#sometimes fictional characters really do feel fictional and i think that's because they're not contradictory

[andthebubbles]

i actually kinda miss rpf fandoms haha like... i don't miss f1 itself, but i miss rpf fandoms where everyone knows what they're doing and what's up, like how nobody really believes that their otp is actually together (and even if they actually are (?? haha), it has no bearing on what you write/create). and just. i miss that there are no canon ships, so everyone just ships whatever they like (or whore their fave out like i do) and well, i didn't really catch any ship wars during the time i was in the f1 fandom (twice) but maybe i just managed to stay away from all of that. and (at least in my experience) there wasn't any weird comments on fic of how the plot should've been like that, or you shouldn't have done this with this character; i also really liked how there wasn't just smut fic (although there was plenty of that too heheh), but also wonderful, wildly creative AUs of any sort, like it just became so easy to take these characters (because by the time you write about rl people in fic, they DO become characters) and put them in any situation/scenario that you liked--like it just became so easy to know them on a fic/writing level because people before you did the research and put it in their fic, and then you'd read their fic and you'd learn that this guy has blah number of brothers and sisters and these are their names and these are their parents' names--

anyway. i miss the chillness of rpf fandoms. or at least, the ones i've been in anyway.

[ilynpilled]

GRRM on morality, heroism, villainy, and parallax in ASOIAF:

Time magazine wrote of you, “What really distinguishes Martin and what marks him as a major force for evolution in fantasy is his refusal to embrace a vision of the world as a struggle between good and evil.” Do you agree?

I think the struggle between good and evil is central to fantasy and, indeed, in some ways, central to most fiction. It's certainly a worthy subject for fiction. But I regard the struggle between good and evil as being waged within the individual human heart. […] You know, the greatest monsters of history, as we look back on them, thought they were the heroes of the story. You know, the villain is the hero of the other side, as sometimes said. That doesn't mean that it's all morally relative. That doesn't mean that all things are equally good and evil. I think there is good and there is evil in the world. But you know, it's sometimes a struggle to tell one from the other and to make the right choices. I've always been attracted to great characters, maybe because that's what I see when I look around the real world, whether I read about it in history books or the news or just people I meet. I mean, all of us have it within ourselves to be heroes. All of us have it within ourselves to be villains. We've all done good things in our lives, and most of us have also done selfish things, cowardly things, things that we're ashamed of in later years. And to my mind, that's, I don't know, the glory of the human race. We're such wonderfully contradictory, mixed-up creatures that we're endlessly fascinating to write about and read about.

via

In your work, you have essentially captured Mikhail Bakhtin's concept of polyphonic fiction, where the characters are equal, and the reader can root for any of them. This has been impossible to convey on the TV series.

I wouldn't say all the characters are equal, but they have (hopefully) human traits, especially the viewpoint characters. I have seven viewpoint characters in the first book, and each book has a few more. So, by now, we're probably up to 12 or 13 viewpoint characters, and those are the ones where I go actually inside their skin, so you're seeing the world through their eyes. You're hearing their thoughts. You're feeling their emotions. And I try to paint over those viewpoint characters, and some of them are noble and just, and some of them are kind of selfish, and some of them are very intelligent, and some of them are less intelligent and even stupid. But they're all human, and I want to portray their humanity. […] I think the battle between good and evil is fought all over the world, every day, in the individual human heart, as we all struggle with the choices that define us and define our lives. And we have to choose what we are going to do, and sometimes the choice is not easy; it's not this absolute juxtaposition of the good guys and the bad guys. And I wanted to get to that with my characters, and show some of the difficulties that they face.

via

Another element I liked about the series was the moral relativism of many of the characters. Too many Fantasies rely on the shorthand of truly evil villains in the absolute moral sense, but your characters, while they might commit terrible acts, generally do so either from short-sighted self-interest or because they truly believe they are acting for the best. Was this a deliberate decision, or is it just more interesting to write this way?

Both. I have always found grey characters more interesting than those who are pure black and white. I have no qualms with the way that Tolkien handled Sauron, but in some ways The Lord of the Rings set an unfortunate example for the writers who were to follow. […] Before you can fight the war between good and evil, you need to determine which is which, and that's not always as easy as some Fantasists would have you believe.

via

Do you purposely start a character as bad so you can later kill them?

No. What is bad? Bad is a label. We are human beings with heroism and self-interest and avarice in us and any human is capable of great good or great wrong. In Poland a couple of weeks ago I was reading about the history of Auschwitz - there were startling interviews with the people there. The guards had done unthinkable atrocities, but these were ordinary people. What allowed them to do this kind of evil? Then you read accounts of acts of outrageous heroism, yet the people are criminals or swindlers, one crime or another, but when forced to make a choice they make a heroic choice. This is what fascinated me about the human animal.

via

Martin's realm is not one of unambiguous heroes and villains. His characters, from royals to peasants, tend to be ethically mutable. So-called good people, like the noblemen Ned Stark, his son Robb Stark or the indomitable Daenerys Targaryen ("the Mother of Dragons"), make terrible mistakes - out of weakness, pride or an overly rigid sense of right and wrong. And horrible people, like Jaime Lannister, known as "the Kingslayer," do terrible things and then, over the course of several books, reveal themselves to be capable of heroism and sacrifice.

As we're discussing this in the theater, Martin quotes Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" from memory: “The evil that men do lives after them ;/ The good is oft interred with their bones.” Then he adds his own version: “We shouldn't forget about the evil that good men do. But we shouldn't forget about the good either,” he says. “I do think a society needs heroes. They don't have to be flawless.”

via

Your books have a very strong storyline associated with the atonement of sins. For example, the way of Jaime Lannister, do you yourself believe in karma?

I don’t believe in karma per se, although sometimes I have my doubts because sometimes I think I see things that could be explained by karma. But no, I don’t really have any beliefs in the supernatural. I do believe in the possibility of redemption. And I believe that human beings, all human beings, are grey. And I try to remember that when I write my characters. We are all heroes, we are all villains, we all have the capacity for great good and we all have the capacity to do things that are selfish and evil and wrong. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. In your lifetime, you can be both. And it’s making choices that defines us as human beings. There’s this sensation of compartmentalism. This eagerness to judge everybody based on the worst thing they ever did, not the best thing they ever did. And you know, I think Shakespeare in "Julius Caesar" wrote “The evil that men do lives after them ;/ The good is oft interred with their bones.” And sadly that’s true. And I think it should be the reverse. We should remember the good things and the noble things that people did, and forgive them for their failures and moments of selfishness or wrongdoing because we all have them. When we forgive them, we are essentially forgiving ourselves. Redemption should be possible.

via

Are there any characters that you've kind of fallen out of love with, that you just don't, you know, get excited about any more?

I still love all the characters. Even some of them who aren't very lovable. At least the viewpoint characters. When I'm writing in the viewpoint of one of these characters, I'm really inside their skin. So, you trying to see the world through their eyes to understand why they do the things they do. And we all have, even characters who are thought of to be bad guys, who are bad guys, in some objective sense, don't think of themselves as bad guys. […] “What evil can I do today?” Real people don't think that way. We all think we're heroes, we all think we're good guys. We have our rationalizations when we do bad things. “Well, I had no choice,” or “It's the best of several bad alternatives,” or “No it was actually good because God told me so,” or “I had to do it for my family.” We all have rationalizations for why we do shitty things or selfish things or cruel things. So when I'm writing from the viewpoint of one of my characters who has done these things, I try to have that in my head. And I do, so there's an empathy there that makes me love even people like Victarion Greyjoy, who is basically a dullard and a brute. But, he feels aggrieved and sees the world a certain way. And Jaime Lannister and Theon Greyjoy, they all have their own viewpoints. I love them all. Some I love more than others, I guess.

Who do you think to be the most important characters?

They're all important. I don't favor them, or I don't think of them in terms of importance. The viewpoint characters in the first book I have are Bran, Tyrion, Catelyn, Ned, Jon Snow, the two girls Arya and Sansa. There is the core of the Stark family plus Tyrion to represent the Lannister family. Then I have Dany on the other side of the sea, Daenerys Targaryen, whose story runs parallel and some ways doesn't connect to the others, but some day I'll eventually bring those two stories together. In each subsequent volume I drop some of my viewpoint characters and add new ones. Although the same core still dominates, the cast changes somewhat, and I like to do that. In the third volume which you haven't gotten to yet (he refers to me) I have a new viewpoint character. He's been a major character, but now you see things for the first time through his eyes. Which I think changes your perception of things somewhat. I like to play that kind of game, because we all have our own way of looking at the world. Something occurs and two people witness it. They might have very different versions of what happened, and very different explanations. I like to play with parallax in my fiction, and get different versions of the same thing.

via

A Song of Ice and Fire has much of the complex texture of authentic history, both generally and in its specific echoes of actual historical episodes. What laws and principles (if any) in your view govern human history, and how has your understanding of historical processes shaped the series?

Historical processes have never much interested me, but history is full of stories, full of triumph and tragedy and battles won and lost. It is the people who speak to me, the men and women who once lived and loved and dreamed and grieved, just as we do. Though some may have had crowns on their heads or blood on their hands, in the end they were not so different from you and me, and therein lies their fascination. I suppose I am still a believer in the now unfashionable "heroic" school, which says that history is shaped by individual men and women and the choices that they make, by deeds glorious and terrible. That is certainly the approach I have taken in A Song of Ice and Fire.

A Song of Ice and Fire undergoes a very interesting progression over its first three volumes, from a relatively clear scenario of Good (the Starks) fighting Evil (the Lannisters) to a much more ambiguous one, in which the Lannisters are much better understood, and moral certainties are less easily attainable. Are you deliberately defying the conventions and assumptions of neo-Tolkienian Fantasy here?

Guilty as charged. The battle between good and evil is a legitimate theme for a Fantasy (or for any work of fiction, for that matter), but in real life that battle is fought chiefly in the individual human heart. Too many contemporary Fantasies take the easy way out by externalizing the struggle, so the heroic protagonists need only smite the evil minions of the dark power to win the day. And you can tell the evil minions, because they're inevitably ugly and they all wear black. I wanted to stand much of that on its head. In real life, the hardest aspect of the battle between good and evil is determining which is which.

via

When you are writing the different conflicts in Westeros, do you personally pick a side? Or feel that one side fights for a more just cause than the other?

Yes, certainly. I mean, I’ve often said that I believe in grey characters, I don’t believe in black and white characters. But that’s not to say that all characters are equally grey. You know, some are very dark grey, and some are mostly white but they still have occasional flaws. I’ve always been fascinated by human beings and all of their complexity— even human beings that do appalling things, you know, the question is ‘Why?’ And it’s interesting to get inside their head and see why. Some of my viewpoint characters have done some incredibly reprehensible things: Theon, for example, or Victarion Greyjoy. Why? Were they born a monster? Weren’t they born like a cute little kid wanting to be loved and all that? We all start out that way, right? But things happen to us on the way that lead to junctures in our lives where we make decisions, and those decisions and the consequences of them color everything that comes after. You look at [historical figures] and what’s the verdict on these men? Are they heroes, are they villains? Are they great people, or people we should despise? I mean, they are fascinating characters because of their complexity.

via

“I don't concern myself over whether my characters are “likeable” or “sympathetic.” (I had my fill of that in television). My interest is in trying to make them real and human. If I can create a fully-fleshed three-dimensional character, some of my readers will like him/her, or some won't, and that's fine with me. That's the way real people react to real people in the real world, after all. Look at the range of opinions we get on politicans and movie stars. If EVERYONE likes a certain character, or hates him, that probably means he's made of cardboard. So I will let my readers decide who they like, admire, hate, pity, sympathize with, etc. The fact that characters like Sansa, Catelyn, Jaime, and Theon provoke such a wide range of reactions suggests to me that I have achieved my goal in making them human.”

via

“You want the reader to care about your characters — if they don’t, then there’s no emotional involvement. But at the same time, I want my characters to be nuanced, to be gray, to be human beings. I think human beings are all nuanced. There’s this tendency to want to make people into heroes and villains. And I think there are villains in real life and there are heroes in real life. But even the greatest heroes have flaws and do bad things, and even the greatest villains are capable of love and pain and occasionally have moments where you can feel sympathetic for them. As much as I love science fiction and fantasy and imaginative stuff, you always have to go back to real life as your touchstone and say, ‘What is the truth?’”

via

[alovelyburn]

I was wondering who your top five favorite Berserk characters are and why you like them? My bad if you’ve gotten this ask before.

Not in a few years! 1-3 are easy for me, it just gets tough after that because at that point there are a lot of characters I like without any of them standing out as particularly more amazing than the others.

...this is very long.

Guts Despite I guess being more of a vocal Griffith advocate, Guts is actually my favorite character not just in Berserk but in Manga as a whole, and arguably in..... fiction. I mean I can't think of anyone I like more offhand, anyway. As for why... I'm generally fond of the kind of character that he is: a complex personality with a lot of heavy issues, rage and emotional struggles. If you look at any media with a Guts-like character I probably like them - Auron, Senji Kiyomasa, Jason Todd, whatever, they're just my kind of thing but Guts is really the granddaddy of that type and he's more nuanced and interesting than any of the other ones I've personally run across. Jason kind of skirts close sometimes but it depends on the writer... and Western franchise comics are just less consistent by nature. There's also the Punisher but he's a homicidal maniac.

So, even though I like this type in general, it's sort of rare that they're the actual protagonist right, like usually the protagonist is some teenager and the broody complicated guy is like the mentor, or a scary guy they have to deal with or, in the case of a romance usually the love interest. That doesn't stop them from being fun characters that I like, but it does tend to limit how much exploration they get.

I appreciate that he's a protagonist who isn't always a nice or admirable person - that he makes mistakes and hates himself for it, that he sees his own monstrousness and struggles to control it and sometimes gives in to it (or even makes use of it). And the coexistence of his sometimes seemingly contradictory traits - his protectiveness vs the way he hurts people, his desire to belong vs his tendency to abandon, his insecurity and his cocky swag, his uncertainty vs his steel will - also makes for a multifaceted personality. Miura said he designed characters with a mind toward what they'd bring out in Guts and as a result, Guts has a lot brought out in him, I guess. Generally speaking the more complicated a character is the more interested I'll be in them anyway. This is something that's going to come up with Griffith as well, but I also have an attraction to moral ambiguity. I genuinely believe he's capable of being just as cruel, just as monstrous, as Griffith ever was (and vice versa) - and in a lot of ways we've already seen him do that - it's just that I guess a lot of people don't register it that way because his specific priorities better align with their sympathies and also he's the protagonist so people will tend to side with him anyway. But that... doesn't change that he's a person who will use a child as monster bait, or that he sexually assaulted a woman he's supposed to be protecting, or that he let the pilgrim camps around the tower of conviction get sucked into hell in order to get his ex back. It doesn't change that he's selfish and cruel sometimes.

Traditionally I also tend to be drawn to characters who kind of defy I guess stereotypical gender...norms? Guts in a lot of ways is a classic masculine type, but I appreciate that he isn't the no-emo badass that, I guess, he gets perceived as by some people. I love that he cries more than most of the characters in the series, or that his primary motivation is heartbreak over Griffith betraying him. That his rage is more cope than anything else.

I always say he'd reconcile with Griffith if he had a chance, as we know, but if you think about it that's kind of a dick move, I mean Griffith did feed the Hawks to demons and rape Casca in front of him. But that doesn't mean I dislike that I feel he'd do it, on the contrary, that just makes his emotional workings more interesting to me because it's a little desperate and sad, and a little selfish and monstrous, and I think he'd... know that it was a dick move and that he's a little pathetic for being willing to do it. And I think he'd struggle with it and hate himself for it. But I still think he'd do it. Which is interesting to me.

I also love that he's not motivated by romance. It's a rare gem of a thing, and I mean I do obviously believe he has romantic feelings for both Casca and Griffith, but even with that being the case I don't think his romantic feelings for either are his true motivators - he's not attached to Casca just because she's the woman he was planning to be with, he's attached to her because she represents the Hawks in his head. And while his feelings for Griffith have a romantic component I do think it's just one color in a massive storm of feelings. I always think Griffith is in love with Guts, whereas Guts loves Griffith which includes also having romantic feelings for him but it's not necessarily the primary driving force in those feelings.

Also, I really love a stone-cold badass. I've never been a person who automatically gloms onto the underdog, I guess; I know a lot of people are inherently turned off by overpowered characters or characters who rarely lose or whatever, but that just doesn't bother me, I love watching a character cut through an army solo, it's just fun for me.

Along the same lines, I love that he's relentless and can't and won't be stopped. This is kind of an interesting one because I feel like for a lot of people a big chunk of his appeal is that he is always kind of struggling against larger forces and he gets fucked up and he takes hits but keeps going. Whereas for me, the part that appeals to me is just... that he keeps going, whether that means fighting and fighting and never taking a hit or taking hits and getting back up is less important to me than the fact that he's always continuing to go.

And I like the way he mouths off to gods and demons.

Griffith Even though Guts is my favorite, I do actually think Griffith is Miura's master creation. The subtlety of his characterization, the ambiguity that sometimes ripples back just enough to reveal the edge of this vast and complicated personality and the way the reader is left to connect the dots is really fascinating to me - though I do wish people were better about connecting the dots instead of drawing over them.

I say this a lot, but Griffith is the one who actually embodies the reasons I love Berserk the work itself, the world, the philosophy behind it, etc. That someone like him can break is evidence that anyone can break. That someone as good as he is can be cruel is evidence that anyone can be cruel. That someone as terrible as he is can be kind is evidence that anyone can be kind. He encompasses the breadth and depth of humanity in Berserk's world, in all its beauty and all its hideousness.

I love every Griffith, though I do think all of them are distinct in their own ways.

During the Hawks Era, there is a certain innocence to him that persists despite the things he sees and does. He is... childish, I mean honestly, when I think about Griffith in the Golden Age this is maybe the main thing that comes to mind? Because he can be the adult in the room, he can be the genius strategist, the brilliant combatant, he can be serious when he needs to but these are all roles, and when his guards are down (mostly around Guts) his reserve melts and he's expressive and silly and playful and ultimately his self-image is literally that of a barefoot child.

That kind of informs a certain earnest purity that comes through in the way he sees the world and the feelings he has about things or people, and the specifics of the ambitions he holds. Even some of the things that people use against him - the piles of corpses you could say - are things that by the standard of the day really aren't anything he needs to feel bad about, but he's tormented by them to the point where guilt ultimately becomes arguably the driving force behind his actions more than the original ambition that created those corpses to begin with.

I think in the end, what drove Hawks Griffith was still a kind of kid looking at the castle kind of idealism - the dream of self-discovery intermingled with the yearning to build the kind of world that wouldn't make people go through the things he did. The issue is that in a more realistic world, as Berserk has tended to be (magic and stuff aside), that is hard to sustain.

You know what he reminds me of? For anyone familiar with Fate/ there's a thing about Artoria/Saber where she became a martyr to her own Kingdom because she ended up living for the country and sacrificing for the country which made her increasingly dehumanized and Gilgamesh, charmer that he is, realizes she's trying to carry the world on her shoulders he basically determines that she's inevitably going to be crushed under the weight of her own self-imposed burden, which he thinks is hot. Aside from the hotness of it, that always reminded me of Hawks Griffith - the way he tried to carry the Hawks on his back and never let them see that he was imperfect, the way he lived to maintain that image so they had something to believe in, and the way it strained the man underneath.

And that! Is! FASCINATING, look as much as I love Guts for being basically made of steel, I also love Griffith for not being as mentally resilient as Guts is - in fact so many of the reasons I glommed onto Griffith are the direct opposite of reasons I love Guts - so much of Griffith's character is driven by his feelings for Guts, especially during the Golden Age, and I find that to be just as fascinating as Guts' romantic ambivalence. In so many ways Griffith seems larger than life and inhumanly perfect - invincible like he can withstand anything, but all that strength can't hold him up when his heart breaks. In the end its his fragile human heart that is his downfall every time. And the breakable interior underneath his epic hero exterior makes for an interesting cocktail.

This is getting too long so I'm going to try to be brief with Neo - obviously he embodies the larger cosmic themes of Berserk even more than Hawks Griffith does - but I also find him fascinating as the fallout from everything that went on with Hawks Griffith. Because Griffith tried so hard to be a person who lived for his dreams and wasn't battered about by his emotions but he couldn't manage it and so when he's remade in the image he desires he becomes the thing he wanted to be, and its beautiful and epic and inspiring but also kind of hollow and sad. Griffith lives in the fallout from making the wish with the consequences he didn't expect, and it's interesting because it's not wholly clear how much he realizes what he's lost - how much he feels it - until the external imposition of factors that bring his emotions back full force for those shreds of time between transformations.

Farnese She's been my third favorite for... ages. That said, she's not Guts or Griffith so I don't have as much to say about her. I just think she's an interesting character - the changes that take place in her as she tries to reinvent herself are really cool to me.

If you line the events we know up chronologically you get a pretty cohesive story about this emotionally abandoned girl who cycles through various forms of trying to locate herself and her place in the world and forming kind of frantic dependencies on various copium flavors until she is ultimately forced to face the lie that her life had been, at which point she has to start over from nothing. I think that's a cool and very human story. Also, it's interesting to me to see this person who, when we first meet her, seems so powerful (in a political sense) and determined have all those masks torn down until you see the terrified lost person inside all the trappings... and then to see her build herself back up, but in the way she chooses and through the means she desires, having finally been untethered from the obligation and demands of her family or the church.

Farnese is kind of a normal person to me, you know? Like Guts and Griffith are Epic Heroes - they're Made Differently in that heroic form. And people like Serpico are kind of skirting the edges between normal and epic - I'd call him kind of a normal hero as opposed to an epic hero and then there's Farnese who is very cool yes, but ultimately also a basically normal person. And watching her grow and adjust in this world that is deeply hostile to normal people - not just the Berserk world as a whole but the specific path that she goes onto by following Guts - is A+ entertainment for me. It also makes her admirable, because she was born to such extreme wealth and could have had such an easy life if she decided to put her tail between her legs and run home, but she didn't.

So... yeah I mean I think it's a good arc.

From here the short list was Charlotte, Serpico, Zodd and Rickert.

Charlotte I talked a lot about why I like her so much pretty recently, but to quickly recap... I enjoy watching her develop from a sheltered shy shrinking violet into someone who is, while still very gentle and quiet, far stronger and more resilient than one would have expected. I love that she has these progressive views - I assume she got most of them from her father who was quite progressive as well before he lost his damn mind, but it means she and Griffith are aligned on a lot of political views.The risks she takes to save Griffith, the way she loves him even when he's lost everything and can't talk anymore, the way she's able to fight off the King without assistance and protect herself for the year that follows... it works for me. She's a different type of character than someone like Guts or even someone like Farnese, and of course she doesn't get a lot of screentime since she's a relatively small character, but I've seen a lot of growth in her. I also think she's adorable and her romantic fantasy version of the world is kind of... just. Interesting. It's interesting when one character is in a different genre of story than everyone else, I don't know.

Rickert He stole Zodd's spot. Mostly because I always like that "last of the old Guard" type of character, and I find his emotional struggle where Griffith is concerned really interesting. In a lot of ways it echoes Guts' struggle, albeit without the UST. The bit where he smacked Griffith - that whole scene and everything leading up to and after it, is one of my favorite parts of the series - I love that despite knowing what Griffith has done, he still wavered on the edge of whether to stand with him or not. I also love that he decided not to, and that at the same time he still holds his reverence and love for the Griffith who used to be, even though he can't accept the Griffith who is. Even then after that, he's still reluctant to believe Griffith would have him killed - which I think he's right to doubt, because I'm so sure it was Locus who did that. Anyway, he doesn't do much - rather he does a fair amount but he does it in spurts and then vanishes for years at a time - but I'm always glad to see him when he shows up.

Serpico is still on the edge for me right now, but I've been warming to him more during the current reread, I guess because I had to think about him more than I normally do. So I wouldn't be shocked if he eventually overtook Charlotte or Rickert - not sure which. I just need to see more of him/think more about him to get a sense of where he falls for me.

I also think that if we get the full backstory on Skull Knight and Void there is a high chance that they'll just knock the bottom two off entirely and give me a legitimately solid Top 5 instead of, honestly, a Top 3 + extras.

[nirikeehan]

“Keep descriptions short and don’t use poetic/flowery language in a novel”

Bad advice born of the purple prose of the Victorian era, imo. People will suck Hemingway's dick for how brilliant he supposedly was at economical language but I found all of his books dull as dirt and super sexist to boot

Straightforward descriptions can be poetic also, just don't belabor the point. Setting the scene as you go is also a good way to avoid exposition dumps 🤷‍♀️

“if a scene doesn’t advance the plot cut it”

Decent advice, but badly phrased. Everything you write should be advancing the plot OR revealing character. I think that's an important addition, because revealing character is essential to advancing the plot, but it can be harder to spot because you aren't in a high action moment. Not everything has to be car chases or fight scenes.

If you're finding you've revealed the same character beats five times in a row, yeah, a scene or two can probably go. But decide that after you've written it, not before. Easier to cut than add.

“avoid complicated symbolism and hinting at things, just say what you mean”

I truly don't know where this one came from. Foreshadowing is essential to good fiction. Symbolism is fun. I use both liberally and cackle as I do it because I know when a reader figures out all the hints I've put in they're gonna be super pissed they didn't figure it out sooner. 😈

Also, once a writing prof told me it's easy to put symbolism in your writing unintentionally. That's totally fine, but keep an eye out. Once you notice or have it pointed out to you you can run with it and now you've got theme!

“too much worldbuilding is distracting”

Correction: ten pages of exposition of the world with no action is distracting. Write that out for yourself and then weave it into the narrative and BOOM, you've got a vivid, rich world unfolding right before the reader's riveted eyes.

IDK i just felt like expounding on some of this stuff, because all the platitudes can feel really pat and contradictory sometimes. Your mileage may vary obviously; the important thing is to keep reading and keep writing so you can figure out what works best for you.

“Keep descriptions short and don’t use poetic/flowery language in a novel” “if a scene doesn’t advance the plot cut it” “avoid complicated symbolism and hinting at things, just say what you mean” “too much worldbuilding is distracting” bites you bites you bites you bites you bites y

[beggingwolf]

hi so I've just eaten too much ice cream, feel vaguely ill, and I'm here to tell you All About How I Failed At Outlining for SGKF this year!

that's partially just a fun tagline, but it's also a bit true. I told my friends I'd be trying to use several different outlining methods to try and knock out a plotty piece for the fest, and things did not go to plan!

important to begin with: I am what is referred to as a "pantser." I tend to just start writing. this is strangely contradictory to my personality, which deeply loves plans. unfortunately, what often happens is plans and outlines ruin my excitement and drive while working on a project (it tricks me into thinking I've done all the work and resolved the plot), leading me to abandon it.

and though I can throw together pretty words and made a decent fic, my fics never turned out as good as they could have been. I kept telling myself that if I planned in advanced and worked out what I was doing BEFORE I did it, I'd be able to craft a fic with such care and attention as to make it really SHINE.

so, uh, kinkfest rolls around, and since I was a mod I could see all the prompts before they even got released to the public, so I basically had a WHOLE EXTRA two-ish weeks to start planning and writing.

did I? NO.

so, despite the fact that I collect writing advice like a magpie , I'm not the greatest at implementing it. if you go into my SGKF google folder, you'll find a few instances of me TRYING to implement writing advice like metawriting:

(and you'll see some fics that didn't get finished/make it into the fest!)

my issue was (and still is) that I think I value every little word too much. this is a bad thing: I'm an overwriter by nature. when I get words down, I want to keep them because I feel like I worked hard for them, even if they're not great or don't actually serve the story in the way they should. that's not to say all my metawriting was bad; it wasn't. I tried it out for A Drowning in California as well [which will henceforth just be referred to as "California").

I had a whole subfolder for California. what kind of amazed me is how different my initial notes for the prompt are from what the story actually ended up being. here, take a look:

literally almost none of this is in california. the WWE and UFC stuff made it in, and so did sid wrestling with horny, but that was it. I was going to start this fic in the locker room, with sid wrestling someone, and it was seriously going to be a story about sex—about sid wanting to hold geno down in bed. that was the premise.

and instead, we got a really emotional story about familial rejection and the isolation it can make people feel. SO! something happened along the way, right?

when I started getting into the plot that would support this supposed sexfest, this is where I went at first:

geno wants the relationship to get serious, sid is like mentally still a 12 year old who just wants to wrestle people and doesn't want to talk about his emotions, and prefers to use physicality to communicate. this doesn't work for geno, who wants ... more

we can start to see the actual emotions come through, the things I was interested in: sid using touch to talk, and geno desperately wanting more

what did the most good for me, in the end, was "doing" the metawriting by talking with my friends.

I told them what i thought this story was about ("I'm thinking about making this a story about relationship-defining, maybe? and the communication needed for a lasting adult relationship? I think I'm going to set it in california/LA, where Sid has invited Geno along for the first time for his California Summer Fun/Training/Escape, whatever, and Geno's going to be emotionally preoccupied with Defining The Relationship—maybe they've been on-again-off-again? maybe they're just new to this, like almost a year deep, and they're not getting younger—and thinking this trip is about that [or hoping this trip is about that, and realizing it isn't, and being disappointed].") and they told me what jumped out at them.

Jes told me what would ramp up the tension would be a deadline of some sort; "Geno’s going to break up with Sid or make some decision or something, or there’s something approaching where they have to make a will they or won’t they decision of some kind related to the core ‘defining the relationship’ issue. Geno’s going back to russia and in previous summers they’ve always slept with other people while apart? or Sid has a wedding coming up and he’s offhandedly mentioned taking someone else as his plus one?"

I liked her thoughts. it made sense to add an external pressure to all this, and that wedding idea stuck out to me the most.

Lis said I should add a jealousy angle, so you can largely credit her for the club scene: "one thing i like to sort of headcanon/imply about sid's california trips is he uses them to hook up anonymously. so you could have, like, sid and geno seeing sid's friends, but also accidentally running into some of sid's friends. and geno's like oh, great, so here i am doing this horrible summertime training that i hate because i don't need to train in the offseason actually, and i'm learning what exactly sid gets up to when we're apart."

My magical solution these days is GOING FOR WALKS. do it if you're able. it clears out your brain. so on my walks I ended up deciding that I wanted a taylor crosby wedding. I like taylor as a character, and as a person with sisters I just like writing her in. best of all, she and sid are close and I like writing "I'd do anything for my family" sid.

and then I was like. oh. what if it's not that sid is afraid/nervous to bring geno, it's that he can't.

I... wasn't as conflicted as I thought I'd be about writing sid's parents as homophobic. I prefer to write them as supportive; I think troy crosby's been eviscerated more than he should have been in older fanworks, and though I respect their right to make fictional!troy whatever they want, I've been a little skeptical of outlandish takes on him ("he doesn't say I love you to his son because a camera caught them mid-interaction once!") ever since I read how the media has found him a convenient narrative villain while he tried to keep his underage son safe from the media as a child and while they needed to cook up Spicy Stories about squeaky-clean sid.

uh, tangent aside, I always thought I'd never write a "parents are the villains" story, but I did here. it felt right. it was easier, too, because they're not PRESENT in the story. I didn't have to write trina actually being horrible to her son. I just had to skirt the edges of the wound.

which works well on two fronts: I don't have to actively write the crosbys being horrible to sid, and I also leave more to the imagination of the reader, and that almost never fails to make the work better. whatever the reader imagines them saying to sid, it's going to be 10x more hurtful than anything I'd write.

I dug really deep on some personal emotions and fears I experience as a gay person for a lot of sid's arc here. sid is deeply imperfect in this story, and he's internalizing his pain and the horrible thing that's happened to him, which is making him pull away from his partner, and sid is not responding how geno wants, nor is he responding well, period, though he's trying in his own wounded, stilted way.

and beloved geno, whose tender heart is so hidden away for fear of someone hurting it. I really like writing geno; he's huffy and emotional and sometimes bitchy and feels things SO deeply.

once I had more of an idea, I was already working on a more detailed outline. this is where I seriously took Jes's advice and WROTE EVERYTHING OUT! it made it so much less daunting, because I didn't have to be figuring out my next steps AND crafting sentences at the same time. also this is where I tell you that the title of this post is mostly a lie, it was metawriting I failed at.

This outline also meant I avoided writing large swaths of things that should've been cut. Another beta told me I should delete three scenes and condense a bunch of emotions into the club scene, and she was SO right. Cutting events out of an outline is WAY easier than cutting out pages of text.

Ironically my outline kind of deteriorated after the club scene, but that's alright: after I wrote the club scene, I actually had a clear vision of what I wanted the end to be. I just had to trust myself. I CAN do this, I CAN still just write intuitively sometimes!

I think California did what I wanted it to do. I'd love to try something out that's longer and has more story arcs in it (jes has a post for that too!) but I think that's best saved for another, longer project, though 18k isn't short.

next up is maggie stief's writing seminar that I bought a month back. I'm going to start working on that this month and see how I like it. I have a few halloween fic ideas, plus spookfest, so these next two months we should be cooking in the kitchen!

[hamliet]

If there's anyone who must read those scientific studies on the alterations on people who were abused, it's Hori! See the way he's trying to make ende*vor "sympathetic" at cost of Touya portrayed as an unstable child by "his" choice. Just, sometimes I wonder if hori is a smart man or a stupid man who play with people's feelings, especially who mirror in Touya, because they're abuse victims too (just like me)

Firstly, I’m so very sorry you went through that, Anon. You did not deserve it. <3

I think firstly, we need to wait for the chapter before we say that’s really what he’s trying to portray. I do think he wants us to love and sympathize with Touya: Shouto directly says “he’s me,” so I am not sure what else that could mean.

However, I also think there are valid critiques to be had. I’m not addressing this chapter but instead common criticisms (and rebuttals to those critiques) I’ve seen over the past arc. Imo the critiques of this chapter are pretty similar to the ones that have gone before lol so take it as you will, but we’ll see once it’s out!

One thing I see commonly praised is that the Todoroki subplot showcases  different perspectives and unreliable narrators. In theory, I agree. However, in practice, I find the execution of this... messy. This is my opinion and not fact, but I’ll explain why I think it’s bumbling at best within the narrative.

It comes across as wishy-washy instead of hammering home a narrative theme of different perspectives. The narrative theme might be hammered home in the end (see the next paragraph) but for the time being it’s confusing. Different narrator/nuance/perspectives work best when the rest of the story is full of that to emphasize it, but frankly in BNHA the rest of the story is... not like that. Hence, having to change tone, reading, perspective for one subplot (admittedly my favorite subplot!) is a questionable writing move even if done with good intentions.

It also doesn’t work well--for me!--to have these tonal changes in a weekly manga. I’ve talked before about the struggle of serial fiction mediums being how to balance pacing and suspense when your audience gets very small increments at a time. So, while some elements of the story definitely read better when we have the full picture, when you’re giving the reader a sliver of the picture once a week and they might have to wait years for the full picture... to what extent does the tonal changes per week affect the quality of the writing? That’s a question without easy answers, but I don’t think it’s working well in a weekly manga.

Lastly, one of the messy aspects of the story since the Pro-Hero Arc is that I’m not sure Horikoshi knows who he wants to focus on in a lot of ways. Enji as the main character of the subplot--because atm he frankly is and has been for awhile--is a questionable choice. The kids have been afterthoughts for over half the manga. It seems he’s so focused on trying to persuade fans (who are never going to be persuaded) about Enji’s potential for change/that the criticisms can be answered and he’s aware of this and that and this too! that he’s struggling with the overall progression of the story. By trying to answer every criticism, the writing feels bloated and contradictory instead of tight (which can also b e contradictory but like, the themes are better reinforced).

That said, I think Horikoshi really, really cares. I don’t think he’s “stupid” (and I don’t like ableist terms!); on the contrary, I think he’s deeply emotionally invested and listening to people’s complaints. I think he doesn’t want to hurt anyone, and I think the Todoroki and Shigaraki subplots are deeply important and personal to him because of the level of care he devotes to them. But I wish he would just stick to writing what he’s gonna write instead of trying to address every possible concern. Humanity means there isn’t always time to address “well what about X?” Every story has a valid criticism of it, and no story is palatable to everyone.

I personally think the narrative is definitely heading towards reconciliation for the entire Todoroki family. I have my issues and my complaints (boy, do I) but I’m in it for that aspect (and for Shigaraki’s redemption too) even if I complain about quality all the time because critique is what we do on this here blog ;)

[cynical-amphisbaenia]

Uh, hi? I'm sorry if I'm sending a ton of asks. I accidentally sent an unfinished one and didn't know there was a character limit?? Like I typed a lot on one and it never had a limit so I'm not sure if it's like a mobile vs desktop thing? I'm really bad at Tumblr lol. Uh anyway, my interests are almost entirely dnd and art. I mostly run games for my friends and do world building or plot stuff. When I actually play I always struggle between wanting to play something useful but then get upset when I get brushed off as "not a damage dealer" like yeah I can heal you 30 HP with a 1st level spell but I'm doing 4d8 minimum damage a round. I know basically every ability in the game and usualy use that understanding to work around my allies and make it so they can work as effectively as possible. But I feel like helping them be the best they can be takes away from me and makes it look like I'm not actually contrabuting? Like noticing that I'm the reason y'all are attacking more often would be cool. When I do play damage dealers I have a lot of fun at first bit get annoyed at their lack of non combative abilitys and uses. I'm a very talkative player and like to poke and prod everything and try to advance the plot or keep people on track. I tend to absorb as much information as I can about topics that interest me or just ammuse me so I can spout off that information at random or help people apply that information to whatever (like me the DM, telling my players how to make their characters even stronger without realizing I have to deal with them) I really enjoy art and I dabble in photography? I think my abilitys with photography are more of a natural inclination towards taking good photos more than actually knowing anything about photography? I was one of my photo teachers favorites even though I just winged everything and pretended I knew what I was doing. I do that a lot. Acting like I know what I'm doing just because it makes things easier when I have to put up with other people involving it. I'm a big fan of cryptids and I've been meaning to just do a deep dive and learn every tidbit I can but I haven't yet. Estheticaly I'm very drawn to crowns. I just adore them for some reason and I always have. When I took my friends senior photos he payed me by taking me to spirit Halloween and buying me a crown. I joke about it being my thinking crown and like to wear it while I work. A reoccurring thing that pops up in my life is bees? They're just a part of my personality at this point. I love those lil guys (did you know they can smell fear and do math?) Something I just remembered about myself is that I'm capable of beliving two entirely contradictory things. Like tarot? It's nonsense. But also it's literally never been wrong so I guess it's not? Same with how I feel guilty taking on any "main character" role in games but constantly joke about being all powerful and a being a book or cartoon character that I'm pretty sure I'm slowly trucking myself into genuinely seeing myself as a powerful entity. I'm really good at noticing patterns in the way people act and why they act the way they do and most of the time I just use that knowledge to "win" debates or whatever they just try to argue towards me. By win I mean I just intentionally misconstrued what they're saying to annoy them until they leave me alone (like "fuck you!" "No thanks I'm not interested") a lot of what I do is motivated by how funny I think I would be. Like tricking myself into kinning vriska? Hilarious. Getting into Homestuck so I can annoy my friends with useless trivia? Wonderful. Making my super friendly flower cleric and nicest character I've ever made also a raging anarchist and overthrowing two governments and killing a god through the power of friendship? God tier funny (in my eyes). I do a lot of things just so I can have a story to tell later (like killing the god) uh I think I've rambled for a while so I'm just gonna send this?

No worries about all the asks! I just want to say in advance that I really hope I don't confuse you further, but here's what I can figure out based on the information you've given me:

Your aspect is definitely Light. This is the clearest I've ever been able to determine someone's aspect so I don't think you need to doubt that. So much about Light is important to you - information/knowledge, your approach to stories, your focus on roles in reality (even if it’s fictional dnd reality). 

However, I don’t think you’re a Rogue. The classes I suggest you consider are Maid, Witch and Knight.

Maid might describe your relationship to wanting to be acknowledged as a contributor, but often being ignored. It would also explain why you constantly create Light for others, but desire to sometimes take on those roles yourself. You also appear to create situations for yourself to then create Light in the form of stories, as well as creating Light through plot/worldbuilding.

Witch is an option as you do sometimes appear to manipulate Light - intentionally misconstruing what people say, slowly changing reality by doing things because they’re funny, and using your knowledge to change things for your teammates. Poking and prodding at the plot is a very Witch-like trait. Witches also tend to be confident with their aspect. 

Finally, Knight might explain why you think you’re redistributing Light - perhaps you’re serving it instead. You do tend to use Light as both a weapon and to protect others when playing dnd. Joking about being a powerful entity and pretending you know how to do photography are both very Knight-like traits. However, Knights tend to only pretend to be confident in their aspect which might not suit you if you truly are confident with Light. 

I know I just gave you three new classes to consider! Probably not very helpful, sorry. Though with your own knowledge of classpects, you might be able to easily dismiss some of these yourself. Of course, my general advice is which do you feel you do more often - create, change or serve? Maybe there’s particular roles in dnd that you’re drawn to which would line up with one of these. 

Well, I really hope I’ve helped somewhat rather than confusing you more, but feel free to keep sending me asks if you need help narrowing it down. I’m sure you’ll figure out your classpect though, don’t worry. ^^

[counterfictional]

A fantastic set of questions! I enjoy reading through some of the replies :) here is mine as well:

Did you have dreams of your nonhuman self? Can you daydream as yourself?

I don't think recently! But I have, especially when I was younger and ESPECIALLY during any chance of lucidity. Daydream wise, when I imagine myself in the internal space, I see Myself. And I often do that kind of daydream.

Do you get shifts? What kind? What's the most comfortable one? And uncomfortable?

Mental shifts. They're not uncomfortable, but.... can be a bit... strange? Not comfortable, not uncomfortable, just a weird. I think we do sometimes get phantom shifts. Of claws or something.

Are there any emotions or feelings you get that are linked to your alterhumanity?

Probably the feeling of not being real?

Do you relate more to the psychological side or spiritual side of alterhuman (spec. therian) discussion? Do you fall in-between?

Both! I have a foot in both sides. Spiritual because of psychological, psychological because of spiritual. Though I often like calling it "metaphysical" instead of spiritual.

Do labels matter to you? Do you need a specific set of definitions of yourself? Are you confused or scared to start picking labels?

Have a very complicated relationship with labels. On one hand, they're nice identifiers. On another, they sometimes feel like stickers that are solely there to stick. I don't think I need a label... It is nice sometimes to have a label for something, but sometimes there's the "do I REALLY fit this label?". The biggest "am i valid enough?" will always be plural label. Hope to start caring less and less about what's acceptable and what's not in label wearing. My favorite labels are the broadest ones.

What are your kintypes, theriotypes, etc etc? Do they have any related qualities? Contradictory qualities?

I'm a fictional villain shark called Sal and a fictional character whose an OC. Both have appearance of... White. I've been toying around the idea that when the mental shifts declare I'm a separate person from the body. No use arguing over it.

The community wants to hear about your experiences! Tell me about your experiences with alterhumanity!

Did you have dreams of your nonhuman self? Can you daydream as yourself?

Do you get shifts? What kind? What's the most comfortable one? And uncomfortable?

Are there any emotions or feelings you get that are linked to your alterhumanity?

Do you relate more to the psychological side or spiritual side of alterhuman (spec. therian) discussion? Do you fall in-between?

Do labels matter to you? Do you need a specific set of definitions of yourself? Are you confused or scared to start picking labels?

What are your kintypes, theriotypes, etc etc? Do they have any related qualities? Contradictory qualities?

Note: I'm not here for discourse about what should or shouldn't be accepted into the alterhuman community. Anyone can reply to this post if they feel like it fits them. If you start shit about my language use, I'm going to bite you, and not in a fun way.