#this hellsite is where nuance goes to die so y'all better not f me over with this one

[fieldsofview]

The Orphan Story - Baby Steps into Storytelling

I had a realization today because three of my interests (Spider-Man, D&D, and Writing/Storytelling) got their wires crossed - bear with me because this is probably going to be a long-winded post.

Something that's really prevalent in the Spider-Man fandom is the trope of "Dead May Parker" in fic. Usually, it starts with Peter's aunt and primary guardian, May Parker, being killed off-screen to set up the fic, often with just a small blurb about it like it wouldn't completely shatter Peter's world, but ya know.

It can be done in any number of ways (car crashes, cancer, and being caught in a supervillain's crossfire are all pretty typical for this).

There are a myriad of common storylines that build from this choice. IronDad, Homeless!Peter, and Foster!Peter are all really prevalent. Sometimes it's so that characters that people ship with Peter will be pushed together out of a need for Peter to live someplace new and/or needing someone to lean on. (I could go on, but you get the idea).

I could spend a lot of time talking about each of these storylines and the ways they can be done well or poorly, and the greater implications for the fandom as a whole, but that's not what this post is about so I will leave that here.

Peter Parker as a character, despite his many iterations among the various Spider-Man comics and adaptations, has always been a character with tragedy engrained in his story (Richard & Mary Parker, Ben Parker, Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn, the clones, his marriage, etc., etc., etc.). It's not necessarily out of the norm for more tragedy to occur, and having his only living family and primary guardian for most of his life die would definitely be on par with the rest of his life.

However, I don't think that the instances of the "Dead May Parker" trope in fic are because of this. At least, not when you dig.

I think people do it because it's easy.

I'm not saying that writing grief is easy, but that's part of the problem. Most of the stories using this trope don't bother to show the grief. Her death is just a device used to further other relationships.

Generally speaking, it's easier to write stories with fewer characters. Balancing a large cast with varying points of view, backstories, voices, motivations, etc., is always going to be more complicated. For a writer who's starting out, or perhaps someone who just doesn't want to make things harder on themselves for their hobby-writing, it's easier to do what you can to shrink the relevant cast. And for something like Spider-Man, there are more side characters relevant to his life than I think any person could possibly count - especially when you look across all the versions/adaptations that exist.

(That's part of why I love this fandom, despite its flaws. There are SO MANY stories to be told and so much room to pick apart what's there and transform it into something new. Fandom is transformative in nature, after all, and comics like Spider-Man are a buffet to choose from.)

I also think that it's easier to put a character like Peter Parker (especially if you're writing him as a high schooler as so many adaptations seem to permanently keep him as) into convoluted situations if he doesn't have a primary guardian to keep an eye on him. Especially one who's loving and caring and is actively parenting him. (I would argue that this is the perfect time to write him as an adult with his own autonomy and whatnot, but you know, that's not what the movie makers seem to want so... I digress.)

And lastly, I think someone being young and completely orphaned with no caretaker to look after them is also a sort of trauma that is easy to understand. I'm not saying it's a trauma that's easy to live with, but as an outsider looking in, it's easy to say "Oh, well yeah, of course, that person is struggling. Look at the hand they've been dealt."

A character - just like people - with more complex reasons for 'Why They Are The Way They Are" TM, can be harder to empathize with, especially if those reasons are not something the reader is familiar with. And it's most certainly harder to write, with all the layers, intricacies, imperfections, and generally weird ways that the human experience works. (In the same vein, it's why people with certain traumas, triggers, mental health issues, etc., are often dismissed or harassed, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to dive into atm.)

"But FOV," you might be wondering, "How does all of this relate to Dungeons & Dragons?"

Well, y'all ever heard of the Orphaned Rogue Trope?

In the greater online D&D community, there are a lot of common tropes and character builds that people are familiar with. They're common enough that you get a lot of memes shared around about them and a lot of people building characters that both lean into the tropes and/or subvert them. (The horny bard, the dumb barbarian, the warlock with daddy issues, etc.)

One of these is the 'Orphaned Rogue'.

(Please keep in mind that I'm referencing 5e specifically. I've played many editions - don't quote the old magic to me, Witch - but 5e is the most common edition to ever be played and has brought a massive influx of people to this game in the last decade, so that's what I'm talking about here.)

A lot of people start out with a Rogue as their first character, I would argue disproportionally so. There are a few reasons for this. 1) Rogues typically (I'm not going to argue over subclasses here, don't come for me) don't have any magic, and magic-using characters are typically more complicated to learn to play than non-mages. 2) For players who aren't as familiar with high fantasy, a thieving, backstabbing character is usually still one that people can recognize. (Similarly, I think this is part of why a lot of people also start by playing Rangers). 3) Especially at low levels, Rogues don't have a whole lot of character abilities. They're really really good at the few things they do, but that's about it, so it's extra easy to step into as a beginner.

So where does the orphan part come in? Well, a lot of beginners to D&D are also beginners to storytelling in general (with exceptions, you'll always have the people who side-stepped over from LARPing, theatre, writing, etc.). This means that they're new to the idea of creating a character that has no reliance on their own personal history. Their character can be literally anyone, and they will be able to interact with the story in whatever way they want to.

Creating a character is one of the most overwhelming things for a new D&D player. It's a boundary to entry that I've seen turns a lot of people away from the game. It's work that has to be done before you even get to roll your first die. It requires math, decision-making, and creativity in a way that not everyone is prepared for right off the bat.

(Yes, I know I might seem to be exaggerating here, but please remember that we live on the hellsite for creatives. This is not the norm for a lot of people. I once invited a co-worker into a game who was an avid non-fiction reader and had never done any theatre, not even drama class. She had genuinely never put herself into a fictional character's shoes since she was last playing Let's Pretend as a small child at recess. It was a hard learning curve for her, but she grew to love the game a lot and now is an avid LARPer as well.)

Your character has to have somewhere that they came from. They are a person, through and through, and should therefore have lived experiences that shape their point of view, their actions, and the way that they interact with other people.

It's not easy to think of an entire history for a person all at once, all while you're just trying to wrap your head around the math and learn the rules required to play this damn game that your friends have been bugging you about for who knows how long.

And so - orphan. No existing family means no extra characters to have to build personalities for or shared experiences between your PC and them that you have to write.

It's easier. It's removing a barrier to entry to the game.

(This is probably also why amnesiac characters are also really common first-time PCs, now that I think about it.)

So what's my point in all of this?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure.

I think it's really easy for anyone who has been a storyteller of any kind for a while to see the annoying, problematic, or sometimes downright concerning ways these tropes manifest. There are connotations for the stories that use these 'easy' orphan tropes, and these can and should be talked about. As I said above, I could talk about the "Dead May Parker" trope and the problematic themes that regularly exist in these stories until I'm blue in the face.

But, at the same time, I think we should also take these things with a grain of salt. New storytellers of any kind are going to make mistakes. They're going to write imperfect things. Humans never pop into existence with a fully formed skill. These things need to be learned through practice and exposure, and these choices most often aren't made with malicious intent.

Long ago, when I was a wayward young teenager, my first major foray into fanfiction was through an A:TLA fic that I put on ff.net. (No, I will not link it here. No, it was not under any USN I use anymore. Don't ask.) But, looking back, even though I was so immensely proud of that story, it also had a lot of things in it that I wouldn't write today. Things that my gut reaction would be to judge and raise an eyebrow at, if I read them now. But I also learned a lot while writing it, and there was a lot of heart in that story, too. I was just writing from a naivete that made me think I had the know-how to tackle themes that I was too young to fully understand.

In many ways, I am still proud of that fic, not because of the story itself, but because of the effort I put into it and the things it taught me about storytelling and writing as a learned craft.

I think my point is this: everyone has to start somewhere.

Sometimes people need to start off with those easier stories so that they can learn enough and build enough confidence to tackle the bigger ones.

So, do I think we shouldn't critique something when it does have harmful implications? No, we absolutely should. Critique and open discussion are how individuals and communities learn to grow. (No, I am not advocating for you to leave criticism on random people's fics. I mean critique of tropes in general. It's never cool to leave negative comments on people's fic.) Open discussion is good and healthy, and it's part of what makes fan spaces and communities flourish and bond.

But I do think that those critiques can be done from a perspective of learning. I often see people so far split down the middle that it alienates people from each other.

In fan spaces where the content shared is inherently made as an act of love, freely given and freely received, it's easy for people to say that no criticism is ever acceptable. "It's free content, just enjoy it and move on!" & "You're taking it too seriously!" are often phrases I've seen spouted about both these communities. And they are true things to an extent. It is fictional and freely made content. There is a point where it can be taken too seriously. The other side will often say things like, "Enjoying ___ media makes you a ___ supporter!" & "Anyone who writes ___ is a terrible person!" I would argue that these also have some truth to them, but they are also taken too far.

(If you like a fictional trope that has problematic or harmful indications, it's a good idea to unpack why you like that trope. What draws you to it? What enjoyment do you get out of it? A lot of times, the answers to this are not actually harmful, but they can be, and it's always good to self-reflect.)

Fictional stories are a way for us to feel aspects of the human experience that we cannot experience for ourselves. It's also a way for us to find catharsis when a character does experience something similar to our own lives. It's a way to broaden our views and feel our way through the wide range of human emotions. It is not meant to reflect life perfectly, and yet it is often done best when there are still echoes of reality embedded in its soul. (I digress, again.)

Communities - even online ones - thrive when the people in them are doing their best to be open to each other's perspectives.

Nuance is never easy in online spaces. When the person on the other side of a post is an anonymous little picture with no connection to your life, it's easy to take one small piece and blow it up to be your whole picture. They become that one post, that one hot take, or that one fic in your mind. But that's not people.

People are always learning, growing, maturing. Every skill takes time. Everyone has to start at their first step - even if it's the orphan story.

So keep talking about those tropes. Keep discussing the harmful trends that crop up across fandoms. Keep breaking down the root of the problem and sharing ways to build better ones.

But if you see someone in their 'orphan story' phase, understand that they are new and learning. They might need a push in the right direction or a friend to guide them for the better.

[fieldsofview]

Reblogging because I am still thinking about this

The Orphan Story - Baby Steps into Storytelling

I had a realization today because three of my interests (Spider-Man, D&D, and Writing/Storytelling) got their wires crossed - bear with me because this is probably going to be a long-winded post.

Something that's really prevalent in the Spider-Man fandom is the trope of "Dead May Parker" in fic. Usually, it starts with Peter's aunt and primary guardian, May Parker, being killed off-screen to set up the fic, often with just a small blurb about it like it wouldn't completely shatter Peter's world, but ya know.

It can be done in any number of ways (car crashes, cancer, and being caught in a supervillain's crossfire are all pretty typical for this).

There are a myriad of common storylines that build from this choice. IronDad, Homeless!Peter, and Foster!Peter are all really prevalent. Sometimes it's so that characters that people ship with Peter will be pushed together out of a need for Peter to live someplace new and/or needing someone to lean on. (I could go on, but you get the idea).

I could spend a lot of time talking about each of these storylines and the ways they can be done well or poorly, and the greater implications for the fandom as a whole, but that's not what this post is about so I will leave that here.

Peter Parker as a character, despite his many iterations among the various Spider-Man comics and adaptations, has always been a character with tragedy engrained in his story (Richard & Mary Parker, Ben Parker, Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn, the clones, his marriage, etc., etc., etc.). It's not necessarily out of the norm for more tragedy to occur, and having his only living family and primary guardian for most of his life die would definitely be on par with the rest of his life.

However, I don't think that the instances of the "Dead May Parker" trope in fic are because of this. At least, not when you dig.

I think people do it because it's easy.

I'm not saying that writing grief is easy, but that's part of the problem. Most of the stories using this trope don't bother to show the grief. Her death is just a device used to further other relationships.

Generally speaking, it's easier to write stories with fewer characters. Balancing a large cast with varying points of view, backstories, voices, motivations, etc., is always going to be more complicated. For a writer who's starting out, or perhaps someone who just doesn't want to make things harder on themselves for their hobby-writing, it's easier to do what you can to shrink the relevant cast. And for something like Spider-Man, there are more side characters relevant to his life than I think any person could possibly count - especially when you look across all the versions/adaptations that exist.

(That's part of why I love this fandom, despite its flaws. There are SO MANY stories to be told and so much room to pick apart what's there and transform it into something new. Fandom is transformative in nature, after all, and comics like Spider-Man are a buffet to choose from.)

I also think that it's easier to put a character like Peter Parker (especially if you're writing him as a high schooler as so many adaptations seem to permanently keep him as) into convoluted situations if he doesn't have a primary guardian to keep an eye on him. Especially one who's loving and caring and is actively parenting him. (I would argue that this is the perfect time to write him as an adult with his own autonomy and whatnot, but you know, that's not what the movie makers seem to want so... I digress.)

And lastly, I think someone being young and completely orphaned with no caretaker to look after them is also a sort of trauma that is easy to understand. I'm not saying it's a trauma that's easy to live with, but as an outsider looking in, it's easy to say "Oh, well yeah, of course, that person is struggling. Look at the hand they've been dealt."

A character - just like people - with more complex reasons for 'Why They Are The Way They Are" TM, can be harder to empathize with, especially if those reasons are not something the reader is familiar with. And it's most certainly harder to write, with all the layers, intricacies, imperfections, and generally weird ways that the human experience works. (In the same vein, it's why people with certain traumas, triggers, mental health issues, etc., are often dismissed or harassed, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to dive into atm.)

"But FOV," you might be wondering, "How does all of this relate to Dungeons & Dragons?"

Well, y'all ever heard of the Orphaned Rogue Trope?

In the greater online D&D community, there are a lot of common tropes and character builds that people are familiar with. They're common enough that you get a lot of memes shared around about them and a lot of people building characters that both lean into the tropes and/or subvert them. (The horny bard, the dumb barbarian, the warlock with daddy issues, etc.)

One of these is the 'Orphaned Rogue'.

(Please keep in mind that I'm referencing 5e specifically. I've played many editions - don't quote the old magic to me, Witch - but 5e is the most common edition to ever be played and has brought a massive influx of people to this game in the last decade, so that's what I'm talking about here.)

A lot of people start out with a Rogue as their first character, I would argue disproportionally so. There are a few reasons for this. 1) Rogues typically (I'm not going to argue over subclasses here, don't come for me) don't have any magic, and magic-using characters are typically more complicated to learn to play than non-mages. 2) For players who aren't as familiar with high fantasy, a thieving, backstabbing character is usually still one that people can recognize. (Similarly, I think this is part of why a lot of people also start by playing Rangers). 3) Especially at low levels, Rogues don't have a whole lot of character abilities. They're really really good at the few things they do, but that's about it, so it's extra easy to step into as a beginner.

So where does the orphan part come in? Well, a lot of beginners to D&D are also beginners to storytelling in general (with exceptions, you'll always have the people who side-stepped over from LARPing, theatre, writing, etc.). This means that they're new to the idea of creating a character that has no reliance on their own personal history. Their character can be literally anyone, and they will be able to interact with the story in whatever way they want to.

Creating a character is one of the most overwhelming things for a new D&D player. It's a boundary to entry that I've seen turns a lot of people away from the game. It's work that has to be done before you even get to roll your first die. It requires math, decision-making, and creativity in a way that not everyone is prepared for right off the bat.

(Yes, I know I might seem to be exaggerating here, but please remember that we live on the hellsite for creatives. This is not the norm for a lot of people. I once invited a co-worker into a game who was an avid non-fiction reader and had never done any theatre, not even drama class. She had genuinely never put herself into a fictional character's shoes since she was last playing Let's Pretend as a small child at recess. It was a hard learning curve for her, but she grew to love the game a lot and now is an avid LARPer as well.)

Your character has to have somewhere that they came from. They are a person, through and through, and should therefore have lived experiences that shape their point of view, their actions, and the way that they interact with other people.

It's not easy to think of an entire history for a person all at once, all while you're just trying to wrap your head around the math and learn the rules required to play this damn game that your friends have been bugging you about for who knows how long.

And so - orphan. No existing family means no extra characters to have to build personalities for or shared experiences between your PC and them that you have to write.

It's easier. It's removing a barrier to entry to the game.

(This is probably also why amnesiac characters are also really common first-time PCs, now that I think about it.)

So what's my point in all of this?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure.

I think it's really easy for anyone who has been a storyteller of any kind for a while to see the annoying, problematic, or sometimes downright concerning ways these tropes manifest. There are connotations for the stories that use these 'easy' orphan tropes, and these can and should be talked about. As I said above, I could talk about the "Dead May Parker" trope and the problematic themes that regularly exist in these stories until I'm blue in the face.

But, at the same time, I think we should also take these things with a grain of salt. New storytellers of any kind are going to make mistakes. They're going to write imperfect things. Humans never pop into existence with a fully formed skill. These things need to be learned through practice and exposure, and these choices most often aren't made with malicious intent.

Long ago, when I was a wayward young teenager, my first major foray into fanfiction was through an A:TLA fic that I put on ff.net. (No, I will not link it here. No, it was not under any USN I use anymore. Don't ask.) But, looking back, even though I was so immensely proud of that story, it also had a lot of things in it that I wouldn't write today. Things that my gut reaction would be to judge and raise an eyebrow at, if I read them now. But I also learned a lot while writing it, and there was a lot of heart in that story, too. I was just writing from a naivete that made me think I had the know-how to tackle themes that I was too young to fully understand.

In many ways, I am still proud of that fic, not because of the story itself, but because of the effort I put into it and the things it taught me about storytelling and writing as a learned craft.

I think my point is this: everyone has to start somewhere.

Sometimes people need to start off with those easier stories so that they can learn enough and build enough confidence to tackle the bigger ones.

So, do I think we shouldn't critique something when it does have harmful implications? No, we absolutely should. Critique and open discussion are how individuals and communities learn to grow. (No, I am not advocating for you to leave criticism on random people's fics. I mean critique of tropes in general. It's never cool to leave negative comments on people's fic.) Open discussion is good and healthy, and it's part of what makes fan spaces and communities flourish and bond.

But I do think that those critiques can be done from a perspective of learning. I often see people so far split down the middle that it alienates people from each other.

In fan spaces where the content shared is inherently made as an act of love, freely given and freely received, it's easy for people to say that no criticism is ever acceptable. "It's free content, just enjoy it and move on!" & "You're taking it too seriously!" are often phrases I've seen spouted about both these communities. And they are true things to an extent. It is fictional and freely made content. There is a point where it can be taken too seriously. The other side will often say things like, "Enjoying ___ media makes you a ___ supporter!" & "Anyone who writes ___ is a terrible person!" I would argue that these also have some truth to them, but they are also taken too far.

(If you like a fictional trope that has problematic or harmful indications, it's a good idea to unpack why you like that trope. What draws you to it? What enjoyment do you get out of it? A lot of times, the answers to this are not actually harmful, but they can be, and it's always good to self-reflect.)

Fictional stories are a way for us to feel aspects of the human experience that we cannot experience for ourselves. It's also a way for us to find catharsis when a character does experience something similar to our own lives. It's a way to broaden our views and feel our way through the wide range of human emotions. It is not meant to reflect life perfectly, and yet it is often done best when there are still echoes of reality embedded in its soul. (I digress, again.)

Communities - even online ones - thrive when the people in them are doing their best to be open to each other's perspectives.

Nuance is never easy in online spaces. When the person on the other side of a post is an anonymous little picture with no connection to your life, it's easy to take one small piece and blow it up to be your whole picture. They become that one post, that one hot take, or that one fic in your mind. But that's not people.

People are always learning, growing, maturing. Every skill takes time. Everyone has to start at their first step - even if it's the orphan story.

So keep talking about those tropes. Keep discussing the harmful trends that crop up across fandoms. Keep breaking down the root of the problem and sharing ways to build better ones.

But if you see someone in their 'orphan story' phase, understand that they are new and learning. They might need a push in the right direction or a friend to guide them for the better.