#analysis advice

[cosmicjoke]

hi! i really like your account and all your levi-focused analyses. i think this might be a weird question, but i'm sorta trying to make a similar blog, it's just i've very little experience analyzing mangas/comics. it's a bit different from books of prose, obviously. again, sorry if this is weird, but is there any stray advice u can give for analyzing comics?

Hi there, and first of all, thank you so much! I really appreciate that! I don't consider myself particularly good at analysis or meta commentary or anything like that. I literally just vomit my thoughts out and most of the time, it comes out extremely long-winded and tedious, I think, lol. I tend to be very unorganized with my thoughts, and writing them down helps me get a better grasp of what it is, specifically, I'm trying to say.

But I'll do my best here. My main advice for analyzing comics/manga would be to remember that it's a visual medium, and thus, the images carry just as much importance and weight in figuring out what's going on and what's being conveyed as the text itself, and sometimes, even more so. You have limited space for writing in comics/manga, so the author/artist needs to be able to convey a lot through the art alone. So just because something isn't put into explicit text, doesn't mean it isn't being implied or outright stated by the images themselves. Levi is a good example of this, I think, because he doesn't say a lot, and what he does say often comes out sounding rude or callous or aloof, like he doesn't care. And yet it's obvious to everyone with a functioning brain that Levi cares more than anyone. And the reason it's so obvious is, for one, his actions belie his seeming stoicism, with how hard he tries to help people and save lives, and the other reason is his expressions. While Levi often wears a flat expression, there are moments when what he's really feeling bleeds through, and it might as well be a blaring, neon sign declaring that, despite his usually stoic facade, he actually feels things more keenly than anyone else. You have to pay attention to the panels and what the art is telling you, just as much as what the text is. Often, the text can only be understood through the art. You have to interpret them together, I think, to come away with an accurate and objective understanding of the story and the characters.

Basically, a lot of subtext can be hidden in comics/manga, just like in prose writing, but a lot of it is often conveyed through imagery. And just like with prose, context matters. What came before matters. What comes after matters. You have to factor all these things in in order to form a full impression and understanding of the story you're reading. Like a character's motivation, what's driving them, can later be recontextualized based on a later event or action on their part, etc... The same for plot elements and so on. Like take Eren, for example, and the absolutely insane expressions he pulls very early on in the story, when he's in his titan form and killing other titans, etc... Eren looks mad, and that tells you something about his character. He acts a certain way most of the time, acts like he's concerned for his friends, that they're his priority, etc... but it's those moments of obsessive bloodlust that reveals the true nature of Eren's character. He's driven by a desire to commit acts of violence and destruction, and he gets lost in that desire. That's who Eren really is. The way Isayama draws that madness on Eren's face is in itself enough to tell you what sort of person Eren actually is, and helps you to better understand what it is he later does.

Anyway, I hope that helped. Again, I'm no sort of expert analyzer or anything, lol. I just get passionate about these things and I write super long posts as a result. But thank you so much for finding anything of value in what I do write. I honestly never think anyone will.

[luna-azzurra]

List of 40 character flaws

Stubbornness, Unyielding in one's own views, even when wrong.

Impatience, Difficulty waiting for long-term results.

Self-doubt, Constant uncertainty despite evident abilities.

Quick temper, Excessive reactions to provocations.

Selfishness, Prioritizing one's own needs over others'.

Arrogance, Overestimating one's own abilities.

Trust issues, Difficulty trusting others.

Perfectionism, Setting unreachable high standards.

Fear of change, Avoiding changes.

Haunted by the past, Old mistakes or traumas influencing the present.

Jealousy, Envious of others' successes.

Laziness, Hesitant to exert effort.

Vindictiveness, Strong desire for revenge.

Prejudice, Unfair biases against others.

Shyness, Excessive timidity.

Indecisiveness, Difficulty making decisions.

Vulnerability, Overly sensitive to criticism.

Greed, Strong desire for more (money, power, etc.).

Dishonesty, Tendency to distort the truth.

Recklessness, Ignoring the consequences of one's actions.

Cynicism, Negative attitude and distrust.

Cowardice, Lack of courage in critical moments.

Hotheadedness, Quick, often thoughtless reactions.

Contentiousness, Tendency to provoke conflicts.

Forgetfulness, Difficulty remembering important details.

Kleptomania, Compulsion to steal things.

Hypochondria, Excessive concern about one's health.

Pessimism, Expecting the worst in every situation.

Narcissism, Excessive self-love.

Control freak, Inability to let go or trust others.

Tactlessness, Inability to address sensitive topics sensitively.

Hopelessness, Feeling that nothing will get better.

Dogmatism, Rigidity in one's own beliefs.

Unreliability, Inability to keep promises.

Closed-offness, Difficulty expressing emotions.

Impulsiveness, Acting without thinking.

Wounded pride, Overly sensitive to criticism of oneself.

Isolation, Tendency to withdraw from others.

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[whendidmythoughtsgocrazy]

Therefore, do not hesitate to make a mistake and continue searching until you find the right person.

k.b. // human design analysis

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Advice: Noticing Bigotry In Your Writing

Tw for mentions of bigotry and discrimination, obvi

Look Up Common Stereotypes For Your Characters

Seriously, this is the best thing you can do in order to incorperate these stereotypes into a full-formed identity. I'm not saying that you can't write a "sassy black girl" or a "happy disabled person".

It's just that if you have any hope of writing these stereotypes into actual 3-dimensional characters, you need to know what you are working with. Look up "Common {Minority} Stereotypes" or "{Minority} Myths"

It's genuinely not that hard to see whether or not your character is a stereotype! Send an ask to @cripplecharacters if you are having trouble with your disablity representation.

Send a submittion to the thousands of Tumblr accounts whose entire schtick is giving you advice!

Let me tell you:

" The Worst Decision You Can Make Is A Subconscious One"

If you go into writing a minority character the way you do with all your characters aka fantasizing and just going straight for it, there is a chance you might undercut your story with bigotry!

Because everyone has bias. That's not a moral failing on your part but it is something you need to consciously fight against in order to write characters who can stand on their own and not be supported by internalized bigotry.

Which leads me to my second and last question.

2. Why Is Your Character Like This?

Investigate why you made the decisions you have made. To help with that, here is a little questionaire!

When I imagine a cruel person what assumptions do I make about their appearance and psyche?

Based on my previous characters, do I have a tendency to lean into a particular archetype when writing my minority characters?

Is there any narrative reason such as plot, themes, and other important devices that would justify my character's personality?

Why did I decide this character would be this particular minority?

How do I view this character in terms of their minority status? Is it condescending? Is it hateful?

What associations do I naturally have between a minority status and social status, personality, and importance?

Would I have treated and viewed this character the same way if their minority status was completely washed away?

Are my minority characters generally relegated to the side lines and only exist to help non-minority characters in their lives?

Is the level of detail, psychological complexity, story, likeability, relatability, and compellingness of minority characters on the same level as non-minority characters?

Do my stories contain symbolism which portrays cruel bigotry-motivated practices as positive or useful?

Do my stories sympathize with bigotry-infused individuals while not extending that sympathy to those who are oppressed by that bigotry?

Have I ever critically looked at my writing and what it says about my worldview on others?

If you are now considering that you have biased belief systems, that's good! Again, it's much better to be aware and fixing your problems instead of not being aware of them.

I hope my little questionaire made you think about your writing in a new way! ;)

Feel free to add your own important "check yourself" questions!

[honeytonedhottie]

your greatest accomplishment is yourself⋆.ೃ࿔*:･🗒️💕

i was inspired to make this post after watching sheraseven's youtube video "a woman's greatest accomplishment is herself" just my notes on it and what i took away from the video…💬🎀

BUILDING YOURSELF ;

when you are constantly putting your time and energy towards building for others, you are depriving urself of what u can be building of yourself and being the best that u can be. when u sacrifice ur own time for others, whether thats out of love, for free, or for money thats still ur time that ur giving away and ur time is valuable.

use what you have to build yourself. things like ur knowledge which are investments, but if ur not going to apply that knowledge then its like, in vain. make sure to apply what u know. put ur education towards ur own gain and building instead of someone else's.

WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING ;

women can do literally everything. we are so multi talented and multi faceted, theres nothing that we cannot do and we have that established already. but since we are so talented and amazing then how come so many women have low self esteem and confidence in themselves and their abilities?

because we are conditioned through societal norms and sometimes culture to think that even though we can do everything, we dont deserve anything and thats very sad. if ur not being built from what u are building then you are depleting urself.

KNOW UR OWN VALUE ;

how do we know and remember our value? through continuous reminders. we can remind ourselves of our value through being careful what kind of content we consume.

be careful the content that u consume

pampering and taking care of ur body

being disciplined and achieving ur goals

through taking care of ourselves and leading a disciplined life because discipline is the highest form of self love ofc. say ur affirmations and listen to affirmation tapes that feed ur self concept.

and lastly just a reminder that you are so so valuable and to never doubt that ever. continue to take care of urself, glow and thrive ✨

[barrenclan]

How do you decide on motifs? Like sleep being associated with death, roses being associated with death? And how did you go about assigning each motif to a character (especially more character specific ones)? Like I get that Rainhaze was seen as a coyote in omens because of his association with Ranger, but why is Nightberry associated with visions, why is Cootstorm associated with never changing, conservative ideals?

Here's a good way to think about this: PATFW is not coming out of nowhere. Seems obvious, right? But every decision made is one that I had to intentionally choose, with a goal in mind for what I wanted to do with them. So I don't have real animals, or real people - I have certain stories in mind, and the characters are tools that I use to express these ideas. Let's take two examples brought up here, and I'll show you what I mean.

Asphodelpaw's death. For this story, I wanted to have a big, climatic moment that really jerks around the story, much in the same way that Shellspring's reveal did in TDS. I know that I want Rainhaze to be an exploration of a character who starts out good and turns complicated, and that I want him to not be redeemed. Okay, so how do I make sure Rainhaze is beyond redemption? He'd have to do something really awful, like killing someone important. The rest of the Clan wouldn't be as impactful if he killed them, so it should be one of his family members, and someone we really care about. Okay, who do I want him to kill? Pinepaw is my narrator, so if I want him to keep narrating, I can't kill him. I want Slugpelt to feel the consequences of this murder Rainhaze makes, and I want her to later confront him about it, so he can't kill her. I can't quite get into why I want Daffodilpaw to live yet, because of spoilers, but I have a certain message I want to create with Daffodilpaw, and she can't die as part of it. So Asphodelpaw is the only one left. Okay, why would it be impactful for her to die? Because she just came into herself, and apologized to Pinepaw, and is on track to grow into a better person. So it's extra tragic - and extra irredeemable - of Rainhaze to kill her. There you go, that's the reasoning behind Asphodelpaw's death.

The sleep/death motif. I have suffered from personal difficulties surrounding death, specifically involved with intrusive thoughts before I go to sleep. So those two ideas are very linked in my mind, and because PATFW is a darker story, I wanted to explore it. Okay, how do I work it into the story? Rainhaze is a character who's disappeared, presumed dead, by the time the story starts. Alright, maybe I can work it in there. I used it for the first time in Issue 4, contrasting between Rainhaze and Slugpelt's views on what happens after death. Alright, so now I have a thematic parallel between their characters and their views. Okay, how does this affect the future plot? As Rainhaze gets further involved with Defiance, his views on killing change, and that strengthens this association with sleep. So later, when Slugpelt kills him, I can bring this thematic parallel back around and make it really resonate, because I've built up the connection over the whole story. There you go, that's how you create a motif.

I hope you found this interesting. Often I find that a lot of writing advice is vague and nonspecific, so I tried to make my reasoning behind these things as clear as possible. From the outside, it may seem like absolutely anything can happen in a story, but from an internal perspective there are only so many ways to get to a point I want to make, so those decisions have to lead to each other if I want to create a natural thread.

[unboundprompts]

Character Name Ideas

-> a masterpost of name ideas for your characters.

-> requests open for names with specific vibes.

If you like what I do and want to support me, please consider donating! I also offer editing services and other writing advice on my Ko-fi!

I also have a Patreon! Become a member to gain access to a Member's Only Community where you can chat and message other members and myself. Also gain access to my personal writing, which includes completed short stories, chapters from novels in progress, as well as completed scenes.

Alphabetical First Names:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Other Name Ideas:

Cottagecore Names

Dark Academia Names

Greek Mythology Names

Pirate / Sea Names

[t1sunfortunate]

I truly do think one of the largest pitfalls among the "media consumption is my passion" crowd is the tendency to treat characters as human beings with agency rather than narrative tools manipulated by the author

[raayllum]

Thinking about the difference between character development versus character maintenance. I've talked about the difference between character development and character expansion before, and I think this touches on a similar concept here as I did then with character development being held to the highest degree of "is this a good character?" (The answer is no, character development doesn't and is not the only thing that makes a character well written.)

Specifically: sometimes characters have character flaws that are not fixed by the end of the story through character development. Sometimes those flaws are things that stay consistent in order for the character to still feel like themselves, in other words, for the character's characterization to be maintained.

Rayla's tendency to lie for example has been a consistent problem for her throughout the whole show since the pilot, and while she finally makes strides with it outright in S5, she still lies to the celestial elves in S6 to achieve her aims (stopping Aaravos and saving the world). However, I'm not really expecting Rayla's tendency to withhold things, avoid contact with other people, or lie in general to ever totally go away; at most, I think we'll see it be changed in her close personal relationships that have been previously hurt by lying (particularly with Runaan and Callum), but... I'm not expecting anything else. Same with Callum for his temper, Soren with his impulsivity, or Ezran with his overly optimistic nature.

They might get better at handling those things, they might change who and how it gets directed outwards (Ezran in S6 does plan for contingencies with Karim; Callum is much better at not lashing out at people in arc 2 when he is mad; Soren is now impulsive because he wants to help protect people, etc) but those are always going to be things that they deal with because those are part of the things that make them Them. Other flaws (Rayla's hyper-independence, Ezran's passivity, Soren's bully-ish fronting + being impulsive in asserting control, Callum's lack of confidence) are things that the characters have either overcome or are working through. They will probably be mostly resolved by the end of the story, the same way that many of us have flaws we work through or overcome.

But in the vein of character writing, not all flaws are written to be decidedly resolved by the end with a neat little bow, and the ones that aren't don't automatically equate a lack of character development. Often times, it's an indication of character maintenance instead.

[katapotato55]

how to make your writing be remembered forever and possibly be well loved.

(incredibly stupid and silly fanfiction line at the end of this post) I know that title is incredibly daunting but listen, its very simple. you ready?

MAKE STRONG CHARACTERS

"but kat! surely its not that simple! " nononono listen. bear with me. I want you to think of your favorite thing. Now ask: what do you remember the most about the thing you love? I will go first:

I love team fortress 2. and guess what: this game has been around since 2007, and was in development hell since before I was even born. The game has been around for 16 fucking years. And guess what? in the strong year of 2023 team fortress 2 Is STILL getting memed about. and do you want to know the crazy part? the character designs to the naked eye are not special at all. ok sure from a designer standpoint, these are very well designed characters made so that you can easily tell who they are based on their silhouette. but from the average joe.... tf2 is iconic but overall it looks ok. it doesn't seem special to a stranger to tf2. look at this completely random and arbitrary example of a game in the same genre:

I don't know shit about the characters in overwatch. Yeah i have a BASIC idea on what their personality is like based on voice lines and some videos i guess... but in-game they just exist. these characters are brightly colored, they have beautiful unique designs, hell they have even more diversity such as robots and people from other cultures! but i don't remember shit about these characters. Maybe I remember the ice lady and tracer, but nothing else. and yeah part of overwatch struggling right now is incompetant development, BUT: The characters in team fortress 2 are SO remember-able because the characters have such a vibrant personality. I am an orange box owner, its been a decade and a half and I am still remembering this game and enjoying art about it.

"but kat! that is a comedy game! Overwatch is a very serious game! are you saying comedy is needed to make a character more noticeable?" no. though I think allowing your characters to lighten up every now and then would humanize them. Not full on goofy, just give them something that makes them likeable. and if you cant do that, you can STILL make a compelling character even though they are mostly seriousness. I have an even more awfully thought out example:

kung fu panda is a masterclass in making a serious comedic movie somehow work. Master Oogway.... he isn't a comedic character at all. Yeah we made memes about him, but ignoring that, he is a wise and resourceful person. He is at calm and has faith in this intuition. there are a lot of characters like this. What makes Oogway stand out is that he is also a little bit kooky and sassy.

this youtube clip sums up what I mean. It is a funny line, it fits the character, and It doesn't ruin the seriousness of the moment. Some of the most successful series in history have something about them that has appealed to people. In my opinion: characters with strong personality and interesting traits is always a good way to ensure your writing is successful. The second most important is the characters bouncing off of each other in terms of their chemistry with each other. There is a reason why I spent years playing the first Destiny game and all of the DLC, but I remember fuck all about the characters. I think I maybe remember the bootleg star lord robot guy.

A writing exercise

here is an exercise to get you in the spirit of character making. step 1- get a random character from a random bit of media. In this case let me bring you master Oogway. Step 2- Get a completely different character from a completely unrelated series. I am going to give you Scout from team fortress 2. step 3- write a random ass thing about them interacting. Think about how the characters would react to each other and why. Think about each characters values in life and think about how they would bond and conflict with each other. Think about characters similar to the character they met in the past and how they reacted then, and if they have never interacted, make something interesting with it. Step 4- keep experimenting. Once you get into the spirit you can apply this to any new character you could want to make anyways thats it byeee- "arent you going to do that ?" do what? "make a writing thing about oogway and scout. " ........

Scout: let's go turtle you got nothing on my speed- Oogway: The one who first resorts to violence shows that he has no more arguments. Scout: that sounds like chicken talk! come on tough guy let me have it- Oogway then proceeds to make scout eat shit before vanishing in a cloud of cherry blossoms and dust from the desert. If this post isn't popular I want you to know my dignity was lost for nothing.

[luna-azzurra]

Fun Ways for characters to be wrong #1

Making quick assumptions without all the facts

Mistaking symbols or signs for something else

Using flawed reasoning or faulty logic

Ignoring obvious clues or hints

Believing in superstitions or myths that aren't true

Being overly confident and proven wrong

Exaggerating their experiences or accomplishments

Remembering events inaccurately or mixing up details

Trusting unreliable sources or false information

Falling for pranks, deceptions, or illusions

Underestimating the abilities or intentions of others

Mispronouncing words and causing misunderstandings

Making wild predictions about the future that don't come true

[emeryleewho]

At some point, you gotta stop asking yourself "why does everyone prefer bad books over mine" and start asking yourself "what are these badly written books doing to connect with people that mine aren't?"

Every time I hear an author lament the fact that people only like "bad" books and no one appreciates their artistry anymore, all I hear is "I never take the time to evaluate what makes something interesting to people who aren't me, and I value the rules of craft and other arbitrary elements I've posited as the crux of good writing over the art of actually meeting people where they are and giving them something that holds value to their lives."

[artist-issues]

yo, some of the stuff on your blog has finally given me the ability to articulate something I haven't been able to before. (this'll be long but I don't think you'll mind lol)

the reason I've had such an issue with a lot of the "think critically of your media" sentiment I see online, is that people aren't really thinking critically about what a story(media) is saying, but what potentially bad thing it could be saying.

people would say "remember that no story is perfect!", but then demand stories be perfect anyway and condemn them as problematic for... not even their actual flaws, just perceived and potential flaws. stories would be condemned as saying something bad just because you could force a bad thing out of them, even if the argument wasn't logically sound. you could never enjoy something without a constant disclaimer of "I pretty promise I'm aware of the bigoted tropes and I don't believe them 😁" . it was exhausting.

as an example: I've seen people condemn the trope of robots or aliens (non-human people) acting like autistic people as implying autistic people aren't human... but it does not at all logically follow "this robot acts autistic, therefore if you're autistic, you're a robot", and none of the stories I know of with autistic "coded" aliens and robots are used to communicate that! yet the trope gets accused of that, even though it usually just exists to say "people should be treated as people even if they're weird", or ask "what if you don't fit in?" or "why do we(humanity generally) act this way? what if we didn't?" etc.

there's nothing inherently wrong with that trope. it's not actually saying anything bad, but people would twist it into saying something bad, and get angry at the pretzel they just made for being twisted!

but that's not actual critical thinking! you're not analyzing something to find out what it is, just what the worst possible thing it could be is (even if it doesn't logically follow). like that cursed mirror from "the snow queen".

---

all this to say: your method of asking "what is this story trying to say? what did this story say? and is that true?" is so much better and such a realer example of "critical thinking" than what gets passed off for it a lot of the time.

I appreciate this and agree with all of it!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Active Reading

Active reading - reading with a purpose.

When it comes to critical analysis, the purpose of active reading is to familiarize yourself with your primary text and secondary sources to create a thorough and accurate analysis.

You can engage in active reading by paying attention to the type, author, audience, and purpose of a source.

Type

In writing, texts are often categorized based on the form, style, and purpose they share.

Examples: Fiction, nonfiction, horror, fantasy, and mystery.

Each type of writing typically follows a set of rules that can help us better understand the author’s purpose and the meaning of the text itself.

When reading your text, consider how the type of text shapes your understanding of it by asking the following questions:

What type of text is it (e.g., essay, play, comedy, romance, etc.)? Keep in mind that a text may have more than one type.

What stylistic or literary elements are important to that type of text (e.g., imagery, rhyme scheme, dialogue, etc.)?

How does the type of text impact the author’s message? Is that type of text appropriate for the author’s purpose?

Does the author use any stylistic or literary elements uncommon to that type of text?

How does the type of text enhance or take away from the author’s message?

Author

Authors are the people who created a text.

An author’s personal experiences often impact the type and content of his or her work.

Researching an author’s background helps us recognize and understand what influenced his or her work.

As you read through a text, ask yourself the following:

Who created the text?

When did the author create the text?

Where did the author create the text?

In what context was the primary text written (e.g., social, cultural, political, economic)?

Are there any significant events in the author’s life that may have influenced the type and content of the text?

Audience

The audience consists of anyone who reads a text.

Usually, an author considers his or her intended audience when making decisions about a source’s type, tone, and content.

When reading a source, think about how the audience shapes the author’s decisions by asking questions such as:

Who is the intended audience of the source (e.g., artists, scientists, nobles, etc.)?

How does the audience view the author (e.g., credible, biased, etc.)?

How would the audience react to the content of the source (e.g., agree, disagree, indifference, etc.)? Why would the audience react that way?

Are there any other audiences the author may not have considered?

Purpose

Purpose is an author’s reason for writing a text.

3 of the most common examples of purpose include to persuade, to inform, and to entertain.

Identifying an author’s purpose for writing is useful for determining whether an author’s text is written effectively or not.

As you read your sources, consider whether the author accomplishes his or her purpose by asking a few questions:

1. Why did the author write the text (e.g., to inform, to persuade, to entertain, to critique, etc.)? (Note: An author may have multiple purposes for writing.)

2. What is the main idea, theme, or argument of the source?

3. How does the author attempt to accomplish his or her purpose?

How does the author use ethos, logos, and/or pathos?

How does the author use literary or stylistic elements (e.g., character, symbolism, setting, etc.)?

4. Does the author effectively accomplish his or her purpose? Why or why not?

Additional Tips on Active Reading

It’s also useful to read your text from different perspectives.

The first time, read as a consumer. You are reading for enjoyment.

The second time, read as an academic. You are reading to learn and understand.

The third time, read as a critic. You are reading to question both the text’s meaning and the author’s decisions.

NOTE

It’s a good idea to take notes and record your thoughts throughout your active reading process.

Actively reading your sources helps you consider them from more than one perspective.

Active reading also fosters critical thinking.

Once you finish actively reading your sources, you can begin drafting your critical analysis.

Source ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[coffeegnomee]

Minecraft pvp is so freaking interesting. I was thinking back to watching the Jumper pov of the Minute and Pentar ban and it was so good. Like I was on the edge of my seat and I knew how it ended. We need more group battles in Lifesteal, I beg.

1v1 pvp is just like who can get the most hits in, or just who can quick drop the other person faster. 

But group fights are sooooo different. The actual personality and experience of each member matters so much. And it doesn't show until there's at least 5 people on the battlefield. Preferably 7.

Minute, Pentar, and Jumper came with basically identical kits, very solo-minded towards their approach to pvp. They got overconfident with their secretly-netherite armor durability and 15 stacks of xp (each.)

And they, as far as I know, have very very little experience in large group battles and long pvp battles. They all fought drain season 5, but 4v3 group drain is much different than a 2v2. 

And the fight was LONG. Minute didn’t realize the change in tides until really late, not initiating the run to the trap, their ONLY trap my goodness why didn’t they set up more it’s the final days, so when the trap was already blown up they had zero backup plan. 

They didn’t start calling in people until Minute had like 2-3 stacks of xp left, that’s something you do the second you realize the tides are turning, especially when it’s an uneven 3v4.

And just listening to his coms vs Clown’s coms was just night and day. Minute doesn’t have the experience yet to know how to manage a team in a fight, how to allocate assets, choose targets, and keep the team’s morale up and on target while they’re dying. He’s said it himself that he likes the quicker fights kits with netherite sword and diamond armor.

But Clown is naturally skilled at managing his soldiers. He knows exactly who to target and how, reassigning pvp skill so it’s him, the most skilled, with the least skilled player to do maximum durability damage on Minute. Like every phrase out of his mouth is in service of optimizing the team. 

And then they came with a minor kit adjustments. Clown and Mapicc came with harming arrows because of their net strength 1 from the blessings/curses, but Minute didn’t know that strat. So it was both an: “they’re trolling” moment, but when Clown came with the same kit it was like: “wait did I miss something?” Psychological warfare right there. 

And then Mapicc had his knockback sword and Zam was on water drain duty. Those two small changes to their kit, on just two members, really sealed their victory. Mapicc was such a menace.

Which is so fascinating. Minute had been ruling the server simply through being amazing at getting out of fights and never getting into a slightly outnumbered fight. Same with Jumper. 2v2’s for them were a guaranteed win. 

But once you get 7 people on the battlefield it turns into a completely different mindset on how to turn the tides back in your favor and it’s all about targeting specific players. As Clown was targeting the strongest player on their team, pb&j needed to get drain-drop Ro so it would be a 3v2.5 (with Zam/Spep) 

And Jumper, just because of her skill level and background, doesn’t know the dynamics of who to target and when, when to be aggressive and when to back off, when to call for help and when it’s better to stay in the fight. She did absolutely her best but it was so interesting to see he true smp pvp skill after months of just being like why is she so good in every fight and undefeated against Mapicc and Zam while she says she never practices.

Lifesteal fights, and yes I’ve only ever really watched Lifesteal fights and I am fascinated in theory for how Levels fights used to go, feel so much more dirty than a normal server. It feels like other servers just get a trap off or fight completely even and it’s just skill vs skill. (And I’m feeling that even more now just observing how Flame talks about other smp pvp) 

And Clown coming into the fight with an advantage was so much stronger than Minute deciding an advantage halfway though the fight. Clown does this all the time, not taking a fight until he’s properly prepped for the specific situation. Like bringing the crystals to the finale fight to even out the playing field: he prepares to get the advantage. 

Vs Minute is too good-hearted to think that cutthroat from the start (well, except for changing the durability of their armor) He absolutely thinks cut-throat when he realizes he’s doomed, but off the bat he’s too much a superhero. He thought the fight would just be Mapicc and Ro while Zam would sit out, like what??? It’s Lifesteal, if they’re on they’re all fighting. And then they were surprised when Clown came back on to fight. They were confident, but they should have been thinking defensively and like they were doomed the second it was a 4v3. Maybe not doomed, but not like it was even. 

Much like all the lore of the server, the specific players matter so much in each scenario. Without someone, or with someone, a whole arc is different. Clown changed the tides in that fight simply from being the better team manager. Had someone else been the 4th player it would have gone completely differently. 

-----

jumper pov here

zam here fight starts 2:47:00