#but I needed to establish where she was at in her character arc

[no1ryomafan]

I have said this before but me being self proclaimed number 1 Ryoma fan and that being possibly literal-bc even if this bro had fans before me I might’ve simply done the most for him by talking about him so much + being the first to write fics that are in depth studies on his trauma across canons-I gotta say if there’s one other character I rotate a lot that isn’t him it’s probably Kei. (Shocking it’s not Hayato even if I do think about him too- but it’s usually associated with Ryoma bc gays 🗿)

I’m not even exaggerating when I say Kei would be my favorite and only isn’t because she doesn’t exist in many other canons yet my brain rotates the endless possibilities of how to incorporate her. I’ve already written a fic where she’s in shin vs neo verse which worked surprisingly well but I’ve been thinking how universally she could appear in other things. (Whether it be fitting her into a idea of a possible Go team in New or just a new canon completely) I think what I’ve narrow it down to is that she could be like- in Michirus role? Like she’s the supporting female who isn’t a pilot but helps out the real occasionally which I think would align very well especially with the original manga role she has of being Hayato’s assistant. And even if Hayato isn’t grandpa mode yet he still very much is in Saotomes position at that point. Not sure if she’d Hayato’s biological kid to further parallel Saotome and Michiru given well Hayato already adopts the Go team and his wife is irrelevant LOL.

I have no idea if I’ll ever write this specific idea but I’m still- rotating it cause this is such a easy way to get around “picking between Sho or Kei as the 2nd pilot” since both of them can still exist even if one doesn’t get to pilot, idm my supporting females. (Granted there could always be like- plot line where Sho gets hurt so Kei is temporary pilot but I can’t remember if Getter ever really did this since “once your hurt your ass is basically replaced” lol)

[thewriteadviceforwriters]

The Telling Truth: When 'Show, Don't Tell' Doesn't Apply (You Don't Always Have To Show, Don't Tell.)

Hey there, fellow writers and beloved members of the writeblr community! 📝✨

Today, I want to talk about something that's been on my mind lately, and I have a feeling it might resonate with many of you too. It's about that age-old writing advice we've all heard a million times: "Show, don't tell." Now, don't get me wrong – it's great advice, and it has its place in our writing toolbox. But here's the thing: it's not the be-all and end-all of good writing. In fact, I'd argue that sometimes, it's perfectly okay – even necessary – to tell rather than show.

First things first, let's address the elephant in the room. The "show, don't tell" rule has been drilled into our heads since we first picked up a pen (or opened a Word document) with the intention of writing creatively. It's been repeated in writing workshops, creative writing classes, and countless craft books. And for good reason! Showing can create vivid, immersive experiences for readers, allowing them to feel like they're right there in the story.

But here's where things get a bit tricky: like any rule in writing (or in life, for that matter), it's not absolute. There are times when telling is not just acceptable, but actually preferable. And that's what you all will explore today in this hopefully understandable blog post.

Let's start by breaking down why "show, don't tell" is so popular. When we show instead of tell, we're engaging the reader's senses and emotions. We're painting a picture with words, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions based on the details we provide. It's a powerful technique that can make our writing more engaging and memorable.

For example, instead of saying "Sarah was angry," we might write, "Sarah's fists clenched at her sides, her jaw tight as she glared at the broken vase." This gives the reader a clearer image and allows them to infer Sarah's emotional state.

But here's the thing: sometimes, we don't need or want that level of detail. Sometimes, efficiency in storytelling is more important than painting an elaborate picture. And that's where telling comes in handy.

Imagine if every single emotion, action, or piece of information in your story was shown rather than told. Your novel would probably be thousands of pages long, and your readers might get lost in the sea of details, losing sight of the main plot or character arcs.

So, when might telling be more appropriate? Let's explore some scenarios:

Summarizing less important events: If you're writing a story that spans a long period, you don't need to show every single day or event. Telling can help you summarize periods of time or less crucial events quickly, allowing you to focus on the more important parts of your story.

For instance: "The next few weeks passed in a blur of exams and late-night study sessions." This sentence tells us what happened without going into unnecessary detail about each day.

Providing necessary background information: Sometimes, you need to give your readers some context or backstory. While you can certainly weave this information into scenes, there are times when a straightforward telling of facts is more efficient.

Example: "The war had been raging for three years before Sarah's village was attacked." This quickly gives us important context without needing to show the entire history of the war.

Establishing pace and rhythm: Alternating between showing and telling can help you control the pace of your story. Showing tends to slow things down, allowing readers to immerse themselves in a moment. Telling can speed things up, moving the story along more quickly when needed.

Clarifying complex ideas or emotions: Some concepts or feelings are abstract or complex enough that showing alone might not suffice. In these cases, a bit of telling can help ensure your readers understand what's happening.

For example: "The quantum entanglement theory had always fascinated John, but explaining it to others often left him feeling frustrated and misunderstood." Here, we're telling the reader about John's relationship with this complex scientific concept, which might be difficult to show effectively.

Maintaining your narrative voice: Sometimes, telling is simply more in line with your narrative voice or the tone of your story. This is especially true if you're writing in a more direct or conversational style.

Now, I can almost hear some of you saying, "But wait! I've always been told that showing is always better!" And I completely get it. I'm a writer myself and prioritize "Show, Don't tell." in my writing all the time. We've been conditioned to believe that showing is superior in all cases. But we can take a moment to challenge that notion.

Think about some of your favorite books. Chances are, they use a mix of showing and telling. Even the most critically acclaimed authors don't adhere strictly to "show, don't tell" all the time. They understand that good writing is about balance and knowing when to use each technique effectively.

Take, for instance, the opening line of George Orwell's "1984": "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." This is a perfect blend of showing and telling. Orwell shows us it's a bright, cold day (we can imagine the crisp air and clear sky), but he tells us about the clocks striking thirteen. This immediate telling gives us crucial information about the world we're entering – it's not quite like our own.

Or consider this passage from Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice": "Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three-and-twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character." Here, Austen is clearly telling us about Mr. Bennet's character rather than showing it through his actions. And yet, it works beautifully, giving us a quick, clear insight into both Mr. Bennet and his wife.

The key is to use both techniques strategically. So, how can you decide when to show and when to tell? Here are some tips:

Consider the importance of the information: Is this a crucial moment in your story, a pivotal emotion, or a key piece of character development? If so, it might be worth showing. If it's more of a transitional moment or background information, telling might be more appropriate.

Think about pacing: If you want to slow down and really immerse your reader in a moment, show it. If you need to move things along more quickly, tell it.

Evaluate the complexity: If you're dealing with a complex emotion or concept, consider whether showing alone will be enough to convey it clearly. Sometimes, a combination of showing and telling works best for complex ideas.

Consider your word count: If you're working with strict word count limitations (like in short stories or flash fiction), telling can help you convey necessary information more concisely.

Trust your instincts (Important): As you write more, you'll develop a feel for when showing or telling works better. Trust your gut, and don't be afraid to experiment.

Now, let's talk about how to tell effectively when you do choose to use it. Because here's the thing: telling doesn't have to be boring or flat. It can be just as engaging and stylish as showing when done well. Here are some tips for effective telling:

Use strong, specific language: Instead of using vague or generic words, opt for more specific, evocative language. For example, instead of "She was sad," you might write, "A profound melancholy settled over her."

Incorporate sensory details: Even when telling, you can include sensory information to make it more vivid. "The room was cold" becomes more engaging as "A bone-chilling cold permeated the room."

Use metaphors and similes: These can help make your telling more colorful and memorable. "His anger was like a volcano ready to erupt" paints a vivid picture without showing the anger in action.

Keep it concise: One of the advantages of telling is its efficiency. Don't negate that by being overly wordy. Get to the point, but do it with style.

Vary your sentence structure: Mix short, punchy sentences with longer, more flowing ones to create rhythm and maintain interest.

Remember, the goal is to create a seamless narrative that engages your reader. Sometimes that means showing, sometimes it means telling, and often it means a artful blend of both.

It's also worth noting that different genres and styles of writing may lean more heavily on one technique or the other. Literary fiction often employs more showing, delving deep into characters' psyches and painting elaborate scenes. Genre fiction, on the other hand, might use more telling to keep the plot moving at a brisker pace. Neither approach is inherently better – it all depends on what works best for your story and your style.

Now, I want to address something that I think many of us struggle with: the guilt or anxiety we might feel when we catch ourselves telling instead of showing. It's easy to fall into the trap of second-guessing every sentence, wondering if we should be showing more. But here's the truth: that kind of constant self-doubt can be paralyzing and ultimately detrimental to your writing process.

So, I want you to understand and think: It's okay to tell sometimes. You're not a bad writer for using telling in your work. In fact, knowing when and how to use telling effectively is a sign of a skilled writer.

Here's some practical ways to incorporate this mindset into your writing process:

First Draft Freedom: When you're writing your first draft, give yourself permission to write however it comes out. If that means more telling than showing, that's absolutely fine. The important thing is to get the story down. You can always revise and add more "showing" elements later if needed.

Revision with Purpose: When you're revising, don't automatically change every instance of telling to showing. Instead, ask yourself: Does this serve the story better as telling or showing? Consider the pacing, the importance of the information, and how it fits into the overall narrative.

Beta Readers and Feedback: When you're getting feedback on your work, pay attention to how readers respond to different sections. If they're engaged and understanding the story, then your balance of showing and telling is probably working well, regardless of which technique you're using more.

Study Your Favorite Authors: Take some time to analyze how your favorite writers use showing and telling. You might be surprised to find more instances of effective telling than you expected.

Practice Both Techniques (Important): Set aside some time to practice both showing and telling. Write the same scene twice, once focusing on showing and once on telling. This can help you develop a feel for when each technique is most effective.

Now, let's address another important point: the evolution of writing styles and reader preferences. The "show, don't tell" rule gained popularity in the early 20th century with the rise of modernist literature. But writing styles and reader tastes have continued to evolve since then.

In our current fast-paced world, where people are often reading on devices and in shorter bursts, there's sometimes a preference for more direct, efficient storytelling. This doesn't mean that showing is out of style, but it does mean that there's often room for more telling than strict adherence to "show, don't tell" would allow.

Moreover, diverse voices in literature are challenging traditional Western writing norms, including the emphasis on showing over telling. Some cultures have strong storytelling traditions that lean more heavily on telling, and as the literary world becomes more inclusive, we're seeing a beautiful variety of styles that blend showing and telling in new and exciting ways.

This brings me to an important point: your voice matters. Your unique way of telling stories is valuable. Don't let rigid adherence to any writing rule, including "show, don't tell," stifle your natural voice or the story you want to tell.

Remember, rules in writing are more like guidelines. They're tools to help us improve our craft, not unbreakable laws. The most important rule is to engage your reader and tell your story effectively. If that means more telling than the conventional wisdom suggests, then so be it.

As I wrap up this discussion, I want to leave you with a challenge: In your next writing session, consciously use both showing and telling. Pay attention to how each technique feels, how it serves your story, and how it affects the rhythm of your writing. You might discover new ways to blend these techniques that work perfectly for your unique style.

Writing is an art, not a science. There's no perfect formula, no one-size-fits-all approach. It's about finding what works for you, your story, and your readers. So embrace both showing and telling. Use them as the powerful tools they are, and don't be afraid to break the "rules" when your instincts tell you to.

Remember, every great writer started where you are now, learning the rules and then figuring out when and how to break them effectively. You're part of a long, proud tradition of storytellers, each finding their own path through the winding forest of words.

Keep writing, keep growing, and keep believing in yourself. You've got this!

Happy writing! 💖✍️ - Rin T.

Before you go, why not join us at The Write Right Society? We're a supportive Tumblr community where writers lift each other up. Whether you're a newbie or a pro, we'd love to have you! Share your work, get feedback, and connect with fellow wordsmiths, writers and aspiring authors. 

[pandorem]

Genuinely find it fascinating from a writing perspective that Edwin’s propensity for playing trauma olympics is a well established trait of his that plays so interestingly into his relationships with Crystal and Charles and Simon especially, and how it works in his character arc and how it both plays into and CONTRASTS his incredible capacity for forgiveness. How it’s a flaw that makes so much sense with how much he’s suffered that it’s hard not to be sympathetic towards it or even agree with him sometimes, but that it IS a flaw and comes up at times that are less fair as well. Im not sure I have a real point to this yet, it’s just something I want to chew on for a while.

for one: Edwin’s tendency to put his trauma as worse than others’ (no matter how literally correct he might be) is set up directly to parallel Crystal’s own self centered tendencies and her character arc. They BOTH have a tendency to not consider other people’s feelings and pain until someone points out to them that they are being dismissive. They are mirrors of each other and I love them so much. I also wanted to push back a bit on some things I’ve seen about how Edwin’s reaction to her yelling at him in episode one was completely justified (“what she’s been through? I spent 70 years in hell!”) because of how their traumas interact and how she let David in the first time that feel too dismissive of Crystal’s trauma. Yes, their trauma’s with demons interact in ways that it makes PERFECT SENSE that Edwin reacted the way he did, and I even sympathize with him, but something being sympathetic does not mean it’s justified. Taking away the metaphor of the Demonic nature of it all, Crystal was just cornered and threatened by her abusive ex boyfriend who has succeeded in isolating her from her entire social circle/any safety net she might have had before the boys. And uh. We don’t say about people getting out of abusive relationships that it’s justified that people were mad at them for getting into the relationship willingly. So.

Also. While Edwin’s measuring of their traumas is more sympathetic in the first episode, the moment in a later episode where Edwin (nearly lightheartedly) dismisses Crystal’s nightmare about her abusive demon ex because “the living know nothing about true nightmares” is less so, and I think is there to confirm that this is a genuine, deliberately written character flaw that he needs to grow out of, just like Crystal needs to grow.

And that brings us to Simon. The character who Edwin is THE MOST justified to be angry at, to blame and to compare their punishments. When he rages that Simon damned him to decades of being ripped apart while Simon sits quietly crying in a room, getting paper cuts from tearing pages out of books, it’s honestly difficult not to agree with him, to not feel that same righteous indignation. But then despair lays it out for him: he was about to gloat over another’s torture. And even without yet knowing more about Simon, Edwin is horrified by the idea. I think it says so much about Edwin’s GOODNESS that the time this character flaw of his feels the most justified and right is also the time he works through and past it to empathize with the pain of the real person on the other side of that. It is after he comes back, needing Simon to know that he didn’t mean to gloat, that he is then able to see Simon as a real person, as someone he shares pain with, the pain of being closeted and terrified in the 1910s. Simon was a kid, same as Edwin, who was terrified of his own nature and let that fear and humiliation lead him to cruelty that ended in consequences that he never intended. And it says so, so much about Edwin’s goodness that once he is able to see past his own pain and empathize with someone else’s, he feels for and maybe even forgives the one person that he would be most justified in NOT forgiving. That connecting with him is literally what saved Simon’s soul in the end.

(It’s also worth noting- Simon thinks that Edwin is “another trick” when he first sees him. He says that “the headmaster will be angry”. In keeping with the theme that we shouldn’t compare traumas or decide that we know what other people are going through, it seems clear to me that what we saw- sitting alone and getting paper cuts- was NOT the entirety of Simon’s hell.)

And then there’s Charles. Now. Edwin has a lot of 1910s sensibilities that make him connecting the dots on what Charles went through a bit difficult for him. But Edwin never, ever suggests that his trauma is less or isn’t worth getting upset about. Because it’s Charles, and Charles deserves no amount of pain ever, in the world. I don’t think it would ever occur to Edwin if I’m honest. Of course it’s because he loves him and Charles is his favourite person in the universe, but also I wonder at the fact that their very first meeting, so soon after Edwin had escaped hell, was one of complete empathy and compassion. Maybe seeing the bullies made him see himself in Charles but it sort of circles the point I think I’m making- Edwin’s very real flaws contrast against and thus highlight his INCREDIBLE kindness and goodness.

[dontbelasagne]

desperately need to do a presentation on why the Twelfth Doctors journey perfectly represents the transfem experience

their previous eleventh incarnation being suave and hypersexual (i know moffat is mostly to blame but!) is reminiscent of attempts to fit into heteronormative ideals of masculinity. whilst it is not completely insincere, there are obvious signs this does not fit you as a person, it is acted out of desperate need to being seen. as Vastra put it, eleven wore that face, and subsequently that form of masculinity, to be accepted. on becoming twelve, realising even an "idealised" masculinity does not inherently serve them, they retreated into themselves as a person for self-reflection and trying to understand why they feel so detached from who they are.

the "am i a good man" arc mirrors being closeted and having to present as something not inherently tied to your sense of self, but still wanting to be the best of your perceived gender as any failure could leave you spiralling into self-doubt about simply being like any other "man". you ignore your gender dysphoria/questioning by trying to claim a moralistic view of gendered expression. made even more clear by Twelve rejecting Clara's heroic view of them, establishing that even though they have made efforts to be a "good man", that is just a placeholder for their loss of identity.

Missy appearing as she does, who as a character serves as a parallel to The Doctor on what they could become, and her eventual arc in trying to become good is symbolic of the fear around transition regret that internalised transphobia can create when you are closeted. Missy never gives importance to their fem existence other than nonchalant jokes, rather showing a more free and expressive personality devoid of any frustration. this immediately dismisses the transphobic assumption that trans people are only focused on their gender. also, Missy representing trans femininity is inherently tied to chaos and upsetting the status quo, she is the embodiment of what society considers accepting your womanhood as someone previously labelled masculine. what many others, and The Doctor themselves, saw as a need for attention and senseless disruption is Missy not needing to serve a false version of who they are, that they can now focus on becoming whoever they want to be now without losing energy to performing a gender that society has imposed on you. Missy could never have made the decision to stand with The Doctor if she had not given importance to her own queerness.

it wasn't coincidence with meeting Bill, she was the perfect foil for The Doctor to finally let go of their anxious attachment to masculinity. i would even argue for the majority of s10, The Doctor is largely ambiguous in their gender identity and does not fit into any construction of masculinity or femininity. whilst they still present as something socially labelled as masculine, they do not internalise that gender expression. they are uncaring about and not needing the validity that comes with heteronormativity, and thus is free to finally accept the decision they have to make. as Bill says, it is so hard to let go of The Doctor, and that rings true for twelve themselves. but they begin to realise The Doctor can be anyone. yes, they are tired, it would be so easy to simply rest and not give value to who you can become. but choosing to let go of everything you once were to survive is better than oblivion. it is better to let go, to choose another lifetime where the only person that dies is your falsity, to finally get it right and choose kindness. for yourself and for those who you love. they regenerate, not just into another person, but into someone who (if only tv scripts...) can now move forward.

[shigayokagayama]

What are the biggest losses between the manga and anime? I just finished watching mp100 and I'm curious what the manga has!

ok biggest losses are kind of hard to define because like. anime and manga are two inherently different mediums and there are a good amount of cuts that improve pacing and then a good amount of cuts that people sort of argue over the merit of so im just going to go for biggest differences. i would also highly recommend reading the manga just because it is a pretty different experience tonally along with the minor plot differences and cut scenes + theres a bunch of omakes that both flesh out characters that dont get too much focus and have some really good bits in them. putting the rest of this post under a cut bc i ramble

mogami arc

this one is kind of inescapable i feel like but the anime version of the mogami arc had a LOT of things trimmed for a couple different reasons. season 2 already got an extra episode in order to do the fire scene as a cliffhanger so with the way things shook out the director had to choose between a. cutting a bunch of stuff out of separation arc to make it one episode so mogami arc couid stay three episode or b. cutting a bunch of stuff out of mogami arc so separation arc could stay two episodes. imo they made the right choice, whats even the point of adapting mob psycho if you dont get confession arc right, but some of the cuts to mogami arc will be dearly missed and others will be fought over to the end of time. cuts include:

minori being established as a brat in a video everyones shown and the video being part of how reigen deduces shes possessed (reigen deducing her possession in the manga is generally just a lot better done and after you read the manga the scene in the anime feels so awkward because you know whats missing

the psychics deciding to band together to beat this little girl to death to save themselves and shinra stepping between them to protect her and getting utterly thrashed, not by mogami, but his fellow psychics

reigen trying to convince mob to leave without him and call for help while he distracts him which leads to this

the general mogamiland section lasting a lot longer and being more brutal (notably the stray cat mob feeds getting killed in front of him)

mob getting fucking torn to pieces by spirits during the fight instead of ambiguously dying offscreen

generally would recommend if nothing else reading the manga version of this arc and confession arc because i feel like these are the only two where you lose like. a significant amount of the story and themes from the cuts. speaking of....

2. WHY THE FUCK DID THEY CUT THIS I WILL BE MAD UNTIL I DIE

maybe its just because i reread this arc on its own probably 50 times before the anime came out but this is the only arc where the cuts actively piss me off because there is absolutely no reason they had to do it. they cut a bunch of important shit, left in things that didnt need to be there, and added scenes that contribute literally nothing to the overall point. if they just did any one of those things or combo of two of those things i wouldnt be as mad but it feels like they put a bunch of filler in then speedran the actual story

cut #1 that pisses me off: HOMOPHOBIA?????

THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A HEART IN HIS EYE. WHY DID THEY NOT INCLUDE THIS. THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF TERUS ARC. THIS IS HIM SEEING THE PERSON HE HAS IDOLIZED AND DEIFIED IN HIS HEAD AT THEIR LOWEST AND STILL CHOOSING TO LOVE HIM, AND THROUGH THIS HE IS CAPABLE OF BEING LOVED EVEN THOUGH HES NOT PERFECT BECAUSE NO ONE IS. WHY WOULD YOU CUT THIS?

cut #2 I NEED WHOEVER CUT THE DIALOGUE FROM THE FIRST PANEL IN PRISON

the lack of inclusion of the first panels dialogue along with the cuts to the mob and shigeo conversation (WHICH WE WILL GET TO) make me think the person who adapted this arc fundamentally misunderstood what was happening. this line. is. THE POINT. THIS ISNT SOME SEPARATE SCARY THING. THIS IS MOB. HE IS CHOOSING TO DO THIS BECAUSE HE IS SCARED AND ANGRY AND HURT BUT HE IS IN CONTROL OF HIS ACTIONS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

cut #3 HE DOESNT WANT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS

this entire conversation is so good and i was looking forward to watching it voice acted for so long and its just. gone. for me the "i am shigeo kageyama who are you" reveal felt like a gut punch because the opening being "i knew i would be needed" made me go "oh hes like possessed or his powers are sentient or something" and this conversation was the slow unraveling of my view of these as two separate people and instead as a scared, traumatized teenager who has convinced himself that the parts of himself he hates are something else outside of his control instead of an intrinsic part of who he is because if he's convinced that the parts of him that are able to feel desire and frustration and anger and malice are him then he'll lose all these relationships he's worked so hard to cultivate as his perfect, non confrontational self. and of course that isnt true. all his friends and loved ones are making their way to the center of a damn hurricane because they see he's in distress and want to help him. but he cant see that so he pushes them away. ugh. mob. protagonist of all time.

cut #4 WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THIS I CAN LITERALLY SEE HOW THIS WOULD BE ANIMATED IN MY MINDS EYE W

can you imagine how beautiful this would be in motion. just. god.

cut #5 HE WAS TALKING OUT LOUD. REIGEN HEARD ALL THIS

:(

cut #6 the bowling arc

so the scene where reigen takes his shoes off is supposed to be a lot more solemn bc like. taking your shoes off before killing yourself is a trope in japanese media (ive heard it started in media and bled over into real life but i might have it backwards?). reigen knew he was probably going to die. anyway i cant take this scene seriously because of this edit

the bowling arc.

cut #7 WAAAAAAAAAAAA

WAAAAAAAAAAAA *sniff* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

cut #8 homophobia again

rip pensive fruity tea sip

cut #9 mob threw the cake directly in reigens face on purpose

i literally experienced every stage of grief realizing this got changed. why. its so perfect. why would you change this.

3. World Domination arc

so WD arc is in a very interesting place where it had a lot of scenes cut but unlike the other two most of the cut content youre like. yea probably best not to include that. ill start with the good content that got cut then go into the weird content

serizawa got his power drained by toichiro. i am quite sad this scene didnt make it in because its sorta heartbreaking

teru fighting off the claw assassin is shown and we see that teru can both make shadow clones AND hold a barrier while attacking, he seems to be the only esper with this ability!

the reason dimple could tell mob's family was alive is that there was no sense of grudge at the house which would have been left behind by people passing in a violent manner

mob briefly goes unconscious during the start of the toichiro fight and dimple possesses him and says "shit"

dimple possessing mob shoots shibata with a gun

we get mukai lore.

it doesnt make any sense and just raises more questions but we get it.

toichiro has a team of telepaths to recap where everyone is because this arc took an entire calender year to update

literally everyone shows up to fight shimazaki. i cannot stress enough how many people show up to fight shimazaki. it would be faster to list espers who dont show up to fight shimazaki

the middle school delinquents show up and start fighting the claw grunts literally completely out of no where and this is never brought up or referenced ever again

when mob and ritsu get home ritsu says all their stuff is in boxes and they need to hurry and redecorate the house before their parents get home which implies that shou packed the entire households worth of belongings into boxes and hid it somewhere before lighting their house on fire which is such a funny mental image that i cant even be mad at it. loony toons ass plot point.

4. other random interesting cut things

takenaka is just generally more of a bitch during alien arc. "ah i think they took him" remains one of the funniest goddamn panels in the manga

peak

alien arc overall is a lot funnier in the manga, i have a slight preference for the manga version just bc theres a lot of really good bits that didnt make it to anime but the anime version is so heartfelt and nostalgic it makes me happy

between omakes and small things that got cut or changed for the anime teru just feels way more fleshed out in the manga. like. anime teru is a completely different person. its hard to explain if youve never read it.

the all girls school part originally went right before the ghost family stuff and was the beginning of mob's existential crisis about why spirits and people get different treatment but tbh it works well where it is i just wish it werent. like that.

the scene where ritsu and teru shake hands was teru draining ritsus power which he seems to have learned to do from encountering ???%

teru.

ow

thats all i can think of off the top of my head, im sure ill realize i forgot something some time after posting this but. yeah. read the manga its good

[splonk-fox]

The flaws of Jax and Ragatha, and why they matter to Pomni's character arc.

Within the two episodes of The Amazing Digital Circus that have been released so far as of writing this post, there have been two characters who have been given the most attention and depth out of any of the cast (ignoring Pomni obviously), and those two characters are Ragatha and Jax.

The duo consisting of the kindhearted optimist and the meanspirited pessimist have without a doubt become some of the most interesting characters to analyze within this series so far thanks to how much meaningful screentime and character depth they have been given within the the two episodes that we viewers have been fortunate enough to witness with our very eyes.

But why is this? Why is it that these two have received special attention from the writers so far, and what role do they play in Pomni's character journey? Well I believe I may have found the answer, and it's unfortunately one that does not spell a good future for these characters. But to truly understand where I am coming from, we must first understand who these two characters are and how they relate to our main protagonist.

To start off with the kindest of the duo, we have already learned quite a lot about Ragatha thanks to the two episodes she has been featured in so far.

Her most prominent character trait is without a doubt her kindness. She is the first person to really be genuinely nice to Pomni upon her entrance to the circus and spends the rest of the episode showing her around the place and trying her best to help her get settled in.

She's also someone who doesn't like to be overly blunt with her responses, such is shown when Pomni asks how they leave the circus, to which Ragatha, instead of just saying that she couldn't, phrases it in a way that makes it sound as if they simply haven't found a way to leave yet, this was obviously done in an attempt to not freak Pomni out too much, though this doesn't really go anywhere thanks to Jax.

Now that's great and all, Ragatha's a nice person, you can easily observe that through casual watches of the show, looking deeper however, you can see that there is a lot more going on with Ragatha than she would like to make you believe.

Insecurity is another trait that Ragatha has that, while not shown off as prominently as her optimism, is still very important to Ragatha's character.

As we see in episode 2 of the series, one of Ragatha's biggest fears is not being liked. She vents to Kinger about how she feels like Pomni doesn't really like her that much, and that clearly scares her. And why wouldn't it? The end of episode 2 makes it clear that one of the most important things in this show when it comes to keeping the main cast mentally stable, is their sense of community.

They're all in this together, they have each other's backs and will do their best to be there for each other when it's needed. That is what is communicated to us within the second episode through Kaufmo's funeral.

This segment of the episode, while somber in its tone, is also one that instills hope within Pomni and the viewer. Because it shows that despite everything, the circus members do care about each other. That abstraction is something that affects everyone and it isn't something that is just brushed off immediately, which if you recall, was the crux of Pomni's fears as seen at the beginning of the second episode, the fear of being forgotten, the fear of no one caring.

"I don't even remember her name honestly" - Dream Jax.

So with how the importance of community has been firmly established within this show's messaging at this point, it should be no surprise that Ragatha's biggest fear is not having that community. Of people not liking you, of people hating you. So how does Ragatha solve this?

Repression, that's how. Of all of Ragatha's personality traits her tendency to not display her true feelings towards things are without a doubt the most damaging.

The best example of this is how she reacts to Pomni abandoning her for the exit. The pilot would lead you to believe that she was mad at Pomni for doing this, that she didn't trust her anymore because of this selfish act.

And yet, that's all brushed to the side in the following episode. Ragatha is back to her optimistic self and is saying that everything is fine! That it was completely understandable and that there was no bad blood between them. Yet you can tell that isn't the whole truth, that Ragatha really didn't get over what Pomni had done to her that easily.

Now do I think Ragatha hates Pomni or secretly resents her? No, not really. I do think she's being honest when she says that she doesn't hold anything against her for doing this. But that doesn't mean she wasn't hurt by it. We can see clear as day from the pilot that this did affect her, so why does she act like she doesn't?

Because, from her perspective, her feelings do not matter. The only thing that does is to make sure Pomni is able to adjust, to make sure that everyone is happy, that everyone is still somewhat sane within the circus, and so she compromises her emotions in order to do this. Gooseworx has even said it herself that Ragatha often says things she doesn't necessarily mean in order to ease tensions. She doesn't want to cause conflict, she doesn't want people to fight with each other because she understands how important community is to the members of the circus persisting.

Yet in the midst of all of this, what Ragatha fails to realize is that with how she currently handles things, she is paving the way for her own mental break.

Ragatha, in her attempts to be there for others, has walled herself off from others being there for her. By lying about how she really feels about things, by acting as if she is fine, she is not allowing herself the emotional vulnerability necessary for others to be there for her when she needs it.

The closest thing we have had to this so far is with Kinger, and while having someone she feels comfortable enough to lament her feelings around is a good thing, this is one person, one person who is... not exactly mentally stable, to put it lightly. Is not exactly an end all be all solution to her problems.

Kinger being the only person who Ragatha can rely on is only gonna work for a limited amount of time, the more she represses, the more she hides her true emotions and clear mental instability, the closer she is to meeting a cruel fate, one that no one would be able to save her from because no one even realized there was something wrong with her. For in her pursuit to make everyone else happy, she has sacrificed her own happiness, as a result.

And then there's Jax.

Jax, in a lot of ways, is pretty much the polar opposite of Ragatha. While her leading trait is kindness, Jax's leading trait is being a complete and utter asshole. And while Ragatha is all about answering things in a roundabout way to ease stress, Jax is all about the blunt answers.

This is best shown to us in the pilot when, in the same scene where Ragatha tries to answer Pomni's question of "how do I leave?" in a way that wouldn't stress her out too heavily, Jax goes straight in with the "you can't". Jax is a pessimist, he has accepted that there is no way out, and is simply riding things as they go by.

Jax's leading character trait is all about causing as much chaos as he can for the sake of his own satisfaction. He doesn't care about how others feel, the only thing he cares about is causing as much chaos as possible simply because he can.

Yet that isn't all that's going on with Jax, there's something deeper here, something more complex.

When it comes to the scenes everyone points to when saying that Jax has a lot more going on with him than meets the eye, the scene where he reacts to Kaufmo's funeral is the one everyone looks at with an analytical lens, and that's for a good reason.

For I think this little scene might just tell us a lot more about Jax than we think.

One thing that I've come to notice about Jax's brand of chaos is that it's very reliant on others' reactions. All of the chaos he causes, all of the absurd and awful things he does are for the sake of seeing how others react. From throwing Pomni over the side of a truck and attempting to use her as a human bridge, or literally everything that he does to Gangle, it's all reaction-based, and that made me realize that, despite how selfish and uncaring he acts towards everyone else, community is still the one thing that truly matters most.

He needs the others so that they can react to his hijinx, as they are what give said actions meaning. If he had no crowd to watch as he acts like a shitty person, then he has no reason to do anything. But that is also where Jax's true character flaw comes in, his selfishness.

With how Jax is constantly pushing others around for the sake of his own amusement, Jax is very clearly a self-centered person. He is someone who is in it for himself and no one else. Who cares if others don't like him? Who cares if others despise him? As long as he gets to see funny things happen to people, he is gonna be okay.

But what happens when that method is no longer effective? What happens when the others don't give him the reaction he wants? What happens when he can no longer use chaos as a way to distract from the pointlessness of his reality?

Well, as scary as this may be to think about, Jax won't really have much of anything to fall back on. His cruel actions have wrote him into a corner. No one likes him, that much is obvious. And while Jax seems content with this now? What happens when he is put in the position of needing someone else's help?

Well, then he'll have no one, and it's ironically for the exact opposite reason to Ragatha. Ragatha's problem is that she is constantly repressing her emotions, despite the fact that she has people who care about her, she doesn't open up to them because in her eyes, her feelings are secondary to others'.

Yet Jax is the opposite, he's honest, he is self-centered, and that's also why he is one of the members who are in this most danger.

In a show that seems to be about how important community is and how important it is to stay together and be there for each other? To have a character who is the complete opposite of that. To have someone who doesn't care about others, who won't be there when someone else is hurting. To have someone who is actively making things harder for everyone... that just spells out demise.

Jax's true weakness is that he does not have a community who will be there for him when he needs it, he was never there for others so why should they be there for him? Meaning that when Jax is at the end of his rope, crying out for help, no one will listen, because as cruel as it sounds, most of the members would probably be happy that he's gone.

While this does admittedly rely a bit on speculation, I think what I've stated above might be the true reason for why Jax looked sad for a moment when the other characters were talking about the funerals held for those who have abstracted. Because in that small moment, he realizes he might not get a funeral of his own when he "dies", or if he did, no one would really have anything nice to say about him.

And that fear, that knowing of how the way you've built yourself up by putting others down has lead to everyone hating you, to everyone not having a single good thing to say about you... that is terrifying. And yet he hides it, he walks away, he refuses to attend the funeral because then he will have to be confronted with the uncomfortable reality of the fact that he won't die as someone who was remembered for doing good things.

The only thing he'll be remembered for, is how much everyone hated him. And all of that brings us right back, to Pomni.

I said at the beginning of this post, as well as with the title itself, that Ragatha and Jax matter to Pomni's character arc, but why is this? Sure they're both main characters so obviously they're going to influence her journey going forward, but how exactly does any of this matter to Pomni? It's simple really.

Ragatha and Jax represent two extremes, they represent what happens when you lean too far in one direction. In one case, it is caring too much about others and not caring about yourself, and in the other, it's caring too much about yoursef and not caring about others.

Pomni has already shown traits of both Jax and Ragatha. She has shown an empathetic, kindhearted side as seen in her interactions with Gummigoo, and she has shown a selfish side, as seen when she abandoned Ragatha for the "exit" in the pilot.

Pomni has shown herself to be both selfish and selfless. But what part of her matters more? Simple answer, both. It is important to care about others while also taking time to take care of yourself. Ragatha and Jax show what happens when you forget to do one of these things.

By always taking care of others, you're forgetting to take care of yourself, and by always taking care of yourself, you fail to take care of others. To find a healthy balance is to do both. To be aware of your own mental health while also making sure that others are doing okay too. And this is something that Pomni will need to realize if she is going to make it in the circus.

And this is where Jax and Ragatha become important. I believe these two will show Pomni how important it is to keep a balance of things. To not lean too far in one direction, as if you do, it spells bad news for you either way. And how will this be communicated to her and the audience?

Abstraction.

Think about it. If Ragatha and Jax's harmful practices continue without change and they end up abstracing because of it, that will be a wakeup call to Pomni, it will show her the flaws of being too selfless, and too selfish. Is it an extreme way to communicate such message? Sure, but it's also one that can't be ignored.

We, the audience, and Pomni, would see first hand the consequences of leaning too far in either direction, that if you don't find a balance, you will end up like Jax and Ragatha did.

And that's why I think these two in particular have been given so much screentime and attention these past two episodes. Because they are meant to show us the most extreme versions of Pomni's most prominent character traits.

The ability to care about yourself, and the ability to care about others.

Of course, I might be wrong in this assessment. We are far too early in the show's runtime to truly predict any big events like this. But from a narrative standpoint, I believe this interpretation makes the most sense in the way of showing us the audience, and Pomni, what truly matters. It's not just about you, it's not just about others, it's about both.

Thank you for reading.

[yannaryartside]

CARMY NEVER WANTED TO CREATE A MENU WITH SYD.

AND WHY THAT IS THE CORE THEME OF THE SHOW

PART 1: THE LIE THAT CARMY BELIEVES

So, one of the bases of creating an efficient character arc is to give the character something they want, and something they need. In the pursuit of getting what they want, the theme of the show and obstacles will show them what they need. Most of the time, they need healing from an emotional wound that prevents them from growing into the ultimate version of themselves, capable of winning the challenges of the story. I will try to explore Carmy's wound and, more importantly, the lie that created that wound.

In 'The negative trait thesaurus" by Angela Ackerman and Becca Puglisi, it reads:

"Wounds are often kept secret from others because embedded within them is the lie-an untruth that the character believes about himself."

When I started therapy (disclaimer: this is not professional advice; I am just talking from how I interpreted all of this), I was introduced to the concept of "limiting beliefs:" lies we have told ourselves about our own nature or the nature of the world. The most difficult beliefs to leave behind are those established in our early childhoods, and we told ourselves those lies to make sense of the world, to make peace with realities we were not equipped to comprehend yet. 

Some examples of lies people belive:

"I am too stupid to learn anything; my teacher said so" "It was my fault that I was molested." "I am a bad person for wanting a different life."

When people believe these lies, they will act accordingly, maybe attracting situations that hurt them but keeping the lie active in their lives. They may self-sabotage or create bonds with people who also believe the lie, even if it doesn't seem this way. 

In some cases, people may develop complete personalities or behaviors to prove the lie wrong, but deep down, they still believe in the lie. Carmy falls into this last category. This is where we find the most contradictory parts of his personality, how he can act shy and insecure in some instances and appear confident and even aggressive in others. 

Long post underneath.

THE RESENT OF A MOTHER:

We can only assume here because I think Storer is gonna let us know more about this soon, but I think I got an idea of this wound when I saw the only moment Carmy was alone with Donna on "Fishes."

I have a lot of things to say about Donna herself, but let's begin with the obvious: the conversation in this scene had little to do with the dinner itself. This was a woman stating that she felt alone and not valued, probably due to being abandoned by her husband and having to overwork herself at the beef to support her 3 kids, all while being a single mother. We don't know if this feeling of abandonment is something she has carried since childhood, but in the state of current womanhood, it wouldn't be uncommon. The work of women (especially mothers), particularly the emotional labor, is rather invisible and not valued at all.

But again, this is something she has used as fuel to resent her kids, who, at the end of the day, didn't ask to be here. Her anger has to go somewhere since she cannot direct it toward the people that ctually caused it. To get to the point:

THE BEARZATTO SYBLING DYNAMIC

Carmy said, "You are not alone; I am here with you." (This kind of comes back to telling Syd she was not alone at the end of the season.) This scene is about a kid trying to communicate to his mother that he loves her and trying desperately to connect with her, to get her to express her affection for him as well.

It tells me that growing up, he felt like he had to "earn" her affection. Donna likes to make her kids feel guilty about her unhappiness, so the kids feel that they are constantly walking on shells because they think their mother hates them, or at least that she resents them and that it is their responsibility to fix it.

In the scene, Carmy asked,

"What is so hard, Mom?"

I think what he was actually asking is, "What is so hard about being with us, to love us? What did we do to you that made you resent us this way?" He is asking because he wants to know, to finally understand. Why do you drink, Mom? Why do you yell? Why do you say such hurtful things?

When she answers, "Nobody makes things beautiful for me," you can see in his face the disconnection. He knows he can't do anything about that.

Then, a crucial part in the scene occurs when Donna calls him "Michael, " which indicates that the only one of her children who could make her feel happy was Michael, or at least that is how the other two kids felt. You can see the hurt in Carmy's eyes in the scene because this answer dismisses his effort to connect to his mother in his own right. She asks him to just leave. He offers to wait to connect with her. Then, it comes to the most chilling moment on the scene, the "we have a problem" using his full name, with resentment in every word. She hugs him while crying, kisses him, and then slaps him.

This is rejection. There is a book called "The Five Wounds of the Soul": wich are Rejection, Abandonment, Humiliation, Betrayal, and Injustice. I think Carmy's wound is rejection, for never earning his mother's love, particularly comparing himself to Michael.

Michael took responsibility for the Beef, finally giving their mom a break. It was Michael's job to make sure everyone was having a good time, to compensate for the discomfort that caused being in Donna's presence, to make sure all of them stayed as a family, which was Donna's intention, so Michael thought he had to make that happen for her. Therefore, Michael is the only one of her kids who succeeds and makes her happy. We know Donna rejects Natalie and Carmy. About Natalie, we can write another whole essay.

THE LIE THAT CARMY BELIVES

According to this scene, I think Carmy thinks that her mother didn't love him because he is not Michael; in fact, he is the most "not like Michael" someone could be. He was shy and stuttered and didn't have friends or girlfriends, comparable to Michael's ability to control every room he was in. Carmy was sensible and no macho alfa as Michael presented himself to be. Carmy left home and the family business, and both Michael and Donna expressed that they feel like he thinks he is better than them. Michael admitted later to admiring Carmy's work in Copenhagen, but Donna never did. carmy grew up having to live with the crumbles of Donna's attention that Michael left behind, wondering every day what was so wrong with him that made her reject him, and wondering what he could do to change that.

The lie that Carmy belives, could be sumarize this way:

I need to earn people's love. I need to always go the extra mile, doing the most possible at all times to earn people's love.

This all goes back to his trauma with Michael. It goes back to his career as a chef and how he became the best. He didn't need to succeed on a larger scale in the culinary industry to earn Michael's respect and love; he needed to be the best in the world, so he did that. He judges his own social abilities, comparing them to Miachae's. He left that promising career only because of Michae's death. He got the girlfriend Michael wanted for him (not saying it was the only reason, but it was there).

PART 2: WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS HAD TO DO WITH SYDNEY?

Well, what does a person who feels they always need to do the most? They do the most. I want to bring you back to the moments Carmy had to develop menu ideas with Syd on s1 and s2.

When Syd suggested items for the menu in s1, he gave her an inconclusive, not enthusiastic "maybe."

When she had to actually cook the thing for him to approve, he tried to make her feel small about it. He felt the need to remind her that she was "impatient and green," according to her previous bosses. He commented about her possibly ruining the flow by using time to cook her recipe. Yikes all around, but the core here is that he was treating her like an enemy, like competition, while she was trying to save the restaurant with what they had on hand to use the most efficient solution.

Then, when Carmy tries the dish and feels stunned by it, he has to make an ambiguous excuse on the fly and just finishes every chance of them using the recipe by saying, "is not ready yet"

And what does he do next? He goes to show the crew a recipe that is extremely complicated for the level they are operating at currently—they said so themselves. I think the recipe is a variation of Donna's butter chicken recipe. To put a nail on that coffin of his intentions to earn her love and approval at the end of it all.

But why does he do all this? Because he needs to be the hero, subconsciously, he is still that small kid begging for acceptance and love; he must go the extra mile. He cannot accept Sydney's help and partnership, because that will take away from him earning what he wants on his own merit.

In S2, he seems unenthusiastic about starting the menu in the first place. Then Claire comes along, and he tries to make it work with Syd and the menu, but I think he subconsciously thanks the universe for not having to go to his core wound. That is what self-sabotage is. That is why he bailed on the food tour with Syd, using such a stupid excuse as helping somebody else move out and never mentioning it again. He never asked her what she liked or what ideas she thought of. For most of the creative process, Syd is alone, working on her own creative crisis. The menu ends up being like two recipes they made in collaboration and then all of his family's traditional recipes. It is two of Syd's recipes and the rest of Carmy's. Then, desserts Marcus did on his own. The collaboration was superficial at best.

All of this creates the core theme of the show. The Bear was once a chaotic place (like their childhood home) that needs to evolve into an efficient, peaceful place built on love, support, and mutual collaboration like a functional family should be. Sydney is the member of this found family that forces Carmy to confront his core wound and learn he can actually be good enough while still accepting help. Therapy probably will play an important part in this theme, alongside with Carmy learning there was nothing wrong with him in the first place, that earning your parent's love is not something a kid can do.

Thankyou for reading. Gif and images are not mine.

[writingwithcolor]

Avoiding the white savior of the kingdom

@ceo-of-angst asked:

Okay so I'm writing a fantasy series. There's two main kingdoms though there is a third but that one doesn't have to do anything with this ask. Both of them are likely as big as a continent each so there are different climates everywhere, therefore there's a lot of diversity even within one country. The issues mostly is between the two kingdoms nationality wise, as there's a war. The prince of one of the kingdoms kills his older brother to gain the throne. This is where the issue starts. They have a younger (half)sister who ends up leading a revolution bc of her brother's bad rule (famine, war, dictatorship and incantation or sentence to fight to the death in war to anyone who doesn't obbey the government etc), she's white, she's helped by my main cast who are all poc (one of them also from nobility) from the other kingdom and I don't want to accidently make it a white savior She's not my main character though if anything we only see into her pov bc of a difference between kingdoms in book 2. Most of the pov is on my main cast so I don't know how this could pay out.

Add diversity to the kingdom

There is a simple solution: don’t make one kingdom all-white or all-BIPOC. Add in diversity and mixed race. You seem to already be doing that, and it’s not an issue of race but rather tyranny. White saviorism is when only a white character can solve a problem for BIPOC and they’re seen as the hero. If it’s a team effort, where your protagonist is fallible but well-intentioned, you should be fine. -Jaya

Questions to ask yourself

This critique got levied at Tamora Pierce’s Trickster series, and it’s a pretty valid critique of the books—every time you have a white person as a figurehead of an otherwise-diverse movement, you’re going to start getting into why this white person, and why then?

It’s especially salient if you have the person come into an already-established rebellion movement. Is her involvement the thing that gets the privilege necessary to make the movement valid? What about her makes her the ideal top person in the organization?

Why is she white?

My first question is: why is she white? Is it related to colorism and classism? If yes, then why are you automatically making the leading group white if there’s so much diversity and so many other groups can trend extremely pale?

Why are the kingdoms so big?

My second question is: why are the kingdoms so big? It’s actually frighteningly hard to run a continent-sized country. If you’re attempting to make these single groups so big simply for ease of worldbuilding, and for diversity’s sake, know that a country does not have to be large to contain a multitude of groups. You are allowed to have political rivalry in a small area and still maintain diversity within it.

How much privilege is she willing to give up?

My third question is: how much privilege is she willing to give up? Is she trying to take the throne for herself, or is she trying to destroy all of the structures that gave her status in the first place? Because that question will determine how willing the PoC around her are going to be. Why would they support a ruler if they’ve been subjugated by that family, with no real promise she’s going to be any different once she gets in power?

On the flipside, why would she be willing to give up any of her privilege in the name of removing her brother from the throne, and what stops her from going off the deep end once she has the ability to control others?

It’s likely doable to make this situation read as less of a white saviour, but in order to do that you’ll likely need to wask yourself a lot of hard questions about your motives and the character arc you want to have with her.

People may see a white savior, regardless

And you’ll also have to ask yourself if you’ll be comfortable with never really being able to avoid some people calling this a white saviour plot. Even if you do “everything right” and follow every bit of advice you can, there’s always going to be some people who aren’t too thrilled that the person saving everyone is white.

So examine your motives, really nail down what you’re trying to show with this, and come to terms with not making everyone happy no matter what you do.

~Mod Lesya

[essycogany]

Small Things Can Make Big Differences 🩷

Hi, Fans Of Amy Rose!

This is my opinion and we don’t know what could happen between now and Sonic Movie 3. Anyone can disagree. I’m 100% fine with that and this isn’t going to tarnish my enjoyment of the film at all, but I’ve got to get this off my chest. I’d love to see Amy Rose in Sonic Movie 3 and would be disappointed if she wasn’t in it. Yeah, she’d probably not have a HUGE role or time to develop as much. I get it, but at the same time, I personally don’t think we should shy away from characters having small arcs.

Tails had one in Sonic Movie 2 and I wouldn’t say the movie would’ve been better without him. I don’t think we should have to justify a main character like Amy who’s existed before KNUCKLES (and debatably Tails) being in a movie about her own franchise. We shouldn’t have to wait a whole year for it either. Stuff takes time sure, but other movies with Pokémon, the Avengers, Mario, My Little Pony G4, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and many others did it and did it well for the most part. Most of these have tons of characters that they wasn’t afraid to show in one movie. Characters with smaller roles still impacted the movies and in a memorable way too. We shouldn’t be so timid in bringing Sonic characters in Sonic movies. They’re just as marketable as these other franchises. The successes of the Sonic trilogies proved that.

Without Amy or other characters it doesn’t feel as full as it could be. Not saying we should’ve got all of them from the get go but a little more would be nice.

I’m saying this respectfully but that doesn’t make sense especially if we have enough time to flesh out the human core characters/side characters who aren’t even part of the main franchise and not the ones most audiences came to see in the first place. I’m neutral and understand both critiques and defenses so you can decide where to go to on that.

Back to before, you don’t need long drawn out character development in order to be written well. Tails turned out fine despite his small role. Heck, Amy’s roles in the GAMES were usually small but not less impactful because of it. Amy practically helped save the entire world with her “small roles” and one for an emotional and impactful moment with Shadow. Even small things can make big differences and that’s one lesson you can learn from Amy.

Amy’s interactions with Gamma in SA1 impacted the robot to the point of him sacrificing himself to free a Bird he needed to stay alive.

Amy believed in Sonic when the whole world (or Silver) was against him in Sonic 06.

Amy showed kindness to Sonic as the Werehog and gave her closest friend encouragement. She still loved him regardless of how he looked.

There’s more examples, but these are the most well known. Do you notice how most of them were small actions or small moments of development in small roles. And still managed to make Amy a wonderful character while impacting the stories?

I’ll also just show this too.

Also, don’t worry about her stealing time from Shadow. The film’s called Sonic Movie 3 not Shadow The Hedgehog. He can share the spotlight. Knuckles did in SM2. There’s no excuse in my opinion.

The movie doesn’t have to have Amy and wouldn’t be worse without her, but I think we shouldn’t overlook her importance to the franchise even if what she does is small. Or feel bad for being more aware of what little we get in these movies. It’s okay to admit certain flaws. Nothing’s perfect and not above criticism as long as we’re respectful about it. And for the kiddies who would like to see a cartoony animal girl character for the first time in these films, Amy would be a fantastic way to start.

Amy debuting in Sonic 3 and interacting with the boys would be a lovely way of establishing that close connection between the core four of the franchise. They’d literally have the definition of love at their sides. Again, small changes can make big differences. That’s all I have to say. Now I’m going to continue to be excited for the 3rd Sonic movie.

[whenmemorydies]

See this?

Carmy is about to pull this shit. He is really about to go in and likely blow up one of the only good relationships he has left from The Beef. After yelling at Tina from the pass. After stressing out everyone and their fucking dog cos he thinks this is acceptable behaviour if its all in service of a star?

This part of 3x03 Doors was such a jagged scene for me because of a few things (including what I've said above). What else got me:

Tina is someone Carmy knows, that Carmy loves (go back to their scene in 1x08 Braciole talking about Mikey. Go back to Carmy's soft "hey Tina you go ahead, you take the night off okay? I got you.");

Tina is an older woman of colour who has made the commitment to skill up so that she can work at The Bear after working at The Beef. Carmy has seen the work she has put in but in this moment, he pays none of it any mind. Imagine being T. Imagine how that would feel. Imagine how it would feel knowing all we know after watching Tina's journey in 3x06 Napkins. The thing is, Carmy doesn't need to know all of T's backstory to know his behaviour is unacceptable. The fact that he knows some of it and proceeds to act in this way is just more evidence of his white privilege showing its ass.

Carmy does not have the self reflexivity here to look at his young, white, male self yelling at this older WOC and see how fucked this is: how he's become another white guy in a litany of white men barking at workers of colour, not seeing Tina for the whole human she is but reducing her to a means of production. The racial dynamics on this show are so evident but don't get talked about nearly enough. I know the writers have crafted those dynamics on purpose because as beautiful a character as Carmy is, he's also a product of his environment as a white chef trained in a highly racially segregated field. This has repercussions for his relationships in season 3, particularly with the BIPOC characters in his life. @november-rising speaks about Carmy's behaviour in relation to Black women's experiences of love and professional recognition devastatingly here. Read their post and the reblogs.

While this shit made me so mad this season, it was also in character - as I've said here - for a white guy trained in fine dining to revert to established patterns of behaviour. Though, I'm gonna need the writers of the show to show US that they did this on purpose and have Carmy ATONE for this shit in season 4. Otherwise, what kind of redemption arc will this man have? This shit is hurtful to the BIPOC characters and BIPOC viewers of this show in no small part because white men the world over have a LONG history of using BIPOC people as a means of production and as a means of production alone. If you're unsure about this, please go look up the Transatlantic slave trade. Please go look up the history of colonial indentured labour. Please go look up The British East India Company. Please look up the forced labour regime in the modern prison industrial complex. Please go read a fucking book. And no I'm not saying Carmy is responsible for the slave trade (LMAO please hold fire if this is where your mind is going). I'm saying BIPOC folks carry with us a long ass history, an intergenerational history of this shit. But guess who else does too? White folks. So don't act like they dont.

This shit is also hurtful because we know how respectful Carmy can be. We’ve seen him in seasons 1 & 2. We know he knows what being a practical ally looks like (even if he may not have the language to name what he was doing) when he made sure to bring the staff of The Beef with him to The Bear and invested in them accordingly. We know he loves and respects them, none more so than Sydney. But there were so many times where he did not act like it in season 3. And when folks have got histories - not just personal but cultural too - as long and as loaded as we ALL do, actions account for a lot. What you do is the shorthand for who you are in the world, whether you like it or not.

Ok back to the scene.

Who comes in and simultaneously saves Carmy's ass and ANOTHER of his relationships? Who protects Tina and keeps the kitchen from exploding AGAIN?

Who supervises her sous chef like a fucking pro?

Sydney. Sydney. Sydney.

And who knows that he's in the presence of greatness but doesn't know how to articulate it cos he's not integrated, not by a fucking long shot. Who needs to attend some anti-racism training along with Al-Anon and therapy (so he can get the benefit of understanding his role in this system and get a better understanding of his own mind)?

Yeah you Carmen, you.

Better get on that shit before you lose the woman who is the beat to your whole heart another means of production to a chef who's going to pay her better, give Syd insurance from the jump and total creative control. Just saying.

[maybelacrimosa]

Fastpass spoilers

I think one of the largest issues I have with Lore Olympus is Rachel Smythes tendency to ignore her favourite characters wrong doings or to try 'justify' them with poorly executed retcons. In the latest chapter we get yet another "Zeus bad" retcon that somehow feels worse than the prior "Zeus bad" moments. Im not going to deny Zeus is a very VERY flawed person in LO, I am all for Hera divorcing him. But here she is trying to justify the Metis/Zeus plot point by saying "oh she was protecting her daughter all along by sleeping with someone who she met when he was underage!!!!" That feels really creepy? I dont think she really considers the implications of the things she writes and thats not a good thing. She cant even try argue "oh kronos time shenanigans make it ok" or whatever stupid logic she might use because she has established his time powers had run out from his fight with Ouranos at that point in the story.

Like lets take the catastrophe that was the Dio birth arc, she tries to retroactively justify Persephone being a terrible midwife who steals a baby without letting the father hold him by being like "oh actually he didnt care about the baby he chose to carry in his leg for about 10 years Persephone was in the right!!!" instead of having her ask to take custody or do anything other than demanding she be given the baby like a few minutes after Zeus finished giving birth.

Its not just Zeus either, she tries to justify Persephone invading Leuces home by being like "Oh Leuce never really got any texts shes delusional!!!!" ignoring the fact that Leuce thought the texts were valid enough to show to Persephone when mrs pink tyrant was being a home invader and neglecting the baby she just stole a couple of hours ago. Dio is treated like a purse dog and we get some off hand comment where Persephone blames the neglect (which was so bad the child got into TARTARUS) on the sitter she hired rather than being like "oh I should have made actual arrangements for Dio instead of giving myself a makeover". Theres also the way she tried to claim Thanatos was as much to blame for Hades' terrible parenting as Hades was by being like "well the abandoned child had an attitude can you blame Hades for not being a good dad?" Like yes. Yes we can blame Hades, he was an ADULT and Thanatos was a CHILD.

I guess the point Im making is, if she wants her characters to be morally grey, she needs to stop twisting the narrative into a gordian knot to justify every bad thing her favourites do whilst condemning other characters as being 'the worst' like hold them all to the same standard and actually let them develop instead of making excuses.

[differentpostrebel]

Lost and Found: A Pirate’s Promise

Lost and Found: A Pirate’s Promise

A/N: Hi!! This is my first fanfiction ever, and I'm super excited to share it with all of you! I've always loved fanfictions that span across multiple parts because they give so much room for character development and suspense. As a massive One Piece fan, I hope you all enjoy this series as much as I will enjoy writing it!

For this series, we'll start off in the Pre-Time Skip era, specifically during the Sabaody Archipelago arc. Y/N is an established pirate and a formidable warrior, with the third highest bounty in the Straw Hat crew. She's not just another member; her strength and skills have earned her a respected spot among the crew.

Sanji, our favorite lovesick cook, falls head over heels for Y/N almost immediately. True to his nature, he tries every trick in the book to catch her attention, from cooking her favorite meals to showering her with compliments. On the other hand, Y/N may have a small crush on Sanji, but she’s cautious and focused on her goals as a pirate.

As the story progresses, that small crush gradually blossoms into something more profound, but their journey together won't be easy. With the chaos of the New World looming, the dangers they face will test their bond and loyalty to each other. Will their love be strong enough to survive the trials ahead, or will the perils of their pirate life tear them apart?

Get ready for an emotional rollercoaster filled with angst, action, and a dash of romance. I'm thrilled to take you on this adventure with Y/N, Sanji, and the rest of the Straw Hat crew!

A/N: some parts may be changed to fit the story, but others will remain the same. For instance, instead of eleven supernovas it will be twelve. 

Word Count: 2.3k

Sanji x Y/N, OP x Y/N ,

Chapter 1: Desperate Measures: Saving a Friend 

  Having arrived at Sabaody Archipelago with your crew, along with Hatchan, Camie, and Pappag, the vibrant and bustling island immediately overwhelms your senses. The bright, multicolored bubbles floating through the air, the mix of strange and diverse people, and the looming presence of the massive mangrove trees create an atmosphere both wondrous and ominous. You can't help but feel a mix of excitement and unease—Sabaody is a place of both opportunity and danger.

  Luffy, your captain, couldn’t wait any longer to get off the ship and explore. With his usual boundless energy, he leaped from the Sunny, already imagining the adventures that awaited him on Sabaody Archipelago. You remember the day he first asked you to join his crew. It was after a particularly intense battle where your fighting skills had caught his eye. He admired your strength, your resilience, and the way you stood your ground even in the face of overwhelming odds. Luffy, always the one to follow his instincts, had approached you with that wide, infectious grin and simply said, “Join my crew!”

At first, you were taken aback by his straightforwardness, but there was something about Luffy—his unwavering belief in his dreams, his ability to inspire those around him, and the way he saw potential in everyone—that made you consider his offer. He didn’t just see you as a warrior; he saw you as someone who could help him achieve his goal of becoming King of the Pirates. And so, after a moment of thought, you agreed, finding yourself swept up in the Straw Hats' chaotic yet oddly comforting world.

  As Luffy heads down with Chopper, Zoro, is scanning the area to see if there are any threats nearby. “Sense anything Zoro?” you say as you begin to step out of the sunny. “Zoro glances around, his eyes sharp and focused, before shaking his head slightly. "Not at the moment," he replies, keeping his voice low. “Hey Mosshead, back off of Y/N, she doesn’t need you clinging on to her,” Sanji snaps, stepping in between you and Zoro, his eyes narrowing at the swordsman.

Zoro glares back, “Who’s clinging, you curly-browed idiot? I’m just making sure there’s no trouble.”

Before the argument can escalate further, Nami steps in, her hands on her hips. “Enough, both of you. Sanji, you’ll stay behind to guard the treasure along with Usopp. Franky, you’re staying on the ship too—just in case we need to make a quick getaway.”

Sanji’s expression immediately softens, his usual heart eyes appearing as he turns to Nami. “Of course, my love, anything for you!” he says with a dreamy sigh. Then, as if remembering his role as the lovesick cook, he pulls out a single rose, handing it to you with a flourish. “Y/N, keep this with you on your journey, so you won’t forget about me.”

You take the rose, a smile tugging at the corners of your lips. “How could I forget about you, Sanji? I’ll be sure to keep it close.”

Sanji’s heart skips a beat as you flirt back, his cheeks turning a light shade of pink. Though he’s always been bold with his affection, there’s something about the way you respond that makes his heart race a little faster. You’ve always admired Sanji’s charm and his relentless dedication to those he cares about, and in moments like this, it’s hard not to let your own small crush on him slip through.

  As you all disembark the ship, Hatchan begins to explain that he knows someone who can coat the ship for your journey to the next destination, Fishman Island. Camie and Pappag act as your guides, showing you around. Nami and Robin decide to head out for some shopping.

“You sure you don’t want to tag along?” Nami asks.

“Yeah, we could have our own mini girls’ day,” Robin adds with a smile.

Shaking your head with a smile, you reply, “No, that’s alright, you two go on ahead. I’ve got to make sure these guys”—you gesture towards the remaining group—“don’t wind up in too much trouble.”

“I’ll be sure to get you something!” Nami calls out as she and Robin head off to the stores.

“Well, Zoro, looks like you and I will be taking care of…”

“Zoro??”

“Damn, did he just leave?” You sigh and make your way back to your group.

 Meanwhile, back on the Sunny…

“Sanji, you gotta relax, buddy. Nami, Robin, Camie, and Y/N are safe and fine,” says Franky, trying to calm Sanji down.

Sanji exhales a cloud of smoke from his cigarette, his eyes still filled with concern. “Yeah, I know,” he mutters, “but I can’t help worrying about them. Especially Y/N… she’s always getting into trouble, and I can’t help but think I should be there to protect her.”

Franky gives him a reassuring pat on the back. “You’re on guard duty here, remember? We’ve got to keep the ship safe.”

Sanji’s gaze softens as he looks at the rose he’s tucked away for Y/N. “I just wish I could be there with her… make sure she knows how much she means to me.”

“Don’t worry, Sanji,” Franky chuckles. “They’re in good hands with you watching over the ship. And besides, you’ve got your own way of showing you care. That rose will do wonders.”

Sanji nods, taking a deep breath and letting his worry slowly fade. “You’re right. I’ll keep an eye out and make sure the ship stays in one piece. Just hope she gets my message.”

He glances at the rose again, a small smile appearing on his face as he tries to refocus on his duties.

  Back in Sabaody… 

 After witnessing the cruelty of the nobles, a shiver ran down your spine as the unsettling images replayed in your mind. You couldn't shake the feeling of anger and disgust.

“Those bastards, no one should be treated like that,” Luffy says, his voice filled with rage. “I don’t care if you’re a noble or not.”

“It’s truly a horrifying sight to see,” Brooke agrees, his usual calm demeanor marred by the gravity of the situation. He and Chopper hurry to catch up with you and Luffy.

“Luffy, remember we promised Hatchan we’d lay low for a bit,” you remind him, trying to steady your own emotions. “As much as I want to strike back, we can’t risk it. We have to stay out of trouble for now.”

Just then, you’re ambushed by a group of bounty hunters who had been lying in wait. One of them, a scruffy man with a leering grin, points at you with wide eyes. “Hey! You’re Y/N, the one with the $115,000,000 Berry bounty. You’re one of the Supernovas!”

“Supernovas?, what are they talking about?” you say in a hushed tone. 

Before they can react, you draw your blades with swift precision. The air around you crackles with energy as you unleash a flurry of strikes, each move perfectly calculated to disarm and incapacitate your attackers. Your combat skills, honed through countless battles, shine as you take them down one by one.

Luffy watches in awe, a grin slowly spreading across his face as he sees you effortlessly dispatch the bounty hunters. “Nice work, Y/N!” he cheers.

Brooke and Chopper finally catch up, their eyes wide at the sight of the defeated hunters. “Looks like we’ve got some unwanted attention,” Brooke observes. “But impressive as always.”

Smiling as you sheathe your blades, your breath steady despite the adrenaline coursing through you. “We need to stay sharp. Let’s get moving before more of them show up.” 

  Finally, after a bit of traveling, they reach Grove 13 and a bar where the coating engineer is said to stay. Upon entering, they are greeted by Shakky, the bar’s owner. A former pirate and friend of Hatchan, Shakky introduces herself with a friendly smile.

"Nice to meet you all," Shakky says. "I've heard quite a bit about the Straw Hats.”

The group exchanges pleasantries before asking about the engineer, Rayleigh. Shakky informs them that Rayleigh hasn’t been seen for a while, though he hasn’t left the island. He’s been wandering the bars and casinos for the past six months.

"Well, if Rayleigh’s been missing for that long, we might have to search for him ourselves," Luffy says.

Shakky nods. “Be careful. Since your arrival, there are now twelve rookie pirates with bounties over 100,000,000 berri who’ve reached the Red Line. Luffy, you're second highest among them.”

As the group absorbs this, Shakky explains that most of the Supernovas are staying in Grove 24. She describes some of them: Capone "Gang" Bege, the mafia-type pirate with a bounty of 138,000,000 berri, Jewelry Bonney, with a bounty of 140,000,000 Berri, Basil Hawkins, known as "The Magician" with a 249,000,000 bounty. In another part of the grove, Eustass "Captain" Kid (315,000,000) and Scratchmen Apoo (198,000,000)

In Grove 21, "The Mad Monk" Urouge (108,000,000) and "Massacre Soldier" Killer (162,000,000) next is "Red Flag" X Drake (222,000,000), a former Marine Rear Admiral, and Trafalgar Law (200,000,000), the last of the rookies. Shakky hands you the wanted posters and you note with a small smile that you and Zoro are also among the Supernovas. You’re listed with a bounty of 115,000,000, and Zoro with 120,000,000. 

As you glance at the wanted posters of the Supernovas, you mutter with a playful grin, “Wow, Killer, Eustass Kidd, and Law… they’ve got something uniquely captivating about them. They look kind of cute.”

Brooke, catching your comment, bursts out with a cheerful, “Yoohoo! Looks like Sanji’s got some competition!”

You chuckle and tease, “Oh, definitely. Killer’s dangerous allure, Kidd’s raw intensity, and Law’s cool confidence—they each have a certain edge that’s hard to ignore.”

Leaning in closer, you let your voice drop with a sultry edge, “It’s not just their looks. There’s something about their vibe that’s a little… irresistible. Makes me wonder how they’d be in person.”

Brooke's jawbone clinks with his laughter. “Well, I can’t say I blame you. A little competition always spices things up, doesn’t it?”

You wink playfully. “Exactly. It’s all about the thrill of the chase. But for now, let’s see what these Supernovas are really like. Who knows, maybe they’ll be even more intriguing up close.”

Brooke’s grin remains, his eye sockets gleaming with amusement. “I’m sure they will be. But remember, Sanji’s keeping a close eye on you. Don’t let him get too worked up!”

You laugh, the mischief in your eyes sparkling. “Don’t worry. A bit of competition never hurt anyone. It just makes everything more exciting.”

With that,the group heads out to find Rayleigh, the playful tension lingering in the air. 

   As the group sets out to find Rayleigh, Luffy suggests a visit to Sabaody Park to enjoy the day. Camie, brimming with excitement, eagerly tells you about the park’s significance and her past visits. You walk side by side with her, absorbing the vibrant atmosphere of the park and the joyful energy of the rides.

As you and Camie sit on a bench in Sabaody Park, catching your breath from the excitement of the rides, you both share a contented sigh.

"This place is amazing," Camie says with a smile, her eyes sparkling with joy. "I wish I could have experienced it like this more often. It’s so much fun!"

You nod, enjoying the moment. “I’m glad we could have this day. It’s been a blast.”

Just as you’re about to take another bite of your snack, a shadow looms over you. Before you can react, someone covers your mouth with a cloth, and another pair of hands grabs Camie. You both struggle, but the suddenness of it leaves you disoriented.

Through the fabric muffling your cries, you hear Camie's muffled voice. “Mmmph! What’s happening? Let us go!”

You try to yell out, but the cloth over your mouth stifles your words. Panicking, you reach for Camie’s hand, and you feel her trembling. The sound of ropes tightening around your wrists and ankles is followed by the heavy thud of sacks being pulled over you.

You catch a glimpse of Camie’s frightened eyes as she is shoved into a sack next to you. Through the layers of fabric, you try to comfort her.

“It’s going to be okay, Camie,” you whisper as best as you can through the gag, though it comes out as a muffled sound. “We just need to stay calm.”

You can hear the muffled sounds of Camie’s sobs from the sack next to you. The kidnappers’ harsh voices are distant but clear enough to make out their cruel intentions.

One of them grumbles, “They’re going to make a fine addition to the auction. The buyers will love them.”

The words send a shiver down your spine. The realization of being taken to be auctioned as slaves hits hard, but you try to remain composed for Camie’s sake. You shift slightly in the sack, trying to offer some comfort with your presence despite the dire situation.

In the oppressive darkness and confined space, all you can do is hope that your crew will find you in time before it’s too late.

.

.

.

OMGGGG, what do you guys think??? This one was long! But it'll be all worth it! Next chapter is going to be a good one that you don't want to miss. Currently writing it as we speak! Welcome to my page and I can't wait for you guys to read what I have in store! 

[susiephone]

one thing i really love about extraordinary attorney woo is how young-woo doesn't fall into the neat little binary of what we think of as "high-functioning" or "low-functioning" autism (i.e., "autism you don't notice" vs. "autism you do notice", as it's often portrayed), because irl it's rarely that simple. young-woo is highly intelligent, can hold down a job and take care of herself, and overall holds her own - but she also can't "pass" for neurotypical, nor does she want to! she openly stims and has little rituals to help her avoid overstimulation. sometimes she gets overwhelmed in public and has to deal with it. she needs accommodations to manage in day-to-day life, and sometimes has to contend with people who don't understand why she needs them. she needs a support network like anyone else, which she fortunately has in the form of her father and closest friends, and she and her dad occasionally butt heads because he genuinely wants to help, but sometimes oversteps - because her disability is something he still doesn't 100% understand. but he does 100% support her and she knows she can always rely on him. when she was growing up, they sometimes had trouble connecting, but once he learned how to meet her where she was at, they established a bond that made young-woo feel loved and supported, even when her teachers weren't helping her.

i also love how young-woo is very up-front about her autism, and the ways it impacts her life, both for the better and in ways it makes life harder. one of my favorite moments is when another character (who's also coded as autistic) notices one of her rituals (pausing to inwardly count to "three" before stepping into an unfamiliar room) and tells her that he thinks it's awesome that she's self-assured enough to do what she needs to do to accommodate herself, even if other people think it's weird.

like it's not 100% perfect representation - i'm not sure what that would even look like - but i love how, along with the "case of the week" format, so much of the story is about young-woo navigating the world as a young autistic woman, both with her career and her personal life, and what a layered character she is. the fact that she's autistic doesn't feel like a gimmick or like a token effort at diversity; it's a big part of the story and her character arc, but it's not her entire personality, either.

[prettyinpwn]

Mabel Pines: How Well Was She Written... Really? (GF Writing Analysis Pt. 3)

GF Writing Analysis Series: Pt. 1 - Ford Pines: A Masterclass in Writing a Good Flawed Character Pt. 2 - How Gravity Falls Could Have Been Better + Poor Ford and Wendy

Like my previous post in my GF Writing Analysis series, I am a bit nervous to post this, to be honest. I love this fandom, but there are two main topics in it that tend to draw the most debate: A. how Gravity Falls ended and its length/pacing, and B. Mabel's writing.

I already tackled the former in my last post, so today, I'm tackling the latter: Mabel. I like to live fandom life on the wild side, what can I say?

Let me preface this post by saying that I am very neutral on Mabel as a fan. I never especially liked her, and I never especially disliked her. It's nothing against Mabel. I'm just personally more drawn to characters like Stan and Ford the most, and if I'm honest, the only reason I'm drawn to Dipper more than Mabel is likely because I relate to him more.

*Gestures at, you know, this blog's over a decade long history of theorycrafting and analyses.*

So... I'm coming at this post with a very neutral eye and an open mind, and like my other analyses, it will be based as much as possible on writing theory I learned in college and over the years in personal study.

But unlike Ford's post, where I already had a viewpoint in mind and wrote it around proving that thesis, Mabel's is going to be more exploratory, and I will reach a conclusion at the end. Is Mabel really that badly written? Is she written pretty well with just some flaws? Or... is she actually a really well-written character and just misunderstood?

Let's discover the answer together.

Mabel's Introduction + Who is She?

I will quote my general method of analyzing character writing from my Ford analysis post to start:

"When I took writing classes in college (and over years of writing in general and drooling over writing advice podcasts and blogs), I found that the best method for me, personally, when it comes to crafting characters is to focus on two major things:

1. Their want.

2. Their need. On the surface, these look like the same things, but in character writing, they can be vastly different. For example, say that you have a character that greatly desires fame and recognition. They want these things.

But what’s the real reason behind it? Is it because they had a parent that was famous and want to live up to their example? Is it because they want to be adored by people? Is it because they were told they’d never amount to anything by someone and want to prove them wrong?

This real reason behind it all is the core need. Yes, they want fame and recognition, but they need it because, say, they have low self-esteem and need copious amounts of outside validation to boost it.

Tied to this need is usually a backstory reason (sometimes called their wound). Say your hypothetical character was bullied a lot as a child. Or abused by a parent. Etc. Whatever the wound was, it caused a big, painful hole in their heart that they try to fill and fix with their want.

So they go on a journey. The want is often the external journey. The need is often the core journey / character arc. Our example character seeks fame and recognition on an external journey, but deep inside, they realize they need something else, which is to understand that their past trauma/wound doesn’t define them, and fame and recognition will not be the balm they expect it will be. Often, they realize they had what they needed all along. They grow past their flaws associated with their seeking this want through understanding and instead pursuing the need."

So... what is Mabel's core want and need as a character? And what's her wound? Who is she? Let's identify these things by looking closely at the very first episode, Tourist Trapped. Tourist Trapped establishes the following things about Mabel:

Optimistic; likes to look on the bright side of things. ("Yay, GRAAAAAASSS!", "Check out all my splinters!").

Go with the flow / easy-going / accepts things at face value. ("Yes, you can keep chewing on my sweater!", learns Norman is a bunch of gnomes and instead of punting them immediately she tries to gently turn them down).

Romance obsessed. No examples needed. *Gestures at whole series.*

Assumes the best in people / accepting of others. (e.g Norman).

Naive / overly trusting (e.g Norman again).

Cares about her family (protecting Dipper).

Clever (ever notice how she tricks the gnomes almost like how Stan tricks Bill near the end of the series?).

(Quick side note because this part always blows my mind: Tourist Trapped is a microcosm of the whole series, by the way. Two siblings get into an argument, one gets swept into the paranormal, and the other saves them from it. The former tricks the paranormal in a clever way to stop the paranormal threat from harming them both, and the two make up at the end and go on more adventures. Sound familiar?)

Back to Mabel, let's identify her core want and need and wound from her character traits. I struggled a long time with identifying this, because Mabel seems like such a laid back character that it's harder to pin these down for her compared to, say, Ford (false validation given to use me vs. honest but selfless love) and Stan (earning worth vs. knowing inherent worth). But I think I pinned it down...

Yins and Yangs

And guess what? Hers and Dipper's wants and needs match Stan and Ford's, but not in the way you think. Dipper has Stan's struggle, and Mabel has Ford's. Just like how Tourist Trapped is a microcosm of the whole series where one twin gets whisked away into the weird (Ford and Mabel) and the other needs to save them from it (Stan and Dipper)... their wants and needs are the same.

Granted, it manifests in different ways. Using Ford as an example, Ford's want is love and acceptance, but in a "praise me and my science and my accomplishments and accept me for who I am" way. Mabel's want is love and acceptance, but in a "must find boyfriend and keep loved ones close" way. Or in another way of explaining it, Ford desires introverted love, and Mabel desires outgoing love; makes sense for their characters. Ford is a Mabel if she were an introvert, and vice versa. Just like how Stan is a Dipper if he were an extrovert, and vice versa.

So... yeah. Ford and Mabel are the same character... sort of. Because as much as Ford pursues the unknown, Mabel pursues love (both romantic and familial). And Stan and Dipper are the twins that chase after them, anchoring them back to reality, sometimes even literally.

And that's where we come to the concept of balance, AKA why the twins are good for each other. You ever notice how the Pines at their worst is always when they're alone? Stan alone is a depressed criminal. Ford alone is both paranoid and naive. Dipper alone is insecure and pessimistic. And Mabel alone is also too trusting like Ford and delusional.

What fixes this? Their twin. Stan with Ford is happy and with purpose again, Ford with Stan is protected (thanks to Stan's people smarts) and grounded, Dipper with Mabel is more confident and optimistic, and Mabel with Dipper is protected (thanks to Dipper's logical smarts) and realistic.

THAT'S why the show had Mabel and Dipper stick together at the end. THAT'S why there was such an emphasis on why Stan and Ford being apart caused so many issues. THAT'S why Dipper chose to stay with Mabel over the apprenticeship. Because time and time again, the show states the thesis that a Pines without their twin is a dysfunctional Pines. Agree with it or not, that's the theme with their characters.

Because - and I say this lovingly - the Pines are kind of stupid at times without their twins. Stan's purposeless and turns to crime, Ford's too naive and trusting, Dipper's too pessimistic, and Mabel's too optimistic. Ford gives Stan purpose, Stan gives Ford some actual common sense, Mabel gives Dipper some needed levity, and... Dipper gives Mabel a reality check (GEE, I WONDER WHY MABEL'S WEIRDMAGEDDON EPISODE WAS CALLED 'ESCAPE FROM REALITY', AND WHY DIPPER WAS THE ONE TO BREAK HER FROM IT? *Cough beats people over the head with a theme but somehow people still didn't get it cough.*).

Sorry, Caps Lock rant aside, honestly, I should just make a chart to explain the Pines. We'll be using four scales: introverted (I) vs. extroverted (E), gravity (G) vs. levity (L), active (A) vs. reactive (R), and book smart (B) vs. people smart (P).

(Yes, we're gonna make our own Gravity Falls Myers-Briggs, because I'm that insane.)

This system also reflects the Pines on a layer level: Stan and Mabel's outside personas (E and P) seem more similar, but their cores are different (GR vs LA); the same goes for Ford and Dipper (shared outside persona of I and B, but different cores of LA and GR).

This is why, in the fandom, we often look superficially at the Pines and say, "Dipper is the Ford twin because smart nerds, and Mabel is the Stan twin because outgoing fun ones". No, my friends: Dipper is the Stan twin, and Mabel is the Ford twin. Dipper is just Stan in a Ford coating, and Mabel is just Ford in a Stan coating.

We'll come back to this later for the next section, but for now, let's focus on answering the main question: is Mabel written badly, or is she written well?

Well... she has core wants (fun and love and escapism and childhood). She has a need (reality and gravity and facing the future). And... well, they never really explored her wound AKA her reason why she desires these things like they did for Stan and Ford.

But... my guess is that reality has often wounded her and popped her bubble in the past (maybe bullying at school, hence her desire to not face growing up alone without Dipper), so she avoids it in order to keep her optimistic fantasy alive to avoid pain. Just like... I dunno... that whole episode that centered around that thing called Mabeland? Metaphors, people.

So so far, Mabel checks the same boxes as my earlier analysis on why Ford is a well-written character:

Want? Check. Need? Check. Realizes she had what she needed all along (Dipper to ground her)? Check. And our last point, I'll refer back to my quote from earlier: "They [well-written character] grow past their flaws associated with their seeking this want through understanding and instead pursuing the need."

Yeah. Mabel has flaws, associated with her pursuing her wants. They manifest in that, yeah, sometimes she's selfish. And that's the flaw most people in the fandom have criticized her for.

But guess what? ALL of the Pines are selfish at times.

Stan? Ford gets captured in Weirdmageddon and Stan - although we get why he's bitter - is reluctant to save him again.

Ford? Ford received a college grant and made no attempts to reach out to Stan who was poor and struggling - although we understand why Ford was bitter, too - and reaches out to Stan not to make amends but to ask him to do him a favor.

Dipper? Probably the least selfish of the Pines, but still... at times he's selfish, too. The Time Traveler's Pig explores this. He repeatedly rewrote the day of the fair because he wanted a chance to be with a girl we know he never would have gotten with anyways. Did he think about what Wendy wanted when he did that? No. Did he think about what Mabel wanted? Well, no, at least until the end, but the moral of that episode is that Dipper learned to sacrifice his selfish want to make someone else happy.

So if people dislike Mabel for being selfish, well... they should dislike all of the Pines, then. And there are times she gives up her wants for Dipper, too, albeit shown less often. She trashes her sock puppet show - her chance at impressing a guy and compromising her core want of love - to save him, inspired by all the times he sacrificed for her. She lets go of a land of perfection and her delusion - albeit one that really wasn't real - to help him fix Weirdmageddon and save Ford.

Because here's the thing: a well-written character has flaws. There'd be no story if they didn't. A character without flaws has no arc and is poorly written. Mabel - just like the other Pines - is flawed and that's great. Because it means... she's well-written. I'll quote my post on Ford again:

"This is why Ford is a well-written character. He has flaws and suffers for them until he makes up for his mistakes. They are understandable flaws, but like in real life, just because it’s understandable why we act poorly at times - be it because of trauma or upbringing - it doesn’t mean we’re justified in continuing to hurt others or ourselves because of those flaws. We must acknowledge them, grow past them, and do our best to do better in the future, as well as apologize to those we hurt along the way."

Just like Ford, Mabel has flaws - albeit understandable ones based on who she is and her history - and she suffers for them. But in Escape From Reality, she acknowledges them, grows past them, and does her best to do better in the future.

As for the other hate on her I've often seen, including the way she gave the Rift over to Blendin/Bill... my friends... she did the same thing Ford did. And the flaw Bill took advantage of to do this was the same flaw she had in Tourist Trapped: her naivety.

Bill: "Hey, naive Pines twin, I have something you want (for summer to never end / validation and knowledge). Just give me something (the Rift / possession and build this portal) and I'll let you have it. I swear I'm innocent and on your side and have your best interests at heart!"

Bill is a master manipulator. So if we don't judge Ford for the way he was manipulated at the age of his late twenties, then why the hell do we as a fandom judge Mabel for falling for the same trick as a 12 year old?

And so we return to Tourist Trapped. Mabel's flaw in that episode was the same as the flaw she had by the end of the series. Drawn into a fantasy, lacking realism and logic about it, sibling saves her, apology to sibling, and working together to fix the mess. The difference is, is scale and stakes, and at the end of the series, it's a permanent change of growth. Mabel learns to accept reality; that life won't always be love and rainbows and sunshine, and that's okay.

I also want to highlight how the Pines' flaws are often their greatest strengths, too. Dipper often pops Mabel's fun bubble with his pessimism and realism; sometimes it rains on her parade, and sometimes it breaks her out of a delusion. And vice versa: Mabel often is too optimistic and naive, and that leads to Dipper having to save her from some manipulations and delusions, but sometimes she's the one who lifts him up when he needs it and he's too pessimistic and insecure. Case in point, Gideon Rises, where Dipper insists he needs Journal 3 after Stan takes it, and Mabel tells him, "You're a hero whether you've got that journal or not.".

And as for the hate on her "holding Dipper back from his apprenticeship", I'll quote this here, said by Mabel after Dipper convinces her to leave Mabeland:

"Hey, Dipper? I appreciate what you said back there, but if you want to take Ford's apprenticeship, I won't get in your way."

She offers him a compromise; she allows him to go for it. Because she learned her lesson of accepting the reality that, sometimes, people grow apart instead of things staying the same forever. She's become selfless. And at that point, it was Dipper's responsibility and choice to take it or not.

So if you're upset that Mabel "held Dipper back", no. She gave him room to leave, and he said no and stayed. If he'd wanted it that badly, he'd have gone for Ford's apprenticeship. And remember the series' thesis on the Pines I stated earlier:

"A Pines without their twin is a dysfunctional Pines. Agree with it or not, that's the theme with their characters."

So... we've now arrived at our conclusion about Mabel's writing based on the points we've explored above:

Once and for all, and I'll bold and make this big to emphasize my point, because I hope it quells some of the Mabel dislike: Mabel is a well-written character. She's flawed, yes, but that's the point. So... Why the Mabel Hate, Then?

There have been some ideas thrown around as to why Mabel has received extra scrutiny compared to the other Pines characters. One theory that's been thrown around is her gender, as she's the only female character of the four Pines, although I would lean towards that this isn't the likely main cause, due to the fact that there are other female characters that are liked in this fandom. Wendy receives little to no hate that I've ever seen (and in fact, I mostly see wishes to have gotten more writing featuring her character). Pacifica is liked, especially when it comes to shipping her with Dipper. So... why Mabel, specifically?

I would argue it's not her gender, specifically, but more her femininity. Mabel is very stereotypically "girly". Wendy is a tomboy, and Pacifica - although "girly" - is more of an aggressive character before her growth. Mabel is feminine and passive. She also is into many stereotypically "girly" things, like romance, knitting, crafts, etc. So people that are uncomfortable with the stereotypically feminine might have a subtle, unconscious "ick" reaction to Mabel for that reason.

And... combine Wendy's tomboy quality and Pacifica's association with a male main character (at least, when shipped with Dipper), well... er... I think that may be one potential reason why Mabel is disliked more. She's A. "girly" and B. she has no inherent "value" to a male character.

Dear God, I feel ick even writing that. But when you think about it... that could be one potential reason why she's the most disliked female character in the series. She's girly and is not a prize to be won to add value to a male's life. I shudder to think that this may be the case in today's world, but that may be the unconscious bias some people might have against her, and instead of realizing that, they blame it on "Mabel's selfish / poorly written".

Or, it could be the expectation that women need to be more selfless than men. Let's take after Ford for a moment and do some science: "The reward and learning systems in our brains work in close cooperation. Empirical studies show that girls are rewarded with praise for prosocial behavior, implying that their reward systems learn to expect a reward for helping behavior instead of selfish behavior. With this in mind, the gender differences that we observed in our studies could best be attributed to the different cultural expectations placed on men and women. This learning account is also supported by findings that indicate significant differences in the sensitivity of the reward system to prosocial and selfish behavior across cultures." (Credit/source).

Translation? In society, we praise women for being selfless, and we praise men for being selfish.

Getting this back to Dipper and Mabel, many have viewed their character conflict as "Dipper's being ambitious, and Mabel's holding him back". And with Dipper being a boy, and Mabel being a girl, fans might judge her overly harshly for her selfishness yet are easy on Stan, Ford, and Dipper for their selfishness because, yes, possibly... gender bias. "Mabel should have been less selfish!", they yell, yet people who criticize this flaw of hers are awfully quiet when it comes to addressing this same flaw in the male Pines.

Another reason why I think this is a strong contender for the most common reason why Mabel is disliked, is because of the parallelism between the two sets of Pines twins. Stan does the same thing as Mabel does: wanting his twin to stay with him, not wanting him to pursue his ambitions, wanting things to always stay the same...

So why do people not criticize Stan for the same thing? Why does he get more sympathy, yet Mabel gets ire? When Stan does it, he's a loving brother who just wants his brother to stay. When Mabel does it, she's "too selfish".

Feminist literary lens aside, sometimes I think Mabel's dislike can also be defense of one Pines twin over the other. I've seen this a lot with Ford and Stan in the fandom, where people vilify Ford yet see Stan as innocent in their squabble, as was common shortly after Ford was revealed at the time of airing.

Added to that was the fact that Ford got less attention from the writers and less time in the show to justify his flaws and understand his character (see my previous Gravity Falls writing analysis here that covers this topic), and, well... of course there's a high likelihood people are going to sympathize with Stan more than Ford. The show gave us more reasons to. But that doesn't mean Ford is inherently more wrong or more flawed than Stan. It's just that... people might like Stan more than Ford, so give him more stink-eye.

So I think the same happens with Mabel and Dipper, although Mabel and Dipper got roughly the same amount of airtime, so that leads me to my next point:

I have a little side theory here I want to test (but I could very likely be wrong) regarding why some characters in Gravity Falls are well-liked by certain people and vice versa, as well as why some characters are more vilified or idolized in this fandom. Let's return to my Pines personality chart:

Please ask yourself these questions honestly:

Who is your favorite Pines?

Who is your least favorite Pines?

Now, write these letters down depending on your answer:

Are you introverted (I) or extroverted (E)?

Are you a realist (G) or an optimist (L)?

Are you someone who goes after what you want (A) or waits for it to come to you (R)?

Are you more book smart (B) or people smart (P)?

Now, create your four letter Pines personality (e.g ILRB).

With your Pines personality, count how many letters you have in common with each character.

Now, answer this: do the Pines you share the most letters with happen to be your favorite Pines, and do the Pines you share the least letters with happen to be your least favorite Pines?

Personally, my favorite is Ford, and my least favorite is Mabel (although like I said earlier, I do not dislike Mabel, I am just neutral at worst with her). My own four letters are ILA/RB, meaning I'm introverted, trend towards optimism/levity, am split on active and reactive, and am more book than people smart.

I share 3-4 letters with Ford, 2-3 with Dipper, 1 letter with Stan, and 1-2 letters with Mabel.

And lo and behold... my favorite Pines is the most like me, and my least favorite Pines is one of two least like me.

So here's my theory as to why there's Mabel hate, since we've already established why Mabel is actually technically written very well: a combination of possible unconscious gender bias and personality matchup. Because if there's one thing us humans are good at it, it's, "Ape like me, me like, but ape less like me? Me throw rock! Insert war/hate/prejudice/online fandom hate, etc here.".

Therefore, in final conclusion: Mabel is well-written, and she's criticized unfairly. Anyone that criticizes her as "too selfish" needs to honestly analyze why they might not apply that same criticism to Stan, Dipper, or Ford.

[oristian]

I’m going to be putting into words arguments that I have made that are, more often than not, fragments of an overarching whole. Feel free to add on if I missed any.

A rejected bond trope cannot happen in a book that does not also share Lucien’s POV. Not only would this be the first rejected bond trope that SJM would have used in her entire catalogue of work, but it directly affects the males more than the females—not having Lucien’s immediate POV in the following chapter would diminish the climatic notion of rejecting the mating bond. The bond is just as much Lucien’s as it is Elain’s.

Following along, had Lucien been rejected in the previous book, the reader would now have to wait years for his POV in his own book where the reader would have to go back in time to see his immediate reaction, deal with the consequences of a rejection, his plethora of plot points, and also him somehow falling in love with a human woman. Not only is he going to miraculously bounce back from such a soul crushing rejection—in all meanings of the term—but he is going to manage to move on enough to fall in love with someone else.

Lucien and Elain have to resolve the mating bond before she can either reject it, and/or get with Azriel. That means, from a literature standpoint, that the reader needs to actively see Elain and Lucien exploring the bond and getting to know one another, finding out that they just do not work, and continuing on from there. If Elain just up and rejects the bond and decides to be with Azriel, that is both anticlimactic and a disservice to Azriel. Choosing love means exploring the other option, rejecting it/fate, and still choosing to be with someone else. If the bond is never explored, did she really choose Azriel for love?

Elain and Lucien are within the same plot arc—Azriel has his own established plot arc, away from Elain. If SJM truly intended for the next book to be told from Elain and Azriel’s POVs, she would have placed them within the same overarching plot arc. Instead, she separated them for two straight books and made certain that it was Lucien also tied to Koschei, and it was Azriel tied to Dusk, Illyrians, Gwydion and Truth Teller, and Valkyries.

If Elain and Azriel were meant to be endgame, SJM would have needed to already resolve/begin resolving the mating bond between Elain and Lucien, and she would not have placed Gwyn within the vicinity of Azriel—especially not in his bonus chapter—in the way in which she did. SJM would have titled the ACOSF bonus chapter and marketed it as the Elriel chapter, similarly to Nessian. However, she did not, she marketed it as Azriel’s bonus chapter and she included two women.

If Elain and Azriel were endgame, and are so blatantly obvious, what would the need for a red herring be for them? Elain’s mating bond is tension enough, why bother adding another female character into the mix? Why move so much of Elain and Azriel off page? Why have all of their biggest scenes be told from either someone else’s POV, or in a bonus chapter that many readers still have not found out about?

The ‘Elain in Black’ entire paragraph was meant to draw the reader in. Cassian, who should have been focused on Nesta, harped on the Night Court black draining the life from Elain. “She had to dress down for Nesta.” That is a fanon interpretation and not backed by canon; Elain is the most beautiful Archeron sister and would have outshined Nesta in that regard no matter what. Pair that with Nesta in the next chapter also confirming that the color of the dress was what was ill-suited, not the actual dress. Following by saying that Elain radiated good health in an amethyst dress, written in a similar way that the Day Court entourage was described in ACOWAR. Pair this with other characters expressing that Elain does not fit in with the Night Court, and the foreshadowing is there.

Anything that Vassa can offer to the narrative, the reader can learn from both Lucien and Elain—Vassa is not needed for a POV, as she has nothing she can offer that would create a compelling story. She would, ultimately, just be a love interest. Anything about Koschei, we can learn from Elain’s visions and any stories that Vassa tells Lucien. Anything about Vassa in general, we can learn from Lucien. The reader already knows what happened to Vassa and the readers know about her curse and that Koschei still expects her return. She is going to be a side character with her own love interest, similarly to Amren and Varian.

I am certain that there are more, so feel free to comment and/or reblog with some! Elain and Azriel were never meant to be taken as seriously as they have and do not make much sense from a narrative perspective. They do not share any overarching plot arcs, they are wildly incompatible with one another, and there is so much foreshadowing and symbolism between Elucien and Gwynriel that wouldn’t need to be there if Elriel truly was endgame.

Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.

[isagrimorie]

It’s always frustrating whenever the BAU tackles a case where either the victimology or UnSub has similarities to Prentiss’s background/upbringing but the writers rarely use it to give insights on Prentiss or have Prentiss’s background provide some insights into a case.

As an example, The Performer is an episode featuring Gavin Rossdale as a rockstar whose kayfabe was being a Vampire ala Lestat but fake.

The show could have dove a little into the goth community, a community Emily Prentiss used to be a part of. Did they do that? Unfortunately, no, they hung a lantern on it. The writers had Penelope tease Emily about how she used to dress Goth. Even though, Emily still dressed like one but corporate style.

In the episode, Pleasure is My Business. The UnSub grew up around wealth and privilege and then used sex work to lure her victims.

We discover in Lauren that Prentiss was in a similar enough situation re: Operation Valhalla.

Ala The Americans show, Prentiss used intimacy to get close to Ian Doyle.

Emily Prentiss became Lauren Reynolds because she matched Doyle’s type.

I know the writers had a vague idea of Prentiss’ past only that the writers had breadcrumbs pointing to a rich, mysterious past. They don’t have a crystal ball, but the privileged background could have been a jumping off point for a discussion, an insight to the UnSub’s thoughts.

In the season 16 episode, Orpheus Wrecks, the writers could have again used that case as a way to get more insight into Prentiss’ hidden personal life. As a Politician’s kid, and a somewhat savvy political operator herself, Prentiss would have been as familiar, if more, to the DC wonk space as Bailey was.

Prentiss would also be familiar with the Beltway Elite app even if she didn’t use it herself.

(As a former Spook, the idea of having an app like that in her phone would give Prentiss OpSec paranoia. She would not want her photo distributed everywhere. Being on Politico was enough of a headache for her tbh).

I know Prentiss’ whole thing is she wanted to distance herself from her mother’s political life but she would still have friends and would have known more people as she climbed up the ladder in the FBI.

Other shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Elementary, and Person of Interest almost always use a kernel of similarity/parallelism in their various cases of the week as a jumping-off point to tell a richer story about their characters.

Criminal Minds does but selectively.

This is what makes the show frustrating. You can always tell when the show could have threaded the Case/Monster of the Week and connected the case to one of the characters.

Morgan and JJ also needed more exploration. The only one the writers they consistently use this with is Reid.

To the writer’s credit they have vaguely gestured at Emily’s mysterious past— setting up Emily’s existential crisis about her morality in the face of what she’s done while she worked for CIA and JTF-12.

But then the show goes several episodes mentioning the problem, an arc villain, and it’s frustrating!

(I sometimes lowkey wish some Whedon trained writers joined Criminal Minds to establish a good character-to-case ratio. Like, Jane Espenson. Or someone from Person of Interest writers room joining the Evolution writers team. The idea of Denise Thé writing for the CM ladies makes me yearn because delicious character development + inventive messed up twists. Erica Messer does a good job showrunning— a different job altogether than just writing for the show. But also— I yearn! Think about a POI caliber writer in a CM writers room! It would be so good to have, IMO. Not that PoI was entirely perfect either, I have my frustrations too!)

——

Chris Mundy seemed interested in delving into the internal lives of the characters, especially Emily’s. Demonology was really important for our understanding of Emily Prentiss.

Her guilt, her low-key self-loathing— the way she runs from the people she loves because she thinks she’s not worth it. The way she can conform to be anyone to fit into a situation and not stand out.

Her casual regard for sex as a tool to help her get accepted. All things that were helpful for Prentiss when she became a spy.

As Michael Westen from Burn Notice said: “People with happy families don’t become spies. A bad childhood is the perfect background for covert ops.”

TLDR— It’s just frustrating because they’re always nearly at the cusp of a great character driven procedural but then almost always back off from giving us really good food.