#just. mediocre mediocre mediocre religious worldbuilding/character writing

[lord-squiggletits]

In the last salty asks post I unintentionally went on a tangent in the notes about how JRO wrote religious characters which is like actually something I want to bring up on its own so like

Is it just me or does JRO have some real misses when it comes to writing religious characters? Not like every religious character is badly written or evil, but like... several of the ones that are fall into really bad or unflattering/shallow stereotypes? It's hard to put my finger exactly on why I feel that way bc he does write some actually good religious characters (aka Cyclonus).

For example, characters like the Functionist Council and Star Saber are fine to me because I'm like. Well Functionism being religious in origin makes sense, it's an interesting interplay of how religion influences the state/how the state leverages religion to bend the populace to its own whims. Religious bad guys =/= all religious people bad. Star Saber is just some random zealot that wasn't meant to be that deep at all, and eh the Inquisition-type religious zealot can be cool even if it's just the vibes of it.

But then there's stuff like... Tyrest being a normal, rational, not particularly religious guy until he gets shot with a bullet that gives him brain damage, causing him to start ranting about Cyberutopia and thinking God is personally talking to him in his brain...? Like, idk, was it really the best idea for an antagonist to go "he is evil because he got brain damaged against his will w/o even knowing what really happened to him and also because he's brain damaged he's now literally delusional and became a religious (and genocidal) maniac." It comes off as really bad taste/not thinking the implications through as far as how it reflects on religious people (bc the whole "religious people are literally delusional and stupid to think that their gods could possibly exist" thing is tired and offensive). Not to mention kind of ableist w/ the whole "oh he became evil bc he got shot in the brain and now there's literally something wrong with his mind."

(Doesn't help that the MTMTE logbooks revealed that the original idea for Tyrest was to have his killswitch be about trying to identify and execute all of the criminals/"guilty people" on Cybertron, basically an extension of his role as Chief Justice which makes so much more sense and is way more interesting and compelling???? Certainly better than (gets brain damaged) "Ah I'm now going to genocide all cold constructs because God told me to")

And then Drift with spectralism which...which... basically the extent of that whole religion is the name of a single festival (the Lost Light festival the eponymous ship was named after), and some stuff about face/body paint and colors having spiritual symbolism, then the Guiding Hand/Primus stuff that's also shared with Primalism. But then you have Drift who's the main representative of this religion basically being written as a phony who doesn't even believe in the shit coming out of his mouth. Or if his beliefs are sincere, the way he acts is basically just "oooooh, I sense unclean vibes and read into the energy of the universe" which is played for laughs or mocked by the other characters most of the time. And Drift's character is written so inconsistently (and the general religious worldbuilding so one-dimensional) that it's hard to tell if Drift is supposed to be read as some kooky fake hippie type or if he's genuinely a representation of Spectralism in general. Like, idk, the best JRO could come up for for building a religion was "they wear certain colors and patterns on them and vaguely talk about sensing energy from the universe?" It literally feels like baby's first fictional religion or like, religion as understood by a non-religious/atheist person who sees religion as nothing more than an aesthetic or some quirky rituals.

I'm not saying the story had to be about religion or have religion be brought up in every conversation, it's just...... the way he wrote/did worldbuilding for it comes off as as very "non-religious person who doesn't have any particular understanding of religion/why people are religious tries to write what they think religion is about" and most of the time it's kinda cringe.

[swamp-world]

When I’m reading reviews of books, sometimes I see things that really make me question quite a bit about what people are looking for when they read these books. A lot of this is in relation to women characters and how they’re portrayed, and the fact that it seems like there’s no right way to portray them at all without people getting upset--if a woman is a typical “strong female character” then she’s a trope and unrealistic; if a woman doesn’t fight and needs to be rescued then she’s a poor caricature of women and offensive; a woman cannot be decisive and in power one minute and then cowed in a different scenario right after--but there’s so much to the writing overall.

[minor spoilers i guess for TYE, maybe Song of the Lioness and Nevernight?] 

First of all, I see a lot of people who lack critical understanding and comprehension, or who aren’t willing to put in the effort for it. I’m going to use a lot of examples from YA literature for this, because that’s mostly what I’m reading reviews for, because that’s what I largely enjoy reading. 

The other day I was reading some reviews for The Young Elites by Marie Lu, after rereading it. I found that on the second read, as per usual, it didn’t hit in the same way; that’s not a bad thing, just to say that it didn’t have the same first-read wonder to it. But I still enjoyed it very much. Now, this one particular reviewer spent quite a while complaining about Adelina, and how she isn’t good, etc etc etc. Adelina goes on a villain arc. She does the wrong thing, she hurts people, she kills people when she shouldn’t and has no reason to. She is traumatized and doesn’t deal with that in a healthy or acceptable manner, instead taking it out on everyone around her. The entire point of her character is that she is trying to take control, but that her power thrives on fear and fury. She is in the wrong, she is told that she’s in the wrong, and then she goes and does awful things. That’s literally the point of the book. Apparently someone didn’t get that, because they spent quite a while complaining about all of this. So that was more of a short rant on my end. 

Let’s go to some specifics: worldbuilding and characterization and as a footnote, plots.

I love worldbuilding. For me, physically creating new worlds to write in is one of my favourite things to do, and reading books where the author has put in effort is just as good. For peak worldbuilding, let’s look at a classic: Tolkien. He spent his life building up the world of Middle Earth. As the joke goes, he tells the story of every single tree. And that’s his style. Personally I haven’t read any of his books, and I know I’ll get murdered for saying that (I will I promise!!!!) but the worldbuilding is absolutely incredible, sometimes to the verge of Too Much, it seems. A modern level and a step down is Jay Kristoff, specifically the Nevernight Chronicles. I have yet to finish the third book, but the series is really amazing and I absolutely recommend it. There are a lot of people who dislike his writing style, which is understandable; I personally adore it. Kristoff does a lot of worldbuilding as well. He has little tidbits of history for each country and culture, both relevant and irrelevant; he makes the place feel real. For me, I didn’t find that this was too much, largely because it’s my preference. For other people, it was, and that’s also understandable: not all of it was relevant to the story or to what the audience needed to know. Another step down from there in terms of worldbuilding was The Young Elites. The world is developed enough that you know what’s going on, and you are given the information that you need to know. All of the countries involved seem to have the same or a similar religious system, though independent cultures and distinguishing features. You are told what is relevant to the story, and the worldbuilding isn’t lacking, but it isn’t going out of its way to the same extent that Tolkien and Kristoff do. And that’s not a bad thing! For some pieces, the worldbuilding is amazing, and that’s what sells it. For others, the worldbuilding is what it needs to be, because it doesn’t need to have the rest of it, and it’s just fine on its own. 

However, it has to be balanced. I’m going to rip into basically every main-shelf author that you see at the front of the bookstore here. Wilbur Smith, John Grisham, any of these names--are they good at character development? The answer is, usually, no. No, their characters are all two dimensional, copy-pasted caricatures of one another. The abandoned brother, the incredible casanova, the strong woman, the wife, the lawyer. The characters are not spectacular. And you know what? That’s ok! Because those ones are about plot and setting, usually. John Grisham doesn’t write about characters, he writes about high stakes legal cases, and all of the fallout from them. Wilbur Smith writes about families, using them as a vehicle to write about African history, but the focus is on the events and not the characters. And that’s ok!! (I have other problems with these authors but for the point of the argument, let’s just go with it.) You don’t need to have amazing characters always if you have a good plot, and if the plot is the intention. 

Sometimes you get a weird balance of these three elements, which I’m marking as what I’d consider the most important for me, for what I read. (The last paragraph is mostly exempt from worldbuilding because most of what’s the front shelf stuff isn’t SFF and doesn’t need it.) Sometimes you get authors like Tochi Onyebuchi, who, love him to bits, is not the best at plot or characterization in comparison to a lot of other authors. But do you know what!!!!! That is ok!!!!! He writes incredible worlds, with the focus being those worlds. The plot occurs because of the worlds, instead of the other way around. The characters are vehicles to move the plot. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing! Just like if it were the other way around, with an intriguing plot and somewhat interesting characters but lacking worldbuilding, or amazing characters who are interesting and bring it to life, despite having a mediocre plot or worldbuildling.

What I’m trying to get at is that it feels like, regularly, people who are reviewing books want everything. If a book doesn’t have amazing characters and plot and worldbuilding, if you can see the plot twists coming, if you can’t relate to a cardboard character, if you don’t know everything about the world, then it’s a regular writeoff. I saw a lot of people tearing into Song of the Lioness by Tamora Pierce, because it’s written in a style more for children, or new teens; because the pacing is fast; because there isn’t a lot of detail. But it doesn’t have to be written at a higher reading level; it doesn’t have to be detailed or have immaculate pacing, especially when the first book is just exposition. 

Reviews are a good thing, I wholeheartedly believe that. They’re a way to express what you feel about a book, to give feedback and criticism. It encourages critical thinking, and for me as a writer, helps me to find what I want in a piece that I’m both reading and writing. But at the same time, many people it seems lack the understanding that nuance exists, and that different pieces can have different styles and different focuses, and that doesn’t make it bad in and of itself. 

[imaginativecrime]

7 reasons The Witcher series is a mess (or damn I need to vent)

Unpopular opinion time! For the record, I’ve read the books, played the games, hell, I’ve binged the Polish movie and series (because my love for Michal Zebrowski and Zbigniew Zamachowski is undying, sue me), and I was super hyped. Then I spent the entire series yelling at the TV, so I made a handy numbered list of the reasons why I personally consider it mediocre at best.

Because I’m fucking disappointed and I’ll never not be bitter about it. Fact.

Be warned, there are all sorts of spoilers below.

Let’s look at some of the issues that affected the show as a whole:

1) Adaptation is hard work - but you have to do it right

Adapting a story from one medium to another is difficult, you inevitably have to change things to make it suitable to the new form of expression and also, everybody wants their adaptation to be unique, to emphasize points they think are important, to reflect on the current times, you name it. But changes in an adaptation should make sense and lend themselves to the storytelling.

Many changes in the series were arbitrary, nonsensical and contributed absolutely nothing. One such example is the Battle of Sodden Hill, a terribly executed “siege” with not enough extras to fill a classroom instead of a battle of 100 000 people. Writing out Redania, Aedirn and the Brotherhood of Sorcerers from the conflict doesn’t seem to have a point to it, while the delayed arrival of the armies of Temeria and Kaedwen is both unexplained, unlikely and underwhelming, not to mention that it completely undermines the Nilfgaardian threat as a whole. This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg of all the things that are wrong with Sodden Hill in the series. 

Or take Foltest and his affair with Adda. It is perfectly clear in the books that after seven years of wizards, witchers and all manner of frauds coming and going while Foltest is obsessed with breaking the curse instead of killing his daughter, even the very last blind and deaf peasant knows about his shenanigans. It’s only logical, too. The story is relayed to Geralt in no uncertain terms at the very beginning. Now in the show the whole episode is too short to set up a murder mystery that requires Geralt’s incredible detective skills (uhuh) to unravel. What is worse is that you cannot make a big reveal of something that your audience actually has previous knowledge about. So why even bother to have Foltest deny it and have Geralt beat it out of Ostrit? 

Which brings us to point two:

2) We all know which way to Temeria, don’t we?

Even if you have popular source material, you cannot expect everyone to know it. An adaptation has to consider people who are just getting their first introduction to the sandbox. When your lore is as rich as that of the Witcher, you need time and careful effort to set up your world. The show made a total shit job of this one. As in the above example, sometimes the show ignores that we, as an audience, know things. 

Another example is Vilgefortz. We know him, his plans, abilities and allegiances, we have very specific expectations of his character. Besides completely failing these expectations (and doing a very unconvincing early reveal of his true colors), the show goes as far as taking Vilgefortz’s iconic sentence (You mistake stars reflected in a pond for the night sky.) and putting it in Fringilla’s mouth. Like did they actually think we wouldn’t notice? Or not be pissed?

At other times the show expects us to fill in its glaring blanks exactly by knowing our lore and characters. One obvious, overarching example of this is the issue of the separate timelines, that sometimes left even fans a little confused. Also, fun fact: one of my friends (who has no idea about anything in the Witcher’s world) for instance needed some time to realize Pavetta wasn’t, in fact, a grown-up Ciri, and he remains to this day very confused about Blaviken.

Basically, we are on a swing here, which is actually made even worse by another thing: bad pacing.

3) Hold your Roach for a moment

The first season wants to cram too much into its limited time and it has a severe negative impact on worldbuilding and character development. By bringing in all three timelines from the beginning, the show has to juggle time allotted to each. 

To be frank, Ciri’s timeline at this point consists of a lot of running and screaming, which in itself hardly merits all the time we spend with her. It could have been utilized in part to provide us with a view of the war from ‘below’, to show that beyond the high politics and heroic battles there are burned villages, dead peasants, people who lost everything, cripples, deserters, ruined fields, and so on. Instead, we get one refugee camp of neat tents, actual beds, food and complaints about Calanthe (though not of dead husbands, lost homes or winter). Though I guess it should come as no surprise that the shock value of paint being made from a woman’s reproductory organs (that never happened in the books) is more important than actual large scale human suffering.

Now giving Yennefer an extended back story is great. But by that level of extension once again time is being consumed that is taking other opportunities away. Opportunities like giving Geralt himself a bit more background, clarifying points for fresh faces in the audience, giving characters more time for meaningful interaction. Because there is not enough time to let the story breathe and progress naturally, episodes are often rushed, choppy, and shallow. 

4) Reverse worldbuilding, aka welcome to nowhere 

Another serious issue with worldbuilding is what I suspect to be a deliberate departure from the game visuals and aesthetic. One of the things I adore most about the games is that it built heavily on Eastern European history and folk tradition. Nothing compares to the feeling when you ride into a village and you feel right at home because things are inherently familiar, or you go out into the woods and hear the exact bird song you are used to.

Netflix is very careful not to even offer a whiff of this particular identity to its show, but it doesn’t seem to have a clear artistic vision beyond that. Thus while landscapes are nice enough, other settings such as cities, taverns, ballrooms and the like are horribly bland in that “this is how we imagine the middle ages in Hollywood” way and look exactly what they are: sets. While one is not likely to quickly forget the red rooftops of Novigrad or the wild beauty of the Kaer Morhen pass from the games, there is nothing memorable about the locations presented in the series. (Even more bewildering is the depiction of the elite boarding school of Aretuza as a creepy dungeon with elf skulls everywhere. I cannot even begin to address this one unless it is all in caps.) 

Point being that the show lacks an actual visual identity that would distinguish it from any other dime a dozen medieval fantasy.

5) My kingdom for a decent wardrobe

Sadly enough, the bland and flavorless visuals have a terrible effect on something else: clothes and armor. While some costumes are well done, there are way too many examples of the opposite. One very obviously is Nilfgaardian armor, which looks like fossilized trash bags with sad dick helmets. The fact that armor in the show is treated as the equivalent of cardboard is doing no one any favors. Please do your homework next time. Please?

Another inexplicable departure from the books and games is the appearance of the nobility, and most jarringly, sorceresses. That dress Yennefer picks out the first time? It’s literally the drabbest, ugliest thing I’ve ever seen, and the others are not much better. When it comes to period-accurate choices, the range is just so wide: we are talking cambric, velvet, silk, cloth of gold and silver. We are talking luxurious furs, embroidery, colorful feathers, bright dyes, coats of arms and jewelry. Brooches, necklaces, bracelets, rings, hat badges, belt buckles, hairpins, you name it. People wore their wealth. Making them look like sad orphans will not make them look any more medieval.

Peasant clothes also had their decorations, though to a lesser degree than nobles, obviously. But I guess it’s too much to hope that those would get any attention when queens are dressed like they lost a bet.

6) I see your people and I raise you mine

Including people of color in the casting choices caused a lot of heated debate amongst the fans, but at least it means that the show cares about minority representation, right? Right?

The world of the Witcher has its own minorities, and what we have seen of them so far is so incredibly pathetic that I haven’t the words. For one thing, they look so terrible that elves in the Polish series actually look better, and that was so not a high bar to exceed. To make matters worse, they again seem to lack any sort of distinguishing visual identity (except for the Dryads. I’m also willing to make an exception for Chireadan, as he actually looks right and he’s a settled elf.)

Sadly, unlike the games, the series also fails to establish even the beginnings of a compelling narrative for its minorities, which definitely needs to be in place by the time Thanedd happens at the very latest. What is more, we seem to be given something called the Great Cleansing, which is plenty obscure but comes across as a Night of Broken Glass sort of thing (though that could be just me). While still salvageable at this point, this shift in narrative is cause for some concern, and so far doesn’t make much sense.

7) Your villains are not my villains

Unlike the books and games, the Witcher series sadly doesn’t seem to excel at presenting opposing sides without the need to vilify one (which again, makes me worried about what they are going to do to the Scoia’tael later). 

Nilfgaard is now an Empire of Evil (TM) that lives for killing and religious fanaticism, Fringilla is a psychopath, and Cahir... Well, Cahir is a thousand shades of wrong all on his own. Stregobor and Istredd are now assholes of a whole different caliber, and even poor Eyck of Denesle gets to enjoy his five minutes of fame as a madman frothing at the mouth instead of a paragon of knightly virtue.

This is going so well.

[notbecauseofvictories]

You are a fan of such high quality stuff. What do you honestly recommend for people? Like book, movie, TV, video game, podcast wise? I mean, you're just amazing.

I’ve been on a (truly monstrous, haha) horror kick lately, in honor of October sneaking up on us. On terms of recommendations I would suggest:

CHANNEL ZERO (2017)A television show born of the nosleep reddit, this features a horrible childhood memories, superb settings, some genuinely moving acting, and fantastic visual design. Watching it, I was genuinely shocked that Tarsem Singh hadn’t consulted on the design, which is the highest compliment I know how to give.

NOSLEEP PODCAST — “The Whistlers” Season 5, Episode 25 I am fairly neutral on the NoSleep Podcast—generally, a great story is balanced out by a mediocre sound production and acting, or vice versa. However, “The Whistlers” features sad, slow development, no easy answers, and tense, thoughtful writing that kept me engaged throughout. I loved every second the piece, and I hope Ms. Argot continues to write similar pieces about the psychological strain of undergone by her characters (rahther than taking the easier and more obvious route of external suffering.)

NOSLEEP — for those who know me, I am a tremendous follower of the r/nosleep thread, and read almost everything it produces. Some of it is distinctly mediocre, ripoffs of popular horror and obviously male-authored. But some of my favorites feature genuinely thoughtful, original scenarios and worldbuilding I think on par with the best:

I used to work at a pill mill in Florida.

I’m a Search and Rescue Officer With the US Forest Service

.Mr. Pleasant’s House for Broken Children

Julia Legara

NIGHTMARE - HUNGRY DAUGHTERS OF STARVING MOTHERS by Alyssa WongA phenomenal story about justice, horror, and the existential crisis monsters embody. I added this to my bookmarks the moment I read it, I was so fascinated by the world of fucked-up choices it portrayed, and the strangled relationships therein. What a read.

THE NEW YORKER - MONSTRO, by Junot DiazNot that I needed proof Diaz is a phenomenal writer, but this is the first fantasy fusion I read where I was more interested in the social mores, conditions and aspects of real life, than the fantastical elements. An excellent example of magical realism in the modern day.

LIFEAFTER On of the podcasts I listened to while on my internet break—truly phenomenal voice acting, tense story development, the creeping horror of human limitations in the face of technology, and much much more. Genuinely one of the best podcasts I’ve listened to over the course of my time.

SCP FOUNDATION - SECURE, CONTAIN, PROTECTOn of my favorite and yet most annoying AUs—imagine that a  shadowy organization has been coralling fantastical tech and magical/religious phenomenon for centuries. Now imagine they are still doing so, studying it to the furthermost extent of ethical permissions, and ignoring what might prevent them from doing so.

Also angels, soup, Cain&Abel, body horror, transgressions of research ethics, and more.