Time Travel Game Mechanics

I know what you're thinking. "Mary, you just wrote an incredibly long, introspective post about a 90s anime! Why are you posting again so soon?" Well, my answer is two words -- Night Shift.

Well, after thinking and reading a ton of history articles/books while passing the time during a slow shift, I sat down yesterday afternoon with the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide and wrote down some notes I thought I would share when/if I run this game. I got some good feedback after my last post, however, I find it is best for me to play in a system first before running it.

 

 

 

First off, to run this game, there would be a lot of pre-game work/planning. For one, I like to do my research. I understand this is just a silly table top and I obviously would take liberties for the sake of plot like any movie would do, but I like to be accurate/respectful as possible regarding my depiction of historical events. I do absorb historical trivia like a gelatinous cube absorbs adventurers but still.

 

Come here, working knowledge of medieval swordsmanship

 

 

Additionally, it would be up to the GM to create character sheets of the people of the past the PCs inhabit. I really like these types of mechanics as a GM because I just enjoy watching how resourceful my players can be. I like the randomness of it. Also, I want to put little surprises too, like you're in the body of a famous historical figure. It shouldn't be that much of a burden because I do get great joy in creating characters. I'm odd like that.

 

 

The more I think about this game idea, the more I am leaning towards the PCs being university students. And I'm sort of thinking about Geneva, Switzerland as the university's location but that is subject to change.Why this location? Well, I like the idea of university students because there is some maturity in the characters but also young enough in which they would make abundant mistakes. I chose Switzerland because it is an international city and wanted to open up the door more easily for not just Americans if my players wanted to.

 

Besides, I only spent one day here but I fell in love with Geneva

 

Anyways, I have begun to work on a hack for this game idea. I never ripped apart a system before -- a couple really -- and sewed it together to this Frankenstein monstrosity. Okay, I'm exaggerating slightly. The rules I'm using are still mostly Cortex. I am just tossing in some other ideas and taking out others. It has elements of both Dramatic and Action Cortex.

 

 

For one, I decided the base stats will be Values; Duty, Glory, Justice, Love, Power, and Truth. And like with Dramatic, each value has a statement assigned to it like Duty would be, "I will make sure my family is safe no matter what" or for Justice, "The rules are made to be broken."

 

 

Next, each character chooses three distinctions. This is not different from the other Cortex Plus systems. Additionally, characters will choose 1 or 2 Talents or Assets. This game is not magic heavy at all and as a result, I expect talents for the PCs would lean on the mundane side. One PC could have a talent called Gossip Queen which increases the trouble pool to find out one fact about a person. Things like that.

 

 

There will be a skill list which will either be just like the Classes skills I had for my last game or the PCs will have their own skill list made from college classes. Or I may just end up using a generic skill list.

 

 

I'm also taking Milestones from Marvel Heroic, although for the Past People Skins (PPS), they will take on a different form. Each PPS has an immediate goal. It can be something like "Take this message to George Washington" or something like, "Get that hug from Daddy." If the PCs accomplish the PPS's goal, they can take a skill, distinction, or talent from the PPS that can be carried over when the scenario is over.

 

 I plan on fiddling with stress levels a bit and may make my own system. 

Here is where I'm really playing with rules.

 

 

Using distinctions in the past:

 

When the PC would like to use their own distinctions in the past, they must always use a d4. If the PC succeeds, they may choose to step back a PPS distinction for the scene to step up the PC's own distinction to a d8. If the PC fails, that distinction is locked out to the PC for the rest of the scene.

 

 

 If the PC steps back all PPS distinctions, all abilities from the PPS is locked out until the PC goes to sleep. Essentially what happens is instead of sharing bodies, the PC and the past person completely switch bodies. The PC loses access to the past person's memories, abilities, and mannerisms. For instance, if the PC go to Ancient Rome and steps back all PPS's distinctions, the PC doesn't understand what anyone is saying and forgets proper etiquette when entering a temple of Jupiter. In the present, the PC's body is suddenly panicking and speaking only archaic Latin, confusing everyone.

 

And might go crazy and inflict mindless vandalism (see what I did thar?)

 

 

Using Talents in the past:

 

PCs can use their own talents, but must spend an additional plot point or step back a PPS's distinction for the scene. The idea here is, is you are basically two people but you are closer to the body you an inhabit. It is easier to access abilities that way.

 

 

Challenging Values:

 

Whenever the PC and PPS's values or goals are in conflict, the PC must roll against the PPS's value. If the PC loses, the PC is compelled to go through with the goal and takes a level in stress. If the PC succeeds, the PC's value dice for that value becomes dominant for the scene and must face the roleplaying consequences if there are any.

 

 

When it comes to rolling values, PCs roll whichever is higher or which ever value statement best fits the situation of what the PC is trying to do. For instance, Tiberius, the PPS for the PC Nikki has a Duty of d10 with the statement, "I will do what is best for Rome" while Nikki has a d8 Duty to "I will look out for the little guy." Nikki/Tiberius wants to intervene in a robbery that is taking place. Duty fits here best but Nikki's statement fits even better than Tiberius. After all, looking away for five minutes won't destroy Rome, however Nikki's insistence of helping the little guy is what is dominating her reasoning for intervening.

 

 

Conversely, let's say Tiberius is not an upstanding citizen and is just a careless merchant only caring for a quick buck and the poor unfortunate soul is being beaten/robbed because he owes a debt to Tiberius. His Duty statement is "I look out for number one". In that case, Nikki and Tiberius's values are at odds with each other and require an opposing roll.

 

Roll Fail: "Carry On"

 

 

This is all I have right now I am willing to share. I have begun brainstorming on some scenarios in my mind for whenever I run this game (who knows when this will be? I still want to run Avatar but the pull of this one is becoming stronger). If you know me, you may be able to guess at least one of the ideas. Two, if you're really good in your Mary trivia. 

I have the urge to watch Life of Brian for some reason now.

You Never Read the Same Story Twice -- How I Changed Since the First Time I Watched Fushigi Yuugi

When I particularly like a story, it is not unusual for me to revisit it again years later.  Some stories are just like old friends that you sometimes get a cup of coffee with when you're in town. You chat, you catch up, you reminisce. Then you part ways again, vowing to get together more often but that is really just a formality because you both know you probably won't. It is still nice to see them again, though, and you can gauge just how much they stayed the same and how much they have changed. And counter to that, you may even see how much you have changed too -- hopefully for the better. 

I hope there is hot cocoa

That is the benefit I get from rewatching an old movie or a beloved TV show or replaying a video game. Usually, while I may be familiar with plot points, I tend to get something completely different out of it since the last time I experienced it. Much like that old friend, I find I changed and see the world differently than how I once did. It is a great way to assess where I am in my personal growth. Characters I loved, I may find annoying or vise versa. Jokes I found funny aren't now but I picked up humor somewhere else. I noticed a theme I didn't notice before, etc.

Certain media, I practically make a ritual out of it. I watch Avatar: the Last Airbender at least once a year. I play Final Fantasy X every couple of years. Scrubs is another one I will watch again. There are others. Each time, I get something different out of the experience. I'll attach myself to a different character. I will notice a theme that speaks to issues I am trying to work out at that point in time and find comfort in it. I will experience nostalgia which will make me call an old friend I haven't spoken to in a while. Maybe call my parents for once. I find it cathartic.

For the record: Scrubs is probably my favorite sitcom. Although I find it gets sadder each time I watch it.

This brings me to my latest rewatching of an anime called Fushigi Yuugi, translated as the Mysterious Play. This 1990's anime is about a klutzy, gluttonous school girl named Miaka Yuuki who on a trip to the library picks up a mysterious book called the Universe of the Four Gods. The magical book drags her into the world within the pages in which she takes on the role of the Priestess of Suzaku -- a girl from another world who must gather the seven celestial warriors of Suzaku and summon the god who will grant her three wishes. At first, it seems like her wishes will come true -- literally. But then it turns out her best friend Yui Hongo also finds herself sucked into the book and becomes the Priestess of Seiryu, the god who presides over the country currently at war with Suzaku's country.

It is essentially a reverse harem anime.

Fushigi Yuugi has earned the distinction of being the first anime outside the American cut ones like Sailor Moon and Pokemon that I got heavily into. It pretty much sealed my status as an anime fan for several years after during my time in college. I took the show as Serious Business. I wrote fan fiction. I participated in the fandom. I just absolutely loved it. I watched it several times. I plastered my side of my dorm room with pictures from it. I used to heat up brown sugar pop tarts when I watched it to the point whenever I smell the sugary sweetness, I recall the FY opening or when I see the FY opening I associate it with that smell.

*CRASH* Soar High... Suzaku! Miracle La!

Then, when I began to watch other anime, I slowly became disallusioned with it. FY is anime trope heavy and I began to see how it wasn't that different from other anime. Fushigi Yuugi is unapologetically fan servicey and wish fulfillment which borders on meta -- after all Miaka's love Tamahome is just a character in a book. However, I honestly think that is the story's strength. It is just an action heavy, shojo story filled with love, adventure, and magic. As I wrote before -- there is nothing wrong with wish-fulfillment.

As I said -- fan servicey reverse harem anime. Choose one! Write self-insert fic. But I will judge you if you choose Chiriko in the lower left corner there.

Still, though, I began to see FY's flaws and sometimes problematic plot points and grew highly critical of it. Slowly, pictures of FY in my dorm room were replaced by Rurouni Kenshin and then Naruto and Fullmetal Alchemist.

Kenshin may have shades of Walker, Texas Ranger but at least Kaoru is a real person. Also, RK is another I revisit often

Years later, when I was stationed in Germany, something sparked me to purchase the DVD box set of Fushigi Yuugi. I watched it and I actually enjoyed myself. Yes, there were still plot points that bothered me but overall, I enjoyed it again. I even found that there were certain aspects of the narrative that actually were quite brilliant. The idea that once the priestess makes her three wishes, the god consumes her is pretty cool -- as is the fact that the secret is kept from both Miaka and Yui throughout most the narrative. Nakago is a pretty complex villain. Maybe I was a little unfair to Tamahome as a character. And Miaka does eventually mature by the end of the anime. She also has control over her fate when it matters (as does Yui) which is a lot more than can be said of certain female heroines in other current nuggets of pop culture (I'm looking at you, Twilight).

That brings me to this recent rewatch. And I must say, I realized how much I have changed since age 18 when I first popped the fansubbed VHS into my VCR. How much I have grown. And I still maintain that while FY can be problematic (and in some cases it shows its age in that way), the overall plot, character building, and world building are quite amazing. Each of the four countries in the book have distinct cultures. And while the characters possess anime tropes, many of them are quite compelling -- particularly Nuriko, Suboshi, Amiboshi, and Nakago. Even minor characters interest me enough that I get asking questions.

Like the Genbu seishi guarding the Shinzaho. Why does Hikitsu wear an eye patch? Does he have an eye? Why is Tomite always smirking? Is he hiding porn in his quiver? Or is it just indigestion?

Firstly, I grew to appreciate the theme a lot more. A friend of mine in college once said he loved FY because it was about love -- specifically, what love is and what love isn't. Love isn't being the Nice Guy (tm!), expecting something in return. Love is wanting your beloved to be happy even if it means letting them go. And love is not necessarily romantic love as love between friends and comrades is also a strong force. When my friend made this argument, I was a highly cynical 19-20 year old who just liked FY's fights, story, art, and characters. I couldn't care less about the love dectagon. I believe I may have mocked him for his assessment. Love is dumb. Or love like that is dumb. It's sappy too. 

I realized watching it this time, he was right. FY is about the force of love and all the forms it takes -- and also how it is often used as a disguise by envy/jealousy, anger, and resentment. When you give into those emotions,  it can poison you. And once I realized it, I felt like I was watching an entirely different show.

For instance, I find it interesting how Amiboshi acts like Miaka's Calypso and offers her that temptation to run from her problems and live contently with him. I found many similarities to FY and the Odyssey.

Also, I kind of realized how much I grew by which characters I attached myself to. I tend to do that with every story I get myself into. There is always just one character I connect to/relate to.

 When I first got into FY, I was a huge Chichiri fangirl. I stupidly spent forty bucks in an auction for a Chichiri pencil board. Long story. Chichiri has the distinction in FY to be one of the few people who did not romantically fall in love with Miaka. He is a monk so is very nonsexual. When you learn his back story -- in which his involvement in a love triangle of his own caused the death of his bff -- it is no surprise he looked at the love decagon in front of him and said, "No Thanks." He's the voice of reason for the Suzaku Seishi and often provided counsel to everyone who needed advice. He also provided quite a bit of comic relief by acting like a mysterious trickster monk.

Also, there is something just relateable about a character who hides scars behind a smiling mask -- in this case quite literally

I saw myself as Chichiri. I kind of did keep off to the side -- or I felt I was anyway. Like I felt like I was involved but wasn't at the same time. I always tried to be that good listener and provide advice for my friends. And I thought myself pretty humorous. Don't get me wrong, I still like Chichiri now but I found not as much. I actually found he could be a dick sometimes. I also got additional insight this rewatch that his scar was due to the fact that in the past -- he was the Yui. That is why he pushes Miaka to "save her". I didn't make the connection before simply because I liked Chichiri so much and disliked Yui so much. Chichiri is probably the most mature of the Suzaku warriors -- but he is the most broken. And it is because he made the same mistakes Yui did -- by giving into resentment and jealousy.

In addition to Chichiri, I also favored Suboshi. To be fair, I do find Suboshi to be a very compellingly written character. If the Shakespeare quote "I am Fortune's Fool!" is written for anyone outside Romeo, it would be Suboshi. The poor kid did what he thought he had to do. I don't think he thought what he did was wrong -- just the justice he thought was due to him. And I thought it was so ironic that he killed small children to avenge his dead twin brother -- who is not dead after all. But also, I related to Suboshi's frustration and anger. I always felt like nothing ever worked out for me even when I thought I did everything right. More ironically still -- I really wasn't doing things as right as I thought it was back then.

Ryuuseisui!

When I rewatched FY when I was in Germany, I found myself connecting to the emperor Suzaku Celestial Warrior Hotohori. I think a lot of this had to do with the character arc Hotohori goes through. He has in his mind that the Priestess of Suzaku would save him from loneliness and love him. However, Miaka chooses Tamahome. He tries to get her attention -- does some admittedly nice guy tactics -- but then gets shot down by Miaka saying to him, "You can't order other people how to feel" which also works as a theme in FY. Then, Hotohori realizes that Miaka is right and now he has to do what is best for his country. He moves on and dives headlong into his emperor duties and marries and has a kid.

My connection to Hotohori is really simply because I was in the military at the time. Part of being a soldier is you have to put being a soldier first above your own happiness. Additionally, I did feel rather lonely at the time. His story still was interesting because Hotohori still had this idea of what will happen in which everything will just work out for him. He had a plan but it didn't work out like he hoped it would. In Germany, I had learned that lesson. You make plans but life happens and you are forced to abandon most of them. Optimistically, things kind of work out for him -- for a little while. Life goes on and if what you expected doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that you cannot find happiness in life's little surprises.

Also, Hotohori is gorgeous and so am I, bitches.

This time -- I found myself being drawn into Nuriko's character arc more than anything. Nuriko's character is the one that probably developed the most. He starts off as a catty, clever, cross-dressing courtesan.  Once he gets passed his own issues of jealousy (envy?) over Hotohori fawning over Miaka, Nuriko is an extremely good friend. He is almost always consistently there when people need help -- probably in part due to the fact he is incredibly nosy and often seen eavesdropping so is usually only a few steps behind anyway. But still, he's always there, even when he is not physically there.

Oh haaay

The episodes leading up to Nuriko's end, he realizes just how much he loved his fellow celestial warriors -- in particular Tamahome and Miaka. And while he didn't get the guy (or girl) in the end, he understood that love takes on different forms other than romantic. He could be Tamahome's big brother. He could be Miaka's best friend. He could be an outstanding friend to the rest of the Suzaku Shichiseishi. This type of love is not less. And it is his love for them that allowed him to move the obstacles that needed to be removed. Literally, actually.

"Don't Underestimate Me"

I guess that is where I am now in my life. It is very difficult to not think about romantic love when most of your friends are married and having kids. And the guys you meet are either taken or you see why they're single (like Nuriko, I'm very picky). But even if those things would be nice to have, I have incredible love for my friends. And that love is not lesser by any means. Love itself takes on many different forms. I'm not loveless. I am loved. And I love.

I came to realize I am no longer that bitter 19 year old who felt someone owed them a favor or saw all love as sappy because I didn't have the kind I expected. I'm surprisingly less cynical than I used to be -- cautiously optimistic fits me best. Being cynical really got me no where, just made me angry. I feel like I understand what love is a lot more than I used to and because of that, I respect it more. And because I respect it more, I allow myself to experience and distribute it more easily. Sadly, I had undergone this change because I had lost someone I wish I said, "I love you" much more than I did. Life is too short, really.

What this viewing of FY showed me is how much I have grown from a jaded, angsty teenager to a cautiously optimistic adult. I've come a long way. As always, there is a room for growth. No one is perfect. And relapses happen. I stand by that. I feel content by noticing this growth within myself and empowered to continue my life long project to constantly better myself.

FY itself is not as bad as I thought it was in my backlash phase. Don't get me wrong, Fushigi Yuugi's animation has aged terribly. Dear god, the Miaka/Tamahome back and forth is rage inducing sometimes. Why is there almost as much references to rape and attempted rape as there is in Game of Thrones?

Mitsukake... thank you.

Historical Settings for Roleplaying Games -- AKA, Mary has another crazy idea

Several months ago, a couple friends of mine posted blog posts about historical settings in RPGs. It is a nice break from fantasy or sci-fi settings that often pepper the roleplaying sections in bookstores and gaming stores. Those types of games exist -- Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu (if you choose to run it in the 1920s), and White Wolf has a few historical settings. At my base as a nerd and a geek, I love history. I mean, my last three entries were about Revolutionary Spies. But even further, I find history always has a way of activating my imagination, allowing me to develop and come up with ideas. And the more I read, the more I find that real life is often stranger than fiction.

That is probably why I came up with this idea for a game setting (or story if this never materializes). It shares similarities to Sliders and Quantum Leap in some areas but considering I never saw Quantum Leap and while I was a huge fan of Sliders, I don't remember much of it, it will probably be somewhat different.

The best system for this game is Cortex-Plus.

The premise goes like this: either you will be high schoolers or university students and either like Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (for the high schoolers variant) or someone just messed up in the lab, a device aiming at bending time or some such (or maybe not even that), breaks. It tears a hole in the fabric of time itself forcing the PCs back into time and into random bodies of people who occupy that time. However, this arrangement is not completely stable. Sometimes, they find themselves back in their own bodies -- either due to intense stress or they fall asleep or something like that. However, whatever happens to them in the past, effects their body in the present day. So you die in the past, you die in the present.

Each "time period" is a scenario. It could take a couple sessions to complete each scenario. Each time period has an aberration -- like somewhere the laws of physics don't apply. And each time period has an anomaly which takes the form of something that doesn't belong in said time period. An example would be a cellphone in 1692. What you have to do is bring the anomaly to seal up the aberration. Once that is complete, the rip is sealed in that time period and you are flung to the next one.

Obviously, it would be more complicated than that. Each time period brings its own conflicts into the mix. And then there is the fact you are sharing the body with someone else which brings its own complications. Your character's goal would be to find the anomaly but your body's goals would be much different.

How I picture it happening is it is like the two personalities are mixing together like two different liquids. Sometimes it mixes well, sometimes it is a little murky, and sometimes is oil and water.  Like if your present day PC has a distinction "Party all the time" and he is in the body of someone whose distinction is "For God and Country" those would probably be at odds with themselves. If the PC wanted to use one of those conflicting distinctions, it would be opposed rolls and the higher is the one that wins.

That is another aspect, I would bring into play. Your present PC would have three distinctions and the past body would have three distinctions. While in the past, you can use one of your present distinctions in the past. The only thing is you have to step back one of your past persona's distinctions for the scene. And in the present, the one you stepped back in the past is now dominant in the present. So using the PC who "Party all the Time" decided to step back "For God and Country" to party at the pub in 1776 would in 2015 decide to pass up the bong and do some reflecting instead.

The same would be true for skills you would use in the present and vise versa.

Anyways, I think it would be a fun game. And I would get to use all my history nerdiness and not be ashamed.

Washington's Spies by Alexander Rose -- Framing in Non-Fiction and the Power of Friendship (Happy 4th!)

I just finished reading Washington's Spies by Alexander Rose, the book Turn is roughly based on, and a couple days before the 4th of July seems like the best time to write about it. 

Every once in a while, I really get an itching to read a good non-fiction book. The only problem is it can be difficult to find an interestingly written one. Far too often non-fiction is written like a pile of facts and footnotes that the reader has to sift through, hindered by blocky words. Washington's Spies is not like that at all. Never once did I feel bored. Alexander Rose has such a way with words, I couldn't help but chuckle at his hidden jokes and his occasional snark.

Washington's Spies, like the TV show that took inspiration about it, is about the development of espionage techniques during the American Revolution including the development, success, and failures of the Culper Spy Ring. The amount of research that the author put into this is absolutely astounding -- after all, the subject matter he dealt with is by its very nature hidden. But you could tell how much Rose admired these early American spies and how much he wanted the world to know how their contributions to the formation of this country was irreplaceable and how at the time they went to their graves with little to no accolades. They almost didn't get their monetary expenses reimbursed (Oh George Washington -- you cheapskate).

Probably the strongest aspect of this book is Rose expertly created profiles on those involved in the Culper Spy Ring, the predecessors, and their enemies. By the time I finished the book, I felt like I knew these people intimately. And it wasn't because I watched Turn. For the record, Turn did change some personality aspects of some characters (Tallmadge wasn't as straight-laced as he is in Turn) and a few characters are a combination of two or more figures (Townsend was a combination of the real Townsend and Woodhull's brother-in-law Underhill; Hewlett is a combination of a loyalist who lived in Setucket and a weak-willed British officer named Joyce who was picked on by British, Loyalist, and Patriot alike because he made himself an easy target). But Rose had such a way of developing the figures involved, I got a little teary with the fate of Major John Andre for instance. And Major Benjamin Tallmadge -- what an upstanding American.

Also, Caleb Brewster -- who is like an Northeastern Huckleberry Finn and a PIRATE FIGHTER

Another aspect of this book made me realize what is important when writing non-fiction -- Framing. My favorite non-fiction author is Erik Larsen (which reminds me, I need to pick up the Lusitania) and part of the reason why I like him is he'll tell a story about a period of time and will find a historical figure or two to tell the story. In some cases, he'll use two figures who are seemingly unrelated but afterwards, you can practically picture them crossing each other in the street.

Alexander Rose does this with Washington's Spies. In fact, his frame lies in book-ends and his anchor is really Benjamin Tallmadge. His book starts with the unfortunate tale of Nathan Hale and ends (before an epilogue of what happened to everyone) with the fate of Major John Andre. And why this was so brilliant to me is Hale and Andre represented the ideals of the time; well-educated, idealistic, well-liked. In many ways, they represented the ideal of the side of the Atlantic they came from.

Hale's connection to the colonies was undeniable -- tracing his family to one of the first reverends in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Andre was a well-bred, dilettante. Both of them were idealistic -- Hale believing in the cause of independence. Andre believing in the arts. And yet it was the ugliness of the war that fundamentally ended their short lives. We always look at the American War of Independence as a war of ideals which kind of places it on this pedestal. But under the surface, it was ugly and violent and chaotic and ripped apart those who took up the bayonet to fight for their ideals. Like any war really.

Tallmadge looking into the future of ... Merica!

Tallmadge had a connection to both of them and is the figure we follow the most throughout the book. He is tossed into the world of espionage not long after the execution of Nathan Hale who was his "constant friend". Tallmadge would reference him a lot. And it is not too much a stretch that the fate of his best friend lied heavily on his mind when he designed the Culper Ring. And additionally, Tallmadge escorted the captured Andre to Washington in Teppan and he noted how much Andre did remind him of Hale. When it came time for Andre's execution, Tallmadge had to leave the field because he cried.   

Even in captivity, Andre drew himself as a gentleman

As I mentioned before in another post, the legend of Nathan Hale is a curious one. Rose spends the first 50 pages or so talking about Hale. He had to because it really described what was really messy about espionage before the formation of the Culper Ring. Hale is presented as a gentleman who always arrived a little too late. His unit kept on missing major battles and would arrive just after fighting concluded. And even in love, he was always just a little too late. The first time he proposed to the love of his life, she was engaged to another man. Then when her husband died, he tried again and the two would have wed after Nathan finished his tour of duty -- which he never did. Even as he was just about to be hung on the gallows, the fire which caused a huge amount of chaos in New York City -- an opportunity to escape -- just began.

Yet we remember him. He was the answer to a question on a quiz in school yet his career as a patriot was marked by failure. I remember I had a teacher who said he was a martyr. And he was a rallying point for people to sign up to the cause. But after reading this book, I am not sure I agree with that interpretation. Hale was hung as a spy. Hale was a gentleman, a Yale Graduate, and those types of people just did not engage in espionage. Rose hammers home the idea that the thought of someone disguising themselves as someone else or develop cover stories (stuff the Culper Ring did) was just not something gentlemen did. They would be military scouts and diplomats  but what Hale did and what the Culper Ring did was the actions of criminals and even if they stole info for your side, people would look on those individuals with disgust. The proper execution method for an officer, which Hale was, was death by firing squad. Being hung is what was reserved for thieves, murderers, and spies. A cynical person would say Hale's death was used as propaganda and maybe that was so to a degree (maybe people would deny Hale was a spy?) .

But after reading this book, I have a more optimistic interpretation. We remember Nathan Hale because his Yale friends made sure we remember him and made sure he wasn't just another 21 year old officer who met a tragic end like hundreds of others. The quote attributed to what Hale said on the gallows can be traced to a newspaper article that had connections to one of his friends. And what he said was a saying from Cato who Hale was known to quote. Hale's friends wanted people to know that Hale not only sacrificed his life but his honor as a gentleman to help the patriot cause even if he was a failure. We should all be so lucky to have friends who love us as much as Hale's friends did. 

And that is the overall theme of Washington's Spies. Rose ends his book by an anecdote of 80 year old Tallmadge reaming up a pair of Revolutionary War veterans who asked Congress for more accolades (money) for their work when Tallmadge knew they thieved and did not conduct themselves like gentlemen. Tallmadge alludes to but never mentions those who did much work for the cause and received no recognition for their efforts -- probably meaning the Culper Ring. And brought it home with that Major John Andre died with much more honor than how those veterans lived their lives.

Anyways, I really liked this book. I only barely touched on my favorite parts of it. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys well-written non-fiction.

Inspired By Actual Events -- Or how Turn: Washington's Spies Ruined Me

I've written before about how much I like history and historical settings. It is kind of my thing. Well, the last three days or so, my mother and I watched 20 episodes of the AMC Drama Turn: Washington's Spies. It is about the real life Culper Spy ring during the American War for Independence. I heard about it somewhere and initially I got excited (intrigue set in a historical setting! Sold!) than forgot about it until it premiered where I saw some headlines saying it wasn't that good. So I didn't watch it. But mom is in town and we looked for something we could both enjoy and decided to give it a whirl.

*gimmie hands*

I. Loved. It. I couldn't look away. It was everything I wanted in a historical drama and more. And if they don't renew Turn, I don't know what I'll do -- Realistically, probably cry out for a few minutes then move on. Maybe read about the real life Abraham Woodhull. Or read a more in depth biography of Major John Andre and weep quietly. Get my Tallmadge fix from his interpretation in Dreamer?

But I won't get this magical friendship

 I'm feeling kind of pessimistic about it because AMC seems to have a major hard-on for their upcoming spin off series of their other popular shows and probably will cause their other shows to not get as much funding or cancelled all together. If it comes to that, I hope Turn finds a home on Netflix or Amazon Prime. You can't just end a series on how season 2 ended. 

With that rant out of the way, I'm going to steer the conversation about what inspired me to write this blog post when I had already written about historical settings in the past. I got thinking about why some historical settings or "based on actual events" storylines work and others don't.

Turn is blessed with extremely well-written dialogue, interestingly framed episodes, and an incredibly talented cast. That certainly helps. I also feel the writers took lessons learned from popular shows on right now. Mary Woodhull has a Skylar White-like character arc for instance but they made her motivations a tad more sympathetic. They took the whole Protagonists who do bad things and Antagonists who do good things angle as made popular in Game of Thrones and Walking Dead but reeled it in slightly. Also, that it is okay to make an antagonist completely unforgivable but to have such a strong presence, you can't help but watch to see what dastardly deed they'll do next. I'm looking at you, Simcoe.

I mean he brought Starbucks to a Fake Suicide, who does that?

I am kind of tired of the love triangles and rombuses going on right now. But that may be a personal problem as everyone else seems to like it just fine. Although the one that doesn't irritate me (the Andre-Shippen-Arnold one) seems to not be all that popular.

But the whole Inspired by Actual Events thing. Turn takes liberties with history. Benedict Arnold got with Peggy Shippen earlier than in the actual show (they also had a bunch of kids by the time Arnold betrays us all!) John Andre did court Peggy Shippen before she married Benedict Arnold though. The writers also took liberties with the personal histories of Abe Woodhull, Anna Strong, Caleb Brewster, John Simcoe -- basically everyone. I get why the writers do it -- to make things more exciting and to tie in the story a bit more tightly together. You kind of need that when you are writing about spies and intrigue.

When I was younger, I used to nitpick at these sorts of things. I don't so much anymore. There really is no point. It is like nitpicking that a movie sucks because it is nothing like the book. It is called an adaptation for a reason (not saying there is no such thing as shitty adaptations though). And honestly, if you are watching Turn expecting to learn about the absolute truth of history from it, that is intellectually dishonest. Just read a non-fiction book about the Culper Spy Ring if you want to learn the truth. Watch Turn to be entertained and maybe be informed about something about life in America during the 1770s that will encourage you to read more about it. That's it.

I suppose I will caveat this with saying that I get with some people it is a huge pet peeve to see historical inaccuracies in movies and TV shows. I get that. But unless the movie claims something like, "THE ABSOLUTELY TRUE STORY OF -" you should expect liberties being taken. If you want the absolute truth, watch a documentary. And you should be expected to nitpick if they get a fact wrong.

I suppose that may be another reason why Turn works. It is about a rather obscure topic in Revolutionary War history. Very little was ever known about the Culper Spy Ring until the 1930s. People knew George Washington had a network of spies which aided him win the war but no one really knew much about them or really their methods. Hell, it turns out George Washington knew little about Culper's sources, mainly because the sources wouldn't agree to provide info if their identity was released. That is still not unusual.

Turn shows this brilliantly with the courting of Robert Townsend

However, the fact that Turn deals with a topic relatively explored little, the writers have a lot of liberties to take. The more nitpicky people will be less likely able to be nitpicky and can just sit back and enjoy the tales of intrigue set at the dawn of the United States. I'll compare this to, let's say Spielberg's Lincoln movie. Abraham Lincoln has been written about to death. We know a lot about Lincoln and Lincoln was a pretty good movie if you enjoy history. However, I know a lot of people said they felt more like they were in a classroom than in a movie. You won't feel that way with Turn because of the subject matter (SPIES) and we know so little about it.

Turn can develop fictionalized versions of minor historical characters and make them three-dimensional. The conflicted Abraham Woodhull -- who the real life version's father was a Magistrate Loyalist, that much is true -- really develops into a full realized character when you learn like all of us, was a radical college student but at the same time feels he has to fill his older brother's dead shoes to eventually take over his father's place. Or Major Tallmadge who tries so hard to do the right thing, even at risk of court martial, often jokingly references his father the reverend (which the real life Tallmadge's father was). Caleb Brewster is highly offended when he learns the redcoats turn the church in Seutucket into a fortification -- turns out the Brewsters when they first settled Seutucket built the church. Seutucket itself was a loyalist hub but somehow was also a base of operations for the Culper Ring. How did that work? Turn answers that question by establishing Major Edmund Hewlett -- the redcoat in charge of the forces garrisoned there -- who is a complete space cadet (although he means well).

His reaction to blowing up a school... seriously, not joking

The writers have room to move, while with writing a movie or a show about Lincoln, you have little breathing room. As a result, the portrayal is usually that of a heavily flawed individual or almost godlike -- nothing remote like an actual person. George Washington kind of falls victim to this in Turn although he is not as bad as some. Off-handedly, I feel the mini-series John Adams does a decent job with making John Adams as an actual character. My mom disagrees. But that could be because I always thought John Adams was a grumpypants and my mom never thought so.

In a way, what I propose is much like how I talked about adapting settings for roleplaying purposes. I argued it is better to take an aspect of the world that is explored little and run with it. And I feel that is what the writers of Turn did. And it is these little historical topics that normally would be a tidbit on a Top Ten Little Known Revolutionary War Facts list that make for good fictionalized tales of history. Little to nitpick, many blank spaces to fill in for your own. And make it awesome!

Life of a spy for me

Jaime Lannistering

Back when I first began watching Game of Thrones, I absolutely hated Jaime Lannister. It wasn't that he was a bad character or anything but he just had qualities as a person that made my skin crawl. Now, I'm not talking about the incest thing -- as a person who has watched a lot of anime, I've grown accustomed to what is taboo -- it was just him as a person.

Although pushing a kid from a tower certainly doesn't help

He was just an entitled, sometimes whiny, little asshole. Like every time he appeared on my TV screen I had the urge just to ... UGHHHH.

Shut Up.

Then something happened. Jaime was captured and humbled and then went on an amazing adventure with Brienne of Tarth. He became largely more sympathetic by the experience and all the qualities I hated in him before either went away or reduced slightly. And before I knew it, Jaime Lannister found his way into my heart, much like a ninja in the night. And largely he stayed there. I've chosen to ignore the whole Jaime Cersei Joffery's funeral bit as a hiccup (I mean, no one else speaks of it on the show so why should I? *eye roll*). And even though the whole Dorne thing this season has read like a horrible 80's movie, I still like Jaime. I don't rage at the TV when he appears on screen anymore.

I even started to use his name as a verb -- Jaime Lannistering. And what I mean by that is there is a character in media who not due to poor character structure, I cannot stand because they have qualities I either find disgusting or just get on my own pet peeves. Then, through character development, I suddenly find I like those characters, maybe even becoming among my favorite in said media.

Jaime Lannister is not the only Game of Thrones character I have changed into a verb in my mind. I also have a phenomena called Stannising. Basically, Stannising is Jaime Lannistering except while a character is at the height of your favor, the character does something, usually due to bad writing but not always, that sends them back to the doghouse with other characters you hate.

This is named after Stannis Baratheon, former Father of the Year who had to relinquish his trophy due to a scandal of massive proportions.

And Davos worked so hard on it too.

When I first encountered Stannis, I found his whole storyline kind of dull. Stannis isn't supposed to be charismatic. That is the whole point. But like Jaime, I kind of grew to like him as the seasons went on. He mostly at least tried to do the right thing, being apart of a cult or not. Then, this latest season started, and I saw Stannis in a different light. Maybe because the pool of potential Game of Thrones contenders was growing smaller with icky choices but also maybe it was because Stannis obviously loved his daughter Shireen, despite the pressure from Melisandre to turn her into some sort of sacrifice.

I mean, I saw where this was going. I kind of knew it would happen. But I felt it happened too quickly. For a man who defended his daughter and had a really heartfelt talk to her, he gave up pretty easily. It felt like they were walking in the snow for five minutes before Stannis brushed his hands and decided to give in to Melisandre's suggestion. I wish there was a bit more build up, like maybe showing stacks of dead bodies that froze to death. The raid by Ramsey happened too quickly. It just wasn't written very well to get to Stannis's decision. I still would have gasped and been angry at Stannis but I felt I would have at least respected the decision storywise a bit better.

So I have Stannising. And Jaime Lannistering. And I introduced these concepts to talk about Orange is the New Black. Ha! I bet you didn't see that one coming!

I marathoned the 3rd Season of Orange is the New Black over the weekend and I have a lot to talk about. For one, Orange and Game of Thrones do have some things in common. The most obvious is both shows depict heavily flawed characters who do things you hate and do things you love. The other is loads and loads of Jaime Lannistering and Stannising. The last one is especially true for season 3.

First up, the Jaime Lannistering. I'm talking about Tiffany Doggett a.k.a Pennsatuckey.

*shivers*

In the first season, Doggett is a hyper-religious, extremely racist/homophobic redneck. She spends most of the season thinking she's a faith healer because Alex decides to troll her. Doggett felt like a cardboard cutout to be in the first season. Every stereotype people believe about evangelical Christians was shoved into one person. Even so, Taryn Manning did an excellent job. she was absolutely terrifying. Part of it was her fanatic nature but the other part was just her impulsive meth-headness. Still, I didn't like her all that much.

In the second season, she is licking her wounds from the first season. She is still carrying on her semi-fanatical ways but she clearly wanted some sort of love or attention. Then, the resident "butch lesbian" Big Boo begins to troll the gullible Tiffany. And then the trolling sort of becomes a friendship which continues into the 3rd season.

And that is when I realized Doggett just Jaime Lannistered. First off, Big Boo and Doggett have a beautiful friendship this season and it causes both characters to develop into actual realized people and not the cardboard cutouts they appear to represent in season 1. Big Boo is always super protective of the girls she likes but here, she is protective of Doggett but not out of interest of getting laid but out of friendship.

This scene was both extremely sweet and terrifying

Then, you have Tiffany beginning to realize what she did was wrong and how she thought was wrong. She begins becoming introspective and comes to realize how much she devalues herself and because she wanted love, attention, and value is the reason why she let the extreme pro-life movement project on her as a martyr for the cause. Doggett is still not all that bright -- mostly due to socializing she got growing up -- but she has a great character arc in which she is growing as a person and becoming rehabilitated.

Big Boo also Jaime Lannistered for me as well because like Doggett, she felt like a walking stereotype and just comic relief. In this season, she also gets a character arc and it usually runs concurrently with Doggett's.

Now, I mentioned the Jaime Lannistering, let's get to the Stannising. If the Stannis downfall hadn't happened before, I probably would have called this Pipering.

Shut up.

I never was that wild about Piper. I mean, the actress is fine and Piper has some good moments in the first season and to a degree in the second season. She is just growing more and more unsympathetic. I mean, I just went on great lengths about Doggett above. Doggett killed an abortion doctor because the doctor said to her "after the fifth abortion, the sixth one is free." And I feel more for HER than Piper and Piper was just a drug mule.

I kinda get it. The show wants Piper, the fish out of water, to get darker as her time in prison continues. It is kind of interesting how she and Alex have passed each other going in opposite directions on the rehabilitation scale. That part was what made me like Piper a bit more in season 2. I just don't like how Piper is becoming almost sociopathic in her choices.

 First of all, she cheats one too many times. She cheats on Larry with Alex. Then she cheats on Alex with Larry. Then she cheats on Alex with Stella. And each time she does it, she justifies it, making her the victim. Like she left Alex this time because Alex was "acting crazy." Alex is "acting crazy" partly because of Piper's fault! It would be one thing if what Piper was doing was portrayed in a negative light -- much like now Nicky got back on smack. But no, it is really neutral at best. Yeah, people call Piper out on it but she spins her charm and people are like, "Oh okay."

Then, there is Piper's backstabbing which is all due to selfish reasons. She got Alex rearrested because she was just pissed at her. Then she set up Stella up by planting contraband just as she was about to be released. True Stella did steal from her but man, that was cold, just cold. And I just don't get what was accomplished. Piper is suddenly a badass? Is she becoming the new Vee? What? I really don't see how she can be redeemed for me at this point.

And the thing that bothers me the most is Piper gets NO consequences for her actions and she learns NOTHING. None. Meanwhile, everyone else who schemes in the prison usually eventually get their comeuppance. Piper is untouchable. And I really don't understand the progression to this, either. I really hope next season Piper falls off her throne. Because, like Cersei, she is not as smart as she thinks she is.

Too bad the Orange is the New Black's Faith Militant is busy becoming BFFs with a lesbian

Another character I feel is a partial Stannis was Bennett. I get why they wrote off Bennett from the show because the actor is now on Prime Time TV. At first blush, it seemed like backstory they gave Bennett before him exiting stage left does feel almost out of character. And I say he is a partial Stannis because the fans generally like him.

No comment

Up until this point, Bennett and Daya's relationship is a bright point in the prison. They seem to be two dopes so in love with each other. He's always trying to look out for her. And the two talk about building a life together. Bennett seems like a good guy and an upstanding citizen so it does seem shocking that they showed while he failed to leap on a grenade to save his comrades in Afghanistan in his flashback, he runs away from the whole situation with Daya after having dinner with Daya's rather fucked up family. He just stopped showing up for work.

It's disappointing and I see it pissed a lot of people off but here's the thing -- it does make sense story-wise. Bennett doesn't have much of a spine. Sleeping with an inmate, no matter how much you love each other is just plain irresponsible. The other inmates forced him to do stuff for them.

But he does anyway

The thing is, we as the viewer, have been seeing Bennett through Daya's eyes. He's dreamy and a nice guy. But that is all he is. He's a coward and it would make sense he would leave the situation after meeting the sadistic, unpredictable Cesar. I'm not justifying what he did. Bennett should pay for his mistakes. But I can see story-wise why it happened.

In fact, this season in particular, really deconstructed the Nice Guy archetype. Bennett may come off as nice and sweet and upstanding but he will get out of the kitchen when things get too hot. It is actually amazing he stayed in this long. Besides, with him out of the picture, Daya and her mom get their own separate character arcs in which both need to grow up and look at things realistically.

Maybe for some people this would still feel like Stannising, but it isn't so much for me. Yeah, sure, I like Bennett a little less now than I did (I was kinda giving Matt McGorry dreamy eyes too) which does mean he's Stannised a bit for me but definitely not as much as Piper did. It actually works for me because sometimes when reality hits and the haze of love raises, you realize you are in a bad situation. Maybe people you thought you could trust, you can't any longer. You realize along with Daya that the man you grew to appreciate is not what he seems. Isn't that what "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Miz is about?

((But you see that Daya didn't turn Bennett in, because she totally could have had his ass thrown in jail if she was vindictive enough and UG Piper))

I would love to talk about how Orange is the New Black deals with Nice Guys, but that is a topic for another time.

I think the difference between Piper's Stannising and Bennett's Stannising is that Piper's happened somewhat due to poor writing choices while Bennett's did not.

Captain America, Superheroes, and Sequels

"Hey Mary, have you seen Captain America yet? It seems like your kind of thing." "Hey Mary. You like superhero movies, have you seen Captain America?" "Hey Mary, you served in the military, have you seen Captain America?" "Hey Mary, you saw the Avengers, Iron Man, and Thor, have you seen Captain America?" "Mary, you're obsessed with Agent Carter, what did you think of Winter Soldier?"

Cool posters?

After being extremely behind the curb, I watched both Captain America movies on Sunday. And okay, people who know me too well, I loved them. Yes. BOTH OF THEM. I feel I have to emphasize that because there seems to be a divide in the fandom over it. I loved both movies so much, I downloaded the soundtrack (because... French Horns and deep brass) and even on National Best Friend Day, I called over to one of my BFFs to be the Steve to my Bucky (for which she accepted).

Man, the fact that I placed myself as the Bucky... what does that say about me?

Captain America (and yes, Agent Carter) are my superheroes. I finally found them.

I say this because I have a love-hate thing with superhero movies. I like them, sure, but there are certain ones I'm not all that wild about. I'm talking about the Supermans and the Batmans and even to a degree Iron Man. I think part of the reason why that is, is at its heart, the superhero story really is a wish fulfillment fantasy.

Now, there is nothing wrong with it. One of the reasons Agent Carter is so for me because I wish I could be like Peggy. I wish I could be confident, not take crap from other people, have guys that even if they hate me still have a thing for me and me not give them the time of day. Have upstanding guys like Steve, Daniel Sousa, and Jarvis at my side and delightfully let the playboy Howard Stark know he can't have me. Also, just being super, super smart with always the right thing to say. Being Badass Normal with a pistol. Oh, and really have an awesome wardrobe.

"Okay, Howard, I get it, it's a ball. Stop making that pun"

 The same is true for all the other major superheroes. They embody qualities that all of us want. Guys want to be playboys like Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark who have lots of toys to play with. Nerds for decades looked up to Peter Parker who is a nerd like them but as soon as he puts on the suit, he's a wise-cracking, web-slinging, vigilante. Sure, all super heroes have their dark pasts that they must overcome, but overall, their existence is a wish-fulfillment. And because of that, we read their comics and go watch their movies because we expect them to act in a super cool way. It is like we watch Game of Thrones because we want to see good characters fall from grace or bad characters redeem themselves. In superhero stories we know Tony is going to be a bit of an ass, but still endearing. We know Spidey is going to make a pun. We know Bruce is going to brood and be dark.

Yep, brood and dark

 And I think because we expect our superheroes to act that way, they rarely grow. I had a friend of mine say that you don't need characters to grow. Okay, maybe in one movie but when you have a franchise, there has to be some character growth or else, the idea gets stale -- at least for me. You can throw high powered villain after high power villain and have your superhero react accordingly to what makes the superhero popular. It will be a thrill and a good two hours at the movie theater but when I leave, I'm not going to take much of it with me. And that's fine. Not all movies have to be super deep to be enjoyable. Just it makes me less and less excited to go see those movies because I know what to expect.

Having said that, this is why Captain America and its sequel works for me. Generally, sequels, not just superhero sequels subscribe to the frame of mind, "Well, that was a fun romp! Let's do it again! In Space!" Or something like that. Superhero films usually say, "Well, that was a fun romp! Let's add this villain in next time." Captain America does the latter, but sort of twists the idea of it on its head.

Long Hair, make up -- Must be a hippie

Here's the reason why I defend the first Captain America. Yeah, it is filled with so much red, white, and blue you'll want to rise up against the commies and hippies. Yeah, what Steve did rescuing the 107th was... just extremely illegal and would have gotten him slapped with a court martial. It was over the top and silly at some points. And CGI smaller Chris Evans kinda freaks me out a little. But the movie did what it needed to do. It was an origin story for Captain America and perfectly framed the time Steve comes from. It is a black and white world. It is pretty obvious that the Nazis and Hydra are the bad guys. There is the good thing and the bad thing. There is no question on what that is. Even Steve's tragic relationship with Peggy is simple and sweet. The movie is really a throwback to those old WWII war movies, where soldiers are looked up to and admired. Where the people appreciated what the military was doing for them.

This is where Captain America comes from. And it is this experience and this world that shapes Steve Rogers and his glowing ideals. This is what we expect from Captain America as a superhero.

Then comes Winter Soldier. Steve is living in a much different world. People are lukewarm to the military at its best. Things aren't black and white anymore. Everyone is less about doing what is right and more focusing on the ends justify the means. To him, SHIELD seems like the organization for good and that would be the side he would work for. But then, everything starts to go to hell and he is baffled when Nick Fury tells him to not trust anyone. If the movie just stopped here and put in some generic Marvel villain, Winter Soldier would just be a Fish Out of Water Tale (which it is anyway) for Captain America.

But no, in walks the Winter Soldier who it turns out is Steve's best friend Bucky. Steve is forced to confront not only his past but his ideals -- everything that defines Captain America as a superhero. I know this is not entirely new as comics often toy with killing off superheroes or have them hang up the uniform for a while but come back when the world most needs them. But what is unique and was what made this movie for me was this movie was just as much an internal struggle for Cap as it was an external one.  Yeah, sure former friends of superheroes turned into villains is not new but Cap still has to make a choice to live up to his ideals or throw them away when he finally faces Bucky. His ideals are what define his schtick as a superhero. And it is because of that, I walked away from the movie STILL thinking about it and what I would have done.

Tie-ins. I love tie-ins

 The very challenge against what makes Captain America Captain America is why the sequel worked and didn't fall into the general ennui of other superhero sequels which has a tendency to throw a bucket of villains at the wall and see what sticks. Winter Soldier treats Cap not just another wish fulfillment fantasy but as an actual character. And I think because of that, both Captain America films (and Agent Carter) are my favorite in the Marvel franchise.