#Anti Hero Journey

[theomenmedia]

Themes Explored In The "Venom" Film Franchise so Far And What To Expect From "Venom: The Last Dance"

Dive into the final chapter of Eddie Brock's saga with Venom: The Last Dance! From isolation to cosmic showdowns, what thematic finale awaits?

Dive into the thematic elements explored in the "Venom" franchise so far right here: https://www.theomenmedia.com/post/venom-s-thematic-evolution-a-deep-dive-into-the-last-dance-expectations

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

The similarities between Julius Caesar’s assassination and the Ides of Marsh are well documented in fandom. It’s also generally agreed that the fall of the Night’s Watch will mirror the fall of the Roman Republic, which was quite ironically brought on by Caesar’s death. But I never see it acknowledged that Julius Caesar, some time after the establishment of Octavian’s Augustus’ rule, became deified (meaning that he was worshipped as a god or to put it bluntly, Julius Caesar ascended to godhood).

What does this have to do with Jon Snow? Well, apotheosis (1, 2) is one of the most important stages that comes towards the end of a hero’s journey. Here, the hero reaches some higher level of understanding or personhood, and this allows them to complete the hardest trials still to come in their journey. We see mental changes, but these could also be accompanied by physical changes. A good example of this in high fantasy is Gandalf’s death and return as Gandalf the White. In other myths and stories, we can point to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In ASOIAF, we have mini versions of this with Bran Stark and Jojen Reed, two children who experience life or death situations but came back with heightened magical power (Bran especially).

Jon Snow is currently at his “journey to the underworld”/“belly of the whale” moment, where he is to (presumably) face his greatest trials. Apotheosis usually comes after this stage (and is often preceded by other stages such as the “meeting of the goddess” and “atonement with the father”, both of which could very well appear in Jon’s journey as he learns of his true identity and purpose).

But what would apotheosis mean for Jon? That’s the key question. He is sure to experience profound mental changes and trauma, but these are sure to be accompanied by great magical changes that manifest physically. In the same way that Bran came out of his coma and started his journey as the last greenseer (well, once Bloodraven kicks the bucket), Jon is sure to come out of his death experience a far more powerful being. The thing is that Jon needs to change into the hero Westeros needs and the magical act of dying and coming back to life should play a role in that.

However, it won’t all be fine and dandy for him. GRRM has criticized Gandalf’s return where he seemingly came back to life better than ever with no great effects. In the same way that Jon is literally experiencing a descent into the underworld (a step that is sometimes figurative for many modern heroes), we can also ascertain that he will experience a very literal ascension into godhood (or the closest thing we have to that in ASOIAF). But magic always comes with a price. And whatever sort of “god” Jon turns into post-resurrection, he won’t be a very pretty one.

[besttropeveershowdown]

The Most Annoying Trope Showdown: Round 1, Poll 11

Hero's Journey

The archetypal plot structure (read the TVTropes page if you don't know what it is).

Propaganda:

Horrifically overused, mostly because a lot of writing advice books claim it's the *only* story structure that exists (it is not).

Unrequited Love ASwitcheroo

A character has an unrequited crush on another character, but when they get over that, their former love interest develops a crush on them.

Propaganda:

For when you want to shake things up a bit in your “Will They, Won’t They?” subplot but you’re too scared to actually answer right now. Like yeah, relationships can be complicated like that, but this trope usually feels too cheap and contrived to keep me invested. Bonus points if the switch happens in the same episode (i.e. Character A falls out of love with Character B and five minutes later B realizes they’re actually in love with A)

[alyssalovestaylor]

the journey of the koi fish guitar

[yourhighness6]

Every time I see an Aang stan argue that a character arc doesn't have to be about character growth I die a little inside

[folklore-girl]

WHEN DID YOU BECOME A SWIFTIE?

AAH LAST YEAR? WHEN MIDNIGHTS CAME OUT I LISTENED TO ANTI-HERO AND I WAS HOOKED. YOU A SWIFTIE TOO?

[soonyoullgetbetterx]

I Get Older But Just Never Wiser

As the wise Swift once said (sang)..

I have this thing where I get older but just never wiser Midnights become my afternoons When my depression works the graveyard shift All of the people I've ghosted stand there in the room

I should not be left to my own devices They come with prices and vices I end up in crisis (tale as old as time) I wake up screaming from dreaming One day I'll watch as you're leaving 'Cause you got tired of my scheming (For the last time)

I've felt like that for quite some time. Where with every year passing I get older but never wiser. I keep on making the same mistakes (with different people) wishing it would result in different outcomes. In a sense, it's like throwing a well oiled pasta on a wall hoping one of them would stick. Which as we all know, a well oiled pasta would never stick -that's the whole point of oiling it up in the first place!

I don't know what does that say about me. That I'm someone who still believe in the good in people that I would keep on giving them chances after chances, or I'm simply someone who didn't know better? Then again maybe I'm simply color blind and those red flags really be looking green most of the time. Maybe now I'm just coming up with excuses, I don't know.

Sooner or later, it's time to break the cycle I know. It won't be easy let alone effortless. On the contrary, it will be treacherous, rigorous, and takes plenty of effort. However, if I'd like to end the intergenerational trauma that runs in my family, it needs to start with me. Even though it might not be the easiest job.

Deep down all I ever wanted is a genuine heartfelt connection with people I care about. Yes, we might disagree, argue, even fight sometimes. However, at the end of the day if we could each be accountable and own up to our part in such conflicts, I believe we could repair it to work for a better connection in the long run.

I also believe none of us should ever be left alone to fend for ourselves, let alone be left to our own devices especially when we're going through a hard time. The impact of having a great support from others, especially the ones we care about, is tremendous. Even if it might not feel like it when we're going through a rough patch. Nothing heals us better than a genuine reciprocal connection with others.

Then again, even without you bringing up the whole terms and conditions of a good satisfying connection, people who truly genuinely care about you won't drain you. They won't keep scores with you. And most importantly, they won't hurt you for the sake of hurting you, they will care about how their words and actions make you feel.

Yes, they might hurt you every now and then, but it won't be intentionally and when you brought it up to them, they won't get defensive. Instead, they'll reflect and follow up with a changed behavior to refrain from hurting you again. When you've talked things out and there's no change for the better perhaps there's change for the worse, maybe it's about time to reevaluate the connection and if necessary cut them off.

Unfortunately, not all relationships are build equal and there are some that are way trickier to navigate, especially when there is a power dynamic at play as well as societal norms/expectations. Maybe cutting it off would be looked down upon, then another option could be to limit your interaction. Bottom line is, you need to do what's best for you and only you know that. Sometimes, you need to build your own support system and that's okay too.

I guess, even if I get older but never wiser, at least I get smarter.

Don't be a stranger,

soonyoullgetbetterx

[sleepynegress]

@gffa Ehhh... It's not that simple. So, imagine for a minute that you come from another land with your own culture, and a whole village full of people you see as family. You have parents who love you and you love, who all are killed by the Jedi Order, and your mom specifically is killed by the very person who became your teacher. Your home is wiped out. GONE. As well as everyone you loved. For years he never said anything. And when you finally find out the truth, the person who did it justifies the act, and doesn't apologize for killing your mothers....your home, and all its people. The Acolyte is interesting because the whole idea was that shades of the theme of good vs. evil, the shades of light/dark, color in unexpected ways. We the audience are not meant to view Osha's vengeance in such a linear fashion. There's a reason why Sol never apologized, and a reason why Vernestra ultimately threw Sol's lifelong reputation under the bus (the most reprehensible act in the episode IMO), and a reason why Qimir was so obviously terrified of her while she whispered that she was sure he was dead (that she had killed him)... Qimir's former Jedi master thought she had saber-whipped him to. death. That particular imagery and injury was invoked on purpose, yall. Jedi are meant to be seen in this show as moreso religious oppressors. Please, understand that this was ultimately a story mirroring RL assimilations/stolen generations (a form of genocide) where the children from First Nations had their hair cut, told to erase their heritage and taught in Christian boarding schools by people who thought they were just as justified, in "helping" as Sol did. This came from their faith in a benevolent God. So, I ask you... Are the North Sentinelese, evil for killing the bible-thumper who came to their island unarmed to give them Jesus?? Were the Hawaiians evil for killing Captain Cook??? I absolutely 100% believe Sol loved Osha, but he also killed her mother and took part in destroying her people and home and STILL ACTED JUSTIFIED IN THAT as she choked the life out of him. I really think had he apologized there's the slimmest chance she might have spared him... But honestly? Perhaps deep down he didn't want forgiveness. But no, IMO people who kill invading religious oppressors who destroy a people and a culture simply because the difference terrifies them? Aren't the "bad guys". And again, this was part of the theme. Turning those expectations inside out. I can't tell you how many dudebros I saw say "Well what did she expect turning into smoke like that?! That's terrifying! Of course he would stab that!.."

And I'm like *woosh!* That outsider's gaze and prejudice is in part a product of the Jedi feeling their emotion-suppressing system makes them objective deciders for all...even in spaces and cultures they are ignorant of. Anyway. That Acolyte was a gift, and I can't wait for the next season.

P.S./EDIT I think the original view in the post comes in part from the fact that we rarely see the stories from history I allude to depicted at all, forget from the perspective of the people being invaded. So, it's difficult to even clock the similarities here, or conceptualize how you (and I mean the objective audience you) might feel in that situation.

One thing I did appreciate is that The Acolyte did not hold back on that Osha went full dark side, that Sol's kyber crystal was crushed by her anger and hate to the point that it bled into a red saber. She straight up murdered someone who was not fighting back. She killed him because she was hurt and angry, not because he was a threat. Osha's feelings of betrayal and rage were valid, her actions were not. She murdered an unarmed man who was not fighting back, who had no intention of fighting back, who literally forgave her as she choked the life out of him, and nothing of her actions were justified. She wasn't even regretful about it. The dark side can be humanized to a degree, it always has been in Star Wars, that's nothing new. Anakin's everything ever, Maul's pain and desperation for a connection through an apprentice, Dooku's clinging to his care for people like Yaddle or Asajj, the dark side has never been about detached or unsympathetic anger. It's always come from a very human place, that's why the Jedi constantly caution that no one is beyond it. But Osha embraced it here, she stepped over the line and murdered a defenseless man because of her rage, not because it was in any way justified as a killing, and the kyber crystal screamed and bled because of it. You don't get a red saber by being justified, you get it by crossing the line into an act of evil. And props to The Acolyte for not shying away from that, as human as Osha is and will continue to be, her actions were over the line of evil.

[joncronshawauthor]

Why Dark Fantasy Heroes Maintain Their Humanity

The best dark fantasy understands that even in shadow, some lights still flicker. Characters who deal death, who walk morally grey paths, who compromise their principles – they still carry fragments of their original humanity. These remnants often manifest not in what they do, but in what they refuse to do. Soren’s Moral Anchors in Guild of Assassins My novel Guild of Assassins explores this…

[enchantingepics]

Story Prompt 86

"Why bother being a hero, ya know? You end up just saving the very ones who caused you pain," one of them remarked, stirring his coffee absentmindedly.

The other, leaning forward with a furrowed brow, countered, "But isn't that what makes being a hero worthwhile? To rise above the hurt and still extend a hand to those in need?"

A cynical chuckle escaped the first person's lips. "Sure, but why put yourself through that? Why not take the easier route, embrace the darkness, and be the one pulling the strings instead?"

"Because being a hero isn't about taking the easy route. It's about doing what's right, even when it's hard," the second person insisted, their gaze unwavering.

The first person leaned back in their chair, a sardonic smile playing on their lips. "But tell me, what's so right about not being able to save everyone? Isn't it better to be in control, to have the power to shape your own destiny?"

[the-far-bright-center]

Yes, exactly. The problem with Disney's fake-sequels is that from the very start they acted as though all the most beautiful, meaningful, and transcendent elements of the original saga were in need of 'subversion'. They completely ignored the fact that the resolution of Luke’s Hero's Journey in Return of the Jedi already *was* a subversion of expectations:

"“You’ve failed, your highness.” Luke says. “I am a Jedi. Like my father before me.” This wasn’t how 80s action movies were supposed to end. The good guy is justified in killing the bad guy. And the bad guy is Darth Vader. Of that, there can be no doubt. If three films of evil hi-jinks wasn’t enough evidence to convince us, we had The Jedi, the ultimate good guys in the Star Wars galaxy, the wise mentors as personified by Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, telling Luke in no uncertain terms that he must kill Vader; he couldn’t be saved. He was all evil. More machine than man. Instead our action hero opens himself to attack from the Emperor by discarding his weapon, sacrifices himself for the ideals of true heroism, true love. Hope and honor. It’s our first indication that the old ways, the old institutions, the old guard maybe aren’t so flawless and pure after all. Maybe, just maybe, the Jedi were wrong." — Michael O’Connor, Beyond Good & Evil in the Prequels

The entirety of the Lucas saga hinges on this very moment. Without it, there's no point, no purpose, no meaning. The Prequels require this in order to allow for a gleam of light and hope to shine through their immense tragedy. Anakin’s return to the Light in response to Luke’s love and compassion is the true resolution of the Prequels’ forbidden love story and a vindication of Padme's dying words. The Original Trilogy likewise requires this in order to allow it to function as the transcendent happy ending of the mythic story that it was always meant to be. The story was never supposed to be a tragedy all the way through. It was never meant to be cynical or ‘realistic’ in its outcome. It’s a fairytale, and at the end of RotJ, the spell is broken and the inner and outer darkness is defeated once and for all. And like any fairytale, the story is supposed to end in eucatastrophe, with that final, confirming glimpse of salvation. If you then go and try to 'subvert' this into the opposite type of story (one in which Luke is portrayed as a 'failure'), it negates every single thing that's come before. So removing the 'heart' from Luke Skywalker doesn't just make his character an empty, soulless shell, it renders the entire saga meaningless.

i think the reason disney luke doesn't work, has never worked and will never work is that they're seeing him through the lens of a cultural phenomenon they feel they have to conquer instead of understanding he's literally the heart of the story and compromising the heart will always be in detriment of everything else. you make your heart bitter and resentful the entire thing falls apart. you stripe him of his kindness and optimism and even his humanity by replacing him with a computer generated mask and you're left with nothing except aesthetics. superficial glow. he's a party trick now. nothing else.

[filmcourage]

What Is An Anti-Hero And Why Do Audiences Love Them? - John Bucher

[luna-azzurra]

Writing a Morally gray character

Think about their backstory, what shaped them into who they are? What do they believe in? And, most importantly, what pushes them to get out of bed every morning and keep going? These characters aren’t simple good or bad. They’re caught in the middle, in that murky, complicated space between black and white. That’s where they get interesting because they’re constantly wrestling with themselves, trying to figure out the right choice, or if the “right” choice even exists for them.

You need to show this internal battle. Imagine your character being torn between what they believe is morally right and what they actually want. This is where the real drama comes in, it’s like watching them juggle their principles with their desires in real-time. They’ll mess up, and they’ll make decisions that are sometimes questionable, but that’s what makes them human and relatable. One way to really highlight their complexity is by putting them in situations where there’s no clear answer. You know, those moments in life where everything’s kind of a mess, and you’re stuck trying to figure out what the hell you’re supposed to do? Your character should face situations like that. These gray areas create tension because readers won’t know which direction the character will go, and honestly, your character might not know either.

And don’t forget, growth is a huge part of writing a morally gray character. People aren’t static, they change based on what happens to them, and your character should too. Maybe they start off with a strong sense of morality but, over time, that starts to shift. Or maybe they start with shaky ethics and slowly become a better person as they learn from their mistakes. Growth can also go the other way, they could spiral downward, giving in to darker impulses. Either way, they need to evolve, just like people do in real life. That’s what keeps the story fresh and unpredictable. The last thing you want is a character that stays the same the whole way through.

Also, please, no stereotypes. A morally gray character doesn’t have to be a brooding anti-hero with a tragic past (unless that’s your vibe, but even then, switch it up). Give them quirks that make them unique. Maybe they have unexpected motivations, like they’re doing something shady for a cause they genuinely believe in, or they’ve got a weird sense of humor that throws people off. Whatever it is, make sure they feel like an individual, not just a copy-paste character we’ve all seen a million times.

Even when your character makes decisions that aren’t exactly clean-cut or heroic, the reader still needs to understand why. Show their vulnerabilities, why they doubt themselves, why they hesitate, and why they ultimately make the choices they do. It’s all about making them relatable, even when they’re walking that fine line between right and wrong. People might not always agree with them, but they should at least be able to see where they’re coming from.

And remember, every choice your character makes should have consequences. They don’t exist in a bubble. Their decisions should ripple out and affect not only them but the people around them. Maybe they make a selfish decision, and it ends up hurting someone they care about, or they try to do the right thing, and it blows up in their face. One last thing, just because your character lives in that gray area doesn’t mean they don’t have any sense of right or wrong. They might have their own personal code they follow, even if it doesn’t line up with society’s morals. Maybe they justify their actions in a way that makes sense to them, even if other people wouldn’t agree. It’s all about exploring that space where they’re not totally good, but not totally bad either. That’s where things get really interesting.

Think about where your character is going. Is their journey going to push them to become a better version of themselves? Will they fall back into old patterns and never really change? Or will they stay stuck in that moral gray zone, constantly torn between doing what’s right and doing what feels right for them?

[forlornfig]

Reread wicked again. I love the musical with all my heart but the book has something really special to it. It goes against the whole chosen-one trope and instead details the lives of children, students, adults moving through the world while facism rises around them. And like regardless of what their views are- they’re pretty powerless to stop it. They can only experience it.

I understand that this may make the plot seem slow or oddly paced but it’s not really about the hero’s journey, it’s about ordinary people’s lives. Elphaba is NOT the hero, or even the anti-hero. We might agree with her morals over other characters but she actually accomplishes very little. Almost every moral crusade she undertakes fails. She dies as just one of the many symbols of the resistance. The most productive rebellions we hear about comes from the Vinkus allyships and that happens in the background. Even the succession of munchkinland is a controversial event for its citizens.

Wicked isn’t a book about good saving the day, or about compassion unifying the country.

At the end of the book, Elphaba and Glinda are divided by morals, Fiyero died for a cause he was never that much a part of, and Boq and the others have retreated into the background to protect their own. The wizard leaves yes, but he leaves behind a society in political turmoil. Munchkinland is facing re-annexation, the Vinkus is under attack, the Animals and the Quadlings have been shoved almost out of existence. The wizard can’t even be called the true Villain because his leaving does miraculously turn society back to “good”.

Wicked is about radicalism and facism can very quickly become the norm for a society through a series of tiny and almost ignorable steps for those not directly affected. It’s about waking up and realizing that all of a sudden you can’t remember the last time you saw an Animal walking free through the city.

[fefairys]

this is one is important as fuck i see so many people not understand this and it drives me crazy

"Sburb ruins, mythic challenges, and personal quests generally tend to come off as shallow busywork, stage props, or set pieces in a spurious Hero's Journey. Rose either faintly glimpses this truth at this early stage, or she's just hitting her rebellious teen stride. Either way, she doesn't take the surface value of the quest seriously at all, and only wants to smash it apart and loot the secrets. My sense is that the average reader reacts to this impulse unfavorably. Because readers watch the formula play out so often, they are trained heavily to respect the journey of the hero, to anticipate and crave its fulfillment, to see it as something verging on contractual in their relationship with a story. So a gut-response to this recklessness is like, "ROSE, NO! STOP THAT! You simply must complete your quest and play the rain!" What comes with this view is the feeling that her evolution as a character is only being delayed for a bit while she gets some anti-narrative foolishness out of her system, and then we'll get down to business and watch her do her quest, play a whole BUNCH of rain, and reap the narrative satisfaction. There's just one problem: she never does that. This candy-coated Kiddie Kwest is at no point ever taken seriously by Rose or the narrative itself, nor should it be.

When trying to parse character arcs, we look out for certain beacons. So when we hear "play the rain," we're like, ah, GOT IT. That's Rose's arc. Once she finally gets over this destructive teen bullshit, she can wise up, play the rain, and her arc will be finished. Wrong. This is almost a red herring arc. Her quest on this planet, its patronizing presentation, its intrinsic shallowness, is a mirage surrounding her that represents a fully regimented series of milestones for achievement and personal growth, much as society dubiously presents to young people in many forms. The true arc-within-the-arc is actually an upside-down version of what it appears to be. What Rose is doing now, which seems to be misguided recklessness taking her further away from the truth of herself, is actually better seen as a good start to her real journey: breaching the mirage of regimented growth, exposing it for the charade it is, and pulling the truth out of it. The real conflict in her arc comes not from the fact that she refuses to take it seriously, by destroying it and taking shortcuts. It's the opposite. It's that, upon trashing her planet, she continues to have this nagging sense that she should be taking this quest seriously, much like how a young adult may have a nagging sense of guilt that they aren't "being an adult right" by the time they approach adulthood. And this nagging, unanswerable guilt arises from the truth that the regimentation of adulthood is completely fake. It was always a mirage. Learning this, making peace with it, is part of the growing process for many, and it is for her too." -Andrew Hussie

intrinsically queer as fuck, too, btw

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Villain Archetypes

Many of the great villains that oppose classic heroes fall into a handful of villain archetypes:

Anti-villain: The anti-villain is a villain archetype in which the bad guy has a sympathetic motivation or appealing characteristics. In the same way that an anti-hero is ostensibly a good guy with villainous or immoral tendencies, an anti-villain may have justifiable, noble goals or even a good side. Example: Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs (portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in the film version).

The beast: A classic villain whose goal is to terrorize and attempt to defeat the main character, the beast is a literal monster. This type of villain cannot be reasoned with and is often found in the horror or science fiction genres. The whale from Moby Dick and the shark from Jaws are examples of this type of villain.

The bully: Bullies serve as simple, straightforward opposition to the protagonist. This character archetype is sometimes marked by a backstory that explains their mean and oppressive tendencies, such as a childhood marked by abuse or insecurity. Other times, they are simply mean for the sake of being mean. Examples include Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Fletcher from the film Whiplash.

The machine: The machine is similar to the beast, with one major difference: It is a technological construct and is therefore lifeless and incapable of pain, fear, and emotion. The machine can often be found in science fiction thrillers—like Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron or Arnold Schwarzenegger’s robotic killing machine in The Terminator.

The mastermind: The mastermind opposes the protagonist by overseeing a brilliant, diabolical master plan. They are a gifted schemer and evil genius who attempts to defeat the protagonist mentally as opposed to physically. Great villains in the mastermind tradition include Hans Gruber from Die Hard and Lex Luthor from the Superman series.

Evil incarnate: This villain personifies evil itself, offering little in the way of character development or backstory. This type of evildoer serves as an obstacle to the hero’s journey and is primarily found in fantasy and superhero genres. Examples include Sauron from The Lord of the Rings, Darth Vader from Star Wars, and the Joker from The Dark Knight.

The henchman: The henchman exists to do the dirty work of someone else, usually the mastermind or another major evil character in the story. They are functionally the sidekick of the main villain. Though they usually lack the villain’s brains, they make up for it in brawn. Examples include Boba Fett from Star Wars and the monkeys from The Wizard of Oz.

The fanatic: The fanatic’s villainy is driven by an extreme ideology. Oftentimes, they are propelled by religion or a twisted moral belief that gives them fuel to carry out their twisted mission. The serial killer John Doe from the movie Seven is a true villain in the fanatic tradition.

Tips for Writing Compelling Villains

When it comes to writing villains who transcend cliches, there are 4 techniques that can elevate your writing:

Make sure your villain has a strong connection to your hero. A true villain is inextricably connected to the hero and aids in the hero’s character development.

Make them a worthy opponent. A great villain is a strong and worthy adversary to your hero, directly opposing the hero archetype of your protagonist. The villain shouldn’t be weak and easily beaten, nor should they be so powerful that they can only be defeated by random chance. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes’s arch-nemesis Moriarty is a brilliant criminal mastermind. Having a villain who is equal in skill and intelligence to your hero will raise the stakes of their encounters, creating a credible threat to your hero.

Put yourself in your villain’s shoes. When it’s time for your villain to act, put yourself in their place. Think about challenges or hardships that might tempt people to act out or behave badly. How do you react to bad things? Tap into those emotions and try to apply them to your villain.

Consider your villain’s motivation. Why does your villain want to rule with an iron fist? Why do they want to put the damsel in distress? As with your main character, determining your antagonist’s motivation can help you unlock other aspects of their character, such as their goals and their personality.

Source ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs ⚜ Villains