#i love a good visual shorthand

[elodieunderglass]

[perpetual-stories]

Eight Strategies for Improving Dialogue in Your Writing

Well, hi! Oh my… wow! It’s been a long time since I’ve posted! I’ve been very busy and I am genuinely sorry to all my followers, but that doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten about this account, but here is one final post for the year!

Hopefully next year I become consistent with it again!

Let’s begin!

One of the best ways to help a reader connect with your writing is by crafting excellent dialogue. Use these tips to learn how to write dialogue that showcases character development, defines your characters’ voices, and hooks readers.

Why Use Dialogue?

Good dialogue performs all sorts of functions in fiction writing. It defines your characters’ voices, establishes their speech patterns, exposes the inner emotions, and showcases their character development. Beyond mere characterization, effective dialogue can also establish the setting and time period of your story and reveal information in a way that doesn’t feel overly expository.

Authors use lines of dialogue to reveal a character’s personality and express their point of view. For instance, an archetypal football coach might speak in short, terse sentences peppered with exclamation points and quotations from famous war generals. By contrast, a nebbish lover with a broken heart might drone on endlessly to his therapist or best friend, speaking in run-on sentences that circle around his true motivations. When an author can reveal character traits through dialogue, it cuts down on exposition and makes a story flow briskly.

Eight Writing Tips for Improving Dialogue

The first time you write dialogue, you may find it quite difficult to replicate the patterns of normal speech. This can be compounded by the concurrent challenges of finding your own voice and telling a great story overall. Even bestselling authors can get stuck on how a particular character says a particular line of dialogue. With practice and hard work, however, lackluster dialogue can be elevated to great dialogue.

Here are some strategies for improving the dialogue in your own work:

Mimic the voices of people in your own life. Perhaps you’ve created a physician character with the same vocal inflections as your mother. Perhaps your hero soldier talks just like your old volleyball coach. If you want to ensure that your dialogue sounds the way real people speak, there’s no better resource than the real life people in your everyday world.

Mix dialogue with narration. Long runs of dialogue can dislodge a reader from the action of a scene. As your characters talk, interpolate some descriptions of their physical postures or other activity taking place in the room. This mimics the real-world experience of listening to someone speaking while simultaneously taking in visual and olfactory stimuli.

Give your main character a secret. Sometimes a line of dialogue is most notable for what it withholds. Even if your audience doesn’t realize it, you can build dynamic three-dimensionality by having your character withhold a key bit of information from their speech. For instance, you may draft a scene in which a museum curator speaks to an artist about how she wants her work displayed—but what the curator isn’t saying out loud is that she’s in love with the artist. You can use that secret to embed layers of tension into the character’s spoken phrases.

Use a layperson character to clarify technical language. When you need dialogue to convey technical information in approachable terms, split the conversation between two people. Have one character be an expert and one character be uninformed. The expert character can speak at a technical level, and the uninformed one can stop them, asking questions for clarification. Your readers will appreciate it.

Use authentic shorthand. Does your character call a gun a “piece” or a “Glock”? Whatever it is, be authentic and consistent in how your characters speak. If they all sound the same, your dialogue needs another pass.

Look to great examples of dialogue for inspiration. If you're looking for a dialogue example in the realm of novels or short stories, consider reading the great books written by Mark Twain, Judy Blume, or Toni Morrison. Within the world of screenwriting, Aaron Sorkin is renowned for his use of dialogue.

Ensure that you’re punctuating your dialogue properly. Remember that question marks and exclamation points go inside quotation marks. Enclose dialogue in double quotation marks and use single quotation marks when a character quotes another character within their dialogue. Knowing how to punctuate dialogue properly can ensure that your reader stays immersed in the story.

Use dialogue tags that are evocative. Repeating the word “said” over and over can make for dull writing and miss out on opportunities for added expressiveness. Consider replacing the word “said” with a more descriptive verb.

[jesncin]

Coddling Colonizer Guilt

"Performative diversity is when MAWS features a Native American variant of Lois Lane in the multiverse episode only to end the season on a Thanksgiving episode."

...is something I like to joke with my friends as a shorthand for referencing MAWS' squeamish approach to politics while still trying to reap the clout of "diverse representation". I want to get my thoughts out there and perhaps start a discussion over why this feels off.

Some disclaimers: Firstly, I'm not Native American. Understand this is an observation I'm making from an outsider perspective with no personal authority. I'm just a disappointed Asian Lois Lane fan. Secondly, I know the MAWS crew/creators had no malicious intent in any of these (what I consider) poor writing decisions. I'm simply here to challenge and analyze these narrative and visual choices.

MAWS takes a fairly controversial take on Superman mythos so far. Unlike Superman's historic roots as an allegory for Jewish immigrants with Clark coming from a Kryptonian socialist utopia (leading the imperfect people of Earth to a better tomorrow), MAWS chooses instead to reimagine Superman as a descendant from a planet of "alien invaders". If the leaked(?) concept art (warning potential spoilers for s2) is to be believed, Clark is the direct descendent of the leaders of the "Kryptonian Empire". Supposedly gone are the parents of Superman being scientists that warn of the destruction of their home planet- instead we have the "proud, loving, brilliant" "leaders of the Kryptonian Empire".

While we don't know if this is the direction the show is going in, there are already cryptic hints of it being planted and thematic elements set up that point to it being a possibility. Clark had spent a majority of the season wondering what/who he is (being incapable of talking to Jor-El's hologram because of a language barrier) only to find out his supposed origins in episode 9. He's devastated learning that he's an alien invader and, once he regroups with his friends, angsts about believing he's a weapon sent from Krypton to invade Earth. Asian-Lois Lane and Black-Jimmy Olsen assure White-passing-alien-man Clark Kent that he's different and not like other colonizers. Clark ultimately saves the day, proving he's an exception. It's curious then that the season ends on Thanksgiving.

As I've mentioned before, MAWS is exhaustively squeamish with getting political. Whatever happens in the show that resembles "themes" is quickly contradicted with very little consistent internal logic. One minute Superman is supposedly a threat that "wipes out good American jobs", should "go back to where he came from" and Lois makes a hope speech about how we shouldn't treat people who "are different" and "don't look like us" (??) with cruelty (so Clark's an immigrant going through xenophobia?) and the next he's a redeemed colonizer (a more prominent thematic arc). One minute Clark is "different" and scared of being othered- likened to a gay couple and allegorically closeted, and the next his friends call him out for being a lying liar for not disclosing his marginalized identity within a week (the narrative frames Lois and Jimmy as being in the right). This show's writing is non-committal with what it wants to say, and largely goes on vibes. That is to say I don't think the writers intended for the themes of colonizer guilt to accidentally tie into Thanksgiving as a set piece for their final episode.

I'm sure the reason the writers chose Thanksgiving as their final episode is because it's "relateable". Half the episode is dedicated to slice of life family reunion shenanigans and the dang turkey still not being cooked through. But in choosing Thanksgiving, the writers told on themselves here with their biases. The existence of Thanksgiving implies the existence of genocide (of Native American people) by colonists in the MAWS universe. And yet Black Jimmy Olsen doesn't know what racism is (Mallah and the Brain give him a judgmental stare as Jimmy admits he can't relate to being violently marginalized) and Asian American Lois Lane doesn't understand immigration and xenophobia (constantly being entitled to Clark's immigrant identity, being incapable of comprehending why he would keep it a secret, because secrets are lies). The MAWS crew wanted a "relateable" set piece but in doing so ended up reinforcing the historical revisionism the holiday entails. A foreign colonizer sharing a meal with his friends of color on Earth, whose culture, history, and identity are all white washed.

I would like to challenge this idea that Thanksgiving is somehow the "relateable" choice. Why pick this holiday? Why not celebrate Thanksgiving as a National Day of Mourning (as some Native Americans do)? Why not pick any Jewish holiday as a nod to Superman's creators (ignoring this version's colonizer interpretation for a second)? Why not pick Lunar New Year, a holiday celebrated by many people including Koreans (Seollal in South Korea)? It could've been another fun opportunity to showcase Lois' heritage, and create a fusion of cultures from Jimmy and Clark's families. At its most non-political and secular, why couldn't they pick any weekend? This is what happens when a show doesn't consider its world building and setting in a holistic way. MAWS will nod to xenophobic rhetoric, portray allegorical queer marginalization, and make the vaguest nods to systemic bigotry (Prof Ivo displaced a whole neighborhood! Yet we never hear from those figurative displaced people). But it does nothing to discuss any of that on a deeper level. Its characters of color don't know what racism is and Thanksgiving is just a fun family reunion, guys.

All this and they had the audacity to sneak in a Native American Lois Lane in the multiverse episode?? Why is she, out of all the Lois Lanes in this screencap, the only one in full traditional wear? Why isn't she in a smart casual business fit like Black Lois and STAS white Lois? Would she not have been recognizably Native American to the non-Native audience otherwise? Isn't this tokenizing? Do you think she has a xenophobic dad in the military like Korean American Lois does?

But that fits MAWS' approach to diversity, doesn't it? Surface level cultural nods, maybe make Lois wear a hanbok one time, and let the audience eat it up. Never mind that both Korean American Lois and Native American Lois have been stripped of their culture and history in every other aspect.

I use the word "relateable" a lot here, but I think the important question to ask is "relateable for who?". 'Immigrant' is too charged a word, so MAWS universalizes Clark's marginalization to "being different". Superman isn't even an immigrant in this version, that was all a smokescreen for the twist that he's actually a descendent of colonizers! Being wracked with colonizer guilt is way more relateable to the white audience than being an immigrant, surely. Thanksgiving is more relateable than celebrating any culturally specific holiday our "diverse reimagining" could have represented. Characters of color being functionally white (in a way that doesn't threaten middle America) is way more relateable. MAWS is a show that doesn't want to delve into Native American history. It would rather put a Native American Lois hologram on a pedestal and call it a day.

[digitalagepulao]

Sun Wukong, the Monkey King: my design notes [!! click here for the full line-up !!] [click here for just the goodies on tumblr]

also titled, "I underestimated my file sizes" TAT Separate images and info below the read more, beware this is LONG <3

Stone Monkey: himbs baby, that is all <3 he's mostly based off the François Langur, but some of his anatomy and proportions lean more on the Gray Langur and Macaque side of things. His facial fur sort of forms a pentagon shape for the five elements, and I gave him ginger fur cus it's a common depiction for him but also baby langurs are very bright orange, and him not growing dark feels like an apt display of his more childish side, both good and bad. His nails are golden for a bit of a "hidden gem" from a stone egg. Also keeping the tail either in a spiral of C-curve when "engaged", and when droopy it has a feel of a heavy rope. Old World monkeys don't have prehensile tails, he can use it for balance and basic mobility but it's not a third hand for the sake of keeping his monkey-ness.

Handsome Monkey King: in one of the poems the monkeys are said to weave grass for mattresses, so I can see them coming up with a crown of woven grass and never-fading leaves and flowers for their king at the very least. His face skin is darker as an adult, but not much else changes overall. The fuzzy upper lips and sideburns are a feature of the species I'm basing him on and it felt like a good fit to add. I also love the forest langurs are so long-furred, makes for a good way to give him dimension but also, the linework style reminds me of old woodcut shorthands for fur. Added a jade coin for the symbolism, and it feels fitting that the king of such a miraculous mountain would have a treasure like that on him. Placcid chill eyes are imperative, dude's not had an existential crisis yet, he's straight up vibing.

Sun Wukong: during his odd-ten years away from home, he learned human manners so he can stand but, I can see him still needing to lean on his tail to keep up his balance here and there. As he reaches the Western Continent (India) and learns the Way under Patriarch Subodhi, he adopts proper clothes for an apprentice and eventually becomes a Rishi. He dons his facial paint from then on, and after he masters the Way, there's a brightness in his pupils to show his cultivated immortality. The beads are purple solely to stand out over the deluge of oranges that is his design.

Great Sage Equal to Heaven: really went all out on this one orz this is Wukong at his most egotistical and ambitious, and I wanted his fit to truly embody that. Took bits from Peking Opera costumes and common depiction elements of him, with some bit of extra for appropriate levels of flair, like the phoenix feather design. I wanted to go for a mountain pattern mail but I couldn't figure out how to draw it, so I winged a pattern. I,,, doubt I'll ever draw this armor as detailed as here, but I wanted it to feel a bit overwhelming to look at, while also seeming like it doesn't quite fit him perfectly like it's swallowing him. Bit of a "baby wearing their parent's shoes" kind of vibe; he's stupidly powerful but he doesn't have what it takes to sit on the throne of Heaven. Also I leaned his expression to how he might appear during the Havoc in Heaven and then his bet with the Buddha. Full unbrindled rage murder monkey <3

-- Ruyi Jingu Bang: can't quite move on without my notes on the golden-hooped cudgel, now can I? The secondary hoops are there for further design appeal and for my own visualization of how the staff changes size (the hoops move over the staff's length as if to push it outward or inward). The metal is dark damascus alloy, though the pattern can be omitted for ease of drawing. One hoop end depicts a dragon, the other a phoenix, and in the middle of the staff is the canon inscription as described in the books, in seal script. Glow is optional and mostly for aesthetics.

Sun Pilgrim: out of his stolen armor, Wukong seems to swim in his robes but in a less overwhelming way. Went for the simple fillet headband cus his face is busy enough as it is. I know he's skilled enough to skin a tiger into pretty decent squares, but after one too many battles, anything would get tattered. He wears red, teal, black and yellow, four of the five cardinal colors, while white (the West) is still missing. His red and black half-robe doesn't fully cover the yellow underneath, a call back to his golden armor; he tries to use his wisdom and teachings to fight back the impulses of his past, but they still shine through at times. I kept only the leg bangs for dynamic elements to better show movement, but also one could say he's got.... golden hoops (haha get it, like his cudgel?? :oD)

Victorious Fighting Buddha: leaned hard on the actual portrayals of the Buddha. Seeing that he's depicted with dark/blue skin, it felt appropriate to let the guy grow out of his baby ginger fur and into adult black, but a patch remains where the golden headband used to be. I didn't want to give him long hair so no bun, but instead, his fur has a sorta lotus-petals shape now rather than his single point. His face paint changes into a more domino-mask style, and his brow white line resembles a teardrop urna. I made the mail piece he holds longer to keep the flowy bits of his previous outfits, and I turned Ruyi Jingu Bang into the sword he wields.

Hello hi, this robbed me of three days of my life and I'd like to receive compensation x.x Anyway hope you enjoy this lad, I know I do! Also if you wanna send me asks about him pls feel welcome to, I'd love to chat about this bastard monkey (affectionate) (loving) (i`d die for him)

[ask-whitepearl-and-steven]

i love the way you do speech bubbles- specifically the lines connecting speech bubbles. they get wiggly or sharp (or both!) to match the tone, it's really cool visual shorthand for how they're talking

Thanks! I have fun with that. :)

(I know some other comic artists have way more dynamic speech bubble shapes than I do, but I'm glad to know the little flairs I add to them still make for a good reading time.)

[gingermintpepper]

"Man Ginger, why don't you like doing lineart for things?"

BECAUSE IT TAKES TOO LONG AAA

Art for me is usually more about getting the broad strokes of an idea out so I can more easily visualise it when writing/planning. This, unfortunately, does tend to clash with my innate need to be good at the things that are important to me but I think I've gotten better about embracing the 'messiness' of my style over the years.

That said, LOOK AT THIS HYAPOLLO WIP I'M WORKING ON?? POLLIE'S COMING OUT SO GOOD LIKE??

I usually describe Apollo-as-Agreus (Agreus is the name he takes on while he's mingling with the mortalfolk) as having gold-brown hair both because he born a brunet in my story and because the word 'xanthos' in and of itself implies something that encompasses an entire spectrum from true-blond to auburn? My visual shorthand for this has been to just have Agreus' hair be a duller blond than the sunstreaked cloud colour of Apollo's more divine hair but MAN I was NOT expecting to love properly attempting to represent Agreus' hair this much! Ugh, I'm so excited to finish colouring this set of images!!!

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Have you ever felt the fanbase itself has become too crowded with people who act like they "know better" then the show?

I've noticed this, specially with artist, that while they claim they're "fixing designs", most either "over-complicate" the designs (Despite them looking good) but they also seem to have a little arrogant over it.

I don't hate redesigns, that's not what I'm saying, but seeing people claim they're "better" or are "fixing" designs while over-complicating a design that's supposed to be "simple".

This is a complex question because fan content that attempts to re-imagine some part of canon has traditionally always been called "fix it" content. The term "fix it" has also always been treated pretty neutrally in fan spaces. Traditionally speaking, saying something is a "fix it fic" just means that the fic is directly addressing canon in a way that other works don't. It's the creator saying, "I want to give you a different take on something that canon did." That take usually exists because the creator doesn't like something in canon, but at the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the creator thinks that canon should or even could have done the fix. It just means that they want to share their ideal take on the idea.

Because I come to fandom with that history in mind, I don't see a statement like "fixing Ladybug's design" and interpret that to mean, "This is how the show should have designed her as I've taken into account all of the concerns that one must address in animation." I interpret that to mean, "I wasn't a fan of Ladybug's design, so I did my own take on her," because that is traditionally what "fix it" was shorthand for. It's not a technical evaluation or competitive standing. It's a genre.

This history seems to be ignored in parts of the Miraculous fandom and that completely threw me off when I entered the fandom. It still throws me off! I have no idea what's going on around here!

While many Miraculous fans are using "fix it" in the traditional sense, there also seem to be groups that see "fix it" as some sort of direct letter to the writers/designers showing them what they should have done. To add further complications, one sub group of Miraculous fans is USING "fix it" in that context, which is an issue I will get to in a minute. The other sub group is INTERPRETING the words "fix it" in that context and I can't change that. I can just tell you that this is straight up bizarre to me because what are you supposed to label fix it content if we can't use the words "fix it"? Why are you ignoring decades of fandom history? You are reading way too much into those words!

I don't know if it's because Miraculous skews younger or if it's because of fandom drama that predates my entry to the fandom (I'm a COVID convert, so I didn't get here until after season 3) or if I've just been lucky in the past, but both the reverence and the hatred towards Miraculous canon is highly unusual compared to what I've seen in other fandoms. I'm more used to fanworks having a tone of loving irreverence or mild annoyance where canon is seen as a series of optional writing prompts that you can do with what you will. The reason for that tone has a lot to do with the fact that it's wildly unfair to compare canon to fanon, especially when it comes to visual media.

The fun of fandom spaces is that we can create without the limits that stifle professional productions. It doesn't matter if our stories are marketable or if the designs we come up with fit a theoretical budget or if we only produce a new chapter/drawing once a year. This means that, yes, fan works often have the ability to surpass canon! At the same time, it's rarely fair to make that comparison on a technical/competitive level. I will criticize Miraculous for many things, but here are some of really basic challenges that the show writers face that I - a fanfic writer - never will:

I can use as many sets as I want, the writers are limited to the settings that have been animated

I can make my stories as long or as short as they need to be, the writers have to make the story episodic enough to fit a 20-minute run time while also drawing things out for at least 8 seasons

I can write a story that doesn't have an akuma attack, the show has a very clear rule that every episode needs to contain a fight sequence

I can put the characters in whatever outfit I want, the writers cannot because every outfit needs to be animated

I can take my time plotting out my story from start to finish and even go back and edit things if I feel like it, the writers have hard deadlines and things get set in stone very quickly

The list goes on, but it can be summed up to: as an independent creator, I can do anything I can imagine. I am only limited by my own talent. Meanwhile, the writers of an animated show for kids have to follow very strict guidelines due to things beyond their control such as budget concerns and network rating guidelines. We are not the same. You should not compare us on a technical level.

This is where we circle back to the whole "using fix it as a way to directly criticize canon and show the creators what they should have done" thing. That's not a take that I'm ever going to be comfortable with because fix it content rarely tries to fit the same confines or deal with the same instability that canon is subjected to. If you use fix it like that, then you are taking the concept too far. You're also being quite arrogant.

If I see someone do this, I tend to assume that they're pretty young or that, at the very least, they know absolutely nothing about how TV shows work. What you see on the screen is often not what the creator would have given you under ideal circumstance. Some of the best examples of this come from times when a creator was given pretty ideal conditions only to then have less than ideal conditions when the property was revisited as that highlights that you really can't just blame the writers. The most well known examples that come to mind are Avatar the Last Airbender vs its sequel Korra and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings vs his Hobbit movies.

For a really in depth discussion of LotR vs The Hobbit, you can go watch Lindsay Ellis' fantastic documentary for free on youtube. For this post, I'll just go into the high level stuff of Avatar vs Korra.

Avatar asked for three seasons and magically got three seasons. Korra was supposed to be a 13-episode miniseries, but was expanded to four seasons after season one was done. The show then had budget cuts that messed with the last season due to poor performance. Shockingly, Avatar was the better show. I wonder why? Just imagine what Korra could have been if it had been given four seasons from the start!

At the very least, I can guarantee you that writers wouldn't have ended all of season one's plot lines in the season one finale, leaving them to start from scratch with season two which is generally considered the worst season. Once again, I wonder why?

Because of all that, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fix it fic out there that takes all of Korra and reworks it to make everything flow better. I wouldn't even be surprised if I find that fic to be better than canon because the fic was only limited by the writer's talent. On the other hand, the actual show was massively limited by things beyond the writers' control, meaning that it's overall quality issues are less a condemnation of the writers and more a representation that even awesome writers can't perfectly adjust on the fly when networks meddle.

Of course, Korra doesn't have extremely fundamental writing flaws like Miraculous does, but the principle remains the same. I can point out Miraculous' flaws with certainty, but I cannot necessarily fix them with certainty. That's assuming too much.

But there are different types of criticism and different ways of engaging with the source material. What I do on this blog is mostly focused on high level discussion of the show's flaws and spit balling ways to fix them without really committing to anything. I'm not telling you how the show should have been written. I'm just pointing out flaws and talking about the things I think the writers could have changed or accounted for, though it is always possible that I'm wrong and this was caused by something outside of the writing circle.

That's why I rarely mention anyone by name. I cannot point a finger and say "this is the person who ruined Lila's potential and this is why they did it." I can just tell you that Lila was poorly executed when she didn't need to be. I don't want you to send this blog to the writers, but generally speaking, it is the kind of feedback that I'd be comfortable giving them if they hired me as an editor or script doctor. When I act in those roles, I'm much nicer than I am on here because I know that the writer will actually read what I say, but I am just as brutal about pointing out flaws because that's what I signed on to do. I'm not here to stroke your ego, I'm here to work with you and help you improve your story.

When I write fix it fics - and I have several - I am engaging in a very different type of criticism. I'm not discussing specific flaws in canon and telling you how to address them within the limits of the show. Instead, I'm giving you my ideal version of a given concept from the show so that you can hopefully enjoy it and maybe even use to find some catharsis for a thing that you also didn't like. I'll also change things about the show just to keep things interesting or to be highly self indulgent. For example, I avoid umbrella scenes in my stuff even though I think that the canon umbrella scenes are cute and well written. It's because they're so iconic that I do something different! Why revisit them when I have nothing to add? I'd just be copy canon! It's more fun to do something new since there are other ways to have Marinette and Adrien fall in love.

It's a very nuanced type of criticism because it's true that these stories only exists because I'm saying that canon did something wrong and I want to show you how it could have been better. But I'm also not limiting myself to the confines of canon or even just improving canon to make my argument, so it's impossible to compare them on a technical level. That's not why I write fix it fic, though. I have this blog so that I can discuss writing concepts and how to learn from Miraculous' failures. I write fix it fics to have fun and indulge my imagination. For example, I have a fic that's basically my ideal take on Chat Blanc and there's no way that would work in the context of canon. In the context of canon, I'd suggest far more minor changes or even tell them to scrap the episode all together.

Be it fix it content or more high level critical analysis like I do on this blog, it's important to remember that canon isn't going to change. Even if we could sit the writers down and convince them of everything that they did wrong and everything that they should do to fix it, they can't actually enact those changes. The story is already out there and time machines aren't a thing. But that's not what fandom content is about. Blogs like this are for people who enjoy thinking about stories critically and discussing how and why they fail. Good fix it content is all about saying, "I didn't like canon and think it would be better if X happened" or even "I liked canon, but got this idea about how it could be different" and then sharing the idea with other fans. This is because any and all fan content is for the fans (and former fans), not the creators.

So yes, I think it's valid to make fan content that "improves" canon. I even think it's valid to compare it to canon in a casual manner as that's just a natural thing that humans do. Give me two versions of something and I will automatically compare them and probably even pick a favorite. The thing that you need to be careful about, the nuance that you have to keep in mind, is that fandom is a casual space to have fun with other fans and to create whatever our talents will allow us to create. When we use terms like "fix it" or say that we like something better than canon, that context needs to be kept in mind. I will never be concerned by a reader telling me that they liked one of my stories more than they liked canon or that they wish that canon had also included a concept I've played with. That's just a statement of preference. I only get concerned when I get comments about how "the writers should read this so they can learn from you" because I didn't write it to teach them. I wrote it to have fun with my fellow fans and that is true for every bit of fandom content I produce.

I know that was long, but hopefully it answered your question? My main draw to fandom spaces is fix it content, so this is something I'm pretty passionate about. If I think that a piece of media is perfect, then I don't seek out fan content for it. I only join fandoms on those rare occasions when media hits that sweet spot of good enough to grab my attention, but bad enough/lacking something to not fully satisfy me.

[shivadh]

Per a discussion in comments, here's a bit of a facecast gallery! I had more than I thought, once I sat down to make a list. Left to right, top to bottom:

Michaelis: When I shared some photos of top tier football coach Jose Mourinho ages ago, someone called him the King Emeritus and the idea stuck, although there are other visual influences as well. Mourinho is excellent visual shorthand, anyway.

Jes Deimos: In my head, Jes is based on someone I went to college with, but early on in the books someone linked me to V Spehar, nonbinary journalist and podcast host, and I love their look for Jes. You just have to imagine the ice white hair.

Noah Deimos: I never had an image of Noah as a teen, but the first time I saw stand-up comic Moses Storm, I went "oh, hello adult Noah." (He's super funny, watch his special "Trash White" if you get the chance.)

Gregory: Fellas, is it weird to base a protagonist's look on a statue of Hadrian's lover Antinous from 1800 years ago? He has such good hair, is the thing. This is a photo of a statue of Antinous I took myself at the Art Institute several years ago.

Eddie: Eddie is one of those characters who I find so compelling to write as a personality that I find it hard to visualize him, but I would be infamous if I left Guy Fieri out of the lineup.

Alanna: okay what you have to understand is that she looks like Natalie Portman but like, very specifically the straightened hair, no frills, Plain Jane phase Portman went through in the late 1990s.

Gerald: This is a photo of a University of Chicago polo team member from 1926 and that's so hilariously specific as an image that it makes me laugh. If it wasn't this dude it'd be JFK, though. Again, the hair is doing a lot of the work here.

Monday: it's time to admit that the amount of Xena reruns I watched while writing my master's thesis may have permanently impacted me. Lucy Lawless was all I could think of when describing her.

Simon: I based Simon in the first book heavily on the mannerisms of Colin Fox as Fritz Brenner in the A&E Nero Wolfe miniseries, because he's perfect, I am not taking questions.

There are a number of people I don't have a facecast for -- Georgie probably most notably, but also pretty much all the Galian contingent, Joan, and most of the Ramblers (Ephraim has a touch of James Dean about him but none of the photos of James Dean look quite right). I do have casts for Caleb and Buck but I couldn't cram all the images in so I'll do that one separately in a day or two.

[princess-of-the-corner]

One thing I love that's been consistently shown in the Pokemon franchise is how protagonist characters typically react with HORROR when they see Pokemon kept in cages.

It's basically visual shorthand for when a Pokemon is being abused.

Heck, in the Japanese version of Pokemon 2000, Misty has no real problem with Lawrence III trying to CATCH the Legendary Birds, her disgust is born from him locking them up in cages instead of catching them with Poke Balls, with Lawrence's casual dismissal of her concern being that he wants to be able to admire them, and he can't exactly look at them while they're in Poke Balls.

Honestly it's a good way to quickly differentiate between good catching of pokemon(in normal pokeballs) VS bad (in cages).

Especially if your rolling with "pokeballs only work of the Pokémon is chill with being caught"

[stevesaxetogrind]

Truly those calling it “bad writing” that Robin and Vickie share similarities doesn’t make sense. She’s not been given enough time to be more than just a love interest, but we do have some info about her:

1. Molly Ringwald inspo, giving us shorthand about being kind of a quirky gal. Hat! Visually, she’s similar to Robin, but that’s not a bad thing because literally similar interests draw people together. She is also skirts vs Robin’s trousers. Femme/Soft Butch! You’re telling me Vickie would wear a tie? Lies.

2. Likes goofy jokes, namely Steve’s joke about Muppet Tammy. Which, Robin doesn’t laugh at Steve’s jokes that much- she dismisses them, but it means Vickie has a bit of a jocular sense of humour.

3. Vickie also likes Steve’s brand of movies, not Robin’s- which is pretty fucking funny. Again, this is not making Vickie similar to Robin, but to things shared with Robin’s Platonic Soulmate. Like, bro movies? Stupid lil jokes? I predict Steve and Vickie having a dad joke competition next season & torturing Robin with how corny they are. People like to talk about the similarities to Robin, but not the similarities to Steve! That’s kind of clever drawing Vickie closer to one of Robin’s favourite people, at least superficially.

4. Talks a lot when one on one, but Vickie wasn’t nervous/flustered in the band scene, so we can infer in more crowded spaces she acts differently/subdued - as like she was in the War Zone. This is unlike Robin who does actually ramble in group scenes, like freaking out over the thing in El’s leg, the rabies bit, or generally a lot of Season 4 where she looses her “cool girl” archetype from Season 3 in favour of chaos. Vickie seems more like she would quietly panic, as opposed to Eddie, Argyle, and Steve who all loudly go WHAT THE FUCK. Which is going to be interesting to see as the whole town is now thrown into an open gate downtown Hawkins probably releasing demogorgons every other hour like it’s Pacific Rim up in this bitch.

5. Meaningful look with Robin in the War Zone- not “oh hi band friend!” A scared/caught/dismayed look that she was there. So there is a connection, and she broke up with her boyfriend after that connection. Anything more is speculation, but the way she wasn’t looking at Robin when she gave the “he doesn’t like Fast Times” reason lets the audience draw points and maybe she felt trapped? Like it was just an excuse to pursue a different interest? Obviously because music is playing indicating a romantic relationship. We don’t have much to compare Robin with on this one, but around Keith she still had more confidence and bullshittery trying to convince him to hire Steve when Keith assumed they were a thing.

6. Vickie also doesn’t seem jealous. Robin is jealous. She was livid at Steve for being the object of Tammy’s affections, but Vickie hasn’t seemed to even look twice at Steve- even as Robin looked over at him while she and Vickie had her last scene.

For such a short amount of time in the season, I think that we have a good foundation for similarities and differences to Robin. Also, once again, it’s not a crime to avoid “opposites attract” tropes. Having similarities is good! Like, the amount of couples I know that are essentially the same archetype of queer person is not even close to zero. Especially when it comes to older queer couples who got together in the 80s/90s, they kind of morph into being one granola bar of a human being. Kind of similar with straight people when they genuinely like one another.

I hope they flesh Vickie out, but like, we’ve gotten a similar amount of screen time for Mr Clarke but no one is mad he is “one dimensional” when he is just, some exposition science guy. He’s a stock and standard teacher, has a girlfriend, and kind of goes along with explaining shit without questioning why a lot. But folks love Mr Clarke. Is it because Mr Clarke isn’t getting in the way of your ship?

I never thought I would see the day there were some true blue f/f ship wars, but bruh, Robin’s love life isn’t an A Plot so give the writers some slack. They’re human, not the devil. None of you were gleeks and it shows so fucking much. None of you lived through “angry lesbians on the internet don’t want me dating you”.

Personally I’m looking forward to Robin and Vickie getting together and maybe hopefully kicking monster butt together- or at least, Robin getting a nice little badass moment defending her gal.

[room-surprise]

Dungeon Meshi Anime Review, Season 2, Episode 17 review

OH GOD OKAY here we go...

Once again, I am a broken record: good episode!

My two major complaints: The bit where Laios and Kabru stand around talking next to an off-screen, roaring, screaming monster seemed kind of silly in animation. In a comic it works, but they really should have animated them walking or stumbling away while delivering those lines, having them just stand there until the monster attacks them again is really goofy.

ALSO, something Trigger keeps doing that I am NOT a fan of, is throwing animated speed-line backgrounds behind characters when they're reacting to something. Sometimes these were in the original manga, other times they are NOT... and they break the immersion of the anime completely IMO.

The coloring in DM is so moody and wonderful, the aesthetic is generally grounded, so when suddenly the background is bright blue or lime green or pink and strobing, it's VERY jarring... and the joke DOES NOT NEED these effects in order to be funny! In fact I think it leeches some of the humor out of the jokes. Imagine if every time someone had a strong emotion in a classic Disney movie you'd get this:

This type of sudden background color change, strobing and speed lines are artifacts of older, cheaper anime, tricks that used to be done to hide the lack of budget, as a way to make a quick joke. It's now used as a shorthand to tell people a joke is happening.

But Trigger doesn't NEED to use these tricks, they're using them because "that's how you make sure the audience knows a joke is happening", but the jokes in Dungeon Meshi are so well written, you don't need to cue us with a visual laugh-track, Trigger!!!! ESPECIALLY when Kui didn't do it in the manga!!!

They've done it in other episodes, but I felt like they were particularly noticeable and bad in this one. Makes me sad because I feel it's dragging the anime down from the genuine peak of artistry that it's otherwise achieving.

As always, animation is fantastic. The stuff with chimera falin is obviously top notch, brutal and fast and amazing... But I also have to say that the Toshiro and Laios argument was animated INCREDIBLY well, with a lot of loving detail given to what is, ostensibly, just talking, something Trigger normally hates to animate.... But they put movie-quality work into that argument and it really paid off.

Honestly can't think of much to complain about. It's a solid adaptation of this part of the story, one of the biggest, coolest action sequences that we've all been waiting for.

Vocal performances were all great in both English and Japanese. Kabru's English voice actor did a great job, despite my misgivings about him in previous episodes. I hope he continues to improve.

A dub script change had Kabru think "He's excited" about Laios instead of "his pupils are dilated"... This isn't a terrible change, but a bit baffling. Saying his pupils are dilated tells viewers HOW Kabru knows Laios is excited, and indicates that he is using some kind of scientific criteria to measure it, it makes him sound smarter and more detached from what he's doing. Just saying "he's excited" doesn't tell us how Kabru knows... and it's a thought, not dialog, so it's weird for them to change it in the script, since there's no need to match mouth-flaps.

The sequence where Kabru strips off all his armor and does a surprise attack on Falin is still fantastic in this, though I am a little bit sad that they didn't find any ways to add any extra emphasis for it - in the manga it's drawn out a bit, to the point where you might miss what was happening on your first read... I think the amount of shots we got in the anime was the same as in the manga, but somehow it felt less impactful to me. Maybe pacing?

At any rate, it was an incredibly solid episode.

I already liked Toshiro, but seeing this part of the manga animated really made me like him more, I hadn't realized in the past just how damn romantic the twin bells thing was, but damn. Toshiro really has forgiven Laios by the time they part ways here, it's easy to forget that since Toshiro very much takes a back seat after this.

[finchwingart]

Question from a beginner artist;

When practicing art, is the volume of practice, or attention to detail more important?

For example, when Im trying to get the furry form down, do you think I would be better off carefully deconstructing how it works visually, and drawing a couple detailed sketches, or instead trying to draw it a lot without worrying about the details? Something in the middle? both?

Thanks! Love your art btw

ooh that's tricky, I think something in the middle? But it can differ from person to person, I don't think there's a correct way

I think it's really good to deconstruct what you're doing and why, bc it helps you get a better understanding of how things work visually and u can use it to inform ur decisions, yknow like learning anatomy and musculature and then being able to use those rules n break em later if u want. But also drawing a TON v quickly without thinking much (from reference) will help u develop muscle memory. At art schools it's common to take life drawing classes where you're doing 5 min, 3 min, or even 30 second poses, and i found that helped me a bit; enables you to learn how to break down anatomy suuper fast and develop a shorthand

[peachjagiya]

Theme and what does it mean?

Ok I love this. Might be a long answer.

I don't know how much input he had into Compose Coffee's storyboard for this - though love that they got the memo 😂 - but the others are all his work and vision (as far as I know)

Simple answer:

It's two men in a bed in the only way he was able to show that. And in Slow Dancing, the queer cast of the MV all become Tae. He is them, they are him. It all feels queer coded to me.

Complicated answer:

I went to film school, right, 8000 years ago cos I'm ancient, and mirrors were always like shorthand for opposing ideas inside one person. Being at war with yourself or a hidden side. A mirror suggests another side of yourself or a visual representation of the duality of dark and light, good vs evil, real vs fake.

Clones are basically mirrors but less insular if that makes sense. What we see in a mirror is usually a thing we do alone. Clones are a more outward expression of duality, I think? It feels like look at me. There's more to me than the single dimension you're asked to believe.

So I think that's about sexuality, the face he has to present to the public vs the reality, but I wonder if there's another layer sitting alongside...

Promise this is related but I've been playing In The Seom recently. So cute but I find it funny how the mainstream characterisation is so limiting? JK is a gym bunny. Suga is tired. RM is studious. Hobi is happy all the time. V is dreamy and childlike. I get that a little game can't be an in depth character study but it's not just the game. Run BTS captions are rigid about these archetypes even when their behaviour opposes them. There's like a rigid set of rules they adhere to and key stories that get trotted out to support a narrative. (In this narrative, he's V who, to me, is different to our real Taehyung.)

I feel like this must be restricting for all of them (and they've kicked out against it since hiatus, I think, explicitly in the case of Joonie, Yoongi and JK) but especially for a person like Tae who is smarter, kinder, funnier, more knowledgeable and savvy and determined than they'd have us believe. He is not permanently head in the clouds, he's actually quite strong and firm in his convictions. He believes in things and goes to bat for them.

I think about him saying, in that last group live, "I can look after myself when I need to." Like fully let's be real now. Bear emoji is cute but I'm a grown man.

I think this clone imagery could have a secondary meaning of I am more than just V. Here's Taehyung. See me now?

I loved this question 💜💜💜

[inamindfarfaraway]

I love how cleverly Black Friday recontextualizes Christmas music and imagery to be menacing and sinister:

Green is Wiggly’s colour, commonly associated with the supernatural and extraterrestrial because in terms of lighting, it’s very unnatural. You only see green light naturally occur in seemingly mystical phenomena like the auroras. In terms of animals, Wiggly’s trademark bright green is pretty rare and primarily used to warn predators of toxicity or be more attractive to a potential mate. In human culture, it’s the colour of American paper money and frequently considered the colour of greed (wanting more money and material things) and envy (wanting what others have).

Red is the lighting colour of human evil and vice. It’s most prominent in scenes like Wiley’s deal with Linda and Sherman strangling Lex. This also makes sense: red is blood, danger, fire. But together the villainous colours for lighting are the colours of Christmas. Often when things are the worst, people being immoral and Wiggly exerting his power simultaneously like during the riot, the lighting is also paradoxically the most festive.

The Christmas tinsel on the upper level looks completely ordinary, until it’s used as the tentacles of Wiggly’s true face. Not only is this being so otherworldly and incomprehensible that he’s ‘played’ by parts of the set (same with the stage light eyes), but it visually shows that he’s to a degree been part of the story the whole time, looming over the characters’ heads. An element of his spirit has always been there and remains after he’s defeated, just like the unfair, exploitative socioeconomic structures he takes advantage of. He isn’t killed at the end, merely overcome and kept at bay for now, just like the flawed nature of humanity.

In his first scene Frank, the personification of capitalism, sings sections of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” with Wiggly replacing Jesus. This is entirely of his own free will, as the toy shipment hasn’t even been unboxed. But then paralleling Wiggly with Jesus (“open your heart up to his love”, “The father’s the son, the son’s the father”, “the birth of a god”, “[Christmas Day is] going to be my birthday”, “you have kept the shepherd from his flock”, “He will rise up with joyful noise”, etc.) and associating him with Christmas music (the tune of “Carol of the Bells” is one of his leitmotifs and sung to in “Wiggle”, he’s introduced in person to jingling bells in “Made in America”) become motifs throughout the show. This theme is both a dark, terrifying perversion of everything Christmas is meant to be about, right down to Wiggly amplifying selfishness and greed while Christmas promotes selflessness and generosity; and a sobering reminder that through the extreme commercialization of the holiday, we ourselves have already corrupted it.

Why “Carol of the Bells” specifically, though? That piece of music contains the “Dies Irae” leitmotif, a widespread musical shorthand for death. The Gregorian hymn that originated it, Latin title translating to “Day of Wrath”, refers to Judgement Day. In this event God will supposedly judge all human souls and select those who have been good and followed his ways and laws to receive eternal reward, while those who have been sinful and disobedient are condemned to suffer forever. Given the strong ‘Wiggly = the Christian God but evil’ theme… what judgement do you think Wiggly would cast upon humanity? Makes the corresponding lyric “When Wiggly comes” even more ominous, doesn’t it?

[darkshrimpemotions]

Reasons I think Izzy Hands is not dead, or at the very least will not stay dead if we get a season 3:

He wasn't buried at sea; what was that about? Instead he's on land, right beside Stede and Ed's home, with all of his effects handy: his ring, his prosthetic leg, his cravat.

David Jenkins has been consistently vocal about how much he loves Izzy and Con, how integral Izzy is to the show, and how Izzy's arc is tied to Ed and Stede's. He has even gone so far to say, in direct response to fans' anguish over Izzy's death, that there is no version of this show that exists without Izzy Hands.

Season 2 solidified that there is magic in this universe, specifically magic related to death and transformation.

Season 2 also established the gravy basket as a place between life and death where lessons can be learned to catalyze positive transformation and growth in the visitor.

Izzy is literally described as an indestructible little fucker after surviving a gunshot to the head earlier in the season. It would be kinda wild for a gunshot to the abdomen to be the thing that kills him off for good after that.

He is also described as a unicorn, which while not immune to death by injury, is generally understood in myth to be an immortal creature associated with healing, that is also supposed to be notoriously difficult to capture or kill.

Izzy's arc, like Ed's and Stede's, is still unresolved. We see him struggling throughout the season even though he is also improving. We see him refusing to acknowledge what really happened to him. We see him blaming himself for things that are not his fault. And none of these issues are resolved by the end of the season. All prime lessons for the gravy basket to teach.

Death has repeatedly been used as a vehicle of transformation on the show, particularly for Ed and Stede who, as we know, are tied with Izzy in the show's arc and symbolism (our 3 mythical creatures).

Izzy himself and his arc are tied to what piracy means and symbolizes within the show. If the show isn't done with piracy (and I'm sure it isn't), it likely isn't done with Izzy.

Okay this one is out there but stay with me: the last shot we see of Ed and Stede fades to the background for a close-up of Izzy's grave. The grave is marked with a cross. Yes, this is a common grave marker. But it also stands out as a bit odd given there's no evidence that Izzy or the people closest to him have any truck with the religion it's typically associated with, in which it's a symbol of what? Resurrection. So who is that for? Is it just visual shorthand for a grave? Well, they could have used a painted sign or even a roughly carved stone. So could it be significant that they chose a symbol of resurrection and transformation to mark his grave?

At the very end of that shot, a seagull--very likely Buttons in his own transformed state--lands on the cross, further tying the last image of "Izzy" we see to the show's expanded mythos of magic, purgatory, and transformation.

Do any of these things mean definitively that Izzy will be back? No. I'm just speculating here. But I do find it very interesting and at least somewhat compelling when you put them all together.

(I have also not yet abandoned the idea that Roach managed to save Izzy after he passed out and his funeral was an elaborate fuckery.)

[vinelark]

Thoughts on timberkon? Just got randomly curious

i like it in theory! always love an ot3, and i see the potential, but for me to read/think about them it’d just have to be a really good concept or really well-done character work. i feel like bernard in the comics (currently) is often just there as a visual shorthand for tim’s queer rep and hasn’t had the chance to be an actual interesting character in his own right (like, i guess we were starting to hint at something? with his parents and the pain cult…? but then td:r got cut so maybe we’ll never know), so it’s hard to figure out exactly what he brings to the timkon dynamic without some extra effort. which mostly means it takes a talented creator/really good fanwork to build him out individually and in relationship to tim and kon. and i’ve seen some fun art/headcanons that do that! as for fic i remember really enjoying a study by bernard dowd by cv_angels, which is roughly canon-compliant pre-timberkon and one that made me go yeah, that’s probably how this would go down.

so tl;dr i don’t spend a lot of time thinking about timberkon but if someone wants to write me the epic pangy ot3 fic of my dreams i will more than happily read it.