#while it is true that sometimes characters are unreliable narrators of their own experience

[mrbrainrot]

fandom: probably they're actually repressing their feelings and just don't yet know that they do feel attraction.

Male character: I'm not attracted to women.

Fandom: Oh, he's gay.

Female character: I'm not attracted to men.

Fandom: Oh, she's a lesbian.

Any character: I'm not attracted to anybody.

Fandom: Well, we don't know that they're ace/aro/aroace. It's open for interpretation. They're not canonically ace/aro/aroace unless they specifically say they are.

Hmmmm. I wonder why we're so frustrated in fandom spaces. I wonder if there's a reason.

[novlr]

How do you write an unreliable narrator in a way that actually feels clever and not just confusing or annoying? I want readers to realize something’s off without hitting them over the head with it, and still keep them hooked enough to want to figure it out.

I’m an absolute sucker for an unreliable narrator. I find them completely frustrating and endlessly entertaining. When you read a book, and you just know that something doesn’t quite add up, and you start to question the nature of the reality of the story you’re reading? Mwah. Chef’s kiss.

Sometimes unreliable narrators are obvious. Other times there are just hints. It could be a detail that contradicts an earlier scene. A character who reacts oddly to what should be normal. And then, slowly, you realise you can’t trust the very person telling you the story. An unreliable narrator transforms readers from passive observers into active participants, forcing them to become detectives in their own reading experience.

What is an unreliable narrator?

An unreliable narrator is the voice of your story whose credibility has been compromised. They might be lying deliberately to conceal a truth, or completely unintentionally. What makes them fascinating is that they are telling their version of a truth or attempting to create one, even if that truth doesn’t match reality.

Unlike traditional narrators who serve as trusted guides through a story, unreliable narrators force readers to question everything they’re told. This means that the real story often lives in the gaps between what the narrator says and what the reader comes to understand is actually true.

It’s like a friend telling you their breakup story; their version of events might be completely honest from their perspective, but you know you’re only getting one side of the story. Unreliable narrators remind us that truth is often subjective, and that everyone is the hero of their own story.

Types of unreliable narrators

There is no definitive type of unreliable narrator, so the first step is to understand their role in the story and what you want their version of the truth to mean. Here are some common types:

The deliberate liar consciously misleads readers.

The self-deceiver believes their own false narrative.

The mentally compromised has their perception affected by illness, injury, or trauma.

The naïve observer lacks the experience to understand what they’re seeing.

The morally ambiguous has values that skew their interpretation of events.

Each of these types of unreliable narrator serves a different purpose and will change the tone of your narrative. For example, a deliberate liar is often used in thriller and mystery stories where readers must untangle truth from deception, while a naïve observer might be used for dramatic irony. A mentally compromised narrator might lead readers through a haunting exploration of perception, reality, and the self, whereas a self-deceiver might highlight wider social issues in their story world as their illusions gradually crumble.

So, how do you actually write an unreliable narrator?

Writing an unreliable narrator is a delicate balancing act. You need to give your readers enough truth to keep them invested, enough lies to make them question everything, and enough clues that they can piece together what’s really happening. The trick isn’t just about deceiving your reader, but about making that deception meaningful (and entertaining).

Let’s look at some of the more universal techniques:

Build credibility before breaking it

Start by establishing your narrator’s voice as trustworthy. Let readers settle into believing what they’re told. This makes the eventual revelation of unreliability more impactful. Show your narrator being accurate about small details or making reasonable observations before introducing elements that challenge their reliability.

Leave breadcrumbs

Plant subtle inconsistencies throughout your narrative. These should be small enough that readers might miss them on first reading, but obvious enough to create that satisfying “aha” moment when the truth is revealed,, like contradictions in the narrator’s version of events, other characters reacting to the narrator’s version of reality, or something that runs counter to the reality of the reader.

The power of perspective

Remember that unreliable narration is fundamentally about perspective. Your narrator isn’t necessarily lying; they’re telling their truth, even if it doesn’t align with objective reality. Show how their personal biases, experiences, and limitations colour their interpretation of events.

Build tension through uncertainty

Use your narrator’s unreliability to build tension. When readers begin to doubt the narrator, every new piece of information becomes suspect. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of uncertainty that keeps readers engaged. But make sure you keep it balanced. Give readers enough reason to doubt your narrator without completely destroying their credibility too early.

The art of the reveal

The trickiest part of writing any unreliable narrator is deciding what the best time to reveal it is. And it does have to be considered carefully. Do you want a dramatic singular reveal, a gradual reveal with an “aha” moment, or to never explicitly confirm it, leaving readers to decide?

Remember: the goal isn’t simply to trick readers, but to explore deeper truths about perception, reality, and human nature. The best unreliable narrators make us question not just the story, but our own assumptions about truth and reliability. So make sure you consider that when you decide whether you need a reveal or not.

Keep your inconsistency consistent

Even unreliable narrators need to follow internal logic. Their unreliability should make sense within the context of their character and the situations they find themselves in. A narrator with memory issues should consistently show those issues. A deliberate liar should have clear motivations for their deception.

[writing-with-sophia]

I don't know if you have ever done this type of genre before, so feel free to ignore this ask, but... Do you have any good tips or advice for writing horror stories? Like psychological and creepy stuff.

Love your blogs btw!! <3

Tips for writing horror stories

Awww, I love you guys too! Unfortunately, horror is not my strength, and I have never written a horror story before. I tried my best to write this, so if there is anything wrong, please tell me!

Tap into primal fears: Identify and explore universal fears that resonate with readers on a deep, primal level. Fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of isolation, and fear of loss are all potent sources of horror.

Create suspense and tension: Build suspense by gradually escalating the stakes and creating a sense of impending doom. Use pacing, foreshadowing, and cliffhangers to keep readers engaged and on edge. You can also use short, consecutive sentences to create a sense of urgency and suspense.

Establish a chilling atmosphere: Set the tone and mood of your story through atmospheric descriptions. Utilize sensory details to immerse readers in a dark, foreboding, or eerie environment. Utilize the power of the unknown to create fear and anticipation. Sometimes what is unseen or left to the imagination can be more terrifying than explicit descriptions. Let the readers' minds fill in the gaps and create their own horrors.

Develop complex characters: Create well-rounded characters with their own fears, vulnerabilities, and flaws. Make readers care about them, and then subject them to terrifying or psychologically unsettling experiences.

Use psychological horror: Delve into the depths of the human psyche to evoke fear and unease. Explore themes such as paranoia, obsession, madness, or fractured perceptions of reality. Subtle, psychological twists can be just as impactful as overt scares.

Cultivate a sense of the uncanny: Take ordinary, everyday situations or objects and twist them into something sinister. This can create a stark contrast between the familiar and the horrifying, intensifying the impact on readers. Play with distorted reflections, doppelgangers, or seemingly ordinary objects that hold a sinister presence.

Leave room for interpretation: Allow readers to fill in the gaps and imagine the worst. Suggest horrors rather than explicitly showing them, leaving room for the reader's imagination to amplify the fear.

Build anticipation and reveal strategically: Tease and withhold information to keep readers engaged. Gradually reveal unsettling details or unveil the true nature of the horror at opportune moments for maximum impact. You can subvert their expectations and challenge their assumptions to keep them engaged and off-balance.

Explore taboo subjects: Fear can be evoked by exploring taboo or uncomfortable subjects that challenge societal norms. Use these themes tactfully and with sensitivity to create a disturbing effect.

Experiment with narrative techniques: Consider using different narrative perspectives to provide varying viewpoints and insights into the horror. First-person narratives can intensify the reader's connection with the protagonist, while third-person perspectives can offer a broader view of the unfolding terror. Use non-linear storytelling, unreliable narrators, or fragmented perspectives to create a sense of disorientation and psychological unease.

Study the genre: Read widely in the horror genre to understand different approaches and techniques. Analyze what works in other stories and adapt those techniques to your own writing style.

Edit with a critical eye: After completing your first draft, take the time to review and revise your work. Look for areas where you can heighten the horror, strengthen character development, or refine the atmosphere. Trim unnecessary details and ensure that each scene contributes to the overall sense of fear and unease.

If you want to read more posts about writing, please click here and give me a follow!

[boredtechnologist]

The Psychology of Collapse: How The Nonary Games Break Your Mind to Save It

“A game where you solve puzzles to escape.” That’s the sales pitch. That’s the bait.

But The Nonary Games aren’t about escape.

They’re about survival through fragmentation. About taking people - characters and players - and subjecting them to existential stress tests until the very notion of reality becomes a variable.

From the first puzzle in 999 to the final timeline jump in Virtue's Last Reward, Zero Escape isn’t asking “Can you solve this?” It’s whispering: “What will break first: the game, or you?”

The Lab Rat and the Locked Door

Let’s start with the basic setup: a group of strangers is kidnapped, injected with tracking bombs, and locked into a facility by a masked figure named Zero. They must solve puzzles, face betrayals, and make impossible choices - sometimes life-or-death - all while racing against a countdown clock.

But here’s the twist: this isn’t a game about puzzles. It’s a game about being watched.

Like real psychological experiments (think Milgram, Zimbardo, or MK-Ultra), the setup is designed to expose what people become when systems strip them of identity, trust, and certainty. You're not solving rooms - you’re solving people. And most of them are coming apart at the seams.

Memory as a Weapon (999)

999 introduces the idea of morphic resonance and shared consciousness, but its real horror is rooted in the fragility of memory and identity.

Characters often forget how they got here.

The protagonist (Junpei) begins recalling things he should not know.

Several characters lie about their names, ages, or pasts.

Time bleeds. Dreams echo. Reality wobbles.

This isn’t just unreliable narration - it’s existential erosion. Your selfhood is under siege. If you can't trust your own memory, if your name is false, if your choices are manipulated by unseen forces - are you even real?

And the game keeps layering it deeper: You don’t just relive timelines - you remember deaths you haven’t died yet. You carry trauma forward like psychic scar tissue.

That’s not time travel. That’s post-traumatic omniscience.

The Collapse of Trust (Virtue's Last Reward)

In VLR, the horror shifts from isolation to betrayal.

The game’s central mechanic - The Ambidex Game - forces you to choose whether to trust or betray your fellow prisoners. The outcome changes not only your survival, but theirs. It’s a perfect echo of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, used in real-world experiments to study cooperation under stress.

But in VLR, it’s twisted.

Characters die for trusting too much.

Others live by betraying, and then apologizing.

Timelines branch and loop, and you see every version of everyone - the kind, the cruel, the broken.

Eventually, you stop believing in “true” versions of anyone. Every person is a Schrödinger's soul: both ally and enemy until the route reveals them.

That’s not gameplay. That’s learned emotional nihilism. And the game needs you to feel it, because it’s going to show you the cost of being right.

The Player as a Captive God

The deeper you go in both games, the more you realize: You’re the variable. Your knowledge of deaths, betrayals, and events across timelines becomes the only way to unlock the “true” ending. And to do that, you must force the characters to suffer every possible trauma.

You aren’t solving the game to save them.

You’re weaponizing their pain to collapse the multiverse and force a singular outcome.

This is a radical inversion of traditional storytelling. Normally, protagonists move toward resolution through growth. In The Nonary Games, resolution is achieved through emotional attrition. You must break them all, so that one timeline can live.

That’s the price of enlightenment.

Zero: Not a Villain, But a Mirror

Both games feature a masked antagonist named Zero. But here’s the truth the games slowly - and chillingly - reveal:

Zero is the player.

Zero knows all outcomes. Zero sees all paths. Zero watches people suffer to find the best solution. Zero’s actions, while cruel, are necessary to create a timeline where someone survives.

Sound familiar?

You’re not playing against Zero. You’re playing as Zero. And the game never lets you look away from that.

The Horror of Hope

Here’s the final cruelty: The Nonary Games want you to believe in hope. They tell you there's a perfect ending - where everyone lives, where Zero’s plans are revealed, where time heals all wounds.

But that hope only exists because you’ve seen every failure. Every death. Every betrayal.

You’re not escaping the game. You’re escaping into the only reality that didn’t bleed.

And if you think about that long enough, you realize:

You didn’t beat the game. You rewrote reality so that the characters would think you beat it. And the you who remembers all their deaths? You’re still in there… watching… remembering.

Final Diagnosis: When Narrative Becomes Trauma

The Nonary Games don’t just tell a story.

They induce a state: narrative dissociation.

You know too much.

You’ve seen too many versions of every truth.

And now, every timeline feels artificial - even the happy ones.

That’s what makes these games so deeply disturbing. They simulate not just horror - but the psychological damage of witnessing too much horror across too many versions of reality.

It’s not just Zero who’s fractured.

It’s you.

[thistle-and-thorn]

Dying to know what you thought of the goldfinch. I never read it and am very 👀

thank god you sent this because i was about to make an incredibly long, rambling post about this but now you have prompted this, it feels less unhinged to put it into the form of a solicited answer. @.@

I....have mixed feelings about GF. Like, really mixed feelings. When I was in college, I took a seminar on opera history and we studied the opera, Wozzeck, and my professor described watching it as "an act of endurance." I felt sort of similarly about The Goldfinch. Like I'm glad I read it, and I can't wait to never read it again lmao.

It's a really well-written book--God, I want to write like her--and it is a compelling story with a lot of really great moments, but I found it to be overall less thematically incisive than TSH and, though TSH had some pacing issues, especially towards the end, The Goldfinch felt much, much more uneven. There's a lot of crossover between the two novels--unreliable narrators that are closeted queer men, so much drinking, so much drugs, etc--to the point where I thought a twist would be that they were set in the same universe and that Theo's father was somehow Richard Papen. But TSH felt bolder in a way, more satirically cutting, funnier, wilder, and younger. The Goldfinch is a sadder book, unrelentingly anxious and grief-stricken. And I do think this is sort of the point and I don't criticize it for that. It did make the melodrama of the novel's conclusion feel a little...i don't know...less justified and a little more gimmicky? And anxiety is a monotonous state so I think the GF lacked the emotional texture that made TSH much less....exhausting?

The Goldfinch is DT's ode to Dickens and there a lot of nods to Dickens in both direct references and style (the book is basically like what if uriah heep from david copperfield was psychosexually obsessed with pip from great expectations). There are certainly class dynamics here, episodic adventures, varied characters, and a lot of ruminations on providence but I did keep wondering what about Dickens drew her to tell this particular story which on a surface-level seems to ruminate on the impact of beauty, as opposed to the impact of wealth. In a lot of ways, TSH, with its commentary on class and wealth, even more over-the-top characters, feels like a better fit for Victorian literary structures.

In my wild and quite honestly unfounded speculation, I think the conclusion that I have come to is that it is a really, really personal book. Dickens was an intensely personal writer who used his own experiences, including those with his difficult father and poor upbringing and young infatuations as material, even in sort of unrealistic scenarios. I made a half-joking post about Brett Easton Ellis serving as DT's muse but I think....like...that may be true? I spent a lot of time, while reading this book, googling and reading about BEE and his erratic personality, contradictory and sometimes controversial and nihilistic media statements, and drug addiction. (Something that stood out to me was that BEE said that Patrick Bateman was based on his father, which he later retracted, to say that he felt like he was more like Patrick Bateman and wrote that book from a place of intense depression and isolation and consumption. This third-eying of oneself through the lens of the father is so Theo to me.) It's an examination of a self-destructive person but feels so clearly written from the point of view of someone who loves them--there is a real tenderness in how Theo is rendered that makes me think that it is not directly autobiographical about DT's own life but is the record of someone else who is loved and who is grieved. I have no evidence of this, truly, but this is what I keep thinking.

Some random other thoughts: one thing that @attonitos-gloria and I have talked a lot about is how DT always writes from the point of view of men who desire other men but whose desire is so hidden and buried that it becomes warped and we think that this is fascinating. @.@ The women in both TSH cannot be held as whole people in the eye of the narrator, their wholeness exists but beyond the borders of the male narrators' understanding of them. I also love how DT loves places and loves things. She creates fantasias of real places that feel like they influence the narrative and I think that's really cool.

TL;DR: I thought TSH was better, but GF was more personal and thus more messy. But it won a Pulitzer so literally what do i know.

[itssokiee]

Smudged Happiness: Chapter 1

Author’s note: Fairy Tail high school au - but a little fucked up (feat nalu, jerza, gruvia, gale, zervis)

I feel like the true gen z high school experience never got shown truly accurate in media. They either went way over board, like Euphoria, or they were this kinda cringe middle ground, like Ginny and Georgia. Although it’s just a silly fan fiction with gross exagerations, I truly want to show an accurate portrayal about what it was like growing up as teenager in the later 2010s. At least for a suburban middle class.

Lucy is mostly the main character, but a lot of this story is told through the point of view of many different characters. Simultaneous stories happen at the same time, and sometimes a scene is told twice from different povs. All discrepancies are intentional as everyone is an unreliable narrator.

Lucy Hearfilia laid in a bed three times too large for her with her eyes closed yet fully awake. The empty space in her bed suffocated her and the sound her clock's tick echoed in her heartbeat's thud. After what could have been two minutes, or two hours, Lucy got out of bed and walked across the room to her desk. Her desk was handcrafted out of ivory and intricate designs were carved into the legs of the table. Lucy felt nervous with a hint of melancholy so she began to do the only thing that could help settle her nerves. She got out a clean piece of paper and a pen and began to write.

Dear Mom,

I am starting my Sophmore year at Fairy Academy this year. I am feeling kind of nervous right now and I know that if you were here then you would know exactly what to say. Truth is, I don't know what I am so nervous about, after all, I can't wait to see all my friends again-

Lucy smiled at the thought of her friends. She had not seen them all summer due to the trip to Europe she took over the summer. She had to admit that it stung seeing all her friends together on social media but she did not blame them. It was not their fault her summer was taken up by fancy overseas business parties.

I made a lot of great friends after I transferred halfway through freshman year. I am sure you would have loved to meet them, Mom. I expected to have a hard time  finding friends due to my late start however, that was not the case at all. I made friends with the most beautiful girl I have ever met, Mirajane Strauss.

Lucy thought of her friend Mira, she was kind and beautiful, everything Lucy wanted to be. But behind her kind words and a beaming smile, she too knew the tragedy of losing family. Mira's younger sister, Lisanna, was killed in a freak accident when Mira was twelve and her sister was nine. She had learned about Lisanna's tragic end on the third anniversary of her death. On that day, everyone wore purple in remembrance of Lisanna. When Lucy had asked about the occasion, someone had told her that Lisanna had found a baby dove on the ground and decided to put it back in its nest. While she was climbing the tree, a branch snapped and she fell to the ground where she was impaled by a fallen branch. They said that the odds of her landing on the branch at just the right angle to kill her was one in a million. The story haunted Lucy and from that day forward, whenever Lucy saw a dove, she felt her stomach drop.

I also made friends with a girl named Levy McGarden. You would've liked her a lot. Like me, she shares my passion of reading and writing. We were thinking about starting  a creative writing club at our school this year, actually.

Levy was the first friend that she had made when she transferred. Levy was working at the front office the morning Lucy transferred and noticed that Lucy looked lost. Levy asked if she was new and Lucy had replied yes. Levy walked her to her first class and offered Lucy to eat lunch with her and her friends.

Two of my closest friends are Gray and Erza. Last year, we all had our first period and lunch together. Our teacher was harsh and the subject was boring but it was  the best part of my day. We always did projects together and met up at the local cafe near the school.

Erza is a grade ahead and the school council president - all the students respected and feared her. Gray is the carefree slacker who always props his feet up on the desk in front of them. Lucy never imagined she would be able to have friends like them. She smiled as she remembered all the fun they had in their first class together, Juvia's constant declarations of love that Gray never took seriously, going to the mall, and just hanging out after school.

However, never would I have had the friends and the adventures if it wasn't for my best friend, Natsu Dragneel.

Lucy paused and reread her sentence several times. Her best friend Natsu Dragneel. While Levy was her first friend, Natsu introduced her to all her other friends. He always made her feel included in everything that they did. She went over to his house almost on a weekly business, whether it was to study for an upcoming test or just to hang out.

Lucy began to reminisce on how they met. It was her second week of school and she still only had one friend Levy. It was fine, she really only needed one. The teacher called for a group project and wanted everyone in groups of four. Lucy figured that she would just join Levy, Jet, and Droy, that is until the teacher decided that she would assign the groups. Lucy still remembers the groups that the teacher had called out.

"Levy, Gajeel, Cana, and Kiana"

"Jellal, Mira, Laxus, and Bickslow"

"Freed, Reedus, Evergreen, and Mest"

"Natsu, Lucy, Gray, and Erza"

Immediately Natsu and Gray jumped out of the chair and yelled out, "WHY WITH HIM?"

After being scolded by Erza the quietly shrank back down into their seat. Afterward, the teacher gave them time to sit down and begin working on their projects.

"So who's this Lucy chick anyway?" Natsu said scanning the class.

"I sit right next to you, flame brain!" Lucy said in a tone harsher than she had meant.

"Chill dude, I thought your name was Luigi or something like that," Natsu said smiling.

They did not get a lot of work done the rest of the day and decided that they would have to meet up at Natsu's house later that day to get work done. Levy had come up to her at the end of class and apologized saying that her schedule got changed and that she could not sit with Lucy for lunch because she had library aid for the rest of the semester. Lucy smiled and said it was alright but could not help but to feel if she was back at square one, lonely girl with no friends.

When she walked into the courtyard for lunch, Natsu immediately called her over to come sit with him. When Lucy asked why he invited her, he merely smiled and said

"Were friends right?"

"Right."

~

Later that day when she got into the car of the Hearfilia driver, she told him to take her to Natsu's house instead of her own.

"Has my lady finally made friends?" the driver asked raising an eyebrow.

"Kinda," Lucy said, "we're just doing a project is all."

She got to his house at the same time as Erza and Gray. Erza reached over to ring the doorbell and then they waited in silence for a few moments. After a couple of seconds, a boy with jet black hair and piercing black eyes opened the door. Lucy began to panic as she thought that they had all mistakenly gone to the wrong place

until Gray said, "Hey Zeref, is Natsu home?"

Zeref sighed and opened the door to let them into the living room. "That idiot just ran off to the store with Wendy. He'll be back in about ten minutes. You can wait

here I guess."

"Zeref? Whose here? Some of Natsu's friends?" a girl's voice called.

"Something like that," Zeref called back.

Lucy went over to the source of the voice and saw a girl with blonde hair laying on the couch holding a video game controller. Instantly Lucy recognized her.

"Ha you didn't pause the game and now I am way ahead of you," the girl said smiling.

"You need all the head start you can get," Zeref said sitting down and picking up the other controller.

"You're Mavis Vermillion!" Lucy exclaimed. "As in, the valedictorian of your grade and captain of the volleyball team with a full ride to all the top colleges?

Friends with Yuri, Precht, and Warrod? You're practically perfect!"

Mavis smiled, "I am nowhere near perfect and a lot of those rumors are just exaggerations anyway."

Suddenly the door to the garage opened and Natsu burst inside.

"I'm back! And I bought supplies to help us complete our project! Oh, hey Mavis!"

A young girl came in the door behind Natsu helping him bring in some of the supplies.

"Oh Lucy, this is my cousin Wendy who lives with us while her mother is working in another country," Natsu said introducing them.

"Nice to meet you!" Wendy said smiling.

That memory of working together all night on a project was one of Lucy's favorites. For the first time ever, she had learned what it was like to have friends. Lucy looked back down at the letter she was writing to her mom. She no longer felt nervous, just relaxed.

Thank you, Mom, for always calming me down. Even though you are not here, I know that you are watching me.

Love,

Lucy.

Lucy then fell asleep at her desk after signing her name.

Next

[mist-dancing]

Unpopular opinions about the fandom. But they are always WRONG about how a character was actually written and they like to leave out little details.

I know this from experience, I thought Mapleshade was this in-the-right girlboss that murdered her husband for cheating on her, and while that’s kind of true I learnt only after reading the books that she’s SUPPOSED to be an unreliable narrator. Nobody’s saying she’s in the right but god is she iconic.

Ofcourse we all have different interpretations of how the characters are written, but sometimes people get it so wrong from canon and then it leads to others assuming that the character is inherently bad and then they can’t form their own opinions.

[staringdownabarrel]

One of the worldbuilding points that I think the Riftwar saga got right overall is that in later books, it started introducing the idea that previous main characters could have been unreliable. There were never that many plot points that explicitly depended on previous narrators being unreliable (there is an exception), but there were smaller stuff where a character would see this or that location or monument and the prose would be like, "Legend said this character from the previous books did all this great stuff, but New Character doesn't know if any of that is true or not because it was fifty years ago."

That's an interesting approach for a couple of reasons. One is that it is true to life. I mean, people sometimes struggle with knowing for sure what actually happened in regards to major historical events that happened in their own lifetime, let alone stuff that happened decades and especially centuries before they were born. A lot of the time people's attitudes towards historical figures really would boil down to, "Well, this is the role Amos Task plays in the popular imagination, but I don't know if he was actually like that or not."

The second reason is that it's antithetical to how I've seen a lot of people approach canon in other settings they're a fan of, especially if it's got a similar setup where some installments might take place decades or centuries apart from each other. A lot of the time there's this underlying assumption that any and all viewpoint characters are unimpeachably reliable no matter what, and that every character who's alive fifty years later will have perfect knowledge of what they did.

That's not really what happens, though. Everyone has certain biases that they filter their life experiences through, and most of the time they never really examine them. If they're writing about experiences they had even ten years ago, there's things they'll have forgotten in the interceding years, and other stuff they'll try to gloss over if they think it'll paint them in a bad light or get in the way of a broader point they're trying to make. Sometimes they'll forget the order things happened in too, or assume that they acted a certain way on a certain day because they didn't know x, when sometimes they did know that and acting in a way that implied they didn't was just more convenient for them in the moment.

So I think it's interesting that while Feist never explicitly says that any of the protagonists of the early Riftwar books are unreliable narrators and most plot points don't require them to be, he still acknowledges that maybe they'd be regarded as such in-universe. Of course, a lot of the reasons for that is because he wasn't really prone to rereading his own works and this was the easiest way to handwave away any internal inconsistencies that came up, but I think it does allow for a lot of fairly interesting readings.

Still, I sorta wish that this was an approach people would take to their favourite franchises more often. I know I'm preaching to the choir a little bit on this point because it is Tumblr, but sometimes internal inconsistencies in canon can be explained away by the fact that the previous character was either incorrect or they were simply unreliable on this specific point for whatever reason. That happens in real life all the time and, especially when you're talking about huge, sprawling franchises where individual stories can be set centuries apart, it'd come up in fictional settings all the time, too.

I don't even think it needs to be explicitly pointed out that can be a thing. It's fine to just assume one character was incorrect, or that the later character simply didn't know about the previous incident.

I just think that this was a massive power move on Feist's part, especially given that he never did all that much with it. It's just a cool detail to include, in my opinion.

[halfelven]

love random not even logged in readers just dropping their 'constructive criticism' on your 100k+ story that you're putting online entirely for free. this is just a rant btw

"You obviously have a great talent and I think you should work on honing it some. As much as I’ve enjoyed the story, there are a few things that stand out that you might consider looking at. I feel like the story isn’t sure what it wants to be at times; is it character driven or plot driven? It doesn’t flow smoothly because sometimes we have these wonderful character vignettes, like Illumi and Kalluto on a road trip or Kite/Leorio/Gon/Killua in an apartment where plot doesn’t really feel important, followed by what feels like heavily plot driven beats, like Kalluto and the spiders. In addition, it contributes to confusion because sometimes we see established characterization turned on its head. Especially the weird way everyone all of a sudden just sort of was OK with Kalluto being a spider and then working with Illumi when they just went to all that trouble to escape him? It all kind of feels forced and not natural. You know?

Anyway, I’ll definitely keep reading and look forward to seeing what happens."

first: love you trying to sound legitimate with your "in addition" like this is some kind of writer's workshop. second: in what way would I, the writer, think that an incomplete part of my story in which the reader does not yet know most of the main motivations (they are only hinted at so far) feels forced and not natural when I know what's happening, where it is going (and where I haven't had other readers comment with confusion about that part)

and moving on. don't do this. also like i said this is a wip in and no, no one is cool with Kalluto being a spider and no they're not cool working with Illumi, really. it was already established that some of them /have/ been working with Illumi before this~ he's someone that they know. like have you never been in a seriously dangerous situation that you just have to get through before you get back to what you want?*** also at this point Chrollo's real motive hasn't been entirely revealed.

Killua keeps changing his mind about what he's doing because he's a scared kid whose self-hatred is destroying him from the inside out. the POV is so tight that I have to keep dropping reminders that what is stated in the narrative is often not true! Illumi's POV, for example, keeps showing Killua as really loving him and being happy he's around but struggling with a desire for freedom, while with Killua's POV he's terrified of Illumi most of the time. like how is that not obviously a distorted POV where you can't trust the narrator?

"where plot doesn’t really feel important, followed by what feels like heavily plot driven beats"

this part is especially irritating because it's like yeah that's how I want to write it? this isn't a published novel. I don't have to commit to making sure every scene is important to the plot. I can spend time writing a full scene about someone drinking a glass of water and then 13 chapters in a row that are for moving the plot forward. I didn't even tag it as a novel... I did tag it for unreliable narration and I keep getting annoyed that people keep ignoring that.

"I feel like the story isn’t sure what it wants to be at times; is it character driven or plot driven?"

it's both??? it's neither??? it's a fanfic??? why do I keep getting comments lately where people are expecting me to adhere to like fucking publishing standards. this keeps up and I will write a chapter which is entirely about a minor character drinking a glass of water. watch me. I'll write one about phinks drinking a glass of water and you'll like it*

"Overall, the story is good and presented a compelling alternative to CA. Look, each fan has their own opinion on CA and I know I didn’t like it. I think it was a product of what Togashi was going through as he began to experience health issues and then finding himself right back where he said he wasn’t going to be mentally after he ended his earlier manga. We can never know for sure, but it certainly had a “watch it all burn vibe” to it near the end. I honestly believe he wanted it to end with the finality of Gon’s suicide as a capstone statement, but was probably convinced to go a different route, which kinda of left a jarring feel in the narrative and culminated in a rather unsatisfying end to Gon and Killua’s journey. Despite that, I am very reluctant to read fics where the events of CA are erased or grossly modified and honestly yours is really the first long AU/alternate timeline I’ve enjoyed"

okay first of all, I love the CA arc. but I had to split a point off where Kite was going to survive. why do you have to leave this whole paragraph about how you think Togashi was or wasn't going to go with the CA on my fanfic? I didn't even write this as 'oh look at my alternative to CA bc I hated CA' I don't really look forward to hearing comments about how random people didn't like so and so aspect of the story that I'm basing my story off of. I've never written fanfic for a story that I didn't like (except for some things that I don't have published I wrote at a request for friends for a fandom they were into that I wasn't really) and yeah I've wanted to 'fix' aspects (like tolkien's treatment of women for example) but I am not looking for your 'this is what I hated about the source material' comments on my stories

tired of getting comments with little 'oh I didn't like your style at first but now I do' or 'here's how to fix your story!' unsolicited advice from people who aren't better writers than me (I don't even want it from people who would be better writers than me on stuff I'm just doing for fun and for free)

when did stuff like this become normal? at least don't be a coward and be not logged in so you can't even get a response notification. like girl they aren't cool with it! why do you think everyone is on guard standing around like they're in a fucking hostage situation? how do you see such wildly different interpretations from different character's POVs and think it's not intentional? what part about Kite watching Killua like a fucking hawk makes you think he's going to let Illumi take him after this?

like if you've never had to smile and pretend to be cool with your abuser (pretend to love them) or someone who was threatening you to keep someone else safe then good for you! it fucking sucks! also don't know how to explain to you what a child who is growing up in an extremely isolated abusive situation goes through (though I keep writing about it in this story you should catch on...) but it's a million back and forths with emotion and feelings--especially if their abuser does (to in some way or to some degree) love them. and it is often blaming themselves. I'm not letting my years of studying human psychology and child development go to waste here**

is this story perfect? no but I'm not gonna hire an editor for a fanfic. and everyone's interpretations of characters will be different. especially with child characters who are going through huge changes in the world around them and their personal lives. part of the appeal of fanfiction is 'who would they become if this happened instead?' *sorry I keep writing about starving and not having clean drinking water but I will never stop because that's what I grew up with and it's hell. also phinks drinking water would be compelling since I assume he'd have harder access to clean drinking water

**hunter x hunter is also one of the only stories I have encountered with characters who have backgrounds as fucked up as mine and Togashi's interest in human psychology really stands out.

***like good for you but that was most of my life and you sometimes just have to shut up and get through it. and no I will not put my notes in the right order bc I'm not being paid enough****

****I'm being paid nothing

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

My Experience with Jane Austen Part 2: Reading the Books

In part one I laid out which books I read, which ones were my favorites and least favorites, and the adaptations I've seen. Now I'd like to talk about my reading experience.

Disclaimer: I’m not an expert, just a casual reader sharing some observations, feel free to correct me if I get some details wrong. Out of the books I’ve read I’m most familiar with Pride and Prejudice.

Let's face it. Reading Austen can be challenging and I understand why some people dislike Austen.

It's easy to perceive her novels as "boring" because on a surface level, not much happens. The characters are well-off people (in the upper half of society) who spend their time at home or traveling between social calls and it's easy to dismiss their conflicts as "first world issues." Settings are often indoors, reflecting how "confined and unvarying" the lives of the rich (especially women) were. The plots often move forward through dialogue or conversations rather than big dramatic events. The focus on marriage can also make the stories feel like antiquated relics of the past and can be hard to relate to.

The writing style is also different. There isn't much dialogue at times because Austen slips in lots of very subtle commentary or prefers to describe a character's external appearance or characteristics. Often big events like proposals are described briefly after they happen rather than during, which can make the story feel rather "dry." The books are narrated in third person and sometimes there is unreliable narration (Pride and Prejudice) where we get characters' multiple points of view, but all narrated in the third person as to give each one credibility and prove that it's hard to trust others. Austen's writing style means that readers have to fill in the blanks with their imagination. For example, she doesn't give exact physical descriptions of her characters, often relying on general characteristics like "tall," "handsome," or "amiable." In my previous reviews of Pride and Prejudice adaptations, I explored that intentional ambiguity as a big reason why the character of Mr. Darcy is alluring--because the reader forms a personal connection with the character by sketching his portrait alongside Elizabeth. The characters (their physical appearance and some of their motivations) are purposely mysterious and while it gives the reader lots of opportunities for engaging with the text, without historical/literary context for "filling in the blanks" it's easy to see the characters as stiff mannequins in strange clothing rather than human beings.

Austen as a romance writer: Her romances don't always match up with our perception of what a romance should be. Some people start Austen expecting intense emotions and outbursts of passion but become disappointed when presented with formal courting and stately dances instead. Emotions are often veiled behind dialogue and for a first-time reader it can be challenging to see a romance developing. Most of the time readers have to rely on the clues given by Austen (descriptions of characters "blushing," looking "pale," or losing their composure) to detect the stirrings of love, but on a first reading it's difficult to do so when one's trying to figure out the plot and the characters. Finally, the dialogue can't always be taken literally; lots of people, including me, were disturbed when Mr. Knightley said he loved Emma since she was 13, but it was actually a joke made in response to something she said.

Her books are products of their time, and I sure am not an expert in Regency era economics or social norms. Sometimes the implications of certain actions can be lost on a reader if they don't know about the social norms of the time (I had no idea that Darcy following Elizabeth around, alone, on her favorite walk at Rosings was a sign of his love for her). Differences in social class are also very subtle and while one can generalize the characters as all "well-off" people, they are separated by many levels of hierarchy and their ideas about social position and status affect how they interact with others outside of their station. Darcy looks down upon those whom he perceives to be below him, and while Emma wants to make an advantageous match for Harriet, Harriet's lower social position means that Emma's schemes are not likely to work.

Because of the unique quirks within the novels, the reader is required to go beyond the surface level of plot and appearance and read between the lines to understand character motivations and actions. Without historical context (Regency era society having little social mobility, women having few legal rights and needing to make good marriages to secure material comfort) or literary context (the Enlightenment, 18th century Gothic novels referred to in Northanger Abbey, the birth of the novel, early Romantic writers just to name a bit) reading between the lines is nearly impossible.

So why do we read Austen? Below are my personal reasons.

The novels feature female heroines that have dignity and self-respect. It's significant that the stories focus on women who are trying to live according to their own values and speaking their own minds rather than acquiescing to societal dictates. Elizabeth Bennet is revolutionary in part because she wants a marriage based on mutual admiration and respect between two partners who know each other well, rather than an economic arrangement for a home. One could go on forever about how Austen is a feminist, but, the characters don't act like modern day feminists--they are still people of their time. However, it's easy to assume "feminist" heroines have to have "aggressive" characteristics (rebelling, fighting, defiance) in order to be labeled as "feminist." Importantly, Austen's women are allowed to be vulnerable (they cry or struggle with their emotions) without that being a shameful thing. We also see different types of personalities celebrated: Jane Bennet, who is kind to everyone, is seen in a positive light rather than shamed for seeing good in everyone. Anne Elliot, who is regarded as "old," becomes more beautiful as she gets older and has a second chance of love. Emma Woodhouse is spoiled yet confident and assertive and "not likely to be well-loved" (paraphrase of Austen's commentary on Emma). Fanny Price is a shy person but still achieves her happy ending. Her heroines are real people who have flaws and get opportunities to learn and grow so that they can make their aspirations reality.

A unique take on the universal conflict of humans versus society: Austen's characters are bound by social norms of etiquette as well as a value system that idolizes wealth and connections above all else. Persuasion is a great story in part because it focuses on how Anne Elliot learns to follow her heart and avoid being "persuaded" by others (and by society) to follow a path that will not make her happy. She's had to live with the regret of following the well-intentioned but harmful advice of others (Austen notes that Lady Russell values social connections too highly) over her own feelings and judgment, nearly losing her chance to be with Wentworth. The romances are significant in that they reinforce the dignity and self-respect of the female heroines. To a certain extent, Austen's stories are realistic in that marriage is necessary for material well-being in a patriarchal society that provides few ways for women to provide for themselves. But most importantly, she also sees marriage as a means of affirming self-respect and dignity of the women. It's one of the few parts of their lives over which they have any control because they get to choose whom they marry (for the most part, unless the marriage is arranged). Their wish to marry for love is revolutionary because they dare to aspire for something more than wealth. They want their future partners to be their equals, someone who they can love and respect (or be totally honest with them) and who will provide the same in return. This line from Emma (the 2020 movie adaptation) sums it up: "I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Fame I do not want. Fortune I do not want. Consequence I do not want."

The difference between outward appearances and inner character is a fascinating theme that appears in several Austen novels, most notably Pride and Prejudice, where Wickham and Darcy are foils of each other ("one has got all the goodness, the other all the appearance of it"). A lot of the villains in Austen's novels are those who deceive others about their motivations or lie for their own advantage. A common trait these villains all have is that they have a charming outward appearance that masks their true natures; they don't look ugly nor are they unpleasant (ex. Wickham having great social skills, Willoughby following the trope of the knight rescuing Marianne as the damsel in distress but leaving behind many broken hearts, Mr. Elliott being charming and knowing exactly what to say and how to act but actually a swindler). In contrast, the "good" characters are honest, even at the cost of social displeasure, use manners/etiquette to show respect rather than deceive people, and act selflessly to prove their worth (actions speak louder than words). It can be summed up this way: "don't judge a book by its cover."

Psychology: Austen very effectively described hindsight bias when sarcastically commenting on how the village of Meryton turned on Wickham after the elopement with Lydia, when previously they regarded him as an "angel of light." She also understands how easy it is to manipulate peoples' minds through confirmation bias (Wickham telling Elizabeth all the dirt about Darcy, which she eagerly takes because she hates Darcy so much). She also knows that emotions can override people's judgment: "angry people are not always wise." It's fun seeing how her people are social animals who make flawed judgments based on first impressions/emotions.

The secondary characters: Mr. Collins the clergyman is the most famous and he's so funny because of his arrogance in spite of his low social position (he keeps worshiping Lady Catherine instead of respecting God). Another great one is Sir Walter Elliott, a nobleman who is vain and constantly checks himself in the mirror (the most obvious social criticism). Also Austen understood how women insult each other: through passive aggression (ex. Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst talking negatively about Elizabeth behind her back). Austen's female bullies use their talent and "good breeding" to intimidate or shame others.

The romance (no explanation needed): "You pierce my soul. I am half-agony, half-hope. I have loved none but you." I love how the couples learn about each other through many spirited conversations and become slowly fascinated with each other until they realize they are in love and then have a conflict between formality and their growing passion...or they fall back in love with each other...or they are friends who slowly realize that they are more than friends...okay I'll stop talking nonsense I've been trying so hard to be semi-scholarly

Tags: @talkaustentome @austengivesmeserotonin @austengeek @princesssarisa @appleinducedsleep @colonelfitzwilliams

[oonajaeadira]

Got any book recommendations or writers that have inspired your writing? I’m not a native english speaker so I’m always learning new words or phrases from your stories. Sometimes I even whisper some of them out loud when I’m alone

Hey there, lovely.

Thank you thank you thank you for the lovely words, but especially for this ask. It made me think and ruminate and really understand why I love what I love and how I've learned from things that grab me.

I had to think about this one for a while because there's a difference between my favorite books and "writers that have inspired my writing." I can't say that I consciously looked at anyone's writing and thought I wanted to emulate them, I've just gravitated to some stories more than others. Here's what I'll tell you about some of my favorites:

The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle - Not only is it one of the big pillars of English language fantasy literature, it has a lot of angst and longing in it. It has one of those great fantasy endings that isn't exactly happy but is good and hopeful and shows the characters their true worth. The characters feel very fantastic and real at the same time and they seem to know their place in the grand scheme of being a character in a story. Literally. It's not exactly fourth wall breaking, but they know and they still play their parts and I love that about this book. (I use fourth-wall breaks in my plays all the time.)

Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood - I mean, the woman is a brilliant writer across the board and can depict the very secret and shameful and hopeful inner worlds of her characters so masterfully. This book in particular is one I've read and re-read many times. Her style is so smooth and buttery, but she's able to shift style depending on which character she's inhabiting in the book and the way she uses an unreliable narrator? The way she makes you love her but kind of fear her a little at the same time? The way she builds tension not only in the past timeline and the present one? Just glorious.

The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern - Descriptions. Descriptions descriptions descriptions. I attended a talk she gave about this book and she's mainly a visual artist and just started off with descriptions about the many tents at the Night Circus, but her editor told her it wouldn't be a good book, so she made a story. There are so many characters weaving in and out of a really beautifully gilded backdrop...this book is enchanting in all the best ways. And it has an epic love story that plays brilliantly as competitors-to-lovers. Gorgeous.

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder - Talk about cheekiness! I often have trouble explaining this book to people, but I think it is genius. Sophie is a young girl who is waiting for a letter from her father and befriends a philosophy scholar. Over time, this man teaches her about her relationship to her father, the world, and her own existence (possibly as a character that doesn't truly exist) by introducing her to different schools of thought. She ends up turning herself around and examines herself like a thousand-faceted gem through every major point of philosophical theory....and in the end, you the reader, get a thorough education on philosophy by example of Sophie's experience. It's just so different and refreshing and supremely entertaining while being amazingly educational.

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami - Now, this book has come through a translator, so a lot of turns of phrase probably have some credit to share there. But. I am a big fan of magical realism and Murakami's works are amazing for this (his fat novels, anyway--his shorter novels are more realistic). And he goes beyond his characters just having non-plussed reactions to the magic that happens in their world, sometimes they're downright sassy and exasperated by it. I appreciate that so much! To write casual ennui into magical realism takes a lot of balls and I love him for it. It's been way too long since I read this book and to be honest I can't remember the plot. But the style and the attitude is what stays with me for sure and I'd love to read it again.

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling - Obligatory statement up front to acknowledge the author's hard-pass shortcomings as a human being, but these books literally saved me through a couple of really hard times in my life and cemented some very meaningful friendships for me and for that I will claim death of the author and the stories will have room in my heart forever. The world-building, the magic, the trial-by-fire, the characters that felt real to me and became my friends, the heartache, the legacy of the past generation to the present, the repeat of history, the very tried-and-true hero's journey. I love that the characters deepened and evolved as the kids got older and the world expanded, how there was freedom in going from a couple of innocent YA books to big tomes, how the world-building never really stopped but became richer and richer, and how everything before wove into and through the entire tale like leitmotifs in a larger symphony. Yes, there's a lot in retrospect to look back at and point out for criticism, but the story is solid, transportive, clever, classically founded, and transcends its source. (That being said, I’m glad I already own the books and have no plans of giving the woman any more of my money.)

Johnny the Homicidal Maniac by Jhonen Vasquez - Graphic novel, but I love that it is manic and dark and unafraid to go where it wants to go and expresses the swiftly-shifting emotional states of its manic characters in the subtlest of ways. It's so dark and gleeful in its horror and violence...I don't know why I find his lack of restraint refreshing, but I do. Maybe it's the comic timing. Or the extreme emotions. Or the steam-valve of morbid weirdo that lives in me.

Emma by Jane Austen - Okay, really anything by Jane Austen. It's easy for people to write her off as a romance writer, but the woman had BITE. Especially for her time. She really saw people, really saw their foibles and their societal flaws. I love that her lovers aren't perfect and maybe that's why I love Emma the most--she was written to be a little shit, and we pull for her anyway; maybe not for her to get what she wants, but to be loved unconditionally and uncontrollably by someone even with her flaws...as we all yearn to be loved despite our own.

.

Other writers I love:

Banana Yoshimoto (Kitchen is her best known, but I find infinite inspiration in her short story Midnight Sonata and her nostalgic novel Goodbye Tsugumi)

Lev Grossman (The Magicians!)

Amy Tan (known for Joy Luck Club, but I offer up The Kitchen God's Wife as her best- word of warning, her women go through Hard Lives™ brought on by patriarchal times and societies)

Suzanna Clarke (esp. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, not everyones cup of tea, but I inhale that book like cocaine)

Audrey Neffinegger (I mean, Time Traveler's Wife is a masterpiece in timeline storytelling)

David Sedaris (essayist, his style is so sassy)

Mary Roach (non-fiction, but hilarious)

Margo Lanagan (omgs her selkie book--The Brides of Rollrock Island--broke my heart, but it's so good, and Tender Morsels is dark and perfect)

Catherynne M. Valente (The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making series is wonderful)

The worlds created by Ernest Cline (Ready Player One) and Max L. Brooks (World War Z) felt REAL while I was reading them

Naomi Novik (omgs if you love fanfic please read Uprooted you will not be disappointed go get it now I’ll wait)

[ladybirdwithoutdots]

I was just thinking about the fact Emma 2020 is clearly told from Emma's protagonist-perspective but Mr Knightley is the one character whose pov you see indipendently from her (or when she can see him) since his first scene, so he essentially is treated as co-protagonist by the narrative. Even his yellow riding coat seems to be a nod to Emma's own yellow ensemble but at the same time, it does place him in a co-lead role and there is even a parallel between Emma's scene with Harriet and his own scene with Robert Martin. One is meddling in Harriet’s personal life manipulating her, the other is accidentally finding himself on the side of a Harriet/Robert supporter, lol.

Notice for example that the only scene Harriet gets that is just about her (meaning not something functional to Emma's story or that Emma can see too) is the one in the end between her and Robert because it's the moment she gets rid of Emma's bad influence and makes her own choices following her own feelings, which signals her own character growth.  

For Mr Knightley it's a bit on reverse because he has a different character arc: he starts as an independent character from Emma but as the story progresses, while he's still independent, he also realizes how much he needs her and the thought of losing her brings him despair, and from that moment (the aftermath of the ball), everytime you see him again it's about Emma. His character arc is about realizing how much being alone and independent isn't enough for him anymore..everything he was sure of before is challenged, and he understands and admits he actually needs Emma more than he could have ever imagined when he met her. In fact, in the end it's part of his independence he is willing to give up to be with the woman he loves. There is something foundamental Mr Knightley learns, and it's also part of understanding Emma's loneliness better than he ever did before.

A lot of things about Mr Knightley kind of represent an epiphany of sorts. There are phrases from the beginning that are foreshadowing of his own journey and his character arc. You could say he has to eat his own words too sometimes, lol. For instance, in his first scene with Emma he teases her about people crying at Miss Taylor's wedding: in the end you see him moved to tears at his own wedding^. And of course there is the infamous "I want to see Emma in love and with some doubt of a return" that backfires so much 😂.

I think it's a clever way to highlight his own character arc from the book too. In the novel, you think he's very independent mostly at the beginning (*) but with time, you realize in retrospect how much he needed Emma and why he spent so much time with her and her father. He's ok alone, he's a dynamic, independent and kinda energic person, but Donwell is empty (love the movie shows how much it's preserved but only his room is *home*. Cue the dust sheets covering the furniture in other rooms) and deep down a part of him longs for a companion, someone whom he can share his life with. He doesn’t realize that or admit it at first, in a way he thinks he’s independent and unaffected by some things but he realizes that he isn’t. Deep down he wanted to marry and have kids like his brother, and he could've easily found himself a wife but he was already in love with Emma without realizing it, somehow ‘waiting’ for her without knowing he was essentially doing that (it’s the same for her, they both subconsciously put their feelings away because they think the one person they really want isn’t interested about them that way). It's the discovery of his own loneliness, and how much he loves and needs Emma, that helps him understand her and her own loneliness (that she compensated with the match making and trying to find a friend in Harriet after the loss of Miss Taylor) even better.  (*) (the beginning of the novel also coincides, for me, with the only time in the story where I do remember he’s older than her. By the time I get to the end, the more I realize he needs Emma and loves her, the more I forget about this aspect and he seems to be..younger. Funny enough, that’s also a moment in the story where Austen tells you that he comes across as young to Emma herself. The way she subtly hints that HE is the love interest is delightful btw.) 

I must say, Emma has a similar journey about romance and marriage.  At first, she thinks it isn't for her and she tells herself that she doesn't want to marry, when really the thing preventing her is mostly duty towards her father. I think a lot of people misunderstand her character to ostensibly try to make her a modern feminist heroine, which isn’t a bad thing per se but often it ends up erasing a good part of her own character arc and what still is a very important point. The thing is, Emma does have a romantic heart that she tries to express through match-making by finding a companion for her friends, because in that moment it's the only way she feels she's allowed to experience romance too. Emma thinks she’s free but she really isn’t, psychologically at least she is trapped in a cage where her father’s needs are the priority no matter what her heart wants or may want. This aspect is important because at the beginning of the story, she's naive and an unreliable narrator of herself and her feelings. In the end, when her delusions shatter she realizes she isn’t as immune to some things as she thought she was, and she had always been in love with Mr Knightley. You could argue that it’s not so true Emma isn't interested about romance or marriage... she is, with the man she loves. She simply isn’t ready at the beginning, nor she thinks she is allowed to have what she wants.  In fact, she does a 180° about the whole "I don't want to get married" thing when he asks her to marry him, and she is pained by the idea that they wouldn't be able to marry asap because of her father. You'd think it wouldn't make a big difference for her either way given Mr Knightley would still be with them every day like be always was, and she could still preserve their routine that was so dear to her; but it's not enough for her anymore. Acting as friends only isn't enough anymore. That's why she's pained by the idea she may not be allowed to marry him asap: she longs to have a companion, to have an intimacy she wouldn't be allowed to have with him without being married. And when he does find a perfect solution so they can be together, she's conflicted about his sacrifice but also incandescently happy that they can marry sooner than she thought they'd be allowed to. The point is, part of Emma's coming of age arc is discovering her own sexual agency too, and the fact she finds herself wanting things she didn't think she even wanted before. Austen is subtle like you'd expect her to be in context but that’s what she implies in the end, in the most dignified way sure but she does that in the way Emma's feelings about marriage completely change when she knows she's in love and he loves her back.

It's also interesting to notice that, in a way, just like Mr Knightley understands some things about Emma better in the end when he discovers his own vulnerabilities, Emma also does start to fully understand and respect Harriet's feelings for Robert and his for her only when she herself realizes her own love for Mr Knightley, and thus she understands that marriage isn't necessarily just a matter of convenience like she thought it was. 

(ps: I headcanon Emma as demisexual/demiromantic, btw. I feel like a lot of things about her make even more sense when you think that beside the lack of experience, she is someone who needs to be in love and share a strong bond with a person to fully understand and want some things. The moment at the ball when she’s dancing with Frank but she’s completely distracted by how attractive she finds Mr Knightley is one of my favorites. She’s generically able to appreciate people’s beauty from an aesthetic perspective such as noticing someone has pretty eyes or hair etc, but when it comes to real attraction Austen is all about Emma finding Mr Knightley hot because it’s him, not really because he has this or that physical feature she finds pretty.)

[mgsapphire]

Ethics and morality... and how they're not the same...

Weird title, and I don't even know if I'll properly approach this one with all the topics I wish to this discuss in today's The Devil Judge essay, because a lot of things peaked my interest, I was debating on doing a separate post for each subject, but I'll do them all in here:

Starting simple

I know we're only 4 episodes in, but I want to break down the things that I often look for in a new show:

Cinematography

Soundtrack

Character building

Plot devices

Social commentary (sometimes)

Of course, these are things most people would consider basics, but I find that a lot of TV shows don't have enough balance in them. Also, cinematography and soundtrack are pretty up there for me because when a plot gets slow, or something like that, I stay for those two (biggest example: King Eternal Monarch).

The soundtrack in The Devil Judge is amazing and the cinematography can be a character of its own. They really get me hooked and are used as tools to properly tell a story. And I'll get into that further down this post.

The onlooker will never understand the actor

Experience is your best friend not only applies to job hunting, but it's true in the real world too. You can't truly weigh in on something unless you've experienced it yourself, you can give it your judgment and everything, but when bad things happen to someone, you'll never truly understand their pain. Am I bringing up because of the difference of mind in Judge Kang and Judge Kim's opinions? On how the public treated the minister's son? No. I'm talking about a very specific scene, where the cinematography told me to think that way and not the dialogue (it's that easy for my mind to be swayed). In episode 3, when the rich are about to dine right after the foundation's commercial for a better future, we see this aerial shot:

What's interesting about this? The seclusion and the enclosed feeling it conveys as a counterpart to the poverty shots we were just shown. Yet, these are the people making ads for a better future, what do they know?

They live comfortably behind concrete walls with no windows to see what goes on apart from the bubble they live in. This idea is further enforced at the party in episode 4, where they're not even a part of the donations, and watch and mock from afar as spectators. Yet, these people call the shots. They even call it commenting, as if they were watching the pain of others on TV.

The intriguing personality and the duality it encites

Now, this was a costume and wardrobe decision, but it was also very well thought of:

Judge Kim wears white and Judge Kang wears black. One is morally perceived by viewers of the show as morally good and the other is perceived as morally dubious at best. However, besides the costume and wardrobe thought put into this, we also have to think about the delivery of this scene and how it may further affect my detailing of this section. Judge Kang brings down the coats, and hangs over the coat to Judge Kim, he's the one who is making that annotation: You're pure, I'm tainted. This can have one of two interpretations:

Either Judge Kang believes Judge Kim to be pure and innocent due to his status as a rookie in the field

Or he believes Judge Kim to be morally white and himself morally black as he's looking at his brother's face and not at Judge Kim's heart.

Because most of the back story we're unveiling is through Judge Kim's perception, there's also an inherit bias we're having as well, because in Judge Kim narrative, he believes he's doing what's right and believes Judge Kang to be evil. In being served information about Judge Kang through Judge Kim's eyes, our bias is inherently skewed.

Another thing is that, when they put on the coat, they're standing in front of the other, as if the producers of this series are telling us they're two sides of the same coin.

The duality is made in more deceitful ways, which include:

A difference of classes that implies one has suffered while the other has not.

A difference of experience that implies one is more tainted while the other is pure.

A difference of age that implies one is a sly fox while the other one is is bunny about to be eaten.

A difference of temper that makes one erratic and the other logical.

Power dynamics

This one, in this one I could make a whole thesis based on just a couple of scenes in the drama. And you know I have to mention it: director Jung being the puppeteer.

It may not be as unexpected at first, nevertheless it brings forward a lot of things I've wished to touch upon for quite some time now. A woman being a puppeteer of an old man in the portrayed dystopia that The Devil Judge is painting makes much more sense than more common demonstrations of these dynamics where it's either a:

A man of power being controlled by a bigger man of power.

A man of power being controlled by a seemingly man of a lower status.

A woman being controlled by a man of power.

Although, there's nothing wrong with those power dynamics, and if they were to be used, a message could also be conveyed, this one in particular works as a megaphone.

A subversion of power in such a way can be interpreted as a true indication of the weak overcoming the powerful. Why? It is not that woman are naturally weaker than men, but that in society, patriarchy has been a big factor in taking voice away from women in order to give it to men.

In order for Director Jung to achieve her purposes, it's smarter for her to do it under the pretense that an old rich man in power is the one calling the shots.

This is better exemplified by her stance when the old man tries to excuse his behavior, and what her moral compass is. I'm not saying I agree with her unethical conduct, but that her morality is directly impacted by the perception of the public of her as a weak woman:

Just because a dog bites a human does the person get dirty?

This is telling on how she perceives the actions of the old man in gropping the waitress. She didn't do anything wrong, even if you touched her, you are the dirty one.

While she's evil, it's a refreshing and deep evil.

The public's opinion and how there's actually logic in the show's portrayal

The public opinion can make or break a person, even if it's not on a public trial like this. While "cancel culture" barely works in today's society, a person's reputation is forever tainted. The show does tell that, but it also exhibits the scary downside of it, by showing how easily it was to make people accept flaggelation as a fitting punishment.

There are many experiments that have tried to test the effect of societal pressure on an individual's decision and the effect of the authority's enforcement of power in the outcome of these decisions. Furthermore, theories based on analysis of human behavior not necessarily relying on experiments can also help break this down. What do I mean? Here's a small attempt at explaining:

Milgram Experiment on Authority: which measured the individual willingness to carry out actions that go against their conscience due to an authority's approval.

Argument from Authority; The idea that people are more likely to use an authority's opinion on something as an argument for their reason. This is often seen in science, where trusted authorities have done the research and offer it to the public. In here, authority bias also plays a role, as we often believe, at first, that an authority must be right.

Moral disengagement: basically speaking, because this is evil or bad, I'm not part of it and I most probably am not actively participating in it. One may disengage by moral justification, which means that before engaging in something that has been previously perceived as immoral, I'm changing my stance on it based on what I tell myself to be logical arguments. This particular form of moral disengagement is very effective in changing the public opinion. I'll be touching on another form further down this post.

Other factors played a part, but these ones in particular came to mind when public flagelation as a form of corporeal punishment was wildly accepted. First, an authority is the one telling them it's correct, to go ahead. Secondly, another authority (the minister) had previously shown approval to such unusual punishment. Thirdly, they are not the ones to be engaging directly in the act, and even if they were, it would be acceptable because an authority has told them so. They may even believe the punishment to be a necessary evil for the greater good.

In fact, the minister's son was actually correct when pleading his case, they were accepting it because it wouldn't affect them directly.

Regarding the cinematographic descent of the public opinion regarding the situation can better be exemplified by the old man we've seen through the episodes.

Does suffering justify misdeeds?

Today I came along the difference between excuse and reason. You may give a reason for your behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

Not because I've suffered through shit, means I have to make you suffer too.

I may explain myself, but it's on the other side to excuse me.

Why I hate the unreliable narrator and why I love it so much

This story has been told mostly through the eyes of Judge Kim and what he hears and sees regarding Judge Kang, if anything, the narrative is very close to that of the narrative we've seen in The Great Gatsby. An enigmatic man is being narrated to us from the eye of a man who hasn't known him for a long time.

How is that an unreliable narrator? The narrator has their own set of bias and moral standards which function as lenses through which they see the world.

Another way of putting it would be the way teenage romances are often written in a first person narrative where either of the two teenagers is the narrator, so the author can sell to us something as simple as offering a pack of gum as the most romantic act on earth. We're perceiving interactions through rose tainted glasses.

In this case, we're seeing the interactions through Judge Kim's eyes who doesn't trust Judge Kang from the get go due to his own preset bias.

The narrative becomes even more unreliable as we're not exactly sure if what Judge Kang disclosed himself is a fact.

The reason why I love this narrative is because it leaves a lot of space to make simple plot twists to a narrative and make them seem grand, and can elongate a story without making it obvious.

The reason why I hate it is because sometimes, in tv shows mostly, we as viewers can see the other side of the story and grow increasingly frustrated with the main character's prejudice and misunderstandings (I'm looking at you my beloved Beyond Evil).

Also, because I have to wait for a long time before I actually have a clear picture of it.

[lochnessies]

I feel like 3H discourse gets fucked over a bit by people not taking into account that characters will say inaccurate information (without it having to be a plot hole). Perspective is a huge theme in Three Houses and characters are going to make, sometimes, dramatic actions based off that misinformation.

yeah

Like, Dmitri accuses Edelgard of being involved in the Tragedy of Duscur, but, she was like, 12 when that happened. It’s a lot more likely that Edelgard was being experimented on or recovering from experimentation during that point in time considering that the Tragedy happens not long after Edelgard and Dmitri last see each other.

do i think edelgard was involved? nah. it’s one of the few things i genuinely believe her on. however, it isn’t unreasonable for dimitri to think she was somehow involved. i mean, faerghast is pretty standard medieval when it comes down to fighting. was sent to quell rebellions at like 14. that’s really young. and in the middle ages the standard age that boys trained to be nights was at the very least seven (glenn was 15 when he was full on knighted). felix says he learned to fight before he could write his own name and dimitri was already swinging swords at nine. not to mention she was in the kingdom and then not long after she leaves the tragedy happened. so it could also look like she was a spy even if she didn’t set lambert on fire herself.

then there’s the whole shit of her saying nothing. a whole nation gets wiped out and she has no plans to ever vindicate them. hell, even dedue says that her being involved in any way is unacceptable and he’s fucking pissed. is he delusional? is he being irrational and unfair to edelgard? she isn’t the victim here, dedue, his people, the kingdom royals and co. are.

Likewise, Setheth accuses Edelgard of trying to become a false goddess when that’s not even remotely close to her goals.

ok this part right here is the reason that this fucking thing took forever to come out (sorry anon). i have so much to say and i wanted to write it all but i decided to put in my edelgard essay instead. i then waited to post this answer but sadly it’s taking longer to edit than i planned and i feel bad so you’re going to have to wait for this bit. so if you stick around i’ll talk about that in depth in the essay but just know that i disagree with the op very much.

Edelgard makes a ton of false accusations and misconceptions about Rhea. She accuses Rhea of being a power hungry inhumane tyrant who has no regard for life outside her own when that just isn’t remotely accurate.

And then there’s Claude, literally the only major faction leader that cares to uncover the truth and nuances of everyone’s decisions. He’s literally the only faction leader to not act like his version of events is the definitive truth. He acknowledges that he and Edelgard are fighting for similar things: a system overhaul of Fodlan. He also doesn’t oppose the Church because he’s learned enough about it to want to keep it’s institution in place. That’s why he’s the only faction leader that can survive in every route (I’d consider Seteth and Rhea to share the role as Church Leader since Seteth leads the Church Route but Rhea’s the one actually in charge of the Church). Claude is also the only leader that doesn’t make any false claims about other factions. I said a while ago that Claude would make the best ruler and this is why.

ok this is fine

But going back to what I said earlier about discourse, this impacts discourse drastically because people can just pick whichever version of events they prefer and there’s probably a character who claimed it went that way. The plot also doesn’t seek to clarify events one way or the other in any route. So even if you’ve played every route, it’s up to the player to make judgment calls on who’s speaking out of their ass.

except it’s literally not. we are told what routes have correct information from the devs themselves. and unreliable narrators can be proven and disproven when you put their words against everyone else, their actions, and the lore.

Between all the relevant character and plot details the game hides behind supports, endings, and other easily missable content and the fact that no two characters interpret the series of events that happen in the plot the same way (due to coming from various background, being present for some stuff but not others, having different priorities and biases that will cause them to interpret different things in different ways, etc.), no two players are likely going to interpret the events of 3 Houses the same either.

just because two characters interpret the events differently doesn’t mean they’re right. for example, the agarthans think the crest experiments are good but edelgard and lysithea would say otherwise. but you wouldn’t say that twsitd’s perspective is valid just bc they see things differently.

and when i see players trying to excuse some of the most horrific things bc they don’t want their fave war criminal to look bad yes i will judge them. you can like whoever but don’t excuse shit like imperialism and racism and we will be fine.

So, if you want to talk 3H, please acknowledge that none of the characters should be taken solely on their word, especially when describing major things. With the examples I gave earlier of misinformation in the game, it makes sense that Dmitri would place the blame of the Tragedy of Duscur almost entirely on Edelgard because he doesn’t know about the Agarthans or Edelgard’s history with them.

ok but she’s still complicate if nothing else. that’s still terrible. like if she was planning to clear duscur’s name that’s one thing but she isn’t. the only way to do that is to reveal twsitd and we know she doesn’t since it is a shadow war that the people don’t know about since that would reflect badly on her for working with them.

It makes sense that Edelgard has a lot of misconceptions about the Church because once you start completely rewriting and erasing history (and the Church does openly censor literature, which is shown in Claude’s route), any possible “true story” is more likely than the story you’re giving. Alongside that, Edelgard is getting most of her information from the Agarthans and a very private source only accessible to the Imperial Family.

fair but choosing war at like 13 is an extreme jump. maybe wait till your brain fully develops and you have a better picture of the world around you

It makes sense that Seteth might assume that Edelgard is trying to become a false god because he’s been helping lead a religion based on lies for centuries.

she is. also the religion isn’t based off of lies. sothis exists. she’s in your head. a few details were changed to hide nabateans from a red canyon massacre 2.0. however, the values are the same. also he came to the monastery 20 years ago not centuries.

When you’re trying to understand some part of Three Houses, you have to think about where that information came from, what factors might be biasing that information, and that there might be some detail that shines a new light on that information somewhere else in the game that you’re missing. And that’s generally a good philosophy to have when processing any information.

yeah

That’s something I like about Three Houses. I like how you have to sort through a ton of biases and misinformation within the game to understand the story. If you let your own biases get away from you too much, you’re going to miss the larger picture. The game let’s you know exactly where everyone is coming from in some way and (almost) everyone is given a sympathetic eye in at least one route. And (almost) everyone is viewed as irredeemable in at least one route.

the only people who are portrayed as irredeemable are edelgard and rhea (and maybe dimitri if you count edel’s contempt for him in cf).

[royalreef]

(( This is going under a readmore for a combination of both a sensitive topic, things I try to let people slowly uncover and learn about Miranda through threads, and just my own want for some kind of privacy screen for it.

Sometimes I really do wish I could go into more detail about Miranda’s psychosis, specifically her hallucinations. Showing hints of her delusions are easier, and I know delusions already tend to show up more than hallucinations do, at least in as far as it comes to my own positive symptoms. 

But even that feels... weird, to me? Like I know it’s my own issues, feeling like people will judge me and having had some prior bad experiences with stuff like this, and I especially have a lot of fear that people will say I’m projecting onto Miranda. I try to deal with it, try to make it more of a bragging point than anything, but that doesn’t do a lot for me in terms of how people have treated me and still do treat me for sharing any kind of issues with my muse.

This comes up because I’m back in the saddle of a psychotic episode of my own, and it’s just reminding me all the more of how little I talk about it, and thus how little it gets addressed for Miranda. Of course, she’s in a different situation. She denies that she has psychosis of any kind because she’s in a dangerous situation where being open with that kind of information could get her killed. She’s never really had any kind of support for her psychosis and the other royals make it a point of using even the idea of it to tear someone else down. 

Yet there’s a kind of... freedom, in just showing her as having it, you know? Characters with psychosis are seldom portrayed as anything except ableist tropes, and I can only really think of one character I’ve seen that has had her schizophrenia accurately and wonderfully portrayed. Having Miranda have psychosis, having her deal with it, even if it’s just an extrapolation from canon, is incredibly important to me.

But there’s also an additional worry, and a worry I already deal with, that other people will not be able to tell that Miranda’s narration and perception aren’t always accurate. She’s a very unreliable narrator, a chronic liar to both others and to herself, and she’s been in the kind of situation where her POV has been purposefully distorted for the sake of an end goal. Miranda is really bad at telling and accurately giving the truth, and I’ve already noticed that I don’t get this across the best all the time. It’s a delicate line to walk, portraying it impactfully and accurately, while also cluing in to the other person that not everything she’s saying or experiencing is true, and I still haven’t figured out a good way to balance these things. Adding in and even more accurately portraying how distorted Miranda’s senses can get with her hallucinations and delusions makes this even more complicated. I don’t want to mislead people, or to have small details and small things I’ve thrown in become larger issues than I intended them to be, but...

Well, it’s just a difficult situation.

[priscilla9993]

I think there's something fascinating about some of my favorite characters or works of fiction. It's not because they're relatable, that I want to become them, or even that I condone their actions. It's just because it's another perspective to look at, to see why they did the things they did, how they are the main character in their life, and what makes them so morally ambiguous. At the end of the day, it's about whether they stay true to themselves, what parts they choose to make clear to others and how it's perceived. I'll root for them at times when they do something morally right that look terrible on paper or I'll just cry at how they got to the circumstances they're in. Gosh, there are so many characters that fit that description so take it how you will.

A good amount of people I declare my love to are in Ouat and the majority of them are "villains". They may kill, do morally unethical things, but at the end of it all, they are doing what they want even if it's not what they need. They are proactive in their quest and are sick of being reactive to anything that comes their way, not letting fate be the determined destiny. And if it requires being evil to get their way, with what started out as good intentions but then becomes a blind goal, then so be it. They don't always have backstories that make you feel for them but you understand that sometimes, a person who was once bullied becomes a bully, standing up for themselves in a way most people would be against. Freedom or revenge, it's all the same to them and I love it. When I think about classic literature from Shakespeare or stuff we were forced to read in high school like Lord of the Flies, Fahrenheit 451, or 1984, I get an adrenaline rush. Not that the protagonists were the best, heck, Holden Caulfield was an unreliable narrator, but I still wanted to know why they did what they did and who they were. All the experiences that made up their identity and self. The character analysis that was sometimes hardest to write or stand for was sometimes the most emotionally fulfilling because it took something that I saw was there and was slowly put into words. A thing I love about Winston was that he was a flawed man who wanted freedom and to do good, but did some morally ambiguous things or betrayed people just so that he could survive or because he didn't know what he really felt. Was he a product of society and his surroundings or was he himself all along? Winston has plenty of time to think but whatever thing he can do in a monotonous and pressuring society was profound, if not despicable. A person I'll profess that I don't like his actions but respect his internal turmoil leading up to them is Hamlet. I thought he did his friends, family, and girlfriend dirty, but he was being plotted against, grieving, and depressed from the cycle of life and death. How close he was to his father? I don't know but he saw his ghost and longed to make things right, hating his uncle and mother for incest and obvious murder for the crown. Does it make Hamlet's thoughts of murder or suicide righteous? No, but darn, does he make me both pity him and root for him to get some reprieve from his suffering while not condoning killing of self or others to achieve that. And if we are going to talk about Preminger, I think he deserves to take the crown for multiple reasons. He’s a man of his word, was “borrowing” gold in order to give it back to the people once he became king, is an aristocrat from humble upbringings, can think on the fly, didn’t force anyone to marry him, got soldiers to trust him normally, and did way more for the people than just the queen or Annaliese did, both of whom got the crown by birth or marriage.   I guess what I’m saying is the most fun thing about literature or media is trying to read deeper into them. It’s infuriating that English teachers try to teach students why they should care about a character that requires some hard text or analysis, but at the end of the day, I’m glad for some of them trying to explain it to me and a good amount of my own time reading trashy or complicated novels before realizing maybe they do have a point.