#that don't traditionally follow narrative structures

[navree]

Who do you think the most similar characters to Aegon ii in Asoiaf ?

Oof, tricky, cuz at this point Aegon doesn't really have an arc. Aegon was very much treated as a side character in season 1, considering that we only met him halfway through the series, he's only in four episodes as a not-toddler, and the childhood episodes were more focused on Aemond's character than any of the other kids. A lot of what I and others notice in Aegon's character and potential development comes from being particularly eagle-eyed and from choices that TGC himself is making wrt his acting. It's also tricky because the book this is based on is basically a history book, and historical figures don't traditionally have "arcs" because, they're historical figures, not authorial constructs.

I think, and this is conjecture, that Aegon's arc is likely going to see him go down something of a dark path, as by all counts his "arc" is going to result in what happens after the Flight to Dragonstone, when he technically wins the Dance, and what he does at Dragonstone is pretty dark (it's another one of those scenes where I need the writers to go all out). Aegon's arc could potentially see him abandon vices to focus entirely on the war effort as a way to cope, getting more ruthless and crueler, abandoning this party boy identity he has for a colder one as he suffers not just physical injuries but deeply personal losses (the Dance is going to end with everyone Aegon has ever been close to, ever loved, except for his mother and his daughter, though Jahaera kinda comes with a big asterisk next to her, dead as a result of fighting for his succession) and has to deal with it while at the same time being a reigning king.

Based on that, on that overall through line of "going down a darker road because of the really bad shit you go through" is actually very similar to Tyrion's. I don't think it will be quite the same, as I do think Tyrion is going to eventually pull himself out of the hole he's in, whereas Aegon never entirely manages, but I think it'll be the closest.

[an-ruraiocht]

90% of the time when i see reviews and posts saying "this book needed editing" i don't think the reader have any idea what editing actually entails. usually this is actually code for one of several "problems" with the book:

it's too long, or it's slower paced than this reader's preference. they believe "editing" would mean making it shorter

it has a heavily descriptive style, which the reader doesn't like. they believe "editing" means paring every sentence down to hemingway-style prose with no adverbs

it doesn't follow the very rigid "save the cat" style 3-act story structure, disrupting the reader's sense of narrative tension. an editor, they believe, would've made sure it did

there were a few typos or formatting errors, and they believe it's the editor's job to catch these (it's not, it's typically the proofreader and the typesetter who have responsibility for that kind of thing)

and finally, most often:

the author had different narrative priorities than the reader, who thinks an editor would have made the author change their priorities.

the thing is, there are actually issues with editors in trad publishing being overworked to the point where things aren't getting the thorough, thoughtful editing that they need to be the best version of themselves. there are plenty of badly-structured, poorly-researched, and clumsily written books out there. moreover copyediting is typically freelance and perhaps because of that, this is the area where i see the largest number of issues: continuity issues, grammar issues, factual errors etc that someone should've spotted and didn't.

but this is not typically what people's "this needed an editor" reviews are focusing on. most often it just means they didn't like the book and they've decided editing is an all-powerful force that would have transformed it into a book they liked. but that's not how it works. and disproportionately what this comment means is that the book doesn't match what current fashions have decided is The Correct Style to write in

"this book needed an editor" if it's traditionally published, it had one. like. by definition. it was an editor who bought the book. that doesn't mean the editor did a great job but they definitely existed. there were probably at least two (acquiring editor who does the dev edits; copyeditor who does copyedits), and the proofreader, and a bunch of other people besides.

also i think people think editors are the ones who like. implement the changes. but they don't. they give comments and recommendations and ask questions and the author is the one to act on them. the editor will not rewrite the book. they will not fix the problems themselves, they will highlight the problem and the author will figure out a fix for it, or they will decide they don't agree that it's a problem and leave it as it. and a lot of the sentence-level style stuff is entirely on the author so if they don't have an ear for the rhythm then nobody's going to fix that for them. editors do a lot less than people seem to imagine they do, tbh

anyway

for reference—

structural/developmental edits: is this chapter in the right place and does the plot make sense and is the characterisation consistent and effective

line edits: is this sentence in the right place and is it as stylish as it could be

copy edits: is this sentence grammatically correct and consistent/factually correct within the story/its world and do the spellings follow the publisher's stylesheet

proofreading: are there any typos in this sentence and was the formatting preserved correctly when it was typeset

[juliametzgerart]

I have shared versions of this on other platforms before, so I might as well make a tumblr edition: here some tips for MtG portfolios I gathered and might be interesting for some people who follow me. 1. Since this is a trading card game, here comes the obvious one first: Always keep in mind that these are card illustrations, they have to be readable in super small. Which means that strong silhouettes and value structures are a must have. If you work digital, check the zoomed out version on regular basis, or even have some jpgs to check their thumbnails in your file browser. That can give you an idea about their readability. Traditionally you can of course take some steps back, or take some photographs to look at smaller previews on your devices. Also: print illustrations often come out darker than their screen versions, be careful with your darks! It's rather easy for things to go muddy, even if they look good on screen. In doubt, increase the brightness a bit. It's okay to have different versions for screen and print to meet their needs.

2. Be versatile about your topics and compositions. Zoom in, zoom out. Don't fall into the trap of your own comfort zone zoom level of showing things, or one way of doing things. It can be positive to offer purposefully unusual options.

3. Be aware of the focus. If you have a magician with a staff, ask yourself if the card is about the staff(artifact), the mage (creature) or perhaps even the spell. The composition and focus of the illustration should shift accordingly! Clear action is important for readability – since that is not just visual hierarchy here, but also storytelling. Which brings me to the next point: 4. Good narrative matters, but mechanics matter even more. So, again, be very aware of your illustration's focus. You can potentially add extra elements for the story to make it more fun, but it should not get too convoluted, and even less should it distract from what the card it actually about. If you come up with your very own ideas for a portfolio this is of course much more open than if you work from a description. But you can find a bunch of official MtG descriptions online which are super useful for training.

5. Show care. Plan the illustration, get the references in place. It's the best time to get good habits in place, and really finish the pieces. Don't make them weaker by going too fast, that is not convincing. It just lets people assume worse things for tight deadlines. This does not mean everything needs to be rendered to death - but shape design should remain thoughtful and purposeful even where soft and lost edges are used.

6. It's potentially okay to have your specific stylistic or thematic niche. It can mean less assignments at times, but can also mean more special ones. It's cool though for your voice to be visible as long as the other needs of the product are met.

7. Never stop using those references. Get them, make them, use them - take them seriously. (at least for any of the more realistic styles). It's one of the most repeated tips for any student to actually just use more references. They do a ton to get complicated things like anatomy and lighting right, but also cultural references and versatility. Many of the best Magic artists also make the best references – it's not a coincidence. Learn from the people who have already established themselves, they have great wisdom to share. 8. Your quality has to match the current roster. Yeah, sorry, no way around that one. You need at least to be as good as the currently "worst" artist in the roster to have a chance. And the ADs need to be sure that even on a bad day your art can meet their quality bar. Which is the reason why you likely need several art pieces at the required level, to prove it wasn't just some lucky fluke. Though once you're really there, that also means a bit less pressure to perform, since you're likely comfortable at your skill level and can only go up from there.

[transgamerthoughts]

Abandon All Delusions Of Control

this is another cross-post. which is funny because I've paid for a domain name redirect to my tumblr since like 2016.. i never know what site is gonna explode these days. less people follow me here than anywhere but this write ups been passed around so...

I've been playing Dragon's Dogma 2 and while I'd love to talk about gameplay or interesting moments, the game's found itself something of a cultural lightning rod. It is a game with many friction points arising in a cultural moment where gamers are, perhaps more than ever, convinced that "consumers" are kings.

Dragon's Dogma 2 is not readily "solvable" and you can't min-max it. You will make mistakes. You will be scraped and bruised and scarred. Pain is sometimes the only bridge that can take us wher ewe need to go. And gaming culture, fed the lie of mastery and player importance, does not understand that scars can be beautiful. I love this game. I think it's a miracle it came out at all.

I also think in spite of the success it's found… that 2024 might be the worst possible year for it to have released.

Let's ramble about it..

It's easy to feel like Hideaki Itsuno and his team miscalculated the amount of friction that players are willing to endure and while I don't think that's true (he didn't miscalculate moreso stick to his particular vision) it certainly appears that we've reached a point in gaming where players, glutted on convenience, don't really know what to do when robbed of it. I've heard folks complain that they can't sprint everywhere or else balk learning that ferrystones required for fast travel cost 10,000 gold as if these shatter DD2 into pieces. I'm vaguely sympathetic to these concerns but at the same time they seem to spring entirely from a lack of understanding of the game's design goals. Much like how folks demanding a traditionally structured RPG narrative from an Octopath game misunderstand what that team is trying to do, players asking to sprint through the world or teleport with ease fundamentally misunderstand what Dragon's Dogma wants. The world is not a wrapper for a story. It is the story. Dragon's Dogma is a story factory whose various textures create unprecedented triumphs and memorable failure.

It is crucial to the experience to allow both of those to occur and live with whatever follows.

I'm always cautious of talking like this because it can come off as smug or superior but I think ultimately that's the truth of the matter here. This was not a well-played franchise before now and even if it's a AAA title, there's a way in which this game is meant to elide most AAA open world trends. You are expected to traverse. If you want relatively cheap and faster travel, you're meant to find an oxcart and pay the (quite modest) fee to move between trade hubs much like you would pay for a silt strider in Morrowind. Even if you do this, you could be ambushed on the road and in the worst case the ox pulling the cart can be killed. Something being "possible" in a game doesn't always mean it is intentional but Dragon's Dogma continually undercuts the player's ability to avoid long treks. Portcrystals, which act as fast travel destinations, are limited and ferry stones (while not prohibitively expensive compared to weapons and armor) are juuust expensive enough that you need to consider if the expense is worthwhile. Once is happenstance. Multiple times is a pattern. And the pattern in Dragon's Dogma is to disincentivize easy travel. It screams of intent.

Something I could not have imagined playing games growing up is the ways in which even a decade (or two) could lead to radically different attitudes on what games should provide. That's an audience issue to an extent but it's also something games have brought upon themselves. The "language" of an open world game has been solidified through years climbable towers, mini-map marked caves, and options to zip around worlds. When a game deviates from that language, the change is more noticeable than ever.

Hell, even Elden Ring (perhaps the closest modern relative to Dragon's Dogma) allows you to warp between bonfires and gives you a steed to ride. But that's also a much larger game! DD2 is not a large game and the story is not long. Yes, you can spend untold hours wandering about into nooks and crannies but a trek from one end of the world to another is still significantly shorter than bounding through most open worlds and a run through the critical path reveals a speedy game. Not as speedy as the first but brisk by genre standards.

exploration is the glue that binds the combat and progression system in place. Upgrading armor and weapons requires seeking out specific materials and fighting certain monsters. Gathering the funds for big purchases in shops mostly comes from selling your excess monster parts. The entire game hinges on the idea of long expeditions where you accrue materials and supplies on the road and then invest that horde one way or another once you return to town. It's not simply a matter of mood and tone for you to trek throughout the world without ease. The gameplay loop is built around it.

There's another complicating factor that I'm less interested in diving into and it's the presence of certain microtransactions at launch. Principally I'm against MTX in single players games, particularly conveniences of which most of DD2's microtransactions are. But I also think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding of what many of these are. Among the biggest things I've heard (repeatedly!) is that you can pay real life money for fast travel but that's not true. You can buy a single portcrystal offering you one more potential location to warp to. It's a one-time purchase and the only travel convenience offered. This has transformed, partly because of people's lack of familiarity with Dragon's Dogma's mechanics, into a claim that you can pay over and over to teleport around. I think that assumption reveals more about the general audience than anything else.

I think it is worth entertaining a question: does the existence of this extra port crystal signify a compromising of the game's goals regarding travel? That's not a discussion that folks seem to be interested in having—instead opting for more emotional and reactionary panicking—but it is the most interesting question. On face the answer is yes and that raises the follow up question of whether or not the developers had knowledge this convenience (though one-off) would be offered to players. If so, did that knowledge affect how they designed the game? Even slightly? It seems rather clear to me that these purchases are a publisher decision; there's nothing in the game's design that suggest the dev team wants players to have access to an extra portcrystal. As we've established it's quite the opposite!

They want you to haul your fucking ass around and get jumped by goblins, buddy.

Which is many words to say that as much as I care about microtransactions from a consumer standpoint, the way in which they undermine Dragon's Dogma 2's goals is a fair reminder of the ways in which they hurt developers. Ultimately, I do think that these purchases are ignorable and in that sense (combined with the misinformation surrounding them) I'm a little burned by the consumer-minded discussion. Doubly so because of the way it feels, at least in part, tied into a certain kind of rhetoric that's been on the rise lately. Instead, I find myself drawn to the question of the damage they do the devs and if more onerous plans actually would force their hands into undercutting portions of their own designs. The shift of many series into live-service chasing suggest so but even as I entertain these thoughts I don't get the sense that Itsuno and his team were forced to reshape their game world to encourage these microtransactions. The world is as they want.

If it wasn't, they wouldn't make it so failing to act quickly in a quest to find a missing kid stolen by wolves could end with you being too late. They wouldn't make it so buying goods from an Elven shop without an interpreter was a hassle. It's present in Every Damn Thing!

More interesting to consider is why this particular game became such a lightning rod of passion when I'm going to assume that most people caught up in the discussion have no particular fealty to the series. The answer is a combination of factors but there's something about the genre that ignites the panic we're seeing as much as the culture moment we're in. When people try to explain that these MTX purchases are not needed, it's confused for approval of their inclusion but that's not something we need to grant. I don't think anyone wants these things here and when they say "you don't need them" they are referring to the more complex thought that the game is better played without them. But this is not heard because the idea that you'd want to opt into friction and discomfort is not something that the general audience is likely to understand. They're wired against it. They crave ease.

not everyone, mind you. DD2's enjoyed a lot of excited reactions (there's tons of folks who like this game as it is and are happily playing it) but it has faced plenty of folks railing against "bad" design choices but the fact remains that those "bad" choices were intentional.

I'm writing about this stuff instead of, say, the wild journey I took solving one of the Sphinx's riddles because the immediately interesting thing about Dragon's Dogma 2 has been what it's become as a cultural object. It is a game suffering from success. Never designed for a general audience or modern standards but thrust into their hands due to Capcom's ongoing renaissance. Dragon's Dogma is a fine game whose cult status is well earned but the reason DD2 garnered this attention (and therefore becomes a hot-topic game) has as much to do with Capcom's ongoing success rate as anything else. In some ways, it actually IS a good time to release a game like Dragon's Dogma 2. There's certainly a curiousity in place. Partly borne of goodwill and also from folks' genuine desire to try something new.

and yet, we're in a odd moment in games. consumer rights lanaguge, having been fundamentally misunderstood and reconfigured by gamers as a rhetoric for justifying their purchase habits (I'm paying the money! why can't the game do exactly as I demand!?) has stifled many people's ability to have imaginative interpretations of gameplay mechanics. they don't ask "what is this thing doing as a storytelling device" (which mechanics are!) and rather default to "what is this thing doing to me and my FUN and my TIME". which are not bad questions but they also misunderstand the possibility space games have to offer. While we can attribute some of the objections that has arisen to players' thoughts about genre itself and the way in which Dragon's Dogma positions friction as a key gameplay pillar, the fact of the matter is that we would not be having such spirited discussion about these things in, say, 2017. not that things were great back then, but I think the audience is worse now in many, many ways. sarcastically? I blame Game Design YouTube.

Even if there were no microtransactions, we'd still be having a degree of Discourse thanks to a key game mechanic: Dragonplague. It is a disease that can afflict your Pawn companions which initially causes them to get mouthy and start to disobey orders. If you notice these signs (alongside ominous glowing eyes) then your Pawn has been infected and you're expected to dismiss them back to the Rift where that infection can spread to another player. The game gives a pop up to the player explaining this the first time they encounter the disease. However, some players have ignored that warning and found a dire consequence: an untreated Pawn can, when the player rests at an inn, go on an overnight rampage that kills the majority of NPCs in whatever settlement they are in. This includes plot-important characters. The reaction's been intense. Reddit always sucks but man… just look…

I understand some of the ire. It's a drastic shift from your pawn being a bit ornery to instantly killing an entire city. On the other hand, the game does warn of potentially dire consequences if a Pawn's sickness is ignored. Players have simply underestimated the scale of that consequence. Surely no major RPG would mass murder important characters and break questlines! We're in post Oblivion/Skyrim world. Important NPCs are essential and cannot be killed, right? Well, wrong and this is another way in which Dragon's Dogma chases after the legacy of a game like Morrowind more than than it adapts current open world trends. This is a world where things can break and the developers have decided that they are okay with it breaking in a very drastic way. It's hard to think of anything comparable in a contemporary game. We don't really do this kind of thing anymore.

The result has been panic and a spread of information both helpful and hopelessly speculative. Is your game ruined? Well, maybe. There is an item you can find which allows for mass resurrection but that's gonna require some questing. But some players also say that you can wait a while and the game will eventually reset back to the pre-murder status quo. What's true? Hard to know. Dragon's Dogma doesn't show all of its cards and won't always explain itself. We know entire cities can be killed. We know that individual characters can be revived in the city morgue or else the settlement restored (mostly) with a special item. Dragonplague is detectable and the worst case scenario is, to some extent or another, something that the player can ameliorate. Those are facts but they don't really matter.

That's because players issue (panick? hysteria?) with dragonplague is as much to do with what it represents as what it does. Players are used to the notion of game worlds being spaces where they get to determine every state of affair. They are, as I've suggested before, eager to play the tyrant. Eager to enact whatever violences or charities that might strike their fancy. They do this with the expectation that they will be rewarded for the latter but face no consequences for the former. Dragonplague argues otherwise. No, it says, this world is also one that belongs to the developers and they are more than fine with heaping dire consequences on players. Before the dragonplague's consequences were known, players were running around the world killing NPCs in cities because it would stabilize the framerate. They're fine with mass murder on their own terms. they love it!

This is made more clear when we look at how Dragon's Dogma handles saving the game. While there are autosaves between battles, players are expected to rest at inns to save their game. This costs some gold, which is a hassle, but the bigger "issue" is that they only have one save slot. Which means that save scumming is not entirely feasible though not impossible with a bit of planning. What it does mean, however, is that the game is saved when a dragonplague attack happens. you have to rest at an inn for this to trigger. which saves the game. They cannot roll back the clock. The tragedy becomes a fact. It's not the only time Dragon's Dogma does this. For instance, players can come into possession of a special arrow that can slay anything. When used, the game saves. Much like how players are given a warning about dragonplague, they're warned before using this arrow: don't miss.

If you do? that's a real shame. The depth of this consequence is uncommon in today's gaming landscape. Games are mostly frivolous and save data is the amber from which players suck crystallized potentialities. Don't like what happened? No worries. Slide into your files and find the frozen world which suits your proclivities. You are God. In Dragon's Dogma, you are not god. The threads of prophecy can be severed and you must persist in the doomed world that's been created. The mere suggestion is an affront. The fact that Dragon's Dogma has the stones to commit to the bit in 2024 is essentially a miracle.

It's easy to boil everything I'm saying down to "Dragon's Dogma is not afraid to be rude to the player" but that doesn't capture the spirit of the design. It invites players to go on a hike. It makes no attempt to hide that the hike is difficult. But that's the extent of it. It offers little guidance on the path, doesn't check if you're a skilled enough hiker. Your decision to go on the hike is taken as proof of your acceptance of the fact that you might fall down.

This is not unique to Dragon's Dogma. In fact, this is part of the appeal (philosophically) of a game like Elden Ring. The difference being that even FromSofts much-lauded gamer gauntlets (excepting perhaps Sekiro, conincidentally their best work) offer more ways to adjust and fix the world state to the player's liking. Even the darling of difficulty will offering you a hand when you fall. Dragon's Dogma is not so eager to do so. In a decade where convenience is king for video games, that represents both a keen understanding of its lineages and a shocking affront to accepted norms and expectations.

The core of Dragon's Dogma, the very defining characteristics that earned it cult status, are the same things that have caused these modern tensions. It is both a franchise utterly consistent in its design priorities and entirely out of touch with the modern audience. Dragon's Dogma 2 has come into prominence during a time where imaginative interpretation of mechanics is at an all time low and calls for "consumer" gratification are taken as truisms. It is a game entirely at odds with the YouTube ecosystem and the very things that give it allure are the tools that have turned it into a debated object.

This flashpoint of discussion is proof of Dragon Dogma 2's design potency. It's also a sign of the damage that modern design trends have done to games as whole and the ongoing fallout that's come from gamers learning design concepts without really understanding what designing a game entails. And, uh… I dunno respond to that or how to end this. That's both very cool but it also bums me out. Dragon's Dogma 2 is a remarkably confident game but games are long beyond the point of admiring a thing for being honest.

[bookalooza]

Writing Reality, Weaving Wonder: Unleashing Creative Elements in Non-Fiction

Despite the huge field of literature, fiction frequently outshines non-fiction in terms of flare. However, there is a special place where creativity can thrive where facts and reality meet. This blog post will discuss the skill of integrating creative elements into non-fiction writing—a journey we'll lovingly refer to as "Writing Reality, Weaving Wonder."

Knowing How to Create Non-Fiction Art

Traditionally, the main goal of non-fiction writing has been to clearly represent facts and information. But that doesn't imply it has to be uninteresting or lacking in originality. Non-fiction with artistic aspects can give otherwise boring subjects life, making them interesting and relatable to a wider readership.

The Story's Power

Using narrative strategies is one of non-fiction's most powerful creative elements. An engaging narrative based on factual occurrences or facts can enthrall readers and enhance their understanding of the material.

For example, tell the tale of a community dealing with the effects of climate change rather than just providing statistics on the phenomenon. Anecdotes from personal experience, interviews, and case studies can turn dry information into an engaging story for readers.

Real-Life Character Development

Non-fiction writers can give real people life by carefully developing their characters, but fiction writers create characters out of thin air. Exploring the people behind the facts, whether through expert interviews, historical figure profiles, or the presentation of common heroes, humanizes the story. By highlighting the unique features, difficulties, and victories of actual people, you humanize the content and establish an emotional bond with your audience.

Creating the Scene

Non-fiction authors can create a rich background for their stories, much like a novelist creates a vivid setting to draw readers into their imagined universe. Readers can be taken right into the story's heart with the help of descriptive language, close attention to detail, and a strong feeling of atmosphere. Setting the scene improves the reader's experience and encourages an increased understanding of the subject matter, whether the description is of a historical event, a scientific discovery, or a personal journey.

Having Fun with the Structure

Non-fiction is not required to follow a certain format. Play around with how your content is arranged to add some originality. To keep readers interested, try using alternative stories, flashbacks, or non-linear timeframes. You can reflect on the complexity of real-life situations and give your writing a more dynamic quality by breaking from a traditional framework.

The Craft of Dialogue

Dialogue is not just for fiction; it can be an effective literary device in non-fiction as well. Adding actual quotes from speeches, interviews, or old documents to your writing can make it seem more real and realistic. The voices of the persons involved may be heard in well-written dialogue, giving it a human touch and encouraging a sense of connection.

Balancing Emotion and Facts

Writers of non-fiction need to maintain a careful proportion between conveying information and generating feelings. Writing with emotion may transform a dull account into an engaging story, even while the information is at its core. Emotions, whether humor, empathy or simply a hint of drama, can enhance the effect of your writing and leave readers with a stronger impression.

The Meeting Point of Imagination and Research

Non-fiction relies heavily on research, but that doesn't imply creativity has to suffer. Make use of research as a springboard for creativity. Investigate your topic thoroughly to find undiscovered treasures and forgotten tales. Follow your curiosity and don't be scared to look at things from unusual perspectives. You can engagingly convey well-founded information by incorporating creative elements into your study to create an integrated and innovative whole.

Conclusion: The imagination comes to life.

When it comes to non-fiction, the creative components are the magic ingredient that turns a dry list of facts into an engaging story. Writing about truth and creating wonder go hand in hand, giving non-fiction authors the ability to captivate, inform, and motivate their audience. The next time you write a non-fiction piece, keep in mind the significance of context, the force of narrative, the richness of character development, and the magic that occurs when facts and imagination come to life on paper.

Publish your book now at www.bookalooza.com/newbook

[comicaurora]

A question kinda related to the Five Man Band: If the Heart is the emotional center of the group, the one guiding everyone to what's morally correct, how do you differentiate them from a Leader that is also a Paragon with ironclad morals and all that stuff? Wouldn't some of the aspects of these two become jumbled up or a bit redundant?

Most five man bands don't fully separate the character roles. The Leader is sometimes also the strongest member of the team (Big Guy overlap) or a tactical planner (Smart Guy overlap). Paragon Leaders often have a lot of Heart overlap. And there's plenty of cases where the non-Leader roles overlap with each other too - sometimes the Lancer is the most perceptive teammate (Smart Guy overlap) or the Big Guy might be a sweetheart who keeps the rest of the team grounded (Heart overlap). In general it's best not to stress too much about character trait redundancy, because just because the traits are the same on paper doesn't mean they'll manifest the same in-story. The team Smart Guy might be very booksmart but generally unwise and inexperienced, while the Lancer might be tactically intelligent and situationally perceptive and the Big Guy might be very emotionally intelligent and able to immediately recognize when someone's off their game. All technically "smart guy" traits, but playing very different narrative roles.

That said, The Heart is often a lot slimmer than the rest of the team in the characterization department. In ye olden days, The Heart was The Chick, typically the only female team member and usually with a personality of what the author thought "girl" meant. Typically the Leader's love interest with no autonomy or arc outside of that (more rarely the Leader's surrogate daughter figure with no autonomy or arc outside of that.) If the writer recognized this was a problem, they might try to compensate by damseling her (now she's plot relevant AND out of focus!) or making her an ass-kicker (now she's strong AND I don't need to give her a personality!) or just make it so everyone on the team was really attached to her and she essentially played the role of Team Conscience, telling everyone what was good or bad to do. This was a very flat character, and unlike the other four members, she wasn't as tactically structural. She was just there to give the other team members something to do.

As the Five-Man Band trope was polished, though, her role evolved. Writers who recognized that writing female characters wasn't like writing an alien species or a hot piece of furniture, and was in fact just like writing male characters with arcs and dreams and stuff, started taking center stage. The Chick stopped being defined as the Only Female Character as we started getting more female Lancers and Smart Guys, later even followed by female Big Guys. The Heart's role was now less "only girl" and something more like "the most traditionally feminine character" - typically the long-haired beautiful love interest, gentle and kind and emotionally well-balanced to best contrast and support the more emotionally tumultuous Leader Hero. This is where you get your Starfires and your Kataras - solid characters in their own right, but unmistakably filling the team's girliness quota singlehandedly.

But as the role got less gendered, The Heart's core traits started surfacing. They didn't need to be pretty, female, romantically available - they just needed to be grounding. The heart's role was to keep the other characters from spiralling too far into their own character drama - whether that meant talking down the Lancer from their edgy loner arc, building up the Big Guy's faltering self-esteem, encouraging the Smart Guy's hobbies or serving as the Leader's romantic foil, the five-man band's team structure needed some kind of grounding emotional stability, and The Heart was well equipped to fill that role. The Heart essentially became the character role with both feet on the ground at all times, the one with a worldly perspective on what was important who could see when their teammates were spiralling or losing sight of what mattered. Much like the Big Guy (and the roles frequently end up synergized) the Heart's role is to be reliable - mentally and emotionally. They'll keep their cool through the darkest hour, motivate the team and broadly remind them what the point of it all is. In more character-driven arc-heavy stories, that's a very important role.

[maneaterwithtail]

undefined

I disagree at least one aspect.

How about this I've been thinking about introducing a character who is male and uses a traditional form of Viking magic that was noted to make or require men to act or appear as women this is Even tied into certain myths about Odin and how he was presented.

This however would understandably change both the history presentation and what have you of the Asgard in Marvel Comics. This is very important because if we want ad and more gay characters then we by necessity add in the entire identity of being gay. And with that gay subculture, gay history, and gay politics. All of which is going to be relevant in one degree or another to their life. And some of this stuff isn't directly political just so much as it's so in congruous from common assumption that it's going to be in contrast and conflict to both the established narratives of the fiction and the expectations of the audience

This is going to be necessary point. A need for this Single Character to be a gateway to Gay Culture or gay lifestyle where previously none existed for the world.

But this isn't just a burden it's also an opportunity I mean how have or how do the Asgard and Marvel Comics handle people being gay? In fact because of how gay has been erased in our society and how it by its own existence undermines a lot of social narratives kind of requires a more nuanced and complex way of viewing the world just to bring up even if the basic idea is very simple to get across - the idea of someone preferring their own gender in terms of romantic Pursuits. But that often has a knock-on effect with the number of people who we know for one thing also actually being gay. And this isn't just surface-level sketches. I mean remember finding Mary Poppins? The author of that book was a lesbian but in a supposed true story biopic this wasn't depicted. Erasure is a phenom a gay character contends

This is kind of the problem with increased representation it by necessity means disturbing pre-established narratives. Unfortunately this likely means your character is going to be or highly defined by their own Identity or have to import a lot of pre under stood identity politics or social narratives just by being a focus of distinction.

Now personally I think superhero comics are not well suited for this because a core of their appeal is action as opposed to drama or Romance. Having a coming-of-age drama deal with the fact that one or two or all of your characters are not straight or cisgendered is completely easy. After all the change of identity as you come to yourself as a large part of coming-of-age drama, so learning that you have an attraction to the same gender or that you may have be different gender expression easily slots into the beats and expectations of that

Unfortunately action-based conflicts don't exactly allow or are not well suited for dealing with struggles with being a minority even if you're past the hardships that are so going to inform where your character ended up in life. Not every person who's gay has trouble with their parents. But it's at the very least a very common and unique circumstance. There's going to be history there.

there's going to be weight there and it's such a large part of the gay identity that a large part of gay identity literature and politics centers around this reality. For instance part of the reason why intersectionality in terms of social justice or socialism has such a gay bent is because the implication that you can rely on traditional support structures such as church or family is not something that can be safely assumed if you've been gay for the last 50 years. There have been active campaigns to get rid of support network and infrastructure for gay communities. Or just dismissal so subject to crime and abuse. And traditional mainstream ones have actively excluded them such as the conflicts with the Salvation Army or other homeless shelters.

This is despite the fact that if you were a teenager and homeless chances are it's because you are LGBT and you've been kicked out of your home. This is especially important as you try to tackle social issues as a means of conflict and superheroes have been doing that longer than we've been recasting this character or that character as gay or black.

Finally there's just the fun in world-building what kind of gay community exists in a world where Captain America has been real since World War II. Has there been for instance at Revival of pagan beliefs with the onset of Thor? What kind has there been in what relationship do the asgardians have with it? They started to address some of this in one of the reboots of Thor but admittedly that was how they conflicted with conservative Christians in the Midwest. How do the actual Pagan face revivals that have been happening in Scandinavian countries intersect with the arrival of the MCU asgardians not least of which they don't fit the traditions and faith but may have inspired them or rip them off

These are all interesting plot threads but they grow from drama and not action. So I think in some ways superhero comics are trying to transition from action to more alternative Fantastical dramas. And considering that's been a big draw in terms of television and movies from Game of Thrones to Supernatural to God knows what else such as the Hunger Games Twilight The Vampire Diaries

and finally yeah some traditions do need to be attacked. The idea that everyone is straight except for a few crazy people who are gay who we should ignore at all times... it's probably at the heart of a lot of abuse. Whereas assuming queer Theory as a foundational truth meaning that not everyone is straight and gender and sexuality don't work as they have been traditionally thought of it's probably an okay thing especially as it's something that's understood to be the reality of the current zeitgeist as well as the audience.

Even people who consider themselves straight likely have had one or two phases of bisexuality or experimenting with gender. At the very least it's easier because everyone can pick a female Avatar. Or activities that are associated with being feminine are thought of as more gender-neutral such as fashion makeup romance or what have you

at the very least tapping into this thing that the young which is a major part of comics, it can't always just be to old people and how they see the world, it's important to give that a chance. especially as sexuality and gender identity are actual character traits whereas race is a bit more superficial unless we're talking about Heritage or more along the lines of ethnicity. for instance take Kamala Khan, for the most part I think she's a good character. Now there are bit pieces where things feel a little on-the-nose but it is very much aimed at a younger audience that comes from an ethnically diverse neighborhood they probably want someone to address the racial tensions that they've grown up with not least of which have been the issues with how Muslims are perceived and how their own culture and traditions have a plurality under a dome that's often reacted to hostilely

Finally some of its just adjustment both for the fans and the authors. I mean how did you really feel about Miles Morales when he first started? how did people react to him? you needed time to adjust to the idea that Peter got killed off and replaced with this guy who was very deliberately something of a token hire. and Brian Michael Bendis needed time to actually write a distinct character with his own feel and interesting ideas

finally listen to the music that kids are listening to ,read the web comics that they follow, or the Twitter discussions that they do and especially the manga that they're following and how they discuss it. I really do think that if we want Comics to remain they're going to have to change and one of those changes are going to have to be how they can appeal more to modern audiences, females, and yes trans

And some of this is going to require the characters in the world that they inhabit change in terms of assumption and presentation. There need to be gay and trans people as a community in a society that's so obvious that it's something that you discussing kindergarten without it being treated as exposing them to porn