#just casually make a setting that functions different on a fundamental level | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

spanishskulduggery · 3 years ago

Note

Hi, I'm the anon who wanted to learn some basic Spanish and I'm looking for grammars

♡♡♡

So my first recommendation is for www.studyspanish.com/grammar because they have a really good intro to the basics of pretty much all of the grammar (minus some more advanced things)

Also I would recommend: https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~eyepes/newgr/ats/

And I can't go over every single piece of grammar in Spanish but I will do a very bare bones overview of the major tenses/moods that you'll find in Spanish and a basic explanation of them

If you're a beginner a lot of this may go over your head until you're there but I'm not totally sure of anyone's level so!

Strap in everyone, it's a long post again and I'm going to explain like a solid 65% of the most important Spanish grammar concepts including tenses and moods, and even I think I need a read more for this one.

I didn't include things like concordancia "agreement (between nouns/adjectives)" and other fundamentals because I assume you probably are aware of those and so I'm focusing more on verbs and tenses/moods, but if you are a total beginner I'm more than happy to discuss the fundamentals in more depth

As always if anyone has any questions on anything I've mentioned here specifically, please let me know. I have no problem delving deeper into specific concepts but this is just a general overview of most of the big grammar concepts you're going to come across as you learn Spanish.

First things first, they don't totally teach you this in Spanish, you kind of just have to figure it out yourself or delve into it later on by yourself but there are tenses and moods. I mean they teach you that there are tenses, but they don't totally explain the idea behind tenses and moods and I think it helps to know them to keep them straight.

It's not required learning but it is helpful for overall concepts. It is required learning if you're going more into the linguistics side of things though, but practically speaking you don't really need to know what a mood is to use subjunctive, but I find it helps.

What is a linguistic mood?

In Spanish a mood [modo or "mode"] refers to the ways in which grammar should be used. The moods encompass the tenses themselves.

There are three moods, and really you only need to worry about two.

There's the indicative, subjunctive, and the imperative.

Getting imperative out of the way real quick, it's commands. Commands are very easy to spot because they boil down to affirmative commands ["do it"] vs. negative commands ["don't do it"]. There are some things to mention with imperative but I'll do that towards the very end for miscellaneous grammar concepts

Indicative mood is hard to explain linguistically. It's honestly mostly defined as "not subjunctive or imperative". This is default explanation of things. Most of the tenses are indicative - present, preterite, imperfect, future, conditional.

Subjunctive mood is harder to explain but really important. It doesn't totally exist in English, at least not in a noticeable way so it's something that people really struggle with. Subjunctive mood is usually described as the mood you use for desires, wishes, polite requests, imposition of will, hypotheticals etc

You usually find that subjunctive is 1 of 2 things. It's usually either a kind of imposition of will, where it's one subject making a wish/request or imposition on another subject like quiero que hables "I want you to speak"....... or it's subjunctive clauses. Subjunctive clauses tend to be kinds of conditions, that something will happen once a condition is met; "until", "unless", "so that", "as long as", "provided that", "even if", "as if it were"... Those are kinds of subjunctive clauses.

Some subjunctive clauses make more sense than others for English speakers. It can be its own sort of topic.

...

A Tense on the other hand [tiempo or "time"] in Spanish refers to the time in which grammar is used.

A mood is used to explain the way in which Spanish gets used, but a tense determines if you're talking about it being past, present, or future... or something in between.

You can usually divide the tenses between past, present, or future. There are some "in-betweeners" which I'll mention in miscellaneous but in general it's like this:

Present [things happening now at this very moment] = Present Tense, Present Subjunctive

Past [things that happened or things started in the past (either completed actions or ones that may still be going on)] = Preterite, Imperfect, Imperfect Subjunctive

Future [things that will happen or have the ability to happen] = Future, Conditional, Future Subjunctive [*obsolete now mostly], Imperfect Subjunctive [sometimes] .......also ir + a + infinitivo expressions are somewhere between present tense and future, it's a thing, we'll get there

Again, tenses don't have much to do with the imperative mood because a true command is always "do it" or "don't do it" at that moment. If you're saying "I want them to do it" or "I wanted them to do it" that becomes subjunctive.

Present

The present tense is probably the most important tense because it encompasses a lot of things and it isn't always talked about fully. Plus it's the tense you use the most.

The present tense as the name implies talks about things happening now. Most of your declarative statements are things happening in the present. "I am", "you have", "we are here", "it is blue", etc tend to be present tense

The other facets of present tense are what make it more important than most tenses. In present tense there are two other important functions: "continuous present" and "short-term future"

Continuous present is synonymous with the gerund/progressive forms which I'll talk about more below in miscellaneous. What continuous present means is that you may be translating it as the -ing forms in your head. For example: leo may be "I read" as a present tense declarative statement like leo mucho "I read a lot"... or it could be leo "I am reading" depending on context. It's very subtle but something like leo el libro could be "I read the book" OR "I am reading the book". If you knocked on someone's door you would hear ya voy "I'm coming (right away)"

With the gerund forms, you are specifically talking about something happening right at that moment. But it is a function of present tense as well. Both are correct, mostly synonymous, and useful in their own ways but I mention it because it isn't often mentioned

There also exists a facet of present tense that is understood as "short-term future". There exists the possibility to use present tense to talk about things you plan on doing shortly or things that will happen in the very near future. This is somewhat different than ir + a + infinitive forms since those can be in any tense. It's just something to be aware of.

Preterite

Preterite tense (also called simple past) is nice and easy. It exists only in the past tense and it's for completed actions.

The hallmark of preterite is that they're actions rather than descriptions, and often involve set time phrases like ayer "yesterday", antiayer/antier "the day before yesterday", anoche "last night" or they include things like times, dates, days, or implied time frames

Think of preterite as "I did it", no muss no fuss

Imperfect

Imperfect tense is all muss and fuss

In linguistic senses, "imperfect" means "not yet completed", or "not yet past". You see it used for description rather than concrete actions and so it is very commonly used for narration and description; telling time in the past, talking about something's appearance or moods, and uninterrupted actions

In the context of preterite vs imperfect the very basic (possibly too reductionist, even) is that the imperfect tense is often used to set up a situation while preterite marks the action that interrupts the setting

In other words; dormía y sonaba el teléfono "I was sleeping and the phone was ringing" is all imperfect and it seems to imply the sleep was not interrupted. Saying dormía y sonó el teléfono is a mix of preterite and imperfect "I was sleeping and the phone rang". It stops being description and marks an "interruption" and if I read that, I would assume either "I" woke up, or we're paying special attention to the fact that the phone rang, and that it's not just casual description

Just like present tense, imperfect tense can be used as "continuous past"... saying leía could be "I read" [past] or "I was reading" [past continuous]. You could also say leí "I read" for preterite, though that's a completed action. Saying leía "I read" sounds more like description to me

You will also find that imperfect tense is used for "used to" to describe habitual things. This can be done with the verb soler [which only really exists in present tense as "to be in the habit of" or in imperfect "used to"]. Imperfect is a simpler way but it is important to note.

So for example: iba a la playa could be "I went to the beach" [description], "I was going to the beach" [continuous", OR it could be "I used to go to the beach" [habit that may or may not continue]

You often see this "used to" with certain time phrases or something qualifying it like cuando era niño/a "when I was a kid" or something like that. It's just important to note because saying something like vivía en Londres could be "I lived in London" or "I used to live in London"... If you saw it as vivía en Londres cuando era joven "I lived in London when I was young(er)" is more specifically a "used to" sort of phrase.

Future

Future tense is exactly what it sounds like

Actions that will happen in a long-term setting. Things that WILL happen, that imply more certainty.

You'll also want to note that it means "shall" as well. It's less common in English to say that, but in older texts and especially the Bible you're going to see future tense like that... no matarás is "thou shalt not kill", literally "you will not kill"... same with no robarás "thou shalt not steal"

Depending on tone, you might see no volveré translated as "I will not return / I won't return" or "I shall not return / I shan't return". Future tense has a sense of finality to it, very much like preterite does in past.

In general I would say that the future tense is unremarkable and kinder to non-native speakers, but do note that there are Spanish speakers who sometimes use future tense the way English might use present tense; serás idiota for example is a way to say "you're an idiot" rather than eres idiota (present tense)

I would say think of that particular expression as "stating the obvious" or "it's a foregone conclusion"... I only mention it because in some countries, especially Spain, you will see future tense used like that sometimes

Present Subjunctive

Present subjunctive is subjunctive mood that takes place either in the present, or the short-term future. It carries that same continuous and short-term future vibe

Again, subjunctive typically works with a set of 2 clauses [that is, two different subjects and verbs] with an imposition of will in some way... or subjunctive clauses. These just happen to be in present

So for example; quieren que (yo) hable con ella "they want me to talk to her"... has two clauses [ellos/ellas quieren and then yo hable] with a kind of imposition of will

This is common for polite requests or someone giving orders; exige que hagamos la tarea "he/she demands we do the homework"

Subjunctive clauses in present are more straightforward once you know the clauses: sea lo que sea "whatever it is / whatever it may be", or para que sepas "so that you know", or antes (de) que te vayas "before you leave"

Conditional + Imperfect Subjunctive

These two are often taught together and for good reason

The conditional tense is indicative, but it talks about something that will happen... as long as a condition has been met. It can be a little harder to nail down, but in "if/then" statements, conditional is the "then"

Conditional talks about things in the future and that can make it difficult for English speakers because we use the same conjugations for multiple things.... podía hacerlo "I could do it" is imperfect so it's past, it means I had the ability to do it... and podría hacerlo "I could do it" is future, so it talks about something you do have the ability to do, but you haven't done it yet

Though I do need to say that "should" is usually either in present tense or conditional: debo decir "I should say" or "I must say"....

But then no debería haberlo dicho "I shouldn't have said that". That kind of should is very often conditional and that can be weird for people

The main thing to know is that conditional isn't unlikely or doubtful, it just hasn't happened yet... but it COULD.

Imperfect subjunctive on the other hand is a very wide topic. What you need to know for this to make sense is that once upon a time in Spanish imperfect subjunctive was used for the past tense subjunctive [imperfect being "not yet complete", again]... and then you had a separate branch of subjunctive that was more future and that would have been your hypothetical situations and contrary to fact statements

Today the same tense pulls double duty so that's why it's a big topic

You'll see it for past tense subjunctive: querían que hablara con ella "they wanted me to speak with her"

But you'll also see it for more nebulous or doubtful futures. This is the kind of imperfect subjunctive that gets used with conditional tense.

In "if/then" statements, imperfect subjunctive is the "if". And that's what we mean by hypotheticals and "contrary to fact statements"

si fuera jefe/jefa "if I were the boss" is your if statement. I would call this contrary to fact. It implies "I" am not the boss

The "then" would be in conditional because you're talking about some condition being met... si fuere jefe/jefa, no lo haría "if I were the boss, I wouldn't do it"

Or, si tuviera dinero, viajaría en el extranjero "if I had the money, I would travel abroad". You can translate it as "if I were to have".

But don't hate on Spanish for doing this. English does it too. We say "if I was president" and "if I were president" and they both mean a contrary to fact future.

...Oh also I should mention that if you look up imperfect subjunctive conjugation you'll find two forms. So like you'll see hablara, hablaras, hablara, hablaran, habláramos... and you will see hablase, hablases, hablase, hablasen, hablásemos

Both conjugations are correct, but there's a lot of history involved in this that I can't totally get into without it being a big discussion.

Suffice it to say, it's historical, and Latin America tends to use the -ara and -iera forms for both. Spain makes more of a distinction, where they'll use -ara/-iera for past subjunctive, but use -ase/-iese more for the hypothetical subjunctive

So just as an example: both Spain and Latin America would say querían que lo hiciera "they wanted me to do it" because that's past subjunctive

But Latin America would say si tuviera dinero, compraría una casa "if I had money I would buy a house"...

And Spain would more often say si tuviese dinero, compraría una casa "if I had money I would buy a house"

Again, both are totally fine, but I personally don't use the -ase/-iese forms very much in my own life. I see and read them more than I use them myself, but I'm also in the United States and not Spain.

And that's your bare bones overview of the tenses and moods

I'll also just include some other key miscellaneous grammatical concepts real quick:

Silent Subject (sujeto tácito)

This is very basic and not talked about often, but in English we're taught that we always need to put the pronouns in our sentences. It's always "I do this" and "you do that"

And that makes sense for us because our conjugations have less variation; "do" could be anyone

But in Spanish, it's not as common to include the subject because the subject is often implies by the verb. If hablo only exists for yo, and hablamos is always nosotros/nosotras... then mentioning the pronoun seems irrelevant because it was implied

However, habla and hablan are different; habla could be "him" or "her" or "it" or even usted. And hablan could be multiple people but is it ellos or ellas or ustedes?

It becomes more common to mention the subject if there's a chance you'll be misunderstood

The general rule is you mention your subject and the verb... and you continue on until your subject changes and then you mention a new subject so no one's confused

As an example; ella habla con Marco y siempre menciona sus amigos y familia, pero Marco no habla mucho sobre su vida personal "she talks to Marco and always mentions her friends and family, but Marco doesn't talk much about his personal life"

When it's obvious like yo [except in certain tenses], you rarely mention the subject. Saying something like yo hago la tarea, yo limpio la sala, yo leo el libro doesn't come across as "I do the homework, I clean the room, I read the book"...... it comes across as "I am the one who does the homework, I am the one who cleans the room, I am the one who reads the book"

When you mention the subject over and over when it's obvious it sounds either like bragging like "look at all the things I do aren't I great!", or it sounds like complaining "I'm the one who did this, I'm the one who did that, not you, it was me"

When it's obvious you tend to keep the subject out. But you can put it in when you want some emphasis! Such as yo mando aquí "I'm the one in charge here / I give the orders around here"... which is kind of like if you'd italicized or bolded the "I/I'm" there

Infinitives

Infinitives are the dictionary form of verbs, you probably know that already even if you didn't know what they were called

They're unconjugated so the show up ending in their -ar, -ir, or -er forms... hablar, vivir, comer for example

By themselves you read them like... hablar "to speak/talk"; that's what I mean by dictionary forms

When you come across multiple verbs together, one is conjugated and the other tends to be in either infinitive (or gerund but that's next)

So, quiero aprender "I want to learn", quiero nadar "I want to swim", or quiero aprender a nadar "I want to learn to swim" for example

Also be aware that infinitives can be used as the noun forms of verbs. That is, they are "the action or result of a verb". In English we tend to translate them as the progressive forms, but in Spanish the gerund is a verb conjugation implying motion or continuation

For example: errar es humano, perdonar es divino "to err is human, to forgive divine".

Or hablar es fácil pero escuchar me cuesta "speaking is easy but listening is difficult for me"

Gerund/Progressive

The gerund form (also called progressive) is the equivalent of the -ing forms in English

In Spanish they usually end in -ando, -iendo, sometimes -yendo, and there are a few weird ones here and there because of irregular verbs

They're different somewhat in that in Spanish, gerund is a form of motion or movement in some way, so we don't use them quite the same way that Spanish does - see above with infinitive

You're using this when you're specifically talking about something in the moment.

Very often you're going to see gerund forms either by themselves, or you'll see them with the verbs estar, ir, andar, seguir, continuar or some kind of verb of motion or continuation

As an example teniendo esto en cuenta "keeping that in mind"

Or... estoy aprendiendo "I am learning", voy aprendiendo "I'm learning" [as in "it's a process and I'm in the middle of it" or "I keep on learning and I am making progress"], or sigo aprendiendo "I'm still learning".

Additionally you can see infinitive and gerund used together in some cases: quiero seguir aprendiendo a nadar "I want to keep learning to swim"

Past Participles

The past participles are other conjugations of verbs

While the infinitive is the noun form of a verb, a participle is the adjectival form of a verb

These mostly end in either -ado or -ido... although there's a whole host of irregular ones that you need to memorize

By themselves they can be just straight up adjectives and can lead into the passive voice... or just used by themselves

dicho eso "that said / that being said" where dicho is the past participle of decir

Or something like limpiado "cleaned" is the past participle form of limpiar "to clean"; and you could say el suelo limpiado "the cleaned floor" or la ventana limpiada "the cleaned window"

Past participles lead straight into passive voice, or the perfect tenses

Perfect Tenses

Speaking of the perfect tenses, these are "tenses" that are sort of their own thing but they use forms of the verb haber + past participles

The perfect tense is like a time traveler. It can exist in any tense and any mood (minus imperative). It's function is to make everything just a little more past tense

Again, if "imperfect" means "not yet completed"... then "perfect" means "already completed", since it literally means "done thoroughly"

The perfect tenses make use of haber and you most frequently are going to see present perfect and the pluperfect [sometimes called pluscuamperfecto which is "more than perfect"... aka "past-er than past"]

These follow very closely with English.

he hablado is "I have spoken/talked" (present perfect), and había hablado is "I had spoken/talked" (pluperfect)

The goal of perfect tenses is to make everything a little bit past tense while still keeping the impact of it in the present which is why I say it's a time traveler.

Instead of hablé "I spoke" you're saying he hablado "I have spoken", which means that you're now reporting on what happened once you did it. Maybe you're saying "I've talked with them and this is how it happened" or "I've already talked to them and it made no difference". Either way you're reporting on a past event but it still has bearing on the present.

Pluperfect is the same just more past. You're using the imperfect form of haber + past participle and it's very common in 3rd person narration. This is something that someone "had done". It's still got some bearing on the present but the action took place further in the past

había hablado con él antes "I had spoken with him before" makes it sound like you're reaching further into the past, but you're still going to report on how it went

But like I said, they could be used in any tense or mood except imperative; si lo hubiera/hubiese sabido, no lo habría hecho "if I had known, I wouldn't have done it"

Indirect Commands

Indirect commands are the murky space between the subjunctive and imperative moods

It's very simple though. It's basically you're telling someone else to have something be done. Kind of like delegating a command.

que canten for example is "let them sing", but it could be translated as "sing" as a plural command... it's sort of like pointing to someone and being like "I want them to sing" or "go tell them to sing"

Indirect commands are more polite than regular commands. A command can be rather brusque and impolite, depending on how it's said or phrased. Indirect commands are just nicer.

Instead of hazlo "do it" you might soften it with que lo hagas "go ahead and do it"

Indirect commands can be more impersonal and distant however. They can be used as a more... patronizing tone almost? For example: que así sea is "so be it". Literally that's "let it be so"

"We" Commands

The "we" commands are technically imperative mood but I mention them separately because they show up a lot as "let's"

For example hablemos con ella "let's talk to her"

Or something like seamos amables "let's be nice"; no seamos crueles "let's not be cruel"

It's a less common type of command, where you're part of the nosotros group, but also issuing a command to everyone else in the nosotros group

Sometimes the "we" commands are done just with present tense, but there's always the option: nos vamos could be "we're going" but may be "let's go"... while vámonos is "let's go" specifically

Oh did I mention you can stick object pronouns and reflexives onto these? Because you definitely can; hagámoslo "let's do it" or hagámonoslo "let's do it (for ourselves)"

The next ones are bigger and more confusing so I'm just going to attach my tags and other things that might help if that's okay because they are important but they're big and confusing:

Active Voice vs. Passive Voice

Indirect Objects

Direct Objects

Reflexives / Pronomials Additional reflexive stuff Dativo ético which is very advanced and confusing but involves reflexives so I will include it but just be aware it's like advanced advanced stuff

This is also not including spelling changes for stem-changing verbs and verbs with certain endings like -car, -gar, -zar.

And I also didn't mention irregular verbs just in general so they're really that's more of a linguistic thing. I can just tell you some verbs are irregular and require memorization so you get the spelling right and so you sound smart

I also didn't include por and para because good lord that is a huge topic and very confusing for people so really just better for me to link to more info on it rather than try to explain it because it's hard to do briefly in a way that feels complete and makes sense

Also I didn't include different verbal expressions like tener expressions. Those are important but sort of separate grammar concepts in my mind. If you've studied other Romance Languages you probably have seen them and are familiar, but it's more of a translation thing because English speakers are more likely to say "I am hungry" rather than "I have hunger" for example.

#Spanish #learning Spanish #reference #langblr #language #languages #la gramatica

97 notes · View notes

pocket-void · 4 years ago

Text

Some Stuff About Marcus Pt.1

Alright, I’m finally gonna talk about Marcus in more depth for a lil bit because honestly the more I think about him the more I want to talk about him. So I’m gonna do just that! Both for fun and to get some stuff out of my creative system. ^///^

So let’s start with the man himself, shall we?

Marcus

Marcus is my personal version of the mysterious Orange side, and he’s more of an OC than a theory and I just really enjoy talking about him sometimes. So I do! I talk more about what he represents in this post (there’s also other miscellaneous scraps of info about him in the orange side tag), this one is gonna focus more on his exact relationship with each of the other sides (I always welcome more specific asks if you ever wanna know anything else! Since I’m very rambly and believe me when I say that I have answers to basically everything >///<). These are longer than I thought so I’m splitting it up...but if you’re still here, then strap in folks! u///u

Roman

Marcus doesn’t dislike Roman, but he’s not a big fan of him either. Theoretically they could have a better relationship but it’s hindered by a perception of Marcus that someone else had set a long time ago. (We’ll get to that)

One of the bigger reasons why Marcus and Roman don’t quite get along is simply due to their completely opposite levels of self respect. Roman is insecure and often unsure about his accomplishments and how others feel about him, while Marcus is too sure about his skills and how others perceive him. There are clear flaws to both.

In Marcus’ case, it’s made him incredibly stubborn and bitter as a result of being seen as a problem and not being able to do anything. It’s very difficult to convince him he’s wrong, and while he’s not dumb enough to think he’s right about everything, he gets more aggressive than necessary in the face of opposition at times. But more than anything Marcus is honest. He’s blunt and isn’t afraid of just stating how he feels to people, and Roman’s reluctance to do so really bugs him at times. In fact, he’s sometimes angry for him.

The fact that simple phrases can shatter Roman’s entire ego drives Marcus up walls, because if he were in his position he’d probably deck someone in the face right then and there. Being insulted? Getting what he fears most spat at him like venom? Marcus would never stand for that. Beyond that he’s also mad for the people who care about Roman. Why can’t he believe them? Can’t he see how much he’s cared about? How worried people are? Does he really? Marcus thinks that distrust and insecurity feels like an insult to them.

The thing about Marcus is that he’s been through being branded bad and evil. He’s still the bad guy in a couple of ways. He’ll play the bad guy if he has to. He’s over it, though not quite over it as he’d like to be... In a way, he’s also envious of Roman. Roman is important. The others do actually love him. And deep down, Marcus also respects the things he does and doesn’t want him to be crippled by his self doubt because what the two have in common is passion. A drive and determination to do the things they want, and to achieve the goals they aim for. It’s just a shame that their relationship is soured by their general perceptions of each other.

Marcus also just isn’t big on theatrics, but that’s because he uh, can’t see. He likes to make fun of Roman just like anybody else in casual conversation and only ever refers to him as “Red”, “Princey”, or on occasion “Ruby”. He jokingly takes Roman’s threats seriously when they quip, and while they never actually get into fights, Roman is aware that Marcus will actually throw down.

At the end of the day, Marcus wants Roman to consider himself his own hero. He doesn’t understand Roman’s need to keep up an image because he’s never had an image to live up to, let alone anyone who'd look to him for inspiration. Whether Roman likes him or not doesn’t really matter to him, he doesn’t care about people who’ve made up their minds about him and are too set in certain ways of thinking.

Which is hypocrisy at its finest, but we’re not there yet.

Janus

Right off the bat, they do not get along. Which you might find kind of odd, considering they’re both under the umbrella of “dark side”. The truth is, they’re tentative colleagues at best. Hilariously Logan probably gets along with Janus better than Marcus does, and there are a couple very fair reasons behind this.

On the one hand, they both agree on doing things for the “self” (Which in their case is c!Thomas). They both agree that the self should be the most important person in one’s life, and will do whatever it takes to protect it. However, the biggest difference between them is the methods they go about doing so. And it’s here that Marcus’ righteous anger often clashes harshly with Janus’ need for self preservation. Marcus doesn’t lie, he doesn’t see the need to. If he wants something, he’ll do it. If he believes something, he’ll say it. He does it because he knows he’s right, and that’s what matters. Obviously this would cause a lot of problems in real life if you actually are that blunt 24/7, and in those cases Janus has to reign him in quite a bit.

Marcus is fundamentally reckless, brash, and prone to getting carried away if not kept in check, which makes him kind of a danger to Thomas’ wellbeing at times. The thing is, both of them are aware of this. Which is actually why Marcus isn’t as spiteful about stepping down as he could be. He knows that he can do more harm than good if he ever steps out of bounds. This won’t stop him from feeling like his input would infinitely accelerate certain debates, and on a personal level he does still feel like he has the right to fight for that recognition, but he doesn’t because he’s not dumb enough to actively cause harm to others for the sake of himself. It’s not what he wants. What he will and often does do however, is do things that end with him getting hurt in the end. Maybe the reason he disagrees with Janus so much is because his own sense of self preservation is surprisingly poor.

A mildly exaggerated analogy I like to think about is that: If under any circumstance the two of them would have to plot revenge, Janus would focus more on personal safety and Marcus would focus more on personal vindication. Marcus has zero qualms about actually throwing hands, no matter the resulting physical consequence (If his scars were any indication) which Janus would 100% be against. Imagine the consequences of a physical confrontation! Absolutely not. Snake man would prefer more subtle and manipulative tactics, and would probably prefer to frame someone without being implicated himself if possible. They usually compromise, but always butt heads one way or another.

In casual conversation, Marcus is more snarky to Janus than anything. They trade sarcastic remarks often and tend to be a lil snippy, but they often agree on similar points? But also insist that they don’t get along, which is pretty funny. Marcus calls Janus “Yellow” or “Snake”, and sometimes a few yellow flower names like “Tansy” or “Marigold”.

Remus

Would it come as a surprise if I said these two actually get along ok? Think about it: They’re both blunt, forthcoming with their ideas (As wild as Remus’ are), and are at times prone to violence. They’re both seen as “bad” and both have experienced being forcefully repressed one way or another. They kind of just vibe on a similar plane of existence if I’m honest with you. More than that however, both are relatively accepting of themselves, Remus more so than Marcus actually. There are some things Orange unfortunately still has to come to terms with.

On a casual level, they probably can do some pretty reckless and dumb things together. Marcus respects anybody with self confidence really, and the way Remus just owns being the garbage man he is definitely gets a pass in his book. It doesn’t mean they never disagree though. In a lot of ways, Marcus is still tied to logic, and Remus’ chaotic nature isn’t always suited to how he works. They conflict the most when it’s time to put the chips down and actually get things done. Remus totally does his best to bug the hell out of him too, much to his chagrin. He makes it pretty clear how he feels about it, but the duke isn’t fazed. Tackle the blind man, he dares you.

Marcus isn’t exactly good with creative input, it’s not his function. In fact, he himself is actually locked in a very specific type of world view from his experiences over the years. It’s not intentional, he just tends to grow irrational when he gets too heated. Sometimes he forgets to take his hand out of the fires that burn him, and it inevitably comes at a detriment to himself. Remus has the capacity to make him incredibly furious under bad circumstances, and if they aren’t careful he might actually act upon dangerous suggestions that Remus just casually suggests. If Remus is the voice behind intrusive thoughts, Marcus is the impulse that actually acts upon them. He won’t, obviously, but spite and anger can push people to do rash things. They both know better than that of course, but it’s a possibility that will never go away.

Marcus calls Remus “Green”, though he also refers to him by odd green things sometimes like “moss” or “seaweed”. I like to imagine the two of them going off and smashing up random things to blow off steam/just for fun. But that’s just me. u///u

---

If you’re still reading then thank you??? This is honestly more self indulgent than anything, but I just have way too much stuff I could talk about and it needs to go somewhere akjbefkaefk.

I shall talk about the rest in Part 2 perhaps. o///o

#I'm going in rainbow order but god I have so much to say ajbakefa #I don't even know if Im making sense #but here's part 1 of stuff I guess!#this is literally just how I am with every character I ever make #I think a lot and have nobody to say it to #if you'll allow me to indulge then I will o///o #I am so sorry for rambling but ily guys whether you read it or not u///u #sanders sides #orange side #mockdoodles #sanders sides doodles #Marcus

70 notes · View notes

emmys-grimoire · 4 years ago

Text

Cosmology blurb

Mulling over ideas for a fanfic series set in the Celestial Realm and realizing I may need to make some educated guesses about how things work. I figure I’d share my observations. Spoilers ahead.

I’m thinking the realms aren’t sandwiched/stratified on top of each other but are arranged more like this...

... if Lilith didn’t have to fall through the human realm to get to the Devildom and if the heavenly gates are accessible from the Devildom (implied when MC is transported there from the Devildom). There are obviously Celestial-Human and Devildom-Human access points in the story, too.

Traditionally, Heaven is upstairs and Hell is downstairs. But, while clearly inspired by these places, the Devildom is not actually Hell and the Celestial Realm is not actually Heaven. I mean, they’re not even named that.

They each have their own seperate skies with different constellations/celestial bodies (Devildom doesn’t have a sun and the other two realms do, and they have Belphie’s/Beel’s stars). Clearly the act of falling from the Celestial Realm to the Devildom is at least a metaphorical thing, but it’s implied to be literal, too.

I don’t think it matters a whole heckuvalot, but it’s interesting to think about.

Angel versus Devil society

Looking at what small details we have, the way these two realms have evolved and currently function is also very interesting.

The Devildom is a monarchy while the Celestial Realm may be an autocracy with a caste system (I think the Devildom probably does, too, just by the nature of feudalism but it may not be officially acknowledged). Previous Demon Kings have lived and died (there’s a tomb and a line of succession) while the Celestial Realm presumably remained ruled by the same entity throughout time.

That’s pretty interesting, too. Demon Kings are not immortal. Diavolo, however, is likely stronger than Lucifer -- it makes sense that he has to be if he’s actually meant to replace his father.

The Celestial Realm’s caste system has Luke at the lowest rank, some kind of middle or multiple ranks, and Michael at the top rank. Lucifer used to occupy the same rank alongside him.

Christian angelology has multiple very detailed and convoluted hierarchies regarding angels, and for that reason it's probably much more simplified in the game. It already deviates from the typical choir arrangement by having archangels be the top rank when they're normally near the bottom, and giving them the six wings of the seraphim (the top choir).

We're not given much insight as to whether or not angels are born into these ranks or if they ascend them through good works and valor in battle or something. Lucifer being so utterly flawless seems to suggest he was born with it, but Luke complaining about being in the lowest rank suggests that there may be some way for him to change that arrangement and it may simply be a consequence of his (lack of) age and experience. Simeon also mentioning Michael may be of higher rank but he's still "a normal angel" may also allude to that. It could be a variation, where everyone starts at the same level but Lucifer and Michael were specifically given a greater share of angelic power so they were meant to get to the top and that inevitably happened. Or maybe angels gain xp and levels in fights with the demons and they managed to become head and shoulders above the rest by being better gamers.

Also, the legion of angels.

A legion is a military or semimilitary unit. That is an interesting term to call what may also double as your governing body outside of daddy. The game mentions Michael was in charge of Mammon’s “training” before he was handed over to Lucifer, and well...

Michael is usually depicted and referred to as a protector and the leader of the army of God against the forces of evil, and it seems he reprises that role in this universe. Lucifer once did, too.

A fundamental part of “angel training” may revolve around warfare and training for it. We know the angels and demons have had a long, bloody history, but fighting doesn’t seem to be a part of RAD’s curriculum. The Celestial Realm may have changed it’s course now that they’ve entered a period of relative peace, but I’m not entirely sure.

So far the only in-game lore detail we have related to the actual fighting is the colosseum being destroyed in a battle before the creation of RAD, but it’s proof that the angels have invaded the Devildom at some point. It might have went vice-versa, too, and we simply haven’t observed it because we haven’t been in the Celestial Realm for more than two minutes.

In spite of all this, it doesn’t seem like angel society is wholly bad. It’s likely rigid and hierarchical, but it is also strangely communal. The brothers have all fostered close bonds with each other within the Celestial Realm -- not the Devildom -- and the angels in the story seem to maintain their positive opinion of Lucifer and his brothers in spite of him sparking a civil war and them now being demons. How the angels treat each other is also noteworthy: Simeon and Luke clearly love each other and have a healthy relationship, by all accounts Michael wholeheartedly supports Luke and gives him positive feedback, and in spite of Luke’s obvious (though changing) prejudice towards all things demon they’re comparatively even-keeled. They generally operate on the assumption that they should help each other and others and that’s a good thing.

They also seem to be onboard with the intent behind exchange program. Luke isn’t sent there to be a spy like Simeon probably was, because he’s pretty terrible at subterfuge.

A tacit admission that Luke’s perspective is one commonly held by the denizens of the Celestial Realm. Simeon points out that it’s not entirely bad, and I’m inclined to agree.

And also an acknowledgement that the thinking is flawed and they’re willing to make an effort to expand their horizons (considered a good thing). So something has changed, and it’s probably connected to... well... Lucifer and his brothers falling. Or the Celestial Realm just isn’t a monolith and there’s competing viewpoints even with how their society is structured. It’d be interesting to hear what the brothers thought about demons before they became demons themselves, and how they adjusted to that transformation (we get insight on how Lucifer viewed them via Glory Days, but that’s it.)

The Devildom, in contrast, uh... still has problems in this area outside of Diavolo.

This is disregarding all the soul devouring, torture, and casual murder that goes on between demons -- including the brothers. Diavolo is well regarded, but he’s also been unofficially in charge for quite awhile and it doesn’t appear he thinks this is a problem, even though he himself doesn’t treat his subjects poorly (as far as I know, anyway).

Which brings me to this...

There’s a reason he doesn’t really have any close bonds beyond Barbatos and Lucifer, in spite of being universally beloved. And I’m not sure how well he knows Barbatos, honestly. He’s isolated, and it’s not entirely related to his position; Lucifer has been in a high status position in both realms and doesn’t have this problem and never really did in spite of being prickly and anal-retentive af. There’s been quite a bit of commentary in these lessons about how he’s changed and may be reverting back to his angelic tendencies, with Barbatos implying that while it may be good for him and his family, it may not be what’s best for the Devildom... and I think that’s a mindset carried over from his tenure serving under Diavolo’s dad and helping enforce the current state of the Devildom for a specific purpose. MC somehow turning Lucifer and his brothers back into good people (or better people, at least), and Diavolo being envious of their closeness, may interfere with that: the demons around them may start getting ideas, and Diavolo may make more changes.

So not all is well in the Devildom, either, and Diavolo may not be cognizant of how or why. While the Celestial Realm may be a militant society with authoritarian impulses and bigotry, the Devildom sounds like a corrupt monarchy with a dog-eat-dog world underneath that makes trust and love liabilities to survival and keeps the peasants where they are forever. It’s simply another brand of dysfunction.

Hoomans and MC

The Human Realm is probably meant to be some kind of middleground in the dark/bad - light/good spectrum, with its inhabitants having no impulses skewed one way or the other and thus possessing the ability to slide back and forth.

Demons interact with the human world via being summoned, pacts, or simply travelling there. Manipulating them and preying on them involves magical speechcraft. The angels aren’t allowed to reveal their angel forms to humans, travel there without permission (though it seems the punishment for this wasn’t enough to deter Belphie/Beel/Lilith/Mammon), or magically extend their lifespans -- it seems they prefer to meddle in their affairs indirectly, and revolves around shepherding them towards certain (presumably good) decisions. Ironically enough, Michael himself seems to violate these tenets with Solomon, who is evidently aware of who gave him the demon-controlling ring and was invited to chill with him in the Celestial Realm. It’s do as I say but not as I do, apparently.

The game seems to imply that it’s possible that MC inherited Lilith’s angelic tendencies/abilities/memories/whatever after the big reveal, which makes me think she may not have turned into a demon before she was reborn. There’s no reason to think she would have retained her angelic abilities as a demon when her brothers haven’t -- she presumably would have lost them before being reborn, if she was turned into a demon first. Diavolo might have just skipped that step altogether for simplicity’s sake.

But she did technically fall, so ???? Maybe it’s just literally falling from the sky.

tl;dr version: they’re all fucked up and the exchange program is a good way for them to try to get their shit together. And I like how it’s set up.

#obey me #obey me!#obey me spoilers #obey me celestial realm #obey me devildom #obey me angels #obey me demons #obey me cosmology #obey me theories #theories #analysis #lore #theory

54 notes · View notes

script-a-world · 5 years ago

Note

How do I create species in depth but have little understanding of biology? Which parts are more fundamental or at least fundamental to what I'm focusing on. I most certainly want to highlight different organs and body functions as well as skeletons. I find researching biology very difficult, even at basic ideas I get so confused.

Tex: We don’t know what you don’t know - organs, body functions, and skeletons are some fundamental things to know, so that’s good to hear from you because that helps lay down starting points for research.

Rather unfortunately, successful worldbuilding in a given subject requires a solid understanding of the basic topics therein, because otherwise your internal consistency is thrown off and creates plot holes which can be difficult to patch. Any sort of checklist would be useless, then, because lack of background in the subject, no matter how casual, would make the list look like gibberish as soon as you have the slightest problem or question about it.

I’m going to err on the side of caution and start with recommending this book: “CK-12 Life Science Concepts For Middle School” for a few reasons. One is that it’s interactive, in that review questions pop up on the side while you’re reading - this will help direct you to understanding what the pertinent topics are, as well as acting as a study tool. Another reason is that their “Resources” tab has a lot of PDFs for answering the questions posed within the book - this is a good method to help reinforce knowledge and reduce any anxiety surrounding learning new subjects.

Lastly, if you find that you like how information is presented in this book, there’s more in the series! That link directs you to middle school level texts, but the homepage does offer some variability in grade levels (mostly downward, but it does make for engaging reviewing of fundamental concepts in many subjects).

CK-12 also has something called a “PLIX series”, which offers interactive ways to learn many of the subjects presented in their textbooks. Here is the link for their biology section. There’s a lot to pick from!

If you feel you’ve either already mastered this level, or picked up the topics well, then there’s this higher-level textbook to read (PDF). It has more complex language, and isn’t as interactive, but the upside of it is that you can easily copy down the terms you don’t know and make a study guide of it. It’s at this point familiarity with chemistry is crucial, however, so if you’re weak in that area, I would recommend repeating the same steps with chemistry as I outlined with biology.

Once you have a good foundation in the subject, researching is much easier - this is mostly because you’ll have a set of keywords already trained into your mind, which will help immensely in fine-tuning your searches. At the very least, it will help make reading the nearly inevitable Wikipedia pages a lot easier to comprehend.

Constablewrites: There’s always the team-up. It doesn’t even have to be a full-fledged co-author--I had to have my characters infiltrate a fortress and I’m not much on strategy, but I have a friend who is, and I’d already talked to him about some of the fundamentals of my setting. So I bought him dinner and laid out the situation and the resources the characters had, and we worked out a basic plan of attack. Granted, such friends can be rare and valuable diamonds. But if you know someone who groks the subject better than you do, get with them and pick their brain.

(Also, I’m a little curious why you want to focus so much on their biology when you find that subject so difficult. Usually a writer’s focus in SFF reflects their own interests and areas of expertise. There are plenty of stories out there with species that are biologically… questionable that are still good stories. So if it’s just that you want to create a somewhat plausible and interesting species, don’t feel like you have to be able to build one in the lab.)

Brainstormed: Here’s the starting question: what do you want this species to do? Fly, swim, sculpt, hunt, etc, what is their niche? Maybe there’s a few cool traits you want them to have. From there, do some research on real creatures that fill that niche, and study the anatomy that makes this possible. I find nature documentaries and, interestingly enough, anatomical oddity or vulture culture communities to be particularly useful for this if you’re intimidated by a source that uses mostly academic language like Wikipedia.

Birds can fly? Look at their wings. Look at the different types of wings and how their shapes affect their flight style. Look at how their respiratory system works (it’s pretty funky, let me tell you). Look at all the little ways they’ve adapted to streamline their bodies and lose weight to make flying easier, for instance, hollow bones with interior scaffolding for strength. Look at what diet is necessary to maintain the energy output for flight. Look at how their digestive systems adapted to that kind of diet.

It may seem like a dizzying list of questions, but I think of it more as a rabbit hole. Once you start with the first few, you find yourself with a dozen more. Just keep asking “how” and “why”, and look at multiple species within the same niche to get a variety of biological traits. Base your species off of what you’ve learned! Pick and choose the things you like and what makes sense to you. If you feel like you have a good grasp of it, you can even try figuring out how two completely different sets of organs or skeletal structures might blend together. It’s incredibly difficult and arguably impossible to write something completely new, because everything we know comes from what’s around us. Using existing biology to create a species is your best bet for solid, believable specbio.

To some degree, you can cheat and just copy-paste the cool bits from what you see. There are plenty, seriously plenty, of good stories with unrealistic or even unbelievable species design, as Constable said. But if you do end up throwing a bunch of disparate parts together in a jumble, it may not make much sense by the time you’re done. If you have a poor understanding of biology right now, you can either try what Tex recommended and study some general biology (which I also recommend), or try jumping in at a specific point of interest. If you want to learn about wings, start with wings, and then branch out into related biology from there. All of biology is an interconnected web, and one organ, skeletal structure, muscle group, or bodily function exists in relation to all the others. Maybe a starting point of a particular piece of anatomy can help get you started. The degree of realism is up to you, but getting at least comfortable with what it is that you’re writing should help you a lot.

#pylons #biology #Anonymous

57 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 4 years ago

Text

Shadow and Bone Review: Netflix Adaptation Brings the Magic

https://ift.tt/3n43xxx

This Shadow and Bone review contains no spoilers.

Millions of readers worldwide love young adult fantasy fiction, but even the most wildly popular titles—Sarah J. Maas’s Throne of Glass series, Cassandra Clare’s Shadowhunters books, Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games trilogy, and many more—are generally written off as “guilty pleasure” escapism, shallow, meaningless stories for people who just aren’t ready to take real literature seriously. (Barf.)

Part of this reaction likely stems from the widespread public backlash to the few young adult fantasy series to gain mainstream popularity, like the Twilight saga or the aforementioned Hunger Games. But, in truth, the dismissive attitude toward these stories most often feels like straight-up misogyny. After all, this is a genre that not only tends to be most openly appreciated by women but also one that unabashedly centers complex female characters in its stories. Often several of them at the same time!

Therefore, the arrival of Netflix’s Shadow and Bone is exciting enough for its own sake: It’s a propulsive story with great characters set in a fascinating, fully realized fantasy world. But it’s also something of a statement: That this sort of fiction—and the women who both champion and most frequently star in it—have an important place in the world of genre storytelling. And, thankfully, this is a series that more than lives up to the pre-release hype.

Leigh Bardugo’s bestselling Grishaverse novels are full of the sorts of details that tend to make for great fantasy television at its most basic level. There’s a war-torn kingdom battling both foreign enemies and an ever-expanding literal darkness, a complex system of magic that both empowers and alienates those who possess it from the bulk of society, and a girl looking for a place to belong who must ultimately claim her own power. (Quite literally in this case.)

Shadow and Bone: Why Netflix Cast Its Fantasy Adaptation With Relative Unknowns

By Kayti Burt

Books

Twilight: What Was The Deal With Jacob and Renesmee?

By Nicole Hill

In the kingdom of Ravka, elite magical soldiers known as Grisha can manipulate matter at its most fundamental levels, allowing their orders to control specific elements like fire (Inferni) and water (Tidemakers), solid objects like metal or textiles (Durasts), and even various aspects of the human body (Healers and Heartrenders). The primary story of Shadow and Bone follows Alina Starkov (Jessie Mei Li), an orphaned soldier and map maker whose mixed-race heritage has often left her feeling out of place in the only country she’s ever known. (The decision to complicate Alina’s racial background is one made specifically for the Netflix series, by the way, and it’s a great choice.) But when her childhood best friend Malyen Oretsev (Archie Renaux) is named as part of a military unit ordered to cross the deadly Shadow Fold —literally a giant wall of darkness full of monsters that’s hundreds of miles wide—she unleashes a power she never realized she herself possessed. Alina, you see, is not just a Grisha, but a legendary Sun Summoner, whose powerful light-based magic could destroy the Fold forever.

Whisked off by the mysterious General Kirigan (Ben Barnes), the commander of Ravka’s Second Army—a.k.a. the one with all the Grisha in it—to learn to use her newfound abilities, Alina finds herself separated from Mal and everything she’s ever known. Thrust into a world she doesn’t understand and with powers she can’t entirely control, Alina will have to decide whether to trust Kirigan, with his equally rare shadow-based abilities and promises that they can change the world together.

The Netflix drama actually combines two of Bardugo’s book series into one—the fantasy adventure trilogy also titled Shadow and Bone, from which this adaptation takes its name and the bulk of its plot, and the more heist-oriented duology called Six of Crows. Since the latter technically takes place several years after the former, chronologically speaking, the Netflix series invents a prequel plot for key Six of Crows characters Kaz Brekker (Freddy Carter), Inej Ghafa (Amita Suman), Jesper Fahey (Kit Young), and Nina Zenik (Danielle Galligan) that ties them all more firmly into the main Shadow and Bone story.

If you’ve read Bardugo’s books, your mileage is likely to vary on how you feel about this choice. For the most part, it works, even if it takes several episodes for the Crows crew to feel like they aren’t having a completely different adventure on a totally different show. Jesper and Inej particularly benefit from the additional backstory provided here, and Galligan’s Nina is every inch as delightful as anyone might have hoped. Viewers who have not read Six of Crows may struggle to understand precisely what motivates Kaz, but his complicated relationship with Inej is almost compelling enough to make up for it.

In fact, one of the most striking elements of Shadow and Bone is the care it takes with all its central relationships—potentially romantic or otherwise. One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at popular YA fiction is that their stories are often flimsy excuses to create love triangles for fans to fight over. (See also: Gale/Katniss/Peeta, Edward/Bella/Jacob, etc.) But this series actually goes above and beyond in this department, adding a depth and nuance to Alina’s relationship with Mal that isn’t always present in the novel—and has nothing to do with romance. (Though, reader, I ship it a lot.) That same care and thoughtfulness is applied to pairings throughout the show’s canvas, and it’s truly wonderful to see.

Netflix has also clearly spared no expense in its creation of Bardugo’s fictional world, from the dense, crowded streets of Ketterdam to the magic-filled training grounds of Os Alta’s Little Palace. This is a universe that not only feels carefully thought out but fully lived in. Sure, Shadow and Bone might have done a better job of explaining the specifics about how these locations all relate to one another (Kerch is actually a separate country! West Ravka is not!) but it’s hard to be but so angry at something that generally feels like the pages of a beloved story come to life.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

It’s true, Shadow and Bone is not a perfect adaptation of Bardugo’s novels. Several important secondary characters barely seem to merit a mention onscreen here (sorry, David Kostyk), and the rushed sequences at the Little Palace generally leave most of the secondary Grisha and their abilities feeling sadly interchangeable. And the series doesn’t always do the greatest job explaining the basics of Grisha life for casual viewers—I’m not sure it ever really spells out the differences between the various orders, nor does it go into tremendous depth about why things like Morozova’s stag exist. Yet, as a whole, the series feels often feels downright magical, a thrilling adventure that always remains firmly anchored in the story of the complex heroine at its center. Bring on Siege and Storm.

The post Shadow and Bone Review: Netflix Adaptation Brings the Magic appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3apIb8M

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

2 notes · View notes

f-nodragonart · 4 years ago

Text

Worldbuilding, briefly

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I approach worldbuilding in my own work, and how worldbuilding appears in the media that I admire, and just want to share some thoughts

so, y’know how lot of writers admit that it feels like their characters end up writing themselves? hijacking the creators’ brains and acting out their own lives? I feel the same can be said for settings, if they’re given the chance to breathe freely

suffice to say, a setting should feel dynamic-- a living, changing thing that affects (and is affected by) characters/plot/etc., and has solid internal logic. I think the two central concepts which make for good worldbuilding, in this respect, are:

a sense of history

holistic integration with all other story elements

History

when a setting only exists in the present moment, it comes off flat and static-- merely a cardboard set-piece that could fall over at a gust of too-strong wind (or critical thought). settings need history to feel vibrant and alive, just as any individual character needs history to inform their actions and beliefs

essentially, good worldbuilding answers the question of, “How did we get here?”

in practice, having a sense of history helps a great deal in predicting and designing how a setting looks at the present. think of it like following branching pathways back to the source-- the main divergence(s) from real-life. as humans living on planet Earth in our particular sociocultural environments, whatever we create will automatically borrow from what we’re familiar with, so it helps to track down where we may be subconsciously starting at. once we find that initial divergence, it’s a simple matter of following logical stepping-stones from that source, up to the present point

thus, you can break the broad question of, “How did we get here?” down into smaller, more manageable chunks by carefully tracking along a path of history

some examples of what I’m talking about here:

need an explanation for the current geopolitical climate? trace back the basic history of all the countries in question, follow it back to basic sources (fighting over resources/territory, power/ideological struggles, etc.), to figure out why the geopolitical landscape looks as it does today. want to figure out how a particular culture came to their current beliefs/practices? look back to the history of their land-- what resources do they use, what ecological cycles impact them, how much cultural overlap do they have with their neighbors, and how does this impact what they most cherish in themselves and others? want to figure out how/why a creature exists in your world? map their evolutionary taxonomy and ecological relationships back to a point that connects to the other creatures on your planet-- where exactly did they “start” out and what pushed them to evolve the way the did?

most of these sub-questions will likely never be directly answered in your story, and you don’t even need to have detailed answers for most of them. but trust me when I say that YOU knowing the answers (even answers that you may consider broad and simple) will affect how you craft the present setting and its sense of history

of course, the level of divergence from real-life will impact how much reworking a given setting needs in order to feel self-sustaining and whole. a world where political history diverges from real-life only a few years previous is going to have different needs than a story whose very life-forms are built on different molecular structures than Earth life, for example. it can be intimidating in some cases, but if you’re willing to put in the work and research for it, you can make some pretty incredible discoveries

Holistic Integration

I’ll fully admit, Folding Ideas’ video on Ludonarrative Dissonance is what rly got me thinking abt this topic (and more deeply abt my own thoughts on stylistic/tonal consistency). his central idea about how we can approach story elements as separate or integrated rly clarified some of my vague opinions/feelings on certain media

essentially, worldbuilding shouldn’t be treated as separate from other story elements like plot and themes, if you want it to work holistically in your world. otherwise, your worldbuilding may start telling a different story from the plot/themes/etc. you’re consciously trying to craft. in fact, I’ll even argue that it’s impossible to treat worldbuilding separately, on a fundamental level

let me focus specifically on themes for a moment when I say, humans don’t create objectively. we don’t craft worlds or stories without automatically inserting our own beliefs and ideas into the settings. to say that a setting is free of theme in particular is highly arrogant, imo, and a sign that the creator likely thinks their own views are simply the “norm”. a magic system will reflect a creator’s views on souls and energy and existence; creature designs will reveal the aesthetic and types of animals a creator gravitates towards; various political systems will reflect a creator’s background and assumptions about the power/morality of said systems

in this way, I think it’s downright impossible to craft a world without themes in the first place. so it just makes sense to recognize and lean into that, while crafting the more deliberate themes of a story

but even if we do assume, for sake of argument, that worlds COULD be crafted objectively, I just don’t understand why they would? why/how a world functions the way it does will affect the ways characters move through that world, and how they experience their arcs and subsequent themes. like, it’s genuinely baffling for me to imagine crafting a story without every element organically weaving into and affecting one another, it just doesn’t feel like it would even work

because when an element of the story doesn’t exist in service of the other elements around it, that element becomes a useless distraction rather than an asset. folks complain all the time about useless characters-- people that take up precious screentime without moving any other element (plot, character arcs, tone, etc.) forward. yet the same can absolutely be said for settings-- settings which just exist as spaces to set characters while they experience a plot, separate from that given setting. when these settings don’t touch any other element of the story in any meaningful way (or vis-versa), they become distracting and useless, and ultimately destabilize/undermine the other elements

like, when we’re told a setting is rough and dangerous, but the characters that live there don’t act like it (no street smarts, no sense of caution towards their environment, no sense of where they are and how to get where they need to quickly--), it undermines the reliability of the characters’ personalities/arcs. when we’re told a setting is full of casual magic which affects everything, yet we’re shown a 1:1 picture of real life with no sign of how people using magic, how tech may integrate with magic, how magic affects aesthetic or history, it distracts from and undermines the fantasy/escapism. when we’re explicitly told that a story’s themes center around defying expectations/roles, yet the setting we’re supposed to root for only reinforces pre-defined roles and rules, it completely undermines any of the deliberate themes the creator intends. when we’re following a plot through various environments meant to showcase the variety of culture and aesthetic a world has cultivated, but we’re merely shown variations on a very similar theme, it’s distracting and boring

worldbuilding should not feel like a dissonant piece from other story elements. worldbuilding should harmonize with and enhance all other story elements, and those elements in turn should enhance the worldbuilding. while it absolutely is useful to tackle or talk about certain elements separately (I mean, I am taking a whole post to discuss worldbuilding, specifically), ultimately a good story is a whole whose parts can’t be fully removed from one another

Internal Logic

you may be wondering why I have yet to make any real mention of “logic” up to this point, since that’s how most folks analyze worldbuilding. hell, even I usually judge worlds based on how well they stick to their “internal logic”. but I think focusing on a vague sense of “logic” puts the cart before the horse, so to speak

if you don’t know the history of a particular setting, how can you track any cultural/political/etc. logic to its source? to say that logic “pre-establishes” certain rules is to admit that there is a sense of history there in the first place, thus specific events preceding the present text which explain why the present exists as it does. like, the big bang is a historical event that’s set up the logic of our entire universe, the same way a war sets up the political logic of a nation going forward. thus, history precedes logic

but before history can set precedents in worldbuilding, it’s really the other story elements which decide what history is important enough to establish in the first place. a story whose themes center around biological imperatives and ecology will need worldbuilding with a strong biological history; a story whose plot centers on political intrigue will need a world with a strong political history; a story with characters ranging across all different cultures will need to establish history for those cultures, etc. you aren’t obligated to establish the history of every single aspect of a setting, merely the parts that are actually relevant to the rest of the narrative in some way

this is how the internal logic of a story is established: by knowing exactly what history needs to be established to enhance the other story elements. logic should organically follow, once you have a strong grasp of history and holistic integration

-Mod Spiral

#worldbuilding #mod spiral #me: *holds worldbuilding/lore/specevo* I just think it's neat :)

6 notes · View notes

radiantresplendence · 5 years ago

Text

The Case for Blue Mage Naminé

So, I was talking with @acclerated-railgun the other day and the topic of Naminé as a playable character or party member in Kingdom Hearts games post-KH3 came up, specifically in the context of what role she would fill. A classic Black or White Mage, as well as a Red Mage role were quickly put out as possibilities, but I landed in a much more interesting place after some thought: The Blue Mage.

Consider a typical Blue Mage (using the official art from FFXIV for reference)...

Nobodies in Kingdom Hearts are based off of Final Fantasy character classes; it would stand to reason that Naminé would be no different. However, I think that the role a Blue Mage could fill would fit her character as well as a role that the characters thus far in the series are missing. In other words, it would ensure that Naminé maintains her motif of of quirks that set her apart from the rest of the cast without alienating herself as well as providing unique boons useful to the player or players.

At its simplest, a Blue Mage is a wizard who specializes in replicating the otherwise exclusive arts that bosses or monsters can use. Most often, it’s called the Blue Mage, but occasionally the Final Fantasy series calls it something different like the Gun Mage or the Bravely games’ Vampire or Catmancer jobs. Either way, even if less prevalent than its red cousin, it’s still a classically-recurring class in the series.

This fits Naminé due to her status as a “Special Nobody” and a “witch with power over Sora's memories and those around him.” Essentially, she’s all but guaranteed to have potent spellcasting abilities and she’s a unique specimen of the monsters of nothingness that make up a significant portion of the series’ enemies and bosses. Naminé having the ability to utilize the moves of some of her Nobody kin as well as possibly those of some of the other monsters in the setting shouldn’t be out of the question, as fundamentally she is one of those monsters, and an exceptional specimen among exceptional specimens of those creatures at that. After all, she is the Nobody of a Princess of Heart, something which shouldn’t normally be possible on top of being limited in the number of original selves who can even fit that criteria, not to mention the fact that she is a greater Nobody, able to keep a human form while most of her kind just turn into monsters subservient to their greater kin.

Keeping in line with her unique memory witchcraft, a Blue Mage Naminé would have normally unique spells like White Wind for healing instead of a more typical Cure and Flamethrower instead of Fire. She could also use the Blue Mage’s Learn ability to replicate special (but not ultimate or desperation) moves from bosses or some of the other characters in the game. For example, she could learn Meteorain from Cloud, but not Omnislash or Riku’s multi-Dark Firaga move that he uses in KH2 and KH3. A more standard enemy attack that she could possibly make frequent use of would be Xemnas’s thorns of nothingness that he fires as projectiles. Think of them operating as a ranged basic attack, kind of like a slower-rate, piercing variant of arrowguns with a combo finisher that spawns multiple lines of thorns around whatever she’s targeting which collapse onto the target in an attempt to juggle it into the air or something. Or you could give her a keyblade, but I personally find that a little less appealing. Protect smile, keep best witch unique. (Maybe instead of a weapon have her equip different art sets that changes her mood and thus the manifestation of her powers. It’s a good idea, if a bit of an afterthought that I had while writing this.)

From a more general gameplay perspective, give her spells that inflict some of the weirder status effects that the series uses inconsistently, like blind, sleep, stunned, burned, poisoned, etc. Damage over time effects could scale based on percent of a full health bar and her level instead of base stats to keep her competitive casually, and the damage over time would function well in level 1 higher difficulty runs. (For example, a flamethrower spell would deal fire damage based on her magic stat and then burn for 1+[her level divided by 10] percent of a health bar rounded up per tick for so many seconds. Obviously this could be further refined, but a level 99 Naminé’s damage over time from a spell could chunk pretty considerably while a level 1 Naminé would be incentivized to keep her effect up at all times, because each instance would be like a quarter of a health bar or more in exchange for 1 spell.)

To make her healing distinct as well, maybe give her a spell that provides slow healing over time like cura did in 358 Days/2 that could also provide temporary immunity to status conditions, with a possible downside being that she lacks something like a curaga that can revive downed allies and restore everyone to full HP in one spell. Or limit her healing to a more standard White Wind for multi target healing and status condition removal and Angel Whisper that gives moderate single target healing plus a temporary protection against dying like a Kupo Coin or raises a downed target with half health. White Wind could require a channel to cast and Angel Whisper could require being very close to the target for balancing as well as appropriate flavor.

Now for the important bit, the redesign.

Naminé has had the same design since her introduction: largely plain white dress, patterned trim at the hem and sandals. I think, to a point, her look is iconic, but does need an update. To emphasize her status as Blue Mage and connection to water, I would give her dress some baby blue trim, possibly with a gradient from white to blue. I’ve noticed that there aren’t many girls in the series wearing stockings, despite being a clearly anime-inspired game, so I’d consider a pair that is light grey or off-white to show that she originated as a creature of nothingness rather than light or dark. I’d give her grey boots to coincide with most of the other girls in the series having boots or moving from shoes to boots as the series progresses.

I would also give her a blue jacket with black lining that she wears open, giving her more going on in the torso of her design to balance out the additions that I made to the lower part of her outfit. The goal would be to have the contrast between the black lining of the coat and the white of her dress catch the attention of the player. The general gradient of the outfit would go from bold and dynamic contrast up top to a more subtle color transition at the bottom. Generally speaking I’d aim to transition her image color from “white” to “white and blue” while making her design pop a little more.

For design changes of her head, I’d give her slightly longer hair and a bit more mature facial structure. Its been a year between the end of KH3 and Limitcut Episode, and she’s a teenager growing up in a RPG, so she’s grown out her hair with the intention of distancing her look from that reminiscent of Kairi. She is a different person from her original self after all and her look should assert that. Where Kairi’s KH3 look is over-the-top cute with a hint of a tomboyish aftertaste, I’d like Naminé‘s to be more distinctly feminine and cool with a conventionally Square Enix flavor. If more Kingdom Hearts characters wore hats, I’d even top it off with a navy blue witch’s hat. I go back and forth on that though, so maybe just in certain worlds conducive to headwear like Pirates of the Caribbean and Halloween Town. The series designs since KH1 have always had a bit of an overdesigned flavor, so I hope I mostly channeled that.

Anyways... Naminé should really be a Blue Mage. I think it’d work really well and I really think that after how much of an afterthought she was in KH3 that she gets a little more respect in future games. Also I’d really like her to be a party member. It’d be really nice to see her actually be a member of the group with her friends in more than just the game’s ending cutscene.

#kingdom hearts #kingdom hearts 3 #kingdom hearts remind #naminé #thank naminé #namine #blue mage #thank namine #kingdom hearts chain of memories #final fantasy #keyblade #creative writing #not necessarily creative writing but this is how i tag things to keep it organized #disney #pirates of the caribbean #final fantasy xiv #square enix #monster girl

45 notes · View notes

vinayakgupta1 · 4 years ago

Text

Grammarly Review 2021

Do you feel humiliated when anybody calls attention to any error in your works? Do you realize how to talk and compose wonderful English?

Is it true that you are confused about whether your content is ideal for distributing on an online stage? On the off chance that you are additionally one of the individuals who consider such inquiries, you should realize a valuable device to take care of every one of your issues.

In this review, we will examine the Grammarly Review 2021 in detail. A huge number of individuals are utilizing this application to alter, right, and improve their compositions so it looks proficient.

Anybody can utilize this application on various stages to get the ideal composing style without committing any errors. On the off chance that you are bad or conversant in English, this device likewise gives fabulous ideas that will improve your language and defeat every one of the linguistic issues.

Overview Of Grammarly

You can find out about this application by its name. It is an awesome instrument that assists you with looking at and editing your substance or text.

This application checks everything, which makes it amazing in language, spelling, accentuation, and substantially more. There are different choices in dialects to set your data in a particular language. In the event that you are uninformed of strategies to compose amazing English, you can utilize it.

You can test any content like formal or casual letters, visits, news, expositions, web journals, articles, research papers, messages, or other expert substance. This stage offers different progress capacities to check and address your content to make it blunder free.

Highlights Of Grammarly

Release us through some energizing highlights of this stage that you should think about this application.

Language structure Mistakes: When you check your content utilizing this instrument, it calls attention to all the punctuation and syntax issues. It can likewise distinguish excess words, dynamic and detached voice, sentence section, subject-action word arrangement, and so forth It gives the best idea to make your substance Grammarly right. On the off chance that you need to know the purposes behind the issues, you can likewise check how your composing disregards English language rules.

Changes in Punctuation: Sometimes, we miss full stops, commas, illustrative imprints, and substantially more, which needs accentuation in our substance. It is hard to feel the feeling of the composition on the off chance that we miss such things. This device is very useful in giving ideas any place accentuations are absent.

Checking of Spellings: When we type rapidly, in some cases we compose the erroneous spelling of a word. Some of the time, it is trying to recall intense spellings. This application works extraordinary in light of the fact that it likewise checks your spellings and remedies them consequently.

Distinguishing Plagiarism: It is important to check the guile of SEO, site, and writing for a blog content. We as a whole take data from different web sources, and it is an absolute necessity to check if it is something very similar or copy sentences.

Improvement in Vocabulary: If you rehash a similar word more than once and, it doesn't look great. It is fundamental to supplant those words with different words to give a similar significance to the sentence. The application gives each jargon idea that is needed in your substance.

Check Your Writing Style: There is an alternate style for each kind of substance. The device helps in understanding your style and makes it right. It checks what is absent in your substance and gives ideas to better composition.

Get Score for Readability: When you utilize this product, you will know how simple or troublesome your substance is for perusers. You can get a score out of 100. You need to accomplish high scores to improve it clear for a wide range of perusers.

Advantages and disadvantages Of Grammarly

Advantages

Redresses: It is an awesome editor to identify and address every one of the issues. In the event that you are composing a letter to your chief, it ought to be proficient and mistake free. You can utilize this application to set up an ideal letter or other substance. In each business, content is fundamental, which can be proficient just when you utilize a helpful apparatus to make every one of the redresses.

Give Explanations and Insights: The application is ideal for fixing and cleaning the punctuation botches and giving responses to such issues. You can get different ideas and tips to improve your substance and cause it to compose in an unexpected way. It isn't obligatory to have great information and aptitude in English to comprehend ideas for your slip-ups. You can without much of a stretch comprehend things that aren't right in your content.

Content Optimization: It is not difficult to set your objectives and enhance your content consummately. There is an element in this device that helps in defining up your objectives. You can chip away at different boundaries like focused on perusers, conditioning and styling of text, purpose, and substantially more. You can undoubtedly decide if your composing is meeting its motivation or not. Grammarly helps in giving ideas to alter punctuation and sentences as wanted.

Simple to Use: Grammarly is an easy to-utilize apparatus with easy to use interface and functionalities. There is no should be a PC master to work this application. Anybody can comprehend this instrument and check their limitless substance.

Viable on Different Platforms: This computerized language structure checker device is an astonishing exhaustive application that is flexible and viable. You can utilize Grammarly module on any online stage just as on any gadget. It very well may be MS Word, PCs, cell phones, Google Chrome, and so forth

Precision: This product can identify and address botches precisely. It is straightforward your missteps by understanding clarifications and remedying them through ideas. The precision is one of the compelling motivations to choose Grammarly.

Disadvantages

Doesn't Test Everything: If you use Google Docs to compose content, Grammarly doesn't viably deal with it. At the point when you empower the augmentation, it can check spellings, syntax issues, language, and so forth, however don't recognize copy words and other progressed parts. The Beta-testing in Grammarly isn't yet accessible for Google Docs, and you need to sit tight for quite a while to empower that include.

Limites Features in Free Version: You can utilize Grammarly's free form, yet it accompanies restricted highlights. You can address punctuation issues yet can't right commitment, clearness, and different issues. In the Premium variant, you can distinguish and address every one of the issues that is impossible in the free form. You should buy the exceptional variant to appreciate every one of the highlights.

Incredible Advertisements: Grammarly promotes their exceptional rendition so that anybody can get it. There are a predetermined number of highlights in the free form, and you need to spend more to get to them all. Anybody that logins the application can get messages and spam advertisements to change to the exceptional form.

Misdirecting Content Suggestions: Sometimes, you can get off-base ideas in the event that you test any substance utilizing Grammarly. It is important to go through tips cautiously prior to adjusting your substance.

Conclusion

In our Grammarly review, we have examined this application in detail. Presently, you find out about how you can make your substance connecting with, linguistically right, and liberated from counterfeiting.

Numerous individuals think about utilizing this instrument, yet they are unconscious of their high level highlights and how it can help them become great scholars.

It is important to go through the application totally to know each element of it. Numerous devices are accessible that work correspondingly to Grammarly, however they are valuable instruments that one should attempt to test their substance.

In the wake of perusing this article, you know about the upsides and downsides of the product. Check what your prerequisites are and get the ideal arrangement.

Utilizing this device, you can improve your abilities and set yourself up for better works. Assuming you need to develop your business, it is one of the vital devices. Think about Grammarly to distinguish and address every one of the potential slip-ups and win the hearts of your focused on crowd.

#Grammarly Review

1 note · View note

uxuifromzerotowow · 4 years ago

Text

The 4 Golden Rules of UI Design by Nick Babich

The user interface (UI) is a critical part of any software product. When it’s done well, users don’t even notice it. When it’s done poorly, users can’t get past it to efficiently use a product. To increase the chances of success when creating user interfaces, most designers follow interface design principles. Interface design principles represent high-level concepts that are used to guide software design. In this article, I’ll share a few fundamental principles. These are based on Jakob Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics for UI Design, Ben Shneiderman’s The Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design, and Bruce Tognazzini’s Principles of Interaction Design. Most of the principles are applicable to any interactive systems — traditional GUI environments (such as desktop and mobile apps, websites) and non-GUI interfaces (such as voice-based interaction systems).

The UI design principals are:

Place users in control of the interface

Make it comfortable to interact with a product

Reduce cognitive load

Make user interfaces consistent

1. Place users in control of the interface

Good UI s instill a sense of control in their users. Keeping users in control makes them comfortable; they will learn quickly and gain a fast sense of mastery.Make actions reversible – be forgivingThis rule means that the user should always be able to quickly backtrack whatever they are doing. This allows users to explore the product without the constant fear of failure — when a user knows that errors can be easily undone, this encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. On the contrary, if a user has to be extremely careful with every action they take, it leads to a slower exploration and nerve-racking experience that no one wants.Perhaps the most common GUIs where users have the ‘Undo/Redo’ option are text and graphics editors. While writing text or creating graphics, ‘Undo’ lets users make changes and go back step-by-step through changes that were made. ‘Redo’ lets users undo the undo, which means that once they go back a few steps, they are able to move forward through their changes again.‘Undo’ can be extremely helpful when users choose system function by mistake. In this case, the undo function serves as an ’emergency exit,’ allowing users to leave the unwanted state. One good example of such emergency exits is Gmail’s notification message with an undo option when users accidentally delete an email.

Create an easy-to-navigate interface

Navigation should always be clear and self-evident. Users should be able to enjoy exploring the interface of any software product. Even complex B2B products full of features shouldn’t intimidate users so that they are afraid to press a button. Good UI puts users in their comfort zone by providing some context of where they are, where they’ve been, and where they can go next:

Provide visual cues. Visual cues serve as reminders for users. Allow users to navigate easily through the interface by providing points of reference as they move through a product interface. Page titles, highlights for currently selected navigation options, and other visual aids give users an immediate view of where they are in the interface. A user should never be wondering, “Where am I?” or “How did I get to this screen?”

Predictability. Users should be provided with cues that help them predict the result of an action. A user should never be wondering, “What do I need to press in order to do my task?” or “What is this button for?”

Provide informative feedback – be acknowledging

Feedback is typically associated with points of action — for every user action, the system should show a meaningful, clear reaction. A system with feedback for every action helps users achieve their goals without friction.

UI design should consider the nature of interaction. For frequent actions, the response can be modest. For example, when users interact with an interactive object (such as a button), it’s essential to provide some indication that an action has been acknowledged. This might be something as simple as a button changing color when pressed (the change notifies the user of the interaction). The lack of such feedback forces users to double-check to see if their intended actions have been performed.

Show the visibility of system status

Users are much more forgiving when they have information about what is going on and are given periodic feedback about the status of the process. Visibility of system status is essential when users initiate an action that takes some time for a computer to complete. Users don’t like to be left seeing nothing on the device screen while the app is supposed to be doing something. The use of progress indicators is one of the subtle aspects of UI design that has a tremendous impact on the comfort and enjoyment of users.

Accommodate users with different skill levels

Users of different skill levels should be able to interact with a product at different levels. Don’t sacrifice expert users for an easy-to-use interface for novice or casual users. Instead, try to design for the needs of a diverse set of users, so it doesn’t matter if your user is an expert or a newbie.

Adding features like tutorials and explanations is extremely helpful for novice users (just make sure that experienced users are able to skip this part).

Once users are familiar with a product, they will look for shortcuts to speed up commonly-used actions. You should provide fast paths for experienced users by enabling them to use shortcuts.

2. Make it comfortable for a user to interact with a product

Eliminate all elements that are not helping your users

Interfaces shouldn’t contain information that is irrelevant or rarely needed. Irrelevant information introduces noise in UI —it competes with the relevant information and diminishes its relative visibility. Simplify interfaces by removing unnecessary elements or content that does not directly support user tasks. Strive to design UI in a way that all information presented on the screen will be valuable and relevant. Examine every element and evaluate it based on the value it delivers to users.

A good example of an app that follows the ‘less is more’ approach by avoiding overloading the interface with content or features is iA Writer.

The interface of iA Writer app is a clean typing sheet with no distractions. It allows users to focus on what they’re writing and hides everything else.

Don’t ask users for data they’ve already entered

Don’t force users to have to repeat data they’ve previously entered. Users are easily annoyed by tedious data-entry sequences, especially when they have provided all the required information before. Good UI performs a maximum of work while requiring a minimum amount of information from users.

Avoid jargon and system-oriented terms

When designing a product, it’s important to use language that is easy to read and understand. The system should speak the user’s language, with words, phrases, and concepts familiar to the user, rather than jargon or system-oriented terms.

Apply Fitts’s Law to interactive elements

Fitts Law states that the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target. This means that it’s better to design large targets for important functions (big buttons are easier to interact with).

It’s also important to remember that the time required to acquire multiple targets is the sum of the time to acquire each. Thus, when working on UI design, to increase the efficiency of an interaction, try to not only reduce distances and increase target sizes, but also reduce the total number of targets that users must interact with to complete a given task.

Design accessible interfaces

When we design products it’s important to remember that a well-designed product is accessible to users of all abilities, including those with low vision, blindness, hearing impairments, cognitive impairments, or motor impairments. Good UI is accessible UI because improving your product’s accessibility enhances the usability for all groups of users.

Color is one of the elements of an interface that has a strong impact on accessibility. People perceive color differently — some users can see a full range of colors, but many people can only make out a limited range of colors. Approximately 10 percent of men and one percent of women have some form of color blindness. When designing interfaces, it’s better to avoid using color as the only way to convey information. Anytime you want color to convey information in the interface, you should use other cues to convey the information to those who cannot see the colors.

Use real-world metaphors

Using metaphors in UI design allows users to create a connection between the real world and digital experiences. Real-world metaphors empower users by allowing them to transfer existing knowledge about how things should look and work. Metaphors are often used to make the unfamiliar familiar. Take the recycle bin on your desktop, which holds deleted files, as an example – it’s not a real trash bin, but it’s visually represented in a way that helps you understand the concept more easily.

Engineer for errors

Errors are inadvertent in the user journey. Bad error handling paired with useless error messages can fill users with frustration and lead them to abandon your app. A well-crafted error message, on the other hand, can turn a moment of frustration into a moment of conversion. An effective error message is a combination of explicit error notification together with hints for solving the problem.

Even better than writing good error messages is having UI design that prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Try to either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation dialog before they commit to the action. For example, Gmail prompts you when you forget to insert an attachment.

Protect a user’s work

Ensure that users never lose their work. Users should not lose their work as a result of an error on their side (i.e. accidentally refresh a web page with a form that has user input), a system error, problems with an internet connection, or any other reason other than those that are completely unavoidable, like an unexpected power loss.

3. Reduce cognitive load

Cognitive load is the amount of mental processing power required to use a product. It’s better to avoid making users think/work too hard to use your product.

Chunking for sequences of information or actions

In 1956, psychologist George Miller introduced the world to the theory of chunking. In his works, Miller says the human working memory can handle seven-plus-or-minus two “chunks” of information while we’re processing information.

This rule can be used when organizing and grouping items together. For example, if your UI forces users to enter telephone numbers without normal spacing it can result in a lot of incorrectly-captured phone numbers. People cannot typically scan clusters of ten or more digits to discover errors. That’s exactly why phone numbers are broken up into smaller pieces.

Reduce the number of actions required to complete a task

When designing a user interface, strive to reduce the total number of actions required from a user to achieve the goal. It’s worth remembering the three-click rule, which suggests the user of a product should be able to find any information with no more than three mouse clicks.

Recognition over recall

One of the Jakob Nielsen’s 10 usability heuristics advises promoting recognition over recall in UI design. Recognizing something is much easier than recalling it because recognition involves more cues in our brain (cues spread activation to related information in memory, and those cues help us remember information).

Designers can promote recognition in user interfaces by making information and functionality visible and easily accessible. Visual aids, such as tooltips and context-sensitive details, also help support users in recognizing information.

Promote visual clarity

Good visual organization improves usability and legibility, allowing users to quickly find the information they are looking for and use the interface more efficiently.

When designing layouts:

Avoid presenting too much information at one time on the screen. This results in visual clutter.

Remember the principle ‘form follows function.’ Make things look like they work.

Apply the general principles of content organization such as grouping similar items together, numbering items, and using headings and prompt text.

4. Make user interfaces consistent

Consistency is an essential property of good UI—consistent design is intuitive design. Consistency is one of the strongest contributors to usability and learnability. The main idea of consistency is the idea of transferable knowledge — let users transfer their knowledge and skills from one part of an app’s UI to another, and from one app to another app.

Visual consistency (style)

Users should never question the integrity of a product. The same colors, fonts, and icons should be present throughout the product. Don’t change visual styles within your product for no apparent reason. For example, a Submit button on one page of your site should look the same on any other page.

Avoid using different styles for elements on different pages of the site. Users should not have to wonder whether a transformed button like this example means the same thing.

Functional consistency (behavior)

Consistency of behavior means the object should work in the same way throughout the interface. The behavior of interface controls, such as buttons and menu items, should not change within a product. Users don’t want surprises or changes in familiar behavior — they become easily frustrated when things don’t work. This can inhibit learning and stop users from feeling confident about consistency in the interface. Do not confuse your user — keep actions consistent by following “The principle of least surprise,” to have the interface behave the way users expect it to.

Consistent with user expectations

People have certain expectations about the apps/websites they use. Designing your product in a way that contradicts a user’s expectations is one of the worst things you can do to a user. It doesn’t matter what logical argument you provide for how something should work or look. If users expect it to work/look a different way, you will face a hard time changing those expectations. If your approach offers no clear advantage, go with what your users expect.

Follow platform conventions. Your product should be consistent with standards dictated by platform guidelines. Guidelines ensure that your users can understand individual interface elements in your design.

Don’t reinvent patterns. For most design problems, proper solutions already exist. These solutions are called patterns. Popular patterns become conventions and the majority of users are familiar with them. Not taking this solution into account and continuing to design your own solution can lead to challenges for users. In most cases, breaking design conventions results in a frustrating user experience — you’ll face usability problems not necessarily because your solution will be wrong, but because users won’t be familiar with it.

Don’t try to reinvent terminology. Avoid using new terms when there are words available that users already know. Users spend most of their time in other apps and on other sites, so they have certain expectations about naming. Using different words might confuse them.

Conclusion

The goal for UI designers today is to produce user-friendly interfaces: interfaces that encourage exploration without fear of negative consequences. Without any doubt interfaces of the future will be more intuitive, enticing, predictable, and forgiving, but most principles of UI design listed in this article will surely be applicable to them, too.

Source https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/ui-design/4-golden-rules-ui-design/

#ux #ui #uidesign #ui development #uxdesigner

1 note · View note

tanadrin · 5 years ago

Text

One reason handwringing about the intrinsic moral nature of a religion's metaphysical doctrine always rings so hollow to me is that it requires you to believe that a religion's metaphysical doctrines in any way actually affect the behavior of its adherents, and this I simply cannot believe.

Okay, that's overstating the point a *little* bit, but on both the scale of low-level human psychology and the larger organization of society, it's basically true that doctrine doesn't matter nearly as much as the opponents of a religion might suppose. For two reasons: one, for doctrine really to have a totalizing affect on the psychology of its adherents, it requires adherents to be strongly devoted to that doctrine in a way which is emotionally costly to maintain over a long period of time, and so which almost no one actually is, even nominal true believers. Very few adherents of the Christian religion, for instance, have taken vows of poverty, despite that being pretty strongly advocated by the New Testament, because that's a hard thing to do; likewise, very few adherents of the Christian religion would, in fact, turn the other cheek if you slapped them in the face. A very small body of psychologically comitted individuals within the larger group of adherents might have their behavior shaped sufficiently by doctrine to draw a durable causal connection between the two, but then you run into the other issue--which is that the doctrine of every religion on Earth is shaped by the cultural context in which it is received, and subsequently reinterpreted. Cynically, this is used to reinforce existing power structures (Christianity's co-option by the Roman Empire & the European elite); but even if you're not being a cynic about it, the material and cultural context of a particular branch of a religious tradition totally changes how that religion is practiced--even within branches that attempt to retain a continuous tradition. Catholicism in England in 750 AD is not much like Catholicism in England in 2019, nevermind Brazil or Madagascar; and nevermind Eastern Orthodoxy or evangelical Protestantism, etc., etc. And this is for a religion that is historically pretty hierarchical and pretty concerned with adherence to orthodox interpretations of the central doctrines; for religions without a clear hierarchy, or who never had them, or which have never been as concerned with the idea of a monolithic core set of beliefs, the notion of an immutable quality or nature associated with whatever term we group diverse practices under seems even sillier.

In both ritual practice and how metaphysical beliefs cash out as moral instruction, every religion in human history seems to vary wildly, according to how geographically and temporally diffuse it has become. So Christianity countenances everything from the zealous Crusaders to the weird gnosticism and strict social of the Cathars to strict Calvinism, or modern-day inclusive happy-clappy liberal mainline Protestantism. Buddhism covers innumerable schools with innumerable variations of beliefs on how best to achieve enlightenment, and seems to span the gamut of social function all the way from ‘justifying traditional feudal relations’ to ‘vacuous self-help platitudes as radically reinterpreted by Californians.’ Shinto has gone from ‘animist agrarian fertility rites’ to ‘hierarchical instrument to buttress colonialism and imperialism’ to [AFAICT] ‘background spiritual/ritual component of urban Japanese life.’ Zoroastrianism was once the state religion of a massive empire; now it’s a minority religion so closely identified with the ethnic group that practices it that they do not seek or even accept converts.

For me to believe that a religion is *inherently* violent or *inherently* just or even just sort neutrally Mostly Harmless requires me to believe that 1) there is some inherent property or set of properties created or taken up by that religion at its founding, 2) that is so powerfully adhered to over centuries and across diverse material and social contexts that it is not overwhelmed by much more important, proximate psychological and cultural forces, and 3) you, as an outsider, are capable of correctly distinguishing between the proximate, contextual forces acting on adherents of that religion, versus the inherent nature of that religion which is transmitted to all believers, or to enough believers at the margin that it has a noticeable effect in aggregate. Any theory which seeks to permit the possibility of a religion having an inherent nature needs to account for the differences between, among other things, Achaemenid and modern Zorostrianism, or the pre-Temple Canaanite proto-Hebrew religion and Reformed Rabbinic Judaism, and I think that’s really hard to do.

So that’s a pretty wild way to approach the world! And although it used to be fashionable to speak of cultures in a similar way--NB, by ‘used to’ I mean back when a sizeable chunk of well-educated Europeans assumed that the events of the Book of Exodus were a mostly-accurate record of a thing that actually happened, i.e., were monstrously ignorant of history--it's a sort of logic we don't invoke anymore except maybe unless you are very right-wing. And even then, it is usually spoken of in terms of broader, racialized terms, rather than, say, at the more specific level of Germans or French people. So especially if you are a materialist, or an atheist who does not believe that adherents of other religions are being actively misled by demonic forces, it's super weird if you're invoking this kind of essentialism in *this domain only.* Maybe not if you're doing it casually--we do, in casual conversation, often still stereotype national cultures--but I think we recognize that as a casual activity we're more expressing an apparent trend than making an argument for the immutable nature of transmitted culture and belief. But it's extremely jarring when people who fancy themselves hard-nosed practical materialists, or otherwise Very Serious People, start handwringing about the moral nature of major world religions.

And because these observers rarely actually seem to know much about the doctrinal and sectarian differences *within* these religious traditions, generally seem to be able to speak of politics and history as it affects the adherents of these religions only in the broadest strokes, and default to viewing these religious outgroups as a monolith, counter-commentators often seek a parsimonious explanation for why this logic is being applied in an inconsistent way *here*, and not anywhere else. That these arguments most strongly seem to have an intellectual affinity for arguments which are explicitly racialist does not, despite the protests that religion is not a race, do anything to shake the suspicion that the real source of this belief is a kind of reflexive xenophobic provincialism in search of a justification, of which religion is one, but not the most fundamental, layer.

#yes this post is about islamophobia #and specifically sam harris types #not topical just something i've been thinking about

16 notes · View notes

thejakeformerlyknownasprince · 6 years ago

Note

For each of the Animoprhs, which book would you consider the best for showing their characterization? Best book for understanding Jake's character, best for Rachel, etc.

If I can give a very me answer (i.e. verbose and bad at choosing things), I’m not sure there are any books that don’t advance the character arc of the narrator in a meaningful way. Going down the list:

Jake: Starts the series as a somewhat naïve, privileged kid who wants to save his big brother but isn’t sure why he’s in charge. Ends the series as a highly competent but also ruthless general who defeats the Yeerk Empire at the expense of his big brother.

#1: Establishes his antebellum family life, and his casual certainty that everything’s going to work out once the andalites come to help.

#6: Forces Jake to confront the simultaneous realities of the controllers’ helplessness in the face of trauma and the dangerous realities of their bodies becoming weapons, cementing his convictions about the war.

#11: Features Jake’s first real crisis as a leader and forms much of the basis for his incessant rumination on alternative outcomes.

#16: Establishes Jake’s biggest Achilles heel as a leader: that he consistently fails to secure his own oxygen mask before helping others. The plot also punishes indecisiveness and rewards recklessness.

#21: Causes Jake to have to define his role as a leader in response to David presenting the first real challenge to Jake’s authority.

#26: Gives Jake the chance to be his most awesome and competent as a leader, from managing Ax’s emotions and skillfully deploying Rachel and Erek to the Gordian-knot-cutting gambit that makes Crayak himself sit up and take notice.

#31: Confronts Jake with the slow-burning crisis he’s been struggling to ignore within his own family, causing him to (largely unsuccessfully) deal with the threat presented by Tom’s continued existence.

#36: Gives us some heartwarming moments of Jake expressing his love for his team while throwing himself between them and danger.

#41: Features Jake grappling with the realization that he can’t — and shouldn’t — save his own loved ones at the expense of someone else’s.

#47: Largely inconsequential, but does involve the only instance of Jake leading an army against invading forces in a “traditional” battle.

#53: In which Jake applies everything he’s learned to take over the U.S. Air Force, recruit the taxxons, manipulate multiple yeerk vissers, and strategically use all his allies in ways that are effective but brutal. Also, he FINALLY does something about Tom — and it comes at the expense of Rachel’s life.

Tobias: Starts the series as a dreamy-eyed idealist with no clear-cut identity who eagerly commits himself to the first cause that comes along. Ends the series as a pragmatic survivalist who values self-sufficiency but also his connections to his hawk and human and andalite and hork-bajir sides.

#3: Acts as the comedown of Tobias’s idealism following his somewhat-impulsive, somewhat-forced decision, as the reality of predation and nothlitization sinks in.

#13: Establishes Tobias as the kind of guy who (literally) looks higher powers in the eye and calls “bull,” but also the eyes in the sky for the team.

#23: Further complexifies Tobias’s already-complex species identity, but also gives him the chacne to be badass and self-reliant in a world that used to stuff his head in toilet bowls.

#33: Puts Tobias through the kind of pressure test that allows him to realize what’s really important to him, from his andalite family to his love for Rachel.

#43: Gives power back to Tobias through showing him — both in flashbacks and in the present conflict with Taylor — embracing the power not to decide (X).

#49: Leads Tobias to the realization that he may never have a nuclear family like Jake’s or Cassie’s, but that his crappy upbringing imbued him with a level of resiliency that Jake frankly lacks.

Ax: Starts the series as a kid who knows exactly who he is (a proud aristh in The Greatest Military in the galaxy) and where he’s from (andalite culture) and just wants to get home. Ends the series identified as “Aximili of Earth,” with a relentless wanderlust and a reputation for undercutting traditional andalite power structures.

#8: Establishes Ax as a lonely kid under enormous pressure to conform to two different cultures in two different ways, and sets him on the path to balancing those conflicting demands.

#18: Probably the apex of Ax’s embracing andaliteness at the expense of humanity, forcing him to realize that people are people and there’s no rank-ordering entire groups.

#28: Confronts Ax with the nastiest sides of humanity — animal testing and factory farming — to cast him as a witness to whom his human friends must justify themselves.

#38: Allows Ax to measure himself and his team against the andalites’ standards for competency and morality alike, and to find it is the andalites who are wanting.

#46: Probably the nadir of Ax’s embracing andaliteness, with all his prior experience culminating in deep longing to be human in light of the Air Force’s unflinching nobility and the craven imperialism of the Andalite Electorate.

#52: Culminates the conflict between Ax’s cultures through leading him to conclude that his friends specifically and humans as a whole don’t have to be perfect to have fundamental rights and dignity.

Cassie: Starts the war deeply uncomfortable with major decisions but nevertheless convinced that there’s a single “right” answer to every situation, largely only involved at all for love of her friends. Ends the war as a “one woman army” (emphasis on one) with a nuanced morality system and a willingness to go her own way rather than setting herself on fire to keep others warm.

#4: Forces her out of her comfort zone and into making decisions for the entire team, causing her to discover that she’s braver and stronger than she ever realized.

#9: Crystalizes Cassie’s willingness to embrace and protect the Earth in spite of fully recognizing its inherent brutality.

#14: Undeniably inane, but gets some great humor out of Cassie being a sweet straightforward kid and a terrible liar.

#19: Establishes Cassie’s Achilles heel: that she functions brilliantly with no one to watch out for but herself, but doesn’t play well with others. Also knocks her off her high horse through forcing her to realize that many enemy soldiers are just as clueless as she is.

#24: Acts as a check-in after the events of the David trilogy, showing just how jaded the kids have become that Cassie and Marco find violent alien abduction to be little more than a minor annoyance.

#29: Plays to Cassie’s strengths — working alone, developing her unusual allies, taking care of her friends, remaining focused under fire — to show her at her most awesome and draw out her competencies.

#34: Gives Cassie a glimpse of what it means to be a compassionate but still powerful leader.

#39: Sets up the end of the series through using the wolf morph to show Cassie’s ability to keep running and changing and being many things at once (both figuratively and literally) after all her friends have fallen behind.

#44: Foreshadows Cassie’s breakup with Jake through contrasting her ability to get by alone in Australia with his “zombielike” state of lost dependence while she’s gone.

#50: Drives a wedge between Cassie and her team, with the consolation prize that she makes a compassionate and discerning move which ultimately sets the Animorphs up to win the war.

Rachel: Starts the series as a restless “mall rat” who enjoys risk and challenge for their own sake, and has casually absolute faith in her own abilities. Ends the series by telling the reader outright that she’s scared, but that she must do what’s right for her team; uses her last minutes to apologize to Tom for killing him and to seek reassurance from the Ellimist that she made a difference.

#2: Establishes that she’s cocky and fun-loving even after being confronted with the realities of war, but also that she’ll gladly die for love of her friends, from Tobias to Melissa.

#7: Brings out Rachel’s truly reckless side through backing her into a corner — which is when she’s most dangerous. Also serves as maybe the biggest blow the Animorphs ever inflict on the yeerks with minimal loss of life, crystalizing Rachel’s sense of self-righteousness.

#12: Shows the struggle hidden under her role as “the strong one,” both for her team and for her sisters.

#17: Involves Rachel interrogating how her friends see her, including her awareness that this team would never be able to talk itself into continuously reentering the hell of war without her.

#22: Confronts Rachel with the darkest depths of her own brutality, but also establishes that she’s willing to be the one to do the hard jobs of the war if it keeps the others from having to listen to David’s pleas for help.

#27: Fully cements Rachel’s relationship with Tobias through allowing her to realize what’s really important to her.

#32: Uses one of those awesome SF identity premises to give Rachel the chance to literally argue with herself, and — by showing how much each of her halves relies on the other — shows how all the facets of her identity, ugly and pretty alike, make her who she is.

#37: Contains a couple different truly awesome moments with Rachel realizing that her strengths are not Jake’s, nor are they Marco’s, but that the team will carry her through at the end of the day.

#42: A little silly, but gives Rachel the chance to out-bluster even helmacrons and to force the hard decision that Jake hesitates to make — that they need to sacrifice Marco to save their own lives.

#48: Frustratingly inconsequential, but brings together the disparate threads of her conflict with Crayak, her conflict with David, and her conflict with Jake, and culminates with Rachel confronting Cassie with the reality that if Rachel herself doesn’t do the awful things (kill David, kill Tom) then no one else will.

Marco: Starts the war as a never-serious kid who is nevertheless familiar enough with the reality of death to try and hit the brakes before inevitable tragedy gets too close to his loved ones. Ends the war as a ruthlessly machiavellian strategist who believes in the necessity of matricide and even war crimes to keep the planet spinning on its axis.

#5: Contains the hilarity of Ax-wrangling and the utter horror of Marco realizing that Visser One thoughtlessly destroyed the lives of his entire family as an incidental aside on her rise to power, establishing early that he’s willing to burn down the world to protect his family.

#10: Gives Marco the chance to call bullshit on the chee’s moralizing about their own nonintervention in the face of massive injustice, delineating his own code of ethics.

#15: Forces Marco to confront his own trauma and becomes the first time that he must make a major ethical choice with no good solutions — and, by no coincidence, is all about him turning into a shark.

#20: Brings out the worst in Marco through emphasizing his mistrust (and lack of compassion) for strangers, his possessiveness of his friends, and his willingness to be a bully when David fails to see the big picture.

#25: Becomes the book where Marco calls himself “Mr. Ruthless” and also sees himself in a motherless pair of baby seals, where he expresses admiration for Jake’s growing manipulativeness and successfully distracts everyone from waiting around for their own deaths with really bad “dumb blond” jokes.

#30: Involves Marco giving an account of himself (as Cates would say) through justifying his decision to the reader as he plans his mom’s execution.

#35: Acts as some much-needed comic relief because of Marco’s refusal to take himself seriously, while continuing arc of his coming apart at the seams when he can’t define himself by his family.

#40: Has a deeply troubling after-school special vibe that culminates in Marco discovering that *gasp* disabled people are people too, and... Sorry, I can’t come up with anything nice to say about this book.

#45: Shows that (unlike Jake) Marco can find the balance between protecting his family and protecting the planet, and also that Marco’s brilliance has a very very dark side when it comes to manipulating Peter.

#51: Again acts as much-needed comic relief during one of the bleakest points in the war, while also showing that Marco may have overcome his intial mutual hostility with Tobias but that he’s also whistling as the world burns at a time when Jake and Rachel could both really use fewer jokes and more emotional support.

Anon, I promise I will do my best to narrow this list down, but your ask sent me off into rapturous enumerations about the tightly-woven character arcs in this series and the fact that even the ghostwritten books are remarkably consistent in light of the big picture for each of the six kids.

#animorphs #animorphs meta #animorphs spoilers #long post #asks #jake berenson #tobias fangor #rachel berenson #aximili esgarrouth isthill #i am bad at choosing things #Anonymous

411 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 5 years ago

Note

wash/mira with 2, 4, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 lmao, 28, and 29

THANKS AVERY NOW I GET TO DIE OF ANGST.

2. Who is the most insecure and what makes them feel better?

God, BOTH of them have very, very valid reasons to be concerned. Wash obviously is still hurt by Mira’s betrayal, and that isn’t going to go away easily even after their reconciliation. I can see her looking at Mira just casually doing something and wondering “What’s your game here?” And on Mira’s end, I can see her still feeling like Wash is going to choose Taylor/her job/etc. over her. Because of past experience. And, even postcanon, there’s the question of “Would she have made the decisions she had if Taylor HADN’T gone cuckoobananas?”

And then they’ll have that little reminder of their life together, Sienna or Leah will ask for help coloring something in, Wash will come up from behind and hug her, they’ll see each other giving orders and co-ruling the colony like a BOSS and just have that moment of “Okay, this is NOW.” It’s not going to be an EASY process, but it’s one that they are going to work through over time.

4. Who can’t keep their hands to themselves?

Wash. I’m not even going to elaborate just...Wash.

12. What first changes when it starts getting serious?

The GUILT starts to set in for Mira. For Wash, she starts to really feel HOPE for the first time. She’s spent a lot of time trailing behind Taylor, wanting to believe in the new world he’s promised, but for the first time, she has that possibility right in front of her. And then we all know what happens, goodbye youthful idealism.

18. When they fight, how do they make up?

By not talking to one another for years but occasionally meeting up for bondage-y reasons, then bonding over a shared enemy.

It’s funny because in a potentially postcanon world, I actually don’t see them fighting that often, given that so many of their current problems are related more or less exclusively to being on opposite sides, a few issues when it comes to the integration process for the Sixers aside. But, when they do, I think that they can both be pretty brutal, usually Wash is the first one to reach out, and it usually takes Mira a little further to come along. (MIRA? HOLDING A GRUDGE? NOT TRUSTING SOMEONE?) But, eventually, they do work it out, and Mira in particular can’t really resist Wash when she’s in the “Please look at me” stage. Neither of them would ever, EVER admit it in the crossover, but she’s at Peyrol levels of being whipped.

19. Where do they go on their first date?

See 22. Alternatively, they went to Boylan’s. Because of course. They went. To Boylan’s. It’s not like there are that many options available. Which means that Boylan ALSO knows about the two of them dating. It’s why his hair’s so big; it’s full of secrets.

20. Where do they go on holiday?

Honestly, I know that the holiday options are TN are limited, but I love the thought of the two of them lying on a beach while their kids play in the waves, the two of them working on building a sandcastle together. A massive prehistoric shark comes near Sienna and Wash casually snipes it. (Mira finds herself oddly turned on by it.) You know. Everything that you’d expect.

At some point, Wash’s comm device goes off. It’s Jim. They need her at the colony, something’s going horribly wrong. She turns it off.

22. Where does their first kiss happen?

I’m probably going to roll with the Paradise Lost canon and say that Wash took Mira OTG like a fucking teenager, Bullshit Happened because it’s TN, they had to build a fire, there were Very Intimate Conversations about Wash and Mira and the future, and then they kissed. And then at some point in the night, a carno tried to attack Mira and, without a second thought, Wash took it down. Romantically. She would always wonder whether that was a good idea, after the fact. Whether, if she knew what she would later know, if she would have let it. Privately, she knows that she wouldn’t have.

23. Where is their favourite place to be together?

Command Center. For more reasons than one and for more definitions of the term “together.”

26. Why do they need to have a serious chat?

THESE TWO? NEED A SERIOUS CHAT? I CANNOT. IMAGINE. WHY. THEY WOULD. NEED. A SERIOUS. C H A T .

To begin with, the whole “You lied to me for months at LEAST and made me believe you didn’t love me when it was over” thing. And the whole “You support an actual military dictator who fucking KILLED SOMEONE and there’s no way that I can believe that you didn’t know” thing. And the whole “I have no idea why you’re even doing this - what do you mean ‘your daughter needs it’ WHAT DAUGHTER?” thing. And the whole “You could do so much better than being brushed aside for Taylor’s new boytoy, let me express this in a nonviolent, healthy way” thing. And...

Basically, this is why they should have spent that whole ep tied to one another instead of Taylor and Mira.

27. Why do their friends get annoyed with them?

Elizabeth (understandably) does NOT trust Mira, and I don’t think she really understands the process that the two of them are going through even though she’s fundamentally enough a compassionate person that she’s obviously going to push for it. It just...takes a little while.

28. Why do they get jealous?

I think that Mira’s jealous of Taylor, but it’s not a ROMANTIC kind of jealousy. I don’t think that she thinks that he and Wash are banging; she KNOWS Wash too well for that one. And she isn’t into DILFs. But that doesn’t change the fact that Wash has still chosen Taylor over her, and that STINGS. If the two of them actually were banging...it wouldn’t really impact that one way or another. What matters is who Wash is going to stand by at the end of the day, and unfortunately...it isn’t Mira. And on one hand, Mira always KNEW this would be the case, especially since Wash has history with Taylor, but on the other hand...she really, really wishes that it wasn’t.

29. Why do they fall a little bit more in love?

The little moments of vulnerability. For two people who tend to be so good at putting on fronts, especially in Mira’s case (Wash HAS them, but she’s better at pretending that There’s Nothing Wrong as opposed to pretending that she doesn’t have any emotions at all), whenever they have those moments, it’s a big OH. Because they wouldn’t do that for ANYONE else, and they both realize it. Wash personally loves to try to (non creepily) wake up before Mira and watch her sleep for that reason alone, because she’s so UNGUARDED then.

30. Why does it work (or not work) between them?

At the end of the day, they’re both highly competent and mission oriented people. When they’re not at each other’s throats, they work on the same wavelength, and they both have a HUGE amount of respect for one another’s abilities and can’t stand to see them wasted on their respective sides. They also both functionally WORK in a good cop/bad cop scenario, with Wash inspiring loyalty and Mira (generally) inspiring fear in the people under their respective commands. IF circumstances had been different, they would have been damn effective co-leaders of Terra Nova. They’re really one of those cases where there’s nothing in their personalities that is really keeping them apart; it’s all in the circumstances, and if the circumstances changed....

#otp: still doing taylor's dirty work?#terra nova #lochley

3 notes · View notes

drkungfus-customs · 6 years ago

Text

Mtg Custom Card Competition Round 1: Rabiah

Hello everyone and welcome to the first custom card competition for mtg cards that I have judged. For this round, submissions were gathered from a discord server and the results have been judged by myself and my partner in crime Alyssa. The theme this week was Rabiah. Participants were asked to design a card that could have been printed if the set Arabian Nights was designed in 2019 with modern design sensibilities.

Alyssa says:

Flavourwise, it’s real fun! Trade as a method of getting white card advantage is really nice, and the art, name and flavour text all flow together. It’s not really that exciting, though. There’s nothing particularly mystical about the capitalism of antiquity!

Remember to capitalise Human and Treasure. Is it meant to scale to every Human everyone else plays too? If so, that’s a little too strong. Keep it to Humans you create.

The draw effect being “free” mana-wise isn’t that much of a problem. I’d add a tap to the ability so you can’t abuse it so freely. If this were blue, and cost 3 mana, then that effect would maybe fly, but white doesn’t get that.

Michael says:

So this card seemed a slam dunk at first, it has excellent flavour, very pretty art, and an appropriate white effect as we have seen the colour move into treasure generation a lot more in recent sets to compensate for its core weakness of mana ramp. This was until I got to the last line. Card draw in white is something that must be carefully monitored as it is one of the fundamental aspects of colour balance in magic. A good litmus test for this kind of effect is mentor of the meek, if a card can draw better or draw easier than mentor it probably crosses the line from a bend to a break in white.

Because the card itself produces treasure at a considerable rate, on a good body (thankfully still within bolt/push range), there is no real opportunity cost to the drawing as the treasure tokens also come incidentally by doing things a mono white deck wants to do. If this was a tap ability or had some kind of limiter the card would probably be acceptable but as it stands it represents a potent draw engine in any creature heavy deck, and god forbid what would happen in a Selesnya token strategy or an EDH deck running smothering tithe.

While the human type rider does help to limit this card, it is the most common creature type and so more often or not this card will provide good value even in decks not built around the card. Overall I really dig the treasure creation as a reward for building to a theme but the card draw is far too powerful and generic to be considered acceptable in mono white.

Possible improvements:

o Currently this card is a break in white, either adding blue or limiting the rate of card draw would bring it into line with whites modern design philosophy.

o It shouldn’t activate from your opponents Humans, symmetrical tribal effects have been retired due to poor gameplay.

o It feels a shame to tie it to Humans, which are such a supported type. Making it rewarding to a more obscure tribe such as Advisors could be interesting.

Grades:

Formatting – 4/5

Function – 2/5 (would be a 4/5 with the drawing ability fixed or removed)

Flavour – 4/5

Alyssa says:

The formatting here has several notable issues:

o As-written, the cast from hand effect gives temporary unblockability but the combat damage Treasure-making effect is permanent because you haven’t given it a duration.

o Every time you define a token on a card, unless you’re writing a modifier for how many of the same type of token are produced by the same effect under different conditions (like Increasing Devotion, Gather the Townsfolk or Saproling Migration) you need to define those tokens again, so you’ll need to write out the Treasure text for the second effect. Make space on the card by omitting the reminder text on Flashback.

o Magic uses numerals to refer to life, damage, stats and costs, but everywhere else they write out the numbers, so you create five Treasures rather than 5.

o The destroy effect on casting it from the graveyard should just be sacrifice. You don’t need to make it a targeted destroy just because the original effect destroys, because you can use the cast-from-graveyard replacement effect to override its targeting, just like how Overload makes a targeting spell into a non-targeting one.

It’s fine as a card, but it feels kind of weak and the two effects don’t feel connected. The first cast feels like a good effect with good flavour ties, but I’m not sure how the second effect ties into it. The first incentivises high creature quality (giving a big beater evasion) while the second incentivises low creature quality (sacrificing a worthless token to get advantage) and while the environment for those two interacting can exist (read: Rise of the Eldrazi) it’s rare.

Triple black feels far too colour-intensive in an effect we’ve seen at 2B and 1B before. I am also not entirely sure what is happening from a flavour perspective when the creature gets destroyed. If it’s being closed off in the Cave of Wonders, how the hell do you get the treasures out?

Michael says:

The flavour on this card is very apparent, showing off an iconic scene with using the alternate flashback effect to progress the story of this card. I very much enjoy how well the flavour and mechanics have been integrated on this card especially in a way that is in-colour for Dimir. However the templating very much needs work, the effect can be unclear on a first read. Something as simple as a paragraph break between the regular and flashback effects would do wonders to the overall card.

In addition when designing black costs, sacrifice is usually a preferred choice both flavourfully and mechanically as the flashback just becomes a seething song when you possess an indestructible creature. I think this card has very strong flavour and story but has a few formatting concerns that take away from its impact. While the card can go mana positive I think the card is balanced well enough to not create any dangerous situations. Solid workhorse uncommons are just as important as flashy mythic rares and this card could help to signal a more aggressive or saboteur based blue black deck in the limited environment, although the card is a little disjointed in effect possibly due to it being created to match the flavour rather than the other way around.

Possible improvements:

o Formatting changes as Alyssa has acknowledged.

o Changing the effect so that it doesn’t split the card’s focus. If you want to get increasing Treasure value, perhaps just make it mono-blue, the flashback cost 2U and make the damage dealing effect create three Treasures instead.

o Perhaps a small pump of +1/+0 to help solidify its role in limited decks.

Grades:

o Formatting 3/5

o Function 2/5

o Flavour 3/5

Alyssa says:

Flavourwise it’s fine, but not particularly imaginative. Genie wishes have been done before a lot and this doesn’t really do anything new with the effect except some ridiculous efficiency. (I’ll get into that later.) Formatting wise, it’s mostly fine. “It gains suspend” should be its own sentence. You missed “on it” for the land card drop.

Are the extra cards put on the bottom of your deck? I feel like you’re trying to make the “cost” of the effect be that it mills you slightly, which isn’t really that dangerous for reasons I’m going to get into, because the card is ridiculously strong.

It’s not hard to just casually spin this in your opponent’s end step with basic tutors or Brainstorm-like effects to find your best card, put it on top of your library, exile it with suspend and one time counter on it and just drop it like it’s hot. Five mana Emrakul, the Promised End with its cast effect? Anything that isn’t a land obtainable for free as long as you wait till your upkeep for it?

The second effect really doesn’t need to be there and is still really strong. Even though you can whiff, it can still effectively mean colourless 0 mana ramp every turn even if you lose the lands eventually. But it’s not like you’ll really want an effect like this when you’re doing top-deck manipulation to drop your biggest and best cards for free. It’s just overkill at that point.

Michael says:

This card feels intended to be fun but I believe has accidentally became far scarier than intended. I believe this card is firstly a lot more complex than it needs to be. The second ability that searches for lands adds a lot of extra complexity for this card and doesn't really add much to the overall playability. I believe it could be cut without losing the core effect of the card.

I would express serious concerns over power level however. Its nature as a colourless artifact means any deck can include it, miracle shells and cards such as sensei's divining top and scroll rack allow for significant levels of top deck manipulation which would make its random nature a lot more controlled especially in older formats and EDH. Being able to activate this card in your opponents end step for almost no cost also takes away any kind of risk to playing this card as even played fairly this allows for serious cheating on mana costs with a bit of luck.

There is also the slight problem that there is no rider to return the exiled cards to the bottom of the deck which would be standard for this kind of effect. While I assume this was accidental, it means that as submitted this card can mill your entire deck for a jace/lab man kill. There is clear potential in this card as a fun semi-random value piece but as it stands right now it has too few safety valves, and there is a clear risk of variance where one game you mill twenty cards to get to a one drop and the next where you rip Ulamog off the top on turn four. If anyone tried to play this card unfairly, as competitive players will certainly try to, this card will fundamentally break the mana system. Adding a mana cost to the effect and possibly increasing the casting cost is going to be the easiest way to preserve this card's intended purpose without being used as a combo piece, or just tying the suspend cost to cmc as opposed to how many cards milled. Also don’t forget the artist credits, that’s always important to have on custom cards.

Possible improvements:

o Remove the second ability entirely. It’s superfluous at the best of times.

o Jack a hefty mana cost on that ability. To keep the artifact at 4 mana, I want to make the ability cost 5 or 6. Alternatively, make you shuffle your library as part of the effect to make it a bit less spooky. Compare to Temporal Aperture or Mind’s Desire, which have a similar effect but deliberately shuffle your library beforehand. One thing you could do is make it a static suspend value, maybe 3, rather than however many cards you flip, because if you have to shuffle your library for that you might get stuff exiled with suspend 7 or whatever.

Grades:

o Formatting – 4/5

o Function – 1/5

o Flavour – 2/5

Alyssa says:

Beautiful flavour. This card looks gorgeous and makes me very happy to read. Your formatting is flawless as well. The flavour clearly stems from his portrayal in the original arabian nights stories so I appreciate the top down design here.

Unfortunately, this card kind of pays for itself with what might amount to an upside in a bad spot by making additional chump blockers/sac fodder, like a bargain bin Bitterblossom. Additionally the downside is also relatively small, as is the payoff. I wouldn’t have a problem with leaving him tapped for a few turns which I feel isn’t good for a sexy black 4 mana 6/6: those stats and that colour want to have a stronger downside for a stronger payoff. Think Phyrexian Obliterator or Death’s Shadow: Black’s big creatures go hard on the pro and harder on the con. I don’t feel like I’ve lost anything if he doesn’t make a big splashy impact on the board.

Michael says:

This card I quite like. While it’s unusual to see humans as powerful as a 6/6, that is about the maximum I would realistically expect to see for the tribe so that isn't too much of an issue. The flavour of a mono black king who uses his subjects is absolutely on point though and feels very in fitting for the feel of arabian nights so good job on that front. My foremost concern with this card is that there is no real downside to this card, while the king requires a sacrifice in your upkeep he has a built in method to mitigate this in his automatic ability to create soldiers. However there is a really easy fix to this, just include a cost to his ability to create tokens. Replacing this with a repeatable activated ability for an amount of mana feels too white so instead I would propose adding a cost to his end of turn trigger, possibly discarding a card to ensure that there is a price to splashing the king. Although given humans are the most popular tribe and many cards are incidentally human, I imagine that there will be plenty of sacrifice fodder in both constructed and limited. Overall good work on this one, a strong design that just needs a few tweaks to be good to go and really screams arabian nights flavour (in a good way).

Possible improvements:

o Include a cost for the human token production. Perhaps “At the beginning of your end step, you may discard a card. If you do, create a 1/1 white Human creature token.” The card disadvantage is a real downer, but you have an option not to if you can’t.

o Go a bit harder on his power level. Something on the level of a keyword ability such as menace for example wouldn’t hurt.

o Make the damage life loss. Possibly amp it up to 3.

Grades:

o Formatting – 5/5

o Function – 3/5

o Flavour – 4/5

Alyssa says:

The flavour is nice, perfectly evocative of what Aladdin is. Perhaps it’s a bit too safe? This is what I’d expect Aladdin to do: maybe I was hoping for a little more. The formatting is mostly good, but as of now the steal effect is permanent and not tied to Aladdin staying in play. Was this intentional? Permanent steal effects are Blue’s wheelhouse, not Red’s, making it a colour bend. (Red does get to steal stuff, especially artifacts, but it very rarely gets to keep it.) I wouldn’t be averse to seeing this effect on an Izzet Aladdin for example.

It’s a simple, clean effect that has the potential for sick card advantage. I like it! It feels like something you could open in an artifacts matter set. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar card when we return to Kaladesh.

Michael says:

This card is interesting. As a four cmc legendary creature that fixes a core problem with mono red in an in-colour way, this card is clearly very good in EDH. However this card also is a significant tempo play and value generator in an environment that is heavy on artifacts which would probably give it legs in standard, albeit constrained thanks to the legendary supertype. My main concern with this card is that there is no condition or limitation to the steal effect. Indefinite stealing of cards is a very blue effect, while playing with artifacts is red, so I would like to make this an izzet card, but the flavour clearly does not support blue. Therefore to make this card more in line with the colour pie I would add either an end of turn clause to the steal, a limit on the cmc of the artifact, or at the very least have stolen artifacts return when this card leaves the battlefield. Return on leaving the battlefield seems the most appropriate option to me to help avoid flicker abuse in commander while still preserving the flavour of the card. Other than that good job, this is an excellent effort to provide a balanced and flavourful red card that I believe would excite people to play with.

Possible improvements:

o Address the colour pie bend, or otherwise tie the stealing effect to Aladdin’s survival.

Grades

o Formatting 5/5

o Function 4/5

o Flavour 4/5

So congratulations to Shanobi and her submission of Aladdin, Prince of Thieves as the winner for this week. It was a close race between Aladdin and King Shahrayah but where we could point to a few areas of improvement for the King, Aladdin felt perfect with just a minor tweak to bring his effect more into red’s area of the colour pie.

It has been a fun week to judge and hopefully we should see these competitions continue if there is renewed interest in our judging. If any of you have any feedback or improvements to our judging style, please don’t hesitate to let us know.

Thank you all for your hard work and submissions!

As a bonus Alyssa and I worked briefly on what our theoretical submission could have been to this contest which we based off a monster from Iranian folklore and posted for fun here in Zahak, Hunger-Cursed.

2 notes · View notes