#both are obstacles. the opposing force to the protagonist.

[bam-monsterhospital]

I guess I'm gonna talk about villains (part 1?)

What people love to forget about villains is that, moreso than heroes (because heroes have become synchronous with 'protagonist' despite not necessarily being the same thing, but that's a different convo), villains serve a role in a story. And that role is the most important thing about them. Villains are (for the most part, again, not getting into that) antagonists. Not all antagonists are villains, but villains almost always make antagonists. AKA: villains are your obstacle, your boss fights, your challenge, your conflict. Villains get the ball rolling.

That's it. Obviously well-written/'good' villains also tie into some aspect of the themes or ideas of the story. Ideally they also open up aspects of the protagonist to view, not taking away from the protagonist but instead supplementing them, highlighting their character by existing/interacting. Kinda like a foil, y'know?

So with all that said, what's my miniscule list of all-time favourite villains that is apparently less than 10 entries long? Well, I don't know what tiny sketchbook I started writing it down in, and I've changed computers multiple times, so I guess I have to work off the top of my head...

in no particular order, this is just what i can think of:

maverick, from tiger&bunny

jack winters & mr sinister (i lump them together because they serve the same role and themes, just the mundane vs fantastical versions) from xmen comics that remember they're quintessential to scott summers' backstory and character. ALSO, the idea of mr sinister is better than most of his writing, so take him with a grain of salt here.

verner vogel, from frogwares' 'chapter one' continuity of sherlock holmes games.

the queen of maggots (only in the cat lady game though, rather than when she appears in havester games' other titles)

that's all i can remember right now.

Keep in mind, these are all-time fav villains: I'm looking at narrative role, themes, how they tie to who they prey on, etc. If you know these characters, you'll notice some commonalities here: personal ties to their protagonists, competent manipulation that has consequences on their victims, full of personality/character etc. These are the villains I think about when I want to make up my own villain characters. HOWEVER, this is by no means any condemnation of more simplistic villains: I too love me a good fun "black and white" villain.

Maybe in another post I'll talk about those fun villains that don't need to be complicated and the ones I personally enjoy. But for now I need a break from this thought-train, because i forget where i was going with this other than "NO, VILLAINS ARE JUST TOOLS, NOTHING MORE, GAH STOPIT".

[thewriteadviceforwriters]

Villains vs. Antagonists (Guide For Writers)

Hey there, fellow writers and wonderful members of the writeblr community! 📚✍️ It's Rin here and...

Today, we're diving into a topic that's close to many writers' hearts: villains and antagonists. These characters often steal the show, driving our plots forward and giving our heroes something to push against. But here's the thing – while these terms are often used interchangeably, they're not quite the same. So, let's unpack this, shall we?

First things first, let's break down the difference between a villain and an antagonist. It's a distinction that can really elevate your storytelling game!

An antagonist is simply a character (or force) that opposes your protagonist. They're the obstacle, the challenge, the thing standing in the way of your main character achieving their goal. Here's the kicker: an antagonist doesn't have to be evil. They could be a rival love interest, a stern parent, or even nature itself.

A villain, on the other hand, is a specific type of antagonist. They're the bad guy, the evildoer, the character with malicious intent. All villains are antagonists, but not all antagonists are villains. Mind-blowing, right?

Let's look at some examples to make this clearer:

In "Romeo and Juliet," the feuding families are antagonists, but they're not villains. They oppose the protagonists' desire to be together, but they're not evil.

In "Harry Potter," Voldemort is both an antagonist and a villain. He opposes Harry (making him an antagonist) and he's also evil (making him a villain).

In "Cast Away," the island and the challenges of survival are the antagonists. There's no villain in sight!

Now that we've got that sorted, let's dive deeper into how to create these characters and use them effectively in your writing.

Creating Antagonists:

Define their opposition: What specifically does your antagonist do to oppose your protagonist? This could be physical, emotional, or ideological opposition.

Give them a reason: Why are they standing in your protagonist's way? Even if it's not justified, there should be a reason that makes sense to the antagonist.

Make them strong: Your antagonist should be a worthy opponent. They need to pose a real challenge to your protagonist to keep things interesting.

Consider their perspective: Remember, your antagonist is the hero of their own story. Try writing a scene from their point of view to understand them better.

Create contrast: Your antagonist should in some way contrast with your protagonist. This could be in values, methods, or personality.

Creating Villains:

Establish their evil: What makes your villain "bad"? Is it their actions, their beliefs, or both?

Develop their backstory: How did they become evil? A compelling villain often has a tragic or twisted history.

Give them dimensions: Pure evil can be boring. Give your villain some complexity – maybe they love their cat or have a soft spot for classical music.

Create a strong motivation: What drives your villain? Greed? Revenge? A twisted sense of justice? The stronger and more relatable the motivation, the more compelling your villain will be.

Make them smart: Your villain should be clever enough to pose a real threat. They should be able to anticipate and counter your protagonist's moves.

Now, let's talk about how to use these characters in different genres. Because let's face it, a villain in a romance novel is going to look very different from one in a fantasy epic!

In Romance: Antagonists in romance are often rivals for the affection of the love interest, or perhaps societal norms or family expectations standing in the way of true love. Villains are less common, but when they appear, they might be abusive exes or manipulative friends trying to sabotage the relationship.

Tip: In romance, make sure your antagonist's motivations are clear and relatable. We should understand why they're opposing the main relationship, even if we don't agree with their methods.

In Fantasy: Fantasy is ripe for both antagonists and villains. You might have a Dark Lord seeking to conquer the world (classic villain) or a rival magic user competing for the same goal as your protagonist (antagonist).

Tip: In fantasy, world-building is key. Make sure your antagonist or villain fits logically into the world you've created. Their powers, motivations, and methods should all make sense within the rules of your fantasy realm.

In Mystery/Thriller: In these genres, your antagonist is often the perpetrator of the crime your protagonist is trying to solve. They might not be evil (maybe they committed a crime of passion), or they could be a full-fledged villain if their crimes are particularly heinous.

Tip: In mysteries, your antagonist needs to be clever enough to challenge your detective protagonist. Leave subtle clues about their identity or motives, but make sure they're smart enough to almost get away with it.

In Literary Fiction: Here, antagonists are often more abstract. They might be societal expectations, personal flaws, or even time itself. Villains in the traditional sense are less common, but morally grey characters who oppose the protagonist are frequent.

Tip: In literary fiction, focus on the nuances of your antagonist. They should be as complex and flawed as your protagonist, with their own rich inner life.

In Sci-Fi: Science fiction offers a wide range of possibilities for antagonists and villains. You might have alien invaders, oppressive governments, or even well-meaning scientists whose creations have gone awry.

Tip: In sci-fi, make sure your antagonist or villain is consistent with the technological and social aspects of your imagined world. Their methods and motivations should make sense within the context of your sci-fi setting.

Now, let's dive into some tips to make your antagonists and villains the best they can be in your novel:

Make them believable: Whether you're writing a mustache-twirling villain or a morally grey antagonist, their actions and motivations should make sense within the context of your story and their character.

Give them a personal connection to the protagonist: The conflict becomes much more engaging when it's personal. Maybe your antagonist and protagonist used to be friends, or they're fighting over the same goal.

Show their impact: Don't just tell us your antagonist is a threat – show us the consequences of their actions. Let us see how they affect your protagonist and the world of your story.

Give them wins: Your antagonist or villain should have some successes along the way. If they're always failing, they won't seem like a credible threat.

Humanize them: Even if you're writing a truly evil villain, give them some humanizing traits. Maybe they have a pet they dote on, or a tragic backstory that explains (but doesn't excuse) their actions.

Make them adaptable: A good antagonist doesn't stick to one plan. When the protagonist foils them, they should be able to come up with new strategies.

Give them their own character arc: Your antagonist or villain should grow and change throughout the story, just like your protagonist does.

Use them to highlight your protagonist's strengths and weaknesses: Your antagonist should challenge your protagonist in ways that force them to grow and change.

Consider their presentation: How do other characters react to your antagonist? How do they present themselves to the world versus who they really are?

Don't forget about henchmen: If you're writing a villain, consider giving them some underlings. This can add depth to their character and provide more challenges for your protagonist.

Remember, whether you're crafting a dastardly villain or a complex antagonist, these characters are crucial to your story. They're the ones who push your protagonist to grow, who raise the stakes, and who often drive the plot forward.

But here's a gentle reminder: while it's important to make your antagonists and villains compelling, be mindful of the impact your writing might have. If you're dealing with heavy themes or traumatic events, handle them with care and sensitivity.

Now, I know we've covered a lot of ground here, and you might be feeling a bit overwhelmed. That's okay! Writing complex characters is a skill that develops over time. Don't be afraid to experiment, to try different approaches, and to revise and refine your antagonists and villains as you go.

One exercise I find helpful is to write a short story from your antagonist's or villain's point of view. This can help you understand their motivations better and ensure they feel like real, three-dimensional characters.

Another tip: watch movies or read books in your genre and pay special attention to how they handle antagonists and villains. What works well? What doesn't? How can you apply these lessons to your own writing?

Remember, there's no one "right" way to create these characters. What matters is that they serve your story and engage your readers. Trust your instincts, and don't be afraid to push boundaries or subvert expectations.

As you work on your antagonists and villains, keep in mind that they're not just there to make life difficult for your protagonist. They're an integral part of your story's ecosystem. They shape the plot, influence character development, and often reflect themes or ideas you're exploring in your work.

And remember, writing is a journey. Your first draft of an antagonist or villain might not be perfect, and that's okay. The beauty of writing is in the revision, in the gradual sculpting of characters until they leap off the page.

Lastly, don't forget to have fun with it! Creating antagonists and villains can be some of the most enjoyable parts of writing. Let your imagination run wild, explore the darker sides of human nature, and see where your characters take you.

I hope this deep dive into antagonists and villains has been helpful and inspiring. Remember, you've got this! Your unique voice and perspective will bring these characters to life in ways no one else can.

Happy writing! 📝💖 - Rin. T

Before you go, why not join us at The Write Right Society? We're a supportive Tumblr community where writers lift each other up. Whether you're a newbie or a pro, we'd love to have you! Share your work, get feedback, and connect with fellow wordsmiths, writers and aspiring authors. 

[luna-azzurra]

Strategies for creating conflicts between the protagonist and the antagonist that drive the story forward.

Creating conflicts between the protagonist and the antagonist is vital for driving the story forward and engaging readers. Here are some strategies to help you craft compelling conflicts:

1. Goals and Motivations: Establish clear and conflicting goals and motivations for both the protagonist and antagonist. Make sure their objectives are mutually exclusive or directly opposed to each other, creating inherent conflict.

2. Personal Stakes: Make the conflict personal for both the protagonist and antagonist. Connect their goals to their personal desires, values, or relationships. When something deeply important is at stake, the conflict becomes more intense and emotionally charged.

3. Ideological Differences: Explore ideological differences between the protagonist and antagonist. Present opposing beliefs, philosophies, or worldviews that clash throughout the story. This can lead to profound debates and arguments, driving the conflict forward.

4. Obstacles and Challenges: Introduce obstacles and challenges that stand in the way of both the protagonist and antagonist achieving their goals. These obstacles can be physical, emotional, or psychological, forcing them to confront each other in a series of conflicts.

5. Strategies and Tactics: Allow the protagonist and antagonist to employ different strategies and tactics in pursuit of their goals. Show how their contrasting approaches intensify the conflict and force them to outwit each other.

6. Reversals and Setbacks: Incorporate reversals and setbacks for both the protagonist and antagonist. Just when one gains an advantage, have the other seize an unexpected opportunity or achieve a significant breakthrough. This keeps the conflict dynamic and unpredictable.

7. Emotional Confrontations: Create moments of emotional confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist. Explore their personal histories, traumas, or vulnerabilities, and bring them to the surface during pivotal confrontations. This adds depth to the conflict and raises the emotional stakes.

8. Physical Confrontations: Include intense physical confrontations between the protagonist and antagonist. These can be action sequences, battles, or confrontations that test their strength, skills, and determination. Use these moments to escalate the conflict and heighten tension.

9. Psychological Warfare: Incorporate psychological warfare between the protagonist and antagonist. Show how they manipulate, deceive, or psychologically torment each other to gain the upper hand. This adds layers to the conflict and tests their mental fortitude.

10. Moral Dilemmas: Present moral dilemmas that force the protagonist to make difficult choices and challenge their values. Allow the antagonist to exploit these dilemmas, further fueling the conflict and testing the protagonist's resolve.

[itsbenedict]

How would you make mario a villain?

Huh! Tricky one. I mean, there's tons of Newgrounds parodies about how fucked up it is that Mario goes around crushing turts all day, and there's the obvious "silent scary henchman of the image-conscious dictator" angle. Tricky to cast him as the villain rather than the muscle, though...

There's only one thing that notably motivates Mario, and that's Princess Peach. Extreme devotion, there. For him to have agency, she needs to be removed from the picture- and I think that neatly answers the motive thing, too. Peach hasn't been kidnapped, this time- there's something more permanent. But what? "She's been killed and he's out for revenge" is a little 3edgy5me, and also if Mario sets out to get revenge I think he just gets it. His antagonists have rarely put up the kind of fight that would require him to concoct a villainous scheme.

Who's the protagonist, if not Mario? What is Mario doing that requires someone else to go on an adventure opposing him? How do we make this something that Nintendo would actually consider releasing?

...Okay, what's Mario's usual M.O.? How do we make that villainous? He... goes to dangerous places, nimbly circumvents all obstacles in his way, and claims powerful, usually star-shaped magical objects, in order to rescue the princess. This time... he isn't really concerning himself with who the rightful owners of said magical objects are.

It's a Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego situation. There's been a rash of heists committed by a strange masked phantom thief, and the protagonist's job is to find out how the relics were stolen and where the culprit hid them, and get them back before their clients suffer dire consequences as a result of missing-magic-item-itis. You investigate crime scenes, pick up the phantom thief's trail, chase him down, and bop him one but good to recover the relic and save the day.

This is complicated somewhat because this phantom thief is in league with Bowser, who keeps causing trouble in ways that the phantom thief takes advantage of to get past security. The Koopa Troop often assists the phantom thief in his getaways. Why are they working together???

Flash back. Mario standard plot- Bowser has kidnapped the princess. This time, he's done it using some magic item or invention doohickey whose provenance he doesn't quite understand, which has turned Princess Peach to stone. True to form, Mario goes through several another castles and thrashes Bowser and breaks his evil doohickey, and... uh. This fails to rescue the princess. She is still a statue.

Bowser doesn't know why she's still a statue, and both of them panic. How do they fix this?! They need to try something- find some new magic thing that'll bring her back! They've heard of the Sacred Star of Healing in one of the neighboring Kingdoms (which exist in infinite supply in the Mario universe to be adventured through precisely once and then forgotten about forever), and agree to work together to steal it and use it to restore Peach.

It doesn't work. They ditch it somewhere. They follow up on another rumor- the Golden Coin Spirit in the Treasure Kingdom or whatever, and that's a bust too. And after a couple of these, the international community is forced to call in an expert to catch this thief and bring him to justice.

So who's our protagonist? Who in the Mario universe is a famous detective who specializes in guarding star-shaped magical relics from would-be burglars? WHAT IMPROBABLY LARGE-BRAINED PENGUIN COULD POSSIBLY THWART THIS MASTER CRIMINAL?!?

[writingquestionsanswered]

I’m writing my first book based off an idea on how the two main characters met. Problem is there is no true plot, no climax, anything. How do I build a story around the initial meeting?

Plotting Story Around Two Characters Meeting

Stories need two things in order to be a story:

-- a conflict (a problem that needs to be resolved) -- a goal (an accomplishment needed to resolve the problem)

Conflict can be internal (within the character's self) or external (within the character's world.) Many stories have both an internal and external conflict.

The first thing you need to do is figure out the conflict your story will have. With a story based off of two people meeting, you have many options:

1 - a plot centering on the relationship that unfolds between the two characters (internal conflict)

Some examples: the characters struggle with personal flaws that influence their relationship. One character helps the other overcome a personal flaw. The characters help each other overcome a personal flaw. Someone else helps the characters overcome a personal flaw.

2 - a plot centering on an event that happens because the two characters meet (external conflict)

Example: The two characters do something bad or weird and have to deal with the consequences.

3 - a plot centering on an event that happens because the two characters meet, which also explores their unfolding relationship (external conflict and internal conflict)

Same as #2, but with the addition of something out of #1.

4 - a plot centering on an event that happens after the two characters meet, causing them to team up (external conflict)

Example: Something happens to the two characters because they met, and they must figure it out together.

5 - a plot centering on an event that happens after the two characters meet, causing them to team up, and also explores their unfolding relationship (external conflict and internal conflict)

Same as #4 but with the addition of something out of #1.

Once you've figured out your story's conflict, you can figure out how the character/s will resolve the problem. What goal will they try to reach in order to: resolve their personal flaws, deal with the consequences of the bad/weird thing they did, figure out/get out of/survive their situation.

After that, it's easy...

Who or what is the antagonistic force? The antagonistic force is someone or something that opposes your protagonist/MCs. If your story is character-driven, the antagonist could be anything from an overbearing parent or toxic friend to bad luck or disease. If your characters did something bad, the antagonistic force is likely the police or whoever is trying to bring them to justice. If something bad happened to your characters, the antagonistic force is likely whoever or whatever caused the thing to happen, or something that results from whatever happened to them. If they were snowed in by an avalanche, the antagonistic force would be nature because it's weather, a natural disaster, and whatever other dangerous things they encounter as they try to survive.

The antagonistic force creates obstacles your characters must overcome on their way to reaching their goal. The climax occurs when the protagonist/MCs face-off against the antagonistic force once and for all.

You can learn more in my Plot & Story Structure master list of posts. I hope that helps!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

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

LEARN MORE about WQA

SEE MY ask policies

VISIT MY Master List of Top Posts

COFFEE & COMMISSIONS ko-fi.com/wqa

[y2kbugs-moved]

I'm going to debunk some Miguel misconceptions from movie-only fans, ok. I'm going to try my best to not sound like a dick, which is hard because it's early morning here and I really do want to clear things up.

Spoilers, obviously.

This is going to be very long (because I love to over-explain things), and I do want people to read all of this. I even highlighted important points in bold.

(Fanon portrayal is a whole other can of worms and I could make a post about that too, but I'm just going to stick with the biggest issues right now.)

Miguel is the villain!

The confusion of villain vs antagonist is a common one.

I'm going to use this site for definitions, but basically:

"In literature and film, an antagonist is a character or force that actively works against the protagonist or main character. Think of them as a roadblock with a clear purpose and well-defined reasons for their choices and actions."

"A villain is an amoral or evil character with little to no regard for the general welfare of others. They are driven by ambition, greed, lust, or a desire for power or revenge"

Indeed, a story can have both! A villain could also be the (major) antagonist, but not all antagonists are villainous. The site I linked actually lists some great examples from movies and I recommend looking through them! They're very clear.

A story can also have multiple antagonists and villains but it does take a bit to really pull it off. I'll make this brief and just speak my interpretation: The movie has two antagonists, but only one villain.

The Spot is both a villain (has evil motives, no regard for the welfare of others, driven by revenge) and an antagonist (a force directly opposing our protagonist, Miles Morales). He is actively trying to destroy the multiverse, and targets Miles specifically out of disproportionate revenge including wanting to kill his father, Jeff. Yes, he's goofy and incompetent at the start and has a inferiority complex, but he's still villainous. All of his actions are motivated by revenge, destruction, and perhaps pride.

Miguel/Spider-Man 2099 is an antagonist (Opposing force/obstacle to the protagonist), but, while having a few traits, ultimately not a villain (has ultimately good reasons and is driven by what he believes is right, even if his actions betray these).

Miguel is driven by trauma and an unflinching sense of order, and indeed he brings these beliefs to their extreme, resulting in his violent behavior in the latter part of the movie. He's trying to stop the Spot just as much as Miles is. He does not want to destroy the multiverse, he wants to keep it in check even if his theories about canon are ultimately wrong. The only non-supervillain person we see him be really violent to is Miles. He is described, both by Gwen and Peter B, as "a good leader/listener" and "just looks scary", and going by PB's reaction to how violent Miguel becomes, this isn't a normal occurence for him. He doesn't usually act like this. That's what pushes him to be like a villain, even if his motivations are good.

This isn't any defense of Miguel's actions in the movie, but to explain that what we are seeing here is a person who is ultimately a hero/"good guy" changed by trauma and refusing to compromise, therefore resulting in behavior that feels villainous to outsiders.

The third movie is yet to be released, but I have belief that Miguel will get some form of redemption but remain mostly an anti-hero and foil to Miles, while The Spot will always be the central villain.

And check out this Twitter thread on what Miguel is really like as a person. Images here:

2. Miguel is a vampire!

I'm not sure why people are so adamant about this one. I guess it's because vampires are hot, and he has fangs, but this is the most easily debunked one of all of these. Especially when you keep in mind that the only person describing him as being like a vampire is a teenager who just met him. I don't mind if you want to make Miguel a vampire in an alternate universe of your choosing, but to act like he is one in the main canon (ironic) is ignorant.

While the movie takes liberties and changes a few things from a Spider-person's origins, the core is generally the same. I see no reason at all for the writers to completely change Miguel's origin to make him a vampire. Not only is this just lazy, but it is also in my opinion disrespectful to the original writers who came up with his origin story.

I implore people to read the 1992 Spider-Man 2099 comic, it is really very good (but does have a few racial stereotypes early on unfortuunately), but for a brief rundown, Marvel Future Fight has a good summary of his story:

(Text: Miguel O'Hara is an engineer who worked for Alchemax in the year 2099. He was a genius in the field of genetics, but was reluctant when pressured by his higher-ups to imprint foreign genetic codes onto human physiology. After a test resulting in the hideous transformation and then death of the test subject, O'Hara attempted to resign from his position. However, he had a drink laced with a drug that bonds to the victim's DNA. To counteract the drug, he used a procedure to save himself, splicing his DNA with that of a spider, granting him enhanced senses and abilities.)

It does leave out what exactly the spider DNA gave him (and the fact that the genetic experiment was sabotaged by his boss) but it's a good summary that does not mention anything about vampires.

He has fangs which he can use to envenomate a person to paralyze them temporarily, and sharp talons under his fingernails (not part of or on top of) that can rend through metal and he uses to climb the walls instead of having sticky fingers.

All of the above points to being half-Spider DNA, nothing like a vampire.

3. Miguel is the Prowler/an Inheritor/Morlun!

I'm shocked some movie fans recognize these characters given their general ignorance of the comics, but...no.

I'm seeing something about Miguel and Prowler's musical cues having a similarity, while I can't check for myself, this is just something that occurs in media and narratives, and I would not be surprised that the music artists might reuse motifs just as animators reuse models, simply for convenience and time reasons.

Also, their masks look nothing alike.

If you've read through the whole post as I hoped, congratulations! Please go read the comics, there's a good reading guide here and a video overview of Miguel's origins here. You can easily read the comics online by just googling "Spider-Man 2099 1992 comic online" as a start.

[bettsfic]

hi betts! i was wondering if you would be willing to explain a little further about the third thing in a concept you spoke about in the feb '22 issue of lkwrnl? would you describe it as an unexpected conflict? i'm just not sure i've wrapped my head around it! thanks! :]

sure! "third thing" is really not a great term for it and i wish i'd thought of a better one before writing that newsletter. sometimes i use the phrase "initial escalation." an initial escalation is something that elevates or complicates the conflict just as the audience is getting grounded in the story.

my definition of a conflict is "establishing a status quo, and something happens to interrupt the status quo." the third thing/initial escalation is, "something happens to complicate the interruption of the status quo."

here is a very simplistic/ridiculous example:

you have the protagonist, let's say a hero, driving the forward movement of the story. you then have the antagonist, a villain, pushing against that forward movement and slowing it down.

a hero getting to their destination without any obstacles is not very interesting. a villain thwarting their efforts creates a conflict. but still, that's two things, two forces, and i can kind of predict where it's headed. that's not a bad thing. it just means i'm grounded in the story.

the third thing, the initial escalation, would be to put both of them in a burning building. this complicates our understanding of their motivations. they can no longer prioritize their primary objective; they have to work together to escape the burning building. they're suddenly allied.

now i have no idea what to expect. will the protagonist and antagonist being on the same side for a time alter the trajectory of the story? will it change decisions we predict of hero vs. villain?

note that the burning building/third thing/initial escalation is not a twist. twists happen at the end of a story. this is merely an early complication that alters the anticipated plot trajectory.

most stories don't have a third thing. many don't even have a second thing. i'm looking at my bookshelf right now to find an example and noticing how few of my books have a plot at all. and that's fine. plot isn't really necessary in telling a good story.

upon looking at my letterboxd diary, i've found an example. the last movie i watched was Poor Things. the premise is that Bella (Emma Stone) is a grown woman whose brain has been transplanted with that of a newborn infant, and so she's learning how to be a person. as she grows, she feels stifled by her "father" (Willem Dafoe) and wants to see the world. she gets her chance when a sleazy lawyer (Mark Ruffalo) offers to help her escape, in exchange for being at his mercy (but she doesn't understand that).

it's your basic princess story in the format of a bildungsroman (i did really like this movie, but i'm an easy sell on bildungsromans). it's still three things:

forward movement: Bella growing and discovering how to be a person, which is a story with its own merit

opposing force: her father keeping her safe by imprisoning her, halting her growth and desire for sex meaning

initial escalation: the lawyer sweeping her away, only to trap her too, so that she has to escape his grasp as well, and in doing so her growth, the forward movement, is happening but it's more complicated now than it would have been if she'd just walked out the door

(note: this is a VERY fucky movie, and i mean that literally. there's so much sex. like so much. truly regret seeing this with my sister.)

sometimes the escalation is in the structure of a story, like an alternative point of view or another timeline. sometimes it's an added element to a trope that subverts our expectation of how the trope plays out. anything that escalates or complicates the inciting incident in act 1 of a story is a third thing.

again i want to emphasize that there are many amazing stories that only have forward movement, especially if what's driving it is exploratory. most stories have two dimensions, and those are also perfectly good stories. the third thing only exists to escalate and complicate, and not every story needs that.

[griseldagimpel]

The Antagonists of The Locked Tomb Series

I've been making posts arguing that John Gaius isn't the antagonist of The Locked Tomb series, so I thought I'd do a post breaking down the question: who are the antagonists of the series?

Alright, to start: the protagonist is the character the book is about. They may not be the same thing as the POV character. For example, Harrow the Ninth is told from the perspective of Gideon, but the protagonist - at least until the end - is Harrow. The antagonist is the character opposed to the protagonist. Neither of these are synonymous with "hero" or "villain".

The Protagonists of the Locked Tomb Series, by Book

Gideon the Ninth: Gideon Nav

Harrow the Ninth: Harrow, then Gideon at the end

Nona the Ninth: Nona for the New Rho portions, and John for the pre-Resurrection portions

Alright, so what do our protagonists want in those books?

Gideon the Ninth: Gideon wants to join the Cohort at the start. In the middle, she starts to get on board with the plan of Harrow becoming a Lyctor. As the bodies start to stack up, Gideon's goal is to Protect Everyone.

Harrow the Ninth: Harrow wants to achieve full Lyctorhood. She wants to not get killed by G1deon. And she wants to stop Commander Wake in the River Bubble portions.

Then Gideon wants Harrow to fully consume her and become a full Lyctor.

Nona the Ninth: Nona wants to have a birthday party. More broadly, she wants those she cares about to be happy.

John wants to save the world and then to stop the trillionaires from abandoning it.

Now, who's opposed to the protagonists' goals?

Gideon the Ninth: Harrow is opposed to Gideon joining the Cohort. Cytherea is opposed to Harrow becoming a Lyctor and to everyone not dying.

Harrow the Ninth: Harrow is opposed to Harrow becoming a full Lyctor, although due to the magical brain lesion, Harrow doesn't know this. Technically, G1deon isn't actually trying to kill Harrow; he's trying to force her into full Lyctorhood by attacking her. He's acting on John's orders, with John wanting Harrow to become a full Lyctor, which if she doesn't do, she's going to get eaten by Varun. Wake wants to kill everyone in the River Bubble.

Harrow is opposed to Harrow fully consuming Gideon.

Oh, also Mercymore and Augustine are trying to kill John, but that's, like, almost completely separate from Harrow and Gideon's goals. Mercymorn and Augustine agree to help Harrow kill G1deon because that'll deprive John of an important ally, and Gideon thinks that Ianthe should have let John be eaten by the Stoma, but our two protagonists just do not have an active role in what is ultimately the climax of the book.

Nona the Ninth: Nona is dying, so the main obstacle to her having a birthday celebration isn't an antagonist character. For her broader goals, Varun wanting to eat the planet will make her loved ones unhappy.

The trillionaires are implied to be responsible for the funding to John's project being cut, in that once they realized they could save themselves, they didn't have a motivation to trying to save everyone. And the trillionaires are opposed to John's goal of not letting them abandon the planet.

So where will things go with Alecto the Ninth?

Well, Alecto will presumably be the primary protagonist, although there's the possibility of the book having a secondary protagonist.

What will be Alecto's goals? Well, I don't think we have everything yet, but so far, she wants to serve Harrow and stab John. She also talks about John teaching her how to die, so "die" might be on her list of goals.

Who is opposed to those goals? Well, Gideon's opposed to Alecto serving Harrow. John responds to her stabbing him by bidding her good morning, so he doesn't seem particularly opposed to her goal of stabbing him.

What about dying? We're told that Alecto and John can only die if both of them die. Well, John told Gideon to kill Alecto because that would render him mortal, allowing him to die and Gideon to succeed him.

But Ianthe thinks that John is lying to Gideon there, and he didn't seem particularly surprised to find Alecto not dead (and stabbing him). There are some hints that what John actually wants is to do a big reset on the universe, wiping everyone's memories and starting anew.

I personally think that "the Earth dies and everyone in the solar system has to leave their home or die" would make for a very bleak ending. And, like, endings don't have to be happy to be satisfying, but if Muir goes that route, it'd give the series one hell of a downer ending, is all I'm saying.

Now, the protagonists have changed goals in the first three books, so it's quite possible that Alecto's goal of dying will be re-evaluated. It's possible that the Devils will be the primary antagonist of the books, or that the primary antagonist will be a character we haven't met yet.

[woodblxssomcrowned]

So who are the antagonists in the Warring states next gen!AU?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I guess that would be the samurai? I would consider the shinobi, regardless of clan, to be the overall protagonists in the setting. But as far as the Uchiha vs Senju conflict goes...depends on who you ask? Like, the Senju thinks that the peace failed because the Uchiha were being paranoid and uncooperative, not actually wanting the democracy and peace unless it was in their favor and couldn't bring themselves to trust the process of setting up a system the likes of which had not been seen before. It was bound to be imperfect in the beginning, it as bound to not please everyone, but with time they could make it work. And yet despite what everyone had thought and hoped, it seemed that the Uchiha's hate for them outweighed their desire for peace. And Madara was at fault for leading his clan, who had initially even deserted him in favor of the Senju because they were tired of war, into a mindset of hate and distrust once more. Hashirama still strives for peace within the shinobi world, even with the Uchiha. He can still make it work, he's sure of it.... The Uchiha thinks the peace failed because the Senju never had any intention of being fair and live with them as equals despite Hashirama's preaching, that they were just waiting for them to truly let their guard down and they would eventually find themselves subjugated by the Senju. Half of the clans that had agreed to join Konoha had not done it because they actually liked Hashirama's ideas...they had joined because they were afraid. He brought some of the most powerful clans on the continent to their knees in fear of his power, and called it peace. And when the Uchiha had voiced their concerns about Hashirama being 'elected' the leader of this new village, and anticipating that his brother would be next in line and thus creating a Senju-centered dynasty within the leadership of this new village, they were met with dismissal and indifference, and told they were being obstinate and paranoid in the face of progression. They still want peace...but can the Senju really be trusted to share it after their experience in Konoha? During the WS era, there were no heroes or good guys. Both clans did horrendous things to each other and the world around them; motivated by gold and survival, or by revenge. When the village failed, everyone handled things in ways that just made it escalate, and both sides claim to be in the right. Now, I say the Samurai and noble class could be called the antagonists in this overall narrative since they are the overall opposing force to the goals of the shinobi, which would make them the antagonists, even if each clan would see the other as an obstacle. They don't want the shinobi clans to join forces, as it doesn't benefit them. It's in their best interest to keep the shinobi in their separate and weaker mercenary units where they are dependent on their financial support to survive, as opposed to a large unified village with a great deal of bargaining power. Although they look down on them, they see the shinobi as a great resource in war...they don't want that resource to get too much control of itself. I hope I understood your question and that my answer made any sense. ^^

[daffelreign]

Macbeth commentary. Because I’m bored. And judgmental. (Pt. 3)

(Act III: Murder has consequences, but boy is it useful!)

Act III (scene 1:)

Banquo is starting to realize some things. After the king died in his best friend’s house, I don’t blame him. However, Macbeth seems bound and determined to be friendly towards him, all but demanding that Banquo attend his dinner party.

Oh wait, it’s a murder plot. Oh no.

HeLLO?? Macbeth is following the murder board??? Not in the order I had it, but still.

The fact that these people are named ‘murderer 1’ and ‘murderer 2’ is definitely a good sign. Macbeth seems to be taking a page out of his wife’s book and mansplain, manipulate, manslaughter his way outta this. It’s kind of unnerving that his conscience has just. Disappeared. Like there was no guilt in his speech--- he even compared his friend to a sickness that plagues him (and decided to murder his child as well).

I know Baquo was going to be killed--- he’s been on the murder board since the first act--- but I didn’t expect it to happen this fast and with such little remorse. I’m getting worried for the kind of person Macbeth is going to become by the end of this story. I have a strong feeling that his guilt is going to torment him into insanity before all is said and done.

Act III (scene 2:)

I have to say, I was not ready for the dynamic shift between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth. I thought that she would remain the driving factor, advising him to get rid of all obstacles that still stood in his way. Instead, paranoia has become his worst enemy. His mindset has become ‘the condemned’--- he’s already killed someone, so whats one more body to the count? It’s not like redemption is an option, anyways. And that, my friends, is terrifying-- especially for a main character.

Lady Macbeth is obviously starting to feel the weight of her actions, which makes me wonder just how much thought she put into them in the first place. It seems she didn’t take the time to think about the repercussions, and now they’re staring her in the face. Whatever grasp she had of the situation before--- whatever magic she called upon that gave her the strength--- is now gone. She’s now starting to see the monster that she created (which I must add is a wonderful cliche for a storyline to follow, I am very excited).

Act III (scene 3:)

So Banquo died. But in the kerfuffle, Fleance got away. So this kid (who I’ve just learned is about 10 years old??? Yikes) has been placed in the perfect position to be Macbeth’s crumbling point (after I dismissed him a few scenes ago, whoops). What’s fascinating to me about this whole thing is the fact that Fleance is now set up to be the antagonist. Usually you would see a protagonist as a good guy and antagonist as a bad guy, but in actuality the protagonist is the main character and the antagonist is the opposing force--- which is why I thought Lady Macbeth was going to be our antagonist originally. She was pushing Macbeth, so completely opposite to his nature that she just had to be bad news. But now, Madcbeth and his wife are switching positions, and he’s caused the death of Fleance’s father. It’s a revenge cliche.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our opposing force.

(Note: Banquo told his son to get revenge. And if you know anything about young children, they take their parent’s words to heart. He may not be able to pull it off right now, but Fleance will be back for revenge one day. I guarantee it.)

(Note 2: Not entirely related, but I feel like I need to mention it: Right after Banquo’s death scene, my brain came up with a predictive scenario that would be either the best or the worst case scenario for the story to follow. Both follow the same general premise: Fleance ends up with the Macbeths taking care of him since his father is dead. And that would either end as

(1.) Fleance becomes the adopted son that then fathers the line of kings--- so they’re genetically Banquo’s descendants while also being “Macbeth’s bloodline”. AKa, no more murders needed, prophecy fulfilled.

The other option is way more traumatic, which is: Macbeth takes in Fleance and sooner or later Fleance finds out the truth behind his father’s death. So it’s father-figure vs adopted son, and I think that would sting a whole lot more. But I don’t really think either option is how the play is gonna go.)

Murder board update:

Duncan, Banquo, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth.

Fleance is not going on the board because I don’t think he’s going to die. Macbeth, however, I don’t see coming out of this alive.

Act III (scene 4:)

All I know about this scene prior to reading it is that it’s the “infamous Banquet scene”. If Fleance doesn’t swing open the doors and make a dramatic entrance as he declares his father’s death, I’ll be thoroughly disappointed.

Holy paranoia, what. just. happened. No Fleance entrance, sadly, but that doesn’t mean there’s a lack of drama in this scene. Macbeth loses his mind not once, but twice---- he recovers momentarily and then spirals again. At this point, someone needs to give Lady Macbeth a hose, the spray bottle just ain't cutting it.

Speaking of her, I think I overestimated the amount of change her character went through. After seeing her and Macbeth switch their outlooks on the situation, I thought she would remain a bit more innocent for the rest of the story. But she came up with an excuse instantly to try and keep Macbeth’s cover, despite the fact that Macbeth was making a fool out of both of them. Whether it was out of concern for her husband or self preservation (to not get outed for murdering the king), Lady Macbeth starts lying through her teeth and manages to get away with it. It seems conniving nature hasn’t changed one bit, she’s just airing more on the side of caution now that she’s gotten what she had initially wanted. (also Lady Macbeth hitting her husband with “Are you a man?” out of nowhere made me cackle. I love her, she’s so great).

Going back to Macbeth, I don’t have anything in particular to say about the nature of his breakdown. Guilt does that to a person, especially when you murder two people who you consider you were close with (not saying that from experience, one just assumes). His breakdown was not unforeseen, and I’ll be surprised if it’s the last breakdown we see in this play.

Aside from the whole Banquo-ghost situation, it seems that Macduff has also managed to plunge the king into paranoia. Macbeth seems to think he’s going to be a problem, so he’s getting added to the murder board.

Duncan, Banquo, Macduff, Lady Macbeth (I still think she’s going to die before the end of this, I can feel it in my bones)

Act III (scene 5:)

There’s really not much to say about this scene. The witches convinced, the head witch scolded them, and then the head witch decided they were going to collectively torture Macbeth. I’m sure messing with a broken psyche won’t have any consequences.

We pray for Macbeth, man's about to go through the wringer with this one.

Act III (scene 6:)

Another filler scene meant solely to convey information. I’m just now realizing how many people are suspicious of Macbeth. I mean, they have every reason to be--- the king died in his house, he had a mental breakdown at the dinner party ranting about ghosts and murder, etc. I just didn’t didn’t know that everyone had hopped onto the ‘overthrowing the king’ bandwagon already.

I’m so genuinely confused on whether or not Fleance is going to be a problem. I assumed that he would end up as the antagonist because of the situation Macbeth placed him in--- but the couple of scenes after his father was killed he was only mentioned and nothing more. He fled, apparently, and that’s all we know. Macduff seems to be a bigger threat than he is, but at this point everyone seems to be a threat to Macbeth. I am unsure how this is going to pan out and it makes my writer's brain frustrated and intrigued.

[the-modern-typewriter]

Any advice on how to write enemies-to-lovers relationships? I have these two characters (one is a heroine/ protagonist and the other is an anti-villain/ antagonist) that I imagine to start off as enemies and slowly fall in love, but I am afraid that they’re incompatible/ the chemistry between them won’t work. And I don’t want their relationship to be forced.

I did a post here on writing conflict in a romantic relationship:

Much of what I say there applies to enemies to lovers and is a good way to start thinking about the characters you have.

If you know you are writing enemies to lovers from the start of your story, the way you set up and create the characters is typically different to when you just write characters who aren't intended to get along ever.

Background bits that are relevant when I talk novel advice

For background reading, generally, if writing a novel, I would recommend familiarising yourself with some common story structures such as The Three Act Structure, The Hero's Journey or Savannah Gilbo's romance-specific take on the Seven Point Story Structure.

Also, this thorough guide on character arcs by K.M Weiland.

I feel it's important to throw this in, because I'm ultimately doing a quick tumblr post, so my tips aren't going to do dig super deep. I'm just hoping to get you thinking about your characters/offer perspective and hopefully clarity.

Now onwards, to enemies and lovers...

I personally like to think of enemies-to-lovers romance characters (though, let's be real, also my protagonists and antagonist generally) as a set. They don't have to match, but they are designed to comment on each other - be that through reflecting the worst or best (in a happy romance, they reflect the best) of each other.

E.g. for me they are often narrative foils or mirror characters. This means that the characters contrast in a way that they highlight each other's qualities, be it how they are different (foil) or how they are the same (mirror).

A romance story in particular is often all about answering the question 'why are these two great for each other?' 'Why should they be together?' 'Why is it worth fighting for this love despite all the obstacles in the way?'

In an enemies to lover's story, one reason is often because they have a unique perspective/ability to challenge each other to reassess their own attitudes and stances (see where this is going back to foils and mirrors?) and thus further each other's character arc.

Foil route:

A simple version of this is, 'hero' character must learn to look out for themselves and not just other people, 'villain' character must learn to not just look out for themselves in order to be truly happy. Bam, collide, and somewhere in the middle of these two extremes you have an actual healthy approach to life, which they end up landing on through interacting and learning from each other. Thus, despite being fundamentally different, they both make each other better, happier people, and this is the basis of opposites attract. They complement each other flaws.

The mirror route:

The characters, despite having opposing goals, learn as they interact with each other that they actually have a lot in common, value similar things, and so a bond forms between them because of this as they realise that, oh no, they actually like each other. A lot. The internal conflict of the novel is reconciling their growing fondness for each other with their still separate goals.

This also means that, for me personally at least, the two sides of your enemies/lovers romance need to be somewhat balanced. I.e. your antagonist cannot be unredeemable monster with no valid points to make, and nothing for your protagonist to reasonably attracted to in them. Similarly, your protagonist cannot be always right, completely wholesome or perfect or...what do they have to learn from the antagonist? What do they have in common?

Obviously, add attraction on top of this + specific reasons to be attracted to each other that fit your characters. Like, as many reasons as you can give why yess, these two, the better.

I don't know your characters, so I cannot tell you if they are incompatible or not. So take-away question, do your characters have the potential to support each other and make each other better? If not, then you may have great tension as a protagonist/antagonist dynamic and they may have sizzling antagonistic chemistry, but that does not necessarily mean they should be in a romance together.

[imperial-topaz2003]

Arcann, what we could’ve had.

So, yesterday, I came across this discussion right here detailing on how a relationship between Arcann and the Outlander could potentially be toxic (great discussion BTW, go check it out), and it made me wonder what if Arcann was written a bit better?

Strap in, this one’s gonna be a long one. Now, I don’t HATE Arcann. I think he’s a fairly serviceable antagonist who does his job well and possess a threat to the main protagonists. He does have his sympathetic qualities, like his backstory being neglected by his own father, and the time on the Asylum where he was willing to let your companions go as long as you’re willing to surrender to him.

However...that’s all he really has. The whole rest of the time, he’s just a generic, raging warmonger with daddy issues. Then he’s taken to the Voss and either instantly cured of all of his negative qualities, or just eventually killed.  Now, I do like post-Voss Arcann quite a bit, but I feel like there could’ve been a bit better buildup to his eventual redemption.

My suggestion? Make his sympathetic qualities more prominent.  Instead of just being a tyrant for the sake of it, perhaps he was aware of his father’s plan to consume the whole galaxy, and dreads being just another pawn in his game. However, since his father’s one of the most powerful force users in the galaxy, all he could do was play along for now. But with Valkorion out of the way, he can focus now on ‘uniting the galaxy’, from a certain point of view. Essentially, he wants to turn Zakuul into a thriving civilization that can oppose any apocalyptic threat to the galaxy, wether that be Valkorion or something else.  That would help make him to a foil to the Outlander. Both of you want to unite your respective factions against a common foe, but while you’re doing it through unity and inspiration, he’s doing it through control and oppression. 

On top of that, we could also have a foil WITHIN the Eternal Empire. Enter Vaylin.

Perhaps instead of Arcann being the one who’s glassing planets and torturing people, Vaylin’s the one who takes that role. She’d be the one who’s responsible for the Eternal Empire’s more heinous actions, constantly going behind her brother’s back to achieve these actions. Meanwhile, Arcann can only really tell her off, because if he does anything about it, he’ll appear weak in the eyes of Zakuulan society.  So instead of two batshit insane siblings, we have an orderly and focused brother, and his unhinged sister.

We can still have things like that chat on Asylum, but let’s take that up a notch. Perhaps he shows that he genuinely admires and respects the Outlander and wants them to join him against Valkorion, rather than just trying to stab them whenever he can. This could pave the way for philosophical debates between the Outlander and Arcann, discussing their methods and ideals and such. We could even have times where Arcann lowers his guard, showing he might genuinely believe the Outlander to a degree and gradually understanding them more and more. So, instead of just being Deus Ex Machina’d into being a good guy, he gradually goes from being your biggest obstacle to being your ally, in an organic way. This could make his friendship, and yes even his romance arc, seem a lot healthier and more heartfelt. 

But that’s my two cents. What do you guys think?

[yvesdot]

yves. Teaches You How To Read

After being asked repeatedly how I read so much, I've decided to craft a general post answering the question and, in the process, hopefully helping people with focus and concentration issues to get back into the hobby they love, but just can't seem to prioritize.

This is directed at people who, like me, love reading but struggle to do it, despite lack of physical obstacles. It’s about people who love the idea of reading daily, just don’t know where to start. If you don’t want to read, or read more, this post is not for you. Move on unbothered!

I’ve included six major points, but number 6 is the most important one, and in my opinion the only one which is necessary, so if you only read one let it be that. Still, I’ve personally used all of these strategies to go from only reading when forced, to reading ~100 books a year.

1) Open the boundaries of reading.

This is likely the most obvious one—stop worrying about what it is you’re reading. Read graphic novels, children’s books, audiobooks, comics, novellas, short story anthologies, magazines. This is ultimately a matter of personal taste and situation; personally, as an author publishing novels, I can’t imagine not reading the same thing I’m writing, but I’m not offended by the idea of someone who almost entirely reads graphic novels or short stories or whatever else. Don’t be afraid to re-read, either! Accept that some books are easier for you to read, whichever those may be, and listen to yourself.

What I like to do is use graphic novels as palate cleansers—I know I can read them in a couple of hours, so after I’ve finished a book that’s broken my brain, I recharge by reading an old, beloved graphic novel. It’s easier for me to read, requires no new analysis, and is a safe bet I know I’ll enjoy.

2) Quit when you need to.

It’s better to quit on page 10 than lose interest on page 200. In my personal experience, a bad book will put me off everything else, wasting a substantial amount of time on Book Nausea. You have finite time in your life—if you feel like a book is terrible, get out of there, and feel no shame about it.

What I like to do here depends on the book. If it’s an anthology, I leave myself free to skip individual stories. If it’s a novel, I simply mark it “DNF” on a special shelf. You can make “exclusive” shelves on GR, similar to the currently-reading/want-to-read/read shelves, and just having the place for “DNF” gives me a similar sense of resolution to marking it read. Specifically, I prefer the concrete decision of “I will not finish this” as opposed to waffling about and having that book lie on my nightstand for the next decade.

3) Find the type of book that works for you.

This goes hand in hand with both of the above, but it’s worth detailing a bit more. I genuinely had no idea what genres I liked for years, and would pick things up and drop them constantly. Establishing preferences (“I don’t like romcoms” “I prefer high action” “I only read books with female protagonists” “there has to be at least one cat”) will help in finding books that you consistently want to finish. As you DNF books, note what the issue was—you’ll likely find that you prefer a certain type of book, and there are dozens of book recommendation sites out there to help you find your true book love(s).

What I like to do is read David Sedaris. I love David Sedaris, and I won’t question that; I’ll just read his books as soon as they come out. That’s also gotten me more into memoirs, and I find I like many of those, too!

4) Set a deadline.

Almost every person who tells me they haven’t read in years appends a very significant clause: “....outside of work or school.” If you managed to read a book for your English class, you can absolutely read one for your own soul. The key is simply to create a deadline. Joining a book club, asking a friend to keep you accountable, live-tweeting, whatever helps you feel that You Must Read! r/52books, for example, is a subreddit where you can challenge yourself to read 52 books a year, discuss your reads, artfully arrange your to-read stack, and get support for your goals.

What I like to do is use the GoodReads Reading Challenge function to set a deadline for reading a certain number of books. The tool automatically shows you what percentage you are through your goal, how many books ahead or behind you are, and a variety of other exciting stats. At the end of the year, you can see your longest book, shortest book, most popular book, least popular book, and so on and so forth. It creates an external system which keeps me accountable, and also gets my competitive drive going. Let me tell you: there is nothing like seeing someone’s face after you say “I read 200 books last year.”

5) Chatting, reviewing, ranting, book clubbing. Incentivize finishing books.

One of the easiest ways to incentivize something is to create a social aspect, and the great thing about books is that you can do this in a million different ways. When you finish a book, you can sit down and discuss it with a friend, or film a vlog, or write a review. You can join a book club and read something with other people. In some manner, allow yourself an outlet for social connection as a little treat when you’ve finished (or even just started) a book. This gives you both an end goal and, in the case of reviews/vlogs, a visual measure of how much you’ve discussed your reads.

What I like to do is review books, verbally or in text format. When I finish a really good book I might also go to Tumblr and see what everyone’s been posting about it—you can find some wonderful fanart on Twitter and Tumblr for a variety of books! All of these things help me feel that finishing a book had a concrete, external element of reward to it.

6) Dedicate a specific reading time, and stick to it.

The only way I ultimately manage to read. Pick a time each day (or each week if you must) and read during it. Do not allow anything to get in your way. If you find you’ve missed your time, drop everything and read right then. If you see you’ll be out during Reading Time, read early. Read on trains, on your phone, in the bathroom. If you like what you’re reading, keep going after the time has passed! You will be shocked at how quickly you get through a book when you read daily (or even weekly).

Do not shirk this. Every day, imagine it is life or death: if you do not read today, you will never read again. This is true more often than you would think. It’s too easy to slip from “I’m busy today” to “I’m busy this week” to “I haven’t read a book in months.” After all, how did we find ourselves here...?

Think very hard about every ‘exception’. I often found myself skipping my reading time because, oh, I had something planned for that hour, or maybe this book wasn’t very interesting, or some general silliness. Reschedule your reading! DNF that book! Do whatever it takes; this is cutthroat!!

What I like to do is read every day at 7:30 for 30 minutes. I schedule it earlier or later if I know I’ll be busy at that time, and I also try to fit in more reading before bed. Also, from personal experience, back when I read much less I still found myself reading on Shabbat, simply because there was nothing else I could do. And I always got my work done by Monday. If Orthodox Jews can take a full day off their week from work, Internet, and general non-spiritual duties, the average person on Earth must be able to find an hour a week to read.

—

A few miscellaneous tips!

If you’re struggling to schedule a reading time, I recommend taking note of what you do each day for a week or so. This sounds very complicated, but really all you have to do is set an hourly alarm and then jot down eating breakfast, hanging out with Janice, etc. This way you know which hours of free time are more predictable, and can better work with yourself.

I’m not someone who is Very busy, so my tips for Very busy people would likely be to check out what single mothers do. Every year, for example, single mothers post the most incredible things on the NaNoWriMo forums about how they find the time to write—writing novels waiting for soccer practice to end, writing in the bathroom, writing in lines. The above tip about scheduling comes from NaNo-- busy people, go research!

This leads into my main thought on the subject: it’s a matter of motivation. If you really and truly want to read, you will read. More importantly, if you believe you can read, you can read.

There are going to be people who read this and say “but this will not work for me I cannot read I will die having never read another book my life is a tragedy”. I am going to ask that you do not, under any circumstances, leave a comment like this, because I will kill you.

I will not kill you.

I also will not get into the details of my mental health to validate your perception that you specifically are a lost cause. I am tired of people saying “because I have so-and-so mental situation I cannot read.” People prove you wrong every day. “I am too busy to read.” People prove you wrong every day. If you want to read, you will read. You must believe this.

Again, if you dislike the process of reading, this isn’t for you! If you are currently illiterate, this is not for you! This is for people who love reading, and need someone to sit them down and get them to do it. This is me sitting you down. This is me asking you to sit yourself down, right now, and write down what you are going to do to create Reading Time.

I mean it. Are you scheduling? Do you know where to put it? Do this now!!

Do not allow yourself to say, ever, “I simply cannot do this thing.” Find ways to work around your limitations. I thought I could not do it, for reasons as strong and reasonable as yours. Your disbelief in your own strength is the number one guarantee that you will never read. You must break through it, and the only way you can do that is to tell yourself, “I can, and I will find out how.” Take it day by day.

It is, of course, possible that all of my tricks don’t work for you because I’m me and you’re you and we’re different people. In that case, as I said, I recommend further research with your own goals and limitations in mind. Also, of course, further questions are always welcome.

One final note: some have asked for easy-to-read recommendations, so I’ve compiled a list of a few books I think are easy to read for various reasons. I warn you that this is highly specific, and some books I’ve torn through get GoodReads reviews calling them sluggish (and of course vice versa) My #1 recommendation will always be to go to the library and see what you like!

EDIT: This post now has a follow-up about habitmaking! Don’t worry, I’m not such a taskmaster all the time.

—

If you enjoyed this post, please consider giving a one-time donation to ko-fi or subscribing to my Patreon. I post at great length there, too, as well as including exclusive writing. You can also read my free writing here, and check out my book here.

[writingquestionsanswered]

Anonymous asked: I have a firm grasp on my characters, but I'm having trouble actualizing themes and character arcs into the story. My hero and villain have mirrored problems, both feeling trapped into behaving as others expect them to be, even at the detriment of their own happiness. Both wear "masks" to appear as they think they should be seen, but they're both able to see past each other's masks when no one else can. Their mirrored arcs are about putting aside others expectations and choosing to embrace their true selves, and in time, one another. How can I tie themes of identity, reputation, and appearances into themes, plot points, obstacles, etc. How can I turn these abstract ideas into solidly shaped themes, symbols, and plot points?

[Ask edited for length...]

It seems like your themes are solid... identity, reputation, expectations of others, and appearances. And you say you have a firm grasp on your characters. One thing you don't mention is your story's conflict, and I don't know if that's because it just didn't feel relevant or because your story doesn't really have one. So let's start there.

Even if your story is fully character-driven, there needs to be a conflict. Or, in other words, a problem that the protagonist is trying to solve. Without a conflict, there's nowhere for your story to go and nothing for your characters to do. It's very hard to draw abstract ideas of themes into a plot if you don't have a conflict against which to pin those themes.

So, before you worry about themes, symbols, and specific plot points, start with your conflict. Conflict can be internal (in the character's heart and mind), external (in the character's world), or both.

Here are some questions to help you work through it:

1 - What problem (conflict) has occurred in your protagonist's self, life, or world that they must now solve?

2 - How does the villain tie into this problem? Did they create the problem or allow it to be created? Are they fanning the flames of a problem that didn't initially involve them? Or are they trying to solve the problem, too, and simply have an opposing resolution/goal to the protagonist's?

3 - What obstacles does the villain create to thwart the protagonist's ability to reach their goal/solve the problem as planned?

4 - How does the protagonist overcome or work around these obstacles?

5 - How does this back and forth cause them to interact?

6 - How does the protagonist's reputation affect how and why they want to resolve the problem?

7 - How does the villain's reputation affect how and why they want to create the problem/fan the flames/solve the problem their own way/thwart the protagonist from resolving the problem?

8 - How would the protagonist and villain do things differently if their reputations weren't at stake?

9 - As the protagonist works toward reaching their goal/resolving the problem, overcoming obstacles along the way, what specific things can happen as a result (particularly due to interactions with each other) that helps these characters start to see the folly of forcing themselves to live up to others' expectations to their own detriment?

10 - As these characters move through the story, what can you do to make the "mask" identities start to slip, especially in relation to one another? What things can happen when they're in each other's presence that shows them they're both experiencing a similar problem? What things can happen that allow them to "see" each other and be able to say (or at least think) "hey, I get it... I know what this feels like. It's like this for me, too"?

11 - What are some plot relevant things that can happen that puts one or both characters in a situation where they are "putting on appearances" to meet others' expectations, but allows them to contemplate their discomfort and unhappiness as a result of having to do this?

12 - What are some elements you can think of that might symbolize your themes? For example, if these characters went to a masquerade ball, their masks can serve as symbolism for the figurative masks they have to wear to meet the expectations of others. Or, more subtly, maybe one of these characters lives in a grand estate, but it turns out only entry hall, dining room, and ballroom are grandly decorated and well kept. The rest of the state (where visitors never go), is more humble, informal, and comfortable. This would be symbolic of something (a grand estate) appearing to be something on the surface that it isn't when you look deeper.

I hope that helps!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

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

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[niqhtlord01]

Writing mistakes: Making a poor Villain

Many stories of adventure and danger often revolve around a hero or heroine being dragged into situations beyond their control and being forced to reach their full potential. Obstacles are put in their place with ever increasing difficulty for the protagonist to overcome and there is none more fascinating for readers than that of a villain.

A good villain can be as much of a driving force for a story as the main character can be, but when the villain ins lacking and inferior it can not only make any achievements the hero obtains feel hollow, or worse feel like there was never a challenge to begin with.

Today we are going to take a brief glimpse at what makes a poor villain and how it can harm the story they are a part of.

-------------------

Subject: Hordak Series: Netflix She-Ra and the Princesses of Power

 Story Summary: Once a defective genetic clone serving under his dna donor, Horde Prime, he was cast out and sent to die on the frontlines of a war spanning the stars themselves. Instead of dying in combat though, he was transported to a strange world where technology was limited in advancements compared to magic which reigned supreme.

Using his knowledge of advanced machinery, the clone was able to build an empire of his own and took for himself the name “Hordak”. One by one he set out and began conquering kingdoms, even shattering an alliance of opposing kingdoms known as the “Princess Alliance” leaving his enemies scattered and isolated.

As he neared ever closer to victory against the remaining kingdoms one of his newly promoted force commanders defected to the princess aligned kingdoms after discovering an ancient artifact. The artifact gave the former force captain incredible strength and transformed them into the hero of legend known across the planet as “She-Ra”.

From there She-Ra rallied the various kingdoms into a second princess alliance and continued the struggle against Hordak’s empire with the goal of one day freeing the entire world from Hordak’s grasp. ------------------

On paper, Hordak sounds and looks like an impressive villain.

But where he falls short is that he does not act like a threat or challenge to the protagonist.

Point 1: He shows incompetence with managing his empire. When he is informed that one of his force captains, Adora (Aka She-Ra), has defected to the enemy side he does not take the threat seriously. He even becomes angered when efforts are being made to bring Adora back into the fold despite knowing she had been groomed to become one of his militaries next commanders. Any villain worth their salt would at the very least be concerned that a high ranking member of their organization just defected to the enemy and would no doubt be sharing vital information that they were privy to.

  Point 2:

He rewards failure instead of setting an example.

There are multiple instances of this throughout the series that make his actions look confusing to his end goals.

When Adora defected to the enemy side he rewarded Catra, the one who was sent to bring Adora back, by making her the new force captain. Why you may ask? Because she was close at hand.

When Catra then lead a massive invasion against the final kingdom openly opposed to Hordak and failed, he promoted her to become his new second in command after she gave a short speech about doing more for his empire than anyone else before.

Both instances were perfect for him to flex his power and remind those who served him why they should never fail, but instead he gave praise and promotions thus setting the example that failure will be tolerated.

 Point 3: He is easily defeated by his underling (on multiple occasions) rather than the protagonist.

His own underling, Catra, defeats him with hardly any effort at all and replaces him as the new leader of his empire. She keeps him around as a figure head, but reminds him every now and then that she can easily kill him whenever she wants.

If the main villain is built to be all powerful, intelligent, and the main threat for the protagonists journey forward; then only the protagonist should be capable of defeating them. If anyone else does so it diminishes their threat and the challenge they present until what was once a mountain to climb looks more like a speed bump.

An example of this in other stories is the relation between Agent Smith and Neo from the Matrix franchise.

Throughout the series many heroes go up against Agent Smith but are never able to defeat him. Even other agents are eventually sent after him when Smith went rogue but they too were easily defeated. This heightened the challenge presented to Neo and made defeating Agent Smith the final chapter of his story. His victory felt earned at the end and memorable as Smith had been repeatedly built up as an imposing foe.

 Point 4: Hordak and Adora/She-Ra never actually come to blows.

With Adora/She-Ra’s main goal of overthrowing Hordak’s empire, one would think that the eventual end to their stories would be a final duel as each represents the final obstacle in their way to completing their journey. Yet for some odd reason the two are never in a situation that would pit them against each other. Hordak never actually fights the protagonist during the entire length of the story and the extent of their interaction is limited to a few exchanged barbs.

This lack of confrontation and hostility is a result of his role as the main antagonist being almost immediately superseded by Catra despite her status as his underling for the first portion of the show. --------

 Overall Conclusion:

Hordak is a good example of looking the part of the villain, but acting the complete opposite.

His actions are contradictory to his goals, his abilities are hyped up but never shown, and his threat level only decreases further and further as the show progresses to the point he is a minor player in his own empire. There is justification that he was being built up as a stepping stone for the larger villain Horde Prime which does have some credit, but for nearly four seasons Hordak was portrayed as the big bad with his ultimate defeat becoming a minor footnote.  

[ruby-whistler]

I'm beginning to think that a lot of the reasons why people refuse to accept c!Techno as a force of positive change in the story is because they're hung up on the L'Manberg-good Dream-villain narrative.

But the thing is - that is the exact thing that the story itself is continuously attempting to change. Let me explain. /dsmp /rp

If you look at it from the aforementioned perspective - if c!Techno was a good guy, he would've fought against c!Dream, because he's the one hurting and endangering everyone, right? If c!Techno was not the bad guy, he wouldn't have fought against L'Manberg, because those were the people who represented freedom, right?

Until you realize that that initial narrative is ultimately misleading. c!Dream hurt others in efforts to help and provide freedom and unity to the people he felt responsible for. He was just an individual with ruthless tendencies who got in over his head in difficult situation.

c!Techno recognizes that the ultimate antagonistic force has always been systemic - L'Manberg has done harm to people both inside and outside of it, but even without that, the fact that a system like that exists by itself causes conflict and hurts people.

c!Techno doesn't fight against individuals. He protected c!Tommy because, to some degree, he knew c!Dream hurt him - but the first thing on his list was always to dismantle oppressive or tyrannical systems, because he saw those as the biggest problem in his eyes.

And here is where the narrative gets completely flipped on its head by a single character, because he's right.

The initial narrative, built up majorly by c!Wilbur, has always praised L'Manberg as a country, a concept, carved it into people's minds as something worth protecting. However, c!Techno coming in with a completely different view on it, was in a way vital to the story.

Because at the time that he joins, the Dream SMP falls into themes of corruption by power with many of the major characters - the complete opposite of what the initial narrative was pushing.

c!Wilbur, according to cc!Wilbur, actively wanted to destroy his country and "kill his friends" because of "his own insolence, shortsighted naivete, and disregard for his fellow citizen whom he claimed to love so much" which ended him up in a state of someone who "had great power and who lost it all due to his own poor choices and negligence [and] sees destruction as his ratification".

The external factors that led to this were also fuelled by corruption - an attempt at taking back power, whether that be by means of controlling the economy, building an army, or staging an unfair election. This landed c!Wilbur in a spiral, and (L')Manberg itself corrupting due to a dictator who wasn't afraid to hurt people in order to further his own authority being in charge.

Narratively, this clashes terribly with what was previously established in the story - and a character with an unbiased, outside view, who would disrupt the status quo, was ultimately the best way to fix this.

Because c!Techno isn't misinformed. He doesn't need to know the history of something that is hurting people in order to know he needs to stop it - however, even if he did, it wouldn't change much, because the country's history was only presented in a positive light, while never actually being anything other than attempts at establishing a system that would allow for power over others, completely unnecessary, and beginning and ending in bloodshed.

The country never mattered. Or, it shouldn't have - but the sunken cost fallacy of what its members had sacrificed for it ended up tying them to it as the only thing they had left, making it more important in their minds than lives and safety of individuals.

c!Techno is right in wanting L'Manberg destroyed - or its governmental structure, seeing as he was fine with the place itself existing when it wasn't being oppressive.

And when c!Techno's perspective positions him firmly against the country that was always shown as a protagonistic force, is when everything seems to click.

Because this is a character with a firm moral structure, ideals stronger than to be influenced by grudges and feelings and words. After the Butcher Army attacked him, he never went after them as people - he was willing to let a member, who apologized for what he did, join him, showing he didn't actually have a problem with the individuals. He never attacked c!Tubbo or c!Quackity or even c!Tommy, who he had thought betrayed him.

He only went after L'Manberg - because while the Butcher Army targeted individuals, seeing them as obstacles in the way of getting the country into power, once again reaffirming the themes of corruption in the story - c!Technoblade destroys the root of the problem - he targets the systems.

Isn't it interesting to watch the narrative actively paint c!Techno as the one in the right? Watching the story show again and again how much corruption hurts people, and seeing it trace every problem back to systems of power, namely L'Manberg? And this continues even after the country is gone, with c!Quackity being determined to take control once and for all, and Pandora's Vault corrupting c!Sam to the point of doing terrible things for the sake of "justice".

It all falls into place from c!Techno's perspective. He's not the one misinterpreting the situation, the people who actively defend L'Manberg by blaming individuals for its faults are.

The themes are never this clear from any other point of view - and yet all the other characters and their own stories participate in proving c!Techno's perspective right, continuously reaffirming his position in the story as a positive force which the themes are firmly attached to, and strongly opposing the initial narrative.