#and of course there's also this thing: the narrative compels it

[sevenslayerdip]

The more I think about it, the more I’m compelled by the idea that we can read Spike’s arc in “Intervention” through the lens of Die Hard.

Spike’s introduced the episode “School Hard”, whose title is a reference to the movie Die Hard. We see this played out in the climax of the episode: Spike is cast in the role of Hans Gruber, a man with an accent bringing a group of vampire “terrorists” to spoil Buffy’s school event. Buffy pulls some John McClane antics by crawling through the air vents to ambush the villains, and then repairs her relationship with her family member, who helps her save the day. Pretty straightforward. But in “Intervention,” Spike is now held hostage by the villain and—get this—makes his escape by pulling a John McClane–style elevator dash: a bloodied Spike pulls apart elevator doors, throws himself down the shaft, and comes to rest on a moving elevator. And then he drops himself, torn and beaten, through the escape hatch, ready to fight some more when the elevator doors open.

I might be inclined to say that this is reading too much into it, were it not for the scarcity of elevators in Buffy. There was a recurring elevator in the Initiative arc, where it served as one of the markers of the science-fiction bent of the season: the elevator itself was a futuristic all-white, had a secret entrance, and operated via voice commands. (It was, incidentally, also a site of change for Spike in that context.) In fact, this is the only other elevator I can recall seeing in the series, even with the many hospital visits in fifth season, which would have been an appropriate venue. It's also the only normal elevator. (I haven’t done a full catalogue, and it isn’t a topic that many people seem to have been interested in, but even if there is another elevator in the series, the occurrence is a rare one.)

Of course, the most important thing is that this reading forms a clear narrative. Once I noticed that Spike’s escape played like a scene from Die Hard, Spike’s function in the rest of the series made a lot more sense. Because of the thematic tie to his first episode, it serves as a re-introduction, a rebirth, of the character’s role. Where Spike was once the villain, he is now the hero. And the episode indeed serves as a turning point for his character. Spike is necessarily erratic, so his motivations are never completely stable, but he will essentially remain on the up-and-up for the rest of the series—or, at least, his moments of villainy (of which there are only a handful) will be character complications rather than reaffirmations. Consider the almost neutral attitude the characters, and the show itself, took toward Spike’s support of Adam in the fourth season, and even his multiple attempts to kill Buffy in the fifth season, as compared to his abusive treatment of Buffy in the sixth season: only in the latter case do we understand his behavior as truly bad, because it transgresses his role. Before, he was a villain being a villain—which is fundamentally neutral—and, after, he’s a hero doing something wrong, for which we feel much more inclined to condemn him.

The character shift appears immediately after his McClane escape: for the first time in the show, Spike isn’t eager to fight. When the elevator doors open, and he faces down Glory’s minions, he pulls himself up to fight; but, seeing the Scoobies have come to rescue him, he collapses back to the ground, relieved. Practically, this shows the audience the extent to which Spike has been injured. Thematically, it presents us with a version of Spike who doesn't view violence hedonistically—as he did earlier while play-fighting with the Buffybot—but as a necessary tool. Remember that Spike was suicidal at the thought of not being able to inflict harm, which he wanted for its own sake, and finding out that he could hit only other demons was enough for him to regain his will to live. But now, for the first time, Spike would rather not fight. It’s not a permanent state, but it is a flash of the heroic moral ethos that dictates this universe, taking root in him.

Within the context of the episode at large, Spike’s story begins as a lech who’s made a sex toy of our heroine and ends with a kiss from the heroine herself. And it’s because he performs heroics: textually, when he withstands torture to protect the innocent, and symbolically, when he plays the role of John McClane instead of Hans Gruber.

[crownedwithstars]

Why doesn't Thingol just give the Silmaril to Fëanorians?

One thing I find curious about the discourse around the Silmarils and their ownership issues is how it seems to often simplify the Sindarin and especially Thingol's perspective. I mean, Thingol giving the Silmaril Beren and Lúthien stole from Morgoth's crown to the Fëanorians is framed as somehow easy and obvious option. But I don't think it really is?

It's not even about whether Thingol is right or wrong to act as he does, it's about why his actions are justified from his point of view (and why it is more believable than him being compliant to Noldor).

1. Noldor disrespected and antagonised Thingol from the start. They have given him little reason to be nice or helpful.

When the Noldor arrive in Beleriand, they immediately start to do their own thing, and disregard Thingol, the local sovereign who is regarded as the overlord or at least respected and revered by the Elves native to this region. But Noldor (and Fëanorians) do not attempt to gain his friendship and alliance, they don't establish diplomatic relationships, they bring no gifts (which would be expected in this kinda medieval based society) and neither do they ask for help as Exiles, they don't let Thingol know where they are going to settle down or ask whether it's convenient but grab lands whether the locals like it or not, they don't recognise his position even as a friendly gesture, they don't disclose the nature of their expedition, withhold important information, and most of all, they bring violent trouble to his backyard. This must seem deeply and outrageously insulting to Thingol, especially because these princes are children and grandchildren of Finwë, Thingol's close friend - and yet they treat him without an ounce of respect.

Thingol is no less proud or particular about his position than Fëanor or Fingolfin is. He probably has not had it challenged or ignored by anyone except Morgoth's servants. Also he may see it as indicative of general Noldor prejudice/disdain against Sindar.

Whether Noldor had justified reasons for the way they act upon landing in Middle-earth, you can't deny that they don't do even the bare minimum to win the locals over. Yeah, you could argue that bringing reinforcements at the time when Morgoth returns and becomes active in Middle-earth again is something, but this is still not a way to treat potential friends and allies.

2. The Kinslaying of Thingol's people and kin at Alqualondë and the burning of their ships.

Obvious, really. He may see himself as standing in for Olwë, and regards the Silmaril as weregild for slain relatives and friends - people he himself probably knew before Teleri were sundered. Also why would he respect Fëanorian property rights when from his point of view, Noldor don't give a damn about Teleri or their rights?

Thingol may also judge that the Kinslaying and burning of the ships disputes the Fëanorians' right to the Silmarils and their moral high ground to a degree where anyone brave and cunning enough to reclaim even one of them becomes a rightful owner. Obviously he is biased in Beren and Lúthien's behalf but it would be weird if he was not? After B&L's efforts and their suffering, and quite literally achieving the impossible, he may be of the opinion that they have more right to the Silmaril than Fëanorians who seem more invested in competing Morgoth for land than for the Silmarils. Thingol may share the same attitude as Dior has in one of the drafts: there are two more Silmarils in the same place where the one in his possession came from, so why don't the Fëanorians go get them first?

3. Celegorm and Curufin.

I mean, after the way Lúthien was abused and attacked by the two brothers, Thingol could be holding on to the Silmaril out of pure spite. His daughter never gets any apology for how she was treated, and Thingol has no reason to believe that C&C's actions - and the attempt to force Thingol into an alliance - were not sanctioned and approved by the rest of the brothers. These people have been consistently terrible at everyone Thingol loves and cares about, so why should he help them in any way?

4. The Silmarils mess with your brain.

It's clear that the Silmarils have an unwholesome effect on almost everyone who possess them. Time and again Tolkien describes how characters fall prey to this greedy, possessive lust for the Silmarils. I mean, Fëanor and his sons are ready to spill blood again and again just to get them back. There is something about the jewels that, if you desire them for their own sake, kind of enslaves you to them. Thingol won't give up the Silmaril to Fëanorians because he can't.

5. The Doom of the Noldor compels him.

It's explicitly stated in the Doom that while the Oath will drive the Fëanorians, it will never yield its objective, and the Silmarils will elude them. As soon as Thingol names a Silmaril as a bride price for Lúthien, he becomes involved in the Doom and what it dictates, limiting his control of the situation. Because of the Doom (and the effect the Silmaril has on him), Thingol is not free to give it to the Fëanorians.

[cloudbends]

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH WONDERFUL PRECURE

[amelikos]

"I'm grateful for every single meeting I have."

Very specific line from Lucius considering that Gouging Fire is the last Hero he met and befriended and that there is a certain someone Lucius and Rystal met after that who became very close to them..

[aspacewar]

I am,,, feeling so incredibly normal today, about my imaginary D&D dude and their train-wreck of a life

Sorry mutuals & followers I’m gonna be Worse than normal today I swear I’ll shut the fuck up soon

Need a separate blog for D&D shit honestly

[pumpkinpaix]

not to throw an mdzs apple of discord out there in the year of our lord 2025, but i've been thinking about how it's arguable that nie huaisang's approach to revenge is pretty comparable to xue yang's.

if i were really committed to yeeting the apple, I'd have titled this post "nie huaisang is just as morally corrupt as xue yang" or something, but that's not entirely what I mean or like, what exactly has got me stuck on thinking about it. i suspect it's the strange obsession mdzs fandom has with "proving" characters' purity or damnation one way or another at the cost of the story's core themes that's really soured huaisang as a character for me while xue yang still delights me with his horrors. to my knowledge, there isn't a large contingent of fans arguing that xue yang was justified (阿弥fucking陀佛) but there's definitely a significant number arguing similar for huaisang.

i've said before that "there's no equivalent justice so xue yang actually kind of has a point" (despite being totally unjustified!!), and it's interesting to me that I am disinclined to try and understand nie huaisang in the same way. perhaps it's because xue yang's selfishness and excessive revenge comes from a place of disenfranchisement while nie huaisang's comes from a place of privilege. or maybe it's just because nie huaisang already has enough defenders.

something about how nie huaisang privileges the loss of his brother over everyone else's losses and lives is really makes me balk. to get back at jin guangyao for nie mingjue's death, huaisang is prepared to let other people suffer loss in the same way he has as compensation. his revenge, other people's loss; xue yang's finger, other people's lives. the reasoning's not dissimilar. in the same way that xue yang lies to xiao xingchen and tricks him into killing someone he loves, nie huaisang does the same thing to lan xichen: xue yang for his own entertainment, nie huaisang to keep his own hands clean.

huaisang is a really effective driver of the narrative in the present-day arc because his revenge plot is so chaotic (and frankly, not very good) and scattershot. interesting situations arise because of all the collateral damage that huaisang is perfectly prepared for other people to sustain in the course of his plan--it doesn't matter to him. whether the juniors live or die is immaterial, and the potential suffering of their loved ones is also immaterial to him because all of it can be used to further his own objectives. that makes for a really cool plot device because everything happening to our main characters is a byproduct of a plan that has very little to do with them personally. they're the main characters to us, but the side characters in the bigger plot they're entangled in. the bigger plot is actually just like. not really about wangxian at all! they're just player pieces that nie huaisang is trying to use in his conflict between jin guangyao. wangxian get their shot at a happy ending because nie huaisang decided that they might be useful, not because it was something they earned or deserved which i find to be a very compelling way to approach their story.

overly simplistic and reductionist summary: huaisang is a villain and i wish more people would let him be one.

[saessenach]

Thinking many thoughts about Miss Andarateia Cantori tonight because what do you mean we get to be in her house for the entire game, in which she and her boyfriend/partner-in-crime run a gambling den, assassin guild ANd find the time to argue with the public administration while opposing a military occupation?? who does it like her??

Joke aside, I think she's an incredibly fun character, and I'm really happy that hers was the lens through which we saw the Crows this game. Whenever I see random posts and critiques commenting that the Crows were too "sanitised" or "found-family", I want to yell a bit, because DATV never claims that to be the case!! Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what we see is anchored in a very specific context: not just Treviso under Antaam occupation, but also the Cantori Diamond, which falls under Teia's jurisdiction.

She's an elven orphan turned Guildmaster and Talon, who desperately wanted to find family in the Crows! While the other Talons resisted her attempts at every step (some more succesfully than others ksks), that implies 1) her approach towards her own House was probably not dissimilar and 2) it got her the Talon position in her 20s. Ergo, her modus operandi was probably fairly successful.

For all that she threatens to evict anyone who treats her like a landlord (lol), the Diamond is very much a reflection of her as a character. It's all completely in line with both her general characterisation in 8 Little Talons and with the point she reaches at the end of that story when confronting Emil. I don't think it's a coincidence that out of our two POVs in 8LT, she's the one discussing Crow ideology with their would-be-murderer:

and

and

Following this particular set-up, of course orphans like Jacobus are treated kindly; of course fledglings have time to gossip in quiet corners while training; of course she helps the Dellamortes however she can?? She decided these people are family to her, and she wants to do better by them than what she got. This is wildly compelling to me personally, because she's such a delightful mix of idealism and disillusionment, honesty and manipulation, compassion and retribution - and she's so fucking obstinate about it!!!

There's also the little connection with the Crows' beginnings, specifically in Treviso. Iirc, it's mentioned in 8LT that her base is Rialto (she's also got gardens there), so a part of me wonders whether the Diamond was an inherited property from a previous Cantori Talon, or whether she got it up and running between then and the events of the game. I think that between that little tibdbit and with Lucanis being named First Talon at the end of the game, it's pretty obvious that the theme of rebirth is very much the point in the Crows' plotline - a messy, hopeful and spiteful rebirth.

All of this is to say, what we get doesn't at all negate the other aspects we've seen from the Crows in previous games, but rather puts them into perspective. The game just goes on to ask - isn't there another way to do this? what else is there room for us to be? is there any chance we might find some kindness in this world? and one of the ways these answers are explored is through Teia's character (we start this series with Zevran's story within the Antivan Crows - an elven orphan bought from a brothel, who doesn't have the power to change this guild, and end with Lucanis, Viago and Teia, who is, specifically, an elven orphan picked up (?) from the streets, who remains one of the powerhouses of the organisation. I love a bit of narrative symmetry ✨)

And honestly, I find this entire thing delightful - it's cheeky and dramatic and a lot of fun, and it makes sense for these characters, if you only sit with it for a second and give it a bit of thought!

(PS the way she draws Viago into her orbit and the way their partnership works is another rant entirely, and they drive me absolutely insane nghhh)

[coalballbaby]

One thing I've noticed when people talk about Prowl is that they tend to have a very black-and-white attitude towards liking him. The most common two things I've seen are either a) people feel too guilty about actually enjoying the character that they shy away from going beyond summaries of his actions + a vague feeling of treating him as just a morally-corrupt-character-they-enjoy, or b) they really, publicly like him, but tend to make extremely individualistic takes that reduce his character from a nuanced part of a larger narrative to a guy misunderstood by the cast around him. Of course, I'm not saying individualistic takes are inherently bad-- it can be fun and thought-provoking to think about the more personal elements of character, what they believe, why they might do it-- but it's easy to come up with excuses for a character this way.

I think it's important to consider that Prowl's just... not written as a likeable, glup-shitto-ifiable way. He's not meant to be taken that way, and he does genuinely shitty things to innocent people while wrangling his own sense of responsibility for the future of all things Cybertron. Of all depictions of Prowl, IDW's version is the clearest criticism of the police force and how easily power can be misused under beliefs of serving a "greater good"-- I'm not saying that you can't like him because of this, (for one it be massively hypocritical, as I am. a notorious and huge Prowl enjoyer), but I am saying that this is something important to keep in mind when engaging with the character critically, especially if you're going to talk about him publicly. Prowl isn’t just morally gray or "misunderstood", he’s a deliberate allegory for institutional rot, for what happens when someone fully buys into the idea that the ends justify the means, that it may be necessary to endanger innocent people if it preserves a controlled future. His actions aren’t accidents or unfortunate side effects of good intentions; they're the result of a belief system that values control, hierarchy, and long-term strategy over individual lives. When people detach Prowl from that context-- when they talk about him purely as a burdened tactician doing his best-- they risk replicating the same logic that real-world systems use to excuse harm. I know saying this kind of sounds insane from a Transformers IDW standpoint, but IDW itself is a very political story, and sometimes, well. I like to think about it. (I also realize that I'm taking a lot from specifically Roberts, Roche's, and Barber's interps, which are a lot more focused on this morally complicated Prowl-- but those just happen to be my favorite takes on him, and I tend to focus on those a lot more. Personal bias, I know, but I do have thoughts on the many other Prowl portrayals in the IDW run.)

Okay er. I'm getting distracted. Liking a character like Prowl doesn’t mean you have to soften his worst actions or reframe his motivations into something more sympathetic. He isn’t compelling in spite of being deeply flawed, he’s compelling because the narrative doesn’t let that shit slide lmao. Things/people bite him in the ass for it and that's awesome. He's boiling in his own sweat and fear and anger after putting the onus on himself to make a thousand contingency plans with him in control, because he's a deeply paranoid man who tends to use others' inaction as an excuse. We can all hold hands and think about it... promise?

[glitter-stained]

Jason Todd Meta Masterlist

With all the misconceptions and (frankly insulting and at times sexist) assumptions I've seen about Jason Todd fans, I've decided to make a post gathering the meta I could find that helps make sense of why he's my (and so many other people's) favourite character. (Spoiler: it's not because I'm shallow, it's not because he's hot, not because I love guns and the death penalty, and not because I think he's secretly a woman.) This list is incomplete for a bunch of reasons: I haven't read all the meta that exists, if there's a good meta with like one sentence I disagree with I usually don't include the meta, there's a lot of meta I disagree with, and if there's a very good meta analysing dynamics or characters based on a comic I really hate, I will simply not include it (for example i've seen good analysis of Nightwing Brothers in Blood, unfortunately it's one of the worst comics i've ever tried to force myself to read so I can't include any of it in Jason analysis without betraying a fundamental part of myself). This will include some serious analysis commentary, some lighter/trivia stuff, and there's also a part dedicated to some misconceptions I've seen running around and posts that address it. Some of this is jaybin analysis/appreciation, some of this is red hood analysis/appreciation, some of it fits for both, and there's nuance here due to the fact I'm very critical about many parts of red hood's writing, so some jaybin posts might be red hood critical, but they're still parts of the reasons why I like jason so I'm including them. If you have suggestions for more meta posts to add, feel free to share them, though be warned that I may not be able to edit and include them all due to reasons previously mentioned! (And do not be afraid to share your own meta we love self-promo in here).

With all that said:

if you're a Jason fan looking for more meta, a comic fan who doesn't understand the hype and is genuinely wondering what people see in him, a fic writer determined to do his character justice, or new to fandom and wondering if it's worth it getting into him, this post is for you! And of course if you don't like him I'm not arrogant enough to assume I can change your mind, you're perfectly allowed your taste, all that I ask in return is that you do not try to police mine.

Now let's get to it!

Mental illness

So, this meta is kinda organized by how important those points are to me, and it turns out I'm a complete freak about psychopatholgy (the study of mental disorders). Now, is Jason a good depiction of mental illness? Eeeeeh... Compared to my other favs with stories building up around trauma like Mia Dearden or Jill Carlyle, he has a lot more material to sink our teeth into due to sheer number of appearances, and there's loads of interesting stuff in that, but he also often falls victim to dc's classic love for demonising metal illness. So what makes Jason's mental illness compelling to me, someone who loathes the Joker's character so much? That's a complicated question I attempt to answer in here. Now this is an ongoing compilation of different psychological analysis meta (we're playing meta masterpost matryoshka!! Yay!) and doesn't have all the answers yet because I need time to write this shit but anyway, if anything, it's a good opportunity to learn about psychology through Jason, and I think how much I love sinking my teeth into those depictions already shines into it. So basically: The depiction of Jason's mental illness, despite often very flawed, is extremely compelling to me.

On victimhood

Now say it with me: you can like several things at once. Jason's character isn't the only one who is a victim, and he isn't the only one where victimhood features as an important theme, and none of that diminishes the fact that the way victimhood is portrayed and handled in Jason's story is compelling both for its meta commentary on the narrative and the catharsis it can bring. Here are some meta that analyse Jason's character in relation to victimhood:

-Jason and Joker's other victims

-How Jason's story resonates with victims of SA

-Jason and childhood sexual abuse

-How Jason is blamed for his death

-Jason's UTH monologue is sincere, and he has a right to his anger

-Jason's point isn't about the villains, it's about the victims

-Victimhood VS Survival

Philosophy

Now when it comes to this section, a lot of people associate ethics (for instance what Jason considers right and wrong) and politics (what solutions/actions he thinks should be taken as a result of those ethical beliefs). Of course that makes sense with the way those concepts intertwine, but they're not the same question (crucially, you can agree with his position on one without agreeing on the other) so I've tried to separate the posts into those two categories the best I can.

Ethics

I couldn't find a jaybin post that was only on ethics (though the political jaybin posts cover it a little) but some of my favourite stuff about Jason is the discussion of ethics. Honestly I consider it much more enjoyable than the political part of the discussion, it has my preference for sure.

On love and Red Hood

A reading of UTH as an invitation to incorporate emotions into our ethics

Pragmatics vs sanctity? Jason does value human life

Politics

I'm subdivising this one again because Jaybin and Red Hood wouldn't agree on everything here (I don't think the gap is irreconcilable, but it would require writers to put effort into bridging it which I never see dc do, at least not correctly.)

AS JAYBIN

Ethics, crime, grief and vigilantism

A philosophy of love and care

AS RED HOOD

Does Red Hood valorize organised crime?

Red Hood is a pimp (no, wait, listen)

On the death penalty

Jason's political thesis in UTH: you cannot rule through fear alone

Jason's point isn't about the villains, it's about the victims (yes, this one is here twice because it fits into both categories what do you want me to say)

Symbolism

You know I love me a character with some cool symbolism. I only got two posts on the matter so far but if anyone has articulate meta posts about Jason wrt Paradise Lost, Abraham and Isaac, Orpheus and Euridyce or literally anything else please share it I would love that so much I have so many thoughts about it but not all of them have a meta that develops them. Anyway here's another reason to like Jason Todd: he's got a lot of symbolism to sink your teeth into.

My thoughts on catholic Jason Todd

Jason Todd VS The Bible

Jason & Isaac

Abilities and skills

Now a lot of that was about what makes Jason interesting to me but one thing Jason is that he's also extremely fun. He's just all around an enjoyable character! To me his #1 best fun trait is how witty/funny he is, both as Jaybin and Winick's Red Hood, which is a shame because I don't have a post gathering panels of how funny he is (if anyone has one please feel free to share!). But his #2 best fun trait, to me, is that he's a hyper-competent jack-of-all-trades. And I don't mean a gary-stue! He's probably not one of the world's best at most of those things, but he's pretty good at a whole bunch of things and he's also very resourceful and underhanded, making for great battle scenes because it's always fun to watch pull tricks out of his sleeve! This is especially true for his villain era, because while hyper-competent heroes can become annoying, I find hyper-competent villains/antagonists super exciting. So here are just a tiny tidbit of metas I could find about some of his skills!

"The dumb Robin"

Jaybin is a skilled hacker!

Languages

Marksmanship (amongst other skills)

Jason and Bruce

Warning: if you're here it means you haven't blocked the anti batman tags but like, this isn't a super Batman-friendly blog. The meta in this part doesn't exactly hold Bruce in high regards so like, if you're a fan of him like, be aware of that.

With that being said, I find Jason's story, and the criticism of Bruce/Batman that ties into it, very interesting. I also am personally drawn towards stories around child abuse for cathartic reasons, and DC, albeit unintentionally, draws a very realistic depiction of abusive families within the batfam, which I also find really compelling. So here's a bunch of meta about Jason and Bruce and utter misery! Parenting tip: don't do that.

-Jaybin era Bruce was far from perfect

-Bruce projects on jaybin

-Parentification

-Analysis of Jason's grave

-Can you believe Bruce yellow-wallpapered Jason?

-Jason as a meta character

-Jason's isolation wrt his relationship with Bruce

Jason and Mia

-Green Arrow: Seeing Red makes a great point about victim-blaming

-On defense of jaymia : So, this one requires some explanation. It's kinda funny to include this in a meta masterpost/character manifesto since 1) the ship is not canon and 2) i do not ship nor particularly like the ship (no offence to those who do!). However, a lot is said about these two characters, and as a fan of both characters I have a lot of thoughts and feelings on the matter, and I believe this post is a good breakdown of some conceptions and views wrt these two characters, even outside of the shipping length. I have more analysis about Seeing Red in the works, but it's bound to take a long time to happen!

Some other misconceptions I found interesting to mention

-Jason isn't a loner

-A quick forray into pre-crisis: Jason and Dick's backstories were similar, but they had their fair share of differences! They're far from the same character.

Trivia

And finally, as a palate cleanser after all that stuff, some trivia for your writer's needs.

Jason's taste in food and drinks

Jason's music taste

Books Jason Todd has read

Anyway, shout-out to all these amazing people for all that meta, and please note that just because I included one of their post in my meta and character manifesto doesn't mean they have to agree with everything I said (should be evident but like, just in case. Leave those people alone if your issue is with me.)

I'm leaving you with these comic recs from laufire! and this collection of pretty jason fanarts!

Hope you enjoy ✨✨

[voyaging-too]

It is part of the framing device of LOTR that Tolkien isn’t the author, that he’s merely translating an ancient manuscript into modern English. The real author of The Hobbit is Bilbo, the real author of LOTR is Frodo and to a lesser extent, Sam. However, Tolkien isn’t actually very interested in the literary conceit that the narrators of his third-person narratives are characters within those narratives. He’s using the appendix “on translation” as a pretext to explain his clever use of Old English and Norse in place names, he’s using an unreliable narrator exactly once, to explain the difference between two editions of the Hobbit, and he’s fascinated by the idea of characters comparing their lives to stories or trying to understand their lives as stories, but very little of that actually goes into the narration.

In a Doylist sense, I’m willing to say that the novels are not at all written from the subjective POV of the characters that have supposedly written them. I’ve recently read the Book of the New Sun and also Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus, very different books that both engaged deeply with the narrator being present in the story, with the massive gap between the narrator writing in the “present day” and the past self that he narrates. LOTR doesn’t do that, this isn’t meant to be a criticism, just a statement: it is a books that books can sometimes do, and LOTR is not doing it, it cares about other things.

But in a Watsonian sense, a lot of interesting questions come up when you take the conceit seriously and accept these characters as the author of their own story. Bilbo might be the easiest: The Hobbit is a children’s story because he’s chosen to tell it as a children’s story, probably for young Frodo himself. The story he’s telling is mostly light-hearted, and he’s poking fun at himself all the time, and he’s also poking fun at the dwarves a lot. The Hobbit addresses the reader in a way later LOTR rarely does, saying “you can imagine how poor Bilbo felt when X happened” or “you can probably already see the flaw in Y plan.” Some of these might be responses to interjections, to questions and criticisms little Frodo voiced when first hearing the stories.

Frodo’s narrative voice is different, much more serious, since he’s writing for grown-ups from the beginning. I don’t mind that he’d described many events where he wasn’t personally present: I can imagine that he had long conversations with the other members of the fellowship, especially Merry and Pippin, and then turning his notes of their account into a narrative that’s filtered through his own sense of narrative, humour and aesthetics. Frodo basically just ghostwrote those chapters, based on lengthy interviews. The really weird thing comes in with the account of events that Frodo personally experienced. Fellowship starts with Bilbo, then shifts to a point-of-view focused fairly narrowly on Frodo, with some brief detours into the perspectives of the other hobbits. In Towers, we’re already firmly in Sam’s perspective, we see most of Frodo’s actions through Sam’s eyes, and we mostly stay in that perspective until the end of the trilogy. If Frodo wrote this book: why? Why not write of his own experiences, as he did in the previous chapters? (Of course there’s the Doylist answer, Tolkien decided that Sam’s POV was more compelling and that Frodo’s struggle with the ring was more interesting shown from an outside perspective and probably impossible to write from an inside one. But what’s the Watsonian answer?)

One possible answer is that Frodo chose to write it that way, write it focused on Sam and not himself, either because to focus on himself would have hurt too much, or because he wanted to highlight Sam’s importance, to show him as the real hero. (Note to self: Gertrude Stein wrote Alice B. Toklas’s autobiography, I probably need to check that out.) There’s also the possibility that Sam wrote those chapters. Frodo tells him it’s his job to finish the book, and the usual reading is that Sam merely wrote the end of the Grey Havens chapter, but we can argue that the book was quite unfinished, and Sam had a larger part in more of it. It’s possible that Sam read Frodo’s chapters on the ring quest and figured that he had to rewrite them from scratch. It’s possible that Frodo found it so painful to write about that it’s just dry, brief outlines. “Crossed the tunnel. Big spider got me. etc.”, the whole thing is like five pages. Maybe memories formed under the influence of the ring are no longer wholly accessible: having lost the ring, they are distant, spectral, like they happened to someone else. Or maybe the ring actually warped Frodo’s memories and thoughts of those events to the point that what he wrote is just fifteen chapters of Book of Revelations level hallucinatory horror, wholly incomprehensible to anyone else. And of course there’s the possibility that during those chapters, Frodo has acted in a way, or at least thought and felt in a way, that Sam doesn’t want to share with the world. Sam is covering up that the journey was even harder, and that Frodo was corrupted by the ring in worse and sadder ways, and so he’s rewriting Frodo’s chapters to protect his memory.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Two Kinds of Writers

When planning novels, writers generally fall into 2 categories: “plotters” and “pantsers.”

A plotter - is someone who meticulously plans and outlines their story before they begin writing.

If you’re a painstaking outliner who spends a large amount of time in the prewriting stage charting out plotlines, devising characters, and worldbuilding, you fall into the plotter category.

Most successful writers do plotting to some extent.

If you take any bestselling published author, chances are they’d fall into the plotter category.

If you’re new to writing, trying out writing as a plotter can give you a good sense of how pre-writing can prepare you before you dive into the writing process.

If you’re the type of writer who likes to fly by the seat of your pants and write without a roadmap, chances are you would identify as a “pantser.”

A pantser - doesn’t spend a lot of time evaluating writing methods or planning out story structure, nor do they follow a paint-by-numbers approach to novel writing.

It is the preferred method for Stephen King and many other successful writers.

Pantsing can be a great way to quickly get into the writing process and beat writer’s block.

Whether you are working on your first novel or a followup to your most recent bestseller pantsing can be a great method for jumpstarting your process and getting your creative juices flowing.

How to Approach the Writing Process as a Plotter

There are many ways to approach plotting, and you will probably experiment with many different techniques over the course of your writing life. If you’re just getting started trying out writing as a plotter here are some steps to get you on your way:

Generate ideas. The first step in writing a novel is generating story ideas. Some writers like to freewrite and brainstorm, others prefer working with writing prompts. Whichever approach you take, it’s important to spend time coming up with a variety of ideas and choosing a strong premise that lends itself to an effective plot.

Start with a simple, compelling premise. Once you have a basic idea, it’s time to develop a story premise. One way to develop a small idea into a basic story is called the snowflake method. The snowflake method involves starting with a core premise or theme upon which you build every other aspect of narrative and character as you flesh out the big picture.

Trace out general story arcs. Start to lay out a storyline. You don’t have to worry about building the whole thing at once. Rather you can focus on each act within your story arc—or even simple scene descriptions—and piece these together as you build out a full-length narrative.

Don’t neglect character development. Character is an incredibly important part of a story and helps to balance out plot-based narratives. Before you start writing you should make sure that you have detailed character arcs and a main character with a clear motivation and backstory. Part of building a good character is choosing a strong and nuanced point of view. Balance out the plot portion of your writing process by taking some time to analyze your characters and make sure they are strong, realistic, and nuanced.

Build subplots. Once you have a good sense for your main plot it’s time to layer in subplots. Subplots can often be character-specific, so this is a good time to think a bit about the characters you’ve populated your world with and how each individual backstory might come into play. Good subplots will weave seamlessly through your main arc and help advance your action rather than distract from it.

Write a detailed outline. Before you start writing, you should have a detailed plot outline. This should catalog the main story and individual plot points. It should be comprehensive enough that someone who has no knowledge of your story could look at the outline and piece together the narrative of events, identifying your inciting incident, rising action, and climax. It can also be useful to write individual smaller outlines such as a chapter outline or act outline that you can piece together to create a macro story outline.

Tie up loose ends. Once you have a detailed outline, it’s time to tie up loose ends and fill any plot holes. One common misconception about writing is that editing comes at the end of the process. Editing is something you should return to throughout your writing process, and it’s important to edit your plot and outline before you start writing in earnest.

How to Approach the Writing Process as a Pantser

There are many different ways to approach pantsing. The most basic principle of pantsing is to just start writing. Pantsers fly by the seats of their pants, whether they’re writing a full-length novel or a short nonfiction piece. That being said, there are some basic steps you can follow as you launch into writing a novel as a pantser:

Start with a concept. When you approach the blank page, it’s good to have at least a vague idea of what you want to write about. Part of pantsing is allowing your impulses and feelings to guide you, but having a basic sense of what inspires you can help focus your writing.

Follow your impulses. Once you get into your project, feel free to follow impulse and get lost in your project. One of the joys of writing fiction as a pantser, whether you’re working on short stories or a full-length novel, is to immerse yourself in the work and discover where your mind takes you.

Take pauses to evaluate your work. It’s important to take stock of your work as you go. This way you won’t leave any plot holes or loose ends that you forget to tie up in the second half.

Don’t be afraid to edit. Just because you are essentially freewriting doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t edit your work. Editing and revising can help you work out of dead ends and structure your story around a cohesive arc with a clear turning point.

Come to a resolution. Part of being a successful pantser is sensing when your work is approaching its endpoint. Pay attention to how your story is progressing and find a natural place to resolve your plot and tie up loose ends.

Source ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[instantpansies]

ok so @mostlyintact and i were talking about the strengths of each of the sfth boys, and i think i was finally able to get some words out, so i thought i'd make a real post lol. a brief summary of each of their strengths, and examples of plays where those things are visible.

longish post, so i'll put it under the cut.

aj: he really shines in caesar and juliet. the narrative sort of revolves around juliet, and aj gets to really drive the story forward. his portrayal is iconic and natural and just so fun to watch. also, he's excellent in the oopsie daisy bulge, the grape depression, and priscilla's final petal: all plays in which he's got a whole lot of control over the way his characters are going, and gets some shining moments to drive the scenes forward in really compelling ways. he really reveals himself as a director and storyteller. also obviously death for a dollar, where he IS the actual narrator. to be honest, aj might be my favorite from an acting standpoint: his quick turnarounds and seemingly wild word associations and ability to grab a single piece of information and turn it into a whole story is both amazing and very similar to my own style of improv, and seeing him do it so well (even if he gets made fun of for being confused) is just. delightful. idk. his scenes where he's playing two characters at once (in grapression and oopsie daisy) might be the best of all the boys', to be honest.

sam: i think he does well when he's the center of a web of connections. his performance in, say, the evil make-a-wish kid is really fun, where the narrative is focused on him alone, but my favorites are things like the mystery of the midnight circus, the unrelenting aubergine, strange noises, or moist and magical. his characters feel more like an "everyman" in some ways, but always with a really unique personality. theyre relatable without being blank slates. excellent protagonists made better by their worlds. he takes the energy surrounding him onstage and sends it electric at the audience, using his surroundings to bring you in. it's really cool

tom: he is absolutely enamoring as certain archetypes. and he does an excellent job of making an impact with even the smallest amount of screentime. i'm always a sucker for abigail from the neighbour's under the bed--the monologue, the mannerisms--but a lot of that comes from a whole lot of overanalysis of her character, and that's not really relevant here. instead i'll say he's really really good at capturing the audience in death for a dollar, wild wet and worrisome, ballet on the battlefield, wine under the bridge, and priscilla's final petal. but tbh i could point to memorable scenes from almost every single tom character, he's so good at making his time count. his english degree comes out, ofc, which gives us those glorious tomologues, but also he can build up tension so naturally and make a silly story seem so real for a moment. sometimes that "oscar bait" moment can distract from the plot as a whole, but you don't think about it while you're watching him because he's so good at filling the space (to use a theater term).

luke: he's the absolute king of sympathetic characters. no matter how ridiculous the rest of the play is, you can always count on him adding a layer of humanity to his characters. it's easy to see in the milkman, of course, but also in divorces and teddy bears, wine under the bridge, toby's secret pocket, and the grape depression. his people are human, in ways that the others sometimes forget to be, and his storylines are impressively coherent. he seems to be the most concerned with getting the details right--sam nitpicks to get a laugh, but luke keeps track of details really really well, and does a good job of bringing in little things that make a story come together beautifully. more than anything, though, he is so good at building a character throughout a story and leaving you actually satisfied with what you got.

they each have really unique and somewhat specific strengths, but they complement each other so well. i think that's part of the appeal of sfth - they're so so comfortable with each other and find it so easy to read each other that you can tell they're having fun. it feels natural. they click, almost all the time, and even if things go off the rails they can pick up the debris from the crash and run with it. that's what i found really appealing about them--as someone who loved improv when i got to do it, it makes me wish i had friends close enough to do that with. it takes a ton of trust and a really solid relationship to do that, and i just. i just think they're neat :)

thank you so much mostlyintact, i can't come up with this sort of thing without prompting and i can't wait to see if you end up posting smth too 👀 love hyperspecific analysis

[sometimesoliloquy]

THT Is a Love Story

(Yeah I said it. And I'll tell you why.)

In the very bittersweet context of being in the middle of the final season, and with the knowledge of all the press notes/directional spoilers out there ramping up to the finale, I’ve been thinking a lot about The Handmaid’s Tale as a a whole. What it’s about, at its core, and what would accordingly make for a truly satisfying ending. Margaret Atwood’s novel, of course, has presented a disturbing and brilliantly crafted political commentary and cautionary tale since its debut in 1985: the bleak but ultimately hopeful story of an ordinary woman’s survival trapped in a cold and cruel extremist regime where human rights (and particularly women's rights) are a thing of the past, made possible by environmental ruin and the everyday apathy of ordinary people. The show is that too, of course. It’s also at it's core a story of loss, perseverance and ultimately revolution. But moreover what weaves all the themes together in a truly compelling way: I think at essentially the very heart (fittingly), it is a love story. Not just in the most obvious romantic sense, but on so many broader levels. It’s a love story of parents and children, of family (born and chosen), of human connection. It’s a love letter to the perseverance of the human spirit, the ability of the heart to expand and evolve, the triumph of light over dark in the soul and in the world at large. And dancing at the center of it from the very start (and enduring against incredible odds) has been Nick & June: yes, the very epitome of epic, passionate romance with a capital “R”, but also on a deeper level, the symbolic and tangible embodiment of all of the above.

I’ve also been reflecting a bit on some of the things the show’s writers and producers have been saying about the ending and the last season in general, like how it has been “crafted with viewers in mind more than ever” and focused on “delivering a rewarding conclusion for the audience.” They’ve also hinted at a purposeful harkening back to the very first season and touching on all the seasons in between. All of this would have me believe they are paying close attention to staying consistent with the repeated motifs of the show, and striving for satisfying, full circle cohesiveness AND catharsis in the end. With this in mind, I wanted to go back and explore how the ever-present and echoing theme of love is depicted through the words of the characters themselves. Namely here, a trio of major power players since the beginning: June, Nick, and (in the opposing corner) one Mr. Fred Waterford.

…

June:

"What else is there to live for?"… "Love." - 1x05 "It’s lack of love we die from." - 3x05 "Nichole, she was born out of love. Her father’s a driver named Nick… he helped me to survive." - 3x05 "It’s too dangerous” "No it isn’t… at least someone will remember me… at least someone will care when I’m gone. That’s something." - 1x08

June believes in love. This is made clear from the very beginning and is one of the core tenets of her character. It’s not a “nice to have” and it’s not something she’s able to separate from herself, even in Gilead, a place where love is essentially forbidden, where it should feel impossible. It is framed by her as essential to life itself, like water or oxygen. It’s what she credits her very survival to. Moreover, she believes that love is worth dying for, it’s that vital to her. If June stops fighting for love, stops believing in the power of or perhaps even the very existence of love, who is she then? How depressing and devoid of hope would that ending be? Sure, the June we bid farewell to at the end of 6x10 will inevitably not be exactly the same June we met in 1x01, but given the consistent through narrative, we should expect this core value of hers to remain steady, if not indeed grow in conviction.

...

Nick:

" Love is patient, love is kind... Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." - 2x05

It’s fitting that it’s Nick who reads this passage in the show because perhaps more than any other character, Nick’s love throughout has been the very epitome of the verse. We’ve seen his actions play it out literally line by line. Nick knows his Bible verses. He picked this one for a reason, his (barely) coded Hail Mary message to June: I’m still here, this isn’t over, please don’t give up on us. Nick believes the words he reads to her, believes them to his very soul, and he continues to show it in his efforts season after season, demonstrating the constant and undying nature of his devotion. It’s notable that in fact, the full 13:8 verse reads "Love never fails, but where there are prophecies they will cease, where there are tongues they will be stilled, where there is knowledge it will pass away," emphasizing love as the one true thing that remains.

"I’m trying to keep you alive. You and our baby" - 2x02 “I’m trying to keep you alive" - 4x02 "I just want her to stay alive"- 4x03 "She changed you, she changed me" - 4x03

It’s Nick's love for June (and Nichole) that drives him more than anything else, and we see the real, tangible reverberations throughout the story. June and Nichole are safe, alive and free (at least in part) because of his love. Nick is changed because of this same love. And June’s love saves him from a life lacking in meaning, purpose and true connection. If Nick fully turns to "the dark side", if he becomes somehow irredeemable (particularly in June's eyes), it would negate in the cruelest and most nonsensical way all of this, and in one fell swoop rip to shreds the hopeful rainbow of his cumulative character arc.

...

Fred:

"Love isn’t real. it was never anything but lust with a good marketing campaign" - 1x05 “Every love story is a tragedy if you wait long enough." - 1x05

Fred on the other hand, scorns the idea of love. His cynical, contemptuous views are presented as the antithesis to June's quite early on. In rose-glass tinted flashbacks of early life with Serena, we see glimpses that this may not have always been the case, but what was once their love story has indeed turned to tragedy: corrupted into a bitter, twisted thing under the weight of the monster they created together. In the present, he does not believe in love and the selfish callousness of his actions (in stark contrast to Nick) clearly shows it, over and over again. To Fred, 1 Corinthians 13 is just a silly meaningless little verse (of no more consequence than the vapid old fashion magazines he "gifts" to June) in the book that he uses, not as a guide or an inspiration, but as a weapon: a cudgel to wield for his pathological ego-driven power trips, no matter how many must suffer (including his once beloved wife), how many innocent lives it ruins or much how it blackens his soul.

...

If in the final episodes Nick were to be exposed as a “true villain”  who ends up burning June (and in fact his soul) in favor of “power and prestige”, then Fred will have been proven correct all along, and we (like June) will have been stupid to ever believe in love.

- If Nick truly decides to throw away everything he's done, everything he's held close to his heart even at his own peril all these years, to remain in a dismal teeter totter of emotional pain and privilege in Gilead;

- If June refuses to forgive, to endure, to truly fight for Nick as he's fought for her;

- If they truly flame out in epic betrayal and irreparable rupture:

Then we will know love has failed. And Fred was right. Love doesn’t save, it destroys. Love doesn’t endure, because in fact it was never even real to begin with. Love isn't the ultimate reason and purpose, but a tragedy. A lie. 

That's not the story. That CAN’T BE the story. Fred doesn’t win. He was so dead wrong that he is now dead and buried for it. He eschewed love a long time ago and it warped him into a depraved, cruel shell of a human with acts so heinous under his belt that we all cheered as he was hunted down and the flesh savagely torn from his body, because he deserved it. 

No, this isn’t The Debased Delusional Small-Weak-Man Commander’s Tale. This is not the story of how Fred was right after all.

This story is love endures all things. This story is love never fails. This story is love lifts us up, love saves us and gives us the will to fight. And that (someday) a child conceived in love in this brutal place and saved by the love of her parents will unite with her long-lost but dearly loved sister to burn it to the ground.

They may want the viewers to believe that it’s possible for Nick to be irrevocably lost for the drama of it all; for the shock of the reveal, the reckoning and the emotional payoff when the ship rights itself. And I’ll keep my clown makeup handy in case I end up being astonishingly wrong, but I just can’t see how they would so blatantly, not just blow up the story, but in doing so essentially erase the very core of the story we’ve been told up til now.

(just look at them, don't you fucking dare break up this family for good!)

*screencaps/captions sourced by me*

[madonnamadeofasphalt]

EA & Bioware honestly did an incredible job at killing any enthusiasm I had for a new Dragon Age. Fucking hell, man, I've played the first two games so much I could probably go through them with closed eyes and still pick all the right dialogue options to get My Exact Personally Canonized Plot. And the only reason I didn't do the same thing with DA:I is because it was made after EA completely gave up on optimizing their shit so the fucking thing takes up like a billion terabytes of disc space and takes 10 hours to download and install. I honestly think it's the best-written cRPG franchise to ever have a budget that doesn't involve a list of Kickstarter backers or getting an eccentric Estonian billionaire fixated on the project. And the gameplay is also there, I don't really care about that part.

Then they proceeded to fire all the talent that made me love those first three games, and scratch and restart the production twice, and be suspiciously cagey with any details or gameplay footage for a fucking decade, so my hype consistently went down and down. And yet I still managed to hold out some hope that somehow, by some miracle, it wouldn't fucking suck.

I kept that hope until the trailer dropped. You know the one. The one where we see a bearded Varric. This, I think, was the exact moment when I lost any desire to play fucking Veilguard.

Like, first of all, Varric being there at all is already an issue. Leave the man alone. His presence was already kinda forced in DA:I. And after DA:I and Tresspasser, his story couldn't be more finished if he got killed, eaten, shitted out, condemned to hell, redeemed by divine sacrifice, bathed for eternity in the everlasting light. There is no point to Varric anymore. Whatever arc they've given him in Veilguard, and I don't even give a shit enough to read the spoilers before writing this post, it has no business existing. Fuck you. The only reason he's there is because he's a recognizable IP, and when you're a certain kind of soulless corporate moron, you think there's nothing more important than putting a recognizable IP in whatever new bullshit you're trying to peddle. Maybe if you didn't fire every decent writer in your trash fucking company, you'd have someone to tell you about the importance of Ending The Fucking Story When The Story Fucking Ends.

But that's not even the core of the problem. Beard? they gave Varric a Beard? Varric I fucking hate everything that's even tangentially connected to dwarven culture with a passion which is why I've made a point to shave my beard all my life to spite anyone who gives a fuck about it Tethras? beard? you gave him a beard? He changed so much offscreen in the goddamn timeskip between these two games that he got a motherfucking berd? fucshhfdbeard? feadsgfsvarricafgfdh BEARD? yyousftoiuslyhhabevarricasgsfucningbeardandthivkimgosabedineditit?beard????

PS. (edit after finding out spoilers) I've gone to TV Tropes to read up on Varric's role in DATV after writing this (just in case I'm wrong and dumb, and there's actually a deeply compelling narrative reason for his presence), and, well, this shit is cheaper than I thought. And more importantly, just as I thought, there appears to be no justification for the beard beyond "adding a beard is a cliche way to show that a bunch of time has passed, and we didn't care enough to think this shit through". I'm fucking tired, man.

PPS. (edit after reading the rest of big spoilers) This is so much worse than I could even begin to suspect. This is worse than the final season of Game of Thrones. This is the final season of Game of Thrones if they straight-up fired GRRM, burned his notes and hired a showrunner who's only read a one-page summary of the first six seasons. This is fucking depressing, man. I'm genuinely fucking sad. So many subplots that were started over the course of these three games, that were clearly going somewhere, scrapped in favour of a simplistic good vs. evil story that would get rejected by fucking CD-Projekt in 2007 for being too basic. All because the artists who poured their hearts and souls into this bullshit franchise got thrown out like trash by its "owners". Morrigan's kid, the Well of Sorrows, all the implied complexities of Tevinter politics, the Crows, the Old Gods, Andraste. All went to shit. Death to capitalism.

[utilitycaster]

I can't find the tags where someone said this so apologies for not crediting but they were to the effect of "EXU Divergence is very good and we don't need to compare it to Campaign 3 to point that out" and the thing is, I agree. Speaking only for myself I think my intent is, admittedly, to some extent less about pointing out how good EXU Divergence is and rather using the contrast to back up the point that Bells Hells were often self-absorbed, utterly uninterested and even scornful of any meaningful collective action until maybe the epilogues, and indecisive in a way that felt as though it should have been lethal but somehow wasn't; and that a story where every choice has a terrible clarity and potentially dire consequences is instantly compelling whereas no amount of screen time can save a story where this isn't true.

But also: I think, as many have, and EXU Divergence underscores this, that the attitude the PCs had towards the gods in Campaign 3 not only fails to be backed up by C3 itself but also fails to be backed up literally anywhere else. It's not a subversion; it's an aberration. The ending of Campaign 3 and the beginning of Divergence serve as fairly obvious parallels; the gods becoming mortal and unable to speak to followers (who, in the case of clerics, do still have all their powers, as we see with Lieve'tel and Deanna) vs. the gods departing the material plane. We see how this does not end the fight between Prime and Betrayer nor does it stop their followers from trying to take over (and indeed, we know that the lower Rifenmist peninsula does still ultimately fall, in the long term, to the Strife Emperor loyalist Iron Authority). We also see very directly what faith means to people who cannot under any circumstances be defined as the privileged few; for all I have no taste for trauma Olympics, it is difficult to look at Garen, under tyranny and forced labor for a century, powerless but for a hammer and sheer force of will, express a sense of hope and faith and argue that Bells Hells are simply following the logical path of someone who has suffered. We see the gods expressly state that mortals must care for each other, something which Deanna echoes in one of the strongest scenes in the Campaign 3 finale. We see a gift given without expectation of devotion nor worship nor even understanding, just in gratitude of someone fulfilling a tenet to its utmost. Which is refreshing after a campaign where multiple characters resented gods simply for not favoring them, without ever putting in effort towards this relationship.

I've seen the phrase "in a vacuum" pop up a few times in terms of defense of Campaign 3 in terms of "in a vacuum, I am happy with it", and while I happen to think it fails on many levels even within that airless confine, the fact is, this all is unavoidably part of one canonical overarching narrative. To look at how the gods are portrayed in every single other work - yes, even Downfall, and frankly, even Campaign 3 itself - and to come to the conclusion that Bells Hells acted with the desire for a better and more just world, and not simply a world that favored them more, is, frankly, to ignore every word that did not come from the lips of three or four ignorant people over the course of a decades-long story.

EXU Divergence is very good. I think it would be very good even if it were not coming out during our current political situation, or if it had come out following a radically different and better-executed Campaign 3; that is to say, it would succeed in a vacuum. But I don't think that's a valuable way to assess fictional works, and I think it's a disservice not to consider the canonical Exandria-set Critical Role works in conversation with each other. You can praise Divergence on its own terms, and indeed, you should, but it helps to show specifically how it succeeds (in terms of consequence, in terms of characterization, in terms of worldbuilding consistency) by pointing to how something else has failed.

[spiritsglade]

Sorry to bother but would you mind sharing any jason todd fic recs if you have any? You can ignore this if you want lol i just thought id ask since i found your last list very helpful. Thanks! Have a good day <3

Hi Anon!! Don't worry about being a bother - I love receiving asks :) I ended up focusing this rec list on Jason Todd & the Arrowfamily, because I've been reading/thinking about them a lot lately. This does mean it's fairly ship heavy, so if this isn't to your tastes feel free to request a different list!

Honeyverse by daggerpen (T, 57k) - Connor Hawke/Jason Todd series set in late post-crisis. The second work is an ensemble cast casefic by saphire_dance, so it's not centered on the ship. I was up until 4:30 last night binging this entire series last night and you should read it in its entirety right now, also.

observance by @laufire (M, 11k, 1/1) - Jaymia oneshot where the Bats go through their day in Gotham and Jason celebrates Mia's birthday with her family. I love the dynamics here.

Stable Relationships by @glitter-stained (G, 17k, 5/?) - Jayroy slowburn, no capes, horse movie AU. I have recommended this before and I will do so again.

Dirt in the Sewer by Wisetypewriter (T, 4k, 1/1) - Gen, includes Jason, Dinah, Ollie, and Roy, but Bruce is haunting the narrative like particularly dark storm cloud.

futile care by black_banners_raised (NR, 11k, 4/4) - Gen, Oliver Queen & Jason Todd focused, shortly post-batarang incident. Roy shows up! And Bruce, because of course he does.

Some Cupid Kills with Arrows by poisonivory (T, 38k, 8/8) - Jayroy post-Heroes in Crisis fix-it. The mystery is very compelling, as is Jason's entire pining/mourning thing he has going on for Roy.

there’s no better love than with you by Warriorcrazy (T, 2k, 1/1) - Jayroy fluffy fic where he has dinner with Roy's family. It's very sweet.

It is only, and all about Roy by chucklesbuckles (G, 6k, 1/1) - Gen, Oliver Queen & Jason Todd working together and mourning Roy. I probably shouldn't put this as last on the list it's pretty devastating. Sorry in advance.

If you want more, all the fic recs I've given should be tagged either #fic rec or #fic recs. I think I've used both, whoops. Apologies for the disorganization.