sasuke is so in love with this boy, that he can't see him get hurt, even a little bit. We do have precedents, of course, where Sasuke protects Naruto several times even at the cost of his 'life', he also protects Sakura in the forest of death arc, they are his comrades and Sasuke doesn't want them to be hurt. Naturally.

But why is this particular scene important and how does this scene differ from the others? Apart from the fact that it is extraneous and unnecessary, tbf, Sasuke is almost completely out of juice due to the curse seal. So for him to go so out of his way to protect Naruto from hardly even a bruise, emphasizes just how much Sasuke treasures Naruto and wants to protect him.

Does Kishimoto set up context for it? You bet your ass he does. Starts here.

Naruto gets knocked into a tree by a transformed Gaara and Sasuke's watching carefully. He is aware that something is not quite right with Naruto (because Naruto was apprehensive of fighting Gaara given what he had seen of him earlier, which is unlike him). But the point I am making is one has to pay attention to the visuals and context.

Again.

Sasuke's watching while Naruto gets knocked into trees and bushes.

And again.

And again.

And again.

And again. Sigh...

Sasuke's. Watching. Carefully.

So when this finally happens,

It gives the audience a solid context, and brings their attention closer to this panel, and the action that happens in it. It pulls focus to its importance through constant repetition. What does the repetition signify? Author's intent. For emphasis.

Kishi builds up to this moment across three chapters, he is making the audience somehow anticipate some action that would make sense of these repetitive visuals. He is doing everything to make sure that on a subliminal level, the audience knows why this moment is significant and special. And he doesn't stop there. He makes the dog say it out loud.

Pakkun is emphasizing Sasuke's attempt to protect Naruto despite his obvious handicap, as if a thousand visuals were not enough. Yes Kish, we get it. Sasuke loves Naruto, Naruto is his precious, we know. We have known since land of waves arc, you aren't that discreet.

It's really like Kishi doesn't want the audience to be confused as to what's happening, this is in no way being discreet. Like take my word for it, anyone who knows how visual language works, can instantly tell you author's intent here. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter. Because at an unconscious level, the author has already made you feel that this is an important moment. Whether you consciously realize it or not. That's how visual language works, and this is where author's talent lies.

I know that antis don't see any of it. Or even consider seeing it.

Anyone who ships Sasuke and Naruto, be assured that you caught on the author 's intent, and you were right to trust your instincts. Don't get panicked by whatever the antis say, it doesn't matter, they don't know what they are talking about, just let them be.

And those who say it's all a bait are even sillier. Because at least the others have shipping lenses on, so I get they are affected by their emotional urges. But those who think SNS is unintentional and a total bait are just lying to themselves because they think they are smarter than the whole manga industry, tch, embarrassing.

today is the day

Hey I know that we’re dealing with something huge right now but trump is trying to allow adoption agencies to refuse services to lgbtq+ families.... not only is this descrimination but there are TOO many children in the system for them to allow this. Those kids need homes.... I’m disgusted