I Think Where People Flounder Is When They Misread Curlfeather's Last Scene To Be A Kind Of Disownment

I had to record this bank at such a high pitch to get this outcome. It was a nightmare. 🥺

I really hope the graphic novels continue to cut out all the unecessary bloat and plot contrivances left over from the original series.

For example, Fireheart saves Bramblekit from the fire, in the graphic novel, without hesitation— which is so refreshing.

I disliked that entire b-plot in the first arc where he's menaced by Tigerkit's oh-so-scary, 'amber eyes'— because it made zero sense, came out of nowhere, and was also, very dumb.

And while I'm sure Bramblekit will face some prejudice in the next graphic novel, with how well they've handled Cloudpaw and Cinderpelt, I think they'll manage to make it work.

Drew myself as a Warrior Cat to celebrate the release of the second graphic novel! :3 Jingle / Jester, the kittypet.

I often see the fandom conflate plot points / set-up with whether a character is 'defendable' or not.

For instance, Ivypool lashing out at Dovewing in one of the newer books.

"I can't believe Ivypool said that!"

"She was so mean to Dovewing!"

Well, while I personally feel like Ivypool was acting out in a very understandable, and sympathizable way, I also think fans are ignoring the obvious elephant in the room.

—This conflict only happens in the book to set up the book's story arc about 'alternative' afterlives. Bristlefrost, who we assume has faded from the world entirely, is revealed to still live on, even if only symbolically, through a stag that appears before Ivypool.

In other words, Dovewing's grief over Rowankit is being juxtaposed to Ivypool's loss of Bristlefrost, so that the book can reveal that she's not really gone.

In other book series, a Series of Unfortunate Events, for instance, the choices a character makes say something about who they are as a person,

As an example, from a Series of Unfortunate Events, the character Violet Baudelaire purposefully writes with her non-dominant hand when signing a marriage contract to Count Olaf thereby nullifing her marriage to him.

This shows that she is both clever, and knowledgeable of marital law. She is an inventor, and sees all the possibilites before her, even ones that would require her to think outside the box, in situations where a solution might not seem apparent.

Contrast this to Warriors, and you'll find that most characters are mouthpieces for the plot with characterization on the side.

Cinderpaw getting hurt, leading to Jaypaw developing hydrotherapy, allows us to learn about Cinderpaw being Cinderpelt, furthers the relationship between Jaypaw and his connection to the stick, and allows for bonding time between he and Leafpool.

But, we don't get much overt characterization out of this. We learn that Jaypaw is smart. But, it doesn't really say anything about him as a character. This follows for every other Warriors character, too.

We are dripfed characterization through little moments, Whitestorm spending long hours with Bluestar as her health declines, Firepaw's crush on Spottedleaf, Ravenpaw being happy at the barn with Barley.

But, ultimately, the characters are written in service of the plot, and not the other way around, like in a Series of Unfortunate Events.

This is a book series about a plot with characters, and not a book series about characters in a plot.

What if Tigerstar got tnr'd but the vet noticed he had a weird lump in his stomach so he ordered an mri but it turns out that lump was just a big hunk of metal or whatever and Tigerstar exploded on the spot and lost all nine of his lives at once.

Gonna try again 🔥🔥

OREMO is so easy to use!

Cthulhu Vocaloid, here we come!

99% of my criticisms are not with the books, themselves, but rather, the fanbase. Which I feel is disproportionately filled with a loud, and angry majority who don't respect other people, and who take the books and their opinions on the books way too seriously.

my little pwn-y

I feel like fans tend to ignore the line between "fictional kitty society" and "intentional veiled commentary of real world societal issues" when it comes to critiquing Warrior Cats.

When you read a piece of media, you will always come away from it with two seperate interpretations.

What the author intended

What the reader interpreted

Like, I don't think the Bumble thing was a commentary on abusive relationships in real life, and I don't think, based on how Kate or Vicky talk about and treat Warrior Cats, that it was intended that way, for instance.

—But, the parallels are there for those with eyes to see them, and I think it's worth noting that the fandom treats her situation as if it were supposed to be interpreted that way to start with— as an analogue for real abuse— and are incensed by the way the topic was handled.

Similar to Bumble, I see this with cats like Snowkit, or cats like Jayfeather, who, at the time of their being authored, were very likely not intended to convey the authors' stance on disability.

And, if Jayfeather were to do that then the best thing you can possibly say about his portrayal is that came from a well-intentioned, well-meaning place.

To summarize, I don't think Jayfeather or any other situation / character in Warriors is or was—

Intended to be an offensive caricature / stereotype

Purposefully demeaning to children or older readers with a similar disability, or in a similar situation as to what has been portrayed in Warriors thus far

That his character or any other character comes from a place of bad faith, or underlying bias

—even if some readers feel otherwise.