#meaningful conflict

[ahb-writes]

Writing Problem: The Scenes Are Void of Meaningful Conflict

Problem: The Scenes Are Void of Meaningful Conflict

Solution: Character growth and story arcs don't occur in isolation. Conflict-guided scenes and conflict-guided storytelling, more broadly, open the narrative to moments in which the characters are continuously tested to validate their knowledge, skills, or relationships.

To drive the story forward with measured purpose, focus on building, developing, and testing a character's desires. If necessary, implement story or relational dynamics to economically assess, judge, and curate a character's failure (and the consequences thereof). Conflict needn't be grandiose; writers must be in tune with the different levels, types, and intensities of conflict that drive their story. Conflict should be multifaceted.

Writing Resources:

A Few Words About Conflict (Glimmer Train Press)

Conflict Thesaurus (One Stop for Writers)

6 Secrets to Creating and Sustaining Suspense (Writer's Digest)

Emotions in Writing: How to Make Your Readers Feel (Jericho Writers)

The Primary Principles of Plot: Goal, Antagonist, Conflict, Consequences (September C. Fawkes)

How to Master Conflict in Young Adult Fiction (Writer's Edit)

Failure, Conflict, and Character Arc (Writers in the Storm)

❯ ❯ Adapted from the writing masterpost series: 19 Things That Are Wrong With Your Novel (and How to Fix Them)

[marigoldrory]

In "Eight O'clock at the Oasis" we see Lorelai get emotionally manipulated by Dwight, and Emily, after spending the entire episode struggling to have boundaries with her Mom. In the next episode "Take the Deviled Eggs" we see her get emotionally manipulated by Sherry too.

What is so striking is how intensely insistent all three had to be in order for Lorelai to finally relent. She is very stubborn, hard-headed, and independent, and she fails!! She still fails to not getting roped into a disruptive project for a stranger, she fails to say no to the baby shower of a woman is having a baby with the man she wants to be with, and she fails to have boundaries with her mother because she cares about her.

Lorelai has struggled to have boundaries with her Mom her entire life, and she has to be unrelenting in order to have some boundaries and autonomy with her, so of course she is stubborn and doesn't know when to give in sometimes in other areas of her life.

It is just so interesting seeing the root of that character trait, what circumstances break it, and where there's room to grow.

Especially since in the next episode, "They shoot Gilmores, Don't They?" she emotionally manipulates her daughter into attending the 24 hour dance with her. Rory says no multiple times, explains why it would mess up her plans and her night, which she was excited for, until she ultimately conceeds.

Emily is stubborn, so Lorelai has to be stubborn in order to have a relationship with her, but that bleeds over into her relationship with Rory in ways she doesn't realize is harmful. And she is so panicked about not hurting her daughter the same way that her Mom hurt her, that she doesn't give Rory any space to talk through her feelings when Lorelai does in fact hurt her.

It's real and tragic and human!

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

There are people out there who genuinely think that the Starks aren’t thematically linked to ice in a way that is meaningful and central to the story? What?? I mean, never mind that they’re characterized as exclusively living in a frozen land, it is said that a Stark who goes south of the Neck melts. It’s not like their ancestral sword is called Ice. It’s not like they rule a castle called Winterfell. It’s not like their house words are “Winter is coming”. It’s not like their banner is a direwolf (a creature that is now synonymous with the snowy north) running on what is described as either snow or an ice-white background. It’s not like they are consistently characterized with having icy or cold demeanors to the point of it being a house trait (e.g., Benjen, Ned, Jon). It’s not like they ruled thousands of years as Kings of Winter. It’s not like the Starks, the wolves, are said to be uniquely suited to surviving winter. It’s not like a big part of their house legacy and how they even came to be is the construction of a giant ice Wall. It’s not like a key historical event in the last couple centuries is the Pact of Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen). Apparently none of that matters 🙄 It’s so disingenuous to claim that any house with First Men blood would take on the role of ice. No, that’s a special characteristic given to the STARKS, and their connection with ice and winter and snow has thematic relevance.

[starcurtain]

Some Speculation on Kaveh’s Father

I actually started this post right after the Parade of Providence event last year, but never got around to finishing it. However, in light of Kaveh still not appearing on a banner, I decided to dust this one off and get it finished, so that I’d have at least a little Kaveh content in my life after being so cruelly denied by Hoyo.

So, without further ado, some stuff about Kaveh’s father I did not see discussed elsewhere but which I think is especially interesting.

1) Kaveh’s father likely first became depressed/disillusioned with humanity after witnessing (or possibly being the victim of) a murder attempt.

Without knowing the full situation and reading all the additional text from the Parade of Providence event, I feel like this might have been easily missed, but the entire “Kaveh’s dad became disillusioned and depressed and retreated to the desert to help people” seems--at first--like it came out of nowhere. He had a lovely family, was the pride of his darshan, and was eager and excited to win the crown to bring it home to his son. Yet theoretically, he did not win the crown (and, in fact, the crown was stolen before the last event and may not have been there during the Avidya Forest fight, so when, as the non-winner, would Kaveh’s father have come into contact with it to encounter Sachin through it in the first place?) Why would Kaveh’s father’s personality take such a massive turn all the sudden? What would drive an excited, happy person to suddenly withdraw from everything he loved and everyone who loved him, if he didn’t actually win the diadem to be influenced by it in the first place?

The event implies there was a trigger:

Huvishka’s friend (who is described as “honest and kind but vulnerable and sensitive”--obviously Kaveh’s father) went into the Avidya Forest with the other contestants, where no one was watching, and we’re not told what happened except that the Akademiya responded to whatever occurred by shutting down the entire competition and banning any sort of events in the future that cause contestants to become so desperate they would “fight to the death.” 

This is a pretty obvious implication that Kaveh’s father either witnessed two other contestants attempt to kill each other or was the victim of an attempted murder himself, which prevented him from winning the competition even though he was the favorite to win by a long-shot. This feat of betrayal, demonstrating the depths to which humanity would sink, likely shook the idealistic world views of a sensitive person such as Kaveh’s father. This brush with death and with humanity’s capacity for evil in the forest would have been the exact trigger needed to make Kaveh’s father particularly vulnerable to Sachin’s message of nihility and despair, leading to the downward spiral that sent Kaveh’s father into the desert.

- 

2) Sachin may have way more culpability for Kaveh’s father’s death than Kaveh realizes. 

For a while after the event, I was under the impression that Kaveh’s father must have met Sachin’s consciousness through the diadem and that’s where he got the idea to go into the desert. However, something was always a bit odd about the timeline, because...

Sachin was still alive when he gave the Akademiya his estate. This is why no one actually knew/believed he was fully dead, even to the present--because he willed the Akademiya the estate while he was alive and told them he was going to be personally watching over the contestants to award his estate to them if he deemed them worthy successors to himself. 

So did Kaveh’s father run into a fragment of Sachin’s consciousness... or did he run into Sachin himself? The game doesn’t really clarify:

The fact that Sachin’s recording recognized Kaveh’s appearance as familiar makes me think it is much more likely that the consciousness preserved in the diadem already had knowledge of Kaveh’s father at the time it was preserved. Aka, Sachin actually met Kaveh’s father in person. This also makes sense of why, even though the diadem was stolen away during the last event and Kaveh’s father did not win it, he would still know about Sachin and Sachin’s research. (However, as a counterpoint, I guess we could say that the Diadem!Sachin had enough sentience to maybe have its own memory, separate from the real Sachin? And reached out to Kaveh’s father mentally even though he didn’t win the diadem? Maybe?)

Still, there’s one really notable aspect of the timeline that I think is important: Right after the Interdarshan Competition twenty years ago, the one which Kaveh’s father competed in, we know that Sachin went back out to the desert. 

Who else went out to the desert exactly 20 years ago? Kaveh’s father, obviously.

This overlap in the timelines makes it seem very likely that Kaveh’s father, who failed to win the competition because of a murder attempt (and therefore never got the diadem), was nevertheless reached out to by the real Sachin, who saw in Kaveh’s father the kindred disillusioned idealist he was looking for to pass his research torch onto. From this connection, Kaveh’s father was driven to either directly accompany or at least pursue the still living Sachin into the desert. (This works even if we say it was only Sachin’s consciousness he was contacted by--in either case, he would have been driven go to out to the desert to meet the real, temporarily still living Sachin to join his quest to help the desert people.)

Only for Kaveh’s father to meet his end there while trying to aid a caravan that had fallen into trouble. What a tragic coincidence, a completely unpredictable twist of fate.

Or... was it?

How odd, in the same quest that Kaveh’s father’s connection to Sachin is discussed, that we’re given an account of a caravan that appears to have been deliberately sabotaged, where money was taken (from Sachin) and somehow sparked a betrayal, a “trial of human nature” that caused many people to die, with the takeaway being the exact belief Sachin wants to pass on and reinforce in others, that humans are horrific creatures who can only make the world a worse and worse place. 

We know that Sachin’s “research” specifically consisted of doing this exact thing, manipulating situations to test humans’ moral character, conducting trials/experiments on “human nature” to reinforce his belief that humans were fundamentally selfish beings.

(It’s no accident the merchant ledger we receive uses the exact same words as Sachin does, “trial of human nature” and “experiments on human nature.” We’re supposed to assume what happened to the caravan in the note was deliberate sabotage on Sachin’s part, to create a scenario where he could observe the cruelties of humanity.)

Why would the game go out of its way to give us an account of a caravan being deliberately sabotaged and used as an experiment if there was no connection at all between what happened with this caravan and what happened to Kaveh’s father, who was also killed helping a floundering caravan?

It’s just too much of a coincidence to accidental. I think the implications of the ledger Dori gave us and the similarities in the language on that ledger to Sachin’s ideas was supposed to lead the audience to wonder:

Could Kaveh’s father have died in one of Sachin’s final “human nature experiments”? 

Was the caravan Kaveh’s father tried to help one that Sachin deliberately sabotaged, expecting to observe humanity’s selfish, self-preserving nature?

I think there’s enough evidence in the story to suggest that we players are at least supposed to consider this a possibility. (There’s no reason to give us the ledger about the manipulated caravan otherwise.) And if you consider this a possibility, it would mean that Sachin didn’t just indirectly cause Kaveh’s father’s death--he would be the direct cause of Kaveh’s father’s death, an actual murder brought about by Sachin’s beliefs that humanity’s self-centered nature made everyone beyond saving.

This idea transforms Kaveh’s father’s sacrifice into the ultimate rejection of Sachin’s beliefs. This would mean that, even in a situation manipulated to bring out the worst in human beings on purpose, Kaveh’s father gave everything to protect the lives of others, for no gain at all of his own, doing everything he could just to desperately try to make the situation (the world) better.

SO yeah. I’m not saying we have hard evidence here, but I think the quest was trying to lead players to speculate very, very hard on the possibility that Kaveh’s father’s death was no accident.

-

3) Finally, a cuter piece of speculation to brighten things up after that despair bomb I just dropped: it’s highly likely that Kaveh’s father had more than one Aranara buddy!

During the Parade of Providence, we hear about an Aranara who learned to read from Kaveh’s father:

However, this is a bit confusing, because later in the event, we hear someone else say that Kaveh’s father taught an Aranara to write specifically when he was a child:

While of course it is possible that Kaveh’s father taught the first Aranara, Arakasyapa, to both read and write, I think there’s also another possible answer here about why Kaveh’s father would separately mention teaching an Aranara to write:

Because there is an entirely different Aranara in the story which was taught to write by a “good Nara” who was a child--Arashakun, from the quest “Courage is the Heart.”

In this sweet little world quest, the Traveler discovers a flower talisman that has been snatched by some hilichurls, and seeks to return it to its rightful owner, a timid and shy Aranara named Arashakun. 

We learn that Arashakun once had a kind-hearted “good Nara” companion who taught him to write (sound familiar?), and who, in order to encourage the poor Aranara, gave him a single flower dubbed “courage.” In describing this child companion, Arashakun specifically states that his companion was no strong warrior like the Traveler’s twin, but instead a gentle, comforting presence who never teased the Aranara.

All of these descriptions line up particularly well with Kaveh’s father, who the game repeatedly describes as vulnerable, kind-hearted, and giving to others.

To drive home the possible connections to Kaveh’s family even further, this quest takes place very, very near to the Palace of Alkazarzaray. 

Although we don’t have any guarantee, I think it is strongly implied that the “good Nara” mentioned by Arashakun is indeed Kaveh’s father, and the “courage of the heart” that he extended to Arashakun as a child is the very same courage, kindness, and generosity that drove him to reach out to the people of the desert, hoping to make a difference in their lives--even at the cost of his own.

The takeaway? Kaveh’s father was a truly good person who aided everyone he came across, from timid Aranara to people whose very lives were in danger. He never meant to leave his family, and especially not his son, but repeatedly fell afoul of the worst humanity had to offer and was driven into a situation in which all he could do was offer his very life to uphold the altruism that was central to his idealism--the same idealism and goodness that Kaveh carries as “courage” in his own heart.

[taihua]

Okay sorry not done with Veilguard hateposting

“We’re treasure hunters but we don’t steal any important relics from other cultures”

If only there was a way to show via quests and character interactions that stealing from other cultures is bad… like if we had a looting treasure hunter character on the same team as, say, a Veil Jumper who thinks researching and preserving her people’s history is important… then these two characters could have a meaningful conflict and the player could choose how to resolve it by deciding who gets to keep a stolen item

But that might mean having a character show Bad Traits and be a Bad Person who deserves a Tumblr callout post so I guess we can’t have that after all. Scrap it, boys

[eye-of-yelough]

still so sad that the closest thing we get to lucanis ‘mage killer’ dellamorte being maybe a little bit controversial is him saying “mages. 🙄 you want a contract put out on your life? this is how you get a contract put out on your life.” on emmrich’s final quest against the campy evil necromancer villain

[jamiesfootball]

Technically the Richmond coaches had two chances to move Jamie to center and then didn’t take it: once when Zava showed up and once when they switched everyone at practice.

Both times they assumed he wouldn’t do it

At the very least we know he was willing to do it the second time (he even asked if they meant to give him the same position), but honestly? The Jamie who came to them worried about the effect of Zava on the team might’ve done it too. He is well on board with being a team player at that point, which he also demonstrated many times in season two. He probably would’ve been hurt by it, but he would’ve agreed to do it

(Then we could’ve had a whole season deconstructing how Jamie conflates scoring with winning with value in a way that really isn’t healthy but I digress)

For the record I don’t think this would have fixed anything. They probably would’ve figured out how effective Jamie is in midfield sooner, but they still would’ve had Zava, and after Zava there would’ve been the tension of whether to keep Jamie where he was or have him step back up to striker, especially since they weren’t doing total football yet. In a lot of ways, having Jamie step up and volunteer for it later really sidesteps a lot of drama

I’m more so lamenting the fact that with Jamie, when it came to ‘be curious not judgmental, they chose to remain judgmental of his past behavior instead of curious about his new ones.

[leo-artista]

Is it too early to say I'm very disappointed with the ending of Arcane

[yellowocaballero]

hi! i've been reading some of your older fics and was wondering if there's any merit in watching buffy for the first time in the year 2024

This may not be obvious, but this is actually an extremely complicated and highly subjective question. I'll try to go on for too long.

As background: my mother loved Buffy and its spin-off Angel growing up. It was our Bible (besides the actual Bible). Not kidding, she was on the forums and fan groups and wrote fanfiction for it and everything (These days, she's really into kdramas and Asian dramas, and calls me about how the Thai seem like big fans of gay people). So I'm quite biased.

BTVS is both a product of its times and ahead of its times. It was a show about feminism and the struggle of living in this world as a woman, when very few shows were doing that. It was the first show to have a long-lasting lesbian couple, and the first show to depict a kiss between them. For better or for worse, it was one of the codifiers of broody vampire boyfriend. It was pretty unafraid to be experimental in a lot of what it did. It had incredibly complex and nuanced character work and growth that I still aspire to. Spike's arc is still matched in quality only by Avatar's Zuko. Angel's long term arc, from Buffy to his spin-off series, still makes him one of the most complex characters on TV. It had the most complex depiction of depression on TV at the time and I still think it's one of the best. I think the show had very high highs.

It also had very low lows. Some of the feminism is problematic in retrospect. The sapphic couple has a rather famous element that was severely problematic. There are, overall, some deeply atrocious arcs that I can appreciate objectively but not in practice. Xander: a whole-ass character aged awfully. On a meta level, the workplace conditions were bad (thanks, Whedon.) There are no people of color. The spoiler's sake I won't go into detail on this, but in general the good stuff was so influential and the bad stuff was just awful.

I think these days people tend to brush off the entire thing because it's Whedon. That is more than fair. But I'd also say that Whedon & Buffy is extremely similar to Brian Michael Bendis & Ultimate Spider-Man. Bendis was fantastic at writing sassy, bouncy, permanently stressed-out teens - issue was, he wrote entirely different serious adult characters the way he wrote these sassy teens. Same with Whedon: the annoyingly constant quips are perfect for Buffy, because that's who the characters are. They're awful in Marvel, because Steve Rogers is not Xander. Kinda similarly, Buffy was genuinely feminist for 90s TV - issue is, Whedon has not grown or developed his views, and now his works feel so sexist (oh my fucking god why did you treat Natasha like that). After a certain point it's egotistical: you're writing like that because you're Joss Whedon and it's how you write, not because it's what's best for the characters and story. But it was really important to me to get the character voices right, and it's freaking difficult to endlessly write dialogue that distinct, full of voice, witty, and clever.

I think BTVS & Angel TV's greatest influence on my writing is how intensely character-driven both of those shows were, and how intricate the characters were. What every character did was something they would do, if that made sense. Even the stuff I hated to watch, that made me uncomfortable, was the culmination of so much (usually). I think I also picked up the constant wit and humor lol. On a personal level, the conversations I would have with my mother where she broke down the character motivations and composition of the story was my first exposure to looking at storytelling from an analytical perspective and a framework of critical analysis, which was an approach I carried into the rest of the media I consumed and that was the primary reason I was able to become a decent writer. Thanks, Mom. Have fun with your kdramas.

TL:DR: There is merit, especially if you care about good character work. There are things about it that may make you want to drop it, which is extremely valid. Season 1 is rough but interesting, Season 2 and 5 are the best, Season 3 is pretty good, Season 4 and 7 skippable, and Season 6 is........epic highs, epic lows......

[existentiol]

something that pisses me off in RA is that Flanagan will occasionally hype up Pauline as this super important and prominent figure in Will’s life, even treat her as a proxy for the mother he never knew, and yet will just refuse to show it beyond the like. two or three (personal) conversations that they have in canon. I get that he was attempting to make her an important person in Will’s life but why not do that by actually making her an important person in Will’s life

[luckydicekirby]

link click s2 is very funny bc its main weakness is its insistence on hiding things from the viewer to the ultimate detriment of the narrative and fully developing the new characters. however the most banger moment of the season was also of course suddenly revealing something cool as hell that was hidden from the viewer until the very end. multitudes!

[ontheropesss]

The Dick Grayson I know (Nightwing (1996) #151):

The one I'm stuck with (Nightwing (2016) #111):

[bachirasbodyguard]

Shoutout to one of my favorite Blue Lock beefs. No cunning, no grace, no restraint with these two. Just throwing hands ON SIGHT. God bless.

also shoutout to Shidou for being the only person who actually makes Rin lose his composure like that (and so easily too). king

((this post by @bluelock-textposts inspired me))

[distraughtlesbian]

sorry for speaking my truth it will happen again. i think my main issue with valax’s redemption arc is literally just that there’s never a moment where the mc gets to actually talk to her about what she did—there’s not really a cathartic conversation, so valax and mc moving past what she did to them feels less like forgiveness and redemption and more like an agreement to ignore the elephant in the room

like sure we got to talk about our trauma (in chapter 17 of 20. lol. lmao, even) to the party, but valax wasn’t present for that?? and like, sure, she says once that she is sorry “for the pain she caused [them]”, but there’s a difference Tew Me between “sorry for hurting you ig ✌️😗” and actually being like “yeah, i abducted you and forced you into a magically induced coma and stole your blood and robbed you of a full year of your life and repeatedly tried to murder you, to say nothing of the grief i caused your loved ones. i did all that shit and i’m sorry for it and deeply regret it, and i acknowledge that you don’t owe me forgiveness, but i will spend the rest of my life working to build a better world for my people instead of being my mother’s pawn”, and a difference between “my mother is unhappy with me for saving you :(” and actually like, giving the mc space to talk about the impact of her actions towards them. like girl you are not getting out of this shit with one sentence’s worth of apology and a sex scene lmfao!!!

during the first half or so of the book the focus for mc is not falling the fuck apart bc they have a friend group to tentatively piece together and they’re averse to showing fear in front of valax, so they’re repressing all their trauma—and by the time valax joins the party, the narrative has gone full Valax Cool And Good mode, and fully allows you to flirt with her and tease her and generally stops taking her seriously as an antagonist. which would be all fine and good if we had actually at any point gotten to be like, “hey, you abducting me and keeping me in a magically induced coma and stealing my blood and trying to kill me has actually caused me a lot of lasting fear and pain,” followed by some set of choices wrt forgiving or not forgiving her for all that in light of the revelation that she did all that shit bc her mom tortured and brainwashed her

like why are my friends more pissed off about the time this bitch abducted me and did evil little experiments on me than i am. free valax she did all that shit bc of her mommy issues but i should’ve gotten to call her a cunt just once. pb stop making all your mcs generals in the idgaf war challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

[zhongscara]

sumeru was able to redeem the colorist crimes of the character designers with an absolutely BANGER archon quest... i dont think natlan is gonna achieve the same...........

[gingermintpepper]

Day 6: Iaso

Interpretation notes and trivia under the cut!

Okay the first thing I'm going to say is I know she has a criminal lack of jewellry but I really didn't want to draw all the little baubles 😭 She's also missing her headscarf but like,,, shh, it's fine. Actually her design her is very very loose - for example the back of her two scarves should be tucked into her belt, and they should be tied off in front before flaring out again beneath her belt. Also her belt should be clip on with a silver clasp instead of a tied off sash like the greek women HOWEVER, what if I just drew her barely clothed and completely a mess? Okay? Okay mwah mwah mwah. Me committing liberal fashion faux pas aside, I think Iaso is the first true "what the hell does she have to do with the story of Hyacinthus and Apollo" character I've introduced and that makes me very happy, get used to that it will happen again. As the second child of Asclepius, Iaso has spent her life supporting her mother and chasing her father's shadow. Machaon, her older brother, has never disliked the nomadic life their family leads, travelling from place to place, lending their aid where they can and healing whatever sick and afflicted they find but Iaso has only ever wanted to fix her family - to keep her mother happy and to make her father stay with them. When the opportunity comes for her to fix it all, of course she springs for it and rushes off on her own adventure, still that little girl chasing after her father's shadow. Determined, upbeat and kind of precocious, Iaso's the sort of girl to take her fate into her own hands, for better or for worse.

Some assorted trivia:

Has never met her grandfather and doesn't actually care much about being the granddaughter of the Radiant. The only members of her paternal family that she's familiar with are Artemis and Orpheus. Artemis because she frequented Asclepius' home when dealing with The Hippolytus Incident and Orpheus because all of the children, even the twins, know Uncle Orpheus.

Despite her skill with healing and ingenuity when it comes to administering and refining medicinal receipes, she doesn't want to be a doctor and very much wishes she had the freedom to be something else. Hasn't had time to have a hobby but she thinks she'd like horseback riding.

Extremely good runner and fantastic at concocting poisons. Surprisingly hardy and due to handling home affairs for so long as Epione was usually busy for long hours in the healing tent, can haggle and cook with the best of them.

Routinely pilfers a lot of the jewellry Machaon inherited from their father and is especially fond of the bronze snake anklet Asclepius wore on his wedding day. It was originally given to Machaon in the hopes that it would help him find a bride but considering Machaon hasn't yet told his father that he has no interest in such a pursuit, the boy passed the bronze snake to Iaso who wears it religiously. She even says a charm spell each day just in case she finds her special someone while on the road!

Thinks the current world without the Radiant is beautiful enough and that people will ultimately perservere even if the god of light never returns. She hopes her father can understand that divine matters should be left to the gods and that his priority should be the family he built with his own two hands and not his paternal family who can never seem to agree on anything.

Favourite colour is the greenish-yellow of olive oil, favourite season is the lingering fall. Her favourite food is her mother's menemen (without onion).