#sentence structure review

[tamaharu]

okay i wrote my letterboxd review im normal now

[forleejehoon]

If you're a recent Lee Jehoon fan and feel like his acting is one of a kind, I urge you to watch his full-length movie debut in a piece called Bleak Night back from 2011 if you haven't already! I can assure, it will make you fall for his acting even more.

This movie is defined as a coming-of-age drama and has an overall indie feel to it. It's a story of a group of highschool friends – more precisely, the storyline follows along Gitae's (Lee Jehoon) dad who tries to understand why his son took his own life. Bit by bit, the events leading up to the incident are revealed to the viewers, too. It makes you constantly question "who's to blame?" and I feel like this question is the driving force of the story.

In general sense, this movie is about boyhood. Director Yoon Sunghyun, whose debut work was actually Bleak Night itself, expands on intricacies of relationships between guy friends and masterfully reveals the subtleties of boyhood as a stage of life using long shots, face close-ups and hand-held shaky camera work; it all feels very raw. It's strong, it's bitter, it hurts, yet it also leaves your heart open and warm for some unidentifiable reason.

Jehoon starred in Bleak Night together with Park Jeongmin (first from right in the picture; another genius actor, he does mostly movies though) and the piece is considered to have kicked off both of their acting careers since they showed truly captivating performances.

This movie is a masterpiece in the way it captures nuance and emotion, especially since it talks about feelings of young men who are just entering adulthood – a topic that's still considered rather taboo in this day and age. It's one of those movies you definitely have to watch at least once in a lifetime.

Bleak Night trailer with English subtitles

Fun fact: Jehoon happened to pass out from smoking too much while filming for this project. He said it was because before he didn't smoke at all but suddenly had to learn it for his character.

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[silverislander]

my old english class sucks so bad that its fucking demoralizing. so i go to every class and sit there bored out of my mind, i dont learn shit from the prof bc hes awful at explaining anything, i dont understand enough to do his stupid fucking homework, im completely unmotivated to do the readings or homework so i NEVER get the chance to learn. i cant win w this guy

[an-ruraiocht]

90% of the time when i see reviews and posts saying "this book needed editing" i don't think the reader have any idea what editing actually entails. usually this is actually code for one of several "problems" with the book:

it's too long, or it's slower paced than this reader's preference. they believe "editing" would mean making it shorter

it has a heavily descriptive style, which the reader doesn't like. they believe "editing" means paring every sentence down to hemingway-style prose with no adverbs

it doesn't follow the very rigid "save the cat" style 3-act story structure, disrupting the reader's sense of narrative tension. an editor, they believe, would've made sure it did

there were a few typos or formatting errors, and they believe it's the editor's job to catch these (it's not, it's typically the proofreader and the typesetter who have responsibility for that kind of thing)

and finally, most often:

the author had different narrative priorities than the reader, who thinks an editor would have made the author change their priorities.

the thing is, there are actually issues with editors in trad publishing being overworked to the point where things aren't getting the thorough, thoughtful editing that they need to be the best version of themselves. there are plenty of badly-structured, poorly-researched, and clumsily written books out there. moreover copyediting is typically freelance and perhaps because of that, this is the area where i see the largest number of issues: continuity issues, grammar issues, factual errors etc that someone should've spotted and didn't.

but this is not typically what people's "this needed an editor" reviews are focusing on. most often it just means they didn't like the book and they've decided editing is an all-powerful force that would have transformed it into a book they liked. but that's not how it works. and disproportionately what this comment means is that the book doesn't match what current fashions have decided is The Correct Style to write in

"this book needed an editor" if it's traditionally published, it had one. like. by definition. it was an editor who bought the book. that doesn't mean the editor did a great job but they definitely existed. there were probably at least two (acquiring editor who does the dev edits; copyeditor who does copyedits), and the proofreader, and a bunch of other people besides.

also i think people think editors are the ones who like. implement the changes. but they don't. they give comments and recommendations and ask questions and the author is the one to act on them. the editor will not rewrite the book. they will not fix the problems themselves, they will highlight the problem and the author will figure out a fix for it, or they will decide they don't agree that it's a problem and leave it as it. and a lot of the sentence-level style stuff is entirely on the author so if they don't have an ear for the rhythm then nobody's going to fix that for them. editors do a lot less than people seem to imagine they do, tbh

anyway

for reference—

structural/developmental edits: is this chapter in the right place and does the plot make sense and is the characterisation consistent and effective

line edits: is this sentence in the right place and is it as stylish as it could be

copy edits: is this sentence grammatically correct and consistent/factually correct within the story/its world and do the spellings follow the publisher's stylesheet

proofreading: are there any typos in this sentence and was the formatting preserved correctly when it was typeset

[trensu]

Steve had always wanted to be a skilled fighter. The schools that churned out the best fighters all happened to be schools for holy warriors. It was possible that Steve maybe sort of lied a little (with the help of his friends Robin and Dustin) to get into this school by claiming he was full to the brim of religious fervor but hadn’t decided who to pledge his sword to yet. It shouldn’t have worked, if he were honest with himself, but by some stroke of luck it did, and he finished his training as one of the top combatants. 

The issue now was that he had to pick a god whose crest to carry. There were all sorts of gods. Gods of water, gods of air, gods of agriculture, war gods, cat gods, plant gods...the list was endless. And while Steve was one of the best fighters around, he was most definitely not one of the best researchers. Thankfully Dustin and Robin were very clever and knew where to find details about the many gods in existence.

“So what kind of god do you want to follow? Maybe we can start there,” Robin asked.

“Uh…a good one?”

“You’re no help at all, you know that?” Dustin grumbled.

They suggested a local god known as Carver who stood for righteousness, but Steve turned that down. It didn't feel like a good fit. They suggested a love god by the name of Chrissy, who valued love of all kinds, romantic, platonic, familial...Steve had been tempted, very tempted, because Steve had always carried an excess of love in his heart. Robin had vetoed that one stating that Steve was already too reckless with his love and she wouldn't stand by and watch him break his own heart over and over again.

Dustin suggested a god of knowledge, Clarke, who blessed and guided those with curiosity, imagination, and a knack for invention. Steve shot that one down immediately. He was never one to be overly imaginative or curious; he preferred to deal with concrete things. Out of their quickly dwindling list, Robin reluctantly suggested Hargrove, a war god favored by a nearby kingdom, but if Carver was ill-fitting, then Hargrove was outright repellent to Steve.

"C'mon, Steve, you gotta pick someone!" Dustin huffed in frustration. 

Robin thunked her head against the table in the library where they were looking up deities. She was obviously at her wit's end too. Steve, however, just dug his heels in with a particularly stubborn scowl.

"I can't just pick anyone!" Steve said. "If I'm going to pledge my sword to someone, it has to be someone...someone good. Someone that, I don't know, someone I can believe in, even when--no especially when things go wrong. That’s the whole point!"

"Yeah, I get that," Robin sighed, a mix of fond and annoyed, "but this is the eighth book we've gone through and the only one left here is called the King of Darkness which is hardly going to--huh."

Robin paused mid-rant to look at the page more closely. Steve and Dustin both huddled around her to peek into the book as well. Dustin also made a sound of curiosity.

"That's weird," Dustin said.

"Right?" Robin asked enthusiastically.

"What? What's weird?" Steve didn't get what caught their attention.

"This god only has a couple of sentences," Dustin explained, "And they don't really make sense. Something about dark creatures and the undeserving? The grammar and structure is all weird though."

"It looks like a half-assed translation," Robin added with a nod. "We should find the original text."

"Yeah! And if we can make a better translation, we could get it added to the next edition and they'd have to put our names on the book," Dustin said excitedly. Robin's eyes lit up at the thought and they both rushed off to the stacks to track down any original sources.

"Guys! Guys, what about my..."

The librarian hushed Steve, irritated. Steve groaned in defeat.

"...godly choices. Yeah, fine," Steve slumped back on his seat. "I need to find non-nerd friends."

Two days later, Robin and Dustin finished translating a slim, dusty book. They were nearly vibrating in their seats as Steve reviewed their notes on what they found. Dustin gripped his arm and gave him a shake.

"So? What do you think?" he asked excitedly.

Robin slung her arm across Steve's shoulders. With more tenderness than Steve expected, she said, "I know it doesn't seem like it, he doesn't really fit with your whole style, but it could work."

"Yeah," Steve said with a hopeful smile. "Yeah, this feels right."

--

It took longer than Steve would've liked, but eventually he managed to track down a small, crumbling shrine. It was an alcove carved near the entrance--no more than a crack in the stone really--of a cave at the edge of a lush forest. He almost missed it, it was so drowned in overgrown crawling vines and weeds. It bore a modest statue, no bigger than Steve, standing atop an equally modest plinth. There was a spot that obviously held a plaque once, but it must’ve been dug out by thieves at some point.

The sight of it made something in Steve's chest twinge; a strange pang of melancholy at seeing a god so forgotten and abandoned. It surprised him as he had never been particularly religious, but there was just something about this one that drew him in.

It was the middle of the day, so Steve quickly made camp and took advantage of the light to begin clearing the shrine. He started where the plaque had been, scrubbing off the dirt and moss that had filled the indentation. He knew a good smith; he could commission a new plaque to be made. After that, he weeded the immediate area around the plinth where worshipers would typically lay their offerings and pray.

By the time he finished that, it was late afternoon and he decided that was good enough for today. He had to eat and get a few hours of sleep so he could be alert once night fell. When he curled up on his bedroll, he couldn't help the grin that spread on his face. He was going to offer himself to his god tonight, and with any luck, his god would accept him.

--

He woke to a multitude of high pitched squeaks and the sound of many, many flapping wings. The sun had just fully set, and the stars that could be seen through the canopy burned brightly. Steve took his time to fasten on his armor and scabbard properly, and fixed his hair so not a strand was out of place. He took a few deep breaths to calm an unexpected bout of nerves before going to the shrine and kneeling.

His god had no official prayers. Or rather, the prayers for his god were forgotten. Robin and Dustin did their best to find anything prayer-like but it had been in vain. They suspected that most of the god's holy items and lore were purposely lost. Lacking that, Steve decided it was best that he introduce himself.

"Um, hi," he started and immediately winced. "Sorry. I'm not used to...this. I couldn't find any of your…holy words? Prayers? The right ways to speak to you, I guess.

"I'm Steve. Steve Harrington. I'm a fighter. I finished my training a few weeks back. I was the top of my cohort when it came to combat. I'm good with my sword and I know how to take a hit. I can turn just about anything into a weapon if it's needed."

Here Steve paused for a moment, straining to hear but there was nothing other than the typical sounds of a night out in the woods. Steve took a breath and plowed forward.

"I want to be more than a fighter, though. I don't want to just wave a sword around for nothing. I want it to...to matter. So I spent a lot of time trying to decide who to wield my sword for. It took me a while, but I found you. I want to be your shield and sword, if you'll have me."

Steve stopped again to listen. Nothing. Robin warned him this might happen. Gods didn't always accept warriors who offered themselves to them, and forgotten gods weren't always reachable. It was fine, though; he’d try again tomorrow night. Steve turned in just before dawn, eager for night again.

--

Steve worked on clearing the vines tangled around the statue's legs and feet. He yanked out the thick, scraggly vines, and carefully picked apart the prickling thorny ones. There was a particular gnarl of vines that didn't seem like they had a stranglehold on his god's statue. They were healthy and strong, and the way they curled and grew looked more like a caress than an invasion. He decided to leave those on, though he gently rearranged them while removing the more invasive vines so they looked more decorative.

When night arrived with the sound of squeaks and wings, Steve went to kneel at the shrine. He introduced himself again, gave the same spiel as the night before. Still he heard nothing. He scratched the back of his neck in mild insecurity.

“I guess I should tell you I didn’t find you on my own. My friends Robin and Dustin helped me. They’re way smarter than me, you know? Total nerds. I can swing a sword like nothing, but books and research? Yeah, that never works out for me, so they helped me look up all sorts of gods.

“There’s a lot of them. Way more than I thought. Dustin and Robin both recommended me ones or vetoed others. They were getting frustrated with me because I kept rejecting the ones they gave me. 

“Then Robin found you. Kind of by accident, to be honest. But she did her research thing and I knew that I wanted to carry your symbol. It took me forever to find this shrine. Robin said this was probably the only shrine you had left, so I had to find it. 

“Dustin kept saying it was on the other side of the forest, but obviously he was wrong. Not that he’ll ever admit it, the little shit, but whatever. I’m sorry your shrine was abandoned like this, but I promise I’ll fix it up. I’m good with my hands, I can do it.”

There was no response to his admittedly disorganized ramble. It was fine, he told himself. He needed to be patient. He’d come back the next night.

–

Around the statue’s waist there was another tangled mess of vines, except these vines had died and rotted to dark sludge. There was fungus growing on it, and it reeked. It was gross. Steve scrubbed at it for hours because the rot had stained the stone. He was able to get rid of the rot and most of the stains before going to catch a few hours of sleep in the afternoon.

Night fell and Steve was kneeling for the third time. He repeated most of what he said the previous two nights. There was still no response. He thought maybe he was pushing too hard. He’d never been the super talkative type anyway. He could share the quiet night with his god, if that was what his god wanted.

A few hours passed when he was startled out of his near meditative state by the sound of snapping twigs. He leapt to his feet, hand on his scabbard. Someone–a man by the look of it–stumbled out of the woods. He was pale and dark haired, dressed in ragged clothes that were probably awful even when they were new. He looked like a vagabond. 

Steve stepped in front of the shrine, protectively. The stranger grinned at him and Steve could already tell he was not going to enjoy the conversation that was about to happen.

“Who are you and what are you doing here?” Steve asked firmly, cutting the man off before he could speak. The smile only grew wider.

“I could ask you the same thing, sir,” the man said, adopting the annoyed huff of a wealthy lord. Steve scowled.

“I asked first.”

“I asked second!”

“You didn’t ask me anything,” Steve responded, somewhat smug. The man paused and then snorted a laugh.

“Yeah, okay.” He raised his hands in mock surrender. “You got me.”

“So?”

“So what?”

“What are you doing here? Who are you?” Steve repeated shortly. The teasing grin was back, and Steve felt his scowl deepen.

“Nothing and no one, m’lord,” the man bows mockingly.

“I’m not a lord.”

“Huh. Could’ve fooled me. You’re certainly as demanding as any lord I’ve ever met.”

“Oh fuck you,” Steve snapped. “I’m a holy warrior.”

The man laughed at him outright.

“Well that doesn’t sound very holy warrior-ish. Are your type allowed to swear?”

Steve grinded his teeth and decided it was not worth it to continue this conversation for much longer.

“Look, if you’re here to steal, I’ve got nothing on me.”

“That’s exactly what someone with something to steal would say.”

“Well, I don’t! I’m on a pilgrimage and I don’t want to spill blood on holy ground. So.” Steve wrapped a hand around the hilt of his sword. “Leave. Please.”

“Holy ground? Here?” the man barks out a laugh. “Don’t you know what this place is?”

“Yes,” Steve says shortly, placing himself more firmly between the shrine and the man. “Please leave. There shouldn’t be violence done here.”

“Oh, it’s far too late for that. This place used to belong to the King of Darkness. It’s said he was so evil that nothing grew here until he was run out and defeated by the god of righteousness. You know the one. Really plays up the holier than thou thing by making his hair all gold and glowy? Gotta say, you could give him a run for his money though.”

“You’re wrong.”

“No really! Your hair is great. Way better than Carver, even with the glowy thing.” 

“Not that!” Steve said in frustration. This guy really liked the sound of his own voice and Steve was starting to get a headache. It was near dawn and all he wanted was to spend the last hour or so in the quiet night with his god.

“So you agree your hair is better than a god’s?” The man tsks at him. “That’s pretty blasphemous. Are you sure you’re a holy warrior?”

“No! I mean, yes. Wait,” Steve growls at his own bumbling. “No, I’m not better than any god. But I am a holy warrior. Kind of.”

“Kind of.”

“Look, I’m working on it so I need you to leave. You’ve insulted him enough already.”

“Your god is the King of Dark–”

“Call him that again, and I will draw my sword,” Steve said, voice steely. “He’s the Lord of Night, and I won’t let you insult him at his own shrine.”

The man goes quiet for the first time since he showed up. He looked almost surprised, his mocking grin gone. His eyes flicked over to the dilapidated statue and then back at Steve.

“Lord of Night doesn’t sound much different than what I called him,” the man said lightly.

“Well, it is,” Steve told him. “Now, will you please leave?”

The man stared at him for a moment before shrugging. “Yeah, alright.” And then he left as suddenly as he had arrived.

The tension that had built up in Steve’s shoulders drained away. He went back to kneel in front of the shrine again when he noticed the barest hint of sunrise on the horizon. He cursed under his breath then was hit with a wave of embarrassment at cursing in front of the shrine and the whole situation that had transpired.

“I’m sorry about that,” Steve said, abashed. “It won’t happen again, I promise.”

–

It happened again.

now with an additional snippet here and here

ps: i do not do those reader tag list things. if you'd like to keep up with my stuff, follow my writing tag: trensu tells stories

[fight-nights-at-freddys]

MASTER POST OF PROSHIP RESOURCES!!! <3<3

this is just for links (bc i just have No Way of formatting this properly), so for more in-depth stuffs and credits, head to the google doc, or the carrd !! :3c

Fiction ≠ Reality

Violent media -

Does Media Violence Predict Societal Violence? It Depends on What You Look at and When

Video Game Violence Use Among “Vulnerable” Populations: The Impact of Violent Games on Delinquency and Bullying Among Children with Clinically Elevated Depression or Attention Deficit Symptoms

Extreme metal music and anger processing

On the Morality of Immoral Fiction: Reading Newgate Novels, 1830–1848

How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games

Examining desensitization using facial electromyography:Violent videogames, gender, and affective responding

'Bad' video game behavior increases players' moral sensitivity

Fiction and Morality: Investigating the Associations Between Reading Exposure, Empathy, Morality, and Moral Judgment

Comfortably Numb or Just Yet Another Movie? Media Violence Exposure Does Not Reduce Viewer Empathy for Victims of Real Violence Among Primarily Hispanic Viewers

Fantasy Crime: The Criminalisation of Fantasy Material Under Australia's Child Abuse Material Legislation

Being able to distinguish fiction from reality -

Effects of context on judgments concerning the reality status of novel entities

Children’s Causal Learning from Fiction: Assessing the Proximity Between Real and Fictional Worlds

Reality/Fiction Distinction and Fiction/Fiction Distinction during Sentence Comprehension

Reality = Relevance? Insights from Spontaneous Modulations of the Brain’s Default Network when Telling Apart Reality from Fiction

How does the brain tell the real from imagined?

Meeting George Bush versus Meeting Cinderella: The Neural Response When Telling Apart What is Real from What is Fictional in the Context of Our Reality

loli/shota/kodocon -

If I like lolicon, does it mean I’m a pedophile? A therapist’s view

Virtual Child Pornography, Human Trafficking and Japanese Law: Pop Culture, Harm and Legal Restrains

Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan

Report: cartoon paedophilia harmless

‘The Lolicon Guy:’ Some Observations on Researching Unpopular Topics in Japan

Robot Ghosts And Wired Dreams Japanese Science Fiction From Origins To Anime [pg 227-228]

Australia's "child abuse material' legislation, internet regulation and the juridification of the imaginationjuridification of the imagination [pg 14-15]

Multiple Orientations as Animating Misdelivery: Theoretical Considerations on Sexuality Attracted to Nijigen (Two-Dimensional) Objects

Positive Impact on Mental Health

Art therapy -

The effectiveness of art therapy for anxiety in adults: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials

Efficacy of Art Therapy in Individuals With Personality Disorders Cluster B/C: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of Art Therapy With Adult Clients in 2018 - What Progress Has Been Made?

Benefits of Art Therapy in People Diagnosed With Personality Disorders: A Quantitative Survey

The Effectiveness of Art Therapy in the Treatment of Traumatized Adults: A Systematic Review on Art Therapy and Trauma

The clinical effectiveness and current practice of art therapy for trauma

Writing therapy -

Optimizing the perceived benefits and health outcomes of writing about traumatic life events

Expressive writing and post-traumatic stress disorder: Effects on trauma symptoms, mood states, and cortisol reactivity

Focused expressive writing as self-help for stress and trauma

Putting Stress into Words: The Impact of Writing on Physiological, Absentee, and Self-Reported Emotional Well-Being Measures

The writing cure: How expressive writing promotes health and emotional well-being

Effects of Writing About Traumatic Experiences: The Necessity for Narrative Structuring

Scriptotherapy: The effects of writing about traumatic events

Emotional and physical benefits of expressive writing

Emotional and Cognitive Processing in Sexual Assault Survivors' Narratives

Finding happiness in negative emotions: An experimental test of a novel expressive writing paradigm

An everyday activity as treatment for depression: The benefits of expressive writing for people diagnosed with major depressive disorder

Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process

Effects of expressive writing on sexual dysfunction, depression, and PTSD in women with a history of childhood sexual abuse: Results from a randomized clinical trial

Written Emotional Disclosure: Testing Whether Social Disclosure Matters

Written emotional disclosure: A controlled study of the benefits of expressive writing homework in outpatient psychotherapy

Misc -

Emotional disclosure about traumas and its relation to health: Effects of previous disclosure and trauma severity

Treating complex trauma in adolescents: A phase-based integrative approach for play therapists

Emotional expression and physical health: Revising traumatic memories or fostering self-regulation?

Disclosure of Sexual Victimization: The Effects of Pennebaker's Emotional Disclosure Paradigm on Physical and Psychological Distress

Kink/Porn/Fantasies

Sexual fantasies -

A Critical Microethnographic Examination of Power Exchange, Role Idenity and Agency with Black BDSM Practitioners

Women's Rape Fantasies: An Empirical Evaluation of the Major Explanations

History, culture and practice of puppy play

What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?

The Psychology of Kink: a Survey Study into the Relationships of Trauma and Attachment Style with BDSM Interests

Punishing Sexual Fantasy

Women's Erotic Rape Fantasies

Sexual Fantasy and Adult Attunement: Differentiating Preying from Playing

What Is So Appealing About Being Spanked, Flogged, Dominated, or Restrained? Answers from Practitioners of Sexual Masochism/Submission

Dark Fantasies, Part 1 - With Dr. Ian Kerner

Why Do Women Have Rape Fantasies

The 7 Most Common Sexual Fantasies and What to Do About Them

Sexual Fantasies

Pornography -

The Effects of Exposure to Virtual Child Pornography on Viewer Cognitions and Attitudes Toward Deviant Sexual Behavior

American Identities and Consumption of Japanese Homoerotica

The differentiation between consumers of hentai pornography and human pornography

Pornography Use and Holistic Sexual Functioning: A Systematic Review of Recent Research

Claiming Public Health Crisis to Regulate Sexual Outlets: A Critique of the State of Utah's Declaration on Pornography

Pornography and Sexual Dysfunction: Is There Any Relationship?

Reading and Living Yaoi: Male-Male Fantasy Narratives as Women's Sexual Subculture in Japan

Women's Consumption of Pornograpy: Pleasure, Contestation, and Empowerment

Pornography and Sexual Violence

The Sunny Side of Smut

Other -

Fantasy Sexual Material Use by People with Attractions to Children

Fictosexuality, Fictoromance, and Fictophilia: A Qualitative Study of Love and Desire for Fictional Characters

Exploring the Ownership of Child-Like Sex Dolls

Are Sex and Pornograpy Addiction Valid Disorders? Adding a Leisure Science Perspecive to the Sexological Critique

Littles: Affects and Aesthetics in Sexual Age-Play

An Exploratory Study of a New Kink Activity: "Pup Play"

Jaws Effect

The Jaws Effect: How movie narratives are used to influence policy responses to shark bites in Western Australia

The Shark Attacks That Were the Inspiration for Jaws

The Great White Hope (written by Peter Benchley, writer of Jaws)

The Jaws Myth [not a study BUT is an interesting read and provides some links to articles and studies]

Slenderman Stabbings

Out Came the Girls: Adolescent Girlhood, the Occult, and the Slender Man Phenomenon

Jury in Slender Man case finds Anissa Weier was mentally ill, will not go to prison

2nd teen in 'Slender Man' stabbing case to remain in institutional care for 40 years

Negative effects of online harassment

How stressful is online victimization? Effects of victim's personality and properties of the incident

Prevalence, Psychological Impact, and Coping of Cyberbully Victims Among College Students

Offline Consequences of Online Victimization

The Relative Importance of Online Victimization in Understanding Depression, Delinquency, and Substance Use

Internet trolling and everyday sadism: Parallel effects on pain perception and moral judgement

The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online

Morally Motivated Networked Harassment as Normative Reinforcement

When Online Harassment is Perceived as Justified

Violence on Reddit Support Forums Unique to r/NoFap

"It Makes Me, A Minor, Uncomfortable" Media and Morality in Anti-Shippers' Policing of Online Fandom

[luna-azzurra]

Some tips to help you improve your writing style:

1. Read widely: Reading a variety of genres and authors exposes you to different writing styles and helps you develop a broader vocabulary and an understanding of various sentence structures. For example, if you want to improve your descriptive writing, read books by authors known for their vivid imagery like J.R.R. Tolkien or Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

2. Write regularly: Like any skill, writing improves with practice. Set aside dedicated time for writing, whether it's a journal entry, a short story, or an essay. Consistency is key. By writing regularly, you'll become more comfortable expressing your ideas and develop your unique voice.

3. Be mindful of your audience: Tailor your writing style to suit your target audience. Consider their level of familiarity with the subject matter, their interests, and their expectations. For instance, if you're writing a scientific paper for experts in the field, use technical language and provide in-depth analysis. On the other hand, if you're writing a blog post for a general audience, use accessible language and relatable examples.

4. Use active voice and strong verbs: Active voice makes your writing more direct and engaging. It emphasizes the subject performing the action rather than the action itself. For example, instead of saying "The ball was thrown by John," use "John threw the ball." Strong verbs also add clarity and power to your writing. Compare "He walked slowly" with "He sauntered" or "He ambled."

5. Vary sentence structure: Experiment with different sentence lengths and structures to maintain reader interest. A mix of short, medium, and long sentences can create rhythm and flow. For example, a series of short, punchy sentences can build tension or convey urgency, while longer sentences can provide detailed explanations or set a contemplative tone.

6. Use precise and vivid language: Choose words that convey your meaning precisely and evoke vivid imagery. Instead of saying "The flower looked pretty," you could say "The delicate blossom bloomed in vibrant shades of crimson and gold." Specific and descriptive language brings your writing to life and engages the reader's senses.

7. Edit and revise: Good writing often requires multiple rounds of editing. After you finish a draft, take the time to review and revise your work. Look for clarity, coherence, and grammar errors. Consider whether each sentence contributes to the overall message and whether the organization of your ideas flows logically. Don't be afraid to make significant changes if they improve your writing.

8. Seek feedback: Share your work with trusted friends, colleagues, or writing groups. Constructive feedback can help you identify blind spots and areas for improvement. Consider their suggestions while maintaining your unique voice and style.

[sophieinwonderland]

Here's Ableist AspenFrostEN Trying To Pack as Much Misinformation and Ableism As She Can Into One Minute:

This sentence is, perhaps, the one and only true thing in this entire video.

Oh, please do enlighten me, Aspen!

I mean, sure, created systems are a thing. Tulpas are the main example of this and the ones that have been studied the most. But there are created systems that aren't tulpas, such as in daemonism.

Also, plenty of traumagenic DID systems have intentionally created alters too, so it's weird to make "people who believe that you can force yourself to have alters" an endogenic system thing.

ALSO, basically no tulpagenic system I know actually uses the word "alter" to describe their headmates.

While most endogenic systems are plural without a disorder, it's bizarre to use this as your definition instead of just "an endogenic systems is plural without trauma" as it's actually defined.

Founded entirely on Tumblr???

Aspen, dear...

Are you... capable of reading? Here's the paragraphs you're looking at. Notice how it says natural system predated the word endogenic?

Yes, the word endogenic was first used on Tumblr... as a replacement of "natural system" or "natural multiple" that dated back to the 90s, before you were even born!

Here's one site mentioning natural multiples in their glossary in 2003:

And here's the origin in a page dated for 1998:

You clearly know NOTHING about the plural history that you're rambling on about.

And how am I only 20 second into this???

What do you consider a medical consensus again?

The World Health Organization's ICD-11, the diagnostic handbook used around the world, explicitly states that you can experience multiple "distinct personality states," the characterizing feature of DID according to it, without having a mental disorder:

That's the World Health Organization's official handbook!!!

I'm not sure what more of a consensus you need.

But I'll add that Tulpamancy is acknowledged as a real psychological phenomenon by Dr. Samuel Veissiere, psychiatry professor at McGill University.

And Dr Eric Yarbough, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association has stated that you can be plural without trauma or a disorder in a book reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

And these claims are undisputed. There is no peer reviewed paper by any psychiatrist that has claimed you need trauma or a mental disorder to be plural.

Now, onto the next round of misinformation!

I recognize that page! That's DID-research! A glorified blog that convinced an entire generation that OSDD-1a and OSDD-1b were actual medical terms for disorders they could be diagnosed with!

(Spoiler: The aren't!)

Is that so?

It would probably be really inconvenient for this narrative if the creators of the theory of structural dissociation ALSO have said it may be possible people to form self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality without trauma, huh?

I mean, something like that would just completely destroy everything you're trying to sell and make you look even more like a hack who has no idea what she's talking about, wouldn't it?

...

...

...

This paper is by two of the authors of the Haunted Self, which I probably shouldn't need to tell you since you're so knowledgeable about plurality, is the book that created the theory of structural dissociation of the personality.

Even the creators of the theory you're citing are saying plurality could have other causes.

Wouldn't that require you to actually know what endogenic systems actually believe? Or, you know, literally anything about plural history? Or anything at all? 🤔

Now we're back to ableist Aspen having no idea what Schizophrenia is and using it as an insult. 🙄

Aspen is not hiding her intent. Her goal is to spread hate, to come into our communities and bully us.

Aspen is a liar, a bully and an abuser.

But I hope I've also demonstrated pretty thoroughly that on top of that, she also incredibly ignorant.

She's ignorant of psychiatry. She's ignorant of plural history.

Every word out of her mouth on this topic is a lie she made up, and hopes her followers will be gullible enough to swallow, because while she may act confident in her misinformation, the fact is that she doesn't know anything about what she's talking about.

[victoria-writes]

Elvish For Dummies

Pairing: Legolas x Reader (gender neutral)

Summary: Set after the events of LoTR. You live with Legolas in Mirkwood and he teaches you Elvish. Pure fluff.

Word Count: 1039

Notes: Established relationship, reader is human, tried to make the sindarin elvish as accurate as possible so apologies for any mistakes, I’m multilingual so I based this off of my own experience with learning languages 

Read it on AO3 here

Story:

Despite the fellowship having disbanded, each day with Legolas seemed like another adventure. During your perilous journey together, the two of you had grown closer than either of you thought possible. The mere thought of being apart from you pulled at his heartstrings. He could not bear the thought of being separated from his new love. After the one ring was destroyed, the elf invited you to come with him to Mirkwood. Hastily, you agreed, for you too could not wait to start a new life with the elven prince. 

Since reaching Mirkwood, many seasons have passed and you two grow closer by the day. Under his guidance, your archery skills and ability to speak Elvish have improved. He took it upon himself to privately tutor you in the tongue of his people. Legolas still giggles when you fumble certain words on your tongue, but is quick to apologize, never wanting to discourage you. He says you have made remarkable progress and that you possess great linguistic potential. Whether that is true or he is exaggerating with sugar coated words, you cannot tell but it feels good to hear his encouragement either way. 

Most of your days together included walks through the woods and riding horseback, but today was a gloomy rainy day. A day that, Legolas decided, would be a wonderful excuse to help you get back to your studies. It’s not that you did not enjoy Elvish. Oh no! You quite liked hearing him whisper loving words to you as he held your gaze. 

“Meleth nîn, Im tur feel cín emel dring dan sab - My love, I can feel your heartbeat against mine”, he would say as he held you in his arms, his breath dancing upon your skin with each syllable. 

Saying you enjoyed that would be the understatement of the century. Everything in Sindarin sounded like poetry. Even the most mundane sentences were said with purpose and flowered language. Unfortunately for you, that also meant the most basic phrases you had to learn weren’t your typical ones. Instead of “I went to the store”, you had to say “I depart to look for food - Im gwann- na thír an aes”. It seems that most Elvish children learn how to say things like “I can feel it in the earth - Im tur- feel ha in i coe” before they learn “please” and “thank you”. No wonder they all sound prophetic when they speak common. Creepy oracle sounding sentence structure as your first language combined with being thousands of years old will do that. 

“Meleth nîn, you’re drifting off. Shall we return to our lesson or is a break needed?”, Legolas' words break you out of your trance. You look up from your desk, covered in notes, to see him towering above you, eyebrow raised and arms crossed. 

“Apologies, I was merely pondering the linguistic differences between Sindarin and Quenya Elvish”, you quickly come up with the excuse to hide the fact that you were simply not paying attention. 

“Is that so?”, 

“Yes, yes, the distinction between Elvish languages is very interesting to me”.

“This is the third time this lesson you’ve been distracted by those differences”.

“Ah, well…”, you trail off, caught red-handed. 

“Y/N, I will not force you to learn Sindarin if you do not wish it”.

“No, no, no, I want to learn. I promise. It’s all just new to me and takes a moment to sink in. Please, repeat what you said. I’m paying attention”.

Legolas smiles but does not repeat himself. Instead, he moves on to an exercise he is sure will get your attention. 

“We shall review what I have taught you thus far.” 

…

“ Very good, Y/N. Now how would you say ‘the stars shine white’?”

“ I elena mír thilivern” 

“The grass is green?”

“I thár na- calen”        

“Very good pronunciation. You have done well. I believe it is time to learn some new vocabulary”.

You take out a new sheet of paper from your stack, ready to write. 

“You need not write for this portion. Repeat after me.” 

“Okay”. You put your quill down. 

“Meleth nîn.”

“Meleth nîn. I know what that means already. You say it all the time”.

“And what does it mean?”

“My love”, your lips turn upward in a shy smile.  

“Very good. Let us move on then”, he smiles brightly, as if pleasantly surprised despite knowingly fully well that you knew its meaning. 

“I’m ready. Hit me.” 

He suddenly sits down next to you and takes your hands into his own.

“Im mel cin”  

“Im mel cin”  

“Do you know its meaning?”   

“No, should I? I’m sorry.”, your eyes widen as you try to recall whether he had said it before in a previous lesson. 

Legolas throws his head back with laughter. This may be the hardest you’ve ever seen him laugh before… and it’s at you. Great. 

“Apologies. Apologies.”, he manages to get out between giggles, “The look on your face was priceless.” Your face sours at this and Legolas manages to resist a second burst of laughter from it. He thinks you equal parts hilarious and adorable. 

“You would not have known this phrase as I have never spoken it to you before. I do think it is high time for you to learn it”.

“Okay, so what does it mean?”, you scrunch your eyebrows together, ego still a little hurt from being laughed at. 

His grip on your hands tighten but his touch stays gentle as ever. He has always been gentle with you. His gaze holds the same softness. No, even deeper.  The blue of his eyes seem more vibrant and invite you in to look deeper within him. His eyes tell of a love that can never be truly explained in any language. Legolas has always had a staring problem when it comes to you, but this is something different entirely. Your cheeks redden at his seriousness.

“I love you”.

Your eyes widen once more and before you can react, he kisses you. Deeply. Passionately. 

“I love you. I love you. I love you.” he repeats again and again into your lips. 

…

Maybe learning a new language isn’t so bad, if you have the right teacher.

[maiochiruhanabiraaa]

Learning Together (Lamine Yamal.)

Summary: Lamine struggles with math homework until Y/N steps in to help. Together, they tackle problems and switch to English grammar exercises, making learning enjoyable. Y/N's support strengthens their bond, leaving Lamine grateful for her presence and assistance.

Lamine sat at his desk in the cozy corner of their living room, surrounded by scattered papers and open textbooks.

He had been struggling with his math homework for hours, feeling increasingly frustrated as the clock ticked closer to midnight.

Y/N, his girlfriend, noticed his struggle as she passed by, heading to the kitchen.

"Lamine, are you still working on that math?" Y/N asked, concern lacing her voice.

Lamine sighed and nodded.

"Yeah, these problems are really getting to me. I just can't seem to figure them out."

Y/N walked over and leaned against the edge of his desk, peering at the textbook.

"Mind if I take a look?" she offered.

Lamine shrugged, handing her the open page. "Sure, maybe you'll see something I missed."

Y/N scanned the problems quickly, her brow furrowing in concentration.

"Alright, let's tackle this one step at a time," she said, pulling up a chair beside him.

Together, they dove into the math problems. Y/N guided Lamine through each problem methodically, explaining the concepts and demonstrating the steps clearly.

She encouraged him to think critically and apply the formulas they had reviewed earlier. Whenever Lamine felt stuck, Y/N provided gentle prompts and hints, nudging him in the right direction without giving away the answers.

As they worked through the problems, Lamine began to feel more confident. Y/N's patient approach and clear explanations helped him grasp the concepts he had been struggling with.

With each problem they solved together, Lamine's frustration gradually melted away, replaced by a sense of accomplishment.

Once they finished the math problems, Y/N noticed a grammar workbook on the shelf nearby.

"How about we switch gears and work on some English?" she suggested with a smile.

Lamine chuckled softly.

"Sure, why not? I could use a break from numbers."

They flipped through the grammar exercises, focusing on topics like sentence structure, verb tenses, and punctuation.

Y/N's enthusiasm for language was infectious, and she made learning grammar feel engaging and fun.

She quizzed Lamine on various rules and offered explanations whenever he had questions, making sure he understood each concept thoroughly.

Throughout their study session, Y/N's support never wavered. She celebrated Lamine's progress and encouraged him to keep going, even when the material seemed challenging.

Their shared laughter and occasional playful banter lightened the mood, turning what could have been a daunting study session into a rewarding learning experience.

By the end of the evening, Lamine felt grateful for Y/N's unwavering patience and dedication.

She had not only helped him tackle math problems and improve his English skills but had also strengthened their bond through shared learning experiences.

As they tidied up the desk together, Lamine wrapped his arms around Y/N, feeling incredibly lucky to have such a supportive partner by his side.

"Thank you for helping me tonight," Lamine said sincerely, pressing a kiss to Y/N's cheek.

Y/N smiled warmly, her eyes reflecting pride and affection.

"You're welcome, Lamine. I'm always here to support you, no matter what."

And as they stood together in their cozy living room, Lamine knew that with Y/N by his side, there was no problem-mathematical or grammatical-that they couldn't solve together.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Editorial Vocabulary

definitions of terms during the writing, editing and publishing process

Acknowledgements: Text in which the author thanks those who’ve supported them.

Action beat: Short description that comes before, between or just after dialogue.

Adjective: A word that describes a noun.

Adverb: A word that describes a verb.

Adverbial phrase: A group of words that describe a verb.

Afterword: A concluding section, often reflecting on the book’s creation or providing additional context.

Anaphora: The deliberate repetition of words or phrases at the beginning of successive clauses for artistic effect.

Antagonist: An adversary. The character who creates obstacles and challenges for the protagonist, or behaves in a hostile fashion towards the protagonist.

Anti-protagonist: A protagonist whose own actions create opposition and conflict, often within themselves or against their own goals.

Apostrophe: A punctuation mark used to indicate possession, omission and, occasionally, a plural.

Appendix: Space in a book for material that doesn’t fit comfortably in the main text.

Asyndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A, B, C.

B-C

Back matter: Also end matter. Elements reserved for the back of a book, including appendix, glossary, endnotes, bibliography and index.

Beta reader: Test-reader who provides feedback on book.

Bibliography: List of all works cited in book, and any other work of interest to the reader.

Chapter drop: The space above and below the chapter title.

Character arc: Narrative that shows how a character changes and develops.

Characterization: The process of revealing a character's personality, traits and motives through actions and dialogue.

Colon: Punctuation mark that introduces additional/qualifying information about the clause it follows.

Comma splice: Two independent clauses joined by a comma rather than a conjunction or an alternative punctuation mark.

Conjunction: A word that connects clauses or sentences (e.g. ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘if’, ‘then’)

Copyediting: A review of grammar, punctuation, and spelling, ensuring consistency and accuracy in the manuscript's language.

Critique: Also manuscript evaluation. Report analysing a book’s strengths and weaknesses.

D

Denouement: The final part of the book in which all the plot strands are brought together and resolved.

Deuteragonist: A sidekick or confidante character who has the most influence on the protagonist, often helping them solve problems and overcome obstacles. Can be critical to driving the plot.

Developmental editing: Also structural editing. The improvement of a manuscript's structure, content, and overall narrative, focusing on big-picture elements. Attends to plot, characterisation, narration and pacing.

Dialogue tag: Also speech tag. Words that indicate which character is speaking (e.g. John said).

Dialogue: The lines characters speak in a book.

Diversity reader: Also sensitivity reader. Test-reader who checks for misrepresentation in books.

Double-page spread: Also DPS. The view of a printed book or PDF when opened so that the left- and right-hand pages are both visible.

Drama: The conflicts, emotional intensity, and impactful events that drive the plot and engage readers emotionally. The focus is on character relationships, motivations, and the consequences of their actions.

Dropped capital: Decorative first letter of the first word on the first line in a chapter. Larger than the rest of the text and drops down two lines or more.

E-F

Ellipsis: Punctuation mark that indicates a trailing-off or a pause.

End matter: Also back matter. Elements reserved for the back of a book, including appendix, glossary, endnotes, bibliography and index.

Endnote: Additional useful information at the end of a chapter or book.

Filter word: Verb that tells rather than shows (e.g. ‘noticed’, ‘seemed’, ‘spotted’, ‘saw’).

Folio: Somewhat old-fashioned term for page number. Also used to refer to a page.

Footnote: Additional useful information at the bottom of a page.

Foreword: A recommendation of the work written by someone other than the author.

Fourth wall: In books, the conceptual space between the characters and the readers.

Free indirect speech: Also free indirect style and free indirect discourse. Third-person narrative that holds the essence of first person thought or dialogue.

Front matter: Also prelims. Includes part title and title pages, foreword, preface and acknowledgements.

Full point: Period or full stop.

Full stop: Period or full point.

G-L

Glossary: Alphabetical list of important terms with explanations or definitions.

Habitual past tense: Uses ‘would’ or ‘used to’ with a verb to indicate events that happened routinely in a time past.

Half-title page: The first page of a book with any text on it; in a printed book, always a right-hand page. Contains only the main title of the book.

Head-hopping: Jumping from one character’s thoughts and internal experiences to another’s. Indicates viewpoint has been dropped.

Imprint: Publisher’s name.

Independent clause: A group of words that contains a subject and a predicate.

Index: Alphabetical list of all topics, themes, key terms and cited author names covered in the book, and the corresponding page numbers.

Information dump: Also word dump. Information that’s necessary to the story but isn’t artfully delivered, or weaved creatively into the narrative and dialogue.

Line editing: Also stylistic editing. The refining of a manuscript's language, focusing on consistency, clarity, flow and style at sentence level.

M-O

Maid-and-butler dialogue: Dialogue in which one character tells another something they already know so the reader can access backstory.

Manuscript evaluation: Also critique. Report analysing a book’s strengths and weaknesses.

Narrative arc: Also story arc. The structure and shape of a story.

Narrative authenticity: The believability and truthfulness of a story so that the characters and events feel real within the framework of the novel’s world.

Narrative distance: Also psychic distance. How close the reader feels to a character’s thoughts, emotions and experiences within a story.

Narrative: Story. The part of the book that’s narrated, excluding the dialogue.

Narrative style: The author's unique manner of storytelling, encompassing language, tone, viewpoint and other structural choices.

Narrative voice: The style, tone, and personality through which a narrator or character tells a story to readers.

Numerals, Arabic: 1, 2, 3 etc.

Numerals, Roman: i, ii, iii etc.

Omniscient: All-knowing. Refers to a viewpoint style in fiction writing.

Overwriting: Using too many words on the page. Often characterized by repetition and redundancy.

P

Page proofs: A file that’s reached a stage in the publishing process where the text and images of a manuscript have been laid out in their final format.

Pantser: A writer who doesn’t outline or plan story structure, but flies by the seat of their pants.

Period: Full stop or full point.

Perspective character: Also viewpoint character. The character through whose eyes the story is primarily told. The narrative lens through which readers experience events, thoughts, and emotions within the story.

Plot: The sequence of events in a novel.

Point of view: Also viewpoint and POV. Describes whose head we’re in when we read a book, or whose perspective we experience the story from.

Polysyndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A and B and C.

Predicate: The part of a sentence that contains a verb and that tells us something about what the subject’s doing or what they are.

Preface: An explanation of the purpose, scope and content of a book, and written by the author.

Prelims: Also front matter. Includes part title and title pages, foreword, preface and acknowledgements.

Pronoun: A word that replaces a noun (e.g. I, you, he, she, we, me, it, this, that, them those, myself, who, whom). Pronouns can act and be acted upon like any noun.

Proofreading: The final pre-publication quality-control stage of editing where any final literal errors and layout problems are flagged up. Comes after developmental editing, stylistic line editing and copyediting.

Proper noun: A named person, place or organization. Always takes an initial capital letter.

Protagonist: The leading character in a novel, often facing central conflicts and driving action.

Psychic distance: Also narrative distance. How close the reader feels to a character’s thoughts, emotions and experiences within a story.

Purple prose: Overblown, poorly structured writing with strings of extraneous and often multisyllabic adjectives and adverbs.

Q-R

Quotation mark: Also speech mark. Punctuation that indicates the spoken word. Singles or doubles are acceptable.

Recto: The right-hand page of a book.

References: List of all the works cited in your book.

Roman typeface: Not italic.

Running head: Text that runs across the top of a page (e.g. title of the book, chapter title, author’s name).

S

Scene: a distinct segment or building block where specific actions and events unfold in a setting.

Scene technique: The use of dialogue, action, setting, and tension to craft compelling moments in the story.

Semi-colon: A punctuation mark that indicates a stronger pause than a comma between two main clauses.

Sensitivity reader: Also diversity reader. Test-reader who checks for misrepresentation in books.

Speech mark: Also quotation mark. Punctuation that indicates the spoken word. Singles or doubles are acceptable.

Speech tag: Also dialogue tag. Words that indicate which character is speaking (e.g. John said).

Story arc: Also narrative arc. The structure and shape of a story.

Structural editing: Also developmental editing. The improvement of a manuscript's structure, content, and overall narrative, focusing on big-picture elements. Attends to plot, characterisation, narration and pacing.

Style sheet: In which an author or editor records stylistic and language preferences, and tracks who’s who, what’s where, and when X, Y and Z happens.

Stylistic editing: Also line editing. The refining of a manuscript's language, focusing on consistency, clarity, flow and style at sentence level.

Subject: The thing in a sentence that’s doing or being something.

Subplot: A secondary storyline that supports and enhances the main plot of a narrative.

Suspense: The tension, uncertainty and anticipation created by withholding information, raising stakes or placing characters in imminent danger. Readers are kept guessing or forced to ask questions.

Syndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A, B and C (or A, B, and C).

T

Talking-heads syndrome: Dialogue that isn’t grounded in the environment or the characters’ responses to that environment.

Tense: The form a verb takes to indicate when an action happened in relation to the telling of it.

Tension: The emotional strain or suspense created by unresolved conflicts, stakes or uncertainties that keep readers engaged.

Tertiary character: A functional character who gives the story realism and depth, but doesn’t significantly impact on or influence the plot or the development of the other characters.

Theme: The novel’s central idea or message about life, society, or human nature.

Title page: Includes full title (and subtitle if there is one), author’s name, publisher’s name, logo, volume number, and edition.

Transgressor: A character who commits morally, socially, or legally questionable acts.

Tritagonist: Third most important character, who often provide regular emotional or physical support, but don’t determine how the story develops.

U-W

Unreliable dialogue: Dialogue that doesn’t match a character’s true voice, mood or intent.

Unreliable narrator: A character whose telling of the story cannot be taken at face value. They may be naïve, confused, or deliberately manipulative.

Verb, intransitive: A verb that doesn’t have a direct object (e.g. ‘I giggled’).

Verb, transitive: A verb that has a direct object (e.g. ‘wrote’ in ‘I wrote a book’).

Verb: A word that describes doing. Can refer to a physical action (e.g. to dig), a mental action (e.g. to wonder) or a state of being (e.g. to be).

Verso: The left-hand page of a book.

Viewpoint: Also point of view or POV. Describes whose head we’re in when we read a book.

Viewpoint character: Also perspective character. The character through whose eyes the story is primarily told, and the narrative lens through which readers experience events, thoughts, and emotions within the story.

Vocative: The form of address for a character directly referred to in dialogue.

Word dump: Also information dump. Information that’s necessary to the story but isn’t artfully delivered, or weaved creatively into the narrative and dialogue.

Source More: On Editing ⚜ Word Lists

[yuck-pfaugh]

Shout-out to Amazon reviewers for providing such a wealth of material that it was tough to narrow it down! Honourable mention (i.e. it wouldn't fit in the text box) goes to: "A major part of the book's ending hinge's on a relationship between these two characters which is never established earlier in the book."

[and-then-the-dragons-arrived]

Using freewriting to get unstuck

A quick guide for writers

So recently I made a post about tools you can use when you get to the wall in your writing. For me, freewriting is one of the greatest tools to solve any kind of problems that I need to tackle to go any further with my VIPs.

What is freewriting?

Freewriting is... basically what the name says. Writing down anything that comes to your mind, without any limits, censorship, structure or anything.

It can be used anywhere when you need to unleash your inner creativity and/or tackle any kind of problem (real-life problems as well).

Freewriting rules

Find a bit of time without any interruptions.

Set a time limit - about 15-20 minutes should work best.

Use tools that make writing easy. I'd say that the old pen-and-paper team is the best.

Start describing your problem.

Continue writing until the time is up. The only exception to finish earlier is when you find a solution to your problem. Don't stop even for a moment.

Write whatever comes to your mind. If you run out of ideas, you can write any thoughts. Stuff like "I don't know what to do, this is stupid" is welcome, too! No inner critic, no looking for better words, no self-censorship. Just keep writing.

No structure. Just your stream of consciousness. You would usually write sentences and paragraphs but honestly, whatever works.

No going back, no corrections. Until the time's up, don't look at anything written before, just move forward.

Only review the notes when you're done - which, again, is when the time's up or if you already found a solution.

I usually can arrive at a solution. Sometimes a problem is more complex and I need to get back another time.

Freewriting is magic, when you're writing and you come up with thoughts you didn't even know you had.

If you're using freewriting, please share your thoughts or experience.

[slugtranslation-hypmic]

Hello slug! Do you have any piece of advice you wish you knew when you first started out as a translator? (Or just something you want beginner translators to know)

I could go on about this all day if you let me, so I sat on this ask for a few weeks and tried to condense it down to five of the most helpful-- if a little abstract-- points. Hope this helps!

Usual reminder that I'm referring specifically to J->E media translation, although I would imagine most of this applies to media translation of other language pairs.

Edit: Ohhh Tumblr's being a nasty little man and not letting me post everything. Try to curtail my verbose ass, eh? We'll see about THAT! More in the reblogs it is.

A translation is a piece of creative writing informed by the unique needs and limitations of its author, audience, and medium. Before I write a single word, I always consider what approach is most appropriate for translating the work. This is informed by many things, including but not limited to: - Author(s). A work with a single author (most books, indie games) usually demands stricter fidelity, as the words you write become representative of this person's views within the English audience. A work with multiple authors (most bigger games, virtually all anime) may allow greater creativity in the pursuit of other goals. The author's purpose is also paramount. If the author's primary goal is to make people laugh, you will often want to make your work do just that. Serious works should read seriously. Romantic works should tug at heart strings. Occasionally, authors will provide specific guidelines to follow. You do not always have the ability to push back, even if you think they are horribly misguided--in many cases, the company you're working with can lose business if translation teams cause too much of a fuss. If the end result looks silly, you may be blamed for it in reviews and public perception. Responding publicly is not a good look and may hurt your chances at finding employment elsewhere. Conduct yourself professionally! (End of tangent.) - Audience. While rewriting a text to cater to an audience is almost never appropriate, it will often make you and the audience happier if you consider their expectations for translations. Fan translation readers often want to receive a black-and-white, "correct" interpretation of the text--an understandable desire; I'm not knocking this--and therefore may be more receptive to inappropriately detailed translation notes while less receptive to looser interpretations of the text. Readers of professional translations, especially paid works, often demand a higher level of polish and are less tolerant of juvenile goofery that can sometimes be gotten away with in fan translation. Similarly, genres affect the work. BL audiences are more likely to be LGBT+ than isekai action audiences and will expect translators to use more politically correct language. Some niche genres expect (at least, the appearance of) stricter fidelity at the word level than genres that attract a wider mix of casual and serious fans. - Medium. Even if one translator works on multiple iterations of the same series, the nature of the medium will force them to produce two very different translations. Anime and manga are often more understated compared to works of straight text (visual novels, actual novels, some RPGs) to avoid overwhelming the visuals. Anything that is voiced (anime, some video games) must follow the tone and sentence structure (Ie, "short clause, pause, long clause" is often translated as "short clause, comma, long clause" even if there are many, many other ways to express this idea) of the voiced line. Anything with character limits (anime subs, video games, manga) must be concise and punchy. In manga, the script's visual presentation--line length, what words should be placed together to create a nice shape, word length in skinny bubbles--must also be taken into consideration.

[deedeethewriter]

Law and order VS Monsters. Why L&O worked by monsters didn’t

Introduction:

After rewatches, brainstorming, and discussions with others, I have finally decided what is truly the biggest issue with Monsters: The Erik and Lyle Menendez story. No, it’s not the inaccuracies or the incest undertones (although both are a real problem). However, multiple factors hinder this show’s potential as a fresh and unique telling of the Menendez Brothers case. To exhibit this, I will be comparing this show to the much more accurate and much better-written Menendez brothers dramatization, and that is Law and Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders, a Law and Order spin-off that premiered in 2017. It’s far from perfect, has its fair share of inaccuracies, and suffers from pacing issues. But it’s still far better executed than Monsters and the best out of the five Menendez dramatizations. 

This will not be a usual review. Instead, I will compare and contrast the two shows and explain why Law and Order worked and Monsters did not from a pure storytelling perspective. I will break down this comparison into several sections, including plot, subplots, characterization, character development, structure, conflict, abuse allegations, sexual topics, purpose, and overall storytelling.

Just a heads up, I will not compare the characters to their real-life counterparts unless relevant (for example, I address how Monsters wrote Erik’s sexuality and compare it to the actual Erik’s sexuality). In addition, I will not fact-check the inaccuracies in either show; I will look at each show as just that: two series inspired by the same case.

Plot:

(I will keep this brief since this is just a synopsis of both shows)

Both shows take inspiration from the real-life Menendez murders. On August 20th, 1989, Jose and Kitty Menendez were shot dead in their Beverly Hills home. Their two sons, Erik, 18, and Lyle, 21, Menendez, at first deny having anything to do with their parent's murders; however, eventually, the investigation leads back to the brothers being the perpetrators. The brothers eventually admit guilty to killing their parents and, during their infamous trial, make graphic allegations of physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of both of their parents. However, they claimed they killed their parents in a state of panic, thinking their parents would kill them first to avoid the family secret from getting out. Despite these disturbing allegations and a mistrial, both brothers were sentenced to life in prison at their second trial in 1996; they are still currently incarcerated. 

Both series turn the actual case into a dramatization; despite being based on the same event, both stories use different plots to tell a dramatized story. 

In Law and Order, the main plot is Leslie Abramson’s (Edie Falco) goal of trying to win the Menendez case. Still, along the way, she deals with her issues, such as adopting a baby, disagreements with her husband Tim (Chris Bauer), her problems with her parents, and her growing bond with Erik Menendez (Gus Halper) and Lyle Menendez (Miles Gaston Villanueva). Law and Order is a franchise that consists of police procedural and legal drama; this spin-off Law and Order series, in particular, is being told through the perspective of Leslie, she is the main character here, and the show is about the Menendez Murders is mainly about the behind the scenes drama between the cops, lawyers and legal system surrounding it. 

On the other hand, Monsters aims to create a Rashomon effect about the Menendez case. The Rashomon effect is "a storytelling technique and a phenomenon that describes how people can have different perspectives on the same event." An example would be the film “Elephant,” a 2003 movie loosely based on the Columbine massacre. The film follows the lives of different characters doing their daily routine before the massacre happens at school. Monsters includes perspectives from Dr Oziel (Dallas Roberts), Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez), Erik (Cooper Koch), Dominick Dunne (Nathan Lane), Jose Menendez (Javier Bardem), and Kitty Menendez (Chloe Sevigny), for example. We (the audience) are supposed to explore their different viewpoints regarding this case; by the end, the audience should conclude who the “real monsters” are. 

Both plots are unique in their own right. Before both shows, the only dramatizations of this case were through TV movies: A Killing in Beverly Hills, Honor Thy Mother and Father, and Blood Brothers. All three movies were A to Z stories of the case (before the killing, the killings, spending spree, jail time, and trial) that don’t stand out independently (except Blood Brothers with its ‘Kitty haunting Erik’ thing). Law and Order is a legal drama, and Monsters is a show with multiple perspectives. However, as I will explain, Law and Order had a more polished plot. Despite some pacing issues, it understands its end goal and does better at getting to the show's purpose.

Subplots

A subplot is a secondary plot that acts as a support story for the main story. By the end, the subplot is supposed to enhance and connect to the main plot. Some L&O subplots include Leslie and her husband struggling to adopt a baby, Lyle and his ex Jamie (Jamie Nobel) getting back together, Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) reputation and job as a judge, and infighting between the Menendez (Jose’s) and Anderson's (Kitty’s)  families. Some subplots in Monsters include Erik becoming infatuated with another inmate (and trust me, I will get to that), Lyle and Norma Novelli’s (Natalie Taylor Gray) phone calls, and Dominick Dunne’s anger with the justice system after his daughter's killer was given manslaughter instead of first degree murder. Overall, the subplots in Law and Order do what a subplot should do to enhance the story. Even the unimportant subplots go somewhere; for example, at one point early in the series, Lyle is conversing with his lawyer, Jill Lansing (Julianne Nicholson). At one point in the conversation, she mentions her daughter wanting a baby brother, but Jill doesn’t want to give her one.

Lyle, in response, encourages Jill to give her one by saying, “Little brothers are the best.” Lyle then gushes about Erik and how happy he was and still is to have him around. This moment builds Lyle’s character by establishing how much Erik means to Lyle but also later sets up Jill’s exit at the end of the series when she decides not to represent Lyle in the second trial. She explained that while she still cares for Lyle, she felt like she missed out on her daughter growing up because she had spent so much time working on the case for the past three years. This is another issue I had with Monsters; it would introduce plots that lead to nothing significant. While not precisely a subplot, in episode 2 of Monsters, Erik mentions a new girl he’s seeing to his friend Craig Cignarelli (Charlie Hall). This girlfriend is most likely Noelle Terlesky, a girl the real-life Erik was seeing at the time of his arrest. Anyways, after this mention, she’s never seen in the show or mentioned by Erik again. It felt like the writers only mentioned her because she was an actual person in this case, but they had no real plans for her (something I will mention later). It makes me wonder why Erik would mention her if she wasn’t going to do anything in the story. As stated before, Monsters would introduce certain subplots or characters that wouldn’t do anything long-term for the plot. Completely stripping away the point of a subplot, which is supposed to create conflict, develop a character, and add depth to the main story, but the subplots in Monster failed to do that. 

For example, let’s compare the subplot between Erik and Tony's (Brandon Santana) subplot in Monsters vs Judge Weisburg’s subplot in Law and Order. In episode 3, Erik becomes infatuated with another inmate at the LA County Jail who also seems to like Erik, such as staring at him when he isn’t looking and helping Erik get dimes. Later, they’re seen working out together, and Tony brings up the fling to Erik; Erik denies being gay, although he did question his orientation at one point. Later, Erik and Tony are the only ones in the jail shower, and they shower seductively in front of each other. The subplot seems to be leading somewhere, such as a hookup or romance between the two, but no. Two episodes later, we learn from Erik that Tony was moved to another jail. That’s it. No moment shows them hooking up or having a “what are we?” conversation about their little fling. Erik mentions missing Tony to Dr Vicary (Gil Ozeri) in episode 7 (which, btw why would  Vicary's first response to that be "Miss the sex?" LMAOOOO), but this subplot has no conclusion. There’s no epiphany moment for Erik and his sexuality; this subplot did nothing for the plot. 

Let’s compare this to Judge Weisburg’s (Anthony Edwards) subplot in Law and Order. Judge Weisburg, at first, is portrayed as a fair and unbiased judge. He has his banter in court with Leslie before the Menendez trial, but it’s not shown that he has a particular issue with her. However, as the series progresses, he gets a lot of bad press because of the outcome of the Rodney King trial. His reputation as a judge is beginning to crumble, and he’s afraid that not getting a conviction in the Menendez case will be the beginning of the end for his career as a judge with election season coming up. The negative press explains why he becomes more harsh to Leslie during the trial and sabotages the second trial by not allowing any abuse evidence. Even though he is an antagonist in the story, his subplot

Gives his actions a motivation

Develops Weisburg and Leslie's character

It amplifies the plot by causing Leslie a conflict during the second trial (his actions lead to the brother's conviction).

Law and Order did a better job of leading its subplots somewhere, giving them all a conclusion and enhancing the show's main plot, while Monsters did not. The biggest issue with Erik and Tony’s subplot, in particular, is not the nude scene or the ethics of the writing of Erik’s sexuality, but the fact that you can take this subplot out and nothing would have changed. Nothing would’ve been gained or lost; it doesn’t develop Erik’s character, enhance the main plot, or raise any stakes. If Weigburg’s subplot were taken out, it would have taken away Weisburg’s and Leslie’s character development, not given Weisburg a motive, and it wouldn't have given Leslie a conflict for the second trial. A good subplot gives the main plot layers and adds complexity to the story and characters, but monsters don’t seem to know what to do with their subplots. 

Characterization

Law and Order and Monsters both have characters inspired by the real-life people involved in the Menendez case. Of course, we have the Menendez family, Leslie, and Jill, but both projects also include Pam Bozanich, Lyle’s prosecutor; Detective Zoller, the lead detective in the case; Judge Weisburg, the judge for both Menendez trials; Dr. Oziel Erik’s psychiatrist who he confessed to in October 1989, Judalon Smyth, Oziel’s lover who eventually told the police about the brother's crime and members of the brothers extended family such as their aunts, uncles, and cousins. In both shows, their roles seem to be drastically different. 

For one, in Law and Order, Pam Bozanich (Elizabeth Reaser) is a recurring character, but she still has her own story arc and character development. In law and order, she was the prosecutor in the McMartin trial. During the show's events, we learn that she failed to get a conviction during that trial. Still, she wants to desperately prove that she’s a reasonable prosecutor to the District Attorney’s Gil Garcetti (MArk Moses). Eventually, the DA is convinced to give her the Menendez trial, and Pam, thinking about her reputation, is desperate to get a conviction during the trial. Unfortunately for her, she doesn’t, and the DA takes her off the second trial, much to her dismay. Despite this, Pam develops a dislike for Leslie, so she doesn’t seem to mind being taken off the second trial. She said she’d rather eat glass than spend another hour in a room with Leslie. 

Pam Bozanich (Milana Vayntrub) is a character in Monsters; however, she takes on a much smaller role. She only shows up towards the end of the series when the trial begins, but she doesn’t have much of a role despite being a key figure in the Menendez case. This could be because of the two series' different premieres. Law and Order is a legal drama, and she is an antagonist to Leslie’s protagonist there, so it’s understandable why she takes a more significant role there than in Monsters. 

Still, given that Monsters is a show about multiple perspectives, I think the show could’ve benefited from an episode about how she looked at the murders. Dominick Dunne was just a gossip columnist in the show and real life and didn’t know the brothers personally, yet he gets so much screen time dedicated to his perspective on things. 

I had another issue with this show: despite wanting to explore multiple perspectives, it rarely gives time to explore the perspectives of characters who knew the brothers personally, such as their aunts, uncles, cousins, partners, and friends. I think an episode where both sides of their families are discussing their perspectives on what led to the murders would’ve been a great episode idea. Instead, their extended family members are reduced to background characters only added because the writers felt they had to add them because of their real-life counterparts. Even if the writers wanted to focus more on the immediate Menendez family, I still think members of their extended family could have worked as minor characters. Minor characters can be just as important as the main characters sometimes; if written right, they can add depth to the plot, help develop the main character, and help move the main plot forward. Unfortunately, it seemed like monsters didn’t know how to use their minor characters while also focusing on the Menendez family's story and different perspectives on what led to the murders.

On the other hand, Law and Order used their minor characters to move the plot, resolve conflicts, and develop characters. For example, minor characters Andy (Davi Santos) and Diane (Ashley Lenz) show up to tell Leslie and Jill about Erik and Lyle, revealing to them they were being molested when they were younger, and later testify for the defense about it on the stand during the trial. Even though they don't have much to do with the overall story, their testimonies and what they tell Leslie and Jill give the defense the corroboration they need for the brothers' sexual abuse claims in court. Diane's reveal to Jill and Leslie happens before Lyle admits Jose also molested him, so it also makes way for Lyle to be honest about his abuse from his father finally. 

To avoid this getting too long, I will only stick to the Menendez family and their characterization since they are the main focus of both shows (besides Leslie in Law and Order, but I feel it would be an unfair comparison to compare L&O Leslie to Monsters Leslie). But I will say that the Law and Order show does a better job at characterizing not only the main characters but also its recurring, minor, and antagonistic characters. All of the characters, including the antagonistic ones, are well-written. They all have unique personalities, are realistic and relatable, and are developed throughout the series. The main characters are also likable, making the audience want to root for them. I can’t say the same for the characters in Monsters. The characters were not relatable, developed, likable, or even realistic. They seemed more like caricatures instead of actual well-written characters.

Lyle Menendez as a character in Monsters

I won’t beat around the bush; I don’t like the character of Lyle Menendez in Monsters. Lyle is written as a fly-off-the-handle, bratty, arrogant, self-centered, spoiled, disrespectful, foul-mouthed diva that makes him unlikeable. It’s not like this happens when he’s on an adrenaline high or frustrated, but all of the time. In this series, he curses out and yells at his parents multiple times, yells at kids who are trick or treating, yells at a service workers, threatens Dr Oziel, is rude to Leslie (Ari Graynor), makes faces while his brother is testifying, doesn’t seem to care about Erik’s feelings most of the time, and is more concerned about dimes and his hairpiece over the fact that his life is on the line.

As stated before, Monsters was aiming for a Rashomon effect of storytelling. If that was the case, I could understand situations where Lyle is being a dick. I can see people like Oziel or his parents looking at him as a little bastard, but I'm supposed to take his attitude at face value because this storytelling isn’t made clear to the audience. Lyle, in this show, has almost no redeeming qualities. We hardly see a lighter side to his character; the bratty diva thing could have given Lyle’s character more depth and complexity had we seen a more sensitive side to him. Some moments show that he cares for Erik a lot, such as during their reunion at the jail, he advises Erik that he can’t just drink milk in the jail and he frequently tells Erik that he loves him. But the problem is that these are just that, moments. Lyle doesn’t get more layers to his character to balance out his negative qualities. Despite not saying it verbatim, Nicholas Chavez has implied that he took issue with Lyle's character, such as saying in interviews that he was written as the least sympathetic brother. But because he couldn’t do much about Lyle’s characterization, he wanted to play him as someone who acts the way he acts because he’s a profoundly hurt person wearing a mask to shield that hurt. I can see what he means on my second watch of the show. In episode 4, Lyle gets vulnerable about his abuse of Leslie and Jill. In that episode, it’s like Lyle is an entirely different person. You see that he still feels the need to protect his father’s image, and he feels the guilt and shame of being molested but also molesting Erik himself. There, we see just how much he loves Erik. While he wants to protect his father’s image, he also wants to safeguard Erik by not revealing this embarrassing and shameful encounter. We begin to understand that Lyle acts the way he acts because the root of that is insecurity, and his abuse is the main reason why he acts like a child because he’s still mentally a child himself. This episode would’ve been the perfect time to develop Lyle’s character, but the next time he’s on screen, he goes back to being a bratty dick. There’s no personal growth, no change in his morals, and no lesson learned from his moment of vulnerability. As a character, Lyle seems to stick to the “Status Quo is God” trope, where things always go back to the way things were before. It's like the writers didn’t understand the importance of character development.

Despite this, I do have to praise Nicholas’s performance. He is genuinely entertaining to watch and has excellent comedic timing. I am unsure if the writers intended to make his lines as funny as they were, but I mostly laughed when he was on screen. In addition, I can see that he studied the real-life Lyle Menendez. During the trial and court hearing scenes, he’s spot on with Lyle's mannerisms, facial expressions, and speaking. He even got Lyle’s child-like way of speaking when he was being directly examined by Jill down to a T. Unfortunately, his talent was wasted entirely. 

(Real-life Lyle’s wife was also SO excited for him to play Lyle; what a waste, lmao)

Lyle Menendez as a character in Law and Order

Law and order Lyle is a bit more tricky to describe.  Because Leslie is the main character, we don’t spend as much time with the brothers as in Monsters. But we see in Lyle that he’s confident, smooth, overly protective of his brother, naive, empathetic, and puts on a tough exterior even though he’s hurt and secretly emotional. He still has his flaws and moments of being obnoxious. He’s rude to the waitress and his bodyguards and is actively lying to his family, friends, and partner about his involvement in killing his parents. That said, his character flaws are justified from a storytelling perspective. He’s lying because he doesn’t want to hurt his loved ones, and his rudeness reflects how he was groomed at home, which we later see through flashbacks and his opening up about his family life. His rude moments can be chalked up to him mimicking his father; after his rude remark to the waitress, he says, “My dad always gave waitresses a hard time.” From the first episode during his police interview and what Jamie says to him at the hotel, it's clear how much Lyle admires his father and wants to make him proud. In episode 3, Dr. Conte (Raphael Sbarge), Lyle explains to Leslie and Jill that even though Lyle was sexually abused by his father, he still brags about how great of a man his father was and claims to love him; he’s doing something many survivors of abuse do, and that’s idolizing his abuser. So his rude moments are just him reflecting on his father, who he idolizes. This also explains to the audience why he didn’t want to reveal his father's abuse and why he felt so betrayed by him when Erik told him the abuse was still happening. While close to his father, through a flashback narrated by Donovan (Ben Winchell), it’s revealed that Lyle was upset by his father cheating on his mother, and we see multiple moments that show how deeply Lyle loves Erik. This also adds more depth to Lyle’s character. Even with his closeness to his father, he still needs to protect everyone in his family. This plants seeds for the brother's eventual allegations of what led up to them killing their parents. By the end of the series, Lyle has grown from the experience of his parents' murders and the trial. While still putting on a tough exterior, he has learned to be comfortable showing his more sensitive side and more open when expressing his feelings to Erik. At the beginning of the series, he seems to be unbothered by his parents' deaths and brushes off Erik's emotional hysteria. Still, in the second to last episode, he can tell Erik how much he misses his parents. While sticking to the main status quo of his character, Lyle's character still shows excellent character development. He still has most of his main character traits, but he also grows and learns from his experiences, and his sensitive side gives more depth to his character to show that he is a complex individual.

Even though I wish we had more time to explore Lyle’s character, his character here is way better written, realistic, likable, and relatable than his Monsters counterpart. 

Erik Menendez as a character in Monsters: 

As for Erik’s characterization, it's an unpopular opinion, but Erik was pretty unlikable in this show, too. I think the hurt man episode and people being biased towards Cooper have clouded judgment towards Erik’s character here. But in this show, Erik: Gets aggressive with Craig after Craig asks about the murders, yells and curses at Kitty for misspelling a word (a word he also misspelled too, might I add), and continues to scold her, blames his brother for the murders multiple times, yells at Leslie, says he should’ve killed Lyle too, robbed multiple houses, is rude to Oziel, doesn't care that his mom is spazzing in the kitchen, and is the one who came up with the murder plan. Watching this show, I got the opinion that Erik was bratty, passive-aggressive, sneaky, spoiled, and the mastermind behind the killings. Yes, he is more likable than Lyle, but not enough to think he's anything besides a disrespectful spoiled brat. I could say he’s more emotional and feels more guilty than Lyle. In The first episode, Erik is seen as being overly emotional over his parent's deaths, having near mental breakdowns and experiencing nightmares. But it's like his emotions have wholly dropped after the Oziel confession. There’s a lack of complexity in Erik’s character. I left the show looking at him like a toned-down Lyle. To echo what I said earlier, I can see someone like Dr. Oziel and his parents view him as a bratty kid, but with the lack of a narrator or establishing the story’s goal, I am supposed to accept that Erik is just as bratty as his brother. 

Erik also comes across as quite a jerk. When Craig tries to pry a confession out of him, Erik, for some reason, tries to intimate him. The show does not clarify why Erik got aggressive like this; it makes him seem like a passive-aggressive cold-blooded psycho. He doesn’t develop from this either; in the last episode, he pushes Lyle against the wall and says he should’ve killed him, too. Yes, the argument could be made that Lyle had been picking on him before this, but it shows Erik's lack of character development by showing that he is still an aggressive jerk. 

However, Cooper Koch's outstanding performance also saves Erik's characterization. The Hurt Man episode was excellent. Not only does Erik lay out his abuse at the hands of his father, but we also explore other things about Erik. Such as his complex feelings towards his parents, his idolization of Lyle, his confusing sexuality, and the root of his insecurities. Cooper does a fantastic job of displaying Erik’s emotions; one of the best things about this episode is that it feels like a real conversation between two people, not an exaggerated Hollywood script. Leslie tries to comfort Erik when he’s tearing himself down, and he keeps interrupting Leslie while she tries to comfort him. It is so natural to have a real-life conversation when someone is trying to reassure you when you are venting and vice versa. Like Nicholas, he’s also spot on when portraying the real-life Erik when necessary. At times, he even sounds like the honest Erik; it's almost eerie. Cooper is also entertaining, “Lyle, is that my toothbrush?” And “That’s where I keep it cold!”  It never fails to make me laugh. 

And yes, I am going to address the elephant in the room. The writers were awful in how they addressed Erik’s sexuality. I know he denies being gay multiple times in the show; however, between the Tony subplot and Pam telling Dominick that Erik was having oral sex with other inmates (they show this, too, by the way). Lyle and Jose making comments about Erik (allegedly) having sex with Craig, the average viewer might come out of this show thinking Erik is gay. I know the real Erik said he was confused about his sexuality, but it’s like Ryan took that one statement and ran with it. He ignores that Erik also said he did like girls and eventually had intercourse with girls and the fact that Erik did have multiple girlfriends. Yes I know there is an acknowledgment of Tammi, but that came towards the show's closing. There is a way to explore Erik’s sexuality from a storytelling point of view. Episode 5 did a decent job of addressing Erik’s confusing sexuality, and I wouldn’t have minded it if that was the only incident of it. But the sheer amount of gay subplots and jokes with Erik seemed more like a fetish as opposed to exploring how the sexual abuse confused the real-life Erik. Story aside, it feels offensive to the actual Erik.

Erik Menendez as a character in Law and Order:

Again, in Law and Order, we don’t spend that much time with the brothers. However, what we do see of Erik is that he’s very close to completely breaking down mentally. He’s outwardly more sensitive than Lyle and cries quite a bit in the show. He looks up to Lyle, calls him for everything, and loves and misses his parents. After their deaths, he focuses full time on tennis to make his father proud. He even recalls Jose encouraging him from the stand (although Lyle corrects him by reminding him that Jose was yelling at him). Erik seems closer to his mom; he tells his girlfriend that his mom would’ve been proud of him for having a girlfriend because she always gave him deadlines to get one. Kitty, in flashbacks, is shown as very sensitive and also cries often. In a way, Lyle is taking after his mom and Erik his mom. Even before the audience knows that he killed his parents, we see him close to breaking multiple times and know that he’s struggling to accept the fact that his parents were dead. Erik is also feeling the heat from guilt; his mental break isn't just over his parent's death but the fact that he was responsible for it. So, it is justifiable to the audience when he confesses to Craig and Dr Oziel. With Dr. Oziel, Erik only confessed to him because the only person he wanted to talk about it with, his brother, kept blowing him off, so when he confesses, it shows that Erik did it out of desperation and under the impression that he would be safe in doing so. It doesn’t make him seem sneaky, but he can’t take it anymore. He isn’t passive-aggressive or a jerk when Craig tries to pry a confession out of him. He still gaslights Craig but tries to brush it off like Craig is crazy instead of getting aggressive with him. It is explained here, though. He finally got it off his chest after the guilt was eating him alive, and after the drama with Dr Oziel and Lyle, he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore with anyone but them. Erik also develops by the end; even though he sticks to his same emotional self, he learns that it’s unhealthy to keep his emotions bottled up. Because his confession to Dr Oziel leads to his arrest, it stands to reason why he would feel cautious about being honest with his feelings. He also doesn’t reveal his abuse to Dr Oziel, but he learns to trust Leslie and is entirely open with her to avoid going on death row. Sure, it doesn’t stop him from shedding a few tears, but his honesty and relationship with Leslie develop him from someone close to breaking at any moment to someone in touch with his emotions and learning how to express them. I do prefer Cooper as Erik, but I still loved Gus’s portrayal and I think Law and Order did a better job at matching how the real-life Erik was feeling at the time.

Jose and Kitty Menendez as characters in Monsters:

Before I start, I will say regarding performance and chemistry alone; I prefer Javier and Chloe.  They are great with their material, and I think they capture Jose and Kitty's real-life energy. Javier, like Jose, is legitimately intense and intimidating, and Chloe nailed Kitty’s “I hate my kids; they ruined my marriage and life” spirit. 

Now, in both dramatizations, they take a smaller role. However, their roles are different in each series. In Monsters, Jose and Kitty are more characterized. For one, it explores the issues in their marriage, such as Jose’s affairs, his telling Kitty he doesn't love her and only wants her to give him children, and Kitty’s frustration with how he treats her and her loneliness. 

Kitty states multiple times that she hates her kids. She is characterized as a sad, pathetic, bitter, and insecure woman. We learn about Kitty's trauma from her abusive childhood, which explains why she treats her sons the way she does. Kitty’s resentment toward her sons was explained; she felt like she gave up her whole life for Jose only for him to treat her like garbage later, cheat on her, not love her, and pay more attention to their kids over her. Not that it justifies any abusive behavior, but it adds more layers to her character and actions. We also learn that she’s turned to alcohol to deal with her emotions, as seen when she reaches for the wine bottle for help after spazzing out in the kitchen.

Jose also has his fair share of trauma. He is characterized as a stern, strict, cunning, savvy, perfectionist, prideful, and abusive man. We also learn that he also has his fair share of trauma; he reveals to Kitty that his mother used to molest him as a kid, and when Lyle calls out his physical punishments to him and Erik as abuse, Jose brushes it off. Stating that his father used to hit him harder and that his sons' out-of-control behavior (the robberies, Lyle’s Princeton suspension) was the result of him not hitting them hard enough. This does not excuse his actions, but it explains his mentality.

Now that’s out the way, here is my issue with their characters: The show seemed to take more time to make the audience believe that Erik and Lyle were spoiled and bratty than they did, showing how scary Jose and Kitty were in Erik and Lyle (and others') perspectives. The moments that do show them as tyrants are limited and rushed quickly. I feel like the episodes that showcased last week’s events were rushed. I didn’t even mind the light-hearted moments, such as the Christmas moment, not because I felt terrible for them but because the audience would understand that no one is a Monster all the time. It also showed how the brothers could still love their parents even after all they did to them. Even the real  Lyle said during his cross-examination that he and his father had plenty of good times. 

Despite that, they are more sympathetic and complex than Erik and Lyle are. The brothers claimed they feared their parents, but I never got that feeling. How the show presents it, they came across as more strict, harsh, inconvenient, and demanding than they did someone to fear. It seemed more like two bratty kids who killed their parents because they resented them than people they killed out of fear and desperation. The deep horrors of how they allegedly treated their kids are only left to the imagination. If Ryan wanted the audience to decide who the “real” monsters were, he failed at showing just how monstrous they were to their boys (I will elaborate on this when we get to the abuse section).

Jose and Kitty as characters in Law and Order:

Jose and Kitty, in law and order, are explored even less than the brothers were. I’ve already explained why (the show is told from Leslie’s POV). What we see of them is shown through flashbacks from the brothers and other relatives. We see that Jose is controlling, intimidating, a bully, powerful, and abusive. We also learn that Lyle really looks up to his father, and at the beginning of the series, he constantly talks about making his dad proud. There’s no character growth to Jose here because this is ultimately a story about Leslie. Even though I preferred Javier, Carlos was also great at embodying Jose. The real Jose was said to be scary and intimidating even to grown adults, and Carlos made me feel afraid of him.

On the other hand, Kitty is shown as what Lyle describes as a “basketcase,” and Erik tells his cousin Henry that she is “so unhappy.” Flashbacks and comments of Kitty show her as constantly breaking down crying, dependent on drugs, passive, and showing little interest in her boys. Kitty also doesn’t grow much character; we learn that Jose had an affair with her, and Lyle tells Donovan it destroyed her. It helps the audience understand why Kitty turned into a basketcase, not necessarily to feel bad for her but to understand her more. Again, I prefer Chloe over Lolita; she did a better job embodying Kitty’s “I hate my kids” energy, but it’s not Lolita’s fault. I think she did great with what she had, but she wasn’t exactly playing the real-life Kitty. Lyle even pointed out on Facebook that Kitty here wasn’t shown as scary and violent as she was in real life. Law and Order even had a moment where the boys reminisced on a funny moment with their parents and flashbacks where Lyle remembered good times with his parents. I think it handled showing that Jose and Kitty weren't awful all the time without humanizing them too much. By the end of the show, the audience has seen why the brothers feared their parents so much and why they felt like killing them was their only option but there are still moments that show the brothers still love them and had good times with them.

Despite the flaws, law and order made the audience hate Jose and Kitty better. I will talk about the abuse later, but Law and Order did a far better job showing just how Monstrous Jose and Kitty were, even though Monsters did develop their characters more. A criticism I often see towards Law and Order is that the brothers were too sympathetic and the Menendez family were one-dimensional, and I can understand that viewpoint. We spent way more time with Leslie and behind-the-scenes legal drama than with them and their parents, which is why it was tough to explain their characters. However, this is excused because this is a legal drama explained through Leslie's eyes, which explains why the brothers are more sympathetic here. Throughout the series, we see that she begins to care for them like they are her children; it’s how she views them, and everything she knows of Jose and Kitty is being told to her from the point of view of other people, including their victims. Hence, it stands to reason why (Jose and Kitty) are only looked at as vile and one-dimensional. From a pure story point of view, it makes perfect sense.

Character development:

Monster’s storytelling also suffers from little to no character development. By the end of the show, almost everyone stays the same as they were. Lyle is still obnoxious and rude, Erik is still bratty and aggressive, and Dominick is still a bitter journalist who takes his distrust of the legal system out on the brothers. It’s like everyone stayed at point A and didn’t learn anything from their experiences. Out of the significant characters, the only ones who got real development seemed to be Jose and Kitty. In episode 6, they are struggling with their marriage and seem to hate each other, but by the end of the episode they seem to work out their differences and have a happy marriage. But like….their personalities don’t seem to change or develop. Kitty still hates her kids and Jose is still a controlling tyrant. Good storytelling means developing their characters, it doesn’t mean that they should have a complete 180 with their personalities, but they should have learned something from their experiences that leads to a change in their flaws, morals, and actions. This is another example of the characters here being over the top and cartoony. It’s not just the hyperbolic personalities, but the fact that no one seems human enough to develop. Lyle throughout the whole show is an obnoxious prick who is always yelling and cursing. Episode 4 showed a more vulnerable and soft side to him, giving the audience the impression that he acts the way he does because the abuse stunted his growth and he’s still mentally a child himself. However, for the remainder of the episodes he doesn’t change. He’s still rude and obnoxious, he’s learned nothing from this experience and it takes away the impact of seeing his more vulnerable side. It’s another example of lazy and ineffective storytelling. The show seemed to want to stick to a certain status quo, not understanding that characters are allowed to change without becoming completely different people.

I won’t talk too much about the characterization since I’ve already talked about that. Law and Order did a great job at developing its characters. By the end, everyone has grown, learned, and evolved from being a part of this case. I will be using as an example since she is our main character here. By the end of the series, Leslie turned a whole new leaf from losing her case. By the end, Leslie is heartbroken that she lost her case and the fact that Erik and Lyle both get life sentences. However, we see her grow throughout the series. She stays her same fierce, brash, bold and confident self, however we see her more vulnerable side. She has issues with her parents, her mother passes away and she reconnects with her estranged father. In the midst of all this, she becomes a mother again and adopts a baby boy. Her new son, own issue with her parents and closeness with the brothers is a factor on why she became so passionate about their case and why she turned a new leaf after the second trial to focus on raising her son and working at a toy store. Of course her decision was because of her loss, but also because learning about the horrific abuse the brothers suffered made her appreciate family and want the best for all children. As a result of both, she understands the real impact of a healthy and normal family and not only wants to be there for her child but other people’s children. 

Not only is there great development, but none of the protagonists are unlikable. Sure, they have their flaws, but it makes them come across as more complex and human. Even the antagonist characters (Weisburg, Detective Zoller, Pam, Gil Garcetti and David Conn) have their own subplots that fulfil the antagonistic role by having motivations behind their actions and having a foil for the antagonist that makes the audience question the protagonist. For example David Conn (Robin Thomas), as a part of the California DA office is assigned as the prosecutor in the second trial. Throughout the show, we see how desperate the DA office is for a conviction after losing the McMartin, Rodney King, and later OJ Simpson trial. After the OJ loss, the office is determined to convict the brothers. Later during the second trial, Conn reveals to the jury and the audience during his cross examination of Erik’s psychiatric in jail Dr. Vicary that Leslie had  hand in altering Dr Vicary’s (Todd Weeks) notes about Erik’s view of his mother. While this a small example, it shows how smart the law and order team was with its writing and storytelling. Not even the antagonists are over the top and cartoony, but real relatable people with their own backstories, goals, and motivations that makes the audience understand their viewpoint. 

Sexual/adult situations:

It’s no secret that monsters heavily sexualized the brothers. While I cannot praise Cooper and Nicholas’s performances enough, it’s clear that Ryan also cast them based on their looks and bodies. There are far too many scenes of them nude, shirtless, or in sexual situations, even when not necessary. I have no issues with nudity or sex scenes/suggestions in the media, but it was very excessive here. Law and Order had a scene of Erik’s girlfriend Noelle (Anna Osceola) teasing him with sex when he got out of jail. However, the most significant difference is context. Erik’s girlfriend teasing him made sense because she’s assumingly a young girl who wants to give her boyfriend a “gift” when he gets out of jail. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary, and it’s not “in your face,” so to speak. It’s subtle and not distracting, like the sexual moments between Oziel and Judalon. The over-sexualization was so bad that monsters included incest undertones between the brothers. In the second episode, Lyle kisses Erik on the mouth, and later, they dance seductively with each other at a party. Then, in episode 7, Dominick Dunne gives people his theories of the Menendez family and suggests that the real family secret was Erik and Lyle's incestuous relationship. The scene then cuts to Kitty catching the brothers in the shower together. 

In Law and Order, one juror commented that Erik probably got his stories of sexual abuse from having sex with Lyle, which is a disgusting comment; it’s nowhere near as awful as Ryan deciding to showcase an incest scene between them. Even if it was Dominick Dunne’s imagination, I still don’t understand why it had to be shown. The juror's comment in Law and Order is met with disdain from the other jurors; unlike Monsters, the whole “brother incest” is brought up but not even entertained.

I will admit I laughed at the scene where an inmate sarcastically tells Lyle he’ll give him a dime if Lyle gives him head and Dr.Vicary’s “Miss the sex?” When Erik says he misses Tony, gave me a chuckle. If everything else weren’t so in your face and had the gross incest stuff, I wouldn’t have minded these moments so much. But the layers of over-sexualization, including sibling incest, showed (to me) what was on Ryan’s mind when he cast two good-looking 20-something-year-olds to play the brothers.

The abuse:

In Monsters, the brother's allegations of abuse weren’t shown like they should’ve been to get the point across. I’m going to start with Kitty. In real life, the brothers alleged that Kitty was also violent and abusive to them. We also know that she sexually abused them both. The show attempts to address that Kitty was also an abuser and not just an enabler. However, it is poorly executed, and there is not enough time to show that. The only incident of this is her raging out on her kids after they accuse her of trying to poison them, but just before that, we see them cussing her out and ganging up on her. It comes across that she is justified in her rage out, and considering her kids are sociopaths, her kids were being dicks to her, and she got frustrated. Add onto the fact that they just watched her spazz out on the kitchen floor unconcerned. So when she tells her therapist, “I hate my kids,” someone may think, “Well, they cuss her out, gang up on her, accuse her of poisoning them, and are thieves. I get why she hates them and feels like they ruined her life.” To make it worse, we see her kissing Erik on the head and calling Lyle “sweetheart” (we all know the real kitty would never lmao) and telling her therapist that she still feels the umbilical cord connecting them. It makes it seem like she has love for them, but their attitude makes her hate them. Even if I can give it the “this is Kitty’s perspective” excuse, as stated earlier, the show does a terrible job of providing more corroboration to the brother's perspective of the abuse they say they suffered and what led to them fearing their parents. In addition, the only incident of sexual abuse of hers that is shown is her looking at Erik’s penis to check for AIDS, but the show leaves out that she used to pop blisters on them (Erik was also much younger when this happened) and even then it’s seen as justified and not motivated by the real Kitty’s perverted nature. Before that, she and Erik were talking about how Erik could bring AIDS in the house because he isn’t using the condoms they bought (and they are aware of his sexual relationship with another boy). It makes it seem like Kitty was just a concerned mother instead of the pervert she was. Erik mentions Kitty sexually abusing Lyle in episode 5, but it’s wildly “blink and you’ll miss it,” and Lyle does not even talk about it. The naked pictures are shown in court, but it came after it was implied that Leslie coached the brothers to lie on the stand. However, the show spent more time showing that the brothers were rude brats who talked back to their parents instead of showing how vile Kitty could also be.

As for Jose, my issues are pretty much similar. We don’t see enough of him being abusive to his sons besides slapping, degrading, and yelling at them. Yes, it’s still abuse, but it's not abusive enough to make us hate his guts.  If I recall correctly, the only incident that shows his sexual abuse was in episode 6, when he drags Erik to his room, and there’s a bunch of thumbs behind the door. Everything else about his sexual abuse of them is only talked about. I’m not saying they should’ve shown explicit rape scenes, but Law and Order was able to show the abuse of both parents that makes the audience hate them both. Jose, like Kitty, is seen as justifiably angry with his boys because of their burglaries and Lyle’s suspension in episode 6. Again, I understand this episode is his point of view, but I found myself understanding Jose’s frustration. Perhaps that’s what the writers were aiming for; they explored multiple perspectives and let the audience decide who the monsters were. Still, less time was dedicated to showing how monstrous Jose and Kitty were in the brother's eyes. Again, it suffers from telling and not showing.

Law and Order was able to show Jose and Kitty’s abuse without being explicit but also bad enough to make you hate them and sympathize with the brothers. Through flashbacks, we see that Kitty is negligent (how she handles Erik’s nightmares, ignoring Jose and bearing Erik), relies on pills and alcohol, keeps kiddy porn pictures of them, and that she also molests Lyle. It’s not explicit, but it’s clear what’s happening as it leaves little to the imagination. Jose, in these flashbacks, is also shown as abusive. Multiple times, he is seen striking fear into his boys, and the sexual abuse is not explicit, but it leaves little to the imagination of what is happening. By the end of the series, the audience has seen how disgusting and frightening Jose and Kitty are to their boys. Someone might say, “Well, the show is biased for the defense, so it will be in their favor. Monsters are trying to give multiple perspectives and letting the audience decide.” That’s true, but the writers took plenty of time to show how bratty and annoying Erik and Lyle were to others. But, there was barely any time spent showing the audience just how vile Jose and Kitty were from the perspectives of their boys. While I appreciated episodes 4 and 5, their telling their stories would not have been as impactful as showing their stories to the audience. The last episode of Law and Order was also better at addressing generational trauma. The last episode has Jose’s sister Marta (Constance Marie) and Kitty’s sister Joan (Molly Hagan) telling Leslie that they were abused as children, which shows the impact of generational curses but doesn't humanize them too much to forget their abuse.

Overall Storytelling:

Lastly,the storytelling is what makes Law and Order work but not Monsters. While the plot in Law and Order is about the Menendez case, the show sticks to the Law and Order formula by sticking to the legal drama that surrounds the case. The story, like any good story, has a beginning, middle, and end. Its storytelling is polished, shows instead of telling, well structured, has conflict, well developed characters and has a clear purpose and identity. 

Beginning, middle, and end. The beginning of the story is the murders of Jose and Kitty Menendez and the investigators in the case trying to find the killers and ultimately their investigation leads them to the couple’s own two sons.

Middle: Erik and Lyle are arrested and adjust to life in jail. Meanwhile, the prosecution and defense are both building their case.

End: Both sides present their case during both of the brothers' trials. The defense, despite being the protagonist, loses the case and the brothers are sentenced to life in prison and Leslie turns a new leaf.

Polished and structured: As explained by the beginning middle and end, the storytelling in Law and Order is structured and clear. It’s organized in the kind of story it’s telling but also has important elements a well structured story needs like conflict and purpose.

Conflict: This is another reason why I feel like Law and Order dealt with the subplots better because they added to the story by adding conflict to drive the plot forward. As mentioned earlier, Judge Weisburg’s subplot at the end provided conflict for both him and Leslie. For him, the bad press gives him a conflict because he is desperate to get a conviction to keep his job and save his reputation. For Leslie, Weisburg’s desperation causes him to not allow any abuse evidence in the second trial. This causes her conflict because she struggles on how she’ll be able to argue her case without abuse evidence. The conflict here does what it’s supposed to do by creating tension, advancing the main plot forward, and once the story ends, the created closure.

Purpose: Lastly, the core thing that makes Law and Order better executed than Monster’s is its purpose. The show has an identity and knows exactly what message it is trying to send. For Law and Order, the purpose of the show is to showcase the corruption and unfairness of the legal system. To prove this point, it takes the real life Menendez murder case, a case that was a prime example of legal corruption and unfairness and dramatized it into a TV show. It makes sure to stick to the Law and Order format by being a legal and courtroom drama, as a result the brothers don’t get much attention, but they are still important as characters. Their testimony and allegations help build a case for the defense and their relationship with Leslie Abrahmson gives her character development.

Monsters like mentioned have a Ransom effect type of storytelling. The purpose of the Rashomon effect is supposed to show how multiple views of the same event can be interpreted in different ways and the contradictions that can arise from that. An example would be the 1970s sitcom “Good Times" episode “When there’s smoke”, after the couch catches on fire, the characters JJ, Michael and Thelma all tell Willona their story of what happened. Each story contradicts each other, making each narrator look favorable and the others look bad. In the end, it’s revealed that the character Penny is the one who lit the couch on fire after she tried to have a cigarette and dropped it on the couch after JJ says that he doesn’t like smokers. While this could have been a fresh and unique twist on dramatization of the Menendez brothers, the show drops the ball by failing to establish this. It’s not well structured, the timeline is off, the characters are not developed, it tells instead of shows, there’s a lack of proper conflict, and there’s no real purpose or identity for this show’s existence. 

Structure and timeline: One big difference between Law and Order and Monsters storytelling is how it’s structured. Law and Order for one had a clear cut story beginning, middle, and end where Monster’s does not. To give it the benefit of the doubt, it follows the timeline of the actual crime. That being, the murders, the brothers shopping spree, the Dr. Oziel drama, their arrest, then revealing the abuse to build the case, the first trial being a hung jury, the second trial, and the brothers conviction. However, the timeline seems jumpy and unfocused. For example, we see some of the same plot points multiple times such as Lyle’s Princeton suspension. Lyle explains his Princeton suspension in episode 4, in this episode this is his side of the story. We see this same plot point again in episode 6, the episode that is supposed to be the perspective of Jose and Kitty. However, the timeline is confusing because by the time the Jose and Kitty perspective episode happens, it’s after the brothers are in jail and Jose and Kitty are dead. So who is exactly telling the story? Again I understand wanting to incorporate a Rashomon effect story but the timeline is jumpy and is not structured in a way that makes it clear to the audience that the story being told is how different people interpret things. 

I mean, I’ve seen children’s shows write a better Rashomon effect story then this show has. One example I can think of is the cartoon “The powerpuff girls” in the episode “The Bare facts”, the Mayor of Townsville is kidnapped and blindfolded by the show’s main villain Mojo Jojo. The girls eventually save the mayor and take him back to his office, but the girls are giggling when they save him but he’s still blindfolded so he wants to know what’s so funny. When he is finally unblindfolded, he continues to ask the girls what’s so funny but they don’t want to tell him so they all change the subject by telling the story of how they found out he was kidnapped and how they rescued him. Each girl narrates the story from their perspective, but each account contradicts each other and is extremely hyperbolic. By the end, it is revealed that the girls were giggling about the fact that Mojo Jojo had stripped the mayor nude during the kidnapping and the girls were telling the mayor this story to avoid telling him the truth about why they were laughing. 

This kind of storytelling concept could have worked with the Menendez story because there are alot of characters in this case that have different perspectives on what exactly happened. But the problem is the story makes no effort to let the audience know that this is the case, so when we see Erik and Lyle ganging up on their mom and cursing her out, the audience doesn't know that in this particular episode it is supposed to be Kitty and Jose’s perspective so we are supposed to their behavior at face value. There’s no narrator or anything else to indicate that this multiple perspectives show. If episode 1 had stayed exactly the way it is and had ended with Dr Oziel on the stand or talking to his wife, Judalon, a journalist, or Jill and Leslie explaining what he thinks happened, and every episode began or ended like that, I probably still wouldn’t be a fan of the show but at least I could understand the kind of storytelling. Unfortunately, it seems like the show did not know how to properly structure that kind of story it is telling and thus comes across as sloppy, confusing, and inconsistent. 

Conflict: I’ve already touched on this in the subplots section, so I will keep this brief, Monsters includes very little conflict or tension for the story. Of course there are conflicts such as Judalon and Oziel’s drama and Dominick Dunne’s articles. But the conflicts don’t really do much to drive the plot in a unique way, but because they happened in real life. The show took many creative liberties when it came to the brothers' personalities but not when it came to plot points. The conflict between Leslie and David Conn was based on actual events, yet it was still highly dramatized enough to give the main plot a conflict and a resolution. Monsters, when it did have a conflict, didn't seem to know how to resolve it. Dominick Dunne’s storyline did not have an antagonist to foil his plans, and as a result the conflict created no tension and no flakes. This creates what’s called a forced conflict, or a conflict that’s added in just to create a conflict. In this show, it feels like Domonick Dunne’s gossip is added in just because Dominick was an actual figure, he was in the Law and Order show but he is reduced to a minor character. Ryan Murphy has stated that Domonick was heavily involved in the series because he was a key figure in how the public viewed the brothers. This can be a valid point, however Dominick's gossip comes across as more of a nuisance as opposed to an actual conflict for the brothers. A conflict is supposed to raise stakes, create tension and develop characters but his involvement doesn’t do much for the main plot. Unfortunately, it seemed like the writers didn’t know how to write a proper conflict.

Lack of purpose: Lastly, the biggest issue is that it has no purpose. Unlike Law and Order, the show has no real identity and doesn’t know what message it's trying to send. I understand wanting to let the audience decide who is telling the truth. Although I am on the brothers' side, there are perspectives out there that could put the brothers in hot water, the show doesn’t seem to know how to portray the multiple perspectives thing. So, on my first watch I was left confused on what the point was. Who are the monsters here? Erik and Lyle? Jose and Kitty? Domonick? If the writers wanted to let the audience decide then they did an awful job at establishing the Rashomon effect storytelling. The biggest proof that this was a terrible storytelling decision is the cast and writers having to explain this in every interview. If the show made it’’s purpose and identity clear then the case wouldn’t have to explain the show’s message. Simply put, Monster’s has reason to exist and doesn’t know what message it wants to convey,

Final thoughts:

All in all, Law and Order, while far from being perfect and having its fair share of inaccuracies, it’s still by far the most accurate out of the five Menendez dramatizations and blows Monsters out of the water. It does struggle with pacing issues, especially towards the end and I think Monsters had better acting, production quality, and chemistry between the actors than Law and Order. I do prefer Nicholas and Cooper over Miles and Gus as Lyle and Erik. They’re both very talented and entertaining to watch and are more believable as brothers in my opinion. I enjoyed their brotherly moments and their back and forth bantering scenes, it may not be accurate but it really establishes them as believable siblings. Javier and Chloe also have more chemistry as Jose and Kitty in my opinion, although Carlos and Lolita were given better material, I still prefer Javier and Chloe. I think the main cast had better chemistry and we’re more believable as a family then Miles, Gus, Carlos and Lolita.  The production team for Monsters also did a better job at establishing an 80s and early 90s aesthetic by the costuming, set designs, and music. The brothers costuming, especially when it came to their court outfits were spot on.

However, overall Law and Order did a better job when it comes to storytelling. Sure, it is biased for the defense but because it’s covering the case from a legal standpoint and Leslie is the main character, we are seeing the version of events from her eyes so storytelling wise it makes sense that the story would be in her favor. The biggest issue with Monsters is not the inaccuracies or the oversexualization but because it doesn’t know what it’s trying to say. It’s clear that Ryan wants the audience to decide who the Monsters are, but because he isn't clear with his aim to tell a Ransom effect storytelling, the audience is left confused on whose side they are supposed to be on. It comes across as inconsistent, unorganized, and lacking in identity. It’s frustrating too because you can see a lot of potential here for a good or even passable show, but it seemed like Ryan was more into capturing his fantasies as opposed to writing a good story. Really the only saving grace of this trainwreck of a show is the actors who are really putting on their best performance to save this mess of a series.