#as you can probably infer from the context

[musical-chick-13]

I love being nit-picky about canon until it's a character I hate. Then I love intentionally interpreting every single thing about them through the absolute worst lens possible. Because I hate them. And I love hating. Hope this helps.

[she-who-fights-and-writes]

“Show, Don’t Tell”…But This Time Someone Explains It

If you’ve ever been on the hunt for writing advice, you've definitely seen the phrase “Show, Don’t Tell.”

Writeblr coughs up these three words on the daily; it’s often considered the “Golden Rule” of writing. However, many posts don't provide an in-depth explanation about what this "Golden Rule" means (This is most likely to save time, and under the assumption that viewers are already informed).

More dangerously, some posts fail to explain that “Show, Don’t Tell” occasionally doesn’t apply in certain contexts, toeing a dangerous line by issuing a blanket statement to every writing situation. 

The thing to take away from this is: “Show, Don’t Tell” is an essential tool for more immersive writing, but don't feel like a bad writer if you can’t make it work in every scenario (or if you can’t get the hang of it!)

1. What Does "Show, Don't Tell" Even Mean?

“Show, Don’t Tell” is a writing technique in which the narrative or a character’s feelings are related through sensory details rather than exposition. Instead of telling the reader what is happening, the reader infers what is happening due to the clues they’ve been shown.

EXAMPLE 1:

Telling: The room was very cold. Showing: She shivered as she stepped into the room, her breath steaming in the air.

EXAMPLE 2:

Telling: He was furious. Showing: He grabbed the nearest book and hurled it against the wall, his teeth bared and his eyes blazing.

EXAMPLE 3 ("SHOW, DON'T TELL" DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN "WRITE A LOT MORE")

Telling: The room hadn't been lived in for a very long time. Showing: She shoved the door open with a spray of dust.

Although the “showing” sentences don’t explicitly state how the characters felt, you as the reader use context clues to form an interpretation; it provides information in an indirect way, rather than a direct one.

Because of this, “Show, Don’t Tell” is an incredibly immersive way to write; readers formulate conclusions alongside the characters, as if they were experiencing the story for themselves instead of spectating. 

As you have probably guessed, “showing” can require a lot more words (as well as patience and effort). It’s a skill that has to be practiced and improved, so don’t feel discouraged if you have trouble getting it on the first try!

2. How Do I Use “Show, Don’t Tell” ?

There are no foolproof parameters about where you “show” and not “tell" or vice versa; it’s more of a writing habit that you develop rather than something that you selectively decide to employ.

In actuality, most stories are a blend of both showing and telling, and more experienced writers instinctively switch between one and another to cater to their narrative needs. You need to find a good balance of both in order to create a narrative that is both immersive and engaging.

i. Help When Your Writing Feels Bare-Bones/Soulless/Boring

Your writing is just not what you’ve pictured in your head, no matter how much you do it over. Conversations are stilted. The characters are flat. The sentences don’t flow as well as they do in the books you've read. What’s missing?

It’s possibly because you’ve been “telling” your audience everything and not “showing”! If a reader's mind is not exercised (i.e. they're being "spoon-fed" all of the details), your writing may feel boring or uninspired!

Instead of saying that a room was old and dingy, maybe describe the peeling wallpaper. The cobwebs in the corners. The smell of dust and old mothballs. Write down what you see in your mind's eye, and allow your audience to formulate their own interpretations from that. (Scroll for a more in-depth explanation on HOW to develop this skill!)

ii. Add More Depth and Emotion to Your Scenes

Because "Show, Don't Tell" is a more immersive way of writing, a reader is going to feel the narrative beats of your story a lot more deeply when this rule is utilized.

Describing how a character has fallen to their knees sobbing and tearing our their hair is going to strike a reader's heart more than saying: "They were devastated."

Describing blood trickling through a character's fingers and staining their clothes will seem more dire than saying: "They were gravely wounded."

iii. Understand that Sometimes Telling Can Fit Your Story Better

Telling can be a great way to show your characters' personalities, especially when it comes to first-person or narrator-driven stories. Below, I've listed a few examples; however, this list isn't exclusive or comprehensive!

Initial Impressions and Character Opinions

If a character describes someone's outfit as "gaudy" or a room as "absolutely disgusting," it can pack more of a punch about their initial impression, rather than describing the way that they react (and can save you some words!). In addition, it can provide some interesting juxtaposition (i.e. when a character describes a dog as "hideous" despite telling their friend it looks cute).

2. Tone and Reader Opinions

Piggybacking off of the first point, you can "tell, not show" when you want to be certain about how a reader is supposed to feel about something. "Showing" revolves around readers drawing their own conclusions, so if you want to make sure that every reader draws the same conclusion, "telling" can be more useful! For example, if you describe a character's outfit as being a turquoise jacket with zebra-patterned pants, some readers may be like "Ok yeah a 2010 Justice-core girlie is slaying!" But if you want the outfit to come across as badly arranged, using a "telling" word like "ridiculous" or "gaudy" can help set the stage.

3. Pacing

"Show, don't tell" can often take more words; after all, describing a character's reaction is more complicated than stating how they're feeling. If your story calls for readers to be focused more on the action than the details, such as a fight or chase scene, sometimes "telling" can serve you better than "showing." A lot of writers have dedicated themselves to the rule "tell action, show emotion," but don't feel like you have to restrict yourself to one or the other.

iv. ABOVE ALL ELSE: Getting Words on the Page is More Important!

If you’re stuck on a section of your story and just can’t find it in yourself to write poetic, flowing prose, getting words on the paper is more important than writing something that’s “good.” If you want to be able to come back and fix it later, put your writing in brackets that you can Ctrl + F later.

Keeping your momentum is the hardest part of writing. Don't sacrifice your inspiration in favor of following rules!

3. How Can I Get Better at “Show, Don’t Tell”?

i. Use the Five Senses, and Immerse Yourself!

Imagine you’re the protagonist, standing in the scene that you have just created. Think of the setting. What are things about the space that you’d notice, if you were the one in your character’s shoes?

Smell? Hear? See? Touch? Taste?

Sight and sound are the senses that writers most often use, but don’t discount the importance of smell and taste! Smell is the most evocative sense, triggering memories and emotions the moment someone walks into the room and has registered what is going on inside—don’t take it for granted. And even if your character isn’t eating, there are some things that can be “tasted” in the air.

EXAMPLE:

TELLING: She walked into the room and felt disgusted. It smelled, and it was dirty and slightly creepy. She wished she could leave. SHOWING: She shuffled into the room, wrinkling her nose as she stepped over a suspicious stain on the carpet. The blankets on the bed were moth-bitten and yellowed, and the flowery wallpaper had peeled in places to reveal a layer of blood-red paint beneath…like torn cuticles. The stench of cigarettes and mildew permeated the air. “How long are we staying here again?” she asked, flinching as the door squealed shut. 

The “showing” excerpt gives more of an idea about how the room looks, and how the protagonist perceives it. However, something briefer may be more suited for writers who are not looking to break the momentum in their story. (I.e. if the character was CHASED into this room and doesn’t have time to take in the details.)

ii. Study Movies and TV Shows: Think like a Storyteller, Not Just a Writer

Movies and TV shows quite literally HAVE TO "show, and not tell." This is because there is often no inner monologue or narrator telling the viewers what's happening. As a filmmaker, you need to use your limited time wisely, and make sure that the audience is engaged.

Think about how boring it would be if a movie consisted solely of a character monologuing about what they think and feel, rather than having the actor ACT what they feel.

(Tangent, but there’s also been controversy that this exposition/“telling” mindset in current screenwriting marks a downfall of media literacy. Examples include the new Percy Jackson and Avatar: The Last Airbender remakes that have been criticized for info-dumping dialogue instead of “showing.”)

If you find it easy to envision things in your head, imagine how your scene would look in a movie. What is the lighting like? What are the subtle expressions flitting across the actors' faces, letting you know just how they're feeling? Is there any droning background noise that sets the tone-- like traffic outside, rain, or an air conditioner?

How do the actors convey things that can't be experienced through a screen, like smell and taste?

Write exactly what you see in your mind's eye, instead of explaining it with a degree of separation to your readers.

iii. Listen to Music

I find that because music evokes emotion, it helps you write with more passion—feelings instead of facts! It’s also slightly distracting, so if you’re writing while caught up in the music, it might free you from the rigid boundaries you’ve put in place for yourself.

Here’s a link to my master list of instrumental writing playlists!

iv. Practice, Practice, Practice! And Take Inspiration from Others!

“Show Don’t Tell” is the core of an immersive scene, and requires tons of writing skills cultivated through repeated exposure. Like I said before, more experienced writers instinctively switch between showing and telling as they write— but it’s a muscle that needs to be constantly exercised!

If I haven’t written in a while and need to get back into the flow of things, I take a look at a writing prompt, and try cultivating a scene that is as immersive as possible! Working on your “Show, Don’t Tell” skills by practicing writing short, fun one-shots can be much less restrictive than a lengthier work.

In addition, get some inspiration and study from reading the works of others, whether it be a fanfiction or published novel!

If you need some extra help, feel free to check out my Master List of Writing Tips and Advice, which features links to all of my best posts, each of them categorized !

Hope this helped, and happy writing!

[prokopetz]

In recent posts I've complained that a lot of tabletop RPGs which toss around the term "fiction first" don't actually understand what it means, and I've been asked to expand on that complaint. So:

In my experience, there are two ways that game texts which want to position themselves as "fiction first" trip themselves up, one obvious and one subtle.

The first and more obvious pitfall is treating "fiction first" as an abstract ideology. They're using "fiction first" as a synonym for "story over rules" in a way that calls back to the role-playing-versus-roll-playing discourse of the early 2000s. The trouble is, now as then, nobody can usefully explain what "story over rules" actually entails. At best, they land on a definition of "fiction first" that talks about the GM's right to ignore the rules to better serve the story, which is no kind of definition at all – it's just putting a funny hat on the Rule Zero fallacy and trying to pass it off as some sort of totalising ideology of play.

A more useful way of defining "fiction first" play is to think of it not in terms of whether you engage with the rules at all, but in terms of when they're invoked: specifically, as a question of order of operations.

Suppose, for example, that you're playing Dungeons & Dragons, and you pick up the dice and say "I attack the dragon". Some critics would claim that no actual narrative has been established – that this is simply a bare invocation of game mechanics – but in fact we can infer a great deal: your character is going to approach the dragon, navigating any inclement terrain which lies between them, and attempt to kill the dragon using the weapon they're holding in their hand. The rules are so tightly bound to a particular set of narrative circumstances that simply invoking those rules lets us work backwards to determine what the context and stakes must be for that invocation of the rules to be sensical; this, broadly speaking, is what "rules first" looks like.

Conversely, let's say that your game of Dungeons & Dragons has confronted you with a pit blocking your path, and you want to make an Athletics check to cross it. At this point the GM is probably going to stop you and say, hold up, tell us what that looks like. Are you trying to jump across it? Are you trying to climb down one wall of the pit and up the other? Are you trying to tie a rope to the halfling and toss them to the other side? In other words, before you can pick up the dice, you need to have a little sidebar with the GM to hash out what the narrative context is, and to negotiate what can be achieved and what's at stake if you mess it up; this, broadly, is what "fiction first" looks like.

At this point I know some people are thinking "wait, hold on – both of those examples were from Dungeons & Dragons; are you saying that Dungeons & Dragons is both a rules-first game and a fiction-first game?" And yeah, I am. That's the second, more subtle place where game texts that talk about "fiction first" go astray: they talk about it as though being "fiction first" or "rules first" is something which is inherent to game systems as a whole.

This is not in fact true: being "fiction first" or "rules first" is something which describes particular invocations of the rules. In practice, only very simple games spend all of their time in one mode or the other; most will switch back and forth at need. Generally, most "traditional" RPGs (i.e., the direct descendants of Dungeons & Dragons and its various imitators) tend to operate in rules-first mode in combat and fiction-first mode out of it, though this is a simplification – when and how such mode-switching occurs can be quite complex.

Like any other design pattern, "fiction first" mechanics are a tool that's well suited for some jobs, and ill suited for others. Sometimes your rules are fine-grained enough that having an explicit negotiation and stakes-setting phase would just be adding extra steps. Sometimes you're using the outputs of the rules a narrative prompt, and having to pin the context down ahead of time would defeat the purpose. Fortunately, you don't have to commit yourself to one approach or the other; as long as your text is clear about how you're assuming a given set of rules toys will be used, you can switch modes as need dictates. However, you're not going to be capable of that kind of transparency if you're thinking in terms of "this a Fiction First™ game".

(Incidentally, this is why it can be hard to talk about "fiction first" with OSR fans if you're being dogmatic about fiction-first framing being an immutable feature of particular games. Since traditional RPGs tend to observe the above-described rules-first-in-combat, fiction-first-out-of-combat division, and OSR games tend to treat actually getting into a fight as a strategic failure state, a lot of OSR games spend most of their time in fiction-first mode. If you go up to an OSR fan and insist that D&D-style games can never be fiction-first, then attempt to define "fiction first" for them and proceed to describe how they usually play, they'll quite justifiably conclude that you have your head up your ass!)

[nostalgebraist]

Honestly I'm pretty tired of supporting nostalgebraist-autoresponder. Going to wind down the project some time before the end of this year.

Posting this mainly to get the idea out there, I guess.

This project has taken an immense amount of effort from me over the years, and still does, even when it's just in maintenance mode.

Today some mysterious system update (or something) made the model no longer fit on the GPU I normally use for it, despite all the same code and settings on my end.

This exact kind of thing happened once before this year, and I eventually figured it out, but I haven't figured this one out yet. This problem consumed several hours of what was meant to be a relaxing Sunday. Based on past experience, getting to the bottom of the issue would take many more hours.

My options in the short term are to

A. spend (even) more money per unit time, by renting a more powerful GPU to do the same damn thing I know the less powerful one can do (it was doing it this morning!), or

B. silently reduce the context window length by a large amount (and thus the "smartness" of the output, to some degree) to allow the model to fit on the old GPU.

Things like this happen all the time, behind the scenes.

I don't want to be doing this for another year, much less several years. I don't want to be doing it at all.

----

In 2019 and 2020, it was fun to make a GPT-2 autoresponder bot.

[EDIT: I've seen several people misread the previous line and infer that nostalgebraist-autoresponder is still using GPT-2. She isn't, and hasn't been for a long time. Her latest model is a finetuned LLaMA-13B.]

Hardly anyone else was doing anything like it. I wasn't the most qualified person in the world to do it, and I didn't do the best possible job, but who cares? I learned a lot, and the really competent tech bros of 2019 were off doing something else.

And it was fun to watch the bot "pretend to be me" while interacting (mostly) with my actual group of tumblr mutuals.

In 2023, everyone and their grandmother is making some kind of "gen AI" app. They are helped along by a dizzying array of tools, cranked out by hyper-competent tech bros with apparently infinite reserves of free time.

There are so many of these tools and demos. Every week it seems like there are a hundred more; it feels like every day I wake up and am expected to be familiar with a hundred more vaguely nostalgebraist-autoresponder-shaped things.

And every one of them is vastly better-engineered than my own hacky efforts. They build on each other, and reap the accelerating returns.

I've tended to do everything first, ahead of the curve, in my own way. This is what I like doing. Going out into unexplored wilderness, not really knowing what I'm doing, without any maps.

Later, hundreds of others with go to the same place. They'll make maps, and share them. They'll go there again and again, learning to make the expeditions systematically. They'll make an optimized industrial process of it. Meanwhile, I'll be locked in to my own cottage-industry mode of production.

Being the first to do something means you end up eventually being the worst.

----

I had a GPT chatbot in 2019, before GPT-3 existed. I don't think Huggingface Transformers existed, either. I used the primitive tools that were available at the time, and built on them in my own way. These days, it is almost trivial to do the things I did, much better, with standardized tools.

I had a denoising diffusion image generator in 2021, before DALLE-2 or Stable Diffusion or Huggingface Diffusers. I used the primitive tools that were available at the time, and built on them in my own way. These days, it is almost trivial to do the things I did, much better, with standardized tools.

Earlier this year, I was (probably) one the first people to finetune LLaMA. I manually strapped LoRA and 8-bit quantization onto the original codebase, figuring out everything the hard way. It was fun.

Just a few months later, and your grandmother is probably running LLaMA on her toaster as we speak. My homegrown methods look hopelessly antiquated. I think everyone's doing 4-bit quantization now?

(Are they? I can't keep track anymore -- the hyper-competent tech bros are too damn fast. A few months from now the thing will be probably be quantized to -1 bits, somehow. It'll be running in your phone's browser. And it'll be using RLHF, except no, it'll be using some successor to RLHF that everyone's hyping up at the time...)

"You have a GPT chatbot?" someone will ask me. "I assume you're using AutoLangGPTLayerPrompt?"

No, no, I'm not. I'm trying to debug obscure CUDA issues on a Sunday so my bot can carry on talking to a thousand strangers, every one of whom is asking it something like "PENIS PENIS PENIS."

Only I am capable of unplugging the blockage and giving the "PENIS PENIS PENIS" askers the responses they crave. ("Which is ... what, exactly?", one might justly wonder.) No one else would fully understand the nature of the bug. It is special to my own bizarre, antiquated, homegrown system.

I must have one of the longest-running GPT chatbots in existence, by now. Possibly the longest-running one?

I like doing new things. I like hacking through uncharted wilderness. The world of GPT chatbots has long since ceased to provide this kind of value to me.

I want to cede this ground to the LLaMA techbros and the prompt engineers. It is not my wilderness anymore.

I miss wilderness. Maybe I will find a new patch of it, in some new place, that no one cares about yet.

----

Even in 2023, there isn't really anything else out there quite like Frank. But there could be.

If you want to develop some sort of Frank-like thing, there has never been a better time than now. Everyone and their grandmother is doing it.

"But -- but how, exactly?"

Don't ask me. I don't know. This isn't my area anymore.

There has never been a better time to make a GPT chatbot -- for everyone except me, that is.

Ask the techbros, the prompt engineers, the grandmas running OpenChatGPT on their ironing boards. They are doing what I did, faster and easier and better, in their sleep. Ask them.

[elodieunderglass]

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out with a word I've forgotten? I'm trying to remember the name for a concept that (I think) talks about how people better understand or process Things once they have vocabulary to describe it - I've heard it talked about in regards to the colour orange, or coercive control, etc.

long story short i've just read a paper saying ancient Greeks and Romans weren't racist bc they had no word for racism and am trying to form an argument against!

(no worries if this is unanswerable, i'm aware its a bit of a long shot but you struck me as a person who Knows Things)

That’s extremely kind and funny of you. i don’t know much but i am ok at synthesis.

I think you might be thinking of the concepts loosely called the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, which describes something called “linguistic determinism.” This idea has been “disproven”, as it is just too reductionist as a concept - people are clearly perfectly capable of having experiences that are tough to describe with words. There will be plenty of papers showing how this reasoning is applied.

but it is still commonly thrown around and still considered a useful teaching framework. That’s why you’ll see it referenced online as if it is fresh, new, and applicable - people learn about it every year in college. Also, elements of the framework are probably perfectly sound. It definitely seems to be the case that language shapes brains; it just doesn’t seem to be the case that humans who don’t have specific words for them can’t experience orange, or the future.

(Many things in college are taught using teaching frameworks that may not be, technically, true; the framework is intended to give a critical structure for interpreting information. Then, when we later find evidence that disproves the hypothesis, that single piece of information doesn’t destroy our expensive college education; what we paid for is the framework. This is mostly frustrating in the sciences, when fresh crops of undergraduate students crash around on social media, grappling with their first exposure to (complex concept) and how it’s DIFFERENT to what they learned BEFORE and their teachers LIED TO EVERYBODY and they’re going to save the world from POP SCIENCE by telling the TRUTH. You’ll notice that these TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION reveals map along the semester schedule. The thing here is that getting new information, or information being different from what you were previously told, does not cancel out the fact that you are getting what you pay for - an education. Learning new facts that change our relationships to hypotheses isn’t a ✨huge betrayal ✨ , but the expected process of academia. Anyway.)

You have an interesting response here, and can start by looking at the ways that Sapir-Whorf has been disproved. There will be loads of literature on that.

However, it would be interesting to look at the argument as an unpicking of the other side’s rather weird, ritualistic superstitious belief that a behavior doesn’t exist if the creatures doing it can’t describe it. It is not on the ancient Greeks and Romans to categorise and interpret their behavior for a modern educated audience. They do not have the wherewithal to do so. They are also fucking dead. We can name the behaviors we see, and describe their impacts, however the hell we like.

Sure, the ancient Greeks used “cancer” to refer to lumpy veiny tumors. We can infer that they still had blood cancer, because their medical texts describe leukaemia and their corpses have evidence of it - they just didn’t know it was cancer. But we do, so we can call it cancer. Just because Homer said “the wine-dark sea” in a flight of girlish whimsy doesn’t mean he was unable to distinguish grape juice from saltwater, which we know, because we can observe that he was an intelligent wordsmith perfectly capable of talking about wine and oceans in other contexts. We are the people who get to stand at our point of history with our words, and name things like “this person probably died of leukaemia” and “poets say things that aren’t necessarily literal” and “this behaviour was racist” and “that’s gay” and “togas kinda slay tho” despite Ancient Greeks having different concepts of cancer, wittiness, prejudice, homosexuality, and slaying than we do today.

Now just to caveat that people do get muddled about the concept of racism. Our understanding of racism from here - this point of history, with these words, probably from the West - is heavily influenced by how we see racism around us today: white supremacy and the construct of “whiteness,” European colonial expansion, transatlantic chattel slavery, orientalism, evangelism, 20th century racial science, and so on. This is the picture of racism that really dominates our current discourse, so people often mistake it for the definition of racism. (Perhaps in a linguistic-deterministic sort of way after all.) As a result, muddled-up people often say things like “I can’t be racist because I’m not a white American who throws slurs at black American people,” while being an Indian person in the UK who votes for vile anti-immigration practices, or a Polish person with a horrible attitude about the Roma. Many people genuinely hold this very kindergarten idea of racism; if your opponent does as well, they’re probably thinking something like “Ancient Greek and Roman people didn’t have a concept of white supremacy, because whiteness hadn’t been invented yet, so how could they be racist?” And that’s unsound reasoning in a separate sense.

Racism as the practice of prejudice against an ethnicity, particularly one that is a minority, is a power differential that is perfectly observable in ancient cultures. The beliefs and behaviors will be preserved in written plays, recorded slurs, beauty standards, reactions to foreign marriages, and travel writing. The impacts will be documented in political records, trade agreements, the layouts of historical districts of ancient towns.

You don’t need permission to point out behaviours and impacts. You can point them out in any words you like. You can make up entirely new words to bully the ancient romans with. You are the one at this point of history and your words are the ones that get used.

Pretending that “words” are some kind of an intellect-obscuring magical cloud in the face of actual evidence is just a piece of sophistry (derogatory) on the part of your opponent here. It’s meant to be a distraction. You can dismiss this very flimsy shield pretty quickly and get them in the soft meat of them never reading anything about the actual material topic, while they’re still looking up dictionary definitions or whatever.

[toomanythoughts2]

We simply don't talk enough about this scene from the season 3 DVD special features, "Charles Palling Around". (Which is directly following the season 3 finale, "Doublebookedklok", where the guys run away because they aren't getting enough attention from Charles. For context, Murderface was promoting the Rock & Roll Diet Weight Loss and was stress eating through out the whole episode.)

First off, look at that fucking outfit! Where did it come from? The little sweat band, shut up! And Charles red jump suit, are you joking? Couple of things, love the looks they are giving each other in this scene. Murderface looks smug, Charles looks like Charles. I mean, the signature confidence that Murderface has in this clip is unmatched, truly. He is keeping up with Charles pace perfectly, which is drastically different when Murderface is chasing after the goat with the rest of the band in "Doublebookedklok". I just love this clip because there is a lot to be inferred (or HC-ed) from it.

Murderface, and the rest of the band, have mandatory endurance classes to make sure they are ready to perform on stage multiple times a year. This is so they don't get winded while playing, singing, growling, and performing on stage with whatever they choose to do that specific night. (Nathan probably has to run and sing the most in order to practice breathing control and increase endurance on stage.)

Charles is that kind of friend that can both get "sloppy" and work out with you. What a king. (This also pushes the idea that Charles does get jealous of people who Dethklok likes more than him and he will do anything they ask [within reason] just to stay close.)

Personal favorite of mine, Murderface has previous experience with athletic running before Dethklok. His smug smile is actually because Charles is shocked that Murderface can keep up with him. (I once saw a HC that Murderface was in Track as a teenager and that has never left my mind. I just love it so much.)

Charles isn't just working out, he's actively supporting Murderface to keep his sponsorship, and hopefully to get the media off his back for calling him fat. He's also the kind of friend that, if that doesn't work out, he will invent a girdle just for him so it looks like he lost the weight.

I love this clip so much! I love Murderface, I just wanna squeeze him up into a ball and throw him around the room.

[zsakuva]

Hey Saku! I had a question about the dialogue for your audios. I’ve always thought your writing, banter, and conversations you’ve made between the characters and listeners seem so realistic! I just wanted to know how you’ve been able to do it so fluidly. Is it simply a matter of practice? Or has watching movies/tv made it easier to imagine? As a writer I’m curious! 🩵

Thank you!

It is absolutely a matter of practice.

TV shows and movies can't get you anywhere because when dialogue appears, more often than not it's between two people you can hear. Meanings and subtext are much easier to insert because the words used are carefully chosen, and the audience can hear all sides. I'll give a very simple example.

Person A: Where did you go? Person B: I went to the market. Person A: Oh. What did you get? Person B: A bushel of apples for £5. Person A: That's it? Bloody hell, the prices have gone up. Last time I went, I could've bought a pie as well for that price. That's a rip-off, that is!

For two characters that can be heard, this is fine. But if Person B was the Listener, the audience misses out on vital information: where they were, what they bought, and how much they spent.

When writing from a second POV, it gets tricky. Conversations breathe, speed up and slow down depending on what takes precedence either for the story or the characters. If I wanted to change the above example to suit audio roleplay, it could be this:

Person A: Where did you go? Person B: I went to the market. Person A: Oh, to the market? What did you get? Person B: A bushel of apples for £5. Person A: You only got a bushel of apples for £5? Bloody hell, the prices have gone up. Last time I went, I could've bought a pie as well for that price. That's a rip-off, that is!

This gives the audience the unsaid information, but it's too on the nose. Repeating the Listener's dialogue is like spoon-feeding the audience. I do use it sparingly, but omit it where possible; what I've learnt is that information said by the Listener doesn't have to be immediately repeated. Structuring dialogue can be like a puzzle, and the audience can piece that puzzle together. One way I could write it is:

Person A: Where did you go? Person B: I went to the market. Person A: Oh. What did you get? Person B: A bushel of apples for £5. Person A: That's all you got for £5? Last time I went to the market, I could've bought the apples and a pie for that price!

This is a little more concise, and gives all the relevant information said by Person B. Also, I removed 'Bloody hell, the prices have gone up' and 'That's a rip-off, that is' because Person A is already inferring that, so there's no need to say it.

Of course, there are many exceptions to this kind of guideline depending on the character you write and the story! I'll give one example.

Person A: Where did you go? Person B: I went to the market. Person A: Why are you back so early then? Person B: Well... Person A: Please tell me you didn't go to the new lake market instead. You didn't buy anything... did you? Person B: I bought a bushel of apples for £5. Person A: …You spent the last £5 you had on a bushel of apples? You could've bought a pie too for that price at Mayva's stall!

The context here is different, but the scene allows for a natural repetition of dialogue. It also infers that the new market is probably expensive, and their usual market—a frequented one as Person A knows the vendor's name—is further away.

My audios aren't as realistic as I would like them to be as I need to write around these hurdles, but that also becomes a fun challenge. Though the Listener can't be heard, they are still speaking, so it's paramount that information isn't lost in the void, and I always need to check before I'm happy with the script.

The more you do it, the better you become. Practice makes progress!

[ineffable-rohese]

Neil's picks for Aziraphale & Crowley's Angelic Playlist were Cry Me a River (Julie London), The Book of Love (Peter Gabriel), and The Show Must Go On (Queen).

Three songs. Two about the aftermath of a break up, and one about coming together in love. So very clearly, we can infer a Crowley POV song, an Aziraphale POV song, and a song for the two of them and their happily ever after. (Song lyrics for all three after the cut for reference.)

The Book of Love is a perfect wedding song. It's a song to play under two people declaring their desire to spend eternity together. With lines about dancing and reading and it's perfect. It's originally a Magnetic Fields song that was released in 1999. Peter Gabriel recorded a cover in 2004 for the movie Shall We Dance about which I know nothing but the Wikipedia summary. But since we know how movies are important here... It's a standard rom-com with a bored Richard Gere secretly taking up ballroom dancing after following a pretty lady from the train (J-Lo). His wife (Susan Sarandon) thinks he's cheating, turns out nope, just dancing, drama ensues, he gives up dancing but eventually his wife becomes supportive and he realizes he loves his wife. And dancing. And they live happily ever after, with both of them getting what they want. Maybe we can draw some parallels here? But I think the song speaks for itself better than its connection with what sounds like a standard early 2000s romcom.

The individual songs are where it gets interesting.

Cry Me a River was first released by Julie London in 1951, but became popular after she sang it in the 1956 film The Girl Can't Help It starring Jayne Mansfield as an aspiring rock 'n roll singer. Again, relying on Wikipedia here, but there is an interesting bit about a blossoming forbidden relationship, wiretapped phones, and someone editing the recordings to keep the love affair secret. But again, it's probably a stretch to look too deeply into the movie.

The song has a very classic jazz feel. It's from a decade and a half later, but if you were, say, an angel who enjoyed Moonlight Serenade or A Nightingale Sang in Berkley Square, it has a similar feel. You definitely wouldn't say it's bebop. The lyrics are about someone who was in love and had their heartbroken. Their former love (who never shed a tear over the break up) has returned and wants to make up. The singer essentially says "you love me? Prove it. Cry me a river like I cried when you left." Which, fair, but in our context, ouch.

The Show Must Go On is a Queen song, and we know how much Queen we hear in association with Crowley in particular. But this just isn't any Queen song. It was written by Brian May about Freddie Mercury's struggles as he neared the end of his life, and it was recorded in 1990. (Coincidentally or not, the year Good Omens was published, a book co-created by friends, one of whom would die too soon, and the other of whom would reflect on his friend's end of life struggles as the story was told more fully. Yes, I'm crying about this.)

In the song, the singer is fighting to reach a place of freedom, away from empty spaces and heartbreak. They are fighting with pure will, and even though their heart is breaking they smile and carry on because the show must go on.

What I really appreciate here with the POV songs, is that they are cross-coded. Queen is Crowley-coded, but the song about someone fighting through heartbreak to achieve something vital, while forcing a smile for the audience? That's absolutely Aziraphale in Heaven. And the 40s/50s jazz ballad is absolutely Aziraphale's style, but the jilted lover who may be willing to give their love a second chance but needs to see proof that the lover cares as much as they do is Crowley all the way.

It's almost like... Well it's almost like even in their separation, they are each carrying a piece of the other. The book of love has music in it, indeed.

The Book of Love

The book of love is long and boring No one can lift the damn thing It's full of charts and facts, and figures And instructions for dancing But I I love it when you read to me. And you You can read me anything.

The book of love has music in it In fact that's where music comes from Some of it's just transcendental Some of it's just really dumb But I I love it when you sing to me And you You can sing me anything

The book of love is long and boring And written very long ago It's full of flowers and heart-shaped boxes And things we're all too young to know But I I love it when you give me things And you You ought to give me wedding rings

Cry Me a River

Now you say you're lonely You cry the whole night thorough Well, you can cry me a river, cry me a river I cried a river over you

Now you say you're sorry For bein' so untrue Well, you can cry me a river, cry me a river I cried a river over you

You drove me, nearly drove me out of my head While you never shed a tear Remember, I remember all that you said Told me love was too plebeian Told me you were through with me and

Now you say you love me Well, just to prove you do Come on and cry me a river, cry me a river I cried a river over you

The Show Must Go On

Empty spaces, what are we living for? Abandoned places, I guess we know the score, on and on Does anybody know what we are looking for?

Another hero, another mindless crime Behind the curtain, in the pantomime Hold the line Does anybody want to take it anymore?

The show must go on The show must go on, yeah Inside my heart is breaking My makeup may be flaking But my smile, still, stays on

Whatever happens, I'll leave it all to chance Another heartache, another failed romance, on and on Does anybody know what we are living for? I guess I'm learning I must be warmer now I'll soon be turning, round the corner now Outside the dawn is breaking But inside in the dark I'm aching to be free

The show must go on The show must go on Inside my heart is breaking My makeup may be flaking But my smile, still, stays on

My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies Fairy tales of yesterday, grow but never die I can fly, my friends

The show must go on The show must go on I'll face it with a grin I'm never giving in On with the show I'll top the bill I'll overkill I have to find the will to carry on On with the show Show Show must go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on

[eldrith]

omg heyyyyy guys!!! <3 tldr for those of you who aren't the stupid cunt still spewing shit in inboxes: thanks for being kind & supportive and fucking normal. appreciate you beyond words, genuinely. my inbox is always open to you.

but to whom it may concern,

i am so fucking serious when i say that you, anon, need to grow up and start talking to real life humans for once in your life.

this isn't a joke. i'm so so so fucking embarrassed for this imbecile who stalks mutuals and any writer or account with decency in this fandom. you're so embarrassing. you are so clearly out of touch, there is something so clearly wrong in your tiny little pebble brain. it's a miracle you can even type words onto a screen because you're so inconceivably obtuse. (btw, you may need to reel in the extent of your lexicon - if you know what that is - for some of the things im about to say)

not only are you so impossibly, functionally incapable when it comes to media literacy - sorry, literacy at all - but you actively seek out to make incorrect points and its so troublesome... you need to learn context, subtext, implicit bias, nuance - honestly, grab a dictionary and look up what the term 'critical thinking' means too. you are SEVERELY lacking. you are deficient in communication and even worse with inference. i could laugh, and i have before.

despite the fact that this is all fictional - the truth is that we are all just people on here who enjoy writing or maybe enjoy a character from a fictional show that isn't even about romance in the first place.

anyways, i digress: the truth is that every single one of my friends on here has gotten this person's weird fucking obsessive comments in their inbox and as pathetic as this person is, i will say this directly to them: you treat writers or other blogs like some sort of sad therapy and you're being embarrassing.

i'm embarrassed when i see the cringey, out of touch shit you say. you act like a minor. i genuinely think you are one. you act like someone who has never had a personal relationship, let alone conversation. i don't think you've had an emotional connection ever. you act like a fucking baby who just crawled out of a sewer to see light for the first time in your life. it's so fucking sad. i would never care enough to say i feel bad for you, but i feel bad for anyone who has ever interacted with you, myself included.

it's so astounding to have to say this, but: WRITERS AND BLOGGERS ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING THERAPISTS. WE ARE NOT A HOTLINE FOR YOU. here, you’re so stupid you probably didn’t catch that: WE ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING THERAPISTS. YOU ARE BEING A FUCKING CHILD.

i beg you - i implore you to fucking block me, to block all of my mutuals who you come to whining in their inboxes, because NONE OF US FUCKING CARE what you have to say. pick up a book. talk to a man irl. ask someone how their day is and try to use empathy for once.

anyways, i love every single person on here who takes the time to be kind, or funny, or care. i love all my writers, all of my friends on here, moots or not - sorry to say this but im tired of pretending that i'm nice to childish pathetic cunts. lol

[nightlilly0110]

There’s probably a million and one posts about Joker and Akechi being each other’s opposites or being the same once you get down to it (neglected kid, wanting to find recognition and purpose, etc.) but I’d like to talk about their views on food.

Akechi runs a food blog, as mentioned in Mementos Mission. He reviews places. Stuff like that, although while they do have a lot of fluff in them, are generally analytical in that it’s dissecting the food in regard to why it’s good and why you should try it. Considering the nature of it, it’s probably also meant to be an extension of his Detective Prince shtick, so whether or not he actually enjoys doing this is up in the air.

Then on the flip side, we have Joker who lives above a cafe. His guardian teaches him how to make coffee and curry, which he then can make as he pleases and serve to his friends. Like Akechi, you do get the prompts of what types of coffee are good or what ingredients go into curry to get specific flavours (much like a food blog would note), but unlike Akechi there’s a more personal connection to it as Sojiro teaches him.

Food in Persona 5 is a love language. Joker makes food for his friends. Sojiro makes Wakaba’s curry recipe for the shop and makes her favourite coffee on the anniversary of her death. The Thieves go out to celebrate a change of heart by having an outing. You both unlock Ryuji’s confidant and turn it into a blood oath while you’re out for food. Food literally heals you and regenerates your stamina in this game. Food is important.

Joker embraces the idea of food being important. The game takes time to educate you the player on little tidbits about the food he makes. It takes care into the segments you spend making Joker make food, again hitting you over the head with the fact that it’s important. So it’s kinda neat that you have Joker taking a very enthusiastic approach to food vs Akechi having a very sterile, clinical view of it - something meant for appearance and popularity only. Not bashing on food blogs, but in the context of the game, Akechi does not approach food in the same way Joker does. He’s distant from it, detached from it. We don’t have the sort of insight of Akechi that we do for Joker, but we can infer that he doesn’t have the same sense of emotional intelligence around it. And it fits his character, too. He’s had no one to take care of him in a long time and no one that depends on him. He doesn’t have a Sojiro to help teach him how to cook, and no one to share the benefits of it with.

I just find it interesting how even little details that aren’t even in the game add to how different these two are.

[canmom]

This was a fascinating video on the evolution of American acting from older, theatrical 'representational' styles to the more modern, naturalistic 'presentational' style.

A large part of it is dedicated to breaking down the history of the extremely poorly defined term 'method acting', outlining the different theories of acting of Konstantin Stanislavski with his 'System' and the interpretations put on it by his American followers such as Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler, and how they differ from the modern pop-culture conception of 'method acting'. It's fascinating stuff - I did not realise just how much Stanislavski's ideas have affected the way we think about acting, literature etc. (dude invented the word 'subtext'!).

But in Thomas Flight's view, he's bringing these up in part to deflate them - he's ultimately arguing that, instead of a specific new method of acting being introduced, it's more that the goals of acting changed as the style of film in general changed. There are many routes to a naturalistic performance, but you have to want to do that in the first place, and older films wanted a more theatrical style.

Besides just being an interesting thing to learn about lol, the big question when I look at the theory of acting is how do you apply it to animation, since that's my field lol. 'Acting' is a big part of animation, but it differs in one big way, which is that it's much slower and more deliberate. I don't want to claim that there's no intuitive aspect to it, if anything you gotta learn all the technical stuff (timing, spacing, weight, overlapping action etc.) so well that you don't have to be constantly thinking consciously about technical stuff and can focus on letting the performance flow and feel natural... but still, a lot of the ideas expressed about imagining inhabiting the scene, getting into character etc. happen at a remove from putting lines down on the paper/screen. In animation just getting to the point of 'moving like a person', the absolute baseline of real life acting, is an effort in itself!

Still, knowing about the different styles and theories of acting is helpful. What is it about a character's expression that tells us that there is something that they're not saying, and tells us to infer some particular emotional context behind their words? A lot of it has to do with 'voice acting' stuff - cadence, intonation, hesitation. Then there's the way they move, stuff like how much space they take up, how energetic they are, how much their centre of gravity moves around. The gaze, where they're looking and how their eyes move around, is a huge part of it.

A film actor probably is doing a lot of this intuitively. I'm sure there is some conscious thought about it but the link between brain and muscles is so strong that you can be moving your eyes before you've had time to fully think through 'I should look over there to communicate what's on my mind'. With an animated character, every motion requires you to think about start and end poses, what the arcs are, follow-through, how many drawings to give it, etc. etc. You're simulating the 'physics' of the animated world and trying to convey the emotion of the character all at once. But you can still absolutely have an expressive, naturalistic performance in animation - and all these extra things you control (abstraction, simplification, etc.) give you more expressive tools as well which aren't available in live action.

I'm not nearly at the technical level of drawing and animation where I can really apply all these ideas yet, but it's good to know what's on the distant mountain...

[loving-n0t-heyting]

This anon (from a few days ago now) requires some context, which i will provide shortly. I am going to operate on the (not fully certain) assumption, which i have pieced together from several context clues (not to be provided here, for privacy's sake), that it was part of the campaign of harassment i received for my opposition to the promotion of probable scams as spurious and inefficient forms of charity. (Feel free to take this answer as seriously as you trust my inference on that point)

In 2022, an acquaintance of mine named emma was shot and killed. Her friends and comrades were subsequently arrested and charged for alleged crimes related to the shooting, and for the last almost 2yrs i have been making some effort to help them in subsequent legal trouble

The man uncontentiously directly responsible for killing emma remains at large, protected by and aligned with the state, and likely knows of this blog and my identity. It is not implausible to think he bears some grudge against me. There are members of law enforcement involved in the ensuing legal conflicts who also plausibly bear grudges against me, associated with one of the statistically most homicidal police forces in the country. They, too, i place nontrivial credence on knowing of this blog, and have as agents of the state considerable scope and potential impunity for stalking and retaliation

I now suspect (and hope) this ask was made as part of the inane torrent of jeers and idle threats directed at me and my friends over the controversy about gaza gofundmes, but at the time i received it this context was not at all clear and, ofc, i had no way of telling whom it might be from

I generally avoid talking about this topic, out of respect for the privacy of my friends involved, but the above is all either public knowledge or reasonably inferrable from the same, and more relevantly would likely have been known to the person sending me this message, including my inability to discern it from a threat from a party with a possible real life motivation and capacity to kill me

Emma is dead. If she is waiting for me, she is waiting for me in death. This ask, therefore, reasonably and seriously caused me to fear in the immediate term for my life. This is not harassment or hatemail: it is an act of criminal intimidation and an atrocious abuse of emmas name and memory

There can be no possible excuse for subjecting anyone to such drastic and credible threats over this kind of online political disagreement. I offer it as a particularly extreme example of the abuse to which my friends and i have been subjected for our righteous, if meagre, contributions to the political discourse, and as a rebuke to the coward responsible for sending it. Yours is a craven pettiness and spite worthy of the idf. For shame!

I know i said i would back down from the topic, but this was too important to omit

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

What if Rollo, Fellow Honest and Gidel found out the 7 Overblots? How would they each react?

I’ll keep this short and sweet (since this is something I’ve joked about quite frequently, at least with one of the characters mentioned). If you’re a long time reader, you know exactly which one I mean 😂

Rollo would for sure feel validated about his anti-magic stance and double down on his original takes. I mean, he literally said the NRCs students are monsters/villains that he knows “will one day bring about a great disaster”, and the history of them OBing just proves his point. Those with too much magic can easily abuse their power and become arrogant and blind to their own faults, as is the case with the OBs 💀

Fellow does not strike me as the type to get worked up about others’ woes when he has himself to prioritize and worry about. This is even more true than ever considering how his event ended… Man’s literally out of a job and on the run for his life. I see Fellow just going, “Damn, sucks to suck” or “That’s rough, buddy” (a la Prince Zuko) as a reaction before skedaddling. You just told him a bunch of NRC students Overblotted, right? So you’re confirming that you’re a dangerous bunch 😂 and it’s probably safer for him to keep himself and Gidel at a distance. Self preservation and all, according to his street smarts. I don’t know if Fellow would want to empathize with the OB boys either, since they’re basically all from privileged backgrounds/families and may be fixated on that rather than their valid feelings or struggles. He wouldn’t be able to relate to most of their “first world problems”, for lack of a better term.

I don’t really have a strong gauge for Gidel’s reaction since we only have facial expressions and animations rather than dialogue to infer how he feels about things. I’m under the impression that because he’s young and doesn’t appear to be educated, maybe he doesn’t even fully grasp what an OB is or what causes it, or no one ever told him. I think he might be able to understand that it’s something bad through context clues and offer some clumsy sympathy though. Maybe a head pat or some small physical gesture to show he’s listening or he cares.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I do think the "you know what he did when I told him I loved him?" exchange is a bit jarring from a writing perspective BUT I am putting my Watsonian hat on to darn this plot hole and I am thinking that Stede didn't know know, he just put it together from context right then and there.

like, Stede definitely knows Ed shot Izzy in the leg. even people who weren't there, like Lucius, know that Ed is responsible for maiming Izzy, and I would imagine that this was an important point in the discussion/vote over whether Ed should be banished or not. there's no way for him not to know if he's talked to the crew about Ed at all, and we know he has because we see the start of that conversation.

nor is it a surprise to him that Izzy loves Ed. outside of Ed saying Izzy's jealous and Stede asking if he's doing a victory lap, I think Stede lowkey thought Ed and Izzy were in a relationship in Season 1, due to comments like "trouble in paradise?" in 1x06.

and the question comes literally just after Izzy sits down to rest his leg, and Stede outright mentions the leg (bitchily) so the setup is very clear.

like, okay, if I spent several hours talking about the weird black comedy surrounding my college roommate's death and funeral, and then later in the conversation we started talking about regional restaurants, and I was like, "hey, you know when I was last in a Waffle House?", you can probably infer from the way I'm saying it and the context of the previous conversation that the answer is probably "after your college roommate's funeral." it'd be really weird if I said it that way and the answer was like, "last week, it was super uneventful and I go there all the time" or "when I was two years old, I don't remember it at all."

so yeah, I don't think there needed to have been an explicit conversation about it for Stede to infer it.

[angelsarecomputers]

I know it’s been said but I find it so weird when people demonise Dora. The one interaction that we get with her- the REAL her- in the whole game, she is extremely patient, despite the fact that Harry is calling her in the middle of the night and asking creepo shit like ‘are you sleeping naked’. We can infer through context clues that this has probably happened multiple times before, and yet she still knows no signs of ill-will towards Harry- she just seems tired and concerned.

And it would be completely within her right to be angry at him for harassing her, as well! Knowing how volatile Harry can be, perhaps she even learned through fear not to confront him. And yet, there still seems to be this perception that, out of the both of them, DORA was the abusive one, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary! It’s not even that I don’t think she wasn’t at least slightly abusive, given Harry’s disabilities and their class differences, but what I am saying is that it was likely mutual, and that, out of the two of them, Harry was worse.

Their relationship probably got horrible and toxic towards the end, of that I have no doubt. What I don’t get is why the fandom seems to believe that Harry, as he currently is, is in any way capable of viewing the relationship objectively. There’s ample evidence that he was violent, frequently misogynistic, and that the experience gap between him and Dora was significant, and yet people still take his worst thoughts at face value. That she’s a ‘war criminal’, that’s she’s a goddess- people seem to think Harry’s deification of her is the main issue, and not the opposite; his virulent hatred towards Dora, towards ‘Revacholian women’.

It just boggles me that people are so willing to believe that Harry was the only one truly hurt- that Dora’s decision to leave was made lightly. We don’t know exactly what happened, and what glimpses we do get are filtered horribly through Harry’s grief, but they were in a relationship for more than a decade! They were planning to get married! I don’t think Dora just up and left for Mirova one day- the way the dream conversation goes seems to suggest they hadn’t been together for a while.

There are so, so many things said during the final dream that are probably just Harry’s self-hatred masquerading as Dora/Dolores- and while I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of it did come from Dora, at other points in their relationship, I think it’s pretty obvious that the final dream is meant to be a confused muddle of Harry’s memories and grief. Why else would she appear as Dolores Dei? But, while no one ever explicitly says it, I feel like a lot of people want to believe that the way things are during the last dream is how they were in real life. That Dora really was cold and cruel to Harry- when in real life she appears as just the opposite, despite what he puts her through.

[ms-scarletwings]

A Speculative Analysis About Irkens No One Asked For: Part I

Dem green fellas. Them lil guys, they’re an interesting pack of critters, aren’t they?

I used to really fixate on them back in middle and high school, stronger than everyone else seemed to be on the spazz in the dog costume. Jhonen Vasquez’s worldbuilding has always towed a very fine line between nonsensically ridiculous and surprisingly logistical, and this balance is typified in everything we know, and can infer, about these bug-eyed imperialists at the center of everything Invader Zim. So, let’s infer, and take a crack at it since no one’s stopping us anyway- More specifically, some thoughts and ponderings I had about how they “tick” as a fully realized society, not just a sci-fi monster..

A Homeworld Obscured 

Now, to really understand the history and “deal” of any civilization, or any animal, usually you would turn to their environment first to give you some handy clues and context.

Small problem, though: We actually don’t get much in the way of direct, explicit showing or explanations about Irk itself when it comes to the show. This makes some sense, given that the whole of what they do worth showing (and the most notable members of their kind) exists almost entirely off-world. So instead, we mostly find out more about Irk from what Invader Zim does tell us about its natives. As far as confirmed canon goes, we know that Irk’s atmosphere appears red, its surface is entirely and densely urbanized, and it’s long been depicted in starmaps with a set of Saturn-like rings. 

  This last fact is probably the most interesting, because planetary rings are usually something we, in our own little solar system, would only associate with massive, gaseous worlds, not terrestrial ones.  What These rings are made of is really anyone’s guess- could be ancient debris from natural satellites, Water-ice particles, maybe even some form of artificial defense network put into orbit by the Irkens themselves. If they aren’t artificially created, this would suggest that Irk has quite a strong gravitational field- greater than that of any of our neighborhood’s rocky planets. This is the common theory I personally like to subscribe to, because it would also go hand and hand with explaining why the average height of the irken race is so much shorter compared to that of an adult human. It fits neatly into the “why” question for the sort of athletic skill and agility we’ve seen invaders able to demonstrate on Earth, too, for otherwise being of meek physical prowess. It even adds some credible context for why the very achievement of growing to a more substaintial height is both uncommon and associated with extreme survival fitness to them.

A Fun fact that’s about to be relevant: “Rayleigh scattering” is the term given to when light wavelengths become shifted and scattered through an atmosphere medium. Long story short, it’s the reason our sky has color to it during the day. Stay with me on this.

I’ve also seen some people take a go at the red-looking surface, guessing a different gas makeup than the elements on earth responsible for our blue skies. I’m gonna go against the grain here, and actually contest that. I think that Irk’s atmosphere is coincidentally extremely similar to Earth’s. We know well enough that they both have a similar composition of gases breathable to both societies, given that Zim, Skoodge, and Tak all seemed pretty comfortable without some form of assistance on the same dirtball as humanity. Instead, I propose that Irk’s magenta skies are actually the symptom of heavy pollution. Sunsets and sunrises in the real world are known to make the sky appear more reddish-orange, even pink, as is. Usually, Rayleigh scattering has the light From the sun appear bluish in full midday, but during low sun, the rays are coming at an angle making them have to travel farther before reaching us, so you have already stretched light waves getting the same treatment from the air and, well, a higher frequency blue turns down to the lower end of the spectrum, red and yellows.

And wouldn’t you know, air pollution can actually do the same thing. THIS is why there's a scary ass orange haze known to accompany the presence of massive forest fires and volcanic eruptions. Earth’s most polluted cities even experience longer and redder sunsets for the same reason. 

Left: Image of a lilac sky over a Chinese city experiencing heavy smog levels Right: Intense red haze spotted over towns in Indonesia in the wake of rampant rainforest fires

On Earth, Zim stared directly into the midday sun without hesitation, nor concern that it would literally blind him. I think the planet hue and this is plenty enough to guess the likely case that Irk’s surface probably doesn’t get a lot of direct sun on an average day as is, and the sheer amount of unbroken cityscape that covers the homeworld would be the more obvious suspect than just having a more distant star from them. If they overcrowded to the point of their expansion, why build their civilization deeper into the ground, instead of up? Maybe there's actually a good reason or two they don’t raise their young topside.

A Psychology Molded for Domination

As well, I want to chirp about real world space again for a second. So, anyone up to the buzz in geek circles and aware of the math on the matter probably got the memo: humanity is almost matter-of-fact certainly not alone in this sandbox of a universe (or at the very least, we won’t always be alone). Like, about as certainly as we were about Black holes’ existence before we up and observed the real thing. And while it’s probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, sci-fi and media generally have been trying to take a crack for years at what the theoretical first contact with an alien civilization is going to look like. 

And I’m gonna go ahead and say it, 

As “cliche” and Hollywood as the conquering little green/grey dudes trope might have become… it’s actually not a wild take after all. The little and green thing, that’s creative liberty, but the part about them being hostile and something we may not actually even WANT to be aware of our existence? That’s an idea that even the smarty pants experts have been fearing the realistic odds of, even including the late Stephen Hawking .

The Evolution of intelligent life is a hard thing to really pin down and predict, given that we literally only have the one example to study. Under the right conditions, what reason would another advanced species NOT have to be equally as expanding, as exploitative of its resources, self-destructively short-sighted, and as supremacist as humans have already demonstrated themselves to be capable of? There is a lot of very interesting literature that suggests BOTH empathy/altruism and or aggression/tribalism to be (at least in the short term) very rewarding characteristics for an intelligent social species to develop.

And that’s the thing about the behavior of the Irken Armada I think has always been fascinating. Their drive to be the biggest definitionally invasive species across the cosmos is framed exactly as irrational, bumbling, and pointless as it deserves to be; however, is it not just the extended conclusion of every empire that has existed here on Earth, if only it had survived long enough to achieve the technology of Irk? And yet, it’s reminiscent, like the rest of their design, to the far from sapient, yet very real world creatures they appear to be most inspired by: hive and colony building arthropods. Whether the next point I'm about to touch on should be seen as a rejection of that resemblance, or further elaboration of it is anyone's to answer.

Transhumanism, or.. Transirkenism, in this case?

Like the specifics of what Irk really looks like and how it realistically works, a bunch about the aliens’ physical biology is left to scattered tidbits to ponder and piece together into a bigger picture. A few of those tidbits are as follows, drip-fed to us over the course of aired and scripted but never released episodes:

+ From the mouth of Vasquez himself, it has been confirmed that Irkens lack any form of reproductive organs. Instead, they rely on industrialized facilities to grow and produce them in a factory sense.

+ Yet curiously, they still demonstrate something akin to sexual dimorphism, or at least the cultural existence of masculine/feminine genders, where females are aesthetically set apart by the presence of curled antennae, eyelashes, and higher voices.

+ Irken lifespans are able to stretch far past that of an average human’s (Zim himself is cited to be around 2 centuries old in earth years).

+ Invader class soldiers have been implanted with surgical upgrades to their eyes.

+ Every Irken is fitted with a PAK that serves a wide array of utility and life-sustaining functions for its owner. These units are physically and neurologically connected into an Irken’s spine from “birth” and contain a cybernetic backup of an individual’s personality, assigned occupational programming, and memories. 

That’s not close to a complete list by any means, but it’s got the gist of what I want to dwell on most, starting with the last bit; because the PAK isn’t done true justice in one statement. It is not an extra addition the way a prosthetic enhancement is, and it is not a tool the way armor and weapons are. It is literally analogous to a vital organ to these aliens, and they are shown to die within 10 minutes of being forcefully detached from their own.

The degree to which Irken bodies and minds rely on this technology, and how seamlessly they are integrated into it, ALONG with their completely artificial life cycle all directly points to the fact that their civilization has advanced into a cyborg-like stage of evolution. It may even be on track to reach a post-organical peak in due time, phasing out more and more of their “vestigial” and feeble meatsuits until they’ve become a true drone army. And that actually begs some huge questions now that we realize we will never know how much of the Irken anatomy was ever originally a natural feature. An Irken’s own brain practically comes secondary to the superior efficiency of the supercomputer on their back, capable of literally holding their own essence and being in the form of code. A code that can preserve the “self” even in the event of meatbody failure, being uploaded post-mortem into the Control Brains’ collective data and repurposed for a future generation of workers. It absolutely would stand to reason that the species has continued this biological self-tampering to other heights- extending their lifespans, incorporating untold amount of mechanical upgrades into their bodies, and maybe even genetically engineering their smeets to be so compatible with this technology.  The control brains themselves are a mesmerizing reflection of this change over time- the result of an evident shift long ago from technology serving them, to them serving the directives of computers. When you really pay attention to the control brains’ role in the series, it comes clear to you who (or what) is really in charge of their society. The Tallest still maintain their symbolic/cultural importance to the Irkens, but outside of their part in spearheading the active intergalactic invasion, they ultimately are figureheads when it comes to actually running the homeworld and ruling the lives of Irk’s inhabitants. If I had to bet money, I would say the Brains may even have the ability to choose and predetermine the next Tallest when a replacement is needed. But what does that make the Tallest? A meaningless title and transformation, chosen arbitrarily by the AI overlords? Well, I don’t think so, actually… but maybe that, and more on the “meaty” morphology of their race is all a tangent fit for another day and post ;)