#Like. It really undermines the seriousness of what you're talking about if you're still calling yourself Mancow.

[wedding-shemp]

If I were going to pivot my gimmick account exclusively into talking about a very serious subject that affects real people, I would change my Silly Jokey pfp

[coraniaid]

Speaking of Faith, Hope & Trick: that first conversation between Buffy and Faith must be so different from Faith's point of view.

I mean, the episode itself is very much told from Buffy's perspective. She's only recently reclaimed her identity as "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" and she just started to reconnect with her friends as of the end of last episode. Of course she feels challenged by Faith's arrival; of course she feels like Faith's deliberately trying to upstage her. Of course she feels Faith is trying to intrude on her life. She reacted much the same way when she met Kendra, and that was when she was a lot less keen on being "the Vampire Slayer" and much more comfortable with her place in Sunnydale. As she tells her mother later, she's "just getting her life back […] not looking to go halfsies on it".

But think about it from Faith's side. Even while she's lying about where her Watcher is, she admits that she came all the way from Boston looking to meet "the infamous" Buffy Summers. She presumably set up the earlier encounter with the vampire deliberately to try to lure Buffy out (she's the one to lead him outside and she only starts fighting him seriously once Buffy and the Scooby Gang have arrived looking for her). She must have picked out her never-to-be-seen-again outfit and practiced her slightly too casual introduction of "I've got it. You're, uh, Buffy, right?" (as if she came all the way to California to meet some girl whose name she didn't quite remember) well in advance. She's already calling her 'B' while the vamp's dust is still cooling. You think she hadn't planned that too?

And Faith is trying to so hard to connect with Buffy in this scene. Yes, she tells a lot of "tall tales" (as Scott Hope will later put it) -- she wants to seem impressive! she wants Buffy to view her as an equal! -- but she's also the only person in the group who keeps trying to get Buffy to share things. It's not her fault that the rest of the gang talk over Buffy's attempts to talk about her own past battles or that they undermine her attempts to tell equally impressive stories. It's not even really her fault that she ends up sharing things about being a Slayer that Buffy as obviously been trying to keep secret from her friends (I mean, it's her fault a little, sure, but I don't think it would even occur to Faith to be embarrassed by anything she says).

"Did you really use a rocket launcher one time?" Faith asks, having already heard the story from somewhere and so done her best to convince Buffy that she too has done equally cool things (she hasn't). "What was your toughest kill?" she asks, having fled most of the way across a continent to escape a vampire she couldn't kill herself. "Isn't it crazy how Slaying always makes you hungry and horny?" she asks and "You and I are gonna have fun," she promises. What can that mean but: don't you feel the same way I do? Aren't you just the same as me? Aren't you glad I'm here?

Yes, Faith is jealous of Buffy's friends and her Watcher and her Mom, right from the start, but she didn't arrive in town looking to meet them. She came looking for Buffy; and look at how quick she is to accept Scott's description of her as "Buffy's friend" the next day. But Buffy (very understandably, from her point of view, because of experiences Faith has no knowledge of) just keeps trying to shut her out. The harder Faith tries to impress her -- by trying to win over Buffy's friends, and her Watcher, and her possible boyfriend, and her Mom -- the more aloof the other Slayer seems to get.

No wonder Faith gets annoyed by the rejection. No wonder she starts to get angry. No wonder she's ready to start exchanging threats once they're alone on patrols and the vampires aren't even showing up the way they're supposed to. Like she'll complain later in the season: she came to Sunnydale, she slayed, she did the good little girl routine, and what did she get? Not Buffy, that's for sure.

[rose-in-a-fisted-glove]

Hi it’s the SU anon here I’m very sorry for how much I upset you, and I seriously wanted to piece tgt what I’m missing from the Jewish viewpoint so I appreciate u still being open to talking to me despite the ignorance. Also disclaimer I’m born and raised in Malaysia so I’ve not met an actual Jew in person until very recently in uni, so all I know is from the messy pile on the internet and I do genuinely learn from ur posts when I see them.

From what I see on ur blog u do show quite a lot of sympathy to the all the cruelty happening in Gaza, but don’t tolerate this being used as an excuse to target Israel/Jewish ppl. I do understand that the whole concept of pushing for an Israel/jewish ethnostate is very much entwined with the history of Jewish culture and the antisemitism endured through different times, so I think this is the part where I made the most ignorant statement on? After rereading what I wrote it might also have sounded like all Jews hold extremely reactionary views towards the word “ceasefire”? Pls do point out more of what upset u, I take full responsibility for what I said and pls stop this convo at any point if I end up offending u more.

Recognizing that you don't know something is the first step towards fixing it. It's good that you thought on your previous ask and tried to research it! But you're missing an awful lot so let's start from the top.

(As a reminder and so others can seee, here's the original ask)

"Hi, this a question abt ur opinion on what’s happening in Gaza just bc you’re one of my favourite blogs that goes deep into Jewish culture/issues. If at any point this question becomes annoying pls ignore.

Anyways so in my college SU meeting recently someone sent in a motion to make an official statement to condemn the war and call for immediate and permanent ceasefire + provide more support to the Jewish and Muslim/Arab students affected by increased hate in the community as well. This sparked a debate among those in attendance and of course there’s a few very pro-Israel voices that insists that a ceasefire will cause Israel to lose all ability to defend itself as well as many pro-Palestine arguments. The motion ended up discarded bc of procedural reasons but as someone who has mostly held a free Palestine view so far and has been hoping for a more inclusive Israel in the future, I don’t understand why stopping a war hurting both sides is taken as an Israel must disappear take by many. I always just accepted it as it’s probably got a lot more antisemitic undertone when it’s a Jew that hears it, but I really wanna hear ur take as well bc the debate I witnessed brought up very disturbing points that I can’t stop thinking about. Hope this didn’t end up sounding disrespectful and thanks for always sharing important Jewish viewpoints without undermining other social issues!"

First problem comes right with the opening sentence; "Hi, this a question abt ur opinion on what’s happening in Gaza just bc you’re one of my favourite blogs that goes deep into Jewish culture/issues."

Going to random Jews who do not post about the conflict and asking for their "stance" on it is part of a series of antisemitic loyalty tests and is extremely rude on top of it. Furthermore, speaking on Jewish cultures and issues and antisemitism is not the same as being experienced or knowledgeable on international conflicts.

And then your next paragraphs are of course riddled with anti-Israeli biases and examples that you've been listening to/reading propaganda uncritically, such as "wanting a more inclusive Israel" and in your more recent ask saying things like "I do understand that the whole concept of pushing for an Israel/jewish ethnostate is very much entwined with the history of Jewish culture and the antisemitism endured through different times". So you clearly have a basic lack of knowledge about both Israel and the conflict in general along with Zionism itself.

But, again, that's not an area I talk about much. If any of the folks who do talk about it, see this and want to go into it, please do! Just to repeat here, you shouldn't have been asking me in the first place.

Then, this part here, showed me that you have a history of dismissing antisemitism as Jews being overly sensitive "I always just accepted it as it’s probably got a lot more antisemitic undertone when it’s a Jew that hears it." And then that was compounded by your closing insult, "thanks for always sharing important Jewish viewpoints without undermining other social issues!"

And that closing insult told me that I had woefully failed in sharing any information about antisemitism at all. "Sharing important Jewish viewpoints without undermining other social issues". Jewish "viewpoints" and antisemitism are just as important as any other sort of bias. Pointing out antisemitism and sharing stories about antisemitism does not, and can not, undermine other social issues. It is not lesser. Honestly, I'm still kind of livid over that shot.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Let's talk about tone.

Episode one has two distinct tones, which I'll call the opening tone and the true tone. (I'm calling the second the true tone because I really hope that's the case.) The opening tone is a bit comedic, and sometimes it seems strangely so; the true tone, which really begins after Loki reaches his breaking point with Mobius (starting when he's shown his mother's death--when he spits out "Liar," we've hit the true tone) is much more grounded and somber. The comedic beats come much more rarely, and the expression of emotion is much more genuine.

Not gonna lie, the opening tone was all over the trailers, and I picked up something odd about it then. I wasn't off-base: in both the trailers and the first part of the episode, Loki felt a bit out of character to me, which seemed particularly disconcerting since Tom had a large degree of creative control with this series--it felt like he was almost intentionally overacting, in some cases, with more exaggerated emotions and facial expressions than we're accustomed to with Loki. (Honestly, I think this is because Loki just fundamentally does not work as a comedic character. He is, in his genuine form, actually quite reserved with how he expresses himself, because being obvious with what you're thinking shows your hand. He can be dramatic, but he isn't obvious about what he's really feeling. This is my issue with Ragnarok as well--but Ragnarok didn't even try to respect his character, so it is much worse of an offender in my book.)

In any case, I was, and to a degree still remain, concerned that the opening tone is going to be a more pervasive one than would really work for this character and series. I didn't really feel comfortable watching the first half of the episode, since it felt like Loki wasn't quite "right"--the scrambling for his ticket, for example, seemed too forced, and some of the dialogue just didn't feel genuine--and even the later jokes sprinkled in within the true tone don't really land with me. I understand why the show can't go full-on angst and dark and sad etc. etc., especially in the pilot, but I do want the tone to be consistent from here on out.

Now, at least for this first episode, I can see a justification for the mixed tones. Initially, Loki is putting on an illusion of confidence, which is directly tied to the tone of the show. The opening is somewhat comedic--even seeming somewhat strangely so--because Loki is posturing, pretending that nothing that's happening is a big deal or out of his control. He's not openly taking things seriously, so neither is the show. But when he can't maintain that "illusion of control" (👀) anymore, the show gradually starts to become more somber.

But on the other hand, I was very frustrated to see Loki seem to begin to take things seriously (with the delivery of the "Now get out of my way," line being so intense) and then get smacked in the face in order to get some laughs from the tonal bait-and-switch. This is always a rough joke for me, as it feels humiliating to the character, and they do it again in the TVA court (although not to the same extent). And, honestly, after his treatment in Ragnarok, I am a bit sensitive towards his character not being taken seriously. I get it if he isn't actually as powerful as he thinks he is and needs to be taken down a notch, but there are ways to do it that don't undermine him as a character. For example, in the Avengers, he is very distinctly framed as a formidable foe, even if he is a vulnerable one (see the tears-in-his-eyes scene, the talking to Tony scene...basically any scene...). His faux confidence is attacked several times, but usually not in a way that makes the audience laugh, and we do get to see him actually hold his own in a fight. He's established to be competent enough that he's not just a joke.

Now it seems like, if the true tone continues--which, now that Loki is being genuinely open, and even admitting his weakness and how he hides it, would be appropriate--this shouldn't be too much of a problem. We do have some snippets from the trailers of what look like some truly epic moments (several fights, and oh my gosh the "Come and get me!!" scene! I am now starting to think he does in fact escape the TVA and that they are the real antagonists but that's another theory lol), so it isn't unreasonable to think that they'll be giving him some time to show his competency. They've already begun doing something similar by addressing common misconceptions about him, through having him admit that he doesn't enjoy hurting people, and honestly by just laying him bare for the audience to see. Although I worried his crying scene was going to end by being played for laughs, we actually got to see a genuine expression of Loki's grief over his family, his terror at seeing Thanos, and his disappointment and bitterness towards himself. It was respectfully done, and gave me much of what I've been looking for for a long time.

And like I said before, the tonal shift may well have been intended to serve as a contrast between who Loki pretends to be (and who viewers think he is) in the first half, and who he actually is (and how we will see him in this show) in the second half. I'm thinking particularly of the repetition of his mother's line, "Always so perceptive about everyone but yourself" before the full tonal shift, and Mobius' comment, "You do know yourself!"; clearly, we're supposed to see that this is now a more open, more genuine Loki, so maybe that means his further portrayal will also feel more genuine, as it does in the second half of the episode.

But I am still only tentatively optimistic. This is a character that's hard to do well, and while I understand that you need to loop in new fans and keep the character fresh, you absolutely must not sacrifice the integrity of the established character for a few cheap laughs (á la Ragnarok). That's the fastest way to lose audience engagement.

The other fastest way to do that is through inconsistent tone, which is why it's critical that after this episode, the show picks one and sticks to it. FATWS and WandaVision both had pilots that were rather different from the actual show, and did a solid job of harmonizing things tonally as they went (especially impressive for WandaVision given the amount of shifting it had to do); in order for the show to be successful, Loki needs to do that too. That doesn't mean no jokes, of course--humor is important, and the other two shows were quite funny at points. But if the jokes, or the comedic framing of the characters, continue to cause inconsistent tone, the only laughable thing will be the show (although mostly, it'd probably make me cringe). This show is something that the vast majority of the viewers are going to take seriously, so despite the history of Loki being involved in too-serious projects, a bit of gravity is appropriate.

I'm looking forward to seeing where they go with it next, and I am heartened by the fact that the opening-tone-filled trailers were largely made up of clips from the first episode. (Actually, there were so many from the first episode that I felt like I knew half of the scenes already!) But what can I say? I guess I'm "not big on trust"--they'll have to do a little more before I can fully believe they'll handle a delicate character like Loki with the careful nuance he needs.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see!

[pynkhues]

Since you're a writer, I'm hoping you can shed some light on this. IMO the writers were chasing viewers in S2 and trying not to get canceled. Personally, I hate when writers toy with their audience, it means they don't have a clear picture of their characters and narrative. How do you feel about writers making it up as they go?

Ah, this post got really long, anon! Since you asked me as a writer, I’m answering as one (I hope you don’t mind! I also hope this doesnt come out as too Creative Writing 101 for people either. This is just lessons I’ve learned and use in my own practice, so I’m applying them here.) 

(Also I have drawn horrible diagrams on my very pink notebook paper - I am so sorry, haha)

So first thing’s first - no. I don’t think the writers were chasing viewers (at least not beyond the way any writer is wanting an audience), and I don’t think they were making it up as they go really, but I can understand why you would think that way! 

It won’t be a surprise to anyone that I love this show a lot, but coming from it as both a writer and editor - this show does have narrative problems, and the biggest ones, particularly in s2, are in execution, escalation and pacing. 

I think heading into the season they had certain character arcs they wanted to follow which married well with the story they wanted to tell. In particular, I actually think the writers have a very strong handle on the girls (I will say that I’ve had a few asks telling me Beth’s characterisation is all over the place, which I’m curious about, just because I personally find her very consistent, and when I’ve asked for clarification, I’ve never gotten any reply, so  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

I mean, look at their s2 arcs on paper, right? 

Ruby tries to negotiate Stan’s lowered opinion of her after the reveal of what she’s done, then has to negotiate him telling her to turn Beth and Annie in. She manages the situation painfully but pulls them through and they’re close again as Ruby navigates the increasingly lower depths of their crime life. When Stan acts to save Beth for Ruby and is arrested, it only escalates – the case on him driving Ruby to extremes to try and save him, including robbing a Quick Cash and using counterfeit money to bribe a lawyer. On top of that, she’s being targeted by an FBI agent who’s after her best friend who she gives up and then saves and then who tries to sacrifice herself for them. Ruby finishes the season the most morally compromised she’s ever been.

Annie gets back together with her ex only to find out that he’s gotten his not-quite-separated-wife pregnant. She splits up with him, but is heartbroken and it’s only amplified by the fact that they’ve been given a job by their Crime Boss to murder a man who tried to rape her but who’s grandmother she has a relationship with. Her sister can’t kill him, and Annie doesn’t get the chance as MP beats her to it. Upon disposing of the body though she endures a whole lot of pain as a result of both her ex’s new family and knowing she’s robbed a woman of her own. Annie goes on a guilt tour – tells her son, helps Marion, helps Nancy only to eventually find an absolver of her guilt in Noah, who builds her up and tells her she’s more than what life has given her. She lets herself have it for a while, before realising he’s FBI and there to trap her, and Annie tries to use him only to realise she can’t, and she finishes the season in a lot more hurt than she started it.

Beth struggles with guilt after getting Dean shot, gets the job to kill Boomer from Rio, can’t do it, gets support and encouragement from him (in various states of animosity), but in the end doesn’t have to find out if she can do it because MP does it instead. She’s rewarded by Rio in a way she probably never has been by anyone, her husband further subjugates her, so she has sex with Rio, starts to entertain a future with him, but he undermines her, so she seizes control from him. They work together. Dean forces her to break up with him due to jealousy, she struggles, goes back, but Rio’s stung, so unhelpful, and they play a little cat and mouse before he bails then kidnaps her and she shoots him.

With the exception of that very last sentence, I think all of those are narratively really strong pathways to have explored. Like I said above though, the issue is in execution, escalation and pacing.

But to talk about those things, I think I probably need to talk about story. 

SO!

Stories have a shape.

Kurt Vonnegut talks extensively about this, and while he’ll talk about a few different types of story shapes, they really all boil down to this bad boy here:

Look at this guy.

What a beautiful thing.

He’s a story.

It doesn’t matter if you’re reading Dr Seuss or Charles Dickens, when you read a story – when you strip away its words and its characters and its settings – this is what it looks like.

Or, well.

Not quite.

Really, it’s this guy:

But we’ll talk about him in a sec.

Right now, let’s talk about that first little inch: 

The Beginning

The fact that stories have a beginning is not a surprise to anyone. Stories need them. In some ways, they’re the most important part of your story. After all, the job of the beginning is to set up the world your protagonist is about to leave behind. That is essential in grounding a reader / viewer – orienting them to the world that they’re in, and getting them invested in the story you’re about to tell, if not the protagonist.

Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Game of Thrones are all excellent example of this (and frequently used in teaching) because in each of these cases it’s literal. Frodo leaves Bag End, Harry leave Privet Drive, Luke leaves Tatooine, the Starks leave Winterfell. There is a literal departure from the world before the crux of the story, and that departure is what signifies the start of the ‘hero journey’ aka the main part of your narrative.

Of course, it’s not always literal – in fact, it’s usually not. Usually that world is symbolic – it’s the single, uncertain world before the Bingley’s buy the house next door in Pride and Prejudice or the dry domestic sphere of Breaking Bad before Walt decides to make meth. It’s a marked shift, whether that’s internal or external.

In Good Girls, it’s internal.

The beginning is actually pretty perfect. The world it sets up that we’re about to (try to) depart is one of struggle and invisibility.

Beth’s in a loveless marriage promptly discovering that her husband is not only cheating but about to leave them destitute, Ruby’s getting ignored by the healthcare system and can’t afford to pay for her daughter’s wellbeing, and Annie is in a dead end job about to lose custody of her child.

Writing-wise – as a beginning, I honestly think 1.01 is close to perfect.

It sets up who these characters are, their personal conflicts, and the story world they share together, and the worlds they have on their own i.e. Ruby at the hospital and the diner, Annie at Fine and Frugal, Beth with Dean and Boland Motors.

Then:

BOOM

Inciting Incident.

The inciting incident is also often called The Point of No Return.

When I’m teaching, I personally like to call it the “You’re a wizard!” moment.

It’s when something happens that means everything set up in the beginning will be changed forever. It’s Romeo meeting Juliet, it’s Katniss volunteering for Prim, it’s Frodo deciding to take the ring to Mordor, it’s Jaimie pushing a child out a window, it’s Beth – deciding to take her little sister’s joke seriously and rob a grocery store.

(Again, I like to use Harry Potter because it’s literal – there is no return for Harry after hearing Hagrid tell him he’s a wizard. Everything is changed forever).

Inciting incidents are probably the most singularly important narrative moment, because they’re what everything else tumbles out of. Pretty much everything that happens in the story should be a direct or indirect result of the inciting incident. The inciting incident is ultimately the key of the story and what should unlock the overall arc.

When it comes to a series – whether that be a TV series, movie series or book series, each individual instalment (see: season of a show) should have its own inciting incident which – preferably – builds off the one established in the first instalment.

The Hunger Games does this really well. Katniss and Peeta being brought back into the games in Catching Fire is both an imitation inciting incident which allows the author to explore the story world further in an exciting way, and also an inciting incident that’s directly borne out of the first book / film – aka Katniss pissed enough people off during the first games that they’re going to try and kill her for real this time, which in turn gives us the opportunity to explore Katniss’ trauma, the ramifications of her actions in the first book on the broader story world, and to generate a new, compelling chapter based off of both.

Good Girls has a terrific inciting incident in s1 – which is Beth realising she’s about to lose everything.

That is our narrative point of no return.

And it works on a lot of levels – it establishes Beth as the driving engine of the story, fuelled by the chorus motivations of Annie and Ruby, rounding off both their collective and individual stakes, it sets us up for a strong narrative spine and solid characterisations.

Good Girls actually also has a terrific inciting incident in s2, which operates strongly on its own while also building firmly off the character arcs of s1.

The s2 inciting incident is Rio showing up on that park bench with Marcus, a gun and an order.

The story pivots here – giving Rio a lot of narrative thrust (get your minds out of the gutter kids), and making him a sort of secondary story engine. The core engine is still Beth, but her life is different now. She’s been traumatised and she’s exhausted, but Rio revealing his son to the girls (and tying their motivations up together in a neat little package) while forcing her to act, re-establishes her as the person who’s decisions are going to be the driving force of the narrative.

Ruby and Annie are, of course, story engines in their own right too, but they fall into line behind Beth usually, and their narrative push is actually usually away from the story throughline, but we’ll talk about that in a sec.

Rising Tension / The Middle

Okay, this is where things get a little tricky.

Do you remember this guy?

When we talk about stories, rising tension / the middle is the big guy. It’s the bulk of your narrative. It’s Where Things Happen. It’s where all the ugly stuff set up in your beginning and exploded by your inciting incident just - - grows a life of it’s own.

Or - -

Well.

Maybe not.

Forget about this guy.

Rising tension is this:

Rising tension is a series of ‘mini climaxes’ on the way to the main climax that raises the stakes, lets you know characters better, and pushes your characters onwards to the main climax.

Each of these little climaxes should be followed by a ‘narrative rest’. (that’s the dip after each spike)

Which - - I don’t know, might sound weird? I know when I started writing I was like ?? but it’s true! The closer you get to a big narrative climax, the more important rests are! Rests are – I personally think – one of the most important components of storytelling, because they re-ground an audience, remind them of what’s at stake, before thrusting everyone back into danger.

Again, Harry Potter is a gift in this sense because this is all really clearly paced out. Think about the first instalment – Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s / Sorcerer’s Stone.

Harry and Ron save Hermione and Ron from the troll!!!

Then they become friends and enjoy school and quidditch.

Harry loses control of his broom during a quidditch game!!!!

He’s okay and then it’s Christmas and Harry gets the invisibility cloak and feels connected to his parents for perhaps the first time in his life.

Harry, Hermione and Ron go through the trapdoor to get the philosopher’s stone!!!

And - - okay, you get the point.

Each mini climax ups the stakes, but we feel those stakes upped because of the time we spend with characters during the ‘narrative rest’. For instance, while Harry and Ron saving Hermione from the troll might have sparked an interest in her, it’s the narrative rest scenes between that and her setting Snape on fire during the quidditch game that makes us invest in her as a character. 

This is where things get a bit hairy with Good Girls. Good Girls does a tremendous job of giving us both great climaxes and wonderful moments of narrative rest. The issue, for me at least, is that it’s not always the best at balancing them. When I talk about escalation and pacing, this is a big part of what I mean.

Remember how I said this was the shape of a story?

Well, I think Good Girls s2 looked more like this:

We had a lot of solid movement in the first half of the season that sort of flattened out into a lower stakes, more meandering middle (which gave us 2.08 through 2.12). Which - -

Look.

The story changed gear, and it didn’t work.  

Think of it this way:

2.01 – mostly character-based fallout from s1 + inciting incident of Rio handing them the gun

2.02 – almost entirely rising tension culminating with the girls bribing Boomer and Beth lying to Rio

2.03 – which thrusts us straight back into rising tension with the girls trying to kill Boomer and ‘succeeding’ via Mary Pat

2.04 – which gives us a very satisfying narrative rest as we explore Rio and Beth’s relationship outside of an overall narrative thrust – he gives her a key, she shies away from him, only to fall entirely back into him culminating in sex which itself brings about a new climax (no pun intended!) in the scene with Beth, Rio and Dean at the dealership. It’s also a strong character episode in closing certain plot threads – ending Annie and Greg’s relationship + ending Ruby lying to Stan about what they’re doing – while establishing major new threads – i.e. really colliding Turner and Mary Pat.

2.05 – and after the rest, we’re back to almost entirely satisfying rising tension! Building off of the threat of finding Boomer’s body and the new tensions that Rio and Beth’s intimacy brings.

2.06 – a mix episode! Very much building to the strong climax of Beth seizing power, but also an episode that plays around with character, has a lot of strong ‘rest’ moments i.e. the girls sorting pills and talking which gives us a lot of information as to state of minds, etc.

2.07 – again, very strong mixed episode which is focused on one single, extreme climax – Jane being missing, but building a very character-centric episode around it. Also introduces Noah though? Which is a mistake. He should have been introduced - I think, in 2.05, but that feels like a whole other post.

2.08 – narratively speaking the same as 2.07 in the sense of a single climax (the girls failing to get the money back / the Beth-Ruby confrontation), but has the added bonus of flashbacks.

2.09 – we have a slight narrative thrust with the robbery of the Quick Cash but it proves very quickly to be low stakes. This is an alllll emotional stakes episode, which means narrative tension is slowing.  

2.10 – again, a character-focused, narrative rest episode devoted to Beth struggling with getting square. A few small climaxes – Annie and Ruby in Canada and Turner at the dealership being the big ones, but both quickly prove toothless. The heft / strength of the episode again is in character moments, not narrative thrust. Again - slowing it down. 

2.11 – oh, what do we have here? Another character-focused, narrative rest episode? I love this episode – it’s one of my favourites of the show, but it’s intensely character focused. Very much centred in waving away the smoke around both Noah and Rio for Annie and Beth respectively. No dramatic climaxes. Slowing the story down even further. 

2.12 – another narrative rest episode. A lot of slow exposition of Mary Pat and Jeff, which is good to know, but I’d argue placed badly in the season. This season’s already been slowing down despite the narrative timeline tightening, but this episode only further pushes on the brakes for Dean’s new job, Beth and Dean’s divorce, Beth and Rio’s break up. Two very small climaxes - the lawyer telling Ruby he knows about the money and the Boomer reveal but - in the context of the season - actually pretty low stakes. Again. Slowing down the narrative. 

2.13 – A BIG CLIMAX EPISODE WHAT IS GOING ON???

What I’m saying in this is that the pacing in the back half of the season was, to me at least, fundamentally off. They hadn’t steered a strong enough narrative spine to take us through the season, and got heavily invested in character moments and not-entirely-thought-out-fallout in the back half of the season – it didn’t understand it’s own narrative thrust well enough to get us through. It also established a certain pacing with us in the first half of the season and shifted gears halfway through.

You can’t have your first three or six episodes be high-stakes-high-action, and then make the back end of your season same-stakes-low-action and top it all off with an explosive, poorly built-up finale in the way that they did.

There wasn’t enough thrust to push us through to the scene in Rio’s loft – neither narratively or in a character sense, and as a result, those last few episodes fall apart. Even beyond that though, the season escalated quickly then - - didn’t really know what to do with those escalations? It plateaued, which is indicative of bad pacing across the season. 

I actually do think it’d be a relatively easy fix? I’d bring the Noah arc forwards and actually fiddle with the Beth and Rio break ups - get one even closer the tinale and make it more painful. Make it a climax in itself. 

But anyway, haha: 

The Resolution

All stories have a resolution too of course.

The resolution can be 30 seconds or 30 minutes – it’s a time to tie up loose ends and to reassure your audience that the journey they’ve been on is worthwhile.

(After all – you’ll notice the story diagram is not symmetrical – we never finish where we began).

I’m not going to talk too much about resolutions because at the end of the day – resolutions should fall fairly naturally out of your beginning, your inciting incident, your rising tension. It should tumble out like the double wedding at the end of Pride and Prejudice, but I will say that the s2 resolution was...err, not good. In no small part because it didn’t fall out of what we’d been told all season. They’d established a certain throughline and then taken it back, and that was nagl to be honest. 

On the plus side though - it wasn’t a finale, so I have my fingers crossed they can fix it!

But yes, back to your ask, anon. 

No, I don’t think that the writers were pandering. I think they went in with a sketched outline and that they probably got lost in the back end of the season and weren’t quite sure how to drum up the final act, which meant that final act didn’t work.

Ah, this post got so long! I hope it wasn’t boring or too self-indulgent or silly, and that you got something out of it! I am, of course, always happy to answer writing questions, and I hope you liked reading my story ramblings ;-) 

[punkscowardschampions]

Buster & Ava

Buster: What the fuck have I gotta lay the law down for? Ava: Oh, and a howdy to you too Buster: Start talking Buster: Mum is really pissing me off Ava: Welcome to the club Buster: Come on, I ain't got the time or the patience for this off you as well Ava: You ain't my lawyer and I don't want you present Ava: I know my rights Buster: For fuck's sake, someone give me a straight answer Ava: God, fine Ava: but this is NOT how I wanted to do this, let the record show Buster: It's out of your hands, yeah, noted Ava: I've got a new boyfriend and they're not happy Buster: What's that gotta do with me? Ava: I didn't tell you Ava: It's someone you know, alright Buster: Who? Ava: Knew, even, back in the day Ava: Your old friend, James Buster: I know loads of lads called James Buster: It better not be the one I first thought of Ava: Well how would I know Buster: Don't Ava: What do you want me to say? Buster: I don't want to hear another word unless it's you telling me I've got it wrong and it ain't him Ava: Then that's that Buster: What's wrong with you? Ava: Nothing Ava: I met him at Kings, I like him Buster: Bullshit, you're better than this Ava: Better than what, exactly? Buster: A fucking married dad, Ava Ava: He's getting divorced Buster: So you're someone's dirty little secret and then what, exactly, a surrogate mum? Ava: Of course not Buster: Just 'cause he's never had any drive or ambition and his soon to be ex is cracked, that don't mean you've gotta step in on either Ava: You don't know him anymore Buster: You don't know him, it's been like a month, yeah? Ava: and who do you think I am anyway, captain save a hoe? Buster: You tell me Ava: No, you think you know so well, go on Buster: Jesus Christ Buster: You're proper acting your fucking age Buster: Don't get me started on that Ava: It isn't that big of a gap Buster: Not like when Nance tried to get on her teacher no, but is that what you wanna be measured against now? Ava: She's already gone there, try again Buster: Okay, try this, it's really fucking hard raising someone else's kid Buster: I know, I'm doing it Ava: Like you said, it's been like a month Ava: I'm dating him, I'm not raising any children Buster: It doesn't matter, you like him, you'll wanna help him Buster: Then you'll get attached and you'll be stuck Ava: No I will not Ava: and he's not going to introduce people to his kids that easily either, he's not an idiot Buster: I don't care what he is, you're being stupid Buster: End it before you're in up to your neck Ava: How am I? Buster: Come on, you don't need the list Ava: Then I disagree Buster: Go ahead, I'm right Ava: Enjoy that Ava: it changes nothing in my life Buster: You think you're grown now, yeah? Ava: You think you can tell me what to do? Buster: When you're this determined to fuck up, I've clearly got to Ava: Focus on your own family Buster: You're my family Ava: Then trust me Buster: I fucking love you, stop it Ava: I love you all too Buster: You told Nance before you told me, you weren't even gonna tell me, what the hell, Ava? Ava: I was going to Ava: I changed my status and she pounced so I just told her there and then Ava: I was thinking how to put it Buster: He's got you lying already Buster: Keeping important shit from me Ava: It's not like that Ava: I am telling you Buster: I'm gonna kill him Ava: No, you aren't Ava: come on Buster: You come on Ava: He's had a hard enough time, alright Ava: and he's not done anything wrong here Buster: He's not gonna be any good for you after being with her Buster: She's fucked Ava: He is though Ava: she's left her kids, you know Buster: Listen, she ruins everything she touches Ava: He isn't ruined Buster: You can't see it Ava: You literally haven't seen him in ages Buster: I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about her Ava: You weren't trying to help him then, when it all happened Buster: You don't know what I did or didn't do then, alright? Buster: Shut up Ava: Don't tell me to shut up Buster: Fucking hell Ava: Calm down Buster: Don't Ava: If this is the extent of the conversation we're gonna have then yeah, we're both too busy for this Buster: Ava Ava: What? Buster: I'm trying to calm down, alright Ava: Alright Buster: Shit happened back then, I'm not proud of it and I try not to think about it Ava: It's the same for him, and lots of people Ava: I'm sorry if he brings that up for you Buster: Yeah, well that ain't your fault, it ain't even his Buster: I'm sorry Ava: You've reacted as expected Ava: Meaningless death threats aren't nothing compared to mum asking if I'm doing it for attention, soz to you and dad Buster: I just wanna protect you, so does she Ava: Appreciated Buster: She's so shit scared to lose you, any of us, but you know Buster: You especially Ava: Rule number one is don't chase them into the boyfriend's arms, is it not Buster: When has she ever played by any rules but her own? Come on Ava: Well I'm not a baby Buster: You're exactly the fucking same as her, is what you are Ava: Shut up Ava: If I was we'd have no problem Buster: Well, I was gonna say nicer but you've fucked that now Ava: I don't feel like being nice Buster: Fair enough, me either Ava: Oh no, however will we cope without your kind words and ways Buster: Do you love him or what? Ava: I'm the one being stupid and moving too fast, now you wanna marry me off Ava: okay Buster: Do you? Ava: Yes Buster: Alright Ava: Is it? Buster: It won't always be but it'll feel worth it anyway Ava: How is it different with Venus? Buster: Everything is harder with or without that cunt actually around to undermine me Buster: I second guess myself all the time, if I don't love her enough, if I love her too much Buster: I'd die for that kid and I have no idea what I'm even gonna mean to her Ava: Yeah Ava: it's fucked up Buster: Caleb gave everything to Edie and it didn't save her Ava: No Ava: How could they let it happen again Buster: I love Rio more than anything and I still couldn't stop it Ava: It's really messed up Buster: Yeah Ava: Do you think you should give her to her dad Ava: full time Buster: He doesn't want her full time, he barely wants her part time Ava: I just think Ava: that maybe that's because Rio wouldn't give her up Ava: he was going to have her, obviously, that was the plan, when Junior was still around Buster: Plans change and he only wants it his way Ava: okay Ava: do you talk to Caleb? Ava: you should Buster: Yeah 'cause that wouldn't be weird Ava: Act your age Buster: That means not being a selfish cunt, no good is gonna come of me raking over his grief for my own benefit Buster: Oh and while I'm at it, let me slag your daughter off for not listening to me, cheers Ava: He probably would like to talk about it Ava: doubt anyone ever asks him Buster: You talk to him then Buster: Be the best step mum you can be, like Ava: 🙄 Buster: Like you said, everything's fucked Ava: Don't include me in that Buster: You ain't exempt, kid Buster: You wish Ava: Alright, then I'm not and get over it Buster: Act your age Ava: Rich Buster: Yeah, I am Ava: Not yet, boy Buster: Take your jinxes elsewhere Ava: Will do Buster: Good Ava: Can report back now, Judas Buster: Fuck that, I don't do what I'm told either Ava: 😏 Ava: Bullshit, you don't want to admit you failed horribly Buster: Fuck you, that's never happened Ava: Sure, you convinced me Ava: definitely not going to do exactly what I want and planned to Buster: 'Course and 'course not, respectively Ava: But seriously, you can't actually lie to them about this because I won't be Buster: Hilarious, I ain't that cunt and I ain't looking to turn into him today Ava: Well I hope they go back to annoying about whatever they usually do and not me then Ava: you* Buster: Unlikely Ava: Serious question Ava: do you think I should let him talk to them Ava: he offered but is that the worst idea or actually might help Buster: Why not? Buster: He loves you too, yeah? Ava: Yeah Ava: but if dad tries to hit him or something as shaming I swear to God Buster: Mum wouldn't let that happen Buster: She'd kick him out well before he could kick off, she knows every tiny trigger even before he does Ava: Hmm, maybe Ava: you have more faith in her as an impartial ref Ava: but she's not been shouting at you for however long so Buster: 'Cause she don't shout at me, she goes quiet Buster: James can still form a coherent sentence when prompted, can't he? Ava: Well that's unfair Ava: I'll ask her to change her method back Ava: and fuck off Buster: It's a fair question, he was partying really hard last I heard Ava: He went to rehab actually Buster: Leave that out of the introductions and calm down then Ava: Don't tell me to calm down Ava: tah very much Ava: like they just want to meet him Buster: I'm just saying, he offered Buster: If you don't have to do this on your own, why the fuck would you wanna? Ava: You don't get it 'cos your relationship is different Ava: you wouldn't subject someone to this family if you didn't have to Ava: in fact, definitely waiting 'til they've calmed down, I can just imagine the ridiculous things they'd say and nope Buster: Take the support, Ava, Christ's sake Buster: He was married to her, he's handled crazier Ava: Yeah 'cos that's how I want to be Ava: how I wanna treat him Ava: I'm more than capable, thanks Buster: Yeah, really capable of letting someone help you, as evidenced right there, like Ava: I don't need it Buster: Whatever Buster: Maybe he needs to give it Ava: He's mid-divorce, I think he's busy enough Buster: If he loves you, he ain't too busy for you Ava: 🙄 Okay Ava: you can go now Buster: You can think again on trying to tell me what to do Ava: Okay, I'm gonna go then Ava: thank you for your advice etc Buster: Don't ask me what I reckon and then dismiss it Ava: I've taken it on-board Ava: I didn't say I'd do what you said Buster: It'll help show them that you're both serious Buster: They reckon nobody under the age of about 35 has been since they were Ava: Exactly Ava: that's what they don't wanna hear Ava: ever since you shit the bed Ava: they can think it's not serious if they like, fine by me Buster: The sooner they hear whatever the truth is, the sooner they can deal, 'cause they'll have to Ava: I'm not even gonna be here this time next year Ava: they need to deal with that first Buster: You're not a baby, it's all part of the same issue Ava: You need to move here or they need to be there so they can be all over your kids Buster: I've already got a place there and they've got one here Ava: I'm talking permanently, like Ava: or they'll have their own baby or something Buster: No they won't Ava: If Ro can Ava: wonders never cease Buster: Yeah and that was such a good idea Ava: She wouldn't know one if it called itself 0 cals Buster: Like you said, in a year you'll be at uni wherever the fuck you want Ava: I'll suggest knitting and golf then Buster: If you've got a death wish Ava: Can't dampen the mood any harder Buster: Come on Buster: I'll have another kid or something, take the heat off Ava: Tah Ava: no chance Nance will so you have to really Buster: Don't Ava: What? Buster: Imagining her as a mother is such a headfuck Ava: She won't Ava: she's heartbroken rn, apparently Buster: Standard then, yeah? Ava: obviously Ava: standard she managed to get that in to this convo, like Buster: If anyone can Ava: you know Ava: as well as a meaningless offer of a trip out there Buster: And you still told her before me Buster: Fuck you Ava: Got to be faster on the socials Ava: I technically told Grace ages ago if you want to be really upset Buster: What? Ava: Not literally the whole debacle, I'm not mental Ava: just to talk about it, when you last came over Buster: What do you reckon all your friends are gonna say? Ava: I dunno Ava: a mixed bag, no doubt Buster: I can like actually try and talk to mum and dad if you want Ava: If you wanna smash your head against that particular brickwall Ava: you're welcome to try Ava: I don't mind Buster: 'Course that wouldn't actually hurt me so Ava: Thick skull Ava: sure Buster: Yeah Buster: And loads of practice at exactly that pursuit Ava: Cheers then Ava: enjoy the brain damage Buster: Will do

[aegor-bamfsteel]

Yo man, I hear that the Blackfyres and their supporters were Conservative, sexist, brutish usurpers who couldn't stand to see a feminist king on the throne but here you are, an honest to God bra burning, women's lit thumping feminist unironically supporting the Black Dragon. In this entire fandom you're the only person I've found openly supporting them. If you don't mind me asking, why do you like them so much?

Hey dude, you’re asking me to talk about sexism, fandom hypocrisy, and my Blackfyre love in an inflammatory way that could result in getting me in trouble with the fandom? I probably shouldn’t be answering this, but ok. This has been sitting in my inbox for a week, and let no one say that I leave any ask unanswered. Wankery found under the cut:

Eyy dude, what if I told you that the perception of Blackfyres as sexist, brutish usurpers in fandom is largely due to some prominent people’s intellectual elitism and projection of neoliberal political views? Aspects of GRRM’s writing like the unreliable narrator, villains-are-heroes-from-another-side, and history is written by the “victors” are given no credibility in favor of condemning the Blackfyre supporters as racist, sexist, and ableist (?) in fandom. I’m extremely annoyed that no one seems to be asking the sort of questions or making the sort of connections that I have due to this blanket ban on Blackfyre sympathy. I’ve answered your broader question on why I supported the Blackfyres in an earlier ask (they were more honorable, less absolutist and cruel than the Targaryens, even demonstrated some meritocracy, and most died horrifically) so I will try to answer based on the sexism angle: How come I like the Blackfyres so much and support woman’s liberation at the same time?

First of all, you come into my askbox and tell me that Daeron II was a feminist king? Nah bro. A real male feminist ally in a position of power would’ve passed laws to ensure his father’s predatory behavior would be banned. He would’ve been trying to apologize for the way he and his father treated the Bracken sisters and actively sought to make amends instead of making the situation worse. He could’ve given widows a pension or granted certain protections to mothers with illegitimate children. He could’ve opened up exit shelters for prostituted women wanting to learn a trade, as Empress Theodora did back in sixth century AD Byzantium. Why does fandom think he is so Feminist™ when he did so little for women? Are they referring to him having Princess Elaena as an unofficial advisor while her husband Ronnel Penrose was Master of Coin, a man who could barely string two numbers together? (Which really undermines the claim that Daeron was a reformer who chose wise men as councilors, since he selected an incompetent based on his own family status) Might I remind everyone that Daeron arranged Elaena’s second marriage in the first place, a woman 3 years his elder who had been locked in prison for 11 years by her brother, bore illegitimate twins by her cousin, forced to wed an old man by her uncle/Aegon, and may have been forced into sleeping with the horrific Aegon IV? You’d think after enduring so much at the hands of her male relatives, the Kind™ Daeron would’ve backed off, but she has to pay for his son Aerys’ failed marriage by sacrificing her hard-won independence. How feminist. But I guess it’s OK, because after Ronnel died Daeron generously gave his blessing when she wed someone she truly loved! I can’t imagine she felt much affection for this entitled shit. But maybe the Great Fandom Minds™ are referring to how Daeron treated his wife Myriah, who is a blank slate in terms of personality and political actions? I can’t even think of any other names of women Daeron might’ve canonically “empowered”, so how exactly is he a feminist? And why does thinking he was a self-serving politician who treated all of his family members except his sons like expendable trash make me sexist? Do tell, Fandom Minds who know so much more than I.

By contrast, how does liking Daemon Blackfyre and thinking he’d be a better king than Daeron make one sexist? Eustace Osgrey said that he hung out with warriors rather than septons and women, but GRRM himself said that Daemon did have female followers (some we know even participated in the Second Blackfyre Rebellion, like Ladies Vyrwell and Smallwood. Not to mention the cause owes its continued strength after Redgrass to Queen Rohanne) who were “drawn to him.” There’s the rumors that Daemon thought that he could marry Princess Daenerys and Rohanne of Tyrosh, but even the biased Maester Yandel said that claim only developed long after the wedding from a few Blackfyre supporters, which is a few steps removed from the original source. I believe that version of the story was an attempt by the Westerosi Blackfyre supporters to acknowledge Rohanne of Tyrosh’s invaluable contributions to the cause of the exiles while still maintaining the romanticism of a Daemon/Daenerys forbidden romance. It absolutely blows my mind that Daemon gets more flak for what he might have said at fourteen than Daeron does for helping a teenaged girl and her two-week-old son get banished for something her father said. Because Daeron is called “the Good” and thus incapable of doing wrong, obviously.

But outrageously, the fandom has to headcanon abusive behavior on Daemon to make him look like a villain. Seriously, I’ve heard people claim he was an abusive father to Daemon II, cheated on or never loved Rohanne, would have killed his nephews, and tried to rape Princess Daenerys based on no canonical evidence (in fact, the evidence goes against the honorable father of at least nine presented in canon). Even a Daemon-hater like Yandel had to concede that Daemon’s love was for the mother of his children to whom he was married for 12 years. Daemon died protecting his son Aegon from the Raven’s Teeth arrows; he’d never hurt his children. As for the children of others, his faction during the First Blackfyre did not kill children (in fact, Quentyn Ball spared Lady Penrose’s youngest son, some say on Daemon’s orders), especially not those too young to fight. The fandom’s portrayal of Daemon as a vicious monster really serves to emphasize how little evidence they have that Daeron II was a truly good person; the man with grudges against two of his father’s underaged rape victims isn’t a hero, so they have to make his rival an even bigger villain despite it being complete nonsense in canon? Can I have at least a balanced depiction of a Daemon who loved his wife and kids, even if they do think he was an ambitious reactionary?

An especially infuriating piece of fandom hypocrisy is that to make Daemon sexist, they have to demonize or erase all of the female influence in his life. Example one is that for his first 12 years, he was raised as the son of Daena the Defiant, who GRRM said in an SSM raised him alone in the Red Keep. Some people in fandom claim she was an ambitious woman who wanted a son so she could be Aegon’s Queen over Naerys, which is a claim so insulting in its wrongness (Daena could’ve been Queen in her own right, having an illegitimate son actually hurt her chances of queenship and a stable future, she referred to Daemon as hers alone so she never wanted to acknowledge his father, she never agreed to wed a man after Baelor, etc) I’m shocked the people who make it can call themselves feminists with a straight face. Others are kinder toward the Daena-Daemon relationship, saying that Daena must’ve died before Daemon was four so she couldn’t pass on her ideals of honor and self-sacrifice for one’s children; this completely ignores what GRRM said about Daena “raising” Daemon alone, meaning he knew her well enough to remember her. Both these ideas about Daena either demonize one of the most beautiful mother-son pairs in Targaryen history (she loved that kid so much she put him ahead of her own reputation and chance at being Queen. I cry.) or they take away her influence in order to claim that Daemon had no female role models growing up. A mother like Daena, strong-willed, independent, a sportswoman, would’ve doubtless have shaped Daemon’s opinions on women, and especially on mothers of bastards. He may have grown up knowing a woman didn’t necessarily need a husband to be happy, that she could shoot and ride as well as a man, and that a princess could with smallfolk and minor nobles on her own. She was far away from a submissive woman and was Daemon’s sole parent until he was 12, and you mean to tell me her son was a raging misogynist? Nope, I don’t buy it.

Fandom also erases Daemon’s other important female figure: Rohanne of Tyrosh. Elite Tyroshi women are most similar to elite Dornishwomen out of all the ladies of Westeros; I say this because the Archon’s daughter was to serve as a cupbearer for Prince Doran without having been betrothed to Quentyn, indicating that they are valued as political actors for their families outside of marriage alliances. Tyrosh is a mercantile society where the elites don’t like to fight, which traditionally equalizes roles between the sexes. Rohanne was the reason the Blackfyre cause survived for so long; she didn’t need help from Bittersteel escaping to her own fucking country, rather the landless Blackfyre supporters needed her protection after they lost everything at Redgrass. Without her giving them a stable base of operations (and certainly using her dowry to pay for their accommodations), they wouldn’t have been cohesive enough for Aegor to create the Golden Company. I realize that Rohanne has very little canonical characterization, but neither do Princess Daenerys and Myriah Martell, and that doesn’t stop Fandom from writing fanfics and meta on these two while ignoring Rohanne. On a similar note, prominent meta writers claim that the Blackfyre cause is obviously based on the Jacobites (no, Daemon Blackfyre was based in part on James Scott the Duke of Monmouth, who was staunchly anti-Jacobite. Just because these writers don’t know about British history in depth doesn’t mean that they can make spurious claims), and use this comparison to make headcanons for how the Blackfyre court in exile operated. For some Unfathomable reason, these headcanons never include the invaluable contributions that the female Stuarts made to the cause; Queen Mary and Princess Louisa were much more popular than the charmless James II and the drunken womanizer Charles III, having great relations with the French court and funding the education of the daughters of Jacobite exiles (it was said that even Queen Anne wept when Princess Louisa died, for she had hoped to wed her son to him). For a fandom who loves to make headcanons about minor female asoiaf characters, and loves to show off its (rather one-dimensional) knowledge of history, I see no such fics and metas for the female Blackfyres. I guess Feminism™ can’t be wasted on the wives and daughters of “traitors.” Just ask Sansa Stark.

To conclude, Daeron II was not a feminist king who raised the status of women in Westeros; in fact, he used his power as prince and king to banish Barba Bracken and wed Princess Elaena off to an ally. Daemon Blackfyre was raised by a strong single mother and was successfully married to an older foreign woman, and enjoyed female support for his cause, so calling him a misogynist seems like a leap to me. I’d make the argument that it’s Fandom with the misogyny problem, as they ignore the suffering, contributions, and characterization of female characters they don’t like in order to prop up a “sexism” narrative that contradicts canon. Just because other people bleat about how sexist, racist, and ableist Blackfyre supporters like me are, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

[downwithwritersblock]

tips on writing a bi character? things like stereotypes to avoid and stuff? Also, would it be considered offensive/opressive if I had the character end up in a boyxgirl relationship even though she's bi? Also, any ideas on how to let the reader know that she's bi without being like "This is A, she is bi."? You seem like really patient and helpful so I thought I would come to you first. Thank you sm!

No problem. I always have a lot to say on LGBT+ topics, So, Let’s get started and hope this doesn’t turn into a rant. 

Also, before I continue I want to make sure it is clear that I am not straight. I am a member of the community, and everything I say here is either from first or second hand experience. All my notes here are things that I have personally experienced, or have watched close friends experience. I can not speak for the preferences of every person who is LGBT+, but I can tell you my own personal pet peeves, and the things that make me uncomfortable when it comes to writing  LGBT+, and in this case specifically, Bi characters: 

Things to avoid: 

“Its only a phase”  One of the most common stereotypes or rumors about Bisexuality is that it is only a phase.  A time of experimenting sexually for a person that is chalked up to confusion, curiosity, or overly high sex drives(aka not being easily satisfied and wanting multiple sexual encounters, regardless of who it is with).  While it is okay and normal to experiment, and to want to explore your sexuality, please do not refer to Bisexuality, or people who are Bisexual as such. If you or your character is experimenting with their sexuality, and exploring their options, please do not call it Bisexual. Please refer to it as curious or experimenting or unsure. Bisexuality gets passed off as a phase far to often because of people mixing up curiosity or bi-curious, as their confirmed sexuality or Bisexual. If your character isn't sure if they actual are Bi or not, then state that. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the sexuality, or chalking it up to being not straight. If you’re character genuinely thinks(aka they are unsure and are leaning towards Bisexuality being their confirmed answer), or knows that they are Bi, then it is okay.  Just, Please do not make Bisexuality to be nothing more than a phase of curiosity or experimentation.

“They are only saying they are Bi for attention”  This one irritates me to no end, okay. When I was in middle school, being out was super rare. Like we had one person who was openly gay, and only like two people who were openly bisexual. (No, I was not among these people. At this time, I still thought I was straight.) After those three were out to the whole school, many other people started to come out as well. However, people started saying that those who were now coming out were only there to jump on the bang wagon, and were simply seeking attention. This followed into the early years of high school. Now the difficult thing about this is that some people at my school actually were just saying it so they could say it. I know this sounds bad, but honest to gods at my school, being Bi was a legitimate trend. I know many people that I heard (not through rumor, no, straight from the horses mouth) only said they were Bi because everyone else was, or because they thought it made them more attractive. Bisexuality was as much of a trend at my middle school as beaded bracelets and silly bands were. Because of this, people started to dismiss anyone who said they were Bi, even those who actually were Bi, and were long before the trend, and only came out then because of the confidence and somewhat normalcy it provided for leaving the closet. For years after that, many people around me bashed Bisexuality, claiming it wasn’t an actual sexuality, and was only a ploy for attention. Please do not pull this card anywhere in your stories, and if you do, only do it to slap down the idea. Being Bi isn’t a means of gaining attention, it’s a legitimate sexuality that many people identify as. Making it about attention seeking undermines the actual thing, and causes Bi-erasure. 

“Kink or over sexualizing”  Holy crap does this one bug me, and gross me out. No sexuality, including bisexual, is a kink. I know too many people, straight people, who only support LGBT+ people in the form of porn. I legitimately know people who watch Lesbian, bisexual, Gay, or Trans porn all the time, but be disgusted by the actual thing. I know straight men, who watch Lesbian porn, and think it’s super hot to watch two women get it out, but the second it’s an actual lesbian couple just innocently holding hands, or a mlm couple, it’s no longer okay. Like wise, I also know straight girls who love and fetishize mlm couples (usually only in terms of fictional characters) but don’t actually care about the Gay Rights Movement, or flf relationships. This disgusts me greatly. Also, I myself, or someone I closely know has been told how “hot” our sexuality is, and told that it would be “sexy” to watch us get it on with someone of the same gender, or engage in a three-way. Look, I know some people actually have kinks that include watching other people, or engaging in sexual activities with more than one person at a time, but do not sum up legitimate sexuality’s as kinks, and do not use our sexuality’s for your own kinks and then turn around and not support us in all aspects. Our sexuality’s do not exist for anyone other then ourselves(and our partners) and it most certainly does not exist to entertain other people. We don’t exist to fulfill your sexual fantasies.

“You always end up Gay or Straight in the end, therefor Bisexuality doesn't really exist.”  This is not how sexuality works!! If you are Bi and you get married or start dating someone of the opposite gender, you are not suddenly heterosexual! Just because you are in love, and have devoted yourself to one person, does not mean you no longer find other people attractive. You can still appreciate other peoples looks. You are still Bisexual. The same obviously goes for if you are Bi and start dating or get married to someone of the same sex. Just because you choose to be exclusive with someone does not mean other people stop being attracted to other people. Your sexuality does not go away when you date someone. Your sexuality only goes away if you suddenly discover something new about yourself, and learn something different that makes you think you actually are not that sexuality. There is more on the spectrum then just Gay or Straight. 

“Horn-Dog stereotype”  So there is this stereotype about Bisexuality that basically says that people that are BI (this stereotype also usually extends to pan-sexuality) are basically just sexual deviants. People who are just so horny that they will have sex with anyone, regardless of gender. This is basically just a side affect of people over sexualizing bisexuality, as I previously mentioned. People usually equate Bisexuality with terms like (I really hate these terms but I am going to use them so you fully understand what I am talking about) “slutty” or “whorish” , and while you can be highly sexually active and bisexual at the same time, the two are not attached.  People who are highly sexually active are not so only because of their sexuality. You can be Biromantic and Asexual or Demisexual or anything anything. Likewise, you can be Aromantic and Bisexual or Demiromantic and Bisexual or any other pairing. Your romantic and sexual attraction do not equate to, or fuel your sexual drive. Please avoid the “promiscuous bisexual” stereotypes. 

“If you're bi then you most like everyone”  (This is a stereotype that also extends to Pan-sexuality and actually most non-straight sexuality’s) Many people believe that someone who is bi is automatically attracted to anyone/everyone. I have met many people who thought that if you were attracted to their gender, then you must also be attracted to them specifically. So many times have I had to explain that I do not just automatically like everyone I see. People who are bi(or any sexuality really) still have a type. How loose or strict that type is depends on the person but it still usually exists. There are still preferences. Liking more then one gender does not equal liking every single person we meet. 

How to introduce Bi-Characters:  Most people don’t include their sexuality in their introduction, and if they do, it’s for specific reasons(usually to flirt). The best way to present a sexuality is to see it: 

The way your character notices other characters. A character taking extra notice of other characters, or acting in a specific manner around certain characters is a clear way to point out their interest in said characters. This is also how you can point out a characters sexuality. If your character takes special notice of characters of both gender, it will become evident that they like both genders.If your bi-character is describing others,  use romantic descriptions. “Beautiful” “Cute” “Pretty” “Gorgeous” are all things you can add on to a characters description to make romantic or sexual interest more obvious. “Brown eyes” is plain and simple, but if you add on “Gorgeous brown eyes” that obviously shows more appreciation, and if you show that appreciation for both genders, your reader will eventually get the hint that your character swings both ways. Seriously, just have your bi-character (if you are writing from their view point, or in their third person) describe their attraction to people of both sex. Easy. 

Your character being caught, or obviously checking out, hitting on, flirting with, or being romantic/sexual with people of more then one gender is another very obvious way to say that they like both genders. Show your readers ‘proof’ that they actually like both genders. It’s upfront and straight to the point. No baiting, no tip-toeing around the sexuality. Let your characters actually interact with and be attracted to people of both sexes. Be up-front about your characters sexuality, don’t hide it. 

Ask! Seriously, have someone simply ask. It’s not unrealistic to have another character ask what sexuality your other character is. I get it all the time in real life. People are curious, use that to your advantage. If another character sees them maybe hit on or flirt with someone,  and it surprises them, that’s fair grounds for the character to ask what the others sexuality is. They can also ask on behalf of themselves or someone else. If someone has interest in your character, it is reasonable to check their sexuality to see if they have a chance. If you like someone of the same sex, it would be normal to want to know if they also also liked members of the same sex. 

Gay Jokes. If someone is open and very comfortable with their sexuality, they will usually make casual comments or jokes about their own sexuality. Not everyone does this, obviously not, but I know a large majority of people who are not straight, and will very frequently make jokes, remarks or puns about their sexuality(myself included). I cant tell you how many times I have made a joke about my sexuality, only for someone in near by to automatically go “your not straight???” (Closet jokes are how my high-school theater teacher realized both me and my best friend were not straight.) Just don’t over do it or force them. Make sure the jokes or puns come naturally. 

Describing past or current relationships/attractions to people of both sex. If you can find a reasonable spot to naturally have your character describe an ex(s) of the same/opposite gender, that’s a very clear way of saying your character is bi. If your character is currently attracted to or dating someone one sex, simply mentioning someone of the other sex in the same context also shows your characters sexuality. It’s as easy as “Oh man, I used to have a huge crush on them.” or “My ex-partner was totally-” including a background of liking or  being with people of both sex is an obvious tip. 

Writing Relationships with Bi-characters:  As I mentioned earlier, being exclusive with someone does not make their sexuality suddenly disappear.  Your character is bi-sexual. If they are in a same sex relationship that does not change. If they are in a relationship with the opposite sex. That does not change. Make that very clear in your writing. You can still find other people attractive if you are in a relationship. If your female character is bisexual, you can put her in a m/f relationship if that’s what naturally happens in the story. It is only offensive/bi-phobic if you: 

Only say your character is Bi so you can claim you have ‘representation’ and then put that character in a ‘straight relationship’ so you don’t have to deal with writing a ‘gay relationship’ , thats Queer-baiting, and it’s also homo and bi phobic. 

Completely forget that your character is Bi once they are in a relationship. As I have stated multiple times, your sexuality does not go away just because you choose to be monogamous.  Your character can still admire and check out people of either sex while being with someone else. Stop erasing bi-sexual people just because of their relationship.  

Describe their attraction to the gender other then the one they are currently with/interested in as curiosity. As I explained earlier, that is bi-erasure. It’s okay to be curious and experiment, but don’t equate it to bisexuality. 

Say it just to say it. If you say your character is bisexual somehow, but then continue to write them as straight (or possibly, but not as commonly; as gay)  in every other aspect, you are most likely queer-baiting, and doing it simply to have a token character. If you want representation of bisexuality in your story, then have representation of bisexuality in your story. Don’t half ass it. Don’t fake it. All that will get you is a lot of complaints. Don’t just say your character is bi, actually make them bi. 

Dont make them a token! As I just stated, don’t do token characters. Don’t make your bi-character bi just for the sake of having a bi character. A person is not defined by their sexuality, stop writing characters as such. Don’t make characters just for the ‘sake of representation’ because that is not actual representation! They are bi because they happen to be bi, don’t make it their entire purpose or personality! I also guarantee you that they are not the only non-straight person in your story. If your story only has 5 or less characters then I could maybe, maybe buy the idea of only one person their being not straight. The spectrum of human sexuality is endless and flexible. If you try to tell me that your story only has one person that isn’t straight, then something is wrong.  

This came out way longer then I expected because yes, I did end up ranting a bit. But hey, I can’t help it. LGBT+ topics are personal for me, So, I always have a lot to say on the matter. I really hope this is helpful, and if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. I wish you luck with your writing! 

And if anyone else from the LGBT+ Community has things they want to add, you are more then welcome to do so! I spoke with my own personal experience, and I can’t speak for everyone in the community. So if you think I missed something, or want to add some of your own personal experience, please do!