#how dare those people dictate how you engage with your writing and the story you want to tell

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Gate keeping in fandom gets me SO riled up. Let people ship who they want to ship and be excited about it. Fuck all y’all who have no imagination to see outside the canon presented

[mittensmorgul]

Imagine you really, really hate murder mystery novels.

(this is difficult for me to imagine personally... but for the sake of a metaphor, let’s go with the concept. I’d prefer to use a category of fiction I actually enjoy for this particular point)

But for the sake of this argument, imagine you believe they’re terrible, to the point you think they shouldn’t even be allowed to exist. They’re bad all around, no redeeming value, not even for the sake of intellectual curiosity or pure entertainment. You think murder is just SO BAD in real life, that nobody ANYWHERE, EVER, should be allowed to engage with fictional depictions of this crime.

I don’t think you’re likely to find a ton of murder mystery authors who receive accusations that the only reason they enjoy writing murder mystery novels is because they’re ACTUALLY murderers in real life. Or because they are “glorifying” murder or have some agenda to promote murder or in any way make it appear “morally acceptable” in the eyes of the general public. But just imagine someone SO ANGRY that these terrible, morally bankrupt books (in their eyes) are allowed to exist, allowed to be sold in bookstores or freely available in libraries, or even *gasp* adapted into films or television programs or other media, that they chose to go on a moral crusade against anyone who dared to write such moral (YET ENTIRELY FICTIONAL) atrocities.

In your goal to stamp out this moral outrage, you send these authors (real actual human beings!) death threats and other vile garbage. YOU HAVE NOW CROSSED THE LINE FROM FICTION INTO REALITY.

Sending real human beings direct threats of violence is NOT protected speech. It’s not “fiction.” And nobody consented to actually read that garbage.

The thing is, if you don’t like murder mysteries (because we’re continuing with this metaphor), when you walk into a library or bookstore you can easily avoid having to engage with that section. It’s clearly marked and labeled for your convenience, just like every other section is so that you can easily find what you DO want to read.

Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, has to justify their reasons for enjoying murder mysteries to you. It’s literally none of your goddamn business. You hate those sorts of books? Fine! Someone else enjoys them? FINE! Their interests in the FICTION they consume do not dictate who they are as human beings, and how they relate and interact with the REAL WORLD. With OTHER LIVING PEOPLE.

People who enjoy consuming fictional things you hate do not deserve your condemnation and do not deserve your abuse. If you attack real living people over what fiction they choose to read or write, then YOU are officially an abuser.

Not in a fictional way.

If someone casually browsing in the romance department nearby hears you loudly complaining that these people who “glorify” murder in their books should be killed, or beaten, or banned, and steps in to suggest that would be morally unacceptable to harm real, living people over the contents of the fictional stories they create or read, and then you turn around and stalk that innocent person who has never read or written a murder mystery novel in their entire lives, and has no interest in doing so even, for the imaginary “crime” of defending free speech that you happen to find distasteful or offensive, then YOU have become an abuser. You have become (to another real, living human being) the embodiment of the thing you profess to hate.

At that point, you can no longer claim the moral high ground here. You could’ve just as easily walked past the murder mystery shelves. You could’ve carried on your entire life engaging with the types of stories that bring you happiness, but instead spend all your free time obsessing over the things you hate instead. I can only assume attempting to make people who are busy creating and consuming the content they enjoy most feel as miserable and hate-filled as you do.

Joke’s on you fools who think that way. It’s just fucking sad, is what it is. Pitiable. Honestly.

I cannot imagine going through life with that much hate and vitriol driving my every waking thought. Turn off the fox news already. Please engage with reality as it actually exists, because nobody gives a shit about your moral fucking outrage over fiction. Please read an actual book about cognitive dissonance, because the complete lack of understanding of your own actions is jarring, and yes, pitiable.

Yes, this has been about purity culture wankers. 

[artofloveliness]

Rule #5 on Being Lovely: Don’t play hard to get.  Be hard to get.  Have standards—real, good ones—and stick to them.  Bend them for nobody.

Molly-Ten-Years-Ago loved this rule.  Molly-Today loves this rule.  Molly-Over-The-Past-Ten-Years wanted to live by this rule…but of course, that’s not how this story goes.

Mostly because she didn’t understand Rule #5.  As I’ve said before, Molly-Ten-Years-Ago was a strict lady, but she didn’t always know her target and what lies beyond.  Truthfully, I only recently began to understand what the rule means and how to institute it now.

Arguably, the hardest part about having legitimate standards, that Young Molly never could have warned her future selves about, is that you cannot help the acute disappointment you endure when someone walks away because of them.

Did I overestimate my own worth?

Am I not good enough for my own standards?

Did this person not believe my value was worth the rules I set in place?

The next hardest part is that you want to bend your rules to convince the person who walked away that you are in fact worthy of said rules.  I have done this so many times, in order to give someone the time and space to see what I knew to be true about my own worth.

But therein lies the danger!  This is the trick that has taken me years to catch on to!

When we allow someone into our lives who does not meet our standards, we have actually taught this person that they can have unfettered access to our peace.  Even though they may not want it.

And, regrettably, they absolutely will treat us as such.

Which brings us to Rule #5.  It has been incredibly tempting for me to write this as a what-to-look-for-in-others type of post.  And once again, that causes me to endure days of writer’s block…which probably means that it is not in fact what my heart feels called to discuss.

What my heart does feel called to discuss is somewhat counterintuitive, at first glance, which is what took me so long to figure out!  Rule #5 is so lovely because at its core is the truth that having standards actually allows you to accept others as they are.

How can that be, Molly?  It feels mean (dare I say, un-lovely?) to say that someone doesn’t meet my standards.  Isn’t that a cruel way to interact with others?

To which I will say: No, my friend.

First, I want to say the reason we might feel mean instituting our own standards, is because we know how hard it was for us to meet them ourselves!  That being said, ideally, the standards you create are standards to which you hold yourself (read: they are humanly possible).

Next, I’d like for us to look at it this way: when I bring someone into my life who, at present, does not clear the bar I have set for myself, what I am actually doing is deciding for them that they will change later, while enabling the behaviors they exhibit which do not meet my standards.

This is another way we do a disservice to ourselves and to the other person in the scenario.  Just like with Rule #4, we have chosen to make the decision for the other party.

What decision is that, Molly?

Well, I am so glad you asked.

The decision the new party must make is whether or not they are willing to accept the terms and conditions of a relationship (romantic or platonic) with you.  And when you ingratiate someone into your life who very clearly does not meet your standards, you have made the decision for them, that they must change what they might actually not be willing to change.

When it comes to allowing others into our lives, we get to assess what they bring to the table (and they should be doing the same of us!).

A great set of basic standards might look something like this:

Must have a job, contribute to their place of living, and be able to support themselves

Demonstrates integrity

No criminal record or drug use

Emotionally, physically, and financially responsible

Introspective

Knows how to mitigate conflict

Wants to improve themselves to be their best

Is conscious of and working through their issues

Notice that each of these points depicts a person who will not only build themselves up, but is on a trajectory that could grow upward with yours, instead of detracting from your momentum.

Notice also that each point on this list does NOT dictate to someone’s appearances, personal preferences, viewpoints, religious beliefs, passions, et cetera, et cetera.  If these are items that you feel inclined to add, you may do so, in a compassionate manner.

As we come to know ourselves, and who we want to be, and how we want to be, Rule #5 becomes crucial.  Our growth and development does not occur in a vacuum.  We do not exist in a world devoid of the human condition.

And remaining true to the changes we want to see in ourselves can become challenging in the face of those we choose to spend time with, especially when they do not wish to meet these basic requirements.

So we must be selective and careful about who we choose to engage.  Romantically.  And platonically.

Because the people we surround ourselves with ultimately become representatives for us.  Our friends and significants teach the world how to view us as individuals.

Even more importantly, our chosen circle shows others how they are permitted to treat us.  Or behave around us.

Our standards beget our treatment.

Molly-Over-The-Past-Ten-Years allowed people into her life that affected her more than she wanted to see.  Because Molly-Over-The-Past-Ten-Years didn’t like to disappoint others by walking away or guarding her self.

She spent a lot of time with a variety of people.  Some good; many not-so-good.

She grew close with the people who have built her up.  She spent too much time with others that tore her down.  And she entertained some who exhausted her spirit entirely.

And what’s important to note is that each of these people is entitled to their own path, their own decisions, and their own behaviors.  Without pressure from me to exist in a particular manner.

But so was I.

And the meaning of this rule is that I am also entitled to hold people as close to, or as far from, me as I deem fit.  And doing so is not a cruelty, rather an acceptance of what may or may not come.

Because not everyone deserves the same access to you, your heart, and-or your time.  And those who choose to walk away from you in the face of your standards, are showing you that they would indeed take you for granted, either as a friend or a partner.

We’ll talk about boundaries in my next post.  But there is a quote I love about boundaries, that applies here, as well:

"The only people who get upset about you setting boundaries are the ones who were benefiting from you having none."

Your standards should not feel like a standoff, where the person who caves first has to cater to the other’s whims.  They are your guards.  And they help you to discern when someone does or does not make the cut to certain levels of your life.

Your standards should be systems that you set in place to help you achieve your goals.  And anyone who stands in the way of your doing so (whether by the way they treat you, their lifestyle, their habits, or their intentions) should not enjoy the privilege of You.

From now on, I will only allow someone into my world that can match my enthusiasm and zeal for life.  Because this rule is about being so focused on meeting your standards and achieving your goals that you simply cannot undersell yourself.

This rule is about standing firm in your worth, and believing in the quality, not the quantity, of individuals who will choose to meet your expectations.

This rule is about knowing how hard it is to meet your standards, because you endured the challenge of them yourself!

This rule is about accepting that some individuals may want access to your life, but will not be granted such access until they make the choice to shape up.

So, let’s wrap this up:

What are systems you have set in place to help you live your best life?

How do these systems translate to the standards you hold yourself to?

When have you allowed someone into your life that may not have honored your standards?

How do you help the people in your life to honor their own standards?

[kcwcommentary]

VLD8x09 – “Knights of Light Part 1”

8x09 – “Knights of Light Part 1”

The first time I watched this episode, I spent most of the episode being nothing but confused. This time, there is still a lot that confuses me, but I’m able to focus in on what does so. This episode retcons what has previously been depicted as the Lions’ consciousness. Now, the void that Shiro spent seasons three through six in is no longer the Black Lion’s consciousness. It’s just a miscellaneous realm of connectivity between everyone in the universe’s minds. In the style of how what was previously described as the Black Lion’s consciousness was animated, now similar appearing locations exist inside Honerva’s mind. The way universal consciousness is depicted in this episode is so uncontrolled that the episode has the Paladins arrive at Honerva’s mind twice during their attempt to get to her, or if the first mind they get to wasn’t Honerva’s then it was someone that isn’t identified. They get pulled into Honerva’s mind, but then the things characters say indicate that they’re not in Honerva’s mind. Basically, this episode’s production couldn’t keep clear about its locations. Maybe that’s just a problem with writing disembodied, nebulousness like this: you lose sense of the logistics of the action.

I’m also super annoyed that this episode now adds a second level of blamelessness to Honerva and Zarkon. The show has long been pushing the idea that neither of them are to blame for their actions because they were externally influenced by being poisoned by quintessence. But now, this episode says that they weren’t to blame because they were possessed by rift entities. I am not okay with a story telling me that it’s not the fault of abusive, torturous, genocidal dictators that they abuse, torture, and commit genocide.

The episode starts with Allura having another dream, floating in darkness.  There’s a voice calling her name, I think it’s Honerva? Allura wakes up, Coran and Lance by her bed in the medical bay. Coran asks her about the entity, and Allura says, “I did what needed to be done. […] This entity, it is connected to Honerva in some way. I believe we can use it.” Coran goes patriarchal, saying, “I swore to your father I would look after you, but I fear I may have let him down.” Because how dare a woman make her own decisions.

Coran says, “This is the path of darkness.” We get lots of supposedly ominous statements like this in this part of the story, but none of it really amounts to anything. It’s certainly not foreshadowing, nor is it used as set-up to be undermined. It’s not as if the story is having it seem like the rift entity is dangerous only to reveal, as I suggested last commentary as having been a potential better story, that the entity isn’t dangerous, just upset at being imprisoned and hurt by Honerva. Nothing like that happens in this story. It’s just the entity is miscellaneously dangerous, and then the danger to Allura never happens. 

I still think the way gravity works on the Atlas is odd. Shiro floats through a hallway up to a door, and once at the door, he steps down onto the floor. There’s no gravity in the center of the hallway, but there’s gravity along the sides of the hallway. It comes off to me as nonsense. Shiro opens the door and inside are the Paladins and Coran. “You wanted to see me?” Shiro asks. This again emphasizes how Shiro is not part of the team. The rest of them had this big conversation without including him in it until now.

Keith says, “We think we might have a way to find Honerva.” Allura tells Shiro, “The entity has bonded me to Honerva. The link is there whether we use it or not.” I guess this is just more miscellaneous, unexplained space magic. The entity isn’t really defined in this show. We’ve seen the entities in the past be aggressive, we’ve seen it merge with others of its kind to fight. That was presented as being a threat (3x07 “The Legend Begins). Now, we’ve seen it having been inside Tova, but precisely what it did in him wasn’t explained. I guess maybe the show is saying the entity is just there to let Honerva control and kill the Colony Alteans? That doesn’t make the entity really seem inherently threatening in and of itself though. That’s just using the entity as a mechanism to say this is how Honerva can control people. That’s Honerva, not the entity, being threatening.

Allura says (and Lance looks super angry while she speaks), “I believe if the Paladins connect using the shared consciousness of Voltron, we may be able to travel through the void and into Honerva’s mind.”

I have a huge problem with this. This is feels like a massive retcon to what “the void” has been shown as in the past. This is connected back to 5x03 “Postmortem,” in which all five Paladins used their bayards in Voltron. In that episode, Voltron is being attacked by a plant-virus and Pidge says, “Listen, this virus is affecting Voltron on a submolecular level. To drive it out, we have to tap into the quantum energy that binds us all to Voltron.” Allura then responds, “The bayards, they amplify each Paladin’s life force. They might provide enough power to drive out the virus.” The five of them put their bayards in their respective Lions’ bayard slots, and then they all appear within “the void.” The void is in “Postmortem” and in every instance that has dealt with Shiro and the Black Lion’s bond, like 2x07 “Space Mall” and 6x06 “All Good Things,” been about the Paladins and Voltron. The void has not been some otherworldly location separate from the Lions/Voltron. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the void to now be connected to Honerva. Honerva is not a Paladin. She has never been a Paladin. The psychic space of the Lions/Voltron should have absolutely nothing to do with her.

I can totally understand why people would see this episode and, on this alone, think that this is evidence of a massive change in the season’s plot really late into the season’s production. I can see how there’s a suggestion here of a revised story where originally the Paladins went into the psychic space of Voltron having something to do with Shiro and his having been stored by the Black Lion in her psychic space. If the void is now just some nebulous otherworld that does not belong to the Lions, then it completely erases the previously stated fact that the Black Lion kept Shiro in its consciousness. But the show’s use of the void in the past has been fairly explicit that that is what was happening. So, this episode contradicts severely with past episodes.

That’s not to say that the executive producers and writers of this show would have any problem with writing this story to contradict previously written story. They don’t seem to have any real desire to maintain continuity and consistency in the writing for this show. Since most of the plot of this series seems like the EPs and writers were mostly just winging it as they went along, I don’t think they cared that this violates what’s been established in the story. Sometimes, I honestly don’t think that Joaquim Dos Santos and Lauren Montgomery were even interested in telling a story. I think they just wanted to do story-less animation. So many times, this show feels like they were trying to do nothing more than to make some Voltron: Defender of the Universe AU fanart. They certainly did not construct a coherent, cohesive narrative. Maybe that’s part of what angers me so much about VLD. I’m a writer. I love storytelling. I love animation, but I come to animation as being a medium through which a story can be told. JDS and LM saw this project as animation first and foremost, and storytelling was only secondary, at best. The story of this show was only something they were forced to do in order to be allowed to make animation. I don’t think they really cared about telling a story.

Back to this episode. Pidge says, “That could in theory give us access to her physical location as well as key information on how to defeat her.” I’m still stuck on how they would see entering Voltron’s psychic space would have anything to do with Honerva. This is just feels forced.

Keith says, “Honerva is capable of creating galactic komars, wormholes, Robeasts,” I know this show doesn’t do logic, but Honerva’s “galactic komar” was dependent on the Robeasts. How many Robeasts did she create from the statues at Oriande? I know, the show doesn’t show us so that it can have an endless supply for whenever the writers want to pull a new one out of the bag and not have to keep track of the logistics of them all. All of the Robeasts used in 8x06 “Genesis” should be out of the story. Oriande and the white hole went boom, so none of them there should have survived (though since Merla pops up again, I guess they did). The ones used as part of this “galactic komar” though have been found; that’s where the four of the six Colony Alteans now onboard the Atlas came from. So, did the Atlas just leave those Robeasts laying on those respective planets? Are they just sitting there waiting for Honerva to reclaim them? Otherwise, how is the “galactic komar” still a threat since it was built out of tech (the mechas and the Olkari cubes) that are destroyed or no longer functioning?

Keith continues, “And now, Lotor and his mech are out there somewhere.” Again, this show presents this story as if Lotor is actually alive, but we’ll soon be shown that he’s a melted corpse. It does make the season feel like it was re-edited. If it wasn’t re-edited, then this is absolutely the creative team for this show repetitiously manipulating the audience. If they hadn’t already proven themselves to be more than willing to engage in audience manipulation, especially when it comes to Lotor’s part in the show’s story, then I might be more willing to give more weight to the possibility that this was re-edited. I can see JDS, LM, and the writers in a meeting saying to write the season’s story to make it look like Lotor is alive only to surprise twist! he’s been dead the whole time. They wouldn’t care about the inconsistency that writing this season that way would have because their goal would be to create the surprise twist! that they seem to think is how you create a story. And it would make sense that they would think that that is how you create a story if creating that story was always secondary, at best, to their goals with this project.

Keith says, “We don’t have any other leads. It might take lifetimes for another opportunity like this to come around.” Are you kidding me? Keith thinks that Honerva is going to sit out and do nothing for “lifetimes?” Remember, they’re saying they need to do this in order to find Honerva, that’s the opportunity of a lifetime: a chance to find her. But if Honerva’s not done doing what she plans to do, then she’ll show up again, thus they will have found her by her just continuing whatever it is she’s doing. This line of dialog is just not written well.

Shiro speaks. “I spent a lot of time in the infinite void.” Yes, you did, and that void was inside the Black Lion, not some otherworld that is connected to Honerva. “And if you face Honerva in the void—” They shouldn’t be able to because how is Honerva able to be in the Lions’/Voltron’s psychic space?

Lance says, “We’re messing with powers we don’t fully understand.” Unfortunately, the writers of this show don’t fully understand those powers either because they didn’t bother to define those powers.

Coran says, “It’s been a long time since it was only the seven of us in a room together.” That’s because the writers didn’t bother to continue to write you guys as the main characters.

The Paladins get in their Lions. Allura has a flash of Honerva’s face and screams. She then has a vision of Honerva and Merla floating in a hallway. It makes me think of how the Shiro-clone had visions of Honerva going to Oriande in 6x01 “Omega Shield.” Unlike with Allura, it couldn’t be that the clone had a rift entity in him. I’m still wondering why exactly the clone was able to see Honerva in that episode. The initial blast of Allura seeing an outline of Honerva’s face made it seem like Honerva was directly trying to access Allura, but then the vision of Honerva floating down a hallway would suggest Honerva was just doing her thing and Allura was eavesdropping. Even within just a couple of seconds, this show seems to contradict itself.

The show then cuts to a total tonal dissonance by having Veronica and Iverson discussing Shiro’s win at arm-wrestling while having a “robot arm.” I really like (the barely included) Curtis in the background turned in his seat and listening to this conversation while having an adorkable smile.

So, Voltron forms, the Paladins do their joint bayard use. The animation team was clearly lazy and just reused a shot from the animation in 5x03 “Postmortem.” You can tell that it’s reused animation because Keith is currently the Black Paladin. Keith, though he has the black bayard, wears red armor. In the animation of the bayards being used here in “Knights of Light Part 1,” the user of the black bayard has black armor, just like he did in “Postmortem.” So, in this particular shot here in “Knights of Light Part 1,” that’s Shiro’s arm, not Keith’s.

Everything glows and then turns dark. Then the Paladins enter the void. Allura declares that they “must travel through that light.” Generic, but okay. She says, “The entity draws me toward it.” That implies that either the entity has some agency or that for some reason the entity is unwillingly attracted toward Honerva. (I really hate that to continue to discuss this episode, I have to accept the retcon that the Lions’/Voltron’s psychic space is not the Lions’ consciousness but some otherworld that Honerva is connected to.)

The Paladins use their suits’ jetpacks to move toward the light. I know it’s a minor matter, but they’re not physically in this location right now; they’re sitting in their Lions. So, why write them to look like they’re using their jetpacks to move through space? They get to the light, which fills the screen, and then dissipates into normal looking space. Lance says, “What is this place? It’s like I can hear what the universe is thinking.” What? This show is going to write the universe itself to be sentient? I imagine that this line really is nothing but the writers thinking they’re being profound when really it’s just them being nonsensical.

Pidge invokes the Olkari having said everything is made of the same energy. Hunk replies, “So, thoughts are linked across some kind of, what, cosmic connection?” I’m so uninterested in this. The psychic space used to seem special, that it was a manifestation of the Lions’ consciousness. Now, the void is just some generic overmind of the universe. The implication of this is that the Black Lion didn’t save Shiro’s spirit at all. If the void is not some psychic space of the Lions’ consciousness but instead is just a universal overmind, then Shiro’s spirit wasn’t being stored in the Black Lion. Shiro’s spirit was just where spirits are.

Allura has another flash headache, and then everyone else does too. They see Honerva and Merla somewhere. It looks like Oriande with how the mechas are standing in the background. Cut to Voltron’s eyes glowing.

Back in the overmind. Allura explains that “that was Honerva. The entity inside of me is connected to her.” This dialog is getting repetitive. Allura says that they now have a psychic link with Honerva. “The closer we are to her, the stronger that link.” But of course, they’re not physically closer to her, so I guess this “closer” is referencing their being psychically closer to her here in the overmind? In which case, this line of dialog becomes a tautology. Lance worries that Honerva will use this link the Paladins now have with Honerva’s mind to find them. Then they will have achieved their goal; remember, they’re doing this to find where Honerva is. Also, Honerva has enough space magic already, I doubt she needs this link to find them.

It feels really weird for Keith to say, “This isn’t just on you now, Princess.” They haven’t interacted with Allura in recognition of her as a princess in a long time. It feels strange hearing him do so now. It actually sounds kind of condescending when he says it. Keith tells them all to miscellaneously focus on Honerva’s energy. They glow. The Lions’ eyes glow. Each Paladin is shown associated to their Lions. And then the Lions are flying through space.

What is happening here? I guess the Lions aren’t actually flying anywhere, that this is somehow now them in the overmind going with the Paladins through the overmind to Honerva’s mind? But then, they fly into the distance and there’s a flash of light and the Lions are back together in Voltron. So, is this actual Voltron or some Voltron in the overmind?

This is a huge part of why I hate this episode: It so too damn confusing. I can imagine the creative team had certain specific ideas in mind when they were doing this, but they failed to tell this story clearly, and I don’t know what they were trying to tell.

Voltron looks like it’s travelling through space. There’s even planets and moons. Because Voltron actually travels through space, there’s nothing visually that allows for this to contrast with actual space if this is supposed to be Voltron traveling through the overmind.

Hunk says, “I can feel something, like an energy inside me.” And Allura says, “It’s the entity.” The entity is now in Hunk? In all the Paladins? Keith says, “It’s like a dark realization washing over.” This line does not mean anything. It’s just miscellaneous spew that the writer thinks sounds profound and ominous. It doesn’t though. Pidge says, “It’s like we’re begin pulled by a tether connected to our souls.” Again, this is nowhere near as profound as the writer thinks it is. It also places the locus of action on the entity, pulling them, rather than on the Paladins actively traversing through the overmind. It’s sort of depriving the Paladins of agency. It also doesn’t explain why the entity is being drawn toward Honerva.

They come upon what looks like a black hole. Everything goes dark, then every looks like neurons, which I assume is supposed to be Honerva’s brain. Then Voltron looks like it comes out of a light, like it’s left the neurons behind. It’s so confusing. I’m really trying to understand what this animation is actually depicting, but I don’t really know.

Voltron flies through space some more, and then everything turns dark again. And then Voltron is flying through that darkness with little bits of quintessence? floating off of it. Then Voltron separates into little colored dots. From the wide shot, you can’t tell if they’re the Lions or the Paladins. They float through blackness with more quintessence-bits floating from a glowing event horizon. The camera reorients, and the glowing Paladins land on the black surface.

I don’t know why Voltron was involved in this traversing of the overmind. What did Voltron actually do for the Paladins in this process? And why is Voltron now not part of the process? Why did it poof into just being the Paladins in the overmind again? Also, the animation already had Voltron enter what looked like a black hole, which I assumed was Honerva’s mind, but then they left it, floated through space some more, and now have arrived at what looks like another black hole. So, why was there a first black hole if that wasn’t Honerva’s mind? Whose mind did that first black hole belong to?

They stand on a surface, and Allura says that Honerva’s mind is “on the other side of this wall.” There are streaks of black with streaks of red or orange for eyes moving under the wall. Allura says, “It feels like that these are the souls that Honerva has defeated and corrupted.” Why has the show not shown us that Honerva could corrupt souls before now? (Or is corrupting a soul what she did to the clone to be able to control him? That would make it even more offensive that the Paladins described the clone as evil.) Honerva corrupting souls just comes out of nowhere. There is nothing in the show prior to this that sets-up this reveal. And, if Honerva can explicitly corrupt someone else’s soul, then how did the writers think it’s acceptable for them to expect the audience by the end of the series to view Honerva as absolved of her horrible behavior?

The show here says Honerva can corrupt souls, it has been saying for seasons now that Honerva was corrupted by quintessence poisoning, and in this episode says that Honerva was corrupted by a rift entity. It’s all a mess that does not locate motivation for character action within the character.

Spectral hands come out of the floor-wall and grab Allura first and then all the Paladins. There are a lot of hands, so there are a lot of souls that Honerva has corrupted. The Paladins, with the exception of Keith, are pulled down into the floor-wall, into Honerva’s mind. Why wasn’t Keith pulled in?

First Pidge opens her eyes and the way the place she is looks, she’s in a greenish version of what had been depicted as the Black Lion’s consciousness in 6x06 “All Good Things” when Keith spoke to Shiro’s spirit there. But Allura just said that “on the other side of this wall” was Honerva’s mind. But the visuals of this would suggest that this is the Green Lion’s consciousness. So, how is the Green Lion’s consciousness inside Honerva’s mind?

A green-outlined shadowy person with a polearm weapon appears and attacks Pidge. Cut to a yellowy-orangey area where Hunk is being attacked by a similar figure with a staff. Lance in a red area fighting one with a sword. Allura in blue and fighting one with a bow. Keith meanwhile is still on the surface of Honerva’s mind.

Pidge says, “I can’t even feel my Lion.” I still don’t understand why the animators chose to have the environments the Paladins are fighting in resemble what “All Good Things” presented as the Black Lion’s consciousness if here the Paladins are, as Pidge says, disconnected from their Lions. I don’t know if the executive producers and animators in making this episode either didn’t remember or recognize the significance of this background from when it was used in “All Good Things,” but that’s hard for me to accept as a possibility. Or if they instead thought that assigning meaning to animation like they did for this background style from “All Good Things” just didn’t matter and that they could just port over the background style and ignore the previous meaning.

In Shiro and Keith’s conversation in “All Good Things, Shiro said, “somehow the Black Lion retained my essence,” to which Keith asked Shiro, “Is that where we are, in the Black Lion’s consciousness?” So, this background style has most definitively been established as being that of the Lions’ consciousness. But now, Pidge says she “can’t even feel [her] Lion.” I just don’t know what to make of this episode. It seems so disconnected from what has come before. No wonder people think this is the result of shattering some original story and reconstituting the pieces into this confusing mess.

Allura’s attacker shoots an arrow at her. She holds out her hand, shadowy wisps float off her hand, and the arrow stops. Her eyes turn black. She screams an inhuman scream. I guess we’re supposed to think this is the rift entity acting through her?

But then glowing, spectral versions of the Lions show up in each of the four’s combat area. So, they’re supposed to be inside Honerva’s mind, though it looks like the visual style previously used to depict a Lion’s consciousness, Keith can’t get inside Honerva’s mind with the other Paladins, but the Lions can enter into Honerva’s mind to join their Paladins? The Lions roar, and the dark wisps are blown by the wind of the roar off of Allura’s eyes. The shadowy figures the Paladins have been fighting have their shadow blown off of them revealing them to be the past Paladins.

So, we’re supposed to understand that Honerva somehow corrupted the souls of the Paladins. How did she corrupt Alfor’s soul? When did she corrupt Alfor’s soul? We saw in “The Legend Begins” that Alfor was killed by Zarkon on a bridge with no one else around them.

Allura’s eyes go dark again and she screams her inhuman scream and attacks Blaytz. The Blue Lion roars again and everything goes white. Then we see Alfor giving the other old Paladins their armor and their bayards. This scene depicts Zarkon pre-quintessence poisoning, and he says, “With this much power, we will be unstoppable.” So, his being a dictatorial, genocidal conqueror was always a part of who he was. He didn’t become bad because of quintessence poisoning. So, the show using the poisoning to excuse his behavior is just offensive. This flashback scene of the old Paladins unintentionally emphasizes Zarkon’s lack of presence in this fight so far, emphasizes Keith’s exclusion from the fight.

Allura stops short of stabbing Blaytz. “It’s really you,” she says. Pidge says, “Your soul, Honerva must have—” and Hunk continues, “—trapped you here somehow.” Of course, that makes me ask, how did Honerva do this? Especially with Alfor? We’ve seen his death. When did Honerva trap the Paladins’ souls inside her own mind? And why has that never been part of the story until now? Honerva has been active in this show’s plot for the whole series. Why is it only now that her having done this is relevant? This has never been a part of anything in the story until now. It clearly was not planned as part of the overall story arc. This really is just coming out of nowhere. And that, beyond this part of the story being super confusing, is why I don’t like it. The idea that the current Paladins would have to fight the old Paladins is a really interesting premise, but there’s been no set-up to lead to this fight. There’s nothing to this that makes it feel the inevitable outcome of the events prior to now.

Like too much in this show’s story, this is a set piece. It seems conceptualized wholly independently of the story and then the story is what was written to try to force connection between set pieces. It’s why the reveal of the clone and resulting battle between Keith and Shiro had a certain grandeur to it, but there was no reason ever given in the show for why Haggar had hundreds of clones of Shiro made. That fight was a set piece that was forced into the story rather than grown out of the story. Similarly, this fight with the old Paladins doesn’t come out of the story, it’s wedged into it, the story is forced to accommodate it, and that’s why it is so disconnected to what has come before. And in being so disconnected, the moment is deprived of the emotion it could and should have.

The Lions roar once again, the souls of the old Paladins and the backgrounds fracture and light pours out of it all and everything goes to white. All of the development in this conflict comes from the Lions, so if the Lions could clean the Paladins’ souls of corruption, they why have they been sitting there in this fight waiting instead of just doing so from the moment they came into this space?

Cut to a flashback with Alfor, Gyrgan, Trigel, Blaytz, and Coran discuss how Zarkon is going to come for them. Trigel wants to fight Zarkon, but Alfor doesn’t want to risk Zarkon getting the Lions. Alfor says they’ll use the other Lions to seal the Black Lion and then send the other four to where they were until they were found at the beginning of the series. Alfor tells Coran to use the Castle of Lions to take Allura and the Black Lion away. But then, Gyrgan says, “Then it is decided: We go into battle together one last time.” Of course, that doesn’t match Alfor’s having rejected fighting when Trigel suggested it first.

Cleaned of having been corrupted by Honerva, Trigel asks, “Where am I?” Hunk answers Gyrgan, “You’re in the void, just outside of Honerva’s mind.”

One, the backgrounds still look like the Black Lion’s consciousness, but Hunk doesn’t say they’re in their respective Lions’ consciousness, he says they’re “in the void.” But then he says that they’re “just outside of Honerva’s mind.” Keith is, the rest of them are not. The rest of them were dragged under the barrier into Honerva’s mind. This show really cannot keep this straight. So, which is it? They were pulled into Honerva’s mind, but it’s outside her mind. They’re in the void, but it looks like the Lions’ consciousnesses.

Trigel says she’s glad that “someone so connected to the world around her is piloting the Green Lion.” I still don’t think this show has actually shown Pidge to be connected to nature. “My race believes observation to be the most revered attribute.” As I’ve said before in my commentaries, I really don’t like when science fiction writes aliens to be monocultures. Trigel’s race doesn’t believe anything because it was made up of a bunch of different people, who like humanity, all have a bunch of different thoughts and opinions and beliefs, or at least her race should be like that if it was written realistically. Sorry, that’s just a peeve of mine.

Blaytz tells Allura, “People often overlook me because I was,” there’s a very slight hesitation in his voice, “different.” I very much imagine that this is supposed to be a reference to Blaytz being gay. Unfortunately, this phrasing sounds to me like how a straight person would write a gay person to speak. Using the word “different” as a stand-in functions like someone who doesn’t want to get personal, which you have to do to write dialog well. It’s seems clear to me that the word “different” was chosen to avoid actually, openly talking about Blaytz’s being gay. It makes the character’s experience generic, which causes it to lose emotion and meaning. I can imagine the writer defending this dialog by saying writing it this way gives it universality, but that’s a thought that comes out of unexamined privilege. By excluding the specifics in favor of claimed universality, you deny the cause and content of the discrimination and exclusion you claim to be rejecting, and so cease to be actually rejecting anything.

Blaytz then continues talking about the Blue Lion picking him. “But the Blue Lion recognized something in me, something others couldn’t see. It saw the greatness within that even I did not.” Imagine this dialog but instead of Blaytz talking to Allura, he was talking to Lance. It would be totally fitting in theme as another step in Lance’s struggle to recognize something great within himself that even he could not see. Lance had, until it was abandoned by the writers, serious issues with self-confidence and believing himself to have value as part of the team. Even this episode hints at that abandoned element of Lance’s character back at the beginning during the meeting with Shiro when Lance expresses pleasure that calling him “the sharpshooter” is now something the team does fondly. It would have made so much more sense for Blaytz to have said this to Lance. But instead, he says, “You, Allura, have greatness within you as well.” This isn’t something she needs him to tell her since she’s hasn’t wrestled with feeling fundamentally worthless, especially once she learned Altean alchemy at Oriande. She has doubted her ability to succeed, but not her inherent worth. “You’re so much like your father, and yet so different.” This line is so cliché and so meaningless.

Lance, with his long history of insecurity, gets nothing from Alfor that supports him as a person. Instead, the show returns to having patriarchy as the governing influence of Lance’s relationship with Allura. “Through the Lion’s bond, I could feel your love for my daughter,” Alfor says. “I could feel yours as well,” Lance says. Why is this show juxtaposing the love of a father for his daughter to the love a guy feels for his girlfriend? It’s just gross. It makes Lauren Montgomery’s claims that feminism has any influence whatsoever in this show seem absolutely absurd. But then, LM thought killing Allura at the end of the series was feminist. I still cannot get over how she considered having Allura reincarnated as an infant, literally infantilizing Allura, and have her then raised by Lance. It’s so creepy.

Alfor tells Lance, “We face many quests throughout the cosmos, but the most amazing journey is that of life. And the biggest question you face is who to go on that journey with. I’m glad my daughter chose you.” So, Lance receives nothing, no personal support from his Paladin-parallel. The others tell their respective Paladins something supportive of them, but all Lance gets is Alfor’s patriarchal approval of Lance as a suitor for Allura. This is such an absolute disservice to Lance’s character.

Keith remains on the surface of Honerva’s mind, unable to get through. Then suddenly the Black Lion is there. Why did it take so long for Black to show up for Keith when the other Lions had long showed up for their Paladins? Keith gets no special moment of affirmation with a previous Paladin. It feels absolutely like he was excluded, but for no reason other than they wanted to save a conflict with Zarkon until later. But if Zarkon was corrupted the same as the other old Paladins, why wouldn’t he have attacked Keith the same as the other old Paladins attacked their current counterparts? Almost as soon as the Black Lion shows up here with Keith on the outside of Honerva’s mind, the other Lions show up here too. The other Paladins, both old and new, show up here on the floor-wall to Honerva’s mind.

Allura runs to and hugs her father. Alfor says, “It is fitting that I would find what is brightest to me in the darkest place.” This feels a bit cliché. Allura says, “All that I have done, I have done to make you proud.” Trust me, I know what it feels like to want to make a parent proud, but this is so limiting. This is Allura defining herself by her father’s acceptance rather than defining herself by her own self. It’s very patriarchal to write a young female character to define herself by her father. I just don’t like it.

There’s a headache flash, and they see Honerva looking at a mecha, one that matches the one Allura saw Lotor piloting in her vision last episode when Lotor said, “Follow me!”

Alfor says to Allura, “You hold a dark entity within you! Don’t you know how dangerous that is!” Thank you so much for your patriarchal judgement, Alfor. Allura is so stupid that she couldn’t possibly know about something being dangerous unless you chastise her for it. Also, ignore the fact that this supposed dangerousness never manifests in the story.

Alfor says, “That’s what led to Honerva and Zarkon’s end!” So, not only were they poisoned by quintessence when they went into the quintessence field in “The Legend Begins,” now the show is saying that Honerva and Zarkon became who they are because they were possessed by a rift entity? The show is really doubling down on absolving Honerva and Zarkon for being abusive, murderous, genocidal dictators for 10,000 years. Not only is it supposed to be not their fault because they were poisoned, now it’s also not their fault because they were possessed. I do not find the-devil-made-me-do-it stories even remotely interesting. This is just the creative team of this show being too cowardly to actually have their villains be villains. They don’t mind retaining their proclamation that Lotor was evil all along because declaring him to be evil was their big, desired plot twist. But they were too scared to commit to having Haggar and Zarkon as villains. For so long, both characters were written as just generic, maniacal villains. Then, I think the creative team thought they were making Zarkon and Honerva be more complex villains by saying they did the horrible things they did because of an external force (quintessence). Now, the show is just creating another way with which they can absolve the characters of the horrible things they did. But it’s not like Honerva and Zarkon just said hurtful things. They abused their son. They enslaved people. They tortured people. They murdered people. They committed genocide, murdering the population of whole planets. This is not something to forgive them for. And it’s offensive that this show is telling us to do so.

Also, if Honerva is supposed to be absolved for her actions because she was being controlled by a rift entity, how is it that the show simultaneously has Honerva affecting others through the rift entity? She was trying to kill Tova last episode through the rift entity in him. So, is the rift entity controlling Honerva, or is she controlling rift entities?

Allura says, “I am not going to be afraid to use the power I have.” She says, “We need to continue,” and someone, Lance, I think, says, “But how do we get past the wall?” Well, the spirits of the old Paladins dragged everyone but Keith beneath the wall earlier, so, try that.

Allura says, “It’s like I can feel her thoughts. The way through is with the darkness.” I don’t know how these two sentences are supposedly connected. Is this the extent of what the entity is doing for Allura, just getting her inside Honerva’s mind?

Alfor says, “Honerva went mad—” it’s annoying that the show equates mental illness with dangerousness in this line of dialog “—obsessed with darkness and power.” She was obsessed with quintessence. So, is the show now calling quintessence “darkness?” I thought quintessence was supposed to be life energy.

Allura does a touch-hand-glow and the surface beneath them glows. A light line streaks through the surface and the geometrics like that which appear around wormholes and like the ones Honerva created on Oriande when she retrieved Sincline appears beneath them all. Everything starts glowing white and they disappear from the surface.

This episode is a mess. It’s ambitious, but it’s so unwieldly. It significantly contradicts previous parts of the show, and that really, really bothers me. I don’t like how it takes what felt special (the idea that the Lions had a psychic space created by their consciousness, and that that is where the Black Lion kept Shiro’s spirit after he died) and now just makes it all be some generic universal overmind.

And I really hate that this show is now saying Honerva and Zarkon’s horrible behavior is the fault of being possessed by rift entities. Before it was the result of being poised by quintessence. Did the show forget that they had already assigned one thing to blame for their behavior other than themselves? And that is the ultimate thing that angers me about this. Both quintessence poisoning and rift entity possession are cheats. They reveal a fear of letting villains be villains. They refuse to seriously deal with the reality that these characters are horrible people. By assigning blame to an external source, now two external sources, the show prevents the villains from having to confront their behavior, and the protagonists lose the ability to condemn the behavior as the narrative manifestation of their final confrontation with the villains. The same way that these episodes keep telling us the rift entities are a threat without ever really resolving that, the series, by locating the blame for the villains actions in external sources, never resolves the villains’ actions.

[knowthyselfrp]

         AGE: 25 // OCCUPATION: ART DEALER AND HUNTSGIRL // PRONOUNS: She/Her

The past has always been so unclear to you. Where you come from and what you are – it’s all dictated by the – for the lack of a better term – “association” you are a part of now. Your sweet demeanor coupled with your charming looks should fool no one, however, for you are skilled, trained; more ferocious than anyone could’ve ever imagined. Your real backstory was – and is still – hidden from you by the very people you’ve trusted all your life. They should be careful with what they don’t and what they do tell you, however; for you’re no fool, and you don’t take lightly to those who believe you to be so. You are a fighter; a warrior – as you were always trained to be. And lest they forget, as beautiful as a rose is, it also has thorns that can make anyone bleed.

Jake Long – How unfortunate and devastating it must be to hunt the very person you’ve always shown affection for. Of course, this is unbeknownst to the both of you. Complexities considered your relationship is that of a modern Romeo and Juliet tale: you both want something that you cannot have; someone that others have prevented you from having. It is no secret how he looks at you so endearingly; but it is a secret how you’ve been manipulated into hunting him, all because of a birthmark that covers half your arm.

The Huntsman – He’s manipulated you into becoming something you should not have to become. Yes, he’s trained you to become stronger; more skilled than anyone could ever dream to be; and indeed, his training has payed off, because look at where you are now. But he’s lied to you, taken away a life that you could’ve lived, away from all this deceit and madness. You’ve been under the care of a dangerous man; and he will use what he knows about you against you. He should be careful, however; as you are a person of immeasurable emotional and physical endurance; and he of all people should know that.

Oh, the Creator cannot wait for your story to unravel. As cruel as that may sound, take it as a compliment: the Creator does not pay much attention to all of his creations. You are one of those whom he has high hopes for. Your life has been built on deception and lies – the very things which can stir up drama and excitement; and, coincidentally, two of the Creator’s favorite things. He’s looking forward to see your whole life fall apart, but do not blame him: he’s just in this for the excitement.

Lindsey Morgan

LIE NUMBER ONE:

You are a normal girl. You went to school normally, you lived with your uncle after your parents left you and died in a car crash. You are gentle, sweet, kind. You do not know of the Huntsclan, there is no Huntsgirl named Thorn. There is only Rose, a soft girl, a girl ready to take on the world. The birthmark on your arm is just a coincidence and you are deeply sensitive. You do not know of Red Dragons or the dangers in Hermosa. All you know is art, the theater, and your writings. All you care about is your career and the people in your life. You are selfless, you are gentle.

TRUTH:

You are a weapon. You are a survivor. You were forged from steel, you were kidnapped because you were chosen with the mark of the Huntsclan wrapping around your wrist. It is no birthmark, it is who you are. You do not know there are parents out there, desperately searching for their little girl. You are a Huntsgirl first, Rose second. It was your duty to rid the world of evil, being a normal child was just for show. You are not built to be soft and kind, you are vicious and lethal. But being sarcastic results in a beating. You kill people, Rose. And you think it’s all for the greater good of Hermosa. All you know is the hunt. You think it’s because the Huntsclan wants to help people, you think they want to protect the town. You believe the Red Dragons are evil and are supposed to be demolished. You only care for your next high, whether it’s from drugs, alcohol, or sex. There is nothing pure about you, the white cloth you were wrapped up in when you were born is now dripping red with the blood of the people you’ve killed. It is easy to be this way, this is who you really are. If you can kill the Red Dragon leader, you will be rewarded

Remember you are a killer, Rose.

You are a beautiful, heartless killer, Rose.

LIE NUMBER TWO:

You can fall in love.

The boy never forced you to question your ideologies. You never were abused and beaten by the Huntsclan. You can think of more things than the fear of the Huntsclan breathing down your neck. You are proud to be the Huntsgirl, you are numb to the screams of your victims. You are the best Huntress, and the Huntsman does not mind this. The bruises and blood are not from training or your punishments, but from simply being clumsy. The Huntsclan members are not an extremist organization but a peaceful one, hunting evil out. You do not question of they are paranoid and genocidal. You think everyone who opposes the Hunt are disgusting creatures. You are a rising scholar in Hermosa, and your uncle is so very proud.

TRUTH:

The Huntsclan will kill you if you ask any more questions. They’ve tortured you enough already for the cute little “but are we in the right?” question you asked at dinner once. The marks are from the Huntsclan, of course. It’s your fault you stepped out of line, it’s your fault you chose to listen to the boy than get close to the family you were supposed to. It’s your fault you lost sight of killing the Red Dragon leader. You are not allowed to be better than the Huntsman, or he will make sure to make you worse. All you ever think about is The Creator and the decisions that led you here. No one cares if you’re intelligent as long as you are a well oiled machine. Getting away with murder was one of the easier pills you had to swallow when you shut the boy out. You could not love, that’s not in you. You do not care about him, you do not care about anyone. It’s all an act.

(maybe that was a lie)

(maybe, just maybe, your feelings that you act out are genuine)

LIE NUMBER THREE:

The Creator’s choices do not keep you up at night. You know full well you can run away and leave if you want to, but you stay because you know this is what you need to do. Convincing the Huntsman to go to Hermosa University was easy, and you quickly knew you were born for it. You did not care about the art you found in the forms of purple and red bruises on a girl’s soft thigh, you do not care for the way you fist slammed into the marble, splitting your knuckles and drawing blood that earned you an A. You do not care for Monet and Keefe, all you focused on was the Huntsgirl. You did not try to lead a normal life after graduation, you did not try to reconnect with the boy. You stay away from him and fulfill your duties of the Huntsgirl. You do not try to keep friends and you do not engage in dangerous activities to feel more than the rush of blood on your hands. Rose is dead, all there is is the Thorn.

TRUTH:

The Creator is who you answer to first, even if you try not to think about it. You feel Him on your shoulders, but you let Him forge your path even if you know He is watching your every move and know exactly how you will end up. Very few times did you decide your own fate. The Huntsman only allowed you to leave because he didn’t want the school board to wonder why someone as bright as you are not going to university. You loved art, you loved finding new art. You loved chasing highs, you loved almost killing yourself to feel free. You could lose yourself in museums and you adored your new friends and the art they created just for you. You worked hard to become Rose, you worked hard to become the greatest art dealer there ever was. You stray a little bit more from being Thorn, but you know your place. You know your punishment awaits if you dare to stray too far. Still, you made friends, you have a life outside of Thorn. You even tried to find the boy who you couldn’t love.

WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

Something happens when you are tested to the extreme. No one else can withstand the emotional and physical turmoil you can, and yes, we mean you, Rose. No one else your age is willing to die every single day for pride. Isn’t that what hunting the Red Dragon is all about? None of this really matters, with a flick of His Hand, you could have a completely new future. But you will always be the warrior before the girl, no matter how hard you try. You can’t erase your past, you can’t scrub yourself free of your sins. You can wish all you want for a normal childhood and a normal family, but you will never get that (or maybe you will? Maybe He will have mercy). You are a rose; something to cut yourself on when others try to get too close to your beauty. The Huntsman does not like your success, and you know he is trying to undermine you. But he should know better than anyone, you are determined to win. Whatever this competition may be.

A rose charm bracelet she had when she was a baby. It was how she was given her name, and she has carried it with her since. She knows it’s the only tie back to her previous life, or moreso, the life she could’ve had had her birth parents not “abandoned her and died in a car crash,” like the Huntsman tells her.

[scifimagpie]

Want to Write Better Books? Stop Watching Television

When it comes to storytelling, most of us grow up immersed in visual language. Television and movies and Youtube series can be extremely potent, and tell inspiring stories - but when it comes to translating that storytelling method to the page, they can be a writer's worst enemy.

I can always tell when people have been watching more TV than reading books because there's a similar pattern of errors. Drawing from my own screw-ups and experiences and combining them with things I've learned from reading hundreds of books, I've compiled a useful list intended for newer writers with an eye on publishing.

At the risk of bowing to clickbait with my title, I'd like to make a case for aspiring writers to scale back their television-watching time and spend that on short and long-form fiction. Even fanfiction inspired by TV can help exercise that writing muscle more than watching stories alone, and I've made the reasons why into an easy-to-read list.

1) TV writing is often bad and illogical 

There's no good way to put this - the behaviour of characters on Lifetime made-for-TV movies, criminal dramas, and night-time dramas or medical shows is often exaggerated and vastly distant from reality. The best TV shows and movies do have good writing - but let's be honest; we don't always watch the best of the best. That's not a bad thing, but when it comes to writing, 'you are what you eat' is very much an applicable idiom.

It's hard to write emotionally authentic decisions and ethical debates when paranormal teenagers are fighting in the most dramatic ways possible. Because of the narrative constraints of episodic storytelling, which is the norm for continuing TV shows, antagonists are often thinly written and illogical, and characters who conflict with the main cast tend to be cruel, rude, or selfish in ways that an actual human person would not dare to be when confronted or opposed. Villains and antagonists are an important part of every story, and they're usually the biggest letdown, because their actions are often dictated by whatever inflicts the most suffering on main characters. Shows have to compress as much interest in the problem-of-the-week as possible, while still adhering to the (usually more complex) long-term plot.

The thing is, these are really bad habits for writers to pick up. It's taken me a lot of work to unlearn the villain-of-convenience habit. Antagonists and villains need to have strong motivations - even stronger than the protagonist(s)', at times. Otherwise, their actions make no sense on a fundamental level, and the narrative thread of the story will completely unravel. This is not to say that antagonists and villains have to be "evil" per se - in fact, evil is usually a matter of perspective. However, stories are driven by what people want and the people who want things. If they don't have a thing they want that remains somewhat consistent, or has a reason for changing, the story will sputter and its engine will stop turning over.

2) Visual storytelling and literary storytelling are different mediums

This sounds obvious, but hear me out. In working on a recent project, a character went up the stairs after a party, took off her jewelry, texted her friend - and suddenly, her abusive alcoholic father appeared in her room and started threatening her. The scene was clearly patterned after the classic "jump scare" style.

The problem is that jump scares don't work in written fiction. In order to mimic the effect created by a jump scare, we have to break down the scene and the rising tension created by it. A camera panning around and showing the scene, the slow shot of a character walking up the stairs, and the subtle tension created by having a character do ordinary things without realising that they are in danger may not be conveyed by simply saying that character walks up the stairs, takes off their jewelry, and prepares to use the bathroom. Those words don't express the information conveyed by the same camera shots and edits, or by the creeping shriek of violins or synth music in a score. Words can express that tension - but not if writers take what they see on TV (or computer) screens at face value.

Mimicry is not enough. We have to understand why things happen and why we are shown or given certain pieces of information, and why things are portrayed in certain ways. We must learn to see the framing devices used in fiction of all kinds, not accept them as the way the world works.

3) Hide things from the reader

As the audience, we may not realise that storytelling techniques are being used to convey a story, because we're busy reacting to it. That's okay! It's good to watch or read something and just experience the emotions intended, and enjoy the ride of the story. However, if a book has a deep impact on you, and you admire it, it's worth reading the book at least one more time to try and see the places where it was most effective.

For example, in a tense scene, a character might scan a room, looking for a weapon, and the author or narrator may describe the contents of said room.

In a dingy hotel, a bed covered in rumpled sheets, the bolted-down lamps and furniture and a clunky television may not offer much. As the character looks around, they might notice there are some glasses on the bureau or in the bathroom, and pick those up, hoping to throw them at the assailant pounding on their door.

In this vignette, the words 'pounding', 'dingy', and 'rumpled' offer the most descriptive power. However, we don't know what the antagonist on the other side of the door looks like, what kind of weapons they have, if any, or even what their name is. While there might be a little more context in a book, the very limited scope of this one scene shows that using immediacy and restricting the view and information available to the reader can create more tension.

I often see this problem in longer-form works as well - and I've certainly made the mistake myself: the error of trying to cram in too much exposition in the first few chapters. It's hard not to worry that an audience will get lost or miss something, but audiences just don't need as much information to enjoy a story as authors do to write it.

4) All books are not created equal

Some books are designed to convey a story as efficiently as possible, often to meet the reader's emotional needs - this is the case for most commercial fiction. Some books are intended to please the reader's intellect or evoke more complex emotions, and often take their time in the storytelling or break rules - this is often the case for literary fiction. Upmarket fiction combines both of these needs. That's not to say that commercial fiction can't have moments of beauty, or that literary fiction can't be fun to read, but it's important to know that these two broad types of fiction have different goals - and that both have their advantages and disadvantages.

It's important to know which markets your book is destined for, and to be honest about it with yourself. Do you write weird fiction that kind of straddles genres and has little philosophical narrative kicks? Do you secretly just want to write fun books about sex and guns? Do you like writing about kissing and emotional drama, but crave a good plot to complicate things? There are readers who want books like each of these, and looking for similar books to yours can help you figure out who will want to read it.

It's vitally important not to confuse the people you want to impress with the people who will probably read your book. I've made this mistake. It's hard not to want to change the world with a book, but you're more likely to achieve that goal if you get the book into the hands of people who will like it in the first place - enthusiastic readers will share what they like, and word of mouth is still the oldest and strongest form of marketing.

5) If you're working in a medium, engage with it 

Having a good vocabulary is essential. This seems like a daunting task - how do we learn more words? Where do we even get the words? How do we know which words are better to use? However, it's not as bad as it sounds. Reading non-fiction news articles in one's Facebook feed can help; honestly, just snatching everything with written words in it and picking it up to read it, even warning signs in bathroom stalls or advertisements at bus stops, can make a difference.

Of course, books and short stories are an ideal place to start. Short stories and short story collections can be a great way to work more fiction into your diet. Ideally, it's best to read a wide variety of books. Having favorite authors is fine, and having favorite genres is fine, but both a) reading widely within your genre and b) reading widely in general will help you try new things and expose you to different ideas and inspirations. Have you ever read a western? An old Harlequin bodice-ripper? A modern romance novel? Women's fiction? A techno-thriller? African-American literary fiction? A gay coming-of-age tale? Grab something off the shelf with your eyes closed and start reading - you don't even have to start from the beginning, if you really don't want to, but try to give the strange new book a chance.

The more you read, the more comfortable your brain will become with the storytelling methods, conventions, and styles that authors use. It's not about copying people or being 'unoriginal', although those are okay for practice techniques - it's about fluency. Writing well is very difficult if you don't read!

6) Emotions are important

Just putting in a description of a character's actions doesn't convey their mood, emotions, or what's going on inside their heads. It can - but it's essential to think about why a character is doing something, and which life experiences have contributed to the decision they're undertaking in that moment. People never just do things - and stopping to consider why a character grabs a wire hanger to fight back, whether they'd cower or flee, and whether they'd be able to speak their thoughts honestly are all vital to communication.

In daily life, we may hesitate to speak or act frankly, and that's not always a bad thing. There's something to be said for honesty, but there's also something to be said for respecting the feelings and desires or needs of others. For example, if Manpreet and Cynthia are friends, and Cynthia is wearing a new sweater she just finished knitting, Manpreet may want to tell her the sweater is ugly. But then Manpreet's desire for validation of her opinion will conflict with Cynthia's need for validation of her efforts. There's nothing wrong with these conflicts, nor with learning when to hold one's tongue or put something carefully, and expressing that characters are going through those steps is a great way to show conflict and emotion in a work of fiction.

7) Traditional literature may not be for you 

Frankly, I think more authors should try different storytelling formats just to see if they find one that's a better fit. Books tend to be the default for creative storytelling, but honestly, they're just not for everyone because they don't always skew to people's internal storytelling style. Sometimes books just don't play to people's strengths. People who are dialogue-oriented may find that plays do the trick. People who like visuals that are continuous may want to try out writing screenplays of various kinds. Still others may want to try writing graphic novels, and either hiring illustrators or illustrating work themselves. The trick is to figure out how you think - in pictures? In moments? In words? - and find the medium that expresses your feelings and thoughts most adequately.

Telling a story is an act of communication, and to communicate well requires a lot of effort, practice, and study. New authors should consider this before rushing to publish their first work, because the enthusiasm and fire of the story experience inside an author's head may be different from the experience of the reader from going through content on the page.

Ultimately, writing is hard. There's a reason that career authors, amateurs, and aspiring writers often despair over it. And honestly, that's okay. There's a joy to the process of learning techniques, to finding the right word. Anything worth doing is worth doing well, because it's easier to get appreciation from others if your work is careful and shows skill.

8) Writing a good book means creating a book to be read

This is always the hardest part of storytelling. Do we, as writers, craft stories we want to read and tell, or for our audience? Sometimes a weird cross-genre story works, and sometimes a story pulls from so many different genres and influences and goes in so many directions that it's hard to see who will pick up on it. Many of us may dream of adulation or praise from masses of readers, but putting faces on those masses is the important part. It's okay to want that - but wanting it alone is not enough to grant it, and merely creating something is not enough to deserve fame and praise.

It's not about 'that mediocre book that's doing so well! I could write better!' - it's about writing better than yourself. It's hard, during the honeymoon phase of completing a project, not to feel like it's the apex of creative works in one's native language. If I sound sarcastic, it's because I know this euphoric high, and I know the unfortunate consequences of trusting it too blithely. Simply put, the problem is not even bad reviews - it's crickets. Unless a book is waterproofed beyond the 'good enough' state, it may not be worth reading.

All creative works are risks, and to attain the prizes of money and positive attention, it's worth making sure a book makes sense from an external perspective, and is a satisfying read. Of course, not every friend or person you know will be an ideal member of your reading audience, so finding anonymous or professional beta readers can be very helpful - even if just for the sake of seeing how a book comes across to someone who knows very little about it. You may find that your book is very appealing for a reason you totally did not anticipate.

Above all, writing the book isn't about you. It's about the audience, the characters, or the story itself.

9) Publishing is scary and hard 

It's okay to be overwhelmed from time to time. It's not even that I'm trying to discourage people from putting their books out for mass consumption - it's that I want to help people make sure the books they put out are as good as possible. There's no such thing as a bad book, just an imperfect book; 99.99% of books that have issues can be saved with a good editor or editors, multiple sets of eyes, and a willingness to tweak and revise.

Drafting books is a process. It took me years to get over the idea that one draft was enough, and that I'd get every idea and nuance down in one go-through. That isn't the case, and it rarely is for many authors! Eventually, realising that I just had to get down a skeleton, and that I could modify and elaborate on things when I had the patience for them, was tremendously freeing. Not only have I stopped hating revisions, I look forward to them. When you know in your bones that the scene and the story feels right, few experiences compare to that.

Publishing, however, is a lot of work - getting used to learning about advertising, knowing where to find information about advertising, buying a cover, researching genres, writing a good blurb, finding people to hire for these various services - it can really add up to an ordeal. Still, doing all that work is a little easier and a lot more rewarding if you feel a rock-hard certainty about the quality of the book in the first place - and it can even make the other stuff easier, because you know what to draw from and what to look at.

10) If all else fails, Google is your friend

Just going for a Google safari or searching around on Amazon isn't something most of us do anymore - our 'wasted time' on the internet usually involves going to a website we already know or frequent regularly, clicking through content, and scrolling through various newsfeeds. However, these habitual paths may not yield as much information when preparing to publish. Simply going to Amazon or Google as if you were looking for a new book and entering various keywords in the search bar - things associated with your book or genre, like 'science', 'scientist', 'adventure', 'comet', 'asteroid', 'crash', 'aliens', or other pertinent terms - can be surprisingly fruitful.

You can also look up books (or shows) you admire and see what people read after reading or watching them. The more books you have to compare to, the more readers will understand your book's place in the market or library. Referencing shows and movies in a blurb is not ideal.

At he end of the day, I'm glad so many people take the leap into trying to write, and finishing projects, but actually trying to sell a book to readers isn't the same thing as merely writing for the satisfaction of it. And writing privately for satisfaction is fine! It's just that when a book hits either an editor's desk or the market, it should be as ready for readers' eyes as possible, and thoroughly vetted - even if it's been self-published.

***  Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and nightmares, as well as social justice issues. She is currently working on the next books in her series, other people's manuscripts, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Catch up with Michelle's news on the mailing list. Her books are available on Amazon, and she is also active on Medium, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. 

[5mincolumns]

5min books review #4

John Doerr: Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs

Value for money

6/10

Year, Price, Pages, Cover design

2018 by Portfolio/Penguin; Euro 24,20; 246 pages (306 pages with dedication, resources, notes and index), Hardcover

Jacket design by Karl Spurzem, Book design by Amy Hill. Very nice jacket and book design. Good paper quality and reading experience (However, I would expect a better quality of paper, compared to the amazing jacket).

5 sentences about the book

The book consists of two parts. First part describes OKRs and values such: focus, alignment, tracking and stretching — that accelerate OKRs. The second part pointed out the importance of culture in modern companies and CFRs (Conversation, Feedback, Recognition) which, together with OKRs, create new continuous performance management and reinforces HR.

From a narrative point of view, this book also consists of two parts. Theoretical writing is beautifully completed by stories with examples from real life, written by protagonists like Bill Gates (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Sundar Pichai (Chrome), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube) and many others. I especially enjoyed Doerr’s story about the beginning of the OKRs at Intel and his mentor Andy Grove. The book begins with another fantastic story about the early days at Google, where Doerr rotated among the first investors.

In the end, OKRs have roots in 20th-century mentality. Intel’s story Operation Crush is scary reading about the company that beat its competition not by innovation but by marketing (creating a new narrative). It makes more sense now to understand the behaviour of big tech companies in the 21st century that adapted OKRs (more below).

What did I learn?

I have finally understood what OKRs are and what are the powers that drive them (focus, alignment, tracking and stretching). I’ve learned to define the objective and key results and think about them in the context of my work/my life.

Except for basic rules, there are at least these reminders I have to keep in mind: 1. KRs must describe outcomes, not activities (257); 2. We must not forget to ask “What’s in this for me” when we want to make OKRs real for individuals; 3. Define a few OKRs that promise a real value, make it stretch but realistic; 4. OKRs are not written in stone — reformulate or delete them if they are not helping anymore.

I found a connection between OKRs and CFRs super useful, it could be especially handy for line managers. I’ve made many notes and I intend to put them into practice.

Google’s OKR Playbook (255) — internal Google’s document for employees describing how to set, track and read/interpret OKRs.

I understood the root cause of unethical behaviour of the big tech companies towards their users and society (more below).

What was missing?

TL, DR: What kind of products can be created in an organization driven by OKRs and CFR without asking about ethical issues? Doerr didn’t address the ethical risk (Should we build it at all?) in OKRs conception that has a direct impact on companies’ culture of big tech organizations. Yes, big tech delivered a lot of obvious values for end users but at the same time, they aggressively dominated the market so competition became impossible (and end-users lost more than they gained). Even worse, big techs are not able to steer their platforms anymore, and their products are becoming a weapon in the fight to weaken democracy in the western world.

Working at Google was considered a dream job twenty years ago. Now, working in the 21st century big tech is like working in the 20-century tobacco company. In other words, I cannot imagine how someone can be proud to be a Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple employee anymore. Today big techs are considered as predators: these companies don’t just run services — they own the internet’s utilities; they use that commanding position unfairly and at the expense of others.

The next thing is the social dimension. These companies do not take enough responsibility for their platforms and their impact on society: “The result is less innovation, fewer choices for consumers, and a weakened democracy.” (Guardian)

If the author is not willing to speak about this topic because it is not in the context of his book, then, the best he could do was not to open culture topic while talking about Google.

OKRs do not address ethical risk: “Just because we have the technology to build something, and even if it otherwise works to accomplish the specific business objective, this does not necessary mean that we should build it. More commonly, the issue is that our technology and design skills are such that we might come up with a solution that meets our business objectives (for example, around engagement, growth, or monetization) but can end up with a side effect of cousin harm to users or the environment.” (Marty Cagan, Inspired, 2018, 169)

How is it possible that the author talks about OKRs and forget about the ethical side of reality? Susan Wojcicki (Google, YouTube) writes: “Judging from our experience at Google, I’d say that OKRs are especially useful for young companies just starting to build their culture” It is evident that ethical aspect that is missing in OKRs conception could also have an impact on culture. This could be a reason why in Google and the rest of the big tech companies they are blind ethic wise while doing the business.

Favourite quotes:

“An OBJECTIVE, I explained, is simply WHAT is to be achieved, no more and no less. By definition, objectives are significant, concrete, action-oriented, and (ideally) inspirational. When properly designed and deployed, they’re vaccine against fuzzy thinking — and fuzzy execution. KEY RESULTS benchmark and monitor HOW we get to the objective. Effective KRs are specific and time-bound, aggressive yet realistic. Most of all, they are measurable and verifiable. You either meet a key result’s requirements or you don’t; there is no grey area, no room for doubt.” 7

“OKRs surface your primary goals. They channel efforts and coordination. They link diverse operations, lending purpose and unity to the entire organization” 8

“OKRs are Swiss Army knives, suited to any environment” 12

“At medium-size, rapidly scaling organizations, OKRs are a shared language for execution. They clarify expectations: What do we need to get done (and fast), and who’s working on it? They keep employees aligned, vertically and horizontally.“ 12

“OKRs were constant reminders of what our teams needed to be doing. They told us precisely what we were achieving — or not.” 28

(About Andy Grove) “He had an amazing ability to reach into your chest and grab your heart, pull it out, and hold it in his hands in front of you” 32

“Measuring what matter begins with the question: What is most important for the next three (or six, or twelve) months? (…) What are our main priorities for the coming period? Where should people concentrate their efforts?” 47

“Leaders must get across the why as well as the what. Their people need more than milestones for motivation. They are thirsting for meaning, to understand how their goals relate to the mission.” 50

“Meritocracy flourishes in sunlight. When people write down ‘This is what I am working in’, it’s easier to see where the best ideas are coming from” 78

“One underrated virtue of OKRs is that they can be tracked — and then revised or adapted as circumstances dictate” 113

“Aspirational goals draw on every OKR superpower. Focus and commitment are a must for targeting goals a real difference. Only a transparent, collaborative, aligned, and connected organization can achieve so far beyond the norm, And without quantifiable tracking, how you know when you’ve reached that amazing stretch objective.” 135

“If Andy Grove is the patron saint of aspirational OKRs, Larry Page is their latter-day high priest.” 138

“Stretch goals are invigorating. By committing to radical, qualitative improvement, and establish organization can renew its sense of urgency and reap tremendous dividends” (Susan Wojcicki, 156)

“But goals cannot be attained in a vacuum. Like sound waves, they require a medium. For OKRs and CFRs, the medium is an organization’s culture, the living expression of its most cherished values and beliefs.” 212

“In the high-stakes arena of culture change, OKRs lend us purpose and clarity as we plunge into new. CFRs supply the energy we need for the journey” 216

“As OKRs build goal muscle, CFRs make those sinews more flexible and responsive. Pulsing gauges the organization’s real-time health — body and soul, work and culture.” 217

Notes:

(Dr. Grove’s Basic OKR Hygiene)

Less is more. A few extremely well-chosen objectives.

Set goals from the bottom up. To promote engagement, teams and individuals should be encouraged to create roughly half of their own OKR’s, in consultation with managers.

No dictating. OKRs are a cooperative social contract to establish priorities and define how progress will be measured.

Stay flexible. KRs can be modified or even discarded mid-cycle.

Dare to fail. Stretched goals.

A tool, not a weapon. OKR’s and bonuses are best kept separate.

Be patient; be resolute. Every process requires trial and error. 33

Continuous performance management (CFR)

Conversations: an authentic, richly textured exchange between manager and contributor, aimed at driving performance

Feedback: bidirectional or networked communication among peers to evaluate progress and guide future improvement

Recognition: expressions of appreciation to serving individuals or contributions of all sizes 176

“If a conversation is limited to whether you achieved the goal or not, you lose context. You need continuous performance management to surface the critical questions: Was the goal harder to achieve than you’d thought when you set it? Was it the right goal in the first place? It is motivating? Should we double down on the two or three things that really worked for us last quarter or is it time to consider a pivot?” 177

Conversations

Goal setting and reflection. The discussion focuses on how best to align individual objectives and key results with organizational priorities.

Ongoing progress update. The brief and data-driven check-ins on the employee’s real-tine progress, with problem-solving as needed.

Two-way coaching. To help contributors reach their potential and managers do a better job.

Career growth. Identify growth opportunities.

Lightweight performance reviews. Employee’s accomplishments since the last meeting. 183

Feedback

“Public, transparent OKRs will trigger good questions from all directions: Are these the right things for me/you/us to be focused on? If I/you/we complete them, will it be seen as a huge success? Do you have any feedback on how I/we should stretch even more?” 185

“In more mature organizations, feedback is ad hoc, real-time, and multidirectional, an open dialogue between people anywhere in the organization” 185

Recognition

“Modern recognition is performance-based and horizontal. It crowdsources meritocracy.” 186

Institute peer-to-peer recognition

Establish clear criteria. Replace “Employee of the Month” with Achievement of the Month”

Share recognition stories

Make recognition frequent and attainable

Tie recognition to company goals and strategies 186–187

[kadobeclothing]

How to Rise Above Marketing Mediocrity, According to Ann Handley

Ann Handley is a Wall Street Journal bestselling author, and has been named by IBM as one of the seven people shaping modern marketing.

She’s also the world’s first Chief Content Officer, and is a LinkedIn influencer with almost 400K followers. Needless to say, I was thrilled when she agreed to speak with me about the current and future trends in marketing at the 2019 Conex in Toronto. Along with marketing trends, we also talked about new approaches marketers can use to solve old problems. Because, while much has changed in marketing over the last few years, one thing remains consistent — businesses still need to connect with their audiences. Here, let’s explore Ann Handley’s take on pathological empathy, “snackable” content, and rising above marketing mediocrity.

Have Pathological Empathy For Your Consumer One of the key concepts Handley has pioneered is “pathological empathy.” Rather than simply segmenting customers by their behaviors or demographics and trying to appeal to them on those grounds, Handley wants marketers to get under their skin: “When I say pathological, I mean really understanding, sort of getting inside their skin … to get a sense of who are they and how can you best engage with them emotionally.” Ultimately, engaging with a consumer on an emotional level is one of the most sure-fire ways to guarantee a successful marketing campaign. (I dare you to watch Android’s “Friends Furever” video, the most-shared video ad of 2015, without tearing up.) This next-level empathy opens the door to a new approach to content creation. Handley poses the question this way — “How do we create the kind of marketing content, assets, campaigns that will actually touch their hearts … and maybe open their minds?” Slow Down In order to build pathological empathy, you need time. However, in a fast-paced marketing environment where everything moves at the speed of light, time is the most precious and limited commodity. Counterintuitively, this only proves Handley’s point:

“I’m on a mission to get marketers to slow down. Instead of approaching their job with an ‘as-soon-as-possible’ mindset, I think it’s much more valuable at certain key strategic moments to slow down.”

Handley says that by slowing down the marketing process at these strategic moments, marketers can better execute on building relationships and converting leads. “I think what we’re missing is that opportunity to say, ‘All right, what are the moments where we really need to think more strategically? Where should we slow down to fuel faster growth later?'” Speak to Your Audience as Peer-to-Peer, Not Brand-to-Target In addition to slowing down the marketing process at critical points, Handley suggests that marketers speak to their audiences from a peer-to-peer perspective, as opposed to brand-to-target. While marketers instinctively want to talk about what sets their brand and products apart, that’s not a message that can connect with customers. Handley told me, “We love our products and services and we understand on an implicit basis what value they bring to your customers or your prospects. But I think that we don’t always communicate that as effectively as we could. We’re not always leading with our hearts. We’re not always touching people in a way that will engage them emotionally.” Next time you’re constructing a web page or writing landing page copy, you might ask yourself — Would I, and my colleagues, like it designed this way? Would we keep reading? Would we click the link? Of course, you’ll want to A/B test and use focus groups to ensure you’re meeting your audience’s needs, but it doesn’t hurt to consider your own opinions and interests, or the opinions and interests of friends and family, when creating and promoting marketing materials. Be a Resource for Your Audience Handley told me marketers should be a resource to their prospects and offer them value. Part of this shift requires connecting with customers personally. You might try social media, but alternatively, consider putting a twist on an old marketing stand-by — the email newsletter. As Handley says, “Newsletters are vastly undervalued and they’re a huge opportunity that we’re not doing well.” Handley mentioned that, unfortunately, most marketers tend to focus on the “news” aspect of a newsletter, and forget the “letter” part of the equation. The “news” aspect means marketers use their newsletters as a distribution strategy and focus on providing updates about their own brand — but they fail to use the “letter” portion to engage with and connect to their audience. Handley notes that when writing newsletters, marketers tend to speak in the plural, but their audience is one person at home or on their phone. Handley says that by simply writing their newsletters as if they are talking to one person, marketers can go a long way toward building that personal connection. Handley says, “The person who was sitting on the other end of that email �� It’s one person. They’re not sitting there with a thousand other people. So why do we communicate to a thousand people? That’s because we’re still thinking about it as news and not as a letter.” Don’t Create “Snackable” Content Video is another area where marketers are misreading the situation and losing out on chances to meaningfully connect with consumers. Handley pushes back on the notion of “snackable content,” and the idea that consumers are demanding it more.

“Our impulse as marketers has been to make it shorter and shorter and shorter to try to get people more involved. But from a consumer standpoint, I don’t think that that’s what our customers want.”

Rather, Handley thinks that this demand for shorter content was always there but never supplied. She told me, ���I don’t think they want shorter and shorter and shorter. They don’t want lighter and more snackable … The way that we as consumers are consuming content has been to think about the value that it gives us.” Handley cites Netflix as a prime counterexample that disproves the idea that consumer attention spans are getting shorter, or that “snackable” content is king. “In a world of snackable, why does somebody sit down for hours at a time to watch the last season of Stranger Things? It’s because we want to — we want it on our terms, number one. But secondly, we have all the attention span in the world if it’s something that we care about.” Handley doesn’t think viewers’ attention spans are getting shorter or that they are seeking out shorter content. Instead, viewers are just more discerning about what content they consume. That suggests marketers shouldn’t shy away from longer video pieces, as long as these videos are about something that can connect with their target audience. Rise Above “Marketing Mediocrity” Businesses that fail to connect with customers fall into what Handley terms “marketing mediocrity.” Handley says it’s critical for businesses to rise above it. But how does a business know if their marketing is mediocre? “If people are not interested in you, if they are not here for you, if they are not thinking, ‘I can’t wait to see what they come out with next,’ then that’s a problem.” Handley says marketers should ask themselves what would happen if they went away. How would your email list react? Would any of your audience members write your team to ask where you went? Handley relates a personal story about her bi-weekly newsletter to drive the point home: “I usually mail Sunday mornings and I had a busy week … [s]o I didn’t mail until Sunday afternoon at four o’clock. And I got so many emails from people saying, are you okay? What happened? And so that to me was, it wasn’t just personally gratifying. [T]he big lesson there is … if you didn’t show up, would people say, ‘Hey, what happened?'” Do Less and Obsess In 2020, there are innumerable changes happening in the world of marketing. I asked Handley what her single most important piece of advice to marketers would be, and she told me, “do less and obsess.”

Handley suggests that marketers “do less and obsess” and focus on the fundamentals, and “create less with more intention.”

Handley also has some thoughts about content calendars. Handley suggests that marketers “do less that has more impact” rather than strictly abiding by a content calendar. “I think content calendars are amazing … I’m just saying, don’t let it run your strategy.” In the Future, a Customer’s Experience Will Dictate Your Strategy Finally, I asked Handley if she has any ideas on how we’ll be consuming content 10 years from now. While she thinks video is here to stay, she rejects the idea that the word is dead. “I hate binary choices like that. It’s not a matter of words or images. It’s both. To your question, what does this mean for us five years from now? think it’s a better integration and, and perhaps more interactivity.” Handley’s seemingly counterintuitive advice is based on marketing fundamentals, some of which today’s marketers might be forgetting as they become more enmeshed with new technologies. It’s easy to get caught up in current trends, but knowing your target audience and creating an experience they can truly enjoy remains the paramount goal of marketers. By taking a step back from today’s hot new marketing trend, we can get a better sense of how to use new technologies and strategies to deliver a valuable experience to our customers.

Source link

source https://www.kadobeclothing.store/how-to-rise-above-marketing-mediocrity-according-to-ann-handley/

[vicdougherty]

Years ago, when I was living in Central Europe, I got to know a group of men who were the kind a girl would notice. Young and charismatic, they came complete with the fascinating and swoon-worthy job of war photographer.These men were fun, courageous, and wild. They lived hard – drinking, drugging and bird-dogging every pretty female who would have them. On any given night, you could find them “shrooming” in the great outdoors, or at an underground club watching a live sex show. Maybe just hanging out and telling stories. About war zones, scars and executions.One of these men – let’s call him Eddie – told me about getting shrapnel imbedded in his scrotum when he was photographing an intense battle in the former Yugoslavia. This was during the civil war there, and it was an ugly, bloody time full of weaponized rape and genocide.After getting hit, Eddie was taken to a field hospital, where they removed one of his testicles without the benefit of anesthesia. Being smack in the middle of a hot war zone, there simply wasn’t any left. Wounded and dying soldiers lay all around Eddie as the doctor leaned over him, brandishing something that looked like a piece of wood.“Bite down on this,” he said. “This is really going to hurt.”Eddie passed out during the operation, as you can imagine any man would. When Eddie woke up, at least according to him, he propositioned a very sultry nurse, having sex with her right there in his hospital bed. Slavic boned, with wide sensual lips, and an ass to die for, she was just what the doctor ordered.There, fresh out of surgery, Eddie proved to himself that he was still functional, still a man.

Another one of these men – we’ll call him Andy – told me all about a photographer friend of his who had been killed by firing squad somewhere in the Middle East. I was aghast listening to his story. Being only about twenty-four at the time, I’d never met anyone outside of my own war-torn family, who had actually known someone who’d been executed.This was a person young enough to be my peer, and now, they were dead. No, not just dead, but put up against a wall and shot point-blank by a group of strange men. I wondered if he got a last request – a prayer or cigarette.“Why did they do it?” I asked Andy.Andy shrugged, his face a mask of irony. “They didn’t like him.”Andy was a bit of an anomaly among these guys. He was hugely talented and had spent years globe-trotting from war to war just like the rest of them. And he had a wry and irreverent sense of humor that lurked behind his every word – also like his cohorts. Andy was different from his friends in one crucial way, however: he was married and had two small children.He’d left the battlefield behind, and was making a nice living snapping portraits of prominent individuals and the like.This did not go over well with his war photographer friends, let me tell you.Andy was taunted pretty mercilessly for no longer going off at a moment’s notice and raising hell. For staying home and raising his kids instead, trying to be a faithful husband to his wife. It was hard for Andy, too. I could see it in his eyes and in the way he talked about his past adventures.  He missed the excitement, the danger, the freedom – even if he did love his family.Not long ago, a mutual friend told me she’d heard Andy had left his wife and was now sailing around the world. I guess I wasn’t surprised, but I was sad for him. Andy had a good soul, he just seemed to struggle when it came to claiming it.Only a few months after I left both my ex-pat life and this motley crew of war photographers behind, I got to know another group of men. I had fallen in love with my husband, and one of his best friends was in the United States Marine Corps. At the time, my husband’s friend – who we’ll call Dave, because it’s his real name – was a colonel and lawyer. In the wake of 9/11, he left his growing law practice in the dust and went back to full-time soldiering. A born leader with the temperment of a philospher, Dave would go on to be commissioned a full-fledged general.Dave and his Marine buddies were fun, courageous and wild. They told stories about training and camaraderie, with the occassional tale about combat.I remember Dave confiding to me and my husband about two young men who’d been under his command. They’d been killed during an ambush and Dave was remembering them on one, gloomy Memorial Day a few years ago. He went into some detail about their lives and interests, who they’d loved. And he asked my husband to tell those young men’s stories to our children, so that they wouldn’t be forgotten. Dave told us all of this on the phone, but I could imagine his fierce blue eyes the whole time. Powerful, lived-in eyes that were full of humor, but took everything seriously. The eyes of a man with grave responsibilities.For his men, for whom he had sacrificed so much, and for his family, who had sacrificed so much for him.Not long before leaving on one of his tours, Dave and I found ourselves alone in my kitchen. We were drinking beer, casually, after my husband had washed his hands of us and gone to bed.We talked about how his wife had put her own concerns aside and taken on the full burden of family life, all the while not knowing whether he would return. The way Dave had to leave the people he loved most and enter a world of danger and few comforts. These weren’t voiced as complaints, but observations. He felt a reverence for the faith his loved ones had in him – the fact that they shared his values despite what they had to endure when he was gone.Dave, with those same blue eyes boring into mine – in person this time, alive with tenderness and emotion, unflinching – revealed to me how much he loved his wife.“She’s all that matters,” he told me, going so far as to describe the way she looked when she was sleeping.The way her hair lay against the pillow. The look of soft determination that marked her face, even at rest.As I’ve been endeavoring to write a truly compelling romantic male character over the past few years – I’ve been thinking back on the war photographers and marines, training my cold writer’s eye on them, a vision sharpened by years of steady surveillance. But I’ve engaged my heart, too – one warmed by half a lifetime of being a wife and mother.Both teams of men command our attention, making us want to follow their journeys, root for them. I’ve tried to understand what sets them apart and anticipate which man a woman would choose to be her lover and why. How a woman would assess these two groups of alpha males if she found herself having to choose between them.Manhood, for Dave and his friends, was defined by meaning, and meaning was attained through the exercise of duty and honor. Being husbands, fathers, friends, and in their case, soldiers was a thing of the highest order. They held within them a deeply personal form of power. A competence that stretched far beyond what they were capable of on a battlefield, or any other professional arena. You didn’t dare underestimated them.Andy and Eddie were charming, intelligent, funny and untamed. They were curious and had an unquenchable appetite for life. The sort of dangerous but captivating men you could find in any number of movies and novels. Full of bravado, fighting wars within themselves while they sought the wars outside. All of this hinted at an inner depth that might make a girl get out her shovel and dig until she found it…or didn’t. Yes, they were riveting in their own right.I believe they truly cared about the people and events they were capturing with their cameras, despite their sardonic posturing. And I often wondered if they felt a bit lost in the theater of war – like people once removed. Intermediaries who were putting their lives on the line to bring images of conflict to the rest of us sitting at home. Denied the fight, all the while being exposed to the same perils. Dressed in the blood and grime of war, but not the uniform.“Sometimes I can’t figure out what the hell we’re doing out there,” one of them once remarked.Maybe that’s why those war photographers lived so hard, playing up their bad boy romanticism. Occupying that middle ground is complex and befuddling. You might have the courage of a soldier, but not the motive. You’re both up close to and at an arms length from humanity at its most base and most noble. And unlike a soldier, you have no articulated directives that bind your heart and mind – Semper Fidelis, First to Fight, Uncommon Valor, The Few, The Proud.A man like that might be a bundle of ingredients that can’t seem to come together if he wasn’t careful.It occurred to me, as I thought back on how Dave had described his feelings – employing no irony and embracing, boldly, a deep sentimentality worthy of a Carpenters song – that clarity is an aphrodisiac few women can resist. It’s a Holy Grail for men all over, too, and some spend their entire lives in search of it.Clarity of purpose. That law dictated from the bowels of the conscience, and adhered to. That’s the difficult part. Most can hear the call, but not every one can figure out how to follow it without getting lost.But it is that very fidelity to intention that distinguishes men and boys. A husband from a boyfriend. The protagonist in any story from the rest. It is what makes a man whole, and a character transcend the story that’s been written for him.Love at First Write: Men in Love and War