Aug 29, 2024

Hue, tint, tone, shade, temperature, a Color is woven from intricate components and can be understood either as moral grayness - a basis - or a Persona. 

Achieving moral grayness in a manichean world is a kaleidoscope of possibilities, for there is an infinite of "gray" depending on both the type and amount of components used. Thus mixing black and white can lead to a pearl or charcoal one, yellow and purple to a browner,  more or less warm depending on the purple being rather red or blue dominant, - and so on with other complementary hues ( primary, secondary, tertiary "colors"). This "gray hue" tint can be modulated by adding a bit of white, its shade by adding black, and its tone by adding another sort of gray. As moral grayness refers to the basis of oneself - the neutral canvas- " the gray hue"  then echoes an amalgamation, a kaleidoscope of emotions and feelings - principal components of the mind. Its brightness (tint) is modulated by humanity's whiteness, its shade by the madness' blackness. As for the tone, the "other gray" could be another person's true self, whose influence will depend on the bond, the bridge between them. On that note, Lumière's relationships with Elise and Father Benedict highlight it well. 

To a certain extent, building a relationship with someone can be boiled down to sharing our " gray", our true color, with them - it's akin to allowing them to see ourselves, our true colors, through a prism, which is none other than a tool breaking up the light in a spectrum after all. Nevertheless, such a thing implies showing vulnerability and doing so in this world is similar to having a sword of Damocles above the head. Therefore it's always easier to blow up the bridges or simply lie - sharing/ showing the wrong colors- to lessen or occult the pain.  

Color symbolism-wise, an interesting thing to point out is that gray is the color of control and consensus. It echoes pretty much this whole process of creating a gray canvas but also Lumière's need to control everything. As for black and white, both can be the sum and the dearth of all colors; "pure black" is found in the depth of a black hole, a space's Abyss, and only the sun diffuse a "pure white". Again, it echoes pretty well the double-faced dynamic, the duality between light and darkness, and one's constant struggle between humanity and madness. 

"Color" understood as a Persona leads to many interesting developments as well. To paint a mask on their "canvas",  one is adorned with a prism to break up the light- different emotions, and feelings - and a kaleidoscope to observe the different personalities they could create with it. The chosen hue's temperature, tint, and shade are then modulated thanks to respectively the Sun's warmth, the Sunlight, and the (accumulated) madness. As for its tone, the veneer on the painting, on the mask, the "basis gray" will ultimately lead to "cracks", as the prior chapters have shown,  so it's necessary to use other/ others' "gray" in one way or another. 

Of course, metaphorically, speaking moral grayness refers more to one's "neutrality" within the good and evil spectrum. Still, that process of "color creation" can be applied as well, but on a more "moral" scale. To a certain extent, a distinction between "moral grayness" and " morally gray" needs to be made, for moral grayness echoes more a notion of control, of subjectivity, and "morally gray"  something inherent, objective somehow impossible to achieve with a human heart.

In other words, someone isn't morally gray but can choose to have a grayer moral. It's perhaps an insignificant difference, but I think it's part of the destination Lumière must not forget. To be morally gray is to lose sight of what is good and evil, to sink into madness.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 23, 2024

Just as flowers and festivals conceal Leiden's madness and tragedy during daylight, Heaven's Roses "conceal" its horror during the night. Concomitantly, as night is the day's shadow, it can be said that anyone wandering about the city's streets at such a time is a creature lying in the darkness.  Overall, when the night falls, masks fall as well.

Thus the red rose becomes yellow, and Ainsworth is left alone with his greed - the cement of his masks, their only component. Therefore, as he realizes the insignificance of everything, cracks adorn his personas, and his whole being to an extent. Indeed, what more could he want when "more" means "nothing" ? How could he move forward when he knows that he is somehow bound to stagnation, each of his steps being infinitesimal in the immensity of the cosmos? Concomitantly, the more he'll possess as an astrologer, the less he'll possess as a human. Still, his greed will be somehow fulfilled, for he will earn more "meaningful" things amongst stars and fate. And as everything will seem meaningless the more he'll ascend, the cost to such a gain will soon be derisory to him. Such a dynamic is interesting.

Overall, greed is an endless void only a madman is able to fill.

To a greater extent, the "void" embodies 2 repulsive forces: necessity and avoidance. Ainsworth's greed somewhat embodies it well, as a void is necessary for him to "exist" as it is both his only driving force and the only component of his masks, but also something he is trying to "avoid" by moving forward, filling it with menial hopes, wishes and property. This probably needs to be toned down a bit though.

At the same time, the void could refer to the concept of "Abyss" depicted by Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, through " He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.” On the one hand, if the Abyss is considered as the depth of human nature, the darkness of humanity where one's monsters ( secrets, problems,  emotions etc.. ) lie within, gazing into this abyss is akin to fighting those monsters, a necessary step to move forward and embrace one's true self. Then, the abyss staring back is nothing less than the very limit of someone's being, the reflection of that "true self", now devoided of darkness. On the other hand, monsters and abyss can simply refer to problems someone has to "fight" in throughout their lives and their aftermaths. 

In both cases however, the risk of becoming what one fights is pregnant. Therefore the meaning of the "Abyss staring back" becomes slightly different. While on a more "psychological" scale one might become the embodiment of their darkest selves - madness- ,  on a less psychological one might simply reproduce the same monstrous acts they fight - e.g murder. 

I find it interesting to "see" such a concept portrayed through both the plot and character development. Such a "play of perspective", how you're trying to depict a concept,  plot, character and character wise, and this sort of "double-edged/faced" dynamic are things I like a lot as well - or at least little details that deserve to be appreciated. It's well-thought-out ^^

Anyway, humanity's loss of meaning goes beyond Ainsworth himself, touching on the value of human relationships, especially that with Lumière. Perhaps as time goes by, even though they will still remain friends, the concept of friendship will have a different meaning for each of them- leading to some misunderstanding, or " treasons' ( that's subjective). To an extreme degree, what if Lumière no longer meant anything to the Father ? Our mc being someone who tends to value the people he care about a lot, I wonder how he will be affected.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 19, 2024

The survival instinct, a vivid, unconscious impulse driving a human being to behave beyond "moral" to ensure their survival, postpone their death as long as possible. Thus someone might bargain their soul, eat others, or create Leiden's cruel "physiognomy" in which each society's strata is tethered either to a cloud of misery or the Sun's embrace.

"Moving forward" is then akin to "ascending" : seeking the "Sun" itself rather than some of its dim beams clouds might have allowed passing through  - the latter being the Dwindlers' purpose, moving "horizontally" if I may say. Being the master of all weapons, changing the world, although the "Sun" is a protean notion, the various means to reach it could be boiled down to the "gain of Power" or at least to a certain "control" over one's world to some degree. Aftermaths are then derisory, risks are worth taking. An eternal rest within a deity kingdom becomes a mere chimera, being damned a reality. As the damned evolve on a forbidden path, where it's no longer possible to go backward, they have "nothing to lose" and everything to gain, so they can only pursue their ascension.

There is something cruel about such a dynamic, for the more they'll come closer to the "Sun", the more they'll be prone to "burn" themselves.

In essence, the latter is nothing more than a ball made of hydrogen and helium- an amalgamation of aspirations whose innocuousness isn't guaranteed - constantly 'consuming' itself, until it no longer does. From achieving one's goals to survival itself, the "consumption"  process can echo many things as well as problematics. Like a moth to a flame, someone bound to ascend is attracted to a certain source of Light, goals to reach. Then, once a "Light" is reached, because stagnation isn't an option or simply by avidity,  they'll need to seek a new, higher one - create new aspirations, and so on until they mistake the Sun for a deadly fire. Furthermore, survival can echo someone's journey - ascension, or the survival of their sun - the constant need to poke their aspirations and hopes until they grow again and again and consume them completely. Concomitantly, the Cards system depicts it well, the more powerful someone will be, the greater target they will become.

Icarus died because he had flown too close to the Sun, then the more someone ascends, the more their humanity will eventually melt away, as well as their initial purpose and means-  just as the beeswax in Daedalus son's wings. There is this Edgard Poe's novel, The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall, in which the protagonist successfully achieved his ascension to the Moon, thanks to a (not so) simple balloon. Then perhaps the key here is to set a lower goal - The moon -,  far away from misery and at a reasonable distance from the Sun to avoid being burned but still benefit from its warmth- just as Icarus should've done. However how is someone supposed to do so in a world where so many means are available to achieve someone's craziest dream or ambition, and more simply where to stagnate is akin to being dead?

Then " ascending" is akin to "surviving", "surviving"  to "moving forward" and " moving forward" to " ascending" and so on and so forth, a bit like an Uroboros' dynamic.

It can be said that Humanity is the fifth cursed domain, for it constitutes the only limit that could prevent someone from fully ascending, but it is also someone's greatest blessing, for it is what prevents them from fully consuming themselves, and falling into madness.

Side note 1 : An interesting fact, I think,  about Dresselle Artois and Lumière's duel is that the latter wounded the master without using his Power, for he only used his performance skills - his humanity. I find it 'funny' that the old man had basically bargained his soul to become the greatest of all, only to be wounded by a "mere human" at the dusk of his life. Another interesting thing symbolism-wise, is the moment they bade farewell how sad it was, and how Lumière didn't turn back - "fighting" his humanity to an extent - and continued to move forward.
Side note 2: So "Adonis' Teacher" wasn't a creature that lie in the darkness Lumière could've seen? Or it was indeed, but as a rather powerful being they managed to "interfere" our mc's abilities?

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 10, 2024

There is something tragic about an earthworm's fate.

Because of a popular belief - cutting one in half leads to creating 2 worms for the price of one, so to speak-  , it's one day bound to be cleaved in twain and thrown to the ground. Such an act won't generate 2 earthworms however, for only the part containing the vital organs may eventually survive, and will be repeated on that living part until the earthworm no longer "regenerates" itself, dead. So is the Man to an extent, fated to regenerate Himself until He no longer does, not always because of death, but simply because there is no longer something to move forward with,  or to move forward to.

Cleaved in twain because of unfortunate events and cleaved to a fate of destruction, Lumière is starting his regeneration. Nevertheless,  although he has decided to become different for the sake of moving forward, it's a tough process. "Regeneration" indeed, isn't only about  "healing" his wounds with Power and moving forward to his aspirations but also, and more importantly, about growing something new from something damaged - his " true self". However, how is he supposed to do such a thing when he doesn't know the meaning of  "Lumière Croft".  Concomitantly, to grow within this world's madness, he needs to generate personas - a process slightly different in that it "simply" evolves around producing something new, detached from his "true self" if I may say. This little difference is something our mc is still struggling to fully grasp, and that's probably why cracks of his true self are adorning each mask he's trying to create ( cf the one of spades one ),  and why he's still lamenting who he once was.

To reiterate, creating a persona isn't akin to growing a mask from his  "true self" and mending its cracks ( remnants of it ) with mere lies -  by doing so, he'll simply let the world change him in the proper sense of the term ( hence his reluctance ). Creating a persona is about producing something new, something he can let the world change again and again as it won't change "him" in essence. "New" implies many things,  from wearing away all he holds dear to shedding the feeling of his heart entirely, as you said. I wonder, then, what will happen if in order to achieve one of his persona's purposes, he has to kill someone "he" - Lumière Croft- holds dear.

On the contrary, perhaps he will never grasp the difference between generation and regeneration and will keep creating personas from pieces of himself, of his Humanity until he no longer can.

As for the multitude of lies and "performances" he's surrounded with. So far, in 6/7 chapters were introduced lies regarding : the one of spades, the  Rememberers, the personas,  him lying to himself to control his emotions/  despair/ and to use his aura ( perhaps ), so one will eventually get those impressions of " oh he has to deal with a lot of stuffs"/ " there are a lot of things at once". Nevertheless, a few things need to be precised.

Most of those lies, if not all, are direct consequences of Lumière being a  Heretic, sinner or human - consequences that are part of the magic system in which madness occupies a large place. Thus, as rudiments of the magic system - especially its pros and cons - have been introduced,  it appears logical that he will have to deal with a lot of things,  especially lies => it's all part of the sanity/ madness duality protrayed since the beginning.

Your idea of him being weighed down by a lot of lies and struggling/ failing is quite explicit and understandable while reading - especially thanks  to Lumière's clumsiness/ """""self awareness""", something I really like about this character. For now, if I have to roughly summarize it,  without having your explanations in mind, it's a bit like " so here are the basis of the magic system and what Lumière has to deal with, let's see how it'll evolve throughout act2" or as if you threw a rock into a lake and the purpose of the act2 is to watch the created waves  ( I don't mean this as a critique, such a schema can be interesting to read  ). If creating such a feeling was your intention, then it's ok, if it wasn't then there will eventually be some little things to change. Was it necessary to introduce them all/ most of them right now? If not,  what are the ones that could be introduced later on? Are there other ways to introduce some "performances" ? On the other hand, you said there was a certain purpose ( if it's something different from what you explained prior ) behind this, so I don't doubt that when this purpose will be explained later on this point will be "clearer".

To sum up, there is indeed this impression of " a lot of things happening at once" but I won't go as far as saying it's too much for now ( of course, if a new performance/lie is added every few chapters without " break" then yes it'll be too much ). I think it's mostly due to the context in which they were introduced and that most of them are "consequences" "imposed" on  Lumière rather than performances he "chooses" to do ( but I think such performances are related to his persona's creation etc.. so it's not a big deal, it's something he's starting to do), so the feeling of " added weight" is emphasized, if I may say. The question now is how much you wanted to emphasize this feeling of " added weight"  at this time of the plot. If you were more for the  "rock thrown into the water" schema, then you did pretty well - although another question will be how " hard" you wanted to throw the rock into the water"/ how many "performances" you wanted to introduce "at once".

On that note, the "schema" itself doesn't really matter, what matters the most is how interesting you'll portray it, and that's something we'll see later on, and ,more importantly, not something that can be inferred from the beginning of Act 2 - so the relevance of my words is negligible.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 07, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

hello ^^

The 2 Lords being enemies was just me over-interpreting and going into perhaps preposterous reasoning, not necessarily a result of you being too vague with the Mr Sand's line.

To make it more explicit, as "4 opposite parties" and one problem/purpose "Kill the Sin/ Obliterate the sin", which surely needs to be tone down and adapted to each of them, had been introduced, I just wondered was could possibly drive each of them to gain such a purpose, a bit like searching a "crime's motive."

A sibling's relationship is something really complex to a certain extent. Brothers can be good "friends" as well as the greastest enemies, I voluntarily chose the latter extreme to explain Lord Dreamer's potential " crime motive" if he ever has one. Lets say that such a choice stuck pretty well to some conjectures/ impressions I had, and that ironically interpreting that Mr Sand's line provided some good content to slyly exploit. To a greater extent, if two brothers sharing the same thing doesn't make them enemies, then is not sharing that turn them as such ? Then what aren't they sharing? Why ? Is it because they are brothers that they cannot be enemies? What is making brothers enemies? More simply what if "it" all started because of a brother's conflict ? And so on and so forth.

Anyway, as for the 3 stars confusion, it wasn't a result of a lack of explanation, but just me having terrible memory. Ditto for the people who killed Aris, as she had killed the 9 Remembers ( and said to Lumière they were 9, perhaps I just over-interpreted this line )  before the 3 figures appeared, I just thought they somehow weren't related.

As always, thank you for the useful explanations

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 06, 2024

Resentment, jealousy, hatred, love, the heart is a grave of infinite passions. While the noblest tend to live bathed within the Sun's embrace, the most ignoble lurk in their shadows, until they no longer. An event, an encounter, a misunderstanding, something occurred indeed, and a little seed of something else was sown. As time went by, this seed eventually grew bigger and bigger to become a tree that eclipsed the  Sun. And so the heart slowly darkened, and its blood of hatred eventually became the fuel that drove a brother to forestall his sibling's existence. On the other hand, perhaps for a brother to rest under the Sun the other needed to rest in the Shadow, until he no longer wanted to; perhaps those 2 brothers are akin to Ouroboros, snakes fated to eat their own tail ( each other ). Perhaps one was right and one was wrong, perhaps they were both wrong or both right. Nonetheless, they became enemies. 

At least, those are the few conjectures that occurred to me in order to explain Lord Sinner and Lord Dreamer's conflict, one of the roots of the problem.That is to say that Lord Dreamer may be the antagonist you said the Alinsander vs Alain duel was a means to foreshadow, the one the Joker was referring to, the one now resting in the Shadow. That may perhaps explain why the shadow of himself whom Lumière saw after the duel had the same aesthetic as Despair - a long fluttering black cloak surrounded by a thousand crows for the "Sin" and thousands of illusory ( perhaps illusory here echos the notion of dream ) ravens for the  Shadow. Then, just as ravens and crows are part of the same species but slightly different in aesthetic, Lord Sinner and Lord Dreamer are brothers, share a common basis, but remain different, slightly different - like Lies and Dreams, Shadow and Being, Life and Death - an eternal rest. On a larger scale, this duality difference/ similarity lies within small details like the birds'. 

Perhaps I'm extrapolating over a simple lexicon change, in any case, the raven/  crow and the similarity between the two shadows was actually a question I wanted to ask you for some time now. 

( Middle side note 1 : I think Demeter might be affiliated to Lord Dreamer now ( he said " Little Dreamer" to Lumière). )

On the other hand, other potential " enemies" - for they seem to have the same purpose ( kill the " Sin" : this perhaps needs to be toned down )- have been introduced: the Rememberes,  the 3 figures that killed Aris and the Phantoms. 

About the 3 great figures, I'm simply wondering if they are the 3 Deities,  the 3 stars - I think there were 3 - introduced in the very beginning.  As for The Phantoms, for now I think they might be somehow affiliated to Lord Dreamer. Regarding the Rememberers, it's hard to " decipher" their intentions. On the one hand, one might say that killing the "Sin" is a means for them to prevent the world's end, and one might argue that it's because they had killed Aris' beloved ones that the world ended on the other.

Overall, being surrounded with beings who seemingly have bad intentions,  is making Lumière even more " strained"  as a Liar.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Aug 03, 2024

Among strange occurrences, "déjà vu" occupies a large place. Indeed,  what is more intriguing than that strange feeling of somehow having  already experienced something, or already came accross what seems to be a perfect stranger or place. A lot of interesting works have been made on a psychological/ neuropsychological scale to explain such a phenomenon rationally. As they use rather abstract or 'complicated' concepts,  delving a bit into them will quickly become 'overwhelming' , however there are 2 theories that might be useful to try to explain 2 elements :  Lumière's déjà vu about the mysterious man in the dream and the  "Remembers" abilities. 

I  already had had some assumptions regarding Etta and Artis' proximity  before you pointed out in a comment that it was funny I mentioned them  in the same sentence. However, I had presumed that their proximity,  their strange demeanor, was a result of Lumière's future self sending  warning to his old self through strange occurrences, something like  that. Anyway, so when you pointed that out, I realized that perhaps  their proximity could've been boiled down to something simpler : another 'pathway'/ organization. Then, all that remained was to find some "bits" and "weave" them together. 

Firstly, they held  the same kind of "esoteric" speech  -  a speech akin to  remembrance but also slightly different from The Joker's even though the later also knew many things . Secondly, their speech shared the same  "crux" word : remember - even though the latter was employed differently but I'm leaving this point as a side note. Thirdly, while this might  not be that relevant, the term "Gnosis"  : gnosis means "knowledge" in  greek. Concomitantly, the book "Poe's gnosis" being a collection of past knowledge, Lumière's predecessor are sharing their knowledge-  their  'Cognis' - with him, its current owner. Thus, to a greater extent, I  assumed that it was possible that such a mechanism- " cognis' sharing"-  could've been the crux of a certain pathway, the one of people who  "remember". Fourthly, during Aris' dream, among the group of nine  people's, there was a little boy whose physiognomy was akin to that of  Etta. As for the name remember, I just did a simple analogy : if people  who " sin" are " Sinner", then people who " remember" are "Remembers". 

At least that's the conclusion I've come to ^^ 

Anyway, the 2 theories I mentioned prior are the " subdivision of "déjà vu" and  the " Jamais-vu" ( never seen roughly translated ). As its name  suggests, " subdivision of déjà vu" implies that the " déjà vu"  phenomenon can be divided in 3 categories : déjà vécu ( already lived) , déjà senti ( already felt; it's more of a sensation, an particular  emotion), déjà visité ( already visited; a new place seems familiar to  the point of being able to find one's way instinctively). The " jamais  vu" on the other hand, simply refers to a situation that has already  been experienced but is perceived as "new".

Applied to Lumière. On the one hand, the " subdivision of déjà vu" could  explain his familiarity with the mysterious man. About the latter,  I'm probably wrong, but I'm wondering if it's not Demeter to a certain  extent as our mc's overall demeanor was akin to the one he got when he  had met the magician + during the latter's performance there were  elements such as a book/ mist/  a dove I think/ Lumière's incapacity to  discern the man's face/ the magician's disappearance in the mist/ the  magician qualification as an ' Illusionist'.  Given what was explained  in the prior chapters, they seem to be  more than mere coincidences to  me. In addition, Demeter's purpose - make people smile - is somewhat, in essence,  of the same vein as Lumière or Gluttony's ( perhaps not  Gluttony ) => what I mean is that, up to now, Sinner's purposes were  rather mhh innocent ? Harmless  ? Those might not be the exact words but idk how to explain it properly. 

With this assumption in mind, then his " déjà vécu"/ 'déjà senti" in the dream  will simply echo to what he experienced as a child. And his " child's  déjà vu" echoed a situation that had happened before. As for what  situation it was, I don't know yet. On the other hand, and with a bit of over interpretation, what if Lumière is actually experiencing a sort of Jamais vu ? Like he's actually in a sort a time-loop. However as he is  unable to remember, he's perceiving everything as new ? Then his déjà vu will simply be actual memories of his past ? 

As for the ' Remembers' abilities,  I'm just wondering if the ' Cognis'  the members are sharing is simply the " déjà vu" of their predecessors  to a certain extent. Such an assumption could explain why Artis  remembered that Lumière is a Magnet for tragedy. However there are many things I can't explain  yet : why Etta is still alive if Aris killed him before the same physiognomy as the late little boy, why they didn't kill Lumière, a sinner, in the same way they killed Kalum if  they can remember and if everything is indeed a time-loop. The answer  probably lies within their Power and its limit. 

Side note 1 : there are 2 little typos
- "and the sunlight shoen" , you probably meant shone
-" her round face face"
Side note 2 : as for the 9 persons Aris 'killed' being Remembers, that's just an assumption of me

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jul 31, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

Hello ^^

So each type of card encompasses a specific Cursed Domain with specific related powers ( E.g Spades = Heretic/ Clubs = Black Magic; power related to shadow / Hearts= Alchemist/ Diamonds= Astrologist ) ? If so,  ( or even without prior knowledge),  I don't think it was hard to pick up a little correlation between the power both the ratman and  'Six of clubs' used - but this might probably depend on the reader. As for whether such a power was Spades or Clubs related, it's something the reader might learn later on when explanation of this magic system part will be provided. 

On that note, I don't think you necessarily messed up with something plot-wise : what "needed" to be improved on this aspect had been improved, and the whole first act sticks pretty well to the "main axes"  you had in mind, your intentions. As for the "mistakes"  I mentioned regarding the rewritten part, those were more "aesthetic oriented" - something that tends to remain subjective in essence - so they didn't really affect the plot itself nor its "execution". They weren't mistakes in the proper sense of the term but more little things that can be improved, if you ever want to.

Overall, it was a pretty good first act, you did well. I enjoyed reading it in its entirety. 

I hope that you're happy with how it turned out as well, for this is what matters the most in the end.

As always, thank you for your precious explanations.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jul 30, 2024

There is this Francis Bacon's short essay - Of Revenge - in which he, as its title suggests, depicts 4 sorts of Revenge notably "tolerable revenge" and " unlawful revenge". To sum up, while the former implies revenge taking place for the wrong isn't reprehended by law, the latter is basically the opposite: one decide to avenge themselves even though the wrong is punished by law.
Concomitantly, he deals with some other notions such as wild justice- Revenge itself- , forgiveness - a man's greatest behavior-,Revenge's purpose, which is according to him more a matter of obtaining the other's repentance than their agony, before "concluding" with these words: " A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal, and do well."

Elise's unfortunate death bathed Lumière in darkness, wrapping his heart in a heavy rain, grief. Over time, were coming waves of resentment, lightnings of anger, and gusts of regret, so this already heavy rain quickly escalated in a scathing storm, a monstrous wound, an amalgamation of man's darkest feelings. Thus, for how those are closely linked together, and for how healing one of them will just increase others' painfulness", it can be said that his wound is perhaps bound to forever bleed.

Nevertheless, it's precisely because his wound is bleeding that our mc is trying to move forward : to a certain extent the more it'll bleed, the more he'll do so - and this all the cruelty of the world he's living in. This is rather interesting to have on the one hand our mc dealing with madness from a psychological pov by creating personas and so on, and to have him conscientiously and consciously "hurting" himself - keeping his heart's wound green,so to speak - on the other to move forward. It's a bit like a sort of "perpetual - unstable- roberval- scale", or as if Lumière is a tightrope walker with a balancing pole progressing on his journey's frail wire.

As for Lumière's 'Revenge', depending on the pov, it can either be seen as 'tolerable revenge' or 'unlawful' for Etten-Leur being a lawless place and Leiden a “Lawful” city. On that note, I really loved how The Joker qualified it as an 'alternate end', because, well idk how to explain it properly but I think that such an expression as a 'whole' seems more relevant than the term " Revenge" and encompasses pretty well the 'trigger' of Lumière journey, as to 'why' he chose to move forward. In short, this more or less reminds me of this Invictus line " I am the master of my fate"

Speaking of lines, Lumière almost rhetorical question ' What am I now' is also pretty interesting. Not solely because of the personas he's bound to create, but also because of him being torn between several purposes from which several 'subsequent personas' are already resulting : the wish granter ( cherish the world) , the avenger ( avenge Elise), the magician ( change the world ).On the other hand he used "what" instead of 'who', I won't extrapolate over this but, again, it's rather interesting. Overall, even though such a question may have an infinite number of answers, I hope Lumière will find the 'right' one for him.

I've read a book recently, The Archive of Alternate Endings by Lindsey Drager, and one of its lines echoed pretty well SOTS' "tragic tales never emphasise how traumatic saying goodbye is." I don't have the exact quote in mind but it's something like " tales are told for one purpose only, that is to say " being human is difficult, here is some evidence". Throughout this first act, Lumière bade farewell to his humanity, and the rest of his journey will, perhaps, be him trying to preserve its remnants, in a cruel, monstrous world.

Side note : again in "The power of the card that woman used - the six of Spades could control shadow. " I think you probably meant " Six of Clubs" instead of "Six of Spades"

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jul 28, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

Oh I see ^^ I may have further questions to ask you later on. As for now,  and as always, thank you for your explanations, they help me greatly. On a more general note,  it's simply interesting to have a glimpse of your thought process, so thanks again for taking some of your time to share some of it when possible.I'll keep in mind your "concerns" regarding the magic system. I hope you are doing well too

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jul 28, 2024

When I read the chapter prior to this one, I had forgotten that a) there was an invitation within the package that Thomas gave to Lumière; b) the one of spades had been given to our mc by the emissary - a “servant” of the lord Sinner.

In short, I had assumed that the "Heretic" was a separate path from the Sinner. Therefore, when the card was handed to Lumière and he was enjoined to become a heretic + knowing that the Ratman had been sent by the Phantoms - a foe - the "purpose" of the encounter with the Ratman could be interpreted differently : if Lumière couldn't be killed and managed to kill the Amalgamation, then he could be "suppressed" by being corrupted - by choosing an alternative path to Sinner's, that of the Heretic - and "rallied" to the Phantoms thanks to the Card. And all this without Thomas or anyone else being aware of it : somehow Lumière would have progressed along the Sinner's Pathway to a certain point - "where" he could have switched to the Heretic's Pathway.  

In order to explain such interchangeability, one had to roughly assume that they were somewhat related, either by sharing the same "domain" or by having some sort of common background, rooted either in their respective power - the Sin - or in the relationship between the lords of both paths. In the same way, it was precisely this "connection" that allowed Lumière to enter Lord Sinner's domain without any "invitation".

Anyway, as of now, I think most of this might be pure rambling.

Rather than being a mere Pathway - under the leadership of both the Lord Sinner and another Lord - Heretic is more likely to be seen as a sort of upper sequence of the Sinner Pathway, or an independent "organization". Being the latter seems more "adequate" and would explain, among other things, why the Phantoms would send a holder of a card likely to increase Lumière's power, a potential beacon of Lord Sinner, or why the card was simply given to Lumière by the emissary. Then being a Heretic "allows one to borrow greater powers".  As for how it's working, it will surely be explained later, so I won't delve on it.

Then the one of spades is just a "mere" means to achieve greater power, and from the different aesthetics of the cards come different categories of power, or the various aesthetics of the Lords chaperoning different members, etc...

Speaking of aesthetics, maybe the various aspects of the labyrinth within the darkness echo the aesthetic of the various Lords controlling the 13 sections/pathways to reach its center. This could explain this sort of "battle of the Lords" over something - the center- or more simply, the Lord Sinner's "greatest purpose". Furthermore, if it turns out that this labyrinth was indeed a part of Lord Sinner domain, then its 13 different aesthetics could refer to 13 different sins.

On a more symbolic note, those different aesthetics could also refer to Lumière's "future" personas, and the center of the labyrinth could be his true self, or the power he's trying to acquire. At the same time, as the goal of the labyrinth, as opposed to a maze, is to reach the center and get out, this could well represent the journey of our mc in some way - but anyway, I think this is more of a digression.

All of this is making me very curious, especially the "mystery" surrounding the one of spades and the cards in general. Symbolism aside, depending on the game, certain cards can be of capital importance, as in Spades, just as one of them can be the card to avoid, as in Old Maid I think. Overall, there is plenty of room to explore, so I can't wait to see what you planned ^^

Side note 1 : Was the use of "six of spades" in the " woman who called herself the six of spades" to refer to  the "six of clubs" woman  intentional ? 
Side note 2 : the rule " 1 Lord/ 1 pathway" might not be 100% relevant

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 27, 2024

If "the most curious spectacle in life is that of death." (Alexandre Dumas ), what's most curious here is that this spectacle is devoid of an audience. This may seem strange in a world where everyone witnesses death to a greater or lesser extent, where lifeless corpses of Dwindlers litter the streets, where some die under the blade of a foil or a bullet while others succumb under even more obscure circumstances. However, it's precisely because of its prevalence that death has lost its meaning, or at least the latter has been distorted by the notion of "survival". Thus, in a world where it's no longer a question of living and dying, but of surviving or dying, "taking someone's life" becomes a means like any other, even a privileged one, to survive or to resolve conflicts, as shown by the one between Alain and Alinsander.

On that note, by any chance, isn't "king's to me" a reference to the Count of Monte Cristo? I can't seem to recall if it was really a part of the novel itself but I'm sure it was something, if not an interesting symbolism, in one of its adaptations. In any case, there is still a nice parallel to draw between Alain's less-than-honorable victory and Mondego's "victory" following his plot against Dantes, the end justifying the means.

On the other hand, death is deprived of an audience because in a world were to move forward is to survive, stopping to stargaze - to mourn -  is simply a luxury only a handful can afford, and stopping to observe the ground studded with corpses - to celebrate it-  is a risk that many must avoid, madness not being far away , as shown by Lumière's flight at the end of the duel. Although the reasons for this are different, I think it underlines well the cruelty of this world that keeps on turning, where time never stands still , where strange occurrences are not just these strange phenomena but simply these people forced to move forward because stopping would mean "dying" in their turn.

Speaking of strange occurrences, knowing that the shadow of Lumière represented Despair ( I think ), I wonder then if the creatures within the shade - beyond being hallucinations - represent the persona of others - their Sin, this not being the result of them being bound by a contract like our mc  but simply one of Lumière's powers gained by the one of spades. A power that allows him to see someone's greatest sin, to better "corrupt" them in a way.

Also, in the early chapters, the goddess of thorns was depicted weeping "tears of madness" but, if this wasn't a strange occurrence, why would a deity be portrayed like that ?  Is this a way of saying that she "absorbs" the madness of her devotees/protects them from madness, or does it refer to her own madness? Then is the latter  different from Lumière's ?

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 25, 2024

To define "good" and "evil", Spinoza, I think, assumed that these concepts were nothing more than notions - devoid of positivity - formed from mere comparisons. Thus, by extension, morality would encompass a set of standards, the future of a Manichean distinction. These standards, from the most shared to the most varied, nonetheless have a common root: they are operated under a human frame of reference, a frame of reference that would prove ineffective in labeling the conduct of the goddess of thorns as "good" or "evil" - as Father Benedict points out. As a result, the misfortunes and trials endured by anyone would only serve to make "their lives more enjoyable ", in that it's by being plunged into the Shadow that one will better appreciate the Light - the Sun.

On that note, bearing in mind the words of Etta, Father Benedict and Artis, if deities can't feel empathy, that emotion being solely human, ultimately all they can do is remember. Then, to an extent, a deity would be "someone who remembers", someone who would try to make each life enjoyable ? So, as it's a rather broad concept, "someone's" appreciation of "a good life" and the means to achieve it would diverge according to their "own" morality, giving rise to various deities, evil entities or sects/organizations and situations such as the Dwindlers in opposition to the upper class.

On the other hand, since Lumière is more or less destined to become close to the state of divinity, sooner or later these two kinds of "morality" - human morality with human standards & and divine morality- will come into a more or less direct confrontation. Sometimes, perhaps, one will win out over the other without too much trouble, the differences being minimal, but what happens when a choice Lumière has to make is labeled "right" according to one and "wrong" according to the "other"? It may echo what you explained about our mc "clash of goals" and the fact that it's not and never has been a question of "good" or "evil".

So, if Lumière succeeds in creating a world where the sun shines on everyone, the latter may nevertheless shine differently, or even "not shine" in certain regions - because of a rain cloud, symbolically and materially speaking - but does this necessarily make him inherently evil ?

After all, every cloud has a silver lining.

In any case, it's something I find really interesting.

Side note 1: in a way, the conversation between Lumière and Father Benedict could perfectly well refer to a future discussion between someone who wouldn't understand Lumière's actions - who would see him as a "villain" - and someone who would "understand" them. By extension, the situation depicted in these first 20 chapters could perfectly echo the situation of someone in the "future" world created by Lumière - if he succeeds in doing so.
Side note 2: Lumière being a future antagonist and not a "villain" makes perfect sense.
Side note 3: the duel in which our mc takes part will be an opportunity to apply this notion of "morality".

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 24, 2024

"Hope would be the greatest of human forces if despair did not exist" ( Victor Hugo ). Thus, it was by embodying "despair" that Lumière became able to strike down with one hand the one whose hands were stained with the blood of hundreds of innocents. It was by abandoning his humanity (hope/ becoming a magician ) that he became one a powerful "man" , but  also one of the most unfortunate, to an extent - in that "his humanity", his Sun, abandoned him in turn, Elise having died in his arms.

At first glance, I thought that the main reason Thomas didn't want to intervene was simply that he wanted our mc to fully grasp the extent of his powers, to feel the true Despair, in that there's nothing more despairing than not being able to protect our loved ones despite our ability to do so - in this case, the powers of Lumière.

On the other hand, his desire to ensure that this encounter sharpens Lumière's motivations makes perfect sense, because unlike his first face-to-face encounter with an amalgamation, where different motivations were "provided" by Thomas (protect/save himself/survive), here he "chooses" to "change the world/the system" on his own volition. By extension, isn't such a conviction the reason why "we always try to make every life enjoyable" as Etta -who is probably much more than just a little boy- mentioned prior? The sun and what it may encompass? That's food for thought.

Anyway, speaking of strange occurrences, the meaning of "remember" used by Etta might be different from that used by Artis. In the first case, "to remember" would mean to remember what Lumière chose to act for - his conviction -, in the second, to remember who he really is - a tragedy magnet given the words of the genius blade.

On the other hand, remembering who he really is could mean remembering his humanity - Lumière Croft - , that invariably, and despite the multiple "alternative persona" he will create, he will remain ultimately himself, and that in the words of the emissary, the "human heart being terrifying", what will be truly dangerous/terrifying in the future will not really be "madness" but simply his human heart? That the real madness won't come from the counterpart of his powers, but simply from his heart ? Compassion, love, resentment, hope, despair - these are just some of the emotions/feelings that can assail his heart and make him act "unpredictably" or do "terrifying"/outrageous things.

Overall, it reminds me of this well-known quote "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Here, beyond history, "past" could echo multiple things, I'm not sure of what exactly yet, but it may be something important.

Also, I don't know if this is considered a strange occurrence, but I got the same impression from Lumière's meeting with Demeter , in that I feel like the latter's aim was also, besides introduce Lumière to the world of "magic",  to portray  the "once the performance is over, you have/need to leave the stage" dynamic. Perhaps it may echo our mc's "goobye" at the very end of his journey, his performance?

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 21, 2024

I don't think this action necessarily needs to be depicted more visually; replacing "and" with "while" or any other little word to make it flow a little more smoothly is just as good.
=>  "Lumière opened the door to his room before shutting it behind him [while sighing ]/ [ a faint sigh escaping from his lips/ letting a sigh escape his lips ]."
=> "A deep sigh escaped his lips as he shut the door to his room behind him."

Secondly, in terms of "action", juxtaposing the last two sentences + re-using Lumière, without establishing a concrete link between them tends to take away from the fluidity of your narrative. Moreover, the key point here was both to subtly underline, through the cold and the open window, the fact that someone had broken into his room & to accompany Lumière's realization - something I really loved . Nevertheless, such an intention is obliterated by its succinctness. Once again, big changes aren't absolutely necessary: merging these two sentences & adding an adverb to support the abnormality of the open window is enough.

=> After a few steps inside, he immediately noticed the chill that bit at his skin : the window was indeed open, letting the midnight air seep in.

In the same vein, another example:  "The magician took out a thick and heavy dark-brown leather-bound book from the HAT BEFORE showing it off to the crowd, BEFORE DROPPING IT BACK INTO THE HAT . He DROPPED IT BACK INTO THE HAT, but there was no audible sound." ( chap 13 )
=>With the same smile, he took out a thick and heavy dark-brown leather-bound book from his hat, and showed it to the amazed crowd before heavily dropping it back inside, with no audible sound.

About the descriptions :

Beyond being obliterated by repetition, the beauty of certain descriptions is simply tarnished by the way they are organized, "presented".

I'll just give you 2/3 examples to explain what I mean.

lets have a look at this paragraph during Lumière's fight against the rat man ( chap 17 ) :

"Out of the cloud of soot, Lumière hurled the pocket watch onto the floor of the monastery. Crazily, the man and his dozen shadowy arms lept towards the sudden sound, crashing towards the floor with an ear-piercing howl that shook the foundation of the building.  Alongside the thrown pocket watch, Lumière rushed towards the man, allowing his suppressed fear to keep him moving forward. Lumière had positioned himself opposite the hall's exit. While there was a staircase to his left, it was nearly impossible to make it there without being caught by the crazed multi-armed man, and even if he was able to make it up to the second floor, there was still no readily available escape. So, by positioning himself in such a way, Lumière had forced himself to have only one option of survival - the elimination of the mysterious and terrifying being that stood before him."

Firstly,  let's assume there are 3 phases: 1) Lumière throws the watch as a diversion, 2) the monster takes the bait, & Lumière takes the opportunity to "attack", 3) the explanation of why Lumière attacks instead of running away. => Thus, to make these elements more identifiable and emphasize them more, - and to an extent bring a little more rhythm - why not divide this large paragraph into 3 smaller ones?

1) "Out of the cloud of soot, Lumière hurled the pocket watch onto the floor of the monastery."

2) "Crazily, the man and his dozen shadowy arms lept towards the sudden sound, crashing towards the floor with an ear-piercing howl that shook the foundation of the building.  Alongside the thrown pocket watch, Lumière rushed towards the man, allowing his suppressed fear to keep him moving forward."

Here, as you've already mentioned that Lumière threw the watch, I don't think it was essential to specify "Alongside the thrown pocket watch" again. Rather, to emphasize the simultaneity of the actions and avoid repetition, a logical connector might do the trick. As for the repetition of "Lumière", replacing it with one of its "synonyms" would bring a little more nuance, ditto regarding the rat man & "towards".
=> Crazily, the man and his dozen shadowy arms lept towards the sudden sound, crashing against the floor with an ear-piercing howl that shook the foundation of the building. Then/ concomitantly/ at the same time,  the chesnut-haired boy rushed towards the monstrous figure, allowing his suppressed fear to keep him moving forward.

3) "Lumière had positioned himself opposite the hall's exit. While there was a staircase to his left, it was nearly impossible to make it there without being caught by the crazed multi-armed man, and even if he was able to make it up to the second floor, there was still no readily available escape. So, by positioning himself in such a way, Lumière had forced himself to have only one option of survival - the elimination of the mysterious and terrifying being that stood before him."

Here, how the description is introduced, given the context - an action scene - tends to cut the pace and reduce the tension built up to this point, in that the latter has a rather calm rhythm. Moreover, there are some repetitions: positioned/positioning, Lumière, himself - which I think is mostly due to the fact that the phrases are referring to the same essence: Lumière positioned himself in a particular place 1) to force himself to attack the monster/to make the monster's death his only salvation 2) because in any case (this word is important in that it symbolizes the contrast/duality between these choices - which can be a good element to exploit), his chances of survival would have been low if he'd run away. On that note, knowing that these possibilities are hypothetical, "if he were" might be more suitable than "if he was" ?

Then rather than a "result, cause, result" pattern, a simple "cause, result" one, using a few connectors to support the weight of each of the propositions/ contradictions, might be more balanced.

=> Although there was a staircase to his left, it was nearly impossible for him to make it there without being caught by the crazed multi-armed man, and even if he were able to do so, there was still no readily available escape. Thus, by positioning himself opposite to the hall's exit, Lumière was only left with one option of survival :  the elimination of the mysterious and terrifying being that stood before him.

I had another example, more access on pure description rather than an action scene, about the long coats of leiden at the beginning of chapter 4. However I'm sleepy so I'll just elude this point or come back to it later as a side note.

More generally, with regard to both the repetitions and the description, the problem is mostly related to a notion of balance rather than a real one regarding the "writing itself". Indeed, the sentences viewed in isolation are pretty well written, the problem lies more in how they're articulated together - which is ,again, more a matter of proofreading/ revising/ editing . As for the little repetition at the very heart of the sentences or the lack of nuance, I think that being immersed in the writing must also have a lot to do with it.

In the same way, throughout these remarks my point wasn't to disparage or demean your work, nor was it to say that one way of writing prevails over another or that repetitions must exclusively be corrected in a certain way. Through the 5 senses, a change of focus, with regard to the context etc... there are plenty of ways to remedy this and which will influence what seems most appropriate. To an extent, personal taste is also what will play a big part - that's why my remarks are "classified" from the most to the least relevant.

I actually pondered a bit about the matter and concluded that beyond the fact that I'm picky, if not too much when it comes to repetitions, or sometimes not that relevant enough, perhaps this was simply a stylistic choice or your prose that evolved this way. If that's the case, I respect it and probably won't address these points ( repetitions/ description) in the future in that you now know my point of view on them and my remarks will be more scathing than useful. If this isn't the case, then I don't doubt that further revising/ editing/ proofreading, will help you remedy the situation.

In any case, it was a pleasant rewrite to read, you did well, and I can't wait to read more ^^ 2/2

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1