[Twisted Wonderland Crossover] Goodnight in the Dreamlands

Do a character analysis of Sister Bao. Although I am terrible at writing, and often I cannot produce the effect I want to write, I have to make up for it later, but I still believe that I study the characters very seriously. After thinking about it, I decided to let her remain in the state of "weak in family relationships, absolute dominant in love". First, her core trauma that was healed not long ago was the "incomprehensible" feeling of being abandoned. Second, this is a long novel and she needs a growth process. Third, her character is that of a mournful wooden beauty, and many of her concepts are relatively negative compared to mainstream concepts. Her emotional code is hidden in the song "Baby Blue" which was written to her mother but could never be received: "I give you pearls, which come from the painful core of 'me', / you give me the dust of the land in return, saying that it is all your land." Her ontological trauma archetype - being abandoned by her biological mother. But what is more fatal than the abandonment itself is the "incomprehensibility". "I am not as worthy of being kept as music." A child cannot understand: Why would he be abandoned as a "person"? This question evolved into the underlying emotional logic of her life - she longed to be loved, but never believed that she was worthy of being loved unconditionally. The reason for her relative weakness in family relationships is: Why is it so difficult to "ask for"? The root cause is the "sense of debt" felt by the abandoned person. During her time in the orphanage, she was treated well by very good people. But please pay attention to her reaction when faced with kindness: "I thought that being surrounded by several children calling me sister and being surrounded by them rushing to pick up food for me would be the happiest thing I have experienced today. But I didn't expect that the director gave me a good job." She believes that "being loved" is the ultimate happiness. When the director expresses more love, she needs to "cover her mouth, put the wind chime back, and swallow her sobs." This is not that she is not touched, but that it is an unbearable burden - because in her subconscious, she is a "deficit", and the kindness of others is a debt that needs to be repaid. So her performance is: always ready to "leave" in family relationships. Whether she left her adoptive parents to "go out to relax" after learning the truth, or she didn't tell Asl Chao's name, or just glanced at the Charlotte family briefly - she was always in a state of "ready to leave at any time". This is not because you don't love, but because you love too much, you are afraid of becoming a burden and afraid of being abandoned again. "Xiaolian, thank you for being a friend, and thank you for letting me know that we are not alone." Pay attention to the expression here - "no one is alone", this is the confirmation of an equal relationship, not "I am the object of protection". In family relationships, she needs to confirm that the other person "also needs me" before she can allow herself to accept the relationship. Her psychological mechanism is: being loved means "passive acceptance", and you need to first confirm that you are not in debt. When Caesar knelt at her feet and called her "Queen", when she became the "Insect Mother" and was relied on by the insect swarm - in these relationships, she was the giver and protector, so she could safely accept the submission of the other party. But family love is different. Family love is "given", which triggered her core fear: If I am just the recipient, will I be considered "unworthy"? This is why she always feels a subtle sense of guilt towards her adoptive parents: "She felt that she had betrayed them and wanted to immediately drop what she was doing and write a letter to confess and repent of the matter." Even though her adoptive parents loved her unreservedly, she still felt that her very existence had "betrayed" them - because her true identity was that of a "slice" and an "experimental subject." She can never fully relax in a family relationship because accepting love means exposing her "unworthiness." The opposite is that she is absolutely dominant in love. Why does "taking control" come so naturally? Because she doesn't care. The root cause is: in her opinion, love is a "game" that she can actively define. Her entire understanding of love seems to have come from her frolics of writing a lot of love letters in preparation for pranks at the instigation of her best friend when she was 14 years old. She has had heartbeats but not many. The "human" part of her is, after all, very young. Unlike family relationships, love relationships are actively chosen by her and she can set the rules. In love, she is the "hunter" rather than the "adopted," which sidesteps her core trauma of the passivity of abandonment. Shamlock's relationship is a classic example: "He never asked me about my past, never asked me why I was here, and never asked me what I was thinking. He just showed up and stood beside me, sometimes talking and sometimes not talking." "One day he said, 'Let's get engaged.'" "I asked: 'Why?'" "He thought for a moment and then said, 'I don't know.'" This relationship was "abnormal" from the beginning - no reason, no exchange, no conditions. This hits home for her: if the other person doesn't need anything, then she can't use "whether my existence is valuable" to measure the relationship. So she agreed to the proposal and later invited him into the inner room to chat with her. At the core of her performance is her refusal to be saved, but her willingness to give. When Shamlock came to her and said that he wanted to protect her, her response was very representative: "Shamlock, have you ever killed a living person?... I won't ask you those things. Because that's your business, the path you choose, and something you have to bear. I won't say that you 'shouldn't'. So, please don't say that I 'shouldn't'." She was defending the other party, and at the same time drawing a clear line: we each choose the path we each bear. Don't try to "save" me. But when he said, "If you are tired, there is still a place to go," she gave a rare promise: "Okay. If one day I am tired, I will go to you." In love, she is the one who says "I will". She firmly held the initiative in her own hands - not "please save me", but "if I decide to come to you, I will come". This reflects her psychological mechanism: giving love is safer than receiving love. Being dominant in love means that she is always the "giver" or "chooser", not the "giver" or "chosen one". This avoids the risk of abandonment - because she is at the center of the relationship and holds the power of definition. She didn't object when Shamrock said she had "lost weight," and she wasn't angry when he said, "You shouldn't be doing this." But when he said, "Follow me," she refused outright. Why? Because "Follow me" is passive and means accepting protection; while staying where you are and continuing to do what you are doing is active and controlling. She finally says "thank you" to Shamrock, to the mist - a crucial detail. Talking in the fog is a safe distance: I express my feelings, but whether you can hear me or not is up to you. This is a classic "dominance mentality": I give what I choose to give, but I don't force you to receive it. ... So how can these two seemingly contradictory states be unified? The unifying core is her fear of "owing something short." Her reflection will ultimately end with "I will shoulder my due responsibilities, and I don't owe her anything." Weak in family relationships because she is afraid of becoming the one in debt; dominant in love because she ensures that she is always the giver rather than the debtor. Both states are manifestations of the same core: the inability to bear the feeling of indebtedness of "being given without knowing it". "Children who lack love are like this." This is what she said herself. When Caesar knelt at his feet, she saw through his true nature - he was also a "child who lacked love", so once he was given a little warmth, he was devoted to him. But she is different: because she knows this mechanism so well, she refuses to be the one who is "given." She would rather be the giver, the one crouching down and petting the goat, than the goat being petted. There are exceptions: North Korea. This is an important node to be written about later. (Hehehe, the important manifestations of growth are from "in order to protect the North Korea that has no fighting ability and put it in a safe time and space to fight alone" to "use the time camera and fight side by side with companions".) Chao is the only existence she allows herself to be "dependent on". But note that even in the DPRK, she is the "placer", "protector", and "the one who promises to return". She said to Chao "wait for me" instead of "wait for me to come back and save me". She gave Chao a grape condensed with her own existence and let it wait for her in her dream - this is still the dominant gesture. But the meaning of the dynasty is that it is the only object she allows herself to be "waited for". In love, she said to Shamrock, "I will come to you"; in family love, she said to her family, "Don't come to me." Only to face the court, she said "wait for me". This is the closest she comes to allowing herself to be dependent - but still in a way that requires her. Back to Shamrock's dumpling-making relationship. The only tender twist: her "yes" to Shamrock. "If I get tired one day, I will go to you." It was the most special commitment of all her relationships. Because in this sentence, she admitted for the first time: I may be tired. I might need a place to go. I might take the initiative to come to you. She didn't say, "Please come and save me," but she said, "If I come, I will come." This was as far as she could give in—leaving the initiative of choice to herself, but finally admitting that there might come a time when she needed to be chosen. This is why Shamrock was "stupefied for a moment, as if he didn't expect you to answer so simply." Because he understands the weight of "good". This setting has two narrative meanings: The first is a compensatory narrative of "abandonment trauma". By making the character absolutely dominant in love, she compensates for her "abandonment" experience of being completely passive in family relationships. This is a kind of narrative therapy: the child who was abandoned by his mother finally grew up to say, "No one can abandon me, because I am the one who chooses." From my personal understanding, it is impossible to eliminate the impact of trauma on the rest of your life after it is healed. It is extremely normal for bystanders to look awkward at certain times. For example: You were depressed for a while because you couldn't accept the negative impact of blindness. After you came out, you still couldn't see, it was still inconvenient, and you would be negative when you felt frustrated. You can also be negative. There is nothing wrong with being negative in itself. What is offensive is the negative people's influence on other people, not the negativity itself. The second is an attempt to eliminate the "sense of indebtedness". "If I can give, I owe no one." This was her way of dealing with her feelings of indebtedness. But the problem is that true intimacy is never a one-way flow of "giving" and "receiving", but a mutual giving and receiving of both parties. She can dominate love, but she cannot truly "accept" love - because acceptance means admitting that she needs it and admitting that she may be in debt. That's why she treasures Shamrock's "goodness" so much: it's the first time she admits she might "need" a place to go. What I am trying to say is that there is no contradiction between "being independent and strong" and "allowing yourself to rest." ... She still has immature thoughts. She was struggling with her thinking and kept getting into trouble. In the first chapter, she said that she wanted to "find someone who can't see the sea" (the purpose is to let her control her abilities), and in the next chapter she said, "Whether or not I can see the sea does not affect me from becoming the person I want to be" (she likes the sea, and the meaning of this is self-liberation), but her narrative is generally confusing and fragmented. So I said she needs a psychiatrist, (this is also the meaning of setting up "Ghost of the Sea" Mariana)

The emperor's bow was bewitched! Still can't escape the clutches of a bad woman! Wait, was this meeting observed? I look forward to the future where the heroine, who is a fox, will have a pure love affair with Di Gong in front of everyone! Let the public experience the power of this pair of CPs on the spot!

To be honest, this general Zhenlan really pokes me! Waiting for the love triangle that will go down in history hahaha

I hope that the position of Emperor Gongzheng Palace will not be shaken! Mainly, I want to let everyone see the beautiful love between Xunxun and his sister. What kind of fan fiction has become a reality 🐶

Looking at the text, will the heroine become a Star God in the future? Then this love triangle is a love triangle worthy of being immortalized in history! I'm really curious about what future generations will say (ps: I will never underestimate human beings' love for divine gossip)! I really look forward to the cp interaction between Di Gong and the heroine in front of Xianzhou!

When I saw the part about The Little Prince, I remembered that someone said that this is a matter of female mistresses, male husbands, and female wives. By the way, this person also said that the author himself seemed to be the husband. Difficult to check authenticity

Looking forward to the appearance of Emperor Bow in the future!!! Let the scandal between Lan and Mei be more intense! Give the world a shock of love for billions of star gods!

If Lan gives it, doesn't it mean he still loves the heroine?

!!! Looking forward to the Stone Age Chapter!!

The teacher can start creating now. I hope the author has passed Level 4. I feel like I must have failed [Dog's Head Holds a Rose]