#for now i have a vague story plot and character built

[valtsv]

what is like. The vague plot of the silt verses

Cause I wanna listen now but idk if I'd actually be into it?

the most concise summary i can give you is that the silt verses is a folk horror/weird fiction show set in a world which sort of mirrors our own in terms of its sociopolitical landscape, but with the key difference that gods are real and worship - including human sacrifice - is not just a part of everyday life, but a fundamental foundation that the entire social system is built on. it starts out as a sort of detective thriller-style story following two worshippers of an illegal river god, carpenter and faulkner, as they travel through the territory of the peninsula (the main fictional country that much of the story takes place in) searching for signs of their god's activity, and a miracle to bring back to revitalise their dying faith, whilst also grappling with their own personal relationships to faith and the world they live in, and the people they have to share it with. the scope of the story widens with each season, however, as carpenter and faulkner's search leads to altercations with law enforcement, the forging of surprising connections, and the unfolding exposure of horrors enabled by struggles for power far beyond the reckoning of any one individual. as rising tensions between the peninsula and its neighbour, the consolidated linger straits, threaten to plunge everyone into another conflict of god vs god - corrupt and overfed belief system vs equally corrupt and bloated belief system - we get to see the impact of both societal upheaval and stagnation on several characters in a variety of social positions, from a number of walks of life, and how they respond to both large-scale developments and personal conflicts of equal importance to them as individuals. it's not a story of good vs. evil, or even justice vs. injustice, but of people in all their infinite, messy complexity, and how they navigate the world and their relationships to each other. also there's some morbidly hilarious political satire which is always good fun.

[torpedopickle]

I want to talk about how Dungeons and Dragons Honor Among Thieves is an excellent use of meta humor applied seamlessly to a story without ever breaking immersion.

Mild spoilers. I'll keep it vague so nothing will be spoiled if you choose to read on

This movie integrates many things that someone familiar with D&D would recognize from the narrative structure of a campaign.

There are some things in particular that demonstrate this particularly well

At one point, the party is joined temporarily by the character Xenk. But he really feels like he'd be an NPC party member controlled by the GM rather than a player. So when the other characters banter and quip, this character doesn't really join in or get their jokes cuz he simply wouldn't have the agency to. More examples of this would be how he's much more capable than the others, but he doesn't overshadow them. He provides aid if it's desperately needed, and will sometimes bail rhe party out of situations they can't manage on their own, just like how a GM should utilize an NPC companion. He even has a quote that perfectly reflects this. "I've given you the tools. Now you have to be the ones to use them". There's even a more direct joke about his NPC behavior. When he leaves the story, he walks off in a random direction, going straight forward, even stepping over obstacles and terrain unnecessarily. This all amounts to him feeling like a very clear GM controlled NPC, however he is presented in a way that still makes him feel entirely faithfull to his own world and does not break immersion

Other ways the movie plays around with the GM campaign structure would be the approach to backstory. The only time a character outright explains what their backstory is, in full, directly to us, is at the very start, to give context for the story going forward, as the character even puts it himself. Backstory later in the movie is told to us whenever it's relevant. Characters will toss in another fact or two about themselves in situations where mentioning a past experience would fit in. Much like how players usually prefer to build their characters.

And one of my favorite instances of being meta about D&D campaign structures comes in the second act.

the characters are faced with a complex and dangerous obstacle. The GM's stand in, xenk, explains the method of progressing through this obstacle correctly. But in true D&D fashion, the party immediately does it wrong and now the campaign has been derailed and the GM's setup squandered. So now they straight up don't have a way forward in the narrative. Logically, it should end there. But that'd be a shit campaign, so the GM would naturally bend the rules to get things back on track. So after the party fails the obstacle, one of them goes; "Hang on, that stick we've had with us the entire time isn't a stick after all! It's actually a magic staff that solves our EXACT predicament at this EXACT time". That is such a clear cut meta joke about GM's having to get things back on track cuz players are all chaotic evil. Is it a plot contrivance? Absolutely. One of the biggest ever. But it's what D&D is built on

[barrenclan]

How do you decide on motifs? Like sleep being associated with death, roses being associated with death? And how did you go about assigning each motif to a character (especially more character specific ones)? Like I get that Rainhaze was seen as a coyote in omens because of his association with Ranger, but why is Nightberry associated with visions, why is Cootstorm associated with never changing, conservative ideals?

Here's a good way to think about this: PATFW is not coming out of nowhere. Seems obvious, right? But every decision made is one that I had to intentionally choose, with a goal in mind for what I wanted to do with them. So I don't have real animals, or real people - I have certain stories in mind, and the characters are tools that I use to express these ideas. Let's take two examples brought up here, and I'll show you what I mean.

Asphodelpaw's death. For this story, I wanted to have a big, climatic moment that really jerks around the story, much in the same way that Shellspring's reveal did in TDS. I know that I want Rainhaze to be an exploration of a character who starts out good and turns complicated, and that I want him to not be redeemed. Okay, so how do I make sure Rainhaze is beyond redemption? He'd have to do something really awful, like killing someone important. The rest of the Clan wouldn't be as impactful if he killed them, so it should be one of his family members, and someone we really care about. Okay, who do I want him to kill? Pinepaw is my narrator, so if I want him to keep narrating, I can't kill him. I want Slugpelt to feel the consequences of this murder Rainhaze makes, and I want her to later confront him about it, so he can't kill her. I can't quite get into why I want Daffodilpaw to live yet, because of spoilers, but I have a certain message I want to create with Daffodilpaw, and she can't die as part of it. So Asphodelpaw is the only one left. Okay, why would it be impactful for her to die? Because she just came into herself, and apologized to Pinepaw, and is on track to grow into a better person. So it's extra tragic - and extra irredeemable - of Rainhaze to kill her. There you go, that's the reasoning behind Asphodelpaw's death.

The sleep/death motif. I have suffered from personal difficulties surrounding death, specifically involved with intrusive thoughts before I go to sleep. So those two ideas are very linked in my mind, and because PATFW is a darker story, I wanted to explore it. Okay, how do I work it into the story? Rainhaze is a character who's disappeared, presumed dead, by the time the story starts. Alright, maybe I can work it in there. I used it for the first time in Issue 4, contrasting between Rainhaze and Slugpelt's views on what happens after death. Alright, so now I have a thematic parallel between their characters and their views. Okay, how does this affect the future plot? As Rainhaze gets further involved with Defiance, his views on killing change, and that strengthens this association with sleep. So later, when Slugpelt kills him, I can bring this thematic parallel back around and make it really resonate, because I've built up the connection over the whole story. There you go, that's how you create a motif.

I hope you found this interesting. Often I find that a lot of writing advice is vague and nonspecific, so I tried to make my reasoning behind these things as clear as possible. From the outside, it may seem like absolutely anything can happen in a story, but from an internal perspective there are only so many ways to get to a point I want to make, so those decisions have to lead to each other if I want to create a natural thread.

[sanctus-ingenium]

I’m really inspired by your world building and the creatures you use. I’m trying to kickstart my own world using Celtic, Norse and Scottish myths (it also involves werewolves because they’re cool)

But I’m stumped and a bit overwhelmed. How’d you start your project and what were huge sources of inspiration for you as you worked on The Black Horse?

hi there!!! this will probably get wordy i have a lot of thoughts on this but here's how i built up my inver setting

i had the characters first, and the werewolf establishment was basically the first thing invented about the world. I wrote a decent amount about the characters in the pre-1st draft slush pile just getting a handle on their voices, their history together, etc. the first slush draft was in painstaking chronological order telling of their lives from birth to like age 40 - it wasn't pretty to read but it meant I knew what big moments formed their worldview, their relationships with others, things like that. and then i got to pick and choose which ones would feature in the actual 1st draft, and which i would leave unsaid, in flashback form, or only in the form of vague allusions. the plot and world events changed significantly as i wrote the actual 1st draft so this ended up only being useful for backstory stuff and not book plots, but it was still good to have.

There was an important moment of a character being kidnapped into a faery realm, which is what started me off thinking about fairies in general. they weren't originally a part of this world - it was an undefined space before just for the characters to exist in, because i was (and still am) more interested in the characters than the worldbuilding. but i still like for there to be SOMETHING there in the background, and it gives a lot of opportunities to inform characterisation, so i started to make my setting. I picked the Púca as a pivotal being & major inspiration source to include because of its relatively large presence in the fringes of my childhood in stories told by my older relatives and i like the unusual aspects about it as well, how it has been both heroic and malevolent in different stories. you have to remember i grew up in this culture too, i knew a lot already, and that's what got me thinking of alternate Earth history - as in, the setting of Inver as alternate history, not wholly original fantasy set in a fantasy land.

So then I had to think about the implications of that, and here is where I think a lot of authors adapting extant mythology fall short. A world where faeries/mythological monsters/gods based in real cultures exist and people interact with them is indistinguishable from our own. We already live in a world where people interact with faeries in their own way; I've heard many older relatives recount stories of being trapped in their fields by faeries, how you can only escape by taking off your jumper and putting it back on inside out. There was no question as to whether they believed this was a concrete, meaningful interaction with a supernatural being. We have a motorway that was diverted while it was being built because the builders didn't want to risk cutting down a hawthorn tree. There is a deep stigma against harming hawthorns. Now, tell me how things would be any different if faeries were real irl? ftr I do not believe in the supernatural whatsoever, not even a little bit, but it is impossible to deny that I live in a world deeply shaped by it - I need only look out the window at the stands of whitethorn around my house to know that. because the main expression of that supernatural element is in how the people of that culture react.

you cannot, you cannot pick and choose only the monsters from a legend and leave behind the people who made & propagated that legend. you're only taking a single thread from a rich tapestry. I'm not arguing that other cultures should be untouchable, far from it, I'm just saying that to truly appreciate it, you need context for everything you adapt. you gotta know what you're writing about

in that sense, the people are more important to building Inver than the faeries. a citizen of Inver not immediately affected by the main plotline would likely never see or interact with magic in their lifetime, but their society is still shaped by it. so is mine (though that's more on the catholic church than anything else)

So now that I'd had that realisation, I decided to dump a lot of the traditional fantasy tropes I'd been working with. Think basic fantasy setting stuff, pop culture "The Fae" tropes, even the terminology of 'Fae' at all - that is not something I've ever heard the older generation in my life call them. It's just 'fairies' to them (although I did shift the spelling to match the Yeats poem because I could not handle writing characters making accusations of being A Fairy and have it not come across as a unintentionally homophobic accusation lmao). I did some research; mostly on JSTOR, using my institutional access, because my own university is mostly science and didn't have a big library of anthropological texts. I read An Táin Bó Culainge which is honestly one of the greatest stories of all time PLEASE READ IT if you are at all interested in Irish myth. It is a fantastic story and extremely comedic as well (a canon mmmf foursome lol). In terms of academic sources specific to the Púca, I have a drive folder of pdfs I will share with anyone if they ask.

I decided I was not going to include anything from what people actually think of as pre-christian Irish mythology - no fianna [rangers notwithstanding], no Ulster cycle, no Tuatha Dé, no Irish gods. All the things I include are post-colonial aside from the notion of the Otherworld in general. This decision wasn't necessarily accurate to what might have happened in this alternate history (given that christianity still has no real foothold in Inver) but it is a colonised society after all. It's why I got slightly steamed once when someone filed my Púca art into their irish deities/irish polytheism tag (I have my own issues with iripols/gaelpols for the same reason I dislike people taking myths out cultural context and in this case contemporary cultural context), because the Púca is in fact a postcolonial being - it comes from the UK, and likely the mainland as well

One of the last things I did before starting on my 2nd draft, which is what turned into Said the Black Horse, was decide to always capitalise the word 'Púca'. Because what really clicked from doing my research and remembering what I'd heard as a child was that the Púca is a specific character. Not a species, not a class of monster. A character, one guy. And you'll find this everywhere - the obvious example is the Minotaur being one specific guy, the son of Minos, not just 'a minotaur'. One very funny consequence of speciesifying mythological characters is dnd ppl saying their character is A Firbolg (fir bolg is plural!!). Fantasy bestiary books like Dragonology or Spiderwick Chronicles have done some amount of damage to how people relate to myths and legendary creatures, and I am not immune as someone who loves speculative biology, but in Inver I decided to cut all of that out.

Next once I got that out of the way I had to think about tone, atmosphere, and intended results. I didn't achieve my holy grail of a very atmospheric, undefined, and uncertain story that provides no answers, due to limitations in my own abilities, but I tried. I have given less than 1 second of thought to how magic or faery biology in Inver works because that is not conducive to the atmosphere of a fairytale. Many of these source myths and legends are really about the fear of the unknown. They are rationalisations to explain away something unknown, some mystery of life, and you cannot explain the unexplainable and expect it to carry the same punch as the original myths that you are drawn to adapt. That's also why I try to never actually give facts about fairies, but instead I talk about what people think of them. The word 'considered' does some insanely heavy lifting in that linked post lmao. Is any of what I wrote true with regards to the Red King?? It is for the people who believe it.

I'm saying all of this because these are all points I had to think about before writing that 2nd draft, but also because I think they're worth considering for your own story as well. I'll admit I invented my werewolves from scratch, they have no mythological basis, because they pre-date the faery stuff and also I wanted them to fill a very specific role and appear a little more concrete than the other supernatural elements. It is what it is; I wanted a werewolf element that didn't match myths and legends (and honestly was partially inspired by me rolling my eyes about those posts going around moaning and whining about 'the doggification of werewolves missing the point of werewolf stories'. I thought, well, there's more than one story you can tell with a werewolf - it isn't always 'i fear the beast within', sometimes it's something else! sometimes it's daddy issues! it's okay to make something new)

ok i think that's all i have to say.. modern Inver is a bit different, that worldbuilding is largely the same but with a big dose of actual ecology because the main characters are rangers and in Inver in 2017, rangers mostly do environmental monitoring. and that's a whole different sort of worldbuilding lol

good luck with your story!!

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #20 – Foundryside by Robert Jackson Bennett

I’ve in theory been a big fan of Bennett for a couple years now, having adored American Elsewhere when I read it. I say ‘in theory’ because I had not actually followed that up by reading any of his other stuff until I happened to see him doing an AMA on r/fantasy and was jolted to go put something of his on hold. The most convenient option was Foundryside so, here we are.

The story follows Sancia, a former slave-turned-magical-experiment who now uses her rather inconveniently always-on sort of object empathy to be a really excellent thief for hire in the hopes of earning enough cash to pay some black market surgeon to make her normal again and then stay quiet about it. That price tag lures her into accepting a job for an eye-watering amount of money from what it clearly one of the merchant houses who rule the city – which she discovers to be an ancient relic, a key that can open any lock. And talk to her. And revolutionize the entire industry of enchanting upon which the city’s fortune and empire are built. She correctly assumes that there’s no way they’re planning to let her live after turning it (him) over, and things spiral out of control from there.

It’s fundamentally a heist story, with all the main action setpieces being about breaking into places and stealing things. And like all good heist stories, the protagonists are totally incapable of winning through anything like brute force, and have to be clever bastards about it – sneaking past guards, not slaughtering them in the night. Those heist sequences are all vividly described and just a lot of fun, almost worth the price of admission on their own.

So this is the rare story where calling it ‘magipunk’ is both accurate and helpful. Which is to say, it is almost literally a cyberpunk story translated into the idiom of vaguely-early-modern fantasy city states instead of corporate arcologies. Scheming oligarchs, overmighty corporate states, miraculous technologies that are only felt by the underclass as news ways of being oppressed and objectified, the works. The most triumphant and hopeful part of the ending involves the founding of a worker’s coop that doesn’t get immoderately crushed. Notably useful and plot-relevant enchanted items include a listening device, trackers, and a powered gliding rig. It’s only when you really get into it that the magic starts feeling at all magical, is what I’m saying – you could translate almost all of this into Cyberpunk 2020 terms in a couple of hours. I think it’s quite fun.

Sancia’s whole backstory – a slave on one of the plantations supplying the city with food and spices, taken as a subject for bloody experimentation in creating perfectly obedient magical cyborgs, surviving and escaping because they got sloppy with occult grammar and reality interpreted ‘be like object’ as ‘be like [INSERT NEAREST OBJECT HERE]’ – is fun on a few different levels. The story definitely leans into a running theme of the reduction of the powerless and subordinate to literal objects and tools wielded by those who control them, both metaphorically and literally. But also there’s an absolutely great beat where she’s explaining her story to the rest of the main cast who are all horrified and disgusted that anyone would do such a thing. To which she reacts very angrily and goes ‘you know that isn’t, like, worse than the whole rest of the chattel slave economy, right? More people get horribly tortured to death as part of everyday operations than creepy magical experiments?”

Sancia as a character is just a lot of fun to spend time in the head of, honestly. Her relationship with Clef (the magical key, the more literal example of being objectified and insturmentalized by one’s masters) is the core dynamic of the first ~half of the book, and it absolutely carries it. Though in the final act it then runs into the very common action/adventure story issue where she starts talking about this guy she’d known for barely a week like a life-long friend she’s shared more good times than she could count with. Entirely forgivable but like, it does stand out.

There’s this whole subtheme of, like, futile misogyny running through the text? It’s never explicitly brought up, and the only character whose actually vocally sexist on the page is the asshole philistine moneygrubbing abusive husband wannabe-coupist you’re clearly supposed to hate. But it’s a repeatedly mentioned point that the culture of enchanting grew significantly more patriarchal in the previous generation (for unstated reasons, possibly just the one epoch-defining genius being a misogynistic ass) and that this was very bad for the career prospects of several major characters. Despite this, important women in the story include a) half the main cast, b) the only competent and attentive head of any of the four merchant houses and c) the enchanting-prodigy wife of aforementioned sexist asshole who turns out to have been feeding him every useful idea he ever had until she could kill him and scoop up everything he’s gathered. This is one of those things that amuses me because it’s clearly deliberate but is never directly mentioned.

This is also one of those books that’s queer rep not in the revolutionary groundbreaking it’s-a-core-part-of-the-tezt way, but in the ‘wow isn’t it great how normal and unremarkable queer representation is now?’ way. Like, Sancia is gay, which is one of remarkably few things about herself she never expresses a single moment of angst, anger or self-doubt about, and she has the sort of C-plot romance subplot every adventure story is obligated to (right down to agreeing to go out for a drink if she survives the last big heist), but with a woman. Her sexuality otherwise basically doesn’t matter. When people ask for queer SFF book recommendations I’m never sure if offering stuff like this is missing the point or exactly what’s desired.

As mentioned, the only other book of Bennett’s I’ve read is American Elsewhere. Which was an absolutely horrible way to set my expectations going into this. Foundryside is fun adventure fantasy, but it has far fewer literary pretensions. The prose is incredibly readable – it’s absolutely a page turner – but that’s basically all it aspires to be. Elsewhere had several different passages I stopped and reread just for the pleasure of it, Foundryside I went back and reread only when I skimmed past some important detail and got confused.

But it’s a really fun fantasy heist story, and the sequel promises to be about a rampant artificial intelligence clockwork djinn which turned against the ancients who made her. So I’m sure I’ll get to it sooner rather than latter.

[markantonys]

Was talking with a moot and they were saying how they don't feel like the show is doing a good job of explaining the lore. How right now we don't know what being the Dragon actually means, what ta'veren are, what the Dark One even is, what does he want, why does the Dragon fight him, how all of these mythologies are built into the worldbuilding in the books but aren't as clear in the show/feels disconnected. Idk I feel like the show is just introducing these things at a slower pace than the books did and that's not necessarily a bad thing

i just don't get these arguments because most of these lore points literally have been explained in the show???? do these book fans just miss it when lore is incorporated via natural dialogue or via Showing Not Telling instead of via somebody sitting us down to do an infodumping monologue for 5 minutes? i swear to god so many readers just don't pay attention to the show and then whine that it's missing stuff it did in fact include.

dragon stuff: this has been abundantly explained in both seasons, meanwhile in the books the concept of TDR wasn't even introduced until book 2. we will get more specifics at the same time rand does in upcoming seasons, just like in the books. at this early stage we don't need to know any more than "the dragon is a chosen one figure whose purpose is to fight the dark one and lead the last battle."

what the dark one is: a bad guy (duh) but otherwise left intentionally vague to build up mystery, just like the books did. we don't have the slightest conception of what TDO actually is until his first onscreen "appearance" in book SIX.

what does he want: to break the wheel and end existence. ishy's literal entire season 2 storyline was about this, and it went into way more detail than books 1-3 did. i'm not sure we got much of this stuff in the books until moridin came on the scene.

ta'veren is the only one i'd agree the show hasn't gone into much (though it DID explain the concept in 1x08), but, again, do we need to know that much about it right now? we know that our EF5 are Special, and that's enough if you ask me.

(i also wonder if the show might go a bit lighter on ta'veren than the books. idk, some of the stronger Main Character Energy stuff like plot armor and convenient coincidences and people blurting out secrets around them might come off a bit silly, and as for the stuff relating to the pattern controlling ta'veren's paths, it's interesting but it's pretty deep lore and the story doesn't really change whether or not we're explicitly aware that the events that happen to our gang are predestined. like, we'll obviously get plenty of predestination stuff with rand's dragon prophecies and min's viewings and likely the finn, so how necessary is it to also go into great detail on ta'veren predestination?)

having watched both seasons with my show-only non-fantasy-literate mom, i can attest that there is SO MUCH information for newcomers to wrap their heads around and i think her brain would have exploded if these seasons had tried to squeeze in any more than they did. she made me take down notes she could review between episodes! you should've seen her poor eyes glazing over at all the lore & worldbuilding stuff getting thrown at her in 2x05! this also goes for stuff like the whining about the show not yet using the words saidar & saidin - if they'd been throwing those around constantly since day 1, my mom would've had no fucking clue what they were talking about because she really struggles with remembering fantasy jargon, whereas consistently referring to it as "the male/female half of the source" in these early seasons is way more intuitive and way more effective at teaching her how this magic system works.

at the end of the day, the show simply is not ever going to flesh out the lore and mythology as deeply as the books do due to limitations of this different medium, and people need to accept that. it will explain as much lore as is necessary to understand the story and not much more than that, and that's absolutely fine. show-onlys are understanding the story just fine with the information the show is choosing to include, and lore nerds can knock themselves out rereading the books anytime they want.

[physalian]

The Pronoun Game

*This is not about preferred pronouns, this is writing advice.

I don’t actually know if this is the official term but it’s what we’re going with, otherwise known as contrived vagueness on a character’s identity to keep the secret from the audience.

“You know… ~him~.” “Who?” “HIM.” “One more time.” “HIIIIIIIM!” “…”

Stop doing this. No one talks like this. Or at least come up with a better in-universe code name even if it’s just “the client” or “the target.” Anything is better than this glaring contrivance.

It’s not so much the secret name, it’s how clunky the dialogue becomes without it (ignoring when this is done for humor and supposed to be a little ridiculous).

This is a partner post to how to introduce new characters’ names and the point I’ll be making there applies here: exposition, including new character names, should tell us more about your story than just the information within the text.

But first: just stop doing this. Just name the character. Do it. Audiences will be as confused as if you use a vague “he/him they/them she/her,” but at least they have a name to keep track of, even if it’s faceless at the time they hear it.

It doesn’t even work as a mystery. Characters only play when they’re obfuscating the villain. It’s almost never a red herring. Sure you didn’t say the name, but by deliberately hiding it, you’ve shown your hand.

Real people don’t play the pronoun game unless it’s motivated. So? Make it motivated.

Best example in history: He-who-shall-not-be-named

Why? It’s not just a pronoun, it’s got lore and myths and mystery baked into it. There’s a plot-based reason to be vague. Everyone who says this moniker admits they’re at worst terrified of and at best spiteful of its owner.

I have my own "he who shan't be named" and, can confirm, it's born from glorious spite and satisfying to use every time it comes up.

You can’t copy the epithet, but you can learn from it. Give your characters a reason to be vague beyond preserving the secret for the audience.

Names have power, speaking theirs draws too much attention or bad vibes

Character f*cking hates them, and pronouns them out of spite

Character is being vague to mess with the narrator on purpose

Character fears eavesdroppers and is being careful

Character is testing whether they can trust another by being vague and checking if they’re in on the secret

Character is drunk/high/exhausted and cannot remember the name or care about it to save their life

Optional substitutes here can get quite creative, my personal favorite is “what’s-his-nuts” because I like the cadence but you get the idea

All of these reflect back on the story and the world you’ve built, to give an in-universe reason for the obfuscation.

Now stop playing the pronoun game.

—

Thoughts on the shorter format? I can’t tell if #longpost is supposed to be an insult or not. I have a few of these coming.

[silverbirching]

So I'm big mad, BIG MAD, about umbrella academy. I'm going to be purposefully vague but there may be spoilers. If you haven't watched season four, DON'T. Just don't. Pretend it got canceled after the flawed and aimless but still overall fun season 3. Grr, netflix, another great show canceled before its time, shake fists, etc.

You gotta understand, for all it's flaws, I love the shit out of this show. It's one of the foundational connections between me and my best friend. I felt like it saw the shortcomings of the MCU and the modern superhero wave and saw what the fandom was up to and went yeah, let's make a show for them. Let's make a show about messy, queer, codependent weirdos with wildly dysfunctional relationships built on an unshakeable foundation of love they refuse to acknowledge or cultivate. Let's make a show about hopeless traumatized trash goblins who happen to have superpowers.

I thought they got it, y'know? That the people who watched and loved the show weren't doing it because they were invested in the frankly bonkers and never-very-good plot about timelines and time travel and all that other bullshit fuckery. I thought they understood that what we loved, what kept us coming back, was the humor, the quirky tone, and the characters.

Luther the world's biggest puppy, learning that he isn't Superman and that's okay. Diego, never quite figuring out that he isn't Batman (because Batman is, y'know, smart) and that also being okay. Allison and her constant struggles to be a good person up against the fact that she has cheat codes enabled and can have literally anything she wants, at the cost of the free will of everyone around her. Klaus and his struggles with addiction and narcissism, dear sweet Ben and Alternate Universe Asshole Ben, Five the unbearable little shit who nonetheless loves his family in a way he wouldn't admit to under torture, Viktor and his journey to define what he is apart from his father and feelings of inadequacy. Prickly, at-least-30%-insane Lila learning to accept a family she wasn't looking for.

AND BOY HOWDY, DID SEASON FOUR FUCK IT ALL UP.

Character relationships? Reset to zero or not really touched on. Allison's slide into villainy after season 3? Treated as an awkward family in-joke. Her broken relationship with Viktor? Still broken, not fixed, but at one point they make eye contact and kinda smile so I guess that's our catharsis. Diego and Five come into conflict? Never resolved. The show ends with them hating each other. Lila and Diego? Same. Ray? Naw, who's got time for that. Sloane? Who? Oh, that chick. I think Luther mentions her once but who cares. Klaus? We don't really care about him so let's give him a three episode subplot that erases all his character growth and contributes fuck-all diddly squat motherfucking nothing to the overall plot. Ben? Still an asshole despite the time skip. Viktor? He's around I guess. He yells at his dad once. That was cool.

And nothing they did ever mattered, they never mattered, and now thanks to the bullshit timeline fuckery equivalent of "it was all a dream" (an INFAMOUSLY unpopular and audience-alienating way to end a story), they never existed. We were all stupid to care.

Man, fuck a lot of season 4.

[saintofanything]

there’s a really big reason that the “protagonist woke up and it was all a dream” or “they reset time and nothing mattered” or “everyone got amnesia” or “big bait and switch where nothing that has been built up happens” has been considered, for quite a while, to be a lazy and horrible end for any piece of media and that’s because it punishes the audience for caring.

your audience invests in what you tell them. when you tell them things matter, they listen. they believe you when you say that the heroes will win, when you say that the things that happened mean something, that the story you’re telling is worthy of the suspension of disbelief, is worthy of the investment your audience is putting into it.

those endings rip all that away. nothing matters. your audience should not have cared, because you didn’t. there was no ending.

vague spoilers below for Mass Effect, How I Met Your Mother, and Game of Thrones:

why did people hate How I Met Your Mother? because we were being told, the whole time, of this great romance. except at the last second, there is no great romance. everything that happened in the story meant nothing, the Mother was a random character we had zero attachment to.

Mass Effect? they spend two games telling us the choice was to defeat the Reapers or face extinction of all organic life, and that the way we did this would matter. only to bait and switch at the end, that your choices meant nothing. the backlash was insane.

Game of Thrones, most recent and infamous - nothing mattered. all those threads and plot lines and character development were tossed for shock value because predictable is bad despite foreshadowing being one of the most critical pieces in storytelling. 

and now, for Dream SMP? none of it mattered. a “rocks fall and everyone dies” ending is a punishment to the audience. how dare we get attached to characters and their endings. how dare we believe that child abuse victims be given a win and a hopeful end, that a child abuser/murderer/torturer be given justice and lose. how dare we invest months and years into caring. they didn’t mean it as a punishment, but that’s what it is because if nothing that happened matters, why tell the story at all?

[absolutely-not-my-main-blog]

I need people to understand, as someone who was big into both Supernatural and Sherlock at 16-17 and never once felt the urge to ship Destiel or Johnlock or any of the other myriad of ships therein, as someone who was generally neutral or actively distasteful toward shipping culture at the time and thought people were always getting up in arms about or reading too much into things that weren't actually there, and even with explicitly canon/obviously going to be canon ships only had a vague secondary interest in them relative to plot... I took one look at Always Sunny and it was the *first* time where I was like, oh, oh, this is real, Macdennis is real, and even if it *maybe* started out as a joke as many of these things tend to do, it's not a joke anymore, and I don't think it's queerbait either, and you can see that in their writing choices, in their interview answers, in the silly, twisting/twisted and ridiculous, yet simultaneously complex and sincere dynamic, love story for the ages, greatest will-they-won't-they, while it shouldn't be your sole focus in regards to the show, this is something genuine to the fans, and genuine to the creators that they want done right, even if people who can't see it act like you've lost your mind, even if you yourself start to think you've lost your own mind every other day in those sobering moments because shit, yeah, Always Sunny is the first time I saw, I get it now, and I even get the appeal of all the other ships in the show, too. Even though it's a sitcom, even though it's "the meme show," they're clearly not just having a laugh, they have stake in this, their work and their characters, and all the relationships they've built on through the years, though silly, are earnest and serious to them, and thus become serious to us.

[autumnslance]

Hey Aeryn, I was wondering what you recommend to get past FOMO and overthinking. I know I shouldn't feel this way but I can't shake it. I want to play all of the story but I start to feel anxious. I start overthinking and second-guessing and the cycle starts again. I have a WOL I'm enjoying writing but I can't get her to translate in-game. Any advice?

I admit, I don't often get FOMO, but when I do, I stop and ask myself: is this something I actually want to do? A place I actually want to go? An experience I need? An item I want? Or am I just reacting to others, especially friends, having fun and talking about a thing together, so it's pinging a social desire/need?

Cuz I can interact and talk with my friends in other ways and places. I don't have to do all the things they do, play the games they play, etc. I use in built filters and blacklists on my social media to not see things about games/shows/etc that I don't want hear about, and I stop following a lot of (usually sideblogs) accounts that deal with those topics. When I left WoW behind, I dropped a lot of those blogs, for instance.

(I think some people would be happier if they put down media they don't actually enjoy but only watch/play because the people in their lives do.)

What about playing the game is making you anxious? Is it doing the content? Most can be done solo now, but friends can help with the stuff that can't be, or there's always duty finder. Is it story and character direction? Afraid things will happen to your faves, or they'll grown and change in ways you don't care for? That's a risk in any ongoing media, and up to an individual where their "I'm done" point is where they don't enjoy that lore and canon anymore, and then make the decision to change it in fanfiction or drop the story altogether.

With everyone talking about new content right now, even trying to keep spoilers under wraps, it can be rough for sure. Everyone has opinions! And screenshots! And there's new fanfic!

Is the anxiety because of the WoL you started writing, and how she doesn't "translate" in game, and afraid the lore will continue to make that harder?

In that case, look at what the character is, what you've written...and what the character (your subconscious, really) is telling you they actually are, or need. If they don't fit the canon lore...It's OK. Change the story to fit as needed. Or....play through it and see what ends up working after all, with the benefit of knowledge.

You can't lock a character in stone; a story happens because characters want something (large or small), and in the course of the story they are changed in some way (large or small). WoL is an anime protagonist with plotstrong abilities and gifts that give players a lot of leeway in any direction. Some people don't play WoLs at all. Their OC is a person they roleplay and write about in the setting, the plot happens to someone else, and they just play the video game with that avatar.

So what isn't "translating"? Is it appearance related that can't be done without mods and artwork? Disabilities that likewise are tricky to show in game (which assumes a mostly able-bodied WoL)? A backstory that seems to not fit (the world's bigger than what we see)? A lot of detailed backstory and supporting cast that now make you feel boxed into a corner?

It can be hard, seeing people with deeply developed stories and characters and supporting cast, but you also have to remember: a lot of that is built over time. Aeryn didn't have nearly the detailed list of relatives to start, didn't have the "dad was a secret heretic" backstory until 4 years into playing her. I still haven't named all of Dark's siblings. I've seen some folks entirely rewrite their characters cuz something in an expansion spoke to them and it made more sense and made them happier than what they did before.

When I start overthinking a character story, I put the backstory away, and just play them for a bit. I keep a vague idea of what I think their personality might be, what reactions would seem right. And then I let "them" guide me as I play. And sometimes what a character tells me ends up far more interesting. Or I find the stuff I was anxious about adding to them...ends up being canon, or at least working out, anyway.

And if the concern is what other people will think about one's WoL....well, you can't control what others think. And trying to please everyone leaves you with a milquetoast bland sop who isn't interesting at all. Care about the character you want to write, even if that changes, and make them as interesting as you want.

I was saying in a convo yesterday that the shrieking about "Mary Sue and how to not be one" caused lasting societal trauma and people are still afraid of giving characters interesting traits and stories. A person was anxious about giving their WoL traits that might make them 'too much' or 'too special' but they're traits WoL canonically has. We're in an anime story as anime protagonists, be wild and weird. Not everyone will like it, and that's good, actually. Cuz others will love it, and it means you gave your writing and characters personality.

Final Fantasy XIV is a game that 90% of the time, the content isn't going anywhere. You go at your pace, you enjoy the story and side content. There's a lot, after 11 years. Do what you gotta to avoid spoilers, gushing, complaining, or otherwise talk about content you're not in yet to reduce the worry everyone else is having fun while you're spinning wheels a few expacs back. Figure out what you enjoy and love about the game, and focus on that for awhile. Let your WoL breathe, and just play without plotting out how they translate or fit, and remember stories aren't set in stone; they have to be malleable. Especially when trying to write/roleplay in someone else's world!

You should be in this for yourself. Because you find it fun, relaxing, enjoyable to experience. Because you want to tell a character's story even if it takes a hard left turn from canon lore. And if you have to mute and filter out and block some things and people on social media or chat or whatever, do what works for you. But when overthinking, turn that around and interrogate yourself: "OK, why do I feel this way? Why would this be bad? Do I want this or am I trying to follow the crowd?" Make lists, pros and cons. Figure out if it's actually FOMO and anxiety...or if you're trying to tell yourself something and you're just not listening.

Give yourself grace. This game is just one piece of our life's tapestry, and while there's probably friends who want to see you clear content, the world won't end if you don't catch up to the current patch right away, or write a 200k fic about your WoL's life by year's end, either. Go at your pace.

[howtofightwrite]

Hello! I have a very particular sort of scene that I've been trying to get right for over ten years now and I can't make it work; I hope perhaps you can help.

A husband and wife duo who have Mixed Feelings about one another are trying to break out of a facility. (He was recently discovered to be a spy, she is a conscripted soldier in the facility. She was sent to escort him to execution but hesitated - I'm not sure where, in the cell, in the hall? - and - he took advantage of this hesitation? she was arrested as a traitor? - I don't know that either, yet - and they end up running through the halls together to escape)

The facility is vaguely sci-fi; think Star Wars Original Trilogy-style weapons, and there is space travel, but technology isn't... wildly advanced. Like it's not all digital and holograms and hand-wavey stuff, it's only a little more advanced than what we have available now. (Like SW OT.)

Point A is them in the cell. Point B is them on a spaceship breaking free.

I cannot get them from Point A to Point B with any kind of plausibility, or without staggering incompetence on the part of the soldiers and commanders in the facility.

They would likely be armed with only her sidearm, unless they happened to grab rifles off of further escorts sent with her?

I'm sorry this is so vague, thank you in advance for any help!

Personally, I’m of the opinion that any scene that’s been marinating in the brain for a long time (especially for years) has deeper structural/internal issues than just putting together action. Just from reading your question, I can feel the way you’ve laid this specific scenario out breaking your own suspension of disbelief. You’ve got several problems that have built up over time and, now, they’re all working against you.

Change if it’s Not Working

One of the best pieces of writing advice I ever got came from being forced to memorize my martial arts school’s Ten Steps to Mastery as part of my first test for black belt. I only remember the first five and I can’t guarantee they’re all in order.

Set a goal

Take action

Pay attention to detail

Practice, Practice, Practice

Change if it’s not working

Regardless of whether you’re practicing a front kick or writing a full length novel, flexibility is important. The more we try to force something to work, the less likely it will. Training flaws into your technique means they’ll be more difficult to correct later. So, don’t forget to stop and look at the larger picture if you feel yourself getting stuck.

Remember, change isn’t failure. Writing is a complex process and not every idea, plotline, character moment, or scene is going to work out when fit into a larger context. And that’s okay.

Outside emotional exhaustion and stress, my writer’s block kicks in when I’ve taken a wrong turn in the narrative or am avoiding a difficult emotional moment that my characters need to face before their story can progress. Something has made me/them uncomfortable and instead of facing it, I’m attempting to avoid the uncomfortable feeling by throwing some other distracting piece, usually action, in the way. I call these moments false notes. I usually hit them when I’m coming at the story from an external perspective (what have I seen other characters do in other stories/films?) rather than an internal one. (What would this character do?)

If something isn’t working, stop trying to make it work. Instead look for what you’re missing, and where the pieces aren’t connecting. It’s usually further back than the scene you’re working on.

My characters are always right. I’m either not listening or going about it the wrong way.

Food for thought.

Your Heroes are Reactively Active

We hear a lot from the writing community about the importance of Active Characters. These are characters who are doing things to move the plot forward. They make choices. They take action. Then, there are passive or, what I like to call, reactive characters. They are characters who react to things in their environment, whatever that is, but they’re not actively making choices. Passive characters get a bad rap in American storytelling tradition (more so than in the wider Western storytelling tradition.)

Passive characters really shine when working with characters who are in settings where they’re struggling to survive. In the real world, passivity is one of the best ways to survive abuse. Any victim of long term or systemic abuse can tell you that standing up and fighting back, especially in situations where you have no power or means to change your circumstances, makes the situation exponentially worse. You’ve got to gray rock it out, suppress, and survive.

Lastly, there are characters I like to call reactively active. These are characters who feel like they’re being active but are actually just reacting to actions taken by other characters. They appear a lot in YA Fantasy, but they’re everywhere. And, because these characters are always reacting to another character’s (usually the villain’s) actions and choices, they get an easy out when it comes to escaping narrative consequences for the things they do. It’s a deceptive sleight of hand used to maintain a character’s moral purity. These characters appear active on the surface, but, underneath, they’re passively reacting to the narrative events inflicted on them. They don’t take action. They respond to action with action.

Let’s get back to your scenario.

We have a husband and wife in some sort of heavily or, at least, decently fortified, military installation. The husband has been outed as a spy, put in whatever functions as a prison or holding cell within the complex, and scheduled to be executed. The wife is a loyal soldier who must now choose between her love for her husband and her love of duty.

This has the makings of some good drama.

The first obvious problem point is that these characters are trying to do too many things at once. They’re coming to terms with their deep feelings of betrayal, experiencing a last minute change of heart, making a snap decision to escape, and rapidly coming up with a plan to escape in the heat of the moment. If this feels unbelievable, it’s because it is and, even better, doubles for putting the characters in a reactive or passive state. The wife character isn’t acting, so much as she’s reacting last minute to the immediate, impending danger. That would be fine if she wasn’t also having to help carry the burden of coming up with The Plan.

There’s the surface level here, where the last minute change of heart is mimicking the kinds of behavior seen in countless other forms of media regarding escape scenes. However, this narrative decision happening in the heat of the moment is also allowing the character to skate over the emotional consequences of her own betrayal. She’s not choosing so much as she’s being forced to make a choice. And that is removing her agency.

If she makes the choice earlier, starts putting The Plan in place with the help of some friends/colleagues (even if it happens largely off page) then executes at the cell, she takes back her agency and retains her status as an active character.

The difference here is in the processing time. Characters can’t plausibly escape fortified lock up without a plan or, really, The Plan.

The Narrative Structure of Last Minute Rescues

The first problem in your scenario is that you have two characters, neither of which are doing the pre-planning legwork required to successfully execute The Plan. Rescues are like heists, they either take a village or require characters who are extremely meticulous and actively manipulating the village to fill in the gaps. (James Bond does Option 2 beautifully, but even he has a team behind him.) Usually, both happen to some degree. The burden is segregated out into different pieces for different characters. Normally, there’s at least three. The character locked up is trying to figure out a way to escape, but comes up short. The one on the outside who is putting together the pieces needed to execute the rescue/get away. And, sometimes, the one on the inside who is experiencing a change of heart, who, at the very last minute, turns heel and assists with the rescue (most often in the turn of misfortune where a piece fails and the rescue is at risk of being bungled.)

All of this additional weight/build up/expectation of the non-existent plan is being put on two characters and crammed into a single scene.

Think about the rescue of Princess Leia from the Death Star for a moment. How many characters are required to make that escape work?

Seven.

All of them. If a single character in the entire group is missing, the whole thing falls apart. Even Threepio is necessary, mostly because Artoo can’t talk. This off the cuff, by the seat of our pants rescue requires all seven characters and they still end up bungling it to kill their samurai master.

You need one to turn off the tractor beam so they can actually escape. (Doing the real work.)

You need one to figure out where the princess is being held, unlock the doors, and figure out where they are.

You need two to bullshit past the guards going in and one to pretend to be a prisoner.

You need one to bullshit past the guards a second time to save the one that can’t talk with the floor plan.

You need the princess to be the one to get them back out because she’s the only one with balls.

And none of it mattered because the escape was a trap all along.

While you don’t need these specific roles for everything, escaping from a heavily fortified facility is not a two man job. That’s where the feelings of implausibility and extreme incompetence are coming from. There aren’t enough characters helping to clear the way or be there as a safeguard for when things go wrong. This feeds into the next problem.

Soldiers, Spies, and Their Squads

We have another unintended scenario brewing at the same time. And that’s the exhausted retail employee going on a rampage and slaughtering their surprised colleagues. This really knifes your tension. By reacting to the immediate danger, the wife is not making an active, conscious choice with full knowledge of the consequences, and those consequences are killing people she knows, respects, is friends with, shares a camaraderie, or who are at least familiar to her. These other soldiers aren’t faceless goons. It’s a lot harder to pull the trigger on someone you know than someone you don’t, especially someone who has the same values that you do.

Soldiers aren’t characters who work alone. They have a squad. They’re part of a unit. They have a support network surrounding them that allows them to do their job to the best of their ability. Spies are the same way. They also have a support network which allows them to act to the best of their ability, even when it feels like they’re acting alone. Spies have handlers and they have assets, their job requires they build their own support networks so they have someone who can get into the places where they can’t. Those people may be witting or unwitting assets but they’re still there.

Both of these characters should have fairly extensive support networks to fall back on when in crisis. They’re in crisis. The crisis is both physical and emotional. Where are their people? Two characters who are social archetypes whose jobs and survival during wartime are reliant on building trust and skillful communication have no one willing to put their lives on the line to help them out? They only have each other? That’s staggering incompetence.

Spies aren’t assassins. They’re social animals. Soldiers aren’t lone wolves. They’re social animals. If there’s a structural failure here, it’s happening with your secondary characters.  Ignoring the importance of secondary characters is a mistake that a lot of new writers make and I can feel those early mistakes being carried forward in this scene. This is what Hemingway meant when he said, “kill your darlings.” If an idea isn’t working, if it’s holding you back, kill it. Look at the problem and your work from a new angle. One good line or one good scene, regardless of your emotional attachment to it, doesn’t outweigh the entire work.

Plans and Floor Plans

If you’re having trouble coming up with a character’s escape, step back and take a look at the facility itself. Whether it’s breaking in or breaking out, you, the author, need to have a clear visualization of the entire picture so you can find the weaknesses or fracture points.

Plans are easier to conceptualize when you know what the dangers are and what defenses have been put in place to prevent what your characters are attempting. Which parts of the fortress are better fortified than others? Where does this military expect to be attacked? What have they done to prevent it? What are the patrols? Who are the techs? How does the military support itself while fending off attempts to damage its resources? Who handles the supply lines?

The boring minutiae of your world is what makes it feel real. Action is dependent on your world building and this goes deeper than just their weapons. The social systems in place guide how your characters fight. It’s there in how they perceive their environment, and how they recognize usable tools. If you build a functional and consistent world, the action will take care of itself because violence is a natural response to environmental threats. Violence seeks to exploit established systems, to gain an advantage over them. If the violence is imagined separately from the environment, the violence won’t feel real because it’s not reactive and it’s not reacting to environmental stimuli. From there, it’s not logical.

Ask yourself, why do we use guns?

Then ask yourself, why do your characters use guns? What does it allow them to do that they wouldn’t be able to do otherwise? Or, what does the gun do better than other weapons that makes it the preferred choice?

The answer for the real world and your setting might be the same, and they might be different. Both will influence how the character uses their weapon. How they use their weapon guides how they fight. If you’re lost, ask yourself questions.

For example, let’s take a last look at the prison.

Prisons are built with the expectation of keeping multiple people contained for an extended period of time, preventing them from leaving in the event of an escape, and preventing those who are sympathetic from breaking in to rescue them. What have the characters in your setting (not your protagonists) done to facilitate that goal? What safeguards have been put in place to prevent someone from leaving and entering?

In the real world, prisons are built in a way that two people can’t just walk out. There are points of entry and exit that are designed to be remotely controlled from secure locations and cannot be operated or accessed on the ground. You’d need someone (like R2-D2) who can access the remote functions to get someone past the exits that they can’t open themselves.

-Michi

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you're already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[the-desolated-quill]

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review

Not going to lie, I didn’t go into this film with high expectations. I loved Mad Max: Fury Road, and Charlize Theron’s Furiosa was a big reason for that. So the idea of doing a Furiosa prequel without the woman who helped make the character so iconic in the first place in my opinion seemed destined to fail, even with director and Mad Max creator George Miller still at the helm. Not to mention prequels are notoriously difficult to get right because you’re already at a disadvantage thanks to the audience’s prior knowledge of what’s to come. It’s hard to get people to care about your film when they already know how it will end.

Never have I been so disappointed to be right.

Anya Taylor-Joy is no Charlize Theron. Her shoes would be difficult to fill for even the most accomplished actress, and Taylor-Joy barely touches the sides. I don’t exactly rate her highly as a performer because in the few films I’ve seen her in she only ever seems to have one facial expression; vacant bewilderedness. But in her defence, she really has almost zero material to work with. It’s amazing really. Mad Max: Fury Road was able to tell a compelling story with very little exposition or dialogue. Furiosa, on the other hand, has tons of exposition and dialogue and yet has no story. To summarise the plot would be a fool’s errand because there really isn’t a plot to summarise. There’s some warlord played by Chris Hemsworth, wearing a very unconvincing prosthetic nose, who wants to take over Immortan Joe’s territory, except we know he won’t succeed and his reasons for why are vague and uninteresting. Furiosa gets passed from warlord to warlord like an unwanted sweater, and then she remembers that her mother was killed by these psychos and she should probably avenge her I guess. Meanwhile Immortan Joe (in name only because the original actor died and this new guy they’ve got cosplaying as him has all the stage presence of an irritable floor manager at your local supermarket) is busy discussing politics with his son Rictus, the People Eater, the Bullet Farmer and that guy from the Mad Max video game everyone has forgotten about. And good God do these guys love to talk. They talk and talk and talk some more, and then Chris Hemsworth arrives and starts talking and talking, and then some guy covered in tattoos starts talking and talking. There’s so much talking in this movie and yet, strangely, nobody is actually saying anything.

This film is an excellent example of the difference between story and lore. Furiosa has loads of lore. Loads of lore. But the story is practically non-existent and the information they provide is neither valuable nor necessary. This film is essentially a theatrical reenactment of the Mad Max wiki. No stone is left unturned. Ever wondered how the Organic Mechanic came to work for Immortan Joe? No? Well we’re going to tell you anyway. Do you want to know how the People Eater came to be in charge of Gas Town? Tough shit if you don’t because we’re going to lay it all out for you in laborious detail. Were you curious as to how the War Rig was built? I hope you were. Because we’re going to dedicate a significant section of the film detailing how it was built and them test running the fucking thing before having to fight a bunch of nameless goons in quite possibly the most boring action scene ever put to film. (This was the cardinal sin for me. I was so bored I actually fell asleep. The only time I’ve ever fallen asleep in a cinema was during that twenty minute underwater sequence in Avatar: The Way Of Water. Dozing off during James Cameron’s CGI circlejerk is one thing. Dozing off during a Mad Max film should be impossible).

It’s hard to believe this was made by the same person behind Fury Road. Back then George Miller seemed to understand that there was no point in bogging the narrative down in pointless exposition or needless backstories. What mattered was the characters, the relationships, the here and now. Remember the scene when Furiosa discovered her home was destroyed long ago and she takes her mechanical arm off, falls to her knees and screams her head off. All that pain and anguish and sorrow and regret all perfectly conveyed without a single line of dialogue. What can a prequel possibly add to this scene? Does knowing that Furiosa’s mother was beaten and burned alive in front of her when she was a little girl make that scene any more powerful? Of course not. It’s just an unnecessary detail that I didn’t need nor do I really care about. She lost her mother. Okay. So? I had already assumed that from watching Fury Road. I didn’t need her life story explained to me in a PowerPoint presentation. I suppose the only thing I was vaguely interested in was how Furiosa lost her arm, and even that is anticlimactic. She basically loses it by accident in a car chase. Now some of you may be getting annoyed that I’m giving away ‘spoilers’, but the truth is there’s nothing really to spoil. There’s no plot. Only lore. Specifically lore nobody really asked for in the first place. They don’t even bother fleshing out Furiosa’s relationship with the Wives. How’s that for irony? Fury Road was deservedly praised for its feminist themes and giving its female characters agency. Meanwhile the prequel has its male characters spouting literal pages of dialogue while the women, including Furiosa, get almost zero development and barely get a line in edgeways. Oops.

Furiosa astounds me. It astounds me that it’s made by the same man who made Fury Road. It astounds me that after nine years of struggling to get this film off the ground that this is the best George Miller can come up with. It astounds me that this cost $168 million to make when it would be much cheaper, quicker and less painful for the audience to just smack them in the face with a copy of the Mad Max Encyclopedia and be done with it. It astounds me that this boring slog of a film is actually getting positive reviews when this is a textbook example of how NOT to do a prequel. I’m just astounded. Apparently this film is bombing at the box office. Good. That may sound harsh, but it’s true. This is one of the most mind numbing, dull, pointless films I’ve ever had the displeasure of sitting through, and I’m never going to get those 150 hours back.

Sorry, did I say hours? It sure felt like hours.

[kanansdume]

I have some rambly thoughts about the different approaches we're seeing to Andor (a serialized show), Obi-Wan Kenobi (a serialized show), and The Mandalorian (an episodic show) and how they work or don't work.

Serialized shows are, by nature, more plot-driven than character-driven. Which doesn't mean the characters aren't IMPORTANT to the story by any means, it just means that the show moves forward based on things like worldbuilding and the characters are often forced to sort-of react to things happening around them that the audience themselves may or may not be in on. In Andor, Cassian is far more REACTIVE than he is PROACTIVE, and that's mainly the point in season 1. Cassian is trying really hard not to get involved in the fight and wants to just hide and run away and pretend it doesn't exist, but the world and his own fate keep catching up to him and forcing him into situations he has to react to (the guards forcing him to defend himself leading to being forced to leave Ferrix and join the rebel attack on Aldhani, Skeen's betrayal forcing Cassian's own, the Imperial reaction to Aldhani meaning he can't come home, being arrested on Niamos for just being in the wrong place, Maarva's death). Cassian finally making the choice to get AHEAD of everyone else by saving his friends on Ferrix and getting them off the planet and then beating Luthen to his own ship to offer to join the Rebellion is a big deal because it's Cassian finally accepting that fate.

Obi-Wan Kenobi is also reactive, but it's character-driven because the first big choice he makes is to go save Leia in episode 1 and he gets progressively more proactive from that point on. The plot itself has logistical issues because the plot of saving Leia and Reva chasing them and going to Tatooine is SECONDARY to Obi-Wan reclaiming his identity as a Jedi. Obi-Wan's choices move everything forward. This is why the show was still so satisfying to me even if the plot occasionally was a little slapdash. It wasn't ABOUT the plot, really. In Andor, Cassian is the vehicle through which we are told the story of the galaxy and the Rebellion. The Obi-Wan Kenobi plot is a vehicle to tell the story of how Obi-Wan Kenobi healed from Order 66 and became the Jedi Master we know from the Original Trilogy.

The Mandalorian was an episodic show, which by its nature NEEDS to be character-driven because it really can't be plot-driven. Any overarching plot is generally REALLY vague and spider-web thin. In the case of The Mandalorian, the overarching plot of season 1 was "protect the child from the Empire" and the overarching plot of season 2 was "get the child to the Jedi." And this can be really great if done well! When the story really focuses in on the characters and how they grow through each successive small story, how the relationships build up over time, it can really make for a wonderful show. It isn't just Din's relationship to Grogu, either, it's watching Din create relationships with a NUMBER of different people like Kuill and Greef Karga and Cara Dune and even IG-11 that all come together at the end to help him protect the child when they're in need. Season 2 does something similar with Bo-Katan, and Boba and Fennec so he can create a new group of friends to help him protect the child in the finale this time.

But The Mandalorian has steadily moved away from being more episodic and is now trying to be more serialized, which has stopped working because this show and its characters were never built for it. Din is a character who actively avoids "being the main character" and it's become something of a defining character trait. Din isn't a leader, so giving him the Darksaber goes nowhere. He isn't someone who chafes at the status quo, so having him take off his helmet and need to figure out how to find redemption for that or if he even wants it goes nowhere. He has no connection to the New Republic or its problems, no real connection to Mandalore the place, no interest in cloning or Palpatine or the Jedi beyond how it directly impacted him or Grogu in the moment. And even the Imperial interest in Grogu seems to have completely disappeared.

The Mandalorian became the franchise's breadwinner and as such, they want it to get BIGGER, they want to make it RELEVANT to the Skywalker Saga when it was intentionally irrelevant by design and that was what made it good. The Mandalorian no longer knows what it is and what story it wants to tell in order to know how to tell it. It throws in a few random episodic things that now feel bloated and frustrating instead of fun and character-driven because they're taking time away from the more serialized story it's trying to tell with Bo-Katan and the other Mandalorians.

And of course part of this is due to the MCU-ification of Star Wars via Filoni and Favreau's stories. Andor and Obi-Wan are separate from that and so are allowed to exist on their own and shine on their own with their own styles. But they're trying to connect The Mandalorian, an intentionally irrelevant episodic show, to more serialized shows like Rebels and Ahsoka and maybe even something like The Bad Batch, and MAKE them all relevant by connecting them to the Sequel Trilogy somehow. The Mandalorian was a stand-alone in season 1, but it isn't anymore. It is intentionally being REBUILT into something that cannot survive without everything else it's connected to, and the same will be true of any of its spin-offs. They're so bound and determined to make their characters relevant to the Skywalker Saga that they're willing to ruin them in order to do so rather than accepting that their irrelevance is what makes them special.

[that-left-turn]

Saw your post about advertising revenue going down. Subscriptions to AMC for Q1 went up while TOWL was airing. What are your hopes for TBOC drawing in new audiences for AMC? Do you think Caryl is a big enough draw and if not in its current state what needs to change?

Subscriptions going up while TOWL aired was good (for AMC). The question is if it's fans of that particular show dipping in and then dropping off? AMC can't appeal to the larger TWD fanbase for all the spinoffs. They've slimmed down, so they need to find ways to grow those individual audiences and they need to retain them for the longhaul.

The appeal of TBOC is in the lead characters and sadly, not the story. Zabel hasn't done his homework (which an incoming showrunner should do): he has either only watched the montage and final scene of the flagship show, or he's relying on what other EPs have told him about the characters and their arcs. That's why he thought Ezekiel was Daryl's friend, since he was there to see Daryl off in the series finale.

Contrary to what you'd believe from looking at the fandom and the loudest screaming individuals, Carol resonates with the general audience, so seeing her again will probably draw curious viewers, but will they stick around? It depends largely on how her character arc is handled and also, her relationship with Daryl. They have natural chemistry, which the show should capitalize on as it comes with a built-in audience.

Will it, though?

From what I know about TBOC, Carol and Daryl's individual arcs merge at the end of block 2/beginning of block 3, so 204-205-ish. That means half the season has them separated. That's not ideal for a show where the main appeal lies in the relationship between the leads (whether romantic or platonic). Their emotional drives appear uneven, from my limited view of the beats, which might also be a viewer deterrent.

I think AMC needs to go all-in on canon once the storylines intersect—especially as it looks like we're in for some heavy nunbaiting—to at least get some good word of mouth and maybe draw back parts of the audience who've given up on the show. There were people who stopped watching TWD in S7-8 who came back after the original Caryl spinoff was announced. Having a loyal core audience is vital, so the studio needs to insure that those viewers are invested and engaged.

The show also needs a story engine. The escort mission in S1 had little urgency, beyond Daryl looking for a radio, and the actual meat and potatoes of the external plot was nondescript. Laurent was said (prophesied, really, by a Buddhist monk) to be the new Messiah who will "save humanity." It's very fuzzy on the details and not in a way that implies mystery. It screams of hand waving. The show has to draw in horror fans with a season arc that services the genre.

Caryl fans would watch for a good emotional arc and the GA should be treated to a well-conceived external plot. If you can cater to both of those demographics, you can grow the audience (because people tell others when they like a show) but it hinges on tight storytelling. You have to have an actual detailed plan and not a vague idea of where you're going—pantsing might work for a novelist, but never for a screenwriter. There's an A story, a B story and you may have a couple of runners, for the season as well as individual episodes, so a TV show requires organization. (And I'm getting off-topic here, so I'll leave the logistics at that.)

I'm not confident in TBOC based on what I know of Zabel's writing in general, his management of S1, his statements to the media and what I know about TBOC. I think the show needs a redirect into a different subgenre and some fresh ideas that showcase McReedus playing off each other and Caryl being thrust into the unfamiliar (both to the characters and the audience)—we need to see something new while the characters stay in-character to tether them to the character development already done on the flagship show. (And now I've written 'character' so many times that the word has lost all meaning 🙈)

Zabel played loose and fast with Daryl's backstory in S1. Fans are invested in those details and if it's made it to screen, the showrunner can't ignore them to shoehorn the already well-established protagonist into a plot involving new characters. He shouldn't love his own original creations more than the actual main character. All of these things give me pause as to Zabel's suitability as a showrunner for a show that already has a preexisting ecosystem.

That said, it looks like the show is getting delayed to a fall premiere, promo seems to be on a hold and the season finale may still be in post, which could be signs of AMC fixing problems and/or changing direction.

Sorry the answer was neither short nor succinct, but I hope it gave some clarity regarding my thought process. Obviously, like everybody else, I have ideas of what I'd do to increase ratings, but I'm not the person in the hot seat 🙃 I'm waiting for the panel at Tribeca to see what I can decipher from the inevitable sell speak.

It may be a long summer for us.

[aro-geo-turtle]

TMA’s narrative structure and its reflection in character dynamics

With the end of @a-mag-a-day, I though it would be a perfect time to post this meta-analysis I’ve been thinking about for ages! Its always fun when a story’s ending wraps back around to its beginning in some way, and TMA dips into this a tiny bit via the “can I have a cigarette” moment, but I think the wider narrative structure and parallels in TMA actually get way more interesting than that. Long rambly analysis below cause I’m a writing nerd, and also remember this is purely my own personal interpretation.

I have three main points to make here.

A: season 4 is a twisted mirror of seasons 1 and 2, which act as a singular narrative unit, while season 5 is just like season 3 but more so in every way.

B: these parallels and mirrors between seasons are symbolized through Jon and Martin’s ever changing relationship.

C: the grand finale of Last Words feels like such an abrupt ending because it breaks the pattern established for how season finales are meant to work.

So let’s look at this chronologically:

Seasons 1 and 2 can be viewed a single unit in the overall narrative structure. They follow the same basic premise: Jon in his office at the Institute, alienated from his 3 assistants, trying to find out the truth about the supernatural. They both have a very slow pace, with only a handful of plot-furthering episodes among mostly world-building statement episodes. Then we have a cliffhanger leading into an action-packed climax, and then a calmer epilogue episode to clarify exactly what just happened and set up the new status quo for the next season. There are obviously differences (added supplementals, the paranoia, Gertrude’s murder, you know), but they follow the same general format. We also see the classic Jon/Martin dynamic established and shared between these two seasons: Martin reaching out to care for Jon, Jon rejecting and pushing him away. 

Season 3: Status quo? Out the window! Jon’s out of the Institute, traveling the world, we’re gone from the traditional 3 assistants to 4. The goal is no longer vaguely learning about the supernatural, we got most of those answers from Leitner. Instead we’re building towards the Unknowing from the very beginning. And the pacing here speeds up dramatically. So much happens, plot moving forward most episodes. This is where Jon and Martin’s dynamic first changes, too, finally becoming a lot more friendly. Some parts of the format stay the same, though. The ending is still made up of high-action climax episodes followed by an epilogue episode to set up the next status quo.

Season 4 is a return to the format of 1 and 2, but all twisted and reversed. Jon is in his office at the Institute, alienated from his 3 assistants, but it’s a totally different set of assistants (Tim, Sasha, Martin to Melanie, Basira, Daisy). We’re back to the slower pace, but after the mile-a-minute speed of S3, it feels agonizingly slow, a waiting game. The characters spend a lot of time sitting around. We know how the supernatural works, and now Jon’s looking for answers on what he’s meant to do about it. Of course, S4 also sees the reversal of Jon and Martin’s early season roles. Now it’s Jon reaching out and Martin rejecting him. And then we hit the finale and the tension that’s built up all season suddenly snaps. Once again, it’s a high-action climax followed by a slower epilogue that sets up season 5.

Season 5 is obviously the biggest status quo change of all. Literally all the rules of the normal world are shattered. It’s season 3 but even more so. We’re not at the Institute (there is no Institute), we don’t have the typical 3 assistants (that role doesn’t really seem to exist anymore). Like with the Unknowing, we have a clear goal from the very start: get to the Panopticon, kill Jonah, bring the world back. While the pace of 3 is rapid-fire, 5 is a steady march forward, episode by episode. Jon and Martin are once again friendly, and even more so, have finally connected and realized their feelings. And then we get to the grand finale. I think the reason the ending feels so abrupt to me and many others is because it finally breaks the format of season finales. Last Words is the action-packed climax episode but it has no epilogue episode. It just ends.

So, yeah! Those are my points. I just find looking at this all very cool.