#narrative that should be handled correctly

[anxiously-sidequesting]

It's crazy (positive) when you (me) have more sympathy for villains/reformed villains like Morganthe, Malistaire, and Grandfather Spider respectively, than individuals like Ambrose or Gretta Bitchkettle

[beanghostprincess]

Not to keep beating a dead horse so to speak, but circling back to how the anime handles the Shuggy breakup it is personally the first time I've fully understood people who say the manga is way better & the "true" story because on the whole I think the anime is a really good adaption....except for this omg. I haven't read the manga fully either yet so now I'm wondering what else got a totally different vibe than intended & how that colors the perception of the story & characters. For instance, I'm already seeing anime onlys completely misinterpret Buggy's feelings in the shuggy breakup probably because of how brief it was.

I've had arguments in comments sections about people who do not think Buggy wanted to be Pirate King himself & his anger with Shanks isn't tied to him secretly sacrificing his OWN dream to follow him. To me the manga made it very clear that Buggy was making a great personal sacrifice in order to stay with his friend & how that all ties into his own insecurities, but a ton of anime onlys only saw it as Buggy being a whiny baby & not realizing how deep of a conflict Shanks refusing to look for the One Piece was for them 😭 and it's so frustrating! They just think Buggy is being "ungrateful" for everything Shanks did for him. I'm tired of the Shuggy dynamic being viewed so one sidedly in Shanks's favor & Buggy's detriment because they both narratively hold equal amounts of significance to each other. We just haven't been allowed to explore Shanks's side of it...yet. Oda kept Shanks's face obscured for a reason I'm sure.

And since the anime didn't frame it correctly Buggy's speech to Cross Guild about reigniting your dreams & setting sail for Laugh Tale loses all seriousness & comes off as just another gag instead & it breaks my heart because in the Manga while there is humor in it Buggy's tears are REAL & you can literally feel the spirit of One Piece flow through his speech. That speech shows us Buggy is a TRUE pirate! He ALSO inhereted Roger's will! I could literally feel the "I'm gunna become king of the pirates" OST from the anime play as I read it, but the anime framed it like another one of Buggy's "upward fialures" 💔 and it breaks my heart anime onlys don't get that. Imagine if Luffy gave up on his dream & finally after 30 years decided to believe in himself again? Imagine If Usopp really did give up in Water 7 & we didn't see him find the will to believe in himself until 39 years later? Buggy is an example of forgotten dreams & a lesson on it never being too late to go after them.

So I completely agree with you that it doesn't matter how little panel time a moment gets because if Oda can convey all of THAT in like 3 panels then the anime can do so and then some in a minute or 2. I also can't help but think this will confuse viewers later on because I'm certain Buggy is going to get to do some really cool & meaningful stuff in the last arc & a lot of them will feel blindsided because the set up was executed weirdly.

Sorry for sending such a long post & feel free to ignore If ur tired of discussing this I just wanted to give you some validation &let you know you're not the only one who thinks this way. Adaptation has a lot more going into it than just copying manga panels & the a good anime should definitely know when to expand on brief scenes & how to set the correct mood for them.

Oh, please, if it's not a negative ask you can keep sending me stuff about the episode and the breakup all you want!!! I'm just tired of having to defend my opinion. As if it wasn't just that, an opinion. But I'm sooo open to talk about it!!

And you're right!!! It bothers me so much to just think about how Anime Onlys are going to perceive this episode... If Buggy is already misunderstood within the fandom, I can't imagine what's gonna happen now that HIS episode has gotten this awful pacing and explanation (I complain but I've watched the episode so many times already lmao)

People misunderstand their relationship so much and in such levels... I don't get it because it's literally right there. You can't miss it. They're canonically crucial for each other no matter how you see it. It IS mutual whatever they have going on. I know we don't have much of Shanks' POV but you don't even have to read between the lines to see it.

And Buggy being seen as whiny because he has... Feelings... And is emotional... After his whole life crumbles down... Idk about you but if I lived in my best friend's shadow for years and gave up on my dream to trust in his instead, and suddenly when our captain dies he says he won't follow it... I'd be pretty fucking emotional too tbh. I could defend Buggy all day long and explain his character, but I believe I've done that already... So many times... (I love it it's my favorite thing ever)

I love your comparisons to other characters giving up on their dreams because it's so real. Buggy is the representation of people who once gave up on their dream and now are getting the courage back to follow it again. His speech is so emotional I think I know it by heart at this point with how many times I've read this chapter. I always cry-- Every time-- And I'm sooo angry Toei made the episode for laughs basically. It frustrates me in unimaginable ways.

Buggy is gonna do something incredible and people will complain and say it was out of nowhere because his speech in the Anime seems for jokes and like one of his schemes to get away from his problems. But this man was literally having a breakdown in the middle of a torture session and made an impulsive, emotional decision that came from the depths of his heart, because he had been holding onto it for his whole life. That's what bothers me about the animation. The pacing is bad and the way they treat him is even worse...

Don't apologize!!!!! I loved reading this. You expressed yourself sooo well and in such a polite way!!! Basically, you wrote everything I thought about the episode and I'm so glad to finally talk to someone with my same views 😭💖💖

[supersoakerfullofblood]

do you have any tips for writing characters who have a lot of difficulty identifying their own emotions (and other people's)? specifically if the work is from their POV. thank you very much!!

I'll start by saying you're in luck--literature's finest characters are defined by their difficulties identifying their emotions! You're in great company.

As a general rule, don't let your character figure out their emotions until you want some resolution in the narrative (climax, ending, or anywhere in between. Or if you have some second conflict in the narrative, feel free to resolve this one earlier). If your character has clarity about how they feel and what they should do about it, you don't have a compelling narrative but a successful therapy. The trick is in misguiding your characters.

You and I and everyone in the world are misguided about our emotions constantly. We want to feel everything on our terms. If we want a coffee, we want our favorite hazelnut latte, not the Americano. If we go through heartache, we still want to be happy, so we turn to coping mechanisms, often unhealthy, to achieve this. We are emotionally greedy.

Your characters also want to feel everything on their terms, and they don't like that they can't, so they turn to something unhealthy, something they think will solve the problem. In previous posts on my blog, I talk about this in terms of "want" and "need." Your character "needs" to handle the emotions as they are through healthy means, but your character "wants" to feel how they want to feel, which in a strong narrative won't make the character feel better. Ask yourself: if my character was real, how would they react to the situation they're in? When you think of anything unhealthy, write it.

As an example in one of my WIPs, a girl is bullied by the popular kids at her school, and she doesn't like that, but she's also friends with one of the popular kids. Instead of talking to this friend about the bullying, instead of talking to the counselor about it, instead of doing anything that would actually resolve her situation, she decides that if she wants people to stop bullying her, she herself needs to become popular. She notices all the popular kids have boyfriends, so she decides she's going to pursue someone. These are pretty steep leaps of logic, but we do it all the time. Has anyone tried to use romance to bandage emotional sores? Of course!

Macbeth is scared of the witches' prophecy. Does come to peace with it? No! He and his wife kill a lotta people!

Think of your favorite book: how do its characters try and fail to come to terms with their emotions?

As far as "how to write," it sounds like you're writing in first person, and if you are, I can't help too much--I have next to no experience there. But if you're narrating through your character's thoughts, never let them land on the right thought, the idea that will get them out of their bind. It might help to focus on physical sensations and the things people say and do around them--how is your character affected, and how do they interpret these things? Never let them interpret them well and correctly until you want resolution.

[ayaitch]

One of the things in the Horizon games that is a little tiresome to me is about all these Carja "good ones". Every time we meet a Carja (except for Nil, who is a whole other topic...), the narrative goes to lengths to assure us, the audience, that we should care about this Carja because they were "one of the good ones" during the Red Raids. This Carja wanted to stop things. This Carja opposed the Red Raids and senseless slaughter. This Carja always questioned things and strove to stop it all.

So that's great and all, and I appreciate having "good ones" right off the bat during awful, horrible times in a culture's history, but it's not very challenging. Show me why I should care about one of the "bad ones". Or someone who thought they were doing well by their culture, people, family, only to finally glimpse the big picture and realize how wrong they were and then try to change. Someone who snaps out of it, elbow-deep in blood (metaphrically?), and realizes something is off, thinks, 'Wtf am I doing, this isn't helping anyone.'

Even Avad, who usurped his bloodthirsty, tyrant father (and killed him, I don't want that to be taken away from Avad!) should have, at least up until a certain point, believed what his father was doing was right. It's how he was raised. It was the only lens by which he saw the world, especially considering the literal pillar upon which the Carja royal family resided. He had to be drinking from the same cup as his father (again, metaphorically) and so why wouldn't he believe up to a time, that they were doing what was right by their religion/culture. At some point, he had a Come-to-the-Sun moment (so to speak) and realized his father was a terrible, murdering person and worked against that, but what was that moment? He was already plotting against his father by the time he meets Ursa and helps her escape (if I recall correctly...).

Talanah's father and brother, prestigious and noble members of the Hunter's Lodge in Meridian, should have, at least at the beginning, been totally behind their Sun-King, who made it a point to justify more and more terrible things by claiming it for the best, that their people needed protection from this machine threat and degrading biosphere. I like the way the narrative handled them, but we were still presented with the idea that they were "good from the start."

Fashav too. "One of the good ones", who marched with the Red Raiders hoping to "mitigate" their atrocities. Which he failed at so why is he still considered a good one? Because intentions? There's a reason the adage is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (Don't get me wrong, I love Fashav, and wanted him to retire in comfort and accomplished lasting peace with laurels on his arms. He's such a compelling character as far as I'm concerned.)

Every Carja we meet that the narrative wants us to care about had figured out that the Mad Sun-King was awful and terrible before their hands got truly dirty, and were just trying to do their best from the inside to make change without creating waves and getting themselves executed (except Talanah's family, good on them).

So. I guess what I'm looking for in Horizon is an actual bad guy of the Carja who comes around before the end of the Red Raids. Someone too deep to see that they were wrong at first, but as soon as they did, made the needed change, and then did their very best to actively sabotage and undermine authority in every possible way. It's not that I don't like the Carja we meet in the game, it's just boring that they're always "one of the good ones" so we should care about what happens to them, instead of just having Aloy murder them on sight. Someone who did some things in the name of an unworthy institution and is now trying to come back from it and do the right thing.

Thinking about all this makes me wish we could have taken down those Shadow Carja in the Daunt at the beginning of HFW, because they're still nasty and awful (but still somehow good and peaceful types?????), but Aloy and Petra are all, 'aw, poor refugees...'. Like.... Pardon me? Weren't they were 100% supportive of the murdering, crazy Sun-King who tore apart both of their tribes and are anti-Avad who wants peace with everyone. What the hell is with that?

[mdhwrites]

if you've seen Steven universe how would you compare it to TOH? I've seen many takes that TOH is Steven Universe 'done correctly' which drives me up a wall, especially since TOH has a lot of the same flaws as SU (pretty much everyone has to be tied to steven in some way- the same way everyone's gotta tie into Luz, White Diamond pisses me off for the same reason the collector does and dear god both finales are messes and the worldbuilding is also kind of messy) but pretty much everyone can agree that Steven Universe's themes of restorative justice are good, its themes surrounding interpersonal relationships and intergenerational trauma is good- I've seen people justify how TOH handles its villains 2 ways "its doing steven universe's restorative justice but like correctly" or "its about killing your oppressors, which steven should have done" which is dumb. Idk this fandom has a huge hate-boner for SU and Amphibia in general though. I also saw someone have the take the collector and belos where foils which... Is weird I can see where they come from but they never are put together in a way that highlights their similarities and differences. So what are some actual comparisons that can made between the shows outside of LGBT characters and surface level stuff?

Sadly I have not seen Steven Universe so I can't really comment on much of it. I've seen the first episode (both halves), decided the gems were insufferable to me and Steven was okay and went on with my life because at the time, I was a full time college student and a part time Walmart employee. I do like some of the songs that have reached me but I never got an in with the show, especially since my early experience with it was much like Gravity Falls where I heard a lot of high concept stuff about it but not much about why I would actually enjoy a given episode, what was enjoyable about the characters, etc. like that. Honestly, the only criticism I know of for it is that people hate the ending.

BUT.

I have seen one other thing. I have seen about twenty minutes of the Steven Universe movie. With that I can say one thing definitively even if it's not clearing a high bar: The Diamond's turn to good is better than the Collector's because they have literally ANY reason to listen to the person preaching at them. The Collector doesn't. In fact, he has no reason to reform and it is drastically out of character for him to care about... Anyone?

Let me start on the Diamond's side because I don't have a lot to say about this but it is something I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone talk about: They were clearly traumatized by the loss of Pink Diamond. Whether or not you think this is a good part of the plot isn't what matters, the point is that this is a literal fact to the story. This grief has gone unresolved for literal decades (just going by Steven's lifespan, someone in my Discord provided the context that they blamed themselves for her DEATH, not just disappearance, for CENTURIES which only bolsters the point I'm making) and has festered in them a desperation for their old comrade? Friend? I don't 100% know but you get the point. So when her son arrives and can't be kept by force, they're going to be pretty amenable to listen to whatever demands means keeping him around. Is that great? No, I wouldn't say it is as the question of what happens when Steven dies is there but it works for forcing them to consider the consequences of their actions and how they may need to change to have the life they desire. It is a compelling force for the first step of change. It's not amazing but it is at least functional from a narrative standpoint, an emotional standpoint and from a character standpoint. Not that it's great but that it is functional. You can string together how this works without having to just invent bullshit.

The Collector has none of these three because he's the literal fucking worst.

I've talked about this before but the Collector isn't the child the fandom treats him as. Even if we try to disconnect the second season version of the Collector, who very much so knows what death is and the consequences of his actions, S3 Collector does have a foil to Belos: He's an actual colonizing piece of shit. Not in that he is literally colonizing places but in mindset. Everything to him is something to be used for his entertainment or enrichment or it is to be stripped of all rights and brutally oppressed until it fits the role he desires. This is what happens when you become a LITERAL. FUCKING. DOLL. And he even has enforcers like the armies colonies would use that have wildly more powerful magic, i.e. technology, in order to make that oppression more seamless. Remember: Hexside is actively hiding from roaming stars that he just has going around the Isles that hoover up people, making at least those who resist into dolls immediately without question, and then bringing them to him to be new play toys in his game. That is explicitly what he has been doing to the entire Isles for MONTHS once S3 episode 2 happens.

People do not matter to him and this even extends to King. When King steps out of line, The Collector cracks the whip. He's even willing to KILL KING for having the gall of caring about anyone other than him. Those death games would be just as lethal to King as it would be to Eda and Luz after all. And if you actually do divorce S2's "PLAY AMONGST THE BONES!" line (which is fucking awful because you have to remove literally all of the first appearances of a character which is usually considered, you know... Bad) and believe that he doesn't know what death is... He knows what pain is. He knows what torture is. He knows the despair of being trapped in a space where you can't move or act or do anything except watch as an observer on a world that could destroy you at any moment because your prison is all of your being.

And then he makes people into dolls, with consciousness, without a second thought. He is willing to BREAK people in order to make them play along. His literal plan was to shatter the bodies of the Owl House trio over and over and over again until they were subservient to his desires. That is WORSE than just wanting to kill them. And he only stops to throw a tantrum because he fails to succeed and starts whining about it like any selfish asshole not getting his way. Not like a child: Like a selfish asshole.

So with ALL of this, what does the show do to try to make him consider the consequences of his actions? Well... Nothing. It claims it's trying to do something but the tour with the trio is much more a circle jerk about how amazing the show was and how much could have happened if not for the shortening ("That sounds like something that could have been its own spin off!" Or whatever King says to Eda talking about her and Raine's time at Hexside) than it is about talking to the Collector. There's a couple lines here and there, talking to him about what works for making friends but does it stick?

No, the Collector learns nothing and in mocking Steven Universe, they make that clear. The Collector is told that people are complex and you must show compassion. Rather than actually believing this, he uses it like a blunt hammer, just like all of his other solutions, to make a problem of his go away. That's why he hugs Belos and assumes it will work. He is not considering the complexity of humanity or the person he is applying this to. It is just to solve a problem so he'll get praised and go back to playing his games. Nothing. More.

And then he fucks off instead of fixing the damage he'd done because why would he stay? Why would he help? He hasn't learned anything and he doesn't want to help these people. He has NO motivation for why he helps save the Archive except otherwise he loses his sweet crash pad. So afterwards? He's gonna go somewhere where he can be himself and not be scolded for it because this toy is no longer fun.

Edit: He does stay to change everyone back from dolls. That much more falls into the "It's the ending, we have to have the problem only he can fix be fixed by him" despite the fact that he is responsible for so much more destruction that would theoretically be pretty easy for him to fix as well. He only does what is demanded of him for the sake of a happy ending, not because of character motivation, not from how I see it at least.

The most condemning part of this is that it's all around Luz. All around someone he doesn't like. He sees Luz as trying to take away his only friend after all and, you know, he is correct about that. They don't even try to hide that fact during the tour. They're still clearly upset with him and not even trying to be his friend, they're just lecturing him. It doesn't work from a character perspective, a narrative perspective or an emotional one. King MIGHT have with better writing, there's a reason I always wanted the Collector redeemed by one of his games forcing him to have to kill King by the rules he made before breaking it and having to face how that's unfair and cruel to others since they wouldn't get that leniency, but that's not how the show plays it. King is an unwilling servant for one episode and then VERY against the Collector in the next until after the death games. When he first shows up, King isn't trying to mediate, he is ready to fight just like the other two. He's not the Collector's friend and he never was so why would the Collector bother listening to him?

That is why me saying the Diamonds, even with my limited knowledge, works better than the Collector is almost literally the worst you can do when it comes to something like this. All the setup is wrong, the catalyst requires explicit retcons and don't work with the character and the payoff is... Nothing. Literally nothing. The only way to have done it worse is to have had everyone praise the Collector before he then stabbed Amity and no one acted like that was a problem. It can only function because we are TOLD he's redeemed even if he never shows it.

Andrias standing alone as a farmer, accepting the punishment for his actions and trying to make better on them, is such better payoff to a redemption arc than anything the Collector gets and his redemption was in character and setup by his past. So then let's get to one of your last points: Why is it that the TOH fandom rags on SU and Amphibia so much, especially for their endings, when theirs is such shit?

Well... Because that's the reputation of TOH. That it is the 'good' one. That it is better than almost all other media. The show itself, with moments like the Collector mocking the SU ending by hugging Belos, reinforces this. As such, for you to criticize TOH as failing in a department that other shows are not rapturously praised for is to fall out of sync with the show itself. As such, all other works must be placed beneath it, especially if those are widely believed to have a flaw in an element to then raise TOH up with. This is part of why so many people want to say the Amphibia ending is wrong because the Amphibia ending is brave and controversial and saying something while the TOH ending?

I mean... Do you really think the Collector's the only part of it objectively flawed like this? Because if a major redemption for your big bad is botched this badly, you can bet other problems exist. I've talked about them at length. But there are probably people out there who would call me the Lily Orchard of TOH if I was better known.

See you next tale.

======+++++======

That last line isn't an endorsement of Lily Orchard btw, just that I have to imagine it's the label I would be given. What little exposure I've had to her works is... YIKES. Just fucking yikes. My Discord has really enjoyed every time I've live reacted to a video of hers they've posted there. sigh

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[iamnmbr3]

harry potter #15 :] very interested in hearing your thoughts on this

15. Worst thing they’ve ever done

Excellent question. I'm going to give two answers - because one is a scene I hate and usually ignore. If we go strictly by canon, then in my opinion hands down for me Harry's darkest moment is the bit in book 7 when he uses the Cruciatus Curse on Amycus Carrow to great effect and without any remorse. I actually loathe this scene and find it to be very poorly written resulting in it feeling jarring and ooc to the point that I usually pretend it didn't happen (though I think it had potential if it had been handled better).

Let me explain. A really notable moment in the series comes in book 5 when Harry is unable to effectively use the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix even though he's just seen her murder Sirius because even though he's angry, he isn't able to truly enjoy seeing another human being suffer and thus struggles with the spell. And if ever there was a moment when even a very kind and compassionate person might be tempted to enjoy seeing someone else suffer, you'd think facing someone like Bellatrix, who has committed innumerable heinous crimes, right after watching her murder a loved one might push them over the edge. But even such extreme circumstances don't do it for Harry. And then in book 7 it all changes because he witnesses Amycus Carrow...being rude...to Professor McGonagall. Listen. I love Minerva McGonagall. But if Bellatrix murdering Sirius in cold blood wasn't enough to enrage Harry then having THIS be the thing that sets him off feels like too much of a stretch.

The thing that really kills the scene for me though is everyone's reactions...or rather, non-reactions. Remember that this spell is absolutely agonizing when done correctly - equivalent to the agonies produced by the worst and most painful conventional Muggle torture. It's so bad even using it once carries a life sentence in Azkaban. It's so bad repeatedly using it on someone is enough to drive them insane. And Harry knows just how awful a spell it is since he himself has been a victim of it.

And when he uses this horrible, heinous cruel spell on another human being what's the reaction? Nothing. He doesn't feel guilt. He doesn't question himself at all. He doesn't think about it. Well ok. This could be an interesting, dark moment for his character. It could be a chance to explore how the war has changed him or how angry and frustrated he's feeling in that moment or to suggest that perhaps the Horcrux fragment is corrupting him and lots could be done with the fallout as he deals with what he's done and as other characters react to it.

But no. Because no other characters react as though he's done anything wrong either. McGonagall isn't disturbed or horrified or concerned. She actually compliments him and says it was "gallant" of him to defend her honor in that way. Uh. What?! No it wasn't. He could've just used a Stunner to defend her. Instead he did something that no one should do to anyone - something that is considered deeply taboo and awful even in the rather dystopian wizarding world. And no one cares. The narrative doesn't even remark on it. We're just supposed to all go "yayyy hero!" and move on. So at that point, why even include it? If he'd stunned or disarmed Amycus it would have had the same narrative impact. I know why the scene is really there. It's to try to tease the possibility that he will use the Killing Curse since he's used the other 2 Unforgivables by that point. But that's cheap and stupid.

The moment is dumb and ooc and none of the potential that could make it work and be actually in-character is explored. Consequently it feels like a very badly written ooc plot hole. So normally I just ignore it. Book 7 has a lot of lazy writing and while I can fix some of it, this moment and the retcon where suddenly people can be their own Secret Keepers are two moments that are just too bad for me to even bother with so I straight up ignore them.

But if we consider this part canon then it's definitely Harry's darkest and worst action, even if it's not given the narrative weight that it should be.

If we ignore that scene then his worst act is forcing Lockhart to go first into the Chamber of Secrets, knowingly putting him at risk of being killed and eaten.

In my opinion not putting more effort into working towards freeing Kreacher is also horrible but that's more of a bigger issue with the narrative where JKR retcons Harry's original horror at discovering Dobby's predicament and tries to convince the readers that most house elves are happy and benefited by being enslaved (no; they are not. Slavery is disgusting and inherently violent and harmful). Presumably Harry does free Kreacher after the war. But yeah. I find the whole way the story handles house elves to be quite repellent. And I hate that Harry originally had the right attitude and then JKR retconned it.

Send me a character and a number.

[liesmyth]

hi i wasnt following u when ted lasso s3 came out so im curious to know what your general thoughts on the season were, i thought there were some rly good moments but i dont think im ever gonna forgive them for half-assing and giving up on ted's depression storyline amongst Many other things

OH MAN, unfortunately my opinion overall is pretty negative. Which, don't get me wrong, can be very good for fandom because the "fix it" impulse to fix what went wrong always gets my fic brain going, but... it really felt half-assed in so many ways, which is a double let-down considering that the whole time it was airing, the production wouldn't commit to actually saying it was the last season, wasn't marketed as such, and it generally felt like the whole show fizzled out vs. having what should have been a well-deserved send-off.

My main gripe is that it felt like... the writers had Points they wanted to hit and didn't care what they wrote as long as they got there. Genuinely all of the characters were paid dust in different ways (nobody more than Roy IMO who got flanderized beyond belief). The pacing was very uneven, so much crammed into the series but at the same time very little that had actual emotional resonance happened; it feels like a sharp downhill from how well-crafted the earlier seasons were, especially season 1. Someone should have really told JSuds "No" at least once or twice or two hundred times.

Strangely enough, the actual final episode was really alright for me, because it was self-referential and #meta as hell but never pretended to serve an actual narrative purpose beyond being a bookend; I much prefer that to the whole middle-of-the-season arc where the show tried to juggle so many plotlines and fumbled everything. I also don't especially care about things I've seen other people get worked up about (Ted's arc / his ending, Dr Jacob, Jamie's dad etc) just because I never expected much from that front to begin with & I don't really want media to teach me stuff — like, I get why someone may be bummed by "bad mental health storyline rep!" but to me it's just another example of bad storytelling to go with all the others. I totally get having a visceral reaction to it, though! But I don't really think any screenwriter sits at a table saying "I'm going to make a show about mental health that handles it correctly." They sit at the table and think about how to fictionalise a story of a guy going through it, using his mental health as a hook, among others. I care way less about characters being therapised and stable and healthy than I do about a story being good, you know? The issue with TDS3 is that it was simply boring. To me.

I will say, I actually liked the season a lot more while it was airing that now that it's over; week-by-week I kept having hope they'd course correct things, I had fun speculating, and I decided what to pick and choose to enjoy from the new episodes. I think S3 is WAY better when consumed in a weekly format than looked at as a whole. Some of my favourite fandom moments were writing fic about an episode that just aired while waiting for the next

[promises-of-paradise]

I saw the Napoleon movie at the cinema today and here are some of my thoughts (spoiler warning I guess?):

everything about this film was so unintentionally funny

not a single person was casted correctly (except for Vanessa Kirby as Josephine. I think she did a good job with a bad script)

I loved all the military uniforms

Paul Barras was so slay

can't believe that they had Junot at Toulon and didn't even include the iconic way that he met Napoleon

Thermidor was very lacklustre. I wish it had been more accurate to what actually happened because the real events were very dramatic

so sad that they erased Napoleon's friendship with Bonbon Robespierre. it would have made such a good tragic backstory

its weird how they include Napoleon and Josephine lying about their ages when they got married, but didn't state the reason why. because now it just looks like they were saying their actual ages.

Josephine's dogs were very cute, but I think that instead of having Napoleon play with one of the dogs there should have been a whole sequence of him being attacked by Fortuné every time Josephine turns her back

very sad at the Italian campaign erasure

I find it weird that Napoleon had short hair for Egypt and Brumaire because surely it would have made more sense for narrative purposes to have a scene of him cutting his hair short after becoming first consul to symbolise the change?

so mean of Napoleon to deny Junot his dessert

I'm actually so glad that Junot disappeared after Egypt because I doubt they would have been able to handle his mental illness and death with an appropriate amount of sensitivity

Brumaire was actually hilarious I was laughing so much when he fell down the stairs

thankfully there weren't as many cringy sex scenes as I thought there were from reading the reviews. but maybe that's because those scenes are in the directors cut and not the cinema version?

literally the only time we ever see Eugene and Hortense during Napoleon and Josephine's marriage is at the divorce. and they don't even say anything they just stand there looking awkward.

can't believe the iconic Tilsit kiss wasn't included

why was Tsar Alexander such a slutty Twink I'm not complaining though

Marie-Louise somehow looked like the exact opposite of historical Marie-Louise. the casting director wasn't even trying

poor Napoleon II only got about two seconds on screen time. come on after everything he went through he deserves at least one scene to play with his dad

can't believe they actually used the classic 'blue-grey Eastern Europe' filter on Russia

I am still laughing about how Napoleon said he wanted to spank Alexander

Waterloo felt so lacklustre for some reason? I feel like it should have been a lot more dramatic and theatrical to really convey how important the battle was

the bullet hole in Napoleon's hat at Waterloo looked so fake

WHY DID HE JUST FALL OF HIS CHAIR LIKE THAT AT THE END OF THE FILM LMAO

[nyushkawritesstuff]

Crafting Authentic Slavic Characters: A Guide to Avoid Stereotypes and Embrace Diversity

A/N: I've been informed that people who have nothing on their blog can be mistaken for bots, so I decided to make one about something I'm really passionate about, as a Montenegrin woman. So sit back and enjoy :) (Keep in mind that I've never written a blog before, not even in my native language, so excuse any mistakes.)

Dear writers and storytellers,

As we dive into the art of character creation, it's essential to recognize the significance of crafting Slavic characters authentically and respectfully. Our stories have the power to challenge stereotypes and foster cultural understanding. This guide aims to provide a balanced perspective on what to do and what not to do when developing Slavic characters.

1. Do Research Thoroughly: Invest time in researching Slavic cultures, languages, history, and traditions. The more you know, the better you can authentically represent Slavic characters.

2. Don't Rely on Stereotypes: Avoid portraying Slavic characters solely through stereotypes like the "Russian villain" or "stoic Eastern European." Break away from these clichés.

3. Do Embrace Diversity: Recognize the diversity within the Slavic region. Slavic culture varies greatly from one country to another, so consider this when creating characters.

4. Don't Use Accents as a Crutch: Avoid heavy phonetic accents in dialogue, as they can come across as caricatures. Instead, convey their origin through subtle language choices.

5. Do Develop Complex Personalities: Slavic characters, like any others, should have multi-dimensional personalities, aspirations, and flaws. Make them relatable.

6. Don't Overdo "Tragic Backstories": While adversity can make a character compelling, avoid making every Slavic character's life a never-ending tragedy.

7. Do Consult Sensitively: If you're not from a Slavic background, consider seeking input from individuals who are. Be respectful and willing to learn.

8. Don't Fetishize Culture: Avoid reducing Slavic culture to exotic or mystical elements. Portray it respectfully, not as a novelty.

9. Do Challenge Prejudices: Use your writing to challenge stereotypes and prejudices, both within your story and in your readers' minds.

10. Don't Make All Slavic Characters the Same: Not every Slavic character should conform to a specific mold. Showcase their individuality.

11. Do Address Historical Context: If your story involves historical events or themes, handle them with sensitivity and accuracy.

12. Don't Neglect Positive Representations: While conflict can be a central theme, don't forget to include positive Slavic characters who contribute to the narrative in meaningful ways.

13. Do Avoid Cultural Appropriation: Use cultural elements respectfully and with proper context, avoiding appropriation or misrepresentation.

14. Don't Make Language Mistakes: If using Slavic languages in your writing, ensure they are used correctly to avoid unintended errors or offense.

15. Do Humanize Your Characters: At the core of it all, Slavic characters are human beings. Treat them with the same care, depth, and humanity you would any other character.

16. Don't Be Complacent: Writing authentic Slavic characters is an ongoing process. Continuously educate yourself and be open to feedback.

In conclusion, dear writers, crafting Slavic characters that break free from stereotypes and embrace diversity is not just a creative endeavor but a moral one. As storytellers, we have the power to shape perceptions and promote cultural understanding. By following these guidelines and committing to respectful and nuanced representation, we can contribute to a more inclusive and vibrant literary landscape.

Let's embark on this journey together, armed with knowledge and empathy, and create characters that truly reflect the rich tapestry of the Slavic experience.

You're also free to ask *me* any questions, if you have them and would like an answer from someone who's actually Slavic.

With sincerity and resolve,

Nyushka, a certified Slavic person :)

[kitsun3imp0ster]

Okay, to be completely honest, yeucc sort of rubs me the wrong way

Idk, there are a lot of things tho

Maybe it's the fact that they let their mods and devs get away with literally anything, including bullying their fans and slandering minors over the stupidest shit and they get Zero repercussions. (Both Gregoriah's VA and soda_stuff are KNOWN for being controversial as hell for different reasons, but yeucc still keeps them on the team for god knows why)

Maybe it's how weird the age change for Gnarpy is, since xe went from being a canonical minor to 'up for interpretation' which just feels so fucking weird to me, plus the fact that Gnarpy looks So Much Younger now with the new proportions and model, but that last bit may just be me simply nitpicking (dont even use the 'xey're an alien!!' excuse, you sound like people who say 'they look like a toddler but theyre actually 1000 years old)

Maybe it's the fact that yeucc is trying to make people credit them for the concept of a fucking elevator game when all they did was add the NPC shit, and even then the normal elevator did it first with The Big Cheese

Maybe it's the fact that yeucc blames their fanbase for weird decisions when I've heard literally NOBODY talking about that shit (looking at you, changing the R6 models. If they were to listen to the majority of the fanbase instead of like the handful of people who think R6 models are bad, then they wouldn't be doing this)

Maybe it's the fact that bro was So Fucking Proud of themselves for tricking their entire fanbase into becoming attached to Melanie, just to kill her off before she even got into the game. No, that's not writing a narrative, it's just being weird to ur fans and I guess attempting to make some weird fucked up ARG??? even tho it wasn't at all handled correctly. (There are SOOO many better ways they could have gone about it, but nope. And again they were so smug and cocky about it, like dude???)

Maybe it's the fact that yeucc in general is just sort of. Incompetent.

If the Dandy's World fandom can look at Rox and want them to take accountability, Regretevator fans should too even if yeucc's crimes against humanity arent 'as bad'. 

Maybe they aren't, but god does it suck looking at what the hell is happening and seeing fans being completely put off of the game because of the creator and their team of assholes. Not even mentioning the fact that it feels like some other shit could be brewing under the surface that could be spilling out thru all this other stuff. Idk tho.

I'm not saying everyone they surround themself with are dicks, but a good couple definitely spoils the bunch.

Thank you for listening to my TedTalk.

[lpsgirl109]

Start yapping about your lastest hyperfixaction Queen‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣️🗣️🗣️🔊🔊🔊🔊🔊

and ANOTHER thing about sm:mm is the way Phin and Miles's conflict is treated as a black and white situation, where there can only be one in the right and one in the wrong. There is no middle ground, which is bullshit because there absolutely should be a middle ground.

The arguments in defense of Miles is that Phin is a hypocrite and a heartless asshole. She certainly must not care about Miles at all to be doing what she's doing and not even tell him Rick died. She has no right to be upset at him, she's just being whiny. To that I say: If my friend said he wanted to help my cause and then I find out he just wanted to get information out of me, I'd be pissed the fuck off. From her perspective, it probably seems like Miles wasnt even planning on helping her, he just wanted to spy on the Underground. Yes she's being hypocritical acting like he's so horrible for keeping secrets when she was doing the same thing. However, and I am looking at this from a narrative standpoint, her acting that way isn't a problem. The problem is this never gets called out, not by Miles or really the narrative itself. It's sort of a pattern that the story gives Phin character flaws that never get challenged. Also, and know that I understand why Miles did what he did, but I'm sure there were several other ways to stop Phin than going behind her back. Aaron literally phrases it as "using her" for christ's sake. Again, from Phin's perspective, it's understandable that she'd assume he lied about wanting to help her. She has every right to be upset about that, and her keeping secrets from him doesn't negate that. Also just throwing this out there that Phin has no obligation to tell Miles or anyone that Rick is dead. That's really only her business and I don't know why people act like Miles has a right to know and she's awful for not telling him. I'd get it if Rick and Miles were really close but we're never really shown that in the game. Have you considered, she didn't tell Miles about Rick's death or ask him to help her straight up because it could potentially put his life in danger?

The arguments in defense of Phin is that Miles made no effort to hear her out, he should've jumped on board the second he found out what Roxxon was up to, and he's an awful friend for not supporting Phin. To that I say: I don't think I need to explain while Miles absolutely should not have tried to join her. The Underground is a terrorist group, as much as I hate that they are a terrorist group, they are a terrorist group. They are attacking FEAST trucks and hacking aircrafts to shoot at the city and are only working for Phin because she's supplying them with weapons. In no world would Miles ever work with these people. This would be more understandable if the Underground's only goal was taking down Roxxon like I rewrite them as, but this is blatantly not the case in the game. It doesn't matter how correct Phin's motives are, her team attacks innocent people just for shits and giggles. This is not something Miles would ever in a million years be apart of. It's also worth noting that he absolutely wanted to help her stop Roxxon?? Just not in the way she was going about it, which. Valid. Her team is getting into shoot outs in the streets and their plan involves blowing up a fucking building. He wants to stop Roxxon, just in a way that'll involve a lot less people dying

The correct answer: they both fucked up. They both hid things from each other. Miles lied to her to get info from the Underground, Phin treated Miles kinda unfairly for it. Neither of them handled this correctly. Let's all hold hands now

[187days]

Day Seventeen

The ninth grade English teachers recently had students choose an image of themselves and write one-page personal narrative about it. They made a display out of string and clothespins, printed everyone's pieces in color, and hung them on the display. It's SO cool, and so much better than white walls. I took a "five minute field trip" with my second section of Global Studies so we could look at their work. They were all talking about wanting to find theirs when they came into class, so I figured we should just do that to start with.

Then they- and the students in my other two sections- used today's class to finish putting together their geography projects and practice presenting them. The practice went the best in my third section; groups actually made notecards, went out into the hall to practice (I stood in the doorway so I could see them). and so on. In the other two sections, it was less extensive and far more reluctantly done, but I was able to show a few students that it was beneficial because they were able to correct their pronunciation, get comfortable reading some of the larger numbers that might've tripped them up, and things like that.

Whether they practiced or not, though, I'm looking forward to their presentations. It's been a while since I've done a group project like this with freshmen, so it's been a learning experience for me as well as for them, and I think it's been a good one.

In APGOV, I was back at the front of the room- after days of project work, presentations, and guests- to begin the first unit of the actual AP curriculum: foundations of American democracy. I called students' attention back to the lessons we'd done on in the first couple days of school about the years leading up to the Revolutionary War. Then I showed a Crash Course episode on the subject, asked questions to review their knowledge of the Declaration of Independence, and lectured on the task our Founders had to form a government once the Declaration had been signed. They're supposed to read the Articles of Confederation and US Constitution by Monday (we have a guest speaker tomorrow), so this lesson is segueing into the next one really obviously.

What else?

I screwed up a bit, but it's not totally my fault. I've always moved the tables in my room around for various activities, but their default layout is rows. A teacher trick I learned years ago to ensure they got put back into those rows correctly was to mark their placement on the floor with a sharpie. I've done it for years, but we've got a new Head of Maintenance this year, and he came in to fix a busted lightbulb, saw the marks, and made the custodian assigned to my hallway clean them. I found out and apologized immediately; it had just never been an issue before! The custodian told me not to worry about it because he's super nice, but still.

I also had a couple meetings today, and I think I handled those well. It's Thursday, so, of course, we had a PLC meeting in the morning; we spent it discussing some upcoming events and directives from the leadership team, then filling out the professional goals paperwork we're required to do each year. And, during my prep, I had a less formal meeting with Dean 1 about the challenges the new teachers are facing. There's nothing extraordinary, it's all typical new teacher stuff, but he wanted my thoughts on what would be most helpful.

And, as longtime readers know, one thing I'm rarely shy about is giving my thoughts. It's good to have admins who appreciate that trait!

[louisisalarrie]

Hope it’s okay that I come here and give my take on BBG. I love that your blog is always open to different opinions and for a pretty new fan that’s great because you don’t try to push your opinion down on your followers, so thank you that!

First of all, my opinion about BBG changes all the time. One day I’m sure F is his son and the next I’m not, so maybe this is gonna get kind of confusion, sorry about that in advance!

No matter what opinion you have about BBG it’s a really messy situation for all parts. If it’s a stunt then it’s an awful thing to put both Louis and the child in (I don’t care for B at all, no matter if it’s real or not, she’s a shitty person and maybe mother!). One of the reasons I believe it’s real is because I think Louis would have handled the latest couple of years very different if he wasn’t his son. He wouldn’t have pushed the narrative that much, because if it sometime along the line finally ends I think this will hurt F even more. And if it’s not real, how the hell do they then explain to a kid that he 2 years in a row should celebrate Christmas (and NYE) with a person who’s not his father and his family? Last year I questioned if those photos was taken at Christmas, but this year we got content for several days and a Larrie confirmed that L and F landed I LAX just after new years. So I guess he really was in England for a week with Louis and his family. I can’t remember if we saw any content from B and her family during Christmas or if they could have been in England too? If that’s the case, then it makes more sense and he might just visited Louis for “photo sessions”.

Also Louis seems to spend a lot of time in LA. Even though he’s mostly MIA, we often got a sign that he’s there and not in London. But when he is there Oli always seems to be there too, I know they are friends but at the same time it screams WORK, because who have their assistant by their side all the time, also when you visit your son. All the clips in AOTV with Louis and F, Oli is there too. Like they are co-parenting 🤣 So yeah, that’s one of the reason I find his fatherhood questionable.

And also just today we again got proof that he’s out partying in LA, when he’s supposedly is there to be with his son? We have seen that a lot of times where he’s either pictured at Barney’s or posting selfies smoking weed.

Well this was a lot of rambling and it probably didn’t make much sense, but I think mostly my conclusion is, that he’s not the farther but he has accepted that he will never get out of this situation and therefore he has also accepted F as his “son” and treats him that way, both public and privately. I think, no matter what, that he care for the kid and therefore he now wants what’s best for him. That’s also the reason he push the story about him, because he wants the fans to drop the talk about him not being Louis son - for the sake of the kid and to get the fans to accept him.

Hope this makes sense, English is not my first language, so therefore these kind of opinions can be hard to explain correctly.

Hi lovely!

never apologise for your English, it’s honestly better than mine and that’s the only language I speak hahahaha.

But yes, I very much understand you and you’ve picked up on some very important points. If you still feel on the fence, I’d recommend checking out this masterpost that covers everything about bbg, and it’s just too weird to be real.

[coraniaid]

Finished The Dark Age.  It’s not as well-constructed an episode as Lie To Me, nor as fun an episode as Halloween, but despite that (or maybe because of it?) it’s still one that I really want to talk about.  So this is probably the first of a few posts.

(Also I’m going to cover both parts of What’s My Line? at once and I don’t know when I’ll have time to watch them back to back the way I think they should be watched.)

I noted before that Giles’ Ripper backstory can be summed up as “when he was younger Giles briefly dropped out of Oxford, experimented with drugs and had sex with Ethan Rayne”.  

Yes, the second and third parts of that sentence are not explicitly canon but this is a very popular reading in the Buffy fandom and has been for over twenty years. And it's a reading which I think is heavily implied on screen: both in this episode itself (among other things: Giles admits that summoning Eyghon resulted in “an extraordinary high” and, while researching in the library, Willow notes that “ancient sects used to induce possession for bacchanals and orgies”) and in the wider context of the show (where magic is frequently used as a metaphor for both drug addiction and, in Seasons 4 and 5 in particular, for lesbian sex).  It only becomes more heavily hinted at in Ethan’s next two appearances on the show, particularly in A New Man with Ethan’s description of himself and Giles as “a couple of old … mystics”, or his off-screen comment that “you know, you’re really very attractive” that Giles clearly assumes is aimed at him.

The thing is though, once you’re viewing Giles’ past in that light, the way it’s actually handled by the narrative – as something Giles is deeply (and correctly!) ashamed of; as something which fundamentally threatens his relationship with Jenny once she learns about it; as something which is intrinsically tied up with death and criminality and (to quote Ethan himself in Halloween) “degenerate” acts – becomes more than a little uncomfortable. What, if anything, is the show actually trying to say here?

And it’s particularly galling too to know that Ethan – who, let’s not forget, was only introduced a couple of episodes ago – will appear in just two more episodes across two more seasons before the show’s heroes cheerfully allow him to be abducted without trial and taken to “a secret detention facility in the Nevada desert” to be “rehabilitated” by a branch of the United States military. One that Buffy and Giles already know is engaged in all sorts of unethical practices quite beyond being, well, a branch of the United States military, and which Ethan himself has correctly warned them is “blundering into new places it doesn’t belong, throwing the worlds out of balance”.  And to know that – while Buffy will later turn on the Initiative and plan to rescue Riley and Oz from their control  – Ethan himself will never be seen on screen again.

[pandoramsbox]

Sci-Fi Saturday: Woman in the Moon

Week 5:

Film(s): Woman in the Moon (Frau im Mond, Dir. Fritz Lang, 1929, Germany)

Viewing Format: Streaming - Kanopy via San Francisco Public Library

Date Watched: June 6, 2021

Rationale for Inclusion:

Including Woman in the Moon (Frau im Mond, Dir. Fritz Lang, 1929, Germany) on this survey came down to two reasons: curiosity about Fritz Lang's sci-fi follow up to Metropolis (1927, Germany) and the film's reputation as an early cinematic work of "hard" or "serious" science fiction.

For those not familiar with the term, for something to qualify as "hard" science fiction, the technology and world building needs to be based on available scientific facts, and theoretically, realistically possible. Its counterpart, "soft" science fiction comes up with fantastic notions, technology and worlds without much attention given to how these things could be produced in the real world. Neither approach is necessarily a superior way to craft a good work of science fiction. Whether you draw blueprints, or "just make it up," both paths have inspired, or predicted, later technology.

Lang's Metropolis is undoubtedly soft science fiction; its set pieces being more artistic than scientific. Witnessing him take a more factual approach to science fiction, with a foundational figure in the field of rocketry and aeronautics, Hermann Oberth, acting as consultant was an intriguing premise. 

Reactions:

Despite knowing that Woman in the Moon was a work of science fiction created with input from a German rocket scientist, my partner and I were still not fully prepared for the way space travel in the film used realistic multi-stage rockets, and depicted methods for how the rocket's passengers would deal with takeoff and landing G-forces and zero gravity in between. Logically, we knew our Space Race history and should not have been surprised: the United States imported Nazi Rocket scientists to help build its space program for a reason (i.e. the V-2 rocket). Yet seeing what became common operational features on a fictional spaceship in 1929, 17 years before the first US V-2 tests, was a paradigm shift.

For this reason, the detail that most sticks in my mind about this film is that the spaceship had leather handles all over its walls, to help passengers navigate around the ship in zero gravity.

However, as much as Woman in the Moon correctly prefigured many details of crewed space travel, it still got some things wrong. When the crew of the Friede reaches the far side of the moon, they discover that it has a breathable atmosphere, as theorized by astronomer Peter Andreas Hansen, and subsequently explore the surface without environmental suits or even oxygen tanks.

As much as I appreciate the film citing its sources, they picked a source that would save on budget and elevate the theories of a German scientist. Perhaps it was a legitimate belief in Hansen's work, not convenience or patriotism, that led to this choice, but the facts remain that an astronomer from the Republic of Ragusa (present day Croatia), Roger Joseph Boscovich, had correctly theorized 85 years prior that the moon lacked a breathable atmosphere. 

Yet, I do not think the use of Hansen's theories over Boscovich's detracts from the hard scientific elements of the narrative that turned out to be correct. I think Lang, or screenwriter and author of the novel on which the film was based Thea von Harbou, just wanted serious sci-fi elements and its protagonists to have the ability to kiss on the moon without spacesuits getting in the way. Even the best intentions of hard sci-fi can be derailed by mainstream romance conventions.

In revisiting this film for this blog post, it's admittedly hard to recall the plot without details from films we later watched from the 1950s interceding. The core facets of Woman in the Moon--an experimental rocket ship, a love triangle, stowaways, loss of a necessary component that imperils the crew's ability to return home--would be remixed and reused in similar films about experimental space flights to Earth's moon or Mars, such as Rocketship X-M (Dir. Kurt Neumann, 1950, USA) and Conquest of Space (Dir. Byron Haskin, 1955, USA). Yet this confusion only reinforces the status of Woman in the Moon as essential sci-fi cinema viewing: it told a semi-realistic tale of experimental crewed spaceflight decades before it became a bona fide sci-fi film sub-genre.

[baroquelatrodectus]

Wonderful art by CrownedInMarigolds

In character WOD/VTM RP blog, sideblog to @cmen5150.

Some rules below the cut!

Mun is Ravis, all pronouns, 21+.

V5-based with sprinklings of V20.

Carolina disliking your character doesn't mean I dislike you. Bleed happens sometimes but don't be weird about it, please.

Should go without saying but bigotry of any sort will not be tolerated. I will take any offenses extremely seriously.

Do not argue with me about who is "the good/bad guy". WOD is not the setting for good vs. bad narratives. Cici is kind of objectively evil. I make no case for her, nor will I ramble further about it.

Carolina, while generally polite, has a tendency to be catty and passive-aggressive. Be aware of this!

WOD is full of all sorts of gross shit a lot of which I include in my writing. I can accept it and stomach it when handled correctly. My line in the sand is the sexualization of child/teen characters. I don't care if they're technically 18+, I don't care if they're literal Elders. Looks like a child, acts like a child, that's a child in my book.