ajsteiger

[ajsteiger]

@procrastiwriting

[ajsteiger]

I rewatched that mostly-terrible Blood and Chocolate movie from '07. I saw it in theaters when it first came out. I also read the YA novel it was based on (a long time ago). I had my quibbles with the book too, but the changes they made were so weird.

I'm also surely not the only person who can't watch this movie without seeing the male lead as a younger Will Graham. He's drawn to canines in this incarnation, too (just, y'know, werewolves instead of stray dogs).

Though the character he plays is kind of a dick. At one point he says the line, "If you cared a damn thing about me, you'd have left me before we ever met."

[ajsteiger]

It sounds basic but the way to get past writer's block is to write.

Writing is like working out a muscle. The more you do it, the easier it is to keep doing it and to do it for longer and produce more. Eventually it becomes second nature.

Because of this, writing should also be enjoyable, because we are more intrinsically motivated to do pleasurable things. Write things that are self-indulgent, write things that are interesting to you. Write your shower thoughts, write your embarrassing fantasies, write your vents. If you show anyone these writings, show them in contexts where you know (or at least can be reasonably assured that) you'll get a positive reaction.

Train your brain to associate writing with pleasure and catharsis and validation, and you will want to spend more time writing. And then when you have to write those parts of your novel that are less fun, that are more about building a bridge between the fun parts, it will be easier to do because you're in the habit and you'll be better at it.

[ajsteiger]

A few basics to consider:

Geography (how many continents, where are they in relation to each other, where are the most populous cities, how much of the world is uninhabited, what is the climate like in the areas where most of the people live, etc.)

Flora and fauna. Are the animals and plants pretty similar to the ones on Earth, or are they different?

One moon, same as Earth? Multiple moons, no moons?

What is the human (or whatever species you're focused on) population, overall?

What technological stage of development is this world at, overall? What are the latest discoveries and inventions?

What is the government like in the area that you're focused on? What are the most powerful civilizations of this world? What about economics? Is the system feudalistic, capitalistic, etc.? What do they use for money, if they use money?

What about religion? What are the dominant religions?

What are the primary things that set this world apart from our world? Is there magic, are there supernatural beings? What's the most crucial difference, and how has it changed how this world has developed?

does anyone have any tips for world building? I’m decent(?) at it but I wanna see what people think should be included in a fantasy story w/ a custom world.

[ajsteiger]

Spoilers for Boys S3:

What little I know about The Boys Season 4 sounds like it will involve Homelander going on trial (which, he exploded a guy's head in front of everyone, so yeah).

I am wondering if the show will use this as an opportunity to critique the way that the media sensationalizes the trials of celebrities and how entire online subcultures latch onto this and form warring tribes over it.

I also wonder whether Homelander will find some way to use this to his advantage or if he's going to have a complete psychological meltdown from all the scrutiny. Either seems equally likely at this point. He's not good at manipulating the media on his own, but he is likely going to have Victoria in his corner.

[ajsteiger]

There's a school of thought that fixed personalities are an illusion to begin with, so it's not surprising that they're kind of a difficult thing to define or explain. I think of a personality as a collection of tendencies or traits that tend to remain relatively stable over time, which can also include a person's interests or passions if those are things they return to over and over again.

To take a basic trait like introversion versus extroversion...it tends to be evident even from early childhood and persist into adulthood, but it can still change somewhat over the course of a person's life. Whether someone is a "thinker" or "feeler" can be context-dependent, or it can be a mixture.

If I try to explain what I like about someone, it's usually something like "I feel relaxed around them, like I can say whatever comes into my head and they'll understand" or "we can usually find interesting things to talk about and have activities that we both like doing." Which is connected to personality, even if it's not a direct description of personality traits.

I don't know if this answers the questions, it's just random thoughts.

I'm so tired

But I'm also thinking of like... im wondering it it's normal or autistic or dissociative to not understand a personality, what makes up someone's personality. I can read it up for a fictional character on a wiki. But if i try to figure out my own personality or someone else's...i don't get it

I don't know how to explain what a personality is. I don't know how to phrase it. But it's why i like personality tests a lot. Both seeing my own results. And seeing another person's results. Because it helps me understand a little bit

But generally i don't...get personalities. I dont know how to describe anything. I have absolutely no clue what personality i have. I describe myself by the things i like. Can't explain what i "like about someone," just that i like them.

[ajsteiger]

One of the things I feel conflicted about, as a writer, is how much time I spend in imaginary worlds with imaginary people, and how many cumulative years I've spent over the course of my life thinking about this stuff as well as actually writing.

I've made some genuine human connections through my stories, and I also enjoy spending time in imaginary worlds. But it does lead to a sense of disconnection from reality.

[ajsteiger]

🟢 You are still a writer even when you haven't written in a while.

🟢 You are still a writer even when you feel like you aren't writing enough.

🟢 You are still a writer when you feel like your work isn't good.

🟢 You are still a writer when other people don't like your work.

🟢 You are still a writer when you aren't published.

🟢 You are still a writer when you only have works in progress.

🟢 You are still a writer if all you write is fanfiction.

[ajsteiger]

This is the most accurate-feeling take I've heard on them so far. Platonic soulmates.

i'm about to sound like i'm master of everything but fuck it. both sides of the argument about what frenchie and kimiko mean to each other are stupid as hell. yeah, it isn't romance in traditional way. they don't want to fuck each other raw or whatever tf and thry don't feel the need to be seen as a romantic couple. BUT IT ISN'T "THEY ARE LIKE SIBLINGS" DYNAMIC EITHER. siblings don't act like that and especially don't kiss each other. what drugs y'all on 💀 like kimiko said they are above that. they are secret third thing. they are each others family. they are soulmates. they are agape. they are philia. they are platonically in love with each other. they love each other in married people way. pls, i'm begging you

[ajsteiger]

billy *needs* vought to supplement his addiction to violence, that's why he goes after the supes instead of the company that makes them.

This exactly. He's in a codependent relationship with Vought. If they ever stopped manufacturing Supes, if he ever got what he "wanted," he'd just be left wandering around in a purposeless daze.

I kinda wonder if he will get permanent Homelander-level powers in S4. Like he's already gotten the news that his days are numbered so there's nothing to stop him from taking original recipe V.

I mean, Billy Butcher has been deflecting, especially in season 3. It's a cruel irony because Billy faced violence and abuse since childhood, but it didn't make him more protective of other children nor empathetic of SOME supes, I suppose in some ways he's detached from them, sorta like turdlander, that exposure to violence and malice so early in life... a disturbance to his mind. Sure he shows small tingue of guilt more than creeplander does, but I think there's just too much at stake for billy to risk attachment.. and what has attachment brought him anyway?

he's actually a pretty common statistic for the society we live in. capitalism is... fucking awful~<3

he's ableist racist trash, of course he's not gonna give a shit as long as he chooses to remain ignorant, arrogant, and blame the supers for their blood instead of the fucking entity that made them.

the whole time if people haven't fucking noticed:

for billy it's been, "homelander, homelander, some random supe killing~, but oh homelander~<3!"

BUT FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BOYS, IT'S BEEN:

"VOUGHT. LET'S TAKE DOWN VOUGHT."

it is BILLY that veers them towards the reckless killing and hyperfocuses the operations on homelander. and it shows, exponentially how much of an addiction and obsession (to the detriment of everyone else) he has in season 3, where he's fed up with 'managing' the right way and having to listen to hughie when it comes to holding supes accountable.

people seem to keep forgetting that scene with raynor but she said it perfectly, "you should be terrified of what can happen if you push him too far." but billy does not care *because* he doesn't care about anyone else, he just keeps pushing.

people keep acting like 'homelander must be stopped' and i'm like... 'okay, do you mean the FUTURE version of him that goes berserk???' cause all i see right now is someone who is at the verge and needs *serious help* as well as a self fulfilling fuckin' prophecy being pushed by those around him, *especially* billy.

he is a ticking time bomb, but he hasn't gone off yet. and the fact that people want to fight that with more explosives to 'destroy' the bomb thinking there won't be collateral *instead* of fucking diffusing it i--

homelander more often gets judged for what he *can* do rather than what he *has* done, and that's not to minimize what he has done, that's to say that he's still in a place where he *could* get treatment and maybe get better but most people... do not give a shit because of what he *could* do in the long run, and in all honesty, kinda not really all that fair?

and then the second hughie finds out about neuman? he panics and pins her as a bad guy *because* she is 'the head popper'/a supe

i want to take a second to point out that while i don't think her intentions are necessarily 'good' and that she's getting desperate, we still have no clue as to what the full scope of her own plans actually are.

and watching back the scene where she 'blows up congress', i noticed something, she seemed scared. almost like she was having a panic attack or flashback or some kind of ptsd episode after seeing vogelbaum, which i just would not be surprised had that been the case. but she *looks* like she *lost control* for a moment and then picked it back up after the fact. and homelander points it out, 'you're not his daughter, you're his weapon' and he's right.

i would wager (what am i sayin', pretty fuckin' sure here) that some if not most of her kills (including raynor) were for the most part on orders for stan edgar's plan *before* homelander hijacked the situation. but to put it bluntly, vicky is also stuck in the vought cult and also a major victim of circumstance. she's a brutal assassin too, but that is exactly what the supes are trained to be. because they are vought's new marketed weapons and they are seen as exactly that by the company itself.

stan lied when he claimed they were a pharmaceutical company. they are a weapon's company.

but going back to billy,

as far as guilt goes, of course homelander isn't gonna show any, he has no understanding of what he would even feel guilty for

"Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse."

finally took the time to look up that quote and it's by philip zimbardo.

if we go by this (which i am a firm believer in) and make this our standard for evil in its *purest* form. many characters in the story do this and are capable of it to some degree, and plenty are also not. but~

none moreso than billy.

AND

with exception to homelander.

this means that within context, homelander is the only character that is truly *incapable* of committing *true evil* because he has *no understanding of the moral question*. it's sort of a defaulted thing, but think of it like judging a hippo, a highly aggressive and territorial animal, for killing a person that wandered into it's territory. the hippo is responding within reasonable *nature*, so it hasn't technically committed evil, even if it's caused harm.

it's a fucking hippo, the humans wandered into its territory, it's just gonna do how hippos do! WE are the ones in the wrong here if we refuse to understand that!

likewise, an actually more apt comparison for homelander would be an abused zoo or circus animal, plainly because *he has never once been treated as a human being or been presented with the moral question* and quite the contrary, i actually think vought made an effort to ensure he *didn't* understand these things in any sound capacity to ensure they could maintain control of him, or rather, they deliberately screwed up his ability to analyze things and think critically *as a human being/from a human perspective* because it would be inconvenient for them (also honestly, i feel like if someone took him to a zoo, he'd go berserk and release all the animals--)

and we see this in different instances. of course there are moments where the boi is super mean spirited or bullying someone, but it's not just because he can or wants to, it's because *that's what was done to him and he knows no different*, he lived through nothing but cruelty so that is all he knows and it's his *normal*. couple that with being brought up to believe the beings around him are somehow 'lesser' or that he is 'not one of them' and it causes a whole mess of problems...

billy is the exact opposite of this. he is *fully aware* of the moral question, *fully aware* of what he is capable of and what he does and how it affects other people. *fully aware* of cruelty AND kindness, has experienced both and even given both. hell, he's even fully aware of how to emotionally manipulate people *with* his own emotions and situation and any *guilt* he feels. and i've said it before, and i'll say it again.

HE KNOWS BETTER. he just CHOOSES to do worse. and he even knows *that*. billy is evil and chooses to be while homelander has never had that chance to learn that there's even a difference.

and then billy goes and makes it worse because he also *weaponizes* what he's learned and what he's been through. so you're definitely right about that last bit.

there is too much at stake for him to risk attachment, that's why he also *detaches* himself from people (like ryan) or stabs them in the back to pursue what will inevitably eventually destroy him and everyone else.

if i'm completely honest? i think the self awareness in how evil billy is ends up being part of his game. there is a huge part of him that pushes because he *wants* to lose, the part of him that's *not* evil, feels guilt, and *wants* to stop himself but can't. and that would be the point he turns to outside sources to fulfill that need and self punishment

i think part of why he pursues homelander isn't because *he* wants to stop or destroy homelander, but because he believes homelander may be the only thing that can stop and destroy *him*.

[ajsteiger]

Over the years I've internalized the idea that "said bookisms" (colorful non-standard dialog tags like "he growled," "she huffed," etc.) should be avoided and that the only dialog tags we use should be "he/she/they said" or occasionally "asked" or "replied."

Like a lot of standard writing advice, this rule is pretty arbitrary. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the more colorful dialog tags are bad, except that some people don't like them because they make the prose feel a bit too purple (which is ultimately a subjective judgment).

As with anything, said bookisms can get annoying if they are overused, and there are definitely books where they are overused, but there's also such a thing as going too hard in the other direction.

[ajsteiger]

Just randomly came across this while surfing the boys tag but this is quite a good analysis.

Homelander has caused the most direct harm of any character on the show but he also had the least choice in what he became. He was heavily brainwashed and conditioned from infancy. He's literally a product of Vought. And if he dies, Vought can just make another. Homelander himself was the replacement for the previous product (Soldier Boy), after all.

Butcher, on the other hand, despite his own trauma, has options. He comprehends his choices and the morality of them. So when he crosses a moral event horizon it feels a lot more significant.

Even if HL is structurally the main villain of the show, I've always seen Stan Edgar as the true villain because he's the closest thing to the personification of Vought, the individual who has been behind the scenes scheming and moving people around like chess pieces, but even he is ultimately a replaceable tool of the corporation itself. I doubt he's gone from the show, even if he's "retired" now, but I have no idea what direction they're going to take him in, in season 4.

If he actually is gone from the show then I guess he had the last laugh because a forced retirement is a pretty mild fate for him, all things considered. He'll probably be watching from the sidelines with a bucket of popcorn as his "bad product" burns everything down.

I mean, Billy Butcher has been deflecting, especially in season 3. It's a cruel irony because Billy faced violence and abuse since childhood, but it didn't make him more protective of other children nor empathetic of SOME supes, I suppose in some ways he's detached from them, sorta like turdlander, that exposure to violence and malice so early in life... a disturbance to his mind. Sure he shows small tingue of guilt more than creeplander does, but I think there's just too much at stake for billy to risk attachment.. and what has attachment brought him anyway?

he's actually a pretty common statistic for the society we live in. capitalism is... fucking awful~<3

he's ableist racist trash, of course he's not gonna give a shit as long as he chooses to remain ignorant, arrogant, and blame the supers for their blood instead of the fucking entity that made them.

the whole time if people haven't fucking noticed:

for billy it's been, "homelander, homelander, some random supe killing~, but oh homelander~<3!"

BUT FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BOYS, IT'S BEEN:

"VOUGHT. LET'S TAKE DOWN VOUGHT."

it is BILLY that veers them towards the reckless killing and hyperfocuses the operations on homelander. and it shows, exponentially how much of an addiction and obsession (to the detriment of everyone else) he has in season 3, where he's fed up with 'managing' the right way and having to listen to hughie when it comes to holding supes accountable.

people seem to keep forgetting that scene with raynor but she said it perfectly, "you should be terrified of what can happen if you push him too far." but billy does not care *because* he doesn't care about anyone else, he just keeps pushing.

people keep acting like 'homelander must be stopped' and i'm like... 'okay, do you mean the FUTURE version of him that goes berserk???' cause all i see right now is someone who is at the verge and needs *serious help* as well as a self fulfilling fuckin' prophecy being pushed by those around him, *especially* billy.

he is a ticking time bomb, but he hasn't gone off yet. and the fact that people want to fight that with more explosives to 'destroy' the bomb thinking there won't be collateral *instead* of fucking diffusing it i--

homelander more often gets judged for what he *can* do rather than what he *has* done, and that's not to minimize what he has done, that's to say that he's still in a place where he *could* get treatment and maybe get better but most people... do not give a shit because of what he *could* do in the long run, and in all honesty, kinda not really all that fair?

and then the second hughie finds out about neuman? he panics and pins her as a bad guy *because* she is 'the head popper'/a supe

i want to take a second to point out that while i don't think her intentions are necessarily 'good' and that she's getting desperate, we still have no clue as to what the full scope of her own plans actually are.

and watching back the scene where she 'blows up congress', i noticed something, she seemed scared. almost like she was having a panic attack or flashback or some kind of ptsd episode after seeing vogelbaum, which i just would not be surprised had that been the case. but she *looks* like she *lost control* for a moment and then picked it back up after the fact. and homelander points it out, 'you're not his daughter, you're his weapon' and he's right.

i would wager (what am i sayin', pretty fuckin' sure here) that some if not most of her kills (including raynor) were for the most part on orders for stan edgar's plan *before* homelander hijacked the situation. but to put it bluntly, vicky is also stuck in the vought cult and also a major victim of circumstance. she's a brutal assassin too, but that is exactly what the supes are trained to be. because they are vought's new marketed weapons and they are seen as exactly that by the company itself.

stan lied when he claimed they were a pharmaceutical company. they are a weapon's company.

but going back to billy,

as far as guilt goes, of course homelander isn't gonna show any, he has no understanding of what he would even feel guilty for

"Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse."

finally took the time to look up that quote and it's by philip zimbardo.

if we go by this (which i am a firm believer in) and make this our standard for evil in its *purest* form. many characters in the story do this and are capable of it to some degree, and plenty are also not. but~

none moreso than billy.

AND

with exception to homelander.

this means that within context, homelander is the only character that is truly *incapable* of committing *true evil* because he has *no understanding of the moral question*. it's sort of a defaulted thing, but think of it like judging a hippo, a highly aggressive and territorial animal, for killing a person that wandered into it's territory. the hippo is responding within reasonable *nature*, so it hasn't technically committed evil, even if it's caused harm.

it's a fucking hippo, the humans wandered into its territory, it's just gonna do how hippos do! WE are the ones in the wrong here if we refuse to understand that!

likewise, an actually more apt comparison for homelander would be an abused zoo or circus animal, plainly because *he has never once been treated as a human being or been presented with the moral question* and quite the contrary, i actually think vought made an effort to ensure he *didn't* understand these things in any sound capacity to ensure they could maintain control of him, or rather, they deliberately screwed up his ability to analyze things and think critically *as a human being/from a human perspective* because it would be inconvenient for them (also honestly, i feel like if someone took him to a zoo, he'd go berserk and release all the animals--)

and we see this in different instances. of course there are moments where the boi is super mean spirited or bullying someone, but it's not just because he can or wants to, it's because *that's what was done to him and he knows no different*, he lived through nothing but cruelty so that is all he knows and it's his *normal*. couple that with being brought up to believe the beings around him are somehow 'lesser' or that he is 'not one of them' and it causes a whole mess of problems...

billy is the exact opposite of this. he is *fully aware* of the moral question, *fully aware* of what he is capable of and what he does and how it affects other people. *fully aware* of cruelty AND kindness, has experienced both and even given both. hell, he's even fully aware of how to emotionally manipulate people *with* his own emotions and situation and any *guilt* he feels. and i've said it before, and i'll say it again.

HE KNOWS BETTER. he just CHOOSES to do worse. and he even knows *that*. billy is evil and chooses to be while homelander has never had that chance to learn that there's even a difference.

and then billy goes and makes it worse because he also *weaponizes* what he's learned and what he's been through. so you're definitely right about that last bit.

there is too much at stake for him to risk attachment, that's why he also *detaches* himself from people (like ryan) or stabs them in the back to pursue what will inevitably eventually destroy him and everyone else.

if i'm completely honest? i think the self awareness in how evil billy is ends up being part of his game. there is a huge part of him that pushes because he *wants* to lose, the part of him that's *not* evil, feels guilt, and *wants* to stop himself but can't. and that would be the point he turns to outside sources to fulfill that need and self punishment

i think part of why he pursues homelander isn't because *he* wants to stop or destroy homelander, but because he believes homelander may be the only thing that can stop and destroy *him*.

[ajsteiger]

My fantasy horror novel, Eye of a Little God, is now available: https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Little-God-J-Steiger-ebook/dp/B0CB8YMNZ6

[ajsteiger]

Expanding a thought from a conversation this morning:

In general, I think "Is X out-of-character?" is not a terribly useful question for a writer. It shuts down possibility, and interesting directions you could take a character.

A better question, I believe, is "What would it take for Character to do X?" What extremity would she find herself in, where X starts to look like a good idea? What loyalties or fears leave him with X as his only option? THAT'S where a potentially interesting story lies.

In practice, I find that you can often justify much more from a character than you initially dreamed you could: some of my best stories come from "What might drive Character to do [thing he would never do]?" As long as you make it clear to the reader what the hell pushed your character to this point, you've got the seed of a compelling story on your hands.