#internal consistency

[elumish]

I know everyone has different views on both worldbuilding and characterization, and especially on the idea of consistency in both, but I wanted to share my feelings on both of them (which are kind of the same! people and places are sort of the same thing sometimes).

Consistency, to me, is about three things: rules, guidelines, and lies.

Rules are things that (whether they've been told explicitly or not) are immutable. They are the law of the land, and you don't break them. You don't actually need to tell the reader what they are, but you should know what they are. They can be simple or they can be extremely complex, but they are things that you stick with. Unless stated otherwise, readers will generally assume that the rules of the real world apply to your story.

For the world, that might be "water is H2O" or "mountains will not stand up and turn into giant creatures and walk away" or "vampires and werewolves can cross-breed but only if they have sex during a new moon" or whatever. For a character, that might be "this character will not kill under any circumstances, no matter what" or "this character won't every tell their parents about that one time they committed arson." It's easier to do never rules for characters than always rules, but you can do both.

Guidelines are things that generally happen but aren't a requirement. This is where people tend to get caught up in character/worldbuilding consistency. Most character traits are going to be guidelines, not rules, because most people do have exceptions or things that change their mind or just character growth. Most things in the world don't work exactly the same way 100% of the time. But there generally needs to be an implicit or explicit explanation for the guideline not being followed, or it just feels like the author screwed up.

For the world, these might be "water isn't flammable--except in those cases where it is" or "vampires and children can't have kids, except in those super rare cases where they can" or "that one time, a mountain stood up and walked five feet and sat back down, but other than that it's never happened so we're pretty sure it'll never happen again". For a character, that might be "this character's instinct is to run away from things that scare them, but this one time they will overcome that instinct to protect someone else" or "this character is generally happy-go-lucky but right now they are deeply sad because something tragic has happened".

Lies are where it gets fun. Lies are things that you have presented as rules that are actually not. Somtimes this is because a character is literally lying to the reader or to other characters, sometimes it's because characters don't have full information, and sometimes it's because some other factor has changed.

For the world, this might be "only people from the royal family can bond with dragons because they have been genetically modified to bond with dragons--oh, actually, that was a lie perpetrated by the government to keep people from trying to bond with dragons" or "there is no eighth continent on Earth--actually there is, it was just hidden from view by magic". For a charcter, this might be "this character would never under any circumstances kill someone--except they just did."

The thing about lies is that they need to have a good in-universe reason behind them, and they can't conflict with other rules you have. I always go back to Stephenie Meyer when I think about this. Early in the series, she set up two rules that she told the reader explicitly: 1) all of vampires' fluids are venom and 2) vampires have 25 chromosome pairs, werewolves have 24 chromosome pairs, and humans have 23 chromosome pairs. The lie that vampires can't have children with humans runs into the issue that it's in direct conflict with those two rules above--but those two rules are never rescinded. So it doesn't feel like a lie so much as it feels like an inconsistency. It feels like she messed something up.

When you're thinking about internal consistency, consider:

Is something a rule, a guideline, or a lie?

If a guideline isn't being followed, is it clear why (e.g., is it an exception? character growth?)

Why was the lie a lie?

Does the lie conflict with other rules in the world?

What does the lie or the exception to the guideline accomplish?

[novella-november]

I forgot to actually type up a new proper post and now its 2 30 in the morning so here's the writing advice:

If you want to have an Unreliable Narrator that is not an excuse to make stuff up as you go along with no plan because "my character doesn't know whats really going on, so its fine for me to not know either"

-- in fact just the opposite. If you want a well-written Unreliable Narrator, then you, the author, need to have a solid understanding and knowledge of events that are going on around your main character, and what ripples your character sees as a consequence of the actions taking place outside of their view/understanding.

You don't need to know every single thing while writing for Novella November because we're focusing literally just on first drafts,

but it Is important that once your first draft is done , You are going to go back and do major editing to give your world consistency and make it make sense:

That things are being built up to, foreshadowed; that when something Big is revealed later in the book, It isn't literally just coming out of nowhere, you need to establish it in the background radiation of your work so that astute Readers will be able to spot the signs of its approach even if your main narrator does not, and anyone who didn't notice the foreshadowing the first time they read the book will be delighted to find all of the little bits of foreshadowing the second (or more) time through reading the book.

The best ""plot twists"" are the ones that built up to and foreshadowed within the narrative, not just doing a random, out-of-left-field twist for the sake of a twist.

Its perfectly fine, going into your novel to not have a plan and make stuff up as you go along, but once that first draft is done and its time for your second draft, you also need to make sure you're adding those things back into earlier parts of your story to have proper continuity and internal consistency.

[passions-and-pupils]

Tangled The Series: chameleons are extremely intelligent, understand English, and have memories spanning at least 10 years in length

Also Tangled The Series: Horses and Raccoons are just as intelligent obviously! Gotta keep that internal consistency

also tangled the series: Haha Monkeys are mindless animals

[thestarlightforge]

I think it’s pretty clearly because the TVA traumatized her her entire life, (she thought) killed Loki in front of her just as that was becoming one of her only deeply vulnerable emotional relationships (in S1, when they pruned him), she’s insecure and has very serious trust issues. She knows Loki and Mobius are close—so despite her feelings about choice, she fears that if Mobius sides with the TVA, Loki might stop listening to her and side with them, too

funny how sylvie is all about free will and having a life of their own, but the moment mobius makes it clear he does not want to know what his life was before the TVA, she is all spiteful and mean

Like how can you be against his choice when that’s all you’ve been preaching

[shripscapi]

The queen wore a high-collared black silk gown, with a hundred dark red rubies sewn into her bodice, covering her from neck to bosom. They were cut in the shape of teardrops, as if the queen were weeping blood.

[toki-toro]

Okay springtrap

[sexhaver]

okay so uploading ur consciousness is a bad idea obviously BUT what if you ship of theseus'd the brain itself

like one neuron at a time

as much as i disagree with John Searle about pretty much everything (including his second scenario here, which i personally find a bit dramatic), i do have to give him credit for foreseeing basically every single relevant cognitive science question of the next half-century and showing his work for how he arrives at his conclusions. he wrote this in 1992

[darkwing-ramblings]

I feel this very strongly too, because I really liked Thor and Thor Dark World as films- the fantasy/action genre was what I liked and it was my favourite of the avengers' origin films and individual films.

Then Thor Ragnarok came out which all but punished you for being invested in the characters and storylines they'd already set up:

The warriors three get quickly brushed past deaths and absolutely no mention by Thor is made of them after they died despite them supposedly being three of his four named and featured Asgardian friends- his long lost sister kills them publicly, there's no way Heimdall missed it and when Thor returns to Asgard they're not among the survivors who escape Ragnarok.

Meanwhile Sif's fate is literally never mentioned- whatever she's doing we never get a single mention of it and whether she's alive or dead is left up for debate (again, she's one of Thor's four Asgardian friends and featured in the first two films). Sure they couldn't get her actress but another character mentioning literally anything to explain it would be better than the absolute nothing they put in!

Then there's Thor's butchered characterisation which actively contradicts his character development and is framed as heroic- he ends Thor Dark World grieving his brother then immediately threatens to kill Loki once he survives and post Loki cooperating to seek out Hela with him Thor just... actively leaves him being tortured on Sakaar with no foreseeable result that isn't Loki being killed or captured by the Grandmaster. Also the casual dismissal of Jane's importance to Thor is so abruptly jarring.

I don't, actually, consider Miek and Korg suitable replacements for the previous discarded cast. I was similarly dissatisfied with the third film in a trilogy abruptly changing both tone and genre and massacring any attempt at playing sincere themes straight all for the sake of humour that belonged in a different sect of marvel films entirely (which I didn't even find funny to top it off).

I'm thinking in terms of actual real life experiences I've had when I say this, but I'd imagine part of what makes being a Thor enjoyer so frustrating in 2024/MCU's phase 4+ era is that... you're effectively not allowed to enjoy your favorite superhero.

I once had a conversation with a close friend of mine during a casual outing, and without going into very many details, this particular person is an enjoyer of Ragnarok, and enjoys Tailka's work overall. Now, I should say right off the bat: there is nothing wrong with these opinions. Everyone is entitled to like what they like and enjoy the work of creators just the same as other people are allowed to dislike them. For this particular post, I'm not here to get into fandom wars or "reasons why taika waititi is a terrible director" beef. I have other posts in line for that. But what I will say is that I already knew this about my friend, so it never surprised me when the topic of Thor came up that it would be a point of disagreement.

The issue I've found that continues to circle in the general space of "being a Thor fan" came when I expressed that I don't like Ragnarok, I do think Thor was funnier (and just better overall) before Ragnarok and therefore Taika's involvement, and quite frankly Taika had very little business taking on the mantle of director of a superhero franchise he has never liked or understood in his life just because he had mouths to feed. (There are other opportunities to fulfill that. And filmmakers know going into this industry that it's all gig-based and - if they're smart anyways - work around that.) I hadn't even gotten a chance to go through all of the reasons WHY I feel that way, of which I have had before compiled an organized list of about 16 talking points off the top of my head, so as far as that particular discussion goes... it didn't go anywhere. We were busy at the time.

But namely what I want to talk about is this:

The response I was given, in summary, was something along the lines of "well I think Thor was boring, and he wasn't my cup of tea, so I'm glad he changed."

But, you see, there's just ONE small issue with that: Thor isn't meant for everyone.

In fact, no character is meant for everyone. So why is it that Thor needs to change to be "for everyone" and be the MCU normies' "cup of tea" when no other character has to? Why does he need to lose his core identity (both as a character, as a franchise, you name it, it's been done) just because people like my friend don't understand him as well as Tony Stark or Spider-Man? And why should Thor fans have tow watch their favorite superhero get stripped down and turned into something completely divorced from the character, world and cast we were first involved with from the beginning?

Nobody at any point has been able to answer me that besides "well just because I didn't like Thor personally."

Iron Man won't appeal to everyone. Neither does Captain America, neither does Spider-Man, beloved as even Spidey is. They have their own quirks, their own villains, their own storylines... Every superhero has a core to them that their stories revolve around. He's from DC, but Superman, for instance, has the core of: love, justice and the American Way. Therefore, his stories revolve around challenging that core, and making Superman prove it. Steve Rogers/Captain America has a similar core. Justice, freedom and the American Way, is what I'd mostly boil his core down to. Thor's is "love" all around. I've written about that '(here)' in my post about his 2011 themes. Maybe it's different for other fans, but for me personally? I adore that about Thor. It's one of the many reasons I'm drawn to him over any other marvel Super besides Spider-Man. (not you tom holland ... yes you andrew garfield...)

So when I go to Thor for entertainment, I'm going to him above the other superheros because I want a story that revolves around HIS core and how Thor goes about reckoning with his challenges. I also go to MCU Thor specifically for his quiet, kind, regal nature. I come to him for his gravitas, his passion, his relationships with his cast of companions.

I go to him for high-sci-fi action/adventure, or for the "what if we took norse mythology and made it an alien superhero" route they took him in for the MCU. I go to Thor because he IS different from the rest of the Avengers... and that's the point.

So when someone says to me: "Well Thor wasn't for me so I'm glad he changed", or "Well I really liked Ragnarok because Thor kind of become more in line with the other Avengers"... they're fundamentally missing the point of why Thor has a fanbase at all.

[fite-club]

gotta be honest a lot of these "everyone unfairly demonizes men and treats them as dangerous!" transmascs got suspiciously offended at the suggestion to ask roided-out dudes at the gym where they get T. like a suspicious amount of people decided to interpret that as them being told to go get assaulted and are using it as proof of "transandrophobia". but like, why are you automatically assuming that buff men are going to assault you for talking to them? what happened to the unfair stereotyping of being dangerous??

[woozapooza]

😍🫶🥰👏👸🏻🌟💖 Dr. Melfi 💖🌟👸🏻👏🥰🫶😍 in season 2

[serpentface]

I had a shockingly in-character dream where I was showing Janeys photos of like, sexy men's halloween costumes + thigh high stockings and also various Breaking Bad characters under the vague premise of 'this is what it's like in The Future'. And he kept insulting our 'menswear' and then would get visibly shaken whenever a BRBA character came up.

It was like

[ceaselessims]

i do find it funny that stolas and blitz canonically have a D/s dynamic full of intense bdsm kinks that include roleplay, bondage, and just about every kind of toy you can think of, but almost every fic i have read that has nsfw content, they're having the most tender, vanilla sex ever

[nope-asdf]

my #1 issue is 99.9% of literally everything I draw doesn't ever make it past the rough sketch stage

[mmikmmik]

I think one of the least subtle parts of Mouthwashing is when Anya dies and Jimmy is immediately faced with a medical emergency [caused by Jimmy] and loses his shit and does the thing Anya specifically said would not be effective (because they're out of real medical supplies [caused by Jimmy]) and only causes Daisuke more pain. (And also Swansea's idea for euthanasia is "hit him the face with an axe", which... okay I don't know if I could have come up with something better in his shoes, but...) And then Jimmy tries to take care of Curly and it's horrible. To be fair, Jimmy has clearly lost the capacity to think clearly about what kind of care Curly would need (/comical understatement), but imo part of what That One Minigame was communicating is that Jimmy genuinely has no idea what's going on with Curly's body or injuries [caused by Jimmy] and can't even imagine logical possibilities.

The game leaves a lot about Anya implied or ambiguous, but it really wanted to establish this: Anya does an important, difficult, unpleasant job and when Jimmy and Swansea complain about her work, they don't know what they're talking about.

[startedwellthatsentence]

Not to defend Max because his reaction to Avery’s announcement was (as Tristan and Avery both pointed out) bad, but

A few hours earlier, Max had caught Avery acting super worried about something, and then she had asked him about how difficult med school was and if he had loved it. Their most recent one-on-one discussion had been about if it’s possible to go back to med school.

And so when Avery said that she was trying to make a decision, he latched onto the most recent conversation they had had, which was about her ability to go back to med school.

Was it the right move? No. Does it make sense? Yes.

[leashybebes]

🏳️‍🌈 (but i can’t wait to read everything else too haha)

💛💛

"No! I mean. I'm not - I haven't been - out for long." Tommy finishes his drink, takes a deep breath and says, "I'm in my thirties and I've only slept with four guys. That's - it's tragic, right?"

"What? No! Of course not," Evan says, thinking four? Jesus! He's touched more dicks than that, and he basically only sleeps with women. "It's fine. You should like, go at your own pace or whatever."

"It's not like I don't want to."

"Yeah? I mean - I feel like literally ten seconds on Grindr would solve this issue."

"I don't know."

"You don't know what? Dude, your workouts must be insane. Look at you!" He pokes Tommy's bicep, rock hard even though he's nowhere near flexing. "Actually, what are your workouts? Do you, like, own a gym?"

make me write