#..there is so much nuance and detail to Mary and her mannerism - all these little elements ranging from endearing to frightening -

[masterhandss]

How would you describe the original Katarina’s personality?

Hmm, that's kinda hard to answer. I feel like I've read so much FL!Katarina fanfics that i'd be combining canon and fanon interpretations of her haha.

(I'll be calling Hamefura Katarina "Bakarina" and Fortune Lover Katarina "Catarina" so I don't have to write FL!Katarina lmao)

There's not really a lot we know about the Fortune Lover version of the characters except for the surface level stuff. People have come up with their own explanations and extensions to those incarnations of the cast based on what little we know, creating interpretations based on our own suspicions and understanding of the life they could have lived if Bakarina had never bumped her head.

Bakarina described herself as a spoiled, prideful and selfish wealthy lady. She is far too spoiled, to the point where her selfishness causes problems for others. She is catty and brat. She was raised like a princess during her childhood, which made her haughty, but is nonetheless well-mannered is aware of her station (probably not as perfect as Mary's, but is still prim and proper). Since she is so used to the spotlight being on herself, she bullied Keith who was a threat to her position and because of the influence of her dejected mother, Miri. She doesn't care about anybody who isn't on her radar (people like Alan and Mary, who even her own fiance is indifferent towards) but will visibly act hostile to people she does not like (people who either not of noble birth or those who don't deserve to be, like Maria and Sophia).

Being the haughty daughter of a duke, she has high regards towards the importance of ranks in high society, making her hate Maria the commoner. She would belittle and put her down at every opportunity she can get, in order to make sure that Maria does not forget her status as a commoner even as she continues to stay in the academy and interact with their peers. Her feelings of disgust and betrayal over being on equal grounds with a commoner in the academy, as well as being surpassed by her magically and academically, leads Catarina to bully and harass her to an extreme degree to destroy her self-esteem and eventually make her leave the academy entirely.

In Fortune Lover 2, she returns as a villain who is intent on making Maria pay for her downfall. It shows that she isn't remorseful, and still thinks that she had done nothing wrong. At this point, Catarina goes from a selfish and spoiled brat duchess to a vengeful (and kinda murderous) villainess.

That's kinda all that I got from skimming Volume 1 or the light novels at the moment; I'm sure there are still some insight on what Catarina was like in the other books, besides what we know of her relationships with the other volumes.

While Verge of Doom in mind, we see that Catarina's overconfidence in herself can become a positive as well. She is so sure of herself that she declared anyone by her side is excellent and worthy to a degree, which had helped Sienna feel comfortable being in the academy. Katarina always has her chin up high, even though she is intellectually and magically weak, because her upbringing has made her feel like she is naturally leagues above everyone due to her status.

Catarina is just your typical surface-level villainess character, who is prideful, selfish and mean to other people who isn't in her circle. That's pretty much it to be honest.

Anything beyond this is pretty much laced with analysis and interpretation. One of the reasons why I really like reading FL-verse fics is the different ways they interpret the personalities and motivations of the characters with the little amount of history that we know of. Some of it are pure interpretation, while some of them are good extensions to the stuff we already knew.

Since Catarina is implied to not being good at reading the room, it'd be no surprise to imagine that her growing love for Prince Geordo is the outcome of not being able to read beyond his princely facade, thinking that he genuinely is returning the feelings rather than just being polite since that is expected of him. She lives in this perfect world where everything is made for her, and anyone who threatens it or disturbs it is worthy of her malice.

Some interpretations of Catarina say that she never bothered to try academically because of her status, since she's a prince's fiancee and a duke's daughter, she already has everything so there's nothing she would gain from a good grade. She had probably used her time socializing and growing her circle of followers rather than reading and studying. Since Catarina and Bakarina share the same soul, some would say that maybe she is airheaded and socially dense as well which is why she can't tell that other people dislike her (and even if she did know, depending on who they are she'd be so full of herself that she wouldn't care). Some have said that her physical abuse towards Keith as a child is more than just arrogance about wanting to keep the spotlight on herself and rejecting the idea of having a brother, but a reaction towards feeling threatened and (initially) scared rather than pure jealousy and anger. Some have even made her an accidental seductress who is unknowingly using her charm, wealth and arrogance to gather people to her side. Miridiana from what we know is an insecure person growing up due to her face, so some people have said that Catarina's arrogance is encouraged by Miri, if it helps her be more confident in herself as a duchess, and that in her eyes Catarina had grown into a perfect noblewoman.

Whenever fic writers try to draw lines between Catarina and Bakarina makes me happy actually :DD I love the idea that two have some similar quirks in the same way Aachan and Sophia does. It's so fun when writers make Catarina dumb in the way Bakarina is, while still maintaining her air of arrogance and poise.

It really makes me wish we could have seen more of Catarina in Verge of Doom. Like, have more flashbacks to Catarina's original personality, or have more scenarios where she is forced to act like her villainous self in order to get through a situation. At this point even the main story has more instances of this qwq. I mean it's really good that VOD gives a more remorseful Katarina, and it is interesting to see Catarina and Bakarina react to situations in the exact opposite ways, but one can dream, ya know?

Catarina is as simple of a villainess as one can get, but it's nice to see people try to give more history, detail and nuance to that villainy. It's fun to see it in fanfics, but let's not forget that she's a simple character in canon.

There's still so much I could say, but it's been so long since i've read a hamefura fanfiction so my stock knowledge is dried out lmao. I'm not a writer, so I can only really describe what I remember from reading Fortune Lover-verse fics. I really like them, even if they can be out of character and too different from the source material at times.

If anyone wants to add with more details about Catarina, or their own interpretations of her character, that would be awesome! :DD

Thank you for the ask :DD

[celiabowens]

2020 reads, summer tbr edition. The plan is to come back to this post as I read the books and probably dump my thoughts here, not sure yet lol

On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous: really liked it, although the narrative structure wasn’t quite my cup of tea. Still, Ocean Vuong’s prose is incredibly beautiful and raw. Overall, I’d still recommend it to everyone, even if non-linear narratives aren’t your thing, because Vuong’s prose is incredibly frank and yet stunning, and the way it captures memories and brief moments in time is absolutely incredible. The novel has so many layers, its complexity and nuance are truly outstanding. 

The Empire of Gold: really liked this one! It develops the political conflict that was built in the first two books very well. The build up is quite slow and I get why some people may have issues with the pace, but I really liked the different storylines and how they all came together. Also loved the romance so much. I wouldn’t have minded more space for female side characters though.

Provenance: this wasn’t a bad read, but not as good as I expected it to be either. It reads much like a comedy of manners mixed with interplanetary politics, which was fun, but not as in depth as I wished. The characters fell a bit flat (especially the secondary characters) and their relationships weren’t as developed as I had hoped. The world was very cool though, especially with how fleshed out it felt, even when it came to minimal details.

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo: i’m very conflicted about this. On one hand, I really did like it, the book is fast and compelling (and reads very much like a tv show). On the other hand, the ending felt like unnecessary drama and it ruined it just a little bit for me. Anyway, worth the hype.

Girl Serpent Thorn: sort of disappointing? It’s a nice YA fantasy, but the premise begged for a more complex and nuanced development. The characters weren’t particularly fleshed out and the plot was a bit too flimsy. The mythology and world building, mostly inspired by Persian folklore, were really interesting and the bisexual rep was nice as well. 

The Nickel Boys: I really don’t mesh well with Colson Whitehead’s writing style (it just sort of reads very essay-like? I’m more of a purple prose person and his books almost read like non-fiction in general), but I liked this much more than The Intuitionist. This is such a hopeless and cruel novel and it delivers one punch to the gut after another. The final twist was as brilliant as heartbreaking truly. Glad I read it, as hard as it was. 

Shorefall: I liked it as much as Foundryside, but I still think this series lacks the spark and the nuance The Divine Cities Trilogy had. It’s still a pretty complex fantasy series (and Bennett is a master of his craft for sure) and I liked the economical and political subplots so much, but the characters do very little for me. The f/f romance is super cute and the cast works well, but the characters aren’t as compelling on their own. Still, a solid read.

Realm of Ash: this was great! I really like how Tasha Suri creates so much tension between her characters (the slow burn, the yearning...) and the character development in general. I love how this book was mostly focused on the court, because the moral ambiguity and the intrigue really set it apart from its companion, in a good way. 

Salt Slow

Dune: DNFed this one at 40% (which is like, over 250 pages), because it was extremely boring and yet confusing. As much as I like modern science fiction, I think most of the classics may not be for me. 

The Once and Future King

Angels and Insects: DNFed this one, no regrets. I read Possession earlier this year and as tough as it was (it’s just really such a dense book), the painfully slow pace was worth it, because of how well crafted and complex it was. Angel and Insects contains two novella and the payoff wasn’t worth the boredom, so I just dropped it.

A Gentleman in Moscow: this was literally perfect until the ending. I just...found it overly bizarre and forced. The rest of the novel is, however, 100% worth the hype. It’s compelling and nuanced and such a good character study. Really loved the prose too.

The Impossible Girl: the premise was better than its execution, I guess. I feel like my biggest problem with this one was how flat the characters felt to me and how the plot was a little messy. The premise was great (crossdressing girl with two hearts working as a resurrectionist was interesting to say the least), and I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the novel overall, because I did, just not as much as I thought. 

Notes on a Nervous Planet (if all the academic reading I need to do for thesis doesn’t end me first)

I actually don’t do too well with structured TBRs and I might read these in a month truthfully, so I don’t know how this experiment will go, but I guess I’ll see.

Stuff I’ve read out of the TBR: The Kindgom of Back by Marie Lu (I loved this one, would totally recommend checking it out), The Gameshouse by Claire North (the first novella is good, the rest was painful to read tbh), The Glass Hotel by Emily St. John Mandel (well written, but I really just did not care at all for it).

[charliejrogers]

Birds of Prey (Or, Men Suck: An Action Movie!)

Before 2019’s Captain Marvel or 2017’s Wonder Woman had the opportunity to be smash successes, Margot Robbie’s turn as Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad, a character that was equal parts bad-assery, sadism, and unabashed sexuality, was the closest the comic book movie world had to a genuine female star. And, yes, that’s a direct knock on ScarJo’s Black Widow. Given the character’s popularity, Robbie’s interest in playing the character, the Me Too movement, and the subsequent success of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, a Harley Quinn movie was somewhat inevitable. The marketing for the film made it quite clear that Quinn’s new movie, Birds of Prey, aimed to rise far above the ashes of its predecessor. The previews advertised Quinn literally killing off the Joker (and symbolically cutting ties with one of the most complained-about aspects of Suicide Squad) by blowing up an ACE Chemicals building with Joker presumably inside. It was the location in the previous film where the Quinn and Joker’s relationship was born. This seemed like a bold, exciting jumping-off point for the film. Combined with its striking art design and lengthy sub-title (Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) the movie had me excited to watch a spirited indictment of the patriarchy under the guise of a comic book movie. That’s mostly what I got.

The movie indeed starts with an effectively brief animation detailing Harley’s life up to that point: haunted by her abandonment by her father and raised by harsh nuns, Harley’s need for male approval and hate of the establishment were finally realized when she met the Joker, a man for whom she cast aside her MD/PhD in psychology for a life of crime. But she gets tired of doing all the work and planning for Mr. J., but receiving none of the credit. It’s here you’d expect some big fight between Joker and Harley culminating in the explosion from the trailer. But the trailer was deceiving. We don’t see the fight. We just see Quinn’s reaction to being dumped by the Joker in a manner similar to how break-ups are portrayed in thousands of other pieces of fiction: crying hysterically, getting belligerently drunk, getting a pet, and denying that the break-up even happened. All this onscreen activity is accompanied by constant narration from Quinn who, instead of telling the truth about her pain and insecurities, lies and brags about her strength and maturity in dealing with the situation. When she ultimately decides to blow up ACE Chemicals, it is not an attempt to fight back against her abuser, but is instead her response to hearing other women talk shit about how she will likely go running back to the Joker. Blowing up the building doesn’t kill Joker (he’s not even present); it was just an immature, symbolic gesture to let the Joker know that she wasn’t coming back to him (like he would even care).

This rather weak portrayal of Quinn stands in stark contrast to the character as portrayed in the pilot of the recent animated show Harley Quinn. Interestingly, the show has Harley, who has recently been left for dead by the Joker, empower herself to leave the Joker. Yet, the portrayal at the start of Birds of Prey is intentional. It paves the way for eventual growth. It wouldn’t be much of a movie if she achieved her emancipation in the first five minutes. Plus, it perfectly falls in line with the relationship and characters established in Suicide Squad. There, Quinn and Joker were a couple madly in love, always desperately trying to get back to one another. Still, by shying away from the truth and horrors of the abuse Quinn suffered from the Joker and instead choosing to couch her abuse as “not getting credit/appreciation,” the movie weakens her power, strength, and growth in character. Her emancipation becomes less an empowered victory over abuse and misogyny and more just escaping the shadow of her arrogant boyfriend. This is unfortunate as symbolically it is satisfying that even Quinn’s first step towards independence, blowing up the ACE chemical building, is met with punishment and the assumption by male society that she can no longer defend herself. Seemingly every other bad guy in Gotham City knew to interpret the explosion exactly as Harley intended, and now they all seek vengeance for Miss Quinn’s many misdeeds, now that she lacks the protection of Mr. J.

The actual plot for the movie focuses on its villain, Ramon “Black Mask” Sionis, the epitome of white male privilege but without the confidence, a wealthy billionaire man-child so insecure he lashes out violently in response to the smallest insult. Sionis is trying to acquire the film’s MacGuffin, a diamond, on the exact same day all of Gotham’s underbelly, including Sionis, is out for Quinn’s head. The diamond is inadvertently pickpocketed by Cassandra Cain, a teenaged, female ne’er-do-well (Ella Jay Basco) who, like Quinn, is the victim of abuse and abandonment and has now turned to thievery to get by. For reasons I won’t spoil, Cassandra is unable to part ways with the diamond, so the hunt for the diamond becomes the hunt for Cassandra. It’s a hunt that involves multiple female protagonists. There’s Detective Montoya (Rosie Perez), a veteran detective trying to make a criminal case against Sionis. There’s Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), a singer in Sionis’s nightclub whom he forces to be his personal driver and errand-girl. And then there’s the Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a cross-bow-wielding bad-ass who actually isn’t after Sionis at all but is just kinda there on her own, separate revenge scheme. And, of course, Quinn inevitably gets involved in the hunt as well.

But for as much as the plot is about acquiring the diamond and escaping Sionis and his goons, it really is a film about female empowerment. The patriarchy, its inherent misogyny and perpetuation of rape culture, is the true villain. And emancipation from the grips of patriarchy is ultimately desired by all its female protagonists, not just Quinn. Detective Montoya is constantly passed up for promotions at work for decades even though she’s the brain by many successful operations. Black Canary, a Black woman, has an arc that combines misogyny with racism as she is forced into near slavery by Sionis (a white male who refers to her as “his little bird” and, not so subtly, “owns” an extensive collection of shrunken African heads). Her arc is my favorite in the film. And then there’s Huntress who… well, she’s just doing her own revenge thing, man. Like she’s killing dudes and stuff, but it’s hard to really link her with the deep anti-patriarchy themes the other three protagonists have. But where the movie really elevates itself beyond the sort of surface-level “girl power!” (that the Huntress unfortunately sorta represents) is in its willingness to be honest and nuanced about the brutality of sexual assault, even in the small degree it does address it.

Twice, Quinn finds herself incapacitated while being directly threatened by a man. The first occurs after her post-break-up binge-drinking night out where on the verge on consciousness, she is being caressed and fondled by a man in an alley and nearly kidnapped (and presumably raped) by two men. In the second instance, she’s hit with a paralytic agent. Her assailant crouches down next to her, puts her arm around his neck. “You’re still conscious,” he says to himself, as if reassuring himself like a man about to rape a drunk girl on the drink of consciousness. It’s rather disturbing and powerful to see our protagonist who is, in every sense of the phrase, a bad-ass be just as susceptible to be raped and taken advantage of as any other woman in society. No one is safe, and she’s not alone. There’s another rather difficult scene where the movie’s villain, Ramon Sionis, forces an innocent female patron at his night club, under the threat of death, to strip and dance on top of a table in front of the whole club. These are powerful and scary scenes that generally aren’t a part of superhero movies. No doubt, the success and nuance of the scenes is due to the fact that the movie is directed by a woman, Cathy Yan, written by a woman, Christina Hodson, and produced mainly by women (including the star Margot Robbie herself). If allowed to explore these issues more deeply, it would have been a fantastic film.

Still, this movie is not intended to be a deep, serious dive against real issues women face; I recognize its an action-focused comic book movie. And to that degree, the movie is mostly a success. It’s a fun movie with clever, visually-stunning action sequences. I was floored by its use of color (of purples, reds, and blues particularly) throughout all the fight scenes. There’s an extremely satisfying scene where Quinn infiltrates a police station with a gun that shoots out what looks like bean bags that release colorful dust/confetti upon impact. And the final battle scene in an abandoned boardwalk’s funhouse featured one of the most creative set pieces for an action movie this side of Temple of Doom, replete of trampolines, mirrors, and gripping melee combat (with mallets, bats, and kicks to the groin, instead of the often-more boring-shoot-outs.)

I really cannot say enough good things about the visual style of the film or its tightly choreographed fight scenes. Less good things can be said about scenes that do no feature fighting/action. McGregor as Sionis is fine, but Sionis is an uninteresting villain, and his over-the-top childish nature is boring to watch. The movie would have been better served by a villain like Jason Schwartzman’s Gideon from Scott Pilgrim vs the World, a well-respected, successful, confident, misogynistic tool, rather than the insecure mess seen here. Also, Ella Jay Basco as the teenaged pickpocket Cassandra is not a great actress and there was little chemistry between her and Robbie. This is unfortunate since the movie aims to cast Harley as Cassandra’s new foster-mother to highlight Quinn’s growth and this sequence takes up a good chunk of the middle of the film. I did like how the film explored the idea that Harley Quinn, though a “super villain,” is a normal person who needs to get groceries like the rest of us. Scenes like these helped to make Quinn more sympathetic but were largely hampered by bad dialogue.

Furthermore, are we just going to ignore that Harley handed Cassandra a bomb with a lit fuse, giving Cassandra no choice but to throw the bomb out a car window thereby killing one of their assailants?! Cassandra cannot be more than 15 years old, but the movie does nothing to explore what this obviously traumatic situation does to Cassandra. I’ll buy the film’s excuse that she has a penchant for pickpocketing as a consequence of her social circumstances… but you can’t tell me that she would have no second thoughts/trauma about killing another human being! Sorry, that’s the pediatrician in me getting out.

So yeah, I liked the movie. It’s not great, but it ain’t bad. Its weak dialogue and weak villain are made up for by the film’s great visuals and its absolute commitment to doing right by its themes, even approaching serious issues with nuance and grace, something that would never have happened if a bunch of dudes crafted this picture. And even if the first hour isn’t great, most of my complaints washed away in the last half hour when all the female protagonists finally join together and that awesome funhouse battle takes place. Further, it is satisfying to see that Harley Quinn really does change throughout the film. In defeating Sionis, she is able to finally free herself from the Joker, but also from all the men who assumed she was nothing more than the Joker’s bitch. The movie doesn’t leave much room for a sequel which in itself is refreshing. It tells a complete tale. Still, I’d happily seek to watch more of these birds of prey having been let out of their cages, free to take on more of patriarchy.

 **/ (Two and a half stars out of four)

[swamp-world]

When I’m reading reviews of books, sometimes I see things that really make me question quite a bit about what people are looking for when they read these books. A lot of this is in relation to women characters and how they’re portrayed, and the fact that it seems like there’s no right way to portray them at all without people getting upset--if a woman is a typical “strong female character” then she’s a trope and unrealistic; if a woman doesn’t fight and needs to be rescued then she’s a poor caricature of women and offensive; a woman cannot be decisive and in power one minute and then cowed in a different scenario right after--but there’s so much to the writing overall.

[minor spoilers i guess for TYE, maybe Song of the Lioness and Nevernight?] 

First of all, I see a lot of people who lack critical understanding and comprehension, or who aren’t willing to put in the effort for it. I’m going to use a lot of examples from YA literature for this, because that’s mostly what I’m reading reviews for, because that’s what I largely enjoy reading. 

The other day I was reading some reviews for The Young Elites by Marie Lu, after rereading it. I found that on the second read, as per usual, it didn’t hit in the same way; that’s not a bad thing, just to say that it didn’t have the same first-read wonder to it. But I still enjoyed it very much. Now, this one particular reviewer spent quite a while complaining about Adelina, and how she isn’t good, etc etc etc. Adelina goes on a villain arc. She does the wrong thing, she hurts people, she kills people when she shouldn’t and has no reason to. She is traumatized and doesn’t deal with that in a healthy or acceptable manner, instead taking it out on everyone around her. The entire point of her character is that she is trying to take control, but that her power thrives on fear and fury. She is in the wrong, she is told that she’s in the wrong, and then she goes and does awful things. That’s literally the point of the book. Apparently someone didn’t get that, because they spent quite a while complaining about all of this. So that was more of a short rant on my end. 

Let’s go to some specifics: worldbuilding and characterization and as a footnote, plots.

I love worldbuilding. For me, physically creating new worlds to write in is one of my favourite things to do, and reading books where the author has put in effort is just as good. For peak worldbuilding, let’s look at a classic: Tolkien. He spent his life building up the world of Middle Earth. As the joke goes, he tells the story of every single tree. And that’s his style. Personally I haven’t read any of his books, and I know I’ll get murdered for saying that (I will I promise!!!!) but the worldbuilding is absolutely incredible, sometimes to the verge of Too Much, it seems. A modern level and a step down is Jay Kristoff, specifically the Nevernight Chronicles. I have yet to finish the third book, but the series is really amazing and I absolutely recommend it. There are a lot of people who dislike his writing style, which is understandable; I personally adore it. Kristoff does a lot of worldbuilding as well. He has little tidbits of history for each country and culture, both relevant and irrelevant; he makes the place feel real. For me, I didn’t find that this was too much, largely because it’s my preference. For other people, it was, and that’s also understandable: not all of it was relevant to the story or to what the audience needed to know. Another step down from there in terms of worldbuilding was The Young Elites. The world is developed enough that you know what’s going on, and you are given the information that you need to know. All of the countries involved seem to have the same or a similar religious system, though independent cultures and distinguishing features. You are told what is relevant to the story, and the worldbuilding isn’t lacking, but it isn’t going out of its way to the same extent that Tolkien and Kristoff do. And that’s not a bad thing! For some pieces, the worldbuilding is amazing, and that’s what sells it. For others, the worldbuilding is what it needs to be, because it doesn’t need to have the rest of it, and it’s just fine on its own. 

However, it has to be balanced. I’m going to rip into basically every main-shelf author that you see at the front of the bookstore here. Wilbur Smith, John Grisham, any of these names--are they good at character development? The answer is, usually, no. No, their characters are all two dimensional, copy-pasted caricatures of one another. The abandoned brother, the incredible casanova, the strong woman, the wife, the lawyer. The characters are not spectacular. And you know what? That’s ok! Because those ones are about plot and setting, usually. John Grisham doesn’t write about characters, he writes about high stakes legal cases, and all of the fallout from them. Wilbur Smith writes about families, using them as a vehicle to write about African history, but the focus is on the events and not the characters. And that’s ok!! (I have other problems with these authors but for the point of the argument, let’s just go with it.) You don’t need to have amazing characters always if you have a good plot, and if the plot is the intention. 

Sometimes you get a weird balance of these three elements, which I’m marking as what I’d consider the most important for me, for what I read. (The last paragraph is mostly exempt from worldbuilding because most of what’s the front shelf stuff isn’t SFF and doesn’t need it.) Sometimes you get authors like Tochi Onyebuchi, who, love him to bits, is not the best at plot or characterization in comparison to a lot of other authors. But do you know what!!!!! That is ok!!!!! He writes incredible worlds, with the focus being those worlds. The plot occurs because of the worlds, instead of the other way around. The characters are vehicles to move the plot. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing! Just like if it were the other way around, with an intriguing plot and somewhat interesting characters but lacking worldbuilding, or amazing characters who are interesting and bring it to life, despite having a mediocre plot or worldbuildling.

What I’m trying to get at is that it feels like, regularly, people who are reviewing books want everything. If a book doesn’t have amazing characters and plot and worldbuilding, if you can see the plot twists coming, if you can’t relate to a cardboard character, if you don’t know everything about the world, then it’s a regular writeoff. I saw a lot of people tearing into Song of the Lioness by Tamora Pierce, because it’s written in a style more for children, or new teens; because the pacing is fast; because there isn’t a lot of detail. But it doesn’t have to be written at a higher reading level; it doesn’t have to be detailed or have immaculate pacing, especially when the first book is just exposition. 

Reviews are a good thing, I wholeheartedly believe that. They’re a way to express what you feel about a book, to give feedback and criticism. It encourages critical thinking, and for me as a writer, helps me to find what I want in a piece that I’m both reading and writing. But at the same time, many people it seems lack the understanding that nuance exists, and that different pieces can have different styles and different focuses, and that doesn’t make it bad in and of itself. 

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

Superior is INDEFENCIBLE Part 2: Odds and Ends

Part 1

As a little follow up to this post I want to wrap up some defences I have encountered for both Superior #2 and the Superior storyline in general.

To start with we have more hypocrisy from the man I once admired as he tried to defend his position on Superior.

He was challenged on his primary argument that Peter and MJ’s separation justified her obliviousness now that they are back together; for further details see the above linked post.

In response to this challenge he said:

“I think there is more to my argument then "They've lived apart for a year" and her relationship with him during that time doesn't have to hold relevance to their relationship after being apart.”

Like…this guy was for fucking real.

OF COURSE their relationship back then is going to hold relevance to their relationship after being apart.

Obviously with the benefit of hindsight Nick Spencer’s run proves this to be the case. And you can refer back to my prior post where I dive deeper into the topic.

However, in that post I was talking about the specific nuances of Peter and MJ’s relationship.

What’s mind boggling is that in the above quote he’s making an even bigger reach. Jesus Christ OF COURSE their past relationship is going to hold relevance for their then-current one.

That’s how relationships work!

FFS, romantic or otherwise everyone’s relationship with everyon else is shaped by the past. This is like arguing Peter hating Norman for killing Gwen Stacy doesn’t have to be relevant to their relationship after his return to the Clone Saga.

I mean shit dude, Peter’s high school romance with Betty Brant was relevant to their romance after he graduated college!

This is how all types of relationships work. You don’t just jump in after awhile, start fresh and then nothing from the past has any bearing on the present. Even in the most positive of scenarios the fact that you are getting together again  would still be shaped by the fact that you liked each other in the first place.

And for the life experiences those two shared that’d go a thousand fold.

Now let’s move on to some over miscellaneous comments sent to me a  looooooooooooong time ago.

I’ve had this stuff in my drafts for years! 

For the sake of catharsis I’ve decided to clear it out. It revolves around Superior Spider-Man and the comments I’m responding to were made before the original volume ended in 2014.

“Rob Wrecks wrote:Why would Aunt May even react to it? She doesn't even know the identity of Spidey now.”

In Civil War she was able to tell that the Chameleon, a MASTER of disguise who was being more subtle than Otto was, was not her nephew.

Whilst she might not know he is Spider-Man she knows her nephew so she should react and become questionable regarding his change in demeanor and behavior. What’s the old saying ‘A mother always knows’.

“As for MJ, they aren't even married anymore either. Sure she remembers who is under the mask. But I doubt she's gonna bring trouble on herself for prying.”

I address a lot of this in this  post.

Basically, not being married anymore has nothing to do with it. This woman lived with this man for years (five to be precise) and had a very close relationship with him which involved countless tragedies and traumas. That doesn’t just go away. This is to say nothing of the fact that she has known this man for about 10 years and has been his friend and girlfriend during that time. In fact in Stern’s run when she knew who he was but didn’t let him know, she was depicted as knowing him better than anyone and was able to read him as a book. This was back when they weren’t as close as they are now, hadn’t known each other for as long and she didn’t know him as intimately as she would later come to down the road. In ASM #290 Peter himself says MJ knows him as well as he knows himself and this was before the marriage.

Even in Slott’s run this depiction of Mary Jane knowing Peter better than anyone else was highlighted in various stories like Spider Island, a time travel arc, Alpha, and a Lizard arc at HORIZON labs. 

In JMS’ run Peter and Mary Jane were shown to be somewhat in synch even though they were separated at the time and had been for a long while going back. This was showcased in ASM V2 #50 and they had been effectively separated with minimal interaction as far back as ASM V2 #13; arguably even issue #1.

And yet she understood him and knew him very well, falling back into synch with him when they reconciled. Yes there was some awkwardness and them getting to know each other again but it was not on the same level of Otto guzzling champagne, creating spider bots, talking in a manner which was unlike the way he’s ever spoken before and MJ just wondering passingly then dismissing it. This woman has lived through the Chamelon, robot parents and clones and lives in a world where friggin Skrulls have invaded.

This out of character behaviour should send off alarm bells. She DOES clock something is off in Superior #10 but only when he says a phrase she’s never heard him say before. He was doing shit MUCH more out of character before then and she was dismissing it.

Later she was STILL dismissing the notion that Peter wasn’t himself as merely crazy on her part.

Again this woman knows Peter can be/has been cloned  repeatedly. This woman even for awhile believed Peter himself was a clone so she knows even memories can be replicated. But Peter is acting so obviously NOT himself that it’s practically SCREAMING at her that she should get this. In fact Peter’s ghost point this out which is Slott lampshading the situation. That doens’t make it good writing that’s just pointing out how bad your story is.

“Hasn't she (I'm guessing he's referring to Aunt May?) been focused lately on her new marriage though? I don't read enough of Spidey these days so I'm only going with bits and pieces I've read about here and there.”

What does being married recently or focusing upon it have to do with anything?

In Civil War she was focused upon not dying because Peter’s ID reveal had upended her life.

If you are someone’s MOTHER and have raised them all their life you will absolutely  be able to tell when something is wrong, when they are in fact not the real deal.

“As for MJ, who would she go too? Not like anyone would likely believe her unless she had a telepath scan her mind.”

Who would she go to? I dunno maybe the fucking Avengers or Fantastic Four who are Peter’s friends and team mates. Or maybe not go that far why not go to Black Cat, Human Torch or Daredevil . These are all people whom she knows (at least vaguely in regards to Daredevil) personally and have access to technology that can prove things one way or another.

Even if you argue that it’s not fair bringing in the wider Marvel Universe, Black Cat, Carlie, HORIZON labs, the Bugle staff and Scarlet Spider are all Spider-Man franchise characters.

“Now there could be a possibility she's making a list of his behavior and the like and is just waiting for the right time to say something when she knows she's less likely to die from it.

Maybe Slott's just got something going that'll eventually be revealed? Who knows.”

Oh boy, that didn’t stand the test of time did it?

This is just shitty analysis on principle. It hinges upon blind faith and writing stuff in your head about what characters are doing behind the scenes.

There was NEVER an indication MJ was doing anything like that and her actions actually contradicted event he idea of her doing any of that stuff.

The net responses are to the statement that Doc Ock was a gentleman who would treat women with respect.

“Keyword there, 'was' a gentlemen. I can imagine after years of defeats at the hands of Spidey, certain habits would change and he wouldn't care anymore.

It could have just been a subtle change that no one really noticed. He did try and end the world before #700 if I recall right.”

You need to SHOW those habits changing. The last major Doctor Octopus story before BND was in JMS’s run when he was very much a gentleman. You can’t just say his illness and defeats suddenly transformed him into a would be rapist. It’s utterly out of character for him. It’d be like bringing back Ben Reilly and making him a mass murderer. WHY is he a mass murderer.

(Fun fact. The stuff I bolded about Ben Reilly was something I wrote at the time. I kept it in because of how sadly ironic it wound up being…fuck Clone Conspiracy seriously)

Ending the world before #700 is one thing IN Doc Ock’s character. He is egotistical and wants acknowledgement of his genius.

Superior depicted him going against a character trait he’s always had. In his origin story, when he was ‘courting’ Aunt May, when he was involved with Stunner and Lady Octopus and the like he has always been show to have a respect for women and not had to resort to cheap ploys to woo them.

In Superior he was trading off of MJ’s relationship with Peter and Peter’s memories to basically abuse this woman. That is beneath Doctor Octopus. He is an intellectual a man for whom such actions are debase, the realm of the common thug whilst he is much more he is DOCTOR OCTOPUS.

BTW in Web of Death it was established that Doc Ock probably would not target MJ or Peter’s family even though he knew Peter’s identity.

So for him to suddenly switch to ‘I’m gonna fuck his girlfriend to get one over on him” is again utterly out of character.

‘Web of Death’ was co-written by Tom DeFalco btw, who established Otto’s origin. Thus the argument is flying in the face of someone who helped define the character with no explanation at all.

Slott had done this with other characters like Ashley Kafka.Suddenly the most naively compassionate woman in the world who believed she could redeem CARNAGE is saying this lesser serial killer is a complete monster. That is piss poor writing.

Even if Slott WERE to establish and show how Ock went from one extreme to the other it doesn’t make it a good idea. Doc Ock would be rapist is a lot less interesting than Doc Ock the lone super villain who is part gentleman and part humanitarian with a respect for women. If this was Norman Osborn in Peter’s body, or Electro, or Shocker I’d believe these actions.

The topic then changed to Carlie Cooper’s depiction in Superior as a goddam idiot who isn’t even telling MJ Peter might  be evil. “Red Hood wrote: Carlie and Wraith followed Ock’s paper trail because she knows for fact that peter parker doesnt have the money to fund his own private army, the reason she hasnt said anything is because it's not such a good idea to go pointing fingers without absolute truth, remember eddie brock and how he was so sure about the sin eater?”

Carlie’s investigation was going incredibly sloooooooooooooooooowly. Not only was it dull reading, but it made her completely unsympathetic. Why not warn Mary Jane by saying “Look before he died Doc Ock told me he and Spider-Man had swapped bodies. I’m not saying Peter IS Doc Ock but just....be careful MJ”.

Or why not inform the Avengers or Fantastic Four about this. Sure the Avengers gave him a physical but they wouldn’t know what to look for. And why is Carlie Cooper all of a sudden saying “Wait I KNOW Peter doesn’t have this kind of cash so this is a big clue that he isn’t himself.” When her first big clue should have been that time Spider-Man SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE!

“also peter and mj arent married anymore.”

See above.

You don’t just suddenly fall out of knowing someone if you’ve been THAT close to them and known them for that long just because suddenly you are not married anymore. She has deduced subtle differences in the Chameleon and clones before this but Ock is NOT being subtle whatsoever. He isn’t even talking the same way he normally does. And Mister Red Hood even says so himself, Carlie can tell right way. His co-workers whom he’s known for LESS THAN A YEAR can tell something is up. But the woman who’s been closer to him than ANYONE in his life, she can’t tell. That is bullshit of the highest order.

“1. mj and peter arent married anymore, idk if they were married in identity crisis but remember how after the deal with mephisto they were separated for x amount of years before she even came back to new york, i can see her not being able to tell peter is acting different at that point. aunt may and the avengers though don't get a pass especially when carlie who knew him the least could tell right away.”

See above.

You don’t just suddenly fall out of knowing someone if you’ve been THAT close to them and known them for that long just because suddenly you are not married anymore. She has deduced subtle differences in the Chameleon and clones before this but Ock is NOT being subtle whatsoever. He isn’t even talking the same way he normally does. And Mister Red Hood even says so himself, Carlie can tell right way. His co-workers whom he’s known for LESS THAN A YEAR can tell something is up. But the woman who’s been closer to him than ANYONE in his life, she can’t tell. That is bullshit of the highest order.

When you separate from someone you’ve been that close to those feelings don’t just disappear. This is especially true of people who’ve been through immensely traumatic events together. Soldiers often find that only fellow soldiers, specifically ones who were with them in combat, can truly understand what they went through and how they felt. It creates an emotional/mental bond. Same thing here. Peter and Mary Jane went through Venom, Kraven’s Last Hunt, the death of Harry, Gwen, aunt May, Ben Reilly, the clone saga as a whole, Civil War, Peter’s OWN death, Maximum Carnage and so on. They’d have that kind of connection I was speaking about, you don’t just forget it to the point where you let MASSIVE differences in behaviour slide, especially massive differences in behaviour which are different to the way he was acting LAST WEEK!

“3. Also i don't think his  [Doc Ock’s] actions are entirely out of character, i mean he was dead, then revived, beat down for several years into a dying body. given time to think about all the things you would do if given another chance i dont think its out of the question for doc to say "great, second chance at life with a movie starhottie gf". also if you'll threaten the city, then the world, then mind swap with someone i dont think having sex is that big a stretch.”

See my comments above why this IS out of character for Doc Ock. Again this isn’t just him wanting to get laid this is him potentially date raping an innocent woman. You need to SHOW the progression of that change

And rape in comic book fiction is understood to be worse  from the reader’s POV than the various Saturday Morning Cartoon style crimes he’s pulled.

The next comment was in response to the public’s indifference towards Spider-Man shooting Massacre in the face! “7. As far as no one caring about massacre, didn't he break out a few times and inflict his namesake? no one is going to care that a killer like that gets shot, humans aren't dignified at all. i can see aunt may saying something but no one else is going to be like "oh great that killer is back in jail, too bad all criminals break out" no they're going to be like "finally someone put down this thug, maybe my life or someone i care about will be spared from him at least in the future" and maybe it was caught on security cameras or phones but maybe they deleted it, i mean spider-man just shot a dude in the face and if he wanted there would be nothing anyone could do to stop him from putting the hurt on someone else”

This is just rubbish.

No one is going to care? For God’s sake the police in real life get reprimanded for using unnecessary force.

The law is the law you CANNOT publically execute an unarmed man. And my point was no one, not even Mary Jane or Jonah, were reacting to this mind-blowingly out of character action on the part of Spider-Man. Maybe they do not care that Massacre was killed but they should be wondering “Jesus that’s not like Spider-Man at all”. This was Spider-Man becoming absolutely EVERYTHING Jameson ever falsely accused him of and no one reacted. And I am sorry but the attitude of ‘human’s aren’t dignified so they’d react like THIS” is extremely broad and generalised. This would be a major talking point and a major issue. This is EXACTLY what the entire ‘Civil War’ debacle was about. Super heroes running unchecked doing as they pleased. It’s been what, a year tops Marvel time since Civil War? If that stuff was deleted YOU NEED TO SHOW IT. The cover story is that EVERYONE in that massive crowd covered for him. That is in no way shape or form how humans actually act. And who would there be to stop like a teenager or a kid or a lone person in the crowd from tweeting “OMG Spider-Man just shot this dude” or uploading a video or picture. They were CHEERING him on they wouldn’t be afraid of him being reprimanded. Once something like that hit the internet it’d spread like wildfire, it wouldn’t be something that if immediately taken down would die away, especially when THE NEWS was stating Spider-Man had ‘neutralised Massacre’ and then Massacre shows up dead, WTF would the public THINK happened?

“Aaron Alexander Luthor wrote: Superior is an excellent title, but I feel you approached it having already made up your mind. Doc Ock NEVER attempted date rape, and I don't know where you get that from”

Boy, I wonder where I got the idea of Otto trying to rape MJ from? What an obviously ‘excellent’ title.

Trying to sleep with Mary Jane whilst tricking her into thinking he is Peter Parker then that is categorically trying to date rape her. He didn’t go through with it because he discovered he could just wank off to her memories (I can’t believe I wrote that) but that is exactly what he was trying to do. Maybe to HIM he didn’t think of it as rape but yeah that’s exactly what it was.

“He ripped off his own shirt, not hers.”

I honestly have no idea what he’s talking about here btw.

“Mary Jane had/has mentioned several times that there is something wrong with him and that she thinks there is something strange going on, he also hasn't spoken to her in weeks in the time frame of the comic.”

Yes MJ has noticed passingly things are wrong but then he feeds her a line and she buys it or otherwise she dismisses it herself. This in monumentally out of character for her given her history and makes her incredibly stupid, which is the ONLY way this title could have worked out. Again, she lives in a world of Skrulls, clones, LMDs and shape shifters one of which is literally an enemy of Peter’s and has tried impersonating him multiple times (targeting her specifically twice). But she either doesn’t clock anything is wrong or doesn’t really react when she does. And he HAD spoken to her within weeks by the time or Superior #2.

“Same goes for Aunt May, he visited her the first few weeks as Parker, and hasnt spoken to her since. He is basically ignoring the people in Peter's life, and they have taken notice.”

See my response about Aunt May not knowing. Again, this woman RAISED him and she could tell when the master of disguise who was being a lot more subtle about impersonating Peter was not her son/nephew.

Also he wasn’t exactly ignoring  the HORIZON labs staff was he?

“When he killed Massacre, some of the civilians were shocked and appalled, but when the police investigated all the officers on the scene lied for Spidey, because they think he did the right thing. That is why the only officers still interested are Carlie Cooper who does know, and is ACTIVELY trying to prove it isnt Peter, and Captain Watanabe aka The Wraith”

My point about NO ONE taking photos, tweeting, facebooking or whatever still stands as does the security cameras thing and the fact that Massacre was TRYING TO GET PUBLICITY. Again with Carlie why is she not warning SOMEBODY at this point. It isn’t like they wouldn’t believe her after Massacre. It isn’t like Spider-Man isn’t acting weird. It isn’t like body swapping is a legit THING in the Marvel universe. For God’s sake this happened to Captain America!

Kaine, the CLONE of Peter Parker with identical memories and everything. In the Sibling Rivaly crossover between Scarlet Spider and Superior Team-Up even HE couldn’t tell that Peter. Was an imposter This guy doesn’t just know Peter well, he IS Peter. And Otto was ranting none too subtley about how Kaine has bad blood with HIM. He doesn’t say he’s Doc Ock but he’s conveying unsubtly to Kaine that he is not Peter Parker and he is not TALKING like Peter Parker either. When his CLONE is still operating under the delusion that he is Peter Parker that’s put it beyond doubt this was ridiculously contrived.

“BTW, Carlie and MJ have talked about the suspicious way Pete has been acting, Carlie just hasnt told MJ directly.”

WHY didn’t Carlie tell MJ! And WHY were she and Peter noticing Peter’s different actions yet being totally blasé about them.

FFS in ‘Kraven’s Last Hunt’ MJ and Peter had been married for just 2 weeks and in that time she was able to deduce from his actions that the guy in the Spider-Man suit was NOT Peter. In the Mark of Kaine an identical clone of Peter approaches her and she is ultimately able to tell (twice) that he is not her husband. And she did this whilst pregnant and stressed out from a life or death situation to say nothing of the fact that Aunt May had recently died which would be weighing on her mind. Yet in Superior her mind was clearer and she was still buying this was Peter. This is enormously bad out of character writing for her

“As for the Avengers scans, it wasnt that no one could read them, its that they all came back NORMAL.”

No, the scans DID NOT come back normal at all. Doc Ock looked at the scans and could TELL something was not normal because he saw ghost Peter was in his mind. Yeah there was a tiny inconsistency in the brain waves but why the heck weren’t there people on the Avengers team that day to take note of stuff like that. Cap, Wolverine, Black Widow and Thor are obviously NOT going to be able to properly read this scientific equipment like Iron Man or Hank Pym or the Beast. ANY of those guys would’ve been able to tell but no only the Avengers who categorically would not be able to properly read the brainwaves were there. Why? Why get the unscientific Avengers? Because of plot contrivances is why.

And where were the telepaths? One telepathic scan from SOMEBODY should have told all. And again these tests come back normal....no one thought he could be a clone? Spider-Man has joked to these people about his clones, they know about them. Correct me if I am wrong but at the time of the Avenger’s physical of Peter wasn’t there a character involved with the Avengers who was supposed to be the living universe? SHE couldn’t tell Doc Ock is Spider-Man? The universe literally didn’t know this?

“Even Dr. Strange and Wolverines tests all came back regular.”

If Dr. Strange with all his power wasn’t able to deduce the truth that’s even MORE contrived!

And what the heck were Wolverine’s test? That he smelt the same? Of course he would.

“There was a tiny inconsistency in the brainwaves, it wasnt that no one could read it, its that it was so small that no one would even take notice of it, except for Peter or Ock if they were to look for it.”

See above for why this is bullshit.

“And the Avengers are STILL very suspicious, if you read the current titles.”

At the time a ‘current title’ was  Superior Team Up #1.

In it the Avengers told him they were wrong to put him in probation and are still just ‘suspicious’ when he INVADED SHADOWLAND WITH AN ARMY!. Because THAT’S so usual for Spider-Man right?

“You're entitled to your opinion, but you cant just make up facts and call it a discussion. I get the impression that you a)Havent read the whole series; b) Had already made up your mind before reading the issues you have read; and c) Havent read the companion stories (i.e. Avenging Spider-Man, Superior Team-up, Hickman's Avengers titles). If you look at the story as a whole, its actually quite good.”

Said the guy who got all the above information I outlined WRONG.

From a technical point of view it doesn’t make sense, it uses contrivances and out of character writing to keep it going. You want to write Doc Ock as Spider-Man. Okay then don’t surround him with people who should be able to figure this out. Or say there is some kind of device redirecting their attention.

Don’t have Doc Ock not act like Doc Ock because that defeats the point of the exercise. Don’t go for deliberate sensationalism or crass storytelling which was essentially everything revolving around him hooking up with Mary Jane and then the oh so lovely page of the Superior Spider-Wanker.

That issue in particular even resolved itself in a contrived manner. Doc Ock begins uttering gibberish which recalled One Moment in Time about “we cannot be together because it’s an unsolvable equation blah blah blah”.

Basically he is saying “I can never be with you because of the danger I put you in”; which is Slott using the character as a mouthpiece.

In the next issue Otto began courting a student at his college because consistency rocks. Even Ghost Peter is out of character at this moment “WOW Ock you did the one thing I could never do and walked away from Mary Jane”. Peter is right he probably can’t walk away from Mary Jane but...does he WANT to? Where the heck is this coming from? What is worse is that it’s so unnecessary. There was a MUCH better explanation for Ock breaking up with MJ. If Ock were in character he could just come to the conclusion that sleeping with MJ under these circumstances would be wrong and beneath him hence he wouldn’t go through with it. If Ock was out of character as he was in their issue but still vaguely in character he could just come to the conclusions that since accessing Peter’s memories he’s begun to have genuine feelings for MJ and doesn’t just want to fuck her, it would involve him having a relationship with here which at this point in time he is incapable of, he doesn’t know how to handle it. I will wholeheartedly admit I was not jazzed about the concept of Superior from the outset. If nothing else I want to read about Peter Parker not Doc Ock and if I did want to read about Doc Ock AS Doc Ock, not as Spider-Man and not as an rotting body.

An arc in a comic is one thing doing this long term all the problems I foresaw have come up as well as some I didn’t even predict. This could have worked if Doc Ock was separated from Peter’s supporting cast who should be able to tell something is amiss but then that defeats a lot of the point of the story. It was a lose-lose situation.

People can enjoy garbage if you want but don’t call it gold.

Part 1

[traincat]

Do you think Uncle Ben and May HAVE to be an older couple? I read a pretty good fanfic where Ben and May were younger (Ben was said to be like Rob Lowe|Chris Traeger, if that helps) and also police officers, and Ben volunteered at the FEAST Shelter. I could go more into detail about what they were like (The fic has long since been deleted) but having Ben and May as police officers really added some themes of power and responsibility, and other stuff I can’t share because word limit.

Let me put it this way: I don’t think Ben and May have to be an older couple, but I do feel it serves the canon better than the opposite. Ben and May being older than the parents of Peter’s peers serves to heighten his sense of isolation from them, and in 616 having a frequently ill much older guardian served to cement both Peter’s independence and his sense of responsibility, and probably had something to do with the fact that Peter, in his later relationships, tends to try and take the role of protector, considering he was the primary family breadwinner after Uncle Ben’s death. That being said, I defended Marisa Tomei’s casting when it happened and I still think there’s nothing wrong with either the casting or her performance; she just happens to exist in a film franchise that has both a major problem with women and a deeply weird desire to reallocate Peter’s primary parental relationship elsewhere. It’s not like they cast a 35yo actress to play Aunt May to a 20yo actor’s Peter. Marisa Tomei is a young looking 50, but she’s still 50 – so she’s an appropriate age to be the guardian of a teenager, if a little younger than what we usually expect of May. (That said: they need to stop making haha isn’t it so funny how she’s HOT now jokes, because no it’s not.) Furthermore, I think we have to acknowledge that how we view age in the modern day isn’t the same as how we viewed it in the 60s. The 50 of today is not the 50 of years past, and the 70 of today isn’t the 70 of the 60s. The tropes Aunt May was originally rooted in – the kindly but naive and flighty aunt figure, ala Aunt Clara of Bewitched – no longer really exist, so we have to move forward with a character who has very naturally evolved and developed her own strength through the years. So while it’s not a deal breaker for me to depict them as younger, and while I do think that trying to stick to a 1960-ish Aunt May depiction in modern adaptations is going to seem dated, I do think it misses some of the nuance if Ben and May aren’t on the older side for parents. My sweet spot in adaptations of May are Spider-Man PS4′s May, who is listed as being in her 60s to Peter’s 23 and who manages the FEAST Center in a very hands on manner, and TASM’s May, who was played by Sally Field when she was in her 60s, and who picks up extra shifts while simultaneously training for a new career. We don’t have an exact age for TASM’s May, but she’s old enough to have been married nearly 40 years when Peter is 17 years old, so she’s most likely at least 60.

All that aside, and I haven’t read the fic in question, I’m not sure how I would feel about Ben and May being cops. My instinct is not positively. For one thing, the one parental figure who already exists in Spider-Man who was a cop is Flash Thompson’s father, who was violently physically abusive towards him during his childhood. For another, it feels too close to Peter’s parents, Richard and Mary, who were both SHIELD agents, and aside from that to Spider-Gwen’s setup with Gwen and her father. Also I’m not so sure that stories about cops relating to power and responsibility is such a good fit in the current day; see the criticisms Spider-Man PS4 received for it’s Spider-Cop gag. But it’s not my fanfic and like I said I haven’t read it, so I don’t know how the author handled that subject matter.

[writinggeisha]

Writing:  How to Describe a Room I’ve noticed lately in the stats that people have been actively searching for “how to describe a room.” Even though I had done a writing prompt that called for using the description of a room, I never did go over the particulars of describing locations.  So for anybody looking for some specific answers, here are my thoughts on describing interior settings, for fiction and prose.

First and foremost, you got to ask yourself, what importance is the room or setting to the story or characters? If the room is only there for a brief passing scene, it may just suffice to say “so-and-so went into the broom closet.  It was dark, cramped, and loaded with brooms.” That may be all you need.

For more significant settings, where you really do want to paint the picture in the readers’ heads and firmly establish a sense of space or ambiance, then of course you’ll want to dig into more details.  The key issue here is that you don’t want to overdo it.  Unless you’re typing out an architectural report or something, there’s no real need for a reader to understand the full dimensions of the space, or what the composition of the walls are, or anything technical like that.  You will want to cover the overall impression of space, color, mood, atmosphere, furnishings, props, and anything else, as long as it’s distinctive, relevant, and contributes to the story or image in some way.

The objects in a room - furniture and stuff - may or may not factor into your scene.  If you say that people are in the living room, chances are that the reader will automatically populate the room with their own idea of what a living room will have:  likely a sofa, a TV, etc.  So there may not be a need to describe what furniture is in that room, especially if such furnishings are not going to be actively used.  On the other hand, if the characters are going to use something, it may be necessary to establish such things early in the scene, so the reader can understand that the given thing exists and the characters aren’t just making it materialize.  For example, if characters are in a room with a gun on the table, and one of the characters grabs the gun and uses it, it’ll help to explain right away that there is indeed a gun on the table.  Otherwise, it’ll sound like the gun just magically appeared on the table.  It may not be necessary for some things (grabbing a knife from the kitchen would be self-explanatory), but this kind of thing should be set up for everything else that isn’t so obvious.

You’ll also want to describe things if they’re not usually associated with a given place.  For example, in Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, some living rooms had expensive lawns in them, with actual soil and grass growing in the middle of the room.  It was important to describe them, because the characters used the indoor lawns, and even commented on them.  Later in the story, one of these lawns was ruined.  It serviced the story (plus, an average reader will not associate grass in a common living room).  For sci-fi and fantasy stories, where settings are imagined and re-imagined more vividly, more description may be necessary to paint a picture of a futuristic or otherworldly setting in the readers’ heads.

Another thing to consider will be what the items of a room, or its decor and layout, says about the characters.  If the room is messy, you can conclude that the character is disorganized, and thus you find another way to show a character trait.  Or, if the room has expensive art, you can infer that a character has refined tastes (or maybe he just pretends to).  The possibilities on this level are limitless; if a detail is relevant to a character, you will want to capitalize on it.

In the end, however, all of this will depend on your own personal writing style.  Different writers will write settings in different ways.  Wordy writers like Stephen King or JRR Tolkein could spend pages and pages talking about the stuff in their rooms; James Patterson never seems to describe any of his settings, especially if they’re common places.  Really, the best advice I could give is to simply approach the scene naturally, and write out the first things that come to mind.  If nothing comes to mind, just proceed with the scene in the given setting with sparse details; chances are that you don’t need details anyway.  If you’re compelled to say more about the setting, then try indulging in such details as your imagination allows, and see what comes out.  It should be a natural occurrence; if you’re stuck on describing a place, it might be best to just skip ahead, write the next scene, and go back in the rewriting session to see if you really need to add anything more.

And when it comes to your own writing style, there is no set way to describe a place.  It’s not like you go through a room step-by-step to introduce the walls, floors, furnishings, etc to a reader.  If anything, this will come off as dry, long, and uninteresting.  If you have to explain every little thing about a room, it would be better to break up the exposition with action or dialogue; you have to keep the story moving, and lingering on interior design may stall plot progression.   You also don’t want to make the language describing the room overly dry or overly flowery; just use your natural narration.  

In summary…

Do:

Keep it simple.

Talk about colors, patterns, decor, and unique architectural details, if they’re relevant.

Talk about furnishings and props, especially if characters use them.

Talk about anything in the room if it reveals something about the characters within.

Talk about space.

Talk about unique details that readers may not usually associate with a given place (especially for sci-fi and fantasy works, where the settings are purposefully different anyway).

Describe it naturally with your own personal writing style and sensibilities.

Don’t:

Get technical or overly-explicit.

Divulge in unnecessary details.

Tell about room’s atmosphere or impression; show it instead.

Overthink or overdo things.

Dump details in one long paragraph.

Describe things in a dull, dry, choppy, or uninteresting manner; use your natural narrative voice.

Describe things that the reader will already assume for a given place, especially if such things don’t contribute to the story.

For some examples, here are some excerpts from my own projects, with varying levels of description (not to mention varying levels of skill and nuance).  I think you’ll find that I’m very light in details, and just give just enough to keep things flowing.  Chances are that I may break my own rules above (I’ve always been pretty bad at “showing not telling”), because it’s as much of a learning process for me as it is for everybody else.

From Rider of the White Horse, Chapter 25

I wrote this story as far back as high school; I’ve always felt this was a very amateurish story with a weak writing style, but it’s serviceable and got the job done.  The description here is pretty bland, doesn’t say much, and quite understated.

Kurt walked towards the old man, and he followed him through the ruins of Tokyo to a squat abandoned building a quarter of a mile away.  There, the old man led Kurt into a relatively clean room with cupboards, a single mattress on the floor, and a low table.   The old man lit a candle that was on the table with a makeshift lighter.  The candle illuminated the room, revealing the old man’s face to Kurt.

The old man went to the corner of the room, where a tub of water sat idle.  Kurt noticed that the man rigged a purification system over the tub, allowing him access to relatively clean water.   The man took some water and some leaves he had stored in a cupboard.   Then he prepared two cups of tea, working diligently with trembling old hands.  Kurt sat at the low table and watched as the old man prepared the tea, observing the man’s technique as he mixed ingredients and stirred them in wooden cups.

From Perfectly Inhuman, Chapter 3

This is one of my most recent works.  I did take the time to describe this area in bigger detail, to give the reader a lavish and futuristic picture.  It reflects on the power and wealth of the Mayor and his government.  Hopefully, you’ll get the impression of wide-open spaces, luxury, and cleanliness.

At the topmost floor, the city became a mere map beneath Mary.  The doors opened, and the guards pushed her out.

She found herself in a large lobby.   The floors were made of colored tiles arranged in jagged patterns, and the walls were made of glass, revealing additional views of the city and the mountains to the east.  A frosted glass partition separated the lobby from a private office.  Silk banners hung from the ceiling.   Polished stone pedestals held golden and silver statues portraying nude men and women.  Everything in the room was rich and lavish; Mary found herself awed, and envious that she never had a place so luxurious.

The guards guided her through a set of glass doors in the frosted glass partition, and they passed into a wide open office space.  The office looked much like the lobby, only instead of statues and banners there were holograms and display screens.   Contrasting with the bright floors and the bright exterior view, there was a black desk on one end of the room, made of a rare dark organic wood.

From Ouroboros:  Demon-Blood, Chapter 11

This is one story I’ve worked with on and off; I’ve been a little wordier with this series of stories than with most others, to try and immerse the audience in a more detailed fantasy world.  Hopefully, you’ll get the feeling of seeing something different and fantastic (and possibly wicked) with this segment.  Note that the term Svartálfar comes from ancient Norse myth, referring to a race of Dark Elves.

In the middle of the woods, the Svartálfar had constructed a large settlement.  It was surrounded by a thick wooden wall, studded with huge wooden thorns and metal spikes.   The area around the wall was cleared of all vegetation, so that it could not be scaled with nearby trees.  There were trees on the other side of the wall, which had platforms and turrets for guards to stand watch on.  The settlement’s gate was a thick wooden door with iron supports; it swung open for us as we approached.

Inside the settlement, the Svartálfar used most of the trees as buildings; they were all hollowed-out to serve as homes, stairwells, storage, and stores.  They also had small wooden shacks and huts in between the trees.  Some buildings were also constructed on the sides of trees and on their branches.  There were scores of elves bustling around, trading with their craftsmen, mentoring their children, and practicing with their weapons.  When I entered the town, they all stopped to gawk at me; I met their gazes with my own look of contempt.

In the middle of the settlement, there was a larger tree, surrounded by a wooden wall with turrets all along it and a single gateway.  I was led through the gate toward the base of the tree, which had an expansive hall jutting out of its bark.  Passing into the hall, I stepped across a polished stone floor; the hall’s curved walls were ornately carved with elfin runes and mosaics.  Twisted pillars held up the ceiling.  At the end of the hall was the throne of the Svartálfar king, Lord Hygric.  It was a large throne ordained with pieces of gold, silver, gems, and there were skulls hanging above it.

[adrian-paul-botta]

Lillian Gish is a very considerable person. She is, furthermore, a lady. The word “lady” has become so outmoded as to seem archaic. Certain people do exist, however, to whom it truly applies, and Lillian is one of them. She is considerate and therefore good-mannered. Her values are good, her humor is good, and she has great good sense. All this excelence is flavored by a charming romanticism on one hand and an astringent sense of the practical on the other. These qualities are supported by a disciplined will, good health, and unflagging enthusiasm and energy, not only for her work but also for all the enjoyable things that life has to offfer. Finally she is and has always been a ravishingly beautiful woman.

Professionally she minds her own business, and film and theater gossip leaves her cold. She turns gently aside, without comment or reproof, from the failings and excesses of those who have attained more recent and inflated reputations. The prevalent sloth, bad manners, extravagance, exhibitionism, caprice and vanity of some stars she finds a curious but uninteresting phenomenon. If questioned about any particular example of a bad behavior or egomania among her colleagues she will discuss only the talent of the person in question and the dangers to which such excess expose it.

Lillian herself is not a vain person, although she believes that actors and actresses should guard their health and their appearance, the better to exercise their metier. Her early training and success as an idealized heroine incline her to cleanliness and prettiness, but she will follow most conscientiously the intentions of any director she respects. It must be admitted, however, that she is a little out of sympathy with the modern taste for comedy of stygian black and for drama that excludes the romantic in relationships in favor of the tortured, the twisted and the perverse.

As a professional she is impeccable. She loves her work and is always ready to tackle the daily responsabilities of whatever role, big or small, she has undertaken. Having contributed in no small degree to the early development of the art of film making under the aegis of D.W. Griffith, and having enjoyed several decades of great success as a film and stage star, she is nevertheless ready and eager to discuss the smallest detail and nuance of whatever role she now accepts.

In Dahomey, where we were filming The Comedians, I remember a day on which Lillian had a particularly difficult scene to play. The temperature was 130 degrees, and there was no shade – not a tree, not a house, not a cafe in which to take occasional refuge. Among the things that Lillian had to endure was being pushed in the face and thrown to the ground (a ground covered with sharp pebbles). As the sequence involved four cars, including a hearse from which a coffin had to be forcibly ejected, the work was slow, and the neccessary detail of rehearsing considerable. Lillian remained calm, cool and alert throughout the long day. Richard Burton, who was also in the scene, finally approached me and courteously suggested that the heat and excessive physical work might be too much for a lady of Lillian’s delicacy and that perhaps we should stop work for the day. Naturally, I put the suggestion to Lillian. “Nonsense,” she replied. “We are here to work, and we haven’t completed the scene. Anyway you need the sun – and it will be just as hot tomorrow. I prefer to work until sundown.” And that is exactly what she did. At 5:45 P.M. she finished the scene and gave a fine performance in it.

We all then drove back to headquarters. Lillian arrived at my villa later, looking fresh and radiant in a charming evening dress suitable to the climate, and we dined together. We discussed the theater, African politics, and the religious aspects of Graham Greene’s literary work. At 11:30 she retired, saying that she was looking forward to meeting everyone on the set next day – at 6:30 A.M. The evening demonstrated to me that a dedicated, disciplined actress is by no means inevitably a bore. Lillian would be equally at home with the Beatles and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. And they would equally appreciate her.

Peter Glenville

(The Movies, Mr. Griffith and Me)

  The Comedians – 1967

Director: Peter Glenville

Writers: Graham Greene (novel and screenplay)

There are also some hilarious scenes involving the Vegetarian candidate for U.S. President (Paul Ford) and his wife (brilliantly played by Lillian Gish). And there are some well-photographed location shots showing voodoo ceremonies and all that. The atmosphere of the Caribbean is invoked convincingly, if to no particular purpose, and there are semi-controversial statements about U.S. policy in Latin America (“Rebels only become Communist when the Yankees insist”). The movie tries to be serious and politically significant, and succeeds only in being tedious and pompous. Still, you have to hand it to Liz and Dick: For them to make a movie attacking Papa Doc Duvalier’s dictatorship took even more courage than when Senator Dirksen defended the marigold. Richard Burton … Brown Elizabeth Taylor … Martha Pineda Alec Guinness … Major H. O. Jones Peter Ustinov … Ambassador Manuel Pineda Paul Ford … Smith Lillian Gish … Mrs. Smith Georg Stanford Brown … Henri Philipot Roscoe Lee Browne … Petit Pierre Gloria Foster … Mrs. Philipot James Earl Jones … Dr. Magiot Zakes Mokae … Michel Douta Seck … Joseph Raymond St. Jacques … Captain Concasseur Cicely Tyson … Marie Therese

Lillian would be equally at home with the Beatles and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lillian Gish is a very considerable person. She is, furthermore, a lady. The word "lady" has become so outmoded as to seem archaic.