Essay: The Wolf Among Us

Here's an essay I wrote last semester for a cool English course I took called Gaming & Narrative Theory. It got me an A so I guess it must be somewhat decent.

The Wolf Among Us, Player Choice and Dynamic Character Adaptation

            The Wolf Among Us is an episodic adventure/mystery video game released in 2013 by American independent game publisher Telltale Games. It is an adaptation of the Fables series of comic books, which takes famous characters from well-known nursery rhymes, films and stories and brings them together in one universe, a hidden community known as "Fabletown" in the  heart of New York City. The video game adaptation of this centers around protagonist Bigby Wolf, who is better known as the "Big Bad Wolf" from the Little Red Riding Hood and Three Little Pigs fairy tales. The Wolf Among Us has an interesting portrayal of Bigby. Despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the context that the person playing the game knows him in, he is very much the hero of the game. In this essay, I will argue that the player's perception of Bigby and other characters in the game is altered and defined by their previous knowledge of them in other texts, and that The Wolf Among Us is a legitimate adaptation of these characters. In her book Beginning to Theorize Adaptation, Linda Hutcheon defines an adaptation as "an announced and extensive transposition of a particular work or works" (7). The Wolf Among Us fits quit well into this definition, as it brings characters from a multitude of other works in several different genres and media together in one cohesive game universe.

            When a character is adapted into a new medium or text, they inevitably bring their reputation and previous actions with them in the mind of the person experiencing the new text, and this concept certainly affects the  perception of the character of Bigby in this game. Hutcheon writes that adaptations have an "overt and defining relationship to prior texts" (3). While her book is primarily concerned with film adaptations of works of literature, this certainly holds true in video game adaptations such as The Wolf Among Us. Bigby is defined for the player by his history in the fairy tales that he originates in.

            In The Wolf Among Us, Bigby Wolf is the sheriff and chief law enforcer of Fabletown. He uses his brute strength and skills of investigation to solve crimes and keep the residents of Fabletown safe and under control. This portrayal is extremely interesting given the previous portrayals of Bigby in the material his character is adapted from. In Little Red Riding Hood, The Big Bad Wolf is the antagonist of the story and primarily exists to deceive and try to eat Little Red Riding Hood. Having this previous knowledge of Bigby causes the player of the game to be cautious of him at first, knowing that in his background he is a villain who cannot be trusted. This is alluded to in the game as well. The characters inhabiting Fabletown all remember the events that occurred in not only their stories of origin but those of the others as well, and these events often create a reputation or image for these characters that affects the way that the other ones think of them. For example, a talking pig named Colin is often found at Bigby's apartment, and makes several appearances throughout the game. It is revealed that this is one of the Three Little Pigs from its eponymous tale, and in that particular story the Big Bad Wolf (Bigby) is clearly the antagonist. In this fairy tale, the Wolf destroyed Colin's house. In the context of The Wolf Among Us, this has happened previously and Colin often appears at Bigby's apartment because he is homeless as a result of what Bigby has done to him in the past. Colin is bitter about these events and he serves as a reminder to both Bigby and the person playing the game that he has done immoral things in the past and does not fit into the definition of a hero that most fairy tale stories subscribe to. However, it is made clear that Bigby feels remorseful about his past wrongdoings because he allows Colin to stay at his apartment. Interactions like this reveal a lot about Bigby and his character in The Wolf Among Us. It is easy to see him as a villain because of the evil deeds he has done in other works, but in this game he is quite clearly struggling with his nature and attempting to become a good "person".

            Whether or not he accomplishes this goal is entirely dependent on the person playing the game and the choices they make. Like all of Telltale's games, The Wolf Among Us is almost entirely driven by choice. An extremely high degree of control is given to the character over Bigby's actions. This ranges from small things such as choosing what he says in conversations and which questions to ask suspects, to far more profound and lasting choices such as whether to kill or spare lives or who to implicate in criminal investigations. A good example of this is at the end of the game where Bigby finally uncovers the culprit behind the killings in Fabletown. He (the player) is presented with two options: kill the criminal mastermind immediately, or take him into custody so he can face a fair trial for his crimes. Choices like this offer the player opportunities to "write" Bigby and decide what kind of character he is. It is made clear throughout the course of the game that Bigby has a very poor reputation among the other Fables. He is known for his violent temper and propensity for extreme methods that are morally questionable, but tend to yield results.

             This reputation can affect the person playing the game in one of two ways. One, it can drive them to do things "Bigby's way" and use excessive violence to achieve his goals. An example of this is early on in the game when Bigby is attempting to locate a person he has reason to believe is responsible for a murder and is attacked by Grendel, another literary figure originating in the English epic poem Beowulf. After subduing Grendel using his lycanthropic powers (Bigby is usually humanoid but has the ability to turn partially or fully into his wolf form to become stronger), Bigby is presented with the option of letting the defeated Grendel go or ripping off his arm. Interestingly, Grendel has his arm ripped off by Beowulf in the poem he originates in. This is a deliberate homage to the poem that makes the encounter with Grendel more enjoyable for players who are familiar with Beowulf.  In pivotal moments such as this, it is entirely up to the player to decide who they want Bigby to be. Doing things Bigby's way means violently pulling Grendel's arm off in plain sight of several other fables and further increasing his reputation of unfeelingly committing unnecessarily extreme acts of violence. Based on Bigby's historical context and his characterization in other works such as Little Red Riding Hood, this seems like the logical course of action, and what his character would unquestionably do in any other work of fiction. This illustrates how Bigby's past in other works of fiction affect the player's perception of him in this game. The fact that it is simple for the player to know what Bigby is expected to do and what he would likely normally do in situations such as these means that they may be likely to play the game in this way to bring consistency to his character. What is interesting about The Wolf Among Us, however,  is that the player is given the opportunity to deviate from this path and make Bigby perform acts of compassion and mercy.

             This is the other way that the inclusion of a strong element of choice in The Wolf Among Us affects the person playing. While Bigby's origins in famous fairy tales affects the player's perception of him to a certain degree, the choices in this game actually allow the player to change Bigby and make him a better person. Naturally there is no way to change who Bigby was in the past in the diegesis of the game and in other works, but if the player makes choices that are compassionate or helpful towards other people, they can begin to change the perception of Bigby within the game. A good illustration of this is the character of Snow White. She is one of the main characters in The Wolf Among Us, and originates in the famous film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Snow is one of the leaders of Fabletown and works very closely with Bigby in upholding the law. As her name suggests, she is by far the most innocent and pure character in the game, and often acts as Bigby's moral compass. This purity is established in the game, but can also come to the player by knowledge of Snow's character in the film she originated in. In the game, she keeps a very close watch over Bigby and often pleads with him to resist his nature and think before he acts. This can motivate the player to use Bigby to commit moral actions in an attempt to gain Snow White's approval. Despite Bigby's failings and misdeeds in the past, Snow offers him the opportunity to reform and change his reputation with the people of Fabletown. This concept of redemption extends outside the game to the person playing, because the player can turn Bigby into a strong, moral hero, which also changes the player's perception of him in light of his past evils.

            Uri Margolin addresses this dynamic nature of fictional characters such as Bigby when he says that "the properties ascribed to characters need not even form a logically consistent set, let alone one conforming to actual world regularities" (68). This means that Bigby does not need to be entirely consistent in all of the texts in which he appears, because he is a constructed character in a fictional world. Thus, while Bigby has been evil in the past, and can continue to be if the player chooses to make him so, he does not necessarily need to be this way in The Wolf Among Us to be the same character as he is in Little Red Riding Hood. Margolin goes on to say that "any given character may be amenable to a whole range of individuations, all of which are nonetheless compatible with the original" (69). In accordance with this, Bigby Wolf is an "individuation" of the Big Bad Wolf literary figure from the fairy tales from which he was adapted. This character has undergone immediately recognizable changes and adjustments from the original Big Bad Wolf, but remains an iteration of the same character simply because the game explicitly says he is and makes reference to his past in other well known works of fiction.

           

            Strengthening this argument for Bigby's legitimacy as an adapted character, Margolin says that the "later texts and the original must be related to each other both historically and intentionally"  and that the authors (in this case programmers) "must intend their readers to recognize the original version" (69). The Wolf Among Us is absolutely related to the other texts from which it adapts its characters. It would be nearly impossible for the game's writers and developers to accidentally place all of these characters in one universe with the backstories and personalities they have, so it is safe to assume that the adaptation of Bigby and everyone else in The Wolf Among Us is intentional. It is also clear that the game's writers intend for the players of the game to recognize the characters within it, because ample context and history is given for a large number of them. An example of this in the game is one short section where the player (controlling Bigby) is tasked with reading through a picture book full of depictions of the other Fables with the goal of locating and identifying an unknown woman who was murdered. While flipping through the book, the player can highlight and focus in on pictures of several of the other characters in the game, and with each there is a brief verbal description of them in the diegesis of their original fairy tale. This deliberate inclusion of references to the original texts the characters are adapted from is for the sole purpose of linking these characters back to their original texts, and reinforcing the sense of familiarity that they may already have in the mind of the player.

            When viewed using adaptation and character theories, The Wolf Among Us is a very interesting game. Being a video game adaptation of a comic book series that is in fact an adaptation, it contains a sort of "double layer" of adaptation. However, despite making a journey through three different media (some characters such as Snow White have come from films into comic books and now to video games), the characters in this fictional universe are still extremely recognizable iterations of their original forms, and contain more than enough shared characteristics with their source characters to be easily identifiable as the people or creatures that the game introduces them as. Bigby himself is shown as a human being in the game, but the way that the other characters react to him and the details revealed about his past before the events of the game make him unmistakably the famous Big Bad Wolf of fairy tale fame. Linda Hutcheon writes that an adaptation is "a derivation that is not derivative- a work that is second but not secondary" (9). This is description that applies especially well to The Wolf Among Us as a standalone text. While it borrows characters from other works, it does so in a manner that makes them new and different and uses them to create an original storyline. This game is "second but not secondary" in that it comes after the works that it draws from chronologically, but is in itself a creative work of original imagination. These characters are formed by their identity in previous works, but all come together to create an original narrative that is an effective and fascinating in its portrayals of already famous characters.

There Will Be Blood: An Analysis/Essay

I'm really lazy right now, so instead of actually writing something I'll post an essay I wrote last year for an elective Film Criticism course I took. My teacher liked it and gave it a 90 so it must be decent at the very  least. I had to keep it short because there was a word limit,so there's not nearly as much in here as I would have liked, but whatever. If you haven't seen the movie it probably won't make sense, and if you haven't seen the movie you should stop reading here and go watch it because it's a goddamn masterpiece. Anyways, here:

Religion and Capitalism: A Formula For Disaster

Ideological Themes in There Will Be Blood

A bleak, unforgiving landscape. A geyser of fire spewing out of the earth, like an explosion from hell itself. These are just a few examples of the striking images that occupy the screen in Paul Thomas Anderson's meditative, dramatic epic There Will Be Blood. The film documents the experiences of oil entrepreneur Daniel Plainview, from his rise to prominence to his descent into madness and alcoholism. Daniel encounters several problems and obstacles in his pursuit of oil and financial success, including personal injury, corporate rivalry, and the interference of and conflict with religion, which is one of the main ideological subtexts of the film. This collision between capitalism and religion manifests itself in There Will Be Blood in the visual and implied symbolism shown, the actions of the main characters (specifically Daniel) and the general descent into madness that is experienced by both sides of the conflict. There Will Be Blood contrasts religion and capitalism, and portrays extremism in both sides of the conflict. Daniel Plainview is a very business-like, profit orientated man who has no place in his life for religion and is clearly focused on one goal above all else: finding oil, building an empire and making money. Actor Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Plainview is immaculate, his character has been described as “a great oversized monster who hates all men, and therefore himself” (Ebert, 2008). On the other end of the spectrum is Eli Sunday, a preacher and inhabitant of the land that Daniel eventually buys to develop and drill for oil. He is extremely devoted to his religion, and right from the beginning he is cautious of Daniel and his motives for coming to Little Boston and buying the land. The contention between them is a classic example of stubbornness, an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object, and throughout the film it snowballs from initial co-operation to a violent showdown at the end, resulting in Daniel brutally murdering Eli. This suggests that capitalism and religion do not mix together well and it is unlikely that they can peacefully coexist.

One of the most effective ways that a film can convey a message to the viewer is to use visual symbolism to communicate. To the discerning audience it can speak volumes about the intent of the movie and the themes that it is trying to explore or express. In There Will Be Blood, symbolism is used to draw attention to the conflict between Daniel and Eli, and the conflict between religion and capitalism happening beneath the surface. This symbolism is evident in the names of the characters in the film. Daniel Plainview is “a representative figure, a man of his times” (Mapping Contemporary Cinema, 2007). As his surname implies, he has a very realist, plain view of the world and is representative of capitalism, the desire for money and little else. On the other end of the spectrum is Eli Sunday, whose last name can be associated with his religion in the fact that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, or day of rest. There are some striking shots that visually foreshadow what is to come in the film, such as when Daniel strikes oil in Little Boston. The geyser of oil becomes ignited and a spew of fire comes out of the ground, burning the giant oil derrick that Plainview constructed to drill with and injuring his son H.W. Daniel sits down and watched the giant, flaming oil derrick snap and fall to the ground, symbolizing a “breaking point”. This is shortly before the relationship between Daniel and Eli turns sour, from tolerance to violence and conflict. Another symbol that is prevalent throughout the entire movie is that of baptism. When Eli confronts Daniel and demands that he give him the money that Daniel had earlier promised to donate to his church, Daniel physically attacks and beats him, eventually throwing him into a puddle of oil and mud, and rubbing it all over his face and body. Later on, Daniel gets baptized at Eli's church in exchange for more land from an old man who previously refused to sell his lot. Eli takes this opportunity to get revenge on Daniel for his humiliation, slapping him repeatedly and making him admit that he is a sinner and has abandoned his child. Finally, when Eli comes to visit Daniel in his mansion at the end of the film their final confrontation ends with Daniel beating Eli to death with a bowling pin, a symbolic baptism of blood and Daniel's victory over his nemesis. These symbolic circumstances are very effective in Anderson's film to demonstrate the underlying theme of the movie, the battle that takes place between business and religion.

The conflict between capitalism and religion is also manifested in the actions of the main characters of the film, specifically Daniel Plainview. He is the embodiment of business, a man who “regets nothing, pities nothing, and when he falls down a mineshaft and cruelly breaks his leg, he hauls himself back up to the top and starts again” (Ebert, 2008). To him there is no other goal worth striving for other than money. When attempting to persuade investors to give him a lease on some land to drill, he claims that he is “a family man” and that his son is his motivation for his life's work. But later on when his adopted son H.W is deafened after being hit by a geyser and attempts to burn down their house out of frustration, Daniel has him sent away to boarding school rather than trying to take care of the child himself. When the incident happens and H.W loses his hearing, Daniel quickly leaves him and seems more excited about his oil strike than he is worried about his own son being injured. He later on disowns H.W when he is grown up and decides to go to Mexico and start his own oil company, saying that he is now his rival and enemy. Daniel is corrupted by money and only cares about becoming rich, and this drives him to alcoholism and madness later on in life. He despises religion, which is the cause of his conflict with Eli. When a man offers Daniel permission to build a pipeline through his land in exchange for him getting baptized and joining the church, Daniel offers him a large sum of money instead, because he is loath to be associated with Christianity. Earlier on in the film Daniel witnesses Eli exorcising an “arthritis demon” from the hands of an elderly woman in the congregation. He is amused, calling it “one goddamn hell of a show”. Daniel sees religion in a very mocking, sarcastic way and has no belief in a specific higher power, saying early on in the film that he belongs to no church and “enjoys all faiths”. This outlook is one of the main differences between Daniel and Eli and further demonstrates how opposite they are to each other, and how religion and business collide in this film.

One of the ways Paul Thomas Anderson illustrates the theme of capitalism versus religion in There Will Be Blood is through the gradual descent into madness and insanity that the main characters experience throughout the film. After Daniel Plainview strikes oil and his son loses his hearing, his sanity seems to go downward from there on. He becomes violent towards Eli specifically, beating him and throwing him into a puddle of oil, humiliating him publicly. After this, Eli loses his temper on his own family, assaulting his father and calling him “a stupid father to a stupid son”. Later on, Daniel meets a man who claims to be his long lost brother. Although suspicious of him at first, Daniel gives him a job and welcomes him as a business partner. A while after this however, Daniel grows doubtful of his legitimacy and finds out that he is not his brother, but a man pretending to be his sibling. Daniel reacts by killing the man and burying him in a shallow grave. This is something that the Daniel that we see at the beginning of the film would never have done. He claimed to be a “family man” and that his family was just as important to him as his business. By the end of the film Daniel has become the polar opposite of what he once claimed to be, becoming a reclusive alcoholic. He even disowns his son H.W and calls him a bastard child when he tells him that he is moving to Mexico to start his own oil company. Finally, Daniel completes his descent into insanity in the film's dramatic climax, where he confronts Eli Sunday for the final time and ends up bludgeoning him to death with a bowling pin. This gradual disintegration of Daniel's sanity illustrates the results of the combination of capitalism and religion: death.

There Will Be Blood is a strikingly philosophical film on several levels. It offers an intimate portrait of a businessman pushed to his limit by the opposition he faces, and the ultimate breakdown that results in his conflict. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as entrepreneur Daniel Plainview is nothing less than legendary, and he does a spectacular job of portraying this complex character. There Will Be Blood effectively explores the themes of capitalism and religion in America, and what happens when those two forces collide and conflict with each other. As the movie shows, the results are grim. When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, there will be blood.