#try to create a story and think about how to follow its plot

[emilyspet]

just in case you've forgotten, writers r people & we have LIVES OF OUR OWN, tf is wrong with you ppl.

Maybe if people updated more we wouldn't turn to ai

You’re a pathetic, impatient loser. Fanfic writers owe you nothing, and their writing is their own, not yours to do with as you choose, you entitled brat.

[recoord]

Why Good Omens season 1 has already fulfilled Sir Terry Pratchett's wish

Neil Gaiman said he wouldn't make a sequel to Good Omens

Neil Gaiman at SXSW in Austin, Texas in 2019:

[Gaiman also confirmed the series will only be six episodes, with no intention of trying to go for another season if successful. "The lovely thing about Good Omens is it has a beginning, it has a middle, and it has an end," he said to appreciative applause. "Season 1 of Good Omens is Good Omens. It's brilliant. It finishes. You have six episodes and we're done. We won't try to build in all these things to try to let it continue indefinitely."]

Source: Entertainment Weekly (2019)

2018 - Neil Gaiman on X- Twitter

Tweet link here

Also Neil Gaiman in 2023:

["It won't be confirmed unless enough people watch Season 2 to make Amazon happy...

...But obviously Season 3 is all planned and plotted and, if I get to make it, will take the story and the people in it we care about to a satisfying end."]

What happened?

Were the profits and ratings high enough to create two more seasons out of thin air? At this point, seasons 2 and 3 seem more like a greedy stretching of a beloved story already told in its entirety in the first season.

Has the first season already fulfilled Sir Terry Pratchett's wish?

As read above, Neil Gaiman himself said: "Season 1 of Good Omens is Good Omens."

Gaiman was very opened about how pleased he was with Season 1 and how he made it having Sir Terry Pratchett's wish in mind.

Interview for The Verge (May 30, 2019)

Link : Neil Gaiman had one rule for the Good Omens adaptation: making Terry Pratchett happy

Interviewer: Do you feel pressure from knowing this has to be the definitive best adaptation it could be?

Gaiman: No. All I wanted to do was to make something Terry would have liked. It wasn’t like, “Make the best thing.”...

...Gaiman: The lovely thing about Good Omens [the miniseries] is that it’s still Good Omens. If you loved the book, this is that thing that you loved. And I will make you fall in love even more with Sergeant Shadwell. I will make you fall even more in love with Newt than you thought you could, I hope. It does demonstrate that I do kind of know what I’m talking about, which is a nice thing to know.

...Gaiman: So with Good Omens, I feel like what I got to do was put the thing I made with Terry on the screen and then buttress it. What I added isn’t completely different from the original. It’s not out of left field.

Neil Gaiman on an interview for The Guardian in 2019.

Link: Neil Gaiman: ‘Good Omens feels more apt now than it did 30 years ago’

There are times, he insists, when “you make something you like so much that you don’t really care what anyone else thinks of it.” There’s a clue to this, perhaps, in the show’s final frame, which reads “For Terry”. “He didn’t believe in heaven or hell or anything like that,” Gaiman says, “so there wasn’t even a hope that there was a ghostly Terry around to watch it. He would have been grumpy if there was. But I made it for him.”

Why was Good Omens season 1 so good and you could really feel Sir Terry Pratchett's contributions?

Gaiman himself has already told us the answer:

...Gaiman: So with Good Omens, I feel like what I got to do was put the thing I made with Terry on the screen and then buttress it. What I added isn’t completely different from the original. It’s not out of left field.

Neil Gaiman for The Verge (2019).

There was original material to work with (Good Omens, published in 1990), on which we certainly know that Sir Terry Pratchett himself actively worked from start to finish.

Is there a proper sequel to Good Omens the book on which to base 2 more seasons of the series?

Neil Gaiman says the following on an interview for GQ in 2019.

Link: Neil Gaiman Says No to Adapting His Own Books—Except This Time

...But with this, it was like: Okay. Terry is gone. He wanted me to do this. He wanted me to do it for him. And that gave me a kind of weird impetus. And it meant that I felt very much at liberty to take every conversation that Terry and I had ever had about Good Omens. Not just the book, as written, but everything beyond it. We planned a sequel, never written, so I got to steal the angels from the sequel. I got to steal from every conversation Terry and I had about how we would do this. It felt very personal, and I guess kind of… holy. If that doesn’t sound too ridiculous. But it was a mission.

Two conclusions can be drawn:

1) Informal conversations about the plot of a sequel do not equate to an officially written sequel.

2) Neil Gaiman has already used many of the ideas he and Terry Pratchett had planned for a never-written sequel to Good Omens and those ideas were largely added to and executed in the TV adaptation of Good Omens (2019).

Why keep stretching those ideas if the co-writer is no longer able to actively contribute and help to create a proper sequel?

If Gaiman were the sole creator of Good Omens we'd have a different conversation, but that's not the case. The first season of Good Omens was already a beautiful homage to Good Omens and Sir Terry Pratchett's work on the book.

Did Terry Pratchett write around 75% of Good Omens?

Link for the post here.

Link for the post talking about the video and sharing the video here.

Edit: I wanted to bring this point up to point out Terry Pratchett's important contribution to the making of the book, not to highlight it as an excuse to distance Gaiman from the novel. We will have to accept that he also contributed to the creation of the book.

Sir Terry Pratchett's last wish

2017 - Rob Wilkins on Twitter (X)

Terry Pratchett’s Unpublished Work Crushed by Steamroller

By Sophie Haigney - The New York Times

Terry Pratchett, the well-known British fantasy author, had a wish fulfilled two years after his death: A hard drive containing his unpublished work was destroyed by steamroller.

Mr. Pratchett, a wildly popular fantasy novelist who wrote more than 70 books, including the “Discworld” series, died at 66 in 2015. That year his friend, the writer Neil Gaiman, told The Times of London that Mr. Pratchett had wanted “whatever he was working on at the time of his death to be taken out along with his computers, to be put in the middle of a road and for a steamroller to steamroll over them all.” Mr. Gaiman added at the time that he was glad this hadn’t happened.

Now, though, it has. Mr. Pratchett’s estate manager and close friend, Rob Wilkins, posted a picture of a hard drive and a steamroller on Aug. 25 on an official Twitter account they shared.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wilkins wrote that the deed was done.

I have not been able to find the exact reasons why Sir Terry Pratchet wanted his unfinished and unpublished works destroyed, but we can respect his last wish as a way for him to have control over what he felt he was ready to share with the world and what he was not.

Is Good Omens the exception?

With all that has been presented so far, I can only conjecture, but not be sure. I can believe that there was Terry Pratchett's permission and desire to make an adaptation of Good Omens, the original book published in 1990, but to my mind, creating two more seasons of a never-written sequel doesn't fit as part of Terry Pratchett's desire.

He is not among us to actively participate in a sequel and if his last wish was to destroy his unfinished works, I can't believe that he would have wanted to give his approval to something new published under his name and without his supervision.

Sir Terry Pratchett talking about a never-written sequel to Good Omens

“Neil and I thought about a sequel an awful lot initially. We talked about it on tour. And I think it was a big relief to both of us, when one day we looked one another in the eye and said, 'I thought you wanted to do a sequel.'..

Interview for the Magazine Locus. Locusmag archive page

This is me speculating, but I don't think there was real enthusiasm for creating a sequel until Gaiman alone saw profitable potential in the TV adaptation....

Good Omens also belongs to the those who love the story

I think it's okay to still love the story of Good Omens. Personally, I will always be grateful with the story and the characters for giving me confort in troubling times, but I find seasons 2 and 3 as some kind of excuse from Gaiman to keep profiting and benefiting from the story (more now than ever due to the SA allegations*).

Aziraphale and Crowley will always live happily in a lovely cottage as long as we want to. Even before season 2 was announced, many of us had already accepted that. Many artists have imagined lovely endings for our innefable husbands and in my eyes their works won't be any less valuable than whatever Gaiman had planned.

Note:

I don't like talking about Season 3 of GO without mentioning the current SA allegations against Neil Gaiman (Main writer of seasons 2 and 3 and showrunner), so in case you want to know more about the allegations against Neil Gaiman. Here there's a great Round Up link (Podcasts links, transcripts, etc.)

Credits for the Round Up link to Muccamukk. Thanks a lot!

*more thoughts on supporting season 3

[fixyourwritinghabits]

Hello! Your blog is great, long time follower first time asker. Im about to start outlining my first novel (short, 30k words), and its like, sci fi noir detective? But I wanted to ask what you think the best way to world build for a novel is bc I'm famously not, great at that. Thanks ! yall have a great day !

World-building is not my strength, and as much as I admire the DnD approach of creating an entire world before you even have a plot for it, I cannot do that. My approach, therefore, is to lean on the technique of all world-building should be in service to the story. Getting too attached to a thousand details that will be left on the cutting floor is a hard no for me.

A common complaint about fantasy books is that they don't often lay out how the world works, but that doesn't bother me too much. You could spend twenty pages on trading deals and agricultural practices (and should if they interest you!), but none of that may make it to the final draft. You may be better served by trying the following:

Start With Your Premise

Let's keep it real simple. Magical abilities are sorted by color. Minerals mined from Mars start creating hallucinations that seem to predict the future. Sharks sprout legs and start terrorizing seaside towns, etc. Even if you only have an inkling of how the surrounding world will be, you probably have an idea of what you want the plot to be like.

Where is your character in regards to your concept? If there's magic in your book, what is theirs like or what do they know about it? Could they have some hidden insight on those hallucinations (actually warnings from long-dead Martians!)? Are they are shark scientist who's pretty damn sure land sharks aren't real?

Establish the baseline of your character's everyday life in the world they're in will help you figure out how to expand from there.

Establish Your Rules

Before you get off and running, sit down and figure out what's doable and what isn't. If the magic/phenomena/walking sharks manifest in a particular way, what can't it/they do? Setting your rules down ahead of time will keep yourself from writing yourself into a corner, but it also helps you justify breaking them later, if need be.

Don't, however, stick too rigidly to these rules as you go along. You might figure out a brilliant plot twist that requires going back and realigning your world to make it work! Making them up as you go along, however, may give you a much harder job when editing. Believe me, I've learned that the hard way.

Expand Your World With Your Plot/Character

Again, this is mainly to spare you tossing out pages and pages of scenes and settings you can't justify keeping in the final product. Keeping the narrow focus of your world-building on your character, starting with their normal state of things (their village, their daily life, etc), expanding when the inciting event launches them beyond what they know (holy shit, sharks with legs!), and each new problem or challenge will give you opportunity to expand your world-building in service of your story.

You don't have to do this as you go along - if you know the climax or a critical moment in your book requires establishing something specific about your world, you can weave that into your story long before it becomes important.

For example, your character may have an argument with the lead engineer of the spaceship's engines, who makes a fool of them by pointing out something they don't know. This gives a scene to establish characterization (revealing insecurities and flaws, establish relationships (rivalries, love interests, etc), and gives you a moment to establish key facts about your world by showing off the impressive engine room ahead of time. Later, when your character scrambles through it dodging bad guys to prevent the ship from crashing, the reader will already be familiar with the importance of what the character is trying to accomplish.

Be Open to Change

I recently went back to a project I haven't touched in years and was astonished to find that I ripped out huge chunks of my previous world-building, revamped the premise, changed entire conflicts and characters, and... it works so much better than what I was struggling to accomplish before.

Now don't get me wrong! This process was so emotionally devastating at the time that I put the entire thing away for years, convinced it wasn't savable. In hindsight, it was worth it, but I don't recommend this approach at all. Some concepts may be better for DnD campaigns or personal projects, and not novels. Some may be better in a different medium, like a comic or an indie game. You never have to throw anything out - unused ideas can be reworked into other stories. Maybe even a sequel!

Give yourself space to hit some storytelling walls, change up your ideas that aren't working, and experiment. All work is good work, even if some of it never ends up on the page. You'll get there.

[tyrantisterror]

Hey! Got a question for you that's somewhat related to the post you reblogged about ethics in D&D recently. It reminded a bit of one of the few D&d based pieces of media I follow: The Order of the Stick, a webcomic I know you've recommended in the past. I was curious then what you thought of how OotS handles those topics, both in its goblins and specifically with Redcloak. Especially now that I've recently gotten my hands on Start of Darkness and actually have read the context for those things.

One of the last times I was asked about this I ended up saying that every good work of fiction that uses the "always chaotic evil race" trope is only good in spite of using it, and I would say that goes for Order of the Stick too.

And, to the comic's credit, I think they explore the trope in a lot more depth and with a lot more nuance than most fiction that employs it. For those who haven't read the comic, here's a brief summary:

Order of the Stick takes the standard D&D setting ideas of 1. having literal gods of evil and 2. having inherently evil races and ties them together. There are gods of evil who create evil followers to empower themselves, and are allowed to persist because the conflict between them and the followers of the good gods allows followers of both sides of the pantheon to get strong, thus feeding both sets of gods with belief. The good gods are sustained by the belief of their noble followers who in turn need the good gods' powers to fight the forces of evil, and the evil gods are sustained by the forces of evil who need to the evil gods' power in turn to keep from being wiped out by the noble heroes of good.

Order of the Stick then, in its grand tradition of deconstructing D&D tropes, has the evil races stop and realize that they're getting the shitty end of the stick in this deal. A key part of the backstory is that the goblins have a god who was not created with the other pantheons, but ascended to godhood on the belief of his fellow goblins. This god, the Dark One, has the stated goal of altering the fundamental power structure of reality so that goblins have a fairer deal - that they get decent land to live off of, heroes (or villains, technically, by necessity) who stand up for them, and, since this is a deconstruction of D&D specifically, better stats.

And we are shown, both in the main comic itself but also ESPECIALLY in the print-exclusive prequel comic Start of Darkness, that the circumstances of goblin life are so exquisitely shitty that they really do need a fundamental restructuring of reality itself to have a chance to be better. They are given harsh land to live off of, driven out of every place they try to inhabit, frequently enslaved by more powerful monsters, and generally forced to live in such desperate circumstances that they have no options BUT to resort to al life of banditry and bloodlust. Any goblins that do otherwise end up dead - well, dead quicker than their fellows, I suppose, since the ones who do commit to being evil generally don't live long either.

Which, again, goes back to the fundamental idea that these creatures were made to be canon fodder - the gods literally conspired to make goblins disposable, evil, nasty creatures who exist to die at the hands of heroes and in the service of villains. It is, explicitly and in the text of the story, a fucked up and horrible thing that was done to them.

...but the failing of this plot point, in my eyes, is that at the end of the day, it is nonetheless treated as an unavoidable fact of this world. While heroes express sympathy for the goblins upon learning of this, and irritation or even anger at the gods for making the situation in the first place, the only characters trying to actually change it are explicitly villains, and ones whose actions may unintentionally destroy all of reality itself. Because at the end of the day, they are still inherently evil beings, no matter how sympathetic they are, and they can't be saved, just mourned after they're put down.

Although maybe I'll be proven wrong on that point - the comic isn't over yet, after all, and there's a chance someone may actually change things for the better for the goblins and other inherently evil beings. I doubt it'll happen, but I've been pleasantly surprised before.

But yeah, very good comic, very well written, far more thoughtful than most others that use this trope... but I still think it would be better if goblins (and kobolds, and dragons, and so on and so forth) weren't treated as inherently evil in the first place.

[plounce]

my awesome heavensward rewrite thoughts

how loyal aymeric is to the church could be in more doubt (although he's always Handsome And Nice) until we bring him evidence of the history rewrite and he reveals himself as a good guy through and through. we hear rumors of him being the pope's bastard, and that playing into the uncertainty how deep in the church's pocket he is?

there should be very little time between haurchefant's death and confronting the pope - or at least the heavens' ward. if we got a dungeon or a trial where we fight our way through the pope's boys all powered up, and then either 1. we go into primaled-up pope as a trial right after 2. he flees to elsewhere and we pursue - that's where we meet tiamat, maybe?

there is very little reason for haurchefant to be stuck at camp dragonhead for most of hvw. no job/class quests there involve him as a speaking role (or really mention him at all). he should be way more present in ishgard and as a member of your "party."

i feel that stronger connections could be drawn between the gnath/vath and ishgard/heretics (indoctrinated believers of the state religion vs free-thinkers ekeing out an existence on the fringes)

more development of "heretical" beliefs and practices. i feel like we couldve used a cutscene of like... a guy giving a monologue, drinking dragon blood, and then transforming

tbh i don't know what purpose dusk vigil serves for the plot. i think it might be a 1.0 reference, definitely in its story - maybe the location too?? i need to find out more about coerthas in 1.0. i think that dusk vigil could instead be replaced with a dungeon that expands upon "heresy" more - either in what heretics believe/do, or the ways ishgard creates heretics. freeing "falsely accused" people from an ishgardian black site? the ishgardian military being of two arms: the church police being in charge of rooting out heresy while aymeric's temple knights focus on the dragons. inside vs outside.

ysayle... more ysayle backstory... it wouldve been cool if we met someone who knew her before she got brain-blasted with shiva's memories (in tailfeather? giving that town more of a story purpose?).

iirc ysayle's crisis of identity just sort of happened, she left the party in the churning mists to freak out, popped up in ishgard to stop a heretic/underclass uprising (let them revolt!!), and then she kills herself without like speaking to you again. you don't really get to meaningfully say goodbye. i feel that her and haurchefant's deaths could been more of a one-two punch (if she Has to die).

i think ysayle could have not died. i think she could have just run away to try to become Nobody. and then she could return later. i think her deathierves a "well... guess she must redeem herself through death...." which: boooooo. boringggg.

to be frank i don't think the sea of clouds as a location is essential to or really serves heavensward's story. i feel that somewhere else would have been more beneficial. perhaps a map that includes the ruins of ferndale (estinien's hometown)? maybe that's been taken and re-settled by "heretics"?

i think that haurchefant should have been a more consistent party member. he could be used to provide two different perspectives: 1. someone who has lived within and understands ishgardian nobility 2. an ishgardian who is open to the outside world and has had regular contact with outsiders. i feel that we don't really get a sense of his own personal beliefs outside of "i'm in ishgard's military" and "im on your side my angel!!". it would be nice if we got more reactions to msq events from him - like alphinaud (our buddy) but with the ishgard perspective

if the uprising in the brume was actually allowed to happen... ok earlier in the expansion we meet hilda and she's like hiiii. buzz off ♥ [more children throwing snowballs at us] and then later on we return to ishgard from the churning mists, new lore in our minds, to a city in chaos (ysayle has faked her death & her followers think she's been assassinated, they launch an uprising? there's been an order for mass conscription, the poor have had it and don't want to die en masse?), and we actually have to INTERACT with a class uprising with hilda as a leader of the poor. and then negotiations are being made, haurchefant and alphinaud are trying to handle it - aymeric is like hey. you guys seem really strange. what's going on. and we tell him ishgard's true history, and then.... whew! he's like Oh Fuck. i need to go confront the pope (my dad). don't let talks disintegrate, i'll brb. and then in the middle of things, one of hilda's agents and lucia break down the door - LORD AYMERIC IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE POPE, DEMANDING THE HOUNDS STAND DOWN! maybe hilda gets kidnapped too...? idk theres a lot of ways you could order these things bc ishgard could be suuuuuch a powder keg.

haurchefant should have been killed in full view of the ishgardian population so that he's the people's martyr as well + more reason for ishgard to turn on the old ways

alphinaud should have had equally strong relationships with estinien and with ysayle. for a game with a blank-slate protag you can't count on every player thinking about their character forming those connections with either/both characters, so alphinaud works well as an audience substitute. and seeing this littleboy care about them may also bolster the audience's feelings toward them - i only cared about estinien for most of the game because alphinaud cared about him.

so in that way i do think it's good for him to go on the camping trip. plus it's good for his character arc to have to learn camping. gather sticks, boy. also, hvw is the alphinaud expac where stb is the alisaie expac - if we keep one, we keep the other. i like the balance of that.

alphinaud also keeps us tied into our character's history in ARR - it would be kinda weird if we got an entirely new cast of core characters, and it helps us remember the scions and kind of worry about them in the back of our minds. plus we instinctively want to protect him.

the dravanian hinterlands only play into msq in that "we have to go get the doodad from matoya to break into azys lla!" which is stupid. it's VERY important in the patches though so we gotta keep it. i would add an aetheryte though. stares.

i also think idyllshire serves a good purpose of showing "here's a different way of living - here we are, living with people who are different from us, and getting along." compare to the various ways in which ishgard, the heretic settlement in ferndale, and tailfeather live. it's a nice spot of hope.

my restructuring thought is that we get into the hinterlands via a secret route that heretic rebels reveal to us because we're following thordan's aether trail or whatever. azys lla is hidden directly above new sharlayan/idyllshire - that's one of the reasons why the forum decided to settle there, matoya reveals to us.

we hear from our contacts in idyllshire (who we know from our friends among heretics and outcasts) (also, idyllshire as an outpost for people escaping from the war?) that there's an old witch guarding the entrance to the tower that can help us breach azys lla. it's matoya!

y'shtola's body recently appeared in matoya's cave. she won't wake up. matoya's been taking care of her. we learn about their relationship. matoya being sad about yshtola's current state mirrors our grief over haurchefant. matoya agrees to help us and let us through the first of the barriers to azys lla because we're shtola's little friends.

sharlayans keeping secrets, reaching high into the sky (HEAVENSWARD, EVEN - it would be cool if almost every dungeon had you going up in some way) (and then low into the ground, in the patches). a tower that is the way to azys lla, but many barriers exist to keep intruders out.

great gubal library is such a weird fuckin second-to-last dungeon - it takes place in between the vault and ARF!! what? huh? we're breaking up that high?

the first part of the dungeon is just the sharlayan defenses, but... something's kind of weird. and then you're fighting the first boss, a mammet, and halfway through it gets killed by a member of the heavens' ward! who took over the tower, and heard you when you came in! and then rest of the dungeon is fighting through them in the ruins theyve made of sharlayan stuff - something something 'the church destroying history and knowledge to retain its power'.

finally we reach azys lla. tbf i don't think the empire needs to be there. cut the garleans. some leavings of sharlayan are around, though.

thordan has activated some allagan defenses, we deal with those as we navigate through the zone. shouldn't take that much time. the important thing is that we talk to tiamat, who is also grieving and hates what that grief drove her to do. that's such an important conversation. also leaves a bit of potential character stuff for the player's brain, if you choose to draw the connection between your wol and tiamat - is this how your wol will process grief? are they grieving?

we confront thordan - estinien is so fucking mad that the cause he's been fighting for, the war that ruined his life, has all been a lie meant to prop up this man. the anger overtakes him, he transforms, he flies off.

we left alphinaud back at the sharlayan tower - he's been trying to fix the controls so we can get back down (and, if you were defeated, to call for help) btw. estinien does fly by him and he's like NOOOOO ESTINIENNNNNNN and estinien SLICES HIM WITH HIS SPEAR and alphinaud FALLS DOWN AND IS BLEEDING!! this is a cutscene, the wol isn't there, but YOU see it and it adds to your stress. :D

thordan's like "oh so sad... you don't have any friends... WELL I DO HA HA HA" and then he brings out the ascians he's been conspiring with!! the first half of the fight are lahabrea/igeyorhm combined into ascian prime (you defeated me as one... but can you defeat TWO ascians??), and then when you finish them - cutscene. thordan eats them for power. mwa ha ha ha!! PHASE TWO. we fight him, we kill him. he doesn't bring his boys out but does some crazy dragon-blood shit - kinda like golbez - and maybe some ascian stuff.

alphinaud's okay - he patched himself up. he should probably see a doctor though. you limp away, having won and survived, but with lots of rebuilding and healing to do...

the post-credits cutscene montage, in no particular order: y'shtola's eyes opening. thancred appearing in the dravanian forelands - we don't know it's him by sight. we don't see his face or identifying markings. niddstinien Lurking Around. people leavings flowers and votives at The Grave Of Lady Shiva - ysayle is assumed dead by her followers. (she is not. she is comatose in a small isolated village in dravania where non-ishgardian elezen have been carrying on pre-dragonsong war beliefs and practices.)

[dingodad]

Something I'm wondering about now is that like. It's heavily implied the Black Hole doesn't exist anymore? Like, Vriska asborbed the singularity (thus the entirety of the green sun AND the black hole created to contain it), so like. Is she the vessel through which the Candyverse exists? And why she's so easily able to portal out of it, obviously. But more importantly, I wonder what that means for the Parents, who are still stuck there. John has expressed intent to follow, and presumably the others will for the other lost kids or related, then that begs the question of how? Also, wonderfully fun parallel, making Vriska contain the Candyverse akin to Snowman containing universe A. Not unlikely that her life being at risk will now equate to the entire Candyverse being at risk, thus incentivizing all the Parent Players into protecting her. Anyway, sorry this is a disorganized question, I'm trying to ask what you think HAPPENED to the singularity/black hole/plot point/green sun after Vriska "br8ke."

the word is that the black hole was "collapsing" when Roxy and Calliope brought Vriska on board to help, and now Vriska has the power to save a universe but not the one in the black hole. so it sounds to me like the collapse is still going on. but I agree that the story seems to be keeping the door open for important stuff to keep happening inside the black hole, just without any one clear direction as to how. Vriska being a new Snowman would be fun, though I don't know if that really lines up with the way she describes her new mission - for now it seems like she's figuratively acting as an ark for some of the remnants of the dying universe, but she's made it pretty clear that she can't take all of it with her.

utopianparadoxist has been speculating in a direction that makes Roxy seem like an interesting candidate for the new gravitational center of the candy volume - I would say again, figuratively, but it does also feel like it's about time the Rogue of Void got a turn to flex what she can really do, powers-wise. there are other outside players we haven't checked in on in a while too; the black hole was Alliope's project in the first place, so it stands to reason she's invested in its fate in some way, and we already know she has a plan to put an end to Homestuck's deterioration by bringing the story "to a satisfying and hopefully timely conclusion". so that could also come into it.

i wonder now though if the black hole's "collapse" means something more than just straightforward destruction. like, if the hole is shrinking and dying when viewed from the outside, what does that actually mean for the people living on the inside? we've already had the black hole's time dilation effects demonstrated to us via Vriska aging 8 years in a matter of minutes, so what if time inside the black hole universe just starts going faster and faster as it collapses? i keep thinking back to the implication that Meenah has made Karkat immortal... are we gonna see a billion year old Karkat or WHAT!!

we've still got Alliope's warning about something waiting for them on the outside once the black hole bursts to think about too. and i can't help but get the feeling John's little vision is somehow trying to communicate that John IS who's waiting? i donno!

[thekatebridgerton]

Also here's another story I wish someone would write inspired in my current late night sleep deprived scrolling and too much Rock of Ages clips:

Colin Bridgerton Rock Star who has lost himself in sex drugs and alcohol to cope with the decline of his song writing inspiration. Enter Penelope Featherington, former childhood friend turned, rolling stone journalist who interviewed Colin for the magazine and wrote a terribly unflattering article (so what if she chewed him up and told him he was an irresponsible child who needed to man up, so what if he accused her of literally running away from their friendship when he got famous and forgetting he existed until this dang interview, so what if they had hate sex! So what if she ruined him for all other women) What Colin cares about is that he needs to find her again and make her retract what she wrote about him in Rolling Stone!!

Side plots Featuring Anthony, Benedict and Gregory, band mates who are sick of him and coping with Colin's trainwreck lifestyle by equally trainwrecking their own lives.

Anthony is a recovering sex addict with a bunch of groupie girlfriends that always follow him around who has fallen head over heels for his ball busting bodyguard Kate. Yes he's fallen for Kate! Who would rather meet his crazy fans with a glock at dawn than let him buy her a drink, Kate with walls a mile high who roundhouse kicked him the last time he told her she looked hot. Kate who smiles at him when she thinks he's not looking and thinks he's going to propose to her sister. Why did he fall inlove with Kate? He likes her! Why can't she like him back? Kate is willing to take a bullet for him but she won't let him anywhere near her heart. So sex drugs and alcohol it is, maybe if Kate sees how much of a trainwreck he can be, she will quit and cease tormenting him. If Anthony can't have Kate then nothing matters anymore

Benedict resident polyamory Rock Star fresh out of a breakup with his other two equally famous significant others, trying to ' create art' and cover Colin and Anthony's messes only to find his muse in a one night stand he had when he was super wasted. Granted the new housekeeper his mom hired for the band seems awfully familiar, but this Sophie girl is just too cute to be his sexy goddess of silver. Doesn't mean he hasn't tried to bang Sophie, but she said she's not into meaningless flings with washed up bass players, so fine no sleeping with her, he will treat her like an employee too, but as an employer he needs her to remain around him all the time, when Sophie smiles she helps him get back his inspiration, he can paint again when she's around, that's all that's keeping his attention, of course he wants Sophie to see him as a man, but its okay if she doesn't... Right? Right??

Then there's Gregory, the drummer, trying to make it in the Rock Star scene, and keep his older brothers from doing a full kamikaze on their relationships and their band. He's so lucky he's got his best friend Lucy supporting him trough this, dang it would suck if Lucy didn't come to his concerts or gave him a listening ear. She's trying to make it in Hollywood as a Disney actress and she's been Gregorys rock, her agent is a bit of a diva but if Lucy gets a shot at stardom Greg encourages her to go for it. That's until news of Lucy's relationship with pop idol Haselbaby reaches Gregory. What do you mean his Lucy is dating some pop idiot who can't even sing? Why would she? She's his best...his best... oh forget it Lucy is HIS, and no Disney romance publicity stunt is going to stop him from taking her back and making her his girlfriend. And with brothers too dumb to tell him not to be stupid, he's about to destroy Lucy's entire Disney career by kidnapping her and bringing her on tour with him. If the media won't give his Lucy attention unless she gives them drama, his stunt will make her name flash in headlines for years to come!.

Violet please come get your Rock Band, the boys are mucking things up again!!

[joe-spookyy]

something i find intriguing about re-animator (1985) and its sequel bride of re-animator (1990) is how truly similar they are to frankenstein (1931) and bride of frankenstein (1934), SPECIFICALLY in regards to their queercoding. the original re-animator stories were of course, according to lovecraft, written as a parody to mary shelley’s frankenstein. however in the cases of both films and their sequels, they differ significantly from the original source material. interestingly, though, it seems they have a lot in common with each other. sound interesting? read on.

obviously, there are base level similarities in the original frankenstein movie and original re-animator movie. both feature a classic mad scientist figure with the goal to conquer death. and both films end with the supposed death of their mad scientists, along with their creations. but where the real similarities, as well as the heavier queercoding comes in, is with bride of frankenstein, and of course, bride of re-animator.

so, to draw the comparisons and explain the queercoding, we first have to establish the characters, and who they tie to in the other film. first, we look at the classic queercoded mad scientist. in the first movie, herbert west is mirrored by henry frankenstein. however, in bride of frankenstein, the character that more lines up with his character archetype and plot line is dr. septimus praetorius. for those unfamiliar with the character, dr praetorius seeks out henry frankenstein, a former student of his, hoping for his assistance in creating life. although the relationship between dan cain and herbert west is not that of a teacher/student arrangement, we still see herbert seeking out dan’s help in building the bride. and of course, both west and praetorius are often read as queer. with west as praetorius, dan cain falls in as henry frankenstein. both are reluctant to return to the whole re-animating dead bodies business, clinging onto the life of “normalcy” they think they can have, and pushing back against the other man who is trying to draw them back in. dan and henry are both less often read as queer, but if you step back, it’s very easy to see.

now, we can look at the plot and how it influences a queer reading of the characters. aside from the similarities in name, there’s a lot in common in the two movies. early in the bride of frankenstein, praetorius tries to draw henry in with some of his own miniature creations - several small homunculi. this actually sort of mirrors the scene we all know and love from bride of reanimator, where herbert brings the finger/eyeball puppy to life. there’s a little more queercoding in the scene from re-animator. herbert reads almost like a proud father, showing the critter to dan, and it’s then followed by dan telling herbert that he’s “moving out”, coming across as almost a breakup/i’m leaving you moment, which is met with extreme dismay.

of course, in both cases, these small demonstrations aren’t quite enough to sway henry and dan to the cause. praetorius starts by promising henry his original creation, the creature, as long as henry helps him craft a bride, but ends up having to step things up and uses henry’s fiancée, elizabeth, as bait to convince him. sound a bit familiar? in bride of re-animator, herbert convinces dan to join in again on the reanimation with promises that he can return his dead fiancée meg to him. again, this scene plays out significantly more homoerotically, with herbert producing meg’s heart and offering it to dan. yeah. herbert offered dan his heart. and it works. dan’s sold. now, you’re probably thinking, what’s so homoerotic about joining forces with a man just to get your girl back? well. listen. it’s more, in this case on the part of herbert and praetorius. there’s something very homoerotic in using love to entice a man into creating life with you. and yes, technically it is heterosexuality being taken advantage of here. but there’s still a bit of seduction that’s happening. if herbert and praetorius can’t draw the others in the way they’d like to, they know they can take advantage of the emotions on dan and henry’s end.

additionally, we know west and praetorius are queercoded from more than just this specific scenario. it comes through simply in the way the actors portray them, their lines, and their actions. praetorius was intended that way, despite the movie being produced in an era where the hays code was enforced. actor ernest theisger was allegedly told by director james whale, an out gay man, to play the character as an “over the top caricature of a bitchy and aging homosexual.” which. is kind of hilarious. and herbert west is. well. where do i even begin. actor jeffrey combs chose to play him in a Way, and there are nods to herbert’s lack of interest in women throughout both films (to me beyond reanimator does not exist), most overtly shown when one of his coworkers asks herbert if a recently female deceased patient was attractive, and is met with the single most effective “are you fucking stupid” stare i have ever seen. this, in my opinion is clearer than if he would have just declared then and there that he was a homosexual. but i digress. he also shows nothing but disdain and frankly, a little jealousy, towards dan’s girlfriends, slinking away to sulk in the basement and reanimate some random limbs, or, in the first movie, pushing meg out of the frame and physically coming between her and dan in the shot, symbolic of how he promptly pushes her out of dan’s life entirely.

but what about dan and henry? as far as we’ve discussed, they don’t seem to be reciprocating any of herbert or praetorius’s advances. BUT when it comes time to create the titular brides, both dan and henry seem to finally give in to the temptations. of course, there’s the inherent homoeroticism of creating life with another man. and of course, dan choosing to stick with herbert despite what he’s been put through doesn’t make a lot of sense if you don’t consider there might be more than friendship involved there. but what really matters is how they both lean into it towards the end of their respective films, throwing away their chance at a “normal” heterosexual life with elizabeth (in henry’s case) or francesca (in dan’s) to stick with their own queercoded little mad scientists and continue the work. the moment where each of them finally gives in is clear. henry’s comes when the first heart they attempt to put in the bride is not worthy, and he makes an Active choice and asks for another heart. dan’s is in the final seconds before re-animating their bride, when he makes an Active choice, taking the syringe from herbert and asking that he himself be the one to start the process. both men finally go from passively following their counterparts, in dan’s case rather like a dog to its master, to finally making that active choice and turning to the other side. and the other side, represented by west and praetorius and blasphemy and evil science, can also be a symbol of that queerness. they really step into and embrace creating life with that other man, despite the perfectly fine and normal life that they Could have with their fiancées. it can sort of be read as an allegory for homosexuality alongside bisexuality - praetorius and herbert both only have the scientific way of creating life, and no chance at societal “normalcy”, if we read them both as gay. and they bring henry and dan into their queerness, who can be read as bisexual: they have the opportunity to pursue a societally “normal” life. but they also have the opportunity to do the very opposite.

and finally, in true bury your gays fashion, dan and francesca, as well as henry and elizabeth, escape unharmed, while herbert and praetorius along with their creations, are left to die as the building collapses. the creature leaves us with the haunting line “we belong dead”, referring to himself, his bride, AND praetorius. they’re all, in their own ways, a part of a world they don’t belong to. and the same goes for herbert and his creations. in both movies, heterosexuality triumphs, since that’s what we’re supposed to see as “good” and “normal”, fitting in with our good and normal protagonists who both make the last minute choice to save their girls and escape, abandoning the other men to die. despite being queercoded, the idea of being queer cannot be endorsed by the narrative, and so the story must end this way. even in 1975’s incredibly queer film The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which is another frankenstein esque story, the queer creator frank n furter and his creation rocky both die, while janet and brad, a “straight” couple, manage to survive. it’s an interesting take on the idea of being doomed by the narrative that seems to appear in a lot of frankenstein adaptations.

anyways. sorry for yapping so hard but bride of frankenstein and bride of reanimator are so similar to each other that they end up queercoded in very similar ways and follow the same pattern as many frankenstein adaptations. yeah.

[deedeethewriter]

Law and order VS Monsters. Why L&O worked by monsters didn’t

Introduction:

After rewatches, brainstorming, and discussions with others, I have finally decided what is truly the biggest issue with Monsters: The Erik and Lyle Menendez story. No, it’s not the inaccuracies or the incest undertones (although both are a real problem). However, multiple factors hinder this show’s potential as a fresh and unique telling of the Menendez Brothers case. To exhibit this, I will be comparing this show to the much more accurate and much better-written Menendez brothers dramatization, and that is Law and Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders, a Law and Order spin-off that premiered in 2017. It’s far from perfect, has its fair share of inaccuracies, and suffers from pacing issues. But it’s still far better executed than Monsters and the best out of the five Menendez dramatizations. 

This will not be a usual review. Instead, I will compare and contrast the two shows and explain why Law and Order worked and Monsters did not from a pure storytelling perspective. I will break down this comparison into several sections, including plot, subplots, characterization, character development, structure, conflict, abuse allegations, sexual topics, purpose, and overall storytelling.

Just a heads up, I will not compare the characters to their real-life counterparts unless relevant (for example, I address how Monsters wrote Erik’s sexuality and compare it to the actual Erik’s sexuality). In addition, I will not fact-check the inaccuracies in either show; I will look at each show as just that: two series inspired by the same case.

Plot:

(I will keep this brief since this is just a synopsis of both shows)

Both shows take inspiration from the real-life Menendez murders. On August 20th, 1989, Jose and Kitty Menendez were shot dead in their Beverly Hills home. Their two sons, Erik, 18, and Lyle, 21, Menendez, at first deny having anything to do with their parent's murders; however, eventually, the investigation leads back to the brothers being the perpetrators. The brothers eventually admit guilty to killing their parents and, during their infamous trial, make graphic allegations of physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of both of their parents. However, they claimed they killed their parents in a state of panic, thinking their parents would kill them first to avoid the family secret from getting out. Despite these disturbing allegations and a mistrial, both brothers were sentenced to life in prison at their second trial in 1996; they are still currently incarcerated. 

Both series turn the actual case into a dramatization; despite being based on the same event, both stories use different plots to tell a dramatized story. 

In Law and Order, the main plot is Leslie Abramson’s (Edie Falco) goal of trying to win the Menendez case. Still, along the way, she deals with her issues, such as adopting a baby, disagreements with her husband Tim (Chris Bauer), her problems with her parents, and her growing bond with Erik Menendez (Gus Halper) and Lyle Menendez (Miles Gaston Villanueva). Law and Order is a franchise that consists of police procedural and legal drama; this spin-off Law and Order series, in particular, is being told through the perspective of Leslie, she is the main character here, and the show is about the Menendez Murders is mainly about the behind the scenes drama between the cops, lawyers and legal system surrounding it. 

On the other hand, Monsters aims to create a Rashomon effect about the Menendez case. The Rashomon effect is "a storytelling technique and a phenomenon that describes how people can have different perspectives on the same event." An example would be the film “Elephant,” a 2003 movie loosely based on the Columbine massacre. The film follows the lives of different characters doing their daily routine before the massacre happens at school. Monsters includes perspectives from Dr Oziel (Dallas Roberts), Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), Erik (Cooper Koch), Dominick Dunne (Nathan Lane), Jose Menendez (Javier Bardem), and Kitty Menendez (Chloe Sevigny), for example. We (the audience) are supposed to explore their different viewpoints regarding this case; by the end, the audience should conclude who the “real monsters” are. 

Both plots are unique in their own right. Before both shows, the only dramatizations of this case were through TV movies: A Killing in Beverly Hills, Honor Thy Mother and Father, and Blood Brothers. All three movies were A to Z stories of the case (before the killing, the killings, spending spree, jail time, and trial) that don’t stand out independently (except Blood Brothers with its ‘Kitty haunting Erik’ thing). Law and Order is a legal drama, and Monsters is a show with multiple perspectives. However, as I will explain, Law and Order had a more polished plot. Despite some pacing issues, it understands its end goal and does better at getting to the show's purpose.

Subplots

A subplot is a secondary plot that acts as a support story for the main story. By the end, the subplot is supposed to enhance and connect to the main plot. Some L&O subplots include Leslie and her husband struggling to adopt a baby, Lyle and his ex Jamie (Jamie Nobel) getting back together, Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) reputation and job as a judge, and infighting between the Menendez (Jose’s) and Anderson's (Kitty’s)  families. Some subplots in Monsters include Erik becoming infatuated with another inmate (and trust me, I will get to that), Lyle and Norma Novelli’s (Natalie Taylor Gray) phone calls, and Dominick Dunne’s anger with the justice system after his daughter's killer was given manslaughter instead of first degree murder. Overall, the subplots in Law and Order do what a subplot should do to enhance the story. Even the unimportant subplots go somewhere; for example, at one point early in the series, Lyle is conversing with his lawyer, Jill Lansing (Julianne Nicholson). At one point in the conversation, she mentions her daughter wanting a baby brother, but Jill doesn’t want to give her one.

Lyle, in response, encourages Jill to give her one by saying, “Little brothers are the best.” Lyle then gushes about Erik and how happy he was and still is to have him around. This moment builds Lyle’s character by establishing how much Erik means to Lyle but also later sets up Jill’s exit at the end of the series when she decides not to represent Lyle in the second trial. She explained that while she still cares for Lyle, she felt like she missed out on her daughter growing up because she had spent so much time working on the case for the past three years. This is another issue I had with Monsters; it would introduce plots that lead to nothing significant. While not precisely a subplot, in episode 2 of Monsters, Erik mentions a new girl he’s seeing to his friend Craig Cignarelli (Charlie Hall). This girlfriend is most likely Noelle Terlesky, a girl the real-life Erik was seeing at the time of his arrest. Anyways, after this mention, she’s never seen in the show or mentioned by Erik again. It felt like the writers only mentioned her because she was an actual person in this case, but they had no real plans for her (something I will mention later). It makes me wonder why Erik would mention her if she wasn’t going to do anything in the story. As stated before, Monsters would introduce certain subplots or characters that wouldn’t do anything long-term for the plot. Completely stripping away the point of a subplot, which is supposed to create conflict, develop a character, and add depth to the main story, but the subplots in Monster failed to do that. 

For example, let’s compare the subplot between Erik and Tony's (Brandon Santana) subplot in Monsters vs Judge Weisburg’s subplot in Law and Order. In episode 3, Erik becomes infatuated with another inmate at the LA County Jail who also seems to like Erik, such as staring at him when he isn’t looking and helping Erik get dimes. Later, they’re seen working out together, and Tony brings up the fling to Erik; Erik denies being gay, although he did question his orientation at one point. Later, Erik and Tony are the only ones in the jail shower, and they shower seductively in front of each other. The subplot seems to be leading somewhere, such as a hookup or romance between the two, but no. Two episodes later, we learn from Erik that Tony was moved to another jail. That’s it. No moment shows them hooking up or having a “what are we?” conversation about their little fling. Erik mentions missing Tony to Dr Vicary (Gil Ozeri) in episode 7 (which, btw why would  Vicary's first response to that be "Miss the sex?" LMAOOOO), but this subplot has no conclusion. There’s no epiphany moment for Erik and his sexuality; this subplot did nothing for the plot. 

Let’s compare this to Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) subplot in Law and Order. Judge Weisburg, at first, is portrayed as a fair and unbiased judge. He has his banter in court with Leslie before the Menendez trial, but it’s not shown that he has a particular issue with her. However, as the series progresses, he gets a lot of bad press because of the outcome of the Rodney King trial. His reputation as a judge is beginning to crumble, and he’s afraid that not getting a conviction in the Menendez case will be the beginning of the end for his career as a judge with election season coming up. The negative press explains why he becomes more harsh to Leslie during the trial and sabotages the second trial by not allowing any abuse evidence. Even though he is an antagonist in the story, his subplot

Gives his actions a motivation

Develops Weisburg and Leslie's character

It amplifies the plot by causing Leslie a conflict during the second trial (his actions lead to the brother's conviction).

Law and Order did a better job of leading its subplots somewhere, giving them all a conclusion and enhancing the show's main plot, while Monsters did not. The biggest issue with Erik and Tony’s subplot, in particular, is not the nude scene or the ethics of the writing of Erik’s sexuality, but the fact that you can take this subplot out and nothing would have changed. Nothing would’ve been gained or lost; it doesn’t develop Erik’s character, enhance the main plot, or raise any stakes. If Weigburg’s subplot were taken out, it would have taken away Weisburg’s and Leslie’s character development, not given Weisburg a motive, and it wouldn't have given Leslie a conflict for the second trial. A good subplot gives the main plot layers and adds complexity to the story and characters, but monsters don’t seem to know what to do with their subplots. 

Characterization

Law and Order and Monsters both have characters inspired by the real-life people involved in the Menendez case. Of course, we have the Menendez family, Leslie, and Jill, but both projects also include Pam Bozanich, Lyle’s prosecutor; Detective Zoller, the lead detective in the case; Judge Weisburg, the judge for both Menendez trials; Dr. Oziel Erik’s psychiatrist who he confessed to in October 1989, Judalon Smyth, Oziel’s lover who eventually told the police about the brother's crime and members of the brothers extended family such as their aunts, uncles, and cousins. In both shows, their roles seem to be drastically different. 

For one, in Law and Order, Pam Bozanich (Elizabeth Reaser) is a recurring character, but she still has her own story arc and character development. In law and order, she was the prosecutor in the McMartin trial. During the show's events, we learn that she failed to get a conviction during that trial. Still, she wants to desperately prove that she’s a reasonable prosecutor to the District Attorney’s Gil Garcetti (MArk Moses). Eventually, the DA is convinced to give her the Menendez trial, and Pam, thinking about her reputation, is desperate to get a conviction during the trial. Unfortunately for her, she doesn’t, and the DA takes her off the second trial, much to her dismay. Despite this, Pam develops a dislike for Leslie, so she doesn’t seem to mind being taken off the second trial. She said she’d rather eat glass than spend another hour in a room with Leslie. 

Pam Bozanich (Milana Vayntrub) is a character in Monsters; however, she takes on a much smaller role. She only shows up towards the end of the series when the trial begins, but she doesn’t have much of a role despite being a key figure in the Menendez case. This could be because of the two series' different premieres. Law and Order is a legal drama, and she is an antagonist to Leslie’s protagonist there, so it’s understandable why she takes a more significant role there than in Monsters. 

Still, given that Monsters is a show about multiple perspectives, I think the show could’ve benefited from an episode about how she looked at the murders. Dominick Dunne was just a gossip columnist in the show and real life and didn’t know the brothers personally, yet he gets so much screen time dedicated to his perspective on things. 

I had another issue with this show: despite wanting to explore multiple perspectives, it rarely gives time to explore the perspectives of characters who knew the brothers personally, such as their aunts, uncles, cousins, partners, and friends. I think an episode where both sides of their families are discussing their perspectives on what led to the murders would’ve been a great episode idea. Instead, their extended family members are reduced to background characters only added because the writers felt they had to add them because of their real-life counterparts. Even if the writers wanted to focus more on the immediate Menendez family, I still think members of their extended family could have worked as minor characters. Minor characters can be just as important as the main characters sometimes; if written right, they can add depth to the plot, help develop the main character, and help move the main plot forward. Unfortunately, it seemed like monsters didn’t know how to use their minor characters while also focusing on the Menendez family's story and different perspectives on what led to the murders.

On the other hand, Law and Order used their minor characters to move the plot, resolve conflicts, and develop characters. For example, minor characters Andy (Davi Santos) and Diane (Ashley Lenz) show up to tell Leslie and Jill about Erik and Lyle, revealing to them they were being molested when they were younger, and later testify for the defense about it on the stand during the trial. Even though they don't have much to do with the overall story, their testimonies and what they tell Leslie and Jill give the defense the corroboration they need for the brothers' sexual abuse claims in court. Diane's reveal to Jill and Leslie happens before Lyle admits Jose also molested him, so it also makes way for Lyle to be honest about his abuse from his father finally. 

To avoid this getting too long, I will only stick to the Menendez family and their characterization since they are the main focus of both shows (besides Leslie in Law and Order, but I feel it would be an unfair comparison to compare L&O Leslie to Monsters Leslie). But I will say that the Law and Order show does a better job at characterizing not only the main characters but also its recurring, minor, and antagonistic characters. All of the characters, including the antagonistic ones, are well-written. They all have unique personalities, are realistic and relatable, and are developed throughout the series. The main characters are also likable, making the audience want to root for them. I can’t say the same for the characters in Monsters. The characters were not relatable, developed, likable, or even realistic. They seemed more like caricatures instead of actual well-written characters.

Lyle Menendez as a character in Monsters

I won’t beat around the bush; I don’t like the character of Lyle Menendez in Monsters. Lyle is written as a fly-off-the-handle, bratty, arrogant, self-centered, spoiled, disrespectful, foul-mouthed diva that makes him unlikeable. It’s not like this happens when he’s on an adrenaline high or frustrated, but all of the time. In this series, he curses out and yells at his parents multiple times, yells at kids who are trick or treating, yells at a service workers, threatens Dr Oziel, is rude to Leslie (Ari Graynor), makes faces while his brother is testifying, doesn’t seem to care about Erik’s feelings most of the time, and is more concerned about dimes and his hairpiece over the fact that his life is on the line.

As stated before, Monsters was aiming for a Rashomon effect of storytelling. If that was the case, I could understand situations where Lyle is being a dick. I can see people like Oziel or his parents looking at him as a little bastard, but I'm supposed to take his attitude at face value because this storytelling isn’t made clear to the audience. Lyle, in this show, has almost no redeeming qualities. We hardly see a lighter side to his character; the bratty diva thing could have given Lyle’s character more depth and complexity had we seen a more sensitive side to him. Some moments show that he cares for Erik a lot, such as during their reunion at the jail, he advises Erik that he can’t just drink milk in the jail and he frequently tells Erik that he loves him. But the problem is that these are just that, moments. Lyle doesn’t get more layers to his character to balance out his negative qualities. Despite not saying it verbatim, Nicholas Chavez has implied that he took issue with Lyle's character, such as saying in interviews that he was written as the least sympathetic brother. But because he couldn’t do much about Lyle’s characterization, he wanted to play him as someone who acts the way he acts because he’s a profoundly hurt person wearing a mask to shield that hurt. I can see what he means on my second watch of the show. In episode 4, Lyle gets vulnerable about his abuse of Leslie and Jill. In that episode, it’s like Lyle is an entirely different person. You see that he still feels the need to protect his father’s image, and he feels the guilt and shame of being molested but also molesting Erik himself. There, we see just how much he loves Erik. While he wants to protect his father’s image, he also wants to safeguard Erik by not revealing this embarrassing and shameful encounter. We begin to understand that Lyle acts the way he acts because the root of that is insecurity, and his abuse is the main reason why he acts like a child because he’s still mentally a child himself. This episode would’ve been the perfect time to develop Lyle’s character, but the next time he’s on screen, he goes back to being a bratty dick. There’s no personal growth, no change in his morals, and no lesson learned from his moment of vulnerability. As a character, Lyle seems to stick to the “Status Quo is God” trope, where things always go back to the way things were before. It's like the writers didn’t understand the importance of character development.

Despite this, I do have to praise Nicholas’s performance. He is genuinely entertaining to watch and has excellent comedic timing. I am unsure if the writers intended to make his lines as funny as they were, but I mostly laughed when he was on screen. In addition, I can see that he studied the real-life Lyle Menendez. During the trial and court hearing scenes, he’s spot on with Lyle's mannerisms, facial expressions, and speaking. He even got Lyle’s child-like way of speaking when he was being directly examined by Jill down to a T. Unfortunately, his talent was wasted entirely. 

(Real-life Lyle’s wife was also SO excited for him to play Lyle; what a waste, lmao)

Lyle Menendez as a character in Law and Order

Law and order Lyle is a bit more tricky to describe.  Because Leslie is the main character, we don’t spend as much time with the brothers as in Monsters. But we see in Lyle that he’s confident, smooth, overly protective of his brother, naive, empathetic, and puts on a tough exterior even though he’s hurt and secretly emotional. He still has his flaws and moments of being obnoxious. He’s rude to the waitress and his bodyguards and is actively lying to his family, friends, and partner about his involvement in killing his parents. That said, his character flaws are justified from a storytelling perspective. He’s lying because he doesn’t want to hurt his loved ones, and his rudeness reflects how he was groomed at home, which we later see through flashbacks and his opening up about his family life. His rude moments can be chalked up to him mimicking his father; after his rude remark to the waitress, he says, “My dad always gave waitresses a hard time.” From the first episode during his police interview and what Jamie says to him at the hotel, it's clear how much Lyle admires his father and wants to make him proud. In episode 3, Dr. Conte (Raphael Sbarge), Lyle explains to Leslie and Jill that even though Lyle was sexually abused by his father, he still brags about how great of a man his father was and claims to love him; he’s doing something many survivors of abuse do, and that’s idolizing his abuser. So his rude moments are just him reflecting on his father, who he idolizes. This also explains to the audience why he didn’t want to reveal his father's abuse and why he felt so betrayed by him when Erik told him the abuse was still happening. While close to his father, through a flashback narrated by Donovan (Ben Winchell), it’s revealed that Lyle was upset by his father cheating on his mother, and we see multiple moments that show how deeply Lyle loves Erik. This also adds more depth to Lyle’s character. Even with his closeness to his father, he still needs to protect everyone in his family. This plants seeds for the brother's eventual allegations of what led up to them killing their parents. By the end of the series, Lyle has grown from the experience of his parents' murders and the trial. While still putting on a tough exterior, he has learned to be comfortable showing his more sensitive side and more open when expressing his feelings to Erik. At the beginning of the series, he seems to be unbothered by his parents' deaths and brushes off Erik's emotional hysteria. Still, in the second to last episode, he can tell Erik how much he misses his parents. While sticking to the main status quo of his character, Lyle's character still shows excellent character development. He still has most of his main character traits, but he also grows and learns from his experiences, and his sensitive side gives more depth to his character to show that he is a complex individual.

Even though I wish we had more time to explore Lyle’s character, his character here is way better written, realistic, likable, and relatable than his Monsters counterpart. 

Erik Menendez as a character in Monsters: 

As for Erik’s characterization, it's an unpopular opinion, but Erik was pretty unlikable in this show, too. I think the hurt man episode and people being biased towards Cooper have clouded judgment towards Erik’s character here. But in this show, Erik: Gets aggressive with Craig after Craig asks about the murders, yells and curses at Kitty for misspelling a word (a word he also misspelled too, might I add), and continues to scold her, blames his brother for the murders multiple times, yells at Leslie, says he should’ve killed Lyle too, robbed multiple houses, is rude to Oziel, doesn't care that his mom is spazzing in the kitchen, and is the one who came up with the murder plan. Watching this show, I got the opinion that Erik was bratty, passive-aggressive, sneaky, spoiled, and the mastermind behind the killings. Yes, he is more likable than Lyle, but not enough to think he's anything besides a disrespectful spoiled brat. I could say he’s more emotional and feels more guilty than Lyle. In The first episode, Erik is seen as being overly emotional over his parent's deaths, having near mental breakdowns and experiencing nightmares. But it's like his emotions have wholly dropped after the Oziel confession. There’s a lack of complexity in Erik’s character. I left the show looking at him like a toned-down Lyle. To echo what I said earlier, I can see someone like Dr. Oziel and his parents view him as a bratty kid, but with the lack of a narrator or establishing the story’s goal, I am supposed to accept that Erik is just as bratty as his brother. 

Erik also comes across as quite a jerk. When Craig tries to pry a confession out of him, Erik, for some reason, tries to intimate him. The show does not clarify why Erik got aggressive like this; it makes him seem like a passive-aggressive cold-blooded psycho. He doesn’t develop from this either; in the last episode, he pushes Lyle against the wall and says he should’ve killed him, too. Yes, the argument could be made that Lyle had been picking on him before this, but it shows Erik's lack of character development by showing that he is still an aggressive jerk. 

However, Cooper Koch's outstanding performance also saves Erik's characterization. The Hurt Man episode was excellent. Not only does Erik lay out his abuse at the hands of his father, but we also explore other things about Erik. Such as his complex feelings towards his parents, his idolization of Lyle, his confusing sexuality, and the root of his insecurities. Cooper does a fantastic job of displaying Erik’s emotions; one of the best things about this episode is that it feels like a real conversation between two people, not an exaggerated Hollywood script. Leslie tries to comfort Erik when he’s tearing himself down, and he keeps interrupting Leslie while she tries to comfort him. It is so natural to have a real-life conversation when someone is trying to reassure you when you are venting and vice versa. Like Nicholas, he’s also spot on when portraying the real-life Erik when necessary. At times, he even sounds like the honest Erik; it's almost eerie. Cooper is also entertaining, “Lyle, is that my toothbrush?” And “That’s where I keep it cold!”  It never fails to make me laugh. 

And yes, I am going to address the elephant in the room. The writers were awful in how they addressed Erik’s sexuality. I know he denies being gay multiple times in the show; however, between the Tony subplot and Pam telling Dominick that Erik was having oral sex with other inmates (they show this, too, by the way). Lyle and Jose making comments about Erik (allegedly) having sex with Craig, the average viewer might come out of this show thinking Erik is gay. I know the real Erik said he was confused about his sexuality, but it’s like Ryan took that one statement and ran with it. He ignores that Erik also said he did like girls and eventually had intercourse with girls and the fact that Erik did have multiple girlfriends. Yes I know there is an acknowledgment of Tammi, but that came towards the show's closing. There is a way to explore Erik’s sexuality from a storytelling point of view. Episode 5 did a decent job of addressing Erik’s confusing sexuality, and I wouldn’t have minded it if that was the only incident of it. But the sheer amount of gay subplots and jokes with Erik seemed more like a fetish as opposed to exploring how the sexual abuse confused the real-life Erik. Story aside, it feels offensive to the actual Erik.

Erik Menendez as a character in Law and Order:

Again, in Law and Order, we don’t spend that much time with the brothers. However, what we do see of Erik is that he’s very close to completely breaking down mentally. He’s outwardly more sensitive than Lyle and cries quite a bit in the show. He looks up to Lyle, calls him for everything, and loves and misses his parents. After their deaths, he focuses full time on tennis to make his father proud. He even recalls Jose encouraging him from the stand (although Lyle corrects him by reminding him that Jose was yelling at him). Erik seems closer to his mom; he tells his girlfriend that his mom would’ve been proud of him for having a girlfriend because she always gave him deadlines to get one. Kitty, in flashbacks, is shown as very sensitive and also cries often. In a way, Lyle is taking after his mom and Erik his mom. Even before the audience knows that he killed his parents, we see him close to breaking multiple times and know that he’s struggling to accept the fact that his parents were dead. Erik is also feeling the heat from guilt; his mental break isn't just over his parent's death but the fact that he was responsible for it. So, it is justifiable to the audience when he confesses to Craig and Dr Oziel. With Dr. Oziel, Erik only confessed to him because the only person he wanted to talk about it with, his brother, kept blowing him off, so when he confesses, it shows that Erik did it out of desperation and under the impression that he would be safe in doing so. It doesn’t make him seem sneaky, but he can’t take it anymore. He isn’t passive-aggressive or a jerk when Craig tries to pry a confession out of him. He still gaslights Craig but tries to brush it off like Craig is crazy instead of getting aggressive with him. It is explained here, though. He finally got it off his chest after the guilt was eating him alive, and after the drama with Dr Oziel and Lyle, he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore with anyone but them. Erik also develops by the end; even though he sticks to his same emotional self, he learns that it’s unhealthy to keep his emotions bottled up. Because his confession to Dr Oziel leads to his arrest, it stands to reason why he would feel cautious about being honest with his feelings. He also doesn’t reveal his abuse to Dr Oziel, but he learns to trust Leslie and is entirely open with her to avoid going on death row. Sure, it doesn’t stop him from shedding a few tears, but his honesty and relationship with Leslie develop him from someone close to breaking at any moment to someone in touch with his emotions and learning how to express them. I do prefer Cooper as Erik, but I still loved Gus’s portrayal and I think Law and Order did a better job at matching how the real-life Erik was feeling at the time.

Jose and Kitty Menendez as characters in Monsters:

Before I start, I will say regarding performance and chemistry alone; I prefer Javier and Chloe.  They are great with their material, and I think they capture Jose and Kitty's real-life energy. Javier, like Jose, is legitimately intense and intimidating, and Chloe nailed Kitty’s “I hate my kids; they ruined my marriage and life” spirit. 

Now, in both dramatizations, they take a smaller role. However, their roles are different in each series. In Monsters, Jose and Kitty are more characterized. For one, it explores the issues in their marriage, such as Jose’s affairs, his telling Kitty he doesn't love her and only wants her to give him children, and Kitty’s frustration with how he treats her and her loneliness. 

Kitty states multiple times that she hates her kids. She is characterized as a sad, pathetic, bitter, and insecure woman. We learn about Kitty's trauma from her abusive childhood, which explains why she treats her sons the way she does. Kitty’s resentment toward her sons was explained; she felt like she gave up her whole life for Jose only for him to treat her like garbage later, cheat on her, not love her, and pay more attention to their kids over her. Not that it justifies any abusive behavior, but it adds more layers to her character and actions. We also learn that she’s turned to alcohol to deal with her emotions, as seen when she reaches for the wine bottle for help after spazzing out in the kitchen.

Jose also has his fair share of trauma. He is characterized as a stern, strict, cunning, savvy, perfectionist, prideful, and abusive man. We also learn that he also has his fair share of trauma; he reveals to Kitty that his mother used to molest him as a kid, and when Lyle calls out his physical punishments to him and Erik as abuse, Jose brushes it off. Stating that his father used to hit him harder and that his sons' out-of-control behavior (the robberies, Lyle’s Princeton suspension) was the result of him not hitting them hard enough. This does not excuse his actions, but it explains his mentality.

Now that’s out the way, here is my issue with their characters: The show seemed to take more time to make the audience believe that Erik and Lyle were spoiled and bratty than they did, showing how scary Jose and Kitty were in Erik and Lyle (and others') perspectives. The moments that do show them as tyrants are limited and rushed quickly. I feel like the episodes that showcased last week’s events were rushed. I didn’t even mind the light-hearted moments, such as the Christmas moment, not because I felt terrible for them but because the audience would understand that no one is a Monster all the time. It also showed how the brothers could still love their parents even after all they did to them. Even the real  Lyle said during his cross-examination that he and his father had plenty of good times. 

Despite that, they are more sympathetic and complex than Erik and Lyle are. The brothers claimed they feared their parents, but I never got that feeling. How the show presents it, they came across as more strict, harsh, inconvenient, and demanding than they did someone to fear. It seemed more like two bratty kids who killed their parents because they resented them than people they killed out of fear and desperation. The deep horrors of how they allegedly treated their kids are only left to the imagination. If Ryan wanted the audience to decide who the “real” monsters were, he failed at showing just how monstrous they were to their boys (I will elaborate on this when we get to the abuse section).

Jose and Kitty as characters in Law and Order:

Jose and Kitty, in law and order, are explored even less than the brothers were. I’ve already explained why (the show is told from Leslie’s POV). What we see of them is shown through flashbacks from the brothers and other relatives. We see that Jose is controlling, intimidating, a bully, powerful, and abusive. We also learn that Lyle really looks up to his father, and at the beginning of the series, he constantly talks about making his dad proud. There’s no character growth to Jose here because this is ultimately a story about Leslie. Even though I preferred Javier, Carlos was also great at embodying Jose. The real Jose was said to be scary and intimidating even to grown adults, and Carlos made me feel afraid of him.

On the other hand, Kitty is shown as what Lyle describes as a “basketcase,” and Erik tells his cousin Henry that she is “so unhappy.” Flashbacks and comments of Kitty show her as constantly breaking down crying, dependent on drugs, passive, and showing little interest in her boys. Kitty also doesn’t grow much character; we learn that Jose had an affair with her, and Lyle tells Donovan it destroyed her. It helps the audience understand why Kitty turned into a basketcase, not necessarily to feel bad for her but to understand her more. Again, I prefer Chloe over Lolita; she did a better job embodying Kitty’s “I hate my kids” energy, but it’s not Lolita’s fault. I think she did great with what she had, but she wasn’t exactly playing the real-life Kitty. Lyle even pointed out on Facebook that Kitty here wasn’t shown as scary and violent as she was in real life. Law and Order even had a moment where the boys reminisced on a funny moment with their parents and flashbacks where Lyle remembered good times with his parents. I think it handled showing that Jose and Kitty weren't awful all the time without humanizing them too much. By the end of the show, the audience has seen why the brothers feared their parents so much and why they felt like killing them was their only option but there are still moments that show the brothers still love them and had good times with them.

Despite the flaws, law and order made the audience hate Jose and Kitty better. I will talk about the abuse later, but Law and Order did a far better job showing just how Monstrous Jose and Kitty were, even though Monsters did develop their characters more. A criticism I often see towards Law and Order is that the brothers were too sympathetic and the Menendez family were one-dimensional, and I can understand that viewpoint. We spent way more time with Leslie and behind-the-scenes legal drama than with them and their parents, which is why it was tough to explain their characters. However, this is excused because this is a legal drama explained through Leslie's eyes, which explains why the brothers are more sympathetic here. Throughout the series, we see that she begins to care for them like they are her children; it’s how she views them, and everything she knows of Jose and Kitty is being told to her from the point of view of other people, including their victims. Hence, it stands to reason why (Jose and Kitty) are only looked at as vile and one-dimensional. From a pure story point of view, it makes perfect sense.

Character development:

Monster’s storytelling also suffers from little to no character development. By the end of the show, almost everyone stays the same as they were. Lyle is still obnoxious and rude, Erik is still bratty and aggressive, and Dominick is still a bitter journalist who takes his distrust of the legal system out on the brothers. It’s like everyone stayed at point A and didn’t learn anything from their experiences. Out of the significant characters, the only ones who got real development seemed to be Jose and Kitty. In episode 6, they are struggling with their marriage and seem to hate each other, but by the end of the episode they seem to work out their differences and have a happy marriage. But like….their personalities don’t seem to change or develop. Kitty still hates her kids and Jose is still a controlling tyrant. Good storytelling means developing their characters, it doesn’t mean that they should have a complete 180 with their personalities, but they should have learned something from their experiences that leads to a change in their flaws, morals, and actions. This is another example of the characters here being over the top and cartoony. It’s not just the hyperbolic personalities, but the fact that no one seems human enough to develop. Lyle throughout the whole show is an obnoxious prick who is always yelling and cursing. Episode 4 showed a more vulnerable and soft side to him, giving the audience the impression that he acts the way he does because the abuse stunted his growth and he’s still mentally a child himself. However, for the remainder of the episodes he doesn’t change. He’s still rude and obnoxious, he’s learned nothing from this experience and it takes away the impact of seeing his more vulnerable side. It’s another example of lazy and ineffective storytelling. The show seemed to want to stick to a certain status quo, not understanding that characters are allowed to change without becoming completely different people.

I won’t talk too much about the characterization since I’ve already talked about that. Law and Order did a great job at developing its characters. By the end, everyone has grown, learned, and evolved from being a part of this case. I will be using as an example since she is our main character here. By the end of the series, Leslie turned a whole new leaf from losing her case. By the end, Leslie is heartbroken that she lost her case and the fact that Erik and Lyle both get life sentences. However, we see her grow throughout the series. She stays her same fierce, brash, bold and confident self, however we see her more vulnerable side. She has issues with her parents, her mother passes away and she reconnects with her estranged father. In the midst of all this, she becomes a mother again and adopts a baby boy. Her new son, own issue with her parents and closeness with the brothers is a factor on why she became so passionate about their case and why she turned a new leaf after the second trial to focus on raising her son and working at a toy store. Of course her decision was because of her loss, but also because learning about the horrific abuse the brothers suffered made her appreciate family and want the best for all children. As a result of both, she understands the real impact of a healthy and normal family and not only wants to be there for her child but other people’s children. 

Not only is there great development, but none of the protagonists are unlikable. Sure, they have their flaws, but it makes them come across as more complex and human. Even the antagonist characters (Weisburg, Detective Zoller, Pam, Gil Garcetti and David Conn) have their own subplots that fulfil the antagonistic role by having motivations behind their actions and having a foil for the antagonist that makes the audience question the protagonist. For example David Conn (Robin Thomas), as a part of the California DA office is assigned as the prosecutor in the second trial. Throughout the show, we see how desperate the DA office is for a conviction after losing the McMartin, Rodney King, and later OJ Simpson trial. After the OJ loss, the office is determined to convict the brothers. Later during the second trial, Conn reveals to the jury and the audience during his cross examination of Erik’s psychiatric in jail Dr. Vicary that Leslie had  hand in altering Dr Vicary’s (Todd Weeks) notes about Erik’s view of his mother. While this a small example, it shows how smart the law and order team was with its writing and storytelling. Not even the antagonists are over the top and cartoony, but real relatable people with their own backstories, goals, and motivations that makes the audience understand their viewpoint. 

Sexual/adult situations:

It’s no secret that monsters heavily sexualized the brothers. While I cannot praise Cooper and Nicholas’s performances enough, it’s clear that Ryan also cast them based on their looks and bodies. There are far too many scenes of them nude, shirtless, or in sexual situations, even when not necessary. I have no issues with nudity or sex scenes/suggestions in the media, but it was very excessive here. Law and Order had a scene of Erik’s girlfriend Noelle (Anna Osceola) teasing him with sex when he got out of jail. However, the most significant difference is context. Erik’s girlfriend teasing him made sense because she’s assumingly a young girl who wants to give her boyfriend a “gift” when he gets out of jail. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary, and it’s not “in your face,” so to speak. It’s subtle and not distracting, like the sexual moments between Oziel and Judalon. The over-sexualization was so bad that monsters included incest undertones between the brothers. In the second episode, Lyle kisses Erik on the mouth, and later, they dance seductively with each other at a party. Then, in episode 7, Dominick Dunne gives people his theories of the Menendez family and suggests that the real family secret was Erik and Lyle's incestuous relationship. The scene then cuts to Kitty catching the brothers in the shower together. 

In Law and Order, one juror commented that Erik probably got his stories of sexual abuse from having sex with Lyle, which is a disgusting comment; it’s nowhere near as awful as Ryan deciding to showcase an incest scene between them. Even if it was Dominick Dunne’s imagination, I still don’t understand why it had to be shown. The juror's comment in Law and Order is met with disdain from the other jurors; unlike Monsters, the whole “brother incest” is brought up but not even entertained.

I will admit I laughed at the scene where an inmate sarcastically tells Lyle he’ll give him a dime if Lyle gives him head and Dr.Vicary’s “Miss the sex?” When Erik says he misses Tony, gave me a chuckle. If everything else weren’t so in your face and had the gross incest stuff, I wouldn’t have minded these moments so much. But the layers of over-sexualization, including sibling incest, showed (to me) what was on Ryan’s mind when he cast two good-looking 20-something-year-olds to play the brothers.

The abuse:

In Monsters, the brother's allegations of abuse weren’t shown like they should’ve been to get the point across. I’m going to start with Kitty. In real life, the brothers alleged that Kitty was also violent and abusive to them. We also know that she sexually abused them both. The show attempts to address that Kitty was also an abuser and not just an enabler. However, it is poorly executed, and there is not enough time to show that. The only incident of this is her raging out on her kids after they accuse her of trying to poison them, but just before that, we see them cussing her out and ganging up on her. It comes across that she is justified in her rage out, and considering her kids are sociopaths, her kids were being dicks to her, and she got frustrated. Add onto the fact that they just watched her spazz out on the kitchen floor unconcerned. So when she tells her therapist, “I hate my kids,” someone may think, “Well, they cuss her out, gang up on her, accuse her of poisoning them, and are thieves. I get why she hates them and feels like they ruined her life.” To make it worse, we see her kissing Erik on the head and calling Lyle “sweetheart” (we all know the real kitty would never lmao) and telling her therapist that she still feels the umbilical cord connecting them. It makes it seem like she has love for them, but their attitude makes her hate them. Even if I can give it the “this is Kitty’s perspective” excuse, as stated earlier, the show does a terrible job of providing more corroboration to the brother's perspective of the abuse they say they suffered and what led to them fearing their parents. In addition, the only incident of sexual abuse of hers that is shown is her looking at Erik’s penis to check for AIDS, but the show leaves out that she used to pop blisters on them (Erik was also much younger when this happened) and even then it’s seen as justified and not motivated by the real Kitty’s perverted nature. Before that, she and Erik were talking about how Erik could bring AIDS in the house because he isn’t using the condoms they bought (and they are aware of his sexual relationship with another boy). It makes it seem like Kitty was just a concerned mother instead of the pervert she was. Erik mentions Kitty sexually abusing Lyle in episode 5, but it’s wildly “blink and you’ll miss it,” and Lyle does not even talk about it. The naked pictures are shown in court, but it came after it was implied that Leslie coached the brothers to lie on the stand. However, the show spent more time showing that the brothers were rude brats who talked back to their parents instead of showing how vile Kitty could also be.

As for Jose, my issues are pretty much similar. We don’t see enough of him being abusive to his sons besides slapping, degrading, and yelling at them. Yes, it’s still abuse, but it's not abusive enough to make us hate his guts.  If I recall correctly, the only incident that shows his sexual abuse was in episode 6, when he drags Erik to his room, and there’s a bunch of thumbs behind the door. Everything else about his sexual abuse of them is only talked about. I’m not saying they should’ve shown explicit rape scenes, but Law and Order was able to show the abuse of both parents that makes the audience hate them both. Jose, like Kitty, is seen as justifiably angry with his boys because of their burglaries and Lyle’s suspension in episode 6. Again, I understand this episode is his point of view, but I found myself understanding Jose’s frustration. Perhaps that’s what the writers were aiming for; they explored multiple perspectives and let the audience decide who the monsters were. Still, less time was dedicated to showing how monstrous Jose and Kitty were in the brother's eyes. Again, it suffers from telling and not showing.

Law and Order was able to show Jose and Kitty’s abuse without being explicit but also bad enough to make you hate them and sympathize with the brothers. Through flashbacks, we see that Kitty is negligent (how she handles Erik’s nightmares, ignoring Jose and bearing Erik), relies on pills and alcohol, keeps kiddy porn pictures of them, and that she also molests Lyle. It’s not explicit, but it’s clear what’s happening as it leaves little to the imagination. Jose, in these flashbacks, is also shown as abusive. Multiple times, he is seen striking fear into his boys, and the sexual abuse is not explicit, but it leaves little to the imagination of what is happening. By the end of the series, the audience has seen how disgusting and frightening Jose and Kitty are to their boys. Someone might say, “Well, the show is biased for the defense, so it will be in their favor. Monsters are trying to give multiple perspectives and letting the audience decide.” That’s true, but the writers took plenty of time to show how bratty and annoying Erik and Lyle were to others. But, there was barely any time spent showing the audience just how vile Jose and Kitty were from the perspectives of their boys. While I appreciated episodes 4 and 5, their telling their stories would not have been as impactful as showing their stories to the audience. The last episode of Law and Order was also better at addressing generational trauma. The last episode has Jose’s sister Marta (Constance Marie) and Kitty’s sister Joan (Molly Hagan) telling Leslie that they were abused as children, which shows the impact of generational curses but doesn't humanize them too much to forget their abuse.

Overall Storytelling:

Lastly,the storytelling is what makes Law and Order work but not Monsters. While the plot in Law and Order is about the Menendez case, the show sticks to the Law and Order formula by sticking to the legal drama that surrounds the case. The story, like any good story, has a beginning, middle, and end. Its storytelling is polished, shows instead of telling, well structured, has conflict, well developed characters and has a clear purpose and identity. 

Beginning, middle, and end. The beginning of the story is the murders of Jose and Kitty Menendez and the investigators in the case trying to find the killers and ultimately their investigation leads them to the couple’s own two sons.

Middle: Erik and Lyle are arrested and adjust to life in jail. Meanwhile, the prosecution and defense are both building their case.

End: Both sides present their case during both of the brothers' trials. The defense, despite being the protagonist, loses the case and the brothers are sentenced to life in prison and Leslie turns a new leaf.

Polished and structured: As explained by the beginning middle and end, the storytelling in Law and Order is structured and clear. It’s organized in the kind of story it’s telling but also has important elements a well structured story needs like conflict and purpose.

Conflict: This is another reason why I feel like Law and Order dealt with the subplots better because they added to the story by adding conflict to drive the plot forward. As mentioned earlier, Judge Weisburg’s subplot at the end provided conflict for both him and Leslie. For him, the bad press gives him a conflict because he is desperate to get a conviction to keep his job and save his reputation. For Leslie, Weisburg’s desperation causes him to not allow any abuse evidence in the second trial. This causes her conflict because she struggles on how she’ll be able to argue her case without abuse evidence. The conflict here does what it’s supposed to do by creating tension, advancing the main plot forward, and once the story ends, the created closure.

Purpose: Lastly, the core thing that makes Law and Order better executed than Monster’s is its purpose. The show has an identity and knows exactly what message it is trying to send. For Law and Order, the purpose of the show is to showcase the corruption and unfairness of the legal system. To prove this point, it takes the real life Menendez murder case, a case that was a prime example of legal corruption and unfairness and dramatized it into a TV show. It makes sure to stick to the Law and Order format by being a legal and courtroom drama, as a result the brothers don’t get much attention, but they are still important as characters. Their testimony and allegations help build a case for the defense and their relationship with Leslie Abrahmson gives her character development.

Monsters like mentioned have a Ransom effect type of storytelling. The purpose of the Rashomon effect is supposed to show how multiple views of the same event can be interpreted in different ways and the contradictions that can arise from that. An example would be the 1970s sitcom “Good Times" episode “When there’s smoke”, after the couch catches on fire, the characters JJ, Michael and Thelma all tell Willona their story of what happened. Each story contradicts each other, making each narrator look favorable and the others look bad. In the end, it’s revealed that the character Penny is the one who lit the couch on fire after she tried to have a cigarette and dropped it on the couch after JJ says that he doesn’t like smokers. While this could have been a fresh and unique twist on dramatization of the Menendez brothers, the show drops the ball by failing to establish this. It’s not well structured, the timeline is off, the characters are not developed, it tells instead of shows, there’s a lack of proper conflict, and there’s no real purpose or identity for this show’s existence. 

Structure and timeline: One big difference between Law and Order and Monsters storytelling is how it’s structured. Law and Order for one had a clear cut story beginning, middle, and end where Monster’s does not. To give it the benefit of the doubt, it follows the timeline of the actual crime. That being, the murders, the brothers shopping spree, the Dr. Oziel drama, their arrest, then revealing the abuse to build the case, the first trial being a hung jury, the second trial, and the brothers conviction. However, the timeline seems jumpy and unfocused. For example, we see some of the same plot points multiple times such as Lyle’s Princeton suspension. Lyle explains his Princeton suspension in episode 4, in this episode this is his side of the story. We see this same plot point again in episode 6, the episode that is supposed to be the perspective of Jose and Kitty. However, the timeline is confusing because by the time the Jose and Kitty perspective episode happens, it’s after the brothers are in jail and Jose and Kitty are dead. So who is exactly telling the story? Again I understand wanting to incorporate a Rashomon effect story but the timeline is jumpy and is not structured in a way that makes it clear to the audience that the story being told is how different people interpret things. 

I mean, I’ve seen children’s shows write a better Rashomon effect story then this show has. One example I can think of is the cartoon “The powerpuff girls” in the episode “The Bare facts”, the Mayor of Townsville is kidnapped and blindfolded by the show’s main villain Mojo Jojo. The girls eventually save the mayor and take him back to his office, but the girls are giggling when they save him but he’s still blindfolded so he wants to know what’s so funny. When he is finally unblindfolded, he continues to ask the girls what’s so funny but they don’t want to tell him so they all change the subject by telling the story of how they found out he was kidnapped and how they rescued him. Each girl narrates the story from their perspective, but each account contradicts each other and is extremely hyperbolic. By the end, it is revealed that the girls were giggling about the fact that Mojo Jojo had stripped the mayor nude during the kidnapping and the girls were telling the mayor this story to avoid telling him the truth about why they were laughing. 

This kind of storytelling concept could have worked with the Menendez story because there are alot of characters in this case that have different perspectives on what exactly happened. But the problem is the story makes no effort to let the audience know that this is the case, so when we see Erik and Lyle ganging up on their mom and cursing her out, the audience doesn't know that in this particular episode it is supposed to be Kitty and Jose’s perspective so we are supposed to their behavior at face value. There’s no narrator or anything else to indicate that this multiple perspectives show. If episode 1 had stayed exactly the way it is and had ended with Dr Oziel on the stand or talking to his wife, Judalon, a journalist, or Jill and Leslie explaining what he thinks happened, and every episode began or ended like that, I probably still wouldn’t be a fan of the show but at least I could understand the kind of storytelling. Unfortunately, it seems like the show did not know how to properly structure that kind of story it is telling and thus comes across as sloppy, confusing, and inconsistent. 

Conflict: I’ve already touched on this in the subplots section, so I will keep this brief, Monsters includes very little conflict or tension for the story. Of course there are conflicts such as Judalon and Oziel’s drama and Dominick Dunne’s articles. But the conflicts don’t really do much to drive the plot in a unique way, but because they happened in real life. The show took many creative liberties when it came to the brothers' personalities but not when it came to plot points. The conflict between Leslie and David Conn was based on actual events, yet it was still highly dramatized enough to give the main plot a conflict and a resolution. Monsters, when it did have a conflict, didn't seem to know how to resolve it. Dominick Dunne’s storyline did not have an antagonist to foil his plans, and as a result the conflict created no tension and no flakes. This creates what’s called a forced conflict, or a conflict that’s added in just to create a conflict. In this show, it feels like Domonick Dunne’s gossip is added in just because Dominick was an actual figure, he was in the Law and Order show but he is reduced to a minor character. Ryan Murphy has stated that Domonick was heavily involved in the series because he was a key figure in how the public viewed the brothers. This can be a valid point, however Dominick's gossip comes across as more of a nuisance as opposed to an actual conflict for the brothers. A conflict is supposed to raise stakes, create tension and develop characters but his involvement doesn’t do much for the main plot. Unfortunately, it seemed like the writers didn’t know how to write a proper conflict.

Lack of purpose: Lastly, the biggest issue is that it has no purpose. Unlike Law and Order, the show has no real identity and doesn’t know what message it's trying to send. I understand wanting to let the audience decide who is telling the truth. Although I am on the brothers' side, there are perspectives out there that could put the brothers in hot water, the show doesn’t seem to know how to portray the multiple perspectives thing. So, on my first watch I was left confused on what the point was. Who are the monsters here? Erik and Lyle? Jose and Kitty? Domonick? If the writers wanted to let the audience decide then they did an awful job at establishing the Rashomon effect storytelling. The biggest proof that this was a terrible storytelling decision is the cast and writers having to explain this in every interview. If the show made it’’s purpose and identity clear then the case wouldn’t have to explain the show’s message. Simply put, Monster’s has reason to exist and doesn’t know what message it wants to convey,

Final thoughts:

All in all, Law and Order, while far from being perfect and having its fair share of inaccuracies, it’s still by far the most accurate out of the five Menendez dramatizations and blows Monsters out of the water. It does struggle with pacing issues, especially towards the end and I think Monsters had better acting, production quality, and chemistry between the actors than Law and Order. I do prefer Nicholas and Cooper over Miles and Gus as Lyle and Erik. They’re both very talented and entertaining to watch and are more believable as brothers in my opinion. I enjoyed their brotherly moments and their back and forth bantering scenes, it may not be accurate but it really establishes them as believable siblings. Javier and Chloe also have more chemistry as Jose and Kitty in my opinion, although Carlos and Lolita were given better material, I still prefer Javier and Chloe. I think the main cast had better chemistry and we’re more believable as a family then Miles, Gus, Carlos and Lolita.  The production team for Monsters also did a better job at establishing an 80s and early 90s aesthetic by the costuming, set designs, and music. The brothers costuming, especially when it came to their court outfits were spot on.

However, overall Law and Order did a better job when it comes to storytelling. Sure, it is biased for the defense but because it’s covering the case from a legal standpoint and Leslie is the main character, we are seeing the version of events from her eyes so storytelling wise it makes sense that the story would be in her favor. The biggest issue with Monsters is not the inaccuracies or the oversexualization but because it doesn’t know what it’s trying to say. It’s clear that Ryan wants the audience to decide who the Monsters are, but because he isn't clear with his aim to tell a Ransom effect storytelling, the audience is left confused on whose side they are supposed to be on. It comes across as inconsistent, unorganized, and lacking in identity. It’s frustrating too because you can see a lot of potential here for a good or even passable show, but it seemed like Ryan was more into capturing his fantasies as opposed to writing a good story. Really the only saving grace of this trainwreck of a show is the actors who are really putting on their best performance to save this mess of a series. 

[aicosu]

Hey, just saw your post about Veilguard - do you mind me asking what it is that put you off? Thanks!

I can start by saying I've not played it. I'm not going to at this point. But basically, every cutscene and dialogue option and plot point I've watched. And for those of you that don't remember I was hugely critical of Inquisition despite my love for it. And I downright hated Trespasser. So this shouldnt be shocking.

And its a lot of stuff I dont like. I can make a short list of major things below, obvious spoilers.

Please dont read this if it will make you angry okay? This is a lot of angry ranting.

1. I said this with inquisition and trespassers but veilguard seals my hatred for the decision to center the entire plot of ripping apart the dalish culture and religion. I'm sorry I just don't think this is compelling. It's icky to create an oppressed and marginalized race with parallels to most indigenous cultures in the real world, and basically call them wrong and stupid for clinging to their culture and history. I don't care that validating the Enuvanris existance means also invalidating the maker and the tevinter reiligions too, or even the dwarven: the game centers this narrative on the DALISH. The entire implication that its their fault all along or they sold themselves into a cult and slavery is gross. The game could have easily done this but centered it around the Maker. Andraste as the blight corrupted crazy deity or spirit whatever the fuck. Makes more sense with how much Chantry has been shoved down our throats since origins, and given how much wider spread it is after literal genocides of the dalish, qun, etc it would just mean a lot more to target the oppressors/majority religion directly. And look listen, I'm a pretty hardcore athiest and even anti thiest. I hate all religions, I find stories about dismantling religion compelling but to couch it histories of marginalized people like... its just not great. Not to mention twisting their gods into systematic greedy people or shoving their "bestest god" into a human woman and trying to make her prostheltize at me. I don't like it!

2. I get why old decisions dont matter. The world is too big, sure. I dont mind that at all, actually, even with all the problems, it gives people invested in those choices. Im happy to accept it. But then... make the actual plot less beholden to it. Why bring in cameos at all, then? Fuck man set it 50 or 80 years later. But if you cant cause everyone wants closure in the DA fandom then give us closure. If not personal closure with wardens and hawkes and etc cause its all too variant — lore closure. We arent going to talk about how darkspawn were thinking and talking? Blight was always just a random elvhen weapon? What apparent the tevinter magisters then? What about the architect? What about the idea of darkspawn becoming their own race and culture? What about the old gods themselves they were just always enuvanris? How do magisters actually feel about that? Why did those who worshipped corypheous or the black church follow Elvhen gods, their most oppressed and hated enemy aside from the qunari?

Speaking of, what about all of us who wanted to confront Minrathous and Tevine for the atrocities we've built up about it for 3 games. Slavery? Off screen solved before we get there? Dorian fixed it all? I had a heated debate with Dorian about him saying how slavery wasnt all that bad "They like being slaves!" And so many conversations with Fenris about how horrible it is. Rape and murder and submission? We don't as players get to finally confront that?

How about red lyrium being sentient. How about it being a tool the elvhen then used to murder titans, but not its alive and unstoppable? How can anything be unblighted? Because plot?

What of the calling? What of it really? What of those in The Calling who were unblighted? nothing?

Not even a deep conversation about the murky ethics of liberation/slavery when it comes to the Antivan crows stealing children? I'm to forget that?

How about anything all to do with the Qun? How about that burnt in memory I have of Saarabas immolating himself in service to not just the system of his culture but his belief in his faith. We're writing him off as a terrorist and not as an example of the Qun? Lets be really real; they have been retconning the Qun every game till now them being a fully gender and sexual accepting society.

How about the changes of mages vs templars if and maybe they walk free now? As if that entire conflict wasnt the brewing boiling point for three games?

What about the elvhen rebellion they so rightly started after centuries or murder and racism? Can we stop pretending that rebellion isnt an act of violence and has to be? Can we stop erasing the idea that systemical upheavel can be anything other than radical? Hello? Anders is one the phone asking for you?

How about that ending, the veil isn't even torn? Spirits don't walk the earth as intended. Why not solas' plan? Why not restore order. Why not join or dissuade him as he asked us to in trespasser?

It just all feels washed off, Thedas. I'm allowed to be angry and upset that they spanned all of these topics and asked me to engage with them on a deep ethical and moral grounds only to never mention them again. I dont think making your player base feel stupid for caring is great.

3. On personal levels, Solas has been ooc since trepasser. And frankly, the explanation of his relationship with Mythal is disgusting. Made the first slave and turned from his true nature into a tool of war—and reaffirming his subservance by making it that only Mythal could stop him? How is that not a toxic dynamic, and they fram it as loving and romantic? Imagine them trying that Fenris who can only be talked down by Danerous. Come on. It should have been Lavellan — or it really should have been not at all. Let him. The devs want to destory Thedas and start over? Let solas reset time and recreate the earth and tear is all down and erase most of the history. Do it you cowards. Give me an unrecognizable DA5 where spirits and mages rule and the elvhen thrive and war with each other. Give me slaved humans and a topsy turvy all that changes remains the same reality. Why not if you want to illuminti titan everything anyway.

4. I dont believe in the veilguard, I should have a choice not to. I should have a reason to care about it or my companions or fewl some sort of reason we must all work together aside from "theyre adorable". All the other games you had companion parties in organic and believable ways. Rook is leader cause.... ? What if I dont want to be? At least my Dalish inquisitor fought tooth and nail not to be called a christian messiah. Hawke had FRIENDS. And the warden found those who knew what a blight meant. And many of all of us disagreed. Vivianne got not sympathy from me. Why should Neve? Fenris will leave your party if you waste your time when the Magister comes to town. I dont want to coddle Harding about her stupid chantry. I do not to talk to Lucanis happily about the crows. Maybe I dont want to be friendly all the time. Maybe I hate everything Bellara is doing. Or taash.

5. The writing was on the wall in inquistion hoenestly. What with Iron bull letting me decide is he mass murders his found family or not. But jesus these new companions are like 10 yrs old. I don't know you decide. Your a fucking adult. I cant take a single one of them seriously. Even Sera screamed and yelled at me if I challenged her. Solas and I almost broke up mutiple times arguing about tradition and purpose or that damn Mythal well (again and no wonder he would object to doing anything akin to being emslaved by her, only to submit himself in this game. As if the well mattered at all. As if morrigan matters at all.) I just don't feel as though I'm bonding with anyone, I'm babysitting. Im being told what a great person I am that I can teach everyone elementary school behaviorial learning. I dont want to, I dont even want to be "good".

6. Petty stuff:

I hate the art style both in the UI and the models. I hate it. And the expressions are so poor compared even to Da2.

I hate all the armors. Everyone is bulky. Hate it.

Ugly combat.

Cant control or walk around as my companions and try out other classes.

CC cant change eyes or facial structure much so all rooks heads look the same and kinda... everyone looks like a dwarf. Sorry. Imo, imo, every rook I have seen looks like a dwarf.

Dont like the music.

Dragons are ugly.

Morrigans outfit makes it look like she has 4 titties.

I hate this elvhen "steampunk" tech when so much of their magic was shown to be earthen and mystic. Dumb. No explanation as why it would become this way it just is now.

Blood magic erasure cause the devs are scared of us being cool I guess.

I hate the humor. Every joke doesnt land for me. And there are simply too many.

[imonthemoonitsmadeofcheese]

Writing Process: brain vomit & polish

I posted this in the Fanfiction Writers Unite community, but realized that if I ever want to reference it no one outside of that community can see it, so I'm posting it here too.

This is very mechanics-of-writing focused rather than anything especially creative so unless you're actually interested in my writing process it's likely to be *very* boring. Readmore link to make it more easily skipable. ;)

I keep seeing people ask about writing process and getting replies involving outlines and planning and I'd like to show you a different approach because I write (and finish) a lot but I don't do any of that.

My writing process is more "brain vomit and then polish it."

Here's a walk-through of what I did for a 1k word story that was recently featured in a fan zine. There's three iterations and then a link to the final version with screen shots of how it appeared in the zine.

While it's not my best or my favourite, I think this illustrates my writing method pretty well and might be worth trying for those of you who are not finding success with the more organized and methodical methods of creating stories out of words.

It's not quite 'pantsing' but it definitely falls into the pantsing category more than the plotting one.

This is how oysters make pearls. I start with an irritant (an idea) and then add layers and polish until I'm satisfied it is pretty enough. In this particular case, it needed to be adhering to a theme (Destiny 2 wish dragons), had a specific word count (500-1k) and had to be done in time for a deadline (so it's not as polished as I'd make it if it was something I was making for myself, but I'm still happy with it).

You'll note the initial brain vomit looks nothing like the end result.

***iteration1***

Ovophobia - fear of eggs

from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/hitchcocks-fear-eggs-phobias-rich-famous/

"Alfred Hitchcock suffered from ovophobia, a horror of eggs. “I’m frightened of eggs,” he told the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci in 1963. “Worse than frightened – they revolt me. That white round thing without any holes, and when you break it, inside there’s that yellow thing, round, without any holes… Brr!” An egg was all surface or all innards: easily cracked but also impenetrable, horribly intact. “Have you ever seen anything more revolting than an egg yolk breaking and spilling its yellow liquid?” he asked Fallaci. “Blood is jolly, red. But egg yolk is yellow, revolting. I’ve never tasted it.” A punctured yolk seemed to bleed out its thick, gleaming fluid."

eggses baggins sucking eggs villanelle can't bring somethin' back if it isn't dead can't wish somethin' back if it isn't dead Ovophobia Aunor Mahal has a secret.  No one knows.   Aunor Mahal is afraid of eggs.

***iteration2*** (you'll note the complete lack of punctuation or coherent sentences - tense is irrelevant, so is logic - this is freewriting whatever comes into my head without any filter but attempting to stay loosely focused on a topic)

egg egg egg egg beginning feeling secure/hunter end feeling dread/prey dreaming city egg incubation room why is aunor in the room?  she was following drifter&eris who came to see the queen  drifter kept feeling watched - eris knows they're being watched but suspects it is aunor  drifter creeped out - aunor amused - but has to duck into room  must be unarmed to see queen  (drifter and eris also had to be unarmed) can't access her light powers  darkeness zone maybe or cabal light suppression  castlevania style  egg hatching scene - the babies are hungry about to devour her when she's lifted up with hive magic  mara, eris and drifter bemused at shitscared aunor  mara threatening because nothing better have happened to them eris makes snark about perhaps aunor will think twice before following them in future  drifter calls her a snitch (eris just intimidates, drifter does the talking) after drifter asks eris if she really needed to leave aunor in there quite so long since she could have pulled her out earlier eris says she deserved it  what if she'd made a wish?  mara's warding was preventing it - same as it suppressed aunor's light

***iteration3*** (this is very close to the end result - punctuation/capitalization sometimes exists but is not consistent - that gets dealt with last)

(tumblr wouldn't save my post due to it having too much text and this is very close to the final version, so here's pictures of it instead)

***final version for Ahamkara zine & posted to Ao3*** (everything I didn't keep is still in my notes and may be used in other stories/poetry in future)

Ovophobia on Ao3

One Last Wish Zine Volume 2

The space dragon on the opposite page is art by @microraptorreactor and the entire zine is full of cool Ahamkara (Destiny 2 wish dragon) art as well as stories and poetry.

[hedwig221b]

Hi! Love everything you do and all your gorgeously crafted fics. If you haven’t already answered, what’s your writing process like? Your last story was so good I actually started jotting down ideas, brainstorming. It’s the closest I’ve gotten to writing in years. The thought of actually doing it though can be daunting. How you process a story idea into and take it from an idea to the great stories we get to read??

Thank you! It may just be the greatest pleasure for a writer to inspire another to write. I am taking your hand - and I hope you feel its warmth just like my gratitude - and pouring all of my inspiration to you 💗 I hope you get sooo inspired to write and share the excitement of getting to create

I feel like I'm going to rant so I'll hide it under the cut. Major spoilers for Yes To Heaven, as I'm gonna give it as an example.

1. I usually just start thinking about one scene or a single concept, maybe a couple, and then think: oh, this could become something tangible. You gotta catch that scene in your head and really taste it, look around the characters (where they are, when, what universe), try to envision it in your head like a movie; look inside the characters, what are they feeling, like, right now, what their thoughts are, what are they saying? At this point, usually the idea starts to grow into my mind so deep that the only way to get rid of it is to write. Otherwise, it would drive me insane.

Example: with Yes To Heaven, it started with one scene where Stiles is surrounded with alphas, and everyone wants him, everyone looks at him and stumbles all over themselves to help him. And Stiles is blushing and beautiful and wondering what's all this for. And Derek in the corner, glaring at everyone and seething.

2. Ok, now it's time for the good old record scratch and the "you're probably wondering how I got here". I sort of step away from the scene: one step into the past and one into the future. I usually get really quickly to the "oh so THIS is the story, okay...". So you got the vague feeling of the plot.

Example: I literally started to think: why would Derek not intervene? Why would the alphas circle around Stiles and want him? What would Derek do, bc he can't simply stand aside and watch the vultures peck at his Stiles. Oh, Stiles is an omega. What if he was a rare omega? The only way Derek wouldn't intervene is if he didn't have the same reasons to circle Stiles. He differs from others. He's a bodyguard. But he intervenes in the end. Why?

3. And then, of course, you get the feel of the story. Ah, this is a story about beautiful Stiles breaking Derek's control and everything he knew about himself (sort of, in the most simple sense).

Then I get boring and go look at the trusted three act plot structure. I know there are a lot of plot structures out there, but this is the most common one and simple to follow. (I'm dying to explore other plot structures tbh, they look intriguing)

Once at the structure, I usually go for the big guns and straight up start thinking about the climax of the story bc I love drama.

Characters need to break. Something about them needs to: their body, their mind, their worldview, their very core and morals and beliefs. The climax is what your story will be remembered for, the very nail-biting tension at the height of it and the inevitable drop into the abyss. Characters need to change, that's why we follow the stories of them.

Not gonna lie, I don't struggle with this part, I'm always there for the ultimate angst, so idk how to tell you to get there.

Example: Stiles' hesitant trust for Derek shatters when Derek sends him back to the Institute. He didn't expect it and it is the worst betrayal for him. Stiles breaks. Derek breaks as well, bc Stiles rejects him. It changes both of them: Derek becomes ruthless (he could've killed Deaton from the beginning, but something always stopped him until now); Stiles, after Derek comes back for him, lets the trust to flourish, and he becomes content. For the first time in his life, Stiles has someone he can trust to come back for him and keep their promises. Derek would never leave Stiles - and that's the resolution for both of them.

At this point, I really see what the story is truly about: trust and its fragility, the false safety of feeling like you have that trust when you have nothing but the shadow of it.

Now I know what everything has to be about. The theme (trust, in my case) should be like the sun that shines upon all of them and soaks into every corner of the story. Everything should lead you step by step to the resolution of the theme. You don't have to focus every single sentence on it, but it should be there, always. Like the sun. You don't notice it, but it's still there.

4. Then, you have to think about the backstory. You really have to think why are they doing what they do, where do they come from, what lead them to where they are now. The backstory starts waaaaay before the tale does, but you have to develop it (because some if not most traumas come from childhood/adolescence).

Example: why is it so important to Stiles that someone comes for him? (everyone left him before, his mother and father). Why does Derek want Stiles so bad? (Stiles needs him to survive, Stiles is not afraid of him, Stiles accepts him as he is)

5. Now that I have the beginning and the climax, I usually follow the three acts points (you can create more acts, just keep raising the stakes and the tension). How do they meet, what creates the spark between them, the attraction and the conflict, what makes them fall in love, where does that love lead to?

6. Not gonna lie, more often than not I don't know how to end things. I get to the climax and just sit there staring at the wall, like, now what? The answer for me is to go to the beginning and make the ending reflect it but in a new light: either sweet, or bitter, or anything in between. It puts a nice bow to your ending, ties all ends, closes all arcs and creates a nice contrast.

Maybe, there's a false climax (like, with Stiles sleepwalking out of his father’s house alone at night and Derek nearly tearing John to shreds bc of it (it's just another push to him keeping Stiles solely to himself in the end)). You get a little breather before shit really hits the fan (the tension keeps climbing; maybe not with the angst but instead with sex or a side plot drama).

About the stakes: your character needs to lose something to change. Because, otherwise, how else do you make the change worth anything at all? You decide what the loss is, something good or bad depending on the story; the loss of a loved one? an old misconception? a harmful habit? a good habit? entire world?? life??? You also get to decide whether the character does it willingly. The change becomes valuable only if it costs something.

Example: Stiles letting go of his Dad (his past and his pain, his burden). He lets Derek take it off his shoulders - and trusts him to carry it right.

Tip: you really should try to tie all ends (unless leaving them open is intentional), at least as much as you can, bc you as an author will probably forget that you haven't told it (bc in your head you know it all), but the reader doesn't know shit and will be like, "And what about A, B, and C? You haven't told us, ergo you're a lazy writer". For me, that's for the editing stage. You have to really think whether you actually told that one important thing or you just thought that everyone would get it out of the context.

Example: I always envisioned Derek with a beard in Yes To Heaven, but after I started editing, I noticed that the first mention of it is at, like, 50k word point or something. Jesus, Hedwig, not everyone can read your mind, explain things! Or how Laura doesn't know that Derek is their pack's Left Hand (had to go back and make Derek and Cora more secretive with his job).

7. Welp, that's kinda it.

There is a lot more that comes to making a story better with different ways of storytelling (I love Chekhov's gun and red herrings, personification and metaphors, to the point where it gets repetitive).

Believe me, I get the dread and the sudden emptiness of mind that overwhelms you when you stare at the empty document. You sit there and stare, and nothing comes out. But, the thing is, instead of focusing on the behemoth of the idea in your head that leans over you like storm clouds, look down and pick at small things.

Maybe create bullet points: the climax scene, the incidents that lead to it, small stuff. Once you write it down, you'll see the whole story better. And it really helps when you're stuck and you don't know what to write next. Look in your notes, at the structure (you can print it or draw it and just write above the points), and you’ll feel more grounded.

Suddenly, it's not this enormous thing, it's this little thing that leads to this other little scene and, oh, they're sucking each other’s dicks.

The grand Idea is your sun that's always there and shines upon you, but you don’t focus on it, you're just making your characters fry pancakes. It will all come together, just... small steps. Small steps that lead you to the top of the Everest. Don’t look at that top, focus on the steps in front of you, else you'll slip into the crater of a burnout.

I hope this was coherent lol. Hope I helped you in some way 💗

[divider link]

[writingquestionsanswered]

hi! me and my co-writer ans in the planning phase. we dont how to end out story. its an abrupt ending, when tension an high and we dont know how to pick that moment or how to create that moment. thanks!

Stuck on Cliffhanger Ending

Even if your story has a cliffhanger ending, the story still needs to follow basic story structure:

Through the setup and rising action, you make numerous promises to your reader by laying out threads and posing questions. The climax and falling action should resolve the main conflict, and the resolution allows you to tie up most of those loose threads and answer most of those unanswered questions.

Cliffhanger endings happen during the denouement, at a crucial moment when a significant question or plot component is about to be resolved. Again, you want the main conflict to be resolved and most of the loose threads to be tied up, but this particular unresolved component will be something that won't ruin the story if it isn't answered right now (or ever). Usually, the answer is just about the be revealed when something surprising, shocking, or suspenseful happens to interrupt it. To figure out a good cliffhanger moment in your story, you first have to figure out your purpose in having a cliffhanger. Are you trying to draw the reader into reading the next book? Or are you simply trying to end with a gut punch?

If you’re just looking for a gut punch (with or without a coming sequel), look for an unanswered question that doesn’t need to be answered in order for the story to be resolved. For example, maybe one of the story’s many questions was the parentage of your orphaned protagonist. If the identity of the parents isn't crucial to understanding the story, and if you've already laid out options, you could have the character in the process of finding out when someone bursts through the doors and makes an important announcement. If you're going to have a sequel, it could be an announcement that sets up the conflict of the sequel... like that the antagonist they just vanquished has escaped the dungeon and taken refuge in the mountains. If you're not going to have a sequel, you would want it to be something that doesn't ignite a new story that will never be told. For example, maybe the protagonist is just about to open a book that reveals who their parents are, and then someone bursts in and says, "You've got visitors!" When the protagonist asks who it is, the character says, "Your parents..." Those are good gut punches. They'll leave your reader reeling, speculating, and wishing for more, but you're not leaving anything crucial unresolved.

Another example would be when your characters have spent the whole book fighting and triumphing over an alien invasion, and after all of the mourning, celebrating, and rebuilding, your character goes to bed one night, turns off the light, and hears the telltale hiss of one of the aliens. Again, GUT PUNCH! Is there really an alien left alive? Is it going to hurt or even kill the protagonist? Does this mean the fight’s not over? Does it mean the fight is really just beginning? There are lots of questions, but the answer could just as easily be, “It wasn’t really an alien, it was the wind. Or, it was the air conditioner turning on.” So, you’re not leaving the actual story unresolved. Your protagonist isn’t dangling off the edge of a building when the last sentence ends.

If you’re trying to draw the reader into reading the next book, you generally want to end with a new or re-stated question… and I don’t mean a question that you literally ask. I mean a question that the reader will ask themselves based on whatever you’ve laid out. For example, the reader might think, “The protagonist defeated the evil king in this battle, but the evil king is still out there. Will the protagonist be able to defeat them once and for all?” Or, it could be a new question that’s presented during the resolution. Like, maybe the protagonist defeated the antagonist in this big battle, but at the end, during the big celebration, a message is delivered to the protagonist letting them know the antagonist has struck again, in a new place this time. And your protagonist tells another character to gather the rest of the team. The reader is left with the question, “Where did the antagonist strike and what was the result? How will the protagonist respond? What will happen next?” Again, nothing of the main conflict is left unresolved. That’s a successful cliffhanger ending. :)

Happy writing!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[thecoffeelorian]

Everyone's Got Secrets... (House Husband AU)

A/N: When I first saw Pedro Pascal’s character rushing into battle at the start of this movie, my very first thought of him was this:

He moved in for the kill, just like a wolf.

What does that have to do with fanfiction, you might ask…? Simple. When you add to this the legend that a wolf helped create the city of Rome, my love of the 'Way Of The House Husband' show, and a chat with @braveincafleet , then you may figure out that this is how my little House Husband AU came to be.

Anyway...I hope you enjoy this just as much as I do, and if so, be sure to give it some love before you go back to your scrolling. Thanks! <3

Story Premise: This is a little intro/infodumped backstory for a modern/ex-Mafia version of General Acacius, as that seems to be a writing style I've consistently had over multiple fandoms. It's also a version where he's (obviously) retired and settled down with the modern version of Lucilla Verus, though there are still glimpses of what he used to be like here and there if one is looking hard enough.

Story Word Count: 779 words.

Special Notes: So...maybe I'll turn this into a series someday, maybe I won't. Until then, I'll try and poke around to find more Lucilla x Marcus fics as soon as I possibly can.

No Pressure Tags:

@sweetperfectioncloud @letsgobarbs @rav3n-pascal22 @lilac-boo @iseefire16

@ultra-nina-bella @lunnaisjustvibing @blueheisenbergtragedy @vichons @mysticalgalaxysalad

@hicanivent @marvelforever352 @thischarmingmandalorian and anyone else who would like to read more stories about our favorite General. ;)

Justin Acacius was, according to the neighbors of Imperator Street, a fairly cultured man who wouldn’t dare break the laws of their fair city. Indeed, all outward appearances have never given them reason to think otherwise, for any red flag moments have not yet presented themselves.

For example, by day, he keeps the household of their esteemed Head Curator, Lucilla Gherardi, in perfect working order. This includes making sure that Lucilla herself never leaves the house without a homemade lunch in her possession, because there isn’t much work that a person can accomplish on an empty stomach. During the rare moments that she does, however, it’s not long before he’s on the nearest available bicycle to catch up with her, sometimes even breaking local traffic laws just to get there in time.

(Thank goodness the nearby law enforcement have learned to let him off easy by now.)

Second, there’s what this couple’s closest neighbors have come to label as “Piero Watch”, the daily sighting of the family dog on its walk around 9:15 am every day, most often with Mr. Acacius getting somewhat pulled along behind them. After all, sometimes dogs will go exactly where you don’t want them to go.

Third, whereas some neighbors are occasionally guilty of noise pollution, there's no such disturbance from Signor Acacius' side of the street. Sometimes he brings a friend or two over for short visits, sometimes he goes out for last minute groceries like the supplies needed to make homemade pasta--oh, but never will any strange women be seen going into that house beside him.

He's married, obviously, so he's not about to throw away a good life on one foolish act.

And speaking of foolish acts…neither will anyone notice this gentleman plotting any violence behind Lucilla’s back while she’s out of the house. That’s a vice best left for lesser men, for instead of any shady dealings, he’s much more likely to get into surprise “Cutest Dog” duels with passersby like Mr. Macrinus, as there’s quite the following for groups like these over social media these days.

As Macrinus himself may tell you, these sorts of “battles” will leave no fatal wounds behind them, and all parties involved will go home satisfied.

And finally, by the time that night falls, there’s not much of a change other than the occasional smoke break, if not also the even rarer trip outdoors for a few last minute groceries. In other words, though he might be a slightly imposing figure at times…there’s absolutely nothing to fear where Mr. Acacius is concerned.

At least, not if you’re the average, well-to-do citizen…because for those who wear their sunglasses a bit darker, their skin a bit more tattooed, and keep one eye over their shoulder, it’s a slightly different story.

Should any members of this crowd pass Mr. Acacius in the streets, the title “Il Lupo” is the name they speak. Sometimes they say it with a voice full of fear, sometimes with awe, but all, regardless of their age, status, or sometimes even gender, as this is the 21st Milennia, don’t dare stick around too long.

For the individuals in charge of such groups, be they The Twins in the center to The Emperor a bit further north, they will on occasion ask Acacius’ advice on what seem like trivial matters, such as the right temperature to roast a head of garlic or what is the best detergent to wash out a bloodstain or several—oh, but always from clumsy kitchen accidents rather than any violent executions.

In case you haven’t heard, these modern people don’t do that sort of thing any more.

That’s as far as the mystery reaches, of course, for as the dead can’t reveal any secrets and the living wish to keep their honor, nobody’s ever going to consider speaking up instead. It’s highly doubtful any average person will ever know the truth about Mr. Acacius, either, as there are no known books or magazines ever published that might otherwise hint about his true identity.

If someone were to happen upon the oldest man on the same street where Mr. Acacius lives, however—specifically, the one with a faded SPQR tattoo upon one arm and no photographs of grandchildren in plain sight—maybe they’ll one day hear the story of how the one known as Il Lupo, the one who looks suspiciously like Justin, narrowly escaped life in an Italian prison. Maybe they’ll also hear all about how he became a married man not long afterward, and curiously moved to the very same street address where Mr. Acacius now lives.

But then again…a story’s just a story, wouldn’t you agree?

[mymovingfingerwrites]

OMG HI MAYA!!!!!!!

hi hi hi its been so long, how are you doing?

I was ecstatic to see those notifications that you answered my asks - I've missed talking with you about ASOR - im metaphorically jumping for joy right now

I hope you've had a wonderful time for however long it's been, I'm wishing you the best in everything. you do cross my mind sometimes, and I'm so thankful for your internet friendship and your story. It's meant the world to me this past year!!! 🩷

Hello!! Yeah I haven't really been on Tumblr too much! And I guess I have a bunch of asks that I didn't even realize that I got. I'm working my way through them now that I have remembered how to get there in the app :)

Life update wise I am still five months away from The Wedding! I'm all out of money and energy at this point. Turns out planning a 4-day Indian Catholic fusion wedding on a budget is just ridiculously difficult and causes endless family drama. Maybe I'll have some good material for whatever I write next 🤦‍♀️

Writing wise I have like four or five stories started but I haven't been able to get over the crucial early bumps and get some momentum. I don't really want to post anything if I'm not going to finish it, but equally so, thinking it might help to get some feedback! So maybe I will post some snippets on Tumblr?

Writing wise, I've also started mentally sketching out an original time travel story. I would have thought I would have said everything I wanted to say about time travel, but I guess not. It's definitely a different beast to try to write something without the comforting structure of a fanfic canon rewrite. By the time I ran out of material to follow along, I had sort of got in my groove with ASOR.

Whether original or fanfic, I just can't get into the groove! I really commend all of you who are writing and publishing original plots. I think ASOR became quite an original plot but it really didn't start there, so I don't really have that much practice in creating a structure to follow. I also lived in Percy's head for so long that I'm struggling to get out of it. Writing is fun but it is so hard!

Just wanted to piggyback on your ask to also express my gratitude for my small Internet community! I really didn't realize until I stepped back how much I was enjoying being a part of it and how motivating it was to exchange ideas. I definitely want to be more active as I emerge from this haze of spreadsheets and floral arrangements and outfit shopping (none of my favorite things tbh) and get back to spending my mental energy on other things!

[greatqueenanna]

Hey, so do have a history of Hans' development in Frozen? I keep seeing so many posts about how Hans was actually meant to be a good guy and he was Elsa's romance in Frozen or Frozen 2 and what-not and I'm just trying to look at actual sources and facts regarding his character, since I want to write my own analysis, but I think that Hans fans are too biased to provide actual good info.

My What Came Before Analysis details the information I was able to find about Frozen's early development throughout the years.

In terms of Hans specifically, I do have this twitter (X) thread about misinformation within the Hans fandom pushed by a few extremists that you can go ahead and take a look at.

However, since you asked, here are some tid-bits regarding Hans' character throughout the years leading up to the first film.

-----

Hans was most likely conceptualized around the time Anna and the Snow Queen became Frozen and switched form 2D hand-drawn animation, to 3D animation. Before Anna and Elsa were written as sisters, Hans was written to be the true villain of the story, as a way to help redeem the Snow Queen character. This was around 2010-2011.

Frozen was to open with a prophecy that “a ruler with a frozen heart will bring destruction to the kingdom of Arendelle.” We’re then introduced to Anna, our pure-hearted heroine, and Elsa, an unrelated evil Snow Queen. We learn Elsa is a scorned woman; she was stood up at the altar on her wedding day and froze her own heart so she would never love again. Both Elsa and the audience assume she’s the villain from the prophecy. Fast-forward to the final act: Elsa creates an army of snow monsters to attack our heroes while Kristoff has “a Han Solo moment” and comes to help Anna. To halt Elsa’s attacking army, the two-faced Prince Hans (Admiral Westergaard) triggers a massive avalanche—not caring that the avalanche also puts Anna, Elsa, and all of Arendelle in jeopardy. Anna realizes Elsa is their only hope, so she convinces her to use her powers to save the kingdom. The twist is that the prophecy from the beginning is actually not about Elsa, but about Hans—he’s the one with a metaphorical frozen heart because he’s an unfeeling sociopath. Elsa’s heart is then unfrozen allowing her to love again. - Peter Del Vecho, Entertainment Weekly

After Elsa and Anna were re-written as sisters, the story changed so that Hans and Anna were about to get married, until Elsa kidnaps her from the wedding. The ending was the same as far as I know, with Admiral Westergaard triggering the avalanche to stop Elsa's snowman army, leading to the destruction of Arendelle as well. You can see a tid-bit of this Elsa in the video below -

Eventually, after Let it Go was written, Hans was apparently written as trying to get a job in Arendelle, and Anna was trying to get Elsa to agree but she wouldn't. Then it was changed to the quick engagement plot instead. For the life of me, I can't find the source for this so you can take it with a grain of salt.

Then, Hans was changed to a Prince, and rather than being a reckless, uncaring (and a little dumb) villain that was willing to destroy Arendelle and its people to stop Elsa, Hans was changed to a more cunning villain who was trying to win the throne by emotional manipulation rather than by force.

This is what Jennifer Lee meant when she said the following -

So no, Hans was never a good guy or Elsa's romance interest. And that's everything I know about Hans' development based on sources.