#and it might read differently depending on the exact character saying it

[zodiacoracle]

Without going into details I've been thinking and reconfirmed there's a reason why I write fiction exclusively in English, and then I wonder again where my living experience starts and ends when I hatched the following for a personal work:

"Perhaps we are called the Children of Night because we are fated to live in darkness, never to be seen, yet we yearn for the glimmering stars in the distant sky."

[felassan]

John Epler in the BioWare Discord (August 7th, again) -

User: "Since the dialogue wheel is coming back, will our choices set our Rook as diplomatic/humorous/aggressive with varying tone and voice lines similar to Hawke being able to be blue/purple/red?" John: "Not to the same degree - we want to give you the freedom to play your Rook differently depending on who they're talking to (you might be kinder to your companions and brusque with authority figures, for example), but your tone choices will have an impact within a conversation and, sometimes, with specific characters across multiple conversations." --- User: "I have to ask: how muscular can we make the elves?" John: "Reasonably so. You won't be making any massive bodybuilders but like... Timothy Olyphant?" User: "As a follow up what about humans and qunari? Quite muscular a la arnold or big viking type? Or not so much that lvl?" John: "Larger lineages (Qunari, esp) are bigger by default so the upper bounds are going to be bigger, but for modeling and animation we did want to put some limits on it. But your Rook can look pretty reasonably muscled, regardless of lineage choice." --- User: "Are there any time-sensitive quests (in terms of gameplay time, that will fail automatically if not addressed in a timely manner), and if there are please tell me they're at least indicated as such in some way?" John: "There are quests that can go away and technically 'fail' if you don't address them - but, to be VERY clear, this is not an in-game timer, but rather as you progress the game's story forward. That said, we do try to sign post them as much as possible." --- User: "Does Rook ever get the choice to cuss?" John: "Yes. You'll know when you're doing it, and we leave it up to you to make the choice, but sometimes, cursing is exactly what the situation demands."

[character limit text break!]

User: "Does the bioware team read the other channels and if so do they think we're unhinged or endearing?" John: "Little of column A, little of column B. But I mean, I've been online for 27 years, the internet has ruined me as much as anyone." --- User: "all the Rooks we've seen so far are wearing purple, please tell me we dont have to wear purple" John: "Everyone else can wear whatever colour they want but you, specifically, must always wear purple." --- User: "All the games have had unique faction symbols for our protagonist (Warden, Champion of Kirkwall, Inquisition) I assume there will be one for the Veilguard Will the symbol for it get released before the game or is this something that will be revealed in-game/after it’s launched?" John: "Every faction has their own symbol - including the Veilguard themselves! You may have noticed it in some of the art out there." --- John: "As a general comment - one thing I want to be super clear on - even as creative director there are things I can say, and things we're not ready to talk about. I'd rather spend my time answering what I can instead of a dozen 'sorry I can't talk about that yet' - especially since this channel is on slow mode." --- User: "There are blood effects in combat after Rook hits an enemy. And I think a developer shared images of the blood effects on hit after the reveal. Will characters be covered in blood or other environmental effects? Like getting wet from walking in puddles or muddy from running on dirt?" John: "There are environmental effects that persist on characters, depending on the environment you're traversing. They're subtle, but they're there!" --- User: "how many tattoos can we choose from? are there also full bodied ones too?" John: "I don't know the exact number, but there are quite a few. Some are full body as well, though you have control over colours and opacity on a more granular basis."

[character limit text break!]

User: "Of the zones/areas revealed what was the most challenging to design?" John: "Each has its own unique challenges. Arlathan seems simple because - well, it's a forest, right? But what about Arlathan makes it different than places you've been before? How does it fit into the established lore? Minrathous is a different kettle of fish because we've talked about it extensively and in a way that meant it HAD to be grander and more impressive than anything we've built before, which can be a tall order. The team did a fantastic job on all the areas, though." --- User: "which faction has the best fashion, in your opinion?" John: "Crows. Largely because 'black leather and feathers' isn't a look I could pull off in the real world but I am glad my Rook can." --- John: "Alright folks. I've gotta head back to work, but please keep asking questions and I'll answer what I can as soon as I can!"

[source: the official BioWare Discord]

There was also this question and answer:

User: "Can we name our saves like in Origins?" John: "I had to double check because I was about 95% sure on the answer, but also, I've been on this project for its entirety and sometimes I remember features that we had to cut (or never actually built) - yes. You can name your saves to reduce confusion."

but the answer may have now been deleted.

[hosseinis]

hello!! I really hope this isn't a rude question, bc I'm genuinely curious. I've been wondering for a while now why people who make gifs from a movie or a show or whatever get upset when somebody else uses the gif in something or want credit for it. Is the process difficult? I'm not 100% how to make a gif but I can't imagine it being that arduous. Anyway like I said not trying to be rude have a good day :D

hey there! it's not a rude question if only because you're asking in the first place instead of just discrediting it.

the thing a lot of people don't understand is how much work actually goes into making a gif, because we don't just plug the video into a gifmaking program and call it a day. a lot of us start JUST with the process of pirating the highest quality video we can find, which can be anywhere from an hour or two of downloading to days at a time (my record is five days for all five seasons of the a-team, but that's a story for another day)

so there's already at least a few hours potentially, just from downloading. granted, we do other things obviously but that's still time that's going into the process.

so you have to download those videos, find the clip you want, and then there are several different methods of getting the clip into whatever program you use (i use photoshop). most of the time i have to reformat the video from .mkv to .mp4, because PS doesn't take .mkv but the highest quality videos are typically in that format. so i put that into a reformatting program, which can take at least another hour depending on how long the file is.

so i've finally got the file ready to go in photoshop, and then i can actually start working on the gif itself. i've now spent at MINIMUM two or three hours just getting this video ready. then i personally clip it down to the exact scene i want it and go from there. if you're just doing a random assortment of scenes, you can choose whatever you want. but if you're doing a scene itself, you have to clip that scene in bursts so you can add the subtitles based off the mouth-movement.

so say you're doing a gifset of your favorite character from a tv show. well, you don't want to just have all of the gifs come from the same episode. so you do the reformatting process all over again. more hours. you do that eight or nine or ten times until you have all the scenes you want. and THEN you can start the actual editing process.

what size should it be depending on what kind of gifset you want to do? 540x540? 540x405? do you just crop it first or should you resize it? the resolution might go down depending on how you resize it. do you know what smart sharpen is, and which levels you should have it on in order to make the scene look the best? what's a smart object? what percentage should your frame rate be so it doesn't look too fast? it's completely different between live action and animation, after all. do you know which colors you should use in the adjustment layers, like selective color? does levels or curves work better for what you're trying to do? how do i get rid of the yellow in this scene so it matches the other gifs? what's the difference between linear contrast and medium contrast? should you use exposure or vibrance to get the shadows you want?

you've done all that, it looks good! you go to export it as a proper gif so you can post it to tumblr. but don't forget your settings on that either! transparency dither, web snap, the amount of colors and what size it should be. you do all that and the gif ends up being over the 10mb limit. so now you have to go back and carefully chip away at the frames until it's under the limit, which means you ultimately have to choose what to sacrifice from that scene so you can properly export it.

so you try again. okay, it's on 9.7MB. that's going to read as 10MB on tumblr. back in you go to chip at it again until it's going to read as 9MB instead. finally. you export the gif, add it to tumblr, and then tumblr doesn't like how it looks when you import it and destroys the quality, so you have to go back and try different export settings until it looks the way you want it.

so you do that nine more times. The Entire Process. downloading and reformatting the .mkv, getting the scene you want, clipping it, resizing and cropping it, coloring it, exporting it, and if you're adding subtitles then it's an entirely new process to add on! and don't forget that if you're doing a mix of scenes, you have to color them all depending on their own lighting, so you're basically doing the process again from scratch.

then you try to think of a fun caption. maybe you want to choose a line you feel best summarizes the character or scene. you put that caption through an HTML formatting program so it can be a gradient (the easiest part!), make the caption look pretty, and then tag it and press send.

you've spent HOURS on this process. literal fucking hours. you've been learning how to carefully manipulate the colors to look good, you know what frame rate looks the best, you have all of your settings saved as .psds.

and then someone right clicks, saves the gif (or just copies it) and posts it to twitter with their own funny little caption.

they get 26k likes, who knows how many retweets, a bunch of new follows. they get all the attention for that gif when they put zero work into it. all they did was write a caption and press send.

you got 400 likes and 165 reblogs on your gifset over on tumblr. maybe you get some tags on it if you're really lucky.

so tell me. wouldn't you be a little frustrated, too?

and just in case anyone wants to try and tell me this doesn't happen, you're welcome to compare the stats on this gifset of godzilla versus the repost on twitter.

[writingquestionsanswered]

So, I often find myself writing and it simply turns out… bland. I do try to remember to show my readers rather than tell, but I feel like I cannot consistently do that, and it feels forced. I try to focus on environment, internal feelings and such, but I wonder if I have an incorrect ratio of sorts… essentially, my question is for the average paragraph (let’s say not including any dialogue), how much should be descriptive of the environment and how much should be the characters thoughts and actions?

Writing Feels Forced or Bland

There isn't a formula or average for how much of the exposition in an average paragraph should be character thought and action vs description of the environment.

Your story overall should have a relative balance of exposition (explaining things--including character thought, backstory, and environment), action (characters doing things), and dialogue (characters talking.) It's not going to be an exact balance (hence the term "relative balance"), but you wouldn't want 5% dialogue, 30% action, and 65% exposition, for example, because that's not a relative balance. But, you could have 25% dialogue, 35% exposition, and 40% action if that's what works for your story.

This "balance" can't be applied to a single sentence, paragraph, scene, or chapter, because it's always going to be different. You'll have some sentences, paragraphs, scenes, or chapters that have a bigger balance of one or the others depending on the needs of the story. For example, the climax will probably be heavier on action and exposition than dialogue. Unless your climax is a huge verbal fight, in which case it will probably be heavier on dialogue and exposition than action.

When your writing feels bland or forced despite trying to include a relative balance of exposition, dialogue, and action... trying not to rely on telling rather than showing, and using description to flesh out the environment, the problem isn't with any of that, probably, but either with your expectations or with the story itself.

This is why it's so, so important for writers to also be readers... and yes, that does include listening to audiobooks and reading fan-fiction and short stories. Consuming story in any format is also important... because it's through reading and consuming stories that you can begin to understand how they work. You can read writing advice that says "show, don't tell" or "use description to flesh out the environment," but you can't really know what that means until you see it in action in a variety of different stories. Your expectations will be off because you haven't seen how it actually works.

And if you're an avid reader and know how stories work, and understand the overall relative balance between exposition, action, and dialogue needed to tell a story, and you still feel like it feels bland or forced, it could be an issue with the story itself. Relative balance between exposition, action, and dialogue isn't going to help if you don't have a plot that is compelling and cohesive... and if you don't have well fleshed out characters with a logical motivation, goal, and internal conflict to help drive the story forward.

You might take a spin through my Plot & Story Structure master list of posts, as well as my Character Development master list of posts for more help with individual issues on those points.

I hope this helps!!! ♥

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

LEARN MORE about WQA

SEE MY ask policies

VISIT MY Master List of Top Posts

COFFEE & FEEDBACK COMMISSIONS ko-fi.com/wqa

[mur1an]

I will say this at once, Tantris and Isolde 2 are both illusions created using Isolde ideal of how she wishes they could be. Because, there's no way in hell that Tristan sees Isolde like Isolde 2 or wishes she was that way, it just don't make sense for him to thing like that. While Isolde has already spoken about how she feels about her high, and that she believe that this is a reason for him not like her back.

And as I are said in previous post, Arthur most definitely know that Tristan was in Camelot, I mean if the black hole that opened wen they were talking is not a prove enough, and yes, we can say it could be a natural reaction of Camelot, but Arthur created this place so he must be aware of the people that don't fall for it's tricks.

There is also the part about Isolde and Chion finding one another quickly after the fall, but Tristan took a year to find!

You may say, but if it creates an illusion of Tristan why not make an exact copy of the original? And that's were I wanted to get.

It has already been established that the illusion of Camelot are nothing more than a reflection of people memories.

Isolde and Chion have ared went through this experience, so logically they would be able to notice at some point that is a illusion. Following that same logic, it would make sense why Tantris don'ts have memories. Since if he doesn't have memories then he wouldn't have the same reaction as the fake Jade.

And you may ask me, why would Arthur do an illusion of Tristan? Well, It could be to distract them. Make them believe that they have found Tristan, but that something is wrong with him, so they would stop looking for him because they are know where he is.

Now, why Arthur might want Tristan, for several reasons, it all depends on the narrative that Nakaba wants to follow. He may have taken Tristan to perform experiments, to torture, to kill him, but if you want to think of another path that is not so obvious (and which I find more interesting), he may be wanting to bring Tristan to his side.

Now you may ask, why would you think that? And I will answer, because I delusional.

Ok, talking serious right now, it's because from all the four, Tristan is the one with less lore in the arthurian legends (Nakaba has are put the most interesing part from his lore in the manga, from now one his history is basic Romeo and Juliet but with different characters), so by logic he is the one that Nakaba can create most new things for. There's also the fact that from all the four, Tristan is the only one that don't have a connection with Arthur. And I personally would find really boring if he just end up hating Arthur like Percival and Lancelot, I think it would be really interesing see the oposite happenig to him.

Like, think of them having a relationship similar to Silco and Jinx, our Claudia and Aaravos.

That would be really cool!! And also the quantity of angst we can get with that, ooh boy.

And it makes a lot of sense. These two characters have a lot in common. Both are made of light and darkness (Tristan is a nephilim and Arthur is chaos), they both had a human part in them, but from what we can understand, Arthur took away his human side, or at least half of it. Both could create a natural curiosity for each other due to their similar nature, after all they are unique.

And yes, there is a possibility that Tantris is Tristan just with amnesia. But again, that would be boring.

Woo! I think this the biggest post I have ever made,... I need to do more in the future! But that's it for today, thanks for reading to the end. I would really like to read your guys opinions on this, if you guys want to share.

[bumblingbabooshka]

I’m fascinated by the previous ask’s mention of anime “or the Vulcan equivalent” since anime is literally just Japanese animation would Vulcan animation have a distinctive enough style to warrant a distinct name? What is the Vulcan cultures’ views on animation as an art form (in your opinion).

I don't know enough about animation or art as like an evolving discipline as it relates to society/culture to say much about it in an intelligent way but the newest Dungeon Meshi Extra makes me think about it in a purely 'what would be fun' way

Vulcans also have an incredibly long lifespan so it'd be funny if Vulcans were used to listening to stories that are much longer than other species. [See: Tuvok singing his children a 348 verse story as a lullaby and his children loving it]

You know those soap operas that go on for like decades? Vulcan soap operas are going on for CENTURIES.

I think a lot of the most popular stories on Vulcan center around enlightment or war. In fact I think a lot of Vulcan is probably dedicated to those topics - I headcanon that there are multiple museums and monuments about the many wars Vulcan fought with a heavy emphasis on the great toll it took on their people and how awful these actions were. They almost blew up everything with nukes! But then logic saved them...I believe this is also a common thread in stories that aren't about war - being saved by logic. A woman almost falls for charlatan...but logic saves her. A man almost kills his brother...but logic stills his hand. Etc Etc. A Vulcan author could probably write thousands of books in their lifetime, depending on the age they started. I think having an author with hundreds of books is fairly common and Vulcans are often a bit anxious about reading very good authors of other species...what if they die before they finish writing?? Television shows having like 40 seasons isn't that rare and I think their method of storytelling would probably have to differ from ours in order to facilitate that. That's interesting, isn't it?? I wonder about Vulcan media that isn't Surak's teachings. Like, Tuvok says he likes to read - what's he read about? In 'Riddles' Neelix mentions a "Proto-Vulcan Drama" called 'Clash on the Fire Plains' which has 23 parts. Tuvok apparently has this in book form in his quarters but he's often reading things off his PADD which I assume are also Vulcan literature. It seems that a lot of Vulcan stories we hear about are meant to teach some sort of lesson even if they are also entertaining. When it comes to ongoing media (EX: Television show) I think they'd probably follow a series of arcs and situations with the same characters learning and growing. If you start watching season 82 of a Vulcan program then go back to season 7 it's like a whole new set of characters but they just changed because of their experiences. (As your Vulcan friend will rant to you). It gets a bit ridiculous but it's a bit fun too~ I headcanon that Vulcans in Starfleet will often get together to watch popular Vulcan tv shows' new episodes...alleviates some missing home. Others join in and soon we're seeing tv shows from all over the universe! Surprisingly, Vulcan and Klingon programs are fairly similar in the aspect of 'a lot of battle focused shows which teach lessons' but the exact lessons differ, of course. Oh I bet Vulcan tv shows would also have so much intrigue and drama about clans and marriage and propriety etc which Klingons would love. Klingon: So T'Eyanra is going off with Sarun? Even though she was made aware that Sertik is ill and might be plagued with fever? Vulcan: Yes. And do not forget - Sarun's clan changed the water rights of her own, though she does not know this yet. Klingon: -settling in- Sarun's clan is without honor! That knave... -gasp- and the Ektinslahrah ritual is tonight! Vulcan: -also settling in- Indeed. Oh god this was about anime wasn't it? Well just apply all that stuff I said to anime somehow...Vulcan anime is like one piece's length and death note's complexity but with a shocking amount of painstaking slice of life. I think animation would be taken as seriously on Vulcan as it is on Earth - I can't think of anything that'd make them take it more or less seriously? I picture Betazoid animation would have a heavy emphasis on showing feeling though - like visibly as an ever present cloud behind the characters' heads and you have to know what all the colors mean.

[androgymagnus]

ohhh my god speaking of house md and brilliant minds comparisons. yikes. like. okay. i understand why people try to start with this. i truly do. i think if you're trying to communicate something you like about the show to someone who hasn't seen it, and you do that by relating it to a very popular medical drama, that's like. i get why you're doing that. but while there's a pretty good common thread here (ie, medical drama starring disabled doctor who will do anything to help his patients and his gaggle of diverse interns) it's.... largely surface level and reductive, because these are two very different shows other than that little logline.

like, their disabilities and how they're handled and what they mean to their characters and how they handle them are very different. (SO different i'm not even gonna get into it. but they serve different purposes you know?) the tone of the whole show is different--my god is the tone different. the shows are actively trying to do different things.

and like (this one deserves its own line) while i personally believe house is very empathetic and cares about his patients under All That, uh, All That still exists, and does not excuse any kindness he might have under All That, and All That is still a problem (ie yes he will go to any lengths to cure his patient but he will also call them and their whole family slurs. blah blah blah complex character motivations and trauma the effect is still bad no matter the cause) and anyway, that's just what i think from his characterization, generally, he is still incredibly rude and caustic and you could certainly argue for the reading that he actually cares about the puzzle, not the patient. and even if you, like me, believe he deeply cares about his patients even when he doesn't want to, he still largely focuses far more on their literal health than their feelings or lived experience in the hospital. he'll save your life but he'll be a dick the whole time. he'll make patients cry and not really care. meanwhile dr wolf cares about his patient's lived experiences, how they feel, not just their literal physical health. that is literally his entire approach: getting to know them as people, treating them with kindness and understanding when other doctors have brushed over them or signed them off as a lost cause. rather than any kindness/empathy being subtext or shown through certain actions, it's the text.

now, i'm not saying this makes dr wolf a better character than house (a better person, perhaps!) or even a more complex character, since again. they are very different characters serving very different purposes. house is a deeply fucked up little man dealing with very bad chronic pain, childhood trauma, probably repressed bisexuality but let's not go there, etc., and he lashes out. he's a complex character, he's sympathetic but not a victim, he's an asshole but often you like him anyway. wolf is serving a different purpose as a character--i'd say his speech about harold in the first episode really speaks to it. like. he cares, about things other doctors don't, that even house probably wouldn't (depending on the episode and season probably). he's got his own backstory, albeit one we don't know all of yet, that plays into how he interacts with people now and why he is the way he is.

like. agh. gestures frusturatedly. there are interesting contrasts one could make here between these two characters (for example: if we buy that house is deeply empathetic, he deals with this by not wanting to get attached to patients at all, refusing to see them directly, and treating them like puzzles, because when he does see them as a person it hurts more when they die; meanwhile dr wolf does the exact opposite and loathes the idea of seeing patients as their diseases, as a puzzle, but as a consequence gets maybe even too attached every single time, which, while admirable, can lead to burnout or just, you know, getting fired or being a bit single-minded with blinders on trying to save them), but ultimately, it's kind of apples and oranges (that previous parenthetical is fun and all but they have very different backstories and motivations and context and that's kind of just isolating one thing, you know?) and seeing people uncritically compare the two is at least mildly irksome. they have, again, wildly different backstories and motivations.

these shows are trying to do different things! neither one of them is better than the other (i think i'm enjoying brilliant minds more personally, although with only seven episodes out to house's eight seasons i think it's a bit of an unfair judgment to try and make objectively as of yet) because they are trying to do different things. they just happen to be medical dramas about a doctor who will do anything to cure their patient, which is, when you think about it, a very broad category. you could throw in 'and he's disabled!' but let's be real, their disabilities (and how they're handled and interact with the plot) are very different.

the point is, i understand why people make this comparison but i think it's a little reductive and misguided. but at the same time like, i get it, trying to get across something in an easy to understand way when you're trying to convince someone to watch the show, just--don't go giving them the wrong impression! if someone goes into brilliant minds expecting house md, and they like different things about that show than you did, they're gonna end up being disappointed

anyway, disorganized ramble: end. hope it somewhat made sense

[bestworstcase]

penny was the winter maiden for two days.

ozma has been reincarnating for centuries, if not thousands of years.

assuming that the maiden cycle depends on the exact same metaphysical process (which is in itself textually uncertain, given that the maidens are non-conscious entities said to separate from the host’s aura at death and cleave to another whereas ozma’s reincarnation works by combination of his aura with another—as described, these are explicitly different mechanisms, and because the different outcome of the two cycles (one overwrites the host, one doesn’t) are explained by this difference in mechanism, i see no real reason to question the overtly-stated differences in what is happening when a maiden finds a new host vs when ozma is bound to one), the notion that penny could have—in two days—achieved some mastery over the reincarnation process that has eluded ozma for, again, thousands of years, is… nonsense?

it’s the most grasping-at-straws out of a lot of very straw-grasping penny 3.0 theories and the premise is, more or less, “ozma has been needlessly murdering his hosts for thousands of years because he’s too stupid to realize that he doesn’t have to do that.”

when like. ok. listen to me.

in the lost fable, ozma takes control within seconds of landing in the new guy’s head. he’s not able to answer the question “what’s your name,” because he doesn’t know. jinn talks about ozma traveling for years before seeking out salem. he’s with her for years; they found a kingdom and have children. through all of this time, there is nothing to suggest that ozma has another presence in his head—until his reflection speaks to him, and he physically recoils in pure shock.

i think, when this began, there was no “merge.” ozma just landed in someone’s head and erased them, almost completely, right away.

in v8, oscar says he doesn’t like using magic because it makes the “merge” happen faster, and oz answers “i don’t blame you.”

many lifetimes ago, ozma either divided his magic or carved the divine blessings out of his soul and gave them to four young women who had helped him. the maidens persist as non-conscious entities who confer magical powers upon their host without, in any way, corrupting or taking over the host consciousness. meanwhile oscar is still holding on—by his fingernails, perhaps, but he’s still alive and himself—and he feels that using magic erodes him faster.

do the math.

at some point, ozma worked out that the divine magic he carried was killing his hosts, leaving behind just a reflection that monitored him to keep him in line. so he tried to get rid of it, by giving portions of that magic away, and it worked, even if not to the extent he might have hoped. the maidens are ozma’s best effort at sparing the lives of his hosts.

(reading between the lines of how oz phrases it to the kids—“i reincarnate, but my memories stay with me”—in combination with his obvious projection of his own suicidality onto salem? i’d bet that ozma was hoping to destroy his own consciousness when he did this, too, so that his future hosts would receive his remaining powers and inherit the task but not him.)

it’s a mistake to look at the resigned acceptance ozpin has now and assume that it’s representative of how ozma has always felt about his curse; the whole point of him as a character is that he’s been ground down and slowly corrupted in the gristmill of this curse over thousands of years.

and it’s also, frankly, a mistake to take penny clocking blake as a faunus because she saw blake’s ears through the bow in infrared or penny figuring out that ruby can carry people with her semblance after 1. ruby flew with penny in volume two and 2. several months of ruby demonstrating abilities in training that she’s been doing since v4 without consciously registering that she’s doing them, like splitting to go around obstacles, to mean that penny is uniquely insightful or good at “figuring things out” in general. she has superhuman sensory capabilities (infrared vision, aura-scanning) that give her an advantage in perception of certain situations, and she’s fairly book-smart.

that doesn’t make her capable of solving ozma’s Divine Curse after sitting with the maiden powers for Two Days in a war zone. lmfao

[the-butterbun]

Hello. I’m glad you like my descriptions for your TMA Tarot.

They are very basic for cards. Mostly just enough to get a message.

But given each Tarot deck is personal to the images they use, I might eventually have time to really go into depth of cards meaning. I have 5 decks myself, and though messages can be the same, the way they are presented are different depending on the cards images.

(Example being my Arcana Deck’s star is very big into hope and courage. As the person who represents it is these things. But my Vampire Deck’s Star is more about the determination and desire of hope than the feeling of it.)

So for your deck I’d be going into more about how the Star and The Dark go hand in hand. Your deck would talk more about the facing of darkness rather than the hope the Star invokes. And would give more messages to the reader that, say reversed, means they are in despair.

So say they got Strength and The Star reversed, the reading would indicate they are in despair and fear, the darkness is about to consume them, and Strength would tell them to face the Dark with calmness and resolve. Invoking in a way two beings, to face the fear of The Dark you must embrace the strength of The Hunt.

I hope this gives you an idea of why I adore Tarot Deck’s that are stylized to certain fandoms. Because though the meaning of the cards are roughly the same, the way they are presented and told to the reader is very different depending on the art and/or fandom they are based in.

Sorry for this info dump, I wish you well with your exams and your project. Dont feel any pressure to continue it, doing 72 cards with 22 of them being heavy stylized as Major Arcane is not easy. (Not to mention the 16 Court Cards.)

((Dude!! The Court Cards could easily be the 14 fears with the Magnus Institute and its Underground being the last two))

Ah, sorry getting carried away with this ‘ask’. Again good luck and hope everything goes well!

I absolutely love your descriptions for the tma tarot cards I drew!

I don't have a lot of practice with more flowery/metaphorical language. Seeing your proposals for the card meanings really sparked up my drive for this project once again. I can go in depth about my reasonings and analysis but poetic prose is a whole other ball park.

The fact that I don't actually have a lot of experience with tarot is also certainly a factor. at the beginning I had trouble matching characters with their cards since all decks are different but that is also the beaty of tarot I learned!

Here's the whole list of the Major Arcana matches so far (keep in mind these might still change, some of theses matches I am more attached to than others)! I paired up all these cards a few months ago so atm am a bit fuzzy on my exact thought process but I made it a point to give each fear AT LEAST one card of the Major Arcana (including the extinction). I have not done the Courts as of yet and probably won't for a while.

0 - the fool - Micheal Shelly

1 - the magician - Anabelle Cain

2 - the high priestess - Melanie King/Helen Richardson (I'm still split on this one)

3 - the empress - Gertrude Robinson

4 - the emperor - Jonah Magnus/Elias Bouchard

5 - the hierophant - Raymond Fielding

6 - the lovers - Agnes Montague and Jack Barnabas

7 - the chariot - Julia Montauk and Trevor Herbert

8 - strength - Daisy Tonner and Badura Hussain

9 - the hermit - Martin Blackwood

10 - wheel of fortune - Georgie Barker and Oliver Banks

11 - Justice - Peter Lukas

12 - the hanged man - Jonathan Sims

13 - death - Gerry Keay

14 - temperance - Jared Hopworth

15 - the devil - Nikola Orsinov

16 - the tower - Micheal Crew

17 - the star - Manuela Dominguez

18 - the moon - Gary Boylen

19 - the sun - Jane Prentis

20 - judgement - Hazekiah Wakely

21 - the world - Simon fairchild

I have my in depth notes on these somewhere in my journal so if anyone's interested I can go in depth on each card, why I chose who I chose as well as alternative candidates :)

PS.: Actually I should probably check out the Courts before I finalize these matches. who knows maybe I'll find better ones and push off some of the Eye servants over there I mean I love them dearly but also this deck is VERY heavily Eye stacked. the 'one card per fear minimum rule' definitely stays regardless

PSS.: (god I can't even even fit them all in the tags, my pookies...)

[genderqueerdykes]

Okay so isk if this is smth to ask u or like someone else but honestly its open to anyone willing to interact with this post but

Is it weird for someone to write a queer story even if it isn't *exactly* their experience?

For context: I'm writing a story about an AMAB individual who (after moving back to their hometown after years of travelling with their mother) reunites with an old friend and finds that her friend group is predominantly queer. After a while of interacting with them and getting to learn about queerness in depth for quite possibly the first time in her life they realise that they might not actually feel like a boy.

The story revolves a lot around queer joy and queer POC characters and what some people consider 'weird' queers (neopronouns, complex identities etc, cause I am basing this off of some of mine and some friends experiences) and stuff and has a fairly happy ending (cause i feel like there should be more stories about POC kids being accepted not just by their friends but also their parents)

I am however AFAB Nonbinary and ik that experiences are different depending on birth sex and all of that and this is partially based off some of my other friends experiences as well - and I was wondering if that's just like odd? Like I wanna do research and ask my own friends (because i feel like some of them could've really benefited from a story like this) but i do know that some people r kinda weird about it if it isn't written by someone who has personally experienced it in the exact same way.

i would say that's not weird!

in order to break down the preconceptions we have of other groups of people, we must try to see life from their situation. speculation won't be perfect, but being a sympathetic ear helps you hear other people's experiences, and how they are similar, but different to yours! i would say as long as you take enough time to research and read the experiences of those particular groups of people from their own mouths, you can include that sort of thing in your writing

also keep in mind, when writing about an identity you're not 100% sure on, you are allowed to not go super in-depth about the struggles and politics of that person's existence. you can choose to not go too deep into someone's gender, intersex condition, sexuality or lack there of, and so on. you can represent without having to try to speculate on what it's like down to brass tacks. that can be left to the people who live with those identities!

that's when our voices need to be uplifted- in cases where we are showing the very finer innerworkings of life as that identity. we are the experts, so you can leave that to us. you can write in a more casual manner in a sense that it's okay to go more in depth into the situations you are familiar with, and choose to not speculate way too hard on something you're not familiar with

good luck! i hope this helps, take care

[goodluckclove]

The Resistance Against Classical Literature (a ramble)

So I was talking a lot tonight to my colleague and editor @xarrixii, who is also one of my few field reporters regarding the state of Modern Precocious Youth Culture. They were telling me that the new average in English classes is - I think their exact words were "lower than you'd expect". I knew this already to some extent as I've heard more and more about the rise of varying degrees of illiteracy in younger generations.

I see a lot of people my age or older dunking on these kids and young adults for being near illiterate, some of them with a tone implying that this is somehow the choice, much less fault, of the students in question. Students these days are so aggressive and can barely read or write! Yeah dude I don't know about you but I get the sense those two observations are connected.

Anyways, while talking about why that may be, I mentioned how I'd seen a pretty major dislike for classic fiction and literary fiction in online spaces. When I saw the comments shrugging it off or condemning it as a genre, I responded with mainly brief confusion before moving on. But I feel like exploring the concept now and I guess that's going to be the problem of whoever follows past the read more.

So the first thing I figured was that Classic Fiction and Literary Fiction are two genres with pretty loose definitions that can vary depending on who's defining them. Literary fiction, after some quick research, generally seems to be considered a work of non-genre fiction that focuses on style, theme, and characters over plot. Most of my bookshelf is literary fiction, mainly from like the 50's to the modern age. That's just what I'm into. I also have a ton of books of Stephen King and Chuck Palahinuik. I'm complicated.

Classic fiction is even weirder to pinpoint. It seems to just be a notable book that stayed notable over the course of time over the course of generations for some reason or another. Maybe it's a great example of the genre. Maybe it's emblematic of a certain era in time. Maybe it proposed ideas divisive enough for people to argue over perpetually. That appears to be it, though.

Immediately you may notice this covers a TON of ground. This list of 200 notable books starts in the 1800s and covers a lot of the dusty go-to titles. Pride and Prejudice, Moby Dick, Great Gatsby - the kind of thing you probably had to read in an English class at some point. But go on and you find a way different vibe. The Haunting of Hill House. Beloved. American Psycho. All of these considered just as influential as something in the 1800s, just slightly newer in the scope of human existence.

I kind of figure the more prominent issue is that when people lament about classics they're actually talking about the Literary Canon, which is a sort of nebulously growing collection of what some authority of academia determined to be the best, most influential books to humanity as a whole. Are they right? To some extent, I'm sure. Domino effect and all. But since it's major push in I think the 1920s, it's been altered and expanded on to include people who are something other than white and biologically male and predominantly European. I know while I was still in high school the curriculum in California barely got the message.

I don't blame the teachers. Teachers have far less control over the material they can cover than what you might think - at least in public school. But when people say classics as a genre exist exclusively of [Stock photo ID:1083619858 from iStock.com], they are wrong and also have a perfectly sensible reason to think that.

I think execution plays a huge part in this. There's a deceptive glory in being well-read that starts great (It is objectively a good thing to be exposed to a variety of stories and ideas regardless of whether or not you end up liking them), but becomes so self-involved that it eventually becomes harmful to the cause. Maybe it's that the curriculum goes by at such a speed that you're unable to read and process a story as the author intended. Maybe you're in a space where you don't feel like you can say that you find a book held in Such High Regard to be mediocre, or even straight-up bad without it being a whole goddamned thing. As someone who was briefly an English Major, I am fully aware that there is a collection of books and writers that certain people are just insufferable about.

This is not an anti-intellectual thing. I would not take someone who - let's say, sees me reading Franny and Zooey by JD Salinger and sees it as an excuse to ramble bitterly about Catcher in the Rye unprompted - and call them an intellectual. I would consider that person to be someone who really likes to hear themselves talk and refuses to acknowledge that debates should be consensual.

What I mean is that there is a way to talk about older authors, revered authors, authors with big ideas that have lasted for years and years, and fucking pitch them better. The authors of even the oldest literary novels weren't dead-eyed back cover photos, artfully brooding and just exuding genius. They were writers, which means more often than not they were prone to some form of wacky neurosis.

Ernest Hemingway was a drunk and a fighter who loved guns but not gun safety. There's a much darker punchline to this setup that you're probably thinking of, but when I wrote it I was really referring to how he once shot himself in the calves by accident while fishing. He also opened fire on a hotel toilet during a messy divorce. Hemingway is also widely considered to be some variation of gender non-conforming.

Franz Kafka was an angsty guy who loved cocaine and simping over his long-time editor, and his dying wish was for all his work to be burned because the man was dramatic to the end (But also weirdly funny and apparently would crack himself up at his own writing). Jules Verne, the reason why I spent the latter half of one summer plodding my way through 10,000 Leagues Under the Sea, tried to hop a ship as a Cabin Boy so he could bring a coral necklace to the girl he loved - who was, incidentally, also his cousin.

These people wrote profoundly influential works. If you only read modern authors, those authors were almost certainly influenced by an older author they read and loved at some point. The Western Canon may no longer have the same use it once did, but there's a definite benefit in exploring books that gained a great deal of lasting notoriety, regardless of whether you love or hate them. It's good for everyone, but if you're a writer I go as far as to say it's crucial for development and inspiration.

Yes, there's good books now. I agree! But if you're someone who is avoiding the entirety of the 20th century in terms of literature, I would love for you to explore why. They don't have to be cisgender, straight men. They don't have to be white or American.

You aren't like an inherently cooler, smarter and more morally righteous person for reading these books and anyone who says they are is weird and boring. At the same time, there is an expanse of literature guarded at times by just the lamest doofuses that has the potential to make you feel something. It can change your perspective even if you hate it. Invisible Man had an ending so haunting when I finished it I walked out of class without saying a word and cried in the rain. Like Water for Chocolate annoyed me enough that I decided to try more of the genre to see if it was all like that and now I'm way into magical realism.

10,000 Leagues Under the Sea still makes me so fucking angry because Jules Verne was crazy horny for listing fish. Also his cousin, i guess? God damn, man.

Anyways it's late and I've lost the topic a long time ago. Books good. People who get super snobby and reverent over authors to the point where they're no longer people who wrote books are dumb. It's kind of making more sense in retrospect that Hemingway could've been some form of queer because while I did like A Farewell to Arms his work does tend to be aggressively Straight Man. I just learned the whole gender-y thing about him tonight so that's kind of blowing my mind.

[nevermoreconfessions]

Prospero is my favorite character for many reasons and one of those is the fact he's from the first work of Edgar Allan Poe I read, therefore it has a special place in my heart. Having said that, his spectre disappoints me, AT THE TIME. It's true I don't know what the authors have in store but thus far, his spectre lacks severely to me. Spoilers for Masque of Red Death ahead, but he's based off of a story where a Prince hides away from a plague that torments his land until that "Red Death" enters the castle and follows him through a series of colored rooms, each one representing different things depending on how you read it. His spectre is not giving me any of that. It's a generic plague doctor with a staff as his most "unique" design choice. It tells me he lived through A plague but it doesn't tell me anything else from him just by looking at it on top of it being the weakest in terms of flare. Even Will's has more flare and that's...saying a lot. I trust that eventually the design might... make more sense to me and it might go through changes but as of right now, it's the most boring to me and that's a shame because I adore Prospero and anything related to him but I couldn't honestly say his Spectre is my favorite when it doesn't even look like anything more than a regular plague doctor... Especially since the staff is easy to miss or just doesn't add much. The rats could be a bonus too, but rats weren't really much of an element in the story either....

PS: I really don't mean this as hate or harsh criticism, it's just an observation and a mild hope someone sheds a new perspective on this that maybe I missed?

Can I call you PoeAnon? I'm calling you PoeAnon.

Oh, PoeAnon. How I love you, because this is what critique looks like. And you know what? I get what you're coming from. In a way, I actually agree.

Dear PoeAnon, here's what Prospero's design and abilities tell me, in regards to who he is and how he died —

Let's start with the whole Plague Doctor thing he's got going on. Personally, I love a good plague doctor, and I do think that the spectre could've used a little extra pizazz; but, here's where that design gets truly interesting —

The rats.

Yes, those damned rats. Let me explain.

It tells a great amount of how he died! Did you know that the Plague was spread by rats (then, fleas)? Apparently, the Catholic church was like, "Deport those cats, they're evil," and rats ran wild, spreading the plague like wildfire — the plague subsequently hit Italy, where Prospero is said to be from.

So, to me, it appears that Prospero died of the Plague in Italy, where he might have worked as a doctor in efforts to treat said plague. Or, he was the patient. (I think he was the patient who either died of the plague, or in surgery.)

To emhasize that he died of the plague, let's talk about the poem for a moment. The "Red Death" is a fictional disease that causes "bleeding at the pores."

Prospero is known to have a fear of blood — he gets queasy seeing his own blood, to be exact. Fits well, right?

I'll admit — I don't really understand the bat wings or the hourglass symbols on his staff.

I'll assume that the hourglass symbolizes death — namely, "running out of time," because getting the plague back then meant that you were counting your days. The bat wings stump me, though I assume it's because bats can carry some pretty serious diseases, too.

All this to say: I do like Prospero's spectre. As I said, I have a soft spot for Plague doctors, though I do understand that desire for more.

I wish I had more to go off of, too. But it's still a neat design, in my opinion! It's a classic, honestly.

What do you think, Nevermore tumblr?

[a-lost-illusion]

I love your page! I found so many gems through the beauty and the beast week event from this year some happy you’re still here and sharing your content with us. Could I please ask you the following: what do you feel many people either misunderstand or get wrong about Adam the most– I know there’s a lot to choose from and even incorporated things in your writing but what, whenever you come across it, almost causes a knee-jerk reaction?

And

What do you think Adam misunderstands or gets wrong about himself – looking at this post transformation/reverting back to being a human. Let’s say he’s had a little bit of time to reflect on what happened. What do you think he would have trouble understanding about himself?

Oh wow, what an ask! While I didn’t participate in the BatB week this year, I’m honoured to know that you’ve taken the time to follow my blog and read through all my posts, as dated as some of them might be. The fact that I’ve been running this blog for over 10 years now makes me feel incredibly old; it's not even funny.

It was hard for me to peg down the one thing I’d say that people get wrong about Adam the most, so I’ll share two instead (posted under the cut).

He was vain and self-obsessed with himself before the curse, just like Gaston

This is an interpretation that seems to have taken off since the release of the 2017 film and Disney-sanctioned fanfic novels like Serena Valentino’s The Beast Within and Alex Singer’s Disney Mirrorverse: Belle—none of which I consider canon. The prologue of the original movie describes the Prince as “spoiled, selfish, and unkind,” not a vain narcissist who enjoys drawing attention to himself. And while I get that fans like to argue that Gaston is a narrative foil for the Beast, that doesn’t mean they need to have the exact same character traits to effectively complement one another. What’s wrong with giving your male characters different flaws—one who’s entitled and greedy, but secretly unhappy on the inside, and one who’s shallow, arrogant and doesn’t feel he needs to change to get what he wants? I genuinely can’t tell if Disney’s trying to make Adam more villainous to justify why he should be in their Disney Villains line, or if they’re padding on more flaws to make him more dislikeable to viewers (which is especially problematic, since these extra flaws make you question why Belle would fall in love with him in the first place).

In post-transformation, Adam is utterly dependent on Belle while she wears the pants in their relationship

I get that this is likely Disney’s way of doing damage control, especially after all the Disney-bashing that came out in the 2010s, arguing that their princesses are too meek and antifeminist for their own good. But you also don’t have to take away the male lead’s autonomy to create a strong, independent female character. Personally, I think Belle and Adam would be equals in their relationship, mutually supporting one another as they acclimatize (or in Adam’s case, re-acclimatize) to life as a provincial prince and princess. Please stop going the Frozen route and either sidelining or making the male lead a dumbass so the female lead seems smarter and more competent. It’s boring, and it’s just going to alienate your fanbase in the long run.

In terms of what Adam misunderstands or gets wrong about himself, I’d say it’s that his identity isn’t defined by his mistakes, but by what he learns from them. In almost all my multichapter fics, there comes a point where Adam’s guilt over the curse makes him feel he’s unworthy of love. Sometimes, Belle is the one who convinces him otherwise, sometimes it’s himself. As a side note, one interpretation I’ve gleaned from the film’s “vincit qui se vincit” motto is that to be victorious, you must learn to overcome your moral weaknesses, including your desire to be cruel and selfish. To me, this movie isn’t just about a beast learning to love. It’s about a beast learning to overcome his inner darkness so he can “conquer” his curse and become the man he’s supposed to be. But that kind of narrative doesn't jive with Disney these days, so it's better for them to give Belle full credit for changing him so it's more #feminist.

I hope I answered these questions well enough for you, OP, but in case I missed anything, feel free to let me know. Thank you for stopping by my inbox!

[jazzy-art-time]

So how does being pokemon factor then?

Well! To be completely honest with you, it does not.

Yeah JarbleAU is a AU of all my main askblog characters throughout the years, which are pokemon but in all honesty it barely connects to pokemon at all

I use Pokemon more as a blank canvas as a species. Because I like how pokemon look! "That's weird Jazzy" yeah it is I don't care. I like the way a arcanine looks and if I draw one and label it as a "dog" it would just get compared to a arcanine ANYWAYS so why bother at that point? IM not bothered to say "this is a leafeon" and if it bothers someone else then well that just.. merely is not my issue. It's why I don't tag JarbleAU stuff as normal pokemon! At most I tag it as "anthro pokemon" because it still fits into that category technically. but as for how it fits into the AU itself? Not much really!! I may add some like. "quirks" in different ways. For example: Eden, Alaxia and Wem are mew. In Jarble, they cannot levitate. They cant read your mind etc etc. They aren't even considered godly or mythical beings. HOWEVER. Someone like them are more likely to "read someone better". They can look at you and pretty easily tell what kind of person you are based on little interaction. Etc etc. But also that depends on the person. Someone like Wem would be extremely good at figuring someone out quickly, while someone like Alaxia would struggle to. Or someone who is a grass type might be more inclined to be more connected to nature or something etc etc Or Jody in Jarble is a Arcanine. She can't shoot fire but when she uses her weapons they tend to overheat and burn, have fire effects etc etc. As well as she just "runs hot" and tends to overheat herself a fair amount during summer. She's oddly warm during winter etc etc. Its not a EXACT science really and some rules are twisted and bended around to fit my story needs. But like nobody is casually going to use watergun here lmao Overall its more or less irrelevant to the storyline and I just treat them as magical furries! I COULD make them a more original species but to be fair? 90% of them barely look like pokemon anyways so I am not sweating over it. As well as certain pokemon merely do not exist within JarbleAU. I don't allow them to exist as NPCs or what have you and they are only strictly regulated to certain things. I can elaborate more on anything in specific if needed, but mostly the fact that they are "pokemon" is just more or less a afterthought lmao

[onepiece-oc-archives]

How to write Luffy in general without him coming across as stupid? I feel like in the animanga when you can see him, it's different from a story, where a reader (like a friend who wants to read your story) who is not a op fan might be confused about why Luffy is acting this way. I feel I write him too childish sometimes... or Zoro being too dumb... but then again I've been accused once of writing Sanji "too normal" because I had him not fall high over heels for every woman he sees and I left out the nosebleed too. How to find the right way to write the characters?

Hiya, thanks for your question!

To say it in one sentence: There isn't one correct way to write a character. You might not want to write things that directly contradict canon but, at that point, are you even writing the same character anymore?

You're definitely right on the fact that a visual format like anime or manga is different from a story though. For example, I would never write Sanji going 100% heart eyes and spinning around the room like a hurricane without human form because that just doesn't sound believable in a story - at least not in my writing style. If you write a crackfic, you can definitely still do that. I'd say: Write characters the way it feels right for you.

How do you find what's write for you? Well, by engaging with the characters. Preferably the main source material, so the animanga or live action, depending on what universe your story is set in. But it can also be helpful to read some fanfic and think: "Hm, do I agree with this? Does this feel right for me? Or does this just not fit the character in my eyes?" In the end, everyone will have their own interpretation of a character and that's okay - and even appreciated! I mean, it would be boring if we all wrote the exact same things, right?

Now, for some character-specific tips. I'm gonna just give a few of my thoughts on Luffy, Zoro and Sanji, since those are the three you mentioned.

Sanji is a great case of what I mean when I say that some things just don't work out in writing, like I already said. What I like to do for animanga!Sanji is to write him like a lovesick fool but without the physical comedy. Because he is a lovesick fool. Or at least he comes across as one. I can't really go into too much character analysis here without derailing the post and diving into spoilers, but he has his reasons for treating practically every woman like a goddess. So, don't be afraid to show that! It's a vital part of his character, so you can't just leave it out. I mean, imagine someone writes Sanji kicking a woman! He would never do that and has repeatedly said so in canon. Well, not yet in OPLA, but I don't see that as a spoiler. Literally look at him and how he behaves towards Nami and Nojiko. Generally, OPLA is a great example of how to make Sanji work without the physical comedy. He's still an absolute fool for every woman but he's not inhumanly weird. I love OPLA Sanji and I will never stop gushing about that - sorry not sorry <3

Zoro! Like with Sanji, you should keep his main characteristics, which is a lot easier for him that for curly-brows, I'd say. Zoro is blunt about his opinions, he has literally no sense of direction and he likes to sleep a lot. So far so simple. I also wouldn't say he's dumb, though he can come across that way. He just... doesn't care. He cares about getting to slice people and has a very pragmatic approach to a lot of problems. But you've gotta remember that he's also very knowledgeable about some things, mainly about swords and fighting technique. As much as it looks like he just rushes into battle without thinking, his attacks are actually thought-out and precise. Put him in the right situation and he might as well be a genius. Unfortunately, that situation doesn't apply a lot of times, so you're left mainly with his pragmatic side. But that pragmatic side actually does a lot of good for the Straw Hats, especially further down in the story.

And now, Luffy... Luffy is actually stupid. Yeah, I mean it, he's not the most intelligent guy. Not a calculated thought in that boy's brain. If he ever comes up with something like a plan, he comes up with it on the fly - and that's not a bad thing! It creates a contrast between him and the more calculated members of the crew. So, yeah, you don't really have to worry about Luffy coming off as too dumb, but you might not want to make it the main point of the scene too often or make it come off as forced. Think about it, how stupid could a human you meet on the street possibly be? Most people don't say nonsensical things all the time. There is definitely rhyme and reason behind the things that Luffy says and does, but he has his own perception of what "rhyme and reason" is. Also, he might not be smart, but he's emotionally intelligent.

I suppose the only way to really "get good" at writing characters is to get really familiar with them and try to understand how they think. Also, to just do it. There have been so many times where I never even got started on writing stuff because I was scared I wasn't going to do the characters justice - but I figured it out on the way, doing what felt right for me, and those fics have become my most popular yet. So, don't be afraid to experiment a little!

There you go, I hope that helped! Have a lovely day <3

[makethosenarratorsfight]

UNRELIABLE NARRATORS; SIDE C

*NOTE; Gideon Nav propaganda below Narrator's, as poll maker decided to cut some under Read More for post length

The Narrator Propaganda:

Just... Just listen to the "unfunny" clip, what's more to say, vote for the gay old guy

Depending on the ending, he can be

Spoilers I guess??? He's always trying to guide Stanley to the outcome HE wants, which is a very, very small chunk of the game where the player just obeys everything and doesn't experience anything else. Obeying Narrator to a T will win you the "Freedom" ending, where Stanley can finally leave the office building, and Narrator will wax on about how Stanley's "happy" and "finally free to live at last". ...exceeeept, on completion, Stanley will spawn right back in the building as though nothing happened, restarting the adventure all over again. The truth is that Stanley will never be free, regardless of what the Narrator says. Stanley is trapped in the building and will stay trapped no matter what. This truth can only be acknowledged if you're defiant, and even then, I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Narrator never fully admits this??? The museum ending has a WHOLE DIFFERENT narrator explain their mutually fucked circumstances. The dishonest factors can increase in other ways from the player's input (for example, the Narrator might say "Stanley walked through the left door", but the player can use their input to defy this statement and go through the right one instead, therefore making the Narrator's statement inherently dishonest and the Narrator will get pissy about it, changing the outcome for that path). Sometimes he'll misdirect when he's petulant, especially if the player is directly defying his instructions, which makes the game feel like a game of tug-rope for control at points. I want to say there are times where he directly attempts to trick the player but admittedly I can't think of an exact instance. Plus you know, the Narrator has a large ego and always talks big about things like his importance and integrity and whatnot so who knows how much of that is even sincere and how much is a sad veneer, but that's getting into overanalysis territory and my fingers hurt so let's leave this here. I hope this was coherent.

he quite literally rewrites the story whenever he has issues with the direction stanley starts to go in, i do not know how to explain it better than that

He is literally the narrator, and he constantly tries to mislead and lie to Stanley through the narration to get him back on the story’s proper path

He constantly narrates what Stanley is feeling as if it is the truth, when it is not. He speaks as a authority, and while he is one, he is definitely not reliable.

Gideon Nav Propaganda:

(Spoilers for Ht9) She just. Fully ignores most of the magic plot happening around her in the first boom to be a dyke. In the second book it’s even less reliable and it’s fully fucking insane. It’s first person but she’s telling YOU (harrow) what is happening and it’s impossible to decipher. The appearance and personality of every character is fully morphed by Gideon’s mean dykishness.

MASSIVE spoilers. Like even mentioning that this is a thing is a huge fucking spoiler. I normally don’t care about spoilers that much but I legitimately feel awful for anyone with even a passing interest in reading these books who has this spoiled for them. Anyway. Yeah turns out the second-person narration is actually a first-person narration by the dead girl living in Harrow’s head whose death traumatized Harrow (and the entire fandom) so badly that she literally lobotomized herself to forget it and give Gideon a chance at not having her soul digested.

constantly adds her own commentary, does not pay attention to the interesting moving parts of the plot bc she's too busy looking at pretty girls, cannot be trusted to read her own intentions correctly never mind anyone else's. I love her dearly

she just doesn’t notice or doesn’t give a shit about a ton of plot-essential information. Harrow and Palamedes are talking about a necromantic theorem that would blow open the entire story if we could hear them? You can instantly feel Gideon’s eyes glaze over and her mind wander to the nearest available hot girl, and our attention goes with her. It’s handled so smoothly that you might not even notice it happening until a second or third read.

More Propaganda under cut!

Gideon Nav is all but useless as a narrator, and we love her for it. So first of all, she knows absolutely nothing. She grew up under a rock. Almost literally. When the plot is happening near her, she almost never tells us about it. Politics, history, and the magic system are boring. Let her know when there's something she can FIGHT. She also has very selective emphasis and focus that can change a scene completely without ever actually lying. She can tell the same story—to us, in her third-person narration as a factual recounting—and in one version the incident will be a schoolyard scuffle, while a later telling will reveal it to have been a near-homicide. She'll confidently interpret other character's motivations and emotions, only to later be proven wrong. But the thing that makes her REALLY unreliable? She lies to HERSELF constantly. She will tell us in her narration that she doesn't give a shit where someone disappeared to, and then spend the whole day searching for them. She'll say she hates someone, when. Well....

okay so i am actually going to do one segment about her own book and one about harrow’s so many apologies and also many spoilers ahead okay? okay so in gideon the ninth it’s a well known thing that she’s an unreliable narrator on two fronts: she lies to herself and therefore us about how she’s feeling and what she’s thinking, and also she isn’t paying attention to the plot at all. the only things she pays any attention to are hot girls, swords, and hot girls with swords. at one point she watches their only way out be sealed off and is so bored about it that she goes to sleep watching it happen, taking absolutely no note of “oh hey they’re trapping us here”. later someone asks IN FRONT OF HER “hey where did all our shuttles go” and shes like “😌😌😌😌😌😌😌😌😌” and still does not make the connection. babygirl. but THEN!!!!! in HARROW the ninth (MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD) gideon is the narrator the ENTIRE TIME (except for the revised canaan house parts) and not only does she editorialize, she also straight up lies about events and motivations! partially justified by her being inside harrow’s head, but like. babygirl. beloved. the interjections of “holy fuck” and “pommel” and othersuch things is so important to my mental health and wellbeing. thank you. thank you for lying to us so so much.