#How to build an audience without Medium

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Good News for New Writers & Bad News for Established Ones

But Both Can Be Winners with a Strategic Approach I am pleased that my new account, with 100 followers, now gets more visibility than my old account, with 101835 followers. Here is what new and established writers could do to adapt.  Today, I experienced a mix of emotions when I discovered that my new Medium account, created out of necessity after being targeted by scammers, organically gained…

[yannisdesk]

Why the Lack of a Verbal Apology May Make Sense from Caitlyn's Perspective

I do not approve of the writing decision of having Caitlyn not verbally apologize to Vi for hitting her, but I thought I'd look into why Caitlyn, as a character, wouldn't think it's completely necessary.

I am fully aware that I am a stone-throw away from getting "obsessed with Caitlyn" accusations and to that I say - she's an interesting character. Analyzing her tickles the brain.

This will not be a super technical post btw. More vibes + thoughts and observations, not a formal essay on the topic.

So, Caitlyn is a Kiramman, and this is an upper class family with a lot of prestige riding on its back. They're also a fairly stoic family, in that they do not wear their hearts on their sleaves. They've bought into "keeping up appearances" - hence why Cassandra and Tobias were not too happy with Caitlyn becoming an enforcer; it's a stereotypically "blue collar" job even if it is considered essential to "maintaining order" in Piltover (debatable). It's not at all unrealistic, imagine any rich and influential family that occupies the upper echelon of society - would they be psyched about their kid, and sole heir, becoming a beat cop? Probably not. While the Kiramman legacy includes being a financial provider for the enforcer department and altruistic pursuits, like creating the air ventilation system in Zaun, they're still prone to high levels of classism. Just look at how quickly they cut off communication with Jayce once, as Caitlyn puts it, his "name's no good now." The Kiramman family are long-time members of the Piltover Council and have immense political power, so they are not a cog in the machine, they share ownership of the machine with six other families.

Despite this, the Kirammans do love each other and will do things out of love. For example, Cassandra does stick up for Jayce initially during the council meeting and tries to vouch for his character. She also does not tell Caitlyn "I'm sorry. You're right, the council has been slacking when it comes to the Undercity. I'll schedule a meeting with them on what we can do." She just says "I'll schedule an audience. You and your crush friend can address the council yourselves. I suggest you prepare accordingly." She nods at Caitlyn to go after Vi after the council meetings fails, letting her know she approves of what they have going on (Mama Kiramman definitely knew her daughter had a thing for Vi). She also, after initially disagreeing, votes to give Zaun freedom, no doubt thinking about her daughter and what she'd tried to achieve a few days ago. That's just the type of family they are.

And Cassandra does this without really verbalizing it. She let's the action talk for her. Tobias seems to be the more physically affectionate parent. Caitlyn is an (un)happy-medium, in the first season she's more physical like Tobias, in the second she's more distant like Cassandra, which checks out as she's in mourning, so she could've ended up becoming even more clingy to those around her or what we get in the opposite: detachment.

But Caitlyn does embody some of her other in season 1, the build-up of her trading something she's associated closely with for Vi is present. In season 1 her gun is exchanged for Vi's medicine which saves her life.

So, what we can get from this is that the Kirammans are action-oriented. Tobias is action-oriented in physical affection, such as hugging his daughter and fixing her leg. Cassandra will perform duties that don't require physical affection, but will still show her remorse, love, and care regardless.

So, given that's the standard she's working with, it makes sense that Caitlyn wouldn't verbally apologize and instead just do something that she knows would mean a lot to Vi. It's what her mother would've done. It's how she's been conditioned to think about apologies: you atone through action. Caitlyn wouldn't automatically think that something as serious as this would require something verbal because simply put - she's probably never had to confront something this serious, and it's also not how she was raised.

And that's not even a false notion, it's just incomplete with the way it's interpreted, which is rooted in quite a bit of pride, because if you're "strictly action oriented" then you never have to actually admit you were ever in the wrong, you can just jump to doing something that will hopefully land you in the clear, and similar to how just saying "I'm sorry" simply won't cut it, in serious situations this won't either; there needs to be a balance and words and actions need to match, especially when it comes to an act of domestic violence.

As the age-old-saying goes: the hardest part is admitting you're in the wrong, but it's also very important. So, while I do think that Caitlyn freeing Jinx is definitely in-step with who she was already established as a character, an undoubtedly great gesture, and decision; I also think it would be interesting to see part of her development acknowledge that it's okay to both talk about it and be about it even when it's hard, and given that she gave Ekko good advice in season 1 and then went completely against it in season 2, it would certainly be appropriate.

[exactly-another-one-piece-blog]

Thinking about how One Piece is a story that is especially well suited to the medium in which it’s being told.

One of the central pillars of One Piece’s philosophy is actions over words. It values exploring and viewing the world for yourself and coming to your own conclusions. This is simply not a story that would work in a written format, both because it deliberately disvalues words and barbecue it puts us as the audience on an equal playing field with the characters as they explore the world. No matter how much time and dedication an author puts into describing the world their characters live in, those characters will always have more information about the world that we do because they can see it plainly for themselves without having to wait for each building to be described to them. An author in a written format controls the flow of information and can keep the setting as vague or detailed as they like to suit their needs. In a visual medium, there’s much less (albeit not none) room to hide.

And yet, this story also wouldn’t (and I expect won’t) work in a more conventional visual format like plays or movies. Both are too short to do the sheer scale of the story justice and too caught up in the limitations of reality. Yes, we can see people do fantastical things in these mediums but there is always a disconnect any time special effects have to be used as well as monetary concerns that will inevitably hinder a storytellers freedom and ability to tell the story as they wish. George R.R. Martin can write thousands upon thousands of people into being as he describes epic battles and country-wide conflicts but HBO has to actually find and pay all those thousands of people to make that happen on-screen. Which usually means it dosen’t.

One Piece has to be told as a manga or animated series. They’re the only mediums that can cater to this kind of cartoon-y fantastical world and story Oda has told with them.

[mediumgayitalian]

Hello I really love your work and was wondering how long it took U to get this many followers cause I don't have many and I want to get better at writing cause I have loads in my drafts but I don't think that they are that good so I was wondering if U had any tips on writing and how to get more ppl to see your work thank U sm 🤪

okay so im sure this is irritating to here but i am not worried about followers! i have been in the past and it makes writing miserable for me. i obsess over stats. engagement is good -- i love attention, you love attention, we all love attention, and being told our work is good is a motivating thing to hear -- but obsessing over follower count Will make writing hard for you. i pinky promise.

as for improving on writing, i have some more solid advice for you:

PRACTICE. write every day, even if its shit, even if its 50 words, even if it never leaves your notes app. write.

switch writing mediums if you're struggling. when i have writers block on my phone i switch to google docs. when i struggle there i switch to tumblr drafts. then to instagram DMs. then to a random notebook website. then to the fucking search bar of google. to physical paper. to comments on long-dead youtube video. to my actual wall with pencil. to the dirt outside. i write EVERYWHERE. putting my thoughts in new physical spaces helps crack me out of the block every time. so do weird constraints like character limits or a pen that's running out of ink. switch shit up and apply light pressure.

read with the intention of learning. that means actual writers craft books, or reading work you admire with a close lense.

analysis!!! to build off the last point, when you read something that is profound, or makes you feel something, STOP -- take the time to feel it, to love it, then tear it apart. what actions is it describing? how do you know? what emotions do the actions provoke? what references are made, and why does that matter? what objects are present? what do they signify? how can you tell? you need to do LITERARY ANALYSIS. you cannot learn to write without learning to read. (this is called 'close reading analysis'. if you want some help practicing, let me know. i'll show you a couple examples.)

critically read your own writing. what is strongest? what do you do well? what needs more practice, and what exercises can you do to get that practice?

write what you enjoy. this is why i cannot and will not do commissions -- they suck the fuckin' life outta me. as soon as someone tells me what to do it stops being fun. i write things as they pop into my head bc that's what i enjoy doing.

use prompts. I DO. it is so helpful. can't think of a goddamn thing to write? look up a dialogue prop. find a song, use it as a plot background. rewrite an existing scene. you know how artists trace to practice their skills? put a scene in your own words, that's the writing equivalent.

go on walks and space the fuck out. when im low on ideas, or i cant get myself to focus, i put on headphones and wander around the neighbourhood. my brain goes off wherever it goes and i let it. it usually returns with an idea or five.

practice no-phone time. boredom is the boat of creativity. stare at a wall, pull weeds, doodle, pace, whatever you need to do to get your brain whining about needing your phone in front of your face, because if you ignore that long enough the ideas WILL come and they will come in swathes.

study film as well as literature. ive talked about it a little bit before (here) but learning how the camera and audience are intrinsically linked to a story will help you learn how to pace and structure it.

i have other stuff but that's a good list i think! some of my other writing advice is linked here, here, and here. good luck!

[armoricaroyalty]

Film Grammar for Simmers

What is film grammar?

"Film grammar" refers the unstated "rules" of editing used in movies and TV. Different types of shots have different associations and are used by editors to convey different types of information to the audience. Many of these principles were first described in the early 20th century by Soviet directors, but they're used consistently across genre, medium, and even language: Bollywood musicals, English period dramas, Korean horror movies, and American action blockbusters all use many of the same techniques.

Because these rules are so universal, virtually everyone has some internalized understanding of them. Even if they can’t name the different types of shots or explain how editors use images to construct meaning, the average person can tell when the “rules” are being broken. If you’ve ever thought a movie or episode of TV was confusing without being able to say why, there’s a good chance that there was something off with the editing.

Learning and applying the basics of film grammar can give your story a slicker and more-polished feel, without having to download shaders or spend hours in photoshop. It also has the bonus of enhancing readability by allowing your audience to use their knowledge of film and TV to understand what's happening in your story. You can use it to call attention to significant plot details and avoid introducing confusion through unclear visual language.

Best of all, it doesn't cost a dime.

The basics: types of shots

Shots are the basic building block of film. In Sims storytelling, a single shot is analogous to a single screenshot. In film, different types of shots are distinguished by the position of the camera relative to the subject. There are three big categories of shots, with some variation: long shots (LS), medium shots (MS), and close-ups (CU). This diagram, created by Daniel Chandler and hosted on visual-memory.co.uk illustrates the difference:

Source: The 'Grammar' of Television and Film, Daniel Chandler, visual-memory.co.uk. Link.

In film, scenes typically progress through the different types of shots in sequence: long shot, medium shot, close-up. When a new scene begins and the characters arrive in a new location, we typically begin with a wide establishing shot of the building’s exterior to show the audience where the scene will be taking place. Next comes a long shot of an interior space, which tells the where the characters are positioned relative to one another. The next shot is a medium shot of the characters conversing, and then finally, a close-up as the conversation reaches its emotional or informational climax. Insert shots are used judiciously throughout to establish themes or offer visual exposition.

Here's another visual guide to the different types of shots, illustrated with stills from Disney animated films.

This guide is almost 2,000 words long! To save your dash, I've put the meat of it under the cut.

Long shot and extreme long shots

A long shot (sometimes also called a wide shot) is one where the entire subject (usually a building, person, or group of people) is visible within the frame. The camera is positioned far away from the subject, prioritizing the details of the background over the details of the subject.

One of the most common uses of long shots and extreme long shots are establishing shots. An establishing shot is the first shot in a scene, and it sets the tone for the scene and is intended to give the viewer the information they’ll need to follow the scene: where a scene is taking place, who is in the scene, and where they are positioned in relation to one another. Without an establishing shot, a scene can feel ungrounded or “floaty.” Readers will have a harder time understanding what’s happening in the scene because on some level, they’ll be trying to puzzle out the answers to the who and where questions, distracting them from the most important questions: what is happening and why?

(I actually like to start my scenes with two establishing shots: an environmental shot focusing on the scenery, and then a second shot that establishes the characters and their position within the space.)

Long shots and extreme long shots have other uses, as well. Because the subject is small relative to their surroundings, they have an impersonal effect which can be used for comedy or tragedy.

In Fargo (1996) uses an extreme long shot to visually illustrate the main character’s sense of defeat after failing to secure funding for a business deal.The shot begins with a car in an empty parking lot, and then we see the protagonist make his way up from the bottom of the frame. He is alone in the shot, he is small, and the camera is positioned above him, looking down from a god-like perspective. All of these factors work together to convey his emotional state: he’s small, he’s alone, and in this moment, we are literally looking down on him. This shot effectively conveys how powerless he feels without any dialogue or even showing his face.

The same impersonal effect can also be used for comic purposes. If a character says something stupid or fails to impress other characters, cutting directly from a close-up to a long shot has a visual effect akin to chirping crickets. In this instance, a long shot serves as a visual “wait, what?” and invites the audience to laugh at the character rather than with them.

Medium Shots

Medium shots are “neutral” in filmmaking. Long shots and close-ups convey special meaning in their choice to focus on either the subject or the background, but a medium shot is balanced, giving equal focus to the character and their surroundings. In a medium shot, the character takes up 50% of the frame. They’re typically depicted from the waist-up and the audience can see both their face and hands, allowing the audience to see the character's facial expression and read their body-language, both important for interpreting meaning.

In most movies and TV shows, medium shots are the bread and butter of dialogue-heavy scenes, with close-ups, long shots, and inserts used for punctuation and emphasis. If you’re closely following the conventions of filmmaking, most of your dialogue scenes will be medium shots following the convention of shot-reverse shot:

To keep long conversations from feeling too visually monotonous, consider staging the scene as a walk-and-talk. Having two characters move through a space can add a lot of dynamism and visual interest to a scene that might otherwise feel boring or stiff.

Close Ups

Close-ups are close shots of a character’s face. The camera is positioned relatively near to the subject, showing just their head and shoulders. In a close-up, we don’t see any details of the background or the expressions of other characters.

In film, close-ups are used for emphasis. If a character is experiencing a strong emotion or delivering an important line of dialogue, a close-up underscores the importance of the moment by inviting the audience to focus only on the character and their emotion.

Close-ups don’t necessarily need to focus on the speaker. If the important thing about a line of dialogue is another character’s reaction to it, a close-up of the reaction is more effective than a close-up of the delivery.

One of the most iconic shots in Parasite (2019) is of the protagonist driving his employer around while she sits in the backseat, speaking on the phone. Even though she’s the one speaking, the details of her conversation matter less than the protagonist’s reaction to it. While she chatters obliviously in the background, we focus on the protagonist’s disgruntled, resentful response to her thoughtless words and behavior.

In my opinion, Simblr really overuses close-ups in dialogue. A lot of conversation scenes are framed entirely in close-ups, which has the same effect of highlighting an entire page in a textbook. The reader can’t actually tell what information is important, because the visuals are screaming that everything is important. Overusing close-ups also cuts the viewer off from the character’s body language and prevents them from learning anything about the character via their surroundings.

For example, a scene set in someone’s bedroom is a great opportunity for some subtle characterization—is it tidy or messy? what kind of decor have they chosen? do they have a gaming computer, a guitar, an overflowing bookshelf?—but if the author chooses to use only close-ups, we lose out on a chance to get to know the character via indirect means.

Inserts

An insert shot is when a shot of something other than a character’s face is inserted into a scene. Often, inserts are close-ups of a character’s hands or an object in the background. Insert shots can also be used to show us what a character is looking at or focusing on.

In rom-com The Prince & Me (2004) (see? I don’t just watch crime dramas…) the male lead is in an important meeting. We see him pick up a pen, look down at the papers in front of him, and apparently begin taking notes, but then we cut to an insert shot of his information packet. He’s doodling pictures of sports cars and is entirely disengaged from the conversation. Every other shot in the scene is an establishing shot or a medium shot or a close-up of someone speaking, but this insert gives us insight into the lead’s state of mind: he doesn’t want to be there and he isn’t paying attention.

Insert shots are, in my opinion, also used ineffectively on Simblr. A good insert gives us extra insight into what a character is thinking or focusing on, but a poorly-used insert feels…unfocused. A good insert might focus on pill bottles on a character’s desk to suggest a chemical dependency, on a family picture to suggest duty and loyalty, on a clock to suggest a time constraint, on a pile of dirty laundry or unanswered letters to suggest a character is struggling to keep up with their responsibilities. An ineffective insert shot might focus on the flowers in the background because they’re pretty, on a character’s hands because it seems artsy, on the place settings on a dining table because you spent forever placing each one individually and you’ll be damned if they don’t make it into the scene. These things might be lovely and they might break up a monotonous conversation and they might represent a lot of time and effort, but if they don’t contribute any meaning to a scene, consider cutting or repurposing them.

I want to emphasize: insert shots aren’t bad, but they should be carefully chosen to ensure they’re enhancing the meaning of the scene. Haphazard insert shots are distracting and can interfere with your reader’s ability to understand what is happening and why.

Putting it all together

One of the most basic principles of film theory is the Kuleshov effect, the idea that meaning in film comes from the interaction of two shots in sequence, and not from any single shot by itself. In the prototypical example, cutting from a close-up of a person’s neutral expression to a bowl of soup, children playing, or soldiers in a field suggests hunger, worry, or fear, respectively.

The Kuleshov effect is the essence of visual storytelling in a medium like Simblr. You can elevate your storytelling by thinking not only about each individual shot, but about the way they’ll interact and flow into one another.

Mastering the basics of film grammar is a great (free!) way to take your storytelling to the next level. To learn more, you can find tons of guides and explainers about film grammar for free online, and your local library doubtless has books that explain the same principles and offers additional analysis.

Happy simming!

[holyrunawaychild]

Wolf King Character design details I like (part 4):

Credit for all gifs goes to @soranatus.

It feels only appropriate to start with a fan favorite. And the one Curtis Jobling himself said he had ideas to make a spin off for.

Building off something I had said in a previous post, they really just made him Sinbad. In the best way possible he has the confidence and charisma to steal every scene he’s in.

His outfit is as flamboyant as he is and sells his entire character when you meet him at the inn. It’s an look that stands out from all of his fellow werelords, even in the show’s higher fantasy setting in comparison to the novels. Doubt he’d have it any other way.

A deep v-neck that shows off the merchandise, combined with the asymmetry of his gold ring and bracer highlights his swashbuckling flair. His belt adds an element of Namor the Submariner to his look (I’m not joking Namor has had a very similar fit in the comics). He has fins on his boots.

I repeat.

Fins.

On his.

Boots.

I know it’s in style with every other Lyssian Werelord we’ve seen, but Vega. It’s a bit much.

Especially when he’s already wearing a shark tooth necklace. Or at the very least something meant to invoke that imagery. Using beads to replace actual teeth.

In fact the subtle intricacies of his necklaces makes me think it might be something that part of Cluster Isles culture. I could imagine the Counts of Cutter’s Cove being gifted this when they ascend to the throne. A remnant of their islander culture prior to integrating into the 7 Realms.

The comparison to the few “canon” illustrations we get from the books to Vega’s Wolf King interpretation actually shows the differing aesthetics of both versions.

The Wereworld novels have a very grounded take on their fantasy world. In fact, outside of the magisters and werelords, Lyssia a fairly low fantasy setting. As such the characters are designed with more grounded outfits. Something it likely inherited from A Song of Ice and Fire which clearly influenced Rise of the Wolf.

Wolf King heightens the fantasy, leaning into the setting’s fantastical elements to allow a suspension of disbelief for the audience to accept a knight, a african warrior and Sinbad all can logically exist together and in the same room.

Case in point.

In terms of his Sharklord form, the animators were able to get his personality through the difficult medium of a shark head. A major factor for this is the change to his eyes.

In the books, Vega is constantly described having black, soulless eyes while in shark form. While accurate to real sharks, Wolf King opted for the glowing eyes they have for every Werelord. This, along with prominent brows, allow him to easily emote even without a mammalian face.

Another essential part of making the sharklord work is his movement. As opposed to other werelords in the series, Vega doesn’t hunch over as much while transformed. He still moves like himself most of the time. Which allows for his confident, swashbuckling personality shine through. And, for Vega, personality is everything.

For some non-character design details I loved:

Vega mentioning throwing Hector and Gretchen to his “less civilized kin” felt like a nod to Deadeye, the Hammerhead. Though the books never officially mention a blood relation between the two, it makes sense that their shared nature as sharklords would denote them as kin. Regardless of how distantly related they are, if at all.

The following section contains spoilers for later books/seasons.

Shout out to the art team for making Casper and Vega resemble each other. Honestly was a bit surprised to see Casper this old. Personally I always imagined him as like… 10. Not the same age as Drew. Though do not complain. Makes me eager to see Shah next season.

Speaking of our favorite hawklord (the only competition is Red Rufus), I actually think the show is already teasing Shah and Vega’s relationship. As well as possibly hinting at how it’ll alter it from the books.

Wolf King firmly establishes that Vega had close connections with Wergar during the old days. They shared dreams of conquest and glory in Omir. Vega pledged loyalty and stewardship to Drew early in the prince’s life (presumably on his naming day or christening — whatever the Lyssian equivalent is to that).

Vega was a part of Wergar’s personal circle, in spite of him being much younger than the others. He’s the only one of the older generation to not have crow’s feet or other age lines.

Who else was in this circle? Baron Griffyn. Meaning there was a strong likely chance Vega interacted with Shah during this time.

I think they’ll change the circumstances of their relationship to be one they kept in secret, as opposed to a fling. With Vega hoping and promising Shah that one day he’d ask for her hand.

Of course, that never happens.

Given how old Vega seems —mid-late 30s at the earliest — as well as Casper seemingly aged up to match Drew and the crew — Vega (and likely Shah in turn) was in his late teens/early 20s.

It would line up with Leopold’s conquest. Making the reason Shah and Vega never had that ‘dream’ in part due to the war, Vega losing the Cluster Isles and Shah going into exile with the other Hawklords.

“You can’t have everything you want.”

It feels like he’s talking to his younger self as much as he’s talking to Drew.

All that dramatic theory crafting aside, I still want Vega and Shah’s reunion to go like this:

Vega: Ah, Shah.

Shah: *decks him across the face*

Drew and Vega:

[yuurivoice]

Hey yuuri! I'm a writer and an artist ( at least I like to call myself that 😅 ). Anyway, I'm pretty sure you answered this already but how do I start a channel like yours as a small artist and writer. I've also wanted to do ASMR but I'm still iffy on it. Hope you're having a great birthday!

- Currently watching your bday stream, it's super good!!

The good news is, there are a ton of ways to find your footing. A YouTube channel might not be the way, it really depends on how you want people to engage with your work and what medium makes sense for you and the audience!

For me, I spent a decade doing tons of other things before the YouTube channel became a thing, including starting right here on Tumblr.

So long as you have fun and are using the muscles you want to build upon creatively, I don't think you can go wrong. The last thing you want to do is spend so much time trying to pick the perfect platform or project that you expend your time and effort on everything but THE THING.

You could start by writing script fills, or create a pitch for a limited series and shoot it off to VAs you think might be interested in tackling it if you're not wanting to voice it yourself. I'd focus on honing your craft before doing that because you don't want to make a bad impression and whatnot. Essentially I see how you could totally get involved in projects like that without having to build your own platform and voice it. Right now I know there are writers working on cool stuff because they got locked in with other creative that way. So it's totally possible!

Hope all that yapping helped!

[canmom]

inadequate definitions of a computer game

I'm a game dev! So I make these things called computer games. But what is it that I'm making exactly?

One simple answer is that a computer game is a string of data. That is, after all, what Steam sends you when you buy a game. The data consists of instructions, art assets, text strings, metadata etc which can be 'executed' by a suitable computer to play that game. And if you copy that data without paying the right person you're a criminal doing a crime etc etc.

But is that data the game? It can't be, because you can have completely different data that is still 'the game'. A Windows build and a Linux build of a game are probably no more similar than any two random binary strings. If you know what you're looking for you could correlate them piece by piece - that string of data represents that texture, which is present in both - but only if you know, and you decompress the data the right way etc etc. But they're the same game, because they do the same thing when you run them.

So it seems a computer game is defined by what it does rather than how it's represented on the computer. This isn't a unique property of computer games - consider how many ways you can encode a movie for example.

But which of the things it does define a given game? Computer games have a remarkable number of pieces to them, and as you soon find out when you're making one, they can all be swapped out pretty freely.

For example, a game's music is often a pretty integral part of 'the experience'. But you can easily mod a game to have different music. We don't usually consider such a modded game to be a different game entirely. Well, it's a matter of degree, it's not absolute... swap out a game's music and it's still the same game. Replace all the models, levels, etc etc as in a 'total conversion' mod and it is a 'new game'. Where we draw the line is ultimately arbitrary...

But this is pretty remarkable, I think. Most artworks in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction(TM) have a pretty fixed form. A movie is a sequence of images and sounds arranged in time, a novel is a specific string of characters. Computer games, though, are flexible things.

A computer game is assembled from lots of little elements. Each of them on their own might be more or less specific, but it's how they're put in relation to each other that gives a game its identity. You glue together these elements in the mind of the audience: play the song City Ruins (Rays of Light) and if you've played the game, it will likely conjure the image of 2B's dress, the feeling dodging the machine lifeforms, the story about the androids and their existential tragedy, all unified in this thing we call "NieR Automata". In another universe, we could imagine that some other elements were tied together in this way - another game that happened to compose the 'same song' with a different aesthetic or mechanics. But the game is beloved because all these things are considered consonant.

Computer games share this in common with film, comics, etc etc. - they're all combinations of other art forms. But computer games have this extra thing that's more or less unique to the medium, the element of direct interaction with some kind of mutable 'state' inside the computer.

At a lower level of abstraction, when you interact with a computer game, data is sent from a controller (keyboard etc) to be read by the game, which modifies some stored state in computer memory; another part of the program 'reads' that state and displays pixels on the screen. Which means there is this separation between the presentational aspect and the 'mechanics'. You look the screen and see a human running but I, the game developer, can 'know' that what's 'really' going on is that a capsule collider is moving across a plane, and we change the position and rotation value based on your input. Then, to 'draw it', another variable holds animation state, and we're sampling the animation data, and doing some IK, and deforming vertices on the GPU, and pumping it through a fragment shader and so on... but all of that graphics stuff could be swapped out and the game would still 'play the same' in the sense that the same inputs would change the game state in the same way with the 'same outcome'. There are even some games, like NetHack and Dwarf Fortress, which support many different 'frontends' which look quite different.

But which is more 'real'? We can't see the game state. We might say that given this game state we update this enum to the value we consider to mean a player has won (let's say... 0b00000010), but the only way that the player knows they've won it is if we display a corresponding message on the screen. That's the only reason we care, as well. The presentation is absolutely integral. All that internal state is just there to make sure that 'you won' and whatever other information is displayed on the screen at the right time to maintain the illusion that 'there is a game' which we're working so hard to convey.

And the state of the program is not exactly what we're trying to convey. The player is not imagining floating point values changing, let alone cpu instructions changing a binary field, or voltages in silicon; they're imagining an object in a location. 'A character jumping.' We are trying to make sure that fantasy is believable. Every layer has to work together to make this happen. Ultimately what we're creating is a rectangle of flickering lights but if we do our job well enough, and it's approached with a willingness to suspend disbelief, it will come across as something like a place inhabited by something like people...

So a game isn't any particular element of its aesthetic presentation, and it isn't the way its data changes in response to interaction. It's some kind of gestalt created from the two, only when a human interacts with the whole system, which allows them to conjure a fantasy in large part designed by another human - and have this external thing reinforce it and make it feel concrete. That's what it's my job to create. What a marvellously abstract entity...

[bitter-sweet-coffee]

Sounds so much clearer when you put it like that. It's not overly sappy,but it's also not a problematic ship! Good to know

hi anon thank you but please never ever use the word “problematic” again. please. i am not being aggressive or condescending, and i don’t just mean this just in terms of my posts. rant incoming, don’t take it personally i promise i’m not mad at you.

please, everyone reading this, STOP using “problematic” to unironically describe pieces art. there are better words.

if a ship is abusive, as in, depicts an actual form of abuse that you can match to the real legal and psychological definitions of abuse, call it an ABUSIVE ship. not problematic.

if a ship is something that a lot of people write poorly, in a way that glorifies abusive behaviour, call it a POORLY WRITTEN abusive ship.

if a ship contains something like an imbalanced power dynamic or significant age gap that is intended to be negative, call it a PREDATORY ship.

ultimately, when people use the word “problematic” they are reducing an entire conversation about form, content, and immersion, to an inappropriate bastardization of what it means to engage with art. you are LITERALLY fucking with the integral structure of the art-artist-audience relationship which transcends all mediums.

if a ship at its core is flawed, then say that.

if a ship is portrayed in an intentionally unhealthy way, as this is part of the message an artist wants to convey, then SAY THAT AND DON’T EQUATE THE ARTIST TO THE CONTENTS OF THEIR WORK! rather, engage in a discussion about how this can develop characters or tie into larger themes. alternatively, you can discuss the approach the artist used, how you view their methods, and state your opinion on how effective you find the outcome to be.

and most importantly, if a ship is written poorly because the author unintentionally glorifies morally grey or even immoral behaviour… this is still not problematic. it is inevitable, because everything that exists is capable of being misinterpreted or misrepresented. do not attack a person for what they do not know, instead, use this as an opportunity for an educative dialogue. or just block them idgaf

the moral of this response: please, if you find yourself using the word problematic, stop. think about what you actually mean to say. do not generalize, because that’s how you get art which depicts and endorses immorality equated to “someone’s au that i saw on twitter made sonic an alcoholic which promotes underage drinking, and i want them to leave the internet before they poison the innocent minds of children and trigger a bunch of recovering addicts” when these are not NEARLY the same thing.

shadow and infinite are morally flawed, as everyone is. you can write them being abusive. you can write them being so abusive that it borders on snuff. you can also woobify them and ruin their characters in the process. or, you can do what i do and throw in a bit of everything with a splash of insane lore and references to other media. BECAUSE THIS IS HOW FICTION WORKS!

fiction is a sandbox. you can build a castle, draw a dick in it, flood it with water, eat the sand, craft it into glass, shit on it, or leave without contributing anything. but regardless of what you do, it is a sandbox. don’t reduce it to just what one person did with it.

[thesirenwithnovoice]

Thoughts about how different mediums of a same story may give you different views (and rambling about the Tower of Heaven)//TW: violence

Lately I've been wondering about how manga readers might have very different visions than anime watchers of a same story, because althought the plot remains the same, some little details can change our whole perception of a story.

This reminded me of the first time I read Fairy Tail and how terrified I was at how cruel and dark the Tower of Heaven's arc is.

Jellal's face (that by that time, were only an 11-years-old kid) drippling blood while being tortured shocked me so much as a kid and I still find it one of the most disturbing scenes in the manga, lol.

In the anime, the content itself is the same. We know the kids are slaves that go throught different kinds of abuse, however, I find the manga way gloomier and more graphic. And althought part of it might be just a personal opinion, it's not entirely without basis: Mashima uses different techniques in his art to represent facts whitin the story than the animators, and it leads to a topic I really love: semiotics - how we interpret images, and how detais can be used to convey a certain felling throught art.

Colors and composition helps A LOT creating an atmosphere and causing a feeling on the reader. Proportionally speaking, a manga doesn't have colors, but it has it's own alternatives - the Tower of Heaven arc, in comparison to the rest of the manga, uses a lot more black and hatching.

One can argue some scenes are still "visually darker" in the anime, since it has the advantage of being able to play with shadows and colors in a broader aspect; however, since Fairy Tail is not an anime that changes it's saturation or colour pallete, the loud colors in most scenes end up not helping building the same dreadful atmosphere.

(It doesn't mean you can't make a scary story using bright and colorful tones, tho. A great example is the movie Midsommar. But it's not an easy task!)

Erza's childhood memories in the manga also carry a "dirtier" feeling; the kids are always covered by bruises, and the background is rougher. Also, the anime chooses to represent slavery in a more fanciful way: the kids wear stylized handcuffs and are assaulted with magic attacks, what inevitably softens the scenes by distancing them from real life slavery.

In a story, an act of violence will always be more shocking if your brain is able to automatically make a connection with real life. Seeing blood conveys a feeling of disconfort easier than a character being hit by a wave of magic, even if the author tells you "this is painful"; that's why some people say they started to find difficult to watch horror movies involving kids after becoming parents, because after experenciating something in real life, they connect with fiction harder.

The above scene causes me very different feelings in each media. In the manga, the despair in Jellal's face when seeing they removed Erza's eye is much clearer, and his skinny body, his eyes filling up with tears (he doesn't cry in the anime) shows not only a feeling of worry, but of utter dread and helplessness. All that helps endorsing the fact that, doesn't matter how brave he is, they are still just fragile kids, unable to protect themselves from the cruelty of the world around them.

I want to make it clear, though, that this is not in any way meant to be a critique to the animation team, or an affirmation that one type of media is better than another. We all have our personal preferences, but each media has it's target audience and objective. Fairy Tail's animators certainly do know how to convey the same feelings on the public, they just choose not to, for a variety of reasons. Probably because the anime is aimed for a broader and younger audience, many scenes have been softened or censored somehow. Also, animation consumes more labour than a manga page, so unless you have a lot of time and investment, the art tend to be simpler.

So do you think it affects the plot, Siren?

In my opinion, yes, even if just in a subtle way. In the manga, I think this raw brutality helps Jellal's character to gain a more interesting complexity. To me, he feels less like a hero and more like what he actually is: just a really kind and brave kid trying his best to protect his friends.

Another major change they made in the anime was removing the ambiguity (something that happened more than once in Fairy Tail's adaptation, such as in the famous kiss scene), leaving clear since the beginning that Jellal was a victim of a mind controlling spell; while in the manga, until Urtear's confirmation at the end of the arc, we do not know for sure if he have been brainwashed or just convinced to adore Zeref.

And as much as I can see why some fans might hate it because it leaves room for people to see Jellal as a bad man, I (as someone who is not afraid of loving evil characters, heh), find it interesting and somehow enriching to the plot, because it gives the whole arc a reflection: is extreme suffering, specially at such an young age, capable of changing someone so much?

We are left questioning what did "Zeref" say, or do, that made him change so much. And having so many real life examples where despair has made people easy victims of manipulation throught faith or falling into extremist ideologies, after we seeing Jellal's pain and fragility in a tangible way, it's not that hard at all to understand how he went insane and managed to drag all the other slaves along with him.

Also, I think it makes it easier to understand Erza's empathy towards him. Jellal and Erza are characters connected not only by the affection they nourish for one another, but also for sharing the same pain. She is the only person that fully understands the horrors he lived in the tower, since they were the only kids that have been in the torture chamber. And althought she never tries to justify Jellal's actions, Erza does not only show him compreension, but she feels guilty for not being able to retribute his protection and prevented him from losing his mind.

That doesn't mean, tho, that there weren't many other clues he was not acting on free will: be it his grotesque change of personality, his hysterical laughter out of nowhere or his motivations that doesn't hold (because they were never his to begin with). To me, all that at first glance makes him closer to Batman's Joker, someone that grew insane after so much suffering, than a villain that's genuinely just plain selfish and thirsty for power. And that only makes me find him a creepier villain, since personally, I find sadism and insanity way scarier than ghosts.

So this is just a looong collection of thoughts about how small choices can change a lot the "feeling" we get from a scene or a character. I hope someone can find it interesting too. There are many other examples of adaptations where it happened, and if you remember one you'd like to share, I would love to hear!

Last but not less important, all the love for Mashima's art, the Tower of Heaven arc (that is a personal favorite) and Jellal, a character I deeply love and one that holds for sure the strongest spirit in the manga for being able to become such a kind and mature man despite everything he has been thought. ♡

[peripecias-i]

So, I'm not one to write long things on here, I'm normally commenting on posts and such. However, I've seen so much bitterness under tlovm tag (not even the criticism one) so, lets start with a DISCLAIMER: I DO have my criticims, not the post for those. So, without further ado, in this post we have - The bard didn't lament, Vax and the necrotic thingy, Cabal's Ruin is drowing just like to hope of some.

BARD'S LAMENT (BL), Tary. Yes, we had hints and the build up, however, Scanlan didn't made his promisse to Kailey, he didn't die and was not resurected in a humiliating way in front of said daugher which was the biggest part of BL for me. We can still hit the feels of it in season 4. After an year with Kailey, Scanlan is changed, he even sent a letter to Pike about it. Of course when he comes back to VM he feels the same to the group, he doesn't need to show this to them he knows his place and importance in the group, but deep down he knows and his daughter knows and that is what matters. He dies, when he comes back he is half naked, dirty in sexual innuendo food, in front of the one person he changed for, everything he's built, in his eyes, tainted and destroyed. BL with some ajusted lines, Terry is in and then gone because Vax is dead and Vecna is THE problem, not A problem anymore.

VAX, the necrotic diseased. Audiences need hints for things, CR does not have 100 hours to process and justify decisions and things that happens in the campains. IF in the animated series Revenant Vax came with that big of a consequence without a warning, can you imagine? Raven Queen warned Vax and he chose to break the rules of death itself. It's a consequece to show future consequences. I don't think is a disease that will spread, i think it's a mark, something to always remember (I might be wrong). It's something for Vax and us to understand what meddling with those forces do. It's a different medium guys, this need to be clearly and hiddenly forshadowed enough to work, if it's to clear or to hidden, the a-ha moment will never be satisfying. Vex will feel guilty about it? OF COURSE, she still dislikes the RQ to this day, she started the moment she realized his death meant their destinys were intertwined and she lost her brother to his choices. She can't blame Vax, she has to blame someone. And when Vax's destiny and choices on death will never be his blame it'll be HERS.

Cabal's Ruin is under the sea (and we have a druid). Percy was dead for the dragon's fight (Glintshore will come in a next post) no need for it for now. The twins know where it is, mythcarver can find it. We have a druid who needs to master water, and a vestige under water, what a fun combination! It was a mistake calling the episode Cloak and Dagger and not Glitshore, 'cause let's be true, there was no cloak, no dagger and no vengence. They will get the cloak. Percy will absorb the damn Meteor Sworm.

3.5 Maybe part Glitshore came earlier than I tought. But looking at our Percy, and how he forgave people but never himself, how this, leting go of vengence makes him suffer consequences but even so he chooses it because the more he does, maybe he will get to the point he can forgive himself? He screaming to be free and found, but at the same moment not feeling worthy of being saved? Urgh

So, we still have: Glintshore; Kash perma-death; The Bland Uninspired COWRDLY end of ep 12, Call me child one more time, and more that I can maybe came upon.

Hope you guys comment with all kinds of opinions 'cause I love this kind of interaction (please coment!) . Also, I have not seen the campain in a loooooong time and I might (probably will) bite my words when the MN adaptation arrives they are MY people, but, I don't like being bitter, so maybe not.

[sgiandubh]

It's all fake, anyway

Oh, my. The last two or three video snippets in Marina del Rey. The revolt. The pearl-clutching. The hate.

Again, you know nothing, Jon Snow. It's all about the medium being the message, again: carefully calibrated snippets of information, destined to a captive, deeply divided and (how can I put that without sounding offending, I wonder) unexperimented (yes, that's decent enough) audience.

During the last 24 hours, we've got the Marina del Rey gin promo & MPC teambuilding (hardly an orgy, btw) and C's MUA (or is it hairdresser? irrelevant) hinting on Instagram about a photoshoot at a gin distillery in a #beautifullocation, somewhere on Earth, presumably in Scotland - given her last IG follow. No further details, of course. Very probably a (late-) latergram, too, when she finally got the green light to publish it. Implying nothing, but leaving a boulevard bandwidth for people to infer whatever suits their own narrative. Expect FMN news soon? I highly doubt that and stand corrected: the last photoshoot (with McSideburns, in London) was on May 3rd, when she needed to somehow show the world the Two of Them were continents apart. Identical modus operandi. And always, always via tertiary players.

As for the Marina del Rey teambuilding, if you think that is 'S living his life' you are: a) living in a remote mountain/island area or under a rock; b) an impenitent Mordorian with an agenda to boot or c) incredibly incompetent with the way of the world (or at least, that world). Allow me to translate?

It is alcohol promo, duckies, disguised as teambuilding. The intended message is aimed at a younger, non-OL related audience (as I already warned you) and it roughly goes like this:

'we are a fun loving, no nonsense, start-up business in the spirits industry. Because we don't have a huge advertising budget, we're testing the waters with a cheap, reality-TV snippet to better evaluate the number of social media clicks and new followers and help gauge & calibrate the next step'.

Was it poorly executed? Yeah, you could say that, but then what to do, in a very restrictive, highly regulated tobacco & spirits advertising market, hum? Is it my cup of tea? I don't drink, therefore this type of message touches one ball without really moving the other.

Yes. Start-up business: if we take into account the COVID logistic delay, I believe we're still in that three-years frame. And this detail is essential in order to put context around a very forgettable snippet. Selling a brand-new, more democratic product. Selling it clumsily, in an effort to build relevance, because even bad advertising is, ultimately, good advertising. But make no mistake: it's nothing more than that and it is all they can do, in the current context.

This brings to mind another aspect of the charade, namely the fact that after the Remarkable Week-end (and with the exception of some carefully scripted 'slips'), released and available information progressively became (at least) two-tiered.

First tier: information carefully calibrated for immediate release and general consumption, primarily but not exclusively by the fandom. This includes: spirits shilling, innuendos galore, look-here-not-there latergrams. It also entails less direct interaction with the fans on socials and delegating the media management to secondary players (often called to the rescue, too).

Second tier: public information with a limited availability (you have to take the plunge and pay), for sleuths able and willing to go the extra mile. They paint a very different landscape. And draw two copycat timelines of people who are investing, buying and selling property and overall branching out of their primary source of income with a plan.

I am not a photo sleuth. But with a little bit of time on my hands, I am a decent paperwork analyst. Accounting is not my forte, but legal and business is. I saw what I needed to see and it holds.

So before you start screeching (bad idea, right?), remember this (credit given to @dillon7fan, thanks):

Not really: it is doctored make believe. Bless your heart, honest guy.

Next stop, Tehran. Yes, you read that correctly.

This evening or tomorrow, at the latest. Because context is everything and this fandom severely fails at this.

[ogradyfilm]

Disco Elysium: The Game That Plays You

Disco Elysium is a rare and precious gem indeed: a video game that utilizes the language of the medium to its full potential. Interactivity is woven into the very fabric of the narrative, as fundamental and inextricable as words and images. There is no separation between “gameplay” and “storytelling”—they’re one and the same, synonymous and indistinguishable.

Its systems are deceptively simple: in basic terms, the designers combine mechanics from point-and-click adventures, RPGs, and visual novels into a perfectly harmonious genre hybrid. The player must navigate sprawling, labyrinthine dialogue trees, gathering clues to solve a murder mystery. Completing certain objectives earns experience points, which are used to level up your character’s attributes (divided among four branches: Intellect, Psyche, Physique, and Motorics); equipping articles of clothing and other miscellaneous items further increases these stats. Depending on how you “build” the protagonist, these upgrades may make him more perceptive, charismatic, or intimidating, opening new avenues of exploration and investigation—and providing a crucial advantage during the D&D-style “skill checks."

Seems easy enough, right? Just min-max your abilities, exhaust every conceivable dialogue option, and save scum frequently to circumvent the fickle RNG—the usual cheap, brute-force strategies. Or so I mistakenly believed—until a magnificently structured set piece totally subverted my expectations. I won’t discuss the twist in detail here; it’s far too delicious to spoil. Suffice it to say that your skills—which manifest as literal disembodied voices, dispensing hints, guidance, and nuggets of wisdom that you’ve been conditioned to trust without question or skepticism—are revealed to be fallible; they’re akin to unreliable narrators, subject to biases and prejudices. Even successful dice rolls don’t necessarily guarantee accurate information or favorable outcomes—a blatant weaponization of the user interface that irrevocably alters how the player engages with the material. You can’t merely tap buttons and skim through flavor text until the end credits roll; achieving victory will require you to actually pay attention, exercise a degree of critical thinking and logical reasoning, and make judgments based on your own personal values (rather than blindly following the advice of the flawed hero's internal monologue)—thus lending your choices (and the consequences thereof) a greater sense of urgency, gravity, and emotional significance.

And that is what makes Disco Elysium so special: it constantly deconstructs itself, recontextualizing its relationship with the audience. You don’t play this game; it plays you.

[koheletgirl]

would you have the time/energy/interest to post a review of the wicked movie? i would be very interested to hear your thoughts! i wasn't thinking i wanted to see it but a lot of people are gushing about it now. . .so im open to being persuaded

yes absolutely!!!

this got long. take a shot every time i say musical

ok the first thing you need to know is i hate movie adaptations of musicals as a concept. i think a piece of media is created within a medium for a reason, and there have been so few occasions where adapting it into a different medium has not only been a good idea but also had some sort of value to add to the art itself. and with musicals it's more evident to me than with anything else, because to me an essential part of any musical is some fucking whimsy. musicals are at least somewhat camp, by virtue of being musicals. and with stuff like the les mis musical—which is very serious in every way except the fact that it is a musical—you can't really adapt it into a movie without either making it seem ridiculous or stripping it off of it's fucking whimsy. aaaand movie directors simply don't seem to get that musicals are the way they are because they're *supposed* to be that way, so the result is usually a movie that feels like it's ashamed of being a musical. the les mis musical is a musical because it *wants* to he a musical, otherwise it would have been something else. and tom hooper my bestie tom hooper. you could have just made a movie adaptation of the book.

ANYWAY. bringing us back to wicked, i think it's so rare to see a movie adaptation of a musical that doesn't seem to want to distract you from the fact that it's a musical. that doesn't seem like it's ashamed of it. that *loves* being a musical.

(in the heights is a good example, but they for some reason felt the need to change the entire plot. chicago is another good one imo)

wicked is THAT. it feels like it was created by people who genuinely love musical theater, and who genuinely love wicked. (and the wizard of oz, and cinema as a medium, and music as a medium). wicked has a heart. almost no movies have hearts nowadays. it leans into being a musical, it leans into being a movie musical, it leans into being an adaptation, and has so much love and respect for every piece of art it builds on. it changes almost nothing about the musical, because it knows that's not its place; it exists to bring this piece that already exists into a new medium, and to examine what that new medium can add to it in a meaningful way.

which is why, as far as i could tell, what makes the movie so much longer than the play is simply the introduction of cinema into the existing material. close ups, interesting angles, establishing shots—things you can do because you're making a movie, rather than meaningless attempts to add material to an already existing narrative. the only new song the film introduces is an addition they wrote into an existing song, and it's not there under the pretense of "adding" anything—it's there as a nod to the original play and a fun moment for the audience.

the acting is good. the singing is mostly good, and i can forgive michelle yeoh because she's a goddess. people say the casting was perfect, and i agree to an extent, but where i think this movie truly excels is the directing. ariana was great, but what made her so great imo is how *glinda* she was, and i think that credit goes to the director. she has clearly done her research on this character, but so has jon m. chu and that is *noticeable*. cynthia erivo is perfection i have nothing to say.

to put it simply, jon m. chu put his whole pussy into wicked. he understood the assignment, and he executed it nearly perfectly. and i do have more to say but i don't want this to get too long and spoilery so i'll leave it at that.

wicked is good because it feels like everyone who made it loves musical theater, and more importantly, they love wicked. go see it

[magpod-confessions]

tmagp is honestly so genuinely terrible in comparison to tma. ive given it 16 episodes at this point and i give up! i concede. alex is responsible for seemingly almost all of the writing based on the credits and he’s just kind of bad at it to be honest. the statements are bland, the dialogue shifts between ‘okay but boring’ and ‘actively terrible’ on a dime, and the podcast itself is so heavily reliant on its predecessor to build intrigue while actively speeding through any and all intrigue available. while it’s understandable tmagp would feel faster paced due to its shorter total episode count and different writing style, it’s pacing just doesn’t fit a horror podcast. many plot hooks were left unresolved in tma, which added to the complexity of the narrative. tmagp, on the other hand, seems to be constructing an elaborate conspiracy board of plot threads that are hit on nearly every episode just to remind you that they are, in fact, still there, beating most narrative suspense to death with a shovel. also, shitty mascot and ‘how do you do fellow kids’ horror! Jesus Christ Bonzo’s been Bonzoed to fucking death and he wasn’t even that interesting in the first place, and the latest episode with the social media influencer speaking in an amalgamation of AAVE, slang years outdated, and slang years after the episode allegedly takes place is painful to listen to not because it’s ‘effective satire’ of social media influencers, but because it’s just. bad. it’s written so over the top it fails at both at being satire And at being horror, because the only horror is that im still listening to this fucking podcast.

idk. there’s always a chance im glorifying tma as a series because it’s got a certain nostalgia to it at this point, but honestly as a horror podcast listener outside of tma it just fails completely at its medium. the character writing has its moments, i do in particular like Gwen and Celia, though even then half of Gwen’s initial dialogue is just: ‘get back to work’, ‘you should be working’, ‘we work here’, etc etc, and Celia cannot go a single episode without mentioning that she is, in fact, from a different dimension, something which has been ‘hinted’ at so many times it feels like alex assumes the audience is listening with half their brain off, which given the aggressive fandom pandering, might legitimately be his approach to writing this.

.

[erazonpo3]

Erazon's Characterisation Essay (Part 1 - Cynthia Edition)

General preface; This is me snowballing on a thought I had earlier about canon v fanon trends given that it's a pretty evergreen topic. Without getting too much into the subject itself, I made the point that you can use the source material as a starting point for analysing characterisation, but in a lot of cases it's highly interpretive; using Pokemon as an example, most of the non-player characters exist to enable the player's autonomy throughout the game's storyline, and only a small handful have their own detailed arcs and backstories.

Therefore if you want to build on characterisation for them for transformative fanworks, you only have a handful of dialogue lines and some environmental storytelling that borders on olympic levels of mental gymnastics. Things like backstory and character motivation needs to be invented, to which end the concept of 'canon' characterisation becomes pretty insignificant in comparison to the story you are trying to tell, and whether or not that characterisation is thematically appropriate and compelling. Everyone is going to have a subjective opinion about the 'essence' of a character, the core traits that make them who they are, and how integral those traits are for it to be a 'canon' or 'fanon' interpretation.

And yet there's still ways to analyse the games to draw some conclusions that aren't always obvious straight away.

I'm going to go into how I draw characterisation for Cynthia for Way Out, but keep in mind that I don't consider my characterisation perfect or the One True Depiction To End All Others etc and so on and so forth. There's things I need to discard in favour of the story– adults in the Pokemon games, including Cynthia, have a pretty laissez-faire attitude when it comes to kids handling crises so that the target audience (kids) can feel acutalised as they play through the story, but it's not always what I consider a core character trait so much as a function of the medium.

I play up a sense of responsibility and duty that isn't really depicted in the games but is nevertheless an easy takeaway in order to give her character a bit more depth and relateability. And when other people take her character in a different direction, I try to keep an open mind about what they're saying about her character in their story, because their story is not a video game for children nor a webcomic, and they will need to do different things depending on her narrative role.

(I don't have to like it, but I'm no less a subjective soul than anyone else).

I also pull here and there from other sources of inspiration, one I've mentioned before is a meta-analysis of how she's treated by the fandom in general, assuming she'd be treated a similar way as a public figure in-universe. A lot of my character work is about peeling back that legendary status and asking who the person underneath is and how she might deal with the pressures of being expected to consistently meet other people's high standards, and how to balance a healthy competitive streak without it becoming toxic.

But more to the point– here's some material exclusively from Platinum that I think collates to a pretty consistent depiction of her character, to keep in mind and interpret any which way, arranged into some key traits.

She is the granddaughter of a village elder in a traditional rural town.

"My grandma has this sort of bossy atmosphere about her. I think you'll recognize her right away. Yes, I'm sure you will. She's the elder of Celestic Town"

An overlooked aspect of her character that I think holds some of the ripest potential for her character is that we know a fair deal about where her family is from, potentially where she was raised. My personal conclusions are:

It is likely she has an ingrained sense of cultural values of humility, respect, duty, and tradition. While she may not be ruled by these traits, they would influence the way she interacts with the world.

Her interest in mythology is likely inspired the mural in Celestic town, and reflects a value of heritage and history.

It's a common 'fanon' that her grandmother was her primary guardian through much of her childhood, which isn't substantiated anywhere (just because we don't meet her parents as NPCs doesn't mean they don't exist) but this idea strengthens the connection she has to Celestic town and emphasises her position as the elder's heir.

Cynthia introducing herself as a trainer and not a Champion suggests humility; she positions herself as an equal to the player as opposed to a superior.

2. She is earnest and sincere

"...The places we are born. The time we spend living... The languages we speak... We are all different. But the presence of Pokémon unites us. We share our lives with our Pokémon and our happiness grows as we all become greater than we were alone. That is why we can battle and trade with anyone we choose..."

This is a reflection of her position as a narrative foil to Cyrus; where he dismisses the importance of emotion and 'spirit', she holds it in high regard. Thus;

She sees strong emotions as the source of her bond to her Pokemon and therefore the source of her success. While it's not to say she's an overly empathetic person, I think it follows easily that is generally emotionally intelligent (generally).

I think she's self-aware about how emotional she can be too, which is to say it's something she consciously embraces despite knowing she comes across a little overly earnest (and cheesy) sometimes.

"I love the sound a piano makes. I savor every note with my entire being. It's not only my ears; my spirit hears the music it makes... Ehehe, I made myself cringe saying that."

3. She is intelligent

"I think I let myself get carried away and talked for far too long. I'm sorry, and thank you"

This feels like a no brainer (ha) but it's also easy to take someone who comes across as emotional and write them off as being illogical or not having the depth for complex thought. To me, her emotional intelligence goes hand in hand with her analytical intelligence.

Her fascination with mythology is one of her defining traits, and her dialogue is the source of much of the lore surrounding the Sinnoh legendary Pokemon.

Her pursuit of knowledge is one of her defining traits; her interest in mythology and the distant past is referenced more frequently by herself and other NPCs than the fact of her being Champion. "My big sister is studying the myths of Sinnoh. She wants to know how people and Pokemon interacted in the days of myths."

As a Champion, I consider that she's very calculating and analytical. Even without the strategic held items given to her in BDSP, her Pokemon have perfect stats and have solid type coverage. It's not something she would accidentally stumble onto.

"When you are facing a Trainer in battle, you can learn everything about them. What Pokemon they have. What moves they've taught. What items they make Pokemon hold."

4. She is kind

"I want you to keep traveling to many far-off places. I want you to keep meeting all kinds of people and Pokémon. I came all the way here just so I could say that to you!"

A Champion in this game being kind isn't really a revolutionary idea, but it's still something I consider very integral, particularly in conjunction with the prior traits; there is diplomacy and there is compassion, and to me Cynthia balances both.

She is something of a mentor figure to the player, giving them the solution to obstacles on multiple occasissions (HM Cut, the Secret Medicine), and imparts a lot of lore to them. Notably she gives them an egg which hatches into a Togepi; while this event doesn't happen in BDSP and Platinum doesn't have the Fairy type, it's still retroactively made more interesting for the fact that Togekiss' modern Fairy/Flying type grants perfect immunity to her Garchomp's Dragon/Ground typing.

Some of the few interactions the player will have with her is giving medicine to the Psyduck blocking the route to Celestic town, and then delivering a charm to her grandmother– it gives an impression that she is regularly invested in small acts of kindness.

5. Other tidbits

Every time she interacts with you as the player, it is always through the lens of an adult with a public position speaking to a child; I take it as a given that all her interactions have a slight amount of professional distance, and a formality she wouldn't have if speaking to an adult friend.

She reveals that she went on a similar journey as the player character after being given a Pokedex by Professor Rowan, which could imply she experienced similar experiences to the established protagonist journey formula.

There's a slight goofiness to some of her dialogue that suggests she doesn't always take herself too seriously. "You've seen that group of Psyduck huddled with their heads in their, uh, hands...?"

It's a pretty common 'fanon' for Cynthia to have known Cyrus in her childhood, but this isn't really substantiated in text; her dialogue towards him would be a lot colder with that context as opposed to a stranger. It's a common headcanon because giving them a history together strengthens their position as foils, but in my opinion it's equally as interesting that Cyrus succeeds as far as he does because he exists in Cynthia's blind spot- she admits she didn't pay enough attention to what Team Galactic was up to, and can only stand in opposition to him ideologically, unwilling to entertain (or empathise with) his perspective. It hints at a certain stubbornness she has when she believes she's right and someone else is wrong.

This is just what I personally glean from the text; it's possible I've missed something that somebody else considers ultimately integral. But I hope that my writing in Way Out speaks for itself in how I apply all this to her character in the story, and why I feel it's important to do so. Cynthia is the character I second-guess the most in her characterisation because she should always be recognisable, even while going through different arcs. Her values, her intelligence, her sincerity, and her kindness are all things that need to be balanced with the needs of the story; how strong she is is just a relative thing to what any particular scene demands.

There's a lot I could still elaborate on but for the sake of at least attempting to keep this (relatively) concise, I wrote all this to highlight how I try to stay on track with consistent characterisation, which may not be the perfect ideal for this character but nevertheless is the best version for my story. There's nobody I hold to a higher writing standard than myself, and I try to constantly ask myself if I'm really writing what's best for the narrative or if I can do something better. I'm not interested in the most canon depiction that exists for another story, I'm interested in what's right for my story.

And uhhhh peace ✌️