theplottingapp

[theplottingapp]

You know the most annoying and difficult part about writing stories about ambitious people in India? If they have any real ambition, they would leave the country.

Do you want to do tech stuff? Leave the country.

Want to make money? Leave the country.

Want a decent life? Leave the country.

[theplottingapp]

On the one hand I'm tired of seeing perfect bodies in media and on the other writing someone like me hits too close to home for comfort

[theplottingapp]

man, you've no idea just how much I appreciate good "show don't tell" writing and directing in Justice in the Dark.

It is very important in detective genre, and especially if you want to convey that the character is smart without other people in the story constantly spelling it out for the audience. And it is seen most clearly in how Luo Weizhao is written and acted.

For example, in the beginning of episode 18, LWZ notices Xiao Hanyang acting weird. And Xiao Hanyang notices that LWZ notices.

And then LWZ doesn't call him on that, and behaves as if nothing has happened. He changes the topic and lets the "victim" relax and think that they got away with it, but you KNOW, you can see it on his face and in his eyes, that he has already filed this detail in his head and, once he has enough evidence, will present it to you probably at the most inconvenient of moments.

And you understand why many people, especially those who have something to hide, are nervous around him. They are afraid to slip up, because they understand that at some point they will make a mistake, and Luo Weizhao will know.

Later we have a similar scene, where Pei Su and LWZ are talking in the car, and Pei Su utters the name that he isn't supposed to know off the top of his head, and then - immediate razor-sharp focus from LWZ.

And Pei Su, this little fuerdai, usually has his way with words and is capable of bewitching anyone and everyone, except for Luo Weizhao. And he tries to explain it away, but he's nervous, because he knows that ultimately it won't work. The shark has already sensed the blood in the water but has enough patience to wait for its pray to get closer to the trap.

and it's OOOOOH so deliciousssss

[theplottingapp]

On "soft" heroines

Very often, when I read the posts from people defending the "Ruin and Rissing" atrocious ending, I see the same argument (or rather an accusation): people allegedly don't appreciate soft heroines, they don't think that raising orphans is important and they want every female protagonist to be a girlboss.

There are a few problems with that argument. There is indeed nothing wrong with being soft. Nothing wrong with not wanting to rule the country or not being a fighter. Nothing wrong with wanting to raise children. However, being soft doesn't mean being blind to other people's suffering. If you build the world full of pain, death, wars, and oppression, have the protagonist be the one who is able to stop that, there should be the point where they realize that there are things bigger and infinitely more important than their personal wants and needs. Every soldier dying on the battlefield, every person brutally killed for their "crime" of being different probably would rather be anywhere else doing anything more pleasant, but alas. However soft one might be, they still might decide to help, even if not by fulfilling military or governmental functions. And if your protagonist just washes their hands of any responsibility just because they "never asked for this," they are not going to come across as soft and deeply sensitive; they are going to look selfish and cowardly.

Anyhow, there is an even more important thing: you can't just randomly decide that your heroine is soft and her biggest dream has always been raising orphans by the end of the series when there was nothing leading up to that conclusion for three books straight. A soft protagonist is someone deeply sensitive, kind, empathetic, caring for those less fortunate, someone who abhors violence and cruelty and naturally gravitates to the roles that don't require being ruthless or violent. And Alina just...doesn't possess those qualities. From page one, she seems bitter, grouchy, and unfriendly. She's outright hostile to any girl who looks at her precious Mal and immediately passes judgment on everyone. Every Grisha girl is fake and shallow, the Darkling is a heartless monster who doesn't feel anything, heartrenders are killing machines, and so on. She gets attacked by Fjerdans, learns that it's pretty much a normal occurrence for Grisha, and never thinks about it anymore. She learns that girls mock Genya for being abused by the King and just...doesn't care? Neither does she see any problem with the same king harassing other maids. She destroys a skiff, effectively killing a few dozen people, and doesn't think much about it, nor does she seem terribly upset with Grisha on the opposing side being killed. She comes across as narrow-minded, self-absorbed and extremely self-righteous, which looks especially grating considering her total ignorance about everything.

When she remembers her orphanage, it's always about her own experience; she doesn't express any concern for the other kids there or any interest in helping orphaned children in the future. She clearly doesn't want to have any responsibility, so being responsible for raising a bunch of traumatized children really seems like a terrible idea not boding well for herself or those poor children. What can she even offer them? She's not wise and knowledgeable, not caring and compassionate; she can't put herself into another person's shoes and doesn't want to even attempt to understand where they are coming from. She's petulant and immature; she is only going to mess those children up even worse, and using them as window dressing to showcase how noble and kind-hearted she allegedly is seems really hypocritical and dishonest. No, I don't care she "heals a little," or so she says, how are the kids feeling? The orphanage is supposed to be about them and their well-being, not her, no?

Finally, Alina's never shown being genuinely content with her "simple" life with no responsibilities as a saint or queen. In the beginning, she's weak and miserable because of her wasting sickness, she doesn't like her job, can't connect with other people, and pines after a guy who is much more popular than her and doesn't really care about her. In the end, she mourns her lost powers; she can't connect with other people; we don't see her being appreciated, respected, or loved by anyone, even the kids, all while her boyfriend is still way more popular and likable than her, and she's considered a lunatic. Doesn't sound very idyllic to me, more like a domestic thriller where nobody would believe the wife if she ever thought to complain, because her husband is "such a nice guy" and she's "a paranoid nutjob who forgot to take her pills again".

So, in conclusion, Alina is a terrible representation of a soft heroine who strives for an ordinary life and wants(or is able) to raise children, and such an ending suits her like a pair of ill-fitting shoes.

[theplottingapp]

“Be curious about what you’re writing about” is not stock Common Writing Advice but it really, really should be. There are a lot of written works that fail due to the authors just being obviously incurious about what they are writing about.

[theplottingapp]

learning the backstories of any of your female relatives always amounts to taking 500 points of psychological damage and wondering if the world is irredeemably evil

[theplottingapp]

if you've never engaged with a creative art on a regular basis you need to understand that it requires concerted effort to get into "the groove" to make something and every second that it takes to get into that groove causes physical pain, but the only thing worse than doing it is not doing it.

[theplottingapp]

Reading first chapters of Ruin and Rising is like wading through mire of so many levels of constantly repeated unacknowledged bullshit.

You live in a starving country? Order someone else to feed the people.

There are wars going on? Kill the guy, who tried to stop the first three and high-five yourself for ending the fourth.

The nation is suffering? Focus on three point nine orphans and bedraggled idiots trailing after you, and solve next five seconds of their life.

You have an idle cult of layabouts following your legend? Let the least reliable guy around handle them.

You have political significance? Throw in your lot with the guy with friendly smile. He certainly doesn't use you, since his great plan is built on thin air.

You haven't been using your powers for weeks? FIND. A. WAY. TO. GET. ANOTHER. DOSE.

[theplottingapp]

There is an odd thing I see in books sometimes where a character who is defined by their steadfast loyalty to a person or organization is presented with one (1) piece of evidence against them and immediately changes their mind.

I was just reading a book where a character is deeply loyal to the royal family despite being their literal whipping girl, but she immediately decides that the king must be a bad ruler the first time she sees poverty exists. And he is--but it's weird that the 15 years of being whipped didn't convince her but the existence of poor people did.

It often reads like a plot-convenient way of having a character change their mind without having to do any of the actual work or spend any actual time on what it means for them to change their mind. But it also often rings false--we know for a fact that people with deeply held beliefs are often not convinced no matter how much evidence they see to the contrary, much less because one piece of evidence was presented to them.

[theplottingapp]

Why Nikolai is more of a villain than Aleksander

This post is an inspiration from one of anon asks.

Time and time again antis have accused Aleksander of several hideous crimes without understanding the monarchy of 19th century Feudal Russia and what serfdom entails. Due to this lack of understanding(or willful ignorance), Aleksander is studied under a harsher light than Nikolai and other characters. I blame the author entirely for this, as she never gave Aleksander a voice until much later. In books 1-3, he is only projected to us through Alina who had nothing but disdain for him.

On the other hand, we see Nikolai, who was a prince and then a king, who did not do much for the country or Grisha. However, his actions are softened by LB and antis. He is considered a 'flawed' human who did his best. His manipulative actions are treated as an act of strategic brilliance while his mistakes are treated as an act of desperation/helplessness.

So, let me first start by explaining some of the vile accusations thrown at Aleksander and then contrast it with some of Nikolai's actions.

He sex-trafficked Genya.

In Book 1, the author herself says two key points 1) Grisha are no better than serfs and 2) After their training, Grisha are either posted in the borders or sent to serve in affluent households. So Genya was not a unique case. This, again, is the price Aleksander had to pay for the Grisha to live. Genya had to be sent as a child because an adult Genya could not get as close to the Queen as a child would and it worked for a while until the Queen turned on her. This were an understanding of serfdom is needed. A serf can be released only by the master not by anyone else. Aleksander cannot take her away and relocate her somewhere else. And if the antis had read the 'The Tailor' they would know that in spite of the challenges, Aleksander did give her a choice- to disappear forever or exact her revenge and it was Genya who chose to stay.

He committed genocide in Novokribirsk.

Even if we ignore Alina's unreliable POV, Zoya's POV tells us that only a part of the city, near the docks was destroyed. So what Aleksander did was just a warning and not a 'genocide'. Antis keep forgetting that Grisha's enemies were not just Fjerda and Shu Han but Ravka itself. Had the coup had succeeded, he not just wanted Fjerda and Shu Han to back off but the First Army soldiers as well. Book 2 shows how his paranoia were not unwarranted. Through Fedyor's story we learn how they were attacked in their sleep and how First Army conducted sham trials and slaughtered them. This alone shows how Ravka's sentiments about Grisha was not much different from Fjerda or Shu Han. So in the event of the coup, Aleksander had no choice but to issue a warning all of his enemies.

He is a predator/abuser.

This is the one that makes me laugh the most. Girl, he is an immortal. He has no choice. All his age-appropriate past lovers are long dead and buried. What is he supposed to do? Remain celibate? They often bring up the kiss near Baghra's hut as an example of his predatory nature. But what manipulation happened? That dummy fell for Alina and high-tailed from there.

Let me draw a comparison to show what actual manipulation and predatory behaviour looks like. (1) Nikolai who is about 7-8 years older than Alina, forcibly kissing her, against her will, in front of hundreds of people just to better his chances for the throne. (2) Mal who punishes Alina for flinching at his advances by getting it on with Zoya. (3) Baghra, who preys on Alina's fears/insecurities and turns her son's one true immortal companion, against him. These are actual manipulations, not the one Aleksander did.

A predator/abuser needs to have constant access to his victims. In LB, own words, Aleksander rarely stayed at the Little Palace. Compared to him, Nikolai, Mal and Baghra had more access to Alina and they did actually succeed isolating her.

The Stag amplifier

Then the stag incident is treated as a sign of his manipulation and perversion. This where we need to apply our critical thinking and ask the important question who benefits from this act? It certainly was not Aleksander.

Let's rewind the clock a bit, Alina who was the Sun Summoner and a key political figure ran away from the Little Palace. Aleksander did not know if it was an enemy attack or something more sinister. He lies to King, who would have his head for this mishap and, searches for her only to learn that she run away on her own violation. So the girl, he hoped to be his ally became a threat. He was forced to reveal his hand sooner and speed up the coup. People need to understand that Aleksander is not an ordinary, lovesick boy, he is a war general and Alina has proved herself to be unworthy of his trust. So he put a leash on her. This not a question of morality but a question of ethics, much like the trolley problem.

He turned on his own Grisha.

They were deserters for god's sake! and was fighting opposite him. They forfeited his protection the moment they joined hands with the enemy. So he was treating them as a normal enemy.

He stole Grisha children.

He did what Charles Xavier did in X-Men. Grisha powers were tied to emotions and are instinctive. Without proper training they are bound to hurt normal people. Not to mention, if the Grisha were born outside they were either killed or sold to pleasure houses. And considering Ravka's anti-Grisha sentiments, he did what he had to do to keep them safe from actual predators.

Now let's talk about some of Nikolai's actions and let's not forget that he was the King/Prince of Ravka.

Sent his father on a luxury retirement instead of punishing him for his crimes.

Used Genya's trauma to make himself the king instead of offering her justice.

Did not care or investigate the genocide of the Second Army soldiers even if the said soldiers were serving the crown. He punished none of the First Army soldiers and was happily brown-nosing them.

Was happy to start a Civil war even after knowing the kind of king his father was. For a 'peace-loving' person (we have seen him in KoS and RoW ass-kissing useless feudal lords instead of using his authority), he did not attempt to negotiate with Aleksander.

Starved his people so Aleksander would have no choice but to use his Grisha to cross the Fold to get supplies. Again for the antis crowing about Novokribirsk, what do you call this?

Stole Grisha inventions like corecloth etc in the name of unification and supplied it to First Army. Read point 2 once more to understand the cruel nature of this act. He felt Grisha were hoarding better supplies but did not question why the First Army were having subpar things because if he did then the blame would rest on his father and his corrupt noble supporters. So he chooses to steal using the unification propaganda. How noble!

Sent Grisha who were not of age to war fronts and missions. Why not send the First Army? Are there no highly skilled people in the First Army for such things?

Manipulated and used Alina to establish himself. Atleast Aleksander 'manipulated' her for the betterment of Grisha, Nikolai did it for himself.

Destroyed everything Aleksander did for Grisha in the name of unification. Or should we call it erasure? He erased centuries of progress and left them without protection.

He claimed Aleksander used his Grisha selfishly for 'his' wars and then shamelessly sends his minions to recruit them from other countries.

If Nikolai was indeed a just and kind king as the antis claim him to be, why didn't he announce Grisha as a protected class? Why didn't he offer them equal rights as a Ravkan citizen? Through his own spies he knows what is happening to them in Fjerda, Shu-Han and Kerch and yet knowingly he lets Zoya abolish the rule of finding and securing the Grisha children (which mind you, saved Zoya from child marriage).

Aleksander was not just a person, he carried the history of the Grisha that was rapidly being erased. He built a place to pass down that knowledge, their culture and practices. If Grisha were not tested and found, who would save them if they died from wasting sickness, who would offer them protection from slavers and Fjerdans? Once again in the name of 'liberation' Nikolai had truly pushed them into hiding. Without these laws what happens when anti-grisha sentiments raise again after a few centuries? He removed every true protection and erased a targeted group's shared history in the name of liberation.

In the end, Nikolai did not protect his country nor the Grisha. He is in no way the hero of this story nor is his echo chambers whom he calls friends. I could go on and on. Truth is, it is not my intention to minimize things like SA or genocide. These are heavy topics and should be treated as such. Readers or antis who throw around such words should know the weight of such words. I hope this sheds some light on the hypocrisy that resides in this fandom.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk!

[theplottingapp]

Antis and Leigh Bardugo herself keep forgetting that the grishaverse is set in old feudal-like Russia and grisha (ALL GRISHA) were seen as property of the king - "She is grisha. She is the property of the King and will go to school to train" - Liliyana King of Scars - "So a grisha is no better than a serf?" [asked alina]. "We all serve someone," he said, and I was surprised by the harsh edge in his voice. Even the leader of the grisha second army was just a serf, a pawn for the king to use or dispose/kill whenever it became convenient

Exactly! You spoke my mind anon. Either LB and antis don't know how absolute monarchy works or they're choosing to be willfully ignorant.

Aleksander is mocked for not doing more for the Grisha when Nikolai is never called out for his inaction. Aleksander is shamed for his failures while Nikolai, who is the actual king of Ravka, is never held to the same standards. If Aleksander is half as powerful as the antis claim him to be, he would have sat on the throne right after the Fold. But all he could do was reinvent himself over and over again, start from scratch, see it all fall apart and then do it all over again. Atleast the other Grisha had the luxury of death but he had to live with his mistakes.

After 500 years(or more), he finally succeeded in building a safe place for his Grisha and that came with a price which none of the antis seem to understand- he bartered their freedom for their right to live. If the antis had read history, they would know that in an absolute monarchy(and feudal-Russia) this is a pretty sweet deal. It is such a shame that the antis and LB herself doesn't seem to grasp how little rights people had back then.

Let me draw a comparison. In the 21st century where we have the right to vote, right to ownership, laws to offer protection, social media to call out injustices etc etc, people still have to watch silently as their rights get taken away. Governments cares so little about the health or livelihood of its citizens and tax every hard earned penny out of them. The laws that were meant to protect the innocent has let murders, rapists and criminals walk free and people everywhere are simply mute spectators. So at a time when human rights is celebrated everywhere, is anybody able to make a meaningful change? No. Then how do they expect one man in a country resembling Feudal Russia to act as if he has all the rights in the world?

And even if antis claim it is simply a fantasy then why are they applying these real world rules to Aleksander alone?

[theplottingapp]

Any advice on how you would write a Mission Impossible style story with a character with chronic pain?

[theplottingapp]

Encouragment for writers that I know seems discouraging at first but I promise it’s motivational-

• Those emotional scenes you’ve planned will never be as good on page as they are in your head. To YOU. Your audience, however, is eating it up. Just because you can’t articulate the emotion of a scene to your satisfaction doesn’t mean it’s not impacting the reader. 

• Sometimes a sentence, a paragraph, or even a whole scene will not be salvagable. Either it wasn’t necessary to the story to begin with, or you can put it to the side and re-write it later, but for now it’s gotta go. It doesn’t make you a bad writer to have to trim, it makes you a good writer to know to trim.

• There are several stories just like yours. And that’s okay, there’s no story in existence of completely original concepts. What makes your story “original” is that it’s yours. No one else can write your story the way you can.

• You have writing weaknesses. Everyone does. But don’t accept your writing weaknesses as unchanging facts about yourself. Don’t be content with being crap at description, dialogue, world building, etc. Writers that are comfortable being crap at things won’t improve, and that’s not you. It’s going to burn, but work that muscle. I promise you’ll like the outcome.

[theplottingapp]

I don't know if this is common writing advice, but: if you want to hide a twist, put it at the start.

Have it be hidden as part of the assumed status quo, because the audience doesn't yet know what's normal and what's unusual, and they won't likely come back to that bit later on until they've already gone through the whole story. Or, have it as the inciting incident, which leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, and by the time the story's gotten to Q which leads to R then people won't be thinking about A or B, they'll be too busy considering what Q or R might mean.

It can make something FEEL like it came out of nowhere, especially if the plot hasn't let you have a moment to breathe and think about what's already happened, then you get to the explanation and you're like "oh yeah that WAS a thing, how did I not remember it this whole time".

I should clarify that this is distinct from a Chekhov's Gun, where something actually IS normal at the time in-'verse but becomes important later. THIS is where something is either recognized as odd at the time, but then the story moves on and deals with other things so the audience forgets about it or doesn't believe that it's relevant; or, when the audience doesn't REALIZE that it's odd because the "rules" of the story haven't been established yet, and by the time the audience knows what WOULD be "normal", they've forgotten about what happened at the start of the story.

This is however hard to give examples for, because by its very nature it's a major twist and even saying "yeah there's something important very early on, which you'll have forgotten about by the time it becomes relevant" can be a spoiler as it "localizes" what to pay attention to.

[theplottingapp]

[theplottingapp]

sometimes you need dialogue tags and don't want to use the same four

[theplottingapp]

Because you struggled over those 3 weeks. That's why.

That whole time, your brain has been trying to come up with the solution to this puzzle, mulling over it in every which way possible, and it finally succeeded.

i just love struggling with one chapter for over 3 weeks and then the next chapter flows outta me over the course of 8 hours like i'm transcribing an event as i watch it happen.