#THIS is what a villain backstory should do: add depth to a character

[hobiebrownismygod]

Researching Characters so you don't have to Part 4: Spider-Noir - How to write him

So this ones probably not gonna be as popular, since not that many people write Spider-Noir, but here's a short analysis anyway! <3

Art above is NOT MINE! Made by @ilikecarpet1 on Twitter and is linked!

His Time Period and how that affects his character:

"The Great Depression plays a significant role in the backstory of Spider-Man Noir, also known as Peter Parker. During this time, Peter's Uncle Ben was murdered for encouraging a strike against the local sweatshops, a reflection of the economic and social struggles of the era. This event spurred Peter to become an investigative journalist, seeking to expose the corruption rampant in New York. The era's atmosphere of desperation and injustice also influenced Spider-Man Noir's darker, more violent vigilante persona compared to other versions of Spider-Man. The Great Depression setting adds a unique, gritty layer to Spider-Man Noir's character and motivations." (Marvelfandom.com - source below)

Spider-Noir was born during the Great Depression and was raised by his aunt and uncle who were both human rights activists. His uncle was murdered and eaten by his universe's version of the Green Goblin. Spider-Noir has an extremely horrific backstory, and the way that you write him should influence that. His trauma actually led to him deciding to become a detective, who's goal was to expose the corrupted companies and individuals running New York.

Note: His backstory is actually fairly similar to Spider-punk's backstory, and both of them fight fascists, nazis and corrupted jerks so fanfictions and headcanons between the two wouldn't be far off!

His main nemesis is Norman Osborne, who basically runs the city and is portrayed in a mafia boss-esque kind of view.

Society during the Great Depression:

The Great Depression was a horrid time for anyone living in the US, during which thousands of people lost their jobs, their savings and worse. Spider-Noir's aunt was actually an activist who helped the homeless and unemployed, and Spider-Noir's family overall really tried to instill the idea of responsibility and the problems of governmental neglection onto him.

How does this affect his views?

He fights directly against the society and the corrupted government, and isn't afraid to use violence. He carries guns, has no moral compass directed away from murder and will often try to fight violence with even more violence. He's a very gritty and morbid version of the original Peter Parker that we have, so don't let ITSV's portrayal of him make you think he's a softie! He's actually a pretty terrifying guy.

Note: I've seen a lot of sources saying that he's socialist as well, so that may add into your writing if you decide to do any! This means that his views will probably be different than the average man from the 1930s, considering socialism has never been that popular in the US, especially back then.

Overall:

If you want to write him accurately, make sure to go really into depth about his trauma and the fact that he has nothing against killing. For Spider-punk, a lot of people bring up the fact that he kills, but only when talking about cops or Norman Osborne. Spider-punk doesn't kill normally. However, for Spider-Noir, its very different, because Spider-Noir has no problem with killing villains like the Vulture, while most spider-people do.

Last thing:

When writing his accent, don't write him with a transatlantic accent, which is what most of the actors and famous people from the 1930s had. This accent is also known as the Katherine Hepburn accent. It was an accent that actors were trained to use because it made them sound more upper-class. However, the average middle-class to lower-class person from the 1930s talks very similar to how they do today, with maybe a slightly more aged vocabulary. So when writing Spider-Noir, don't try to write him all fancy if you want to be accurate to his character. He would sound like the average dude.

Sources under the cut!

Sources:

[opbackgrounds]

So I finished the live action and have taken a little time to get my thoughts together, and I'm very much of two minds about this show. I don't seem to be quite as high on it as some other people and the parts I didn't like I *really* didn't like, but I think the bones of the show are good and that the problems I had could be improved upon in future seasons.

More detailed thoughts under the cut

I've said all along that the live action will need to carve out its own identity if it wants to survive, that it needed not to copy the source material, but rhyme with it.

I feel like the first four episodes do that best. There was a lot to cover in the East Blue, and the more disconnected, episodic nature of the manga wasn't going to work. The solution was to combine and condense the manga content, and then add a significant B plot with the marines to help tie everything together.

The problem I have is that the addition of the marines takes away too much time from the Straw Hats without adding enough to make it worth it in the end. While backstories and story arcs were rushed to hell for our main crew, everything with Garp slogged, with the final payoff being nonsensical and poorly executed. I get what they were trying to do with Garp, shifting from childish temper tantrums to laughing maniacally, but it just doesn't work. Garp just doesn't work. Which is a shame, because I think that the growth for Koby and Helmeppo had a lot of potential and the actors exceeded my expectations. The material they had to work with just wasn't good enough.

Syrup Villiage worked best for me, because of all the arcs in the manga it was the most dragged out and poorly executed. It benefits from being condensed and leaning into the horror vibe over the generic shonen battle of the original was inspired. Plus, it validated my head canon of Kuro poisoning Kaya, which is always a nice feeling.

But even here, there's a knock-on effect of what came before it. Because Shells Town and Orange Town were cut down so drastically, Zoro's backstory and some of Nami's development were kicked on down the line, making Usopp more of a bystander in the arc where he should have shined the brightest. Later on the Baratie, Sanji's inner turmoil and struggle to follow his dream is reduced down to a "hey, the chore boy offered me a job, I'm gonna bounce".

And for what? So we can spend a painfully long scene of Garp eating a fucking steak?

The show needed its original ten episodes of runtime to let the characters just breathe. The chemistry amongst the crew is great, there are cinematic moments that took my breath away, the soundtrack is fire, the fights were enjoyable, and the set design is fantastic, but the depth of the manga is flattened. In the East Blue, every villain--even the shitty ones--acted as double foils. For example, Captain Morgan's narcissism contrasted with Zoro's willingness to throw away his good name in order to follow his dream, where his more villainous nature foiled Koby's heroism. In the show, Morgan barely counts as a villain, with his more disturbing and evocative acts such as telling his subordinates to shoot themselves (and more chillingly, them willing to do it) are cut out entirely, and it makes Garp's decision to later tie him up to the same post as Zoro seem almost insane.

Of all the arcs, Arlong Park left the worst taste in my mouth, which is so frustrating when it's supposed to be the crown jewel of the season. The changes they made to Nojiko are baffling and the one time I honestly don't understand why a change was made. Nami's backstory, the most powerful in the East Blue, was chopped into pieces and condensed so much that I felt nothing when Bellemere died. Luffy's decision to actually listen to Nami's backstory, while it made sense for this version of the character, went so against the spirit of the original that it took me out of the moment, as well as removing one of the aspects that makes Luffy such a unique character in the first place.

And for what, so the season had time to end with Luffy fighting Garp in a hopeless fight, only for Garp to let him go because "it was all a test"? Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The whole point of the East Blue is to establish the Straw Hat Pirates. They shouldn't be playing second fiddle to anyone, let alone this deranged, poorly written version of Garp.

I said that the bones of the show are good, and I stand by that. The Straw Hats are the Straw Hats. The One Piece world is the One Piece world. I do remain hopeful for improvements should there be a season two, because the marine B plot with Smoker is already in the manga, and the overarching story of Alabasta gives the writers the ability to be more flexible with the limited time that they have. I have to believe that it's easier doing one big story over the course of a season than it is trying to shove 5 origin stories into 8 episodes, but I'm not a TV person so I might be wrong.

However, my concern is that in some ways season one benefited from the pandemic. The series was in pre-production for like 7 years, and all the interviews I've read have credited the extra time the series had in the developmental oven for my favorite aspects of the show--particularly the sets. That's not going to necessarily the case going forward, and my worry is if future seasons aren't given the time to get it right that it's all going to fall apart. At the same time they can't wait too long, because that's not how live action works.

The live action isn't a bad show, but it isn't a good show, either. I'm glad that it exists, even if it's only to point back to the original. I wouldn't be devistated if it were cancelled, but would certainly check out season two should it get renewed.

Just, please. No more Garp. I'm begging Matt Owens and Oda himself, please. Just let the man do cool stuff off screen for a couple seasons, and when he's reintroduced pretend all this never happened. Your show will be better for it, I promise.

[writing-with-sophia]

Hello!

Hope you are doing fine. I had a question about writing:

How do you create a redemption arc for villain without glorifying the villain/ excuse them for their horrible past action? I really wish I could do some fanfic about redemption villain/character, but I'm always scare that I do it the wrong way.

Thank you and have a cool day 🌼!

Redemption arc for villain

Do not be afraid! I've read a lot of fanfics about redemption for villains, and I find that people in my community take them very well. So write down what you want. (However, there is a slight problem. I have never written a story involving redemption for a villain, so this article will be based on reference only and what I think is possible.)

Creating a redemption arc for a villain without glorifying or excusing their past actions can be a delicate and challenging task. Here are some guidelines to consider when crafting a redemption arc for a character:

Establish Accountability: It's important to acknowledge and address the character's past actions and the harm they caused. Show that the character takes responsibility for their actions and understands the consequences of their behavior. Avoid portraying an unrealistic and sudden shift in the character's personality or beliefs. Redemption should be earned and grounded in believable character development. Ensure that the changes they undergo are consistent with their backstory, motivations, and the challenges they face.

Genuine Change: The redemption arc should involve genuine growth and transformation in the character. They should demonstrate a sincere desire to change and make amends, not just for personal gain or to manipulate others.

Internal Struggle: Portray the internal conflict within the character as they grapple with their past actions and strive to overcome their flaws. Show their genuine remorse, guilt, and the emotional weight of their past deeds. Show the conflicts between their old ways and their newfound desire to be better. This adds depth to their journey and makes their redemption more compelling.

Earn Forgiveness: Redemption should not come easily or quickly. The character should face challenges, skepticism, and resistance from those they harmed or the wider community. The process of earning forgiveness should be gradual and earned through consistent positive actions. Portray the character actively working to rebuild trust with those they have hurt. This involves consistent actions and behaviors that demonstrate their change and willingness to make amends.

Positive Actions and Redemption Journey: Focus on the character's actions in the present and how they actively work to make things right and contribute positively to the world. Show their growth, empathy, and efforts to repair relationships or help others. Create situations that allow the character to learn from their past actions and grow. Provide opportunities for them to demonstrate the lessons they have learned and apply them in meaningful ways. You can also incorporate symbolic acts or gestures that represent the character's transformation or atonement. These acts can have a profound impact on the character themselves and those around them, further solidifying their redemption.

Consequences and Sacrifice: Highlight the character's willingness to face the consequences of their actions and make sacrifices to atone for their past deeds. This can demonstrate the sincerity of their redemption and the lengths they are willing to go to make things right.

Complex Characterization: Develop the character as multidimensional, with strengths, weaknesses, and internal struggles. Avoid simplifying them into a purely heroic figure but rather create a nuanced portrayal that reflects the complexities of human nature.

Learning from mistakes: Show how the character learns from their past mistakes and actively works to prevent others from following the same path. This can involve using their experiences to guide and mentor others, or taking actions that promote positive change in the world.

External Validation: While redemption is primarily an internal journey, it can be reinforced through the recognition and support of other characters who genuinely acknowledge the character's growth and positive actions. Introduce supportive characters who believe in the character's capacity for change, challenge them when necessary, and provide guidance and encouragement along the way. Ensure they have their own reactions, feelings, and growth in response to the villain's redemption. Neglecting the perspectives of other characters can make the arc feel one-sided or unrealistic.

Realistic and Challenging Journey: Ensure that the redemption arc is portrayed as a challenging and ongoing process. It should not be too easily achieved or presented as a quick fix. Emphasize that growth and change require time, effort, and consistent commitment. One common pitfall is rushing the redemption process, where a villain suddenly changes their ways without sufficient development or justification. It's important to allow the redemption arc to unfold gradually and realistically, showing the character's growth and transformation over time.

Empathy and Understanding: Offer insights into the villain's backstory, motivations, and underlying reasons for their actions. This helps readers develop empathy and understanding for the character while not excusing their past behavior. It adds depth and complexity to their redemption arc.

Growth Beyond Redemption: While redemption is a significant part of the character's journey, ensure that their development extends beyond it. Allow them to have goals, dreams, and motivations that go beyond their redemption, making them well-rounded and dynamic characters.

Remember that a well-executed redemption arc requires careful planning, character development, and consideration of the story's themes and overall narrative. It should feel earned, authentic, and contribute to the story's emotional resonance. Approach the subject with sensitivity and respect for the gravity of the character's past deeds and the potential impact of their redemption on the story and its themes.

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

[writerthreads]

How to write morally grey characters

By WriteAway on Servicescape

Morally ambiguous characters are those that are not simply heroes or villains. They fall somewhere in between, and as such, add a layer of depth and complexity to your story. The truth is that most humans in real life are not pure angels or simply bad people, but rather hold elements of both. Morally ambiguous characters can drive the plot in interesting ways, allow for great character growth, and sometimes end up being some of the most memorable characters in a book.

Morally ambiguous characters can start off with good intentions and then be driven to evil by others or by society, or they can start off evil and come to redeem themselves. Alternatively, they can remain ambiguous and complex throughout the whole narrative, and leave the reader to make up their own mind about them. Either way, these characters certainly make us think about the nature of good and evil and the complexity of the human psyche.

Give them a backstory

Understanding where they came from is important for any character, but it's particularly crucial when your characters are morally ambiguous. Often, the struggles the character went through in the past go some way to explaining their negative character traits now, or at least make us empathise with them a little.

The backstory is important for character development, and it is a great place to explore ideas of personal responsibility vs critiques of society and the results of terrible experiences. Whether your character was bullied as a child, pushed to the margins of society, or something else entirely, give them a rich background that helps us understand why they act the way they do.

Understand their motives

All characters should have needs and desires, and reasons they do the things they do. Often, when it comes to morally ambiguous characters, their motive is exactly what causes them to slip up and do morally questionable, cruel, or destructive things. This can be true whether or not the motive is itself a good one or not.

A morally ambiguous character can be a wonderful opportunity to explore the idea that the ends justify the means, and the corrupting force of power. Whether your character's motives are good but lead them to terrible actions, or whether it is precisely the selfishness of the motives that lead to your character's downfall, give them goals and desires that force them (and the reader) to grapple with choices and dilemmas. And the motives don't have to be as dramatic as the ones mentioned – as with Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby, it can be something as simple as a desire to win back a lover that leads a character into moral ambiguity.

Give them a weakness

Going all the way back to ancient Greek tragedies, the idea of the hero with a fatal flaw has lived on in literature for thousands of years. A morally ambiguous character may be fundamentally good, but marred by a particular weakness, such as cowardice, vanity, shame, or anger. The characters in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby are full of fatal flaws. For Daisy Buchanan it is her vanity and desire for wealth and admiration. For Jay Gatsby it is his love for Daisy, as well as his shame surrounding his background.

Your character's weakness doesn't have to be the ultimate cause of their downfall or even their central character trait. The main point is that they have certain elements in their nature that challenge them, tempt them, or cause them to struggle. It doesn't matter what they are, but weaknesses make morally ambiguous characters more believable, layered, and human.

Give them redeeming qualities

This goes without saying, but you can't have a morally ambiguous character without giving them some redeeming qualities. Whether they are primarily good but are driven or tempted to wicked acts, or whether they are basically villains with good motives or elements of kindness, there needs to be some level of balance.

Severus Snape is often cruel and sometimes corrupt, but he ultimately makes the right choices where it matters. The Artful Dodger is a thief and ultimately betrays Oliver in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, but he also helps Oliver and displays feelings of sympathy towards him. Moreover, his actions can be understood in light of his circumstances and experiences.

In the end, it doesn't matter where your character falls on the scale of morality. The important thing is that they have a believable and interesting combination of motives, flaws, and redeeming qualities. If you can get these elements right, you will have yourself a really fascinating, morally ambiguous character.

Let them grow and change

Character arcs are essential to good storytelling. No character should be exactly the same at the end of a book as they were at the beginning. The mechanics of plot are important but are ultimately meaningless if they don't cause development on the part of the characters. However, when it comes to morally gray characters, the way they change throughout the narrative is particularly important.

George R. R. Martin is a master of the character arc. Both of the Lannister brothers are not presented as particularly praiseworthy at the beginning of the series. Tyrion, while harmless, is shown to be philandering, selfish, and lazy. Jaime Lannister, on the other hand, is an outright villain, as he pushes a young boy out of a high window just to protect the reputation of him and his sister. Both go through redeeming character arcs, with Tyrion becoming a paragon of thoughtful justice with a commitment to seeing good prevail. Jaime has perhaps the most striking redemptive arc of the series, but his love for his sister is the fatal flaw that spells disaster in the end.

Many supervillains and other characters experience the opposite type of character arc. In the recent Joker movie, we observe the Joker not as a simple villain, but as someone who was pushed to evil from his experiences and the cruelty he suffered at the hands of society. He begins as a sympathetic character, but by the end he is without question a villain. However, it need not be as black and white as this. Jay Gatsby's weaknesses certainly lead to his downfall, but it is up to your interpretation whether he is ultimately a tragic character or someone who has received his comeuppance.

As we can see, a character arc need not be simple or go only in one direction. Your character can struggle continuously with moral questions, leaving the reader unsure up until the finale what side they will end up on. You can end your book and leave it ambiguous whether the character was ultimately good or evil, or perhaps a very human combination of the too. The main point is that the experiences they have and the actions they undertake throughout the novel must affect them in some way, so that they develop as a character.

Keep the readers guessing

The previous point touches on this, but one way you can keep readers fascinated throughout the whole book is to keep them guessing about the true moral nature of the character and what they will do next. Severus Snape is a prime example of this. We as readers are left unsure right up until the end of the series whether his loyalties lie with the Death Eaters or with the Order of the Phoenix and those fighting Voldemort. In fact, people still argue about whether Snape really redeemed himself enough to be the namesake of one of Harry's sons or not. If your character causes arguments, you have done something right!

There are multiple literary devices you could use to keep your readers guessing. You could pepper little hints throughout the narrative that show the possibility of redemption or allude to potential disaster. Instead of revealing what the character is thinking, you could merely show us their actions, leaving us to interpret them. Alternatively, you could be explicit about the mental struggles the character is going through when making moral decisions. Whatever your method is, leaving things uncertain and keeping various possibilities open is what makes the audience want to keep reading.

Give them difficult choices

Choices often drive plot and character development, and difficult decisions are a central way in which authors can allow ambiguous characters to struggle with moral questions and keep readers guessing. The choices that these characters make can redeem them or be the catalyst for their downfall. Snape's decisions to join the Death Eaters and later to leave and join the fight against them, is the cornerstone of his character development and much of the plot of the Harry Potter series. Jay Gatsby's initial decision to lie to Daisy about his background is the key choice that leads to his life of dishonesty and unhappiness.

In many cases, the choices that characters make are key events that determine the shape of a book. They are also great opportunities to explore difficult moral questions and dilemmas. Maybe your character has to choose between the greater good and personal desires. Perhaps they are faced with a decision that hinges on loyalty to loved ones versus making the moral choice. They could be tempted by greed, vanity, cowardice, or anger. There are so many difficult choices you can force upon your characters.

Not only can such decisions drive the narrative of a book, but they can also make readers think about very real dilemmas they face in their own lives, and broader questions about the nature of "right" and "wrong." A really good book doesn't just entertain us, but makes us think and forces us to come to our own conclusions. It makes us consider things we may not have before and leads us to apply ideas to the real world, no matter how magical the setting of the book is.

Focus on relationships

Often, the decisions that a character has to make and the experiences they go through are closely linked to other characters. In the case of Frankenstein, the central relationship is between the monster and the scientist who created him. It's not a relationship that involves much contact, but it is what the narrative revolves around. Relationships can redeem, such as Snape's love for Harry's mother Lily. Alternatively, they can cause a character's downfall, such as Jaime Lannister's incestuous relationship with Cersei or Gatsby's obsession with Daisy Buchanan. Relationships are a great motivating factor for morally ambiguous characters, whether they lead to temptation, redemption, or other moral challenges.

In addition to that, it's important to consider the conflicting motives and forces informing all of your characters. Although not all your characters need to be morally ambiguous, they should all be complex. Even the most heroic character can struggle with temptation and can make the wrong choice from time to time. Even the evilest villains should have elements that we can empathise with or moments of kindness. Otherwise, they are nothing more than a caricature. That does not mean that you cannot have people who are essentially good and those who are essentially evil. However, inserting a little ambiguity into all of your characters makes them more authentic and human. Each character should be well-rounded, believable, and multifaceted. Writing explicitly morally ambiguous characters can help you make better characters all round.

[mdhwrites]

whats your opinion on caleb and evelyn (at least from what very little we know of them-)

imo the whole caleb clawthorne thing is like. one of the most pointless things in the show ever

I have called them and their connection to Belos "TOH's final trick". TOH has a single trick up its sleeve that is great for fanfic writers and TERRIBLE for a narrative. They introduce really compelling relationships and ideas and then they never do anything with them. It happens with Amity and Luz, Amity and Willow, the Hexide Squad and the Coven System, Hunter and Belos, etc. etc. All of these concepts present tantalizing issues that one could really delve in deep to and find a lot of meaning... But TOH isn't interested. It is more interested in a blog about how deep Amity's character is implied to be rather than doing anything with that depth, hence why so many people hooked onto how awful the confrontation with her parents would eventually be and then the show itself just... Has her in like three minutes of that episode and her confrontation doesn't feel like the main point of it even if it's the climax. And then it's effectively over and any issue between Lumity is never brought up again.

Caleb and Evelyn are the same but with a bit of FNAF storytelling thrown in. The pictures are vague after all so people can interpret them in different ways for what they mean. The cast has been coy as to the actual events. It's a multiple choice backstory for your villain that ranges from irredeemable monster to sympathetic villain. That way the show can claim to have a complex villain that doesn't technically invalidate the fact that they have no interest in writing a complex villain, nor do they want to need to.

But it was also one straw too many. Lumity getting together paid off in some way that old narrative baggage of Amity's, even if less powerfully than it could have. Hunter being possessed and fighting off Belos doesn't have the weight it should and I have problems with how selfish the reasoning is rather than ideological but it is a payoff to that relationship. However, a genuinely real amount of time is spent in S3, and S2, building up that Belos is something more than a genocidal, egotistical asshole. Caleb and Evelyn are a LOT of this. So what's the payoff?

There is none. Beating him isn't an ideological victory. They don't come up like Lief did for beating Andrias to pay that off. In fact, they come up less in the final fight than they do during the fight in King's Tide where the heroes LOSE. So they spent some of the very limited time they had to wrap up their story on a subplot about Belos' backstory that doesn't actually inform us of anything, doesn't affect anything and has no payoff except the most obvious one.

It's literally Willow's story except for your PRIMARY ANTAGONIST'S BACKSTORY.

The fact that the majority of the meat of it is done in a really just AWFULLY animated set piece who's literal writing is boilerplate at best does not help it at all. The best parts of this mechanically are the portraits in Hollow Mind and they're vague and that's IT. Otherwise, it's clunky for the most part. I'll give the moment when monster Belos sees Caleb as he tries to take on a new form is neat but it tells us nothing and feels out of character in the end that he'd give enough of a shit to be haunted by his brother, especially after he's killed his brother so many times. Honestly, the Golden Guards looking like Caleb even NOW just makes me think the Collector is right: He likes hurting his brother. Why else would he not finally stop after the hundredth betrayal? Unless he gets off on the moment of their betrayal I guess.

It's just not good and a casual fan is going to like it even less because they won't really absorb and think the portraits so to them, it's just one really awkward sequence in the first special, an eerie sequence that doesn't add to anything in the second and then is sir not appearing in the third. That's not engaging.

Since little of it is engaging, it fails to function as a trick. After all, any magician will tell you that everything is about misdirection in their craft. Without it, a trick becomes nothing but smoke and mirrors instead of magic.

======+++++======

Btw, mentioned FNAF so may as well say here: Saw it and really liked it. I keep considering making a blog about it and then just... not.

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[ct-hardcase]

Since a twitter mutual asked for an Inquisitor canon guide, I'm revamping my answer to an anon to include some more recent inquisitor canon. I'll get into the substantial canon stories first (which I'd say are the proverbial "must watch/read/play"s), and then into the ones where there might be slightly less content in a list below:

Star Wars: Rebels originated the inquisitors in the new canon and the start of their lore, though I'd argue it wasn't the best at handling them. Despite this, I'd recommend starting here. Introduces the Grand Inquisitor, Fifth Brother, Seventh Sister, and Eighth Brother. Also introduces (the ever-elusive) Project Harvester.

Darth Vader (2017): while this is a Vader-focused comic, you get quite a bit of inquisitor lore out of it, and also multiple characters you won’t find anywhere else/many other places. Highly recommend for how it builds up the Grand Inquisitor, Ninth Sister, and Sixth Brother in particular. Also includes the Fifth Brother, Tenth Brother, Iskat, and Tualon in a capacity that develops their characters. The comic additionally goes out of its way to include Seventh, Eighth, and Trilla as background characters. I recommend reading all of it, since I love the way it handles Vader as well, but the inquisitor-focused issues are almost all issues 6-20 minus issues 10 and 18. The writing has some flaws but overall one of my favorite canon comics in terms of story and art.

Jedi: Fallen Order was the blueprint, honestly. What made the inquisitors ascend from goofy side characters in others' stories to tragic villains in their own right. What's not to love about Trilla Suduri? Also provides a fair bit of depth to Ninth Sister, especially in the context of her previous DV (2017) appearances. It also fleshes out the Purge Troopers, who, while not inquisitors, are a fun addition to the organization. Also add a bit of inquisitor capture/initiation lore. I'm not a gamer, so I found a video which compiled all of the story scenes and it did the trick for me (though many gamers do recommend playing).

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Introduces Reva Sevander, and her wonderfully complicated story and character. This is among some of the essential inquisitor watch material for good reason, as it provides context for how inquisitors interpret the group dynamics, as well as a look at their military operations and how a hunt works from their end, somewhat. It also provides some context and/or development for the Grand Inquisitor and Fifth Brother; and introduces the Fourth Sister.

Rise of the Red Blade: The most personal look we get into an inquisitor's backstory and fall, so far (TotE will probably prove me wrong in about a month), this story centers Iskat's time as a Jedi and a bit of her time as an inquisitor. It goes through a Knight's look at the clone wars, and some of the Inquisitor initiation process/first few missions, in addition to glimpses of what a pre-Vader inquisitorius looked like. This book also features Tualon as a prominent character, but notably includes cameos from almost every canon inquisitor minus Reva, Marrok, and Bird Mask.*

*among others, who are more relegated to sourcebooks/secondhand references.

Next on the docket are Barriss' Tales of the Empire shorts, which I assume is going to go into the Inquisitor initiation process in full detail (see also: the reason Delilah Dawson couldn't full delve into it in RotRB), and should feature Barriss, the Fourth Sister, the Grand Inquisitor Marrok, and Bird Mask; and the Inquisitors (2024) comic miniseries coming this summer, which should include the Grand Inquisitor, Fifth Brother, Seventh Sister, and Ninth Sister.

I'll organize the rest by characters that you may want to know more about, though please note that there are minor spoilers for the above series (including character names) in the summaries of the series below:

Grand Inquisitor:

The Servants of the Empire series has some Grand Inquisitor lore with a focus on Zare Leonis and (the ever-elusive) Project Harvester. The Grand Inquisitor serves as an antagonist. This is a Middle Grade series, but it's one of the best MG series I've read in Star Wars.

The Grand Inquisitor has appeared in the Rebels manga adaptation! I haven't read it myself, but the art looks good.

He gets a semi-canon appearance in one short story of Star Wars: Dark Legends. He's got creepy vampire vibes, which are cool, and you also get one of my favorite Order 66 survivors in the dubiously-canon Kira Vantala.

[He also gets a spotlight in Issue 6 of Star Wars (2020). Yes, the comic takes place post-esb. Yes, the Grand Inquisitor is there. This one has the most payoff after reading Vader (2017) and watching swr s1

Will probably have a supporting/important role in Barriss' Tales of the Empire shorts.

Second Sister (Trilla Suduri):

Most of her Material is in JFO, but she also gets a spotlight in Jedi Fallen Order: Dark Temple. Though this five-issue comic focuses mostly on Cere, it gives you some good Second Sister content, presented pre-Trilla reveal in-game. It gives you more of her cool and competent inquisitor vibe that way. Also, the dynamic Trilla has with her Purge Trooper Commander is a bonus for me, in this one.

Third Sister (Reva Sevander):

Sadly, not a lot of supplemental content exists for Reva outside of OWK. I suppose I'm obligated to include the Obi-Wan Kenobi Comic Adaptation, but considering the art is about the equivalent of traced-over screenshots, I feel confident in saying you can skip this one.

Fourth Sister (Lyn):

Her...armor appears in Return to Vader’s Castle 4 and 5. The saboteur wearing it uses her designation, but that's about all the character lore we get. I suspect that more will come in the TotE short.

Will probably have a supporting/important role in Barriss' Tales of the Empire shorts.

Fifth Brother:

He gets a PoV section in Jedi: Battle Scars! Though it's not super substantive, it's the closest we've gotten to a backstory for him, and he gets a hell of a duel in this one. The overall plot is steamy and fun as well, plus Merrin and Fret are worth the price of admission alone.

He also gets a lot of bit parts in other inquisitor media, including OWK and Vader (2017), all of which add up to a more complex character than the man we get in Rebels.

Some comics featuring the Fifth Brother are in the Star Wars Rebels Magazine are in German so if you read the language you’re in luck, but some have been translated into English by fans so you can find them in their tumblr tags.

It seems he'll be a main character in the Inquisitors (2024) comic series.

Sixth Brother (Bil Valen):

The Ahsoka Novel: This is obviously mostly about Ahsoka, but Sixth Brother gets some PoV chapters as well. Though the chapters may initially not seem the most substantive, the other inquisitor canon (plus his scenes in Vader [2017]) builds up around him to end up giving a surprising amount of glimpses into who he is as a person. The Grand Inquisitor also appears here, but his appearance is short enough to not warrant a place in his section.

Seventh Sister:

She plays a somewhat significant role in Iskat's first years in Rise of the Red Blade, though sadly, aside from Rebels, she doesn't have a substantive role in many stories.

Seventh Sister also features in the Star Wars Rebels Magazine stories.

She also seems to be a main character in the Inquisitors (2024) comic series.

Eighth Brother:

Sorry, you're SoL (I say with love; he's my favorite).

In all seriousness, he has one line of dialogue in Vader (2017), and a cameo in Rise of the Red Blade. If he ends up being your favorite, I can help link some interviews from Robbie Daymond about him, or something.

Ninth Sister (Masana Tide):

Aside from a brief appearance in Jedi: Survivor, most of her story takes place in Vader (2017) and JFO.

She also appears to be among the main cast of Inquisitors (2024).

Tenth Brother (Prosset Dibs):

Mace Windu: Jedi of the Republic: A five-issue comic focusing on a strike team of four Jedi in the beginning the clone war, raises questions of what the republic is coming to, and also gives you some of the Tenth Brother’s backstory.

Thirteenth Sister (Iskat Akaris):

She doesn't have much outside of Vader (2017) and RotRB, but considering she's the protagonist of the latter, hopefully that's alright for now.

Tualon Yaluna:

See Iskat's entry above—though he's not the protagonist of RotRB, he gets quite a bit of focus.

Marrok:

One of the antagonists of the Ahsoka show, and primarily appears there.

Will probably have a supporting/background role in Barriss' Tales of the Empire shorts.

Bird Mask:

A note on him is that the jury's split about whether he's actually the Sixth Brother based on his role in Ahsoka's final Tales of the Jedi episode, which is strikingly similar to the Ahsoka Novel. I choose to believe he's not.

Will probably have a supporting/background role in Barriss' Tales of the Empire shorts.

Other Canon Inquisitors/Noncanonical Inquisitors/I'm Bald/Other Nuanced Opinion:

There’s an Inquisitor in the semi-canon Star Wars Visions season 1 episode T0-B1.

There's also an Inquisitor in the semi-canon Star Wars Visions season 2 episode Bandits of Golak.

Per a guidebook released prior to Obi-Wan Kenobi, There was an inquisitor with the designation Third Brother. At this time, we do not know what he looks like, nor has he been confirmed to have been in a story.

Per a TTRPG campaign, there was a female inquisitor who trained the Nightsister Jerserra, who killed her and stole the unidentified inquisitor's lightsaber. We do not have confirmation on who this is.

Maul carries an inquisitor's saber from at least the time of Solo to Star Wars: Rebels. This may or may not belong to an existing canon inquisitor or an as-of-yet-unknown character (it was modeled off of the Grand Inquisitor's, but we can assume this was due to budget concerns).

There's a variety of mobile games, sourcebooks, and other sources that provide a series of blurbs on the canon inquisitors that I haven't kept close track of. While these provide some information, most of it goes over existing information (possibly sourced directly from the Star Wars databank entries or Wookieepedia pages) and rarely do we get any new information from these (and more rarely still does canon actually stick to the information we get from them). These are fun, and can be delved into if you want more detail, but my personal MO is to stick to canon works first.

The slight exception to me is the Lightsaber coffeetable book, which I find has gorgeous (original!) art, and has some blurbs about the inquisitors' fighting styles.

[bcbdrums]

Is there a scene/character/plot line/aspect of the show you think or wish it could have been improved upon? Is there something about Kim possible that you wish you could change or was handled slightly different?

i'm sorry i took probably months to answer this ask, but i genuinely couldn't think of anything.

i think overall the show handled itself very well. it was consistent in what it presented itself to be. so i don't think i have any criticisms in that regard...

i selfishly would have enjoyed more character backstories. like, for every villain, greater depth... more about how kim came to be who she is... but if you add any of that of course, then it changes the show. you make it deeper character-wise and it loses the fun monster of the week sort of lightheartedness. KP is ultimately very lighthearted. it had very few moments of that gut-wrenching seriousness, you know? like, i can count them on one hand for me and not use all fingers unless i really think about it.

i guess i wouldn't change a thing, off the top of my head. if i did a rewatch i could nitpick. but nothing "important" to me i guess.

i feel bad i couldn't think of anything to change. but also i'm just not that person to look at media and pick it apart for all its faults? i know that's the modern thing to do... but i like taking media, accepting it for what it is.... and if i like it cool, if i don't like it i move on. i don't start saying "the creators should have done XYZ" instead and if i REALLY like it and have a feel to that nature, i write fanfic. i just....don't like this new sort of entitlement ppl feel about their entertainment media. like if it doesn't perfectly suit a person's desires, the creator was "wrong" and we get to attack them. at least, that's how it feels a lot of ppl behave these days... even the boycott of Solo i thought was totally out of place. except hey it did save star wars, so maybe not. i have mixed opinions.

but i digress. i pretty much love KP as it is. if i think of something down the road i would change, i'll post about it. thanks, as always, for the ask.

[sagesilentfire]

Dumb question but what would have been bad about morningmark being into SU? I know he did some svtfoe shipping aus that caused issues in the fandom but not much else about him

It's not a dumb question; in fact thank you for asking because I want to talk about it. The reason why Morningmark could never do Steven Universe justice is that he flattens everything he touches. He can draw really well, he's good at jokes and heartwarming moments, and he can occasionally do good quick emotional gutpunches and what-ifs. Heck, he's pretty good at already-canon main ships and established chemistry. On occasion, he got me to tolerate Starco. And I'm not criticizing him as a person either, I'm sure he's lovely. But when it comes to character emotional complexity, especially the main villains, non-main protagonists, and characters who have endless potential in canon? He just... fundamentally misunderstands a lot of them. I guess the main problem comes down to him not willing to get... morally complex. I'll go through some examples so you can understand what I mean.

Like, the Collector knows they're evil in his comics. They know they're doing bad things. The whole point of the Collector is that they don't know what they're doing is wrong. They don't go out of their way to hurt people, except maybe Belos, they do it on accident, because when you have the mind of a child and the power of a god you are going to hurt people on accident and not understand why they are upset about it. Like if you took away their powers, they'd need to learn some empathy, but all kids do and you could easily see them being a good person in the future! And it adds depth! They're not one-dimensional, but Morningmark... doesn't see it.

And then my fave, Toffee. How does he act in Morningmark's comics? He's a flat, stereotypical, boring, and above all unintelligent supervillain with barely any of the hints of depth that canon gave him. And canon didn't bother giving him much, so you know I'm saying something. Like. In the Ship War comic, when Toffee spills his tragic backstory at Moon’s request – Toffee spills his traumatic emotions at Moon’s request, someone he should have no interest in humoring because he has never cared if the Butterflys think he's justified ever – and it turns out his traumatic past that was so heavily hinted and discussed was that his army was going to fight alongside the Mewmans but they went back on their deal and killed all of them instead. And it's not that bad in a vacuum but. Like. In the show, in canon, every single monster on Mewni is and was, by the point Morningmark was writing that comic in, implied to be the victim of actual senseless, colonizing genocide, and the best backstory that you could come up with for this fascinating character with so much potential is that he was going to fight against his people all along, until Mewmans did something to him, specifically? I guess it makes blowing him up more justified than the incredibly obvious alternative, I guess. Have to make the protagonists as morally pure as possible. And then, to add insult to injury, he punches his way through Mewni, and then loses to the starco fanchild... outsmarting him. Toffee, who is defined by his careful plans, lack of physical abilities, and not fricking punching his way to the top loses to a child because she outsmarted him. Did we watch the same show? I guess you could make a case for him losing when he stopped carefully planning and started blasting, but that's really weak when there's no reason for him to stop in the first place.

And Belos. Oh my god Belos. Gone is the vicious, convining, and manipulative villain who so desperately thinks he's the good guy we all know and love. Instead he's loud, stupid, and so, so obvious. He cackles evilly. He tells Hunter he never loved him to his face. He doesn’t care about his twisted moral righteousness at all. He's even less hate-able than canon, because he is so obviously bad at what he's trying to do! He's just... pathetic! Like, the coffee shop AU comic. A real, canon-based Belos would never talk about his evil plans where Hunter could potentially hear him. Ever. Morningmark doesn't even add a creepy human child Collector for him to monologue to, he just says his evil plans to the air. (And his evil plans are not based on that fascinating cocktail of bigotry that motivates him in canon, they're just generic "i want money bc evul." not remotely interesting. I've read countless coffee shop AUs with motivations that make sense with the characters even in the more chill setting.) He's stupid. The whole point of Hollow Mind in canon is that he's totally in control until Luz and Hunter start working together. He sets Hunter up to fail because he's not too hung up about losing yet another grimwalker and cares slightly more about Luz understanding him, not because he's being dumb in public. Or the recent one where Belos turns himself into a pure human in front of the Gang. Belos is not that stupid. He plots. He plans. He knows when to hide and lick his wounds and wait to plot his return. He waited four hundred years to kill all the witches, you're telling me he couldn't wait twenty minutes to flee to safety? Belos does not need to be stupid to be evil and a bigot, you can be very smart and also evil and a bigot, and Morningmark does not understand that. You can find humor in that bigotry too without making someone stupid. Again, funny in vacuum but takes the least nuanced approach and is blatantly out of character.

And it's not just villains either. This is also a problem with main characters. He adamantly refuses to acknowledge Belos's abuse of Hunter and the effect that it has on the kid in any way but the most surface-level lip service. For instance, the tooth gap in the recent comic. It's not the sad and interesting reason of Belos, it's the haha funni Willow accidentally hit him with a crate lol. His need for validation? We can just joke that he hasn't gotten a compliment in a while, not that Belos actively fostered that in him and his need for validation is actually really sad. Haha, the abused kid is fishing for compliments, how funny. And like, Hunter doesn't not take off his gloves because he's got chronic pain or they comfort him or they're something he can hold on to or anything interesting, it's because he's ashamed of some scars! And no, not scars he got because Belos thought a mission was a failure or made Hunter think the mission was a failure, it was because... the mission actually was a failure! It went terribly and Hunter had to learn Responsibility and the dangers of overconfidence and Belos isn't even implied. Not even by Willow, who could mention how that attitude was probably something put there by someone else, and he shouldn't trust it. No, he just shouldn't be down on himself, and he should be proud of his scars because he got them saving people, and... ugh. Like, if he had failed to save someone during that mission, would the attitude that he should learn Responsibility be reasonable? Belos certainly wouldn't have abused him less if it was. Those kinds of internalized toxic mindsets need to be challenged in real life, which is why sending Hunter to therapy is such a popular theme.

I could go on. He thinks Boscha is interesting and worth anyone's time, he pulled an out of character pair-the-spares that needed a season's worth of completely new content pulled from nothing to work, and Eclipsa can be one-dimensionally out for revenge in that one AU because that doesn't go against the whole point of her character (hint: a tragic backstory does not a multi-dimensional character make) and Mina can totally make friends with a monster girl accidentally, that makes sense, Mina and Solaria are totally redeemable, and Toffee isn't. Because the writers of svtfoe thought that, so we have to get it shoved down our throats by him now too. Anyways.

Basically, when given an interesting option and a conventional, cheaply funny option, Morningmark always takes the conventional route. He flattens the villains to make them haha funnier and morez evul, but only thing he really succeeds in making them more pathetic and the conflict less interesting, because why are the protagonists ever challenged by these idiots? It's so immature. Morningmark is so afraid of making the conflict less than black-and-white and the protagonists not in the wrong that he makes these children's shows far less mature than they are. Even his recent attempts at gray morality fall flat, as they seem like things the characters would never do. Like the comic where Luz gets petrified so Amity traps the Collector in the human world falls flat because we know Amity would never do that, she knows Luz has loved ones in the human world (Reaching Out anyone???) and barring that, she's smart and the Collector is a dumb kid, we know this, we all know she could trick them into hunting down Belos with less casualties and find a solution that's better than that. It just feels shallow. All his work feels shallow. And this black-and-white morality would've been a death sentence to any attempt at Steven Universe.

Steven Universe is all about those shades of gray, about the complexities of human (and gem) morality. Where the Diamonds can be people who fundamentally want to do good by the world but have blinded themselves to how to make it happen, with truly devastating consequences. Where Bismuth has a point and Andy and Lars are good people at heart and Rose, god Rose, she did good and terrible things at the same time. Where even Steven can do horrible things because our all-loving protagonist is not immune to trauma and a fear of change. Say what you will about it being rushed, but it really did nail a sense of no true evil (except maybe Bluebird. Morningmark could totally pull off Bluebird). If Morningmark were interested in SU Steven would be totally comfortable around the Diamonds and Spinel because they're redeemed and/or have a tragic backstory so it's fine! Bismuth would be one-dimensionally evil or her conflict with Rose would be played for laughs constantly. Andy would be mean and never change, Lars would be mean up until his heart-to-heart with Steven aired, where he would suddenly be a cringey lovable dork and nothing else. Rose would be centered around Pearl's feelings for her or reduced to jokes about almost slipping up and her identity being revealed, like she didn't totally abandon the Pink label as soon as she could. Steven would be totally fine and the harm he did emotionally resolved because he's the good guy, and we always need to like the good guy. There would maybe be a joke about Steven causing property damage and that's it.

And that doesn't have to be a bad thing, if these jokes weren't the end-all of Morningmark's art. Plenty of artists do joke comics that I love but don't do A Thing about. I think it's the fact that these problems with character are a. Constant, b. Appear even when he's trying to be dramatic, and c. Don't fit his art style. (And d. Happen to characters I care about and have Only Correct Opinions on, but that's obvious) And by "don't fit his art style", let me explain. See, most of the other haha funny comics I like don't have polished, clean color art styles. They look like they're supposed to be cheap jokes. They're not pretending to be anything else. But Morningmark's comics are clean, colored, and polished. They look professional and important, not like the cheap jokes they are. Which is the problem. This is one of the rare cases where less effort would actually help get the point across, and free up more time to throw things at the wall as a bonus. His jokes are funny and unnaturally high-quality cheap jokes, but they're still cheap jokes. People, including him, should treat them like it.

or maybe i just don't trust someone who has never once made a "belos vs the modern world" joke. why isnt belos getting hit by a car. why isnt he seeing a gay couple in public and dying of a heart attack. why isnt he drinking a macdonalds sprite and catching on fire because of the spiciness. why.

[worm-death]

Good and Bad Anime Backstory Integration

I'm writing this blog post to discuss in length something I'm really passionate about: making good, relatable characters. And through the many anime I've seen, it's done both good and bad. And so I wanted to write this to give my take on the subject. Fair warning: I will be spoiling certain anime series. I will warn again when I am about to spoil something (Demon Slayer Season 1, Hell's Paradise Season 1, One Piece, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, Lupin III Part 6, Galaxy Express 999, The Wind Rises). These are also just my opinions. I'm not demanding you to write stories like this; simply my thoughts on the matter.

This is by far my least favorite way to tell a character's origin story. Right as they're dying, or even if it's the last time we see them on screen. Why? Because you don't have any time to let that sink in. I will tell you, nothing is worse than watching a character die just to have the wade to white and the BOOM flashback, no thank you. This is mainly in regard to villain characters.

Demon Slayer was a constant notorious example of this, and my main conflict with the entire franchise. It made every villain a complete sob story. And that's not even necessarily a bad thing, but it's the execution that is faulted every time. (No explicit spoilers since I can't remember Jack about that show, but season 1 spoilers, I guess. Skip this next paragraph if you wish to avoid any).

An episode starts out introducing our new demonic villain. Simple enough. And it's pretty straightforward: evil person does evil things. And it remains that way until Tanjiro has the final fight with the episode's villain, cutting off their head and whatnot. And as we see them fall back in slow motion, blood gushing everywhere. The origin story jumpscares me.

Why should I feel bad for a character who has only been presented as evil with little to no redeeming qualities? There was never a pre-established reason for me to feel bad for this character. They have only been presented as a bad person I should want dead.

I want to put this into perspective in the real world. There are plenty of deplorable people out there, the real-life villains. And aside from those few individuals born into this world truly evil. The majority of the time, there was a significant event in that person's life that brought them to the point of committing heinous crimes. And what does the public do when they find out these people are put on death row or sentenced to life? We are happy. We are glad that this evil person is gone (the sane ones of us, anyway). So, I see fictional villains the same way. "Oh good, the hero killed the villain! Wait, now I have to feel bad for them?? Uh..."

What it boils down to is the inability to form connections. The human mind does not work like: villain (I hate them) -> backstory (THEY WERE AN ORPHAN?!?!?) -> villain (OMG I LOVE YOU!! you were just misunderstood....) No.

When I say this is my least favorite form of backstory delivery, I have seen more of them fail than succeed. But that is definitely not the case for all stories. In fact, there are some simply amazing stories. I will be spoiling One Piece twice here (Dressrosa and Wano, please skip the next paragraph).

I think the smarter thing to do when creating a backstory like this is not to make it a sob story. In episode 1062 of One Piece, Zoro fights King, someone we practically knew nothing about, and gets his backstory revealed. It was great. And it's the tone that makes it great. It is an info drop, not a sob story. Simply informing the audience on how King and Kaido met. In turn, the information from that flashback also plays into Kaido as a character and adds more depth to him. There are practical things to take away from the flashback, even if the central character is no longer going to be relevant.

If you can make a backstory practical and give them a takeaway, then it's worthwhile. Something other shows fail to do. We may see a character's connection to another relevant character, but that's it, just a connection and doesn't actually say anything about them.

Again, back to Demon Slayer. All the demons were turned by Muzan Kibutsuji. We see how they met, and aside from literally turning the character into a demon, that is it. Each interaction doesn't give us a hint into Muzan's mind. He's simply there to serve the plot device.

With One Piece (yes, more spoilers), even though the central focus is on King, we get a bit of inside into Kaido. Although portrayed as a completely standoffish, cold monster, here we see a caring side of him. He lends a hand to someone who needs help. We aren't meant to feel bad for these characters in this flashback. We are simply having information being established. I call it a footnote in the middle of the fight because it is additional information not strictly required but adds further information.

Can an emotional backstory before death be done right? Yes! It's hard to pull off; again, I will use One Piece, Dressrosa, this time as an example. (Skip next paragraph)

Senor Pink is meant to be seen as obscene, pervy, and not a good guy. There's no reason to believe he isn't all of that until they reveal his backstory, as he's losing his fight against Franky. It clearly explains why he dresses like a baby to this day. It is genuinely tragic, even though I hated this guy mere minutes ago. Why can this strike a chord with me while other shows can't? Okay, sure, there is bias because One Piece is already awesome, but there are others! I may have hated Senor Pink until then because he presented himself as a horrible person. BUT I knew who he was. I understood what he did on a surface level, and that is crucial to establishing an origin story. I felt bad because it was relatable and tragic and explained why he acted the way he did. It left me thinking and reflecting. It gave me something to chew on.

This is still risky territory to deal with. You have to put a lot of faith in yourself as a writer that you can engage an audience with your characters without them having any idea who they are. Sometimes it's done well, and sometimes it's done poorly. And unfortunately, I see it done poorly a lot. It's definitely more of a mixed bag than final-moment backstories. I've seen more cases of it done well considerably, but it definitely doesn't mean it can't be screwed up. I will now spoil Hell's Paradise Season 1 (skip the two next paragraphs).

As characters start arriving in Paradise, they give some of them character introductions (or, as I like to call it, padding). Of those are characters named Tenza and Nurugai. In their introductory episode, or at least the first time we spend time alone with them, we are given both their backstories. Nurugai's village is completely destroyed, and she is blamed for it. Tenza was a child who never received love from anyone growing up and did whatever he could to survive, learning to kill people. Then, he's adopted and trained to become a swordsman. Learning to have respect and have someone to look up to and want to achieve goals for. Except, I don't care.

I think the trope of the characters' villages being burned down is overdone. The troubled child turned hoodlum trope is overdone. I couldn't care less about these characters because I've seen it 100 times before. There needs to be something that can engage me and allow me to feel bad for these characters. Tenza is a boring character through and through. I don't care how many times they show me his flashback. He's overdone. He fights valiantly and finds purpose in himself, fighting the monsters he faces to protect someone else. Then he dies, so it's like, ok, cool. Even if I liked his backstory (because, let's be honest, there's heavy bias because I did NOT like Hell's Paradise in the slightest), it didn't have any time to simmer with the audience. HI, CHARACTER YOU DON'T KNOW -> DEPRESSING BACKSTORY -> YOU LOVE HIM NOW -> HE'S FREAKING DEAD. Stop it. Don't do that.

Watching that episode felt like a waste of time. Why did I have to sit there and learn about this character's backstory, expecting they would be a bigger deal, just for the end of the episode to punch me in the face and laugh at me for how I just spent my past 20 minutes ingesting information that will not matter.

I'm happy to say I have more examples of how this can be done well. All of which cover different moods. The key to making a good introductory backstory is to have all the events surrounding the character be intriguing. We should be engaged and curious about the situation at hand, not just the character.

Since many backstories try to be tragic, I'll start with the first episode of Galaxy Express 999. We are given some world-building and then introduced to our titular character, Tetsuro. Immediately, we are already captivated by the world in which these characters live. We are now just following the life of one individual. I will forever praise Leiji Matsumoto for this and his ability to attach you to characters you've just met. There's something that comes off as just so human there's an immediate connection to be found. When we watch Tetsuro and his mother struggle through the cold, barren snow, you can feel the love they have for each other and their desperation for a better life. We understand their struggles. When Tetsuro's mom is killed, we feel bad for him. We don't even know him yet, but it's just the reality that this poor 10-year-old boy just lost his mom, and now he was to brave this harsh, cruel world alone, a world where humans are treated like dirt. This backstory sets up the motivation for his entire character as well. It's perfectly executed, and we can perfectly understand why he wants to get a robotic body to make up for the time his parents didn't get to live for.

The way Leiji Matsumoto executes backstories can be seen in practically every episode of Galaxy Express. In every episode, Tetsuro and Maetel travel to a new planet and encounter someone new and the life they struggle with. A part of the beauty in the message with Galaxy Express is no matter where you go or how distant you feel from other people, there's an inherent connection between us all. It's illustrated so well in this show that even though half the characters aren't even human, we understand their pain. Some characters don't even have backstories, all we see is the oppressive world they live in and feel immediate sympathy. This could be me being a major Leiji Matsumoto simp, but I think that there is so much care and consideration poured into that story. The difference between Demon Slayer and Galaxy Express is one says, "I want you to feel bad for this character," and the latter says, "I want to create something that's human."

Now, there are two other examples of good introductory backgrounds I want to bring up because they both show how this can be done to completely different genres.

I would first like to mention the start of Cowboy Bebop. At the start of the first episode, we are given a greyscaled noir-esque opening. The only sound is a singular music box as we see guns firing, a red rose, and a grenade, and then BANG, the opening starts. For anyone who's seen Bebop, you know very well that the intro sequence shows how Spike faked his death to escape the syndicate. It's something to be appreciated in retrospect, but this is gripping for newcomers watching the show for the first time. It's whiplash, this quiet scene, and then the loud booming intro. When I watched this show for the first time, I was excited. "Whoa, this is gonna be a wild ride," I thought. You want to find out what the backstory was about, however, and the pieces are put into place over the course of the show. The thing I love about Bebop is it's made to be rewatched. We understand the true meaning behind that first scene only by re-watching it. It's gripping with action, even if we have no idea who any of the characters shown were. That's not the point of introducing the characters. It's just meant for you to be curious.

As a final example, I want to talk about the first scene in The Wind Rises. The film starts out showing Jirou's childhood, but this is just a small part of the movie. The movie has a fantastic way of engaging us with the character. The first scene is Jirou's dream of flying a plane across the countryside of Japan until he's shot down. We don't know anything about this guy, but we can tell he loves flying, and it's done in an exciting way where we want to see more. His childhood is meant to show us where he is now, and you already have a great idea of who he is before we even reach the present day. It's done in such an engaging way, especially when he first dreams about Giovanni Battista. A kid so deeply rooted in this passion for planes, you want to see his story unfold.

And finally, my favorite way to integrate a backstory. It is in the middle of a show's runtime or after we've already established a character. I think that this is the perfect way to show a backstory because you've already gotten to understand and like the character, and you still have plenty of time before the show ends or the character dies for that backstory to truly feel like a part of the character that they carry with them and so when the show does end, or the character dies, the gravity of their whole story is felt that much more. However, there still is a way to mess that all up.

One glance at my profile, and it's obvious I really like Lupin, but any sane fan will tell you Part 6 was not it. It suffered from a lot of problems, both technical and in the show itself. It's obvious that the whole thing got thrown together quickly, and that goes for our main antagonist, Lupin's "mom." Hearing Lupin mention his mom was just a "nuh uh, no, we are not doing this." Did it have the potential to be presented in an interesting way? Yes, but that's not what happened.

For those not well-versed in the Lupin universe, there is basically no canon outside of the very, very few established things. Lupin's grandpa and dad were both master thieves; Goemon is the 13th descendant of Goemon Ishikawa, and Inspector Zenigata is the descendant of Heiji Zenigata. That is literally it. Characters' pasts are changed constantly, and even within the same show. Really, a "canon" event is only canon for that singular episode. I preface Part 6 with this because, obviously, bringing up a new character that is a massive part of Lupin is a big deal.

As it turns out, this character, Tomoe, was not actually Lupin's mom but his mother figure who helped train him to be the thief he is today. She was the one secretly pulling the strings behind every episode. That's why all these girls started appearing in Lupin's life. Ok? So yeah, you suck? Tomoe's character is confusing at best, but it is such a slap in the face to anyone invested in the show. That is why I use it as a perfect way to NOT integrate a backstory into a pre-established character, because the way part 6 was handled feels like fan fiction.

To compare, Lupin Zero which came out just a year after Part 6, was a 6-part series solely created to show the origin story of Lupin and Jigen. In that series, it includes Lupin I and Lupin II. These are characters we've only heard talked about, so seeing them was very exciting. Their existence and influence on Lupin are believable and add to his character because this flashback doesn't come out of nowhere. "Oh we've heard of these guys, and now we finally get to see them!!" See that's how to do that right. Not just "Haiii guys~~ So I have a mom now~!!☆*: .｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆ She is also evil now and you have to believe this is extremely important!!!"

In summary, characters like Tomoe feel like someone inserted their OC and we had to sit there for 24 episodes and actually believe that she was someone we should care about. (This is why I don't read fanfics with OC's). If you're going to throw in a backstory, make sure it doesn't come out of literally nowhere.

There are two different types of middle backstories, one is leaving hints and only getting glimpses into the past, and the other is dumping the whole thing. And both can be done really well.

My favorite example of just leaving little hints, is Evangelion. Practically all the characters follow this type of progression where we're giving a lot of hints where we're meant to put the pieces together. One I want to give special applause to is Asuka. Until the episode where her backstory is revealed, we don't really know much. Like Bebop, Evangelion is a show that demands rewatch in order to understand where everything fits into place. Initially watching Evangelion, Asuka comes off as annoying and narcissistic, and she is, but through her backstory, we find out why she acted the way she did throughout the series. The clues were all there, we just didn't fully understand until we got the main reveal.

As a kid, the one person she ever cared about was her mother, and the only thing she truly felt accomplished in, becoming an EVA pilot, she was never able to tell her mom before she hanged herself right in front of her daughter. This is why she comes off as so high and mighty because she needs to reassure herself that she is because she never had anyone that mattered to her, tell her that.

The way we perceive her actions is now understood because of her past. We needed this story to take place in the middle because we needed to form an opinion on Asuka and pick up on her character traits so that her backstory would explain all of that. The final two episodes speak a lot about her past and why she's like this, without this prior knowledge, we would not understand why she is such a troubled character and after we are allowed to see her express herself, why she is feeling insecure.

One final example. Luffy's backstory is almost as iconic as the character himself. Something I like that the anime does is put his backstory 4 episodes into the show, a change made from the manga, where it's the first chapter. I think that allowing us to spend 3 episodes with Luffy and getting to know his character so his backstory has all the more impact. I instantly fell in love with Luffy's character, so seeing him be so different as a kid and the emotional connection he has to Shanks, has all the more impact to me. I now understand why that hat is so important to Luffy. The little bit of context to Luffy's character before getting to know his past I think creates a deeper connection than starting out with it (I am not dissing the manga at all, I just prefer the anime in this one instance).

I think I've been able to explain my thoughts on how each type of backstory integration can be handled, and again I would like to reiterate, that this is all my opinion. This is something I find very important to me still, so I wanted to share the ways in which they are executed properly and improperly in all different forms. This part of a show is a make-it-or-break-it for me, so I think it's good to have high standards for how to execute a backstory properly. I hope whether you agree or disagree with me, you at least found this interesting. If you do have your own opinions I would like to hear them.

[badassunicorn2016]

Well, I started this blog 7 years ago with great intentions, and had a great almost 7 months posting and then I started grad school and anything other than grad school sorta fell by the wayside.

In the years between then and now, I’ve thought about picking up where I left off, but haven’t really found the motivation at the right time of the year.

So I’m sort letting the daily writing prompt/daily writing tip thing go after 7 years (it’s time 😂). While I stopped posting, I did continue writing (sporadically) and now that I am done with grad school I am actually taking a creative writing class for the first time ever and I am so excited!!!

It’s only just started, but one thing that my prof said that I’ve been ruminating over and want to share with you all is that a lot of people use backstory solely to justify a character’s actions. And if used like that, then it’s really easy to fall into common tropes and make your character feel very two dimensional. Instead, backstory should give your character depth. It can (and likely will) explain some of the character’s attributes/decisions/etc, but it should also add to the character in some way.

Idk I hope I’m explaining that right and in a way that makes sense.

For me, the example that comes to mind is from the show Miraculous Ladybug (I’m not caught up yet with what’s been released on Disney+ so PLEASE NO SPOILERS), where we have two characters, one of whom is a villain and one of whom is a superhero. Character one is a rich fashion designer with a wife who mysteriously disappeared and since then has rarely left his house and still grieves her. Character two grew up isolated, lost his mother as a child and his father is very distant, he was essentially raised by his father’s personal assistant. He was homeschooled, almost completely cut off from the outside world unless it was convenient for his father to parade him around.

Character one seems like he’s set up to be a Batman-like superhero, while character two is set up to be the villain with a chip on his shoulder.

But in reality, character one is the villain terrorizing Paris by preying on people’s negative emotions, while character two is an absolute cinnamon roll of a human who wholeheartedly accepts his role as second in command of a superhero duo, then a superhero team, led by a female superhero. He’s not even an antihero, he just absolutely loves Ladybug and is absolutely willing to accept that she is in charge from the get go. It does also explain some of his attributes/actions (why he loves being a superhero so much bc he finally gets the freedom he never got before; his worst nightmare is being locked up) but it *explains and adds*.

Like. They could’ve used his tragic Disney Princess background to justify making him an asshole. But they gave him the backstory while also making him the sweetest, kindest, ladybug simp possible.

There’s so many things this show gets right (this is just one of them) and even tho it’s a kids show I recommend everyone watch it (at least the earlier seasons… jury’s still out on what Disney has decided to do with it since they acquired it lol)

Anyway. Am hoping to share any other tidbits that I learn along the way, but based on that 7 year gap I am not making any promises 😂

[blood-darkened-moon]

@cowboysanddragons23​ Honestly, that’s an interesting topic. So let me use the opportunity to reply in more detail. I agree it would make sense too, but not making sense isn’t my biggest issue. Following Alexia’s obsession with ants, the remarks in her notes, and the fact that she used her father as a test subject, it could be very well possible that she would betray and kill Alfred. He fulfilled his purpose after waking her up, and in his injured state, he was no longer useful, so she discarded him.

What doesn’t make sense to me is what followed after in DC. Claire and Steve do not affect Alexia’s plan particularly. She could have let them go, or if she thought they knew too much, she could have killed them on the spot. But using them for random experiments in the situation Alexia is in is just stupid. She woke up after sleeping for 15 years, the base is in disarray, and zombies and BOWs roam the area. Alexia doesn’t have to be a genius to figure out that there are more important things to do at this moment, like getting rid of the zombies and BOWs, getting a general overview of her surroundings, and inspecting the damage, damage control if possible. And if it isn’t, she should pack her things and leave. Also, finding out what happened in the last 15 years and finding a way to leave Antarctica should have a higher priority. (Alfred could have told her what happened during her sleep, and he could fly a jet. His injuries don’t even appear to be that severe. But why take the easy way when she can have it complicated?) Anyway, there are billions of people on the planet, Alexia can do her tests later. And why does she even have to test now if her virus is suitable to control people? Shouldn’t she have done some work in this regard before she went to her cryogenic sleep? So she wasn’t even sure if it would actually work despite the long waiting time? She’s supposed to be highly intelligent, but DC-Alexia comes off as utterly clueless, almost like she didn’t expect to get this far, and now she does whatever. There are so many things wrong with her. DC-Alexia doesn’t work for me at all. Ok, DC is constrained by the turns of events in the original game. Without being forced to bend the narrative around certain key plot points and more liberties to rewrite the ending, things might make more sense.

I still think Alexia genuinely caring for Alfred is the superior version, at least without major changes to the entire story. I like that they made her more human than you would expect after learning about her backstory and reading her journal entries. The mutual affection between the twins and how much they depend on each other is such a beautiful story element and adds nicely to their tragedy. They cannot live with each other. Alexia wanted too much only to lose what meant the most to her, and she is about to lose the rest too. The twins never had a chance to grow up normally, followed by the wrong decisions, and now it’s too late for them. Alexia wasn’t evil per se, only very, very misguided. Her demeanor gives some hints that she has second thoughts about her plans. But now she can only choose between giving up and dying or continuing the path she had chosen years ago and hoping to reverse some damage.

In this context, Alexia works well. If you want to change her and make her eviler, there is one massive problem: the real Alexia is introduced late into the game. We have Alfred as Alexia, but that’s not her, and she was mentioned before. But Alexia herself only shows up in the last quarter of the game. Most of Alexia’s depth as a character comes from her reaction to Alfred’s death. If we take this away, what is left? The bits of dialogue with Chris feel already forced, and she doesn’t say much to Wesker either. There is barely any time left for her to make a lasting impression, even with story adjustments and expanding the dialogues a bit. She would just turn into a shallow stock villain if her last bit of humanity disappears and her only motivation is to conquer and kill. A last-minute final boss who is evil for the sake of being evil. That’s… just disappointing.

Then add more content, problem solved. Well, no. Like every story, a video game has a suspense arc. In CV, the climax is reached with Claire, not with Chris. Everything that follows after Claire’s scenario is the declining suspense part. They even had to add Wesker as a secondary villain for some suspense. I replayed CV last year. Honestly, the game felt like it was already over after switching to Chris. And it was getting worse after reaching Antarctica with him. You could artificially add more content for Chris’ scenario, but it would feel like putting the game on life-support, and this isn’t doing it a favor.

The only way such a drastic change for Alexia would work for me without fucking up the character or the narrative is with massive rewriting. Here’s a rough concept of what I think would work better. To avoid making her too shallow, Alexia needs more interactions with other characters and more focus as the main villain. Therefore, she should either be awake from the beginning or wake up early in the game. Then she could give Alfred direct orders and manipulate him to enforce his role as a soldier ant. Since it’s not needed anymore and would unnecessarily clutter up the story, Alfred’s split personality should be removed. Alfred should die earlier in the story too (after the first third or half), so the attention could already shift to Alexia in Claire’s scenario. And while having so little respect for him that she kills Alfred from afar with her tentacles isn’t a bad idea, I would prefer a more intimate death and Alexia using her bare hands. This way, we can get a reaction from Alfred, like begging for his life or devotion to the end and acceptance. Alfred’s story would be cut short at least he should have a last moment with his beloved sister.

And when Alexia should be evil, I want a purely evil and megalomaniac villain. Make her brutal, merciless, and consistent in a kneel-before-me-or-die way. I don’t want this cartoon villain shit with overly convoluted plans, like “I infect Steve with the virus and let him kill Claire, then he will suffer.” I know it doesn’t fit the timeline, but it would be badass if Alexia decapitates Claire and Steve with the giant ax at the end of Claire’s story segment. I totally would give her credit for it. (I’m just a sucker for major character deaths, ok.) Chris’s scenario would have become so much more interesting, not just this cheap rescue and clean up.

Sorry for being annoying about it, but here’s one last point why I still prefer Alexia the way she is: mourning Alfred’s death makes her unique among all the other villains. Most RE villains either never cared for their (dead) allies, or they are too far gone to be able to do so. The only other exception is Alcina Dimitrescu (and kind of Annette Birkin, but her situation is very different, and I see her more as a greyscale character than a straight-up villain). Lady Dimitrescu is upset about the death of her daughters. However, in her case, her primary reaction is rage. Her sadness is secondary. You can hear her voice slightly breaking, but we don’t see her actively mourning. Alexia reacts with anger too, but the primary focus is on her sadness when she sits on the floor and holds Alfred’s corpse in her arms, unable to help him. No other villain got a quiet moment for such an emotional reaction. If Alexia would kill Alfred, she would lose this unique trait and become one of many. And there are already similar examples of the evil mastermind who used and betrayed their subordinates, like Wesker using and infecting Excella in RE5 and Mother Miranda using and getting rid of the Four Lords in RE8.

Alexia killing Alfred could be done well. If this is your preferred scenario, I totally respect your opinion. And with enough rewriting to give Alexia more substance, I’m not directly against it. But overall, I don’t think this would be an improvement. Similar plots were done before, and I feel it takes away an important part from Alexia.

[brokentoys]

whenever  he  gets  beaten  up,  it’s  almost  ALWAYS  unnecessarily.  like  i’m  not  gonna  be  that  person  and  say  he  SHOULD  NEVER  GET  BEATEN  UP  BECAUSE  HE’S  MAH  FAV!!!1!!  ‘cos  no.  in  fact,  my  fav  comics  are  ones  where  he  ends  up  getting  defeated,  and  back  in  ark  (  see  detective  comics  annual  #8  and  bman  chronicles  #3.  ) because  again  -  he’s  a  tragic  character.  but  the  thing  is,  i  want  him  to  get  beaten  up  for  a  meaningful  reason,  for  something  to  add  to  the  story  that’s  being  told.  not  just  “haha  look  at  how  LAME  this  villain  is”  or  “look  at  how  COOL  harley/catwoman/batman/joker is!”  and  yea,  usually  when  he  gets  beaten  up  -  it’s  because  he’s  just  an  Expendable,  and  they  wanted  to  show  how  Cool  or  Scary  an  antagonist  is.  or  because  he  said  something  Smartassish,  so  they  have  a  character  punch  him  for  Quirky  Humor  ( believe  waylon  has  done  this  once  when  ed  made  a  lil  rude  joke )

i  think  the  reason  they  do  this  is  because  -  even  though  they  know  damn  well  eddie  can  have  depth,  and  be  a  superb  character  ( after  all,  there  ARE  very  good  comics  about  him  when  handed  to  competent  writers  who  care )  is  that  they  know  the  general  fandom  doesn’t  care  about  him.  and  dc  is  so  corporate,  that  why  even  bother  with  a  character  if  he’s  not  making  us  Big  Bucks ?  yes,  they  could  fill  out  his  potential  and  maybe  people  will  start  loving  him.  but  why  bother  when  harley  quinn,  joker,  or  batman  himself  are  already  making  money  ?   they  don’t  need  other  characters  when  these  ones  are  doing  a  wonderful  job  already.  and  so,  they  can  also  elevate  the  Badassery  of  these  characters  by  making  them  beat  down  on  ones  like  eddie  -  because  they  know  fans  won’t  care.

i  think  what  makes  me  even  madder  than  when  characters  just  beat  up  eddie  for  No  Actual  Reason  is  when  they  outriddle  him.  recently,  in  the  last  few  years,  both  the  clowns  (harley  and  joker)  managed  to  do  this.  and  it  made  me  the  most  furious,  to  the  point  where  i  wanted  to  just  Quit  new  comics  in  general.  like  say  what  you  want  about  harley  or  joker  -  that,  oh,  eddie  just  couldn’t  solve  their  riddles  because  they’re  just  too  Waaaackyyyy and  not  even  HE  could  comprehend  them.  BS  excuse.  eddie  has  been  shown  to  be  so  good  at  riddles,  that  not  even  bruce  can  outriddle  him.  ( the  only  example  i  can  think  of  is  in  TAS,  and  eddie  wasn’t  really  given  a  riddle,  he  was  given a   mystery. )  eddie  has  been  shown  to  solve  riddles  before  they’re  even  TOLD.  people  have  DIED  because  bruce  refused  to  get  eddie’s  help  on  riddles  ( and  eddie’s  been  right. )  eddie’s  main  thing  are  riddles.  therefore,  nobody  should  outriddle  him.  as  i’ve  said  before,  i  don’t  expect  eddie  to  outclown  joker.  i  don’t  expect  him  to  be  a  better  psychiatrist  ( or  even  acrobat )  than  harley.  but  no.  they  had  these  characters  beat  eddie  at  his  own  game  because  they  wanted  to  show  how  Cool  they  are,  that  they’re  so  great,  they  can  even  be  better  ROGUES  than  the  other  rogues.  what  the  need  for  riddler,  or  scarecrow,  or  any  of  them  if  joker  and  harley  are  just  superior  to  them  in  every  way  ?

and  what  really  grinds  my  gears  is  the  fact  that  people  often  love  other  characters  for  traits  eddie  has.  like  when  a  screenrant  article  critiqued  eddie  for  being  “egotistical”  and  just  a  “foil”  to  bruce.  even  though,  you  can  literally  say  the  same  about  joker.  everyone  loving  the  joker  movie,  even  though  joker’s  story  /  backstory  in  it  is  VERY  similar  to  ed’s  stories  in  the  comics.  like  it’s  been  proven  people  love  aspects  of  eddie’s  characters  when  used  on  other  characters.  but  no,  dc  just  wants  to  keep  him  the  “”campy””  character  because  they  just  don’t  wanna  bother.  it  really  annoys  me.

[codenamesazanka]

I feel like I can’t stress enough how important Spinner is to the ‘My Villain Academia’ arc, and how badly I need BONES to give him the attention and care in portraying him that he deserves. BONES have been pretty faithful to the manga, they’ve followed the story and brought each scene on the page to the screen... Except for some reason not when it comes to the Villains. Maybe it’s because arguably the Villains wasn’t the focal point of the show and they weren’t what most viewers watched the show to see; fine, but that was the case in the beginning and no longer.

Shigaraki Tomura, his exploits, his character, his story *is* the manga: the Heroes and protag react mainly to him and his actions, his past and motivations is one of the main factors that caused the current central conflict, and resolving his character arc is what will probably bring the whole series - to its end or near end. Yeah, imo I argue that everything about him moves the plot along.

Unfortunately(?), I think Horikoshi-sensei realized/decided/planned this a bit too late in his pacing. He said himself during the Stain arc or so that at first, he wasn’t planning on doing villain profiles - he wanted the villains to be scary.

But for the time being, I have no intention of writing about [the villains]. I do the introductions because l personally like those sorts of behind-the-scenes things, and also because I want my readers to feel a connection to the characters. But with villains, I decided I can't have them too likable. They're supposed to be terrifying.

Often it’s what we don’t know/understand/predict/expect (and therefore can’t get a grasp on) that makes things scary/uncomfortable/dislikable. The Villains were strange, seemingly erratic and incomprehensible in their behavior and motivations, malicious without rhyme or reason. Even now, I think a lot of people still think they’re just ‘completely evil crazy psychopaths’.

Anyways, the quote from him is from Volume 7. A whole bunch of volumes later in Vol. 23, he decided nvm: “The story has evolved beyond that point, so I'm ready to start doing villain profiles.” As he said himself, the profiles are to help the readers connect with the characters, make them relatable and likable. That’s what My Villain Academia is all about in the meta sense - to demystify Shigaraki Tomura and his ragtag chaos friends, to give them depth, and to induce interest in their stories, if not sympathy. Hype them up for the rather major roles they play in this ‘final arc’ of the series.

Enter Spinner, the lizard ninja guy.

Besides his unusual looks, Spinner is really, truly nothing special. He’s got a weak quirk, he holds no title of being the strongest or smartest or whatever member of the League, he’s not related by blood or thematically to any major players in the main conflicts, and his ‘tragic’ backstory is completely mundane compared to his allies - he was bullied as a child, and so is fueled by resentment. In the events leading up to the start of the arc, Spinner is the most moral and understandable of the Villains - has a ‘good’ reason for his crimes (eradicate corrupted Heroes), has standards on who he’s willing to fight (questions attacking the police and anyone with a ‘true heroic spirit’), and wants a concrete game plan instead of aimless discord the rest of the League seems alright with.

Once the arc starts, we immediately learn the basics of his character - he’s got a heteromorph quirk that makes his appearance a humanoid gecko and it’s something he was born with that he can’t control, and yet he faces discrimination from literal KKK-type cultists who refuse to see him as human. This was more or less his life in his small, rural hometown, harsh enough that his heart had become ‘completely empty’. It’s simple, it’s relatable and an realistic analogy anyone who has faced prejudice and harassment and been hurt by it can understand.

All this is so Spinner ends up being the most normal and typical sympathetic of the League of Villains, which sets him up to be a sort of ‘gateway Villain’. It’s why he’s narrator. He doesn’t understand at all the crazy All For One shenanigans, he’s thinks Shigaraki is an incompetent weirdo, and he asks what we were all thinking: “Shigaraki Tomura, what the fuck are you doing.” Quite obviously, Spinner’s meant the audience surrogate and so he is. That being a core of the way the story of My Villain Academia is told means it needs be followed by the anime adaption.

This core sets up the rest of the arc - sets up how we will come to view Shigaraki Tomura and his backstory, alongside the rest of the League Villains, their relationships and dynamics with each other, and who they are at heart. Shigaraki’s telling of his distorted origins in Chapter 222 is horrifying as it is already; but it’s Spinner’s worried-facial-expressions reactions littered throughout the chapter that adds to it by telling us one major thing: Spinner’s an empathetic guy, because he immediately feels a kindred spirit with Shigaraki when the latter talks about the hollowness he feels. So begins the audience surrogate’s change of opinion and us readers going along with it, and also: that Shigaraki Tomura now has Spinner’s concern and attention - and is deserving of it.

Pardon the sudden heavily edited quote, but CS Lewis says,

Friendship arises...when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique [burden]. The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, "What? You too? I thought I was the only one." ...And instantly they stand together in an immense solitude.

That’s almost word for word Spinner in that moment, suddenly realizing he’s no longer as alone as he thought. He’s no longer as alone, and this means perhaps neither should Shigaraki. Because established in that very chapter, too, is the hate in Shigaraki’s heart fueled by his grief and despair, the loss of his family, past, and faith in others, his misery of thinking he’ll never feel good again. Yet - there’s Spinner, willing to extend some empathy and care, the very antidote to all that Shigaraki had revealed. Because the desire for companionship (or at least the lessening of the pain of loneliness) is universal, even among villains - maybe especially among these villains - we probably love to see it. Want to see it.

On that basis - friendship borne out of empathy - Spinner puts his faith his leader, puts his trust and support, and the rest of the arc is us following the tension of whether he was right to do so. Whether Shigaraki would live up to what Spinner expects of him, whether Spinner will side with Shigaraki despite their earlier conflict. Whether they could become friends, or something like that. And once they do, the consequences of this as things spiral more and more out of control, beyond this arc - that Spinner would know Shigaraki well enough to do something crucial at the turn of a battle later, that Spinner would stick by Shigaraki’s side when he’s in danger, that Spinner is loyal enough to Shigaraki to help him as a friend should.

Through Spinner, we come to see Shigaraki, originally incomprehensible and terrifying, as someone beyond a Villain or a leader, but rather someone valued as a person, a friend, a fellow silly gamer nerd. He’s still scary, of course - just less so, with a seed of doubt of his doom that Spinner - and only Spinner, by virtue of his specific narrative and emotional role in this arc - planted in their characters and the story.

It’s because of Spinner that MVA works, by itself, and as a stepping stone towards the rest of the series. So he really needs to be everything he is, was, and more in the anime adaption please BONES oh my god please

[hamliet]

The Crows Summon the Sun

Or, Hamliet’s review of Shadow & Bone, which gets a 4.5/5 for enjoyment and a 3.5/5 in terms of writing.

The true heroes of this story and the saviors of the show are the Crows. However, the problem is that the show then has an uneven feel, because the strength of the Crows plotline highlights the weaknesses of the trilogy storyline. But imo, overall, the strengths overshadow (#punintended) the weaknesses. 

I’ll divide the review into the narrative and the technical (show stuff, social commentary), starting with narrative.

Narrative: The Good 

It’s What The Crows Deserve

I went into the show watching it for the Crows; however, knowing that their storyline was intended to be a prequel, I wasn’t terribly optimistic. And while it is a prequel, the characters have complete and full arcs that perfectly set them up for the further development they will have in the books (which I think should be the next season?). Instead of retreading the arcs they’d have in the books, which is how prequels usually go, they had perfect set up for these arcs. It’s really excellent. 

Jesper, Inej, and Kaz are all allowed to be flawed, to have serious conflicts with one another, and yet to love each other. They feel like a found family in the best of ways. Kaz is the perfect selfish rogue; he’s a much more successfully executed Byronic hero than the Darkling, actually. Inej is heroic and her faith is not mocked, yet she too is flawed and her choices are not always entirely justified, but instead left to the audience to ponder (like killing the girl), which is a more mature writing choice that I appreciated. 

Jesper is charming, has a heart of gold despite being a murderer and on the surface fairly greedy, and MILO THE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT GOAT WAS THE BEST THING EVER. I also liked Jesper’s fling with Dima but I felt it could be better used rather than merely establishing his sexuality, like if Jesper and Dima had seen each other one more time or something had come of their tryst for the plot/themes/development of Jesper. 

Nina and Matthias’s backstory being in the first season, instead of in flashbacks, really works because it automatically erases any discomfort of the implications of Nina having falsely accused Matthias that the books start with. We know Nina, we know Matthias, we know their motivations, backgrounds, and why they feel the way we do. It’ll be easy for the audience to root for them without a lot of unnecessary hate springing from misunderstanding Nina (since she’s my favorite). Matthias’s arc was also really strongly executed and satisfyingly tragic. Their plotline was a bit unfortunately disconnected from the rest of the story, but Danielle Gallagan and Callahan Skogman have absolutely sizzling chemistry so I found myself looking forward to their scenes instead of feeling distracted. Also? It’s nice seeing a woman with Nina’s body type as a romantic and powerful character. 

Hamliet Likes Malina Now

Insofar as the trilogy storyline goes, the best change the show made was Mal. He still is the same character from the books, but much more likable. The pining was... a lot (too much in episode 4, I felt) but Malina is a ship I actually enjoyed in the show while I NOTP’d it in the books. Mal has complexity and layers to his motivations (somewhat) and a likable if awkward charm. Archie Renaux was fantastic. 

Ben Barnes is the perfect Aleksandr Kirigan, and 15 year old me, who had the biggest of big crushes on Ben Barnes (first celebrity crush over a decade ago lol), was pretty damn happy lol. He’s magnificantly acted--sympathetic and terrifying, sincerely caring and yet villainous in moments. Story-wise, I think it was smart to reveal his name earlier on than in the books, because it helps with the humanization especially in a visual medium like film. Luda was a fitting (if heartbreaking) backstory, but it is also hard for me to stomach knowing what the endgame of his character is. Like... I get the X-men fallacy thing, but I hope the show gives more kindness to his character than the books did, yet I’m afraid to hold my breath. Just saying that if you employ save the cat, if you directly say you added this part (Luda) to make the character more likable (as the director did) please do not punish the audience for feeling what you intended. 

I also liked the change that made Alina half-Shu. It adds well to her arc and fits with her character, actually giving her motivations (she kinda just wants to be ordinary in a lot of ways) a much more interesting foundation than in the books. Also it’s nice not to have another knock-off Daenerys (looking to you Celaena and book!Alina). Jessie Mei Li does a good job playing Alina’s insecurities and emotions, but... 

Narrative: The Ehhhhhhh

Alina the Lamp

Sigh. Here we go. Alina has little consistent characterization. She’s almost always passive when we see her, yet she apparently punches an officer for calling her a name and this seems to be normal for her, but it doesn’t fit at all with what we know about her thus far. Contradictions are a part of humanity, but it’s never given any focus, so it comes across as inconsistent instead of a flaw or repression. 

I have no idea what Alina wants, beside that she wants to be with Mal, which is fine except I have no idea what the basis of their bond is. Even with like, other childhood friends to lovers like Ren/Nora in RWBY or Eren/Mikasa in SnK, there’s an inciting moment, a reason, that we learn very early on in their story to show us what draws them together. Alina and Mal just don’t have that. There’s the meadow/running away thing, but they were already so close, and why?  Why, exactly? What brought them together? The term “bullies” is thrown around but it isn’t ever explored and it needed to be this season. If I have to deal with intense pining for so many episodes at least give me a foundation for their devotion. You need to put this in the beginning, in the first season. You just do.

A “lamp” character is a common metaphor to describe a bad character: essentially, you could replace the character with a lamp and nothing changes. Considering Alina’s gift is light, it’s a funnily apt metaphor, but it really does apply. Her choices just don’t... matter. She could be a special lamp everyone is fighting over and almost nothing would change. The ironic thing is that everyone treating her like a fancy lamp is exactly the conflict, but it’s never delved into. We’re never shown that Alina is more than a lamp. She never has to struggle because her choices are made for her and information is gifted to her when she needs it. Not making choices protects Alina from consequences and the story gives her little incentive to change that; in fact, things tend to turn out better when she doesn’t make choices (magic stags will arrive). 

Like... let’s look at a few occasions when Alina almost or does make choices. For example, she chooses to (it seems) sleep with Kirigan, but then there’s a convenient knock at the door and Bhagra arrives with key information that changes Alina’s mind instantly despite the fact that Bhagra’s been pretty terrible to her. If you want to write a woman realizing she’s been duped by a cruel man, show her discovering it instead of having the man’s abusive mother tell her when she had absolutely no such suspicions beforehand. There’s no emotional weight there because Alina doesn’t struggle. 

When she is actually allowed to carry out a bad choice, the consequences are handwaved away instead of built into a challenge for her. Like... Alina got her friends killed. More than once. I’m not saying she’s entirely to blame for these but could we show her reacting to it? Feeling any sort of grief? She never mentions Raisa or Alexei after they’re gone, just Mal, and I’m... okay. They were there because of you. Aren’t you feeling anything? Aren’t you sad? The only time Alina brings up her friends’ deaths is to tell Kirigan he killed her friends when they were only there because she burned the maps. She yells at Kirigan for “never” giving her a choice, but she almost never makes any, so why would he? Alina has the gall to lecture Genya about choices, but she herself almost never has to make any. 

Which brings me to another complaint in general: Alina’s lack of care for everyone around her when they’re not Mal, even if they care for her. Marie dies because of her (absolutely not her fault of course) but as far as we know she never even learns about Marie. She certainly doesn’t ever ask about her or Nadia. Alina seems apathetic at best to people, certainly not compassionate or kind. 

The frustrating thing is that there is potential here. Like, it actually makes a lot of psychological sense for an orphan who has grown up losing to be reluctant to care for people outside of her orbit and that she would struggle to believe she can have any say in her destiny (ie make choices). It’s also interesting that a girl who feels like an outsider views others outside her. But the show never offers examines Alina’s psychology with any depth; it simply tells us she’s compassionate when she is demonstrably not, it tells us she makes decisions when it takes magical intervention to do so. It’s a missed opportunity. This does not change between episodes 1 and 8, despite the episodes’ parallel structures and scenes, which unintentionally reinforces that Alina had little real development. 

Inej and ironically Jesper and Kaz embody the concept of “mercy” far better and with far more complexity than Alina does. The Crows have reactions to the loss of people who even betray them (Arken, etc), learn, and course-correct (or don’t) when they are even loosely involved in having strangers die. They’re good characters because they change and learn and have their choices matter. When they kill we see them wrestle with it and what this means even if they are accustomed to doing so. Jesper can’t kill in front of a child. Kaz wonders what his killings do to Inej’s idea of him.

Narrative: The Mixed Bag

Tropes, Themes, Telling vs. Showing

So the show’s themes in the Alina storyline are a mess, as they are in the trilogy too. Tropes are a very valuable way to show your audience what you’re trying to say. They’re utilized worldwide because they resonate with people and we know what to expect from them. The Crows' storyline shows us what it wants us to learn.

Preaching tells, and unfortunately, the trilogy relies on telling/preaching against fornicationBad Boys. It’s your right to write any trope or trample any trope you want--your story--but you should at least understand what/why you are doing so. The author clearly knows enough about Jungian shadows and dark/light yin/yang symbolism to use it in the story, but then just handwaves it away as “I don’t like this” but never does so in a narratively effective way: addressing the appeal in the first place. If you really wanna deconstruct a trope, you gotta empathize with the core of the reason these tropes appeal to people (it allays deep fears that we are ourselves unlovable, through loving another person despite how beastly they can be), and address this instead of ignoring it. Show us a better way through the Fold of your story. Don’t just go around it and ignore the issue.

The trilogy offers highly simplistic themes at best--bad boy bad and good boy good, which is fine-ish for kid lit but less fine for adult complexity, which the show (more so than the books) seems to try to push despite not actually having much of it.

Alina and Mal are intended to be good, we’re told they are, but I’m not sure why beyond just that we’re told so. Alina claims the stag chose her, but in the show it’s never explained why at all. Unlike with Kaz, Inej, Jesper, and hell even Matthias and Nina, we don’t see Alina or Mal’s complex choices and internal wrestling. 

Like, Inej’s half-episode where she almost killed the guy they needed was far more character exploration than Alina has the entire show, to say nothing of Inej’s later killing which not only makes her leaps and bounds more interesting, but ironically cements her as a far more compelling and yes, likable, heroine than Alina. We see Inej’s emotional and moral conflict. We can relate to her. We see Kaz struggling with his selfishness and regrets, with his understanding of himself through his interactions with and observations of Inej, Alina, the Darkling, Arken, and Jesper.

We don’t explore what makes Mal or Alina good and what makes them bad. We don’t know what Alina discovers about herself, what her power means for her. We are told they are good, we are told she knows her power is hers, but never shown what this means or what this costs them/her. Their opportunities to be good are handed to them (the stag, Bhagra) instead of given to them as a challenge in which they risk things, in which doing good or making a merciful choice costs them. Alina gets to preach about choices without ever making any; Inej risks going back to the Menagerie to trust Kaz. Her choices risk. They cost. They matter and direct her storyline and her arc, and those of the people around her.

Production Stuff:

The Good: 

The production overall is quite excellent. The costumes, pacing, acting, and cinematography (for example, one of the earliest scenes between the Darkling and Alina has Alina with her back to the light, face covered in his shadow, while the Darkling’s face is light up by her light even if he stands in the shadows) are top-notch. The soundtrack as well is incredible and emphasizes the scenes playing. The actors have great chemistry together, friend chemistry and romantic when necessary (Mal and Alina, the Darkling and Alina, Kaz and Inej, Nina and Matthias, David and Genya, etc.) All are perfectly cast. 

The Uncomfortable Technicalities Hamliet Wants to Bitch About:

The only characters from fantasy!Europe having any trace of an accent reminiscent of said fantasy country's real-world equivalent are antagonists like Druskelle (Scandinavia) and Pekka (Ireland). When the heroes mostly have British accents despite being from fantasy Russia and Holland, it is certainly A Choice to have the Irish accent emphasized. The actor is British by the way, so I presume he purposely put on an Irish accent. I'm sure no one even considered the potential implications of this but it is A Look nonetheless.

The Anachronisms Hamliet Has a Pet Peeve About: 

The worldbuilding is compelling, but the only blight on the worldbuilding within the story itself (ignoring context) was that there are some anachronisms that took me out of the story, particularly in the first episode where “would you like to share with the class” and “saved by the horn” are both used. Both are modern-day idioms in English that just don’t fit, especially the latter. The last episode uses “the friends we made along the way.” There are other modern idioms as well.

IT’S STARKOVA and Other Pet Peeves Around the Russian Portrayal 

Russian names are not hard, and Russian naming systems are very, very easy to learn. I could have waved “Starkov” not being “Starkova,” “Nazyalensky” not being “Nazyalenskaya,”  and “Safin” not being “Safina” as an American interpretation (since in America, the names do not femininize). However, “Mozorova” as a man is unfathomable and suggests to me the author just doesn’t understand how names work, which is a bit... uh okay considering a simple google search gets you to understand Russian names. They aren’t hard. I cannot understand why the show did not fix this. It is so simple to fix and would be a major way to help the story’s overall... caricature of Russia. 

Speaking of that... Ravka is supposedly Russian-based, but it is more accurately based on the stereotypes of what Americans think of Russia. Amerussia? Russica? Not great. 

The royals are exactly what Americans think of the Romanovs, right down to the “greasy” “spiritual advisor” who is clearly Rasputin and which ignores the Romanov history, very real tragedy, and the reason Rasputin was present in the court. The religion with all its saints is a vapid reflection of Russian Orthodoxy. The military portrayal with its lotteries and brutality and war is how the US views the Russian military. The emphasis on orphans, constant starvation, classification, and children being ripped from their homes to serve the government is a classic US understanding of USSR communism right down to the USSR having weapons of destruction the rest of the world fears (Grisha). Not trying to defend the Soviet Union here at all, but it is simplistic and reductive and probably done unconsciously but still ehhhh. 

However, I’m not Russian. I just studied Russian literature. I’ve seen very little by way of discussion of this topic online, but what I do see from Russian people has been mixed--some mind, some don’t. The reality is that I actually don’t really mind this because it’s fantasy, though I see why some do. I'm not like CANCEL THIS. So why am I talking about this beyond just having a pet peeve?

Well, because it is a valid critique, and because it doesn’t occur in a vacuum. The Grishaverse is heralded as an almost paragon for woke Young Adult literature, which underlines itself what so frustrates me about how literary circles discuss issues of diversity and culture. Such praise, while ignoring its quasi-caricature of Russia, reflects a very ethnocentric (specifically American) understanding of culture, appropriation, and representation. All stories are products of their culture to various extents, but it bothers me on principle what the lit community reacts (and overreacts sometimes?) to and what people give a pass to. The answer to what the community reacts to and what it gives a pass always pivots on how palatable the appropriation is to American understandings and sensibilities. There’s nuance here as well, though. 

I'm not cancelling the story or thinking it should be harshly attacked for this, but it is something that can be discussed and imo should be far more often--but with the nuance it begs, instead of black/white. But that’s a tall ask. 

[nanowrimo]

Contentedly Creating Comprehensive Characters

We all get stuck on our characters eventually, but maybe all we need is a fresh reminder on how to make those iconic characters. Luckily, writer Cyra Blue has a guide for how to create in-depth characters:

Chances are, if you’re reading this, you have a story (and by extension, some characters) mucking about in your brain. But how to make your forgotten prince stand out from among the many, many others of his kind, shape your villain into something more than a cardboard cutout of Jafar, or give that side character a personality other than “quirky alchemist”? I’ll give you a hint: it’s going to take some planning.

Put away your pitchforks, impulse writers. As a “pantser” myself, I know the urge to spit out your story without really thinking is great, but often comes at the cost of poor storytelling, confusing plot points, and bland characters. A bit of planning will help with that (and might even end up being fun!).

So, characters. Step one is to figure out what the character is doing in the story. Stop styling their spiky black emo hair for a second and pay attention, this is the most important part. In Plato’s Poetics (which is an excellent guide to writing tragedy, by the way), he emphasizes that the plot is the most important part of the story, and characters are intertwined in that, meant to carry the plot to its completion. Therefore, your characters must have a place somewhere in the plot, otherwise, well… they don’t matter. In creating characters for a story, ask yourself: 

“What impact does this character have on this story, and how do they help move it along?” 

If your adorable kitty girl doesn’t really do much for the gritty fantasy murder you’re writing, it’s time to make some cuts.

Now that you know what your character is doing with their life, you need to give them a personality. The easiest way to go about it is to pick up your cousin and drop them into the story without warning. Seriously. In my experience, I find the character creation process becomes much simpler if you have a good base to start off of. I can’t tell you how many times my brother has made it into my stories, whether he’s the main character or some weirdo walking down the street. The trick is, though, you don’t want to put the person in exactly as they are, especially if they’re going to be reading your story. Rather, you should take them as a base, stripping away all the identifying features until you get to their bones… that is, their personality. From there, you can add details until your new character is fully formed.

Think of it like casting roles in a play: you want the best possible person to play each part. For example, say your best friend is usually cheerful, but works hard to achieve their goals and is motivated to be better by their failures. You can very easily turn that personality into a character just by adding the necessary details, and all of a sudden you have the perfect character type for that extremely important old woman who raises the definitely-not-prince.

Alright, now we get to the part everybody likes: the details. My favorite way to do this is to fill out a character sheet, a myriad of which you can find with a simple Google search. There, you can finally give them their emo hair and favorite food, as well as a backstory, a family, goals, weaknesses, epic karate skills, and whatever else you desire. Looking for more help with their personality? Take a Myers-Briggs personality test as your character to get a feel for how their mind works.

And that’s it! If you follow these steps, you should end up with a good idea of who your character is and what role they play. Now, get out there and try it for yourself. Best of luck to all of you! 

Cyra Blue is currently a student at Thomas Aquinas College, where she is pursuing a degree in the Liberal Arts, which should explain the Plato reference. She does not have any currently published works, but is simultaneously working on an anthology detective series and a fantasy novel that may or may not involve a cat girl. In her free time, she enjoys acting in musicals, fooling around with art supplies, and keeping up with way too many cartoons. You can follow her on Instagram @ceruleancyra.

Top Photo by Alice Dietrich on Unsplash  

[phantomrose96]

Any thoughts on the most recent My Hero Academia chapters?

Hmmmm, hmmmmmm

I’ve got a mixed bag of positive and negative feelings, and since I’ve got no interest in starting discourse or raining on anyone’s parade, I’mma put my thoughts below the cut:

So, the negative: 

In short, I’ve known since November I wasn’t gonna love where the canon Touya storyline is going, and that’s because Endeavor’s been “redeemed”, and I personally don’t vibe with his redemption at all.

It came off as very selfish, very self-centered. And frankly “Endeavor risked his life to fight a Nomu to show he’s sorry” makes no sense to me because - the man is the #1 Hero. (and was the #2 for ages before that). He had the most resolved incidents in history! You don’t get that way by NOT risking your ass on the regular. 

That seemed obvious to me from the start. Endeavor is a complete monster who ALSO risks his skin every single day of his life to save people. And still is a complete monster in spite of it. If you wanna convince me of an Endeavor Redemption:tm:, don’t spend any time on “oh he fought a powerful villain and almost died” thats literally not different from his last 20 years - instead make him do 1000 years’ worth of work doing right by the family he mercilessly abused, and even then they don’t gotta take him back.

I think Endeavor was introduced as SUCH a monstrous character that I can’t think of any redemption arc for him that I would enjoy. 

(and disclaimer, that’s all PERSONAL opinion. im not raising pitchforks over it. i have like, a job, friends, and hobbies.)

In the same vein, I’m uncomfortable with the direction of the most recent chapter with the whole Todo family (especially Natsuo) being like “it was our fault too, not just yours Enji.” 

I could maybe understand Rei shouldering some of that guilt - in her own right she failed Touya and Shouto, especially as their mother, even if she WAS also definitely Enji’s victim. But Natsuo? Having Natsuo say “hey Pops maybe I - an 8 year old - should have knocked some sense into you.” n....no. no.

This SHOULD be Enji’s sin to bear! His and his alone, imo. I don’t sympathize with him wallowing in his Sad Abuser Man Pain while his victimized family comes in to pep talk him. Face the skeletons in your closet, fucko

(disclaimer 2: but like, if you like the arc then power to ya. ....Power... to ya.... Power toya....  Toya..... hahhh... hah..haghhg.....) 

ANYWAY SO, the positive:

the whole “Dabi Dance” chapter FUCKING SLAPPED. during that blessed run of like  days in November. THAT SLAPPED.

Toya’s backstory, itself, I vibe pretty well with. I like the explanation that he was like tossed aside for being too weak, after being taught that being his father’s successor was his only worth in life, and he was left to watch as the rest of his family was just... complacent with this. That’ll fuck a kid up.

I also like knowing the fridge horror that Dabi’s scars are Literally Because His Quirk Wounds Him. Adds a new scary depth to every time we see him use his flames. Like damn, he’s just accepted self-immolation til he can’t feel nothing no more, which is a great parallel metaphor to what Dabi has done to his feelings.

ALSO! personal win for me: the confirmation that “having the fire quirk, but the ice resistance, leaving Toya susceptible to his own quirk” validates me for an old old fic I have about Shouto called Cryogenic.