Talk:Astrid Hofferson

Astrid is one of my favorite characters!! She's fierce and sneaky. She rides one of my favorite dragons after the Night Fury, a Deadly Nadder.

Lantern_sky11 (talk) 02:08, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Astrid is my favorite HTTYD character

Mine, too.--rebeccapurple 03:26, December 13, 2014 (UTC)Annabeth and Percy.

Stoick's statement and its interpretation

Okay, there seems to be a disagreement about what Stoick's statement means for Astrid and Hiccup's relationships status.

It is canon that in the movie Stoick said, "That's my future daughter-in-law."

So, what does that mean? Let's look at this word by word.

That:

I doubt that anyone is disputing that 'that' is being used as a pronoun to represent Astrid.

is:

According to Merriam-Webster 'is' is the "present 3rd person singular of be". 'Be' is defined as being "used to describe the qualities of a person or thing".

Now, the most important part of this word choice is the fact that it is the present tense of the verb. The future tense was not chosen. For instance, the statement was not "That will be my future daughter-in-law." and it was not "That's going to be my future daughter-in-law."

Therefore, the quality which Stoick is assigning to Astrid is a present quality, not a future quality. The quality exist at the time of the statement.

Finally, the ones which are really at the crux of the problem, 'my future daughter-in-law'. Looking at each one individually;

my:

Another one which I doubt anyone is disputing. It simply is indicating that the noun being modified by the adjective is in relation to Stoick.

future:

Again, from Merriam-Webster, 'future' is an adjective which is defined as "coming after the present time".

daughter-in-law:

Merriam-Webster defines 'daughter-in-law' as "the wife of your son".

So, with these in mind and interpreting it as daughter-in-law being the noun which both 'my' and 'future' modify then, 'my future daughter-in-law' could mean "in some time after the present the wife of my son". However, the problem with this adjective modification scheme is that the tense of the nominal phrase acting as the direct object contradicts the verb tense.

So, how can this conflict between the tenses be resolved?

Simple, by understanding that the English language doesn't have a word for "the fiancee of your son". The closest that exist without shifting the focus of the statement is "future daughter-in-law". With this in mind then 'future daughter-in-law' becomes a single nominal phrase with the definition of "the fiancee of your son".

Moving forward from this then 'my future daughter-in-law' becomes 'the fiancee of my son'. This allows for the verb and the direct object to have consistent tense, because 'the fiancee of my son' is stateless in time.

The correct way for Stoick to say "in some time after the present the wife of my son", would have been, "That's going to be my daughter-in-law." or "That'll be my daughter-in-law." Interestingly, all of these statements actually leave the actual state of Hiccup and Astrid's relationship as nebulous. They could be betrothed or they could be seriously dating to the point of talking about marriage.

The same ambiguity doesn't exist in the grammatically correct way to interpret Stoick's statement. Grammatically, "That's my future daughter-in-law," means "Astrid is my son's fiancee."

The real contention in this statement comes from two avenues. Perhaps Stoick wasn't speaking grammatically correct or perhaps Stoick was getting ahead of himself. I accept that both of these are possible. However, there is nothing in the movie which would lead one to make these assumptions. There is nothing in the movie which could support such a questioning of Stoick's concise words. To take this stance is to then open the door to all sorts of subjective interpretations of what the characters say and do.

The real problem is that some people don't seem to want Hiccup and Astrid to be betrothed, and Stoick's statement if taken at its grammatically correct face value goes against their desires. Therefore, they want to treat the statement as subjectively being wrong.

Have I missed anything? Is there something in the movie which contradicts Stoick's statement as Hiccup and Astrid are betrothed? Did anyone at any time ever state that they were boyfriend or girlfriend? Did anyone ever state that they weren't betrothed in the movie? Is there anything in canon to give valid cause to interpret Stoick's statement as anything other than correct and true?

Please let me know why Stoick's statement shouldn't be taken as it was said?

Mknopp (talk) 15:33, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

I have thought about this myself, and thought about Stoick's statement. I agree with what you said here. I also have to add that no one would say something like that unless they knew that their son or daughter were engaged to someone. For that reason and all the reasons stated by you above it safe to assume that Astrid and Hiccup are engaged to be married. I was kind of on the line about this matter until I read what you had to say about it, which convinced me that it very possible that Astrid and Hiccup are engaged to be married. P&F fan92 (talk) 16:55, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

All the above statements seem legitmate. However, I do think some wiggle room should be left. The main reason is that we have recieved no confirmation that Hiccup and Astrid are engaged other than this statement yelled by Stoick. I would not at all be surprised if they were, and I think all the above statements support that. However, since we've not had pages coming up on official dragon websites, or descriptions from people at DW calling Astrid "Hiccup's Fiancé" I think we should be careful about jumping to that conclusion. I would be happy to see a page describe her as "possible" or even "likely" Hiccup's fiance, but we haven't seen him propose in any sort of way, and we haven't seen her described explicitly as such. Stoick's remarks are notable, very notable, but I still would say that such a big fact should not be left to be conclusively detirmined by a single statement. After all, it *could* simply be that Hiccup and Astrid have been dating a great friends for five years and that Stoick has come to the logical conclusion that Hiccup will soon marry her and she will be his daughter in law. So, I think in the page itself, we should not say that we know conclusively where she and Hiccup stand when it comes to engagement. We may very well see in the third movie that Hiccup actually engages himself to her, and if that happened we would have had false information on this wiki for years. With something as big as this, before we call it positive fact, we should probably find more than one statement to back it up... including out-of-movie references. After all... it seems strange that none of the offical descriptions have called Astrid that... considering "Hiccup's Fiancé" sound very nice! Anyway, that's my thoughts.Toothless the Nightfury (talk) 21:13, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree about the "wiggle room". That is why I am in favor of 'boyfriend/girlfriend possibly betrothed'. The people who are trying to enact a change are wanting to completely eliminate the possibly betrothed part. Leaving only the boyfriend/girlfriend part, which in my opinion is the least supported by the canon.

Mknopp (talk) 03:34, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for the two of them being engaged but personally, I just think everyone is reading WAY to much into Stoick's statement. Especially given that said statement was said out of exictement in the middle of a heated competition, he was happy, proud and bragging.

It doesn't matter what the word-by-word analysis or the definition of each word in the sentice is specifically because not everyone uses words in the exact context they are defined. You have to remember, this film series has uses a lot of modernisims when it comes to wording, so no one should take the statement as being word-for-word literal like it would have been interpereted in past times (where it would have been taken as gosple confirmation). Now-a-days, some people refer to their child's significant other as 'their future daughter/son-in-law' while they are still just dating and long before they are engaged simply because they know their child is crazy-in-love with the person and they don't fore see them ever breaking up or know they are discussing marriage.

And that's what I think Stoick's statement is meant to be taken as. He's proud of his son's choice in a girlfriend and he knows he's crazy about Astrid and it's highly likely they will eventually get married. Stoick's probably really excited with the prospect of having Astrid in their family; he knows she is a good a fighter, he knows she cares a lot about the village and, most importantly, she cares about his son. He's proud of that relationship and most likely is hopeful/expecting she will be his daughter-in-law in the near future. Then again, it is entirely possible that perhaps he has heard Hiccup talking about proposing to Astrid, maybe even had a father-son conversation with Hiccup about it, which would also explain why he would go ahead and refer to her as his 'future daughter-in-law'; he may know Hiccup is planning on proposing. And then he could be referring to her as such as a hint to his son that he wants Astrid as part of the family and convince his son to get a move on and ask for her hand.

And on top of that, every single interview I have seen from Dean and Jay and America, when Hiccup and Astrid's relationship is brought up they are always described as 'dating' and being 'long time boyfriend and girlfriend'. Nothing at all about them being engaged; if that were the case Dean or Bonnie or someone at DW would have said they were engaged before now and the topic wouldn't even be up for debate right now. Even the art book refers to the two of them as dating.

Also, the plot of the entire series is Hiccup coming of age.Getting engaged is a really big step in adulthood. During HTTYD2 Hiccup is essentially running from the idea of becoming an adult and only appears to accept it during the latter half of the film, so it just seems highly unlikely for his character development, at the time, to have take that big of a step yet.

So until there is official confirmation straight out of Dean's mouth that the two of them are engaged, I think it should be left as they are dating instead of jumping the gun and broadcasting them as being engaged before it's actually officially happened (for all we know, their engagement could be a part of the story in the next film). As it stands, there are to many possible interoperation s of the statement to nail it down as one thing. Its better to stick with the one fact we know with 100% certainty without debate: that they ARE dating. Anything more than that is speculation and fan-hope at this point without an official statement. Moonlight aria (talk) 03:45, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

I just think everyone is reading WAY to much into Stoick's statement.

I am sorry, but the statement was clear and concise. Grammatically there can be only one meaning, and that is not reading into it. That is simply parsing the sentence by the rules of the language. That being said, maybe we are, and maybe we aren't. So, why should the wiki only present one view, especially the view that is the weakest in support from the media?

Especially given that said statement was said out of exictement in the middle of a heated competition, he was happy, proud and bragging.

And how exactly does this objectively equate to his statement being invalid? Let me turn this around. If they were only boyfriend and girlfriend then why didn't Stoick say, "That's my son's girlfriend?" I hear people saying this all of the time at basketball games. Is there any objective reason that Stoick's happiness should invalidate the meaning of his statement?

It doesn't matter what the word-by-word analysis or the definition of each word in the sentice is specifically because not everyone uses words in the exact context they are defined.

I disagree, or perhaps I agree. Maybe the word-by-word analysis of your statement above doesn't matter. Perhaps in your elevated emotional state you misspoke and you actually agree that Hiccup and Astrid are engaged. All joking aside, the grammatical and syntactical meaning of the language is the very basis of communication. Yes, not everyone always sticks to the rules, and often times this leads to confusion. However, for the purposes of this wiki I strongly suggest that there be some sort of objective reason to start assuming that a character broke the rules of the language and thus what they said isn't what they meant.

You have to remember, this film series has uses a lot of modernisims when it comes to wording, so no one should take the statement as being word-for-word literal like it would have been interpereted in past times (where it would have been taken as gosple confirmation).

What does time period have to do with anything being discussed here? If we were going for period authenticity then it would be irrefutable that at this time Astrid and Hiccup are married. Because in period they would have been engaged, if not outright married, within very short order of Astrid kissing him at the end of the first movie or Hiccup would have been dead, literally. Viking families took their daughter's honor extremely seriously.

Now-a-days, some people refer to their child's significant other as 'their future daughter/son-in-law' while they are still just dating and long before they are engaged simply because they know their child is crazy-in-love with the person and they don't fore see them ever breaking up.

Anecdotally some do. By the same token some people would never refer to their child's significant other as 'their future daughter/son-in-law' while they are still dating. That is the problem with anecdotal proof, it isn't objective proof. And it certainly isn't conclusive proof. Again, I don't see where this is relevant. And it certainly doesn't prove that Stoick wasn't speaking the literal truth with what he said.

And that's what I think Stoick's statement is meant to be taken as. -{cut for brevity}-

That is nice. I am more than willing to allow for your subjective beliefs on the wiki by having the relationship to state 'boyfriend/possible fiancé'. Again, it is nice that you "think" that. It isn't proof and doesn't give any objective evidence that what Stoick said isn't the absolute truth as he spoke it.

What I am interested in is why your beliefs should automatically trump and exclude other's beliefs that Stoick meant exactly what he said as he said it.

And on top of that nearly every single interview I have seen from Dean and Jay and America, they have all refered to Hiccup and Astrid as 'dating' and being 'long time boyfriend and girlfriend'. Nothing at all about them being engaged; if that were the case Dean or Bonnie or someone at DW would have said they were engaged before now and the topic wouldn't even be up for debate right now. Even the art book refers to the two of them as dating.

I don't mind using creator comments as canon, but they don't trump what is in the show. The same goes for all of these extra sources. If you want to go with extra sources then I guess I can post that Hiccup and Astrid have engaged in extra-marital activities since according to one source Jay and America said that they have (I have not tried to verify this as I don't really care, but supposedly it is out there). I guess that this again brings up exactly what this wiki wants to consider canon, and within that list what takes precedent. I have been in several other fandoms over the last two decades. One thing that I can assure you is that just because a secondary source says it and even just because a creator says it, doesn't mean that it is going to be canonically true. There have been several instances where a creator has changed his mind or been overruled.

This being said, I readily allow that Stoick might have misspoke and thus why I am promoting and supporting the usage of 'boyfriend/possible fiancé' on the page. Again, why do you feel so strongly that only your subjective interpretation be allowed to be presented?

Also, the plot of the entire series is Hiccup coming of age.Getting engaged is a really big step in adulthood. During HTTYD2 Hiccup is essentially running from the idea of becoming an adult and only appears to accept it during the latter half of the film, so it just seems highly unlikely for his character development, at the time, to have take that big of a step yet.

Again, this is extremely subjective. To me the entire plot of the movie was Hiccup trying to find out who he wants to be. He isn't running away from adulthood he is running away from what he views as his father trying to dictate his future for him. Astrid's relationship with Hiccup is, for the most part, irrelevant to this process. Which is why it wasn't really a major focus of the film. This is about Hiccup's relationship with his parents and him finding his own path forward. Astrid's part in this is irrelevant because it pretty much assumed that whichever path he chooses she will travel it with him, as girlfriend or fiancee doesn't matter and thus wasn't touched on.

So until there is official confirmation straight out of Dean's mouth that the two of them are engaged, I think it should be left as they are dating instead of jumping the gun and broadcasting them as being engaged before it's actually officially happened (for all we know, their engagement could be a part of the story in the next film).

Again, I am sorry, but I am strongly opposed to "Dean's mouth" dictating canon. It is in the movie that Stoick says what he says. And to my knowledge Dean has never said that they aren't engaged has he?

As it stands, there are to many possible interoperation s of the statement to nail it down as one thing. Its better to stick with the one fact we know with 100% certainty without debate: that they ARE dating. Anything more than that is speculation and fan-hope at this point without an official statement.

As it stands, there are exactly two possible interpretations of the statement. Either Stoick meant exactly what he said and they are engaged or he didn't and they aren't. It is not speculation to take a statement made in the movie at face value. What is speculation is that the statement was false. You are subjectively making a decision that what Stoick said is untrue. This is the speculative part.

It amazes me that there is this much resistance to even presenting the idea that Stoick meant exactly what he said.

Here is what this all boils down to. They are at least in a relationship, we all agree on this. That relationship might only be boyfriend/girlfriend (absolutely no evidence or statement in movie canon anywhere, but extra sources support it) or they might be engaged (supported by the grammatically correct statement made by Stoick and not directly refuted by any extra source). I am advocating the presentation of both possible interpretations.

In the next movie it might turn out that what Dean said was accurate and that they aren't engaged. It might turn out that Dean changed his mind and they were engaged in the second movie. It might not be mentioned at all. That is in the future and quite frankly should have little to no relevance on the objective presentation of the facts as presented in the media right now.

I don't want to turn this into an edit war. But so far, I have seen nothing to objectively show why both possible states of their relationship should not be presented. So far, nobody has presented any movie evidence that they are not engaged.

I will continue to keep changing it back until I can see some objective reason from the movie that Stoick might have misspoke, or a majority of posters on this talk page support not putting it.

Mknopp (talk) 06:00, August 28, 2015 (UTC)