#writing discussion

[polling-sonic-fans]

Is Sonic trans?

- Yes, trans man

- Yes, trans woman

- Yes, nonbinary

- Yes, genderfluid

- Yes, some other identity

- No, he is not

- I’ve never considered this before

Thanks anon! Polls for the Sonic fandom on just about anything. Share polls you like to get more data. Asks and submissions always open.

[tahbhie]

Creating Emotionally Devastating Scenes.

Crafting a scene that earns the total sympathy of your readers can be challenging, but it's not impossible. Most emotionally devastating scenes fail at two things, but when these are done right, the results can be powerful.

⚪ The Important Concepts for Writing an Emotionally Devastating Scene

1. The Build-Up,

2. Breaking the Dam.

Before I explain these concepts, let me share a case study.

⚫ Case Study

I wrote a story about a young orphan named Jackie and her younger brother. Their village was burned down, leaving them as the only survivors.

For the next few chapters, readers followed their painful journey and their struggle to survive. The younger brother had a heart problem, and Jackie vowed to become a cardiologist to save him.

She was very ambitious about it, but at the time, it was very ironic. Later in the story, when they encountered a tragic living condition with a family, the brother died while telling his sister how much he missed their parents.

When her brother was fighting for his life, she was sent out of the room, only to be let in again to see his cold, lifeless body.

⚪ Explanation of Concepts

1. The Build-Up

The build-up is extremely important when you aim to convey strong emotions. Here's a secret: if you plan for a scene with strong emotions, start leaving breadcrumbs from the very beginning of the story.

Take the previous case study. I carefully built up their journey so people could easily relate and feel the pain of the older sister during her brother's sudden death.

You need to give the situation enough reason to feel utterly hopeless and devastating. Gradually cultivate the tension until it's ready to let loose.

⚫ Understanding the Use of Breadcrumbs.

Breadcrumbs in stories ensure you utilize the time you have to build up certain emotions around your characters.

At the beginning of my story, Jackie’s fate was already pitiable, but she survived every hurdle. This gave the readers enough to feel for her while still leaning away from the outcome. When I built enough, I introduced her brother's sudden death.

Hence, leave your breadcrumbs while leaning away from the outcome.

⚪ How to Properly Leave Breadcrumbs

When building up your story, consider these elements:

☞⁠ Character Relatability: The characters need to be realistic to draw readers into the story. This helps readers invest themselves in your story.

☞⁠ Realistic Emotional Pain: Just as characters need to be relatable, their emotions need to be realistic and not appear forced.

☞⁠ Create a Strong Emotional Attachment: Give them something they care about or that has the power to ruin their lives in any way. It could be something that makes them happy or something their happiness relies on. When it's time, snatch it away without remorse.

☞⁠ Have a Backstage Struggle: This struggle keeps readers occupied, so they won't see the outcome coming. For example, Jackie’s constant struggle to find food and shelter keeps readers engaged while the impending tragedy looms in the background.

☞⁠ Attach Believable Elements: For a realistic character, emotion, and struggle, attach believable elements. It could be death, ailments, sickness, disorder, disappointment, failure, etc.

Now that we've covered the build-up, let's move on to the next crucial part.

2. Breaking the Dam

This is when you make your readers feel the strong emotions alongside your characters. All the tension you’ve been building up is released, making all emotions come into play.

☞⁠ Break Your Strong Attachment: Cut off your strong attachment from your character when they least expect it or at a point when they couldn't use more struggles (i.e when they are helpless).

This will not only evoke readers’ emotions but also pique their curiosity as they wonder how the character will survive the situation.

☞⁠ Description of Sensory Details to Invoke Emotions: The advice of "show, don't tell" will be really helpful here. It's crucial to ensure that the final execution matches the build-up.

A well-crafted build-up can fall flat if the emotional release isn't handled effectively. To avoid this, blend the climax seamlessly into the narrative, making it feel natural and impactful.

Reblog to save for reference! 💜

[did-i-do-this-write]

Hey writeblr, I'm curious about something. You know what that means!

*"shared with others" means like sent in a discord or group chat. You may or may not be aware that the reader did this.

[bibliophilesince2003]

Strong Female Characters

Too many times I pick up a new book to read, but I am immediately met with the female protagonist whose personality is "toughness" and/or "meanness." The equivalent is making a "bad boy" character and calling it a personality. Male or female author, anyone could fall victim to this trap.

Skills and tropes are not personality.

Sure, it's easy to mold a character to snap at everyone in an arrogant manner at every dialogue opportunity and call it a day, but the character remains shallow. Especially for your main character, you should have multiple "words" to describe them. This will bring ease to your writing, too.

For example, for one character of mine... I've put down 18 personality traits in her character chart, and I could likely put down more if given enough time.

When I'm met with a "tough" female protagonist, I'm always expecting more details. What sort of people or what kind of environment makes her stiffen, and - this is as equally as important - what sort of people or what kind of environment makes her relaxed? Being "tough" is more about mood than personality, because surroundings could easily change it.

Is she driven or shy? Is she humorous or serious? Is she observant or a free spirit? Is she clumsy or graceful? Is she friendly or cautious?

Notice how I said "or" and separated the two extremes. You cannot have clumsy and graceful... you must pick one side of the spectrum. A person will naturally lean one way or the other.

Some people make the mistake of choosing the other "extreme" to create weaknesses. "She's driven, but she's shy." Being shy is not a weakness... some people are naturally this way, and there are benefits to being shy.

Find weaknesses within the "extreme" you've chosen.

For example, if one is driven... the weakness is impulsiveness. She may get in trouble, or trouble will find her. Being over-zealous is fine... in doses. Let your character make those mistakes to better represent their personality.

If you're struggling, observe the people in your life. Personality will shine through how a person acts, treats others, talks, etc.

Here's what I do... write down multiple personality traits, decide how extroverted/introverted he/she is, and settle on a single word that wraps up his/her whole character, or most of it, to help refer to something simple during the writing process.

And no, that "single word" better not be a skill or trope.

I want complicated female protagonists again, ones that are more than just mood swings or their environment.

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Advice: Writing Disabled People

I thought about doing some more posts about writing different kinds of people after my last post that somehow managed to get on @cripplecharacters blew up. So this is for you :D

I'm going to give you one piece of advice that you need to carry with you for all your life.

There are different definitions of a fulfilling life.

Oftentimes, through entertainment, watching our parents, and just existing we pick up different dreams. And those dreams often exclude disabled people.

Today, this topic is going to be centered on tragedy and joy that disabled people/characters have. And what a fullfilling life can be.

Obviously, someone whose definition of a fulfilling life includes "I want to have all of my limbs" would not be able to have an enjoyable life if they somehow lost a limb.

That's where change comes in!

You adapt to your circumstances. You change your idea of what a fulfilling life means. You include what you are always going to be inside your definition of what a fulfilling life means.

Oftentimes, people are going to given the idea of a fulfilling life. Maybe it's a nuclear family. Maybe it's unlimited freedom. Maybe it's a high paying job. Maybe it's a certain creative passion. Maybe it's just having all your limbs

You probably have your own idea of what a fulfilling life looks like. And if you aren't disabled or don't share the same disability as your character, you might impart your own subjective experience on this character.

It's this reason that authors often make disabled characters tragic or insane. They can't imagine having a fulfilling life if they didn't have intelligence, conventional beauty, independence, traditional social structures, certain physical capabilities, and other aspects that could be impacted by disability.

I certainly struggle with this. And you probably do to.

But when you open your mind, you realize that humans are purely adapting creatures. No matter what happens in your character or even your life, you can find fulfillment.

Allow your character to live a life that others and maybe even you would call tragic, or boring, or maddening, or pathetic. Give them the right to be seperate from you. And then give them happy days. Give them moments where regardless of what their life is, they are fulfilled.

Stories often center on the question "after tragedy, can we find happiness?". After death, is there a second chance for the living? After loss, can we gain something new?

Why shouldn't that be the same for a character who was born disabled or developed disability?

Yes, they lost the chance to dream about your fulfilling dream. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for your characters and your fellow humans to develop their own fulfilling life.

When you learn this, life becomes a lot less scarier. While I haven't totally internalized the advice, I have picked up some of the benefits. I don't fear losing my sight. If I do live to be old, I can learn to grow into my body. No matter what happens, I can be happy.

Tagging: @differentnighttale, @melda0m3, @12-cluh, @ravennova7, @madmadhuman, @drivingmebonkas, @fanwriting93, @startheoverseer

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Given all of this kwami swap talk as well as you explaining how nonsensical it was to hand out the exact two Miraculous that Hawkmoth was looking for to the heroes meant to directly fight his akuma, I’d love to pick your brain about how you think the story would’ve gone if Master Fu gave Marinette the canon Dragon Miraculous and Adrien the canon Turtle Miraculous in Origins instead as well as them having Longg and Wayzz respectively to bounce off of from the get-go. Beyond me loving a classic sword-and-shield combo, I figure that this would still give Marinette the leading stance while giving Adrien the defensive stance in battle, which I personally don’t have a problem with when executed well given Adrien’s issues with self-control in deciding when and on what/whom to use Cataclysm and strategizing in general. In addition to that, having Shellter as Adrien’s power and Wayzz as his kwami would force him to take his and his partner’s disposition in battle seriously from the get-go, with Wayzz being heavily implied to be a kwami that prefers to take his time and thoroughly explain what needs to be done, meaning Adrien would have to show Wayzz that he really understands what he needs to do before getting the transformation phrase out of him.

On Marinette’s side of things, Longg is actually canonically confirmed from his first interaction with Kagami to be a kwami that prefers to take his time and thoroughly explain what needs to be done, which would lead to Marinette being calm enough from his explanation of what’s happening and what her job is to actually remember getting Stoneheart’s akuma the first time without any problems. This is especially in comparison to Tikki who, after Marinette tried to run what she said back to her with a clear lack of full understanding and confidence, even saying verbatim “Aww... this is all going too fast, Tikki... I... won't be able to pull this off!”, simply responds with “Trust yourself, Marinette. Just say ‘Spots on’.” without any further clarification or rerun.

Concerning actually cleansing the akuma, since lightning and especially water have far more cleansing symbolism than creation, either could easily act as the purification of akuma. Lightning could either burn away the negative magic corrupting akumas or burn the akuma itself to ash, which would also deplete Hawkmoth’s collection of butterflies at the time (though Marinette probably wouldn’t like the second option since they’re technically living creatures). An alternative would be Water “washing away” the negative magic in the akuma (while I’m mostly sure that akuma have been sent out in the rain before, Wind could be used to dry off the butterflies before they drown/so their wings aren’t damaged in case I’m misremembering and they’re like normal butterflies in that they can’t get wet). I know I specifically asked for your analysis on the canon Miraculous being given out, and while I would still like that I’m okay with fudging the Dragon JUST this much since it already has established advantages over other Miraculous, a minor wielder not detransforming until all three powers are used instead of just one for example. And while the restoration of Miraculous Ladybug would no longer be an option from the jump, I’m honestly cool with that this far into watching the show as it would push the Parisian officials to get off their butts and actually try to solve the magical terrorist issue WITH the heroes instead of expecting them to just manage everything.

You're actually hitting real close to my "fix" for the dragon with the whole sword-and-shield thing because I absolutely think that the dragon and the turtle should have been a matched set of sorts. I don't like the fact that only the ladybug and the black cat get paired up. I want all of the Kwamis to be part of some sort of set (doesn't need to be a set of two! Just a set). However, I don't see how a sword-and-shield combo fits Adrien and Marinette or how this miraculous pairing would work in the context of canon, though that may just be because I'm missing something. I'll give you why this isn't clicking for me and you can do with that what you will. Do not let me stop you from writing this fic or loving this concept! Fan theories are about having fun, not about appealing to me. I'm only giving you all of this because you asked for my thoughts. Don't feel obligated to read it if it makes you sad.

For me, Marinette's defining feature is her creativity and this setup removes that or at least heavily cuts it back. While you can be creative with the dragon's powers, they're basically just elemental speed boosts which isn't useful in most situations unless we're going to allow akumas to get electrocuted now.

The fights would also become a lot less unique as the heroes are now limited to a shield and the three flavors of elemental speed boost. Those aren't exactly the most diverse powersets in the world, especially given that the elemental thing requires you to physically charge in. You're not casting elemental abilities like a wizard. This new setup could still work if you nerfed the butterfly and made it so that the akumas didn't have such a wide variety of powers, but as-is, that doesn't sound like a balanced fight. The heroes feel too heavily disadvantaged and limited, especially given that they're now both close combat style fighters while akumas can still be ranged.

There's also the issue that Marinette isn't suited to close combat fighting. She has no training in any form of combat sport. Between her and Adrien, it seems more logical to give him the dragon, not her. He's the fencer, after all, and the dragon's weapon is that sudo sword baton thing. Adrien's also better suited to close combat fighting in terms of narrative role while removing Marinette's ranged abilities would further undermine her current role.

In terms of fighting styles, canon's setup is that Adrien does close combat and distraction techniques while Marinette sticks to long range attacks so that she has time to think. This is a really solid dynamic because it lets Marinette be creative. Making Marinette a close combat fighter would drastically limit her ability to be creative because you don't have time to be creative when you're doing that style of fighting. Your brain is simply too focused on survival (saying this as someone who fenced for several years). This is why tacticians are usually at the back of the battlefield relaying orders. You don't tend to send them to the front lines if you can help it.

The final issue with Marinette having the dragon in a canon setup is that I really don't think that you can get away with removing the magical reset button that is her ladybug cure. There are simply way too many akumas that cause mass destruction and even implied death. You'd have to massively nerf the akumas for this change to feel reasonable as it's not a minor change in stakes or tone. Akumas like Syren or The Bubbler would be impossible and you can never let anyone get injured because they now had to heal on a normal timeline, meaning that Adrien would probably end up sidelined before the end of season one.

While I get the desire to have the authorities step in and help more, your theory that the officials would work with the heroes doesn't really match what we've seen in canon or what tends to happen in these sorts of stories. The more likely setup is for the officials to work on solving the case without the heroes help or with the heroes only supplying the occasional tip/coming when summoned via something like the bat signal because, generally speaking, what information can the heroes really give them? Plus that setup requires the heroes and the government officials to have some sort of clear and open line of communication or standard meeting cadence, which is pretty risky and also ads at least one adult character who is now a major player in the story. An adult character who has this as their full time job while the teens are in school unless we're aging everyone up and letting the heroes be available during normal business hours or setting the story during summer vacation?

We've mostly focused on the dragon here, so let's take a moment to talk about the turtle. I do like Adrien as a backup user for the turtle, but you'd have to change the turtle up a bit if you wanted to make it his full-time role. Chat Noir is an incredibly dynamic fighter who jumps around the battlefield via a mix of acrobatics and his staff. Carapace's fighting style is much more tanky with him just holding up the shield and watching for opportunities to move in and defend with his power. This makes perfect sense and would be true for any turtle because of the turtle's weapon and power set. A shield is not suited to offense unless you make it work like Captain America's shield where it's a mix between a shield and a boomerang. For a normal shield, throwing it is a one-time use weapon. It's also not an offensive weapon, so Adrien would be heavily limited in terms of how he could fight.

And if we switch the turtle to Marinette? Then we're back to the whole limited-creativity thing. The turtle's power isn't meant for defeating villains. It's meant for protecting allies and civilians. Whoever is wielding it needs to be watching the fight, looking for risks. They can't give most of their attention to plotting how to win.

All that being said, I really like using the dragon and the turtle to flesh out the team. I think the turtle being the third member of the existing team would make total sense as a way to solve Chat Noir's self-sacrifice problem. You could also replace the black cat with the dragon and make it dragon!Adrien, Ladybug, and a turtle holder, but I'm not really seeing a functional version of canon that removes the Ladybug. It would be a wildly different story.

You asked about the Kwamis, too, so let's end on that!

Wayzz and Longg seem like solid mentors who could arguably replace Tikki without massively changing the feel of the story, but I'm hesitant to replace Plagg. Plagg's got one of the strongest personalities in canon and is the source of a lot of comedy to the point where his poor movie treatment upset a lot of people. Straight up removing him and replacing him with more serious Kwami would change that element of canon even more and I don't know if it would be a good change. Plagg and Tikki's opposing personalities give you a lot to work with. Wayzz and Longg would be way less dynamic and interesting as they're both responsible and calm.

We also have to keep in mind that a lot of Tikki and Plagg's flaws come from the fast pace of the show. Tikki rushed Marinette in Origins because the writers wanted to fit everything into 40 minutes and also establish why Marinette needed to cleans the butterflies in every episode, so they had Marinette and Adrien get their miraculous during the first akuma attack and then mess that up to establish the show's stakes. If they'd been given their miraculous even a day earlier, then things would have gone a lot smoother as Tikki would have had time to fully explain things since no one was in danger. This rushed stakes issue would apply to any Kwami who was handed out during an attack. After all, Wayzz and Longg don't exactly get to give Nino and Kagami detailed explanations when they were chosen either. If Adrien got the dragon or the turtle mid-battle, then I picture things going very similar to Kagami getting the dragon:

Longg: Greetings, young lady and good day to you. Fear not, I am Longg, the Dragon Kwami. Kagami: You're a what? Longg: A Kwa-mi... Allow me to tell you about the many feats that a magic being like myself will help you accomplish once the magic words have been spoken. (Kagami puts on the Miraculous) Ladybug has hopes that you will defeat Ikari Gozen with panache, using the element of your choosing. Wind, water or lightning. But firstly, let me tell you about her plan. Kagami: Longg, bring the storm! Longg: Wait! No! Not yet!

After all, that's basically what happened in Origins:

Plagg: Claws out! That's how you transform. Adrien: Got it. Plagg, claws out! Plagg: No, wait! I haven't finished explaining!--- (enters the ring)

[eldritchtouched]

Actually, I'm still bothered by this, now, with regard to Marika and the Shattering.

The main quest in the base game now shouldn't have happened at all, if you try to incorporate the DLC information and that this is supposed to be an answer related to Marika.

Because there are four possibilities now about the nature of the Elden Ring:

The Elden Ring makes you a god.

The Elden Ring is being used as a leash by the Greater Will/Elden Beast.

It both grants you godhood and makes you beholden to the Greater Will/Elden Beast.

The Elden Ring isn't actually either of those things. It is just a powerful magic ring and its pieces are pieces of its power.

The Elden Ring does have power- the Great Runes all have magical effects. You can muck with it and add and subtract runes from it to alter the state of the world itself and everyone in it. It's a plot point that Marika removed the Rune of Death and how this affected the world and how she got her Golden Order.

If it's a leash, it makes no sense for it to do that, to give Marika more power when you want to keep her under your control.

On top of that, after the Elden Beast is slain and the connection to the Greater Will severed, it still has power enough to grant Ranni's Age of Stars and the various Mending Rune endings. Meaning it doesn't really work as a 'leash.'

But if godhood is granted by going through the Divine Gate and the ritual involving a lord and vessel and god, Marika shattering the Elden Ring is pointless. It isn't where her divinity comes from. It doesn't stop her from being a god. Her divinity is now intrinsic to herself after she did the ritual. Radagon attempting to repair it is nonsense, too, as he would know their divinity doesn't come from a magic ring. It would only work if it's a leash/connection to the Greater Will, then.

And if Miquella is basically supposed to be her repeated, then their process makes no sense in relation to the Shattering. The Story Trailer also makes this clear that Marika did this process.

But Miquella's stuff would mean that Marika shouldn't be in conflict about her own divinity enough to want to stop being a god. It undercuts the theme the game tries to set up with Miquella, that becoming a god involves stripping away all your humanity and you're utterly unrecognizable. But Marika was in conflict about her divinity and humanity with her situation with Radagon. It's a pretty important plot point in the base game's story.

If it's both, both problems remain, though. If the Elden Ring is both power and leash, then it still doesn't change that the Divine Gate stuff happened and Marika is a divinity still, so shattering the Elden Ring doesn't actually change her being a god. And giving someone power if they're supposed to be leashed is also stupid.

But if it's none of that, if the Elden Ring is just a magic ring of great power, then it raises its own questions. Why would Marika having it matter at all? Why bother shattering it, if that's not going to stop you from being a god? Why would the Greater Will's vassal punish Marika for shattering it and the Order's "leal hound" try to repair it? Radagon and the Elden Beast and Marika all would know this is utterly irrelevant.

[seaglasswrites]

Daily Discussion Thread #2 (1/2/25)

When writing, would you say you’re a very visual person? Do you have a clear idea in your head of what your characters look like, or do you only have a few bare details to work off of?

If you do have an idea in your head, how clear is it? In addition, what does this apply to? Do you have detailed descriptions written about their hair, eyes, nose, and mouth, but very little about their clothes, or vica versa? Why do you think this is?

How does this way of thinking about and writing descriptions influence your writing as a whole? Would you say that descriptions are an important part of your writing style?

[sunnywalnut]

Hello writers of Tumblr! I've got a quick question for you

Background for said question for those that want to give an informed answer: I myself am white and on a quest to find enjoyable and inoffensive language to describe wide ranges of people, specifically nonwhite folks and have come across the term while reading through a Tumblr post about a king and his group of concubines with various government backgrounds.

The description piqued my interest and I immediately liked it, looked it up, and loved it even more, since from what I know, foxes are pretty much the one animal nobody has a problem with being compared to. Silver foxes, vixens, or just regular old "you're a total fox" comments. But now that I've thought about it a bit more, I'm curious.

I've looked into it. On Google, on the handful of blogs dedicated to writing poc correctly such as @writingwithcolor, and even a reddit post or two. But very few were actually about what I was looking for, and even fewer had anything to say other than "it means a person with high cheek bones and narrow eyes"

So before I do any writing with it, I'd like to know what you guys think.

Thank you

[derkuningas]

blaire is peak and why rusty can't write truly evil women

If you've found this post, I don't need to introduce Leasebound to you.

Instead, we're going to talk about the fandom.

Leasebound's fandom has a sort of Lemony-Snicket-esque schism, with Rusty's intended audience and (hilariously) the exact opposite. I've seen both sides of the Leasebound audience, and I've noticed something interesting.

...nobody hates Blaire.

Okay, that's a HELL of a sentence to make, and very exaggerated. I've seen 'Blaire unenjoyers' and other people treating Blaire like the Eric Cartman of Leasebound, it's an eye-catching statement that makes people read more of the text post.

But I wouldn't call it wrong, I'd give it a 'hyperbolic.'

Even on the side of Rusty's intended audience, Blaire isn't loathed. I've seen many enjoyers of Blaire who either talk about how much they went her to talk gender to them, so to say. On the flipside, the worst interpretation of Blaire is a misogynist who pushes her activism on other people, which is more or less her canon intent.

But if Blaire was as bad as Rusty Hearts portrayed her, I don't think we'd see so much art of Blaire. In fact, I put down a poll, and Blaire pretty much took the #1 spot for the 'character with the most fanart' almost instantly, beating out characters such as Jaden (who took silver), Riley, and Violet. And it pretty much sticks!

I've seen a lot of Blaire fanart from the Leasebound tag on both sides! I've seen a lot of Blaire discussion and discourse on both sides, either about the possibility of a redemption arc, a rewrite, thirsting over her, etc.

So...we can pretty much say Blaire is a bad strawman.

Strawmen are supposed to be one-note characters the main cast is supposed to be more interesting than and can fight with no pushback. Blaire is massively popular across the board in the Leasebound fandom, has discussions about her that are multi-layered, and has wonderful fanart from people that really like her.

Done. That's all.

But we're not done. We need to keep talking.

Rusty Leasebound is very good at some things. Her chapter focusing on Shez had emotional, gut-wrenching art, and there is a definite appealing quality to the way she draws things.

Some things, atleast.

But Rusty is not a great writer. There's tons of other essays and an entire discord server that can point all the flaws in her story out enough to write an epic worthy of the Mahabharata. Leasebound has largely forgotten what it is to be a mouthpiece for her political opinions, its characters are one-note and one-dimensional, she focuses on the wrong things at the wrong time, and many more that will make my fingers cry as I type this. But I want to focus of Rusty's tendencies to tell, not show.

Blaire is not evil. She's not even Maleficent or Ursula or Cruella evil. And she's no Makima either. Blaire is just a woman passionate about her beliefs, and makes the mistake of pushing them on other people. That's not evil, that's a flaw. Women cannot be perfect all the time.

But we're meant to believe she is evil. In this panel of the Actor!AU, we are TOLD by Rusty that Blaire is meant to be evil.

Blaire isn't evil! Come back to me when she puts a living creature in a blender, or something!

While the statement is understandable, you're using it in the wrong way! Because there is no reason for the casual Leasebound reader to ever believe Blaire is evil, the way you portray her!

(Yes, casual Leasebound readers exist. Quinty's one.)

And there's multiple occasions of this 'tell, don't show' narrative Rusty keeps pushing.

For example: Meriam.

Meriam is told to be the protective, strong mother, but I'm not sure that's entirely the case.

Meriam has serious flaws in her parenting that is never acknowledged. Shez was made to basically worry for her siblings at a young age, which sounds horrible for a young girl.

(side note: criticism of the comic has often lead to more interesting, and realistic plotlines for leasebound to include.)

She's obviously traumatised, and it shows in her parenting. When she shuns out Rissa and her boyfriend; that's not good! If Rissa wants her family by her side, she won't get it because she's marrying a man. Meriam always keeps Shez on the pedestal like she's Luisa from Encanto.

Nobody asks how's Shez. Someone help Shez.

And there's so much more!

We get snippets of Riley, a MAIN CHARACTER'S backstory from one-off panels and dialouges, but we heard the majority of it from Rusty in the comment section, Rusty confirming fan speculation, the cast page, non-canon panels, etc. Nothing in the main story!

And that just makes Riley...really boring. The most interesting part of Riley is Blaire right now, and that's REALLY bad, considering we're supposed to dislike Blaire.

Here are some more examples of Rusty telling, not showing:

Muddles:

Riley:

Various statuses of offscreen characters:

Blaire and many others of Rusty's characters have fallen into one of her biggest writing flaws' clutches, but it's interesting as to how fan perception and works have essentially made one of the most three-dimensional characters of the comic, aside from Jaden. And that's one of the main problems with Leasebound.

I want to end this with an open letter. I don't know if she'll read it, but if you do:

Listen to criticism, and find out what's wrong with your comic. Tune in to different parts of the fandom, even when you don't agree with them. At the heart of the war, we all share one thing: reading your comic. Don't take that for granted; many amazing, better written comics would love to have the attention you have. Your art is good. I enjoy reading Leasebound when it's about the characters, not how we're supposed to percieve them. You have something; harness it before it goes away! And at the rate Leasebound is going- it might go away really fast.

Thank you for reading. I don't have anything else to say.

...

Hey, remember when a radfem accidentally reblogged a post by a non-radfem-

[polling-sonic-fans]

Is Metal Sonic trans?

- Yes, trans man

- Yes, trans woman

- Yes, nonbinary

- Yes, genderfluid

- Yes, other

- No, he’s not

- I’ve never considered this before

Thanks anon! A similar poll has been asked before, but the options are slightly different here, so I thought there was still merit in having both polls. I will link the previous one below, but please vote here before checking the winning option from that one.

Polls for the Sonic fandom on just about anything. Share polls you like to get more data. Asks and submissions always open.

Previous poll.

[moltenwrites]

Hi! I read the bit of Paintings that’s out and I’m a fan. I really like how relaxingly told it is, it’s very flow-y and easy. When my attention span is more cooperative I’m interested to see what else you’ve got up as well, but that day is evidently not today haha.

On a lark, asking your thoughts on a technical question, just me nerding out, I’m curious if you have thoughts on writing serialized versus… is it just non-serialized? Less serialized? Fiction.

I’m of the opinion that a lot of, for my experience, manga suffer a lot from the lack of ability to edit their structure and continuity, however it gets me out of my head and onto the page. Even on ao3 I don’t like going back and editing continuity mistakes as I think it’s unfair to anyone who’s read the old chapters to suddenly say “hey, that name I forgot to add in chapter one?(this happened ~w~) Yeah, you know that now!”

Instead it forced me to get creative and add an element that didn’t clash with established world building and future plans, which was fun and challenging. So like, it’s better for me psychologically? Especially in terms of motivating me by having people actually see it while I’m moving forward.

Idk, it’s an art, not a science, just newish to the site and wanted to reach out and talk writing.

Happy New Year!

Heya, firstly I wanted to say this 100% made my day thank you SO SO much.

As for the question, I’m still honestly figuring that out! I’ve never really posted publicly, so I’m not sure if my stance on serilazation of this stuff will change, but here’s what I currently think for my writing. I personally don’t plan on changing anything ( except for maybe like a grammar/spelling error I didn’t catch ) after stuff is posted! Unless I feel like I made a mistake so great that it needs to be fixed, I’ll just try to work it into the story.

As for other people, I can 100% see both arguments. Even outside of the more niche communities here, some series would KILL for the ability to be able to change some old stuff.

I personally wouldn’t mind if a series in following were to change something, as long as it’s communicated to the reader in some way. Like in the unlikely event I WOULD make a major change, I’d make a blog post and put an addendum on whatever chapter would be posted next.

On the other hand, I always commend it when people find ways to write themselves out of corners. I think the ability to work around your continuity, especially in fantasy settings, is an important skill so that there aren’t constant retcons.

I hope I answered the question well enough haha, thanks again for reading, I’ll try to put up the next part soon ™️

Oh, and happy new year :)

[did-i-do-this-write]

Writer’s Round Table

Welcome to the table! An on-going writeblr event designed to encourage forum-like discussions about writing and our stories!

This is an idea that I had last year, but I didn’t quite have a good format worked out yet. This year, I’m going to re-vamp it. Instead of picking set topics every month, I’m going to let you guys decide what we talk about!

To start a discussion…

Send me an ask that includes something about your writing and a question related to what you shared! You could share some backstory/the reason you thought of the question or you could share specific details about your WIP and ask about the details of other’s WIPs, etc. The content of the ask is completely up to you, as long as it includes something shared and something asked!

For my part…

I’ll post your ask with my response which will include a response to what you shared, my answer to your question, and another question to follow it up!

The community…

Will then continue the chain by reblogging and answering in the same response-answer-question format, continuing the chain for anyone who wants to join the discussion and share their personal experiences!

Reminders

You can start as many discussions as you’d like! If you think of something to share on one chain that is off topic, consider starting a new discussion by sending an ask of your own.

You can participate on one chain as much as you’d like! If you want to respond once then take your leave, that’s fine. If you want to respond to every addition and keep adding answers and questions, feel free to.

You’re not required to answer in any particular order! If you find a version of the chain with three responses, but you really like the question the first response offered, feel free to grab their reblog and start another chain from there. There’s no strict order to continuing the chain.

My inbox may be closed at times. I will post updates on my blog to let you guys know when it is closed or open for discussions.

There is a taglist! Just let me know that you want to be added by replying to this post, DMing me, or sending an ask. You will be tagged in any discussion thread that gets started for the event.

(Note: There was a taglist for the old format of the round table, but that taglist has been purged. If you were on the old one and wish to be added to this event, please sign up again!)

You can always ask questions about the event! I tried to cover the basics here in this post, but I am only human after all. If you have any clarifying questions, feel free to reblog or reply to this post, DM me, or send me an ask and I’d be happy to answer for you!

[bibliophilesince2003]

Virtuous Characters

I'm here with another post about what I want to see in literature, or what I find severely lacking, and that is virtuous characters, specifically virtuous main characters.

Uplifting a morally grey character for doing evil is considered attractive because "morally grey" is defined as neither good or bad. In other words... why attack morally grey characters if they have no concept of good or evil?

A morally grey character may have motivation, and they might not. An author can write up this sort of character without ever having to explain why the character is committing something wrong, because "wrong" and "right" is not clearly defined. That's just how they are, apparently.

Perhaps people avoid defining good and evil because it can be developed into something cliche. We've all seen the movies that clearly portray an evil character as evil because they wish to "take over the world" or sit alone in a dark room, brooding. We've all seen the movies that clearly portray a good character as a young, misunderstood person who simply loves everybody and wants everyone to get along.

Good and evil should be clearly defined. There is no such thing as "morally grey" characters in reality. Morals do not change, and most human beings abide by them. It is the one thing that provides structure and closure, and it is the border between good and evil.

So how are authors to define good and evil without being cliche or predictable?

A convincing evil character will have suffered through life, perhaps. They have motivation, and ambition that takes them too far. They have lost their morality, or a part of it. However, redemption is always possible, and no one is too far gone. Include those moments of vulnerability.

If you need inspiration, think of history. I will use the example of Adolf Hitler. Most people would consider him a very evil person, but why? He was manipulative and gained support. He introduced concentration camps and ignored moral boundaries, perfectly content with inflicting harm on innocent people.

Most importantly, a convincing good character is not "good" because they never make mistakes, or always do the right thing. A good character is refreshing because it represents young people who are, in fact, innocent and/or naïve. They see a brighter hope that we should all strive to see when times are tough. No, a good character doesn't always win. Break them, and introduce reality.

But do not break them completely.

We need wholesome moments, and we should see through the eyes of wholesome characters. What kind of resolve do they have that is so strong, you can feel the confidence radiating off of them as you read?

If you need inspiration, again, think of history. What sort of people stood up against those who committed great evil? Think of people in your life, even, that struggle but hold fast to the truth, which should always be guarded. Think of people who would give up their own life to save others.

Those are the sort of people that should be the focal point of a story, no matter how many mistakes they've made.

I'm sure many people would disagree with me, but there is real damage in books that glorify evil behavior. Evil should be present in all if not most stories, but excusing evil is something that should never be celebrated. What we consume truly affects lives, and any story should be critically evaluated.