#anticlimactic element choice for a big chapter

[gremlinshatephilosophers]

Monochromatic Serotonin - Chapter 12: ALUMINIUM

Rating: G • Words: 3203/20043 • Chapters: 12/13

[ebitenpura]

Writing a slightly spoiler-free review for the Smuggler class story is hard when it's mostly just an easy to digest, fun time -.-

Anyways. Without further ado, my thoughts. Let's start with the Cons.

My major gripes are mostly the shoehorning into picking a side of the war again instead of letting the smuggler stay as a privateering neutral individual who can find profit wherever they please because it really detracts from the freedom theme it's trying to push if you're working for Big Government-- but I understand why they made that choice in a game that's mostly about factions. Still, it presents a lot of tonal dissonance about a criminal telling people to turn themselves in to the Republic because they suddenly have the heart of a do-gooder. I'm sure it's easy to rationalize away as an RPer, but there's a different direction it could've taken. Unfortunately, that's not SWTOR's intent.

The antagonists themselves don't present much either, although they spend all of 3 chapters sending their goons after you and you won't get a moments rest not hearing who sent them. I do think it's a little silly to have that much beef for losing one shipment of blasters, but it's also easier to think of it this way: losing an shipment of crack cocaine would definitely land you in hot water. I doubt SWTOR had the guts to say spice outright though, but that's semantics. Anyways. I found Rogun to be underwhelming as a villain, if not a C-rate gangster nipping at your heels. He does help make you feel like you're always outrunning your debts in good old Han Solo style with the downside of mostly being an afterthought in the story as a presence, though taking down his enterprise wasn't a bad angle... but it lacks a personal touch. A reason to strike back besides the guy won't leave you alone. Meeting him face to face was incredibly anticlimactic, though it serves to set up the next villain.

Then there's the whole Voidwolf quandary who doesn't overstay his welcome-- if not just barely scrapes by as a villain even less there in the story than Rogun. Again, underwhelming finale that didn't give much because Voidy could never stick around to even chat, just run and send goons. While I enjoyed getting to finally face him in person, it lasted all of 40 seconds... and I wish he'd hit us where it hurt, though the reveal and the extra betrayal wasn't half bad! But neither were the traitors people who mattered to us, just another business deal gone wrong in a business full of backstabbers. It's also easily fixed by waving one's blaster in the right places. It lacks the small-timer charm we start out with when betrayals aren't a dime a dozen and we're still vulnerable-- taking that away with Republic backing diminishes that feeling.

But that's not to say it's not an unenjoyable ride. It's fun. It's rather lighthearted and silly: you don't have to think very hard about what's going on, making it just....refreshing in comparison to some of the heavier class stories in both tone and density. The companions are some of my favorites, if not the one of the few crews that makes you feel right at home instead of a leader and lackeys. Risha's storyline was perhaps the juiciest part of the entire gig, and it kept me hankering for more every time I talked to her. Guss is funny as hell. Bowdaar, despite being a Chewie ripoff, is endearing and wise and I like what he brings to the table. Akaavi adds a much needed rougher element and is a favorite of the masses. Corso...is Corso, in being the goodhearted farmboy to your morally dubious smuggler. They all play excellently off the smuggler in strong ways overall, and it's imo a boon.

The smuggler themselves has great lines and presence. That is very easy to see throughout. Laughed a lot at their cutscenes. They're a hoot.

So, strong points for character and less points for story. Still a compelling journey, and a bit of a adrenaline rush. Would I play it again? Not likely. However, it'll stick with me for quite some time.

[sporco-filth]

I've been thinking of doing this for a while and I guess here it is: a series on how to write slob stories. I'll go through things in a sort of order that kind of follows how I do things. Without further ado:

How to Write: Plots

I'd say there are a few main flavours of slob stories:

Corruption (becoming a slob, caused by an external force)

Letting go (becoming a slob because they let themselves relax)

Slice of life (character is already a slob and it's just a day in the life)

Reversed values (where being a slob is seen as a virtue)

Slob education (someone is taught how to be a slob)

Forbidden desires (character wants to be a slob/loves a slob but society prevents them)

Humiliation (character is mocked for being a slob or punished by becoming one)

They overlap, but in general they can be split into these groupings. All of them play on the themes of transformation, the taboo/sinfulness of slob or the pleasure/freedom of slob.

The other thing to consider is dominance/submission aspects. This power play stuff can also alter the story. The intricacies of the power dynamics are what separate corruption and education stories: in the former, there's a lack of consent, or a pressuring, while in the latter there's an element of respect built on trust and it's something undergone willingly with full understanding.

I actually don't have much advice for plot ideas because 75% of my ideas come to me from the aether and 25% from my audience. If anything, it's the easiest part.

A good thing to consider is the concept of orientation, conflict, resolution: you introduce the characters, a problem arises and then it gets resolved. Most of my stories have the conflict be a character's reluctance to be a slob and the resolution is their mindset change.

The main conflict might carry through the whole story, but each chapter often has its own rising conflict and mini resolution, even if it is as simple as Lee in Slob City trying to work out what to do with his rubbish.

A story without conflict can feel meandering and boring. You also need to make sure the resolution has enough time too: if there's a big problem and it's fixed in a sentence, it feels anticlimactic.

All things (music, writing, sex, eating, etc) derive pleasure from tension and resolution. For example, in Slob City it's Lee's teetering desire that provides the tension: we know he's going to become a slob eventually, we're just waiting for the tipping point. Once it finally arrives, we have a moment of tension where we wonder how he will react, and then there's the final resolution where he accepts it fully. But that whole scene, even though it has tension, is part of the resolution. Resolution is both a section of the story (the part where the problem is fixed) and the emotion of relieving tension (which can happen whenever, not just the very end).

Sometimes a lack of resolution is a decent choice too. It may leave the audience unsatisfied, but sometimes leaving a bit of mystery or tension is interesting. Cliffhangers are a simple example but it's also possible to end a story without a resolution (a particularly famous one I know is Picnic at Hanging Rock which is a splendid novel if you like reading stuff other than slob fiction. It's also a decent film but I like the book more).

Having a conflict in mind and working towards it makes writing easier. I typically write as if I'm driving a car and I know where my destination is, and maybe a few places I want to stop by along the way, but the exact route I make up as I go. I can take detours, but as long as I don't go too far off the course and make sure I still end up at my goal, things are good. The resolution typically follows easily on from the conflict.

Also, you can use other people's ideas. It's not illegal. Just don't make a carbon copy of the story: if you're going to explore an idea someone else already used, you need to bring something new to the table otherwise there's no point to it. Like, change the characters' personalities or roles, or change the viewpoint. (by this I should note I don't mean using the names and everything (unless you ask first, just because some people are fussy (I'm not btw, do whatever you want with my characters)) I just mean you can reuse the types of characters).

One other thing I can say: I like to plan stories (if I do plan them, because a lot of the time I don't) by just writing dot points describing everything that will happen. You skip details you haven't decided on and you go into extreme specifics when you know exactly what you'll do, but you just write all the ideas down in chronological order.

A fun sort of practice exercise you can do is to come up with a basic plot. Start with a theme or main idea based on something that turns you on, what type of slob story you want it to be, and then think of what issues could result from it. Even a day in the life story can have problems: even something as mundane as a slob not being able to reach the remote could make for a funny (and hot) story if you play it right. Which leads to the last step: think about how the story will be resolved. How has the status quo introduced at the beginning changed, or have you gone back to the status quo ante?

There is no right choice when it comes to writing, but there are wrong choices. Plotting is when this is most important.

Next up: how to come up with characters for your story.

[seolhe]

I was wondering,,, why do you say the dark wife is one of the worst books you've read? I read it a few years ago, and I dont remember anything about it tbh, so I'm curious

Oh boy, where do I start? I had a lot of problems with this novel, both as a Greek myth retelling and from a writing standpoint. Now, keep in mind that I read thisabout 2 years ago, so I might be forgetting some small details here and there, but I’ll try to explain the main reasons it bugged me so much. So buckle up, because this is gonna be a long one.

Characters: All the characters are two-dimensional and poorly developed. None of them have any amount of nuance or depth.Zeus is moustache twirling villain who is evil for the sake of being evil. Hades is as good as Zeus is evil, endlessly noble and selfless and devoted. I genuinely can’t remember a single defining trait of Persephone? She’s such abland and generic protagonist, nothing really stands out about her in my memory other than her obsessive pining over Hades and hatred of Zeus. A lot of this feels like it’s pulled straight from the shallow and occasionally downright inaccurate readings of Greek myths that have become so popular in recent years, especially on places like tumblr (Zeus as an evil rapist, Hades as a pure cinnamon roll, Persephone descending willingly into the Underworld, etc.).But there are also more confusing takes on these characters, like turning chaste virgin goddess Athena into a self-centered, promiscuous lesbian (not to say that being a lesbian or being promiscuous is bad, it’s just such a strange interpretation of Athena’s character that doesn’t make any sense)And don’t even get me started on poor Charis! Charis, Persephone’s first lover in the book, exists solely to be raped and killed by Zeus. She’s fridged to show us that Zeus is BAD and giving Persephone a reason to hate him. The author’s treatment of this character is lazy and offensive. I’m sure this is something that won’t bother all readers, but as someone with a deep love for the mythology, I found the portrayal of the Greek gods franklyinsulting. Plot:“Three thousand years ago, a god told a lie.”Here we run into a big problem with the narrative. We’re told from the very prologue that the story of Hades and Persephone we’re familiar with is a lie, a narrative created by Zeus, and this is Persephone’s attempt to set the record straight.These are the first lines of our story: “I am not my mother’s daughter. I have forfeited my inheritance, my birthright. I do not possess the privilege of truth. The stories told by fires, the myth of my kidnap and my rape, are all that remain of me. Forever I will be known as the girl who was stolen away to be the wife of Hades, lord of all the dead. Andnone of it is true, or is so fragmented that the truth is nothing more than ashadow, malformed. The stories are wrong. I am not who they say I am.I am Persephone, and my story must begin with the truth.Here it is, or as close as I can tell it.”Well, this doesn’t really make any sense when, at the end of the story, Zeus is defeated and thrown into Tartarus. Why does this narrative survive into modern day when Hades and Persephone won? Why is Persephone only able to tell her story now, after thousands of years without Zeus in power? Speaking of Zeus and lies, the justification for the whole “What, Hades is awoman?!” thing really doesn’t make any sense. We’re told that Zeus calls Hades “lord” of the dead as a joke, Hades even refers to it as a “slur” in the story. The reason given for this is that Hades is only attracted to women. Well, if that’s the case, why doesn’t that same logic apply to Athena, who’salso shown to be attracted only to women? Or to Persephone for that matter? Same-sex attraction, even between women, is never shown to be frowned upon in their society, so why would Zeus single out Hades for her attraction to women? And why do all the other gods apparently go along with that “joke” to the point that Persephone literally didn’t know Hades was a woman until she meets her in person? And why, again, did this idea of Hades being a man survive into modern day? The story is constructed so poorly on so many different levels. There are so many threads that are just dropped entirely. For example:- The story starts with Demeter confidently proclaiming that Persephone will become the queen of the gods, setting up this big rivalry between her and the daughters of Hera and Aphrodite. This plot never goes anywhere, in fact, I don’t think it’s ever brought up again after the first chapter, and Demeter basically spends the rest of the book cowering before Zeus. - There’s a significant plotline about Pallas having Persephone try to deliver a message to Athena, a plotline that is unceremoniously dropped without anyresolution. After all the build-up, there’s a throwaway line about Pallas giving the note to Persephone right before the big showdown with Zeus, and that’s the last we hear of it. We never see it delivered, we don’t get to see Athena’s reaction to it, we don’t know how this impacts Pallas, if at all. In fact, Pallas basically doesn’t show up at all after this point. Then there’s the main conflict of the story: Zeus wants Persephone, and as we’re told over and over and over, Zeus always gets what he wants (the author really beats this into our heads). We’re never really given any motivation for any of Zeus’ actions, so this conflict feels weak and contrived. It doesn’t help that we get so much build-up for what a terrible threat he is, and then Persephone defeats Zeus, the most powerful god, feared by all, in like… two pages? It’s such a weak and anticlimactic end to the story.

There was also some sort of convoluted plan concocted by Zeus to, idk, have the dead rise up and overthrow Hades? For some reason? Again, we never get any clear motivation from Zeus. As far as I can remember, we’re never told why he hates Hades so much, or why he wants to overthrow her. I don’t even remember if the author explained what Zeus was going to do with the Underworld without Hades there to rule. I’m sorry, I genuinely can’t even remember the details, but it was just reallybadly set up and, once again, easily solved in a few pages.And that’s really the main problem with the story, everything is so easily solved. Our good guys all get happily ever afters with no sacrifices and no consequences for anything, and there’s always a quick and easy solution to any threat or conflict. Mythology:So how does it hold up as a Hades and Persephone retelling?Well, not great, imho. A lot of classical elements are incorporated into this retelling, but they’re stripped of any meaning or importance to the plot. The pomegranate? It’s there at their wedding, but it never figures into the greater narrative.Demeter causing famine by bringing infertility to the fields? She does freeze the world in this story, threatening everlasting winter, but unlike in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, it’s not an act of agency on her part, refusing to submit to the will of Zeus and fighting to be reunited with her daughter. Nah. She’s just being manipulated by Zeus and it’s used as a cheap reason to tear our lovers apart.And somehow, I don’t even know why seeing as it doesn’t tie into Demeter freezing the earth or Persephone eating the seeds of the pomegranate, butPersephone is still forced to spend half the year on earth and half in theUnderworld.In the epilogue, we see her in modern day New York*, acting as psychopomp (for some reason???), happily guiding the souls to the afterlife, which we’re told is her duty for the half of the year she spends above ground. I’m just so confused as to what the author was even going for here. Where did this come from? It doesn’t originate in the original myths, but it’s also not explained (as far as I can remember) in the book.*This isn’t a problem with the book per se, and it’s 100% a matter oftaste, but I personally really dislike it when mythological figures appearin a modern setting, especially when the author has to put them in anAmerican setting rather than the geographical location of their origin, whetherthat’s Greece or Egypt or Scandinavia or what have you. Romance: Hades and Persephone are destined soulmates and instantly fall in love pretty much the moment they first set eyes on each other, which doesn’t allow for any growth or progression of their relationship. They’re instantly deeply and madly in love with each other and their feelings never change over the span of the story. They spend most of their time together staring lovingly into each others eyes and when they’re separated for literally 3 days Persephone basically spends her entire days languishing in despair.It’s ridiculously melodramatic and cheesy, which again, personal taste thing,I’m just really not into. Other writing issues: - The worldbuilding is pretty much non-existent. The story doesn’t feel grounded in any particular time period or cultural context, and you never get any sense of the setting, or how the world works and what this society is like.  - The pacing was really poor, either dragging or exploding into rushed action. - A lot of page time is spent on describing things that doesn’t really further the plot or has any thematic relevance. One example would be the garden of metal and precious stones Hades made for Persephone. It’s cool I guess? But what purpose does it serve? We also waste a lot of time which could be better used developing the characters or moving the plot forward on watching Persephone play with puppy Cerberus or petting Hades’ horses (see poor pacing). - There’s a lot of talk about Persephone having some sort of grand destiny, and that her actions have been prophesized. This is never properly explained and it only serves to weaken Persephone’s story arc, stripping her of agency by implying that she doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. Prophecy and destiny are story elements that have to be handled delicately and are easy to screw up, and they’re just dealt with so clumsily here.  - Also the writing was just… not very good.I’m sure there are more things I could dig up and complain about, but I feel like this is probably too long and rambly already, so I’ll stop here.

Obligatory disclaimer:This is obviously just my personal opinion. There are a lot of people who love this book (going by Goodreads ratings, I am clearly in the minority) and I am genuinely happy for them! I also mean no disrespect to the author who seems like a genuinely lovely person.