#because i've always thought it was the latter but it occurred to me today that maybe it was there and I just didn't notice?

[woulddieforloki]

I do not and will never have the ambition to rewatch Eternals ever but I do want to know if anybody got the vibes watching that movie that Sprite was in love with Ikaris. like was that there? were we supposed to see it? did anyone realize before Kingo pointed it out that she had a thing for him, or was this just the Eternals writers and directors doing a wonderful example of "tell, don't show"?

[naranjapetrificada]

Thinking this midday about ofmd AUs and what it means for someone to be "out of character". I've talked about this here at length before, but today I'm thinking about a different aspect of it. Namely that I wish people thought more about their goals when writing and recalibrated their relationships with canon as a concept.

We all know by now how contentious a certain late first mate (what is the opposite of "qepd" lol) is. When writing him in fic, some people seem to have this (inexplicable to me) urge to show him behaving in ways that the canon version of him would hate (outwardly nice, polite, kind, open, etc). And while not everyone is open to direct feedback about their writing, I've seen discussions a handful of times in ao3 comments and more commonly over here between readers about how in or out character potrayals of him are, and something occured to me today.

When there are opposing sides on the core question of whether or not a portrayal is in or out of character (vs people who agree on that question but may have quibbles about the reasons why they came to their conclusion), the sides tend to be "here's why this was in character" and "here's why this isn't in character". And while that gap will always exist because there are as many readings of a text as there are readers, there's a reason the concepts of "canonical" and "non-canonical" exist. There are things that are canon and things that are not and there is disagreement about which things are which but like it or not, there are some people that are more correct about canonicity.

The thing about fan works is that people should always create what they want, and will do so according to their interpretations of source material, and the question of being in or out of character should, at the end of the day, come down to your goals. We all have more goals in our creative work beyond "finish" or "do it well" and we may not consciously consider them, but they're always there. Those "alternate" goals may be different from work to work, but they exist are influenced by our experiences and inspirations and aren't ever going to be 100% impartial or canon-aligned, because the former would be boring as hell and the latter is neither possible nor desired in what's supposed to be a transformative work.

Everyone who creates anything wants it to be "good", but measures of quality can change from work to work the way goals can. For many writers, how "true" their characterization feels can be one of those quality measures that relate to their goals. Probably in most cases tbh, and especially in AUs. But it isn't always part of the equation because other writers have other goals, and it's usually pretty obvious when those goals haven't been examined.

Some of y'all think Con O'Neill/Izzy Hands is hot, and just wany to imagine his character in various sexual situations with other characters you find attractive (or at least narrative useful) in some way and you know what? That's perfectly fine, and despite not comprehending that impulse at all I understand the importance of creative freedom in fandom enough to want people who write that to write it without hesitation. In these cases we often just tell people to be "proud villainfuckers" which is easy, straightforward, and usually has less contentious discourse around it.

But some of y'all find Izzy to be the most sympathetic character in the series, and while I have enough of the acquired (and healthy) suspicion as a black person who has spent decades in fandom spaces to not want to touch that tendency with a 10 foot pole, those same decades of fandom experience make me understand that there will always be people who glom onto antagonists and secondary characters like that. Even when if I wonder about the motivations behind such an inclination, I understand that y'all are usually part of the ecosystem too.

But the thing is: if you're motivated to write Izzy as outwardly nice or kind or as some kind of hero vs the antagonist he canonically is, or gravitate toward reading those kinds of portrayals, why argue with people about what is or isn't in character? If something in you is drawn toward that kind of Izzy and wants to sympathize with him, why not just own it? There's no easy "villainfucker" way of making peace with this though because it's much more likely to make you want to think about individual morality.

No one who is partial to Izzy wants to be called racist or femme-phobic etc, and I'm not here (on this post at least) to litigate whether or not those accusations would be fair or not (although my opinions are probably obvious). But isn't it exhausting to have to put canon through so many refractions so you can insist that what you like seeing and/or writing is canonical? I understand that being able to point to canon can make it feel easier to stand by your preferences, but is all the bending over backwards to make it fit worth it? What if you could just acknowledge if your goal is to persuade others to see him the same way you do, or see him getting cared for, or whatever else you get out of it? I wish more of y'all had the courage of your convictions and were willing to just say "I like seeing Izzy this way" or "I sympathize with Izzy" because you would probably be having more fun.

[dojae-huh]

huh nim.... It's bunny..... I have a small doubt, if I ask it in my tl am afraid what happens.... So let me........

So, solo stans are called like doppus, tyongfs, vals.... Etc.... Nd the rotten one are called akgaes.... Ok...... So when fandom war occures because of this akgaes ppl, why they called them as in solo stans name?? Like tyongfs dragging dy , doppus are making a gotcha moment with jae Or vals dragging ty??? Why is that?? Isn't that akgaes Or the haters does that? Why they using solo stan name instead of this akgaes word..... Like am a doppu, nd ofcrs doyoung have so many akgaes but still if dy akgaes does smthng stupid nd other fandome make it as, it is doppus who are doing it.... Then ofcrs I get mad.... Just like that lot of doppus who are actually good in my pov, like I've been watching them for a quite long time, but still calling it as tyongfs dragging dy, that's really makes me think it like, why would they do that??? They have a name ty akgeas.... Just call them as it is.... Nd this is why there is always problem arise in fandom...... Or is it tyongfs actually ty akgaes name?? Im really confused abt this fandome thing.... So huh nim.... Help???

"Solo-stan" likes one member, generally doesn't care for other members, sometimes isn't interested in music of the group, only individual projects. Like, I can call myself a solo-fan of Taemin. I listen to his albums a lot, but I'm not interested in Shinee. (I'm not on a stan level, because I don't watch content with him. My interest lies only in the music/MVs area.)

"Akgae" is "malicious solo-stan". It's an evil form of a solo-stan. Hates other members, hates the group, can even sabotage it, wants for the group to disband and their idol to be solo.

Then there are group fans who favour (bias) one member. They like the group, but their focus is on their bias.

Tyongf, Val, Doppu - an umbrella name for all kind of fans of a respective neo.

I personally think that these labels help radicalisation. As soon as one group (nctzens) is divided into several, there is a pull towards further splitting, distancing. The smaller groups start to desire an identity (a name, a banner, a doll, a lore, a cause). And "we protect our bias against everyone", "noone cares about our bias but us" is an identity. (Remember the cases when WayV fans and Dream fans wanted for those units to have their own colours, not green). The more loud a fan is about protecting the bias, the more that fan is liked by others, gets more moots, more likes for posts. It's like sending a message "I'm a true fan! I belong with you! Take me in!". (You can easily find YT videos from people who used to be a part of the beauty-community and the bodypositivity-community, how the people they used to want to be friends with turned on them in an instant the moment they had an individual thought or started to ask questions about some unhealthy trends).

You know, I had a thought today that writing posts about mistreatment is akin to making content. Fans used to draw fanart, do fan edits, fan MVs, lore theories, etc. But those things are hard, take a lot of time and real skill, and people want likes. However, there is a way out. Just write "OMG a hit twit!". And it's very easy to gain clicks by saying "my bias is a victim!". People genuinely go and look for ways to be offended to later write about it. We had a clear example today on this blog. There are people who dislike me and still keep an eye on what I write, just to catch a moment and send me an anti message about how I'm using their bias or say bad things about these and those shippers.

I agree with you that innacurate usage of the fandom terminology worsens things. It makes those fans who didn't write anything bad feel personally attacked and offended (because they associate with the name). "Tyongf did it" is waaaay worse than "a Tae's fan did it". The latter lacks the gravity behind the name. It's a habitual shortcut from real life though. Our brain puts everything in bigger groups to not care about details and nuances, for quicker reactions. Yuta is Japanese and so he is expected to be the best friend for all other Japanese neos by default, fans want him to play a role of a caring hyung (sempai in this case). There is a pull to group all of them together by the their nationality and not care whether they click as individuals.

You discovered that you get offended when the "doppu" name is tarnished by one bad Do's fan. You don't like "doppus are to blame" sentence. Your next step is to accept this as a trait of your human nature and add a correcting behaviour on top. "Well, they used "all doppus", but actually they mean "some doppus", it's not about me, noone is attacking me, I'm staying calm".

Better still, just enjoy what Doyoung does without taking on any unnessesary label. Be an NCTzen. Or a k-pop listener who likes idol Doyoung. No affiliation, no banner and false honour to protect. You are a person who likes Doyoung with an online nickname Bunny. You are you.

(Right now a rat has just peeked its head under the door and decided not to run across the room because the lights are on. Yes, I'm living with rats now. Lol, it showed its nose again. Anyway, rats are living in the house I'm staying at. Oh, a second rat has just run from one door to the other, they are getting bold. They are like "It's 1 am, it's our time, hooman! Switch off the light, go sleep! We want to go to the kitchen!". There are rats in the house, and we need to hide food from them. There are antis in the fandom, and we need to moot their accs, tolerate. In both cases you won't be able to get rid of them completely, the strategy is to change one's own perspective and attitude. Put on "ignore".)

[wozman23]

Our Tastes in Music Related to Time

My gym, thankfully, has started switching up its playlist periodically. It used to be like 95% pop/rap/hip hop that was repeated everyday, like clockwork, ad nauseam... But they've started including some rock. They seem to favor quite a bit of 90s to early 2000s stuff. It reminds me of how I feel like I have a pretty good grip on artists and albums post-2000 rock (Linkin Park and nu-metal onward) when I started listening to the genre, and classic rock all the way up to the 80s (CCR, The Who, Rush, The Police, Cheap Trick...) but when it comes to the 90s-2000 stuff, I feel like I only know songs that got major radio airplay. In those days of my youth, music didn't play as big of a role in my life. It wasn't as important to me as it is today. So I mainly just listened to whatever was on the radio in the car, or whatever my dad was listening to. But at a certain age, I began to explore the world of music for more than just what was being piped into my ears via FM radio. And I became a rabid fan of rock. Yet I never explored those years much more.

A similar thought occurred to me a few month back when I went to a concert with someone and saw Cold's anniversary show for the album Year of the Spider. She stuck up a convo with this hardcore Cold fan who was about our age. He was so passionate about the band and that album, which I know but a few tracks from. So why do we gravitate towards particular bands or albums? What made him a massive Cold fan and me a massive Linkin Park fan during those years? There's so much music in this world, and practically every single artist means something special to someone. Do we miss great things merely based on the time of or our upbringing, or even just the changing of ourselves over the years? Do we even just overlook things while they're around? That feeling happened again when one of my clients gushed about seeing Breaking Benjamin, another band who has some singles I really love ("So Cold," "Diary of Jane," "I Will Not Bow"...), but I never really gave a deep dive until recently and found the beautiful "Evil Angel."

I know I've certainly missed or underappreciated bands over the years. If you asked me my two favorite bands, they're Rush and Fair to Midland. The first of which, I actually disliked until I really began to understand their music thank to the Rock Band video game. And the latter of which I knew of while they were active, but then kind of stopped paying attention, only to become infatuated with them years after they disbanded.

So I wonder what else I'm missing...

Tonight, my Spotify Discover Weekly playlist started off strong with Chevelle, a band I've always liked conceptually, but never really given enough time to to fully appreciate them. Then later, it introduced me to a 3 Doors Down's deeper cut, "Duck and Run," and boy does it slap! The aggression in it made me double take who it was by, and the message resonates possibly even more today. So then I listened to The Better Life in its entirety. What a strong album!

Now I probably do know most band's singles from that time period. I've always appreciated the singles from bands like 3 Doors Down, Third Eye Blind, Matchbox Twenty, and the non-number bands like Goo Goo Dolls, Our Lady Peace, Smashing Pumpkins, Cranberries, and Vertical Horizon (especially when they worked with Neil Peart). But as for listening to entire albums by any of them, I'm not sure I ever have in any of those cases. Yet two of my favorite songs ever are probably "Iris" by Goo Goo Dolls and "Innocent" by Our Lady Piece. But I also feel like they exemplify why I've never taken the time to fully appreciate that phase of rock. When I think of that time, I think of slower tempo songs, and emotional songs. So it was nice to see “Duck and Run” poke holes in that logic.

Now if you've got some albums you recommend, send them my way, because I plan to spend a bit of time in the 90s and early 2000s for a while. I'll try to tell you what I think of that band today, then what I think of the album once I give it a proper listen. And if I can repay the favor with a recommendation from something from my world: current bands that I really do appreciate right now include: STARSET, Voyager (from Australia), Lions at the Gate, VOLA, Maraton, 10 Years, Mass Sky Raid, Pure Reason Revolution, Cage9, We Are The Catalyst, Nothing More, and Greywind.

[oblivscere]

< ✗ > — With a stillness unique to vampires and undeads alike, the silver-haired Ophilm watched the exchange silently - gaze idly flicking between the 'dog' and young(?) lady as the latter tried negotiating with the former. It reminded him, vaguely, of how most people tended to deal with him when he was being stubborn except there was no teeth bearing, no weapons drawn and no violence following after. It was more like...the way companions tended to handle each other - interactions which Xani has never experienced but has studied idly from afar. When the words of apology escaped her lips, his gaze locked with hers; head tilted to the side partially before painted lips parted as well - voice coming out in a drawl as it always did.

"Nah, ain't no need fer an 'pology. Wouldn't be th' first time I've had critters act like lil shits 'round me 'fore." Lips curled slightly in vague amusement, continuing to watch what essentially felt like a spectacle before him. Especially when the aforementioned 'critter' darted off faster than a bullet leaving a gun from whatever threat the other muttered towards him. He shifted his weight then - not out of a sense of discomfort, but because he belatedly realized he hasn't moved halfway through this situation occurring. He has to admit, though, it wasn't quite the peculiarity he thought he'd find himself dealing with today. "S'all good. Can't say I'd be too keen in touchin' keys coated in mystery juices if th' fella got 'ny in 'im. 'Sides, I can always lockpick m' way in. Wouldn't be th' first time." His tone was laced with the same vague amusement that curled his lips - not at all bothered by this whole ordeal in the slightest. If anything, he found it funny really. "Shit happens, ain't like ya could've predicted th' future or somethin'. I will say tho - s'gotta be th' first time I've ever gotten m' keys eaten by a critter 'nstead o' snatched."

"We can do this the hard way or the easy way." Catalina states while narrowing her eyes on her familiar. Solomon squinted in return before turning his head away from her in refusal. Her eyes widened before a huff followed. She squatted down to his level, doing her best to grin despite the circumstance they were in, "Last I checked you promised to behave this time."

The canine turned his head towards his witch. His tongue now exposed, he proceeded to burp in her face. Catalina took a moment to exhale before it was very clear that her hands clenched for a second. The smell of his breath was always horrid, sulfur with a mold-esque after scent. Clearly he is doing this to spite her now. Her eyes looked towards the third party in question, "He's never like this, I'm...so...so sorry."

Her head whipped back to her companion before she mumbled something inaudible under breath. "You have up to five."

Solomon knew what that meant. For the minute she reached into her pocket he went off in a full sprint. Leaving the witch there at the side walk. The embarrassment was great that she had to place a hand over her face, doing her best to conceal the fact that the flushing of her face was illuminating slightly.

"He'll be back and he will give your house keys back, I promise." Eventually her hand smooths back her curls while she contemplates what to do. She never had to provide compensation for her familiar inconveniencing someone. Especially when he ate their house keys. "I..feel so bad...I should've had his leash secured."

@oblivscere

[lizzybeth1986]

What are your overall thoughts on Madeleine as a character including what transpired between her and Hana? I've felt iffy about her, but I'm not sure how to phrase that. I think you can better articulate and explain than I could 😅

Not to boast…but you’ve come to the right person (besides @callmetippytumbles who has made excellent points time and again about how the writing centers Madeleine in ways that they should have been centering Hana). I have written A LOT about that issue especially. Here are some of my meta on that if you’re interested:

Brushed Under the Carpet: Madeleine as an Alternate LI (this was written after TRR Book 3 Chapter 9, where they were subtly hinting at making them a ship).

QT on Book 3 Chapter 16 (Tbh thankfully the bit I was predicting here - Madeleine getting the coming out story that should have been Hana’s - wound up not happening, though part of it could have been from them having to scrap the entire idea after the backlash).

How Do You Fix Hana’s Characterization in TRR? (this essay listed a whole set of changes both to help strengthen Hana’s storyline and to give her the attention and validation she deserved but didn’t get in the actual story)

This replay to an ask posted after 3 of the 4 writers on the team claimed Hana was the kind of person they would marry.

A lot of this illustrates my problems with Madeleine on a level of characterization (and Tippy covers the aspects that deal not with Hana, but with Madeleine's half-baked redemption arc and how the narrative tries really hard to convince us that she does her job well, even when she isn’t doing it properly).

With regards to Madeleine herself, I feel like they started out fully intending that the reader hate her and view her as a rival, before turning the tables and establishing her as “innocent” of the conspiracy (though still extremely unlikeable). In narrative structure, the bachelorette chapter had a lot of striking similarities to the Lythikos chapter where you found out about Olivia’s painful childhood before she mocked Drake about his missing sister. I feel like the aim was to make us see Madeleine in a different light, while still remembering why we dislike her.

Somewhere along the line (with Hana’s chocolate scene) they went too far, and Madeleine went from unlikeable to completely repulsive. After that, the team attempted to completely backtrack, by cramming in a sympathy arc for her and after the “hazing process” excuse, what she did to Hana especially was never addressed again. Suddenly she was the patriot who would sacrifice her life and happiness for Cordonia, a figure to be admired and pitied. A woman who was immensely talented and did her job well [even when she actually didn’t]). Most of her characterization, really, consists of retconning.

But I have no interest in Madeleine, or her characterization. I just don’t. No, what I’m going to touch upon today is narrative treatment.

–

Rival figures are important in a story. They’re a foil to the main character: sometimes they exist simply to make the MC look better (ew), sometimes they’re there to show the MC what the larger society in their world is like, and what challenges they may face, and sometimes they’re an unexpected ally after the MC figures out the problem goes way deeper than the rivalry with them. So if you have a rival who behaves badly, treats the people around her badly? That in itself is not really a bad thing.

It makes me hurt for the characters at the receiving end, but as long as long as the narrative validates their experience on its own initiative, and allows them space, I will be fine. If I’m shown bullying and abuse in a narrative towards a character, I’m going to want to see the person hurting from this:

1. have support. Immense support

2. have a friend circle that will protect them and put them first

3. have opportunities to talk about what this is doing to them

4. have opportunities to push back against the bully

Personally the bully’s journey or whatever is of no importance to me. I simply don’t care. As much as possible I would not care about what grand monumental realizations they get behind the scenes, or what their rotten-egg-smelling guilt looks like. What matters to me is the person bullied. I need to see them win. I need to see them thrive. I need to see them receive support and validation.

One example I can give in terms of that being done well, is Penelope. Penelope is treated like a servant by Madeleine, called names, forever reminded she is good-for-nothing and useless and can’t do anything right. The bullying is constant and puts an already anxiety-ridden Penelope under additional pressure, to the point that when we meet her at Portavira in Book 3 she is VERY reluctant to return to court, and panics when certain things remind her of Madeleine’s behaviour. You have to coddle and cajole her with promises that Madeleine would never be able to do anything to her, and that she can bring her Emotional Support Animals with her to court. If we choose not to address her concerns, our friends will do it on our behalf. Drake Trauma-Minimizing Walker himself, is shown reassuring her the moment they meet in Portavira:

So it is very possible, even if the rival/bitchy character is expected to not feel remorse, and still retains a huge portion of her bitchiness, that we can still get a satisfying arc where the person in pain has support and care, and can thrive.

In Penelope’s case, perhaps the only downside may be that, while the narrative is clear about Madeleine’s bullying and its impact on Penelope, it still keeps Madeleine comfortably away from this narrative so she doesn’t even have to engage with it. She herself doesn’t exactly face consequences. The truth doesn’t even touch her.

But we don’t feel the pinch of this, so much with Penelope… precisely because PENELOPE is validated, given support and is given the space to completely refuse to even go with them if the MC doesn’t make great efforts to support and be nice to her (this, even though she has herself harmed us). She is allowed to get upset if we even question her on not following the dress code of our bachelorette, because it reminds her of Madeleine’s. She is even “rewarded” with a guy, no matter which playthrough.

And not every character is going to be a Penelope who will require that level of coddling from other people. So it’s not always about the MC and others needing to constantly protect and reassure such people. Sometimes it’s just simply about whether said character is allowed to push back against the bully. Hana gets a small measure of this when she’s allowed (but only on one occasion, that too a 30 diamond scene that wasn’t even coded properly later) to tell Olivia exactly what she thinks of her (and Olivia is allowed to say shit about her even after that, without Hana ever being allowed the same space again).

Now the thing with Hana (with regards to Madeleine) is…that they could have easily given her space to push back. Easily given the MC opportunities to protect her. Easily ensured that Hana didn’t have to engage with Madeleine if she didn’t want to. Have her whack friends fucking remember what she was put through at least!!!

Let’s go through how that could have been done one by one:

Pushing Back: One of the most bizarre choices the TRR team made was the give the scene about Liam telling Hana he would get her back to court (ergo, that Hana returned through Liam’s help, not Madeleine as the latter kept claiming) to Drake! He gets to narrate this story to the MC, but Hana herself is never allowed to acknowledge the fact or even talk about it. If she were, she would have at least (at the very least!!!) been given chances to hint at Madeleine twisting the truth, implied as much to Madeleine or to the MC, pushed back in her own unique way. The narrative not only pushes the truth of her return in DRAKE’S scene…it also never gives HER the opportunity to do anything actively against Madeleine’s very obvious twisting of the truth. Just so that Madeleine would continue to have way more power over Hana throughout. The bullying occurs much before the incident in Italy, but Hana herself is expected to stay silent.

Support: Now it’s not as if Penelope gets to push back on her own to Madeleine during this time either (except for a few comments here and there). But Penelope does get plenty of support and eventually protection. Does this apply to Hana as well?

Technically, you could view the fondue party scene that took place after the “chocolate allergy” incident as “support” - but at best it’s very weak “support”, and at its worst it really just a scene revolves around all the other characters (especially around gaining Olivia’s friendship), with a hurt, frightened Hana hovering in the background of the scene.

The MC has the option (option!!) to “call Madeleine out” on the events of the previous night when they’re in Paris, but it mostly results in Madeleine pretending it was a test of some sort (which the MC never bothers to contradict even though she knows better). The best case scenario is, well, that…and the worst case scenario is that Hana never really finds out even that, up until the end.

Speaking Out and Validation: Not only does the narrative not address the bullying after it has happened (until the very end of the series), it uses Hana - the woman who was harmed - to minimize its impact as well. On the one occasion you actually do get to talk to her about the night of Madeleine’s bachelorette party, they make Hana say (if you state that you don’t remember anything from that night), that "the tequila brought out Kiara's mean side, and Madeleine's fun side". Madeleine’s “fun side”, presumably, involves her laughing over targeting, torturing and breaking the vulnerable women in her court I suppose. (also, way to do Kiara dirty while forgetting what Madeleine did, PB!)

Further ahead, the MC and her friends promptly forget about this - Hana is expected to help the MC extract important information from her without even bothering to find out if she is comfortable or not, for instance. The forgetfulness gets to the point where, in the epilogue, (when Madeleine repeats to Hana what she’d told the MC back then) the MC acts like it is the first time she is hearing about Madeleine’s intentions to break Hana.

So forget about getting validation, for a large chunk of the narrative Hana wasn’t even allowed to view her own experience with bullying as painful. And if anything, her friend circle didn’t mind putting her needs and comfort last when it suited them.

The biggest problem about the storyline that involves Hana and Madeleine is the question of who should be getting more space and development, and who actually does. The time and energy spent on Hana navigating a court like this which such threats over her head…is spent instead on literally everything else. The time that could have been spent working on Hana’s background and childhood history…was spent to build Madeleine’s redemption arc instead (ironically, Adelaide starts feeding us with that sympathy arc in Shanghai, Hana’s home).

Effort was spent on extolling Madeleine efficiency and great work, even though there was very little of it to be seen. Effort was spent on making Madeleine look patriotic and not power-hungry, in making it clear to us that her father’s rejections left an impact on her. Even the story involving her attraction to Hana revolved more around HER, not around the woman she hurt. Was the same effort put into exploring Hana’s own struggle in court? In how she feels when people hurt her? In whether she is comfortable doing certain things? I think we all know the answer to that.

The key to why I hate Madeleine’s story so much isn’t that she’s a horrible person. You can be a horrible person and still have a compelling story. You can be a horrible person, and unapologetic about it, but still have the narrative validate what the people you had harmed went through.

It’s that the narrative and team knows and acknowledges her toxic behaviour, but only for a character that they like. They conveniently decided to cherry pick who would be comforted and given reassurance, and who would be forced to praise her bully for her ‘patriotism’. I should have been spending way less time on Madeleine’s redemption and coddling Penelope, and more time on making Hana feel safe in a largely alien place where she has no one but us - and where she is staying only for our protection. My problem is that they didn’t consider Hana’s pain important enough to even address, much less validate.

[sparxwrites]

I've noticed recently that I've become accustomed to capitalising words for Emphasis, both in the absence of italics and in tandem with them. As a language nerd, what does this suggest of language mutation going forward?

this isn’t language mutation! at least, not in the way i suspect you mean it. it’s more of a linguistic adaptation to the inherent limitations of text-based communication - which is a bit of a mouthful, and a lot to unpack, so, let’s start with the basics:

in spoken english, we have words and grammar and sentences, the same as we have with internet english. however, we also have facial expressions, and body language, and hand gestures - and most relevantly here something called prosidy, which internet english is lacking (at least in the traditional sense). prosidy is the changes in pitch and volume of your voice when speaking. this gives rise to stress and intonation in speech, which serves several purposes - one is distinguishing between words (ie. record the object, and record the action), another is conveying emotion, and another is providing emphasis.

the last one is the primary purpose of both italics and initial capitalisation in internet english. since we can’t have prosidy over the internet via pitch and volume, we’ve adopted other methods. 

words with the same spelling are usually disambiguated by context, so they’re not hugely relevant here, but there’s some interesting things going on with emotion and emphasis.

emotion is usually done with memes, emoticons, gifs, or other “verbal tags” - stuff like “/s” for sarcasm or “uwu” (which, interestingly, started off as a genuine expression of “i’m not mad at you!” and is now sarcastic and passive aggressive, so that’s a- lexical? possibly-lexical mutation there), or even acronyms like “tbh” and “lol” and “lmfao” which are now more often used to indicate the mood of a particular statement. for example: when was the last time you saw someone using lmfao to Actually Literally Mean “laughing my ass off”? now consider when the last time you saw someone using lmfao to mean “the previous statement is intended to be mildly humorous in a bleak and self-depreciating kind of way” was. think of the number of posts about “adults need to learn to text!” where people think their parents are angry because they ended a text in a full stop. think of all the wonderful variations on ellipses we have!! the way people use question marks as rhetorical devices, to indicate uncertainty in their statement, or to point out how obvious something is!! i love it. emotion tag-words are my favourite.

emphasis / stress is usually (or at least traditionally) done with italics in written english - it isn’t particularly a internet english thing, it’s been done by writers and comic book artists since well before the internet. this is part of what’s called prosodic stress in spoken english, and it’s used in a couple of different ways. aside from general the most relevant one here is to point out new information in a sentence (called focus in linguistics):

“However, it’s not enough to assume that turtles merely like the taste of pineapples. We must consider the possibility that turtles are deeply, sexually attracted to fruit.”

there’s also contrastive focus (a sub-type of focus, where the person you’re speaking to makes an assumption, and you’re contradicting / correcting them). wikipedia has some nice examples of how it’s often used both online and out loud:

I didn't take the test yesterday. (Somebody else did.)I didn't take the test yesterday. (I did not take it.)I didn't take the test yesterday. (I did something else with it.)I didn't take the test yesterday. (I took a different one.)I didn't take the test yesterday. (I took something else.)I didn't take the test yesterday. (I took it some other day.)

other things italics can do include indicating sarcasm (“Oh, of course, no one else has ever thought of this, because you’re so clever.”), and highlighting important/argument-relevant (“As I mentioned earlier: fish can feel love. This is just one reason amongst many, however, that fish-human marriage is undeniably ethically sound.”). i’m 90% sure that that latter one is probably also focus-related, but i don’t know enough about information structure generally to commit entirely to calling it focus - tbh, given how many different theories of focus there are, it may be focus under some theories, but not others (see also: that one theory on the wiki page where anything not given is focused, so if you’re specifically bringing up or reminding people of a relevant piece of information it’s probably not given and therefore focused). if the important / argument-relevant use is not focus-related, though, then it’s at least somehow related to information structure; perhaps italics are more generally useable to indicate something about information structure, without it specifically needing to be focus.

stress done with initial capitalisation, however, seems to be a little different - or at least, seems to occur in broader contexts than the one above. i suspect you could do an entire postgrad thesis on the similarities and differences between the two (and i also suspect that i don’t remember enough about syntax and phonology and information structure etc. to offer the best insight possible here), but let’s see if we can’t at least pick the differences apart a bit.

so! initial capitalisation can certainly be used in the same contexts as italics, for focusing new / relevant information and for contrastive focus. this evidenced by: (a) “omg, have u considered that turtles are Sexually Attracted To Fruit??” and “pls remember that Fish Can Feel Love” are both perfectly a-okay in internet english, and (b) by an edited version of the wikipedia examples:

I didn't take the test yesterday. (Somebody else did.)i Didn't take the test yesterday. (I did not take it.)i didn't Take the test yesterday. (I did something else with it.)i didn't take The test yesterday. (I took a different one.)i didn't take the Test yesterday. (I took something else.)i didn't take the test Yesterday. (I took it some other day.)

(initial capitalisation with “I” is always a little tricky (is it emphasis, or is it just normal capitalisation?), and in my expereince people tend to default to italics with it wherever possible for this reason. i’m also… unsure about how happy i am with the grammaticality (how “okay” a particular sentence is within a given language / dialect) of examples 4 & 5 (“The” and “Test”), but that might be because those two are a little unusual even with italics - “i didn’t take The Test today” looks much better, i think, and can mean both “i took a different one” and “i took something else”.)

however, it’s clear that initial capitalisation can occur in places where italicisation is either outright incorrect, or at least looks kind of weird:

[cute picture of a cat lying on its back, pulling a face, having knocked a plant pot off the table]

commenter A: “Why Do Cats Do These Things”

commenter B: “why do cats do these things”

commenter A’s statement is perfectly correct internet english; commenter B’s statement is just about interpretable, but quite clearly clumsy / not really acceptable in the opinion of most “native internet english speakers”. but why?? well, we’re clearly not focusing “do these things” (because it’s not really providing any information, it’s just sort of… pointing out that the cat in the picture is being weird and then asserting that this is prototypical cat behaviour. it’s trying to tap into a shared knowledge of “what cats do / are like” between “speaker” and reader), and though it’s somewhat humorous it’s not actually sarcastic, so italics are a no-go.

what commenter A is trying to do, however, is to indicate a specific usage / meaning of “do these things” via a specific “tone of voice”. commenter A is not just asking why cats behave specifically in this manner re: knocking pots off and pulling faces, they’re trying to indicate that they consider cats in general to act weirdly and look goofy; typing “why do cats do these things” would be mostly fine if you are indicating frustration / anger with a sudden plague of cats-knocking-off-plant-pots, but that’s not what commenter A is trying to communicate.

additionally, when i say “Why Do Cats Do These Things” out loud, there’s a specific tone of voice i use for it, that i suspect others do to - this kind of flat monotone, with a heavy weight on each word that’s not so much emphasis but a very careful over-pronunciation. it’s not quite emphasis, and definitely not focus-emphasis; it’s almost a comedy thing, or a joke; it’s drawing attention to a specific interpretation of this sentence that’s both humorous and typical within internet spaces; it’s indicating a kind of emotion (exasperation / affection / despair) more than anything.

some other examples of this, where capitalisation is a-okay but italics are somewhere between weird and entirely unacceptable:

“nah it’ll be fine, i’m Basically Immortal lol”

“getting run over would be Suboptimal”

“if word crashes and deletes this essay then, i swear to god, I’m Gonna Die”

“you’re a Terrible Human Being and i love it”

(if anyone can think of any examples where italics and capitalisation is okay, but are in the same style as the above, then let me know! or if people disagree with my analysis of what initial capitalisation sounds like out-loud. this sort of thing relies on native speaker judgements, usually, and although i am as close to a native internet english speaker as you’re gonna get, i’m only one person. other people may have other judgements.)

i suspect, from all of this, that the function of initial capitalisation is to indicate any kind of change in prosidy in the speaker’s voice (though primarily weird monotone), usually with an emphasis on a specific interpretation of the particular phrase that’s initially-capitalised. this is why it can be used for focus, and for sarcasm, and for more general emphasis the same way - but why it can also be used to represent a monotone (“I Would Prefer Not To”) in a way italics can’t, or to indicate that specific “you know what i’m talking about / i am referring to a concept we both share but that cannot be put into words” tone (“Why Are You Like This”), or that looping-up-and-down voice people use when they’re winding someone up (“I Am A Joy And A Delight, idk what you’re talking about :3ccc”).

italics can kind of be used for some of these, but only really as an extension of its function as an indicator of sarcasm - which means that italics are intelligible in that context, but just look weird, and like the person using them isn’t very fluent in internet english. that’s because initial caps don’t quite indicate sarcasm, though it occupies a similar teasing-dramatic tonal area; in some / most instances, initial caps seems to function similar to adding “lmfao” or “lol” onto the end, which suggests it’s also indicating a self-depreciating or bleak humour / drama to the sentence. initial caps seem to function, then, as a focus / emphasis device, but also as an emotion indicator, which is a sort of fascinating crossover of function - but very similarly to the way we see voice and prosidy being used for both focus / emphasis, and for conveying emotion.

so, you probably use italics + capitalisation in conjunction because you’re trying to convey two different things. for a sentence like “drinking three cups of coffee in a row is a terrible, awful, no good idea and oh my god Why Would You Do That”, the italics are conveying where you’re putting stress / emphasis in the sentence (on “oh my god why would you do that”). the initial capitalisation, however, is indicating that on top of emphasis, you’re saying “why would you do that” in a specifically unusual kind of prosidy, probably quite a flat and monotone one, and that it’s designed to be teasing / humorous.

i also suspect that italics + capitalisation can be used as a kind of “double emphasis”, or marking out an emphasised section within an already emphasised talking point. kind of the way bolding sometimes works?? (except the internet tends not to use bolding fsr, or only uses it for headings / as a way to highlight the most important sentences in a wall of information. it’s a structural-level organisational device, essentially.) so you can re-parse “it’s so important we feed cats and dogs different food, because cats are not dogs and have different dietary requirements!!!” as “[...], precisely because Cats Are Not Dogs and have different dietary requirements!!!”. in this instance, you’re emphasising that the reason for different treatment is that cats are not dogs and therefore have different dietary requirements, but also emphasising the fact in and of itself that cats are not dogs.

i also also suspect that, when we just need one form of emphasis and are choosing whether to use italics or initial capitalisation, we consider the context of our writing. in this “essay”, i’ve mostly used italics - they’re a little more “formal” as far as internet language goes (so, not very formal at all, but still more standard than initial caps), they’re more semantically accessible (i.e. if non-tumblr people find this essay, whereas they might be able to proactively work out what initial caps are intended to convey from context, they’ll probably intuitively understand the use of italics here), and they’re more visually accessible / they disrupt the visual flow of the text less. when i’m talking with friends (especially on platforms like skype and discord and tumblr messenger which, if they support italics at all, do so in a “non-intuitive” way, i.e. not using ctrl+i like word processing software does), in shorter / less formal settings, where the visual flow of the sentence is part of the meaning / emotion of the sentence in and of itself (how long are the sentences? do you use full stops? do you capitalise the beginnings of sentences? do you send each sentence as a new message? on a new line? how many dots do you use for ellipses? keysmashes? ?!??!??!?!?!?!!!! ?), i tend to use initial caps.

so tl;dr: italics seem to be primarily used to indicate focus - you’re pointing out a new or specifically relevant piece of information, or you’re correcting / denying a piece of information that your conversational partner has provided (or perhaps being sarcastic). initial capitalisation can Also/also be used for this purpose, but is additionally used to represent Any/any kind of change in prosidy that would occur if you spoke the sentence aloud (since we also mess about with intonation for other reasons beside focus). ...i sincerely hope someone has done / is doing / will do a thesis on this bc honestly this probably has some fascinating implications for information structure or prosidy or Something/something tbh.

regarding the “mutations” comment: these sorts of internet english quirks are not language mutations, per se, because we already have features for distinguishing this kind of thing in spoken english - and also because a lot of this stuff is what we call paralinguistic phenomena, which means that sarcasm and emphasis etc. communicate something, but it’s not actually strictly part of the language itself. it just adds an extra layer of meaning on top of the stuff being conveyed by the actual words.

instead, they’re adaptations of our orthographic (writing) system to cope with the increasing demands of written/internet english to convey these sorts of things. online, we don’t have people’s prosidy and their body language / expressions to read, so we need altered orthography or other visual indicators to ensure that people correctly understand the intent and mood behind your communication, not just the raw word-content of it. that’s why internet english has developed these quirks. essentially: our communication has always had these paralinguistic phenomena, these ways to convey emotion and emphasis; we’re just finding different ways of expressing them in response to environmental restrictions, i.e. the fact we’re all increasingly communicating via text on a regular, intensive basis. historically, we’ve primarily communicated verbally, so it’s not developed due to lack of need - but the internet has has created a heavily-used, text-primary environment, so now we do need it, and we’re collaboratively creating it as a result because humans (especially young humans) are excellent language innovators. it’s pretty neat!!

(as an interesting aside, i suspect that there’s also an element of in-grouping going on here. people want to mark out the community belong to, the people they’ve chosen as their “tribe” - irl, we do this via slang, and accents, and sometimes through certain types of wordplay or forms of prosidy / gesture etc. obviously, online, we can have slang (think about how often you’ve seen someone on tumblr say “top kek”, versus how ubiquitous that phrase is on reddit), but accents are a little harder. so we instead develop different ways of typing, different ways we use italics or capitalisation or emotes. some of this depends on platform constraints - if your community’s site doesn’t allow bold/italics, or automatically converts emotes into weird yellow smileys, you’re gonna have to develop workarounds for that - but some of it is us going “these are my people, and i can tell because we talk differently, and we’re Not Like You People”. this is why it can sometimes be linguistically disorienting going onto a different platform; i often find posters’ “tone” on reddit hard to read, because they seem to signal emotion differently to on tumblr!!

this may, perhaps, also be a reason why we’ve ended up with both capitalisation and italics - if one social group developed italics as emphasis, and a second social group (perhaps on a platform without capacity for italics) developed capitalisation as emphasis, and then the two groups merged or interacted, you’re gonna get this linguistic transference where the groups adopt one another’s styles without dropping their own original style. and then- voila! both italics and capitalisation for emphasis. but because language often tends towards getting rid of redundancy, the two styles specified out into having slightly different connotations / occuring in slightly different pragmatic environments. or, perhaps, the capitalisation style was always broader than italics, and there’s not been any change yet to reduce redundancy, but there will be in the future. who knows!)

(as a second interesting aside, all of this is probably partly why autistic people often report online friendships being easier / report preferring textual communication to face-to-face. whereas expressions and prosidy can be exceptionally difficult to learn to read if they’re not instinctual - think of the infinite variations of muscle contraction and relaxation in the face! the number of different pitches and volumes and patterns we can make with our voice! they’re very difficult to categorise because they overlap a lot and tend to gradient into one another - these kinds of “emotional tags” are usually quite easy and clear-cut. “/s” indicates sarcasm every time it is used, entirely unambiguously. stuff like “lol” or “tbh” are a little more ambiguous, but even then, they have a more limited set of emotional contexts that they’re used in than, say, the corners of your lips moving upwards. gifs and memes are even better; if they don’t outright say what they mean on the gif or in the meme, there’s entire websites dedicated to cataloguing and explaining memes should you be unclear of the usage.

additionally, internet environments can be a little more forgiving wrt people not picking up on tone, or using an incorrect / weird tone, when conversing; it’s hard to display tone online, and even allistic people (especially internet newbies or older people) struggle with it, so tonal faux pas or misunderstandings are a little more expected (and therefore forgiven) than irl.)

[warsofasoiaf]

I've been thinking about this for a while, so I decided to find out your thoughts on the matter. How would you go about creating a good fantasy religion?

When it comes to building a religion, the key things to remember is that religion is tied very much to ethics, the nature of reality, the meaning of life (and anything that comes after), and other deep philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be alive, to be good or evil, what responsibilities do we have in life. Religion offered to the people of the past (and continues to offer to the people in the present) profound comfort, meaning, and purpose for the entire life. So, you have your work cut out for you. But this is not beyond the ability of the aspiring worldbuilder and fantasy writer. I’m going to caveat this: I’ve studied religions, but a lot of my studies were focused on western religions. Someone who has studied more Eastern, African, or Pacific religions feel free to add anything. I acknowledge my limitations and have done what I could be as inclusive as possible, but I am certain there was stuff I missed.

Who Are You, Who Worships Me?

It’s tempting to start building a religion by building a deity or pantheon and moving from there, but I find it altogether more productive to look at the society that practices the religion and build up, rather than craft the divine and build down. Unless the piece you’re writing focuses on the perspective of the gods, or has them act as characters, they won’t be the focus of your story, but the society that your characters will be interacting with will have a profound effect on the story you’re writing.

So, when it comes to your society, the cardinal virtues that your society wishes to express will become central tenets of your religion. A society that prizes military strength, for example, will emphasize bravery, duty, loyalty, obedience to orders, hierarchy, and all of the things that enhance military cohesion. Deities will often be emphasized in martial roles, whether against enemies, other deities, or against evil itself. Antiquity often had gods pitted against each other, with the winner in warfare being the “stronger” deity, because clearly, those worshippers were the ones that won, right? The positive virtues and negative virtues of your society will be emphasized in all aspects of life, to include religion, and how it evolves over time.

Did You Ever Wonder Why We’re Here?

The meaning of life almost seems too cliche, but having a reason for existing is tremendously comforting. Religion have, throughout history, offered answers to very difficult and very terrifying questions. Why are we born? What happens do us when we die? Is this the only existence there is? Are all the bad things that happen to me just random, or is there a greater purpose to it all? Your fantasy religion is almost certainly going to have to attempt to address some of these questions in order to seem like a credible religion.

Always make sure to take into account the context of your world to think up of confusing questions that the world has to answer. Does magical talent happen seemingly randomly? Religion might attribute a divine origin to such a thing. Can the dead come back to life? That’s certainly going to factor in to your answers about what happens when humans die.

Religion offers other answers as well. Early religions attempted to make sense of the world and phenomena, because, as I’ve mentioned before, knowing why something is the way it is offers tremendous comfort. The fear of the unknown is one of the oldest fears in existence, and it’s one of the most pervasive fears even into our modern day, because the unknown calls into question a human’s mastery over his or her environment and ability to control and handle situations as they occur. Not knowing means losing one of our most powerful attributes: our ability to think rationally and plan accordingly, and this feeling of disempowerment is wholly terrifying. Good horror makes uses of feelings of weakness to amp up the fear effectively, and the use of the unknown, the paranoid cloying that something is out there but we have no idea what it is, where it is, or how to stop it, is amazing. It’s comforting to think of the sun as a flaming chariot powered by a god who wishes to keep us warm. After all, chariots are something familiar, even if the scale is beyond us, and a powerful being that looks out for our survival helps guard against the fear that at any minute, the sun could go away or expand into a giant and burn us to a cinder.

Now, a big part of religion is the concept of the sacred mystery. In the more ‘public’ sense, this would be supernatural phenomena that cannot be explained by rational means, and this forms a crucial understanding in the relationship between the mundane world and divinity. How the divine interacts with the world, if at all, is critical to understanding the relationship between any divine figure and the mortal practitioner. In the more esoteric sense, a sacred mystery is knowledge that is not commonly available to the public, accessible only by initiation and elevation to the proper rank. This was done in Greco-Roman mystery cults, as an example. In a fantasy story, for example, this is excellent for bringing in elements of the supernatural while keeping it rare and out of public hands.

Don’t fear that any point is too esoteric or minute to be important. The meaning of the divine have launched wars. Just to take an example, look at all the early theological disputes as to the exact nature of Jesus in Christianity. Arianism, Monophysitism, Monotheliteism, there was a tremendous amount of discussion and excommunications over aspects that seem almost trivial to a layperson, but this was a matter of the soul and of life everlasting to the people who lived in those times. Just because it seems unimportant to you, it can still have great significance to those who believe it. The same is true in fantasy as in reality.

The Path to Power

Now, religion is, like any other institution, controlled by humans, and humans are many things, but one thing that they are good at is building power structures. Religion has often been used as a vehicle to power. In some cases, this means an out-and-out theocracy, where political power is exercised through the clergy, but it hardly needs to be official. When a religion can control something as powerful and meaningful as an immortal soul, even without any official political power, the clergy will exert a great deal of influence.

Of course, when it comes to designing a religion, one of the big questions that will determine how much hard and soft influence said religion will have on the society at large. An informal, deeply personalized religion based on direct relationships with divine entities will not be very organized, but will still form a significant part of the daily lives of practitioners; in ASOIAF, it’s considered proper to perform important moments in front of a heart tree so that the Old Gods may bear witness, yet there does not appear to be an organized clerical hierarchy. A more organized religion will have a much more formalized organizational structure, with sacred texts and formalized rituals. Religions like Christianity and Islam are very organized, and as the number of worshipers grew, so did the size of their organizations.

The size of the organization is critical, because that determines the amount of resources it has. The Catholic Church was the largest organization in medieval Europe, and as such, had a truly gigantic amount of resources in both money and land, and that translated into a lot of power. The most powerful Popes could cow the mightiest kings of Europe, send ambassadors to distant lands, call Crusades and sanction invasions that forever changed the face of Europe. The most powerful Caliphs left their stamp on Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence that affected the way the religion is practiced today.

Now, as you might imagine, the bigger the organization and the wealthier it is, the more attractive it is to gather money, power, and influence, just like any secular organization. Corruption is present in all organizations, even the tiniest and weakest ones, and the largest and most powerful ones will definitely have corrupt officials, and those in power will use their organization to protect their power for reasons both benign (if I lose this power, I can’t help my flock) and malicious (if I lose this power, then I can’t help myself), and everywhere in between. As might be expected, corruption in any religion would be abhorrent to honest practitioners no matter their rank, corruption and hypocrisy rankle any outsider, and so anti-corruption movements would result. There were plenty of anti-corruption initiatives in Catholicism, and this ranged from peasant revolts who railed against inequality and classism to reformist Popes who cracked down on simony and usury. These anti-corruption initiatives can form critical moments in the history of your religion…or are a perfect way to have a conflict over the course of your novel.

What is a God, Anyway?

Now, of course, if you have a religion, you’ll need some sort of divine figure or idea. There has to be an origin for these sacred mysteries after all. Whether you have a monotheistic religion, a dualistic religion, a polytheistic religion, or even an atheistic one built around a philosophy, the big thing to capture is a sense of something much larger than humanity.

In a one-god religion, it’s important to settle exactly how powerful the god is. Monotheism typically asserts that the one god is all powerful, and has no peer, but that is far from the only way that works. Henotheism asserts a single divine essence which takes the form of many valid gods, and monolatrism, where many gods exist but only one is worshiped. In this latter two cases, defining the relationship between the gods is critical to the nature of the divine. Can a mortal worship the underlying divine essence of henotheism (or even comprehend it)?

In a ditheistic religion, the relationship between the gods becomes even more important, because usually whatever the one god is not, the other is. This dichotomy is often central to the formation of the world, and the religion offers a lens of contrasts and binary choices. Zoroastrianism is one of the most influential ditheistic religions I’m aware of, and it stresses the constant choices that mankind makes, to do good or to do evil, and this impetus of behavior affects many aspects of Zoroastrian societies.

In a polytheistic religion, the gods typically resolve around certain spheres of influence, and so it might be possible and necessary to pray to certain deities who have access over this sphere. Polytheistic deities typically emphasize human characteristics, and not all of them benevolent. The Greek Gods might bestow favor that ended up with horrible things happening to them. Susano-o got into a fight with his sister and flayed her favorite pony and threw the skin at her. Tezcatlipoca and Quetzlcouatl constantly unmake creation to show each other up. Odin repeatedly tried to renege on deals. Eshu walked around with a hat that looked different depending on how you looked at it just so people would fight over it. Taken as a strictly secular observer with modern values, you could probably say that these gods were, well, dicks (apologies to anyone if I called your god a dick), but they seem so strikingly and extremely human: concepts and personas taken to their immortal conclusion. Death is also a real thing for these gods. Many of the Tuatha died, including Nuada and Lugh, and they eventually lost Ireland. The Norse Gods were all fated to die on Ragnarok (save for a select few). The Aztec gods were built around death and sacrifice providing power. These concepts were all special, magical, and relatable.

I’d recommend researching ancient religions and seeing how they explored these concepts (and others) to make your religion feel genuine.

Bringing it Together

Just like anything else, you will be building a lot of things from single ideas that will invariably change. Do not fear change, and this is especially true for religions. After all, the changes you make, you can incorporate into the fictional history of your religion, as it grows and shifts over time, just like everything else (hopefully) in your setting.

For example, the religion in my fantasy setting started with a single idea. I wanted to build a society where doing good was a real concern, so I based it off Zoroastrianism. The religion was a dualistic one, with one good and one evil deity. Doing good actions strengthened the good deity of creation, doing evil strengthened the bad one. At the judgment day at the end of time, the two deities would fight, and the winner would be the one strengthened by the active thoughts and deeds of worshipers. If the good deity won, it was a remaking of the world into a land of endless paradise and plenty. If the evil deity won, the world became an endless suffering pit. This resolved the issue of free will, because mankind and free will is the active shaping force of the end of the world. It assigns significance to actions because everything that everyone does matters in judgment day, even if ever so little. The ethical framework of this society, then, becomes rather judgmental, as each evil deed is not only a crime against man, but against existence itself, and villains became interesting as they justified their crimes to render them good, or even went so far as to do other things to stave it off, and in one particularly horrible case, believed that the patient suffering of his victims offset the damage he was doing.

Then, to make matters more interesting, I made a religious schism that was based off the Great Schism of 1054, naming them after their implement of religious purity. One side, the ones who follow the sacred fire, believe that action is the principal driver of good, and so their doctrines resolve around actively doing good. The other side, who follow the sacred waters, believe that contemplation and thought are the most important, that one must actively think good and the action will follow. To the fire side, thought without action is impotent, empowering nothing and permitting evil to triumph, strengthening the evil god. To the water side, wanting to do good because of benefit (even just to strengthen the good god for the hope of the eternal paradise) is selfish and strengthens the evil god. Now, there’s actually a lot more theological discussions and some of it concerns secular concerns of power. The spectrum of belief has heretic hardliners who believe in violent action to eliminate the other sect before they do more wicked things, to more mellow followers who believe that the other side is misguided by not actively evil, to active Unificationists who attempt to use theological argument to reconcile the two sides with a variety of compromises. There’s even a sect in the hills that are fundamentalist Rejectionists who say that the schism is a sign of corruption and that there needs to be a return to a simpler, purer form of the religion, and that all came from one idea of a man constantly quoting scripture as if every single line he said was pregnant with meaning. I have (horrible) sketches of two grand temples devoted to sacred waters and sacred fires with beautiful architecture and ideas for how this schism will play out to create conflict for the protagonists, and how their ideas on it shape their actions. Follow the path where it takes you, write your notes, and don’t be afraid to come back and make revisions.

Thanks for the question, Overlord.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King