bluntnessismynature

[bluntnessismynature]

Case study and analysis of the 1992 Good Omens movie screenplay (“the shitscript”) in light of the ongoing WGA strike

As one could suspect, the topic of the 1992 Good Omens movie screenplay and its infamy has recently emerged from the depths of the fandom. In light of the ongoing WGA strike it’d be good to properly address this issue, starting with Neil Gaiman’s own recollection written in 2004:

It’s basically the same old story — of brilliant creative workers struggling under the pressure of detached studio executives and being legally forced to mutilate their work again and again for no artistic or economic reason — we’ve heard before in many different contexts.

If you’re reading this and somehow still wondering why writers are fighting for their rights at the moment, their job security hasn’t changed much since then. Please follow the WGA, SAG-AFTRA, and other unions’ official channels for detailed information and ways to help the cause.

Anyway, it took over a decade and an enormous effort to print the screenplay in a limited edition of 552 copies. It can’t be distributed otherwise due to IP law, but some fans shared its fragments online and heavily criticized them, dubbing the 1992 source material #shitscript

There’s been obviously a lot of controversies over the changes in the plot and the relationship between the main characters. And rightfully so — the number of iterations has created something very different from the beloved book and the award-winning show we can all enjoy today.

It’s… objectively not good. Wouldn’t be considered a hit back then and certainly not by today’s standards. I don’t think I would watch it in any other way than through channel surfing. However, it’s not a monstrosity some people believe it to be and not a case of low effort.

Let’s start with the world building: the setting wasn’t changed to the US. It’s still very much based in the UK, mostly London and Tadfield, although the latter lies now by the sea and seems much more ominous. Interestingly, the British Museum becomes a prominent location as well.

The main character and the designated hero is not surprisingly Crowley, this time in his 90s anti-hero glory. If you haven’t watched many movies of this era, esp. dark fantasy, this trope involves middle-age disenchantment, cynicism, as well as hefty doses of sarcasm and brooding.

90s anti-heroes are a dark, grim, and unnecessarily violent embodiment of power fantasy, matching the destructive ideology of that time. Combined with uber-masculinity and performative strength over weaker characters, nowadays they naturally evoke more cringe or worry than awe.

1992 iteration of Crowley is basically in his Furfur era. Deeply unhappy and stuck in a dead end job, all he talks about is how he hates Earth and his assignment here, considering a transfer to Alpha Centauri as his one and only possibility of career advancement. Or life, really.

The talking part is important here, because he clearly compensates by insulting everything and everyone. He hates on the whole planet at length only to confess that he’d rather stay here with Aziraphale due to “no good restaurants”, “no decent bottle of wine” in Alpha Centauri.

Yes, he’s verbally abusive in his automatic response to stress. But doesn’t hate Aziraphale. In one particular scene he calls Azi stupid twice only to assure him that they are friends and to offer to solve the problem when he sees that his words were taken seriously and hurt him.

Crowley refers to him as “my angel” and “my dear Aziraphale”, agrees to Aziraphale’s suggestion of sharing a room, praises the angel as a “miracle worker around the home”, drinks the tea he makes for him, and generally proves to be much softer towards him than he wants to admit.

Aziraphale, on the contrary, wears his heart on his sleeve. He’s the one engineering ways to spend more time together, following Crowley around, checking up on him (including miracling himself into his apartment and office when no one answers the door), offering help right away.

He’s successfully calming Crowley down through his anxiety attacks, overcomes his dislike of heights (!) for Crowley, directly challenges him and even breaks rules only to make Crowley stay with him. Crowley seems to be his main motivation in this movie, not the saving the world.

1992 Aziraphale also has the most badass scene in the whole Good Omens multiverse to date, taking a 180 degree turn from the typical guardian angel we all know and love to the real angel of wrath protecting Crowley from harm in his true form.

But there’s no Their Side in this universe. The only semblance of that concept appears in the context of Anathema not representing either of their respective bosses, but humanity. “That’s the trouble with the humans. They’re on their own side.”

This Crowley appears not as much on Hell’s side as under Satan’s heel. He’s scared of him and subservient, and needs Aziraphale to prevent his escape as a pretext to do what is right. He lets the angel stop him by pretending that he doesn’t even see him cheating during their duel.

By finally standing up to his toxic boss (Satan is like Gabriel during the body-swapped trial, suave and cruel) and leaving Hell’s side to do good, Crowley takes an emancipated and employee-focused stance instead of fighting for his relationship with Aziraphale like shown in S1.

Which is a shame, but matches the overall tone of the screenplay and the times it was written in. The concept of free will, while simplified in a true Hollywood-style to issues like mind control and fear, is still crucial to this interpretation of the Good Omens original plot.

Especially the character of Anathema is seen fighting both of these things. There’s no Agnes Nutter with her prophecies here, only a 21-year-old witch and her will to thwart the ultimate evil versus her fear of doing it at a cost of one boy’s life, versus Satan’s brainwashing.

Madame Tracy appears slightly redesigned as a new character as well, but isn’t 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 for the most part. She’s been enjoying her youth way too much to see how fast it was fleeting, and this sudden realization left her in shock from which she denies to come back.

Unfortunately she’s also the one who took in baby Adam and now stays under his care. The level of his parentification is unnerving, much like his bullying and loneliness. He struggles to be loved and ask for love, which becomes his main quest beyond, y’know, the apocalypse thing.

Don’t worry, despite everything all ends well just like in the book. The family of two gets a chance to start again on much healthier terms and Anathema to live for herself for the first time in years. Our heroes get back in their car, Crowley tempting Aziraphale with an apple.

All in all, this whole post is a very long reminder for Amazon Prime to #PayYourWriters, #PayYourActors, and #RenewGoodOmens! The strike is still ongoing and crucial for any new content for this and many other fandoms #GiveMeS3orGiveMeDeath

[bluntnessismynature]

The thing about romance is, it makes a good story.

As soon as Neil described season 2 as "quiet, gentle, romantic" I figured we'd be in for it, because as he's the first to point out, writers are liars. And the best way to deceive is with truth.

Season 2 is romantic. The trappings of romance are everywhere. Crowley tries to set up Nina and Maggie by trapping them under an awning during a rainstorm, a classic cinematic bonding technique. Aziraphale's chosen method comes from his beloved books: the ball, the dancing, appearing as a pair in public, hands held as you twirl gracefully with your heart thrilled and racing. If they can set up a sensational kiss that will unlock the happy ever after. They've lived on earth, they've studied the tropes, they know how romance works.

The problem is a story is only a story.

Nina and Maggie had the classic romantic setup completely by accident before Aziraphale and Crowley ever began trying to interfere with them. They get locked in Nina's coffeeshop. They can't escape or communicate with anyone else, they end up talking by candlelight because there's no electricity, Nina offers wine. Maggie mentions how she'd hoped for a chance to talk to Nina, and now here they are. It's every bit as much a standard as what Aziraphale and Crowley attempt to arrange. Blanket scenarios galore exist because of that starting point. We love that story. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But it's still only a story, it's not enough. Because once that moment of connection is over, however lovely it was, all the rest of the world comes flooding back in in the form of dozens of angry text messages. Nina's messy entrapping relationship hasn't magically gone away just because she and Maggie shared a romantic encounter.

And it's so tempting think oh well, that's easy. We'll just give them more romantic encounters and eventually those will overwhelm the rest of the baggage. Must do, because it'll make them fall in love, and once they realize they're in love that trumps all other considerations, right? So it'll be fine. Love Conquers All.

Neil also mentioned Pride and Prejudice.

Darcy knows he's in love early on and makes a disasterous proposal that shows that he has no understanding of Elizabeth's perspective, possibly hasn't even thought about it. They've been meeting in forest lanes for walks, conversing, had tete-a-tetes in the sitting room, danced at a ball. And while his turn of phrase isn't as flattering as he thinks, he's still offering her everything he thinks she wants and needs: affection, security, his good name, wealth, an escape from the embarrassments of her situation, the world. How can there be anything to object to? Why would anyone ever refuse so much of value?

Elizabeth quite rightly cuts him to pieces. He lashes back with a few hard truths of his own and they separate. During that separation, he thinks and he learns. He takes to heart the criticisms she offered, re-examines his assumptions, opens his eyes. Thinks about her perspective and how sometimes the only difference between pride and arrogance is where you're standing. He does the work. When they meet again he tries to demonstrate that he's learned--not in order to court her again (yet), but because the only real apology he can offer, the only one that would have weight, is to show that he's grown, he listened to her. He changed.

Elizabeth of course has her own journey, accepting that many of her own conclusions about Darcy were erroneous because they were formed without her having the full picture to hand, and once she's done that she has to apply it to her own situation as well. She loves her family, but they do place her at a disadvantage on a number of levels, leading eventually to full-out disaster as her younger sister carelessly ruins all of their reputations. It's hard to admit, it's mortifying, but Darcy was offering her a great deal she needs. His offer did have worth for all that she dismissed it as an insult. And as she learns to value his own character more highly, and then as she sees that he did listen to her even though she insulted him so thoroughly...well, she grows too. And when they do eventually come together it's not because of courting and balls. There's a big romantic gesture in his rescue of her sister but even that isn't why they'll get their happy ever after. It was just the catalyst for the conversation. They win because they've learned how to understand each other and how to communicate for the future. How they can strengthen and support each other, how to balance their strengths and weaknesses. The films leave them at the wedding, but the book shows a bit of their marriage too, and during it they keep learning from each other. Their relationship is held up as a superior love story for good reasons.

The end of season one was romantic too. Crowley stopped time rather than face a world where Aziraphale would never speak to him again, Aziraphale walked into hell to protect Crowley, they dined at the Ritz and toasted the world. But then they stopped. Sure they spent time together, talked, enjoyed each other's company. But if they were talking about important things would Crowley still be living in his car? They had a bit of respite but all that real world baggage that exists outside of the romantic moment hasn't been faced, none of it. Four or five years sounds like a long while but for beings who are quite literally older than the earth? That's just an intermission.

Nina's relationship ends, leaving her with a tangled mess; Maggie realises the sweet dream of love she's been longing for isn't as important as the real Nina. They talk. They plan. Nina will sort through her life, get closure, figure out what went wrong with Lindsay and what she wants from a relationship, learn how to ask for respect instead of just bending under her partner's demands. Maggie will support Nina the way Nina needs, which sometimes means helping her get oat milk for the shop and sometimes means giving her processing space. They're on the same page; they're going to do the work. That's why most likely they'll succeed. To quote one of my favourite fanfics: it's not happily ever after, but it's a chance. It's all going to be okay. (The Profane Comedy by Mussimm, who absolutely nailed this theme)

The romance is nice, it's lovely. We need it to keep ourselves going. To give ourselves the dreams that help us get through the days and nights. But it's not the relationship. It's not enough on its own. The wedding can be the grandest most beautiful ceremony ever with doves flying and sweeping music and bells ringing, but that doesn't guarantee the marriage will last.

Crowley and Aziraphale have had their romantic gestures, oodles of them. One wing raised to protect the other from falling stars, another from rain. Shared ground, shared interests, hands offered in friendship and held on a bus. They've tried to get to the same page, they really have. They just aren't there yet. The biggest most important things still haven't been talked about, and season 2 showed there are even more of those big important things than we'd realised.

The show paints Maggie as Aziraphale's foil and Nina as Crowley's, even to the point of Nina casually calling Maggie 'angel'. But Aziraphale's baggage is Nina's. The toxic relationship has to be processed and understood and closed, and it hasn't been, despite season one. Lindsay never really liked Nina very much, for all that they tried to keep her trapped; Heaven never really liked Aziraphale very much for all that he believed in it. They both let themselves be used. But Lindsay left Nina and went to their sister's, whereas now the head of Heaven has reached out to Aziraphale and said here, we can fix this, you can fix this, don't you want to fix this? Others are already writing about that and maybe I'll add to it later, not sure. And Crowley, like Maggie, has had a sweet dream that he has to set aside. Maybe he'll be able to pick it up again eventually, maybe not. But sometimes you offer support by buying oat milk or rescuing your beloved from the legions of hell, and sometimes you do it by standing back while they sort through their shit.

Quiet, gentle, romantic. It was.

But that's only part of the story. Now they have to do the work. They thought they had, but they were wrong, because there's so much they just hadn't touched yet and tried to cover over with relief and sleight of hand and alcohol and forgiveness. The apology dance doesn't mean much without showing that you listened and learned. They've faced so much trauma already and that should have been enough, we wanted it to be enough and so did they and it's such a blow for it to turn out that there's still more to do, that the baggage hasn't just gone away and can't be hidden under blankets or soothed with cocoa. The texts are still coming in and demanding answers.

But it'll be okay. It will. It's still a chance. And one that in the long run makes them better, builds something real that lasts.

The best stories, the ones that last longest and become classics, are the ones that don't end with the kiss under the awning or the blanket scenario or the wedding. They're the ones that heal us while the characters heal themselves. It's hard to accept that there's still more to do. Harder to imagine how it can possibly work out. And yes, bloody frustrating to wait and see.

And we'll get through that interim by telling even more stories. Because the story is never just a story. It's how we get through the work, it's what we tell ourselves so we can do the damn work. Stories are what we cling to and how we remind ourselves we're human and connect. A book is a person you can carry with you. We're not alone, none of us, stories connect us because we love them and see ourselves in them, which means we see each other.

Aziraphale's back up in Heaven to deal with his unfinished baggage; Crowley left his behind long ago and it's clearly going to come back and bite him in the arse however much he tries to go his own way. And they can't help each other with that. Not yet.

But they'll get there. So will we.

[bluntnessismynature]

can i say ive never cared for h2g2 until i learned it was an inspiration for good omens?

Reading it rn makes me wanns dnf it

I mean, this is exactly how we didnt finish graveyard book

Im burnt out lol

I have been hit with the curse of consumerism and create more!

Ah shoot

[bluntnessismynature]

I feel like, somewhere along the way, people forgot that Third Person POV is supposed to allow more distance than First Person and have instead started treating Third Person as "First Person But We Use She/He Pronouns".

[bluntnessismynature]

Good Omens Book Racism

This essay was originally a reblog of this post, but I’ve decided to make it a post of its own so it’s a little easier to read.

***

Rather than diving straight into examples from the text, I want to take the time to explain my intentions/goals for this little essay. Sorry if it's boring, but I do think it's important.

First, I want to clarify that I'm not just taking the opportunity to dogpile on NG by calling him racist. The people who commented that TP was equally responsible were 100% correct! Rather, I hope that now that we know NG isn't a good guy for other reasons, people will be more receiptive to my critiques of the book without jumping to the authors' defense.

I also want to note that I believe every instance I reference in this essay is not in the show. Someone in production clearly recognized that the book didn't age well, and quietly removed the bad bits without a word or a guilty speech. I think this is part of the reason why the fandom hasn't really addressed these moments; the show cut a lot of the racism, cynicism, and generally icky bits. The overall the tone of the newer content is very different and much sweeter. Personally, I prefer it this way!

Most importantly, though, I think a lot of people reading this might wonder--why talk about racism in a book that's 30 years old and has a modern adaptation that fixes almost every problem? Isn't it normal for old books to be a bit suspect? Why go through the effort of bringing it up?

The answer is that it's less about the book more about the fandom; the fact of the book being racist isn't the problem--I fully understand that it's 30+ years old. But the fandom is alive and well, and the lack of discussion is what feels weird to me. I was disturbed by the book when I first read it, and finding nobody online who felt the same way was a bit isolating. I had to wonder if other fans didn’t notice any racism, didn’t remember, or just didn’t care. By talking about racism, by making it clear that yes, we notice and we remember, i think we can make the fandom a more welcoming and inclusive space.

So really, my only goal for this essay is for it to exist; I want it to be out there so that if someone else, like me, goes looking for online acknowledgment of racism in the book, this will be there for them to find.

I think you get the point. Let's move on to the actual substance.

I’ve selected three specific passages from the book for us to examine, as well as a few other moments that I’ll describe, but won’t directly quote. Let’s start with the most obvious (to me) example of racism, which takes place on the whaling ship:

“The captain drummed his fingers on the console. He was afraid that he might soon be conducting his own research project to find out what happened to a statistically small sample of whaler captains who came back without a factory ship full of research material. He wondered what they did to you. Maybe they locked you in a room with a harpoon gun and expected you to do the honorable thing.”

To be clear, associating Japanese people with honor and ritual suicide is a racist stereotype. Writing a Japanese character this way is racist, full stop. Later, the navigator also refers to the captain as "honorable sir." This is probably in reference to the different levels of politeness that exist in the Japanese language. However, frankly, I'm mixed Japanese, and seeing any white person using the word "honor" in reference to Asian people makes my skin crawl. Even ATLA is on thin fkn ice (although the fact that it's literally just Zuko helps a lot).

This passage is the most clear-cut example I can find of racism in that it fits into the framework of "author makes x joke, which feeds into y racist stereotype." However, there are other moments that may not directly do this, but definitely are sus enough to make you think "why tf would you say that." For example, this is how the narrator describes Aziraphale when he drives Anathama home:

“As soon as the car had stopped he had the back door open and was bowing like an aged retainer welcoming the young massa back to the old plantation.”

I can't even begin to logic my way through whether this is technically racist or not. I'm still back at wondering why on EARTH would anyone choose to write this description. It’s just repulsive. Purely based on how I feel reading it, and how I feel imagining a white man writing it, I'm gonna go with yes, this is racist.

Another example of a similar variety would be this moment, when Crowley is trying to get to Tadfield:

“It's all out of control. Heaven and Hell aren't running things any more, it's like the whole planet is a Third World country that's finally got the Bomb…”

Again. Racist? Maybe? It shows a dismissive attitude toward "the third world," which I suppose isn’t explicitly non-white, but mostly it’s just weird and uncomfortable. It's less about the actual offense and more about the...why did the author write that.

There are more such moments throughout the book that I could mention, such as the half-assed attempts at AAVE and Caribbean dialect (I think Haitian? it's when Azi is searching for a host). There’s also that whole affair with Madam Tracy and her Geronimo character. I assume that one is meant to reflect badly on her, but in the back of my mind there’s still the knowledge that the authors chose to put it there.

After a point, all these individual moments start to blend together, and the possible motivations and excuses become less convincing. Maybe on a case-by-case they can be written off as characterization or irreverent humor, but in the aggregate they’re just unpleasant. Again, my overwhelming thought is just, "Why?"

Ultimately, that question, "why would the author write that" is at the center of my critique of the book. More specifically, the question is "why do these authors, given their identities, feel comfortable writing the things that they do?" In this case, it's clear the authors, as cishet white British men, thought these kinds of racial comments were funny and didn't have the social consciousness to know better. It belies a kind of arrogance, audacity and frankly entitlement that only people with their social standing tend to possess.

Anyway, that’s all I have for now. I hope this was enlightening for some people. I just wanted to provide a little bit of perspective, and maybe reassure some other fans that have recognized these things, but haven't seen them discussed online before. To them I'd say: don't worry, you're not the only one.

[bluntnessismynature]

an ask meme for when you are stuck on a writing project

what is the dumbest possible version of the next sentence you need to write?

what is the dumbest possible description of the scene you are trying to work on?

name five things that are NOT going to happen next

name five things that COULD happen next, logically

what is the next moment you need to write that’s interesting to you?

is there a problem you are trying to solve?

what is a fun fact about a thing you need to research?

in ten words or less, what are the themes of the piece, intentional or otherwise?

what do each of the relevant characters currently want?

what do they currently need?

what’s going through each character’s head in this moment?

are you setting something up, paying something off, and/or letting the characters process something?

what’s a song that fits the current mood you need?

what do you like about this WIP?

what about this WIP is pissing you off?

[bluntnessismynature]

What sort of questions should I give my thesis readers to think about while they look over my collection of short stories?

Analytical Questions: Short Stories

From your question, I suppose that you are majoring in creative writing in university/grad school (or a related major). I have no first-hand experience studying creative writing in uni, so this post will be a list of questions I would ask myself if I were to read a collection of short stories 

Why are these stories presented as a single collection? Is there a running theme/ omniverse/ thematic linkages between the stories?

Is there character development? What kind of conflicts/events make the character change in some way? The defining characteristic of a short story vs. literary nonfiction is whether the protagonist develops over time (in real life, people don’t change that easily, haha)

Are there any symbols involved in the story? What do they represent?

Is there a particular way language is used? Repeated words, tone, etc.? Short stories are – well, short – so word choice would be extremely important. 

How is the author achieving a unity of characterization, plot, and language to produce a single narrative effect? 

These questions would make me think about:

Why does this character act this way? Short stories don’t have a lot of character backstory involved, so it’s fun to imagine where these characters might come from

What message/ lesson about the world is the author trying to tell the readers? Short stories often provide an impactful life lesson – through the use of irony. 

Would this story read differently if the author had used a different POV?

What do I think is THE THEME? It doesn’t have to be tied to a traditional moral, but the narrative must allow me to see the consequences of certain behaviors. 

How does this apply to my (or today’s society in general) life?

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* . ───

💎If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! Also, join my Tumblr writing community for some more fun.

💎Before you ask, check out my masterpost part 1 and part 2 

[bluntnessismynature]

american gods reference??? In s01e03???

[bluntnessismynature]

honestly what I love about miraculous and what I think a lot of people seem to hate about it is that the show is completely character-driven. it absolutely follows the rule of "would" rather than "should". episodes and plot lines and everything make so much sense and are so easy and engaging to follow when you understand that everything happening is because that's what the characters would do. things like: marinette would lie to protect someone's feelings, chloe would need more than just being queen bee to change her, adrien would forgive someone and try to see the best in someone who has shown him nothing but red flags. these aren't things they should do, it's just what they would. they don't change their behavior to tie up every loose end, they aren't vessels to give the audience moral lessons, their interpersonal conflicts are sometimes never addressed head-on and instead remain as a constant noise in the background of their relationship, they are all so stubborn and complicated. the plot bends to them, not the other way around. i see all the time people complaining about how the show is so bad/a failure but in the same breath say that they love the characters, as if the show's primarily goal is not to create and facilitate those same compelling characters that you love and let you watch as the story unfurls around them.

i mean, it's completely fine if you hate it. it's fine if you'd prefer every loose end to be tied, if you prefer the plot and story to take center stage, if you don't like it when a plotline seems to be forming but the characters decide against it, etc. it's a narrative choice, and not a "good" or a "bad" choice, just a choice. we all have our preferences. but your hatred of it is not any more "objective" than someone else's love for it. sometimes being a character-driven-story lover is difficult when online media criticism seems to always see it as a bug and not a feature.

[bluntnessismynature]

The Great Longbottom Bully chronicles: friendly fire edition

What started as a humble Draco stan's attempt to re-evaluate his involvement with the oft-bullied Neville has quickly become a sentient behemoth of epic proportions (see: pt.1 & pt.2).

In this section, I will examine the unkind ways in which Neville is treated, both by the narration and by his own friends.

It came from inside the house (if by "house" we mean the author)

I always felt like, in the first books, Neville is treated rather callously in order to fit the stereotype of the go-to comic relief guy, but I was never able to articulate just why I felt this way. As I went though the books for the purpose of this exercise, I paid close attention the language used to describe him, starting with his physical description.

It's well documented that JKR uses fatness as a visual shorthand for a character's failings: from Vernon and Dudley Dursley all the way to Peter Pettigrew, her fat characters are portrayed as either comedically evil or somewhat pathetic (and sometimes both). The plus-size character she is perhaps kindest to is Molly Weasley and even then her fatness is used to place her in the archetype of the Mama Bear. In keeping with this theme - wherein a character can't just be fat because sometimes people are fat - one of the characters that gets this treatment is Neville, and it's done in order for him to better fit the stereotype of the clumsy oaf.

Up until the sixth book Neville is described as round faced and pudgy. He doesn't sit, he heaves himself, and in doing so he squashes things, often to comedic effect. Neville is clumsy and uncoordinated and his fatness is used in conjunction with that to really drive the point that he's not to be taken seriously home.

We can also see the role Neville is meant to play in the story by the way his emotions are portrayed: Neville spends his first 4 years at Hogwarts in a constant state of comically exaggerated fear.

I tried cataloguing all the descriptors used to indicate Neville's tone and I had to give up in shame because JKR seems to have gone ham on the thesaurus in order to signal Neville's anxiousness and timidity in increasingly creative ways; nevertheless here's some interesting factoids:

the verb used most often to describe Neville's tone is squeak (by a large margin) followed by choke, sob and moan.

Neville's most common state of mind is frightened - he speaks fearfully, he cowers, he is terrified - followed closely by sad - he speaks miserably, tearfully, unhappily - and anxious - he is jumpy, nervous, tremulous; he is twice "close to a nervous collapse".

When the narrative shifts to a more serious tone, around book 4, we see a sudden drop in the usage of these descriptors. As Neville's role in the story becomes more important, we notice the disappearance of what were once the hallmarks of his personality. All of a sudden, Neville is no longer forgetful and clumsy as apparently those traits cannot coexist with his new heroic persona (Neville 2.0. if you will). I would call this character growth if Neville retained at least some if his previous mannerisms; as it stands Neville's growth ends up reading more like a personality transplant (not unlike what happens to Ginny).

We can also observe this shift in character by the way his friends and peers interact with him, which brings me to the next section:

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

HARRY POTTER

Harry is generally kind to Neville but the way his kindness is presented often reads like condescension:

(PS, Neville tries to do Harry a solid and ends up joining him in detention)

Prior to OotP, their conversations are often superficial in nature and very short. Additionally, Harry does not seem to want to hang out with Neville a whole lot and often goes out of his way to avoid him.

(PS, Harry would like to learn wingardium leviosa without Neville, thanks)

It must be noted that, since the books are mostly told from Harry's point of view, many of the uncharitable descriptors used for Neville could also be attributed to Harry. It's an assessment I somewhat disagree with since the language Harry uses in his (explicitly stated and delineated) thoughts is often less harsh than the narration's.

BONUS HARRY WTF:

(from PoA, Harry is imagining how Sirius must have killed poor poor Peter)

This is one of those Harry remarks that kind of straddles the line between genuine character assessment and authorial dickishness. At this point in the story Harry doesn't know that Peter is a traitor and a murderer so, by imagining him to be Neville-like, Harry lets us infer that they are both to be seen as hapless and bumbling individuals. JKR does know who Peter really is, though, and she makes the deliberate choice of comparing the two.

RON WEASLEY

Ronald Bilius Weasley is not exactly known for his tact, there's no two ways about it. Furthermore, as our everyman character, it often falls on him to illustrate the status quo with his observations. From Ron we get gems such as:

(from PS)

+ BONUS HARRY

(Harry's corresponding nightmare in PoA)

The thought of Neville Longbottom on a broom strikes fear in the heart of many, it seems. Neville's accident in PS's flying lesson and the ensuing chaos seem to be a core memory for the Gryffindors.

(CoS, Ron tries to make Hermione feel better about her muggleborn status by putting Neville down)

This sentence is important because it helps establish Neville's role among his peers. Not only it seems to be an universally acknowledged fact that Neville is hopeless as magic, it is socially acceptable for his classmates to say so.

and

(GoF, Ron makes sure we know that Neville is on the lowest rung of the Hogwarts social ladder)

This scene serves a dual purpose: yes, Ron is once again indicating that we're supposed to infer that Neville is an uggo and a loser, but he's doing so because he's secretly miffed that Hermione has someone to go to the Yule Ball with that isn't him. Ron contains multitudes.

(PS, Neville tries to enforce curfew, the golden trio has no time for rules, Snape is up to evil!)

I put this scene last, despite it occurring during PS, because it perfectly encapsulates what seems to be the general Gryffindor attitude towards Neville during the first books: Neville may be a hopeless dullard but he's their hopeless dullard, as such Gryffindors are the only people allowed to dunk on him (because they're Gryffindors and therefore inherently Good). Speaking of which:

GRYFFINDORS

Here's more excerpts that plainly show just what Neville's place among his fellow Gryffindors is:

(PS, Draco just cursed Neville)

This incident is treated as funny by everyone except Hermione (you go girl). The only problem Harry & co. seem to really have with what happened is that it's Malfoy who did the cursing, again showing that when a malicious act comes from a Gryffindor it's funny and also a prank but when it comes from a Slytherin it's bullying (here's a novel idea: why not both?).

and

(OotP, the twins are such pranksters LOL ROFLMAO)

See? It's ok if the mean-spirited joke comes from a Good Guy, why, Neville even joins in the laughter! How often must have this happened to Neville for him to have learned to laugh the embarrassment away? I wouldn't put such a big emphasis on this type of friendly fire if it happened in the context of a solid friendship based on mutual respect but what we actually see in the books is that these "pranks" happen to Neville whilst he's still treated as somewhat of an outsider. These instances happen before the introduction of Neville 2.0 (now with more courage!), not after.

Just like with his gran's (and Snape's) bullying, both the language used to describe Neville and the opinion of his peers change completely once Neville 2.0 drops. From book 6 onward Neville is part of the hero squad and thus he can no longer be subject to ridicule. Up until then, though, we are clearly meant to laugh at Neville's expense and call me a party pooper but I find this to be rather mean spirited.

To cleanse our palates, I'd like to add a bonus section:

⭐️ The congratulatory gold star award for being a Decent Person ⭐️

This award goes to Hermione Jean Granger who, despite not being exactly known for her tact and delicacy, manages to constantly treat Neville with kindness and compassion, especially when he needs it the most:

and

(GoF, Barty Crouch jr. has just traumatized Neville by showing him the curse that ruined his parents' minds forever)

You go girl, and thank you for your service.

[bluntnessismynature]

yes this is true

Muslims arent supposed to pray or touch the Quran, however we can recite or listen from it (this is during menstruation, obv)

Welp this activated my Religion Interest

So on with it!

In Islam we know that Allah(S W T)(subhaana wa taa'la)(glory be to him) has reasons(most of them ineffable but well meaning) as to why we are not supposed to do any of the above

Not eating pigs is a thing in our religion, it is haram for us, however we can consume rabbits (as long as we sacrifice it in the name of Allah(swt)

Wearing torn clothes= meh, we have rules called Satar, aka which body parts to cover, so anything torn below the knees seems fair game, but still, better to cover for everyone

Tattoos = if you're a kid and want to get your arm painted, sure thats ok, but sewing a fully inked tattoo onto your skin in afulthood? Yeah nope(the reasoning being why on earth would you change an already perfect body that God created for you?)

Not supposed to use the Lords name in vain

“Homosexuality is wrong, the Bible says it!”

So is: 

wearing two different fabrics

eating pigs and rabbits 

wearing torn clothes

having short hair

having tattoos

having more than one type of plant in your garden

going to church in the first  2 months after you’ve given birth

masturbating

wearing jewlery

remarrying 

women saying anything in church, ever

eating lobsters

divorcing

eating fat

touching women who are on their periods are touching something that has been touched by a woman who is on her period

cross breeding

people with flat noses becoming priests (?)

cheating

saying God’s name

gossiping

going to church if your balls are injured in any way

wizards (?)

so we’re all going to hell anyways. 

[bluntnessismynature]

the thing that sucks most about Joanne Rowling being a terf is that she is actively hurting real life trans people every day.

the second worst thing about joanne being a terf is that the Harry Potter intellectual property is So Much Larger than her. look at the credits for just one of the harry potter movies. every single one of those people put YEARS of time and effort and dare i say love into those films. think of all the people involved in theme park design and operation who put together the wizarding world park lands and detailed them so lovingly and fully

and yet even though the intellectual property of harry potter is so much larger than joanne, she's poisoned the whole well

i feel so. so immensely sorry for every person involved in the harry potter ip who isn't jkr. doubly sorry for every trans person involved. it's fucking sad

[bluntnessismynature]

october hopeful read

inkspell

Hitchhikers guide= all 5 books+ radio show+ ng biography + lost stories (this feels a bit over-ambitious)

The hobbit

Our magazines (when will you read them)

The debate archived speeches from that london clg

[bluntnessismynature]

hi, sorry if I'm overstepping but I saw the gender questioning anon and I thought I might try to offer advice as a transmasc.

questioning your gender can be so scary and feel so isolating, but there's a whole community that will love and support you through it, whether you decide you're queer or not.

there is no one way to be trans. just by changing your pronouns, you can call yourself trans, and you might be without doing anything else. it's so valid to love your body and feel comfortable in it while not liking the way society sees your body and identity. and if trans isn't a label you identify with, that's ok too.

there's usually two ideas when it comes to identifying as trans, gender dysphoria and gender euphoria. some people don't get gender dysphoria, and that doesn't make you less trans. gender euphoria is the opposite of dysphoria, it's feeling euphoric when doing things aligned with another gender. I get a lot of euphoria from clothes, and a silly one is when my voice gets deeper when I'm sick. for me, it helped to focus on the question "what would make you happier, being seen as a man or a woman?" (obviously it could be neither too). it took me a long time to figure out what I wanted, almost two years, and I went through almost every gender label you can think of seeing what fit. it can be a long process, but it's so so worth it.

you have to ask yourself what will make you the happiest. changing your pronouns? your name? hrt? presenting as a different gender without medically transitioning? all of these options are valid in whatever combination works best for you. it can be hard to know what works, so I recommend trying things in small steps. start with changing your pronouns, and see how that makes you feel. then maybe go a step further and try a nickname. or try presenting as another gender, just in your room or going out like that. see what feels good to you.

it's already hard to ask yourself these questions, so I'm proud of you for doing it <3. I hope some of this helped and good luck!

Thank you so much for sending this in, I am so appreciative of anyone who tries to help!! This is fabulous and considerate advice and I hope the author of the other post sees this.

🫂💙

[bluntnessismynature]

I just saw a post that deeply annoyed me because it went, "Here's a story that's like a Regency romance, but I FIXED it by making the characters sexually liberated and shame-free and polyamorous!"

This is like saying, "Here's a story that's like a thriller, but I FIXED it by having the serial killer go to therapy instead of trapping victims in his evil maze and dismembering them."

.

The thing a lot of people don't seem to get is that the entire appeal of a Regency romance is watching a deeply repressed, perfectly controlled, buttoned up, straight-laced person who has never expressed an emotion before fall so hard for someone that something in them just breaks and they come completely unhinged.

It's a very specific kink that this genre is tapping into.

People who think the characters in a Regency novel are boring are missing the whole point. The characters are supposed to be boring, right up until they fall so madly in love that it drives them insane, at which point they become very interesting. Regency romance novelists are doing the writing equivalent of putting plain white featureless uncooked whole eggs in a microwave and waiting for them to explode.

[bluntnessismynature]

#murdertrending trilogy thoughts

i originally read the first half of book 2 before realizing it, whoops!

murdertrending:

Beginning is maze runneresque with abrupt opening Kinda wanna draw dee as cinderella Ya know, i like this, the news has a sinister tone hidden in it Mash of hunger games too I wonder if this was inspired by the Walt Disney once wanted to have a section of the theme park where actors pseudolived and pretended that life was a fairy tale type of stuff

The ending reminded me of harry potter solving the puzzles in book 1

I liked the red herring turning out to be a true clue, good plot twist

At this point i realized that i dont particularly enjoy books that are set in high school

This book would have intrugued me at 15, if i were the type of person who had not yet read good mystery books

Ah well on to book 2

#murderfunding

murdertrending thoughts(to help keep track of the plot)(back when figuring out book 2 instead of starting book 1)

This is a world where everyones obsessed with watching people be killed(and very few that do have a conscience get mocked for it)

(this would have worked so well if they wrote adverts trying to advertise/promote unsolicited murder and torture) and then the audience is slowly led to the horrifying conclusion that"oh dear, why did we fall for it??!!!"

(Editors notes= lol the ads were there, past me just hadnt read book 1 yet)(it still would have begun to look suspicious if suddenly they are convicting teenagers there)(and they werent shown mercy)(seriously what the heck of a world is that?!)

So theres this group= postmanics, and antipostmanics

Postmanics care abt the postman and are avid fans (seriously were people this brainwashed??even after the accusations came out against the Postman they still wanted to kill Dee cuz what? SHE WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED YOU FOOLS WHY THE GECKO DO YOU WANT TO HUNT HER DOWN???)(yeah ik there was an incompetent prez but still)

Anti postman just there to sue and file evidence against leader

There was an Alcatraz 2.0 investigation, alcatraz being the crime and The Postman being the culprit

Death row breakfast club survivors(this sounds like an anime name)= dee guerrera, nyles harding, griselda sinclair.

Postmantics trying to hunt down survivors cuz they think survivors know who Postman is

A 3rd group, ie part 2 anti-Postmantics=fedexers= investigating real identiyies of those lost in the Humger Games dystopia

Uh huh poorly disguised aro bait, WE KNOW YOU GAY BECCA

Alcatraz santioned executioner called Molly Mauler= beccas mom ruth who died(oh, evil side was where mom working, got it got it)(but why did she die?)

Right now its Dees pov, where apparantly the people are mad cuz these survivors are the reason they LOST A STUPID APP? OF THE POSTMAN? DO THEY HEAR THEMSELVES??!!! And the postmanic fandom wants the survivors dead

WHO THE HELL IS MONICA??!!! THE STEPMOM OR THE STEPMOMS DAUGHTER?? Aah i see monica is dees stepsis that she indirectly got killed that her stepmom blames her for, got it got it (nah wrongly convicted kiddo)

Oh nyles and dee are dating,(see hunger games post 74th game era)(nyles 1 yr older than dee and in clg) Plus dee had no time to process monicas death and now she has so much time

So the Painiacs(original) were the people who killed contestants in Alcatraz 2.0(at this point i think this is a game show) Ah so the Postman and his successor were dead, at Dees hand.

Ok, why did the Breakfast club kill the postman in the first place? Nvm that, why do this stupid tv reality show at all? Who sanctioned this, how did they manage to sell it to so many people? Good taste they say. I say cow poop.

Ok but why do the postman(fangroup) want to hunt and place a bounty on these survivors? Who the hell is #cinderellasurvivor ? Hey, is cinderellasurvivor Dee? Cuz ya know, stepmom and stepsis??!!! (Yes, she was)

Painiac= a govt approved santioned contestant killer , beccas mom ruth was one of them

What the hell why did that idiot burglar threaten to kill rafa ? When all he did was break into beccas house?

Facebook. They are using facebook.

Becca go call 911!!! Or something, there was a burglary(oh wait, certain deTh) Ruth's ashes??? The survivors themselves think that because becca joining painiacs, its connected[postman responsible for it)

Kimmi= kidnapped Dee(formerly dolores), then she n her dad moved+ changed names, (Who da hell is kimmi now?)kimmi is Postmans daughter

Dees dad knows who the Postman is(yes the postmans dead) (Implied via flashbacks)

So bits i liked= uhhhh

Becca and stef prob need more fleshing out, i feel like they were still in the friend zone(just got forced into it cuz circumstance and plot)

Rita made it i think, but we lost stef

Yeah no, i spent a better part of a year reading malory towers and being able to sniff the conclusion before it appeared on my face

I did not like the blatant anti-Russian propaganda. Like seriously, all the bad things? Russia is behind it. The mafia? They're from Russia. The corrupt President? Also controlled by Russia. It would have been better if they had fleshed out why Russia was behind this and what they could gain, but oh well we got anti russian propaganda

kudos for making it ig?

#noescape

This. Now this is the book i liked.

We have a character to root for(finally), who meets another person(we r never told hes her brother until the end, which weird and funny)

And the friendship between neela and persey i liked

And the clues scattered across the room

I was right!! I guessed right that kevin was the killer! Ha! (The statues that represented each of the players gave it away...)

Was it necessary to kill off everyone in book 2?

And it turns out kimmi=persey which kinda doesnt make much sense unless we are supposed to conclude that Dee was harassed by a 37 yr old??? Not to forget the entire psychological degeneration perce would have to undergo, from someone who doesnt want people dead and desperately wanted to leave her family cuz of them being useless , i highly doubt she ended up as a spoilt manipulative dependent prone to angry mood swings kind of adult

Kimmi from book 1 seems immature, plus she was 19 there, later 24

Kimmi book 3 must at best be an aunt, whose niece is a crazed hedgehog

Which means kimmi the elder got away! Good for her, i hope shes living a happy life

Summary:

If you've been reading this all along and wondering if you should read this series, I suggest reading only book 3 (all of them are standalones, book 1 and 2 are connected , is all)

Otherwise, if you're like me and prefer to read complex and challenging books that make you scratch and wonder at the richness of stories, maybe read something else.

[bluntnessismynature]

How To Scare Your Readers (Mature Horror)

tw: mentions of murder and other horror media, its not specific or gorey but I just wanted to mention it

Today is one my hardest asks as it is a highly individual process to freaking out your audience with @differentnighttale asking: "How do you write horror, and how do you write it good nail biting and very unsettling type of horror."

Specifically, we are focusing on supernatural horror and dark fantasy. Due to the fact that there are numerous ways of scaring an audience, I'm going to focus on more diverse and interesting ways to freak out the readers. There are obvious tricks like "focus on the tactile senses" and stuff like that but let's cover something not as cliche!

Again, there are many ways to instill horror.

One: Combine Beauty And The Macabre

While this is a common trick seen in visual horror such as the works of Junji Ito or Midsommar, it's also an important and useful element in other beloved horror media.

This can be useful for a myriad of reasons.

The ability to combine the fantastical beauty of the scenery with death or the lovingly detailed imagery of a victimized body might be just the thing to elevate the scenery and visuals.

It also works to surprise your readers. If you are reading horror, you expect the murder and terror to appear in dark hospitals and obviously disgusting places. But what if the horror was in a cherry blossom field? In the church? In the character's childhood bedroom during the sunset?

It follows the perversion of the familiar. Most people internalize certain environments are seperated from society which might assist you if you are going for that specific type of horror. BUT! If you have horror in the supermarket, in the coziest little cottage, in the beauty.

TWO: Focus On A Specific Brand Of Horror

This is especially important for horror that is based off of pop culture spooks such as ghosts, ghouls, witches, zombies, and werewolfs.

Doing some research into why these monsters have survived in the public mind and what exactly is frightening abou them can influence your settings, characters, and horror.

There is horror about isolation.

There is horror about losing yourself.

There is horror about the female body.

There is horror about puberty.

There is horror about gender dysphoria.

There is horror about everything.

Decide what is the core fear you are proding at.

THREE: Be Ambiguous

Readers are comforted by linear stories with a beginning, clearly laid out morality, and a clear cut ending which provides either a happy ending or a sad ending.

Messing up any one of these things can lead to your story haunting the minds of your audience for a long time.

Midsommar is constantly debated about over if the ending is happy or sad.

Joker(2019), a thriller but not a horror, is infamous for it's amazing usage of hallucination and delusion to tell a non-linear story with a confusing ending.

Leaving the ending, villain, characters, or plot ambiguous and not clearly detailed might elevate your horror :)

FOUR: Use Your Own Fears

When you write about what scares you, that natural fear tends to radiate into your writing more naturally :)

This fear can be a lot of things from the specific phobia of bugs to the fear of being mistreated by a loved one.

Conclusion:

I hope I gave you some interesting advice that you haven't heard before @differentnighttale

p.s: at what point does something become "Mature"? I did mention "murder" throughout my post somewhat frequently but I never went into specific detail so I can't tell if it's "Mature" or not?

If it is mature and I mislabeled it then I can edit it to be "Mature"