#structural storytelling from someone's point of view

[oceannacaldin]

Characters: Pete Phongsakorn Saengtham, Main house cast

Additional Tags: Pete's POV, Pre-Canon, I have a lot of thoughts about the consequences of Tawan’s death, the way it impacted the main family as whole

Summary: Pete doesn't linger on the past. He does not yearn for it the way Big seems to do, sometimes. It’s just… Since Tawan’s betrayal, something changed. It’s a stupid thought, because nothing is really different, but Pete can’t help but notice all the things that are a little more harder, a little less nice. It feels like the tides are shifting, and no one knows how to go against them.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/758355990597025792/the-way-people-talk-about-first-person-narrative

This is a very stupid take because the way a story is told ABSOLUTELY changes the way the story 'feels', including the perspective it is told from, and it's perfectly normal to have preferences, even strong ones. Like, would you say the same thing about first person POV vs third in video games? Or can you not understand that the way a narrative is viewed (through one character's eyes vs following one character from a distance vs viewing all characters from a greater distance even as certain things get story focus) will change how it reads to the reader and therefore certain perspectives may be more grating than others?

Sure, good writing can make the difference, but good writing can also make me enjoy a trope or relationship dynamic or plotline I would otherwise dislike, that doesn't mean I don't have preferences it just means good enough writing can overcome them!

Authors choose first or third person, the pov character, present or past tense, vocabulary and tone, complexity of sentence structure, pacing, and other meta things like that based on the way they serve the story that's being told.

Ok, and? Authors choose ships, what the fic is about, and the medium and genre (like poetry or readerfic), and everything else you think people are allowed to hate, based on the way they serve the story being told, too! If I think the way the story is told is ass or the writing isn't good enough to overcome my dislike for the perspective of the writing (or my dislike for the genre or the medium or the ship or or or) then it really doesn't matter why the author chose to write things this way. I don't have to like something just because it was chosen with intent rather than done 'just because' (although plenty of people choose viewpoint perspective based on vibes or what they prefer writing, not everyone sits down and thinks 'well gee what will best serve the story???' and to be clear there's nothing wrong with this, especially for fic! but picking POV is no more sacred than picking a ship or whatever and the choice can still be disliked just by virtue of not liking that particular tool of storytelling!), and if someone isn't a good enough writer to make up for the reasons I dislike first person, then I'm just not gonna read their stuff!

Which is fine, they don't need me to, it's no great loss on either side. But it is, in fact, 'a separate thing [I] can hate'. And that opinion hasn't changed even though I have found the occasional exception to that general rule which I do enjoy.

--

This part of fandom is extremely weird about first person. It's inevitable that there are going to be posts pointing that out.

[utilitycaster]

sorry if this is something you don’t want to answer! you’ve said that questions about how you THINK the campaign is going to end are annoying, but i’m curious about how you personally WANT the campaign to end, given the various possibilities we’ve heard and what might still be considered?

At this point? For them to go with the Accord's plan, and for it to work on the general scale, though obviously not without potential casualties. It's the only plan that has at least attempted to consider the needs of multiple disparate groups of Exandrians and Ruidians and which has considered the possible long-term impact. It does not have complete representation and it is not perfect, but it's the only plan that isn't just, in the end, one arrogant guy who thinks they have all the answers and can make the choice for everyone else.

I will say: I am generally hoping Vox Machina and the Mighty Nein get out of this intact (Vax de-orbed but still a celestial, to be clear). I am open to a multitude of endings for Bells Hells since that is the burden of the main campaign party for the big final battle.

I do not want to go into this in depth on this ask though I've alluded to this extensively in a lot of places but: I am drawn to stories for them being narratively interesting and satisfying, which is a broad term but not an all-encompassing one, ie, you can't just say "narratively satisfying is whatever makes the viewers happy." Some people are drawn to stories more because of an individual character that speaks to them, or shipping, or lore alone, or an ending that validates their pre-existing irl views rather than their thoughts on how it should end based on the premises of the worldbuilding and the plot. And they can do this, and I am not stopping them, but I do, from the bottom of my heart, know that if someone's priority for storytelling is anything other than "this would be narratively satisfying" and that you have a decent understanding of narrative satisfaction (ie, following from the coherent worldbuilding and the established characterizations) I am, in the realm of the appreciation, analysis, and creation of stories, better than they are. Pretty much any critique I have of patterns of fandom behavior (roving shipping; "why is no one asking my blorbo how they feel" disease; projection of personal trauma; refusal to accept death or tragedy and the related obsession with fix-it fic; the idea of someone deserving a fate not because of what has happened within the story itself and what they've done but because of what has been done to them in an unseen backstory) boils down to that: it's not coming from any understanding of story structure.

[undead-moth]

I would love to read more about the themes and tropes and storytelling tools you notice the writers making use of when writing sydcarmy. I just love thinking about this show and reading other people’s takes especially when it’s people who appreciate good writing and aren’t just disappointed their ship didn’t jump on each other the first chance they got.

Hi. Thank you for your ask. I think there are stories in which it narratively makes sense for two characters to get together right away, or to get together with little development - it all just depends on what the structure of the narrative is, and what the writer's intentions are, and ultimately what the relationship is being used to say - but it wouldn't have made sense narratively to canonize SydCarmy this season based on the narrative structure The Bear is using. This is true whether you're looking at it from an in-universe point of view, or from an out-of-universe point of view.

In-universe: Carmy has just gone through a devastating breakup at the exact same time he has opened a restaurant. The trauma he endured with the NYC head chef has been refreshed in full. He's also quit smoking. He not only has all the usual pressures of starting a new restaurant on his back, but he also already owes Cicero so much money. He is Syd's boss, and her idol, making their relationship somewhat unbalanced. I don't think someone in this situation in real life would be jumping into a new relationship with someone they work with every day.

Out-of-universe: The writers spent all of season 2 developing a romance between Carmy and Claire. This wasn't for no reason. If Carmy had shrugged off their breakup, not only would that have weakened the integrity of season 2, but if he had also gotten in a relationship with Syd right away, Carmy's relationship with Syd wouldn't have rung true. We would have a hard time believing that there's any real depth in his feelings for her, or any real meaning to their relationship, if he was able to get over Claire so quickly. Who's to say Syd isn't a rebound? Who's to say she'll be different?

His heartbreak also has a narrative purpose. Claire is a narrative foil to Syd. Claire represents Carmy's "dream girl," but she is not treated either by the narrative nor him as a person. She's more of an idea, and as a result, his love for her is based on a fantasy of her.

Carmy's heartbreak now is going to be useful for us to reference later when he is pursuing Syd. Based on the story structure, I believe he will face heartbreak with Syd before he enters a relationship with her, but regardless, we'll be able to compare how he looks at Syd to how he looked at Claire, and the difference will be stark when his heartbreak is for someone he sees and loves as a real person, and not as a fantasy. Without the ability to compare how Carmy is with Syd to how he was with Claire, it is more difficult to understand the significance of Carmy's love for Syd. That isn't to say there aren't ways - there are many - but I believe the way they chose was with Claire, and it's an extremely common way for writers to convey how a character feels for their intended love interest. First pair them with someone they think they want, and when that ends, pair them with the character they're actually intended for. Allow audiences to compare notes.

Anyway, I want to be able to offer you more, but I don't want to without rewatching the show. Only season 3 is fresh in my mind. I was already going to rewatch them anyway, and when I'm done, I'll add to this post and tag you.

Thanks again for asking.

[moltz23]

That one time Fire Emblem Lied to its players [Fire Emblem: Three Houses Analysis]

Have a picture of Rhea, for no particular reason.

The Fire Emblem franchise is no stranger to games having multiple routes with various perspectives. FE Fates’ whole gimmick was about how Corrin’s view of the Hoshido & Nohr war changes depending on whom they chose to (potentially not) support; their Nohrian siblings, or/and the Hoshidans. And as a less-drastic example, Sacred Stones also has a choice midway through the story, in which picking Eirika or Ephraim as the main lord changes both the next few chapters and how the main antagonist is portrayed.

Meanwhile, even though Fire Emblem: Three Houses technically continued this tradition, unlike past games, it took the choice of making sure there would be no story branch with an unbiased view of the world, history, and events. As a result, we ended up with a game that, compared to previous entries, lies to its players.

Why Three Houses of all games got hit with this treatment? Well, that’s exactly what I’m set to show everyone here, so sit tight, and grab a drink and a snack or something, because to understand this, we first need to talk about Biased Storytelling. 

What even IS Biased Storytelling? 

In the context of Three Houses and this analysis, I refer to “biased storytelling” as the narrative technique in which the story’s perspective is so rooted in the chosen faction, that it impacts the perspective taken of its events.

Toshiyuki Kusakihara, Three Houses’ director, alludes to it in a 2020 Nintendo Interview, making clear this was a deliberate choice from his end:

Kusakihara: For me, I think games are a way to simulate a world and its story as if the player were experiencing it themselves. I’m personally the type of person that gets absolutely sucked into things like movies and games. I tried setting up a prank using how the game itself is structured: the player would go through the game once and really experience the world, then they’d talk about it with someone else and be like, “we played the same game right? Why are we talking about two different things?” I thought that it might be interesting where even if you picked the same house as somebody, your experience could differ from somebody else’s based on who you recruited. You might even say to yourself, “hey, I didn’t even see that scene!”

With just this decision, Three Houses became free to have each of its plots tackle whatever ideas it wanted. And with no golden/true route on sight, players became forced to make sense of everything themselves, pin-pointing every potential detail which could explain notorious divergences and similarities between narratives.

Accomplishing this does come with many challenges. Through understanding what the game does to make each story feel different though, one detail of its writing stands out:

It’s all about Perspective:

3 nations. 3 future rulers. 4 perspectives.

Perspective is, simply put, Three Houses’ main bread and butter. In spite of heavily recycling its content whenever possible, it’s what ultimately makes each route feel different from one another. Silver Snow and Verdant Wind for example, might be infamous for sharing a good chunk of story beats and maps ‘til the near end, but neither of them feels the same in terms of themes and perspective as a result, more so with the titular supporting cast each story features.

To set up its various perspectives, the narrative did the following:

First, it had the story take place in a world with a vast history.

Second, it had a particular character (Byleth) act as an audience surrogate.

And third and most importantly, context on the world & events was provided by characters who have unique backgrounds and strategic roles in the setting. Most notably: Rhea; Edelgard; Dimitri; and Claude (there are also a few auxiliary ones like Sothis which do contribute to this cornucopia of POVs though), some of which are route exclusive.

I simply cannot stress how much Rhea and the House Leaders’ involvement in the plot colors things for players. One of the better examples where their differences are exposed in full is arguably Chapter 5: Tower of Black Winds. 

As a brief recap: In it, Rhea assigns Byleth & their class the task of eliminating Miklan - disowned son of House Gautier - and his gang, who had recently stolen a Hero Relic.  Prior to the mission itself, Blue Lions and Golden Deer introduces the player supporting figures that played key roles in the chosen House Leader’s past: Rodrigue for Dimitri; and Judith for Claude (for those wondering, no equivalent exists for Edelgard in Black Eagles).

Then the Miklan mission happens and… Let’s just say people have thoughts about it:

To break things down, in all routes:

Sothis is puzzled by the whole thing, and feels she has seen the demonics beasts before…

Meanwhile, Rhea believes Miklan deserved to get screwed over. After all, unlike Byleth, he was not chosen nor deemed worthy of wielding their crest and Hero Relic. Also, she tells Byleth to keep Miklan’s transformation a secret to prevent mass hysteria.

Meanwhile, the House Leaders - whom the player gets only in certain routes - are the ones who truly make things interesting:

Even though both Edelgard and Dimitri agree that Crests shouldn’t hold so much importance, each one’s solution to the issue provides a clear image of how they see the world and how much they ideologically contrast one another, and their thoughts on Miklan’s predicament as well hint at their different backgrounds and past experiences. Then we have Claude, who by contrast is unfamiliar with Crests - not unlike Byleth* - and discloses nothing about his dream or, in other words, “his ideal world”, only confiding it’s something only connections and power can achieve. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is quite exactly where the heart of Three Houses’ deceit lies. More conventional stories wrestle with the fact they need to provide information about the world which must be accepted as fact, which is where the act of exposition comes in, usually from an ally or from some character well versed in the setting. Conversely, others like Three Houses blatantly lie to its players by simply having their characters provide exposition based on what they realistically know about the world they’re in, and how their backgrounds color the perception of the events witnessed. At best they provide a good guide for understanding things but taking them at face value does come with a few risk.

*As a bit of an aside though, I do wanna drive attention to how Claude assumes double duty in Three Houses’s story (and ONLY Three Houses) in a way no one else does. Unlike Rhea, Edelgard and Dimitri, whom are very much familiar with Fódlan’s idiosyncrasies (sometimes, far more than they’ll let you know), Claude’s own unfamiliarity with Fódlan means he ends up working in practice as a second audience surrogate, and thus has his story be the most “lore exploring” narrative of all given how much of a driving force Claude’s avarice for the truth is, his biases aside.

Varying Knowledge on Events.

Moving onwards, one of the risks caused by the characters having realistic human knowledge is that understanding and perception of events wildly changes depending on the character relaying the information. Chapter 5 was a good case of this already, but another solid example can be seen in what happens to the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus post-timeskip outside Crimson Flower. 

For context’s sake: one way or another, Dimitri is unable to assume the throne due to the Faerghus Dukedom being established by Cornelia, Faerghus’ Court Mage, and isn’t seen again for a long while.

My vague recollection of said events was done deliberately, and I feel the evidence below speaks for itself:

Both Seteth and Claude’s knowledge on Dimitri’s fate and how the Faerghus Dukedom came to be are very surface level. Meanwhile, Gilbert’s perspective is a lot more intimate, which fits since he was there when it all happened.

And on the note of characters being there when things happen-

Scenes (not!) shown to the Player

This one’s by far the most sneaky trick the writers pulled (and also more of a lie by omission than anything). I mean, If the player doesn’t choose the Black Eagles/Blue Lions/Golden Deer, it makes sense they’re not shown what Edelgard/Dimitri/Claude are up to respectively, yeah? But that comes with a consequence: the player misses scenes providing context for their actions and motivations.

Case in point: Dimitri’s whole vendetta against Edelgard. Outside of Blue Lions, Dimitri eventually develops an unhinged hatred against Edelgard, but the player is never shown its source. And all because the scene introducing this isn’t relevant to the story being told in those routes.

After Jeralt’s death in Chapter 9, in Black Eagles & Golden Deer, Alois visits Byleth in Jeralt’s room as they mourn their loss, giving the mercenary-turned-teacher some words of comfort. And in those routes, Edelgard and Claude get their own chance to do so in a early scene in Chapter 10 which is juxtaposed with TWSITD & the Flame Emperor having a villain moment™.  

In Blue Lions however, Dimitri visits Byleth instead of Alois in Ch. 9. In turn, Byleth, instead of remaining mournful, does a walk at night the next day and finds Dimitri eavesdropping the whole conversation between TWSITD and Flame Emperor. This shows players what happens after the villain moment™ ends, and how Dimitri eavesdropping on it and getting the Flame Emperor’s dagger convinces him that Edelgard was the mastermind of the Tragedy of Duscur.

Also the moment where everything goes to hell for Dimitri.

The way the Blue Lions' version of the scene was handled also raises interesting implications when considering the timeline of events. Not only does it suggest Dimitri eavesdropping that moment is canon to White Clouds, but also that it’s purely through slightly different circumstances that the story allows it to be shown to Byleth (and by proxy, the player). And this is not even the only case - Crimson Flower for example, implies the explanation Rhea gives to Seteth about what Byleth truly is - in her eyes, that is - always happens even when the titular surrogate isn’t present where it takes place.

When even the lore is biased.

Finally, I want to wrap this up with the most elaborate and confusion-inducing stunt the game pulls to the player: The War of Heroes. 

The tl;dr, as far the Church/Rhea claims - per Part 1, White Clouds - goes as follows: 

Goddess bestows blessings and weapons to humans to fight evil. 

Humans defeat evil. 

Humans misuse blessings and grow corrupt. 

Goddess is sad and leaves.

The Goddess’ prophet arrives, makes miracles, creates the Church of Seiros, co-founds the Adrestian Empire with Wilhelm I, and gives other humans - along with other fellow saints - Crests. 

The Adrestian Empire expands, and fights Nemesis’ forces. 

The War of Heroes happens.

Nemesis is slain in the Tailtean Plains.

Goddesses’ weapons are retrieved as the Ten Elites fall, and their clans are assimilated into the Empire.

War ends sometime later.

As for what took place in reality? the game provides us 2 POVs from 2 different sources:

Both perspectives share that the Church’s history records of the events were a textbook example of propaganda - yet also differ on one key area: the motive behind the war, which begs the question: What happened here? 

Well, this is one of those things that I hinted that we would need to pierce ourselves as the game’s never upfront about it. Which means that, to make sense of everything, we have to take into account the evidence at hand the game gives us: 

Rhea was there when the Tragedy of the Red Canyon happened, and knew her species was being killed and harvested for power by humans (which should not have known how to do what they did).

It’s well documented that Seiros and the Saints used their dragon forms against Nemesis’ forces in battle. Warrios: Three Hopes’ intro movie even shows a battle in which Seiros switches forms in the battlefield.

Wilhelm (The First) is the human that found Seiros after the slaughter and supported her fight with Nemesis. And as Edelgard’s claims, he did this knowing she was a dragon, and that her victory would subjugate humanity to her.

Part 1 is very unsubtle over how Rhea has a lot of secrets, to the point not even Seteth knows why she does things sometimes. 

One of Abyss’ banned books heavily implies no one in Fódlan – sans a select few - know what a dragon is, when examining the bone composition of the Hero’s Relics…

Taking all evidence into account, it should be easy to grasp how Wilhelm the human, despite being one of Rhea’s biggest supporters versus Nemesis, ultimately ended up getting a completely different idea on the motives Rhea had for her whole crusade against the murderer of her kin. Understandably yet tragically so, all points out Rhea didn’t trust Wilhelm enough to tell him the truth of her cause, so she let him come up with his own conclusions. Conclusions, which later made their way into his descendants in secret, and eventually, to Edelgard.

But wait, what about the other faction involved in the war? Nemesis and co.? What was their take on the whole thing?

Well, we technically do know their POV, but it’s not openly discussed in the main story. Instead, it’s spread around in breadcrumbs in the game itself:

In short, not only Nemesis’ most important men were ignorant of his most heinous acts (or perhaps, it would be more accurate to say they didn’t perceive them as heinous?), when Nemesis found out Seiros was publicly framing him as a good man turned bad that needed to be put down for the greater good - all to rally allies for Wilhelm’s Empire - Nemesis’ ensuing statement was something that could be very well summed as the following: 

Actually uncanny how this fits.

There are so many more examples that I want to bring out right now (both from Three Houses and Three Hopes), but I feel that by this point there’s not much left that hasn’t been said already. That is, other than the questions the whole Biased Storytelling stunt caused: Where does the truth lie when everyone is missing pieces of the puzzle? Can someone truly lie when they're unaware such missing pieces even exist? In a story, how canonical truly is the context not shown to the reader? Should one be allowed to know the circumstances of every important event in a story, even if it's irrelevant to the key narrative? 

[hell-heron]

Thinking of this comment by Treegoats, really lovely one I reread for self soothing often, and about how it's an incredibly fitting and nonjudgemental view of the way fandom creates shared tropes and motifs. I went on to think about the three fics produced by three iterations of the exchange that are about Theon witnessing his first beheading, all of which I love though one in a different way as it is my own. I thought about how one of the differences is what in the Propp framework of the fairytale is an "artistic" detail ie. The villain can be a witch, a wizard, a lion, an ogre, the devil according to the culture and sensitivity of the storyteller but it doesn't really have an impact on the structural role and should not lead to the classification of the fairytale in this or that subtype. This is in this case the identity of the executed criminal, which indeed changes nothing in the structure but tells a lot:

1) In bridge over troubled waters the criminal is the murderer of a mother and two small children: this connects him immediately to Theon's future moral downfall. He's immediately griefstricken but also struggling to reconcile that with the normalisation on the Islands of violence against the defenseless. However we see visibly in the following paragraphs that this spectacle of violence does not remotely enhance Theon's respect for life but slowly destroys it as he becomes more smiley and hardened at every execution, that the North and the Islands have equal blame in turning the scared boy into a murderer of mothers and babes. It's a story about what it truly means that Ned "failed" to "gentle" Theon.

2) In By The Sword the criminal is an anarchic rebel-type: Theon mentally compares him to his father and is divided between his sympathy for his fighting for freedom and the awareness that he, Theon, personally, is the sacrifice made to continue to fight for freedom, he reacts by violently distancing himself from the criminal. It's a story about Theon's fear of death infecting every moment of his day and about the repression he experiences, about him mentally beating himself into compliance and distancing himself from any aspiration as an effort to survive, about how his obedience and his irreverence are not separate facades but the same.

3) in creatures lurk below the deck the criminal is a soldier of the Northern army who killed a man in a fight. This is because the author is someone who likes to cram too many plot points in too little wordcount and needed an excuse for an execution to happen as soon as humanly possible: this is not self deprecation nor the detestable behavior of acting like if something is a needed plot device then it cannot have any other meaning, I would in fact really have liked to expand on my hypothetical themes, but I sadly have the Doylistic reasoning written down white on black in real time here:

Takes all sorts! I do love we all went with men with a vulgar defiant attitude though: that is indeed the Theon vibe.

[esther-dot]

I feel really bad for the originator of the Ashford theory, reading those posts you screencapped. It's not a 'crack theory' (unless they're putting it down because Jonsas took a serious hold of it), since structural foreshadowing is a basic storytelling tool. Hiding poetry in history, which seems a past-time GRRM particularly enjoys--- it's not just there to be there, but to lesson us in reading the past and make us understand the current story more deeply.

We should be confident in our analyses, regardless of whether we share a ship in common (I am do believe in Jonsa, but this goes for everyone), because storytelling can generally be trusted to be intentional. Anybody who wants to act like being incurious is more intellectually justifiable because it's less emotionally fraught is not worth spending time on. It is actually disappointing when stories are not considered and thoughtful (which is not a testament to so-called 'complexity'; The Little Prince is considered and thoughtful)--- fault in reading too much into things usually lay in perspective, less in doubt of substance.

Then again, Originator of Ashord Theory being possessive as claimant probably points more to dismissing it as crack because other people have taken ahold of it in a way they didn't like. If I am perfectly honest, were it not them having noticed it, someone else would have later (and someone else on Reddit did).

It's exactly the sort of thing I look for when I am engaging in a story because it is a tool I see used often. It was what attracted me to Jonsa, not that I was looking for evidence.

(about this ask)

The issue definitely wasn’t a lack of confidence in their own reading, they’re a tumblr BNF! I think Jonsas have written so much about it and so convincingly, it’s become widely viewed as a Jonsa theory and eclipsed the original intent which is their problem with it. Sometime ago someone shared an AltShift video here (a YouTube BNF), and he had included the Ashford Tourney as evidence for Jonsa, so I do think the goal of the blogger now labeling it “crack” is to detract from the Jonsa of it/for shipping reasons, not because they don’t believe in their own work.

As for the broader idea, I certainly agree that pre canon characters and events are written to add depth to the canon events. We can all expect that and look for parallels and contrasts with assurance that they are conversing with each other. It seems to me that every part of the fandom attempts that in some way, we simply come to different conclusions about what those things mean. I can look at something and accept a Jonsa interpretation but also understand, there’s another factor here too. And while I agree that many things are intentional in ASOIAF, I’m also aware that things can subconsciously influence and slip into a work. I recently watched this clip of Spielberg being told, he didn’t recognize this on his own, that he had included his parents love story in a film. Anyone might think, it had to be deliberate, but it wasn’t!

So, not saying anyone should be less confident, I just think it’s good to be aware that after a parallel is recognized, our interpretation of it is where we can all take off in different directions. For example, Jonnel and Sansa is perhaps the most beloved Jonsa foreshadowing (if it isn’t the Ashford Tourney 😅), and I absolutely think it’s groundwork for canon events. The question isn’t if it is, but how. Will it be a parallel, only, the point of the marriage this go around is to right a wrong? Give the girl her home back? (If say, Robb’s Will is recognized). I’ve questioned that simply because it seems like a big task to get everyone on board with Jon being legitimate and becoming their Lord and/or their King only to have them then immediately turn around and all accept he’s actually a Targ and will marry his “sister.” I wouldn’t be mad if that’s what Martin did, but when I think about how much agency he likes to give non POV characters, I’m a little skeptical he’d pull that turnaround off.

So then I think, well, maybe the idea is that unlike Jonnel, Jon will refuse Winterfell again and insist it is Sansa’s again only to ultimately be rewarded in the end by marrying her when she has the power to choose, and she chooses him? People have been very outspoken about how dumb they think the idea of Sansa being QitN is, and maybe that’s too much of a leap for the North because Martin does like his realism, but considering all the female heirs talk going on, Martin is certainly going to say something there, and Jon will have some complicating factors that might make Sansa more favorable to people.

Basically, Jon is a good person, he’ll do right by the Starks, is that the entire point? Look at the way the older generation of men treated women, this generation will be better? Or will Martin use the extraordinary circumstances to benefit Sansa / female heirs? Create an entirely new normal for the North? The story will talk to itself, but what exactly is it saying? That we can endlessly debate!

[maletofujoshi]

some thoughts on story structure in elden ring

i’m starting to view a lot of the game as like, being compromised of cyclic narratives- separating stories of the world cycle and the individual cycle- the world narrative encompasses things like circumstance, grief, relations between things/definition/domination. there are also "individuals" who are more representative of the world than themselves: gods & lords mostly, though you could imagine some outer gods here as well. primarily also the realm of like, evocative spaces + environmental storytelling. the individual narrative is the struggle of the individual to apprehend the world- currently i see it as individuals becoming either objects of the world, reflections of it, or becoming agents in their own right, acting irrespective of the world as it is, though idk if this conception can really hold. for example a "lord" is a character with agency (mhm) but is more a fixture of the world via great man theory n shit. this side is more in-text narrative + emergent narrative through struggle and mastery.

I'd largely define the world (or civilization?) narrative in stages: great conquest/development -> abundance and a golden age (usually in the core at the expense of the periphery) -> stagnation, suffering, wounds -> abandonment by a "mother" -> universal despair, grief, remembrance + return of things once pushed into the periphery

um so this is obviously a bit prescriptive. but like idk. places you can see this are farum azula, leyndell/the erdtree, haligtree, belurat/tower... arguably the nox as well but like their deal is more like, what develops in the periphery parallel to the core, and they lack that sense of abandonment by someone with their grief coming more from utter defeat. there's some stuff to be said about uhl/uld and the mushroom lords as well, but that's all too vague and speculative lol.

and similarly with the individual narrative: abandonment by/failure of a "mother" + the child bearing a wound (all living characters deal with some kind of loss, or simply present declining circumstance) -> exploratory phase (creating an inner "order" to define self away from external chaos) -> either despair or continued striving (flame of frenzy/flame of ambition) -> martyrdom (or continuing as you were, if lucky.) + at any point you can just like. die normal styles largely it seems like the "fail state" of despair is achieved when one is too obsessed with worldly suffering, or is just too keyed in to the world to really be a person. when i say despair i don't just mean literally like yellow frenzy stuff, i believe the same initial despair leads different characters to differing representations of the world, either in the three fingers, the golden order, the formless mother, miquella, etc. like even ymir is just sitting in his cathedral all day talking about there being no hope for redemption. for characters that don't fall into despair and instead are able to properly self define, death still comes, but they are usually able to effect things greater than them. Millicent returns the sense of self Malenia (and potentially you) abandoned, Melina becomes the fire that burns the erdtree, the three mending rune authors all gestate some kind of new ideology...

im kinda working with certain ideas of chaos and order and of responses to both here, which are kinda vague for me at the moment. there's also a game-spanning motif of like, wounded children seeking answers/simulacra after abandonment by previously wounded mothers, which i think connects. its as much mother and child as it is world and individual and that frame probably explains the more fluid elements of the dynamic better... currently this is kinda exploratory and vague. I'd like to revisit this idea laterrrrr since this is pretty poor analysis currently

[tamelee]

I’ve seen a lot of kakashi fans saying he was anti-shinobi system and wanted it to changes and all… but I didn’t get this vibe from him at all in the manga? most of the times he’s either shown agreeing with the system, or just not having real opinion on what’s happening… if i had to choose, i would put him more in the "pro-system" category rather than in the "anti-system" category. what do you think about it?

((I hope this makes any sense 🫶 I really wanted to talk about this and the systems, but I’m not going to point out every moment with Kakashi. I think this mostly speaks for itself from a storytelling perspective. Long post 🍵))

Hm’ I can’t really understand the reasoning behind fans saying he was against it? Pro/anti-system doesn’t quite mean the same as pro/anti in fandom language in the context of such systems. Acknowledging the issues and not liking them but simply dealing with it anyway (‘Ninja’ literally is ‘one who endures’) because that’s expected of you as Shinobi, is not the same as actively rebelling against a system. They are soldiers that are trained to not show emotions and they become tools for the village. And the Shinobi system regulates the functioning of itself by stating Shinobi are tools for the country to use however they like.

For Kakashi especially, ‘dealing with it’ meant dealing with it the ‘right way’ despite acknowledging these are issues, right? The way things just are. And the ‘right way’ becomes subjective to each character when you consider that every village operates through what they think is 'right' because the 'right thing' benefits the local community and not the entire world or an individual. Even someone like Zabuza who was seen as a 'heartless monster' wasn't able to truly become emotionless and surely his 'right way' felt justified in regard to his past and what he had to do. But yeah for sure, overall, I agree. 

Just to clarify though;  From my understanding it doesn’t mean much on its own saying a character is in favor of/against the Shinobi system because it isn’t really anything other than an overarching framework for all Shinobi and part of the hierarchal structure of many systems within the Narutoverse. It’s a guideline, practical and operates on a large scale where it provides for different countries to manage coordination or any challenges that may arise but its meaning for a single character is hard to measure. It’s vague.  Konoha has its own military/authoritative system specifically for Shinobi from the leaf (and thus, Kakashi) and to give that any socialistic meaning, it adopts the ideology they call; ‘Will of Fire’ which purpose is to blur your individuality and eventually replace it with a communal mindset which profits on a national scale, or village mostly. I’m not saying there wasn’t any individuality in the characters because they wouldn’t be enjoyable/relatable otherwise; like Kakashi was (very well) known for ‘copying’ and having the Sharingan. 

 'Hatake Kakashi is a cool man who doesn't risk his life lightly, but now he's putting his life on the line. The 'Spirit of Fire (Will of Fire)' burns within him!!'

And if you view things from this communal mindset that Konoha has then you’re very much in favor of the system... I don’t really see how you can argue against it? Konoha and other countries all interconnect through the Shinobi system, but it is the individual and local ideology that causes so much suffering and are the sources of the story’s conflicts in one way or another. Each micro-system prioritizes their own (unless you're seen as a threat ig) and it promotes loyalty to one’s country through the ideology.

((Like Konoha claiming you become stronger by protecting something that is important to you,

but then indoctrinating everyone that the single thing that is most important ‘to you’ is the village and your ‘comrades’. There’s truth it in it but there is a change in purpose as Naruto’s most important person isn’t even part of the village at some point but a personal connection that he prioritized above the community and national borders. This includes Gaara as well.

In that sense, you could say Naruto is selfish, but in this case that’s a good thing, really well written and has nothing to do with ‘going against Sasuke’s wishes’ weh~’.)) 

When countries go to war with each other or are in conflict, they will always favor their own (system), not the ‘Shinobi system’ and will chase to profit. It is their responsibility to adapt at all times to make sure it thrives, for better and for worse. And these systems pretty much always come with an ideology and especially military systems are very Nationalistic because its purpose is to protect. Against all costs, it prioritizes itself above all. 'Balancing power' was a way to 'promote friendship' between all countries, but that didn't really work out though, did it? 

The WoF influences the character of Konoha’s system and it is through this that we can really measure what the narrative says regarding a character and analyze their (inter)actions. And Kakashi like most other characters very much operates through that (local system’s) ideology.. 🤷🏻‍♀️ There is nothing that truly indicates that Kakashi is against Konoha’s system much less is ‘rebelling’ or seen to behave in an antagonistic matter as told through the narrative. (Which tells us what is 'good/'bad' but allows you to question it still.) Most criticism Kakashi has against ‘bad’ aligns with the communal ideology that decides what is ‘right’/‘wrong’. That’s exactly why right/wrong and good/bad become incredibly muddy/grey and why it is nearly impossible for Naruto and Sasuke to find a ‘morally right’ answer for all and find peace in the story. Why the sequel probably (partly) didn’t even bother to try. Why the individuality of Naruto and Sasuke as main-characters were pointed out countless of times to indicate their roles which also changed throughout the story and why it became complicated when conflict rises between components within the same system. 

I’m just pointing out there is a (huge) difference because you can’t really be anti-system if you’re literally a part of it in every way and operate through those beliefs and values even on a micro-level which is an extension from the overarching Shinobi system. Especially when issue’s are acknowledged at the same time.

((Sasuke was right that in order to force actual change, destroying just Konoha wouldn’t do much in terms of the overarching system. It’d still exist through individual values and Shinobi beliefs and even if all was destroyed physically, most likely it would rebuild the same way like Naruto mentioned unless Sasuke would forever control and keep an eye on the new system which he said was his plan. Kishimoto didn’t just suck that information out of his thumb, it’s based on the way shit works in real life too. Both Naruto and Sasuke wanted balance but offered different solutions. Yes, the Shinobi-system can be seen as the antagonistic force as well and one could oppose the entirety of it for sure, but this is only true for a few characters who’ve done a lot of research first or lived long enough in order to come up with such a conclusion/active decision and are seen as antagonists in turn by everyone else who are in favor of the system as well. But it takes a whole lot more than just wanting change in order to rebel and be anti-system and with that, development that you really shouldn't take lightly.))  

But for the sake of efficient storytelling, why you’d even want Kakashi to anti the system in the first place...?

That Kakashi wanted things to change is only natural given his past, but countless of characters wanted things to change or admitted their wrong-doings ‘of the past’ and showed regret in any way. Especially authority mopes for a bit when faced with the consequences, but doesn’t take any accountability that really results in change even if they have the power to do so. Some even blame others. Like the Uchiha are blamed by Danzo for their own massacre??? A good Hokage that leads to lasting change doesn't just do what is currently expected of them and 'die like a hero', but thinks outside the box and is a little unpredictable. Almost has to rebel themselves for a bit which yes, we can finally talk about potential fr- Naruto had potential and it is backed up by Canon :') That's what potential is and not some hc possibility someone came up with on their own. Anyway, especially nearing the end they all start confessing which is kinda funny because a lot of them were already dead (Edo-Tensei) so it’s easy to then dump the responsibility to fix their fuck-ups on the newer generation (namely; Naruto and Sasuke) with a big ‘fuck you tho, but you’ll figure it out, good luck!’ on top. 

Or.. you know;

Figuring out what the system meant and finding an answer to change... it was kinda... the whole point of the plot. Each character plays a different role and contrasting viewpoints in a story serve great purposes to tell it. In regard to the system a few are;

Implementing the Theme wherein Naruto and Sasuke are offered (and forced) to find their individuality (outside of their role as Ninja where duty... or fate is decided for you) 

Presenting an answer that eventually should’ve led to a change in history which otherwise would’ve just repeated itself (or will again later on)

To show that the current and evolved Shinobi system is the source of most conflicts (especially the large-scale ones) and that the main characters are burdened with this responsibility

The significance of actually questioning, challenging and showing dissatisfaction towards the beliefs and values everyone around you blindly adopted and the impact it has on the characters and the scene which is only possibly through a development that calls for it

Leaving the area of ‘right’/‘wrong’ and ‘good’/‘bad’ very grey in order to make antagonists more powerful and developed, because if the system is the cause of antagonistic behavior, then who is ‘right’ anyway? Is the system itself the antagonistic force or are all the antagonists 'evil'/'bad' by default? :')

Get where I’m going with this? It’s not Kakashi’s role to actively challenge these beliefs. In fact, if everyone who wanted change gained that role, then every single thing Naruto and Sasuke did and decided on would become insignificant. Naruto’s actions would’ve been understood by the people around him and Sasuke would gain sympathy which in real life is great and well-deserved (well, fictional too), but would make a very boring and mediocre story. Even Kakashi pointed out these differences between Naruto/Sasuke and himself many times while looking at the past and contrasting history with, well, namely Naruto and feared a repetition through Sasuke. It is useful to the Theme that let Naruto and Sasuke explore what their bond/friendship meant, what anything meant really, and find their individuality outside the communal mindset of Konoha and from within. (Naruto’s Ninja way and Sasuke deciding to take matters in his own hands.) This development had meant nothing had Kakashi taught his students to rebel and question the system during their ‘team’mate days because maybe it was something he already believed in or because he operated through a personal philosophy instead of saying 'well, this is what it is, so...'. It would’ve influenced them in some way otherwise there is no reason to add it. But then Naruto and Sasuke’s choices wouldn’t have come from their development journeys or the trauma they lived, but simply because ‘their sensei said so/taught them’. (And sure, they could’ve challenged Kakashi on it, but that’s kinda pointless in this case. People often say Kakashi didn't understand certain things about his students and this all is mostly the source for it.) Much like Hokage-Naruto lamely claiming the village is ‘family’ because ‘the third always said so’. It’s meaningless to him personally. And what would that even mean for Sakura had Kakashi adopted contrasting beliefs? D’ykwim? 

Nah' I don't like this system and it definitely needs to change. I'm very impressed in the way Sasuke gathered all this information and then was forced to move towards a single solution which... from his viewpoint then, was the only way until Naruto offered his idea that was only born from his own challenges. I also don't like how characters (including Kakashi) view it and use it as some sort of emotional weapon to manipulate, intentionally or not. Though, I wouldn't want it any different for the sake of the story and I still very much like Kakashi. It is that incredible persistence Naruto and Sasuke showed BECAUSE of that very resistance at every turn that made the story so good and their decision so impactful. So yes, but no, I don't think it's a bad thing at all. -

(And yeah, the whole ‘comrade’-thing goes together with it all, though that may need a separate post someday. I really want to talk about the meaning of the words ‘family’, ‘friend’ and ‘comrade’ in Konoha because it doesn’t mean anything anymore if it’s not tied to the individual and it’s communal for a Leaf Shinobi that carries the WoF. And for me personally, the way Kakashi went about it makes sense. Doesn't mean I like it, but it makes sense. Naruto vowed to become a Ninja his own way and found meaning regarding his bonds along his journey while blurring the borders between countries (and systems) while Shikamaru for example, simply decided that his and his team-mate’s lives were okay to risk for the sake of the mission and to ’retrieve Sasuke’ who is only a ‘comrade’ to him because he was a Ninja of Konoha, someone he didn't like on a personal level. And when Sasuke wasn’t a Konoha Ninja, no one but Naruto thought he was worth ‘saving’. That’s why Naruto was also questioning why someone would give up their life for one another after Sasuke did so for him and Hiruzen did for Konoha and Kakashi answered the way he did after Iruka. Why he gave up on Sasuke but died for Choji. You’re simply ‘family’ as a villager of Konoha, but it was Naruto and Sasuke’s role in the story to figure out what personal bonds mean to them.

(I really want to make a separate post on this, I have too many thoughts, but gotta stop rambling ffs.)

[dmagedgoods]

15 and 18 for all your boys~

15. How do they speak? Is what they say usually thought of on the spot, or do they rehearse it in their mind first? Rowley: Rowley doesn’t speak in lofty and sophisticated terms or only ironically, but he is witty, expressive, and creative - with his vocabulary too -, and has a very dark sense of humor. Usually, he finds the right words fast and without thinking about them much, and with the right words I mean the most terrible thing to say in any situation he’s in. People’s reactions to it are highly endearing to him. It amuses him and he shamelessly provokes. He may have saved someone’s life a second before, but you can be sure he’ll make them forget about it right away by offending them in unexpected ways or by painting himself in the most horrible light and even worse than he actually is. Usually, he doesn’t show emotions when he speaks. It’s mocking or teasing or factual or just some idle chatting. With him, it needs a certain level of friendship or other forms of closeness (like romantic relationships) to reach a point where he starts to let you see his feelings with words and in general. Once it happens, his way of talking becomes softer, even a touch warmer, and he provides insights that make you realize he listens and observes much more closely than one might suspect. He uses profanity a lot. Sometimes with a hint of irony to it, sometimes to insult or provoke, sometimes just a few swear words on the way when something goes wrong or casually interwoven in his speech patterns. He will make up new things on the spot, never-heard combinations and unique creations, funny in his better moments, utter nonsense in his worst.

~ Eneas: Eneas is eloquent and well-spoken; in most cases, he shows sophisticated, polished manners and his choice of vocabulary reflects it. Words are his strongest weapon aside from his magic, he uses them to charm and to captivate, to draw in and paint pictures. Furthermore, he loves to spontaneously recite poems or to quote from famous literature. He is a musician but also a storyteller and lives to entertain and to use words with utmost effect and accompanied by a dramatic flair. He rarely shows his true feelings, still his way of talking or telling little tales never lacks the needed emotion. His words often have a theatric element. While he most often has a clear direction in mind and plans his roles and performances and even his words to a degree, he only truly rehearses when it’s of utmost importance (or an actual stage play ahead of him). As long as he moves within the idea of what he’s representing at the given moment, he is capable of improvising the details. He can make his words simple but he rarely wants to. Speaking has the potential to become a form of art in itself after all. Usually, he still makes sure his sentences aren’t too complicated or confusing, he wants his audience to follow him after all, but it happens that his structures serve to hide a second meaning or a well-placed little lie. In other cases, he just enjoys some theatrics, the drama of his own statements, or obscures in the name of storytelling. Eneas almost never uses profanity and if so with a touch of irony to it. He doesn’t mind profanity used by others (or at least rarely does), but he himself refrains from all too rude expressions in most cases. Of course, when he plays certain roles, profanity might be part of it. Usually, though, he much prefers to insult in more subtle ways coming with a sharper sting. ~ Salvadore: Salvadore is very eloquent with strong rhetoric skills, educated, trained in diplomacy, and even studied speech patterns since he has a natural interest in and talent for words. He loves to talk to people, to convince them of his views, or to hold impactful speeches in front of an audience. While strongly passionate about his goals and for those he cares for, Salvadore rarely gives away many emotions in front of people. It needs a deep bond with someone for him to show his warmer and even surprisingly playful side or his possessive tendencies. (All of this even publicly to a degree with someone he loves romantically.) He makes his sentence structure only as complex as needed to convey an idea. After all, he wants to reach people with his words not to confuse them. His choice of words is sophisticated but he speaks clearly and not in obscuring, long-winded, or highly scientific terms. Sometimes he utters very short and strict orders or shuts something down with a well-aimed remark. Salvadore rehearses his speeches and prepares his arguments for important meetings and consultations or discussions, he likes to be prepared, but he also leaves room for spontaneous reactions. It’s more the whole plan for how things are supposed to go which he studies ahead (and sometimes intensely so) than every word he intends to use. He can easily improvise in his fields of expertise, and his confidence and eloquence usually help him when he’s out of his element. There may be audiences where stronger words are needed and he doesn’t mind going there, but in his usual speech patterns, he mostly refrains from profanity. If he uses it, then the rough, harsh sort. In sexual contexts and roleplays, he enjoys profanity here and there – though it depends on the words in question. If he means to insult, he will hit the mark in different and deeper ways (humiliating his target in eloquent manners) than by making up creative swear words.

~ Cian: Despite his affinity for bringing himself into the spotlight here and there and to present a small performance, Cian slightly prefers using the written word over using the spoken word. He has more control over ink on paper and time to think through any deep aspect of it before presenting it to an audience. He is not too fond of improvising completely freely and in important moments, he rather overprepares his words or repeats them in his mind before saying them out loud to make sure they’ll have the planned effect. Speaking is immediate and correcting mistakes or wrong impressions almost impossible once they are made. Still, he knows how to sell what he wants to make people believe in most cases, is a smooth talker, and quite eloquent, especially in his areas of interest and if he had time to prepare. He hates being caught not knowing something he is supposed to know (in his opinion or even worse: in the opinion of those around him) and struggles to keep his superior demeanor when embarrassed in this way. As soon as he's relaxed and actually feels confident instead of playing it, he will show a witty and teasing side that comes naturally and he doesn't need to rehearse. Cian tries to appear controlled and either charming or distant while speaking without giving away many emotions. This works well for him unless he is in a state where his feelings overwhelm him too much, then it becomes impossible for him to hide them. His sentence structure shows that he’s sophisticated and educated but he speaks clearly and not overly confusing. Nonetheless,  his way of talking has something slightly theatrical sometimes. He uses profanity here and there, mostly when relaxed and comfortable. – Rarely ever to insult, he has more effective means for that, but just to express strong approval or disapproval, for example. 18. What embarrasses them? This one is here. 💕

[guardian-of-fun-times]

Three Tips on Writing a Novel That Aren't Complete Bullshit

Today, I spent a good many hours scouring the internet for tips on improving my writing. You know, useful and practical suggestions for someone who has written a bit and wants hints on some of the finer points of writing—you know, as opposed to just wanting to learn how to get publishers interested in the latest Hunger Games or Twilight knock-off. Well, other than the two masters of storytelling—Stan Lee and Stephen King—I found nothing. I thought to myself, “Kris, even you could offer better writing advice than this!” And so I have. Here are three non-subjective tips for the beginning writer.

Tip 1: Pay Attention to “Point of View” (POV)

The first mistake I made in writing my novel, and one that I have seen in every single beginning writer's work that I have edited since, is that I did not really pay attention to POV and narration. When telling a story, it is important to remember two things. First, nobody wants God to tell the story. In a room filled with a dozen people, there is so much going on inside everyone's head and in their actions that it would fill a book in about an hour. And when there is simply too much going on, the reader ceases to care and is very confused. After all, if the reader was God, he or she would not spend their time listing every monotonous detail of what they were seeing, but instead finding something more interesting to watch—which brings me to point number two. Pick a focus character (or one at a time) and tell the story through that person's eyes. This way, readers will pick up on the important details, while also having a single-focus lens to look through. If this doesn't make sense, imagine how much better a movie is with just one camera's perspective used at a time, as opposed to the six of them all being played simultaneously.

Tip 2: Outline Your Story

I used to prefer just writing free-style, as most writers begin doing. But, when you do that, two major things happen. First, with the lack of direction, you stop caring where you are going with the story since there is no dramatic force that can force you along pointless meandering. Second, even if you do not lose interest, your plot will be a noodle-like mess with no structure, and your audience will lose interest—just like with a television series with no end or destination in sight. Even if you love the characters, you eventually just give up watching because it becomes a dull act of voyeurism where you are just watching a vignette of a life without any actual story. If a solid outline is too restricting, try using the 3-Act Story Structure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-ac… and just write a paragraph describing each Act. This structure will turn the pasta into a carefully molded form until you find yourself eating a Lasagna instead of soggy, wet noodles.

Tip 3: Don't Overpower Your Characters

At the most basic level, reading a novel is an escape from the world around us. We want the worlds we create in our stories, as well as the characters, to be the embodiment of the ideals we wish were reality. We create flawless heroes or perfectly flawed heroes, and villains that embody all the evil we see around us, which we wish could be defeated. However, to do so turns your story into a poor sermon, and a badly biased one at that. Not only that, but the audience immediately begins to hate your characters, unless they are the brainwashed sort of readers who think that Dr. Manhattan was the hero of “Watchmen” or that being a hero when you are invulnerable and beloved by those around you means that you are “good” or have some sort of depth of character—as opposed to being a fascist with an old-fashioned set of principals that you impose on the world (any other Lex Luthor fans in the house?). Instead, you should seek to create characters that illustrate the complexities and flaws in everything, even and especially in your own moral code. You want to create real characters for your audience to believe in and empathize with. In practice, you should be able to name off three things that you genuinely admire your villains for, as well as three things you genuinely despise about your heroes—giving them flaws to overcome. And avoid the pseudo-flaws that plague literature (the hero who is just too kind for his own good, or the hero whose traumatic past had made her into a hardened bitch with a secret heart of gold). Doing this creates real characters that your audience can truly escape through and even learn genuine lessons from—making you, the writer, the real hero of the story.

[empenvs3000f24]

Unit 10 Blog Post

Describe your personal ethic as you develop as a nature interpreter. What beliefs do you bring? What responsibilities do you have? What approaches are most suitable for you as an individual?

With this being the last blog prompt of the semester I would like to reflect on what this course has taught me, how the content has shaped my view on my responsibilities as a nature interpreter, and how I can move forward and take some of these lessons with me. I honestly just took this course as an elective but have seriously enjoyed the content and interaction with everyone in this class. I think it is difficult to mirror this exact experience outside of this course, of sharing and reading other peoples experiences with nature and how sacred they are to them. Going into this, I never thought I would be given the opportunity to rehash some of my times in nature and have really never thought about how much they actually effected me. 

A belief I currently have, that has taken time to develop, is to keep my mind open to the experiences that nature has to offer. I do not think you have to be in the most aesthetically scenic landscape to see something new and/or interesting. I walk the same loop in Guelph and see different animals, plants, flowers, meet new people, and am a better version of myself afterwards each time. Some of my best memories in nature have happened at unexpected times. For example, I travelled out west to Vancouver this past summer to visit my roommates. We spent time in Whistler, Squamish, Lions Bay, and went to Gambier Island by boat. However, my favourite moment was the little hike we took right before heading to the airport, next to my roommate’s house in her suburban neighbourhood in North Vancouver. I am unsure if it was the way the sun was peeking through the massive trees, the last conversations we were having before the car ride to the airport, or the bittersweet feeling I was experiencing; but there was so much joy in that little mundane walk. Now, from a nature interpreters perspective, my roommate did a great job at telling us the little bits of information concerning our surroundings. She did this via storytelling in correlation to the area we were in, and it made me feel that much more connected to the area she had grown up in. By pointing out certain rocks, trees, and hills, and telling us the silly names of these objects that her classmates came up with, or the little anecdotes she had experienced herself; we all felt like we were there with her when they happened. I think that reflecting on this experience has taught me that interpreting nature for others does not have to be this whole elaborate operation. A memorable lesson of sorts can just feel like friends talking to one another and simply having a good time.

I believe that as a good teacher you have to be an even better learner. In my opinion there is always room for growth and improvement. Growing up, myself, and probably some of you reading this, have had a teacher that was a total rigid stickler. Their lessons felt almost militant and there was no room for error. It gets to a point where the information is being absorbed, but it is almost out of the fear of not being able to make a mistake. My current path is to become a high school biology/visual arts teacher and I hope to have the opposite reaction from my students. While there is value in structure, there is more value in being able to make a mistake and learn from it. I have enjoyed learning the content about learning styles and how we can effectively maximize the information we have in different methods. These militant teachers I previously mentioned, were pretty stuck in their ways of pen to paper, and lacked a lot of diversity in their lessons. I think my responsibility as someone who is teaching learners is to let the learners teach me. I can only understand the impact of the information I am relaying if they show me that they are absorbing it holistically. 

As an individual who is consciously making the effort to learn and grow, I think the approaches most suitable to me might change with time. Currently, I approach learning by asking questions about the content; whether that be to myself or my peers. I think it is very valuable to understand why we are learning this information and why it is important in context. I have a hard time just blatantly understanding theories, statistics, and stories without diving into the purpose of that information. In the example of the Tragedy on the Timiskaming, I had a hard time conceptualizing the reason for the trip in and of itself. Until I read the description and realized that the stereotype of the time period was to make men of the young boys. I would like to approach nature interpretation in the sense that every individual deserves equal opportunity, but every individual learns differently. I think this notion has become present through the blog posts, creating of the children’s podcast and ongoing adult podcast, and my overall learning in this course. 

As we wrap up this semester I have spent my own personal time reflecting on my growth as not only a student, but a person. I feel as though I can tackle other course content more efficiently because of some of the lessons I have learned in this course. I am now better at putting the purpose of a lesson in the context of a bigger picture and I have gained a sense of perspective of the professor or TA that is relaying said content. At this point, I no longer need my teacher to make the content appropriate and conducive to my learning, I can now do that for myself. Like I mentioned earlier, becoming more aware of who I am as a learner has truly made me a better learner; and hopefully a good teacher. Thank you to everyone who has shared personal stories and information, I have learned a lot of interesting facts about Canada and places all around the world! 

[kcrossvine]

its difficult doing research on the state of dreaming.

for one, its a niche within a niche- it involves both the science of sleep and memory under the science of the brain, and it involves psychological interpretation from many different modalities. we dont, and may never, have full understanding of the brains processes- which leads to our material understanding of dreams being amorphous (that and the relative youth of the field).

secondly, the concept of dreams are a cultural touchstone almost everywhere on earth. theyre heavily wrapped up in religious mythology, storytelling, psuedo-scientific assumptions and biases. unlike, idk, DNA-sequencing where if you dont know what it is youll probably not have any thoughts on it, everyone has an opinion or personal belief about dreaming because we've all either experienced it, know people who have, or learned about it within the context of a narrative device.

and thirdly from a selfish american point of view, the wests pre-concieved notions seem to dominate those spheres of thought. even in foreign literature or scientific studies-

(because im only fluent in english, and i know this is a heavy bias to my research, but there is more romance language carry-over than say, Bangali or Swahili. this cant Just be due to language structure, it also has to do with colonization. what im saying is that within this limited scope, its annoying how few of our writings try to look outside ourselves. maybe partly due to how personal dreaming is? but if schizophrenia can change its hallucinations based on different cultures/regions, imagine how different dreams may be sensory wise too. it is frustrating.)

-you rarely see hypothesis presented by someone who is not a grifter from california. im exagerrating a bit out of annoyance, but no i do not want to buy your book on dream symbolism that is regurgitated new age idealogy. no i do not want your protein supplements that promise to help me lucid dream. no i do not believe dreams are a method of precognition or other psychic abilities. there are so many arguements to break down why what youre doing is incurious and sometimes purposefully misleading.

[autumnalwalker]

ROY G BIV tag

Thank you for the tag, @druidx. This looks like a fun new one.

Passing the (entirely optional) tag to @rickie-the-storyteller, @on-noon, @yourlocalboredprocastinator, @ghost-town-story. @broodparasitism, @itusebastian, @void-botanist, and an open tag for anyone else.

Rules: Search your your writing for the colours of the rainbow and post the excerpt

Red: Empty Names - 14 - Down Low

When Ashan finds her some ten minutes later with a satiated smile on her face and watching the spider pull in their stygian catch from the lake, the cut on Eris’s forehead has already healed.  None of the blood painting her new armor red is hers.

Orange: The Archivist's Journal, Day 78

As long as I’m writing, I suppose I ought to take a moment to describe the landing area.  It was another jutting cliff with an arch on the end, like Siren Overlook and the one we encountered to the west.  Twice could be a coincidence, but three times and I’m convinced the whole formation is artificial, not just the arch, columns, and pool.  It wasn’t nearly so overgrown as the western dock – if anything the columns were in better shape than at Siren Overlook – but whereas Siren Overlook was mostly covered in short grass with the occasional tiny white flower or stubborn shrub this was a veritable field of bright orange flowers broken only by the water lily filled pool running down the center.

Yellow: The Archivist's Journal, Day 60

Doffing my boots and carrying them in one hand, I waded in a short ways as I walked the perimeter of the spring.  It’s curious how unafraid the fish and turtles swimming the shallows were of me.  Most I could practically get within arm’s length before they darted away, and if I stood still for a few minutes, small schools of finger-length yellow fish would congregate in my shadow.

Green: The Archivist's Journal, Day 9

Hurrying to catch up with my young companion I pushed my way through the crooked door only to nearly trip over her.  The morning light had transformed the interior space from a surreal void to an awe-inspiring expanse.  Light filled the central nave.  As green leaf-filtered streams on the high side windows.  As vertical golden rays replacing the prior night’s columns of rain from holes in the roof.  As an iridescent wave coming in from the bare remains of a curved stained glass window backlighting the statue of the Reader.  All this reflected off the broad leaf and moss-filled puddles that stretched across much of the floor, still not evaporated days later.  The side aisles were a tangle of roots from the trees above, quite possibly doing as much to hold the structure up as the pillars separating aisle from nave.

Indigo: Witch's Testament: The Fighter

Weapons are raised and aimed.  The crowd begins to back away.  Someone above cracks a joke about how they should have just skipped to waving guns around if it was going to be this easy to solve the problem.

The crowd only backs off so far though, most that made it through the outer gate are still on the inside of it.  Those still stuck beyond push one another over the wall so some might get a better view.  A lone figure left behind by the receding sea of people remains standing in the middle of the reef of broken and smoking drones, tens of meters from the protesters behind him and the forces before him.  His dark clothes are long and billowing.  His pointed hat is wide brimmed to hide his face.  His serpentine familiar, assembled from scavenged and stolen parts, coils up one arm, over his shoulders, and down the other.

Someone in the line of hired guns makes an incredulous remark under his breath about cosplaying wizards.

The man corrects him to say that he’s a witch and his voice echoes through every loudspeaker, portable device, and auditory implant in the building.

The witch strides forward, his eyes glowing indigo from the shadows beneath his hat and matched by those of his slowly uncoiling familiar.

Someone gives an order to fire and an electrified dart wizzes past the unperturbed witch.  Six more darts miss.  Rubber bullets are loaded and combat implants lock in firing trajectories.

To the eyes of the security personnel, every shot should be a hit but impossibly passes through their target and out the other side.  To the eyes of the protestors the witch is walking through a hail of bullets that are all miraculously going astray.  To the eyes of the witch, every implant-assisted firing solution coming from the soldiers before him is being outlined in indigo and nudged to exactly where he wants it.

The witch has already crossed the security line and is on the steps of the building behind them by the time someone catches on and spins around to aim and fire manually.  His familiar rears up and hisses.  The shot goes wide as the entire security contingent seizes up, spasms, and falls to the ground.

The moment the witch crosses the threshold, every light in the building goes out, every door unlocks save for those to the roof and underground garage, and every camera becomes a witch’s eye.

Violet: A Dream About Purple

We are all too busy watching the game to notice anything wrong until a third team tries to take the field.  Their uniforms are purple and their hair appears to be dyed to match.  All of them wear the same vacant smile that crawled its way out of the uncanny valley and speak with offputting singsong voices. 

It is only then that we all look up and see the storm rolling in, stretching across the horizon with clouds of that same unnaturally vibrant violet.  Eerie music rides the wind ahead of the storm, heralding its imminent arrival. 

[ask-the-prose]

Hi! I’m interested in writing a realistic teen fiction novel set in high school, focusing on multiple students and their everyday lives both within and outside of school. I want the story to feel like you're reading someone's diary, similar to shows like Freaks and Geeks, Skam, and My Mad Fat Diary. Sooo, any prompts or ideas to help me get started? Or advice? Anything will do! Thank you so much!

Hi there! Sounds like a cool story idea :) I'll say this, I'm not really the one to go to for prompts. But I'm happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

Re: the feeling of reading a diary. To give off this vibe you'll need to be very familiar with your characters! Even if you don't express it directly in your prose/dialogue, you will need to know how your characters are feeling and why whenever something happens. This can be difficult, but character profiles, webs, and outlines may help.

Also, consider working with perspective and point of view. You're following multiple characters, so I know my instinct would he to go for third person omniscient narrators. BUT, you may find that first person may be more intimate and help you build the tension between characters. If your reader knows what's going on from a different perspective, it creates dramatic irony, and that can add to your reader's experience of intimacy with your perspective characters.

My other advice is to read something similar to what you want to create. You listed off three TV shows as inspiration. Thats great, but TV shows are not going to have the same storytelling structure and use the same tools as a novel would. I personally liked Perks of Being a Wallflower (though it's been literally years since I read that book), and I hear John Green has excellent books written within that age group. Find books within your genre and vibe that you like and read them, make note of what works for you and doesn't.

Ultimately, I think what you're looking for is a measure of intimacy between your reader and your POV characters. There are a number of ways to do this, and I think I'll probably be adding those methods to my next guide topic when I get the chance. Keep a look out and hopefully I can help further! If you have anything else you're looking to get help on, feel free to stop by with another ask :)

-- Indy

[culturedgals]

'Where is George Gibney?' An Irish Podcast Review - Eila

Podcasts have become a potent narrative tool that allows for the examination of difficult and frequently terrifying subjects. Where is George Gibney is a modern Irish podcast that explores tragedy with both a keen eye for detail and a profound emotional connection. The tale of George Gibney, a former Irish Olympic swimming coach who was accused of sexual assault, is told in this podcast, which was created by BBC Sounds and Second Captains. The series is a moving meditation on institutional shortcomings, resiliency, and the long-lasting effects of abuse rather than just retelling horrible occurrences.

Where is George Gibney? is co-produced by Ciarán Cassidy and hosted by Mark Horgan. When it debuted in August 2020, it immediately won praise for its careful research and tactful treatment of the topic. The podcast, which spans 10 episodes, chronicles Gibney's ascent to fame, the accusations made against him, his avoidance of punishment, and the long-term effects on his victims and Irish society as a whole. As the title makes clear, the main focus of the podcast is George Gibney's location. But it develops into a more comprehensive investigation into how someone who is charged with such horrible acts may avoid punishment. A terrible tapestry of individual suffering and institutional ineptitude is shown by Horgan via interviews with survivors, journalists, and legal experts.

The tragedy of Gibney's victims is at the centre of the podcast. Throughout his career, he mistreated young swimmers by abusing his position of authority and trust. Survivors talk about the severe and long-lasting effects of this abuse, including mental health issues, broken relationships, and emotional scars. The podcast challenges the stigma and silence that can accompany these instances by providing these people with a voice and ensuring their stories are heard and valued.

The tragedy is exacerbated by the structural and legal shortcomings that let Gibney to evade punishment. Gibney was charged with indecent assault and criminal carnal knowledge involving many kids in the 1990s. However, citing legal technicalities, the Supreme Court awarded him protection from prosecution in a 1994 ruling. In addition to devastating survivors, this ruling brought to light Ireland's court system's shortcomings in handling accusations of sexual abuse at the time.

The episode explores the institutional and cultural factors that made Gibney's assault possible. It criticises the judicial system, the Irish swimming community, and larger cultural views on abuse, all of which fuelled a climate of impunity and quiet. For example, the Irish swimming governing organisations put their reputation before the athletes' well-being by failing to take action in response to early concerns about Gibney's behaviour. Gibney's legal protections also highlight the difficulties survivors encounter when trying to obtain justice.

These shortcomings are not unique to Ireland; they are a reflection of institutional culpability in abuse incidents around the world. Strong institutions, like as the Catholic Church and athletic associations like USA Gymnastics, have been shown over and again to protect offenders at the expense of victims. Where is George Gibney? places Gibney's case in this broader framework, which makes its examination of tragedy both universal and local.

The podcast's storytelling technique is one of its strong points. Horgan carefully handles the delicate subject, striking a balance between the need for journalistic investigation and consideration for survivors. Survivors are given the opportunity to talk about their experiences on their own terms since interviews are done with sensitivity. The podcast has a profound impact because of this strategy, which promotes honesty and trust. Another important component is the narrative framework. Every episode builds on the one before it, combining historical background, firsthand recollections, and research results to create a seamless and gripping narrative. The podcast immerses listeners in the sad world it aims to shed light on by utilising historical audio, professional commentary, and on-location reporting to increase the sense of immediacy and participation.

The podcast has had a big impact, rekindling interest in Gibney's case and prompting wider discussions about accountability and abuse in Ireland. It has won accolades including the British Podcast Award for Best Documentary in 2021 and has been praised by critics. Advocates and survivors have commended the show for elevating their voices and bringing attention to the structural problems that support abuse. And Where is George Gibney? has supported continuous initiatives to enhance accountability and safety in sports and other organisations. Its disclosures have led to renewed enquiries into Gibney's conduct and calls for legislative reform, proving the power of investigative journalism to effect change.Finally, what happened to George Gibney? acts as a potent reflection on tragedy in all of its manifestations. It highlights the individual pain brought on by abuse, the institutional failure as a whole, and the difficulties society faces in addressing such problems. It also emphasises the survivors' tenacity in pursuing justice and change in the face of insurmountable obstacles.

The program also emphasises how critical it is to face misfortune head-on. It forces listeners to consider their own responsibilities in promoting an environment of responsibility and support for survivors by bringing painful realities to light. Where is George Gibney? offers lessons that are applicable to a broad audience, transcending its immediate subject matter in this way.