I'm pretty sure if the author saw all of our Wild Mass Guessing and kitchen-sink amateur psych, they'd flash a Slasher Smile and mutter "all according to keikaku" before ostentatiously eating a potato chip.

I'm pretty sure if the author saw all of our Wild Mass Guessing and kitchen-sink amateur psych, they'd flash a Slasher Smile and mutter "all according to keikaku" before ostentatiously eating a potato chip.

Two appeal to authority fallacies in the same sentence. Very impressive.

She turned into a human at the end

I'm pretty sure if the author saw all of our Wild Mass Guessing and kitchen-sink amateur psych, they'd flash a Slasher Smile and mutter "all according to keikaku" before ostentatiously eating a potato chip.

Two appeal to authority fallacies in the same sentence. Very impressive.

So much woosh.

I liked it

I'm pretty sure if the author saw all of our Wild Mass Guessing and kitchen-sink amateur psych, they'd flash a Slasher Smile and mutter "all according to keikaku" before ostentatiously eating a potato chip.

Two appeal to authority fallacies in the same sentence. Very impressive.

So much woosh.

"I don't actually have a comeback to being called out for my bullshit, so I'm just going to act like I'm superior because you didn't get my 'joke.'"

I'm pretty sure if the author saw all of our Wild Mass Guessing and kitchen-sink amateur psych, they'd flash a Slasher Smile and mutter "all according to keikaku" before ostentatiously eating a potato chip.

Two appeal to authority fallacies in the same sentence. Very impressive.

So much woosh.

"I don't actually have a comeback to being called out for my bullshit, so I'm just going to act like I'm superior because you didn't get my 'joke.'"

*sigh*
Okay fine, let me get the crayons so I can draw you a more easily digestible version...

Short form: it's hardly unusual for authors to create works with complex and divisive themes without providing any easy answers to the same, thus leaving it to the readers to draw their own conclusions and interpretations (and argue over those if they're so inclined).

This work rather looks like such a case, which is what I was alluding to but you apparently decided to read as some kind of personal offense. ┐( ˘_˘)┌

Short form: it's hardly unusual for authors to create works with complex and divisive themes without providing any easy answers to the same, thus leaving it to the readers to draw their own conclusions and interpretations (and argue over those if they're so inclined).

This work rather looks like such a case, which is what I was alluding to but you apparently decided to read as some kind of personal offense. ┐( ˘_˘)┌

If this were a different story with less clear themes and plot, I would certainly agree. This story's intent was very clear from the second chapter, though, even if I didn't want to admit it. Calling recognition of toxic relationships "kitchen-sink amateur psych" is very demeaning to those who have experienced them and been able to leave them, or those who have watched their loved ones in such relationships. It doesn't take a psychology degree to understand those themes in this story, and your assertion that the author was being deliberate in somehow making it unclear doesn't hold water here. If you have some source where the author clearly states that people should derive their own meaning or even states their intended meaning, then by all means share it. Otherwise, I think the story speaks for itself.

So you think, but that's premised on a number of specific subjective interpretations and assumptions about the story.

So you think, but that's premised on a number of specific subjective interpretations and assumptions about the story.

Which is my entire point: it's what we have. And unless there's specific word from the author, it's all we have, so get used to it.

So you think, but that's premised on a number of specific subjective interpretations and assumptions about the story.

Which is my entire point: it's what we have. And unless there's specific word from the author, it's all we have, so get used to it.

You missed the central operative word "subjective" methinks. The particular set your take is based on is by no means self-evidently supported by the text and certainly not the only valid one.

Without delving too much into the long list of alternatives I can think of without too much trouble (because I frankly have more interesting things to do atm) I'll just point out one example of what really should be a rather obvious problem point you're quite arbitrarily bypassing in its entirety - on what basis do you assume "normal" baseline human psychological and behavioural norms are directly applicable to something like Angela who explicitly isn't anything of the sort, and whose inner workings and thoughts (nevermind underlying motives) are presumably deliberately left as mysterious to the audience as they are to the MC? What little the narrative gives us to work with already indicates her priorities and values are quite different from the implied "human norm".

^ I'm a human being, so I can only interpret a story from the point of view of a human being unless the subject's point of view is clarified. Since there's no explanation as to how this girl thinks or behaves, there isn't much to go on other than the reader's own interpretation. My personal interpretation is that the non-human aspects of her are simply symbolism, and not meant to be taken literally. The MC is afraid that this girl who seems to live completely without regard to normality will end up leaving her since she's incapable of that. It's very easy for positive-minded people to get trapped in a codependent relationship as an enabler, because they see the potential for good in people and think they can fix their abuser.

I think the main takeaway from this story is that there isn't a real sense of "bad end" or "good end," but lots of potential to go either way. It all depends on how willing the characters are to admit there is a problem.

The point I'm making here is that you're choosing a very specific normal-human-behaviour paradigm to interpret the story by and arbitrarily declaring that as "very clear" authorial intent.

Which is bupkis to be quite blunt about it, not to mention terribly limited and more than a little arrogant.

The author no doubt entirely deliberately only gives the audience some ambiguous hints and no clear answers whatsoever; the meaning and even in-universe content of just about everything that could be claimed to be important in the story is very much left open. If anything whatever particular meaning and interpretation a reader ascribes to the narrative arguably merely reflects his or her particular preoccupations and ideas.

I would argue this story is something akin to a koan or a Sufi parable - it holds a mirror to the audience, so to speak, inviting them to bounce their own ideas and values off itself and challenging them to contemplate such themes and meanings as they may find in it.

^ Except I didn't attempt to attribute any authorial intent. I'm simply talking about what was shown in the story. What was shown is a toxic (and probably codependent) relationship. I never said, "The author clearly wants us to know that this is a codependent relationship." Whether that's what they intended to show us or not is irrelevant, because it's there anyway. Without any explanation from the author for Angela's decision to stay, or way of thinking, all we're left with is what's in us.

Except that's exactly what you did:

If this were a different story with less clear themes and plot, I would certainly agree. This story's intent was very clear from the second chapter, --

You also engaged in some pretty textbook projecting there so, yeah. Doesn't take much of a mental gear shift to read very different meanings and authorial intent to the story as a brief parse of this whole forum thread readily demonstrates; say contemplative spiritual-mystical symbolism can readily be argued to be just as "clear themes and intent" as the specific psychological paradigm you're thumping for.

last edited at Jul 26, 2020 6:33PM

There's no projecting. I've never been in a codependent relationship or had friends or family in one. I do know what one looks like, though. But yes, I was hasty in declaring a clear intent behind the story, so I apologize for that. And if you read a completely different intent behind it, that's fine and valid.

There is authorial intent that's shown in the afterword. ' "As long as they have each other, they don't need anything else." It's a bit of a dangerous line of thinking, but the two of them can acknowledge those feelings and try to have a normal, happy relationship.' I think that saying that there is zero authorial intent is a tenuous claim, even if exact interpretations of the text can vary.

last edited at Jul 26, 2020 6:46PM

There is authorial intent that's shown in the afterword. ' "As long as they have each other, they don't need anything else." It's a bit of a dangerous line of thinking, but the two of them can acknowledge those feelings and try to have a normal, happy relationship.' I think that saying that there is zero authorial intent is a tenuous claim, even if exact interpretations of the text can vary.

And trying to decipher from that what the author intended to say with this story basically amounts to divining from tea leaves.

I'm honestly pretty impressed by the rigor with which clear answers of any kind have been excised from this work.

I'm a bit conflicted but the art and storytelling is so good.

idk how i feel but i reallylove the stories it seems the author want to explain "what if" and "how much will you sacrife" to your love one ... im crying and idc! T___T

I'm a bit conflicted but the art and storytelling is so good.

My thoughts exactly

I think this is an amazing portrayal of an abusive relationship, the way i understood this story was: the wings are simply metaphorical, as well as her being an angel.

Her partner glorified her, and when they were together finally, and her "angel" started showing signs of wanting to "grow out her wings" and like, "leave the nest" aka: be more independent, maybe get a job or something, this caused great feelings of oppression and doubt in the 'abuser' who did not want her to leave, so when her partner finally grew her 'wings': confidence, she cut her down, perhaps verbally, or physically, causing her confidence to disappear, and her will to leave to dwindle, feeling more dependant on the abuser...

And even though she was abused, the dependency she has developed (eg living in her home, being provided for and loved) leaves her empathising with her abusers guilt-tripping manipulation, eg. "You'll stay with me even after all ive done?" and even after the abuser asks
"what would you do if you grew your 'confidence' back?"
"I'll take you with me: translation: Ill refer to you first, I will ask for your permission"

Just my thoughts

last edited at Jul 27, 2020 11:17AM

This is a hideous story. I object to it on every level, and I'm sorry I read it.

Creepy, but pretty. :|

The story presents a lot of questions without clear answers... it's interesting that it decides to not directly condemn the MC's abusive actions, but the fact that it leaves a bad taste in our mouths indicates that it already serves that purpose?
Although, from the afterword, it seems that the author understands how dangerously toxic it is, but went for a message saying love and ordinariness overcomes all instead?

Still only making guesses here. If that's what they were going for, I don't like the message... healthy relationships plzz :3