#to spend more time examining their characters' motivations

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Plot Holes & Other Structural Issues

Create chapter maps to find the main issues within your manuscript.

This method is faster than reading through your entire manuscript without knowing what you’re looking for.

Examine your chapter maps for the following…

Plot Issues

Would these events really happen?

Does the inciting incident happen early enough to grab the reader?

Are there errors in the chronology of events?

Are you able to trace the plot arcs throughout the whole manuscript? For example, is there a storyline that just drops off mid-way through?

Can you follow all your subplots to the end?

Are the events well-linked? Are there any holes in the plot that need to be filled?

How is the manuscript structured? Chapters, parts, various different sections? Is it working in this format?

Can something be done to strengthen how it’s presented to the reader?

Is there enough conflict?

Have you made the stakes high enough?

Why are these events happening?

Have you adequately described what set them in motion?

Does each individual event progress the story?

Is the plot complicated enough to sustain the story until the last page?

Is the plot too complex?

Character Issues

Whose story is this? Who is telling it? Is it engaging enough?

Do you believe the characters’ motivations? Are these clear enough?

Are the support/minor characters sufficiently developed? Is there a character you’d like to see become more prominent? Is there room for a new subplot or point of view? How would this affect the current structure of your novel?

Is the development of your characters limited by the point of view you have chosen for your novel? For example, if you’ve used a child’s point of view but need to explain something complicated, how can you resolve this?

What are the reasons behind your protagonist’s decisions? Do these link back to their original motivations?

Do the characters talk in a believable way? Does this reflect their background?

Is the reader given enough reason early on to care about your characters and what happens to them later?

Do your characters change and develop in conjunction with their experiences?

Does the reader see your protagonist at their best and their worst?

Have you made your characters as in-depth as possible? Where could you add in more backstory?

Do the backstories of your characters affect the plot? How? Make sure this is worked in throughout the novel.

Do the relationships in the narrative progress realistically?

What else can you do to make things difficult for your protagonist?

Does the reader experience a range of authentic emotions due to the characters and their interactions?

Would the character really react in this way to an event?

Is each character the appropriate choice for the role they play in the narrative?

Do you have both likeable and unlikable characters?

Is your protagonist active enough?

Are the traits of your characters distinctive and consistent throughout the novel?

Are the descriptions of the characters consistent throughout? For example, you don’t want a character’s hair to be red in Chapter 1, but blonde in Chapter 11 without any reason.

Setting Issues

Is there a strong sense of place? Are there elements of history and culture? How can these factors be developed further?

Does the setting suit the events that are occurring?

Does the setting create a sense of intrigue? Enough that the reader wants to spend time here?

Are the settings described using multiple senses?

Do you favour one sense in particular? Make sure you even this out.

Are the settings logical in terms of their relation to one another?

Are the details of the setting such as climate and conditions realistic? Does more research need to be done?

Does the setting require fact-checking?

Would a different setting be more effective?

Are the settings consistent throughout the novel? Such as the number of rooms in a house, or the position of a window?

Pacing Issues

Consistency of pacing: do the subplots, climaxes, and tension work in the current order?

Is the speed at which events unfold suitable to your genre and target reader?

Are the major events in the novel given the weight they need and deserve?

Is there enough description in the manuscript that the reader feels grounded within your world?

Is there so much description that the story lags?

What are the turning points of the narrative?

How can the tension be built further in these sections?

Examine the beginning and end of the manuscript by themselves: are they gripping enough? Do they convey enough information without giving everything away? Are they effective in terms of the author’s intentions?

Are there too many action scenes in a row?

Are there passages bogged down by too much detail?

Other Issues

Is the story accessible to the reader? Can the reader relate?

Does each chapter start and end with a hook?

Are the tone, content and language appropriate for the target reader?

Is the point of view maintained throughout the various scenes? Is it consistent?

Is there one element of the story that overwhelms the rest? Try to even things out.

Are character thoughts, actions, and dialogue balanced out with setting and description?

Source ⚜ Writing Notes & References More: On Editing

[novlr]

How can I make my editing process quicker and less stressful? I feel like I’m spending way too much time on it and not really getting anywhere, so I’d love some tips on how to keep it simple and actually productive.

I think that most writers have a love/hate relationship with editing. It feels so good to see your manuscript go from a rough draft to something really polished, but at the same time, the editing process itself is painstaking and laborious.

The editing phase can feel like wandering through a maze without a map. Every writer has been there, staring at their manuscript, overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work ahead. But editing doesn’t have to be a source of stress. With the right approach, you can make your editing process both efficient and effective.

Break it down

While some writers thrive taking a do-it-all-at-once approach, this isn’t one that works for everyone. If you feel overwhelmed, you can try to divide your editing into distinct passes, each focusing on a specific aspect:

Story Structure – Focus on plot, pacing, and narrative flow.

Character Development – Examine character arcs and relationships.

Scene Level – Look at individual scene construction and transitions.

Language – Analyse word choice, clarity, and style.

Technical – Look at grammar, punctuation, and formatting.

By tackling one element at a time, you’ll catch more issues and avoid feeling overwhelmed. And you also don’t need to do them back-to-back.

When I do my first editing pass, I look at only story structure and character development. After draft 2, I look at a scene level analysis, with some attention paid to language. If I need to, I’ll repeat this for as many revisions as I need, leaving a deep-dive on language and the more technical proofreading aspects until my final draft.

Create a system

No two writers write alike. Your process will be as unique to you as the writing you produce, so never take someone else’s routine as gospel or as the only “right” way to approach it.

What you will need to do is experiment. Try different things. See what works for you, and what doesn’t. Things you can try might be:

Set clear goals

Before each editing session, define what you want to accomplish. For example:

“Review chapters 1-3 for pacing issues.”

“Check all dialogue in Act 2.”

“Analyse character motivations in transition scenes.”

Having specific targets can help give you focus and give a sense of progress, as it’s a task that you can tick off.

Track your progress

Monitoring your progress lets you actively see what you’re accomplishing. It can be a huge motivator when you can see your manuscript start to take shape.

Keep a spreadsheet of completed editing tasks.

Use a notebook to log issues that need addressing.

Create checklists for common problems you want to catch.

Track time spent on different editing tasks to identify where you might be getting stuck.

Organise visually

If you’re a visual learner, then being able to see your editing process taking shape can be a game changer. You could try to:

Highlight plot threads in different colours.

Mark scene transitions with clear breaks.

Flag areas that need deeper revision.

Use comments or sticky notes for bigger structural issues.

Create a colour code for different types of edits (dialogue, description, pacing, etc.).

Incorporate these colours into your tracking if you decide to use it.

Set a sustainable schedule

Editing can be just as time-consuming as writing (in some cases, it might be even more time consuming), so it’s important to make sure you don’t overwhelm yourself. Don’t expect your editing to be done in a week. To keep a routine that’s realistic and sustainable, you can try to:

Block out specific times for editing.

Set deadlines for completing different passes.

Build in buffer time for unexpected issues.

Schedule regular breaks to give yourself a fresh perspective.

Plan rewards for hitting milestones.

For me, the rewards are the biggest part of the process. I need that little serotonin bump when I finish something and give myself a treat. That can be anything from taking a break, to buying myself something. You can even involve a housemate or family member in the reward!

Keep reference materials handy

If you’re the kind of person who likes to remind yourself of the task at hand, then it can be uesful to keep reference materials or a style guide handy. This could include:

Your story bible or outline.

Character profiles.

Setting descriptions.

Style guide preferences.

A common error checklist.

Notes from previous drafts to make sure you don’t repeat mistakes.

You don’t need to have all references handy at all times. You can pick and choose what works for you, and what is important for that editing pass.

Know when to step back

Fresh eyes make better edits. If you’re tired or overwhelmed, there is absolutely no shame in stepping away. You’ll be much more productive if you approach editing when you’re not exhausted, because it’s very easy to miss things and get distracted if you’re not in the right headspace.

Make sure you take regular breaks between editing passes to maintain your perspective. And don’t be afraid to take a week or two away from your manuscript can help you return with renewed clarity. Read something else. Watch television. Just make sure you do something other than constantly working on your manuscript.

Get outside input

If you’ve done a few self-editing passes and feel you need to start polishing, you might want to look for outside help. This can take many forms. Some are free, while others will cost nothing more than your time. You’ll need to decide what is best for you. You can:

Share your almost-finished product with beta readers (I recommend you read this guide to get the most out of your beta readers, as they can be such a valuable resource).

Consider hiring a professional editor once you’ve done all you can.

Join a critique group for regular feedback during the drafting and editing process.

Find a writing partner for accountability and reciprocal labour.

Trust your instincts

Try different editing processes to see what works for you. Don’t try to force something that isn’t, and be willing to change tack if you need to. If something feels right, stick with it. If it doesn’t, let it go.

But no matter what editing process you choose to pursue, don’t aim for perfection in your first pass. Instead, focus on steady improvement through multiple editing rounds. With practice, you’ll develop a rhythm that makes editing feel less like a chore and more like a natural part of your writing journey.

[suguru-getos]

Honkai Star Rail men when you don’t say ‘I love you’ back | Genre: Fluff ♥️

Characters included: Dan Heng, Sampo Koski, Jing Yuan, Blade

Dan Heng:

“I love you” the soft coo that came out of Dan Heng’s voice when you made him his favorite meal, especially when he was sick was remarkably cute. You smiled back, urging him to take another bite when you noticed a bland, poker faced expression, something Trailblazer and March 7 were already used to, plastered all over his face.

You chuckled, rolling your eyes and wanting to tease him a bit more; clearing your throat— “What is it? Did you not like the taste of the soup I made?”

Dan Heng could swear he knew what you were upto, pushing his buttons so easily. He both, hated and loved how much control you had over him. Raising a brow, squinting as if you’d just eaten the last slice of his favorite pizza, he cleared his throat again. “I, love, you.”

As if he’s waiting for his examination results, Dan Heng looked at you, eagerly waiting for a response from your parted lips.

…Silence

“I swear if you don’t—”

“Aww, I love you too Dan Heng,” you cooed, kissing his forehead giving up as soon as his pouting became prominent. A victorious huff escaped him as he begrudgingly sipped another spoon of the soup.

Sampo Koski:

“Come on, baby—” Sampo was following you throughout the house like a lost pup. He had only one ask of you tonight, to forgive him for bailing out of the date you planned at the very last minute.

“You know I’d never— purposely do that! Things got— eh, things just got weird and hard to handle, try to understand. Sampo Koski always stays by his friends’ side, then you? You are my significant other!” You scoffed, trying to hide a smile that came at you dauntingly after hearing him confess his love to you.

“Baby, I love you.” He mumbled, almost whining it like a child as he snakes his arms behind you, hugging you against his large frame.

You didn’t respond, even though you had no issues saying it back. You just liked how he was all over the place to make things normal. You really loved that about Sampo. “Please please pleaseeeeee! Say it back.” Sampo begged, kissing your cheek and chanting phrases about how it’ll never happen again.

“Sheesh, I love you too Sampo.” You finally gave up with a chuckle.

“I love you, I love you~ that’s my baby!”

Jing Yuan:

You had been dating the Cloud General for a while now, had it been a fun ride? Certainly not, but his presence does light up your life significantly. It’s safe to say that you both have a ‘pull each other’s leg’ relationship.

“I love you, my divine perfection.” Jing Yuan softly cooed, relishing the time you both got to spend together, in each other’s arms. After being busy for what felt like an eternity.

You hummed in approval, no response other than that. Jing Yuan kissed your shoulder, hands soothingly caressing your arms as he mumbled, “Do you not love me back? Little menace~” you smirked, chuckling at his response, he did want you to say it back. He wanted that— adorably bad.

“Mhm~ I do.” You played along a little bit more, biting your lip and bursting into a fit of laughter when he ticked you softly.

“Then say it back!”

“Alright! Alright! I love you too—” you managed to form barely a sentence, finally letting him hear those words and bask in them

Blade:

You and Blade had decided to spar together today, him being reckless and dangerous as always, only when it’s you— he’s careful. Pinning you against the wall, he leaned in, relishing the fact that you both had been at it for hours now, gasping for air. “I love you”

Blade and feelings didn’t go hand in hand, but the very fact that he’s been so open with you? Makes you want to be a tease. “Oh yeah?” You smirked, raising a brow and whispering. “Good for you.”

A hand that caged you against the wall, softly squeezed the sides of your neck. “Say it back little brat.” Blade also, had a smirk and a motive to brat tame you for it if needed.

You looked at him with absolute adoration. Hands snaking to hold his which were resting onto the curve of your neck. “Make me-”

Things were getting heated up, that’s when you heard something Blade wouldn’t say so easily. “Please?”

“Oh fuck- I love you too baby,” You cupped his face and leaned in with a kiss, knowing completely well you’d be destroyed by him later. ;) Not that you’re complaining.

[john-laurens]

is kinloch a good person? if not, why?

The study of historical figures is rarely so black and white. The question "Was this historical figure bad or good?" is not really one I'm interested in answering when I personally study these people - at least not from that exact perspective. I want to understand the influences and motivations behind their actions and the effects their actions had on the world around them. I want to understand how they perceived themselves and how they were perceived by their contemporaries. There is no perfect historical figure. They are all people who likely have done a combination of "good" and "bad" things. How would we decide what makes a person wholly "good" or "bad"? For many, there really isn't a straightforward answer. Painting historical figures with a broad brush erases the nuances of their lives and makes it harder to fully understand their actions and the world they lived in. The complexity of these people is what makes them so interesting to study. There is also a distinction between interest in a historical figure and approval of a historical figure. You can certainly study, examine, and write about a historical figure without condoning all of their actions. Researching historical figures is about understanding those whole lived before us, and that naturally involves the study of morally complicated people. I do not say any of this to excuse any harmful actions committed by people in the past. I just want to acknowledge that studying historical figures is complex and that the beliefs and actions of the historical figure being studied are not necessarily reflective of the person studying them.

All that being said, if you are interested in learning about Francis Kinloch Jr. because you think his morals will be similar to those of his friend John "free the slaves and burn the houses of the rich people" Laurens, then you will be sorely disappointed. Like Laurens, Kinloch was born into a southern elite family that profited from the slave labor on their plantations. I have a post that explores the wealth of the Kinlochs here. You'll see in that post that the Kinlochs owned, at the very least, hundreds of slaves. I unfortunately haven't been able to find many other details about the slaves owned by the Kinlochs. I assume much of that information would be contained in the papers of Francis Kinloch Sr., but these are either lost or not publicly available. Francis Jr. occasionally acknowledged the issues of slavery in his letters:

"I admire your ideas of slavery_ I heartily agree with you, but at the same time can not flatter myself that our country men will ever adopt such generous principles._" - Francis Kinloch to John Laurens, April 28, 1776 "for my part, I make no sort of doubt but What the fate of America is ere this determined. Should the Kingly government be reestablished, I immediately fly home, nor do I think that one who has near relations whom he tenderly loves, who likes reading, & whose hands can dispense happiness or misery to numbers, who, though of a different colour, are still his fellow creatures, can possibly lead an idle, or a disagreeable life." - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, November 13, 1777

Both of the above writings are fairly empty platitudes, and to my knowledge, Kinloch never openly opposed the institution of slavery or took action to free his slaves. While he was forced to sell his estate late in life due to financial troubles, he did sell the property to his niece's husband, so the property (and, presumably, any slaves) stayed within the family. Kinloch's involvement in slavery is certainly one of the most reprehensible aspects of his character.

Kinloch was also far from progressive in his views of women. He objectified women and often saw them as little more than vessels for his sexual pleasure. His writings from his time in Europe are filled with descriptions of the relative beauty (or ugliness) of the local women. Kinloch's spending on sex workers is outlined in the wealth post linked above. One thing that is particularly striking to me is his multiple references to sexual encounters with beggars:

"Pour les Mendiantes (translation: for the female beggars), I have been rather unchaste since my arrival, I am however very prudent, & can I think ensure Noses to my posterity_" - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, May 30, 1777 "Whilst I lived With You, & my Mind Was perpetually taken up, I was satisfied With the fortuitous enjoyment of a Savoyard girl, or a not-ugly beggar Woman_ But far different has been the case here_" - Francis Kinloch Johannes von Müller, February 2, 1778

It should be noted that Kinloch used the word "prostitute" elsewhere in his letters, so he seemed to make a distinction between beggars and actual sex workers. My concern is that Kinloch may have coerced beggar women into having sex with him in exchange for money, which is a situation of dubious consent.

Outside of these more obvious issues, there are areas where Kinloch's morality and decision making were more gray. For example, Kinloch was a staunch loyalist at the outset of the revolution, but he ultimately took up arms on the American side. He wasn't driven to change sides by any desire to protect his countrymen or to stand up against a perceived tyrant. He was largely motivated by a desire to protect his estate from being taxed or confiscated. Would you say this is "bad"? Perhaps selfish? Or would you call it prudent or pragmatic? This is where my interest in Kinloch starts to form. I see him as an interesting foil to Laurens. The glory-seeking abolitionist and patriot versus the loyalist, the reluctant soldier, the complacent slave owner. Kinloch's letters tell us about what it was like to be a young (rich, white) man during this revolutionary period. He was conflicted between the different influences in his life. His patriot mother called him home and urged him to defend his country, but he was hesitant to act against his loyalist guardian, who had become a second father to him. He longed to serve as a diplomat for England, but his hopes were dashed as the war dragged on and Lord North failed to find a position for him. He settled for the study of law, but he despised it and dreamed of a life that was never to be. I'm also interested in Kinloch's contributions to queer history through his incredibly prolific, affectionate, and heartfelt letters to Johannes von Müller.

Kinloch was not a man of outstanding moral character, but his life and writings can tell us so much about different parts of history, including the American Revolutionary War, slavery and the southern plantation economy, the Grand Tour tradition, queer history, and more. I aim to acknowledge both the "good" and the "bad" to give a more complete picture of who he was and the time he lived in.

[tumblingxelian]

Chloe & Heroism

Chloe Bourgeois as a hero early on is a premise that often evokes either questions, like "How" and "Why". Or expectations that she is either already on a path to self improvement, or will be forced onto within a short timeframe.

These are not bad questions and the former definitely are necessary to consider for a story. However the expectations I tend to feel a bit murkier and while I have no issue with how some authors handle this topic.

I want to outline why I think you could do a good "Hero Chloe" story before she gets character development, but first, house cleaning!

1: I have not watched and largely ignore everything post season 3, so don't bother bringing up Derision. Remember, season 1 Kim was afraid of spiders.

2: In canon. Chloe only revealed her ID publicly because her abusive mother she is obsessed with pleasing (who killed her the day before) chose a girl other than her to take to New York & then tore her to shreds in front of everyone. 

With all that in mind let's examine where Chloe's values and understanding of the world comes from and how she perceives them! 

1 - Media/Social Media 

This would be a mixed bag, because on one hand they have Mighty Majesta comics that try to instill good values, but also shows built around lying to and humiliating people are evidently popular television and the internet seems similar in regards to pranking VS trying not to be terrible. So she's gonna get mixed signals at best. 

2 - Her family & Circle 

This is where 90% of the problems come from. Of the important adults in her life, her father, mother, Gabriel and Nathalie are all varying shades of corrupt, abusive, cruel and ruthless, while the lesser evils like Jean and Emilie are largely consigned to the role of enablers. 

Worse still, even if we ignore the emotional abuse, neglect and other elements that led to her both having trauma and her trauma response manifesting in aggression. We still have issues like Andre, during the brief periods he bothered to parent, explicitly teaching Chloe that, Stealing, extortion and threats are all appropriate ways to succeed in life.

IE, she isn't compromising her morality when she does these things, she is very much doing what she is taught was right at least consciously. This isn't helped by a 24/7 Audrey impression as Audrey deems being in her vicinity as reason enough to hurt people unless she deems them useful. 

Long story short, the values and people she was brought up around are all explicitly some shade of bad, or enabler, or outright teaching her to harm others. 

3 - Societies & Class 

However, we know from season 2 that Chloe is not entirely unaware that there are issues with this. Because while she spends much time boasting of how she's beloved and brilliant, when stripped of that and exposed to someone she trusts she is entirely willing to confess that she knows everyone hates her and that she feels she has no worth. She may not be able to articulate why or how this came about but she knows something is wrong. 

Despite this, school is not the best place to figure this out, especially for someone who obviously struggles with social cues and the like. The teachers run the gamut from indifferent and unpleasant, to extremely gentle and accommodating, to simply not wanting any form of drama and usually caving to whoever makes the most noise and none of them have the authority to do much outside of class hours. 

The class is not significantly better, because students like Kim and Alix can and do casually throw around snark or do pranks and at worst only get brief bursts of anger while Chloe's garner a more intense response. This is because her relationship with the class and motives are varying shades of different, but for someone with issues reading social cues, it's just going to seem like a confusing double standard. 

We can also see all this demonstrated in her relationship with Adrien, as Chloe clearly takes the lead in their relationship in Origins and outlines her logic behind the pranks, but is then surprised when Adrien seems to turn against her. What's more, it seems Chloe is aware that Adrien is more gentle/naive than her given she tried to educate him on these matters & turns to him for comfort and protection at times, while seeing no inherent contradiction between her expectations for their relationship and how she treats others.

Adrien does not help matters with seeming indifference to how she treats staff. 

Thus, while she knows 'something' is terribly wrong, actually being able to understand it and work through it is another matter. 

4 - Chloe's Conclusion 

So, what is the conclusion Chloe comes to in order to square all of these circles when she isn't just in full denial mode? The answer is quite simple and even demonstrated in the show itself, playing one's role. 

IE, Chloe the mayor and style queen's daughter is different to Chloe the hotel owner's daughter and we see this in her being able to stamp down on her usual instincts and slap on a customer service role when Jagged Stone enters the hotel and guide her father into doing the same. VS how she conducts herself during a class election, IE explicitly threatening and extorting people, to how she conducts herself day by day with her Audrey impersonation. 

A separate example and way she'd view this for others would be that Marinette the baker's daughter of course has to be nice and sweet and giving because that is how customer service roles work, while Marinette the aspiring fashion designer or would be class president is sneakier and will lay traps so people trying to steal from her are sabotaged. This isn't wrong, this is how she expects people to behave when in these circumstances and roles. 

Final Conclusion 

Which is why Chloe could easily play the role of a successful hero, because she would not be "Chloe Bourgeois, mayor's daughter, hotel heiress and Style Queen's daughter" as Queen Bee, she would just be Queen Bee, a superhero.

They have wonderfully defined roles that would be easy for her to pick up & follow through on: assure the public, save people from danger, protect allies, defeat monsters, all things Chloe was shown doing very well when chosen as a Miraculous Holder. 

I think that eventually the contrast in how she is received as Queen Bee VS Chloe Bourgeois would start grinding on each other and bleeding through both sides of the mask. 

But the infectious nature of empathy and a larger support network that don't have the worst impression of her would give Chloe the room she needs to explore and grow.

If she is too snippy as a hero, or shows a ruthless side, these won't be taken in the context of "Chloe that person I dislike" but "Queen Bee my ally" and can allow for more honest and even handed reactions that give her the necessary breathing room to grow and change. 

So yeah, I think season 1 Chloe could have, under the right circumstances, done a great job as a hero be it Queen Bee or another hero even before any outside circumstances or internal changes might have forced her to chart a new course in life.

Provided the role of Chloe and the role of hero do not intersect and become one almost immediately, because in that case it gets a lot harder for her. 

[thecolorblockcurator]

A month ago I asked you to send me some journal prompts to dig deeper before I start testosterone- because I felt like there were things I was still pushing down

And here is the list I compiled!

Imagine yourself as an elder queer person - who are you? What are your values- what does your life look like, what do you look like

What beliefs do you have about love- where are they rooted, are they limiting? How have you challenged them?

Write about what you’re attracted to, traits, physical appearances, moments, experiences. (sexual or platonic)

Write about your love language- how you show love, and how you want to receive love.

How do you show vulnerability in your love life? Where do you need to push yourself to be more vulnerable? What are you afraid of sharing

A childhood moment of feeling queer/trans and feeling joy

A childhood moment of feeling queer/trans and feeling fear or confusion

Moments when you felt like you were close to recognizing/accepting your gender or sexuality but repressed it instead.

What does masculinity mean to you? How does it show up in your life. What parts of masculinity appeal to you? What doesn’t?

What does femininity mean to you? How does it show up in your life. What parts of femininity appeal to you? What doesn’t?

What are your thoughts on gender? Does your gender fit within the gender binary, or is it something else entirely.

What parts of your gender, if any, would you *like* to feel one way about, but actually feel differently about? Why do you think you would like to/should feel this way about that part of your gender

Does your gender affect or influence your sexuality? Is there anything that you feel like is a contradiction between the two- is that something you embrace or feel uncomfortable about.

How are your views about your gender influenced by others in your life? What are you holding onto because of a fear or anxiety about what others will think

Do you have unexamined negative feelings about men and masculinity/women and femininity that may be affecting your decision to transition? Have you delayed/repressed your desire to transition because of this?

Are you able to conceive of the kind of man/woman/enby you want to be? Do you know any people like this? If the answer is no, is this impacting how you feel about your transition?

Do you have fears about living as a man/woman/enby that you haven't examined? Am I afraid of being treated differently/ losing access to certain spaces? Am I afraid of how my interactions with others will change? Am I afraid of people's reactions to my transition?

What small thing can you do right now to affirm and express your gender

Do you want to take hormones? List all of the possible changes you could expect. Sort them into columns. Want, Don’t Want, and No Preference. Spend some time reflecting on each change, what is the underlying reason why you put them in their respective columns.

Do you want gender affirming surgery? Invision yourself after the procedure - what emotions does that bring up, is there anything holding you back?

If you went through puberty already - How did that affect you physically and emotionally. How did you feel at the time. What would you have liked to happen?

Create a visual gender moodboard. Collect outfits, accessories, style icons, favorite movie & tv characters. Things that make you feel euphoric.

Is there anything you would like to try out to express your gender that you’re afraid of doing? What is the motivation behind that fear

Have you worked through any internalized transphobia. Are you afraid of being less desirable after transition?

Are you afraid of being less queer or less visibly queer after transitioning?

[billconrad]

Character Character Flaws

    Humans are loaded with flaws. Some we can correct, some we can mask, and others are there for life. A big part of growing up involves overcoming, putting up with, and dealing with our shortcomings. Plus, we suffer from, put up with, and attempt to correct other people’s faults. In short, the flaws are a big part of life.

    During my last four years of writing, I learned that it is essential to focus on the flaws that drive a character’s actions. Readers need to know the reasons behind motivation and character flaws, which are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to a life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.

    Readers dislike actions without foundation. It would confuse readers if Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.

    When I create a character, I list their flaws in a character biography and let the reader know about them as early as possible. For example, the main character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and is uncomfortable around forward women.

    When this main character makes a mistake, readers directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, people are more complicated in real life, but taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader to tears.

    I like flaws that people can relate to, such as arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionism, workaholicism, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws like mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion, and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws like racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. I feel these lead to low sales and bad reviews. Plus, such flaws are not fun to write about.

    In my experience, the flaws are the most essential part of a character’s background, but picking them requires a light touch. I have learned the ideal number is five and make sure they do not overlap other characters.

    Let’s examine two popular characters. Superman has good looks, a solid job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude, and his only weakness is Kryptonite. In the movie Die Hard, John McClain is an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him. I think John is a superior character because moviegoers rally as he succeeds and relate to his failures because they are apparent.

    A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic, like they are cheating or have gotten outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate. “People hate me because of my good looks.” “Having money is my big problem.”

    In real life, flaws hinder us, and we spend much time dealing with them, yet they make up a big part of any plot. Is that life imitating art?

    You’re the best -Bill

    March 22, 2025

    Hey, book lovers, I published four. Please check them out:

   Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.

    Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.

    Cable Ties. A slow-burn political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.

    Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.

    These books are available in softcover on Amazon and in eBook format everywhere.

[magiefish]

Something I've kind of noticed about a lot of the academic scholarship I've read about Frankenstein / Dracula / Jekyll & Hyde is that everyone just seems to completely dismiss/ignore the characters as actual characters most of the time unless they're the Main Guys. Like, they'll go really in depth about Victor or the Creature's motivations and backstory and spend ages talking about Jekyll's relationship to Hyde and stuff, but the second it comes to characters like Enfield and Elizabeth or Lanyon and Clerval or frankly the Entire Rest of the Cast of Dracula, they just immediately seem uninterested. They'll just sort of vaguely gesture in their direction and go 'Oh yeah X and X thing happens to this character and here's a one sentence summary of their personality which doesn't really matter because this entire cast is interchangeable, anyway, onto the next theme' and half the time their One Sentence is just textually incorrect (looking at the New Woman/Traditional Woman descriptions of Lucy and Mina). And the reason I find this so baffling is because with other analysis I've read (e.g. Great Gatsby stuff) people seem to actually slow down and consider the characterisation and motivations of the cast as a whole with like. Nuance. Like they sit down and treat the characters as multifaceted and complex and having actual relationships with one another, and then you get to these books specifically and no one seems to care? Like they'll go really in depth with various interpretations and historical context for the Big Guys, and then never apply the same sort of examination to anyone else, and if they do, very rarely and probably only for one other character e.g. (Utterson or Mina).

If I had to posit an explanation, I would say its a combination of the archetypal nature of the title characters and the admittedly patchy writing of these books (which arguably lends to their archetypal status). I think academics kind of assume that the primary draw of these books are The Big Guys and the expansive themes and ideas they cover and that everyone else is just a pawn there to enable the narrative around the Big Guys, and the propensity for film adaptations to scrap or rewrite characters probably compounded this impression. And while I think this is at least partly true, the thing is, these characters were not always archetypal Big Guys. They originated in stories alongside *these* other characters *specifically* and it is worth asking what it is about the rest of the cast that makes the story interesting as well. Because, let's be real, if there was approximately no interest in the fucking *narrators* of Dracula, the best friends of Henry Jekyll, or the victims of the Creature, the original readers would have been completely bored out of their minds for most of these novels and public interest in them would not have been as great as it was. All of these novels were stories before they were myths, and academics should not be letting pop culture eclipse them unless they're specifically talking about the relationship between the two.

Overall, I just feel like academics are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but also doing a disservice to these stories by not bothering to investigate the other characters because frankly. It's lazy. It's lazy to dismiss an entire cast and basically skim read any sections involving them just because it's easy to focus on The One Guy. If you people really cared about themes, you'd understand that characters are inextricable from them. Like shit dude I see more care given to characters in essays about Greek tragedies, you guys are waaaay fucking behind

[subway-boss-jericho]

Every time I make a tumblr post I get an intense itch to continue making tumblr posts and liveblog into the void. Dangerous. Addicting. Kind of funny. I try not to post too many rambles in a row but man. if it'll help me post more maybe that doesn't matter actually

Current random thoughts and experiences writing steady tracks chapter 2:

Today I went back and reread everything I've written in the last two years. I am pleased to report that almost nothing needed changed or fixed except for more recent things that hadn't been edited.

Apparently the thing that motivates me to write the most is creating a random, arbitrary side character with something wrong with their gender (affectionate) and giving them a sentence or two's worth of dialogue to transition the plot between parts I'm struggling with. So anyways keep an eye out for the new freak (affectionate) in chapter two to go along with frizzle from chapter one in the "i gave them a name and a gender and a single personality trait and now I'm emotionally attached" club. (2.5) ^ said new character doesn't use pronouns and only goes by name and jesus thats hard to write, but I feel like I've done a pretty solid job at making it not confusing

Speaking of pronouns. I can't go a day without a headcanon, apparently. So the next chapter is going to start off with a note explaining which nicknames I've given Ingo's and Emmet's pokemon plus which pronouns they use because damn man i guess weird genders and neo pronouns are just fun to write. These creatures are not confined by humans' societal gender expectations even slightly and i'm tired of pretending they should be. Biggest worry is that it will distract from the experience, but I'm doing my best to write it in a way that is as minimally intrusive as I can make it while still doing what i wanna do.

The formatting in this chapter has been like the funnest thing on the whole planet. I really hope someone enjoys this as much as I do, I'm having a blast. I had to figure out what ingo and emmet's last name is because I wanted emmet to write a follow up email to juniper. it's 1 word in a 300 word, single exchange email chain, but i sure did spend 45 minutes trying to find a name i liked.

jesus christ there are so many side characters in this chapter!! shit dude! the hardest thing for me to write is more than three characters in one place at one time. Not only am I characterizing Emmet's entire team, I've also got a whole goddamn battalion of named depot agents with distinct personalities and pokemon teams.

jirachi's fuckin tanzaku i am 9k words in and ingo hasn't even shown up yet! i feel like this chapter is going to need to be a minimum of 15k words. surely. and by need to be I mean it needs to be that long in order for it to stop where I want it to, narratively.

Could this have been multiple posts? yeah! but as I just said and as anyone who's ever read steady tracks should know from experience I just need the thought to keep going until it gets to a place I'm satisfied, and today that's one Real Long Post about how steady tracks is goin

anyway man if anyone ever wondered if i was still writing steady tracks and how that's been, yeah, I sure have. It hasn't been fast and it hasn't been easy but jirachi alive tehy live in my brain. You can really tell how starting college affected my energy and burnout levels by examining my progress on chapter 2. the relationship is Linear

[trothplighted]

I saw a series of tags on another post that contained a derisive comment about “(current or former) HP fans who refuse to see that the books share the views of the author” (paraphrased, because I don’t want to call out one specific person), and I guess I wanted to talk about it, because… yes and no

in an earlier post I talked about how I don’t trust JKR’s ability to accurately identify good and evil, and how I work around her thumb on the scale when it comes to how I’m supposed to think of a character (so, for example, every good character suddenly deciding Sirius is a bad and dangerous person for Harry to be around in OotP is not an indication that this is true, it’s because they’re homophobic either implicitly or explicitly or if they’re gay they’re being influenced by a homophobic society to judge him more intensely. another example would be James’s bullying - I make the conscious choice to integrate both his early characterization as a good and principled and noble and morally sound person and his tendency for violence, and I look at the normalized culture of violence at Hogwarts and the pranks that good characters play and the dismissal of harassment or abuse or stalking from teachers and the administration, and I examine the accuracy and limitations of Pensieve memories and how the Worst Memory differs from others we’ve seen, and I ask myself about Snape’s motivations in the moment and his cultural background and personal prejudices, and somewhere in all of that is the truth about how bad James was objectively + how bad James was in the context of Wizarding Britain school culture. those things are two different things) and I guess I’m mostly annoyed that there’s a lot of people on this site who seem to think that no one who likes these books has ever been critical of Joanne, that no one who spends time in this world is unaware of how fucked up it is, etc.

and yet her path to radicalization is well-documented! we know when she pivoted to TERFdom. we can see her early attempts to diversify HP and make it more global and try and appeal to a progressive crowd in the early/mid 2010s to stay relevant, and we can see how after the progressive part of fandom pretty firmly rejected and mocked her (for both valid AND invalid reasons; I do think that there were a lot of trolls and assholes in between the real serious criticism) she went running to the right wing for validation and support, and they sucked her in. she’s a largely-failed author whose non-HP books do not manage to live up to HP’s legacy, and who will be forever associated with this project that ended 18 years ago, and she’s been desperate to remain relevant rather than content to rest on her laurels. (Or to write again intermittently when inspiration strikes, like Suzanne Collins has done)

so - there IS a lot of fucked up stuff in the books, ideologically, in how the characters act. it’s just stuff that was fucked up before she turned into a TERF, and as a result it’s a lot less obviously evil and more ideologically thorny. ignoring her declarations of who is or isn’t Good will reveal a whole cast of morally grey people trying to figure out what the right moves are, and living in a horribly fucked up world that nonetheless deserves to be saved. and I think that seeing her flaws as they are preserved in ink and paper, and arguing against them, and finding reasons to oppose them - this is the backbone of the more analytical parts of what’s left of the fandom.

(I’d argue going further to interpret her prejudices against “Evil” characters Watsonianly as in-universe prejudices against deviation from the norm has brought me to an observation of a sort of four-sided debate on the subject of how to run the world (authoritarian right/Voldemort, authoritarian left/Grindelwald, libertarian-ish right/the Ministry, libertarian-ish left/Dumbledore) where all sides kind of have at least a few good points and the real measure of how bad a movement or system is is “how many real people are helped or hurt by this? how protected are vulnerable innocents?”) but that’s the subject of another post. I’ll spread the “the greatest evil is fascism” agenda elsewhere.)

In an ideal world, HP would have faded into relative obscurity fairly quickly. The books were never perfect but the engagement with those flaws has been ongoing forever; there’s much less hero-worship of Joanne in serious fan spaces than in casual ones, and her issues are ones we’ve been wrestling with for decades. but they weren’t TERFery, and I think that’s important to remember, because we can criticize her for things that she’s done wrong 18 years ago and 22 years ago and not have to bend over backwards excoriating ourselves because she metamorphosed into something worse than she already was. she’s a writer. no more, no less. and she’s one of many who’ve written some great art with some horrible bigotries underneath. I don’t apologize for liking Shakespeare, and he’s a way better writer who was much more explicit in his prejudices than she was in 2003 or 1998 or 2007. The woman who exists now grew out of the woman who wrote all this, frustratingly so, but they aren’t identical.

[soviet-supersoldier]

Character Examination: Omega Red

Part 6: X-men (1991) #17

A (kinda) short one this time around, as Omega Red doesn't technically appear in this issue. This is the beginning of the Soul Skinner arc, and as Arkady is mentioned on a few pages, I think that I should examine the dialogue, as it does give a little insight into what Arkady is up to leading into this arc, and, perhaps more importantly, what the government view of him seems to be at the time. It also does bring up questions that I doubt Marvel will ever answer, as well as begin the trend of trying to make Arkady look like a villain with his motives, with the execution of that being rather worthy of deeper examination as we get into these issues.

So, this page of dialogue is intriguing, as we get to see some of the set-up to this conflict with the Soul Skinner. He's causing problems in the town of Neftelensk, so much so that the government/military is concerned. We have these military leaders here talking about the situation, as well as the resources at their disposal. They don't seem very eager to spend their own resources to deal with the issue (almost viewing it as a suicide mission) and by the end of the page, have decided to look to "outside" help in the form of Omega Red.

So, the piece of dialogue that really stands out here on this page puts a bit of focus on what Arkady is viewed like. Alexei Vazhin, who is being set up here to be pro-mutant, says this about Arkady: "You want someone eminently expendable who would only go into a danger zone for self-serving reasons."

This sort of seems to highlight what the Russian government views Arkady are like and their reaction to finding out he was bought by a Japanese criminal and revived: they don't care. He's not viewed as a lost asset that needs to be recovered. They don't have any desire to have him back, let alone fix him, but instead view him like a piece of old outdated equipment that won't be a real loss if they lose him on a dangerous assignment like this. They're fine with using him and him having the high risk of being killed on this assignment as they have other mutant assets (like Magik) they feel are more valuable.

And then the other part of the dialogue. How he says Arkady will only go into a dangerous situation if it serves his own purposes. It's clearly meant to be a dig at Arkady’s character, that he's a bad person who is selfish for not wanting to help. It's the start of a trend in picking specific dialogue to try to spin the narrative that Omega Red is an awful person. But I want to point out a few things. This is a dangerous situation that Omega Red would be signing up for -- a mission that I already pointed out is being viewed almost like a suicide mission. Why should he be putting himself at risk to clean up a government-caused mess (they do this to him a lot, as you will see) when there is such a high risk to himself? He also has his own concerns, namely, finding a cure for that chronic condition he has in order to keep himself alive. He may be viewed as selfish, but then, Omega Red has very legitimate reasons for refusing it he wants. He doesn't owe the Russian government a thing, especially since they're the ones responsible for never fixing him (Team X stealing the C-Synthesizer aside).

It is only through emotional manipulation that Omega Red is convinced to do this. We don't ever see the exchange -- what was actually said to convince him to go -- but the set-up here indicates Arkady is being gaslit into doing the government's dirty work with the vague promise of getting something in return. The X-men too end up getting manipulated here in this story arc to help, so it does seem unfair to look at Arkady needing to be tricked into cleaning up this mess as a mark against his character -- while the X-men are viewed as heroes in this situation. Arkady has his own personal needs to take care of, and, as we will see in the next examination, his own goals point out he's not happy being stuck with Matsu'o either.

So, the next mention here points out that off-panel, they talked to Omega Red and convinced him to go on this assignment and that he has been no-contact for 48 hours -- two days. In the next issue, we see that the reason Arkady lost contact with them was due to his battle with the Soul Skinner, which he lost. It does beg the question of how long he actually was subjected to mental battle at the hands of the Soul Skinner and why it took two days for the Russian leaders to actually send out more help to address the situation. Two days is a long time to leave a man to fend for himself, and really goes to show the inefficiencies in the government at the time.

That's it for this one. Up next, we get to really dive into Arkady’s psyche during his battle with the Soul Skinner and get further insight into his fears and the actual reality of Omega Red’s mind. It's not as monstrous of a place as a person would think, and I for one have always thought these next few issues are very important ones for Arkady and anyone trying to get to understand him.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

'You're reading too much into ATSV.'

[aka meta analysis is good for the soul]

I often get told on this blog that I'm reading too much into plots or scenes or things in general.

And honestly, fair point. I do the most.

And as a writer, I will say that I do it out of pure respect.

[actual photo of me reading the script and going for my 'reading too hard at ATSV notebook']

Movies take years to write.

People spend months of their lives genuinely toiling over these characters, often times creating more work than what can ever be reasonably used. Months of revisions and scraping work.

For weeks, about a dozen people probably went to sleep dreaming or thinking up what Hobie would wear, what Gwen would say, what emotional cues Jess will have.

A lot of people dedicated years of their lives and creative labor into that story.

To me, it isn't at all bizarre to take an hour out of my day to sit and consider the story they spend a lot of time trying to tell.

Compared to the labor they have given me, multiple 40+ hour work weeks for years - an hour or two is literally nothing lol

It's literally the least I can do.

As a writer, I feel like its only right to sit back and look deeper into a story.

To analyze the writer's intentions, or examine their storytelling tactics and abilities.

We are taught to consume media so quickly and rapidly that to offer time to critically analyze a piece of work is considered bizarre, too much work, or pointless.

As if there's nothing to read into. Or as if speculation and meta analysis is helpful to no one.

If someone spends five hours drawing fanart that is accepted. If someone spends two hours writing fanfic, this is expectable behavior.

But I spend the same amount of time to look deeper into the work of the writers, and often times I'm met with surprise or treated as if I'm overly uptight.

It's like snickering at a person who asked there was deeper meaning behind a painting. While standing in an art gallery.

When streaming shows drop all in one day, it becomes about the Easter eggs and watching it as fast as possible as not to be spoiled.

Then at the end of it, you wash your hands of it and wait for the next big release.

People spend years, decades of their writing career trying to write realistic characters with layered motives. Or stories with complex themes.

Comic Book and Screenwriters included.

I myself try very very hard to do so - to provide foreshadowing, and emotional insight into the characters, their motives, their faults.

If I heard someone say that the piece is not worth looking that far into, all the work I've done as a writer gets overlooked.

Writers cannot grow if people are consuming their media without caring enough to look critically at it as the work of a storyteller.

So yes, I'm looking too far into it. Cause writers can write that far into it. And that deserves to be examined, acknowledged, and praised.

To assume less is too assume lesser of the writers who put everything into the media you enjoy.

This year of all years, we should be appreciating the work Screenwriters put in.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - I'm not being an asshole (well, not trying to be).

I'm looking at writers as vital parts of a movies production. Because they are.

We look deeply at the art style, or the animation, or the music. Writers are not shadow figures. They're people with careers. And them and their work deserve to be spoken about and acknowledged as a work of effort just the same as CGI artists or editors, or directors.

I implore you - Read more into it.

If you're a writer yourself, doubly so.

Read FAR into it. Build your analyzation skills, come to your own conclusions. Break the story down every which way and look at the characters from every angle.

It's fun, it's free, it makes the characters so much more real.

So many people on this website hope to one day become published writers. One thing they do to help you achieve that in college, is by racing things like scripts, and looking critically.

Meta analysis is good for you as much as it is the writers.

If you don't think you're cut out for it, or would have nothing to add, still try. Not for the brownie points, but to feel closer to the characters and the story.

If you've seen ATSV (or any Fandom media) and haven't ever really sat and thought about it - everyone's moral stances, why they want what they want, why they've made the mistakes they've had, where you stand on it all - I highly recommend it.

You might come away with some surprising conclusions about characters or even yourself.

Think about your favorite characters, and what might happen to them in the next movie.

There's really nothing wrong with reading that far into it.

Fifteen minutes of thinking, or an hour of writing is nothing compared to the months of work that went into this absolute masterpiece.

Trust me, the first time you catch some shit that makes you go

ITS LIKE A HIGH I TELL YOU.

Touch grass? Nah bro, touch your local library card. Go there right now. Take out this book.

There's gonna be a discussion tomorrow in class.

If you read this far heyhello I think you're rad as hell.

Here's a Hobie for the road because he's a great companion.

Bye.

[horse-girl-anthy]

Pseudo-Incest in Revolutionary Girl Utena

while RGU contains actual incest between blood-related brothers and sisters, there are also relationships between characters who are not blood related, yet behave both romantically and familially towards each other. I believe that these pseudo-incestuous dynamics add an important layer to the themes of the work.

the most obvious pseudo-incestuous relationship in the show is between Nanami and Tsuwabuki.

although not blood related, there are many similarities between this dynamic and other incestuous couples in the show. most importantly, role confusion: although he is not her brother, Tsuwabuki wants to be; and although he is younger than Nanami, he wants to be her older brother. yet, when he approaches Nanami, this desire somehow warps into him being her "boyfriend," or more accurately, her servant.

Tsuwabuki is the youngest of all the characters, unable to understand the meaning of his interest in Nanami. at this age, the foundation of a child's life is their family, and they are likely to understand all relationships in terms of family dynamics. thus, when young people begin to develop their sexuality and enter into the world of adult relationships, confusion is bound to follow.

there is also an apparent draw to these confused dynamics. Ikuhara has discussed how in fiction, incestuous romance relies on the myth that “blood relationships are eternal.” by portraying both blood-related siblings who seek eternity in each other's arms, and non-related characters who blend roles, RGU is able to examine more deeply the dynamics which motivate incest.

Mikage's feelings for Tokiko and Mamiya are up for debate, but in my view, they aren't as simple as "romantic interest," in either case. rather, I would argue that he becomes fixated on them because of their relationship to each other.

Mikage is a lonely individual, an outsider with no significant relationships, family or otherwise. upon witnessing the tragedy of this little family, the sister's true care for her brother, the brother's gratitude and sad resignation, he is entranced. what Mikage is seeking is a family, and this comes out in romantic obsession with both siblings.

Utena is similar; as an orphan, she has no family dynamics through which to understand the world, and her desire for family is easily manipulated. she views Akio and Anthy as the ideal siblings, enjoying watching them interact in much the same way as Mikage liked to spend time with Mamiya and Tokiko. Akio is ready to take full advantage of her naivete.

in the final arc of RGU, Utena pseudo-joins the Anthy-Akio family, with all the baggage that entails. examining Akio's pattern of predation, it's as if he's trying to make everyone he meets into another Anthy--a younger sibling he can control and sleep with. thus, his relationship with Utena is pseudo-incestuous. it's my contention, as well, that Utena and Anthy develop a sisterly relationship in the show, as they live under the roof of the same patriarch.

-------

in his privacy files, lead writer Enokido stated that the prince's appeal is related to dependency, which "is a most serious matter for a mammal that cannot survive for several years without dependency after it is ejected from the mother’s body at birth." thus, rather than taking a moralistic stance, the creators of RGU understood that struggles with role confusion and dependency are natural parts of human development. however, Enokido also wrote, "people who are in love for real would not be chasing after the image of a prince."

pseudo-incest isn't just the result of a desire to have a family; it's a result of the erosion of the boundaries between individuals, the grasping after certainty, the drive to force closeness with others for one's own benefit. Tsuwabuki put his own self-image over Nanami's actual safety, all while claiming to care about her. Mikage wanted to be a part of Tokiko and Mamiya's family so badly that he tore everything apart at the first sign of trouble. and Akio is immature to the point that he can't conceive of a relationship not based on patriarchal, familial power. notably, when Utena and Anthy become true lovers in Adolescence, the family angle is dropped and Akio is no longer around to muddy the waters. whatever real love looks like, it isn't people replicating their own family dynamics eternally, and it won't be found in the chains of dependence.

[thebardbullseye]

“Philosophical and Personal Musings on the Wizard Stone and the Axiom of Proliferation” – An Essay and Divinations for Arc 3 of “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One”

From the Desk of The Bard Bullseye

Happy Birthday, Worlds Beyond Number!

Spoilers abound! This is an essay discussing the actual-play podcast “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One” from the fine folks at @worldsbeyondpod It is an expression of my analysis of and engagement with the content of the second arc of the show and also contains some speculation about future plot and current themes. These interpretations are my own, include some reflections on my personal philosophy, and are written in a mostly academic style of writing (be warned, it’s around 3,000 words!). If you do read through it, I hope you find my points interesting and thought-provoking regardless of whether or not any of it turns out to be true (and I have done my level best to adhere to the facts of the story thus far, with transcript pages and timestamps cited when available/applicable).

Abstract (TL;DR, or I ain’t reading all that, but I’m happy for you):

The Wizard Stone’s discovery that the Axiom of Proliferation is untrue has major implications for the overarching story and the direction of the next arc. Herein, I explore my reaction to this moment in Episode 19 and how my experience and own philosophy potentially align with Stone’s. Then, I examine the logic of her argument and its implications for the greater worldbuilding in Umora. Specifically, there is a fundamental problem with the way that wizards are using the lingua arcana that is affecting the link between the Spirit and the Mortal worlds (i.e., the “greater binding”), and this is leading to detrimental effects. This, I believe is ultimately what Grandmother Wren (and now Ame) and Coven of Elders (and possibly the Man in Black?) are concerned with, though they have come to vastly different conclusions about who is at fault and how to solve this problem, which are yet to be revealed in the forthcoming third arc (see footnote 5).

Introduction

Something has piqued my interest and scratched a deep philosophical itch for me in the second arc of “The Wizard, the Witch, and the Wild One.” While the first arc introduced the characters, explored ideas of ‘quest fever,’ and masterfully wove in lore and character motivations for reclaiming Eursulon’s sword, Wavebreaker, the second arc has expanded upon the characters and their relationship to the greater philosophy of the Citadel and Umora.

I don’t usually speculate where stories might go next or craft my own fan theories. Especially for ongoing projects (i.e. TV shows, actual plays, books in a series, etc.), I tend to be along for the ride, and I spend time analyzing the story being told and the characters within. And rarely do I put these thoughts to paper, at least not coherently; I am more likely to ramble endlessly to a friend or lurk on Discord for others’ opinions, chiming in occasionally. However, I have noticed some things brewing in this arc that I wish to discuss at-length and even speculate upon: my perspective and analysis of the philosophy of the Wizard Stone, and the possible implications for the forthcoming third arc.

I don’t often see myself in stories. Not to say that I don’t see myself or parts of myself represented in media: i.e. demographically, socially, politically, etc., but rarely do I find a specific character or character motivation that ‘snipes through the duplex door’ where I go “oh shit that’s me” or “I relate to this on a deeper level.” This happened to me in Episode 19, when Suvi is investigating the records of her mother’s early time in the Citadel: her expulsion from the College of Divination and readmittance to the College of Abjuration because she had accused one of her professors of “treason against magic itself.”

Upon her dismissal from the Citadel, Stone wrote a dissenting missive to the Archmagi of the Citadel regarding one of the three metaphysical axioms, the Axiom of Proliferation, and how this particular axiom “does not describe any actual truth of the lingua arcana, nor does it more broadly describe any facet of the greater binding” (Ep. 19, transcript p. 12). She goes on to posit that not only is it “pure intellectual technology,” but that its continued acceptance as fact is a “danger to the future of wizardry” and “[a] stain on the face of magic itself” (Ep. 19, p. 12). An axiom in this context is described as “simple… laws that are given to young wizards about broad truths of spell casting in general… that are true across spells [and], … different schools of magic” (Ep. 19, p. 13). That is, “the Axiom of Proliferation is essentially that the more times a spell is written down … the weaker the spell becomes” (Ep. 19, p. 13).

An axiom as defined in philosophy is a statement that is self-evidently true and serves as a starting point for reasoning. Therefore, any argument against its truth would call into greater question the philosophical foundation of the Citadel itself. If Stone’s claim that this was not a true axiom had not been dismissed swiftly and discredited, it is possible (though highly unlikely, given the power of empire) that this would have led to a redefinition of the philosophy of wizardry in Umora.

This is what struck me like a bolt of lightning while listening to this episode. I did almost this exact thing when I was in grad school!

Stone is… me? Faulty logic and its effects

As part of my master’s degree, I took a philosophy seminar on bioethics, which covered some polarizing subjects and more fringe points of view. Most of these topics cannot be directly studied or supported by scientific evidence, so the conversation and academic debate is largely conceptual or theoretical (i.e., conducting research to investigate these ideas have varying states of legality and moral acceptability) (see footnote 1). This course was excellent and a bit out of my comfort zone, but it challenged me to think critically about fundamental logic and accepted ideas that often go unexamined until they are taken to the extreme. At one point in the semester, we were discussing a particular topic and the current state of debate surrounding it. Immediately, I was perplexed by some of arguments made to justify it, and at first, I didn’t have the language to express why. Much like Stone, I found myself screaming (internally) “you’re all idiots!” or “you’re missing the point/the bigger picture!” or “that’s not how that works!” Essentially, I had arrived at the conclusion that if this idea were to be implemented broadly in society, it would likely have major negative ramifications, and furthermore, not even achieve the desired and purported effect that they were arguing for! 

Eventually, I figured out what the underlying problem was: a logical fallacy inherent and unidentified within the current debate. Since scholars had just accepted the argument at face value and moved on, most of the debate was concerned with its future implementation or theoretical follow-on effects on individuals and society at large. I did find some existing papers that danced around the idea of fallacious reasoning (i.e., that the theoretical benefits were greatly exaggerated, if not a zero-sum game, or that the negative long-term effects may outweigh the short-term benefits), but none named it specifically or even examined the logical argument the entire debate was predicated on. So, for my term paper, I researched and wrote about this fallacy, and in it, I discussed how the discovery and acknowledgment of it would reframe the debate and perhaps even bring about reform to existing systems!

In the process of writing and researching, I felt incredibly isolated intellectually (this was also peak-COVID so that didn’t help either). Now that I had put the pieces together, it seemed quite obvious to me, but it was difficult to find supporting evidence or other similar arguments to mine (even if they weren’t breaking the logic down so specifically). Was this thing I had reasoned actually true? Why had no one pointed this out before? What if I’m wrong? What if they’re right and I’m a fool for daring to challenge them? What does my professor think? They’re an expert and approved the topic, so I know I’m not entirely off-base, but do they agree with me? I knew that if I wrote a strong, supported, and persuasive argument, that I couldn’t fail, but I deeply cared whether or not I was actually right. It was also probably one of the first times that I wrote with passion (and specific planning ahead of time!), rather than churning out yet another good-enough research paper (that I may or may not have written days ahead of the deadline or the night before).

Thankfully, unlike Stone, my fears that I would not be taken seriously, or worse, told that I was flat out wrong (and be silenced) did not come to pass—my professor agreed wholeheartedly with my argument that this fallacy is pervasive in the current literature. (Though I feel must disclaim that I still could be wrong in some other aspect of my argument, and that simply arguing the existence of a fallacy can be treacherous! In philosophy, no one ever has the only or complete answer—if they claim to, they are either lying or ignorant.) As part of the course, we did a mock peer review in class and my professor sent us further feedback on our papers after we submitted our initial draft of the term paper.

One particular piece of feedback stands out to me upon reflection and comparison to Stone’s experience and the philosophy of wizardry. It said something along the lines of ‘We think that is a very admirable and unique take on this subject. No one found any fault in your logic; however, it is important to consider the practical implications of identifying this fallacy.’ Point taken, of course, that the mere identification of a flaw in logic is not the end of the conversation—it is merely the start of a new discussion and opportunity to surface new arguments.  

In my case, the identification of the fallacy was the concrete thing I felt I could verifiably yell about (academically) to explain why I disagreed so vehemently with current literature (and some truly wild propositions made by certain scholars). Of course, one should not commit the ‘fallacy fallacy,’ which is that simply pointing out a fallacy invalidates the argument. Instead, it was a means to discuss practical implications: some less harmful methods, some overlooked existing solutions, and to pull knowledge from other related disciplines that had not yet been considered because this fallacy had yet to be identified (see footnote 2).

The philosophy of Stone’s accusation of ‘treason’ and treatise to the Archmagi

In listening to and reflecting upon this episode and the conclusion of the second arc, I wonder if Stone felt similarly to me: that she had a fundamental disagreement with the way that wizards (and the Empire) conduct magic. I wonder if she learned about the Axioms and something didn't sit right with her, so she dug into the philosophy or history of it. Moreover, I find it particularly striking that her original specialization was divination. Although it has not been stated outright, I think it can be plausibly inferred that Stone divined some kind of knowledge about the fundamental ‘wrongness’ of current wizardry and the disastrous follow-on effects it would have. She may have been unable to fully convey her revelation in the moment, and so just shouted ‘treason against magic’ at her mentor. As was the case with me, the Axiom of Proliferation was just the most concrete thing that Stone could point at to explain herself.

But beyond my own biases and affinity for Stone, it follows that she may well have examined or done a proof on the Axiom of Proliferation which led to her discovery that the premise of the Axiom was false. Let’s examine the argument that Stone may have made (and the one that Suvi may have done a poor proof of, by her own admission). The argument is as follows:

All Axioms of magic describe a truth about the fundamental nature of magic

The Axiom of Proliferation states that the more times a spell is written down (proliferated), the weaker the spell becomes, which is a truth about the fundamental nature of magic.

Therefore, the Axiom of Proliferation is an Axiom of magic.

This can be simplified:

All A’s have property B

C has property B

Therefore, C is A

This does not necessarily lead to a false conclusion, and while the argument may be valid, it may not always be logically sound, see for example:

All people are mortals.

John is a mortal

Therefore, John is a person.

In the Citadel’s view, there is no flaw here, because they teach (and presume) that the Axiom of Proliferation is true in the lingua arcana. Wizards, of course, are known by their secrets, so it follows that in their philosophy of magic, they would have some kind of justification for keeping magic limited to the select few. But, if one of the premises is false (in this case, premise 2), then this justification is in jeopardy. It stands to reason that Stone must have had serious evidence to declare that premise false, and as she was studying divination, it was likely a vision or prophecy of some kind. Presuming she is correct, then it also speaks to her incredible intelligence (although she did not have the social grace at 19 years old to deftly navigate this accusation) (see footnote 3a).

Although (as far as we know), Stone did not make another public ruckus about the Axiom upon returning to the Citadel, I don’t think this caused her to abandon the belief that the axiom was erroneous. Upon her readmission, she joined the College of Abjuration, specifically studying “counterspelling, dispelling magic, [and] sort of metamagic, … the magic of magic itself” (Ep. 19, p. 11). This might seem to be an odd choice for a backup specialization, but Stone’s issue with the Axiom and metamagic are deeply intwined philosophical concepts, as metamagic is essentially the equivalent to metaphysics in our world.

Wizardry and the nature of magic in Umora

Wizards are defined in Umora to be people that can use a “language of magic” the “lingua arcana” to cast magic, and importantly, that “they believe [the lingua arcana] is the language the universe uses to understand itself,” which was only coined about 250 years prior to the present story (Ep. 19, p. 16). At the end of the first arc, Suvi discovers from her father’s notes that the reflexive indicative, which was taught to her as a necessary component of the lingua arcana, is in fact entirely unnecessary for spellcasting. And further, Stone also doesn’t use the reflexive indicative, which is demonstrated through her unique casting of Mending in the very first episode. It is unclear so far in the worldbuilding (to me, at least) if the lingua arcana is the language the universe uses to understand itself, or if it is a construct used by people to explain, communicate, and more importantly cast magic in Umora (much like math and science are ‘constructs’ that describe the nature of our world, though the fact that it is constructed does not mean it is not true). If it is the latter, then there is likely to be forces at work, be it the components of spell casting (such as the reflexive indicative), the casters themselves, or others yet to be revealed, that are manipulating and restricting the nature of magic in Umora (see footnote 3b).

Thus, I would posit that there is some issue in the way that the restriction of the lingua arcana is affecting the “greater binding,” which is “the theory of magic, that magic is the interplay between the Spirit and the Real—or the Spirit and the Mortal” (Ep. 19, p. 14). Essentially, the lingua arcana describes the nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the Mortal world, while the greater binding is the metaphysical link between them. Stone all but confirms this in her letter to the Archmagi, that if the issue is left unresolved, it would endanger the future of wizardry (Ep. 19, p. 12).

Other pertinent wizarding history and context

Stone and Soft were also part of a group called the Acadator, which was dedicated to rooting out corruption and bad actors within the Citadel. We don’t really know too much else about them, the exact specifics of their philosophy, or if they still exist as a group (given that Steel and Eiorghorain were members). There is also some history surrounding two early wizarding groups pre-Citadel, the Antivoli and the Accordati, that had a philosophical disagreement about accepting the help of the Saraz Imperium for building the Citadel (specifically related to the sharing of magic), which led to a civil war called the Cataclysm of Carrow (Ep. 19, p. 16). In terms of timeline, the lingua arcana was coined in 1423, the term ‘wizard’ was coined in 1456, the Cataclysm of Carrow was in 1467, and three years later, in 1470, the Erien (Citadel) was built. The current story with the three protagonists is taking place in 1670, so it has only been 200 years since the Citadel was created, and the lingua arcana coined only 47 years prior to that (in less than a human lifespan).

Further, the creation of the Irulian Desert, the Erien, and the Citadel is a destructive history—wizards razed a verdant forest and turned it into a hot, unlivable desert with a miles high glass tower at the center. Additionally, the Wizards of the Citadel pool their magic beneath the Erien in an ‘Aerith,’ into which they deposit magical reserves and draw upon its combined strength when in crisis (see footnote 4). Mechanically, we see Suvi ‘donate’ unused spell slots at the end of the day.

We do know that Grandmother Wren’s cottage is located on top of a source of great magical power and serves as her sanctum. Wizards also use the towers of the Citadel as their sanctums, and I believe the following is speculation, as I do not think it has been canonized yet, but it is possible that the Aerith serves a similar purpose as a source of great magical power that previously belonged to the Spirits that wizards alone now use and control. This control is the key difference that may be contributing to, or even causing, detrimental effects on the greater binding.

The Witch(es)’s and the Wild One(s)’s perspectives

Additional evidence to support this theory of the Aerith's origins and purpose comes in Episode 23, when Eursulon meets the Man in Black and discusses their opinions on mortals, particularly wizards and their desire for control. Specifically, the Man in Black states, “that tower is the handle of a knife plunged deep into the heart of this world, a heart that is responsible for… a murder to the world of Spirits” (Ep. 23, 0:09:45-0:10:07).

Later, in a flashback with Mirara and Grandmother Wren, Mirara argues that “the world has burned before” (perhaps in reference to the creation of the Irulian Desert), that “[wizards] cannot be allowed to do this thing” (still unclear what that thing is), and the coven must make some kind of decision before it is too late (Ep. 23, 0:58:46-0:59:00). Wren pleas for another option, points this out as a false dichotomy, that they must not “be forced to choose between one slaughter and another,” and they should work to find common ground and coexist (Ep. 23, 0:59:07-0:59:33). Mirara retorts that she could never imagine the day that she would see “the will of wizards debase themselves” (i.e., that wizards would ever lower themselves from their current position of power) (Ep. 23, 0:59:39-0:59:52).

Wren then asserts a key point that correlates directly with Stone’s perspective: “There is nothing I have seen in the world of Mortals or of Spirits that shows me that there is a path that is wrong to tread” or anything that proves the pursuit of wizardry as inherently wrong (i.e., the lingua arcana), only those who “tread paths hurtfully, with cruel intention” (i.e., those abusing the lingua arcana for political purposes and imperial gain) (Ep. 23, 1:00:08-1:00:28). Wren also questions Mirara’s stance of wizardry as “an abomination against the natural order of the world” (Ep. 23, 1:00:40-1:00:47). Mirara then challenges her to consider her point of view and insists that even Wren cannot deny that “the poison of wizards does not spread so quickly as to choke the life from this world” (Ep. 23, 1:01:03-1:01:09).

My pure speculation and fan theory:

From this conversation, I postulate that Mirara and the Coven has taken an extremist and doomed perspective on the harm that is resulting partially from the Axiom of Proliferation (and perhaps the Aerith as well), while Grandmother Wren took a reformist stance. This would put her and her position as the Witch of the World’s Heart at odds with whatever plan the Coven intends to enact. Given what we know of the Witch Class and the other domains of the Coven, their plan is quite possibly violent, retributive, and holds little to no concern for the Mortals or people of Umora.

The third arc will begin with Ame’s meeting with the Coven of Elders at the North Pole, where they will attempt to destroy her station as the Witch of the World’s Heart. For all of the reasons above, I believe this event will connect directly to Stone’s declaration of “treason against magic itself,” but I will just have to (patiently) wait and see (see footnote 5).

Footnotes:

(1) I am well aware that I am being quite vague and obtuse regarding this subject and what specifically I was researching. Mainly because a) that’s not really the point of these musings, this is just some background info and context to explain my philosophy which is already longer than I would like, b) it would be impossible to do justice to an overview of this complex subject in an essay about something that resonated with me in a D&D podcast (and which does not engage with that subject directly, at least not in this context), c) I’ve already written a paper on this subject and am not interested in regurgitating it here, and d) Nunya Binyess (i.e. I could still be wrong about this fallacy and I’d rather discuss WWW than start a tangential IRL philosophical or political argument on this forum).

(2) Though on a deeper level, I partially disagree with the idea that I needed to account for the practical implications of the fallacy within the paper. I disagree that when challenging the fundamental nature of something (e.g., an erroneous argument, a misinformed policy, or an unjust system), there must be an immediate remedy or solution offered up. In my philosophical opinion, once a fallacy like that is identified for something that we hold to be fundamentally true, we need to sit in that revelation and undo the thought processes created by the incorrect assumptions. You cannot flip a switch and suddenly reverse all of the justifications that have gone into supporting a flawed, ingrained argument. To undo a pervasive, incorrect fundamental idea that has been implemented, internalized, or proliferated, first it must be fully examined for all its flaws, rescinded, and only then do we start from square one and think about practical changes (in a perfect world, of course, I am fully aware that the world does not work this way). I do often wonder about this reactive nature in society to demand immediate alternatives and solutions when norms are challenged, though I recognize this is a result of different lived experiences and worldviews. After all, this reactionary nature is true in Umora as well, and the wizards of the Citadel “tend to be a lot more about praxis and practice” (Ep. 19, p. 14).

(3a) Perhaps Stone rolled a nat 20 on some kind of intelligence check for the vision, but rolled a nat 1 on her Persuasion check against Sleep!

(3b) There is another essay I could write here about the history of science and empire (another grad school course) and the reflection of this in the Imperium, its taxonomy, and the (anti)-democratization of knowledge, but perhaps another time.

(4)  Something that occurred to me when piecing together the Erien and the Aerith was the similarity to Morrow’s derrick that harnessed Naram’s power in the first arc. Both serve similar purposes as well, of generating magic and magical items. It makes me wonder if it was intended for the derrick to be Morrow’s poor attempt at recreating the glory of the Citadel, or if this is just a happy coincidence/connection between the arcs.

(5) I do want to briefly acknowledge the nature of improvisational storytelling in this situation, and that anything can change, be clarified, canonized, etc. at any point. This is partly why I don’t like to speculate much myself, because I trust the creators to tell the story the way they want to and follow the paths that appear, without projecting my own hopes or prescriptions when I listen to their wonderful creation that has been crafted with such care. It is also why my theory in the end is limited to the meeting with the coven- truly anything could happen at the beginning of the next arc, and whatever I might come up with is likely less interesting than what will happen. (NB: There is nothing wrong with fan theories or head canons! It’s just not usually something that interests me!) I merely saw a connection and through-line that deeply resonated with me in this second arc and felt compelled to write about it. Also, Worlds Beyond Number and WWW is just so fucking great, and it truly astounds me that this story is so deep that I have somehow written a 12-page essay analyzing essentially a 20-minute segment of one episode. I pray to Enzo that there are no grievous errors or spelling mistakes, but I wanted to post this on WBN’s first birthday! 🧡

[absolutebl]

Hi there! I've just returned from a two-week holiday (as I'm writing this I'm actually still driving back home, but I want to get on top of it lmao), so I would like to defer to your knowledge:

could you pretty please provide me with an update on what series ended/started while I was away? I have a vague idea, but I don't want to miss out on the things that didn't get as much promo and are therefore not on my mdl.

if you can, my watchlist will be forever thankful!!

July Report: BL that Stopped & Started & Is worth Your time

Ended July 2023

Step By Step

This was Thailand’s answer to The New Employee, and everything I loved about that show I loved about this one.

This was an office romance between stern boss and sweet subordinate that felt more authentic to an office environment than previous Thai BLs of this ilk. And that authenticity added tension to the narrative and character development (how novel). Now that might be because it has western source material, or it might be because it is actually kind of old-fashioned (it’s been years since I worked as an office grunt). I also really enjoyed the brothers’ relationship, and kinda wished they hadn’t attempted (and failed) to give said brother his own side BL. That one flaw made it a 9/10 for me.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

La Pluie

This BL takes to task the fated mates trope and what it means to have love chained intimately to predestination. It’s about how faith in destiny before choice diminishes the authenticity of emotion, relationships, and connection. This is a high concept to examine through the lens of a BL.

By activating + examining the soulmates trope this show is challenging a foundation of romance: the idea that there is one person meant to be your one romantic partner all your life. This means that we, as viewers, spend much of the show worried about it having a happy ending, and that’s the source of both its brilliance and tension: would the narrative have the strength to truly challenge its own romantic core? But, ultimately, all this elevated complexity was executed in a somewhat shaky manner with the narrative derailing into some serious pacing issues and characters manipulated by miscommunication.

However, with good chemistry and decent acting all around, plus some excellent high heat and representation of consent and a few other rare tropes, this one has to (like it’s sibling show My Ride) earn a 9/10. I enjoyed it even as it made me think, so despite its flaws:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Started July 2023 & Looking GOOD

Jun & Jun

Korea Thurs Viki 8 eps

THANK YOU BL GODS. It is so good. Like everything I want in the world. I’m incandescently happy with this show.

It’s office set,

it’s an ex idol,

everyone is pretty as peaches,

and it’s all about remembering somebody’s smell!

I could not be more delighted.

Laws of Attraction

Thai Sat iQIYI 8 eps

(Icky picked it up but they are serving it in a complicated way that may require a VPN.)

Stars the pair from To Sir With Love with the same production team. IT’S SO GOOD. A morally corrupted trickster lawyer with a tragic past, sad eyes, and a beautiful smile that he uses like a weapon. Meets paladin martial arts instructor from other side of the tracks (who is out, at least to his baby sister).

Corrupt police.

Spoiled rich kid evil.

Ambitious politician.

Tragic death.

Terrible subs.*

This show is very like Manner of Death but so far it is a much better/tighter story (there's a Devil Judge aura happening). It’s NOT BL but it is fucking phenomenal. And you should watch it. Not wait to binge it. WATCH IT.

On a global scale this might be the best thing currently airing featuring gay romantic leads. Its really fucking good. It’s Lawless Lawyer but more complex character motivation and gay af. Fuck yes please and thank you. FINALLY.

Triggers for violence, beatings, death & torture depicted on screen. Like MoD they are not holding back. 

(* A lot of the familial names they are using are not gendered in Thai but translated as such, like “nephew”. This one is gonna go down a lot easier if you know some Thai.)

ALSO:

Stay By My Side - Taiwan Fri Gaga 10 eps

Hidden Agenda that isn’t hidden - Thailand Sun GMMTV YouTube 12 eps

Low Frequency - Thailand Sat iQIYI 8 eps

Started But You Can Probably Wait IMHO

Dinosaur Love (Sun iQIYI)

Be Mine Super Star (Mon Viki)

Wedding Plan (Weds YT & iQIYI) it's mame so A trash watch is happening! 

Minato Shouji Coin Laundry Season 2 (Japan Thu Gaga)

Hope this is what you wanted.

[marsontherocks]

My Motivation is here but is fighting off the ADHD and Anxiety, so I'm going to just work on what is wanted more first :)

Explanations below, and spoilers for MW3 on number 3

1. Simon "Ghost" Riley x Hispanic! Trans Male Reader: You spend some time with Soap and get an insight into his and Simon’s relationship.

2. John "Soap" MacTavish x Medic! Male Reader: John wakes up with some bad, yet amazing news.

3. After Soap's near death experience, the 141 takes some time off and re-examines their relationships with each other, and if it's ever been platonic.

4. Reader is assigned partners with the Paranormal Believer FBI Agent Phillip Graves(there will be other characters making appearance of course)

5. A team consisting of Physician Dr. Rodolfo Parra, Technology Specialists Mr. Phillip Graves, Representative Mr. John Price, Geologist Dr. Farah Karim, and Survival Expert Mr. Alejandro Vargas are sent to a remote Arctic research station in Svalbard.(Relationships dynamics will be different than both COD and The White Vault, and the featured ships will be AleRudy, FarahAlex, and PriceGraves :) also I highly recommend listening to The White Vault)