#build a problem

[build-a-problem-musical]

Here’s Stars Restitched Emma as an ambulatory wheelchair user (using saszor OC maker by saszor and 2c4ub)! She can stand and walk short distances on flat surfaces, hence the cane, but her weakened right side leaves her off-balance, and she uses the chair (aluminum alloy) for more demanding terrain and longer distances. She’ll need it less and less as she goes through a lot of hard work at PT, though her balance may never quite return to what it was beforehand and the cane will be a fixture in her life. (If her hair’s a bit too long, no, it isn’t. None of the short-haired options suited her. Maybe she can grow it as a treat.)

[starfleet-lol]

it will never not devastate me in my intense delusion that dodie chose to change the lyric in all my daughters from “i wail aloud i need it back” to “oh my g0d i need it back”

maybe it’s cause i listened to her original demo on youtube during quarantine so it was like… nostalgic?? in a way

[mood-board-machine]

All Worked up for Something Dead

[artist-issues]

Having more thoughts on BAP...the handling of Theo, as I mentioned in the reblog to my last ask, is a rather delicate one. I think I want him to have made something of an effort to protect Celeste. He just makes the mistake of assuming too soon that his efforts automatically protect her; under that assumption, he doesn't realize that their interactions threaten his resolve. The matter is also complicated by the fact that Thomas' isolation of Celeste puts her in a position where she can really only get into her more personal discussions and be honest with Theo--in Thomas' head, a best friend (Emma) is a bigger threat than a math tutor. This isn't something Theo took advantage of; it's something he didn't know how to draw the line around because he doesn't want to leave her without any support. (It's a failure on his part to prioritize his responsibilities--he is technically not responsible for supporting her in this way, but he is responsible for avoiding temptation.)

AUGH. This might be turning into "nothing is wrong, just misunderstood," but I really do want him to try. I want to be clear that he's wrong, but I want him to have tried as well, if that makes sense.

Or maybe I'm the careless one for trying to write that, I don't know. Maybe I'm afraid to make him more outwardly careless because I know I'm sadly the same.

But it could also be truthful? That's a major could, but I feel like it's just as true to try and fail as it is not to try. I suppose that could make him a Thomas foil. Thomas doesn't try, doesn't care to try, and so fails Celeste; Theo cares enough to try, but doesn't go far enough and this is how he hurts her.

(OH GREAT I'M SURE I'M MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIM. Look at me. I am trying with writing truthful stories and I am not going far enough. Just the same. My goodness. Other people can do cautionary tales with a bit of sympathy. I might have overdosed on the sympathy. I'm sure you'll tell me as much.)

My advice is, lean into the thing you’re afraid of. You said you’re afraid to make him outwardly careless because you’re sadly the same? Writers and artists hit that wall without realizing it’s what’s holding them back all the time. You can feel like you’re not “breaking through” with a characters motivations or what they’re going to do in the story, only to find out that your lack of a breakthrough comes from our age-old habit of shying away from exposing our own character flaws or fears. They call it “being afraid to go there.”

So, yeah, you could choose to make him more outwardly rationalized, or try—or you could choose to make him more outwardly careless. You could do either, and depending on how well you do it, the story will be okay either way. But I say, out of those options, choose the version of his flaw that is most uncomfortable for you to explore. Especially and for sure because it’s a flaw you’re afraid you have. You know what that is? It’s genuine. You’ll infuse the story with what people in the business call “something real.” But you can’t do that if you’re afraid to—this is going to sound weird—admit you’re flawed by exploring that flaw in a character. Calling it he flaw what it is.

I don’t know what your church situation is like, but have you ever been in a small group, or even a conversation with s close friend, and they admit to doing or thinking something wrong? They just come out and say it, they don’t make excuses, they don’t spend all their words on explaining how they got there, they just call the sin what it is…and then suddenly, you find that it’s easier for you, the person listening, to notice that same wrongdoing or tendency in yourself? Because they said it, they explored it out loud, they were vulnerable, it made you introspective. It made you able to look at the flaw and recognize it wherever it might be found—even in yourself? All because somebody called it what it is, exposed it, dug into it, went there, and you BELIEVED them, and BELIEVED what they were saying was real—how could you not? Who would make up and then explore something so repugnant? Nobody; when you call character flaws and wrongdoings and bad motives what they are—which is sin, something to hate and get out of, evil—your audience’s response isn’t to give you positive attention. So why would you admit to the flaw and call it what it is? To get help. The doctor can’t scrape the infection out of the wound if he doesn’t know it’s there under your hand.

Anyway. That’s what good storytellers do. We go there and get vulnerable and infuse our stories with that real stuff, stuff that’s nasty, and we have the ability to do it because we’ve lived it—and we’re kind of sacrificing ourselves in that way. So that the audience might be served by you, exploring your flaws through your own characters, and warning the audience not to make the same mistake—or better yet, showing them hope beyond the flaw.

“We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again.”

Now, of course, it’s not wrong to show Theo “trying,” somewhat. You could keep that in there. Like we said in that Christian Need For Redemption post, you could tell a good story with either—an unredeemable monster or a sympathetically flawed, misguided character. But pick the thing that’s going to be real, AND is going to support your story’s main theme the best.

Just my two cents. If you work hard enough you can make either version of the character great.

[newtness532]

i absolutely love this album ♡

[illustrious-carbonic-eels]

dodie is my most listened to artist of the year let's goooo

I kissed someone (it wasn't you) is literally the best song stg

[ericthelemming]

happy bap day! 🥳

[weedgrinderfullofteeth]

what i love about build a problem especially listening to build a problem all at once is that the end of before the line always always makes me cry but then guiltless plays and i start laughing cause holy shit there really is no use getting angry at the way that theyre wired

[kleinstadtwolf]

I carry the time we don't talk in a backpack. Leave it on the side with the nights you didn't call me back

dodie - cool girl

[wistful-melancholy]

The live version of this song hits different, so happy it’s on Spotify

[build-a-problem-musical]

Thinking about the fact that there was one dark AU where…well…Elaine didn't care, Emma died, Thomas upped the manipulation, and Celeste had to deal with everything and she wasn't handling it well. I’ll call this the Starless Sky AU.

There's a roleswap AU where Emma and Theo are dating. This Theo is still the quiet kid who wants to merge with people but doesn't have many friends with whom he can. However, he's more indulged and entitled in this version, and he tries to make her tend to and complete him. Celeste takes longer than canon Emma to notice anything's wrong because there's less of a clear shift in Emma's desires. Without a project as a vehicle, she tries to talk to her individually and is rejected.

Thomas fulfills the worse parts of what canon Theo could have been if he were less well-intentioned. Canon Theo can't draw a boundary because he doesn't want Celeste to be alone, but he's not taking advantage of the situation like roleswap Thomas is (keep in mind that although it's certainly wrong regardless of Emma's interest, she has shown none and he keeps pressing anyway). Roleswap Thomas, as an inverse of canon Theo, feels worse about the lost opportunity than he does about his own actions that led him there.

Roleswap Theo probably can't instigate an altercation with Thomas, so he just makes threats against himself. Emma has no other recourse and tells Celeste; the girls argue because Celeste contacts the proper authorities for him and Emma doesn't think this was the right course of action.

[build-a-problem-musical]

"When," dodie

the ache of nostalgia

[artist-issues]

Happy New Year, hi, it's me again! I have a pretty long ask for you and there is no pressure; I've just been thinking about the Build a Problem musical again.

I think I realized that perhaps I was confusing the idea of having Build a Problem's Emma recognize her own worth with her finding her answer in self-love. She does not, in fact, do that; she learns that because she has worth outside of others (which isn't to say that it comes from her), she can put her relationships in the proper place and even become willing to surrender them for the good of the other. I suppose now the question is how to make that delineation clearer? I'm not entirely sure how much I did wrong, but I suppose Elaine's dialogue has problematic elements.

"But anyway, you’re going to have to learn how to be by yourself. It’s not that we won’t support you–we will–it’s that you’re the constant in your life and we can’t be. And yes, it’s hard, but then you’ll remember you matter in and of yourself, even without someone else to remind you."

"You're the constant"?! HAHA NO. WE MOST DECIDEDLY ARE NOT. "You matter in and of yourself"?! DANGEROUSLY close to "your worth is not assigned and is for yourself." I'll have to figure out how best to fix that. Putting that aside, I think Emma's lesson is most apparent during her apology, which demonstrates a mentality of "if you love something, set it free; if it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with."

Also, I've seen you comment on the rise of "nothing is evil, just misunderstood" and how dangerous that can be. I do worry a bit regarding Celeste's storyline as to how I'm portraying that and where my responsibilities lie. (Even though I'm a moral absolutist, I do have a strong belief in understanding the nuance of where people come from so as to guide them to what is right. That might make me a bad absolutist, or it might...I'm not sure.) She's rather aggressive; on one instance, she pins a panicked Emma to a wall and screams at her for trying too hard to save her. I like the idea of her being too reactive and I don't really wish to tone her down! I do, however, fear that this might be irresponsible of me because I also want her and Emma to reconcile. I am not trying to encourage my audience to continue relationships with people who are outright harmful--far from it. Her ability to resume her friendship with Emma is specifically out of her own repentance and out of Emma's willingness to provide this second chance. (This contrasts Celeste's relationship with Thomas, which has to end because neither of those elements are present.) And we do see Celeste feel regret: it leads her to try and provoke Emma into leaving (this is obviously not a healthy response, but it at least serves to establish her regret), and then they sing a duet about it. It's a very fine line to walk; is there anything I should be examining to make sure I'm not going along the lines of "nothing is evil, just misunderstood"? Do I need to tone Celeste down to facilitate this?

(While we're at it, her relationship with Theo is something that warrants examination like this. He unwittingly drinks alcohol that's been disguised from authorities in an innocent-seeming bottle and winds up kissing her on impulse. They're both seen feeling guilty afterwards, though time constraints prevent a detailed examination and she states in the resulting song that she "felt more than [she] care[s] to admit." I'm not sympathetic to this and it is most certainly wrong. When we next hear directly from Theo, though, he blames himself for the more distant consequence of Thomas hurting her for it, and that's not exactly reasonable. So this is yet another fine line because while that was his greatest error and a rather weighty one at that, it was his only major one. He's otherwise characterized as very gentle, but I want his actions treated with the weight they deserve. How can I best do that? Does he need to be somehow less gentle for it to come through?)

TL;DR: Emma might have learned about her own worth as opposed to finding her answer in self-love, and this understanding of her worth enables her to let go and do the loving thing rather than act out of fear. Celeste might be too volatile and I'm confident that her actions get the weight they deserve, but I'm afraid of being irresponsible by bringing her back to Emma, even though I try to make clear that this is only possible because of sincere repentance and an offered second chance. Theo's actions might not be given the full weight they deserve because we don't see enough of him after the fact and by the time we see him again, he's swung so far in the opposite direction of loathing himself that I feel like audiences are likely to let that reaction overrule the problems with his original action. And as always, thank you for your amazing work with everything! You are wonderful and your blog is wonderful and I pray that God will bless you throughout the coming year and always!

I think I might need to read the whole musical before I could give a super-accurate rundown of the questions you’re talking about 😅 but I’ll try anyway because you were thoughtful enough to take the time to write this much out and ask me!

I think you have your head on straight with all these questions, which is really good.

For example, I think you’re totally correct about what sounds like Celeste and Emma’s reconciliation. That’s the thing; the Bible teaches that while there can be forgiveness without repentance between humans, there can’t be restored relationship or reconciliation unless both parties are willing to repent of wrongs committed and forgive the other person.

So then the question “is Celeste’s wrongdoing being treated irresponsibly if she gets back to being friends with Emma?” has a good foundation. But it seems like you’re assuming that if someone who does something wrong reconciles with the person they hurt, then the wrongdoing doesn’t seem so wrong. But that’s not true at all—you just have to show the horrible consequences of her actions convincingly during the conviction part (the moment where Celeste realizes her wrongdoing), then fix the relationship with her repentance.

I mean, take Anna and Elsa (a sister-hurting-sister scenario seems like the best one to use as a template here?) Elsa hits Anna in the heart with her ice (literally, but during a scene where she’s figuratively pushing Anna away, which has been the main source of hurt in their whole relationship.) That was Elsa’s wrongdoing. Elsa realizes how bad that was, how wrong she was, when Anna freezes in front of her. That scene is great because it shows Elsa completely devastated by what she’s done. She’s sobbing and clinging to Anna—which is important, because for the entire movie Elsa has been doing the opposite of clinging. She’s been pushing away. So right there, you see the beginnings of ‘repentance.” She caused a hurt, she sees that the hurt is bad, and she’s taking an action that is the opposite of the hurt she caused.

But remember, Anna is also, in that moment, showing Elsa unconditional, self-sacrificial love. Elsa pushed Anna away with devastating, life-threatening consequences. Because of Elsa, Anna had her heart not only frozen, but broken. And Elsa never once did anything that would make Anna believe she would change, or stop pushing her away. Yet. Anna still chose to save her, knowing it would mean dying. Elsa did nothing to deserve it. Elsa did not indicate to Anna that Anna’s act of good will would change her. Anna simply did it with no thought of gain, with no hope of a better relationship afterward, because she loves Elsa regardless of the hurt caused.

It is important that Elsa sees that. Because seeing unconditional love is often what forces humans to realize the weight of their wrongdoing. Because unconditional love is so the opposite of whatever they did wrong. So it often unlocks the wrongdoer’s ability to repent.

Basically, what I’m saying is, as long as you show not only the audience, but Celeste herself, the horrible consequences of her wrongdoing and the hurt that it caused, and show it convincingly, (which often takes the wrongdoer realizing the unconditional love or innocence of the person they hurt,) then you won’t need to worry about whether or not that wrongdoing was considered “absolutely evil.”

Of course Elsa pushing Anna away and freezing her heart was the wrong thing to do. Anna’s frozen now. Elsa can’t do anything to undo what she’s done. It’s too late for her to be clinging to Anna.

and THEN

like a beautiful sunrise bursting through clouds

You show how love is stronger than evil. You show how self-sacrifice is love. You show how, when both people are repentant and willing to forgive because of that self-sacrificial love, the wrongdoing isn’t stronger than the love.

After all, that’s the whole point of showing evil—to defeat it. Sometimes you defeat it by punishing the unrepentant wrongdoer. Sometimes you defeat it’s effect by making the wrongdoer repentant. But either way, the evil isn’t stronger than the good.

Moving on

I don’t think it sounds like Theo needs to be less gentle for the weight of his actions to come through. I think his gentleness actually could highlight how wrong his actions were. Because if he’s got feelings under the surface of gentleness, which alcohol caused him to act on, then that puts the gentle surface in a less-moral light. Kissing her on an alcohol-influenced basis wasn’t the first thing he did wrong. The first thing he did wrong was let those feelings he had for Emma stay alive deep down inside him, even if they were buried—he shouldn’t have buried them, because then something like alcohol could dig them up. He should’ve killed them. The second thing he did wrong was be unwise and lack selfless introspection: the idea is that he knew somewhere that he had those feelings, and hadn’t killed them yet, and THEN let himself be in a situation alone with Emma, makes his “gentleness” seem even more like a facade. You can make clear, in some way, that the alcohol isn’t what created the wrong. It just brought it to the surface.

People who have feelings for someone who does not belong to them, but is already on some level promised to someone else, should not let those feelings linger or stick around. That is wrong. Unrequited “love” stops being loving and starts being a wrong thing to feel when you learn that it is unrequited. Entertaining a romantic feeling for someone, in any way, after you know that you can’t serve that person with those romantic feelings, is wrong. Theo should’ve killed those feelings or, if that was too hard, removed temptation by setting up boundaries. Not being alone in a room with Emma; not getting into deep personal discussions where one heart can speak to the other heart with Emma; not letting Emma talk about Thomas (her boyfriend?) in a negative way around him, etc.

But…maybe I’m misunderstanding him? I’d have to know more about the character.

I mean, it’s fine if the character is so non-introspective that he never realized he wanted to kiss Emma before alcohol brought it up. But. It was still wrong. Because introspection is not just the right thing to do for yourself, but the right thing to do when your goal is to have selfless relationships with friends, family, and lovers alike. Anyway.

The point is, no, I don’t think you need to make Theo any less gentle. I think you should make it subtly clear that Theo has a problem with carelessness. (I actually have a friend who/s biggest character flaw is this.) It’s all well and good to be a dude who is happy, sweet, would never intentionally harm anybody or get between his friends…but if you never intentionally prevent yourself from harming anybody, by doing the work to look at how you could actively care for someone (think about doing what’s best for them, which would’ve led him to avoid being alone with Emma) then you’re careless. You’re sweet, and you’re kind, and you’re not meaning to hurt, but…that’s your problem, because you’re also not meaning to do much of anything. You’re coasting along through your relationships with no careful thought, just assuming vaguely good intentions and an even vaguer “sweetness” vibe will be enough to keep you and your friends out of trouble.

You could do that by characterizing him carefully even before the kiss scene. Have him make jokes in large group of friends, and everybody laughs, and clearly he’s not meaning to hurt anybody, but the girl he slings his arm around when he says it is clearly offended by the joke…and Theo doesn’t notice. Have him walk into a serious conversation between two or three of his friends, and then try to “lighten the mood,” when clearly what his friends probably needed more was for him to take what they’re talking about seriously, and join in. If there’s ever a scene where everybody’s at a dance party, have him dance really spazzy to try and make one awkward person laugh—but he’s not being careful of his surroundings and accidentally elbows somebody in the face. You know. Little characterization traits that show the audience, “this is Theo, he’s a sweet guy, but he’s a little careless, needs to learn to be introspective and intentional.” Then when he kisses Emma, you’ve subtly built this up: Theo would never try to cause trouble between Emma and Thomas, but he also isn’t careful enough to not try to cause trouble between Emma and Thomas.

I don’t know if that’s helpful, I don’t know the characters well enough.

As for the big main question, with what allows Emma to stop acting out of fear—I still think making her own “worth” the thing is going to be a little too tricky for you without establishing where she gets that idea of “worth” from. It can’t come from others, so where’s it coming from? I would avoid that idea altogether, but that’s just me. Maybe you can figure a way around it.

I would simply replace the motive of fear with a new understanding of what unconditional love for others looks like. She’s not willing to sacrifice because she knows her WORTH—in fact, she’s not thinking about her worth, or her safety, or her security, at all—because she’s entirely stopped thinking of herself. She’s just thinking of them.

But again…it’s hard to explain why or how she goes from thinking about herself to thinking more of others. You do need a catalyst in there that causes her to make the switch. Don’t know if this helps!

[chaotic-theatrical-weaver]

"Boys Like You" has these little Bs played on the piano in the second and third choruses. They sound like car alarms warning the speaker to flee while she still can. I don't know if that was intentional, but I love it. It reminds me of the accelerating car sound in "Blue" by Madison Beer.

[mollyoddle]

like you're mine again

one last time

build a problem

dodie

[build-a-problem-musical]

“Guiltless” begins as a song Emma writes in-universe.

Has your OC ever written a song?