#there was a lot of exposition to explain the background of the characters

[pinazee]

Becky Barnes has to be the most underrated hatchetfield character. Like her coolness to fandom appreciation ratio is way too low. This bad bitch didn’t accidentally knick her abusive husbands femoral artery, she aimed for it, and left that bastard to bleed out in the woods.

Then she shot Linda in the middle of her forehead with zero hesitation and without any context into the whole wiggly situation. She decided Linda had to go and handled it.

But also she’s a sweet character. She was in that line, probably after work since shes still wearing scrubs, for the kids at the hospital. Plus, I personally, like to believe she didn’t “miss” hitting hannah with that needle, i think part of her knew what was happening and stopped herself.

Ill admit, i under appreciated her myself, but what a great character.

(P.S that stanley guy is still alive somewhere isnt he?!? Tbh, i don’t want him to come back because i dont want becky to have to deal with him anymore. But if he does, I hope another lady stumbles across him and finishes it for her.)

[leidensygdom]

Okay, I will try to explain this topic as well as I can. I will preface this with the fact this comes from personal experiences, and that they may not apply for everyone who has ties to this culture, but let's get to it:

What's the issue with Fortune tellers / "Exotic" circus performers, sexualized belly dancers and other forms of orientalism/Romani depictions?

So, as someone in the TTRPG world (specifically, the DnD community), this sort of trope is seen quite a lot. From the portrayal of Vistani (which has been tried to be fixed, but not... too well), to player characters in home games, as well as popular canon characters and podcasts, it's got quite normalized. Most of these tropes are based on Romani, which is a widespread ethnicity present all across the globe. Now, it feels almost strange to call it orientalism, given how Romani have been in Europe since the Middle Ages, even though they do have roots outside of Europe.

Romani face one of the biggest diaspora in the world: You will find Roma people under many names in very different countries, with cultures and traditions that can clash heavily. Their numbers can range from few hundred in some countries, to over a million in those they have a biggest presence. My own experience is tied to Spanish Roma, known as Gitanos, which is where my mother's side family comes from.

Gitanos are a widespread group, although they're most numerous in the southern part of Spain, Andalusia, where their presence has shaped the culture. Flamenco is thought to have been born from Gitano culture, and it has been adopted as a staple of the Andalusian identity, and the whole of Spain. Gitanos are hard to understand as their own ethnicity in Spain: There's been centuries of Gitanos and Spanish people mixing, and the average Andalusian is quite tan to start with (given Muslim presence there has also been pretty firm). It means it can be hard to "clock" a Spanish Romani person from a non-Romani one. It means you can find Romani people most would consider white, at least by Spanish standards. Most of the discrimination Gitanos face is cultural (and the whole ordeal can be a bit harder to explain from a more US-centric view).

Now, even when Gitanos have influenced Spanish culture a lot, they still face plenty of discrimination. They are one of the most marginalized groups out there. Laws have discriminated against them for centuries, on and off, which have put them in poverty. And poverty often develops into criminality, which has only seeded the idea that Gitanos are criminals, "lowlies", the bottom of society, "uncivilized", etc. Now, here comes a bit of my own experience with this.

My entire family is Andalusian, but both sides moved from there (the south) to Catalonia (north-east) in order to find a job during the Francoist (fascist) dictatorship. I won't get much into the specifics of the Catalan vs Andalusian beef because that's a bit of a massive topic too, but the important thing here is: My mother's side is Romani. My grandma faced some horrifying forms of discrimination, including the theft of her first child during the fascist dictatorship, which was taken from her by nuns (who ran hospitals at the time) to be placed into a "proper" family. (This is something that happened repeatedly at some hospitals during these times).

Now, she had two other children: My mother and my aunt. My aunt remained closely knit to Romani culture, and took part in it, which included marrying a Romani guy. She always did her best efforts to be part of it. I know she was into some culturally-related dances, which included some forms of bellydancing (which is also partially tied to Roma culture). But my mother decided she'd rather cut ties with her culture and become "civilised", by abandoning said culture.

This isn't too uncommon for Gitanos, to be honest. I've met a few people who come from similar backgrounds through my life. One of them was in university, where a fellow classmate gave an oral exposition about how his family had done a great job at "becoming civilised" by cutting ties with their own Roma roots. My university was a fairly progressive space, but no one batted an eye at that: The sheer hatred of Roma culture runs so deep even people who normally abhor racism and xenophobia consider Gitanos to be worth the hate.

There's a social pressure to do that, too. Everyone "knows" Gitano are criminals. I can't really even begin to explain how deeply does this sort of discrimination run. Roma are amongst the most hated minority groups in all of Europe (as well as most of the world). You will find that even in very leftist circles. People will try to erase the fact Roma have their own culture, and just make the world equal to "criminal", call them gy***** (which is a slur, btw), and detach them from being an actual culturally (and often racially) distinct group.

Now, this is only empowered by how media has taken our culture (it is almost hard for me to call it "our", given how much my mother ensured to take that away) and made it into a bad trope. Growing up, I was told my aunt was a sexual deviant who partook in indecent dances. Bellydancing is often seen as something very sexual (Wasn't, in origin), very unfitting. In media, bellydancers veer on the side of being a f*tish, and the common trope is the "bellydancer who seduces people in power for their own benefit". There's also the whole idea of shady fortune tellers and other magical tropes, that sort of weird mysticism that falls rapidly into orientalism. The idea that Roma will hex you, curse you, place an "Evil Eye" on you. And also the idea of travelling circus, people who perform in them being again full of that alluring exoticism, but beware! For they will enchant you, steal from you and run some massive criminal schemes on the way.

Now, when every tie a culture has on media is portrayed in a negative light, it's much harder for that culture to recover any sort of respect from the general populace. And that includes even people who are part of said culture, or people who have been removed from it. It has taken me so many years to unlearn a lot of these biases and realize where it has come from, and now I'm far too distant and far away from my grandmother to actually ever significantly connect to my heritage.

I've had the opportunity to witness what Romani culture is actually about, as I used to live with my grandmother during summers. A lot of the "mysticism" she took part of was actually about wards and protection. A lot of them were actually medicinal in nature, even if others were more superstitious. Red thread in the forehead for sickness and protection to curses, parfums (which contained alcohol or other antiseptics) on wounds, that stuff. My aunt was never a "sexual" deviant, she was keen on recovering and partaking on traditions from a culture that is slowly disappearing. The entire "promiscuous" idea is bullshit, Gitanos place a massive amount of power to marriage and loyalty. I had the luck to witness my cousin's marriage, which was a festivity like none other I had seen in my life, a colorful spectacle full of the most delightful attires, and my mother was whining the entire time over about how it was all an "uncivilised circus".

Now, this is why representation in media is key. Roma culture is broken into a thousand pieces and lost with every passing day. When someone decides to write an ambulant circus performer/fortune teller clad in exotic clothes full of golden jewellery, writes them as a criminal and makes the entire thing extremely sexual, they are feeding into the negative stereotypes about Roma.

Now, there's a lot of people who aren't even aware what culture does that trope even actually come from. I've seen people draw characters clad in Romani attires (often in, uh, rather pin-up or sexual contexts) and claim they're inspired by "x piece of media", where the trope is portrayed in the first place. I literally saw someone make a drawing in that way and call it "inspired by x (non-Roma) artist" instead of acknowledging where does all that come from.

I'm not asking people to not portray Roma people in media. Far from that. I just wish representation was better. Good representation is key towards making a culture seen in a more positive light, and teaching other peoples about it, and making people from said culture resonate with it. The very few times I've seen positive representations of Roma I've felt a bit of that connection with something that was taken from me. I want people to do a bit of research before giving a try to a Roma-coded character. Make an effort to not make Roma always the morally dubious fortune teller, the exotic alluring circus traveller, the bellydancer seductress. It's hard for Romani to produce widespread mainstream media because of how impoverished most communities are (because of the systematic discrimination Roma face all around the world), so the least non-Roma people can do is to be kind when they use their voice to talk or represent us.

I know this is a massive post, and I'm tagging it as "long post" for that reason, but I hope it is helpful for people. Feel free to ask or add your own experience if this is something that resonates with you too. Ask away if you want. I've been wanting to tell a bit my own personal experience, as this has always been a hard spot for me, and even if just a handful of people read this and understand what is this all about, I think it will have been worth it.

[writingquestionsanswered]

i was reading my writing so far and noticed that it's kind of hasty? it feels like the scenes pass too quickly and characters act and make decisions too fast. i'm kind of a pantser and still on my first draft so there's definitely gonna be a lot of revisions but i was wondering if you'd have any advise on how to make the time in my story pass more naturally as opposed to stuff happening kind of rapid-fire. my story is high fantasy if that's relevant. i hope i worded this in a way that is understandable.

(also thanks so much for running this blog, it's very helpful)

Scenes Feel Rushed (Scene Elements/Structure)

The thing about scene pacing is it has nothing to do with time. It isn't about how long it takes the reader to read the scene, the amount of time that elapses in the story during the scene, or how fast/slow these events play out. Here's why:

-- readers read at different speeds -- scenes can occur over a period of minutes or days in your story -- scenes can be fast-paced or slow-paced depending on need

So, if your scenes are feeling rushed, it's not because you need figure out how to make the time pass more naturally. It's because not enough is happening in your scene. In other words, you don't have a good grasp on what scenes are supposed to accomplish and how to structure them.

Scene Elements

Your scene should include the following elements:

1 - A Writer Understood Purpose - First and foremost, as the writer, you should understand the purpose (aka "goal") of the scene in terms of what it accomplishes in the bigger story. Does it advance the plot in some way? Does it develop the protagonist and/or other main characters in a way that is crucial to the plot? Does it develop the setting, back story, or otherwise give the reader information they need in order to understand the story?

2 - Clearly Established Setting - Imagine if you went to see a play, but the stage had no backdrop, no scenery, no props. It was just a big empty stage with actors on it. Imagine how much you would lose without understanding where this scene was taking place. It works the same way in fiction, which is why it's important to start a scene by giving the reader some idea of where it's taking place. Using sensory and emotional description, you can give the reader a good image of the scenery and what it means to the POV character/s and the scene that's about to unfold.

3 - Relevant Characters - A scene can't play out without its requisite characters, but "requisite" is the keyword there: only characters who are relevant to the purpose of the scene--as well as "background extras" who are there to fill small-but-necessary roles and lend to an authentic setting... such as the teacher and other students in a classroom scene, or other patrons and servers in a restaurant scene. However, don't include main or secondary characters just to include them. They should be there because they need to be or because it makes sense for them to be there.

4 - Scene Conflict - Just as every story needs a conflict (an over-arching problem that must be resolved), so does every scene. Scene conflict can be internal (within the character's heart and mind) or external (in the character's environment). The purpose of the scene is to either resolve the scene conflict or propel it toward a future scene.

5 - Clarified Motivation and Goal - Because you understand the purpose of the scene (what you're trying to accomplish in the scene as the writer) and because you know the conflict/problem that must be resolved, it's important to clarify your character's scene goal (what they're trying to do in order to resolve the scene's problem, or their attempt to resolve it) and what is motivating them to resolve this conflict. Why is it important to them?

6 - Relative Balance of Exposition, Action, and Dialogue - Most scenes should have a relative balance of exposition (narrator explaining things), action (things happening), and dialogue (characters talking.) However, there are sometimes scenes that will lean toward more exposition, more action, or more dialogue. It just depends on the needs of the scene, but generally-speaking, you want a reasonably good balance. If there's no story-centric reason 90% of the scene needs to be dialogue, you need to make sure you balance things out a little more between dialogue, action, and exposition.

7 - Exploration of Emotion - Even in stories that are fully plot-driven, there needs to be an exploration of the emotions being felt by the characters in the scene, and an attempt by the writer to translate those emotions to the reader. The movie Jurassic Park, for example, was pretty fully plot-driven... it wasn't really about exploring internal conflicts or character arcs... but the emotion felt by the characters at throughout the story went a long way in making the reader feel things alongside them. Who can forget Dr. Grant seeing the dinosaurs for the first time:

Or Lex trembling when she saw the raptor in the visitor's center:

By illustrating character emotion using external cues (body language, facial expressions, gestures) and internal cues (sensations like heart pounding, processing what emotions are being felt and what it means), and by exploring how these emotions relate to the plot (and character arc, if there is one), we can create a much deeper sense of what's happening in the scene and why it matters.

Scene Structure

Scenes, like plot, have their own structure. Just as with plot structure, you can vary your scene's structure according to the needs of your scene, but generally speaking it will look like this:

Beginning - hook and setting establishment

Conflict Development - introduce or reiterate the scene conflict; clarify character motivation, goal, and what's at stake. Introduce the obstacles or challenges that raise the stakes or make it more difficult for the character to achieve their scene goal

Climax - The conflict reaches its peak... the character attempts to resolve the scene conflict for good, or at least temporarily. Or, at the very least, something significant occurs

Resolution/Denouement - The scene conflict is either resolved or it's set aside to be dealt with later. The character reflects on what happened, what it means, and what's next

Transition to Next Scene - We usually want to end a scene with some hint of what the next scene will be to create a smooth transition to the next scene. This could be a statement of time, like, "In another week, Roland would return from Bruges and she could finally talk to him about what was going on." Or, it can be a cliffhanger, like, "But it wasn't Bernard and Cleo who got out of the taxi... it was Roland and Cleo. But Roland was supposed to be two-thousand miles away in Bruges..." Or, it can be an establishment of what comes next. "Whatever Roland was up to, she'd have to wait until tomorrow to snoop around and find out more."

By making sure your scene includes the proper elements and generally follows a basic scene structure, you can ensure that there's enough happening in the scene to keep it from playing out too quickly.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[novlr]

can you give tips on how to change up character dialogue? all of my characters end up sounding the same and i'm not sure how to fix it

How to Write Unique Voices for Characters in Fiction

When it comes to writing fiction, creating unique and believable characters is absolutely essential. One important aspect of character development is crafting unique voices that reflect each character’s personality and background.

Understand your characters

Before you can write distinct voices for your characters, it’s important to understand who they are. Building out a solid foundation and developing compelling backstories is one of the best ways to ensure they always have unique voices. Here are some tips for getting to know your characters:

Write character sketches that detail their backgrounds, personalities, goals, and motivations.

Conduct interviews with your characters as if they were real people, asking them about their likes and dislikes, fears, goals, and more (the Proust questionnaire is a popular way to do this).

Imagine how your characters’ past experiences will change how they speak in different situations and when experiencing varied emotions.

Use description to enhance your characters’ voices

Descriptions can be just as important as dialogue when it comes to creating character voices. Here are some tips for using descriptions to enhance your characters’ personalities:

Use specific details to create vivid descriptions of each character’s body language, mannerisms, and behaviour.

Consider how each character’s mannerisms might influence their speech patterns. For example, a character who is shy might be hesitant to speak or repeat themselves frequently.

Pay attention to how your characters interact with their environment. Do they use their hands a lot when they speak? Do they pace around the room or sit still?

Use sensory details to create immersion. For example, a character who is nervous might sweat profusely or fidget with their jewellery.

Avoid stereotypes and clichés

When writing unique voices for characters, it’s important to avoid falling back on stereotypes or clichés. Here are some tips for creating characters that feel fresh and authentic:

Avoid using dialects or accents. Not only do these often rely on stereotypes, but they also break reader immersion unless authenticity is absolutely essential to the type of book you are writing.

Consider how each character’s background and experiences might influence their beliefs and values. One-dimensional characters built on clichés won’t have unique voices.

Think outside of the box when it comes to creating distinct voices. Instead of relying on traditional archetypes, consider combining traits from multiple sources to create something new.

How to craft unique dialogue

With the basics in place, how do we convert unique character voices into dialogue? Here are some tips for writing dialogue that feels authentic and unique to each character:

Read your dialogue out loud to hear how it sounds, and make sure it’s true to how you imagine your character to be.

Give your characters a unique conversational quirk that feels natural. An example could be that they call everyone “love.”

Vary the length and complexity of sentences to reflect each character’s personality and background.

Consider how each character’s education and experiences might influence their vocabulary and sentence structure.

Use dialogue tags sparingly to avoid detracting from the actual words being spoken.

Avoid using too much exposition or explaining too much in dialogue. Instead, let the characters speak when it serves your story.

By understanding your characters, crafting unique dialogue, using descriptions to enhance character voices, and avoiding stereotypes and clichés, you can create vibrant, engaging characters that will keep readers hooked from start to finish.

[lamialamia]

We have a problem: expositions and trivial

One of MOTA's writing problems is how it under-utilized its exposition. In this analysis, I'll only focus on one instance to complain explain my point.

In episode one of MOTA. The show tells us that the characters are from many different parts of the US.

Everyone came from different places in the US... which was good for us to know. Now the scene will end and you can immediately forget it ever happens, because ultimately the distinct geographical backgrounds of our characters doesn't matter.

And all of this information never means anything more than a list. Not once in MOTA does this entire scene lends a helping hand to the story in any way possible.

In comparison, Band of Brothers didn't tell us in great detail where the characters came from and yet it managed to make us remember that fact. BoB did it by using their conflict to illustrate the exposition.

From this, we know that wherever Guarnere and Winters came from, those places definitely were very different, especially on the religions front. And thus, Guarnere was wary of him even if he knew Dick's a good man.

And then this

Cue the infamous Liebgott vs Guarnere fight

this is also exposition. We learn that Liebgott is Jewish and would not stand for Guarnere thinly veiled antisemitic bs. More important, this is the basis for their fight, their conflict. And we can infer that Guarnere and Liebgott have two different backgrounds, possibly based on the geographical location of wherever they came; now, that difference led to this conflict between them.

Immediately, the stake was increased. Not only were these men about to fight off foreign enemies in foreign land, they were also fighting among themselves: enlisted man vs officer (Guarnere vs Dick) and enlisted men vs enlisted men (Guarnere vs Liebgott).

Exposition is a tool of story telling, they are not trivial to be put in for funsies. A good story used its exposition, making it actually relevant instead of an info-dump.

In a different case, in the same episode, we have Toye listing out the insane number of things the paratroopers have to carry.

(Sorry the subtitles being hard to read)

Then later on, we saw the scene where the guys are struggling to get on the planes:

The exposition from Toye is there to explain this scene. And in a way, the stake is stacked against the men in an unexpected way: the brass forced them to wear more than they should. Then in the next episode, we saw everyone just lose so much of all these gears as they dropped into occupied France.

Back to the geographical difference. Unlike MOTA or BoB, this isn't made to be a big conflict in TP or GenKil. In fact, when it came up, the possible conflict is resolved immediately to make a difference point.

Ack-ack brought this up, and then they started talking about Sledge's dad and his dad. How different as those men were (a doctor in the south and a textile worker in Massachusetts) yet they both contributed to the US's war effort (treating vets from first world war and making the Marines' greens).

The exposition is here to show how things have changed, how the perceived difference of where Sledge and Haldane came from didn't matter. They are fighting the same fight right then and there. In fact it showed how charismatic Ack-ack is as a leader and part of why Sledge admired and looked up to him a lot, no matter the history of where they were born.

Similarly,

and Ray was like

This scene is all about how Brad and Ray came from different place, both geographically, social and economic class, and religion. But we see no conflict here, not when it's obvious from Ray smiling that this was bantering, not insult.

No matter how difference their background was, Ray and Brad had overcome them together and now also fighting the same war. However, they would still use this as comedic material for their verbal sparring. From established differences, we have organic and very realistic rapport.

But in MOTA

Gale Cleven is the first in the 100th Bomb group to be from Wyoming. This doesn't matter. Because no one made a joke about it besides this very first scene with Crosby called it the "Cowboy State". No one made any kind of assumptions, no one believed Gale should behave in a certain way because of this, no one tried to ask Gale if he has ever ridden a horse.

Everyone in MOTA came from different places yet they never have any kind of conflict about it. Nor did their hometown explain how some characters might behave in a certain way, think a certain way. It didn't set up a twist. It didn't give insight to a character personality.

No importance was made here.

For such a long scene, what we got is trivial and info-dump. Not exposition.

[coffeebeanwriting]

What Bores a Reader The Most?

I asked my followers to answer the question “what bores you the most when reading a book?” 

Please keep in mind that these are all opinions and you’ll find yourself agreeing and disagreeing with some. Personally, I think this is amazing insight into the minds of unique readers all around the globe! I decided to keep reoccurring answers instead of merging them, just so people could see the repeating themes.

“Predictable conflicts or character actions. I want to be surprised.”

“When there’s no clear plot. When it looks like the book is leading nowhere.”

“Endless description. Nothing makes me more prone to skipping ahead.”

“When it feels like what you’re reading lacks purpose and there is no meaningful contribution to the plot.”

“Characters with less personality than a wet paper towel. Main characters with zero personality.”

“When I can’t picture anything in my head or what I understood changes randomly.”

“When a conversation is happening and I can’t follow which character is saying what.”

“Daily routines in a story. Like, I do not care.”

“When the world doesn’t move if the main character doesn’t interact with it. This applies to t.v shows, too.”

“Something that does not have a build up like a sudden relationship out of the blue.”

“When I’m so confused it doesn’t make sense anymore.”

“When there’s a 3 page description of some random object.”

“Wayyyy too much detail.”

“When the big plot twist is revealed and I guessed it ages ago.”

“Too slow or too long.”

“When the author unnecessarily drags the story and takes ages to advance to the climax.”

“Fan service that doesn’t contribute to the plot.”

“Useless descriptions and/or actions.”

“Over description of a landscape (cough old literature cough).”

“No action, no violence. I don’t like when characters talk for too long.”

“Long descriptions.”

“Too much descriptions when you are in a exciting moment. It breaks immersion.”

“Lack of imagery.”

“Constant usage of archaic vocabulary.”

“When the main character is extremely passive and doesn’t act or react.”

“Excessive description that doesn’t further the plot or meaningfully add to characterization.”

“Overly predictable plot, overly crude language for the sake of it, cringe/pompous scenes.”

“Long and boring exposition dumps.”

“Characters that never loose 😴.”

“When the world building starts out great and is really immersive until later on when things don’t add up.”

“When a character has too much internal dialogue.”

“Explaining “the science” behind magic systems in unnecessary detail.”

“Over description. I will skim and skip a lot of it.”

“Too much background info at the beginning.”

“When there’s small talk about a topic I don’t understand. It get’s sooo boring.”

“Too much inner monologue.”

“Slow plot.”

“When it’s just dragging on and on with the backstory.”

“Having to reread a sentence/paragraph a billion times because my brain got distracted.”

“When there’s no action, suspense or something similar for the whole chapter.”

“Things that aren’t relevant to the story.”

“Too much dialogue.”

“A lil too much fantasies.”

“Over drawn setting descriptions.”

“Overly long chapters, repetitive scenes, lots of complicated worldbuilding.”

“When it’s too simple or too detailed.”

“Long, long expositions.”

“Repeating phrases, plots ,etc.”

“Infodumps, especially in the beginning.”

“Too much history.”

“Overly descriptive settings.”

“Slow plot. I need drama!”

“Long chapters.”

“Slow pacing.”

“No major plot twist.”

“Miscommunication trope.”

“Massively long descriptive paragraphs.”

“Too much exposition in the beginning.”

“Long and confusing story building.”

“Repeating plot points. For example: the hero learning to trust his friends a million times without any real progression.”

“Training scenes that show nothing special. Especially sword fighting or head to hand combat.”

“Generic plot developments unless it’s written well.”

“Overuse of complicated words and sentences.”

“Long paragraphs.”

“I’m so over the bubble sunshine and extra grumpy trope.”

“When a character is overthinking.”

“Romanic subplots bore me. Having too many love interests.”

“When it switches between characters/subplots and one of them is awfully boring.”

“When too much information on a character is given one at a time.”

“Clichés.”

“When it takes a long time before the story gets interesting.”

“Long, long, long descriptions particularly of places that aren’t all that important.”

“Descriptions of unnecessary things.”

“Too much side character’s story. They’re a side for a reason.”

“I love beautiful writing so there must be some lovely descriptions... but don’t drone on.”

“Flat characters.”

“Scenes in which my favorite characters do not appear.”

“When the characters have no clear goal or the goal is too weak.”

“If most or all of the characters are unlikable. Then I don’t care what happens to them in the story. Being an evil/mean character is different from being unlikable.”

“When the plot does not move forward.”

“Writing unnecessary, irrelevant things that don’t have an effect on the story.”

“No real plot. The protagonist has no fire to them.”

“When the protagonist needs to figure out a love triangle and which person they like the most.”

“When the interesting parts happen right at the end.”

“When there’s too much info dumping with no easy transitions.”

“No progression after chapters and chapters. Characters not having development.”

“Too much description and a slow start to the story.”

“When characters are too oblivious to something.”

“Oblivious main characters, lazy plots, stereotypical encounters, main character is a god trope.”

“Unnecessarily long amounts of monologue or dialogue.”

“The second chance trope bores me.”

“Slow beginnings... like, get to the action in 3 chapters of less please.”

“Chapters being too long with small writing.”

“If the characters go through the same conflict over and over again.”

“Classic books... I don’t understand a thing, haha.”

“Being bombarded with unnecessary detail.”

“Bad boy meets good girl trope bores me.”

“Too much landscape descriptions like Tolkien or Stephen King.”

“Bad dialogue, too much excessive background details and too many character tags.”

“When the book moves too slowly.”

“Over described scenes or characters.”

“Descriptions without inputs of what a characters is thinking about. I need a lens of character POV to make descriptions interesting to read.”

“A badly written romance subplot where the characters involved don’t have any chemistry whatsoever.”

“I get a bit lost when there’s too much details about an environment.”

“When the story doesn’t go anywhere for a really long time.”

Instagram: coffeebeanwriting  

[toh-aus-coven]

Philip's Story is an Adoption Story... Here's Why That Matters

A few disclaimers before we dive in...

Binary thinking is discouraged here; adoption and its themes are complicated and nuanced. Multiple truths can exist.

This is one perspective and this analysis comes from being in community with adopted/orphan people, research, and misc experience

"Adoption adjacent" includes adoptees/orphans/foster kids (these three groups often overlap in various ways that will be elaborated on)

Please engage with this post in good faith. I know non-adoptees can experience things listed in this post however, there is a different context that underlies the experience of those adopted/adjacent. And of course, I'm not trying to make generalizations either... It's just that the narrative is more complicated than a lot of people want to admit.

Sound good? Let's proceed. THIS POST IS GOING TO BE A BIT LONG!

At the core of Belos/Philip's story is an 'adoption' story. And it's all because of this particular line:

I know what you're thinking "But isn't being an orphan different from being adopted?" Yes, and within the media in particular, adoptee and orphan stories overlap heavily-- in fact, it's almost a circle (although due to his background and his time-period, he'd probably be taken in by someone given the boys' age of their arrival). It’s about the experience of parental separation which is what connects adoptee and adjacent people. So while Philip is not adopted, he is adoptee adjacent and that still matters. Concerning media and the way adopted/orphaned characters are portrayed, it's often presented in a very binary manner. Most people's knowledge of the subject comes from other people's perception of it rather than adopted/orphaned people themselves. And to a degree that makes sense... These stories are often ABOUT [adoptees/adjacent people ] without INCLUDING them. Adoption themes are incredibly pervasive throughout literature, TV/movies, video games, and other media. It's not inherently wrong to have an adoption-related storyline, plot, or character but most people don't do it in a way that is humanizing and avoids common pitfalls within the storytelling.

There's a quick impulse to call Philip 'evil' and 'irredeemable' without actually understanding his character... and when you view him through an 'adoptee-centered' lens his behavior makes a lot of sense. The fact the show treats this specific fact about the character as a plot device rather than something that could be explored is a tiny bit insulting. They only mention it in the exposition which kind of implies that this detail is meant to explain Philip's deep attachment to his brother. Which yes, it does and TOH leaves us hanging -- or actually they just tell us that this man is evil and call it a day.

Which leads me into one of the biggest pitfalls that the show uses for Philip-- he's framed as just evil. The trope of good/bad adoptee/adjacent character is a pretty common see -- even within the same piece of media. If we're going to use TOH we can look at King's character -- King, a young main protagonist who is the last living son of a god. King is young, cute, 'exceptional', has special abilities, etc (there are issues with King's portrayal as well but this post isn't about him). This is an issue because adoptees/adjacent people are more than a reductive good/bad label. Same with concepts such as 'gratitude' -- being grateful or not grateful when the real answer can be a lot more complex than that. It's a binary question that can be a complicated answer. We're the picture-perfect heroes or the irredeemable villains-- nothing in-between.

Taking this into consideration, when we look at Philip you start to see someone who's not 'evil'; you begin to see a man who is coping with separation trauma and abandonment issues. This is unfortunate to hear but research tells us that adoptees are 4x more at risk to 'self-exit', 2x at risk to have substance abuse issues, and generally more likely to be diagnosed with mental health disorders (obviously every individual is different but when talking about adoption many people tend to ignore these types of statistics in favor of more 'positive' ones). 'Negative' aspects that many adoptees/adjacent people experience or try to talk about are often dismissed or worse, they are gaslighted. When you look at Philip and his characterization you see these behaviors in a different light such as:

His attachment/abandonment issues (Caleb, this one doesn't need any elaboration; EDIT- gonna elaborate anyways lol). To be honest Philip shows a lot of symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder. The hallmark of the disorder is a fear of abandonment — and BPD often stems from childhood trauma. Interestingly enough it’s not uncommon for adoptees (in particular women; there is a misogynistic component to this but i digress) to get a BPD diagnosis. And given that the show portrays Philip in a very stigmatizing way… you can see why this isn’t great…

Difficulty regulating his emotions ('the curse' seems to come out when he's emotionally escalated)

'Substance' use (the palismen; he seems physically reliant on them and they don't benefit him in any way besides sustaining his life. also, he looks like he's huffing something when he consumes one Side note: Some people think that Philip deserved to 'be cursed' (which is a side effect[?] of the consumption) since he “cursed himself”... super not great for adoptees/adjacent people we’re already a misunderstood group of people and it's not uncommon to get insulted or blamed when trying to have a nuanced discussion or share experiences.

His sense of self seems unstable... Most of his identity hinges on his brother, not himself (ex. being a witch hunter, the use of the gravesfield coat of arms for the emperor's sigil, the coat he wears, his name-- Philip Wittebane, etc)

There's a bunch of emotional stuff I would have to guess would be true but they'd more fall under theory or headcanon

It's not that he is 'evil' he is in pain and he is blamed for that. Obviously, he doesn't make productive choices and he does bear responsibility for the harm he caused and he is a creation of his environment. He had to hate to survive. This is where 'this and' can come into play... For many adoptees, we have feelings of not belonging -- even more so for transracial adoptees (those adopted/fostered into homes of a different race than their own). Many transracial adoptees are raised in environments that are racially / ethnically homogeneous (from their own race) so it can be harder to 'fit in' and it can also cause someone to have a complex relationship with their racial/ethnic background when one is essentially assimilated into a community that they stick out of.

edit: In mainstream society being adopted or 'orphans' is deemed to be a shameful thing, used as a comedy device, or through very rosed colored glasses... and there's a problem to highlight here: because adoptee/adjacent are often seen as source material for STORIES we often view their experiences through the lens of A STORY rather than someone's lived experience. It is easier to view a particular thing as a story for entertainment when for someone else it is reality. While Philip is a fictional character many aspects of his behavior are very real and deserve understanding and empathy for real adoptees/adjacent people. We deserve to be more than stories with black-and-white roles and deserve to be seen in color. As full complex people.

Here are some resources if you're interested in learning more about adoptee-centered adoption perspectives:

https://adoptionmosaic.com/resources

https://sidebysideproject.com/11-short-films

http://adopteereading.com/overview/

https://harlows-monkey.com/

https://adopteeconsciousness.com/

this tedtalk is good too: https://youtu.be/jL4lnvQ1wVU?si=HpYASjvvOXnY2faX

Edit: https://youtu.be/Rz3ME8K_zW4?si=CpEQarRbe8VAUqAR (this documentary just came out and you may hear a certain basilisk/gem featured!)

[tc-doherty]

Hey! In your practical writing tips - post you said novels require lots of telling. I've noticed this too when I read, amazing books that tell a lot vs. showing but all advice gears to show and that's what I've been learning to do. Since I can't find anyone that teaches when to tell vs. show and how much tell vs. show is right and why telling is good etc. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this? Why some books that tell a lot are very engaging and others can't keep my attention? I'm so interested to see your thoughts! Thank you.

Like I said in that post, teaching people how to write isn't really my jam so this is less a teaching guide and more just my assorted thoughts on the subject based on my own opinions and the habits that I follow.

I guess what it boils down to is this. You can't really say that either showing or telling is more important in a novel, but the things that you show are perhaps more relevant.

For example, if you describe the morning routine of your character in great detail every single morning, readers are going to get bored. The story will grind to a halt. Yes you're showing us that, which most people would say is a good thing based on "show don't tell", but the information isn't relevant. If you're setting up a fantasy or sci-fi story it might be relevant once or even twice to show us how things work, but not every single time.

Similarly, if your character gets news telling them that someone they love has perished, you don't want to simply say that it made them sad. You want to show us their reaction. What do they do? What do they say? What physical sensations do they have? Are they lightheaded, do they feel out of breath, does their throat hurt because they're trying not to cry? That information is all relevant to the character, the scene, and the reader. If you simply say they're sad, then your story feels too shallow.

Many people might consider dialogue a kind of telling, but really it's both. What the characters say, how they say it, and also what they don't say can show us a lot about who they are as a person, which is relevant information to the audience even if they're simply explaining something that would be considered exposition. But what do your characters actually need to say or hear? And what can you relay to us through something happening in the background, for instance?

And what about the genre? I like to write road trip novels, which means I spend a lot of time showing the minutiae of the journey. That's relevant because the story is the journey that's being taken. But sometimes your characters just have to get from one place to another, and you don't need to get bogged down in it. You can just say that they took a bus or boat or horse or whatever.

Balancing it in any given story is the writing equivalent of "this meeting could have been email". What do you actually have to get together in a conference room to discuss (show the readers in detail) versus what can be summarized in a few sentences in an email? What will make you bored out of your mind if you see too much of it, versus what will leave you lost and confused without it?

And of course just because something is telling or summarized doesn't mean that the way that you write isn't important! Your writing should still be engaging even when you're telling. Pay attention to the words you use, the rhythm of your sentences, the variety of sentence lengths, things like that. If something is pleasant to read it will keep the reader's attention on the page. If the sentence rhythms or lengths are too similar, it becomes "monotone" and causes people's attention to wander.

Something I pay special attention to is that - unless the narrator is subjective or unreliable - I don't tell something about characters in the narration which is shown to be false. Nothing gets me riled up like supposedly objective narration which tells me a character is like so and I should feel like this about them, but then their dialogue and actions reveal that to be patently false and I feel some other way. Of course that is something that relies on the narrator being objective and having access to more information than we do. If it's a POV character who might just be unobservant, overly arrogant, biased, or kinda stupid, that's fine

When it comes to showing versus telling in regards to the background/description...well. I struggle a lot with description because I have almost complete aphantasia and can't visualize things easily. So I cheat! Anything that I describe in detail is something that my POV character is actually paying attention to. The level of detail varies from book to book based on what kind of person has the POV and what sorts of things they notice. And again, that's relevant to the audience because it's information which is relevant to the character. This is also really great way to start building up to any kind of romantic interest, because people do tend to pay a lot more attention to people they're interested in!

I feel like this has gotten really long, so if there's anything that you would like me to elaborate on more or I wasn't clear about, feel free to send another ask! I won't say I'm objectively right (usually lol) but I'm always happy to talk shop.

Hopefully some of it can be helpful to you or at least give you some things to start thinking about. And of course, it's always a good way to start by studying books that you read and seeing what you like and what you don't like and how it's been handled in both.

[riverssongs13]

People have already spoken about a million other issues they had with Episode 6 of Agatha All Along, Familiar By Thy Side, praised whatever they wished to praise, and theorised and speculated whatever it is they'd like to theorise and speculate. Right, thanks, okay, excellent point, absolutely, no notes, yes that makes sense, of course how could I miss that, thank you.

But, THAT'S IT? WHY? We have now been presented TWO episodes that are essentially just TWO SCENES. What happened to the pacing?? It was going sooo well. The story was laid out nicely, with nice little progressions, the plot was thickening nicely like a beautiful pot of roux.

Everything these witches were doing had purpose. Their interactions were building up their characters nicely, little sprinkle of exposition here and there, small little reveals and easter eggs and background stories, perfect amount of tension, even the fan service of AgathaRio's toxic yuri relationship was imo done quite well. Nice little mixture of storytelling and tension building and comedy and drama that makes one really emotionally invested with this ragtag group of deeply traumatised but fabulously surviving women (and teenager).

And then came the need to reveal Teen's identity.

A huge chunk of Darkest Hour and Familiar By Thy Side could have been woven together to create a more cohesive, more compelling presentation of Teen's motivations. So many parts in the last 2 episodes that didn't really serve a purpose, and that flashback could have been done in 10 minutes, AND still have Bohnerrific69's part fleshed out. A lot of stuff also felt absurd and unnecessary, like an appeal to what, nostalgia? (although honestly I don't find anything nostalgic about explaining how Teen was able to find this random dude on Reddit. Pop culture reference? Easter egg? Booyah moment? Weird.)

Anyway, cheeky little annoyances especially when the mid-season trailer specifically chose to mention there's only 4 episodes left (now down to 3). If this is the pacing and storytelling we're getting for the next three I'm wondering how they'd be able to tie up all the little plotlines they have. Or are we to assume we're no longer getting stories and endings for Jen and gods forbid, Lilia? And what of Lady Death and her quota of bodies? Kinda sad, knowing this show is only meant for one season.

I hope we get resolutions. And, Billy, I love you with all my heart, and you & boyf are cute, but can we please move along?

[olderthannetfic]

When there was an anon about "To Gaze Upon Wicked Gods" a few months ago (or so?), I got curious and looked at the Goodreads reviews linked and at other reviews and the description.

Haven't looked at them this "round" of the asks regarding it, but IIRC I got the impression that it may originally have been a fanfic that had its names and some details altered to be published as an original work because IIRC some reviewers said there was little exposition as if one were already knowledgeable about stuff like the characters and world setting. Of course, I may also be (and most probably am) absolutely incorrect in this assumption.

The "mob" of angry reviewers also kinda gave me the impression that they may have been a friend group (based on their very similar phrasing and vocabulary and accusations, which may still also just be coincidental) who disliked the author for fannish reasons or something else and decided to take their (fannish?) dislike to the published literary world with the author's first publication... but again, I may just be wildly misinterpreting things and may have read their reviews in bad faith.

Regardless of whether or not the book is a "colonizer romance" or badly written or even disrespectful or tasteless or something else, I feel sorry for the author...

--

I wouldn't assume this. Usually, when het fics get the serial numbers filed, they're from one of the big het ships with a whole culture of doing this and it's all very open and liked by the fans. Some review would say which ship at the very least if not what the original title was.

However, I would absolutely assume that a book that reads like fic is by an author whose past experience writing is mostly with fic and who reads a lot of fic.

I also have the impression that some authors in the romantasy space are people who like sff settings on TV but don't have a lot of practical experience in how one establishes sff world building in a novel. They may have cool ideas, and these ideas may show up by the end of a book or later in a series, but the beginning doesn't have much flavor. Someone coming from a more book sff background would probably either explain more up front or whet people's appetites to understand the sff elements by giving a lot more sense of the setting. (But they might fall down on the romance aspects.)

There are also plenty of cliques in booktok, booktube, book twitter, etc., so a group of angry reviewers could be coming from somewhere like that and not from fandom beef.

It's also possible that the reviewers all sound the same because they read/watch the same book influencers who talk a certain way rather than because the reviewers are friends with each other.

Very likely, you're picking up the vibes accurately. I just think there are some other possible reasons for these vibes.

--

Poking around goodreads reveals a bunch of Corrain drama spillover. Search 'corrain', 'youtube', 'reylo', etc. for the reviews that give a sense of where samey-sounding people might be coming there from.

It's very clear that many reviewers heard all about the book long before they read it.

[thefruitypebblescastleoftorment]

It's amazing how little the 5e module cares about Ireena and I'm mad about it.

In the "Roleplaying Ireena" section, we get some scant information on her situation (Strahd is after her, she doesn't remember her early childhood) and some exposition she can give the players. Aside from that, the sum total of her internal life and motivations that we're given is this sentence:

Although she appears mild, she has a strong will, and she aids the party as best she can in saving herself.

Wow. Thanks. Giving us a lot of meat there for the second most important NPC in the game, second only to the one the module is named after.

You know what's even more maddening? The 1E module, despite being 1/7th the length of the new one, actually gives her more:

Ireena is a sweet but troubled woman. Although she may at first appear mild, she has a strong will and a good arm. By no means a hapless victim, she will aid the party as best she can in saving herself.

Okay, it's not much more, and I'm not saying these descriptions are meaningfully different, but geez, it's clear they just took the 1E description and cut it in half. How did the 32 page adventure written in 1983 spend more time on Ireena than the "Revamped" version?

I'd be less insane about this if 5E didn't give us way more detail on the motivations and internal lives of so many other NPCs??

Almost every minor character in Vallaki has at least two sentences explaining their motivations. We get way, way more on the Abbot and Piddlewick II than Ireena. Piddlewick Fucking II! How many adventuring parties go through the entire game without even running into Piddlewick II?!

Why doesn't Ireena get a section in the Creatures of Horror book? There are other good guys in there! Why doesn't she get a unique statblock, paragraphs of background and an ideal/flaw/bond? The only conclusion I can come to is that the writers couldn't think of anything to do with her, and didn't want to bother trying.

Fortunately there are plenty of great homebrew/community guides to fleshing out Ireena (I'm leaning heavily on this guide as well as her characterization and roleplay notes in Curse of Strahd Reloaded.)

But that doesn't change how frustrating it is that the RAW module gives us nothing for what should be a character as iconic and enduring as Strahd himself.

[avelera]

My two favorite character-related cheat codes for writing that I've spent a lot of time practicing lately are:

1 ) When in close character point-of-view (POV, 1st or 3rd) ie, "we're in this character's head and no other, and we're set immediately in their thoughts", try filtering the description and narration through their POV.

Ex. "The coffee machine was broken." -> "The coffee machine was broken, because of course it was, just when Bob needed it most."

Note: Like all tools, this can be overused and it's not suited to every story, but narration flavored by the character's POV can really make a story pop.

Caveat: There can be limits as far as what this character would notice and describe when this deep in their head. For example, neutral narration might say, "Bob's cheeks darkened with anger." However, Bob cannot see his own cheeks (unless he's got a mirror or is going through an out of body experience, I suppose) and so even if one is not in 1st person, it can be jarring for the character to note things they can't see. Also applies to some descriptions like, "Bob's dulcet voice that called to mind a nightingale." Bob would probably not think that about himself, unless maybe he does, but that's a very specific type of self-confident character who thinks something like that about themself. Whereas another character can think that about Bob, or a neutral word-of-god narration style can.

2 ) If you, the author, don't know how something works in your story or what the character would do next, the POV character doesn't have to know it either! And in fact, exploring this can add richness and texture to your story!

This can be applied to multiple situations you might be stuck on as an author. For example, in a sci-fi story, maybe you feel under obligation to explain how the Space Widget works in space. But the thing is, most people don't know, for example, how their microwave works, let alone know it well enough to build one. You're absolutely allowed to have a character in a genre setting like sci-fi/fantasy, when confronted with the futuristic technology of their time, not actually know how it works or how to build it! Unless the character is a space mechanic, it's completely reasonable and can lend to humor and character realism if they don't.

Along these lines, coloring your narration with incomplete knowledge, whether it's true or false, and opinion is another way to enrich your story. Most people don't have perfect knowledge of the history of our world, let alone knowledge that's 100% correct! Two people having different opinions about that historical event that happened 600 years ago is a great way to do exposition and to reveal character, for example, if it was a peasant revolt a character with a peasant background might sympathize with the peasants, an aristocrat sides with the king! Also, people might just not know much about that revolt that happened 600 years ago, or perhaps it's been erased from history, or mythologized to the point of falsehood, or turned into propaganda for the winning side. When worldbuilding, sometimes it matters less what actually happened and more what people think actually happened. This also feeds into what are the opinions and the entertainment people enjoy to in this world? What does that say about your characters?

You can also use this trick for bigger questions like, "Should my character forgive their deadbeat father in the next scene?" You, as the author, might feel as if you should have this figured out but the thing is, realistically, your character might not have the answer either and it's a complex enough emotional question that it is, in fact, more realistic that the character doesn't have a ready made answer or decision too! Adding a scene where you, the author, sit in the characters head, in a scene, maybe talking to a friend of theirs going through their options of whether or not they should forgive their deadbeat father is another opportunity both for a character moment and for you the author to work through which option the character would pick as the character. You can always toss the scene later but then at least you have the knowledge in your head.

And finally, it's ok to have other characters react with surprise to the character's choice in the same way the reader or you, the author, would. "Wow, I really thought you were going to forgive your deadbeat dad, but you didn't, that's great/terrible!" That is a character revealing exchange and might be a great jumping-off point for future drama. Don't sweep it under the rug. As noted above, it's normal, human, and interesting for characters to have opinions about the world around them and the actions of people they know (or don't know, vis a vis, tabloids, famous people, current events, etc). Indeed, word of god objective truth rarely exists in the real world, history is a myth agreed upon, and everyone's got a different take on every story. This is extremely valuable to utilize when worldbuilding and constructing narratives/narration.

[thecomicsnexus]

TMNT X NARUTO #1

November 2024 By Caleb Goellner , Hendry Prasetya, Raúl Angulo, and Ed Dukeshire.

Kakashi leads a team to escort April O'Neil back to her home at the Big Apple Village, but in their way they cross paths with the Foot clan, and... another clan.

SCORE: 8

So, I watched a few seasons of Naruto and so far, I am able to follow along... so I am not sure how hard this story would be for those not familiar with his world. I suppose this is targeted to fans of Naruto anyway, but just in case, there is enough exposition (I think) to explain what each character wants and hides.

But to be fair, none of it is super-clear in this first episode.

What does happen though, is the mandatory fight between the good guys that takes place at the beginning of every cross-company team-up. It takes pretty much the entire issue, but seeing these characters in action also serves as a good introduction of who they are.

Now, just like Turtles of Grayskull, this is part one of four... so this must be a fairly simple story (as I imagine each issue could be 70% fighting). Nevertheless, April's backstory already revealed a lot about the story and it is safe to say that more mutants are coming in the following issues.

Visually, the issue looks pretty amazing. Detailed backgrounds (when needed), stunning colors, and a good blend of the two styles.

Overall, there is enough potential for this crossover to have sequels, and judging by the amount of free publicity this book got online, I am under the impression that it will sell well.

[mostlymaudlin]

An Attempted Explanation of Andrew’s “Manic Pills”

One of the things that bothers me about AFTG is Andrew’s medicine. The way most of the characters talk about court-mandated psychiatry and sobriety and mania is a questionable and often harmful representation of what it’s like to experience mania/hypomania — which like, it’s fiction, that’s fine, but it’s also something that I take a lil personally. So I’ve decided to try to legitimize the whole thing for myself, just because I can!

Necessary to note: I’m not a medical professional, a lawyer, etc. I’m usually a pretty good fact-checker, but I could definitely be wrong abt stuff, and I’d love for you to tell me if I am. I ran a lot of this by the lovely @the-greater-grief, who does have a medical background and also inspired me with this analysis they did on Andrew’s mental health. They were really helpful in explaining a lot of the more technical drug information, so they’re largely responsible for most of the theory that makes sense lol. But, they are also not responsible for me saying things that are wrong, lol! Alsooooo, I’ve been in the fandom for less than a year so it’s possible I’m saying stuff people have said before. Idc. I’m having fun reinventing the wheel lmfao. Okay, onwards!

The post has two parts: 

Lovingly dismantling a lot of the bullshit Neil tells us in the books

Setting up a more realistic version of Andrew’s mental health situation

Apologies in advance, this got long-winded. Let’s do this! 

Dismissing Neil’s framing

AFTG is told from Neil’s perspective, so we as readers are limited to the things he knows and understands. We know that Neil is often unreliable, and as perceptive as he can be, he makes a lot of questionable assumptions that he internalizes as fact. 

This is what he tells us, rather crudely: 

Andrew tried to kill some guys, because he might be a psychopath/sociopath.

Rather than being sent to prison, he was court-mandated to take drugs that make him “manic”/less likely to kill other people. 

The manic pills make him crazy and also make him sick, to the point where the characters refer to him as “sober” when he is unmedicated.

The withdrawal is severe enough that his psych wants him to be hospitalized to come off them. 

We learn all this about Andrew’s treatment from three sources: Information Neil read before he even joined the Foxes, Nicky’s exposition dumps, and Andrew’s actual behavior. The bullshit mostly comes from the first two items on this list, because Andrew never cares to explain much of his situation to Neil. And we can actually brush all of it off pretty easily. 

Neil builds most of his perception of Andrew’s treatment on top of information from articles he read about Kevin’s transfer to Palmetto State. These articles were unkind — the Exy world was upset that Kevin was leaving the Ravens, and Andrew was painted in a cruel and probably inaccurate way. Neil mentions an article headlined “The Prince & the Pauper”... I personally would not take anything from that article seriously.

Some of this bullshit is corroborated by Nicky, a 20-something year old jock majoring in marketing. When Andrew was sentenced, we can guess that Nicky (still basically a teenager himself) was very scared that his cousin, who he is responsible for, was going to get sent to prison. Based on the way he talks about mental health in general, I wouldn’t consider him to be an expert on the nitty-gritty of psychiatry. He just saw the outcome of the trial, which was not prison, yay! and instead involved some kind of pills that made Andrew way more social. Also, as much as I think Nicky tries, he doesn’t really get Andrew — he thought Andrew was straight, and then he thought he was hate-fucking Neil. He’s not a reliable source when it comes to judging how Andrew’s brain works/how he is affected by his treatment. 

This leaves Andrew’s behavior, because he never talks about his mental health except to say that he’s “crazy” and that he is not a sociopath. When he’s on the medicine, his behavior includes an elevated mood, a short attention span, and trouble curbing his impulses. When he doesn’t take his medicine on time, he experiences withdrawal (nausea, fatigue, etc), and feeling ill seems to curb some of his mood elevation enough to let him think with more clarity. When he’s off it, he is able to shut down his emotional reactions to things, though he still exhibits flashes of the rage, depression, and zingy one-liners from his behavior in the first two books.

Also, the only people who actually seem to understand Andrew’s mental health treatment are Andrew himself, Bee, and probably Wymack. Aaron might also have a better handle on it all because he’s pre-med, and also he understands Andrew enough to clock that he is gaga for Neil lol. 

Okay. Bullshit? Gone. 

A proposed alternate story

Once upon a time, some homophobes started beating up Andrew’s cousin and the only legal guardian that didn’t treat him like utter shit, so he went feral on them. 

He gets arrested, and somewhere along the line the courts determine that his violence stems from mental illness. Rather than being sentenced to prison, he gets some kind of probation that mandates he engage in mental health treatment. The psychiatrist he sees at the time determines that he has depression — which, like, they’ve definitely seen his self-harm scars, so this is a fair assumption — and he is prescribed an antidepressant. 

Now’s a good time to mention that no one would ever intentionally prescribe something to induce mania in a patient. Mania is a supremely dangerous state. People get hospitalized to get out of a manic episode. Whenever I even inch toward it, my therapist and psych are like, “CALL ME!!!!” It also would do nothing to curb violence — the opposite, actually, if the manic person often has a hard time holding themselves back from hurting themselves and others. If you look at Andrew’s behavior in the first two books, I don’t think it would even qualify as full-blown mania. He sleeps, he fulfills his responsibilities, he doesn’t seem to have any delusions of grandeur. His symptoms align better with hypomania, which is less severe and accounts for the things we noted before (mood elevation, short attention span, irritability, impulsiveness). I also think a lot of the stuff Andrew does that is attributed to his medicine is probably just Andrew being Andrew — because as Aaron once said, “it wasn’t the drugs that made him crazy.” (I wrote more about this once in an Andrew character study I did.)

So, the antidepressants would’ve been prescribed to treat the depression, which hypothetically could’ve made Andrew so hopeless and full of rage that he was constantly on the verge of flipping his shit on people. There are plenty of antidepressants that will make you sick/be less effective if you fuck with your dosing schedule, and all the alcohol he drinks probably doesn’t help either. Still, the medicine would just treat depression. HOWEVER! If Andrew actually has bipolar disorder (:D!!!), then some antidepressants do have a risk of inducing mania/hypomania!  

It should’ve been obvious that Andrew’s antidepressant was not working as intended. But I doubt Nicky, Andrew, and Aaron had great health insurance before they enrolled at Palmetto, so Andrew’s court-mandated mental health provider was probably like, “cool, not trying to kill people anymore, we’re good.” A good provider like Bee would clock that Andrew had been misdiagnosed, and she’d want to adjust his medicine. But this leads to the final part of the theory — actually suggested by the brilliant Grimm — which also could explain how Andrew came to trust Bee.

If Bee diagnosed Andrew with bipolar, she would want to switch him over to lithium, which is the most common bipolar medicine. I’ve never actually been on lithium, and while I’ve heard it can be really effective, it definitely has a bad reputation — some people say it makes them feel like a “zombie.” Fatigue/dizziness/drowsiness are known potential side effects, especially when you’re adjusting to changed doses — and anyone who’s ever been on a psych med knows that it takes a while to get the dose right. I’m guessing (justified) control freak Andrew Minyard would not be down to risk feeling like a zombie.

(Sidenote: people with bipolar II also get put on lamotrigine, which specifically manages low moods, but from what I can tell it wouldn’t have been common in the mid-2000s. it was only approved for bipolar treatment in 2003.)

Maybe Bee made him a deal: He can stay on the antidepressant, which is not working but is also not the most dangerous thing, as long as he fully commits to their talk therapy sessions so that he can learn how to cope with his symptoms. This is similar to the deal Wymack struck with Andrew. He tends to trust the small handful of people who have given him agency. 

Alright, that’s the theory! Andrew has bipolar disorder. He’s not on the right meds. The courts are not doing silly illegal things (well, not in this case anyway), and the jocks of PSU are the real stereotypes here.

Because at the end of the day, this is a tale as old as time: People with mental illness are easily made out to be the villain.

[amandacanwrite]

How do you begin the first chapter of a story you already have planned out?

Always with an action!!

I personally don't believe in telling people there are wrong ways to do a thing, but I will describe what I personally think is best for the opening scene of a new story/novel.

A really common pitfall, in my opinion, for any fictional narrative is getting caught up in exposition. It makes sense that we get the urge to do things this way, because it's how we tell stories to friends about things that have happened to us.

"Okay, so let me give you background so you know who is who or whatever..." or "Okay, so for context..." are how I start a lot of tea spilling sessions, and its great for colloquial storytelling, but not a great way to get readers engaged from the start.

Whenever I start a book, I think of it less as a historical account and more of myself as the writer arriving to the character's life at a specific point in time, and leaving it at a specific point in time. Because of this, I think the best way to start a story is in the middle of something in their day. Here are some of the first paragraphs from my vampire story:

I scraped another jagged line in the already-worn paint on the wall, marking another tick among the other tidy rows of carved lines in the wall. I relished the feeling of old paint and soft, decaying wood sliding beneath my too-long fingernail. It hurt, but at least I was feeling something.  The first thing they did to me when I arrived at The Tower was glamour my name away.   One moment I was a person, and the next I wasn’t. All I was left with was the milk-warm feeling of the glamour on me dissipating too quickly, leaving me cold and without a sense of self. I could remember everything about my life—everything that had led me to this horrific moment, but not the core of my being. Not the most basic of identifiers. Not my name. 

And another from my Unseelie Court Meets Peaky Blinders WIP:

I pressed my back against the cold, damp brick outside the public house on Main and Besom. My heart raced so fast that I could feel the steady thump of it painfully in my neck. I didn’t know how far I’d run, but I knew I’d done it faster than I ever had before.   How many days late was I now? Five? No wonder Thomas had two others in tow.    I panted, my ribcage straining against my corset, even with it only loosely laced. I felt like I could hardly get a breath in at all. Closing my eyes and forcing myself to slow, I looked down the alleyway behind the pub. If I dodged down that way, I’d have to walk through some of the dodgier areas of The Strid, but it would be better than risking running into the Half-Blind Barber’s men.    I’d heard about Thomas’s proclivities from my friends in the Rose Garden, and I knew that he would relish the chance to carve me up like a roasted pheasant. 

I like starting stories this way because 1) it's way more fun to write for me than to spend hours trying to come up with an engaging, yet exposition-y opening and b) I get to lead with character instead of trying to find some way to shoehorn them into the lore.

The thing that's really awesome about your reader? They usually read a lot and can fill in a lot of the blanks. I found when I was first writing I always panicked about the reader seeing my story EXACTLY how I saw it in my mind. But at the end of the day, that's not actually that important and over-explaining anything can actually ruin reader immersion.

I try to never write two thousand words of description where a well-placed metaphor or comparison will do. Let your reader's mind do the heavy lifting.

Could I describe a castle in thousands of words talking about the period of architecture and the way that the buttresses look? Yes. I can. You know what's faster and more entertaining to read?

"The castle has the austere elegance of a sacred temple, and was nearly as quiet as you would expect one to be, too."

You have an image in your mind, reading that, right? See, in my head, I see a mormon temple; not because I am mormon, but because I have been to a mormon temple and I find their structures beautiful but also incredibly, deeply haunting.

Someone else may think of the time they visited the Sistine Chapel. Or of the Wayfarer Chapel in Palos Verdes, because they had an aunt who got married there. Yet another person may thing of their local jewish temple. Another person may think of Wyrm's Crossing in Baldur's Gate. At the end of the day, it doesn't truly matter what they see in their heads or understand is going on based on the text--what matters is that they can glean what this place looks, sounds, and maybe even smells like because they have linked it to a place that they have ALREADY experienced IN REAL LIFE)

All of those tangents to say--I don't worry about backstory until I need it. I like to try to make the reader feel like they're getting to know the characters at the same time they're getting to know each other.

Sorry for this very long winded answer--thank you for asking me about writing! I LOVE talking about it (as you can tell rip)

[genericpuff]

Hey when im writing a story how to talk about the lore without exposition dumping and why is exposition dumping a bad thing?

Ouu, fun writing question!

There's no easy single answer to just "avoid" exposition. In some cases, exposition dumping isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be used improperly, like any other writing device. Really, your goal isn't necessarily to outright avoid exposition, but to find a way to naturally implement it into the story without grinding the pacing to a halt or creating confusion for your reader.

To name a few methods to implement exposition naturally:

You can have a main character act as the "surrogate" for the audience. Good examples of this are Harry Potter or Final Fantasy X - both of which are plots that involve the main character entering a world that is not their own and having to learn about that world through their own experiences. Now, you do have to be careful with this as, in the case of Harry Potter, using a character PURELY as a surrogate for the audience like that can result in the character themselves having little personality. Harry Potter himself is one such example, in the beginning we find out so much about the wizarding world through him that we never really get to know him. That's why I include FFX as another example - Tidus is a character who has his own personality, his own motives, his own quirks, while being a stranger in Spira who doesn't know how their world works, but they use that to the advantage of his character writing by making him this sorta doofy dumbass who doesn't take things quite as seriously as the people of Spira do (such as the religion of Yevon) but as such, is able to identify all the problems Spira is suffering from specifically BECAUSE he's an outsider looking in and hasn't been brainwashed like everyone else who grew up in that world.

If you don't have a main character who's new to the world, then you have to find ways to naturally implement exposition. Thing is, if your character and the people around them are familiar with the world they inhabit, why would they describe their world at length to one another? This is where a lot of poorly handled exposition dumping happens especially from writers just starting out. They'll have their characters explain things to each other that they really shouldn't have to have explained to them, and as such it can make it feel really clunky and wordy (and makes the dialogue feel unnatural). You can use shortcuts around this, such as taglines like "Did you forget? Xyz..." or "How can you still be confused, it's xyz..." but those are still tricks that can be overused or feel ham-fisted if not used properly, it really only works if the character who it's being explained to is "out of touch" or if there's reason for them to not be privy to the information being explained to them.

As much as your readers will need things explained to them, don't treat your readers like they're stupid - half the fun of experiencing a story is the discovery process. Not everything needs to be spelled out to your readers, some things can just exist and not have to be explained. The only time explanations should be made is if it's absolutely necessary to your plot, otherwise, having something just be in the background or mentioned casually is more than good enough. To go back to the FF X example, Tidus doesn't need blitzball to be explained to him, it's the one familiarity he has in Spira. Therefore, there's zero reason to have Wakka explain blitzball to Tidus as a way to explain it to the audience. Instead, we get an opening cutscene that shows us enough of what blitzball is for us to understand that it's a sport, and later on we get dialogue from Tidus explaining how he's living in his father's shadow and how his dad had this crazy move that he would never teach him and that back in Zanarkand, Tidus was the "star player". We, the audience, can infer enough from what we've been shown that blitzball is a sport in this world, we do not need it to be explained deeper than that, not until we learn the rules of how to play blitzball through the minigame itself, and still those rules aren't that important in the grand scheme of the plot, it's just a strong part of Tidus' characterization and the one thing tying him to the world of Spira when he washes onto its shores. Blitzball is the first thing we see him do in the game and it's the first thing that introduces him to the world of Spira.

To go on a bit of a tangent, I feel like this is where a lot of fantasy writers in particular tend to struggle. While romances will focus more on the characters and thus not be victim to exposition dumping quite as often (though they can be victim to some... very outdated or otherwise toxic tropes) more detail-oriented genres like fantasy and sci-fi can really tend to get lost in the trees. I've beta-read so many fantasy books that have opened with pages upon pages of world information, from languages the creator invented to the different calendars of the different regions to the races and species and yadda yadda it's literally the worst thing you can open your fantasy novel first because it's quite literally putting the cart before the horse. They get so washed up in the details because they forget their audience is there to read a story, not do homework on fictional dialects and food preparation methods. I feel like this is especially a problem for writers who read books like Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire and see all the supplemental material, but seem to miss the point that the supplemental material came later, Tolkien didn't start by writing The Silmarillion, he started with The Hobbit which was a simple story of friendship and comradery meant for children. Only later as his audience grew more connected to the characters and the world they inhabited was he able to release the supplemental stuff because the people those details were meant for were already invested in the story. You have to get people invested first, then give them the details, and that starts with a simple idea.

Anyways, all that aside, the best way to see good exposition is to just go read books, watch movies, expose yourself to stories that handle exposition in their own way. Again, it's not a bad thing to have to dump information on people, but you gotta find a way to do it that won't overwhelm your reader or bore them before they've even gotten hooked. Start small and branch out from there. Write the details as they pertain to the characters who would be privy to them. Don't underestimate the intuitiveness of your readers, reading and writing is equal parts communication and discovery.