#I'm all for respectful different points of view

[margridarnauds]

#OP didn't say at any point it was women's fault that men join the Alt Right#or that women need to coddle abusive men#it's just not something that they sever said! In this post or others#But it IS what you and the people above immediately bring up every time trans men talk about feeling excluded#How curious#It's also not lost on me how OP is a TRANS MAN#But the overwhelming amount of replies completely ignore trans men's existence#As do most people who immediately go “Well it's not OUR job to save men” on every single post discussing men's issues#Call me an MRA if you like but I think all genders should be helping transmascs trans men and intersex men#Because they're still queer and all queer people deserve that solidarity#And because if you wanna call yourself their ally/sibling you've got to act like it#Because saying you believe in trans rights then coming to a thread started by a trans man talking about his issues#Just to shrug your shoulders and go “WELP not my job”#Is to piss on transmascs' heads and tell them that it's raining#And it tells me everything I really need to know about your position

So I get your point, but I think that there might be a slight gap in communication here: I'm not directly responding to OP's point when I wrote the above in the tags, I agree that transandrophobia is a massive problem in the community. I'm saying this in SUPPORT of OP, because that's how it's often interpreted (mainly because I believe that people are projecting other posts, which are NOT about trans men and which shift the blame for the rise of the Alt Right on women, onto this one). I think that trans men are a marginalized community who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. I don't think that trans women have the monopoly on transphobia, and more to the point, I believe that trans men face specific, unique forms of oppression which deserve to be given their own name.

I'm decidedly NOT saying that it's not our problem, that we SHOULD stand in solidarity with our other queer siblings and listen to their concerns. I'm saying that we SHOULD care about men, including (though not limited to) marginalized men, that that isn't the same as coddling abusive men. That that is the difference, to me, between this post, which is, as you said, discussing the way that we talk about men as an irredeemable class who it is okay to say terrible things about, including and particularly with regards to trans men, VS other posts I've seen, particularly following Trump's election, which, from my point of view, attempted to shuffle the blame for the rise of the Alt Right onto feminists.

I apologize if my tag rambling was too...well, rambling, but I want it to be very clear that I firmly stand in solidarity with transmascs and was kind of horrified to see myself and a selection of my words being put in a group with people very callously brushing off the post, and I want it to be clarified that I'm firmly against this neo-radfem ideology that has grown to permeate general feminist discussion on here. I firmly disagree with the other responses you've selected, even if I can understand the place of frustration they're coming from (I think...there's a lot of frustration going around in the current political climate, and that that isn't always useful), and I don't really want to be lumped in with them. When I say "we should listen to men's issues as well", I don't mean that in a disingenuous way, or as a way of paying lip service only to say "that isn't really an issue :)" -- I do mean it. And if I have given off any other impression about where I stand, I do apologize, to you, to anyone who reads this, and especially to my transmasc followers.

how did we lose the plot so hard with feminism and activism like seriously… are we forgetting that being kind and loving to the men and boys in your life, teaching them as kids if you are a parent to be kind respectful humans, and showing them how to be emotionally vulnerable and making a society in which it is safe to do so was like…. A huge part of feminism, dismantling patriarchal values, and creating a generation of loving men who are held accountable for their actions?

Why is it “kill all men yes even the trans ones and if you say otherwise you’re an MRA” and not “let’s maybe create a world that encourages good men.” Did we forget that feminism was supposed to be good for everyone and that the patriarchy harms men and boys as well?

Like maybe we should care about male loneliness and the male suicide rate BECAUSE MAYBE WED HAVE LESS SOCIETAL PROBLEMS if 100% of the population wasn’t traumatized by gendered expectations and not being taught decent communication skills/how to be emotionally vulnerable. And definitely we would if fucking redpill echo chambers weren’t the places most willing to accept and nurture (groom into hateful ideology) young men.

The problem has never been men, cis or trans, being uniquely capable of evil the problem has always been the fact that cishet patriarchal culture encourages and rewards shitty behavior that makes everyone involved bitter and miserable and calls it masculinity.

[amateurvoltaire]

Do you know if this guy just hates Camille or is any of this is true? Like he was "so little respected" and "never entrusted with duties of any consequence"?

I'm reading "The Twelve Who Ruled" by R.R. Palmer because it got recommended a lot on reddit, but this guy seems kind of mean. He refers to Camille's writings as "childish pretentions to learning" & even goes out of his way to say how he didn't die "with fortitude" like everyone else.

His Wikipedia article says he was begging for his wife's life, which paints a totally different picture. But I'm having trouble getting access to a lot of the books that I see referenced, and I don't know if that's a romanticized version or if Palmer's is slanted.

Camille's last letter got its hooks into my brain and I can't stop chasing down his story! People are complicated & I love that he might've been an awkward little weirdo, but also I don't know that the sources I have available are particularly unbiased.

Camille Desmoulins: A kind of child in politics?

First of all, I have to say I adore this question. Genuinely. Thank you, @secondjulia, for sending it in.

Why do I love it? Because it lets me say the obvious thing that somehow still needs saying: Camille Desmoulins, like everyone else in the 18th century, was a person. Not a metaphor.  Not a cardboard cut-out. Not a tragic hero cooked up by a novelist. An actual human being. Loved by some, ignored by many, hated by others.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: historical figures were people. They sulked, lied, procrastinated, wept, and occasionally changed their minds.

And so, as with Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just and the rest, our understanding of Camille depends far more on who’s writing than on Camille himself. The sources, primary or not, often reveal more about their authors than their subjects.

So what about Palmer? I like Twelve Who Ruled. It’s a sharp piece of scholarship. Palmer had a clear aim: to explain the Committee of Public Safety. And that’s what he did. The book is about them, told from their vantage point.

Palmer reconstructed Year II from the Committee’s outgoing paperwork and their own letters. In other words, he built his narrative from the records of the people who had Desmoulins arrested. Naturally, their prejudices bled through. When Saint-Just called him a Danton’s vain syncopath (1), Palmer more or less nods along and copies it out.

So, was Camille really a political child whose death meant nothing? As always with history, it depends who you ask.

A Short (and simplified) overview on Historiography of Camille Desmoulins

Nineteenth-century French historians such as Michelet, Lamartine, Thiers and Claretie, cast Desmoulins as a central (if impetuous) voice of 1789: the spark that roused Paris, an eloquent pamphleteer elected to the Convention, and a tragic victim of the Revolution’s tendency to eat its own children.

Twentieth-century assessments split. The Marxist-Jacobin line, via Mathiez and Lefebvre, paints Camille as vain, erratic and unserious. In this respect, Palmer follows this view,  no surprise, since he admired Lefebvre and borrowed from his intellectual conclusions. And Palmer, after all, wasn’t writing a book on Desmoulins.

Revisionist historians , from J. M. Thompson to François Furet,  pushed back, reframing Camille as a voice of early dissent, warning of the Republic’s descent into purges and paranoia.

Since the 1980s, press historians have looked more closely at his journalism. Révolutions de France et de Brabant, Le Vieux Cordelier. They have found serious contributions to republican thought and critiques of the Terror.

Today, writers like Hervé Leuwers depict him as a thoughtful Enlightenment man of letters, a proto-republican, and a principled journalist whose private letters radiate clarity, courage and, and, above all, love for his family.

Palmer’s charges against Camille

So, given that the historiography is anything but settled, let’s examine what Palmer actually accuses him of:

Political immaturity and irrelevance. Desmoulins was "a kind of child in politics". So unimportant that he was never given any serious responsibility.

Mock-intellectualism and distortion. He had “childish pretensions to learning” and twisted facts for the Indulgents’ cause.

Cowardice at death. He alone struggled at the scaffold.

Cruel hypocrisy. He was cruel and mocked others for dying badly but couldn’t manage composure himself.

Undue familiarity. People called him “Camille”, and that, somehow, is evidence of his unseriousness.

So, with all the charges laid out, let’s get into it

1. Political immaturity and irrelevance.

This is nonsense.

Desmoulins wasn’t just writing pamphlets in cafés, the 18th-century equivalent of a keyboard warrior. He was elected Deputy for Paris from 1792 to 1794. Convention transcripts show him speaking at the king’s trial and submitting official opinions on the veto, the royal succession, and the state of army morale.

He sat briefly on the Commission of Public Safety (March 1793) (2)  and then on the Committee of War, submitting papers on military supply and recruitment. In February 1793, he alone was tasked with inspecting Didot’s paper mill (3), which was vital to revolutionary printing.

Danton and Robespierre also used him strategically. They gave him documents and political cover to attack the Hébertists in Le Vieux Cordelier (4). Even Palmer concedes that his Histoire des Brissotins (5)  was so influential that entire pages were quoted in the Girondins’ indictment.

So no, he wasn’t kept out of power because no one respected him. The Committee turned on him when he demanded clemency, not because they thought he was harmless, but because they knew he wasn’t. They understood perfectly well that his words could shift public mood, that he could cause real trouble. If he were just Danton’s decorative shadow, there’d have been no need to silence him. But they arrested him, too. That tells you exactly how seriously they took him.

2. Mock-intellectualism and distortion

Camille’s notebooks are still in the Bibliothèque Thiers. Marginalia in Cicero, Tacitus, Livy, Rousseau. Not bad for a political child…

In La France libre he coined “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. In Révolutions de France et de Brabant, he cites Grotius and Vattel to sketch a law of nations. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call that childish. When I was a child, I was reading Harry Potter, not Grotius.

Palmer accuses Le Vieux Cordelier of distortion. But what did Camille actually write? He warned of secret denunciations, lawless arrests, and the slow crawl toward dictatorship. Robespierre himself approved the first three issues until Camille turned the critique on the Committee itself and dared to demand clemency. That was the line. Truth was acceptable, so long as it didn’t threaten the precarious stability of the revolutionary government.

And let’s be clear. I’m not in the “Robespierre was a tyrant” camp. He wasn’t. Not even a little bit. But Year II was an unholy mess, and Camille was right to say so.

3. Cowardice at death.

First of all, I don’t know about you, but if I were about to have my head cut off for writing a few pamphlets, I’d be a little miffed too. But let’s set that aside.

Did Camille lose his composure on the scaffold? Yes, he did. Eyewitnesses like Beffroy de Reigny (6) saw him in the tumbrel, shirt torn, laughing convulsively, looking unhinged. He did not cut the calm figure Danton did beside him.

But was he truly afraid of death itself? Perhaps. He had every reason to be. That would have been natural, even expected. Yet his final letters suggest something else. In one of them, he wrote: “My head rests on the pillow of my writings... they all breathe philanthropy.” (7) He knew why he was being killed, and he accepted it.

So why the breakdown? In court, when Fouquier-Tinville (8) dragged Lucile’s name into it, Camille lost control. “They want to murder my wife too!” (9) he shouted, and had to be forced down. Perhaps his despair was not for himself, but for her. For the child they had. For the family he knew he was leaving behind, and feared might follow him to the scaffold.

Palmer was writing in an era that still venerated stoicism as a masculine ideal. Men were expected to die well, quietly, without emotion. It is a ridiculous standard. Always has been. Men, 18th-century ones included, are allowed to be human. A thirty-four-year-old husband and father, facing a violent end and the likely execution of his wife, is allowed a moment of collapse.

Yes, Camille broke down physically. So did Fabre d’Églantine (10) and Chabot (11), though Palmer leaves them out. But courage should be measured by your posture in the cart. It should be measured by whether you stood by your words. Camille did. He never disowned what he wrote. He died with it, and with all the fear that came with being someone who loved deeply.

4. Cruel hypocrisy

Camille Desmoulins was a brilliant journalist. In my view, the best of the Revolution. His style was elegant, funny, and direct. He picked his topics shrewdly and knew exactly what would catch the public’s attention. At times, he was cruel, but cruelty was the currency of the era. No one ever accused Marat or Hébert of restraint…

He was a masterful satirist. Early in the Revolution, he mocked the high and mighty with gusto. In Révolutions de France et de Brabant, he took aim even at the executioner Sanson (12) and earned himself a libel suit. In Discours de la lanterne, he justified the lynching of aristocrats. The title alone was a nod to the violent street slogan “à la lanterne” (13). He made his position very clear.

And he was hardly an outlier. Violent rhetoric was everywhere. It was the daily fare of the press, speeches, and yes, even the national motto. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort.” (14) This was a very intense time.

That said, by the time Year II descended into madness, Camille had changed his tune.

In Vieux Cordelier no. III, he called for clemency and due process, an unpopular stance in the Convention, though wildly popular in the streets. The issue sold out across Paris. Robespierre had to speak on his behalf at the Jacobins just to stop his peers from tearing him apart.

By the end of 1793, Camille had become a humanist. He had moved from vengeance to justice. He had seen what violence looked like when taken to its logical end. That was not hypocrisy. It was growth.

5. Undue familiarity

This one barely deserves a rebuttal. Yes, people called him “Camille” instead of “Desmoulins”. In the West,  they also called La Rochejaquelein “Monsieur Henri”, and still do. It did not make him any less of a general. It was not disrespect. It was affection. Perhaps even popularity. Was it a bit infantilising? Maybe. But that is hardly an indictment.

Conclusion

Every one of Palmer’s criticisms, whether it be childishness, flippancy, uselessness, shallow intellect, fear, hypocrisy, or lack of seriousness, collapses under scrutiny. Read the transcripts. Read the pamphlets, the letters, the modern biographies. You will not find a clown. You will find a sharp, impassioned writer. Not a child, but a man whose conscience could no longer stomach what the Revolution had become.

Palmer was writing during the Second World War. He valued discipline, executive clarity, and the capacity to act decisively. Desmoulins, a polemicist and tribune rather than a minister, naturally fell outside Palmer’s pantheon.

So, who was Camille? He was a man. He had friends. He was loved.

That may not have counted for much in Palmer’s eyes, but it was precisely what made Camille so effective. He moved people. He mattered to them. He made them listen.

Robespierre put it best during one of the most memorable exchanges between them. Camille, instead of keeping quiet and letting Robespierre speak for him, insisted on defending his own writings. Robespierre, exasperated, said: "Learn, Camille, that if you were not Camille, we might not be so indulgent with you." (15)

That tells you everything you need to know.

Notes

(1) Saint-Just had a busy spring in 1794. As the Committee of Public Safety’s mouthpiece, he was repeatedly sent to the Convention to justify the arrests of Danton, Desmoulins, and the rest of the Indulgents. On 31 March, he made it perfectly clear what he thought of Camille. In his view, Desmoulins was a vain little man, too foolish to think for himself and too dazzled by Danton to notice he was being used.

(2) Not to be confused with the more infamous Committee of Public Safety. Desmoulins briefly served on the Commission of Public Safety in March 1793. This commission was established to protect the young Republic from internal and external threats. It would eventually evolve into the Committee we now know.

(3) The Didot family were renowned French printers and typographers. Their paper mill was instrumental in producing the high-quality paper used for revolutionary materials, including assignats (paper money).

(4) Le Vieux Cordelier was the last journal founded by Desmoulins, launched in December 1793 to attack the radical Hébertists. It ran for seven issues, the last of which appeared posthumously.

(5) In May 1793, Desmoulins published Histoire des Brissotins, a pamphlet attacking the Girondins, particularly Jacques Pierre Brissot. It portrayed them as enemies of the Revolution, helping to discredit them and strengthen the Montagnards’ hold on power.

(6) Louis Abel Beffroy de Reigny, known by the pseudonym "Cousin Jacques", was a French dramatist and journalist. He is best remembered for his satirical commentary during the Revolution.

(7) Original French: "Je repose ma tête calmement sur l'oreiller de mes écrits... tous respirent la philanthropie."

(8) Antoine Quentin Fouquier-Tinville served as the public prosecutor in Paris during 1793–1794. He was responsible for leading many of the key trials of the Terror, including those of Desmoulins, Danton, and Robespierre.

(9) Original French: "Ils veulent encore assassiner ma femme !".

(10) Philippe-François-Nazaire Fabre, known as Fabre d’Églantine, was a French actor, playwright, and politician. He helped create the Revolutionary calendar and was a close ally of Danton. Accused (rightly) of corruption, he was executed alongside Desmoulins in April 1794.

(11) François Chabot was a former Capuchin friar who became a radical Jacobin and Convention deputy. He was implicated in financial scandals and executed with Danton and Desmoulins in April 1794.

(12) Charles-Henri Sanson was the official executioner of Paris throughout the Revolution. Desmoulins satirised him, claiming he dined with aristocrats , a jab that earned him a libel suit.

(13) The phrase “à la lanterne” was a revolutionary slogan calling for perceived enemies to be hanged from street lamps.

(14) The motto of the First Republic was "Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort"  or "Liberty, equality, fraternity or death."

(15) Original French: "Apprends, Camille, que si tu n'étais pas Camille, on pourrait bien ne pas avoir autant d’indulgence pour toi."

[inspirationallybored]

Just a little frustration, but mostly confusion.

(This post is about Generative AI, and I am against its use in creative aspects, but I have a question, so please be respectful).

So, my mom, an English language and literature professor, someone who writes for leisure, someone who loves reading and writing, had decided to write a book of her own comprising of short stories, and once she got the hang of it, publish some books for children and teenagers.

Amazing idea, right?

Well, yes actually. I was joyous to hear it.

Until she told me that she would be using ChatGPT to find the ideas and the baseline for the plot. Of course, she would be changing the actual story flow and the language, but the starting point would be generative AI.

And like, I don't know. I was mad initially (I didn't tell her tho), because it's gen AI, and I have always been against that. I'd rather write down my cringe worthy, indulgent, barely coherent fever dream than even look at ChatGPT.

But here's the thing. I also like to use writing prompts on Tumblr and YouTube as a writing exercise when I'm out of inspiration. Sure, the interpretation is all mine, but so is hers. What's the difference between using a writing prompt from Tumblr and using ChatGPT for a story idea?

I usually procrastinate and spend weeks falling into a rabbit hole on language trade because I was naming one small country with no significance whatsoever, or learn how names affect personalities while naming a minor character. But I also know that people use gen AI to look for names to avoid falling into this very same problem. One of my irl writer friends (who has ADHD btw) used gen AI just to start off on finding a name for this Eldritch DnD world. The name he chooses later is his own mix-and-match, and the concept itself, down to the intricate details, are all his. He didn't rely on ChatGPT for anything except for finding the starting point for a name. And I'm ok with that to be fair, in fact I would love to be able to find a starting point instead of roaming around too (it's a different thing that my experience there has been less than satisfactory).

Some people use gen AI to organise their mess of ideas. Some use it to find an exact word. Some use it as their personal stenographer (actually it's just one person who did that, copying from Google Docs is a pain, so she just sent screenshots to ChatGPT and had it type out for easier transferring to other platforms). And I can understand that.

Of course, if you are using AI to write a story, idea and all, and only tweak a couple of things in there, that's just trash, I condemn that. Using AI to write for you is disrespectful to the vast imagination of the human mind, and to the efforts of people who put in the hard work to create and build an idea into a piece of art.

But now I don't know this: Why am I angry at the usage of an idea from ChatGPT to create a story using your own words, when writing inspiration and prompts are fine? Why can't I use gen AI to look for a word even though I am using Google for the exact same purpose? Where do I draw the line between ChatGPT as a tool, and it as a replacement for creativity?

And before anyone says otherwise, I am strictly against AI for usage in creative writing, or any creative work. I just want to understand nuance instead of being steadfastly stuck on a black and white view.

[rareblackcat]

I'm trying to be completely earnest and sincere when I ask this, I don't get transpecies thing, I understand if you were like autistic or trans and maybe you've felt completely isolated from your human body and maybe even treated as an animal that you'd rather detach from it but like, that seems like something you should talk to in therapy than rather try to alieviate by wearing tails and packers. At some point, is this dissociation or healing?

Being transspecies is not inherently an identity born from trauma. In simplest terms Transspecies is identifying as a species different from the one you were born as. But people have many reasons to use the term Transspecies and Transspeciesness is a diverse personal experience that I can't fully describe as one person.

I use Transspecies as an exclamation of me taking control of my identity. I am "crossing the cultural boundary of what it means to be human," if you will. This is a stance I've just recently realized I relate to. I'm not human. I'm a werecat. I act like a Werecat and like being seen and treated as one. I view every quirk, personality trait, and behavior I have as proof of my Wereness.

I can't fully answer your question because I've not experienced disconnection from humanity through trauma. What I can say is sometimes what's done is done and their's no going back and sometimes people don't want to go back. Once someone has fully cemented a nonhuman identity through trauma, they have every right to keep that identity and therapy won't just make their nonhuman identity disappear. Sometimes transspeciesness even if born from trauma is not healing OR dissociation, it's just the person being themselves. There's also power in pushing back on how people have decided to view you. "If you see me as animal then I will be an animal because there is wrong with being animal and you will respect me all the same."

[imminent-danger-came]

Hi I’m also an avid httyd 3 hater I think this video was a pretty good summarization of most of the things that were wrong with it if you wanna check it out

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bcFMEs177i0&feature=shared

"The director wanted an end from a different story". SO FUCKING TRUE. SO REAL.

From the httyd3 art book (which I'm so happy the video references):

"In general, it's more difficult to create a female character than it is to draw a male. For a female, any incorrect line and the shape can go wrong very quickly. We had to control all the shapes while keeping her both powerful and graceful so that she didn't fall to much into the reptilian category, like a lot of dragons. We wanted to explore how the Light Fury would walk and how to make her feel like a female, so we referenced lionesses and big cats."

What misogynistic bullshit am I right.

I'm going to go ahead and also show off the hearts on the light fury's forehead because it's just abysmal (this is a normal picture of the light fury with the saturation increased):

Thanks for sending this video my way anon!

[dangoulains-devotion]

yuffie has many interesting elements to her but people refuse to move past "i find energetic kids annoying" and it makes me sad

[baatarthefirst]

Okay, I love looking at differing opinions, and I came across this one again by a reblog notification. At the time, I didn't feel like I could respond respectfully (and responding in bad faith, nitpicking and just being generally disrespectful is reddit level behavior I try to avoid), but know I think I can explain my reasoning in good faith. So here we go.

"Except that TDP has never held that message, at all. In fact, all forms of love are treated as important in TDP. Romantic bonds overlap with familial bonds; Rayla and Callum are family, just as Janai and Amaya are family."

Yes, I think the overlap is why a lot of people did take the message that family bonds were as important as romantic ones. The fact that Amaya could compare her pain to Rayla's even though they different types of relationships showed that different types of love could be just as strong, and cause just as much pain as the other.

Why wouldn’t his feelings for her be his one truth? He was dealing with a major imposter syndrome throughout the entire arc, but you know who never had doubts about him? Her.

First, I 100% agree with everything you said about Rayla. She is the first person who made Callum feel accepted, feel like he was not a failure of some kind. What's more, just in general, they work well together, they respect each other, they enjoy each other's company, and all that makes for a great ship. So why wouldn't his feelings for her be his one truth? Well, the best way I can explain it is that a lot of people (including me) saw a young man look deep inside himself for the light in him that would drive away the dark. But instead of his own self-worth, he only saw another person, it was like he couldn't see any light within himself other than Rayla; like she was more important than himself, which shows little self-worth, or at the very least, he can not feel any self-worth without Rayla. I used protection as an example for this one truth because the truth is that every time he's used dark magic, it's not for his own self-gain, but for the protection of others. And what's more, he protected them without killing anything. So if he looked into himself and found his selfless, protective love for his family and friends to be his truth, I think it would have come across less codependent. He shouldn't have to tie his self worth to someone else. (Though I did strangely see people hating on Rayla on it for some reason? That was strange, she wasn't there at the time and literally had nothing to do with it).

Also, to add, Janai and Amaya are each other's one truths, just like Callum and Rayla, but apparently, this is only Rayllum's problem for some reason,

No, I don't pull punches with my otp, I've went on the record several times about how certain scenes don't make sense in context, and how the plot was nonsensical at times. I don't think it would be fair to give one couple a pass and fail another. So I did think about this, even made a post asking for someone to explain it to me. The short version of why I didn't compare them is I don't think they're similar enough to be compare. Callum's truth is internal, Janai's is external "Rayla being Callum's one truth is saying: "You're the light inside of me that keeps my darkness at bay." Amaya being Janai's truth is saying: "You are a beacon to let me know that I'm on the right path."" I have had someone tell me that they are both supposed to be beacons, and I don't necessarily agree, but I think I understand the logic now and I think that's a nice way of looking at it.

"If you like Rayllum, awesome! Enjoy, just don’t use it as a model for your own relationships" I mean… that's the point?? I don't think you should overall use a fictional couple as a model for your own relationships;

Oh absolutely, but you'd be surprised how many people internalize media relationships, and bring the expectations into their irl relationships even if it's unconsciously. And of course they are by no means the worst models, I could name so many that's worse. I've always said Rayllum isn't a toxic couple (not quite sure why some people say that), but a couple who has an unhealthy, but understandable issue to work through.

"it’s not healthy to be so hyper fixated on your partner that you burn other loving healthy relationships without serious consideration." Except that Callum hasn't burned his relationship with Ezran or any other person. /Callum did betray Ezran, yes, but that doesn't mean he did it without serious consideration.

I will give you this one because Callum doesn't believe he's going to have to burn a bridge with his brother. I'm not quite sure why he doesn't think betraying Ez would ruin their relationship, but that's besides the point But he does decide to betray him without consideration. I'm not talking about the actual betrayal scene, there it was a life or death decision and had no choice (I would even argue for Ez's sake, because he may not forgive himself if Rayal died on his order). I'm talking about the initial decision. When Rayla tells him that she wouldn't ask him to betray his brother, he responds 'you don't have to ask' without hesitation.

Easy: just because he was his brother doesn’t mean he had to agree with him. Ezran had every right to be mad, but he was holding Runaan hostage (the father of their best friend) when he forgave Zubeia, the main reason their father died. Callum had a point about the cycle of violence, something the show is very clear about: choosing forgiveness and stopping hate.

What made some fans angry here was Callum showing more concern for his gf's father (who killed their father) more than he did for his little brother. There's no arguing Callum is right, and even though he does start off insensitive, he does soften up and he seems to get through to Ez. It's just the lecturing tone he takes through the scene, it's feels like he's holding Ez (the victim) to a higher standard than the aggressor. I'm sure that's not what the creators had in mind, but it did give off that vibe.

Then Callum goes to help Rayla because what was he supposed to do? Let her get hurt or worse, killed? (Ezran wouldn’t have killed her, but he could have killed Runaan, her father—the one they both fought so hard to bring back).

Yes, this scene was well done, no notes here. Though I would add Rayla could have very easily been killed here and Ez would probably never forgive himself.

Callum choosing to go with her and betray Ezran made complete sense for his character.

It was never that he chose Rayla, over Ez, but the way he went about it. On the bridge, an instant decision to betray his brother, not made out of doing what's right but out of abandonment. Then in the Silver Grove...nothing. No concern for his brother, no checking in on him. No guilt that he left him there after a traumatic event. Nothing. If they had added a moment's hesitation at the bridge and shortened/removed one cute domestic scene to show us he was thinking of Ez, it wouldn't have been an issue. (I'm sure some people would, complain, but it wouldn't have got the backlash it did).

Whatever kind of relationship is more important and works better depends on the characters themselves. For Callum, his main relationship is Rayla, a romantic one; for Aaravos, it's a familial one. TDP's message wasn't that romantic relationships are superior, but that love overall is what motivates someone.

You know what, I have no argument for that. None at all. I guess I did get stuck in the main character's family/romantic bonds that I didn't look at the parental relationship between Aaravos and his daughter. And viren and his daughter, and sun, and illegitimate son in some weird way. So I will admit that I was wrong here. I think maybe I read it with shipper goggles on (ironically) because so much of the response the, as well as the tags focused so much on rayllum.

See, here I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think I've ever reduced Rayllum. It's a great ship, but since season 4 the writing has been making mistakes (offscreen breakup, I will never be okay with you!). I think it's okay to say 'I love this, but it has some flaws'. I think it's okay to give different opinions, and start conversations, because you know what? Sometimes I'm wrong. And sometimes (like here) my case may be valid, but I'm trying to prove the wrong point. I stand by the idea that they do unintentionally make the brotherly love between Callum and Ez seem like an out-of-sight out-of-mind thing. That is romantic love overshadows his familial love to an unhealthy degree (again, not toxic, just in need of therapy) I love that he's happy with Rayla, but with Katolis burning to the ground and Ez's poor mental state it feels off that he's just enjoying cake without a care in the world.

TDP Season 5: Familial Bonds are as essential as Romantic Bonds

TDP Season 7: Familial Bonds are nothing compared to Romantic Bonds.

To be fair, the problem started in season 6, where Callum's 'One Truth' isn't a deep love, or protectiveness, of loved ones; it's just Rayla. Which, I just want to bring the boy in close and tell him: "There's a difference between sharing all of yourself with the one you love, and giving up yourself for the one you love. You are you; a young man who happens to be in love with a young elf named Rayla. You are not vessel of love specifically made for Rayla. You can live with her happiness in mind, you can adjust your goals for the sake of your lives together, but you still need to have an identity outside of her."

And this is just another example of them coming up with a really good concept, just to throw it away later. It's not as big as 'it's a circle of violence, but not giving Xadia their fair share of blame', or 'it takes time and effort to get over upprejudice, except when it doesn’t for time constraints and/or would interfere with cute domestic moments', but I still think it needs to be shared.

(If you like Rayllum, awesome! Enjoy, just don’t use it as a model for your own relationships, it’s not healthy to be so hyper fixated on your partner that you burn other loving healthy relationships without serious consideration.)

[bamsara]

I think that one thing people fail to understand is that unsolicited literary criticism coming from an online stranger who is reading with no knowledge of what the authors intended goal is, is not going to be received the same as say: the authors beta reader or friends who know what the authors intended goal and has the sufficient knowledge and input to help the author reach that desired outcome.

"But I'm only trying to be helpful" How do I know you have the knowledge and literary skill for you to be able to actaully do that when we don't know each other and you are essentially a stranger to me? Are you applying this criticism based out of personal biased experience and desire to see the story or characterization be driven in another direction or tweaked, or do you know the author's intentions for the character? If the story is incomplete, are you basing your criticism of a character on the incomplete narration with only partial information available of them or are you building up a report until the story's completion? Did the author provide you with the information needed to make a fully informed criticism?

Have you discussed with the author what their plans are or are you assuming them based off the narration, especially if the narration is proven or implied to be unreliable or missing key points of the plot? Are you unbiased enough to help them reach their desired outcome for the characters and story regardless of your personal feelings towards the characters/antagonists and setting? Can you handle being told your specific input isn't wanted because you're a reader and/or have no written anything relating to their genre or topic? Do you understand and respect that the author's personal experiences might influence their writing and make it different than how you would have done it personally? Do you understand if an author only wants input from a specific demographic relating to their story?

If it's for fanfiction or other hobby media, are you holding a free hobby to a professional standard? Are you trying to give criticism because you feel like the author has produced 'subpar job performance' of their fic? Are you viewing their work as a personal intimate outlet or something that must conform with mass media? Are you applying rules and guidelines when the fic is shared for simple sharing sake? Is your criticism worded appropriately and focused on the parts where the author has requested input on rather than a general dismissal and or disapproval?

Have you put yourself in a place where you assumed you have the input needed for the story to evolve better, or have you asked what the author needs and what they're having trouble with? Can you handle having your criticism rejected if the author decides their story doesn't need the change and not take it as a personal offense against your character? Are you crossing that boundary because you think you are doing the author a favor? Are you trying to be helpful, or do you just want to be?

I think sometimes when people hear authors go 'please don't give me unsolicited writing advice or criticism' they automatically chalk it up to 'this author doesn't want ANY constructive feedback on their stuff at all' and not "i already have trusted individuals who will help me with my writing goals and- hey i don't know you like that, please stop acting so overly familiar with me'

[ambrosiagourmet]

This episode of the anime made me realize something about Namari and her relationship with Tansu and his party. Before now I haven't been able to quite pin down how and why they start treating her more like family and less like a disposable bodyguard. But the anime conveys the shift so well!!

So, at the start of the episode, Tansu pulls Namari in the way of the undine's attack to protect himself. He's perfectly happy to let her die to save himself.

Kiki and Kaka both shout for him, but no one expresses a lot of care for what happens to Namari. This isn't remarkable to any of them. They do bring her back to the camp, of course, and Tansu resurrects her... at which point she starts yelling at him about how this is, in fact, a common thing.

Throughout the rest of the episode, there is a clear contrast in how the Tansu family all treats each other versus how they treat Namari. Tansu or Kiki being in danger is concerning. Namari getting hurt or killed is just part of the job. She is a meat shield, a tool they paid for and are using as part of this expedition. They take care of her, but they care about each other.

And though it's not exactly explicitly stated, Chilchuck's speech about reputation makes it clear why - they probably assume, because of her reputation, that this is how Namari views things, too.

From their perspective, Namari signed up to die a lot and get paid a lot. She is only there for the money, but acts upset when they don't treat her as a proper member of the party (and family). From their perspective, flawed as it is, she is asking for more respect than she will return.

That's not how Namari actually feels, though, and at the episode she tells Tansu as much:

And this is what changes things between them! Tansu finally sees her as more than a tool. For the first time, the party bonds with Namari as a person.

It's very fitting that this comes right after Namari realizes the value of Senshi's pot, too.

Just like the adamantine shield can be used for more than just fighting, Namari is more than just a tool and shield herself.

So they all share a meal, and things are different between them now. Tansu and his family will go on to treat Namari with more respect in the future, and they will begin to forge actual bonds. As complex as the layers of distrust, reputation, depersonalization and assumption are... In many ways it's as simple as that. How very like Dungeon Meshi. I'm so glad the anime made this finally click for me.

[berritart]

imagining abby making u squirt for the first time mhmmm. it was your first time being intimate with her since you guys started dating each other and she has been more than respectful of your boundaries and such, especially since you just gotten out of a not so great relationship.

she knew everything about it, the lows and well, lows, and even how your ex never made you feel good during sex. you always felt the need to fake your orgasm to make her feel better about herself. abby always thought it was such a shame no one was treating a pretty thing like you good, both inside and outside the bedroom. but, you were still stuck in that godforsaken relationship so all she could do was wait for you to realize what you needed was right in front of you.

the night of one of your dates with abby, you already knew what was coming. you knew all abby wanted to do was feel your skin against hers. her demeanor was way more different, so much more flirty than she usually is. hands lingering longer, eyes wandering to the neckline of your blouse. when you stepped foot in your apartment, abby really didn't know how much longer she was going to last, her clit throbbing from the thought of you splayed out on your bed. and once she finally got what she craved for, to touch you, it was game over.

"f-feels weird abs..." you whimpered, back flushed against abby's front. she's been going at it for feels like hours at this point. you don't know how many orgasms she pulled from you, three? four? it was all too much, leaving your head foggy.

"i know you can do it. you wanna feel good dont you?" abby encouraged, fingers still plunging in and out of your pussy, her thumb not slowing down its pace. all you could muster the energy for was to hum in agreement. "she's so close, so tight around my fingers..." all you could do it nod frantically, gripping onto the sheets under you.

you felt your orgasm getting closer for sure, but it felt so much different than anything you experienced. your vibe didn't make you feel like this, and sure as hell your ex never did either.

your eyes started watering, the feeling was too much to bear. your legs started closing up on abby, back arching away from her. "need you to keep you legs open for me angel." abby whispered in your ear. "i know you wanna come baby just keep them open." you lazily opened your legs, your moans resuming as abby began fingering you properly again.

"'s good a-abby...fuck- i'm gonna come" you whined, throwing your head back against abby's shoulder. it didn't help when abby's free hand came in contact with your lower stomach, pressing lightly. your moans got louder from the pressure, eliciting a laugh from abby. "mmm so fuckin sensitive..." she pressed down a bit harder, licking and nipping at your neck as she did.

that pushed you over the edge. without any warning you tensed up and started shaking, streams of your release landing on the sheet, dampening the area under you. you didn't know you could do that, probably because your pleasure was never taken into consideration ever. "oh my god." abby laughed, taking in the view in front of her. the sight of you was messy. skin sticky from sweat and come, dark purple and reddish bites all over your body, and wet sheets because someone forgot to place a towel down, (abby). it was just nasty.

"didnt even know you could do that huh?" abby chuckled, hands wandering over your body. you shook your head, trying to catch your breath from probably the best orgasm you ever had. her hands squeezed your hips softly, grinding you down a bit. "can't even imagine how messy you'd get on my strap..." all you could do is respond in a whimper, rocking your hips towards her a bit more.

she was so handsy with you, her rough fingertips inching closer to your pussy. you just sat there between abby's legs, feeling fatigue wash over you. you didn't think you had anything else to give but abby thought otherwise.

"need you to do it again. please baby."

a/n this has been sitting in my drafts for far too long i hope u all enjoyed it 😇 also tysm for 200 :3

[bettsfic]

one of the best decisions i've ever made was to stop arguing.

i'd always been an arguer. i was defensive about everything and mindlessly contrary. it wasn't all my fault; i was (and still am) talked down to and patronized a lot, and when you live your life that way, you become kind of a raw nerve and dedicate a lot of energy to trying to prove yourself. someone even told me once, "it's just fun messing with you. you get so upset."

at 23, i was working in an environment where about a half dozen middle aged conservative men were always telling me what to do and explaining things to me. i either argued with them when they said heinous things or stewed about it for hours or even days. and so my new year's resolution one year was simply: no arguing.

it felt a little like defeat at first, like i was no longer standing up for what i believed in, even though no matter how right i was or how much proof i had for my claims, no one had ever been swayed by anything i told them. part of that was because they had no respect for me and didn't take me seriously; the other part was the simple truth that arguments are almost never productive. when someone says something and you immediately reply with, "you're wrong and here's why," a wall goes up and nothing can go over it.

i couldn't just let these men talk at me though, so i started asking questions. not leading questions, not with an intention to prove a point or walk them into a corner. i genuinely wanted to understand how they came to shape the opinions they held. i realized that understanding and agreeing are two different things, and just because i seek to understand doesn't mean i condone.

a truly fascinating thing happened: these men walked into corners all by themselves. it turns out nobody had ever actually tasked them with speaking their opinions aloud to a neutral audience. no one had ever been sincerely curious about them and their views. sure, their loved ones probably asked, "how are you doing?" all the time as a show of affection, but that's much different than, "what do you think?"

knowing what i know now, i think that's true of everyone. how many people ask you for your opinion and listen to what you have to say without speaking their opinion back to you? without judging you? how many people actively and intentionally try to understand you?

it's been over ten years since my resolution and i think i can count the arguments i've gotten into on one hand. one finger, even. it's amazing what happens when someone tries to rile you up, pick a fight with you, and your only response is, "can you elaborate on that?"

you can work someone into a very open and vulnerable state when you ask questions. they eventually run out of their usual talking points and move into the personal. when i do this, it's not like therapy; i'm not trying to help anyone. and it's not like teaching; i'm not trying to educate anyone. i just want to understand how people reach the conclusions they've come to. even after all these years of asking questions and not arguing, it still amazes me how few people in this world feel understood, and how easy it is to get them to open up when you say, "i want to know what you think."

[beannoss]

I love this analysis! You're totally right that it's remarkable 🥹🥰 To your note about Yor, I'd say this does happen equally with her (though not demonstrated in these particular screenshots)! Where Twilight is softening alongside Yor's influence (or as you've wonderfully framed it, her influence is "smoothing out some of his edges but not to the point of dullness"), Yor is gaining self-confidence and self-worth alongside Twilight's influence. A thing I love about them as a pairing is that they're having similar experiences but inverted. Where Yor is essentially making softness (home?) safe for Twilight, Twilight is making boldness (community?) safe for Yor. They're making life liveable for one another.

To that end and as regards the above, I think a part of what's happening as embedded in what you've explored, is a shift around viewing people as expendable For The Cause. Yor previously recommitted to her assassin work in a self-sacrificial way: "Even if I die or lose everything, the outcome/goal is worth it." Twilight's shift seems to be away from that mentality: Why should someone die, why should someone lose everything, when they can live instead? So where once he told Nightfall that they were expendable... that's no longer the case. There's some tricksiness there because I don't think Twilight has ever considered himself expendable: in and of himself, that is. He very much has all the evidence ever that many institutions consider him expendable. He has an extremely finely honed sense of self-preservation. But it's clear that, in the least, he believed that WISE considered spies expendable.

And he's certainly openly and reiteratively espousing differently now. We'll have to see if Yor's view for herself is changing, too 👀 or if this, perhaps, is something that can't be addressed fully until after reveals 👀👀

Hmmm

114.1:

and 114:

and also 103:

Still fully anticipating a Yor arc upcoming and the maths are mathing, is what I'm saying

(More seriously, it gave me vibes from 58.2 when Twilight and Bond save Daisy the pup from the fire, and Twilight gives his "You have to take care of yourself because there's someone waiting for you at home" speech - more specifically to the theory that 58.1-58.2 are the concluding chapters for the Cruise Arc*, and so is in direct dialogue with Yor's speech "Even if it means living a life that could end at any moment... even if it means leaving the Forger family," recommitment to self-sacrifice... Do you see the dots?)

*I alas don't have access to this theory: I read it summarised somewhere (reddit?) that it's a popular theory on the Japanese side of fandom and haven't been able to shake it since. But if anyone has links, pls drop 'em!

[fairuzfan]

I'm to the point where if I hear you're endorsing/voting for Kamala Harris and you're publicly getting mad at people for not voting for her, I'm not even going to listen what you have to say, you've made it clear you have to strong principles to guide your decisions beyond "what's worse for me personally?" I think Harris voters have no actual ideologies to live by, despite claiming they do, and I fundamentally don't respect them for it. It's one thing to be angry at people who won't vote for Harris, but it's another thing to pretend you're doing it because you have some sort of moral authority and not basing it off pure selfishness. You think that solidarity is posting about things and that's it. You refuse to make yourself uncomfortable, even momentarily. And you get mad at people who are willing to go through discomfort for the sake of others. You call them names, ans claim that THEY are the selfish ones in this scenario. You've given up on making a change in the world for the better, or maybe you were never interested in it. All of your arguments pale in comparison to reality, because Harris is actively funding a genocide. She has even refused to acknowledge a reality in which she does not fund that genocide. Has made such a thing clearer and clearer. All my problems here in the imperial core are secondary to that. I'm about to go through multiple personal issues that are made increasingly hard by political factors and I still think that's nothing in comparison to what Palestinians and Lebanese are going through overseas. You've placed yourselves as the ultimate victims in the world and to me it's laughable and completely out of touch with just how fucked everyone else is because of the imperial beast that is Amerikkka. And speak nothing of the way the victims of Amerikkkan imperialism on Turtle Island bear the brunt of societies' woes for your personal comfort and refusal to make any meaningful change. Not ev baby steps! You think trump is an accidental anomaly and not a product of a larger issue within white amerikkkan politics. Is it not shocking to you that so many people here are voting for trump so enthusiastically?

Seeing things like the weaponization of personal identity, like "Muslims for Harris," used so plainly is an insult to the ideas of internationalism that you all claim to follow. What use is solidarity with the victims of imperialism if you refuse to acknowledge the entirety of the imperial complex? That includes the democrats you hold so dear as well as the Republicans? What use is any of this if you only think for yourself?

You claim to be thinking of others, and that's why you vote for Harris... but what is so incomprehensible to me is the comfort in which you accept the inevitability of Palestinian deaths. Why are you so willing to accept that reality? Why are you comfortable with that reality? It shocks me and disgusts me in a way that I can not really describe. You lot argue and argue and argue, but in the end, the difference between you and me is that I refuse to engage in a reality where Palestinians must die in any case. You have yet to refuse that. In actuality, you all refuse the baby steps, the bare minimum, of refusal to engage in continuation of that reality. And because of that, I do not take you seriously, nor do I view you as being moral in your decision to sacrifice Palestinians.

[genderqueerdykes]

being cisgender is just not an option for a lot of intersex people.

i was never given the option to be cisgender anything. every part of me that deviated from what a girl or boy "should" look like spelled trouble. because i dressed and acted very masculine, before puberty, people called me a bulldyke, a butch lesbian, a "girl pretending to be a boy" and "not a real boy". i was never "feminine enough" to be a woman.

after puberty hit, i started growing a beard, and my shoulders and chest got broader and more square. my body became more "masculine", so suddenly, i was labeled as a "boy pretending to be a girl" and "not a real girl". after I started testosterone, i haven't stopped being called a faggot, a fairy, a sissy or a pansy because i'm not "masculine enough" to be a man despite being a bear.

there's no winning in the eyes of a society that's so focused on binary this-or-that choices. i had no hand in the matter, this all happened way before I started testosterone HRT. in fact, even when i was placed on estrogen HRT to try to "correct" my intersex traits and symptoms, i still wasn't gendered or seen as a cis woman. i was still the same tranny bulldyke. no matter what i do, my intersex and transsexual traits will always be weaponized against me; whatever sounds the "worst" at the time, or whatever invalidates what i want.

in order to liberate trans people from this struggle, we must also liberate intersex people, for our struggles are virtually one in the same. our fight for body and identity autonomy is shared. it will always be impossible for me and other intersex people to be viewed as cis anything while white American society remains focused on pointing out the "differences" between men and women, instead of embracing the similarities we all can and do have.

intersex and trans people owe it to one another to disassemble these dangerous attitudes and shut them down when and where possible. it's not only trans people who face this struggle- intersex people deal with never being able to pass or be clocked as their actual gender from birth a lot of the time. people MUST understand that women and men come in all types of bodies, shapes and sexes, whether or not they chose to look like that. and whether or not they chose doesn't matter, they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, which means being gendered correctly despite how they look or sound.

[ilions-end]

it's wild to me to learn that we have ancient commentaries (T scholiast) pointing out the significance of diomedes deliberately not naming his father when he lists his genealogy in book 14 of the iliad

wild because in all editions i know, diomedes DOES name tydeus in that scene, and the respectful way he talks about him informs a lot of how i view diomedes as a character. but already in ancient times there were apparently variants of the iliad in circulation where diomedes' speech about his forefathers DIDN'T have a line going--

I declare that I am by birth from a noble father, Tydeus, whom the heaped earth has covered in Thebes.

(how quickly and unprompted he brings up his father's nobility and proper burial! it's like he wants to get ahead of anyone who might point out that tydeus died in a cursed campaign after he completely dishonoured himself through cannibalism, and the king of thebes famously denied the soldiers burial, at least for some time)

excising that line makes the rest of his speech more careful and precise. imagine this is the beginning of his speech instead of the continuation of the previous line:

There were three blameless sons born to Portheus, and they lived in Pleuron and steep Calydon: Agrios and Melas, and the third, Oeneus the horseman, the father of my father. In manliness he surpassed them.

(tydeus is unnamed and uncharacterized, only there as a practical biological link between tydeus and his blameless grandfather)

i'm so fascinated by an iliadic diomedes who is eager to paint his father as a noble hero, and i am equally fascinated by an iliadic diomedes who self-consciously skips his father when talking about his family tree. both of those versions have so much, and different, texture! another one of those moments of pondering the countless variants that have existed of the iliad through the millennia, even if it's frustrating that we can't ever know some One True Version

[tahbhie]

How Plot Progression Works—Myths and Facts.

Let me start with a myth.

Last week, a writer approached me with their half-finished draft, unsure how to continue. Apparently, they got writer's block in the middle of the work. For about thirty minutes, we discussed the book freely as if it were a finished and published work.

Then I realized the issue.

☞ The problem?

From the conversation, I noticed that the writer's thoughts and ideas, which they voiced for the book, totally contradicted what they had written.

Their book followed a sequence of events. It was well-calculated, and the plot progression was on point but only to a certain level. I noticed robotic recurrences.

Something like this:

Scene 1— a sudden revelation

Scene 2— an unexpected fight

Scene 3— introduction of a new character

Scene 4— a conflict

Scene 5— another sudden revelation

Scene 6— an unexpected fight

Scene 7— introduction of a new character

Scene 8— a conflict

Meanwhile, all these elements didn't tie to each other in the story. They just performed different roles in each scene and were rendered useless in the next and every other scene that followed.

☞ Why did this happen?

Among other reasons, being extremely rigid with writing advice is a main factor.

Writing advice is great, but don't bend your style to suit the rules; bend the rules to suit your style.

Here's a clearer example of what I'm talking about.

Writing advice often says to keep readers on the edge of their seats within the first five pages, but this doesn't mean introducing unrealistic problems that don't fit your story. For example, introducing a sudden and improbable conflict just to add excitement can disrupt the flow and believability of your plot

During our session, I already understood how to assist, and we were setting our comfortable hours when the writer suddenly said, "I was told to include conflict in the middle of the book, then I ran out of ideas when I got there. I could have added one just a few pages in because I believe it would do well there, but again, I was unsure if that would make sense."

Now, who said conflict can't start a book? When you start your book with a conflict, you just have to ensure that you build towards 'the reason' behind the conflict so your readers can understand.

☞ Should I follow every writing advice with a closed mind?

No, you shouldn't. Remember that you are writing that book because you want to, and your idea was great enough to convince you to actually write. You need to enjoy the process and create what you truly want to create. Follow instructions flexibly.

Now that the myth is out of the way, let's talk about things that make a plot.

➜ Basic plot elements.

Initially, your plot should have the following:

✧ Protagonist ✧

Who are readers following in the story? Make that clear in the first few chapters. If you're writing from a first-person point of view and plan on switching between characters, aim for a maximum of two characters. It becomes clear that those two characters are an important part of the story; hence, they get the privilege to narrate the story from their respective views.

✧ Goals and objectives ✧

What is your protagonist after? Here's one thing you should know: your character doesn't have to know what they want at the beginning of the story. They may be as confused about their life as anyone reading, but as the story unfolds, they find a goal worth reaching and discover the needed strength to reach the goal.

✧ Antagonist ✧

What/Who is standing as a threat? A threat is hell-bent on ruining your protagonist and stopping them from achieving their goals. An antagonist could be an object or a human. It all depends on the concept you aim for. Funny enough, the antagonist could be a lie that starts out seemingly small but ends up being harmful. The rom-com movie "Upgraded" is an example of this concept. The lie the art enthusiast told was the greatest trouble she faced.

✧ Conflict ✧

What are the problems the protagonist faces? Problems can start from anywhere over anything, and you can choose to make them mild and solvable at first while building up to something larger.

✧ Resulting consequences ✧

What happens after the protagonist faces the trouble and tries to solve it? Did they lose anything? Hurt someone? Earn support from people they least expect?

✧ Character arc ✧

How has the journey shaped your protagonist? After going through something they probably never saw coming, how has it changed them? For a timid main character at the beginning of the story, do they finally become brave and display a different side of themselves?

All these are important for a well-rounded story as a whole.

Join the Writers' Universe and connect with like-minded writers.

➜ Secondary plot elements

These elements help you shape the above category.

● Setbacks

Let's use movies to illustrate this. There are certain points where we lose hope for the main character, almost convinced they've lost. We see them at their weakest points, hurt that the antagonist got them good. These moments are the setbacks. The protagonist is made vulnerable.

● Loss

What did the setback cost them? The reason I intentionally labeled this as loss is because to move a plot forward, some things need repairing. Since most loose ends were already from the beginning of the story, adding a fresh loss piques the reader's interest. It doesn't have to be the death of someone. It could be the brutal end of an alliance formed on an emotional scale.

● Break of a new dawn

I just wanted to get creative with the title. This point marks the pivotal change of events, and once again, there's hope for the protagonist as they find solutions to their problems. In this stage, they discover hidden abilities within themselves (this isn't limited to fantasy).

And there you have the important sections of plot progression. But keep these few things in mind. To ensure you're not leaving a huge gap in your plot, try to:

┗→ Introduce elements that work for your story:

It's common to believe something works well simply because it did in your favorite book. You might want to reconsider that with a different mindset.

┗→ Tie elements together:

Of course, this doesn't apply to all, but try to create a link between events in your story. If a fight occurred in a scene, link it to a cause in a few scenes ahead. This can lead to another conflict, this time on a larger scale, without having to introduce something entirely different.

And back to the question that birthed this post:

ᴥ Should conflict come early or not?

It depends on your work, but it can come early. That's not taboo.

There was a movie I watched featuring a female lawyer as the protagonist. The movie started with the kidnap of her only child, and the rest of the scenes drove us to the 'cause,’ then more conflicts, setbacks, and finally resolution. We were also able to explore the character’s personality based on the decisions she took in different emotional scenes.

She tried to keep her calm in some scenes while she just flat-out threw a tantrum in others, but overall, she was a strong woman who was broken by the incidents occurring and then rebuilt. I read a book with the same premise: the main character was a tween who misplaced something precious and decided to go on an adventure to search for it, and that was what the story was built upon.

I always tell writers one thing—own your book. The first draft seems to be the toughest one of its pair, but if you don't allow yourself to freely express your thoughts, there will be no first draft or story at all.

✧✧✧✧

Struggling with any stages of writing? Send me a message, and let's sort it out for a suitable fee.

✧✧✧✧

Do you want to create characters readers are compelled to start a fandom for?

Check out "My Characters and I" extensive coaching session. Understand the secret behind every attractive character. The slots are limited, and this opportunity closes once capacity is reached. Don't miss it; you never know when you’ll stumble upon these golden gates again.