#Battle Between Good Vs Evil

[enchantingepics]

Story Prompt 102

Circling the chair, a tense standoff unfolded between two contrasting figures. One, with an aura of mischief, stood boldly, while the other, marked by recent turmoil, faced them with a mix of defiance and curiosity.

"Come on, join the fun," the mischievous one urged with a playful grin. "Let's stir things up a bit."

The other shook their head adamantly, refusing to be swayed. "I won't be a part of your reckless schemes."

But the mischievous one persisted, undeterred by the rejection. "You can't deny there's a spark between us. Why not embrace it?"

As they bantered back and forth, the tension crackled, reaching a crescendo with the sudden intrusion of a radio broadcast. Its announcement labeled one of them as a fugitive, casting a shadow of suspicion over their interaction.

Curses escaped the accused's lips as their secret was laid bare. The mischievous one couldn't help but feel a surge of intrigue, wondering what secrets lay hidden beneath the surface.

"I got too close to something I shouldn't have," the accused confessed, their voice laced with desperation. "I've been on the run for months."

Moved by their vulnerability, the mischievous one approached cautiously, sensing an opportunity amidst the chaos. As they drew nearer, a forbidden attraction simmered beneath the surface, threatening to ignite.

"What if we took them down together?" the accused proposed, a glimmer of hope in their eyes. "And then you can decide if you want to be the hero."

The mischievous one chuckled, seeing through the facade with ease. "You got yourself caught on purpose, didn't you?"

Caught off guard, the accused hesitated before admitting the truth. "Maybe," they conceded, a hint of mischief dancing in their gaze.

[rhythmicreverie]

In the stars' grand cosmic ballet, A lost sibling, once anew, Brought chaos in this family play. Dark forces clashed, and light prevailed, As love and strength redefined the tale.

[mindfulldsliving]

Satan's Punishment: A Thoughtful Latter-day Saint Response to Michelle Grim of Life After Ministries

Understanding Satan’s Punishment: A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Michelle Grim’s Insights When we think about Satan’s punishment, it’s crucial to understand its significance in Latter-day Saint theology. Critics often misunderstand this topic, especially those like Michelle Grim from Life After Ministries, who question the relationship between Jesus and Satan. In Latter-day Saint belief, both…

[theversevoyager]

In the land of Arden, darkness descended as an ancient evil rose. A band of heroes united to vanquish the malevolent force. With courage and cunning, they battled through hordes of shadowy creatures, their hearts burning with determination. In the climactic duel, light triumphed over darkness, restoring peace to Arden's people. The heroic tale echoed through the ages, inspiring future generations.

[luna-azzurra]

Conflict Isn’t Just Plot, It’s Identity vs. Identity

The biggest battles don’t happen on battlefields. They happen inside people. The best conflict isn’t just good vs. evil…

it’s who I am vs. who I think I should be.

It’s loyalty vs. self-preservation.

It’s love vs. pride.

Every decision a character makes should be a fight between two parts of themselves. If their choices are too easy, you’re writing a puppet, not a person.

[olderthannetfic]

would putting a fictional character through real life awful events (something on the news, an article, famous tragedy etc) "allowed" or would that be too far?

No disrespect at all, genuine question. Was curious to how these things work

--

Allowed? By whom? The fiction police?

This is a stupid way to frame this. Big names write distasteful Two White People Fall In Love Against A Backdrop of Brown Tragedy all the fucking time. Plenty of these things are critically acclaimed and/or financially successful.

Whether you personally should make art about a real life tragedy is a personal judgment call. It's about whether it's in good taste and whether it's kind, not whether it's allowed.

A common rule of thumb is to look at how recent something is. The more recent, the more tasteless. Another is to think about how much you "own" the real life events in question. If it's lockdown, lots of us experienced that. If you personally lost someone in tragedy X, you have something of a claim on it. Another way people look at this is to ask whether the art needs to be about that tragedy and whether it's doing something productive culturally and politically for the people most related to that tragedy.

It's fine to make art about horrible things from real life.

It's usually considered pretty rude to use horrible things from real life as a disposable backdrop for relationship angst between your blorbos.

--

To pick a real example, Memories of Murder launched Bong Joon Ho to international fame. It's directly about that famous unsolved (at the time) serial killer case that like 90% of Korean crime dramas are riffing off of. The film is all about police brutality and incompetence and the emotional devastation of everyone around the case, from the survivors to the police themselves. The sexual violence isn't shown on screen.

The director commented that he was partly addressing the film to the unknown murderer, and that's why it ends with that character looking into the screen.

This film is massively influential. I'm pretty sure half of the cinematography choices in Beyond Evil are lifted directly from it. People are generally cool with it because it was grappling with something significant to Korean culture, not just doing disaster tourism elsewhere, and because it wasn't luridly obsessed with filming the actual crimes.

Other Korean dramas and films tend to fictionalize the case. Having a similar but fictional set of crimes gives them more artistic latitude and less of a responsibility to the victims.

--

The Battle of Algiers was made by an Italian guy, but nobody cares. It's an unflinching look at French brutality and is pretty clearly on the side of the Algerians even if it also humanizes the French characters and some of the bystanders getting blown up in the quest for freedom. (The director claimed it was neutral, which it is, comparatively, but...)

It's shot in a highly realistic style and does not sensationalize. Many of the actors are non professionals who lived through the real events.

The upshot is that it is considered important political art with a right to tell that story.

--

On the other hand, The Last Face faced massive criticism for being about the feeeeelings of two foreign aid workers against a backdrop of African suffering that the film didn't really engage with or seem to care about. I've only seen part of one cut of the film, but what I saw was pretty dire in a noble savage way. Some white guy was talking about how ~inspirational~ this woman was for still dancing after gruesome sexual violence. She's barely a character. She's just there so he can be inspired. It's the kind of art that gets made by outsiders with their heads up their asses.

There have been several cases of contentious fanfics with a similar premise: The OTP falls in love while helping with the disaster in [Haiti/Africa/wherever].

The key ingredients for failing and getting yelled at vs. succeeding are:

How good are your art skills? The better the art, the easier it is to get a pass.

Was the art actually about the tragedy, or is the tragedy set dressing for a story that could have happened anywhere?

Is this story that could have happened anywhere also something frivolous and fun like a romance, albeit an angsty one? The lighter the subject matter and aim of the art, the harder it is to get away with a real world tragedy setting.

Is this your tragedy? Are you processing something that happened in your community or to you personally? (For example, if you lost someone in the Pulse shooting, I'd count that as your tragedy, but if you were one of the endless whiny US queer kids flailing about it for a year while ignoring a million other tragedies that happened to older, less hot people despite living across the country and knowing none of the victims, I would not.)

--

How these things work depends heavily on the cultural forces in play. Are you from a rich country and writing insensitively about a tragedy in a poor one? x1000 if you're from a country that formerly colonized the site of the tragedy. Do you actually understand the tragedy you're writing about? Are you a good enough writer that your writing feels nuanced when you mean it to?

I really cannot emphasize this enough: the better you are at your craft, the more likely that a terrible, never-do-this idea will work just fine. I fucking love The Ice House and ship the leads despite it starting with a douchebag male cop harassing a "lesbian". The book is 1. good and 2. by a woman. The TV version stars Daniel Craig at his most subtle. On paper, this cop character should not be able to come back from such an inauspicious start, but it works. Every friend I've recced it to is like "There is no way!" and then ends up shipping it too.

The "rules" work differently if you're just that good.

No one is "allowed" or "not allowed". It's more about whether you'll upset people with a closer tie to the bad real world thing you're using...

But even then, some people will always be over-sensitive princesses who think only they have a claim on some topic when you actually have every right to it too. There will always be an outlier who finds some art offensive that everyone else from their same demographic thinks is great.

--

As a general rule of thumb, I would not use a real and recent tragedy/natural disaster/etc. as the backdrop for a fanfic about the OTP getting together. Just make up a fake earthquake or plane crash.

This is not something you must do: it's just something that tends to be in better taste.

If you're writing historical fiction about events at least 300 years old, people generally do not care what you do as long as it isn't glaringly offensive about colonialism or something.

If you're making political art about the real world, you probably need the real event in there with all its connotations and nuance.

--

Everything is allowed, anon. But can you take the heat?

[eelhound]

"I think Homer outwits most writers who have written on the War [fantasy archetype], by not taking sides.

The Trojan war is not and you cannot make it be the War of Good vs. Evil. It’s just a war, a wasteful, useless, needless, stupid, protracted, cruel mess full of individual acts of courage, cowardice, nobility, betrayal, limb-hacking-off, and disembowelment. Homer was a Greek and might have been partial to the Greek side, but he had a sense of justice or balance that seems characteristically Greek — maybe his people learned a good deal of it from him? His impartiality is far from dispassionate; the story is a torrent of passionate actions, generous, despicable, magnificent, trivial. But it is unprejudiced. It isn’t Satan vs. Angels. It isn’t Holy Warriors vs. Infidels. It isn’t hobbits vs. orcs. It’s just people vs. people.

Of course you can take sides, and almost everybody does. I try not to, but it’s no use; I just like the Trojans better than the Greeks. But Homer truly doesn’t take sides, and so he permits the story to be tragic. By tragedy, mind and soul are grieved, enlarged, and exalted.

Whether war itself can rise to tragedy, can enlarge and exalt the soul, I leave to those who have been more immediately part of a war than I have. I think some believe that it can, and might say that the opportunity for heroism and tragedy justifies war. I don’t know; all I know is what a poem about a war can do. In any case, war is something human beings do and show no signs of stopping doing, and so it may be less important to condemn it or to justify it than to be able to perceive it as tragic.

But once you take sides, you have lost that ability.

Is it our dominant religion that makes us want war to be between the good guys and the bad guys?

In the War of Good vs. Evil there can be divine or supernal justice but not human tragedy. It is by definition, technically, comic (as in The Divine Comedy): the good guys win. It has a happy ending. If the bad guys beat the good guys, unhappy ending, that’s mere reversal, flip side of the same coin. The author is not impartial. Dystopia is not tragedy.

Milton, a Christian, had to take sides, and couldn’t avoid comedy. He could approach tragedy only by making Evil, in the person of Lucifer, grand, heroic, and even sympathetic — which is faking it. He faked it very well.

Maybe it’s not only Christian habits of thought but the difficulty we all have in growing up that makes us insist justice must favor the good.

After all, 'Let the best man win' doesn’t mean the good man will win. It means, 'This will be a fair fight, no prejudice, no interference — so the best fighter will win it.' If the treacherous bully fairly defeats the nice guy, the treacherous bully is declared champion. This is justice. But it’s the kind of justice that children can’t bear. They rage against it. It’s not fair!

But if children never learn to bear it, they can’t go on to learn that a victory or a defeat in battle, or in any competition other than a purely moral one (whatever that might be), has nothing to do with who is morally better.

Might does not make right — right?

Therefore right does not make might. Right?

But we want it to. 'My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.'

If we insist that in the real world the ultimate victor must be the good guy, we’ve sacrificed right to might. (That’s what History does after most wars, when it applauds the victors for their superior virtue as well as their superior firepower.) If we falsify the terms of the competition, handicapping it, so that the good guys may lose the battle but always win the war, we’ve left the real world, we’re in fantasy land — wishful thinking country.

Homer didn’t do wishful thinking.

Homer’s Achilles is a disobedient officer, a sulky, self-pitying teenager who gets his nose out of joint and won’t fight for his own side. A sign that Achilles might grow up someday, if given time, is his love for his friend Patroclus. But his big snit is over a girl he was given to rape but has to give back to his superior officer, which to me rather dims the love story. To me Achilles is not a good guy. But he is a good warrior, a great fighter — even better than the Trojan prime warrior, Hector. Hector is a good guy on any terms — kind husband, kind father, responsible on all counts — a mensch. But right does not make might. Achilles kills him.

The famous Helen plays a quite small part in The Iliad. Because I know that she’ll come through the whole war with not a hair in her blond blow-dry out of place, I see her as opportunistic, immoral, emotionally about as deep as a cookie sheet. But if I believed that the good guys win, that the reward goes to the virtuous, I’d have to see her as an innocent beauty wronged by Fate and saved by the Greeks.

And people do see her that way. Homer lets us each make our own Helen; and so she is immortal.

I don’t know if such nobility of mind (in the sense of the impartial 'noble' gases) is possible to a modern writer of fantasy. Since we have worked so hard to separate History from Fiction, our fantasies are dire warnings, or mere nightmares, or else they are wish fulfillments."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, from No Time to Spare, 2013.

[tls12lessthan3]

throughout the story both kim dokja and han sooyoung define themselves in opposition to yoo sangah. kim dokja defines himself as a reader in contrast to yoo sangah as a protagonist, and han sooyoung defines herself as a villainess in contrast to yoo sangah as a heroine. outsider vs insider, evil vs good. in doing so, they dehumanize themselves and yoo sangah. kim dokja denies himself the agency that he gives a protagonist, positioning himself as merely an observer in both his life and others to cope with his mental health issues. han sooyoung denies herself any emotional or moral complexity, assigning herself a simple role she feels most comfortable in due to her own self worth issues as a way to conceptualize how her 'genre' as changed around her.

as coping strategies, these kinda suck ass. they hurt themselves in doing so, and they hurt yoo sangah. the overlapping roles they assign to her - protagonist and heroine - make unrealistic demands of her, project a perfection that isn't real, put her in a box and ignore all attempts to escape it. they distance themselves from her and damage their relationships in the process. and a large part of yoo sangah's character and arc is her either fighting back against this dehumanization or just refusing to play ball as a way to deconstruct the heroine archetype. when she is dying she uses what seem to be her final moment to make one last escape attempt of kim dokja's idolization of her, reminding him of the pepper incident and forcing him to recognize her as not just a person but a friend. and during moments when she and han sooyoung are at odds, their different attitudes towards it are so stark - han sooyoung regards it as almost a battle of good and evil, whereas yoo sangah sees it as a more personal argument. han sooyoung's discomfort comes from a clashing of philosphies, whereas yoo sangah's comes from the fact han sooyoung is kind of a fucking bitch who has killed people she cares about and might again.

when kim dokja and han sooyoung categorize the world in this way, they dehumanize themselves and their loved ones. and yoo sangah refuses to play along, recognizing both her own and their humanity and forcing that same recognition onto them. when kim dokja and han sooyoung build a wall between themselves and yoo sangah, defining themselves by that distance, yoo sangah climbs it. yoo sangah doesn't just expose the dangers of the small box she gets shoved in, but exposes the others as well. she's an incredibly important character for orv because she does exactly that - it's an extension of her larger role in the narrative as someone who challenges roles and tropes of the genre, who reaches across the divide caused by these expectations we create for ourselves and others and says hey, im just a person, just like you. so maybe we should hang out sometime and just be that, yeah?

[deception-united]

Let's talk about writing fantasy.

Fantasy is one of my favourite genres, to read and to write. But the worldbuilding required and the existing tropes can make it difficult to craft a unique, compelling novel. There are a number of less-discussed nuances that might not always be at the forefront of writing discussions. Here are some tips to help you out:

Ground it in reality. Even though fantasy allows for boundless imagination, grounding your world in elements familiar to readers can make it more relatable and believable. Making it too otherworldly can make it difficult to understand or follow, and will likely make it much more difficult to interweave the explanation of your world and its society into the text seamlessly.

Consistency: Fantasy worlds can be complex, with their own rules, magic systems, and histories. Ensure consistency in your worldbuilding, avoiding contradictions or sudden changes without explanation. I find it helpful to keep a world bible or notes to track details and maintain coherence throughout the story.

Character-driven plots: While epic battles and magical quests are exciting, don't forget that compelling characters drive the heart of any story. Develop multi-dimensional characters with strengths, weaknesses, and personal arcs that resonate with readers (see my post on character development for more).

Avoid clichés and stereotypes. Fantasy often draws from familiar tropes and archetypes, but try not to rely on them too heavily. Subvert expectations and breathe new life into old conventions by adding unique twists or exploring lesser-known mythologies and cultures. Make it your own!

Magic has consequences. Magic adds wonder to fantasy worlds, but it should also have limitations and consequences. Consider the societal, environmental, and personal impacts of magic on your world and characters. A well-defined magic system can enhance the depth and realism of your story.

Worldbuilding through storytelling: Instead of dumping large chunks of exposition, reveal your fantasy world gradually through character interactions, dialogue, and plot progression. Show, don't tell, and let readers piece together the intricacies of your world as they journey through your story (check out my previous post on worldbuilding for more tips).

Embrace diversity. Fantasy worlds should reflect the diversity of our own world. Include characters from various backgrounds, cultures, and identities, and explore themes of inclusivity and acceptance within your narrative.

Conflict beyond good vs. evil: While the battle between good and evil is a classic fantasy trope, consider adding layers of moral ambiguity and complexity to your conflicts. Explore themes of power, redemption, and the consequences of choices made in the face of adversity.

Research is essential. Even in a world of imagination, research plays a crucial role in grounding your story in reality. Whether it's drawing inspiration from historical events, cultural practices, or scientific principles, thorough research can enrich your worldbuilding and add depth to your narrative. Even fantasy worlds and elements require some sort of basis to make them more believable.

Revise: Like any genre, writing fantasy requires extensive revision and polishing. Be prepared to revise your manuscript multiple times, seeking feedback from beta readers or critique partners to strengthen your story, characters, and worldbuilding.

Happy writing!

Previous | Next

[vath-and-such-vinluv-s-stuff]

UNCLE SAMSONITE VS UNCLE GRANDPA

The Ultimate Battle between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil. Whichever Uncle wins, we lose.

[deramin2]

I've talked before about how Critical Role is highly political because they as people live in the world, think about it deeply, and respond to it in their work all the time, even if it's sideways in subtext.

And so I think it's vital to understand that there is a fundamental divide between the context the characters in the Mighty Nein vs. Bell's Hells, and Campaign 2 vs. Campaign 3 were created in: the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Pandemic started mid way through Campaign 2, but the broad themes, tone, and narrative approach were already set. They'd defined the kind of threats they wanted to face.

Campaign 3 was created after we'd been living in the Pandemic for years and when it was clear our leaders and society at large had decided to "solve" it by completely ignoring it and denying it's still happening. Public health response in general started to be turned against and then dismantled. All the hope for change in the face of the horrors of 2020 turned to ash. There was no amount of harm the entrenched systems of power could do that would get people to turn against it.

In fact, it got worse. The last few months of Campaign 3 were played out in the shadow of the United States electing a known fascist promising to implement openly oppressive policies to rob everyone but cishet white abled Christian men of their rights and lives. Their city of LA literally burned down in the middle of the finale because these horrible people have prevented even basic climate change responses.

While Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast increased its iron grip on the TTRPG industry and also showed they'd hurt any independent creator for money. As the Pandemic and trade wars made the whole industry more unstable. All the joy and success WotC’s games have brought to Critical Role come with the strings that WotC gets to decide everyone else's fate. Especially if they're seen as a threat to that hegemony. If anything, it's the love and comfort that actually feed that terrible power. While Critical Role established their own TTRPG publishing wing and is increasingly going toe to toe with WotC.

So like, no shit they'd want to explore a whirlwind fight against the gods that came to their world from WotC. And the complexities that good vs. evil is not a useful framework for this fight. Sure you try to stop people you know will be even worse, but that doesn't mean that the existing system is good and that those who have the power to control everything should retain that control.

Politely persuading the Powers That Be to step back and be mortal like everyone else instead of all-powerful overlords is a conflict resolution power fantasy. Not every battle needs to be with swords. Violence can only ever destroy. Words are far more effective at actually rebuilding something worth living in. Even when you can't possibly know what that something is.

Change is necessary, and if it doesn't come soon we're headed for another Calamity. The past checks on that power have not worked, and it's clear that structurally they can't. We have got to do something else. That's terrifying, and maybe it'll fail, but it's unlikely to be worse than the current times we're living through.

[casscainmainly]

Jason being turbo evil during the Dickbats era is so interesting when thinking about Black Mirror. I don't think it's intentional, but SO many things could be read differently in the context of Dick and Jason's relationship.

Like the core theme in Black Mirror is letting go vs. not letting go, which manifests in the circus motif of holding onto someone who's falling:

Importantly, Dick is on the side of letting go. Of releasing, of letting things fall. It's probably just meant to distinguish him from Bruce, but it's interesting that this is happening post-Battle for the Cowl, which ended with this scene (in Battle for the Cowl #3):

This fall represents Dick's inability to save Jason, and Jason's unwillingness to save himself. So the falling/letting go motif in Black Mirror could be read in direct response to this - he had to let go of Jason (physically and emotionally) to become Batman.

Jason's name never appears in Black Mirror, and he is only alluded to once. In an auction selling off items of horrific value, the auctioneer puts up the crowbar that Joker beat Jason with for sale:

This crowbar is what Dick is using in the above image where he says "the feeling is like slipping, like your hands sliding out of the hands holding you". This again connects Jason to Dick's philosophy of letting go, but Dick never actually thinks about Jason. His internal monologue here is entirely general, despite him holding the item that killed his brother; his mentality has completely let go of Jason, to the point where he doesn't think about him anymore.

Dick's response to Alfred finding the crowbar is also interesting:

There's something dismissive about the way he says "just toss it in the river," yet it's clear (through his shadowed facial expression) that the crowbar deeply troubles him. It's the war between letting go (tossing it in the river) and not letting go (keeping the crowbar). He then talks about the growing evil of Gotham, which is another of Black Mirror's motifs - being unable to recognise something that was once familiar. I wonder how much of that is also linked to Jason, whose turn in Battle for the Cowl is described by Dick as "a flipped switch".

Jason's words also echo throughout Black Mirror. In Batman and Robin #6, as well as Battle for the Cowl #3, Jason is the most vocal about Dick being a bad successor for Bruce:

Dick's insecurities about being a good Batman in Black Mirror can be traced back to these conversations, and Jason gets Dick so bad in Batman and Robin that Dick actually tries to resurrect Bruce in the next issues. Despite Jason never appearing in Dick's internal monologues, it's clear he heavily affects Dick's actions and beliefs, or at the very least compounds his insecurities as Batman.

Of course, the most obvious parallel to Jason is James Gordon, Barbara's (clinically) psychopathic brother. I think Babs and Dick mirror each other a lot here - they both have the attitude of 'letting go' of their respective brothers, whereas Jim represents holding on. The narrative itself, though, implies Jim is right:

Holding on isn't about forgiving James for his actions, but about never giving up on him. About believing that he (and, by extension, Gotham) deserves someone who will stay and fight (to protect them, and to protect others from them). Dick comes to understand this:

Dick uses the word "redeemed" here on himself, implying he feels he needs to be redeemed for something - in the context of this post, we could read it as his failure to save Jason, a failure baked into his adoption of the Batman mantle from the start. More importantly, this monologue shows a shift in Dick's philosophy. The idea of letting go is the idea of mobility, something Black Mirror hammers home with the circus imagery. Here, Dick is rejecting that in favour of stability - of staying still, or fighting instead of dodging.

If the New 52 hadn't interrupted the Dickbats era, it would've been interesting to see Dick deal with Jason in this new light. He's tried to help Jason before, but kind of accepted that Jason would never use it:

Post-Black Mirror, though, I think Dick would have a different approach to 'saving' Jason. Idk I just think there's some untapped potential in their dynamic that this era represents, as it indicates a potential repairing of their relationship rooted not necessarily in Dick's love for Jason, but in Dick's newfound approach to Gotham and redemption.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Fantasy Characters

Your story can be situated within any of the many fantasy fiction subgenres (such as high fantasy, speculative fiction, epic fantasy, young adult, and urban fantasy), but ultimately, the cast of characters in your fantasy novel will likely conform to similar archetypes. Here are the most common types of characters found in fantasy writing:

The hero: The hero is the single most important character in any fantasy story—they must undertake the quest and defeat the villain. Heroes can take many forms in fantasy books. Sometimes a hero is a fighter, ready to take on zombies, warlocks, or warlords with skill and enthusiasm. Heroes can also be antiheroes—a reluctant protagonist who needs to be convinced to inhabit their role as a hero (such as Tyrion Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin). Examples of a hero include Frodo Baggins (The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien), Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit, also by Tolkein), Roland Deschain (The Dark Tower series by Stephen King), and Buffy Summers (from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

The villain: In fantasy novels, the villain functions as the primary antagonist to the hero. Fantasy authors often write these characters to directly personify the forces of evil. In many fantasy series and graphic novels, these character types are often magical overlords who command vast armies. Oftentimes, the villain was not always pure evil, and their backstory explains how they turned bad. Examples of a villain include the White Witch (Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis) and Ursula (The Little Mermaid).

The mentor: The mentor is one of the most important and memorable characters in the fantasy genre. The mentor is often a wise, elderly figure (such as an old wizard or shaman) who educates the main character and gives them the training and information necessary to save the world and triumph in the battle of good vs. evil. Mentor figures help the hero understand their true powers for the first time. Examples of a mentor include Gandalf (The Lord of the Rings), Aslan (The Chronicles of Narnia), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars).

The sidekick: In fantasy literature, the sidekick serves as a trusted confidant and steadfast supporter of the main character. This fantasy character is often the best friend of the protagonist, and their undying loyalty plays an integral part in the completion of our hero’s mission. Sidekicks often feel like real people from the real world, even if they exist in a fantasy world of mages, sorcerers, and magical powers. When the main character falls on hard times, the sidekick is there to remind them of their humanity, goals, and the stakes of their mission. Examples of a sidekick include Samwise Gamgee from The Lord of the Rings, Sir Kay (Legends of King Arthur), Willow Rosenberg (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

The henchman: Henchmen exist to do the dirty work of the main villain. They are functionally the sidekicks of the main villain, and though they usually lack the villain’s intellect, they make up for it in brawn. Examples of henchmen include Boba Fett (from Star Wars), orcs and the Uruk-Hai (Lord of the Rings).

An alternate hero: In fantasy novel writing, the alternate hero occupies a space somewhere between protagonist and sidekick. Though they are not the primary focus of the story, they are also singularly focused on defeating the villain and resolving the conflict, just like the protagonist. The alternate hero has their own backstory, subplots, and stakes in the central dramatic question in order to make them compelling characters in their own right. An example of an alternate hero is Aragorn (The Lord of the Rings).

The love interest: The love interest is a common trope when writing fantasy stories, used to help show the human side of the protagonist. When writing characters like the love interest, give them rich three-dimensional backstories and compelling wants and desires. If they exist merely as a plot device for your protagonist, audiences are likely to find the character shallow and boring. An example is Buttercup (The Princess Bride by William Goldman).

The monster: The monster or evil creature is an otherworldly being (often some kind of undead reaper or fantastical beast) whose primary mission is to destroy and spread evil. These creatures cannot be reasoned with, and there is no spark of humanity waiting to be coaxed out. These are seemingly unstoppable killing machines and are often the most intimidating obstacle in your protagonist’s journey. An example of a monster is Cthulhu (from H. P. Lovecraft’s cosmic horror stories).

Source ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[liittleemiixeer]

I know this theory has already been thought but I wanna delve deeper into it. I think the man who appears at the end of s2 ep1 is Abel. I know there have been theories about him being a demon hunter, but some of the reasons I'm not that sure he is one are tied to the circumstances of his appearance and the context provided by the narrative.

[long rant ahead hehehe]

Both look unusually pale and have a similar face structure, and the contrast of white hair vs. black hair makes me believe he might be the abel to his cain lmao. The contrast suggests an obvious juxtaposition, as if they were meant to be two sides of the same coin.

We know Cain hasn’t visited Heaven in a long time, and his strained relationships with the other immortals hint at a larger, unresolved conflict (they basically gossip about him going against his own family). AND let's not forget the deeper context here. In the biblical narrative, they're the first children of Adam and Eve. Then, Cain kills Abel out of jealousy after God favors Abel's offering over his own. But what if in HSR Abel never truly died? What if he survived and is now on a mission to confront his brother, perhaps to stop him from causing further destruction or to seek vengeance for what he did to him?

If Abel somehow endured, it would make sense for him to appear now, especially after we’ve just learned about Cain’s alternative, more destructive form. Besides, the fact that Pileon, a demon, is the one who finds him is rather telling. If this character were a demon hunter, it seems unlikely that a demon would be the one to discover him in such a vulnerable state—bloodied, weakened, and seemingly at the end of a fierce battle. The timing of this man’s arrival—just as we uncover Cain's darker nature—is too precise to be coincidental.

As a philologist, plotwise, him being Abel would certainly make sense in the context of the story's themes—of survival, moral conflict, and the struggles between heavenly and demonic forces in a world devastated by apocalyptic events. His return could add a layer of depth to the ongoing narrative, representing a force of justice or redemption against Cain's darker tendencies.

Moreover, if this mysterious character were simply a demon hunter, his appearance might lack the same emotional and thematic weight. However, as Abel, his presence would be deeply significant and would make great storytelling. He would embody not just a force of opposition against Cain, but a figure who brings moral complexity and personal stakes to the narrative. He could even represent vengeance, adding layers to the conflict between good and evil in a world ravaged by apocalyptic forces.

With all that being said, if he ends up being a demon hunter or something completely different, I'd really like to see a compelling reason for it. Something that works as a plot device that deepens it even more. Since Alexandra is doing an amazing job with HSR, I don't doubt her, she'll excel at it!!!

[nastasya--filippovna]

After two and a half years of hyperfixating on Good Omens I FINALLY had a Good Omens dream. In my dream I watched the ending of season 3 and apparently at the end there is like a big battle between heaven+hell vs Aziraphale and Crowley (who are still not talking all throughout the season) + all of humanity. They win but Aziraphale gets seriously injured and he takes to bed rest in his very fancy, very extravagantly luxurious Victorian mansion, and Muriel is his primary caregiver & since they love to cosplay so much they dress up in a little Victorian nurse costume with the little apron and pinafore and frilly cap and all. And one day when Aziraphale is feeling a little better Crowley asks them to let him see his angel and Muriel tells him that they can accompany him when they will take Azi's dinner up for him.

When they go to his chambers at dinner time Muriel tells Crowley to wait outside while they take the soup in and ask Aziraphale if he wants to see Crowley. Crowley stays quietly but presses his ear to the door the minute Muriel shuts it behind them. He hears muffled conversation he can't quite make out and then Aziraphale shouts : "It's disgusting, it's horrid, it's abhorrent and anomalous, and above all it's WICKED and it's EVIL! I don't want to see it ever again. Take it away from me!"

Crowley lets out a quite sob and dashes down and corridor and drives away from the mansion forever, heartbroken eternally.

Muriel walks out of the room confused to find the demon gone and the bowl of soup, still full, in their hands. Of course Aziraphale was only talking about the soup.

~ The End~

[cheshiresense]

Your latest time-travel verse made me rewatch Kyoraku vs Starrk battle over Fake Katakura.

I have to say, over the years, I have forgotten how sad that battle is. The way Starrk mourns even Barragan's death and loses his (already small to begin with) desire to fight after it... The only reason the guy followed Aizen was because Aizen gave him... friends😭 A pack. The only reason he fought was to protect that pack. Doesn't matter if that pack consisted of some shady individuals. It was his. The first and only one he got in all his 1000+ years of existence. He had no desire to strike down his enemies - didn't kill Ukitake, proposed Love and Rose to retreat with their lives... In a way, he and Ichigo are very much alike in that sense.

Starrk was too honorable and naive and paid for that.

And Shunsui killed Lilynette😭 It is so heartrending when Starrk calls out to her with no answer...

Shunsui's philosophy, on the contrary, allows him "to be evil" in order to win. Yes, he does not like war, just like Starrk, but IMHO, "as soon as the war starts both sides are at fault" does not mean Shunsui is saying that both sides are wrong in the war and to not fight till you completely disable / kill your opponent. I think, to paraphrase, it means: "As soon as the war start, to win, both sides *will* have to be evil / There are no good people in a war because winning a war requires one to do evil things, so someone who were maybe a good person will have to become evil to win". This philosophy, basically, is "to unbound his hands" (as we say in our language, meaning when something is used to make a person free to act), a workaround that allows him to be ruthless to his opponents, despite his pacifistic nature.

Anyway, emotional rant over. I guess I just wanted to share my pain🥲 I just hope Shunsui killing a part of Starrk's soul and the only family he had will somehow be addressed between them in the future in your fic's universe. I think it's just too huge to leave out. And the only way I can see Starrk never saying anything at all to his Shunsui in TYBW timeline - is because he is THAT much of a sucker for pain and/or THAT much desperate for a genuine connection with somebody.

Starrk is just a really tragic character with a really tragic arc, canonically he was never meant to be saved or have a chance at something better.

I don't know if I'd call him particularly honourable, if only because that doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd really think about and adhere to as a Hollow who'd spent his whole life in a place like Hueco Mundo, not in the same way a Shinigami would. I think it was more that he just didn't want to kill anyone when he'd already killed so many without ever having a choice in the matter, and now that he did, he didn't want to keep doing that if he didn't absolutely have to. He was definitely a bit naive about it because it was war, and he was up against one of the most powerful and ruthless Shinigami in existence. The moment he decided to hold back, he was destined to lose.

For Shunsui, I agree, he believes that to win a war, people have to get their hands dirty, and you can't do that and still remain "good". I also think he thinks that it's disrespectful to not do everything in his power to win, because even if that means throwing away his honour, to do anything less means risking the lives of those he's fighting that war for.

Which ties into why I personally think Starrk doesn't really blame Shunsui for Lilynette's death. I think Starrk is smart enough and similar enough to Shunsui to understand him. And why blame Shunsui when he can blame himself? He's the one who held back from the start, he didn't fight as hard as he could, he even had the chance to kill Shunsui if he'd just gone down to finish the job after shooting him instead of just backing off after disabling him, or he could've even shot him somewhere more leathal like the back of the head instead of the shoulder/chest, because at their level, which Shinigami or Hollow wouldn't survive a simple injury like that? He would've also been able to sense full well that Shunsui's reiatsu signature hadn't disappeared. So that choice is on him, and he paid for it with Lilynette's life.

I also think Starrk didn't have much conviction or resolve, I mean I don't think most of the Espada really believed in Aizen's cause, they just followed him for more power or because Aizen tricked them or forced them, and prob with a side of hypnosis to pave the way. So Starrk didn't even have anything concrete to believe in and fight for aside from a debt he felt he had to repay, and that was quickly wearing away when he saw how Aizen didn't give a shit about them.

So overall, he went into battle against Shunsui without any desire to fight or kill because he thought he didn't really have anything he wanted enough to fight for, right up until he lost Lilynette and realized that yeah he did have something precious to lose after all. In contrast, Shunsui was fighting for Soul Society and to protect his fellow Shinigami, and at the time, he definitely understood that far better than Starrk did.

If Starrk had survived, I think he would've understood that too, plus he just doesn't have the kind of temper that lashes out and casts blame on others due to excess emotion; rather, he has the sort of analytical mind to comprehend the cause and effect of things pretty instantly. That would all play a big part in why he wouldn't blame Shunsui for doing what he had to do to take Starrk out. He and Lilynette were one, Shunsui would've had to kill both of them sooner or later, otherwise he might as well lie down and give up, Starrk wasn't exactly an opponent he could take it easy with.

In the time travel verse here, Idk if I'd make it a particularly huge thing, because for Starrk it's been like 10+ years, I imagine he's laid that ghost to rest a long time ago even if the loss still hurts sometimes, plus it's not TBTP!Shunsui who killed her, and i think he would've hashed out the issue with TYBW!Shunsui already at the beginning. Of course, TBTP!Shunsui is bound to find out about it eventually, which could be interesting to poke at.

But in Take What's Broken (Make It Whole), it'll definitely come up sooner or later. Even if Starrk doesn't bring it up first, Shunsui will, and even if there's no blame, I imagine they would at least have to talk about it going forward.