#TROPE TALK

[hoperays-song]

The three distinct types of found family:

Commits crimes together.

Fights crimes together.

Constantly switching back and forth between the other two at a horrifying speed.

[rae-butter]

Honestly, I love it when characters relapse. When someone who’s gotten over their anger issues falls into a situation so out of their depth they fall back on their old habits. When someone who’s learned to open up becomes a recluse again in order to cope with something outside their control.

There’s just something so horrible, so toxic, about watching a character grow and then slip back into their old selves in order to cope, bc you know they still care, that they’re the same inside, but watching them hurt so hard they don’t know what else to do brings a sense of catharsis.

[catgirl-catboy]

Zuko redemption arc this and Zuko redemption arc that,

can we fucking talk about how Sokka handled the sexist character archetype better than 99% of characters wrote a decade later?

His sexism is explained, but never excused. Katara calls him out for his sexism the very first time it is mentioned, which sets the tone for it really well. It was never treated as a fun character quirk.

When he encountered the Kyoshi Warriors, who did his job of defending the homeland but better, he was initially insecure but then decided to learn from them. Only then does he get bitches.

He wears Kyoshi makeup with honor after only a few hangups, and it is treated with respect (for the most part.)

He's contrasted with more sexist characters like Pakku in later episodes.

After his character development, he's shown having not traditionally masculine interests, like shopping and art. Its never made a big deal, but its important to me. :)

The only thing I would change about this arc is to not have Aang make the obligatory 2000s "haha! Guy in makeup and a dress" remark and maybe have Suki wait to kiss him in her second episode.

Sokka is a sexist character done right.

[hkayakh]

Ok OSP isn’t on tumblr BUT in one of their videos Red talked about how before cellphones were invented, essentially no stories had anything close to a system of how a phone works. No people able to easily communicate with each other whenever, wherever, and forever. Nowadays we can have two people phone each other details about how to take down the baddie and even have it be a plot point when they can’t do that.

What I’m getting at is how I think something like that is going to happen with all his new A.I. stuff coming out. I’m talking about chat gpt, image and face emulators, voice A.I.’s.

So far the only thing I’ve seen close is how in the new movie Nimona which (spoiler):

the director says how that wasn’t her confessing to the murder of the queen but a fake, a clone or whatever

And that just barely comes close to the idea of A.I. framing someone

In the future, maybe 5 years I expect to see all sorts of stories that integrate the use of A.I. to fake people and drive forward the plot and storytelling.

[thefiresontheheight]

I think I relate weirdly to the trope of "there is meaning here, it just isn't for you to understand."

You look in on the old man, checking how he is. You see him carving a finely detailed wooden fish with no eyes, the same as he has done over and over for over a decade now. You have long stopped asking him why.

You walk through a dark valley in a strange land. On ragged cliffs above the people who make this place home light huge bonfires. You watch them above, on each and every peak, forming their own constellations. You ask a guide why they do this, but she just shakes her head. You move on. You land on an alien planet and surveyed the ruins of their great empire. In the heart of their mightiest city, carved into the crust, etched with impossible metal, a single uncut stone, held by the statue of what you cannot avoid anthropomorphizing as a weeping mother.

[thegambitgazette]

The Reluctant Ruler Trope: A Philosophical Inquiry into Unwanted Power, Responsibility, and the Burden of Leadership

WC: 3,489

Index

Introduction The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority Political Implications and the Burden of Responsibility A Special Case or a Universal Relatability? Closing Words

Introduction

“The world is something that was put into your hands and that you must deal with - so you will. You have a rigid back and steady hands, either metaphorically or physically. Is it nature or nurture? You don't know. You are tired of being steady. You dream of feeling alive. Not that you aren’t, but, sometimes, it’s hard to remember that there is a heart between your ribs.” —“Are You A Soldier, Poet, or A King?” quiz by @atlanticsea

Does anyone here remember the “Soldier, Poet, King” quiz that went around about a year or so ago? When I initially took it, I expected “Poet;” you can imagine my surprise when the “King” result absolutely obliterated my mental health.

As I’ve found, a common theme in my writing is the Reluctant Ruler trope, where either 1) a character is thrust into the role of a savior, hero, or king/queen despite not having any wish to lead people or 2) a character assumes the role of a leader without the full understanding of the morally corrupting demands of the job.

The narrative trope of the Reluctant Ruler has long captivated the human imagination, resonating across cultures and epochs. From mythical tales of kings and queens reluctant to ascend the throne to contemporary narratives of reluctant heroes and leaders, this archetype speaks to fundamental questions about the nature of power, responsibility, and the human condition. But what makes this trope such a tragic and believable character? How do we, as an audience, end up relating to and debating the conflicts and moral dilemmas that these characters face? Today, we embark on a philosophical inquiry into the Reluctant Ruler trope, aiming to uncover its deeper meanings and implications within existential and political philosophical discourse.

The Reluctant Ruler in Literature and Folklore

The archetype of the reluctant ruler is deeply embedded in the narratives of literature and folklore, transcending cultural and historical boundaries. Across diverse traditions, tales abound of individuals thrust into positions of leadership against their will, grappling with the weight of power and the burdens of governance.

Shakespeare’s “Hamlet:” One of the most iconic depictions of the Reluctant Ruler can be found in William Shakespeare's timeless tragedy, “Hamlet.” Prince Hamlet, the melancholic protagonist, is suddenly confronted with the task of avenging his father’s murder and assuming the throne of Denmark. Despite being heir to the throne, Hamlet is plagued by doubt, indecision, and existential angst. His famous soliloquy, “To be, or not to be,” encapsulates the profound existential crisis he faces, torn between the demands of duty and the desire for personal authenticity. Hamlet’s reluctance to embrace his role as king stems not only from fear or cowardice but from a profound skepticism about the legitimacy of authority and the corrupting influence of power.

The Arthurian Legend: In the rich tapestry of Arthurian legend, the motif of the Reluctant Ruler is exemplified in the character of King Arthur himself. According to some versions of the myth, Arthur is initially unaware of his royal lineage and is raised as a commoner by Sir Ector. Upon discovering his true identity and rightful claim to the throne, Arthur reluctantly accepts the mantle of kingship, guided by the wise counsel of Merlin and the moral imperative to uphold justice and chivalry. Despite his noble intentions, Arthur grapples with the burdens of leadership, facing betrayals, challenges to his authority, and the tragic consequences of his own choices. His reluctance to embrace his destiny as king reflects the ambivalence inherent in assuming power and the moral ambiguities of governance.

The Biblical Story of Moses: In the Abrahamic traditions, the narrative of Moses provides another compelling example of the Reluctant Ruler trope. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses is initially an ordinary Israelite that ran from his station as a prince of Egypt, content to live as a shepherd in the wilderness. However, when called upon by God to lead his people out of bondage in Egypt, Moses initially resists, citing his own inadequacies and speech impediment. Despite his reluctance, Moses eventually accepts the divine mandate and becomes the revered leader of the Israelites, guiding them through the trials of the Exodus and delivering the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Moses’s reluctance to assume leadership underscores the theme of human frailty and the transformative power of faith and divine providence.

The Existential Dilemma of Unwanted Authority

Despite not having instances in our lives where we are unexpectedly crowned king or being spoken to by a deity, there are still profound lessons in identity and responsibility that we can pull from these characters.

The Anguish of Freedom and Responsibility

Existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre asserted that “existence precedes essence,” emphasizing the radical freedom and responsibility of human beings to define their own meaning and purpose in a seemingly indifferent universe. For the Reluctant Ruler, this existential freedom becomes a source of anguish and uncertainty. Suddenly endowed with authority and influence, they are confronted with the weight of responsibility and the moral implications of their actions. The existential angst of the reluctant ruler arises from the tension between the desire for autonomy and the demands of duty, as they struggle with the paradox of being simultaneously free and bound by social expectations.

Furthermore, with freedom comes the moral imperative to act responsibly and ethically. The Reluctant Ruler, however, finds themselves burdened with the weight of moral decision-making, as they navigate complex ethical dilemmas and confront the consequences of their actions. Existentialist philosophy emphasizes the inherent responsibility of individuals to create their own moral framework and to confront the ethical implications of their choices with honesty and integrity. The anguish of responsibility lies in the tension between the desire for moral clarity and the recognition of the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of ethical decision-making. The reluctant ruler must contemplate on the ethical complexities of their role, striving to uphold their moral principles amidst the exigencies of power and governance.

Authenticity and Self-Deception

Central to the existential dilemma of unwanted authority is the quest for authenticity (we already knew this; I wrote two posts on authenticity already that you can check out here and here)—the authentic expression of one’s true self and values in the face of external pressures and expectations. The Reluctant Ruler may experience profound existential alienation as they navigate the demands of their role, questioning whether they are living in accordance with their own genuine desires and beliefs or merely conforming to societal norms and conventions.

In fact, they may be tempted to resort to self-deception—to deceive themselves and others about the true nature of their actions or motivations. Existentialist philosophy warns against the dangers of inauthenticity and self-delusion, highlighting the existential crisis that arises from living inauthentically and betraying one’s own values. The Reluctant Ruler may succumb to the pressures of their position, rationalizing their actions or compromising their principles in order to maintain power or avoid conflict. Self-deception becomes a means of coping with the existential anguish and moral dilemmas inherent in their role, providing a false sense of security and comfort amidst the uncertainties of leadership.

Self-deception ultimately leads to existential alienation—the estrangement from one’s authentic self and the sense of disconnection from the world. The Reluctant Ruler who succumbs to self-deception finds themselves adrift in a sea of moral ambiguity and existential angst, unable to reconcile their actions with their inner convictions.

The Absurdity of Human Existence

“The Absurdity of Human Existence” is a philosophical concept rooted in existentialist thought, particularly articulated by philosophers such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. It posits that human life is inherently absurd, devoid of inherent meaning or purpose, and characterized by the fundamental tension between the human desire for meaning and the indifferent, chaotic nature of the universe.

In assuming positions of power unwillingly, the Reluctant Ruler confronts the absurdity of their situation, grappling with the arbitrary nature of authority and the futility of their efforts to impose order and control upon a chaotic world. The absurdity of leadership lies in the recognition of its inherent limitations and the inevitability of failure and impermanence. Despite their best intentions, the Reluctant Ruler may find themselves overwhelmed by their predicament, struggling to find meaning and significance in a world devoid of ultimate purpose.

Here is where another familiar element of existence comes into play: the illusion of control. The illusion of control is a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to overestimate their ability to influence or control events, particularly in situations characterized by uncertainty or randomness.

For the Reluctant Ruler, the illusion of control becomes apparent as they assume positions of power unwillingly and attempt to impose order and control upon a world that defies their efforts. Despite their best intentions, they soon come to realize the inherent unpredictability and uncontrollability of the events and circumstances they face. This recognition challenges their preconceived notions of authority and power, revealing the illusory nature of their perceived control.

The Reluctant Ruler may initially believe that they have the ability to shape the course of events and influence outcomes according to their will. However, as they encounter resistance, opposition, and unforeseen challenges, they begin to understand the limitations of their authority and the unpredictable nature of the world they seek to govern. This realization undermines their confidence and exposes the fragility of their sense of control.

Moreover, the illusion of control can lead the Reluctant Ruler to engage in behaviors and strategies aimed at maintaining the illusion of power, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They may resort to authoritarian measures, manipulation, or denial of reality in an attempt to assert their authority and preserve their sense of control. However, these efforts ultimately prove futile, further reinforcing the absurdity of their situation.

The existential implications of the illusion of control lie in its confrontation with the fundamental unpredictability and contingency of human existence. The Reluctant Ruler's quest for control becomes a Sisyphean task, as they strive to impose order upon a world characterized by chaos and uncertainty. In confronting the illusion of control, they are forced to confront the absurdity of their condition and wrestle with the inherent limitations of human agency in the face of existential uncertainty.

Political Implications and the Burden of Leadership

Naturally, we cannot talk about the complexity behind the Reluctant Ruler without diving into those whom they govern. In examining the reluctant ruler trope through the lens of political philosophy, we confront the complex interplay between governance, legitimacy, and the ethical responsibilities of leadership.

Legitimacy and Consent

The concepts of legitimacy and consent are central to theories of political authority, shaping the foundation of governance and the relationship between rulers and the ruled. In the context of the Reluctant Ruler trope, the legitimacy of political authority is called into question, as leaders may assume power unwillingly, without the explicit consent or endorsement of those they govern.

Political theorists have long debated the sources of legitimacy in governance, seeking to identify the basis upon which political authority is justified. Traditionally, legitimacy has been derived from various sources such as divine right, tradition, charisma, or popular consent. However, the assumption of power by a Reluctant Ruler complicates these traditional sources, as their authority may not be grounded in the typical mechanisms of legitimacy. Instead, the legitimacy of the reluctant ruler may be contingent upon factors such as adherence to legal norms, effectiveness in governance, or recognition by key power holders.

In democratic societies, where the principle of popular sovereignty reigns supreme, the consent of the governed is considered foundational to the legitimacy of political authority. Democratic legitimacy is typically understood to derive from the consent of the people, expressed through free and fair elections. However, the Reluctant Ruler challenges this notion, as their assumption of power may not be the result of popular choice or electoral mandate. Or, on the other hand, perhaps it was, indeed, the populace that raised them to their position while they continued to protest and fight against it. This raises questions about the compatibility of their leadership with democratic ideals and the accountability of political institutions to the will of the people.

A Special Case or Universal Relatability?

The Reluctant Ruler archetype, emblematic of individuals thrust into positions of power against their will, serves as a focal point for exploring the intricate interplay between existential realization, political pragmatism, and ethical considerations within the realm of political philosophy and ethical theory. Through the lenses of political philosophers and ethical theorists, such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle, we can seek to elucidate the moral spectrum of the Reluctant Ruler, shedding light on the ethical and existential dimensions of their predicament and the broader implications for human nature and governance.

Political Philosophers:

Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hannah Arendt might consider the ethical and political dimensions of the Reluctant Ruler trope. They would examine questions of legitimacy, authority, and the responsibilities of leadership, shedding light on how the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament illuminates broader themes in political philosophy.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli, a seminal figure in political philosophy, is often associated with political realism, a perspective that emphasizes practical considerations over moral ideals in governance.

Machiavelli’s political realism emphasizes the importance of power dynamics, interests, and strategic calculations in politics. He might argue that the Reluctant Ruler cannot afford to be guided solely by moral principles or existential concerns but must instead prioritize the preservation of authority and the maintenance of order.

For him, the reluctant ruler’s primary concern should be establishing and consolidating their authority, regardless of the circumstances of their ascension to power.

He famously suggests in The Prince that rulers should be prepared to act ruthlessly when necessary, even if it means sacrificing ethical principles.

The ends justify the means in politics, and that the reluctant ruler must be willing to employ any means necessary to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, Machiavelli would likely emphasize the importance of maintaining order and stability as the primary goals of the reluctant ruler. He might argue that the ruler's legitimacy and authority depend on their ability to govern effectively and preserve the social order, even if it requires making difficult decisions or compromises.

Machiavelli might caution against allowing existential angst or moral qualms to undermine the reluctant ruler's ability to govern decisively. He would likely stress the need for pragmatism and flexibility in navigating the complexities of political life.

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt was a prominent political theorist known for her contributions to the understanding of totalitarianism, the nature of power, and the concept of political action.

Arendt would delve into the existential angst experienced by the reluctant ruler, examining how their struggle with assuming power unwillingly reflects broader themes of human existence. She might explore the absurdity of the situation, where individuals find themselves thrust into positions of authority without their consent or desire.

Arendt would likely emphasize the importance of individual conscience in guiding the actions of the reluctant ruler. She might suggest that the ruler's moral integrity is central to their ability to exercise legitimate and effective leadership, even in the face of existential uncertainty.

She might also argue that political action is inherently bound up with questions of ethics and morality, and that the reluctant ruler's existential crisis serves as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the ethical dimensions of governance.

Arendt might caution against sacrificing moral integrity for the sake of pragmatic considerations, suggesting that the Ruler’s adherence to their conscience is ultimately what determines the legitimacy of their leadership.

Ethical Thinkers

Thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Aristotle would likely explore the ethical dilemmas faced by the Reluctant Ruler. They would analyze how the tension between personal ethics and pragmatic considerations shapes the Ruler’s decision-making process, offering insights into human moral psychology and the pursuit of virtuous leadership.

Immanuel Kant

Kant’s deontological ethics emphasizes the importance of moral duty and universal principles in guiding ethical behavior. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s predicament by focusing on the categorical imperative, which states that individuals must act according to principles that can be universally applied.

Kant might argue that the Reluctant Ruler faces a moral obligation to uphold certain ethical principles, even if it conflicts with pragmatic considerations. He would emphasize the importance of acting out of a sense of duty and moral integrity, rather than being swayed by expediency or self-interest.

Aristotle

Aristotle’s virtue ethics focuses on the development of moral character and the cultivation of virtuous qualities. He would likely analyze the Reluctant Ruler’s ethical dilemmas by considering how their decisions reflect their moral virtues and character traits.

Aristotle might argue that the reluctant ruler should strive to embody virtues such as courage, wisdom, and justice in their governance. He would emphasize the importance of practical wisdom (phronesis) in navigating the complexities of political life, suggesting that the ruler should aim to achieve eudaimonia, or flourishing, through virtuous leadership.

On Our Nature

Needless to say, not only can we reflect on our own ethical “what-ifs” in parallel to the Reluctant Ruler trope; through this character study, we can unearth a multitude of political and existential debates and still never settle on a universal answer.

The perpetual debates and unanswered questions surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope speak volumes about human nature and the complexity of individual experiences. At its core, the Reluctant Ruler archetype encapsulates the fundamental tensions between existential realization, ethical responsibility, and political pragmatism, reflecting the intricate interplay of human desires, values, and motivations.

Firstly, the inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope underscores the inherent complexity and ambiguity of human existence. Human nature is characterized by its multifaceted makeup, encompassing a diverse range of perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. The reluctance of individuals to embrace leadership roles speaks to our innate desire for autonomy, authenticity, and personal fulfillment, as well as our inherent susceptibility to doubt, uncertainty, and existential angst. The analyses surrounding the Reluctant Ruler trope reflect the diversity of human experiences and the myriad ways in which individuals examine with questions of identity, purpose, and morality.

Moreover, the fact that many individuals can relate to the Reluctant Ruler trope on a personal level speaks to the universality of human struggles and aspirations. Whether it be the fear of assuming responsibility, the desire for authenticity and self-expression, or the ethical dilemmas inherent in leadership, the themes embodied by the Reluctant Ruler resonate with people from all walks of life.

However, the Reluctant Ruler trope also serves as a mirror through which we can reflect on our own ethical convictions, political beliefs, and existential uncertainties. By examining the complexities of this archetype, we are compelled to confront our own values, biases, and assumptions, and to consider how they shape our perceptions of leadership, responsibility, and human nature. The inability to settle on a universal answer regarding the Reluctant Ruler trope challenges us to confront the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of human existence, prompting us to engage with questions of identity, meaning, and morality in our own lives.

Closing Words

What initially appears as a narrative device in storytelling reveals itself as a mirror reflecting the intricacies of our own ethical frameworks, existential dilemmas, and political realities.

At its essence, the Reluctant Ruler archetype embodies the universal struggle between autonomy and responsibility, authenticity and conformity, freedom and obligation. Yet, beyond the realm of fiction, it prompts us to reflect on our own ethical convictions and existential uncertainties. Are we, too, begrudging in our own lives, navigating the delicate balance between personal desires and societal expectations? Do we confront the existential angst of freedom and responsibility, or do we succumb to the illusion of control and self-deception?

Moreover, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us to examine the legitimacy of political authority and the ethical responsibilities of leadership. In a world where governance is often characterized by power struggles and moral ambiguities, how do we reconcile the demands of pragmatism with the imperatives of justice and integrity? How do we ensure that those in positions of power govern with wisdom, virtue, and compassion?

Ultimately, the Reluctant Ruler trope serves as a catalyst for introspection and dialogue, inviting us to confront the complexity of human nature and the ethical dimensions of governance. As we scrutinize the unresolved questions and perpetual debates surrounding this archetype, we are reminded of the enduring relevance of philosophy in our quest for understanding, meaning, and ethical clarity.

In the end, the Reluctant Ruler challenges us not only to ponder the existential dilemmas of fictional characters but also to confront the ethical complexities of our own lives and societies. It is through this introspective journey that we may gain deeper insights into the nature of leadership, autonomy, and the human condition, and perhaps, find a path towards a more just, compassionate, and authentic world.

[lazui-l]

thinking about those episodes in shows where one of the main characters gets like cursed in the mind or something and the rest of the characters have to do some silly magic ritual to enter their friends mind to save them and they have this like landscape of memories and it’s all them themed and the rest of the characters are like omg what a freak. Huge fan of that.

[byoldervine]

Writing Tips - A Quick Guide To Plot Twists

There are two kinds of plot twists that we’ll be focusing on here; a trajectory plot twist and a retroactive plot twist

A trajectory plot twist is a plot twist that changes the course of the story going forward, with minimal impact on previous events in the story. An example of a trajectory plot twist is Hela destroying Thor’s hammer in Thor: Ragnarok

A retroactive plot twist is a plot twist that changes our understanding of previous events in the story. An example of a retroactive plot twist is Agatha and Sophie learning that they’re sisters in the School For Good And Evil books

A big rule in writing a good plot twist is that the result of the plot twist has to be at least as satisfying as the original plot trajectory, but ideally it should be more satisfying. If the twist isn’t as satisfying as the original plot trajectory, the audience can feel like they’ve been cheated or that they’ve missed out on something better

One more recent example of this is Hazbin Hotel’s song Hell’s Greatest Dad, in which Alastor and Lucifer’s song-argument is about to devolve into a full-on brawl. This is prevented, however, by an anticipated new character called Mimzy making her debut to the show by butting into the song, completely overhauling it into a self-absorbed showtune. While it narratively makes sense to prevent the fight, since that would have a lot of negative consequences plot-wise, and the introduction was very much in-character for Mimzy and got her across very well in minimal time, the fans were very annoyed with this and began hating on Mimzy because of it. The fans have largely agreed that Mimzy ruined the song and that it would’ve been much more satisfying to see the two fan-favourite characters fight rather than be introduced to Mimzy in that moment

Another thing about plot twists is that they go down better with foreshadowing; a certain pseudo-satirist once said “This story tries so hard to pull the rug out from under the audience it loses common sense”, and that can be a big problem with stories when their plot twists aren’t foreshadowed correctly. Surprising your audience can be fun, but they came here for a certain story, and if you just change it up on them without any warning then they’re going to be left very confused and feeling like they’re reading a different story. This is often the area of major Deus ex Machinas, where the audience gets to the twist and just has to pause and go “Wait, what? Where did that come from?”

The goal of a plot twist isn’t to make your audience go “I didn’t see that coming”, it’s to make them go “I can’t believe I didn’t see that coming”, especially since it adds reread value to anyone coming back a second time already knowing all the plot twists and now having the prior knowledge to spot things they might have missed the first time around. And if they did spot it the first time around, it makes it all the more satisfying when the foreshadowing pays off. You can only surprise them once, but you can always make them feel smart if you’re willing to give them a chance to prove it

OSP has a much more in-depth Trope Talk on plot twists if you want more insight on it, and I got some of what I said here from their video. So, yeah

[the-mountain-flower]

I found yet another instance of Aurora in Trope Talks

[kjscottwrites]

There's only so many characters allowed for each text box so to clarify the terminology: in this case the "paramour" is the person who has two options for lovers, and the "suitors" are the two people they're choosing between - I don't mean the terms literally! Hopefully it makes sense.

Anyway! In the notes tell me your favorite example of a subversive love triangle! Personally I love love triangles when they're executed a little sideways and have unexpected endings, so I'm up for any of these really.

I want to know your thoughts!

[hoperays-song]

Found family shows what love truly is. That it isn’t a transaction or a complusion of any sorts. It’s a choice. A choice to make a home, a life, with the people you care about most. A choice to stay through it all and to trust others with your heart, and for them to trust you with theirs. 

It shows how love is perfect because it’s chosen, not forced, not required, not limited.

[rae-butter]

Something that is so important in fiction writing is your characters worldview. What I don’t mean is their religious beliefs or the views on politics—I mean how they view life as a whole.

When something unfair happens to them—some form of emotional pain—how do they react? How do they view themselves? What are things that commonly pass through their mind? Where do they run to when they need help, when they have good news, or when they need a place to relax?

It’s something that’s so obvious yet overlooked when fleshing out OC’s bc most OC creators are like “yeah, they would do x” but why they react that way is where most people are stumped. If you can trace that reaction back to a moment in their past, or an aspect of their personality, then that’s a fleshed out character.

[catgirl-catboy]

Okay, discussing the kill your gays trope has set media literacy back so fucking far.

The trope isn't bad because queer people die.

The trope is bad because the hays code forces you to punish characters just for being queer. As a result, queer characters met disproportionately bad fates, or became massively OOC in the third act to justify it.

You're allowed to kill of a gay character so long as it isn't a punishment (by the narrative) for them being gay.

If it's in a zombie movie, it could be a punishment for never carrying a weapon. It could be the end of a character arc.

the moment you frame any queer character dying like its homophobic, all queer narratives become bland af.

[inbarfink]

You are now a Hero in a work of fiction!

[deebrisbyfish]

Let me preface this by saying that a LOT of running stories in comics are built up on a small handful of repeating core ideas. THIS comic is no different. "Dee has creative block.", "Dee is anxious about using public restrooms.", "Look, it's something about boobs.", etc.

Conan doesn't like wizards or snake people. He hits on serving wenches. He gets in bar brawls. Garfield hates Monday and spiders. He loves lasagna. Etc.

This strip grew out of a conversation between Sabrina and me about the new CONAN comic from writer Jim Zub and artist Rob De La Torre and how good it is so far. And as we talked, I mentioned the standard story tropes and compared it to Garfield. Sabrina laughed and as a result, all these jokes and more all came out in conversation and I had to write them down to draw.

Let's just say that Rob De La Torre channels the great John Buscema WAY better than my attempt here, but it was REALLY fun to try. lol

[twigstarpikachutroll22]

4th-wall-breaking narrators who have personality and are essentially an entire character themselves my absolute beloved