stardustmoonlight-blog1

[utilitycaster]

I think another element of Orym's involvement in this whole plot that is getting misconstrued or otherwise used inappropriately is Liam's statement that Orym can't be objective about this.

It's true that he can't be objective about the person who murdered his husband! I think very few people would be! But that doesn't change the fact that it is in fact completely and yeah, objectively true that the Vanguard murdered his husband because they wanted to get to Keyleth to test if Vax would show up, and so Keyleth's guards obviously tried to prevent an attack on Keyleth, and not only were they killed for defending her, they were killed in a way that specifically prevented resurrection, to no known benefit.

Orym's lack of objectivity doesn't mean he's in the wrong or that he should have to make himself to see the other side of "maybe the people who killed innocent guards as part of their moon experiments have a point." It just means that, for example, even if Abbadina is very pleasantly and calmly saying "oh I don't have any stakes in the moon thing nor do I know this guy who talked over the ley line broadcasting system, I just think he's right about the gods," he's going to leave the house and sleep outside instead of calmly listening. He's not going to be able to make that more general and detached argument about power and murder that Laudna and Ashton can make (also informed by their past experiences, but a little more removed). This is, for him, extremely personal; but he is still correct.

I think a comparable if obviously much less morally/theologically fraught example would be that Laudna, understandably, gets upset when Ashton talks to her about his own experiences with loneliness. It's a great scene, because both characters have experienced pretty profoundly lonely times in their lives.

Would it be appropriate for someone to say "well, Laudna obviously can't be objective here; she's relying too much on her own past experiences to inform her judgment, so we should ignore her"? I think it's pretty obvious that's an absolutely fucking stupid thing to say; but that's what people are saying when they're bringing up Orym's emotional response. People are still allowed to have pretty strong subjective feelings about things that objectively happened.

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

How Not To Write Villains (and Antiheroes) In Romantic Fics

I’ve been in Villain fandom for a while and honestly, there are some common issues I’ve seen crop up in our romantic fanfic that I really feel need addressing. I’m interested in the methods with which we write these kinds of stories, and I find myself frustrated with the repeated destructive tropes that show up in the fic I try to read. 

So here’s a few of those tropes, why I think they happen, and some alternative suggestions to help writers avoid falling into these traps. I’m using gendered language here because these are the particular iterations I see most regularly (and some of them are specific to systemic sexism and dysfunction in M/F relationships), however some of these thoughts could of course apply across the board.

Mr. Grimdark

This guy shows up when the author’s main concern/anxiety centers around “keeping him in character.” There’s a lot of villain fangirls out there who are really worried that they’re going to get criticized for writing their villain too “OOC” and nice. They want to capture a tone of “realism,” and so they inadvertently write him monstrous beyond what canon even depicts him as. This guy is an abuser despite the villain canonically showing no domestically abusive tendencies. He doesn’t believe in love, and/or thinks emotions are a weakness even if there’s no evidence of this in canon. He’s willing to subject the heroine through endless cruelties, often above and beyond what he’s done in canon.

Mr. Grimdark is a mistake when it comes to writing a villain in romantic contexts. It’s not worth sacrificing the stability of the romantic narrative just because you are afraid to push the boundaries of canon characterization. I’d rather read a slightly OOC villain who treats the heroine with respect (even when he hates her or is working against her), than one who’s constantly subjecting her to extreme cruelty (and who’s OOCness is pretty much just skewed in the opposite direction TBH).

Sometimes Mr. Grimdark also shows up when the author is particularly fond of heavy angst and drama, or wants to involve more character drama in her fic, or is trying to write a Slow Burn or Enemies to Lovers plot. It’s important to learn how to identify the difference between constructive drama and destructive drama. Ask yourself why the dramatic tension is happening. Interrogate your methods. Is it aiding the character’s overall arcs? How will it effect their relationship? How does it help me build towards my narrative goals? How do I believably bring my characters back together after this moment of conflict? Does this moment reflect real-world domestic abuse dynamics? What does this moment say about who these characters are?

A lot of this lies in identifying how to depict villainy without crossing over into mirroring real-world domestic abuse, stalking, etc.

How and why does your villain wield power? 

You can write a bad guy in love without writing an extremely toxic situation. I promise, you don’t have to sacrifice romance in the name of “realism.”

The Womanizer

The Womanizer crops up when the author wants to make her villain extra sexy. She’s trying to depict a seductive rogue who’s main goal is to get the heroine into bed, but who inadvertently falls in love with her virtuousness and integrity.

What the author actually depicts is a man who’s reduced the heroine into a sexual object, another faceless conquest. Instead of being sexy, he’s a cheesy, gross Pickup Artist incapable of humanizing the heroine, let alone respecting her. The plot of the fic is suddenly transformed into his journey in discovering that women are human beings (or at least ONE woman is).

Honestly? This guy is lame. He’s a misogynist. He’s also OOC as hell in most cases. There are so many more ways of depicting a man who is seductive, and all of them center around him treating the heroine as the subject of his desire rather than the object. It’s so much more interesting and complex to see him like her and want her for who she is while dealing with the cognitive dissonance of being on the opposite side of a proverbial battlefield, and vice versa.

The Predator

The Predator is a horrifying mix of both of the above problems. He’s an abusive, cruel, misogynistic monster who’s out to torment AND/OR bed the heroine. This man has absolutely no business being one half of a romantic narrative. 

Again, it’s entirely possible to write an in-character villain who has dark aspects to him, as well as a seductive nature, all in a narrative that involves drama and conflict, WITHOUT writing an unbearable monster. 

If your villain is incapable of even empathizing with your heroine for the majority of your fic, you aren’t writing a romance.

The Nice Doppleganger

The opposite of the above problems, this guy is perfectly nice and un-challenging. He and the Heroine easily fall in love and have a relationship of no conflict whatsoever. He’s OOC and doesn’t really resemble the personality depicted in canon. The author may not realize this, or she may have done it intentionally.

This honestly isn’t a real problem if you’re doing it intentionally. By all means, play in your sandbox the way you feel like. 

However, he’s potentially a limp noodle when it comes to generating the drama, mystery, and gravitas of his canon counterpart (which are most likely the most exciting aspects of his character, which inspired you to write about him in the first place). If your interested in exploring the journey a villain takes from his canon behavior towards a romantic relationship, with this trope you’ve basically cut out the juicy parts and skipped to the ending. 

For you, that might be just what you want, and that’s fine. 

But if it isn’t, allow the material to challenge you. Don’t be afraid to explore conflict in your story that is generated between the main characters, just try to understand where the boundaries between “conflict” and “toxicity” lie.

Ask yourself why the villain intrigued you in the first place. What aspects of his personality can you utilize to keep his edge (without tipping him over into abuse)? How could those appealing dark and spooky traits translate into more (safely) seductive traits? What conflicts would arise between him and the heroine, and how can I explore them without making it destructively toxic? How can I soften him without declawing him completely? 

The key here is creative, thoughtful transformation rather than erasure. Start translating certain traits into constructive and/or romantic versions of what they once were instead of erasing them completely. Don’t change him. Change his mind.

The Emotional Knife Fight (or Heroines Can Be Abusive Too)

This one crops up when the author isn’t really sure how to depict a strong female character, or the author is writing an Enemies to Lovers plotline. She wants to show a heroine who stands up to a powerful man, who can hold her own against the villain and eventually change him/his mind. She wants to show the journey from lack of understanding to mutual understanding and empathy.

What instead happens is the heroine uses abusive language to talk down to the villain. She doesn’t truly respect his humanity because to her, his villainy eliminates his humanity. The heroine has a status of goodness and purity, and because the villain does not, toxic harm towards him is fair game.

This manifests in examples like the heroine utilizing the villain’s vulnerable emotions - which she is strangely aware of and yet unmoved by! - to cause him emotional harm. Is he the villain because he’s been betrayed? Abused? Neglected? She’ll minimize his experiences and assert that his actions cancel out the relevancy of his pain.

In return, the villain might start using the same weapons against the heroine. Alternatively, one of the above versions of the villain started this toxic dynamic.

Because the heroine can wield psychological weapons against the villain, the authoress believes she’s balanced the power between the heroine and the villain. And with the weapons these characters have used to slice into the raw parts of each other, the authoress thinks she’s depicted characters who are capable of seeing each other.

In theory, I can see why the authoress fell into this trap. She wants to write a battle of wits that results in deeper understandings. But that cannot manifest healthily if the heroine and villain are utilizing each other’s vulnerabilities to harm.

Instead, I’d like to see the battle be about mutual respect. Because the characters can see the vulnerabilities of each-other, they might use their own similar experiences to argue philosophy. They might express solidarity and use that solidarity to call each other out when they think they’re in the wrong, or to try and pull the other to their side. 

Explore a meeting of the minds like it’s an elaborate chess game, rather than a knife fight in a back alley.

[aion-rsa]

Activision Blizzard Lawsuit Reactions Expose the Horrors of Fan Entitlement

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

While the community response to the recent Activision Blizzard harassment lawsuit filed by the state of California has been largely supportive, this incident also sadly serves as the latest reminder that fan entitlement is capable of hijacking far more meaningful conversations.

In case you missed it, the state of California recently filed a lawsuit against game publisher/developer Activision Blizzard following a two-year investigation into the company’s practices and policies. I highly recommend that you read the full investigation report or one of the many excellent breakdowns of that investigation that have since been published, but the very short explanation of this situation is that Activision Blizzard is being accused of fostering a work environment that is beyond horrifying. Since the initial findings of that investigation have been published, numerous current and former Activision Blizzard employees have stepped forward to support these claims and share their own, similar stories.

Recently, over 2,000 Activision Blizzard employees signed a letter directed to the company’s management which is intended to both share their support for their fellow employees as well as call out Activision Blizzard executives for their response (and, in some cases, lack of response) to this situation. The letter specifically names Activision Blizzard Chief Compliance Officer Frances Townsend who recently sent an email in which she downplayed the validity of these investigations and stated that “we cannot let egregious actions of others, and a truly meritless and irresponsible lawsuit, damage our culture of respect and equal opportunity for all employees.” The letter calls for Townsend to step down as Executive Sponsor of the ABK Employee Women’s Network.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

This letter isn’t the only way that Activision Blizzard employees have recently responded to management and these investigations, though. A recent report suggests that the Overwatch team is delaying the release of future content in response to this situation, while another report notes that work on World of Warcraft has pretty much stopped at the moment for the same reason. The Hearthstone team also recently decided to delay their final card reveal stream for the game’s upcoming United in Stormwind expansion. When asked why the team made the decision to delay the reveal, Hearthstone‘s developer Dean “Iksar” Ayala stated that “having any celebration is a hard sell right now” and that “our focus has been on supporting each other and planning action for how we can make our work a better place for everyone.”

A recent report from Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier also reveals that Activision Blizzard employees have even organized a formal strike in response to this situation.

Collective action in the North American video game industry is rare because there are no unions. A representative for the Activision Blizzard employee group organizing the strike tells Bloomberg they have not discussed unionizing

— Jason Schreier (@jasonschreier) July 27, 2021

Again, it does seem that many fans understand the reasons behind these actions and support them just as they support the Activision Blizzard employees who are going through something incredibly difficult (and, in many cases, may have been for quite some time). However, a tragically vocal group of gamers who call themselves fans of Activision Blizzard games have also been registering their disappointment that Activision Blizzard employees have decided to delay updates for those games in response to this matter. In some cases, those “fans” have even begun to target members of the company on social media. We will not be amplifying those specific voices for hopefully obvious reasons, but Activision Blizzard employees are starting to respond to these recent reactions.

Many of those upset at Activision Blizzard for these delays tend to fall back on the same series of arguments. They say that they’re being punished for what happened at the company and that Activision Blizzard’s employees are being unprofessional by delaying this content as part of their response. Some just say that they do not care about all this internal “drama” and just want to play these games.

Many of you reading this undoubtedly already know that these objections are morally wrong, but since we seem to be talking about a group of gamers who are unable or unwilling to process basic empathy and understanding, let’s instead take a page out of their book for a moment and focus on the games.

For too long, the video game industry has enjoyed a veil of anonymity that allows them to easily hide the human cost of games. While “crunch” is the biggest example of this tragic industry standard, it has to be said that even some of the most prolific and successful video game creators in the history of the industry often do not get to enjoy the recognition afforded to creators in other mediums. Too often, individuals in the video game industry are only afforded an identity when something goes wrong.

As we’re seeing right now, one of the most consistent problems with that approach is that too many gamers don’t associate games with the people who make them. That obviously leads to the dehumanization of video game industry employees, but it also means that some fans fail to understand how working conditions such as those described in this Activision Blizzard investigation can directly lead to the botched launch of Warcraft 3 Reforged, World of Warcraft‘s recent struggles, Hearthstone‘s consistency issues, and the loss of notable employees who are not as easily replaceable as Blizzard sometimes seems to think that too many of their employees are. As has been the case since this investigation was published, though, Activision Blizzard’s own employees are describing the extent of this problem better than most.

Activision’s response to this is currently taking a group of world-class developers and making them so mad and traumatized they’re rendered unable to keep making a great game.

— Jeff Hamilton (@JeffAHamilton) July 25, 2021

That’s the thing I’ll never understand. There’s a level of ignorance piled atop this fundamentally inhuman argument that doesn’t even make sense if you’re looking at this from a purely selfish perspective.

The quality of some of Blizzard’s games over the last few years has been in decline, and many of those games’ fans have not hesitated to voice their frustrations about that decline. Now that the curtain has been pulled back and we see just what those employees have been having to deal with atop those often hostile fan reactions, this should, at the very least, be a moment to put the pieces together and understand that too many Activision Blizzard employees have been forced to work in conditions that make it nearly impossible for them to do their jobs effectively and still feel like human beings.

Instead, we have a group of gamers acting like neckbeard Veruca Salts by looking at this information and deciding to cry out “Don’t care how, we want it now.”

When we talk about fan entitlement, the conversation is often focused on reactions to shows like Masters of the Universe: Revelation or movies like Star Wars: The Last Jedi where some fans feel like they’ve been creatively denied the storylines, characters, and moments they think they deserved. As we’re seeing in this instance, though, fan entitlement is rarely ever about people concerned about the quality of a product, no matter how much they say that’s what it’s about. It’s really about their inability to understand and emphasize with so many of the members of various creative industries and understand that there are humans at the heart of these products who need, if not your support, then your understanding, especially when it comes to these matters that keep them from just doing the jobs that these people claim they should be doing.

Fan entitlement isn’t about actual fans; it’s about entitlement.

The post Activision Blizzard Lawsuit Reactions Expose the Horrors of Fan Entitlement appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3jah8BZ

[empiregalaxy]

Hi Madeleine! Hope you're doing well. Do you see any narrative bias in Book1 or subsequent books of Asoiaf?

I’m doing well, thanks!

This is a layered and interesting question. Narrative biasis something I’m always on edge about (is the show / book / film trying to sendus a message? Is this like a sports game where I have to pick a side betweentwo conflicting groups? Am I wrong for supporting this character?) butsomething which I’ve never thought about in the context of ASOIAF. A lot hasbeen written about how the Game Of Thrones (the show) uses bias to spreadharmful, or insulting messages- I highly recommend you read the recaps by @turtle-paced if you haven’t already. But as you asked about the books, I’lldiscuss them.

I think, overall GRRM employs a lot of skill in his writing.There’s no ‘after school special’ feel of the books, but I do think biasexists. Mainly, towards the Stark family. You’re probably thinking ‘Madeleine,but you love the Starks!’ and I do. And I proudly root for them and supportthem. I’ll try to make a point: bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing innarrative. I’ll also try to talk about Sansa specifically and how GRRM framesher, because I do have mixed feelings about how she is written especially in AGame Of Thrones. I’ll also talk about Tyrion (and the Lannister family), POVSand non POVs as well as other characters and events.

Firstly, let’s discuss bias in general. Here are things toavoid

·        Creating an almost one-sided view of events

·        Telling the readers what to think- or what‘side’ they ought to be on

·        Not sharing other perspectives, or schools ofthought

·        Offering zero empathy

·        Making brash statements that ought to bringshame or embarrassment to groups

Let’s break these down and how GRRM avoids them. ASOIAFemploys a multiple POV style structure, meaning that viewpoints all across theseven kingdoms are analysed in depth. We have Catelyn who despises Jaime getnumerous chapters, but then Jaime also becomes a POV. Even villains such asCersei get chapters. In A Clash Of Kings when Theon takes Winterfell- we gethis side of the story as well as Bran’s, who is directly impacted by Theon’sdecision. This is what I’d interpret at an attempt at narrative balance (whichis what, in my opinion writers should be aiming for).

Like I said earlier, GRRM doesn’t outright say what thereaders should be thinking- but he definitely does give his own opinion andperspective on events. For example: Joffrey executing Ned. The next two booksshow the fall out to that decision, Joffrey does not get any POVs, we see theevent through Arya’s eyes (who is Ned’s daughter), and it’s followed by thelong, gruelling trauma Sansa, Bran, Catelyn, Jon and Arya have to deal with.Therefore, we can establish that Joffrey killing Ned was a bad move. Thenarrative says so. The question: is it fair that GRRM makes that assertion?

I know what you’re thinking. ‘Oh, it’s Joffrey he’s evil andthe narrative is justified’ which brings me onto my second point: you can showbias, as long as you do it in a thoughtful, empathetic, considerate anddeveloped way. That means being careful with how you write events, structurecharacterization and frame potentially, groups of people. So I don’t mind thatJoffrey is treated like the Big Bad for killing Ned- because GRRM gives us goodreason to why the books are written that way.

Now onto my second point- picking sides within thenarrative. Let’s look at the Red Wedding. Here, both Tywin’s perspective andthe victim’s side is explored.

It’s quite clear that GRRM does not want us to take Tywin’sside. He’s not a POV, the POV characters, even Tyrion (a Lannister) arehorrified by it. We see Catelyn, Sansa, Arya, Jon, Theon, Brienne and Bran’sgrief over it. They are Point Of View characters. So is it a bad thing GRRMwants us to not take Tywin’s side? Here, I think it’s justified. Asking thereaders to take the side of a war criminal- compared to the much more heroiccharacters is too hard. I also think Tyrion, Jon & Daenerys: the ‘threeheads of the dragon’ get a lot of benefit from being huge POV characters. In90% of the conflicts they face, you can sure bet GRRM will relish in thegreyness and understanding of the situation. 

GRRM does not write like a badsports journalist who expects you to take a side. I think he’s quite good atgreys, so when Jon gets stabbed ‘for the watch’ it reads as a masterful climaxof events, not just George preaching that Jon is right and everyone else iswrong. He does not glorify Tyrion and Dany’s failings. He may, however lose hismasterfulness and opt for a passing reference, an excuse or a footnote- forexample, I highly doubt Daenerys would ever face any retribution for torturingthe Wineseller’s daughter- she show’s no regret and no character ever brings itup again. GRRM doesn’t comment on this event, but I bet if Daenerys were not aPOV character- she’d definitely face consequences. I sometimes feel non-POVsare held up to a higher moral standard than POVs: what we give passes Tyrionfor (up to murder)- Stannis is heavily scrutinized for.  

Thirdly, schools of thoughts / multiple perspectives. Thisis not something I think GRRM intended to do, but a lot of his ‘perspectives’come from quite rich backgrounds. There are of course, exceptions such as DavosSeaworth but can a book really comment on poverty when its characters are forthe most part, economically privileged? I don’t really have a good answer tothat question, and I don’t think anyone really does. The POV characters, until A Feast For Crows are also overwhelminglymale and white. This makes regions such as Dorne quite painful to read becauseuntil POVs are introduced, we perceive Dorne through rather racist stereotypes.This weakens GRRM’s writing and plays into ‘telling, not showing’. I think he’sa rather sophisticated writer, but he needs to engage with other perspectivesmore and not rely on lazy stereotypes.

Overall, he is a writer who can exhibit great control- hejust needs more thought and insight into particular matters.

I think he offers plenty of empathy towards his characters;even polarizing ones such as Cersei. However, sometimes this seems restrictedto only POVs. Lollys Stokeworth’s writing is absolutely terrible and she lacksthe voice in the narrative. She’s been raped multiple times, abused, mocked andinsulted. Yet GRRM falls to the traps of ableist writing. That’s a meta foranother time, I think. I also think Hodor falls into fantasy clichés of the ‘mysticaldisability’ that serves as a plot device. GRRM has no problem in making Hodor afleshed out character, what GRRM has a problem with is giving Hodor the respecthe deserves. I’m also very, very critical of the writing that Sansa Stark getsin the first book. She’s ‘punished’ by the narrative- forced into ‘lessons’which to be frank, are disgusting and misogynistic. Lady is killed, she’sforced to watch her father die brutally, she’s beaten and gets rape & deaththreats. To say that the story isn’t fair to Sansa feels like anunderstatement.

Over the course of the series, Sansa’s ‘Stark’ identity getsthreatened and beaten down. She’s married to a Lannister who molests her, whichwrites her out of Robb’s Will (so she can’t inherit despite being the oldest ofRobb’s legitimate siblings). This isn’t A+ writing, this is punishing a teenagegirl for things way out of her control. It’s not professional of GRRM to dothis. So is this narrative bias? I think GRRM has improved in writing Sansaduring AFFC & the sample chapter in TWOW. I’d like to think the best.

I also think of Jeyne Poole- yes her treatment of Arya wasdisgusting. That doesn’t make it right to put her in a position where she is ‘Arya’and that means being raped, abused by Ramsay Bolton. There reaches a pointwhere it’s too much. I’d like to think GRRM did not write A Dance With Dragons with the intention of punishing Jeyne, but I’dbe lying if I said it never came across like that.

In all fairness, GRRM gives characters who in fantasy don’tget much of a platform. But it could be so much more, it’s rather frustrating.So pretty much: if you are a white male and a POV- great, the series will treatyou well or with respect. If not, your treatment is determined by numerousfactors.

In conclusion, GRRM’s improving but ASOIAF does fall tonarrative biases from time to time. Some of them are terrible, but some areforgivable or okay. It kind of determines by the circumstance.  This was a messy meta, I just hope I made myopinions clear.

:)