#as well as plot structure; themes; character arcs; basic narrative…

[pandorem]

Me every time I check out the dead boy detectives tag: *rolls up sleeves* welp. Looks like it’s time for another Crystal Palace defence post

[deception-united]

Let's talk about story structure.

Fabricating the narrative structure of your story can be difficult, and it can be helpful to use already known and well-established story structures as a sort of blueprint to guide you along the way. Before we delve into a few of the more popular ones, however, what exactly does this term entail?

Story structure refers to the framework or organization of a narrative. It is typically divided into key elements such as exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution, and serves as the skeleton upon which the plot, characters, and themes are built. It provides a roadmap of sorts for the progression of events and emotional arcs within a story.

Freytag's Pyramid:

Also known as a five-act structure, this is pretty much your standard story structure that you likely learned in English class at some point. It looks something like this:

Exposition: Introduces the characters, setting, and basic situation of the story.

Inciting incident: The event that sets the main conflict of the story in motion, often disrupting the status quo for the protagonist.

Rising action: Series of events that build tension and escalate the conflict, leading toward the story's climax.

Climax: The highest point of tension or the turning point in the story, where the conflict reaches its peak and the outcome is decided.

Falling action: Events that occur as a result of the climax, leading towards the resolution and tying up loose ends.

Resolution (or denouement): The final outcome of the story, where the conflict is resolved, and any remaining questions or conflicts are addressed, providing closure for the audience.

Though the overuse of this story structure may be seen as a downside, it's used so much for a reason. Its intuitive structure provides a reliable framework for writers to build upon, ensuring clear progression and emotional resonance in their stories and drawing everything to a resolution that is satisfactory for the readers.

The Fichtean Curve:

The Fichtean Curve is characterised by a gradual rise in tension and conflict, leading to a climactic peak, followed by a swift resolution. It emphasises the building of suspense and intensity throughout the narrative, following a pattern of escalating crises leading to a climax representing the peak of the protagonist's struggle, then a swift resolution.

Initial crisis: The story begins with a significant event or problem that immediately grabs the audience's attention, setting the plot in motion.

Escalating crises: Additional challenges or complications arise, intensifying the protagonist's struggles and increasing the stakes.

Climax: The tension reaches its peak as the protagonist confronts the central obstacle or makes a crucial decision.

Falling action: Following the climax, conflicts are rapidly resolved, often with a sudden shift or revelation, bringing closure to the narrative. Note that all loose ends may not be tied by the end, and that's completely fine as long as it works in your story—leaving some room for speculation or suspense can be intriguing.

The Hero’s Journey:

The Hero's Journey follows a protagonist through a transformative adventure. It outlines their journey from ordinary life into the unknown, encountering challenges, allies, and adversaries along the way, ultimately leading to personal growth and a return to the familiar world with newfound wisdom or treasures.

Call of adventure: The hero receives a summons or challenge that disrupts their ordinary life.

Refusal of the call: Initially, the hero may resist or hesitate in accepting the adventure.

Meeting the mentor: The hero encounters a wise mentor who provides guidance and assistance.

Crossing the threshold: The hero leaves their familiar world and enters the unknown, facing the challenges of the journey.

Tests, allies, enemies: Along the journey, the hero faces various obstacles and adversaries that test their skills and resolve.

The approach: The hero approaches the central conflict or their deepest fears.

The ordeal: The hero faces their greatest challenge, often confronting the main antagonist or undergoing a significant transformation.

Reward: After overcoming the ordeal, the hero receives a reward, such as treasure, knowledge, or inner growth.

The road back: The hero begins the journey back to their ordinary world, encountering final obstacles or confrontations.

Resurrection: The hero faces one final test or ordeal that solidifies their transformation.

Return with the elixir: The hero returns to the ordinary world, bringing back the lessons learned or treasures gained to benefit themselves or others.

Exploring these different story structures reveals the intricate paths characters traverse in their journeys. Each framework provides a blueprint for crafting engaging narratives that captivate audiences. Understanding these underlying structures can help gain an array of tools to create unforgettable tales that resonate with audiences of all kind.

Happy writing! Hope this was helpful ❤

Previous | Next

[osteoptimist]

So I've been thinking about narrative mechanics in games, particularly the Beats system in Slugblaster.

For those unfamiliar, I highly recommend watching this Quinns Quest review, Quinns is awesome and he really does play games with his group before reviewing them, usually an 8+ session adventure if not a whole campaign.

Basically Slugblaster is about teenagers riding hoverboards and flipping off cops in other dimensions, drawing a lot of inspiration from skateboarding culture, and it has a big emphasis on a kind of coming-of-age vibe.

One of the core mechanics of the game is the Beats system. Quinns does a better job explaining it than I will, but basically Beats (and especially Arc Beats) are like small structured storylines for your character. They follow a particular theme like family trouble at home, or teenage angst, or a romantic relationship, or signing on with a sponsor.

The Arcs all contain four Beats, and they follow a very familiar story structure. Exposition, rising action, climax, resolution. And that means some of the events are good, and some of them are bad, and there are mechanical incentives for all of it and it's very well done and I want to try it.

BUT. The reason I'm talking about this is because this is something I have wanted from TTRPGs for a long time.

See, I mainly play combat heavy heroic fantasy games, which I previously tried to make work in D&D5e but am now having much more fun with in Draw Steel. There are a great many games in this genre, and they tend to work pretty similarly in a lot of ways, but one thing that almost all of them have in common is that as the adventure goes on, your character is consistently getting stronger.

You face challenges, overcome them, and get rewarded by levelling up and getting new powers, or looting magic items, or getting special benefits awarded by NPCs or whatever. But you are always getting stronger. Outside of rare cases where you lose a magic item or something, you never really get weaker or lose access to powers you've gained.

But in virtually all fantasy media where the characters have magic powers, they don't JUST get stronger as the story goes on. They inevitably have a darkest hour, a lowest point where the combination of their internal conflict and the external opposition seem too great to overcome. Often in these moments, their powers might weaken or stop working entirely, or they might lose control, or they might be afraid to use their power.

And once they emerge from that, they're stronger than ever.

The oaths in the Stormlight Archive series are a great example of this. Spoilers I guess, but look at Kaladin! In Words of Radiance when he strays from his oaths and allows the assassination plot to continue, his bond with Syl weakens and he loses his powers. Once he resolves his inner conflict and commits to protecting even those he hates, he swears the third ideal and gets his powers back.

That is a direct correlation between character growth and character ability. You see this in other media too. Zuko loses his firebending after joining the avatar, and regains it once he fully turns away from his anger and decides to commit himself to restoring balance. In the first Spiderverse movie, Miles struggles the entire time to control his powers and it's only when he overcomes his fear and takes a literal leap of faith that he really takes ownership of his abilities.

And THAT is something I have always wanted in TTRPGs. Tying mechanical advancement, at least in some respects, to the personal growth of your character. Levelling up from fighting monsters and getting stronger from experience is all well and good, but becoming more powerful as a consequence of learning more about who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in? That's the juicy shit right there.

Now, in Slugblaster, these Beats don't usually make your character any more powerful. Some of them can give you access to new abilities, but it's not a game where you become a godlike skater by the end. It's just not a game principally focused on becoming more powerful in order to overcome bigger obstacles. The Beats system in Slugblaster is primarily a way to let gameplay set up character and story moments, in a way that is structured enough to let almost anyone create really compelling journeys of personal growth and yet vague enough to let the story be unique and interesting every time. The Beats you go through also determine your Doom and Legacy, two resources that accrue over the course of the short campaign and are used in a final roll to decide your character's epilogue.

The Beats system, I think, is what makes Slugblaster really work as a game about coming-of-age stories. Without it, it might still be a cool fun game about riding your hoverboard in weird dimensions and trying to go viral with videos of your tricks, but it would take a lot of work from the whole group to really make it into a compelling story. With Beats, the game does all that work for you and gives you a very clear recipe for dramatic and memorable narratives. Again, that might sound restrictive or flat or like it's going to make for very predictable stories, but all it really does is lay out the classic story structure that sticks around because it works.

There's also a lot of potential for tragedy, because you don't have to complete the Arcs. In the class arc for the Grit class, for instance, you spend the first two beats trying to do something really hard, failing, and getting back up determined to try again. In the third beat, you try, you fail, and you give up, because you've been trying so hard and maybe you really just can't do it, no matter how hard you try. We've all been there. And then in the fourth beat, you try one more time, spurred on by the people who believe in you, and you nail it. Amazing! Simple recipe, but an awesome emotional payoff every time.

But you don't need to do the fourth beat. You can just stop after the third, where you give up. If that fourth beat wouldn't make sense, if you don't have the support you need to face up to the potential for failure again, nothing in the game requires you to do it.

And I think that's part of what makes this system really sing. If the Beat would feel forced, just don't do it. So even though the path is laid out, the whole group really does need to work to reach the end. There is a happy ending, but only if you actually do your best to make it happen. Brilliant.

I'm thinking about adapting something like this for Draw Steel, a Chronicle system where you can choose to embark on a character arc for your hero where they will encounter both triumphs and defeat. So in addition to levelling up as you gain Victories, you're also having a personal journey and dealing with inner conflict, and you become more powerful by resolving that as well. These Chronicles would also include their low points, their darkest hour, where they might be less powerful. They might include moments where the hero has conflicts with other party members or NPCs, or makes an unfortunate decision, because those moments are essential for the drama.

I'm still toying with the idea, and deciding how it should work and how it might interface with the rest of the game, but I think it might be interesting.

[writingquestionsanswered]

Do you have any tips/checklist that can help identifying weaknesses in your writing? I read what I have written and there is always just something that seems off, I go through some of the tips you have given before and try to implement said changes but there is still something that's keeping the story from flowing/developing as intended but I just can't pinpoint what exactly. So if you have some tips for this, I'd love to hear it! Thanks!

Pinpointing Story Weaknesses

Here are some common story weaknesses to keep an eye out for:

1 - Weak Plot - Does the story revolve around a conflict? Does the conflict challenge the characters in ways that will captivate the reader's attention? Is the plot full of clichés and other tired elements that make it predictable and unoriginal? Are tropes used in fresh new ways that offer a twist on their usual usage? Are there loose threads that would be unsatisfying if left untied? Are there plot holes that won't make sense to the reader? Is the plot enriched by the exploration of theme and subtext that isn't heavy-handed but offers the reader a deeper understanding of the story? (See: Basic Story Structure, How to Move a Story Forward, How to Find Your Story’s Themes and Thematic Statement; Tropes, Clichés, & Finding Which  Clichés to Avoid)

2 - Weak Characters - Are the characters three-dimensional? Do they have a compelling internal conflict (in a story that is character-driven or both character-driven and plot-driven)? Do they have a satisfying character arc? Do they have corresponding wants and needs? Do they have an emotional wound or back story that helps the reader understand who they are and why they make the decisions they make? Do their actions, motivation, choices, and dialogue feel authentic with the personality and circumstances you laid out? Do the main characters have a unique character voice? Do they have fleshed out relationships with other characters? Do you get at the heart of the character's emotions and how they relate to the events of the story? Are emotions illustrated mainly through showing body language, facial expressions, gestures, and suggesting internal cues versus telling how a character feels? Does the dialogue feel unnatural or clunky? Is there an over-reliance on dialogue tags? (See: Plot Driven vs Character Driven Stories, Understanding Goals and Conflict, Character Arc Tips, Recognizing a Flat Character, Important Points of Character Personality, Showing a Character’s Feelings, Giving Your Characters a Unique Voice, Avoiding Repetition with Dialogue Tags)

3 - Weak Setting Development/World Building - Is the setting well-developed, relevant, and believable? Does the setting have so much character it almost feels like a character itself? Do you use plenty of emotional and sensory details to flesh out the visuals? Is the setting immersive to the point the reader will feel they've stepped out of their immediate surroundings and into the world of your story? Are there contradictions in the setting that will pull the reader out of the story? Is there an over-reliance on expository info-dumps or dialogue (aka "telling") to illustrate the world, versus "showing" it through action and the events of the story? (See: Five Things to Help You Describe Fictional Locations, Setting Your Story in an Unfamiliar Place, Guide: Showing vs Telling, The Right Amount of Description (5 Tips!), Weaving Details into the Story)

4 - Weak Narrative Voice - Is the narrative voice consistent, clear, and engaging? If multi-POV, are new POVs switched into only after a scene or chapter break, and is it immediately clear to the reader whose POV they're now in? (See: What is Writing Style?, Understanding POV and the Narrator)

5 - Weak Writing - Is the story well-edited and free from spelling errors, grammatical errors, typos, formatting errors, improper syntax, and punctuation errors? Is the sentence structure clear, strong, and varied? Is there an over-reliance on telling vs showing? Are there problems with the pacing, such as being too slow in places where not much is happening and too fast where important things are happening? Is there an over-reliance on passive vs active voice? Are strong adverbs used in place of weaker ones? Is there an over-reliance on present participles and gerunds (--ing words)? Are contractions unnecessarily omitted, leading to overly formal sounding narrative/dialogue? Is there "purple prose" or description that is excessively ornate/flowery? Is there a compelling beginning, a strong middle, and a satisfying end? (See: Ten Ways to Cut Your Word Count, Guide: How to Skip Time in Your Story, Subtle Scene Transitions, Balancing Dialogue with Exposition and Action, Dropping Hints without Giving Everything Away, Writing Great Beginnings and Endings, The 3 Fundamental Truths of Description, Exposition, Action, and Dialogue, and How to Pace Your Story) You can also see more on my master list of top posts. I hope that helps!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[fantasyforbeginners]

What does it mean for something to be structurally well written but bad character-wise, plot-wise, or in execution? In theory, it seems similar to the “there’s no bad ideas, just bad execution” thing, but people seem to use it in a different way. In particular, I’m not sure how the execution can be different from how good the characters or plot is-it sounds like an umbrella term to me, but I think I maybe be missing a little bit of context.

I think it varies so much because they are all different things but can so closely overlap (I remember in one of my narrative theory courses we talked about the difference between events, sequence, and plot like ad nauseam... and all of it has basically left my brain). A lot of it also comes down to what is considered 'good' for each of them, which can vary wildly and be very subjective. So this is, at least, how I think about them!

» Structure: the overall themes and messaging of the story, usage of foils and parallels, for ex. This is like, Concepts rather than execution. The ability to decipher the intention of a thing (i.e. this character arc is about learning to trust) even if it's not well executed, etc.

» Plot: the events of the story. Character A went to Place B, etc. Ideally, the plot will help enhance the structure (a character who learns to trust will have to confront a person who betrayed them at Place B, etc) and stakes/execution etc.

» Characters: the personal manifestations used to tell the story. They can be used as tools (pieces of theme) which can be separate entirely from their characterization (personality, interiority; which can take precedence over their tool-ness). They are typically vessels of likability or intrigue to make us want to care about the other shit (worldbuilding, plot, etc) if the story is character driven > premise or plot driven.

» Execution: how all of these things, arguably, are brought together and/or disparate from one another. For example, while Sleeping Beauty and Snow White have structure and plot similarities — a beautiful sleeping maiden is awoken from her cursed 'death' with a kiss from a prince — but how they get there is wildly different; Snow White's curse is very sudden, Aurora faces a slow build of dread because you always know it's coming, even if she doesn't. Snow White is accordingly simpler as a story, whereas Sleeping Beauty engages (lightly at least) with fate as a theme.

For a story of how all these elements can merge (nor merge) together, I'm going to talk about Frozen because I think it's a specifically really good example to use to break down all of the above:

Structurally:

Frozen is about sisters, and specifically the reconciliation of the sisters. There are themes of family and the importance of being open with others in your life; Hans provides a subtheme of why you shouldn't rush in to just trusting anybody. (We'll get to him later, believe me.) For Anna, she's rewarded for her determination and love, and doesn't really change as a person throughout the movie; Elsa, comparatively, does, learning to let go of her fear surrounding her powers and how to embrace them (scaffolded under learning to let herself be loved). This provides a subtheme of people doing bad/dangerous things out of fear.

Plot:

Sisters fight. Elsa runs away to avoid (not feel/deal) with her problems and creates winter out of fear. Anna pursues her, is injured, comes back, is betrayed by Hans. Elsa is likewise dragged back to their kingdom. Hans almost kills both of them, Anna saves her sister even if that means sacrificing herself, and that ends up saving her. Elsa gains a better understanding of her powers out of it and ends the winter. Happy ending.

Characters:

If the plot demands for Anna to go after her sister into the cold, then Anna must be a determined character. If Elsa's plotline requires her to try and hide her powers, then she must be a more secretive character. The add ons to make them endearing, tbh, is that Anna is plucky and out of her element (highlighting her determination and love), and Elsa is anxious (whereas another character could've been secretive and resentful) because she doesn't want to hurt anyone, which keeps her sympathetic even as the harm of her powers escalate.

Execution:

So now that we have all these factors understood, how does the movie actually apply all of them? Frozen is very much a movie that checks off all its structural boxes — the story is indeed about trust and love and fear (themes), and the sisters do reconcile after a magically created divide — but the execution falters routinely when it comes to Character Agency and Consistency, particularly for Elsa and Hans, respectively. This also hampers its themes and overall story execution.

For example, the true monarch fleeing the kingdom out of fear, leaving it in disarray, initially ignoring the person who came to bring them back and fix the problem, only to eventually make things right and reclaim the throne is also the Plot Structure of The Lion King. However, whereas Simba makes the choice go home and face Scar — even when he still believes himself responsible for his father's death, even when he doesn't know if things are going to work out — Elsa is dragged back against her will. She then escapes and attempts to leave, placing even Anna's care in Hans' hands. Elsa has effectively no agency post-Let It Go, and the story never seems super bothered by this, or the way she only unlearns her primary character flaw (avoidance and running away) after everything else has already been comparatively fixed (Anna has saved her and has thawed). And because her agency is nuked, her character arc also feels really underdeveloped. She has basically 3 stages (childhood powers are good, childhood powers are bad for 90% of the movie (minus let it go), childhood powers are good again) with very little in between the last two stages, which is what should arguably get the most focus.

Hans is also a character who gets a major short end of the stick (and takes both the girls down with him) because of his lack of character consistency. It's more than "oh he's a twist villain, so you can't see it coming"—it's that his actions at the Ice Palace make zero sense if he wants the throne.

The Duke has one of his guys lined up to take the shot and kill Elsa, which Hans already defaults to being necessary to end the winter like 10 minutes later; he's already in charge of Arendelle with Anna MIA and he was planning on staging an accident for Elsa after the wedding to Anna, anyway; and here, he can have someone else kill the queen with witnesses and zero involvement for him. He has multiple reasons to want her dead, and none to actually want her alive, but he... spares her anyway, for some reason? Because the plot needs her alive, so they have him shot the arrow upwards toward the chandelier to Maybe take her out (and him checking it out is animated) which is also dumb, because if it was on purpose that'd make him more responsible for her death (which he seemingly wanted anyway in that scene!!) than just letting the guy take the shot.

So Hans doesn't really make sense as a twist villain, and I'd also argue him being one completely negates a lot of Anna's agency as well. Rather than realizing for herself which man suits her better or who she trusts more, she's hung utterly out to dry and then has Olaf point it out to her. Even though your partner doesn't actually have to be Evil to be Not Right for you, and that's a message I wish we saw a lot more in kids media.

However, Frozen is also an exceedingly easy move to fix in a variety of ways.

When writing a story, we all have various options to get us to the same outcome — say, a character needs to realize they have courage, and we know we want a haunted castle involved — so these are the Frozen Fix-It situations, I think.

Elsa escapes the prison, but decides to stay in Arendelle to try and find Anna in the storm and solve their problems together, rather than attempting to actively flee again. This is the simplest fix and gives her more agency (though it doesn't really fix Hans and Anna's situation: maybe Elsa redirects the arrow herself at the Ice Palace, and he doesn't really do anything).

My personal favourite: Hans is the antagonist, but he's not a Villain. He genuinely cares about Anna and thinks he's in love with her; he kisses her and it doesn't work. He thinks that in order to save Anna and the kingdom, he has to kill Elsa, and goes to do so with immense regret/remorse. Anna is pissed at him post her de-thawing, but Elsa steps in, and reminds her that people do terrible things when they're scared (stronger theming). Elsa forgives/pardons Hans, but it's clear she's forgiving herself too (agency). Hans and Anna realize that while they care about each other, they're not that well suited, and she picks (rather than being handed) Kristoff.

Option 2 the one that keeps the most of the movie's plot structure while also changing the most, comparatively, and while I'd still have gripes with it (looking at the trolls; looking at Elsa's agency, etc) it's kind of the movie I'll always wish Frozen would've been if they'd just let it be a bit more complex and consistent.

So Frozen, as is, is a movie with a decent plot and good characters, but weaker theming and poorer execution: it's a fun movie, but a structurally broken one, to me. Conversely, there can be stories like The Lion King that have a much stronger structure, but maybe the characters aren't as compelling or some feel underdeveloped, etc. The overall shape of the story is strong, but the ins and outs and scene by scene execution is iffier.

Hope this helps and if you have any more questions or specific examples you'd like to send in, absolutely feel free!

[hunter470]

Ok aspiring writers, do not use this show as a roadmap on how to craft good coherent stories.

In my opinion, this show has failed at a lot of the basics for a good television drama, which should includes several key writing elements:

1. **Compelling Characters**: Well-developed, multi-dimensional characters that audiences can connect with or be intrigued by. Their motivations, flaws, and development arcs are crucial. The audience needs to see themselves in the characters. Don’t create characters that audience members connect with and then throw them aside for no reason.

2. **Engaging Plot**: A strong, coherent storyline that captures viewers' attention. This includes a clear structure with rising action, climax, and resolution, often incorporating twists and turns. Follow through is key. You have to make it make sense. Story beats are important. It’s not enough to just string together a bunch of ideas that sound good on paper with no plan. Have a plan on how you will move things forward.

3. **Conflict**: Central conflicts drive the narrative forward. These can be internal (within a character) or external (between characters or against societal issues). Conflict is essential but conflict for the sake of conflict with no resolution is wasting your audience’s time. Viewers want closure and leaving them to wonder what happened or why didn’t the character do this or that is confusing and frustrating.

4. **Themes**: Exploring universal themes like love, betrayal, morality, and redemption adds depth and resonates with viewers on a personal level. Find a way to connect to your viewers. If you want to tell a compelling LGBTQ story then don’t use stereotypes that will alienate your audience.

5. **Dialogue**: Natural, engaging dialogue that reflects the characters' personalities and advances the plot. Good dialogue can also reveal relationships and tensions between characters. Use dialogue that makes sense for the character. Having a character making random comments out of character is confusing.

6. **Pacing**: A well-measured rhythm that maintains audience interest, balancing moments of high tension with quieter, reflective scenes.

7. **Setting**: A well-defined world that supports the story, whether it's realistic or fantastical. The setting can significantly influence the mood and tone of the drama.

8. **Character Development**: Characters should evolve over time, reflecting their experiences and the events of the story. This growth or decline can be a focal point of the narrative. Having a character stagnate or continually make the same bad choices is the kiss of death and boring. The audience wants to see progress.

9. **Subplots**: Secondary storylines that complement the main plot can enrich the narrative and provide additional layers to character relationships and themes. Don’t leave your characters out on their own island. Find a way to bring them together to share their lives and experiences. No one wants to watch two characters on their own with no interaction with the other key people in their lives.

10. **Visual Storytelling**: While primarily written, good television dramas consider how visual elements—such as cinematography, lighting, and editing—enhance the storytelling.

These elements work together to create a captivating and emotionally resonant viewing experience.

Anyway, just my two cents. Take it or leave it.

Happy writing!

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #51 – Monstress Volume 8: Inferno by Marjorie Liu and Sana Takeda

This is the last volume of Monstress that’s currently published and (since vol. 9 is coming out in November) the second-last I’m going to read this year. Which could be either a good or a bad thing, I suppose. This is the first volume I can say I genuinely didn’t enjoy, not even grading on a curve fro the highs of the rest of the series but in general. Not awful, but not good either – by far the most ‘comic-bookey’ plot arc so far, and I really don’t mean that as a compliment.

Through a variety of contrivances involving Maika’s friends journeying to the centre of her mind to try and wake her up from her coma and finding a massive and seemingly living statue of Adara Farclaw – the previously semi-mythical ancient hero-sage of the cats – our main cast (plus the ghost of Maika’s childhood self created by the sheer intensity of her own self-loathing) find themselves on the prison world where Zinn trapped all his kin to keep them from devouring the world we’re more familiar with back in pre-history. They’ve adapted surprisingly well, adopting humanoid forms and farming for the food they need. Immortal but sterile, their history since has been dominated by an endless race war between the first generation Fallen Houses (Zinn’s peers) and the second-generation and much reduced in grandeur (but increased in numbers) Defiled. Zinn, Maika, and the fragment of the Shaman-Empresses’ mask they brought with them are a chance to upset the balance of power, or perhaps even escape – and both sides are willing to do anything it takes for that chance.

Though all that plot aside, the actual point of the volume is to a) provide great reams of lore on the Monstra in general and Zinn’s past and present relationship with the rest of their species in particular and b) give Maika a chance to work on her self-esteem issues and guilt over accidentally killing and eating her mom as a child by providing a tulpa of 10-year-old her to scream at, protect, and reconcile with. Also a bunch of stuff about cats.

I can see the version of this story that works for me, at least in broad strokes. But yeah, the one that actually exists really didn’t. The largest part of that is just allocation of narrative resources, I think? As the book goes on, it has become steadily less interested in the themes and aesthetics I find more compelling to focus on it’s deep lore mythohistory and melodrama among the elder gods, to the point of just leaving the actual setting with its fascinating politics and societies entirely for basically the last two volumes. It begins to make me question why I’m still reading. Maika as a character is profoundly interesting, but having her just clearly announce her issues to a literal embodiment of them is not, to me, particularly compelling reading.

On an aesthetic level, the strange and alien prison planet let me deeply unimpressed. It was all so..familiar. Even the two warring nations of eldritch god-monster have ended up basically human-sized and human-shaped, farming and eating and using tools and building structures in instantly recognizable ways. There’s an excuse offered, but I’m still left wondering why even bother if it’s going to be so unspectacular.

I also found myself disappointing in how...monotonous, I suppose? The aesthetics of technology are growing to be. The guns, tools and armour of these cat worldwalkers who’ve been living underground on this prison world for centuries look almost identical to what technology of the Shaman Empress and the toys the Blood Court uses and- Even if you can torture and justify it all to make sense, it just gets boring and samey eventually, you know? Makes the world feel small.

Which is related to my thematic issues with the volume, in a way. The story is clearly much more interested in the grand, superhuman drama of the monstra, the exploration of multiple worlds and lost continents, space age high technology, more species and relics and myths and just – it all piles up so much that the result just ends up feeling more generic and boring than the more focused and detailed world of the first few volumes was. This is made far worse (for me, anyway) by the fact that Zinn seems to have been personally involved with literally every major historical personage that was mentioned at any point.

The most concise way to put it is that at the start of the story Maika et al really felt like people inhabiting a world, and now it’s at Star Wars levels of the world feeling like a canvas for a specific set of people’s melodrama. Nothing wrong with that, in the slightest – I just prefer the other, and feel a bit cheated by the shift.

On a different thematic level I kept waiting for some real, like, narrative pushback or reversal about how the Defiled are treated as these disgusting morally abhorrent abominations for the fundamental crime of being genetically impure and ‘spiritually mutilated’ and...never really got it?

Anyway, pacing wise the arc is much too short to be a complete, satisfying version of the story it wants to tell, and much, much too long to be a part of the longer story it is a detour from. The story never becomes offensively bad, but I am honestly reading as much out of inertia as anything by now.

[fayedartmouth]

which fic have you written that you are most proud of. and also which fic of yours is your favourite to read.

Gosh, that is a question!  I rambled A LOT here, so it's below the cut.

I am a finicky writer in that I can't really enjoy my own work at first.  My day job is heavy on editing and minute writing quirks, so I resist getting too nitty gritty on my own fics because it becomes too much like work and therefore not fun.  I take this to the extreme so much that I basically throw up unedited fics and then don't look at them for at least a week.  Then, when I've mellowed, I can look back at them and am usually relieved that they're coherent.  And then, sincerely, I often forget what I've written and can read it with fresh eyes. 

I do reread my own work because I hit all my own h/c buttons.  Some people are more well balanced people -- but I know what I'm about.  For me, h/c is everything, and I have very particular things that I crave.  I love the physicality of good whump -- the way characters can get weak and suddenly be overpowered by their injury/illness -- and I love when whump forces vulnerability into the limelight, leaving characters with no place to hide from their feelings and fears.  This is especially good with a character like JJ who hides things as a default.

All that said, usually the fics I reread of my own are the ones that appeal to my proclivities, so I may reread them (or really, usually just sections of them) to get my h/c fill.  The ones that I reread most often for that purpose are If I'm On Fire (You'll Be Made of Ashes Too) and probably Flashback on a Film Reel.  (Though there are sections of Safe Spaces and If I Bleed (You'll Be the Last to Know) that I also really, really enjoy).  In If I'm On Fire, there's two bits in particular -- where JJ is worried about cleaning up the blood on the wood floor and when Mike has to carry JJ into the closet -- that are like the MUST for me because I do know how to write what I want to read.

(In Safe Spaces, the part where JJ is a little catatonic is special to me, and I love the simple h/c set up and fulfillment in If I Bleed.  Like, it just gets to the point and provides the hurt and the comfort.  As for Flashback, I am especially fond of the scene where JJ is in the ER and completely loses control -- and just how wrecked JJ and JB are in it.)

In short, I like h/c and there should be a lot more of it.  Since there's not, I end up writing my own and yeah.  It fills a need. 

As for fics that I like for NON h/c reasons, that's harder!  Like I wrote a short one, The Persistence, that I really like from a storytelling perspective.  I like the structure and the shift in the narrative, where one single memory proves to be unreliable and yet still enough to bond Luke and JJ together.  It's not a long fic -- or a widely read one -- but artistically I like that one.  I have certain narrative tells, which are evident in fics like Fun Facts (Everyone You Know Will Die), which have to do with the way I structure stories.  I have an affinity for carrying themes through (and bludgeoning readers with them), so my intros are often tied to my conclusions, and it's most visible in the shorter fics.

I also sometimes like my narrative voice, especially in fics like Look (It's Easy to See) and Concussion Protocol.  I find that I often write in the POV of character other than JJ most of the time, and so when I do let myself slip into his mindset, it can be a ton of fun.  I love the pacing and pitch of Look, and I feel like I really managed to make JJ's revelation that it's okay to need his friends in Concussion Protocol hit home.  With Concussion Protocol, it's funny because I remember finishing it and thinking it was terrible and like two weeks later I finally reread it and was like, oh, so that's not terrible.

That said, fics like Flashback and Best of a Bad Deal I'm proud of because they're legit stories.  They're long and balancing a plot and character arc that long is difficult -- trying to maintain your POVs, keeping your timelines straight, and making sure you hit your pacing and other narrative punches -- so it's a sense of accomplishment when it comes together and it's not total trash.

Because I live for h/c, but I also love storytelling, and trying to make the h/c fit into the structure of a story and exist for a reason is always a primary goal for me.  I like to hurt characters as a plot vehicle -- because I'm building toward something.  And so I love both the hurt and the resolution, because both fill very different needs in my soul.  

That was a long answer that probably isn't all that interesting, but I'm not someone who relies on brevity.  I also just really like writing?  The act of it, the process, the results -- so when I'm able to be reflective of my own process, I can tend to nerd out a bit.

This is also only reflective of my OBX fics.  Like I've got 20+ years of fic out there on the internet, and if you asked me to look back at ALL of it, it's a very different story, lol.

[newspropaganda]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal 2 - When Splitting A Season is Shilling Bad Writing All Over

Alright, so where do I even start with Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal II? If you thought the first season of Zexal was bad, then buckle up because Zexal II takes the dumpster fire and somehow adds even more fuel to the flames. This is a perfect example of a series that just doesn’t know when to quit, dragging its feet and pretending like there’s more to say, when in reality, the story’s dead on arrival. And I can’t help but compare Zexal II to the Power Rangers Neo-Saban era—it’s a perfect analogy for how both these franchises took massive steps backward by dumbing everything down for younger audiences, with absolutely no regard for long-time fans or storytelling quality.

From the start, it’s clear that Zexal II is just riding on the same bland formula that Zexal already beat into the ground. There’s no real sense of stakes or progression, just a series of badly structured duels that feel like they’re pulled from the worst Saturday morning cartoon clichés imaginable. The show lacks any genuine creativity in its storytelling. I mean, come on—brick walls, overly complicated monster designs, and zero substance in the narrative. You’d think they’d try to evolve the series by adding some deeper themes or pushing the boundaries of what Yu-Gi-Oh! could offer, but nope, it’s more of the same childish nonsense with little thought behind it.

Let’s talk villains. Dr. Faker, at the very least, had some motivations. Sure, he’s not exactly Shakespeare, but you can kind of see where they were going with him—he wanted power to save his family or whatever, standard Yu-Gi-Oh! fare. But Don Thousand? Oh man, Don Thousand is the absolute worst. He’s literally a cookie-cutter villain ripped straight from the Showa era of tokusatsu. Think about it: he’s just this ancient evil force who shows up because… reasons. There’s nothing compelling about him at all. No real backstory, no depth, just a stock "I am evil because the plot demands it" kind of character. It’s almost laughable how one-dimensional he is. Even Zorc from the original series had more going for him than this guy, and Zorc was basically just a giant evil blob with a bad attitude. Don Thousand is the epitome of lazy writing.

Now let’s address the elephant in the room: the series was clearly aimed at a younger audience. But this isn’t just “young”—it’s aimed at really young kids with, let’s be honest, low IQs. They dumbed down everything: the dialogue, the dueling strategies, the characters. There’s no complexity here, no nuance, no challenge for the viewer. It’s spoon-feeding time, folks. It’s insulting to anyone who grew up with the original series or even 5D’s. And here’s the thing, Yu-Gi-Oh! has always been about bringing in a younger demographic, but this is the point where the series went off the rails. They didn’t trust their audience to think critically or to handle more mature themes. Compare that to the first three series, where you had actual stakes and well-rounded characters. Yuma and the gang are just a bunch of cardboard cutouts designed to sell trading cards to kids who don’t know any better.

And let’s not even talk about the duel mechanics, because they go nowhere. The whole point of Yu-Gi-Oh! used to be the creativity in how characters could use their decks and strategies. But Zexal threw that out the window, especially in Zexal II, with half the duels turning into rinse-and-repeat patterns that don’t make sense. It’s as if the writers were more interested in flashy monster animations than giving us actual tension or innovation in the duels. They’re just bad, drawn-out spectacles, filled with asspulls and nonsensical card effects. And because the story was so poorly structured, it’s hard to care when the duels have zero consequences or emotional payoff.

Now, let’s give credit where it’s due: at least 5D’s made some kind of effort to fix its second half. Yes, 5D’s stumbled with its narrative during the later arc, but at least it tried to bring the characters back into focus and repair some of the mess it created. Zexal II? It just doubled down on all the worst aspects of the first Zexal series. And the pacing was atrocious. It dragged, and dragged, and dragged, until you were begging for the end credits. The series had no business even thinking about setting up a Zexal III, but they dropped hints for it anyway. Why? Who knows? Maybe they thought they could milk this disaster for another season, but the fanbase wasn’t having it.

And that brings us to the fandom, or at least the portion of the fandom that gatekeeps Zexal like it’s some misunderstood masterpiece. They’re quick to defend the show’s "heartwarming" themes and brush off all the legitimate criticisms as people "not getting it." No, it’s not that we don’t get it; it’s that there’s nothing to get. The show is shallow. The characters are hollow. The writing is subpar. Yet, somehow, it’s propped up by this small but loud corner of the fandom who refuse to admit that Zexal was a serious misstep for the franchise. They even point to its inflated ratings as some kind of proof that it’s good, but that just shows how broken the system is when it comes to assessing quality. It's like they’re watching a different show than the rest of us.

You know what’s ironic? Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS feels more like a Yu-Gi-Oh! series than Zexal ever did. VRAINS at least attempts to return to the roots of the franchise, with darker themes, characters that grow, and duels that require actual strategy. It's not perfect, but it’s way more in line with what fans of the original series expect from the franchise. Zexal doesn’t even come close. It’s not Yu-Gi-Oh!—it’s a Saturday morning cartoon nightmare that’s been turned into a hollow shell of its former self.

In conclusion, Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal was the franchise’s identity crisis put on full display, and Zexal II only made things worse. It dumbed down everything for a younger audience that was clearly seen as too immature to handle anything more than the most basic storytelling. The duels were bad, the villains were lazy, and the show overstayed its welcome. It’s an era of the franchise that’s best forgotten, and anyone trying to defend it is either blinded by nostalgia or refuses to acknowledge the very obvious flaws. The only thing Zexal did was set the bar so low that almost anything that came after felt like a step in the right direction.

[wirewitchviolet]

StarCraft 2's story- Good or garbage?

I'm kind of lurking in the discord of a new RTS that's running a kickstarter right now. I don't know how strongly I want to endorse that because while what they have in the can looks darn good in terms of mechanics and gameplay polish and the people involved seem generally cool, I don't think anything at all is really pinned down otherwise. At the very least though it looks very "I'll make my own StarCraft 2! With blackjack! And hookers!" and I'm down for a game with that flavor of mechanics doing well when made by anyone other than, you know, Blizzard.

It's impossible not to draw comparisons when a game is pretty nakedly marketing itself as "we want to divorce the things we like about this one game from the monsters who made it" of course, and so now I'm thinking about just how powerfully terrible the writing was in StarCraft 2, but I'm not going to go off about it in some poor people who I don't know even have a writer yet's forums. I'm gonna ramble about it on my blog.

Now there's two ways to look at this one. We can look at the story of this game on its own, in a vacuum, or we can look at it as a continuation of the story of StarCraft. It's terrible by either standard, but let's start by looking at it as a continuation first.

Now, I'm not going to jump in here and just slap you with a novella long list of all the flagrant plot holes, direct contradictions, and unrecognizable characters if you actually go through these beat for beat. I've done so in the past. Might have done so on this blog. I mean when StarCraft 2 came out I was absolutely insufferable to everyone around me shouting about these things. Like... I don't even know how you can drop so many balls like that. Maybe they were doing that thing where they didn't even glance at the source material and were just poking around some fan wiki populated with random crap from tie-in novels and comics by people who were just going off on their own things... I do always have to mention though that whether by intent or incompetence they seem to have totally dropped the expansion's story from the canon, at least before 2's expansions came along years later.

But no, I want to focus on just basic themes and character arcs here. So the original base game of StarCraft breaks its story into three arcs, each from the POV of a character from one of the three playable factions in the game. This isn't the greatest structure for maintaining narrative cohesion throughout, especially when one of those factions is the communal hive mind of a big swarm of space bugs who at the end of the day just want to eat everything. And if I'm being brutally honest, there isn't a whole lot to write home about in the back third either. They kinda slipped back into old habits there and it's kinda just the sort of stock fantasy story you tend to get with games. Decadent ancient space elf empire ignores a big obvious problem due to hubris and a frankly incompetent leader, turns out their ancient traditions and prejudices are total BS, go quest for some magic rocks, have your big grand final battle where the hero self-sacrifices to blow up the monsters.

That first third though, and some threads that carry through the rest, have some good stuff going on. We've got a newly appointed magistrate (the unseen unvoiced player) and marshall (Jimmy) on some backwoodsy wild west sort of planet. They're pretty young and idealistic. Space bugs attack, they try to help, trying to help gets them in trouble with their higher ups who don't really buy the seriousness of this space bug invasion. Desperate for anyone to help fight the good fight, they fall in with a fringe militant cult leader (Mengsk) and his right-hand gal (Kerrigan) who he busted out of some government psychic supersoldier program. Jimmy immediately crushes on her, she doesn't reciprocate.

The gang goes along with all of Mengsk's plans, overthrowing the government to gain control of their armies and psychic experimentation programs to deal with these space bugs, and the level of moral compromise this involves gradually ratchets up until everyone finds themselves complicit in Mengsk killing the whole civilian population of the capital by having Kerrigan set up a psychic murderbug attractor and nobody bother's to evacuate her afterwards.

The other two realize they made a really bad choice of who to throw in with, smash up some major military hardware in the process of bailing on Mengsk as he's setting himself up as dictator for life, and eventually throw their lot in with the protagonists in the third arc, just kinda helping out while they do the whole deal of defying the orders of the ancient space elf council, learning the magic arts of the misunderstood outcasts, flying a big spaceship into the main brain controlling the space bugs. Kerrigan meanwhile gets converted into a space bug/human hybrid super soldier which... honestly feels like it's setting stuff up for a big showdown that just kinda never happens.

Still, we've got characters, they've got arcs. Mostly we have Jimmy (and the silent player character) learning the hard way that long-established power structures tend to be too inflexible to be helpful, and you should never trust anyone openly seeking personal power because they will just exploit everyone around them. It all even roughly follows the classic 3 act structure (and I mean, there's literally 3 acts mapping to that too, just that act 2 is all shown from a villain's perspective). In other media, this is sort of just the bare minimum, but games rarely bother with characters growing, changing, or having real setbacks that make them question things along their way.

This was followed up with the expansion, Brood War, which mirrors that same structure. One long story arc for each of three playable factions. Space elves largely doing standard fantasy beats, middle third switching to a villainous POV so radically different the main narrative gets largely put on hold, and some really good stuff with threads stretching through the whole thing.

Here the villain interlude is that it turns out Earth in this setting is run by full-on fascists, they caught wind of everything going on in this region where there'd previously been a big rebellion, and swing back in to clamp down again. They don't interact with the actual protagonists much (generally, they see the space nazis sweeping in and run off to lay low), so we mostly just have them swooping in and quickly mopping up Mengsk's little newfound dictatorship, with the actual story being the relationship dynamic between the guy in charge (DuGalle), his right hand man he's known forever (Stukov), and a local rebel welcoming them with open arms (Duran). Long story short, Duran's actually a double agent and very gradually pits the other two against each other. DuGalle eventually has Duran kill Stukov thinking he stabbed him in the back, realizes that's dumb, ultimately fails at his whole invasion, and in the epilogue kills himself, which if you read the relevant bit of my FF14 summaries, you know is how I like my stories about clear nazi analogues to end.

In the main narrative though, we pick right back up from the big heroic sacrifice with the bummer of a reveal that killing the primary brain of the psychic space bug collective didn't really get the job done, because some of its secondary brains (refreshingly not a concept pulled out of nowhere, these were firmly established to serve the dual purposes of having clear military targets for a giant pile of bugs, and a way to actually have enough characters for dialog exchanges in that third of the story) are trying to put the band back together. In their current disorganized state though, Kerrigan is no longer a semi-autonomous corrupted bug minion, but totally has her free will and sense of self restored, while still being all chitinous and at least somewhat capable of commanding the other bugs.

So as the whole expansion plays out, and the perspective shifts from the space elves doing some real desperate migration and defense because the plan to save their home world from the big bug invasion ultimately failed, through the nazi invasion, and ultimately to the POV of the secondary bug-brain you'd previously played as who'd been buggified Kerrigan's baby sitter essentially, now forced into taking orders from her, we are mostly dealing with this big hanging question of whether she's really good and trustworthy again, or secretly still under bug control, or if she's good for now but any minute that hivemind could properly come back online and take her over again. And of course, Jimmy's all angsty and pining because he never got over that one-sided crush.

While there's plenty of red flags about her being trustworthy over the course of things, the narrative actually manages to play things close to the chest well enough for the ultimate reveal to be a pretty fun twist. She absolutely 100% is fundamentally herself again, it's just that for a series of mostly pretty well-justified reasons, she absolutely hates every other character in the story. Either they've been trying to kill her, they abused and manipulated her, or they've totally objectified her. Or they're nazis who just showed up, who you don't really need a personal reason to want to kill, but just for good measure they're trying to revive and mind control the central bug mind, so, yeah, that's a threat. So at the last minute the whole thing just reveals itself as a big elaborate revenge story with a fairly strongly gendered theme about being denied agency and being othered, where the actually quite clear-headed just ruthless girl wins.

And then, a decade later, we get StarCraft 2. And what's the main narrative of StarCraft 2? We spend the whole time focused on Jimmy, who has somehow gone from this young idealistic biker/space cowboy with thinning hair, talking like a hippie and bouncing around getting in way over his head trying to rescue people from space bugs by just lending a hand to whoever else seems interested in doing that and crushing on this girl Kerrigan who couldn't be clearer about not liking him back to uh... some sort of gruff jaded old former military general with a bunch of old war buddies, a drinking problem, and a full head of hair, cruising around on his big personal battleship saving various worlds from the big space bug threat pretty much singlehandedly, and hoping to rescue his love interest Kerrigan from space bug mind control, with the help of some kind of prophesied magic space rocks you can build a big totem out of. It even completely de-buggifies her in the end, leaving a helpless little naked girl to chivalrously scoop off the ground and carry to safety. P.S. She's white now.

This isn't like, "oh whoops, we forgot the main character lost one of his boots at the end of last season" nitpicking. This is doing complete 180s on the character arcs and backstories of the central characters here. Kerrigan not needing to be rescued from zerg corruption is the ENTIRE point of Brood War's story. Which also establishes there's no longer really a zerg threat of any sort beyond what she personally wants to tell her mindless bug pals to do. And really, even if you want to de-canonize all of that for whatever reason, tacking a "hero saves the girl" ending onto the story we had in the base game of the original StarCraft still just does not work. You're taking a story whose whole theme is "putting faith in the wrong sort of person has serious consequences" and then turning around and going "actually no it doesn't."

And you know, speaking of Mengsk, it's a much lesser point, but StarCraft 2 depicts him like he's some sort of grandiose emperor from some ancient dynasty. Big imperial palace, little silver spoon in his mouth prince of a son who wants to break from his family's legacy, the whole nine yards. Again, this both fundamentally misunderstands his part in the whole central narrative, and everything that happened to him in the expansion (where not very long at all after his big power grab the UED showed up and completely took him apart, and would have executed him but Kerrigan prolonged that to watch him squirm). And when did he have this kid of his? With who? And where is Jimmy getting all these war buddies? He didn't have'em at the start of things or he wouldn't have had to join up with Mengsk. And his war buddies from that war would just be the magistrate and the surviving protoss characters who act like they barely know him here.

So, no. This does not hold up at all as a continuation. How about if we just look at it in a vacuum then?

Nope, still bad. It leans heavily on a backstory we don't get to see. And I don't mean we're missing a ton of StarCraft 1 flashbacks. I mean, we have all these "old buddy" characters, especially Tychus, but we don't get into how they became friends or do anything to show how they still are, so there's no real emotional stakes to where that ends up going. We start with him drinking his life away in a bar over how he misses this apparent old girlfriend, but we never get into the history between them and even the depressed drinking never comes up again past that shot. We vaguely establish some bitter history with this Mengsk guy, but that never really leads anywhere at all. We just kinda have these various vague and generic handwaves at Standard Protagonist Backstory Stuff. Then we actually dive into things, and it's this very episodic affair where you just hop around from planet to planet either showing up to rescue people or showing up to collect a magic rock to help build the magic Toblerone that cures being half-space-bug. And I mean, I already covered how this sort of simplistic no tension, hero always wins, collect all the treasures for victory sort of narrative is the general baseline for game writing, but other people have been trying to move things forward the last couple decades and this is just sitting at the starting line with a princess to rescue.

Now to be fair, the original StarCraft absolutely also had questing around for magic rocks. The protoss have a totally magic rock based electrical grid, the overmind wanted to eat their special magic rocks to make them more vulnerable, the last protoss mission even had a big ancient temple that did an energy blast, but that one just killed all life on the planet outside of its immediate vicinity, which feels like a more grounded thing for an ancient alien artifact to do than... vaporize/purify space bugs and leave everything else alone. And it wasn't scattered in little bits everywhere.

And then of course there's the expansions to StarCraft 2... well the good thing here is they're so divorced from anything in the original game, and even from the base game of StarCraft 2 that you don't have to worry about them messing with the legacy. I mean, OK, Heart of the Swarm has this whole weird reset where we have Kerrigan mostly human again, just so she can go on a big spirit journey and bug herself up again, so that she's strong enough for her ultimate goal of... showing up to take down Mengsk... again. And you somehow end up with a zergified version of Stukov which... OK that's just the weirdest possible way to double back and recanonize that expansion. I'm not sure that Kerrigan and Stukov were ever even really aware of each other's existence, and he died to a bullet through the head in a military base with no zerg anywhere near it. I mean, unless you remember that Duran was a double agent working for Kerrigan. Except the thing there is if you know the plot of the secret epilogue mission you'd know he was ACTUALLY one of the secret ancient aliens who created both the protoss and the zerg just pretending to a horrible bug monster spy for Kerrigan, in turn pretending to be a normal human. And that's a pretty obscure detail I'd forgive someone for missing except that literally in the mission where you're playing as Zerg-Stukov, the whole reason you're playing as Zerg-Stukov is that Kerrigan is busy doing one of those things where the two wizards fire big energy blasts at each other like some kind of tug-of-war with weird phallic overtones, and the big energy phallus she's trying to squish back is FROM Duran, in his revealed-himself-to-be-that-whole-mess glory. They remembered one thing only to get it wrong basically.

But yeah, otherwise that one's just so wild a departure I don't even know what to say. There's just... named zerg characters? They're all like bug centaurs? Because we need people to talk to and they just totally forgot they had cerebrates to get around that problem? Instead of the ancient ancestral zerg being like, psychic ringworms gradually specializing their hosts over generations, here they're like... talking dinosaur puppies who steal each other's "essence" to get huge? Past a point there's so little resemblance to the source material that I can't even be mad. And then the protoss expansion just kinda decides that the whole casting the dark templar out of their society over irreconcilable religious differences is something they've actually done like... 3 or 4 times? So we've got the outcast invisible jedi and the outcast robots and the outcast Darth Vader wannabes with some sort of society-wide ordered queue where there's exactly one person directly ahead of everyone they're allowed to kill to move up in the world. Oh and we're claiming this one robot centaur is Fenix somehow. Despite Fenix being very dead, and this robot centaur neither having that goofy muppet-y orc voice nor the overwhelmingly positive attitude. And he also somehow doesn't notice that he's a robot centaur and not a guy in a life support pod inside a robot spider. They also expect us to believe this little naked twink turned into this pile of steroids and shoulderpads somehow:

Oh! I almost forgot but also there's this thing called the Khala and it's unambiguously this set of religious teachings defining a caste system and such... but then here someone watched Avatar so we're retconning that into some sort of psychic spiritual network you connect to through your hair. You don't plug your hair in though it's just like a wifi antenna. Also it only works if you're part of the main society that keeps throwing other people out none of these other people have hair wifi. Also like the entire deal here is that protoss just are not psychic, it's their one flaw. There's this whole thing with them representing physical perfection but being held back by being a bunch of very religious idiots, while the zerg are mentally perfect what with the hive mind but physically just, like, a ringworm, so the ultimate life form their creators really wanted to create requires the zerg to take over the protoss, or just going screw it and hybridizing the two in a lab. Again, this is one of those really obscure details, it only comes up in the weird backstory in the manual that doesn't even get touched on in the game outside the one secret mission in the expansion... but here we have the same scene both acknowledging that deep lore and totally contradicting it.

But yeah, taken as their own independent stories... well... what stories? Kerrigan wants to be a big buff bug lady so she can depose a jerk she already deposed, and she does that. There are no complications or twists along the way. "Artanis" has to go collect all the protoss the in-group don't count as people, because Satan got into their hair wifi and anyone who didn't just get a haircut turned evil. So he goes and does that. Again, no complications of any sort along the way. Also no real ideological conflicts.

The deal with the robot protoss is some idiots went "hey what if we took all of our greatest most celebrated heroes and we copied their minds into robots in their entirety" and then got super confused that they still, you know, want to be treated as people with rights and such and not just mindless robots. So, you know, simple fix there. Then the... actually just evil ones are... lead by John DeLancey. Everyone likes him. So, problem resolved? And the dark templar are already befriended from before, so nothing's needed there besides going to their homeworld to pick them up. Their uh.... home world everyone already evacuated to and then that was compromised and their leader was replaced with puppet and then everyone maybe died? But yeah they're fine.

So then after all the racism is solved forever by just... deciding not to do that anymore, Kerrigan jumps in some kind of magic pool to transform into a giant naked golden angel, and she does this to become the embodiment of purity of essence we apparently need (which also purges all zerg-ness I guess?) and... look there's no easy way to say this. It turns into Homestuck. That whole convoluted thing from Homestuck where there's this eternal cycle of universes being created by light and dark themed people teaming up to create the next one and in theory kind of operate as it's gods but not if they don't feel like it... we're just ripping all that off wholesale for this complete asspull of an ending. And then everyone shoots space satan in the face. He's a big squid. And then Kerrigan turns back into a normal human girl so she can go on a date with Jimmy. Oh and then there's a third expansion recycling the scrapped plot from that action game they were going to do back on the N64 or whatever but I learned how awful the company was before getting curious enough on that one.

It's just bad. Even by game writing standards, it's bad. And I didn't even get into how bad it is with women in particular. We've got the big doe-eyed scientist who needs to be rescued from the scary bugs and then oh no it turns out she got bit by a bug and now she's turning into one and has to be put down (and no, this has never been how that worked). Then we've got Kerrigan who aside from needing rescuing and purifying and coming out naked has this whole expansion to herself where in theory she's totally in charge and self-directing every decision, but every time you click anywhere the confirmation is just her getting all pouty and whiny? Like a toddler you're telling to put shoes on so you can go to the doctor or something? Like, is it just me? Is it the direction? Is it the voice filter? Was the actress just miserable in the recording booth?

Then she's got this little bug girl assistant who hangs down from the ceiling, kinda like the adjutant from the original StarCraft, but instead of being all detatched and robotic she's all uwu pwecious? And the protoss campaign just kinda keeps turning women into mouthpieces for Satan. It's... a whole thing.

So yeah, badly written stories all throughout, no matter how you slice it. No continuity, no consistency, no character arcs or tension, just be the big cool action hero, do some getting the band back together stuff, collect some magic rocks and ritual circles, purify this girl here with the big magic circle (3 times no less) and then whatever there's space Satan. It's a mess... did I even have a larger point with this?

Probably not, but it was entertaining I hope? Maybe throw a little cash my way?

[azazelsazaleas]

Ok, so usually when an idiot on Reddit posts an absolutely awful take and it gets upvotes, I roll my eyes and move on with my life, but this one has been living in my head for a little while now so I feel the need to rant about it.

The Awful Take (TM) was as follows: Dune and Star Wars are not science fiction because they are not rooted in science, instead, they are space fantasy because it’s all just about politics in space and stuff.

Now, I’m fine with the Star Wars half of this. I actually agree with that part. It’s the Dune half that is absolutely asinine, ill-considered, and just plain wrong.

There’s a few reasons for this.

For starters, Dune is absolutely rooted in science, particularly the novels. The entire plot centers around planetary ecology, and explores the impact of ecology on resources and the way that the resulting scarcity of certain resources impacts culture, society, and politics at macro and micro levels. This really is about as science-driven as science fiction can get, and Herbert put an incredible amount of consideration into making it work.

All of which is to say, science fiction is fiction that is not explores how scientific and technological advancement, understanding, and exploration impact humanity, and Dune does exactly that. The political structures, economic structures, and social structures of Herbert’s universe are built around the aforementioned fictionalized ecology as well as a hypothetical future involving space travel and what humanity would look like in a post-AI, post-computer world.

Fantasy, by contrast, is rooted in folklore and mythology. Tolkien’s middle-earth works were (at least partially) an attempt to create a mythological history for British cultures, and were heavily influenced by Nordic and European myths such as the Kalevala. The Witcher is based largely in deconstructions of European folktales. Harry Potter blends mystery and coming-of-age genres with a setting that basically establishes European folkloric and mythological creatures and tropes as part of its universe. And that’s not even getting into the volumes and volumes of fantasy that’s basically just copies, deconstructions, reconstructions, parodies, and loving tributes to what Tolkien did with Lord of the Rings.

Which brings us to Star Wars. George Lucas has been extremely open about the influence the Joseph Campbell’s theories regarding mythology (particularly the Hero’s Journey as discussed in The Hero with a Thousand Faces) has had on the franchise he created. The aesthetics of Star Wars are rooted in old Flash Gordon serials; the world building was inspired by science fiction franchises such as Star Trek and, yes, Dune; and some of the characters and plot points were inspired by Akira Kurosawa’s jidaigeki films; but the overall story arc, the narrative heart of the films, and the broader themes that they dwelt upon were rooted in a Campbell’s hero’s journey (with a hefty dose of East Asian mysticism and philosophy thrown in there). The films that compromise the core of the Star Wars franchise -episode I though IX- have very little interest in exploring futuristic scientific and technological concepts; they are simply presented as either plot devices, or neat-looking spectacle that leans on Asimov’s maxim that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What it is interested in is Luke’s growth from starry-eyed farm boy to archetypical hero, wizards of light and darkness battling each other in cataclysmic conflicts of good vs. evil, and a redemptive arc for a villain who was effectively a fallen angel figure. Star Wars pretty solidly meets the qualifications for fantasy.

Dune, by contrast, does not. Dune is not rooted in mythology. It is not rooted in folklore. The closest it comes is in its discussions of religion, but even that is explored through a (rather cynical) lens of political and social sciences. Dune is more interested in how humans interact with the world(s) they live in. Dune is, simply put, science fiction.

And while we’re at it, Star Trek is, too.

[queer-as-used-by-tolkien]

Wait- I'm super intrigued by your bio. "Story theory." What is this referencing? Is there a particular story theory??

ahh, my bio!

"Main fandoms: GW2, Middle-Earth, and reality. Fiction enthusiast and student of story theory. What is reality but the story of the Creator, the Author, the Word - Jesus Christ?"

Needs some updating, clearly - I've moved GW2 activity to a sideblog and I need to add Miraculous Ladybug. But your question is abt story theory! Thanks for asking! Let's dive in!

By story theory I primarily mean 'what is the art of storytelling, and telling stories well.' I mean the big things such as the study of character arcs, narrative themes (a quite extensive field on its own), plot structure, symbolism, truths and lies, the role of backstory and character motivation, major, side and background characters, narratively condemning or exalting various traits, qualities, actions, etc. etc. as well as, perhaps, the more basic concepts such as show-dont-tell, scene-and-sequel, narrative foils, etc.

What story theory is NOT is things like grammar, how to use punctuation, paragraphs, or quote marks, formatting chapters, and the like.

As far as I know there is no 'one particular' story theory, although I suppose different people have different answers to some of the questions (such as how many acts are in one story or how many basic types of stories there are).

I have learned most of my story theory from K.M. Weiland's blog, Helping Writers Become Authors, as well as the book Techniques of the Selling Writer by Dwight V. Swain.

As a side note, I particularly love seeing how fiction mirrors reality and I do greatly believe we are all living stories, that the world has its story, that History is God's Story, and so on. That's what makes fiction compelling - because we've lived it or seen it lived. God is the author(ity) of the universe and I think that's beautiful.

And I love analyzing it lol.

I can answer more specific questions as well if you like! I llve this subject! Thanks for asking!

[shabdforwriting]

Several ways to Utilize AI while Writing a Novel

Using AI in the novel-writing process can enhance creativity and productivity in several ways. Here’s how each step might work:

1. Idea Generation

AI tools can be a great starting point for brainstorming. They can suggest plot twists, scenarios, or themes that might not have come to mind initially. Writers can use AI to explore “what if” scenarios and expand on concepts, creating a rich pool of ideas to draw from.

2. Outline Creation

AI can help structure a story by providing suggestions for chapter outlines or story arcs. It can analyze the elements of existing works in the genre and generate potential plot points, helping authors map out the story’s flow. This can be especially useful for keeping track of complex narratives or multi-layered plots.

3. Dialogue Writing

Writing natural-sounding dialogue can be challenging, but AI can assist by generating snippets of conversation or offering variations on character interactions. It can help make dialogue sound more authentic, create distinct voices for different characters, or even simulate dialogues between characters to explore how they would react in various situations.

4. Character Development

AI can suggest character traits, backstories, or motivations, ensuring characters are well-rounded and consistent throughout the novel. It can provide profiles based on archetypes or unique traits, helping writers flesh out their cast in ways that add depth to the story.

5. Editing and Feedback

AI-powered editing tools can analyze grammar, style, tone, and readability. Beyond basic proofreading, they can provide insights into pacing, detect inconsistencies, or suggest improvements in sentence structure. Some tools even offer feedback on emotional tone and engagement levels, helping refine the narrative for maximum impact.

6. Research

AI can help sift through large amounts of information quickly, making it easier to find relevant details for world-building, historical accuracy, or technical aspects of a story. This saves time, allowing writers to focus more on the creative aspects of their work.

7. Overcoming Writer’s Block

When writers feel stuck, AI can generate writing prompts or even continue a scene that’s difficult to progress. It can suggest alternative ways to move the plot forward, break down mental barriers, and reinvigorate the creative process with fresh ideas or perspectives.

These methods can make the writing process more efficient and open up new creative possibilities, offering support at every stage from conception to publication.

Source -

https://shabd.in/blog/several-ways-to-utilize-ai-while-writing-a-novel/

[kelvintimeline]

The straw that broke the camels back is people are genuinely mad there are plot threads left open for season 3. They are mad… that there are character arcs and unanswered questions that weren’t completely resolved in season 2 of a 3+ season show.

“Why don’t we know everything about Ricken yet?” Well, you see… that’s what the next season is for

“I don’t like that Mark isn’t reintegrated yet!” Almost like the disharmony between innie and outie was a huge theme for all severed characters and Mark’s attempted reintegration relates to this struggle.., while also being something that will be finished next season because reintegration is a process

“Why don’t we know Reghabi’s backstory!?” There’s this thing called third seasons…

People watching a mystery box show and being surprised at remaining mystery is baffling to me these people hate television and just… basic narrative structure

People were mad that they didn’t show cobel Devon and Mark discussing the plan when they were waiting outside… like have you ever watched anything before in your life

severance affirming to me that this really is the only place left to actually celebrate and ruminate in television and fandom is crazy. like... man it really is terrible everywhere else. and this place fucking sucks ass! like it's WORSE out there.

somehow this is the only place that isn't god awful ALL THE TIME about it

[beesmygod]

JJBA PART 5, VENTO AUREO IS THE UNDERBAKED MESS I CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT FIXING...PART 2

FIX 2: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A PROBLEM LIKE GIORNO?

thats the homo photo of my dad

answer: i dont know.

the unfortunate and honest to god truth of the matter is that the protagonist of JJBA part 5, giorno giovanna, fucking sucks.

what if that little shithead from the twilight zone episode "it's a good life" was gay and watched "goodfellas". you might think "wow that sounds great" but, well, somehow it's not.

it is months later and i have been struggling with writing this for a bazillion reasons: i got sick, real life events occurred, i had to work on comic, i died, etc. but the most strenuous reason of all in the end was facing the impenetrable, tangled, and deeply complicated gordian knot that is the little ladybug loving bitch named giorno and not knowing where the fuck to even begin.

i had to think long and hard about how to approach the problem of "giorno giovanna". he is like a diamond of sucking ass: multi-faceted and beautiful in his perfection but is, ultimately, just a stupid fucking rock from the dirt. he completely lacks the innate charisma and personality inherent in previous jojo protagonists AND antagonists; despite having both the joestar AND brando gene pools to pull from, he manages to snag a net total of 0 personality traits. this problem is multiplied 100 fold once he starts actually doing things to move the plot along and the universe repeatedly bends itself like a pretzel in order to gift him undeserved and unrewarding (to us, the audience) win after win after win.

his theme goes hard as hell tho

if you were to ask me what is wrong with giorno, i would have no problem making a long and detailed list of why i want to slap the little cinnamon rolls of his head. i have no idea how to organize that list into a more coherent form of criticism that points at the overarching structural weakness of part 5. part 5 really, really wants you to like and root for giorno. it hinges on it. his victories are explicitly supposed to be emotionally and morally gratifying. they are instead trite and annoying.

for years, YEARS, my only experience with the entirety of part 5 outside of infamous panels and the most basic information about the story, was this incredible, evergreen and laser targeted tweet:

i thought this was a funny shit post. all i knew giorno had some kind of "life creation" power. what i didnt know was:

giorno says this exact line and then turns cars into frogs so that they (the bad guys) cant catch them (they do catch them)

giorno's power IS fucking stupid

i fucking hate him

he should stop using it

abbacchio was right. he was right about everything

how DO you talk about giorno? giorno's blandness permeates any situation he has the misfortune of attending and the parts of the narrative where he's missing for one reason or another are significantly improved by his absence. in comparison with the deuteragonists (bruno bucciarati) and tritagonists (the members of bruno's squad in the mafia family passione), he has all the flavor of a communion wafer. his character arc is non-existent. emotionally, he might as well have just gone to the store and back by the end of the story.

and, look, araki likes to play fast and loose with how powerful a stand is or what its abilities are. im not here to measure power levels or fucking whatever stupid shit people get up to. the more wild and insane he gets with his incredibly "unique" ""understanding"" of science and geometry, i'm 99% on board for. but giorno's stand, gold experience, is whatever the narrative needs it to be at any given time with no consistency. it's OP as hell long before he gets the 11th hour power boost; his stand has the extra trans-dimensional ability to remove any tension from a fight scene. through this, gold requiem can destroy the psyche of the audience, truly making it the most powerful stand of all time.

people used to love to bitch about not understanding how the villain's stand works in this part, but if anyone tells you they understand what the fuck THIS means they're lying to you.

anyway, there is only one solution i can think of when it comes to how to approach this: assess the major story beats in order. i think jumping around in the progression of events to highlight individual flaws in the character will not adequately impart the suffering one feels as an audience member while the narrative yo-yos between being rollicking good fun and being at the mercy of the little 15 year old twink with god mode on.

and so, having made it past koichi's tiny ass role (and his tiny ass) in the story and addressing how we can proceed, we can cover bruno (a genuinely wonderful character), polpo, and the wasted character building opportunity of the piss drinking scene, which vexes and infuriates me to this day. [thinking about the piss scene and getting mad again] ooooh!!!!

[lornaka]

Thoughts on TBB s2 finale

Spoilers under the cut. Most of this is a compilation of thoughts I’ve previously expressed on twitter and discord so nothing new to some of you perhaps! Disclaimer: I still love the show with my whole heart and greatly respect the hard work of everyone who worked on it, so please don’t hate on the show in replies and comments to this post. Either keep it to relevant constructive criticism of the narrative and thoughtful analysis/discussion, or make your own posts, thanks

Idk I was just left.. hollow after s2 finale of tbb, like, there were no upsides/positive stimulating moments? It didn't leave me with an excited feeling for what's to come, more like "this is very bleak and miserable, I want s3 purely in the hope of it getting better somehow". I really was expecting some sort of catharsis from tbb s2 finale but got the complete opposite. It's a tell that something didn't work for me when I got no inspiration to draw anything tbh. S1 finale was confusing and not all that happy too but it left.. idk, something to be hopeful about, something affirming to it, amidst all destruction and separation.  I wonder what s3 will look like with this sort of a cliffhanger. Unless they somehow resolve it in the first few episodes of the next season, the whole format would have to be changed, no more one-off adventures between the main plot heavy episodes etc. Regarding Hunter and his complete lack of emotionality and motivation outside of his relationship with Omega, at this point I seriously can’t tell if the writers are purposefully writing Hunter in a way that makes him come off as, well, failing as a brother and a leader. All I know is that after each finale, s1 and s2, I’m left with a desire for him to own up to his mistakes to grow. I love Hunter a lot and I enjoy flawed characters with good hearts. But when they mess up, I want the narrative to frame it such, and for them to grow from there. Otherwise it’s just inconsistent writing. At this moment, I feel like Hunter needs a “redemption” arc as much as Crosshair, as far as family drama and letting each other down goes. This is why I was so happy when it seemed like they’d finally go to rescue Crosshair specifically (welp.) They needed to do that imo, Hunter most of all, he needs to own up to leaving his brother behind once and for all and actually *do* smth about it. Was it understandable when they had to flee and couldn’t come back for Cross before they knew about the chips and arguably after? Absolutely. Doesn’t change the fact that Cross was left behind and got hurt, doesn’t make it better. So even if Hunter’s decision is justified, his lack of regret over his brother getting hurt in the process is not. I can see him repressing it all bc that’s Hunter, he is the king of repressing his emotions for the sake of moving forward, but his issues do not excuse him, and I want him to gain awareness and grow past these issues.  And speaking of Crosshair. It’s so weird, structurally if nothing else, how the previous few episodes built up all these emotional stakes over Crosshair, specifically his withstanding intense torture from Hemlock meant to break him just to protect his siblings, only for the finale to completely drop the ball on it. Tech sacrifices himself on a mission he specifically urged Hunter to go on because “Crosshair is still our brother” and then Hunter is like “yeah let’s not waste Tech’s sacrifice and forget all about Crosshair, okay?”. It made no freaking sense.  S1 finale left me confused & unsatisfied with the way characters reactions didn’t fit some of their previously stablished experiences and narrative arcs. S2 put things in perspective for me somewhat, so my best hope is that s3 does the same to resolve my confusion over s2 finale.  When it comes down to basic story break down, the core theme of TBB gotta be either about a family coming together, or it is about a family separating, one way or another. Until s2 finale I was convinced it was about coming together but now.. “We don’t leave our own behind” seemed like a clear set up for the coming together theme. Now it feels almost like a misdirection, an ironic twist to subvert our expectations or mb to explore how old convictions/priorities of these characters crashed against new realities of life.  And now that they’ll never truly be able to be a whole family again (allegedly), my hope for the main theme to circle back to a family coming together in a satisfying way has been critically diminished tbh. I think it could still work with someone dying, but def not like this. Even if everyone else survives and sticks together and Cross comes back, he’ll never have closure over Tech’s absence, for example. There will be no satisfaction for us as the audience in his brother’s sacrifice on a mission to save him, no pay-off. Then what is the point?  A character death is a very powerful tool within the story, so when it happens, it needs to be done extremely right to hit the right emotional chords and not just cause frustration. What frustrates me, personally, is not the factual death of a character in the canon version of the events, but when the presentation and use of it makes no sense to me in the story but the writers are trying to sell it to me as if it should. Then I feel like I’m being emotionally manipulated and nothing makes me feel more betrayed tbh. I can come up with an infinite number of explanations for Tech’s survival. It’s incredibly easy to suspend my disbelief and just say “somehow he survived”. But if the creators themselves actively try to beat me over the head with their insistence that no, it happened and I should be sad over it, nope. That’s telling, not showing. If you want me to feel strong emotion, make me, don’t tell me that I’m supposed to be sad over a character dying just because you decided to kill them to make me sad. As for Tech’s status, the whole Schrodinger Tech situation is exactly the same as Cross’s chip in s1 finale. Everything in the narrative (Hemlock bringing his goggles is sus as hell, 100% reads as hints at him recovering Tech and then lying to Hunter to manipulate him) points to it being one way (Cross’s chip still affecting him, Tech surviving) but knowing the writers, my gut tells me it’s exactly what they say on the surface with their words and he’s gone. I hope I’m wrong because the way this death was handled is meaningless and closes so many possibilities, like I mentioned above with the family coming together in a satisfying way etc. It just doesn’t work for the story beyond cheap emotional shock value imo.  So here we are. I decided to chill until s3 and hope things will make sense as the story progresses and the intentions of the writers become clear. Right now they sure as hell aren’t.