#you really can just say 'this example of this narrative device worked for me and this other one didn't' and leave it at that. no one

[musical-chick-13]

Daemon literally choked Rhaenyra on the show and not in a kinky way.

I think I vaguely remember hearing about this?

Which is...certainly something in the face of all the "wife guy" jokes I also and more consistently heard about Daemon.

Also certainly something that the consistent violence by men toward women on GoT was (rightfully) criticized, but I haven't seen reams of Discourse™ about this particular ship.

(Also certainly something else that Cersei was always blamed for every single thing in regard to her relationship with Jaime and you never heard the fucking end of it, but whatever Daemon does is fine for some reason? misogyny the reason is misogyny)

And again. People can ship whatever they want. People can like characters who aren't good people. I don't think this ship (i.e. D/R) would be particularly interesting to me (for a variety of reasons), but I'm not going to say that someone is a Horrible Person™ for shipping it. Just don't try to weirdly moralize a dynamic like this by saying that it has no problems? To the point where it's some strange Exception™ to what you would otherwise consider a completely unacceptable thing to explore in fiction? Genuinely, what does that accomplish. It really is just the hypocrisy for me.

You can like a fraught or unhealthy or problematic or [insert similar adjective here] fictional dynamic. I like plenty of those. But I don't understand this trend of going, "Well my preferred type of Dark Fictional Content is acceptable and fine for THESE arbitrary reasons. The rest of you should burn in hell for the Dark Fictional Content YOU enjoy though," and it is starting to get insufferably annoying.

[frenchkanna1808]

Why Midori is such a breath of fresh air or how to actually write a Villain.

So the awaited essay, the winner of the FrenchGremlin polls of laziness finally has come! It took some time but it’s finally over. If your choice didn’t get chosen that’s okay! I’ll repost a new poll with old and newer options. Please reblog this one i put a lot of time in it, it's like, five pages long over a silly goose. Also sorry for the grammar i sucks and i'm not native. So let’s begin:

(also here is the link to the video format)

So first let’s make things clear, What IS a villain?

“A villain is a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.” That is why I do want to make a difference between a villain and an antagonist, an antagonist is a character who are a plot devices that creates obstruction to the protagonist. That means that a villain is forced to be an antagonist while an antagonist is not forced to be a villain. For example shin is an antagonist but not a villain, he is driven by selfish desires which are themselves fueled by fear anger and loss, he is the protagonist of his own story and is a sympathetic character despite it all, and Midori is just a bitch. Midori falls under multiple stereotypes of villains. Such as “the mastermind”, “evil incarnate” (lmao),”related to the protagonist” etc. Midori is evil, there is no denying in this, he is purely evil, and he doesn’t have a sad weepy backstory, he doesn’t feel empathy towards other, he is a despicable piece of shit who ruined so many lives. I won’t list everything but here is a list of his crimes, murder, assault, domestic abuse, grooming, verbal abuse, and torture, crimes against humanity lmao, stalking, violent crimes, and participation in a cult. And his worst crime is being a pussy bitch of course. So now that we have put the bases up let’s really begin.

Hollywood has a hate boner against villains and I hate them for that.

Recently Hollywood decided that pure evil bad guys is actually a bad thing, so now they decided to do stupid side story with them, to give them ”””depth””” since I guess how could we like those villains since they are bad. A great example of this is the Disney remakes which I loathe so much oh god I hate them. So first they did a maleficient it was okay honestly, then they did a freaking cruella movie where her mom gets killed by Dalmatians, that’s not a joke, in the peter and wendy movie that nobody saw they decided to have made the captain hook be a lost boy who was abandoned by the lost boys and peter, oh also they decided that PETER CUT HIS HANDS OFF AND LEFT HIM TO DIE BECAUSE HOOK WANTED TO SEE HIS FAMILY. They are going to do a freaking mufasa movie, in no time I can’t wait to have a Ursula movie where it’s discovered that ariel killed all of her family in cold blood or something’s. So you might say what’s the problem? I mean isn’t that supposed to make the story more interesting. No, no it doesn’t, because first they take all of the character personality traits and throw them in the bin, second they are supposed to be the vilain in a musical animated movies, I am not against complex villain, I love them, but by doing this, the original character doesn’t exist anymore. Just create original content with new interesting characters instead of doing stuff like this. Also it’s kind of funny than in all of those interpretation they take all the fun and sucks it out, what do I mean by fun, the gayness, Disney vilain are fun because they are camp, they are fabulous extravagant extra in all the ways possible, and that’s the reason we liked them. Not every character needs something super deep, like “my family was burned down at the stake and my dog was eaten by my ex”, sometimes we just like bad fun people, they are the story, and Hollywood hating them so bad just bothers me a lot. Also now the new thing is to not have a villain at all which can works in some narrative but not all of them, it gets boring after a while. In the past people were angry that villains are bland, but now I kind of miss it. While I will critique villains who have no purpose outside of being evil that’s dumb, like for example Voldemort is bland like white bread because his only motivation is being evil, but evil people do exist compared to what some Hollywood writers think, they should know. So that’s why I will put a difference between evil villains and villains whose only purpose is being evil; we loved Disney villains but they still had motivations, goals, reasons that to them a least were worth everything. World domination isn’t enough, why do you want world domination, what is the true reason deep in your heart, is it an inferiority complex, is it a savior complex fuelled by xenophobic beliefs.

That is how to write a pure evil villain, evil people exist all over the world, but I have never seen one who doesn’t have they own reasons to be so bad, it doesn’t excuse their actions nor really explains them. We do not want justifications we want explanations. If you are justifying evil behavior then do it, but don’t claim that it is a pure evil character. A pure evil character can be fun, can be interesting, he can be deep, it’s all about balancing all of their traits to truly make them greats. Which is why midori succeeds while current villains fail. Current stupid remake/spin off try to justify the behavior because they feel like this is what the audience wants, but it’s not what we need. So I will defend to the grave evil villains.

Creating an evil villain doesn’t make them boring guys.

Why the heck does big budget movies have either the blandest protagonist or the blandest villains sometimes both, like I said evil people do exist but comically evil character only works in satire not in a serious multiple millions of dollar movie. Example that boring ass avatar movie, the one with blue people, none of the characters are interesting the villain is one note. The lords of the rings also suffers from that, but I don’t care because the protagonist are so awesome that sauron being personality less doesn’t matter. Also sauron is more of a force of nature villains so it’s not the same. The recent kingsman movie has a bland one note villain, there is nothing entertaining, funny, about him he’s just evil, borrrrring. Every Disney remakes depiction of the characters are boring. I just feel bored out of my mind. Atla one of my favorite shows of all time has a main villain that’s kinda one note, Ozai, but he is actually intimidating guy, azula is the superior character, but I wouldn’t consider her a villain she is an antagonist though. I honestly don’t get why Hollywood thinks that just creating a character with no personality and whose only goals is to be evil is good.

So back to midori for a second, here is my question, when midori was on screen did you ever feel bored? Never right! Because despite midori being an evil character he has an actual personality, he’s fun, you want to punch him in the balls. Because midori has other personality traits than evil, midori is petty, childish, extremely intelligent, controlling, a natural manipulator, he is a trickster, he doesn’t seem to get some social norms, he is narcissistic, easily angry, and fears death etc See how I counted a lot of traits, traits that in other character would works, midori has positive traits, and I think that is the best thing nankidai could have ever done, midori has traits that a regular person could have. Which is why if I put midori in any settings his character would work.

Example, instead of a death game the cast is under the sea to discover the insane wildlife and supernatural stuff happening, what would midori do in this situation? Well he would very passionate about finding all of what’s happening, he’ll do anything to find out, even sometime sacrificing others, not only will he try to find what’s happening, but he is also going to try to find a way to make this discovery favour him in the end. Or let’s imagine it’s a vampire situation, where a vampire attacks  the city, midori would try to stop it, not because he cares, but to experiment on them to get their biology and finds the real secret of immortality since he fears death.

Here is my second advice, after creating your character try to imagine them in another completely different situation, like normal life, or a fantasy world, ask yourself the question what would they do in that environment? If you can find a real complete explanation of their actions then yes your character has multiples dimensions if not try thinking about it again. Some example of questions I do want to point out are some like “if my character had all the power in the world what would they do first or”, “if my character had only a day left to live what would they do”

Why is Current media incapable of creating good threats like bruhhhh.

Okay so first of all let’s talk about stakes in a story, let’s say you are watching a slasher movie, slowly the cast gets slimmed down and people die in horrible ways, that should set stakes right ? Well if the villain is an absolute buffoon who makes the stupidest actions and decisions in the world, you wouldn’t feel intimidated at all because despite what the filmmaker might try to say the plot armor will NEVER make a character intimidating. It’s just like a detective character who just seems to know everything without a thought, well you won’t really fear the character failing. Worse is the the final girl, who is for some reason always escaping the slasher guy by pure luck every time, she is shown as incompetent but still she survives, which make the villain seem completely incapable so now you feel nothing.

To avoid this filmmaker often use techniques such has unpredictability, I mean good I mean good ones, for example instead of immediately seeing whose going to survive because the black guys always dies first and the virgin white woman is the last survivor, change the status quo, make us think that this character is obviously safe while they actually aren’t at all. Or actually make them menacing by SHOWING to the audience how horrible dangerous they can be. Which is why SHOW DON’T TELL is so important, telling us how dangerous someone can be only to see them get beaten to death at the end of the movie makes us feel nothing.

Midori felt like a impossible person to beat, he is smart, had twenty plans in advance, even in situation where the cast felt like they might have a chance he was always armed, just like the gun he promised to use or the rocket punch. When they felt like they were finally advancing, he put obstacle in their ways, such as the collar game or the moment he put the collar on explode mode for  ranmaru. The entire point in the murder game was to make time pass, it took a long time for the cast top realize that this whole time they were losing precious time not realizing that the dummies were the real problem. The characters that made you feel the most hopeless were the dummies, if you won by killing midori they would die, but if you lost you might lose people you love (keiji or gin). It felt hopeless because they were no solutions in the end. That creates tension so that creates stakes. If we were told how dangerous unpredictable sou was then it wouldn’t hit the same, we are shown that he is that terrible. There is a scene ingame where bbg shin ai tells us that midori tortured and like to destroy people. That’s exposition so TELL, but do you why it works, because we are SHOWN before his behavior. Midori felt unbeatable, so the fact that we were shown his weakness such has his petty behavior, hatred of minors, and fear of death, for the first time it feels like there is a chance that we might survive this. And still after he isn’t shown has an incompetent buffoon, he is one, but the narrative doesn’t show us that he is.

What is also consider is good to make the audience feel actual stakes is to first really develop well the main characters, how can we feel worry for a character if we don’t know them, the audience need to feels emotional connection to the main cast to actually care. You can use things such has moments where there is nothing special happening just character talking getting to know them. Make us feel why we need to care about them possibly losing, instead of being indifferent. Or I don’t know maybe make an entire spin off game where we get to have the cast talk to each other and seeing dynamics between character that died early to get them a chance to shine and make their death even more tragic, or even make mini episodes of characters who only got a single chapter to show off their characteristic, to get us to know them better? But that’s just a silly idea of course, wink, and wink.

My favorite thing about Midori is that he is actually pathetic, like really pathetic, but weirdly realistic?

Midori is the most pathetic character in the cast, yes more than shin, shin is leagues less pathetic. No I’m not saying that midori is not intimidating or scary, I would piss myself if I saw him. He’s a scary guy. But if you look at him more closely you can see that he is a baby brat in a big boy suit.

So let’s start by something clear, Sou Hiyori clearly displays antisocial behavior, or in common terms he is a psychopath/sociopath, this illness is very badly seen in medias, I am not saying that people who lacks empathy like him are inherently bad, he is, a lot of people with antisocial behavior actually suffers a lot and have a difficult life. Sou real issues is not his antisocial behavior, it’s his narcissism and god complex. Sou feels the need to HAVE CONTROL over others, he like the feeling of being in power, he sees the rest of the world has beneath him, toys for his pleasure. He says that he “really like humans” because despite it all he seems to put himself in a different categories than regular people, they are beneath him. When he loses control his calm and cool behavior disappears and we see his true face, a grown man who has throws a tantrum like a baby. One of the best representation of this is midori views on the cast:

Midori hates kanna, like no jokes he has beef with her, a fourteen years old, actually he has beef with a lot of people in the cast. Midori views emotional people has weak, people who are loving optimistic as beneath him and useless. He preferred when sara was cruel and horrible, that’s what he loved about her, he liked seeing her scary emotionless side. But Kanna, kanna is everything he hates. A crybaby who not only puts the group in harmony, is a source of hope in general, is the reason he near got to have closure with shin (killing him), he views kanna as “not fun shin”. We have many proofs for this, if you type the word kanna kizuchi he says this: “Poor Kanna'd weep! I think a more worthless name would be better for someone like me” He mocks her, but also himself (I’lll come back on this later), he calls her worthless. Also in the electric charge minigame, when he can choose who to shocks he chooses two people in particular, kanna who he hates and hinako who ruined his fun by giving the cast a chance in saving ranmaru. But he does also says mean spirited stuff to other people, qtaro and gin. He also says some sarcastic comments about nao and joe, saying that it’s such a shame that they died so young. But you might say why kanna especially? Because he is a petty baby who is jealous of kanna, Yes jealous, of kanna, a fourteen years old. Because he feels like she stole his hubby wubby shin away from him…. God I hate him. And you know what that make him a pathetic idiot, after the scene where kanna beats his ass, he’s all mad and like “uhh I’m going to pout I wanted you to cry like a lot, now I’m gonna cry”. An that’s actually god, because it humanize him, he wants need thoughts, he isn’t one note, and that’s the most important!

Sou is a villain but before that he is a character, a fully developed character, and THAT’S WHAT MAKE HIM GREAT, Sou works because he works realistically, I mean if you forget the robot part, it’s easy to imagine a narcissist man child who needs to feel in power towards other, so his main prey are young vulnerable people.Which leads me to my next point:

Sou is a failure like really, and we aren’t sad for him.

Sou failed everything he worked on, he failed to get the paper from alice, he failed whith shin since he had to leave earlier than he thought he would leave, because of his mistake he lost his position in the death game, then he failed to kill gin or keiji, and then he died like an idiot losing his cool and acting like a toddler. And he knows it that why he is a bit self-hating (he should be). And yet none of us feel any sympathy towards him, why? Because sou is one of the most despicable guy in existence. He is a disgusting pervert, sadistic asshole, and abusive narcissistic cunt who thinks he is better than everyone. From the bottom of my heart I hate him sooooo much he is literally the character I hate the most in existence. He abused shin, ruined keiji’s life, traumatized the entire cast, literally assaulted sara like he physically assaulted her. He mocked nao and joe and kugie life as useless. He is an obsessive jerk AND I HATE HIM. And you know what…… It’s good. Like I actually feel a lot of emotions when I think about him, he fuels me with anger and disgust, and if your characters can make me feel that much rage then you did it, you created an actual perfect character. Hiyori is such a shit person that I think about him a lot, writers shouldn’t be scared to make a character such hittable assholes, example bojack horseman in bojack horseman is the vilest man on earth and I love it, because I genuinely hate him. Just like I genuinely love kanna, like really I really love her, I in the same time despise midori so bad. We hate him because he is horrible to good people that WE KNOW AND CARE ABOUT, not random npcs. There is a lot of… disgusting implications in his story with shin that I will not talk about it makes me really uncomfortable right now. SO HERE IS A VERY TACKY TRANSITION TO TALK ABOUT WHY I HATE JUNKO FROM DANGANRONPA.

Junko is boring, that’s it, she is boring, not funny not interesting, she is a fetish, she is the biggest Mary sue on earth, she is a gross character made to make fun of people with disabilities and queer people. Her only traits is being crazy, that’s it. I wouldn’t call midori that crazy actually, he’s methodical calculated, and precise. Crazyness is a term for people who aren’t in control of their actions and delusional about reality, sou is not crazy, he knows what he is doing, he is in full control, while characters like shin should actually be consider crazy, like shin is actually crazy but sou isn’t.

Conclusion:

Sou is a breath of fresh air, because nankidai had the balls to write an actually interesting deep and threatening character AND make him a villain. He didn’t fall into the trap of making him have a sad backstory or good motives, sou is just selfish, that’s all he is. He make him a fun entertaining guy who you absolutely hates, he made him threatening and at the same time a complete doofus. He made him humane and pathetic.

But the thing that make me love nankidai the most is this

The fact that he actually killed him that takes courage as a writer to just end a character THAT WAY, which is why midori will never come back alive he is forever dead. And that take a lot of talents as a writer to just take one of the most important characters and just get him drilled to death in the anus, like dammn nankidai you are a savage. That fact alone makes him one of the best characters in game, I hate him as a person, but has a character he is a masterpiece.

Though Kanna could solo him

this was posted as a video on my blog this is mainly so people who don't want to stay there reading a 24 minute video of my stuttering can have a bit of quiet

[sapphiresaphics]

Here’s the thing. Arcane season 2 was finished being written back in 2020. It was completed before the first season of Arcane even aired on Netflix in the first place. Before they even knew if it was going to be a hit or not. Before any of the fans had hot takes about the characters.

Which means that all of these “new subplots” (such as the black rose) weren’t just added in on a whim. They have an intentional purpose in the story they’re trying to tell.

It also means that the pacing was always going to increase and become faster as the two seasons went on.

I think a lot of fans are coming at this show from the perspective of a lot of live action shows where the writers see how fans respond to certain things so they add them into the story or focus on fan favorites to grab your attention and keep you engaged. And live action shows can do this because they’re filmed relatively close to when the series airs and so they’re aware of what the reactions are on social media (for good or ill).

But this is animation. Very TIME CONSUMING animation at that. It took 4 years to finish animating the 9 episodes of Season 2. If you include the 6 years of development and production of Season 1, that’s almost a full DECADE of working on this show.

My point is that they literally (and logistically) can’t respond to fan input and make changes in the show based on the way it was received on social media. Like it or not, these specific characters beats and storylines were always the plan from the start.

This is a long winded way of trying to say… if you have problems with the way certain characters are behaving, or certain plot points feeling rushed, or feel overwhelmed by the number of added subplots that need to get resolved before the end of the show… I strongly suggest rather than saying the writing is “bad” or that the writers “don’t know what they’re doing” or just complain about anything really… I suggest you take a step back and ask yourself “why are these the stories and actions they chose for this 2 season arc?”

I think that’s a far more productive thing to do than to go online and whine about things you didn’t like. I find it’s better to try and understand WHY they chose to do these things rather than write them off. More often than not when you look into the why, or try to come up with reasons why the writers would take certain characters down the paths they do, you end up coming out appreciating the media more. Even if you still don’t were with their narrative choices, learning and understanding the WHY is far more rewarding I think.

I’ll give you an example of something I don’t like, but that I understand why. Isha. I don’t like that Isha was introduced and then killed off in the latest episode. If I were to look at it just from a surface level reading, it seems pointless to add this cute mute kid character only to take her away a few episodes later. But NARRATIVELY she’s extraordinarily important. She is what Jinx needed to become more empathetic to her sister and reach out to fix their family. She helps push Jinx into the role of Vander for season 2. And her heroically framed sacrifice is probably going to be the push Jinx needs to stop trying to commit suicide.

Would I have liked to see more of her and Jinx’s relationship? Yes. Would I liked to have learned more about where she came from and why she’s mute? Yes. But at the end of the day, this is not a show about Isha. Isha is a narrative device to help forward the character development of Jinx. And so, while I do not like that she sacrificed herself… I understand it. And that understanding helps me appreciate the writing and the level of depth the writers are willing to go to push their characters around where they need to be by the end of the series.

At the end of the day, Arcane is just another show on Netflix. It is not beyond criticism. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms you can have against the show. But I’ve found that recently the number of bad takes and people refusing to engage with the narrative has resulted in a bit of a backlash against the show and I do not think that’s ultimately very productive. Please… if you’re going to criticize the show, please try to do better than just write off anything you don’t like as “the writers just suck” or “they changed X character for no reason!”

Because I guarantee you, there IS a reason for everything in this show. No matter how small and trivial it might be, this show was put together with love and an extraordinary attention to detail. There are reasons for why characters do and say the things they say. The writers often make these into intentional parallels, foreshadowing, and callbacks.

Please… take the time to actually stop and dissect what you see. Even something upsets you. I implore you… try to understand why. Try to understand what the writers are saying. Try to understand how certain plot points and events could have a bearing on different characters.

Please just…. Try?

[borderlinereminders]

No… if your loved one’s think you’re a burden then they aren’t true loved ones

Hi anon,

You are absolutely allowed to feel how you feel.

I just find the narrative that it’s okay to be a burden helps me more than telling myself I’m not a burden. And it’s okay if it doesn’t for you. This is one of those examples where I’m expressing an opinion and I don’t think my opinions are facts. I don’t think I speak for everyone. My opinions are just my opinions.

I don’t think it’s realistic to expect to never be a burden. But I remember that I absolutely love my loved ones when they’re a burden. I don’t see being a burden as this terrible thing. Just reality.

My best friend called me at 2 am because she needed me. I was exhausted and stayed up with her despite being exhausted. And I am so happy she called me. I wouldn’t change a thing. I’d do it all over again. She’s set to bypass my silent mode and has been told she can call me at any time if she needs me. That’s why she bypasses my silent mode.

My dog struggles to get in my vehicle now. She’s a mastiff and heavy. Helping her in aggravates my own chronic pain. And she is scared of ramps or any other device. But I will continue to do it. She is worth every bit of pain. She deserves her car rides. She loves the smell of the ocean and gets so excited.

My mom struggles a lot. It is so hard on me to do stuff for her, but I do. I do her shopping and pick up her meds.

In all of these examples, I would say that I did feel burdened whether it was because I was exhausted or in pain, but I was happy to be burdened because I love them so much.

Feeling the way I do about my loved ones makes me realize that they likely feel similar too.

My partner has really chaotic work days and it is absolutely an inconvenience for him that my anxiety is too bad to make phone calls. So he sets alarms on his phones and makes the calls even when it adds to his stress.

My best friend loves me harder when my depressive spirals get really bad. She took on a lot of stress to help with my wedding. She was sick and in the middle of moving. I’m usually the one she talks to when she’s stressed but she didn’t want to stress me out, so she took it on herself. She was very much burdened by it all, but I know she’d do it all again in a heartbeat.

I’m not trying to tell you how to feel. I’m not saying you, yourself, are a burden. But to me, I am a burden. I know I am. But my loved ones think I’m worth it and that helps me a lot more than telling myself I’m not a burden. I am a burden but I’m allowed to be. I share the message because I think that others might find the narrative more helpful as well.

And my loved ones are worth everything to me. It makes me happy to help them and it reminds me that I can lean on them, too.

This all makes me think of Sam and Frodo. “I can’t carry it for you but I can carry you”.

[sanctus-ingenium]

I'd looove to hear a little about your worldbuilding process if you don't mind sharing. How do you go about it? I know you have shared in a few posts already but just wanna know moree. Also where did it all begin? What inspired you? (eating it all uppp!!!)

hi!! I know I wrote a big long thing like last year or the year before about the process to making a setting but I cannot be arsed to find it rn so here's some disconnected thoughts

Overall I don't really make Headworlds or Worldbuilding Projects the way a lot of people do (which is why u keep hearing me say 'setting' over and over) because mainly what I make are stories in the order of characters -> plot -> world. those three things have to serve one another in that order of importance, so the world itself bends to serve the narrative. for example, ultimately idgaf where the holy beasts' skeletons come from, that is not important because the beasts are basically just a big plot device to serve the story. i can make some post-hoc justifications for their existence (and i did) but at the end of the day it will not and does not matter how they work or where they come from. the world is full of mysteries that will never be solved because the characters are not in a position to solve them. aside from a single border conflict, the world outside the mezian empire is nebulous and unimportant.

I don't enjoy working in a world -> narrative order because what I want to produce isn't just a series of info posts or artpieces about a setting, but a closed and self-contained story which is the justification for the entire world's existence. Headworlds that are all world and no character don't interest me.

So basically in the process of worldbuilding, I have to serve the story. A while back I made a post about continental history around Inver, all these wars and occupations and schisms and so on. All of those exist solely to provide a particular political climate, justification for Aquitan's theocratic structure, and the spread of the southern church north into Inver. I already had the idea of this church, that it would be integral to the country as a main political faction, so now I have to figure out how it got there and the political ramifications of that. It's all worldbuilding for sure, but it's a support structure underneath the story about how that church eventually changes world history, because i wanted to write a story about a church lol.

I guess if I wanted to explain The Process for a world -> characters setting i'd just be giving you How To Write A Story 101 lol. But basically: I think of a concept which interests me (big mechs yay). Then I think of a conflict that might arise (where does the fuel come from? who controls that supply? what might that do to the concentration of power in this area?). Then I put a character in what I consider to be the most interesting position to observe the effects of this conflict (a knight, an enginesmith, an exile), and honestly the main plot generally writes itself after that. I extrapolate the hook from that.

In terms of characters, I try to avoid calling them 'ocs' because in my mind 'oc' tends to be a very static stand-alone thing. Like I couldn't make a useful ref sheet of my characters because they are all changed by the story. I couldn't say 'he has a carefree personality' because in a few chapters no he fucking won't. in the same way i struggle a LOT to talk about my Siren setting which as close to a specbio 'headworld' as i'm ever gonna get, because I am worldbuilding in vastly different time periods at once in a world which is always changing, i can't make a post about for example a map of Siren because that's just a map from one era, I'd need to make a dozen maps to show how things change, how time affects it all, etc.

Because nothing is ever static and everything is in flux, pretty much the only way I can handle a setting like this is, again, just to focus on a few small stories centered around a cast of characters separated by time (i have... 4 distinct stories in Siren. maybe more). this is actually a frustrating barrier to me sharing any information at all about this place lol i'm the struggler

Where did it all begin? When I was 11 I used to write stories in my copybooks in class. There has never been a time where I was not making stories and where my stories were not the only important thing at all to me, superseding literally everything else. I learned how to draw digitally in 2011 because I wanted to draw my characters.

What inspires me? Everything lol. I actually don't have time to Consume Media much, I struggle watching movies or tv and I mostly hate video games because I would much rather be productive and sitting and watching a screen feels like a waste of my time. but I like reading books because I can take them with me on my phone. I get ideas from all sources but mostly non-media sources, like obviously mythology but also my history with the church and my scientific education. Usually nonfictional sources interest me the most (i was going to write a whole story that was a post-apocalyptic plague plot based on canine transmissible venereal cancer haha and even to this day that's where "the Immortal Hound" title comes from, little easter egg in inver)

[dangermousie]

I saw your post on Love Game in Eastern Fantasy’s ending, do you mind elaborate on why you don’t like the ending? I personally find the screenwriter did a good job at translating the source material to live action given censorship constraints. I love the series positive message of self-love before you can fully love someone else in a healthy way.

Is the ending too open-ended for your liking?

I don't mind at all but I just wanted to say so much about fiction and endings (or the narrative) is so very personal and subjective. I can explain why something works for me or doesn't but it's really trying to post hoc justify an inchoate, emotional reaction.

And sometimes it doesn't gel with what everyone else may feel but it doesn't really do anything to change it. For example, I am one of like three people who thinks the ending of Princess Agents cdrama is perfect and it's one of the most universally fandom hated endings. I can explain why until I am blue in the face and I am sure people who hated it won't like it any better or they can explain why they hate it (and have) but I still love it so...

Now that I've put that lengthy disclaimer, here is the write up proper and it comes to two things - the minor part is the very very "back in modern day" ending and the bigger one is what happens before. I am gonna do the ending first.

Because of censorship, it's hard to end transmigration stories in satisfactory fashion (though it must be noted that even after transmigration ban, dramas manage now and then.)

The normal default is "and then they wake up." This is different from the other set up where it's an author creating a narrative as a framing device and they themselves are never in it (see Kunning Palace or Joy of Life as great examples) - there the characters stay in narrative forever. Or mini dramas like Lovesickness and Ancient Love Song (and somehow full length Lost Track of Time and Lost Love In Time) getting away with genuine travel that normally has been banned post The Myth/Jade Palace Lock Heart/BBJX era.

I could complain about her waking back up in modern world even within the constraints because something like Love Better Than Immortality had exactly the same set up and ended the way this should have and the way the novel for Love Game actually did (FL wakes up in simulation; she knows that is what it is. At the end she stays in game and lives happily ever after with her former bad guy lover.) LBTI got around the censorship question by setting the framing story that took two seconds in some future world where people do that and then are told if they enter simulation they never leave. I do not know why the makers of this did not go for something like this.

But I have accepted this is for whatever reason not the way a lot of these go and "waking up" is a default. That's fine. Yet, there is waking up and waking up.

The way these narratives often deal with this is the dreamer HAS been affected/changed by their time in story. If we take Dreamer in Qing Dynasty - FL is irrevocably changed by her time in Qing Dynasty. At the end she gets with ML who is reborn but it's colored by her past time and love (in a love of ways, that drama is a much kinder version of Bu Bu Jing Xin set up.) Or you can take My Dear Brothers, A Different Princess or The Romance of Tiger and Rose. In all of them, the FL wakes up in the modern day but she remembers her time in the dream/story/whatever, she's affected. That is why her finding her shared dreamer or reincarnation or avatar of her pairing from the story gives her a happy ending and completes her.

But here? The narrative ultimately does not matter. ML was never in the dream/narrative/whatever. FL herself doesn't really remember it or seem genuinely, long term affected by it. What was the point of it? Just make a cute drama about an author with issues and his fangirl. None of it had a point to me.

But that would just affect the very ending and to me is a smaller problem. I have liked many a drama which was amazing until the ending went wtf and I still loved it (this year's Tender Light or last year's My Journey to You come to mind and I overall adore both.)

My bigger problem is that by the time that ending rolled around, I didn't even care. The narrative fell apart for me shortly after they got to the capital - the moment she forgot the modern day, a lot of narrative appeal left for me. She got sidelined in her own narrative. And there was not really any emotional stakes for me or tension. It felt like a picaresque travelogue which is not bad per se but not truly my thing.

But then - the couple of last eps is where it really exploded. The thing with the author made no sense. Why did she need to fix some sort of adult avatar of him who didn't even know he was one and the kid version was there too? Why did a book written by teen drag in adult version of her and teen him and adult fictional version of him get to argue? Why did the ending start looping instead of just going once. The worldbuilding, the set up, the goals made NO sense in light of this new information. Now one might say the set up of a reader being dragged into a game based on the book they are reading is nonsense in the first place and that's true. But the problem for me is I can accept whatever insane set up the story throws at me, but it's a matter of initial set up. Once it's set up, it has to stay within those constraints and be internally logically consistent and to me it wasn't. All that randomness felt so random. Perhaps if they weaved the stuff earlier more, sure. But as it is, it felt so weird and random and nonsensical. And once the narrative stopped treating them as real people but as symbols or lessons or whatever, I stopped treating them as real people too.

I confess I never care about a story's message because, to quote a famous Hollywood quip on the topic: "“If you have a message, call Western Union.” I want the story to move me emotionally, to get me invested (if it makes my brain happy, it's a bonus.) And so yeah sure it's great to overcome adversity, find strength in others etc etc blah blah but if the execution of said message is lacking (which to me it was), it negates it all. For example I love Novoland Eagle Flag and its theme is "it's not the winning but the fight that matters, the world is hell but what matters is keeping your humanity and being true to yourself" - it resonates with me immensely. But the reason it does is because I love the execution. If the execution didn't work for me, the fact that I agree with the message would not matter. And to me (and once again, I emphasize it's very personal and I fully get that it worked for others) Love Game's execution did not come though.

[princess-glassred]

Alright hot take incoming:

Beverly Marsh in it 2017 is a terribly written female character and i'm tired of pretending like she's not.

As a woman, I love Bev in fics, I love 90's bev, I love fannon Bev, and this is no discredit to Sophia Lillis as an actor, or even 2017 Bev's personality, but it 2017 Bev is a perfect example of a character being fine but everything else about her being incredibly anti feminist (in my opinion).

First of all there's all the slut shaming, now don't get me wrong, i'd get it if this was just greta and henry and her dad. They're antagonists and it makes sense for the time period, BUT Bev is not jusy slut shamed by the antagonists, she's indirectly kind of slut shamed by the narritive. When Richie first meets her he tells rumors about her sleeping around, especially with Henry Bowers and he faces almost little to no pushback. Yeah eddie tells him to shut up, and Bill says "they're just rumors" but it really shouldn't matter if they're just rumors or not. The movie seems to think that the slut shaming is bad because she isn't sleeping with anyone, when slut shaming should be bad just because its a fuckin mean thing to do. Even if she did date Henry, who the fuck cares? It's literally her life, obviously she doesn't like him now. Also the way Richie words it as "Bill had her in the third grade" is 🤢.

In the bathroom scene they take time out of cleaning just so she can clarify to Bill that he's the only one she's ever kissed so I guess Bill can feel like a real special man. Even though she doesn't owe Bill really anything, let alone reassurance that she's only kissed him once. I'd absolutely understand if this was Bev reacting to her CSA, assuming she needs to make them men around her feel special by having a low body count, but the movie portays this scene as really sweet and romantic so i doubt it's the case.

The movie sexualizes Bev so much, and again, i'd understand if this was supposed to be commentary about her CSA but a lot of it is genuinely meant to further the plot or played off for laughs. Almost every single scene she has is about her sexual history or which guy she ends up with. Even Ben, who's entire thing is he's hopelessly in love with Bev gets more of a personality than just that. She's called a slut by greta keene, flirts with ben outside, """flirts""" with Mr. Keene to steal his shit, leaves the pharmacy to get oggled by Bill in slowmo, gets slut shamed by richie, gets oggled at the quarry, ect.

The movie also tries to act like she's a much stronger female than she really is, it reminds me a lot of in the 90's when they'd have those tough bad ass women who could sword fight and stuff but they'd always inevitably be kidnapped because of gener roles. I do admit that the scene of her jamming the fence post through pennhwise is cool, and so is the scene where she hits her dad, but her badassness is incredibly underminded in a lot of ways. First of all when they're asked who wants to go in she's the only one to raise her hand but she STILL doesn't go inside. Why? What possible reason could the narrative give as to why she stayed outside? To comfort Stan??? God forbid a girl helps save the boys unless it's in the smallest way possible. And then she gets kidnapped and essentially used as a plot device just for the boys to get back together. We can't just have them work things out and apologize and show up for each other because they're friends, they all need a woman to go rescue.

Having Beverly say "I am not afraid of you" is just lip service when you still have her be a damsel in distress, which she is officially rendered right after pennywise puts her in the deadlights. And now we come to the worst part of this whole thing, which is the deadlights kiss. Now, i'm some one who will defend snow white and sleeping beauty with my life, because i know how fairytale curses work and with sleeping beauty phillip is out right told that's what he has to do. This is not what happens in the movie. Ben and Bill see Bev dangling there, and after like half a second of trying to snap her out of it decide kissing her is the only way to get her out of this. Ben even sees Bill do it and fail but instead of trying literally anything else he thinks "i love her more, maybe it'll work with me!".

Guys I do not give a shit about how much Bill and Ben care about Bev, if anything that just makes kissing her while she's out of it worse. You may try to justify this by saying it really was the only way for them to do it, but that still doesn't change the fact YOU wrote it that way. YOU decided the only way to save bev was to kiss her without consent. Which you actively contradict with richie getting caught in the dead lights and snapped out it in it chapter 2. Stephen King didn't even write that shit, say what you will about the child orgy, but at least Bev was awake for it. She consented about as much as a girl her age could given that she's only 11. That's way more problematic than this but at least it was her idea, at least she conciously decided this was worth doing. All you've done is take a creepy sexual act that was at the very least consenual and displayed some sexual agency in the character, with a creepy non sexual non consenual act that took away agency. How girlboss is it that her first kisses with her love interests weren't even while she could could consent? She is kissed three times, once during a play and twice while she's unconcious, neither of which are her idea. I'm not saying a woman always has to instigate things romantically, but if you spend your whole movie talking about how she's a slut, maybe you should give her some free reign over her love life.

This is why I love 90's Bev so much, she's just a little fiesty tomboy who saves the boys asses with a sling shot and an epic blow to the head. She doesn't get damseled in distressed (the only time she gets saved are when Ben defends her during the rock fight), the boys aren't overly horny over her, the only people who really treat her like her gender defines her are her father, Tom, and Henry she's just great. And that came out in the 90's! I don't think the 90's miniseries is necessarily better than the 2017 movies, but I think their treatment of Bev is just inherently more feminist given that they don't constantly try to define her by her body counts. Yes she loves ben, but she has more to her than that. Even if you bring up things like body count to try and say she isn't a slut who's obsessed with boys, it's still not feminist because you're still constantly equating her value to who she's with. The only proper way to adress slut shaming is by acknowledging it's none of the characters business what she does and that if you do it at all you suck. But IT 2017 doesn't do that, because Bev's sexual maturity is explored only through the eyes of men, and that includes the narrative.

Her promiscuity is explained through Richie when she's not even there (who i will give the benefit of the doubt here and say was being mysoginsitic to try and compensate for his queerness, but even then, using a woman's sex life as a tool to make yourself feel better is awful no matter your reason), she only consents to anything until the very end, and this movie tries to act like it's not doing any of it by giving her a few measily crumbs of strength outside of being the guys girlfriend. I never felt like IT 2017 was one of the guys, because the movie would never let her be that. Fuck.

If you are a woman, or even just AFAB and disagree with this you are free to, I do not speak for every woman in the world and if you feel differently I will not try to change that. I can only speak my truth though, and my truth is that it 2017 Bev pisses me off.

[blairbarely]

Gladiator II, to its credit, isn’t the kind of movie you can lob a single, sweeping complaint at. Do you think Paul Mescal is a step down from Russell Crowe as the titular gladiator? The movie seems to preemptively shrug at that critique by sliding Denzel Washington into the antagonist role previously held by Joaquin Phoenix. And sure, Phoenix was brilliant in the first movie, but let’s be honest: casting Denzel in place of almost any actor from the past 40 years is like upgrading from a bicycle to a jet.

So no, you can’t walk out of Gladiator II and say, “The new cast doesn’t hold up to the original.” The movie doesn’t just sidestep that complaint—it dares you to even try making it.

The screenplay isn’t flawless, but it works its alchemy well enough to keep you invested, making sure you care just enough for the big moments to land. The arc that stands out—the one between Hanno (MESCAL), Acacius (PASCAL), and Lucilla (NIELSEN)—is a perfect example. By tying Acacius directly to Lucilla, the returning character we already love, the movie pulls a sly narrative trick: it asks us to sympathize with Acacius while also rooting for Hanno’s quest for revenge against him.

For much of the movie, it feels like Pascal is working overtime to inject depth into a character that, at its core, exists more as a plot device than a fully realized person. But then there’s his final showdown with Mescal in the Colosseum, and suddenly, it all lands. That fight carries an emotional weight Pascal has been building toward the entire time, delivering something surprisingly profound in the end.

And let’s be honest: there’s an extra charge for the audience here, especially for Game of Thrones fans, who can’t help but feel the ghost of Oberyn Martell lurking in every step Pascal takes into that arena. Watching him in period costume, once again fighting for his life, adds a meta-layer of intensity and heartbreak that makes the scene hit even harder.

While we’re being honest, let’s address the elephant in the room. I mentioned it earlier, and now feels like the right time to dive in: I sincerely hope this is a one-and-done experiment for Paul Mescal. Don’t get me wrong—he’s not bad. Far from it. He brings layers of emotional depth to his performance that most actors his age wouldn’t even think to attempt.

But the entire time, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d rather be watching him in literally any other kind of movie. It’s not that he doesn’t belong in Gladiator II—he’s good enough to hold his own—but we already have enough action stars. Sure, a sword-and-sandals epic is a far cry from joining the Fast & Furious family, but here’s my truth: I’d rather anyone else made this movie, because Mescal should be making the kinds of films that only he can make.

You want to prove to the world you’re a full-blown movie star? Amazing. Do it. But what I really want is for you to make another Aftersun.

[swordfright]

https://www.tumblr.com/swordfright/756502816281018368/what-do-you-think-is-your-most-controversial-dsmp?source=share

I remember sending this to a bunch of dsmp blogs (starting with elmhat I think ?) bc I like when people share ideas/opinions who diverge from the main consensus because I find it the most efficient way for people to stick to canon and not fanon since people can have different interpretations of event

And it was super interesting to see the one about the experimentation being after prison rather than before (loved the two LN and Q ones too but as you said they were a bit more common. Would love to see your take on c!slime though now)

(And I wouldn't have a problem with you giving unpopular opinion about the fandom either but to be clear I was not trying to start anything with my first question, I just like seeing uncommon takes)

Don't worry lol I didn't assume you were trying to start shit. Ok, so c!Slime is pretty interesting in that he's the closest thing we have to an NPC in what is otherwise a roleplay, which implies certain things about how he can be used in the narrative.

A little bit of quick background: I spent a LOT of time as a kid doing RP online (it was an original story set in the Death Note universe and it happened on a website that went bankrupt in like 2017 and no longer exists lmfao don't worry about it) and idk what RP etiquette is like in other communities, but in the community I was a part of, it was sort of frowned upon for players to outsource heavy plot/character development material to NPCs. It was allowed and people did it, but it was seen as sort of a cop-out. The underlying idea being that if you're gonna bother to do RP, your character's most important interactions should be with other PCs, in part because it helps build/strengthen the RP community and in part because it better entrenches your character's storyline in the storylines of other PCs, which in turn encourages other players to keep RPing and keeps the story going. Again, creating NPCs was very common, but players were discouraged from having entire arcs or character trajectories be highly dependent on NPCs. It was seen as sort of a cheap, low-effort way of progressing your character's development without having to coordinate plot beats with other players, and doing it too often was seen as sort of antithetical to what RP is trying to achieve as a form of gaming-storytelling. To me, c!Slime is a classic example of when an RPer outsources a little too much narrative weight onto an NPC.

First of all, I wanna clarify that it's kinda difficult to define what an NPC is or isn't on this server, but I'd say c!Slime is more of an NPC because even though he's played by a CC with some degree of improv, we know that cc!Quackity specifically wrote c!Slime's character to fulfill a narrative role and asked cc!Slime to play that character - as opposed to alternate characters played by CCs of their own accord (Sam Nook, Dream XD, Sam Bucket, Mexican Dream, etc.) So, for example, I don't see Sam Bucket as an NPC but I do see c!Slime as an NPC. c!Slime wasn't an original creation on the part of the player, he's a narrative tool (which is fine, but it does mean that what he can and can't do in the story is limited to what cc!Q needed him to do.)

There are some things I think the addition of c!Slime did accomplish. For one, Q's interactions with him provide a platform for more introspective character work on Q's part. And while I that character work could've been done by having Q interact with a PC instead, I do think Slime is better positioned to act as an apprentice figure because he had almost no lore prior to Las Nevadas and didn't enter the story with baggage or ties to any other major characters. He's a blank slate, which makes him really easy to use as a narrative device. Q voices thoughts and ideas to Slime that he can't voice to other characters (usually because it would be OOC for him to do so, or wouldn't make sense in context), which means that Slime is sort of a vehicle for delivering Q characterization to the audience.

This is all fine and I think a lot of it was done fairly well. I like cc!Slime's acting and I think the character is a fun addition to the LN crew. That said, I don't think the payoff was great. Slime being an NPC really undermined what I assume cc!Q was going for with End of Las Nevadas, in large part because he doesn't have well-established relationships with other characters. Aside from Q, Slime basically only ever interacts with Tommy, Foolish and Ranboo, and even those interactions are limited to a really tiny handful of streams. Punz capturing and manipulating him, Slime helping c!Dream confront Quackity...all that stuff could have been a lot more interesting if it had more time to marinate. Like, I love the IDEA of Slime and c!Dream interacting, but we don't really get any meaningful interactions between them outside of Slime's function as a storytelling tool. He's there when he needs to be, and only ever when he needs to be.

For instance, I would've loved to see what Slime thinks about Q's slime army. It's really weird to model your mindlessly obedient slave army after your friend. That was a weird ass thing for Q to do, and it would've been cool to see Slime react to that. But because he's more NPC than PC, and because highly scripted lore like the LN series doesn't really encourage deviation, we never get to find that out. Slime doesn't ever really get to be his own character, which in the end kinda undermines a lot of the character development he triggers for c!Quackity because at the end of the day, it's really transparent that Slime only exists to be a prop. It's a kind of one-sided relationship that's unique to RP.

I think End of Las Nevadas was weak for other reasons too, but uhhhh yeah the Slime stuff bothered me a bit. Would've liked to see him do more. And he disappears after pushing Q off the ledge and, to my knowledge, we never see him again! If he had been more PC and less storytelling tool, presumably other characters would've had opportunities to react to Slime's role in the events of that stream, or notice that he's missing/back again/missing. But instead, he's able to just vanish from the story after he's fulfilled his role because that's all he was ever supposed to do.

[moony-2001]

How I would’ve constructed the 10 year time skip

✨Brought to you by my deep loathing for Lore Olympus✨

•warnings: super long post (I’m not joking), death, kidnapping, violence•

What The Fuck Happened

There was so much potential for the punishment arc. We could’ve seen a lot of character development, fleshed out storylines, reconciliation between certain people. We could’ve seen both Hades and Persephone going to therapy instead of claiming that one therapy session has fixed all their problems and then never going again.

Instead we got horny Persephone, pretty much no clue about what happened to Demeter OR Persephone during that time, and an easy plot device (sorry Cerberus) for Persephone to be like “I’m a big girl now harrumph harrumph, time for me to go reunite with my crusty ass bf who I’ve only know for a month”.

I hate the way she reunited with Ares. Ares is just a bonafide creep throughout the whole comic (although I liked when he attacked Zeus lol). I guess what I mostly hate about Ares and Persephone’s interaction is, yet again, it’s another example of every guy in the comic going AWOOGA over Persephone. Also Athena’s design is so fugly. I guess Rachel is completely incapable of drawing masculine presenting women as actual women.

The whole Kronos plot line is stupid. I hate it so much. Imo the whole “the titans are trying to escape so they can rule Olympus again” is overdone and not particularly done well. The fight between Kronos and Persephone is lame as shit. Like what, she gets big for all of 20 minutes, burps out a bunch of bees (which aren’t even aggressive creatures), and then does her version of the Wuxi Finger Hold from Kung Fu Panda and has Tartarus spirit Kronos away, magically fixing all of their problems (except it doesn’t and nothing is actually fixed).

Also I might get a lot of flack for this, but I don’t think the addition of Morpheus’ character was necessary. I like Morpheus. I think she’s cute. But she’s a) slowly turning into another version of Hecate and b) not really vital to the narrative imo. We already have so many other characters and plot lines that take away from the central “romance” the story is SUPPOSED to be focused on. I just don’t think we need ANOTHER character whose arc is probably not going to go anywhere.

So yeah, overall very L writing, L plot, and L characters.

What I would do differently

The first thing I would change is that the whole punishment arc would be an entire season unto itself. You’ll see why it has to be a separate season.

The second thing is (and this literally pains me to say) in order for me to rewrite this portion of LO without rewriting the entire comic, I kinda sorta have to throw the entire timeline of Greece out the window. If I try to follow a timeline based on the history of Greece, the entire timeline of LO has to shift massively. I’m already getting a migraine trying to think about how I could possibly make it work.

I do know this: Instead of 10 years I’d do somewhere between 1,000-3,000 years. 10 years is a joke. When you’re a god, 10 years is a trip to the time out corner

For now, let’s just say (assuming LO takes place in the Ancient Greece era) and Ancient Greece spanned ~1500 years, Persephone’s punishment would’ve needed to have been established near the very end of the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, spanned the entirety of Ancient Greece as we know it today, and ended some time in the very early Byzantine era. So like what, 1500-2000 years? Fine. I can work with this.

The Famine

You know how the first 400 years of Ancient Greece was deemed the “Dark Ages” and it was a time of war, famine, and loss? I want to start the punishment there. It would make sense for what we know about the characters thus far:

Demeter has had complete control over the growth of the flora and fauna on earth. She’s the goddess of the harvest after all. But we also find out that while Persephone has been in Olympus, Demeter has also been carrying out her duties as the goddess of spring. Plus Demeter has been around for forever and a day. She knows what she’s doing

Persephone doesn’t (at this point in the comic) really have control over her powers. Even in her fits of rage, she ends up doing more harm than good (i.e. her act of wrath, turning Minthe into a plant, etc.). In comparison with everyone around her, she is a literal infant. I mean shit, she’s only been alive for 20 years compared to the fact that everyone else has most likely been around for a minimum of 500 years.

If Demeter is stripped of her status as a goddess (and thus her powers) it would make sense that there would be a lot of death and famine and war over territory/food. Persephone would be left with nothing: no guidebook, no how-to. Of course a lot of people would die while she’s trying to figure her shit out. It could also be a very interesting tactic for psychological warfare on Zeus’ part. Zeus KNOWS Persephone doesn’t know what she’s doing. He knows people will die. And he knows that since life is precious to Persephone (or at least that’s what she claims), it would punish her further.

We can see episodes of Persephone struggling to provide for humanity. We could have real world examples of the affect of famine and depopulation. We would see her struggling with her powers, her mental health. We could get an episode that explains how her hands got destroyed from trying to mimic her mother’s powers. We can see what the fuck happened to Demeter in Attica.

Now obviously things will eventually go on the up and up for Persephone and her compatriots. The whole 1500-2000 years isn’t just going to be one big clusterfuck. As time progresses and chapters pass, we could see real character growth for Persephone not just mentally, but in almost every aspect. Since she will have been alive at that point for over 1000 years, the readers would be able to see her newfound maturity. We could also see her build strong female support systems and strengthen her friendships, something we NEVER saw in the OG comic (or at least they never happened without Hades somehow being involved). You get the point.

What’s Old Man Hades up to?

I have big plans for Hades and none of them involve him going into a 1000+ year coma or getting possessed by his creepy-ass dad. He is an asshole though. I kinda wanted to portray him in this the way he is in the original myths (which for those who don’t know or haven’t read it, it’s not good).

So in Greek mythology, Hades actually had a wife before he even met Persephone or Minthe. Can you take a wild guess as to who?

Bingo! It’s Leuce. Contrary to popular belief, Leuce is actually NOT a home-wrecking POC version of Persephone (don’t @ me we all know the nymphs represent the lower class and POC). In mythology, Leuce was Hades’ first wife/lover and she died sometime long ago and I believe was turned into a white poplar tree. No she is not a cousin of Thetis and Amphitrite. She is not even remotely related to them. And Thetis and Amphitrite are sisters, not cousins. Do your fucking research Rachel.

Unfortunately, Greek Mythology doesn’t really mention all that much about Leuce outside of the fact that she was a daughter of Oceanus, she was kidnapped by Hades, and when she died (for unspecified reasons) she turned into a tree. Which means I’m going to be taking a lot of creative liberties for this portion of the post. Sorry to all you diehard fans of Greek myths out there. I shall try to do her justice.

In my head-cannon Hades and Leuce had been in an arranged marriage for thousands of years. Leuce was offered by Oceanus as a peace offering after the War and Hades, not really having any other viable options for a wife, agreed to take her to the underworld (much to her dismay). Over time, they grew to have a mutually loving/caring relationship. Unlike LO Persephone, Leuce was a good queen and she worked hard to make sure the denizens of the underworld respected her and that they were well cared for. Unfortunately, they got divorced because Hades starting having an affair with Minthe. Even though she loved her kingdom and the people of the underworld, she divorced Hades because she couldn’t stand to be around him, which, y’know. Fair.

A few notes: in my head-cannon, Leuce is still around leading up the the trial and punishment. Her portrait would still be up, we would see signs that Hades and Leuce still interact (more in terms of business, not romance), etc.

Also, unlike Persephone, Leuce would not take her anger out on Minthe or turn her into a plant or destroy her apartment. She would simply wish her good luck. She would be mad at Hades for cheating and for taking advantage of Minthe while she’s at her lowest. But I’m going to be straight up: even though Leuce is meant to be the better Persephone, she still has her flaws. She’s not going to feel inclined to help Minthe in any way. Would you want to help out the person who your partner is cheating on you with? The answer is no and if you say yes, you’re lying.

Anyways, during the Punishment, Hades and Leuce reconnect and Hades finds out Leuce is dying. He tries to convince her to leave the underworld and return to her father, but she insists that she is going to stay, even if it means she dies away from everyone she loved. She won’t abandon her kingdom, her people, or her ex-husband (although that’s much better than he deserves). They move in together and Hades begins to take care of her, even as she begins to deteriorate. They also begin to rekindle their past relationship and (with the help of a therapist) work through some of their past problems together.

Note: their relationship rekindles a couple hundred years into the punishment so by the time the punishment ends, they’ve been back together for a minimum of 1200 years

The aftermath and the Rape of Persephone

Before any of you go gaga over me for the title used above, the original title used for the myth is The Rape of Persephone (or if you want to be really original, The Rape of Proserpina). In the context of the title, the term “rape” means to be taken/kidnapped rather than having sexual violence inflicted upon you. Rape stemmed from the traditional Latin word “raptus” which means “to be seized” or “carried off”. Okay? Okay.

So after the Punishment ends and Persephone feels like she has thoroughly improved herself, she goes to find Hades and talk with him about their relationship. Mainly that she feels they rushed into it, and even though she does like him she wants to take things really slow (kind of like how she wanted before getting married 3 episodes later).

Upon arriving to the underworld/Hades house, her worst fears are realized: not only has Hades (seemingly) moved on, he has found someone else. Or rather, he got back together with his ex-wife.

Persephone freaks out (“who is she?”/“I’m his wife!”)

Persephone, throughly upset for getting her hopes up, flees back to mortal realm. Hades goes to leave Leuce, but not before she tells him that if he leaves her for Persephone, she will never forgive him. Hades leaves anyways, much to the absolute despair of Leuce, who is left wailing as he runs off.

Persephone returns home and finds Demeter and they hug. Demeter is initially horrified to see what happened to her hands, but is proud of the work she did during the punishment. Persephone cries to her mother about Hades, and Demeter tries to comfort her but it inadvertently comes off more as “I told you so” rather than “I’m sorry you had to experience that” (although Demeter is sorry that Persephone’s heart is broken). Persephone, already feeling incredibly emotionally distressed, lashes out at Demeter and they start to argue. This is when Hades arrives.

Hades sees Demeter and Persephone arguing and inserts himself into the situation. Persephone becomes more upset after seeing him and Hades (assuming that Persephone is upset about the fact that Demeter is getting in the way of their “relationship” and not the fact that Persephone discovered Hades went back to his ex-wife after saying he loved her) whips out the the “one personal question, no exceptions” card and proposes to Persephone. He insists that he loves her and only her and that they should spend the rest of their immortal lives together.

Persephone says no.

Hades, not taking no for an answer and not wanting to leave the mortal realm empty handed, kidnaps Persephone, much to the dismay of Demeter, Artemis, and the nymphs. Hades returns with a traumatized Persephone to the underworld to find that Leuce has died and turned into a white poplar tree. While Persephone is sobbing on the floor, Hades weaves a mock crown from the branches and leaves of the tree, places it upon Persephone’s head, and tells her she better get used to their life together.

Thus ends the season and the punishment arc.

Afterthoughts

Thank you for sitting through my ramblings. I officially joined the anti-LO community about the time the trial happened and had been wanting to make a post like this for a reaaaaally long time. Besides the fact that the trial in of itself was completely unethical (@genericpuff made a whole post about that) the punishment arc just really pissed me off. Like go girl, give us nothing!

Anyways, I may or may not do a whole timeline reconstruction of LO depending on how much I feel like offing my sanity with the amount of research that would have to go into that. Until then, I hope you like this post and look out for other anti LO posts coming your way :)

[stepmarchen]

first off my apologies for this as i feel it's an overrated thing for the ASM fandom, but i would love your take on the historical fashion shown in the manhwa, the references to real life and the anachronistic choices to boot. i hope you're not too bothered by this! also love your thoughts on asm lol

no worries at all! i'm not the greatest history buff so i'm going to have to say sorry in advance too

anyway, i just looooove the historical world building/fashion in ASM! I think it's one of the best period-inspired comics in the "historical" genre despite it being inspired by multiple different historical time periods. get ready because... i have a lot to say.

now i wouldn't call myself a huge stickler for historical accuracy but personally, i like to feel totally transported to another time when i'm reading a period piece. And a lot of "princess" manhwa often take loose inspiration from history given that they're also in the fantasy YA genre.

here's what i mean.

the isekai genre inherently caters towards young women and selling "the fantasy" that is "we want to make you feel like a princess". While historical accuracy is super cool, there's a certain amount of modernization needed to appeal to the modern audience.

Changes might include: modern hollywood curls over a powdered wig with ringlet curls, the hourglass silhoutte over the historically accurate higher waister silhouette, or stylish stilettos over buckled mules (you get it)

a huge percentage of isekai/fantasy manga/manhwa do this (even to the extreme) and most of the time, it works (some examples below).

The problem is when it isn't intentional. ie: Artists going for the "historically accurate" route and fail to use props that suit the intended setting (not going to show examples, sorry)

ASM does a wonderful job at keeping to the historically accurate theme with the 19th century inspired fashion. And the only real anachronistic choice is the "anime hair" (which I think we can all stand by).

In particular, this panel of Theo trying on his new outfit for the gala really surprised me. It's the first time I've seen a male character wearing century accurate justacorps, breeches, and heels.

Something else I love is the style preferences between different characters, in relation to their age, status, and personality. It's even mentioned vocally by the characters! ie: Rachel wishing she could wear a bustle like Shuri, Shuri opting for "younger styles" now that she has been reborn, and Nora/Jeremy dressing freely (because boys will be boys).

The Empress (and Heidi) wear larger, more extravagant silhouettes, politically symbolic jewelry, and updos fitting of their high status. You can really feel the weight and layers that they're wearing, making them clear figures of power. It's an excellent design choice while staying true to the time period.

Meanwhile, Shuri often wears lighter dresses with less volume and simple accents as opposed to the flair of the royals or the youthful embellishments (like ribbbons or bows) of younger unmarried girls like Ohara.

HOWEVER! I have a growing theory that ORKA likes to use dresses as a narrative device. I think that ORKA styles Shuri in ribbons and "younger" styles instead of her common looks during romantic scenes to remind us readers that she really is just a girl inside, not anyone's mother.

I'm super eager to see how the fashion evolves as we move through Season 3! In the latest chapters, Shuri is starting to wear narrower silhouettes, suggestive of the coming turn of the century.

Also, with the characters growing up, we will probably get different male outfits (as opposed to Jeremy's typical knights training uniform and Nora's basic look).

Thanks for listening to my rant!

[hawkogurl]

Yeah, I basically had a similar reading on Insomniac!Harry as you did, I think - I do like him a lot, and I definitely see why he would the most popular version of him in the fandom right now, but he's a very smoothed over and simplified version who feels written to be as broadly loveable as possible, if that makes sense? I read a very thoughtful critique of the game recently that described Harry as being Peter's 'comically perfect' best friend, and I think that gets at the game's take on him and ties neatly into what you said about how the characters in Insomniac feel like they're written mostly to serve Peter's story and character, which is not necessarily a bad thing when he's the protagonist, but can flatten characters into narrative devices who don't necessarily feel like full characters; and any time Harry could be perceived as doing or saying something flawed, he's justified, or at least it's understandable, and it doesn't help that the last part of the game where he's Venom was rushed (not the fault of the devs for being pushed by corporate to meet a deadline they couldn't meet ofc) and it's not really clear how much is the symbiote amplifying his emotions, manipulating him, or outright controlling him like a puppet for its own agenda - but any way, it's very easy and probably correct to read him as not being truly at fault for anything.

Regarding Norman, my take is that I don't necessarily mind an interpretation of him that focuses on corporate greed and lack of ethics while exploring what if Norman was villainous, but genuinely loves and cares for his son in this universe, but MSM2 weirdly wanted both that and the usual drama from Harry being jealous of an abusive Norman choosing Peter over him, so we got that awkward scene where Norman is doing no such thing and still being a great father, but Harry mistakenly believes he's choosing Peter - so it's manufactured drama to follow the universes where Norman is abusive and Harry has issues from that, but here, everyone is still a good or at least neutral person at worst and it's all an honest mistake, which goes back to what you said about taking the edge out of the characters here - doesn't mean they're bad, like you also clarified, but definitely softer.

Can’t form intelligent thoughts because I need to go to sleep but I’m going to say I agree with all of the above. He’s very palatable in a way that just becomes boring for me. I’ll probably come back and contribute later when I’m not barely conscious.

For now, I agree especially because them wanting the Norman drama but also sort of pussying out of the Norman drama sort of like… feels like a good example of what I mentioned in that when you write an established character but change a major aspect of them, you need to compensate. They wanted the benefits of those arcs but weren’t willing to either include the original arcs or do the work to come up with something that can get to point b in a different way with what they’ve kept. It’s not the best writing decision in my opinion. And I agree with that articles assessment he feels like, comically perfect. Scrubbing away all his unsavory aspects lost him a lot of the ways he’s flawed and interesting because it often feels he exists solely to progress Peter’s arc rather than having the personal drama he often has.

I don’t personally like these softer versions. I’m not gonna say it’s bad or wrong to like those versions, but they definitely feel watered down when it’s not looked at in isolation or looked at more critically. It rapidly became boring for me.

[kajaono]

How 911 7x04 supports four different readings

A long term, a short term, a canon and a subtextual one and all of them are valid

Just as a short reminder. In 7x03 Buck meets Tommy for the first time and instantly smitten by the cool hot pilot. Turns out the hot pilot and his best friend are best buddies. Buck feels left behind. So 7x04 lets us believe he tries everything to get Eddies attention. Turns out, he actually wanted Tommys attention. So, thats the narrative we are working with

Canon and short term narrative

So on a canon level we have Buck meets a cute pilot, tries everything to get his attention, breaks his best friend foot, gets rewarded with a kiss, a boyfriend and a coming out. A clear BuckTommy narrative.

Long Term narrative

And now it gets compliacted. Is Bucktommy a long term option? Is this a) "we see you read Buck as queer AND you ship Eddie and Buck... but the network says "no" to canon Buddie, but "yes" to bi Buck, so we give you everything we can"? We saw similar things in The Witcher for example, where people read Jaskier as pan and in love with Geralt and season 3 made really clear: "Yes he is pan, but we will never make Geraskier canon. BUt here: Jaskier now has a boyfriend."

Which btw doesn't make the queer coming out arc and the queer relationship less important or valid. I think the storytelling couldn't be more clear how much it cares for BuckTommy.

Or is this b) slow burn? Introducing: Marcus Pike aka Pedro Pascal in season 6 of The Mentalist:

For those of you who have never watched The Mentalist (have you been living under a rock?!) . It is a typical (and extremly good) crime show, 22 episodes each season, and one episode: one case

The main couple, Lisbon x Jane (Jisbon):

These cuties here. Six seasons of slow burn and pining. And the moment they nearly got together this show did what every good show did back then. They introduced a new love interest, and one half of the main couple falls for him:

Even though everyone knew that Jisbon was endgame it added even more tension, made the pining and slow burn even longer.

So what of those two options is Tommy? Someone to make the pining even longer? Or a compromise because canon Buddie is not possible?

Only time will tell and I am super curious for your opinins, Because i Think this is also where the ship war comes from.

Because Tommy could be both and it is aboslutly not clear if Tommy is here to stay or only a plot device

This is also where the subtextual narrative kicks in

If you see it from a long term POV this whole "i try to get your attention" could have second level... which eventually could be about Buddie again. From a long term POV. As in: "I wanted Tommys attention because I really liked him and because he helped me realize my true feelings... and I realized I could never have your attention." something like that.

What I want to say is: 7:04 is written in a way that the canon narrative we have today can be changed easily later without destrorying the legacy it has: canon bi Buck. Or it will be forever a Bucktommy ep... which is also amazing! (I am here for both ships! Multishipping yay!)

It is so so hard to tell and I want all your opinions in my inbox. Is Tommy a plot device that leads to canon Buddie or here to stay? Keep in mind this show could go on for ten more seasons...

And leave me alone with ship wars. If i get too many hate messages I will write a meta why Buck x Eddie x Tommy will be endgame, I swear

[utilitycaster]

You commented on not being a fan of non-pc pov scenes in ap, something that Aabria used in the first go of exu (which was one of the main things that put me off of it, tbh). Do you have any thoughts on how this is applied in EXU compared to WBN?

So for EXU there's some parts that are better, and some that are worse. The good thing is that they're very brief snapshots vs. the one in WBN that was like, an extended several-minute scene. I also actually kind of like the ones for Ted, since that makes sense; we know it's impossible to really get Ted's perspective otherwise and you can kind of handwave it as being related to Opal and floating about in her unconscious.

The ones for My'ratta and Poska on the other hand, while again, brief, sort of underscore their lack of development. We did not know what Myr'atta wanted until episode 93 of Campaign 3, and as I've said before I literally could not tell you what the goal of the Nameless Ones or Poska is. They serve no purpose narratively except as a ticking clock and shadowy threat to get the Crown Keepers to leave a place quickly.

I mentioned Otohan in my original post on this topic as an example of an underdeveloped antagonist, something Brennan mentioned as something he hoped to avoid, and Myr'atta, Poska, and Otohan are all ultimately cut from the same cloth: cool aesthetic, cool abilities, and a severe lack of in-game development. I don't know what motivates them (or in Myr'atta's case, didn't while they were an ongoing part of the story) and so they all bore me. They are flat, dull villains who say threatening shit that means nothing because I don't know what drives them. I don't want to keep getting into it because it kind of derailed my original point anyway but what frustrates me the most is how people keep saying "oh but I'm sure they have a motivation." Like yeah bitch. I'm sure they do. The GM has a responsibility to convey that in-game. And they can do so subtly! Believe me, I am glad to do the work of unpicking motivation from allusions or what is carefully unsaid; this is what makes Ludinus and Liliana (and Lolth in EXU) interesting! But it's telling that whenever I'm like "what the fuck does this character do other than serve the purpose of a Plot Device to either threaten or move the characters", no one ever like, explains their motivation to me; it's always "give it time! I'm sure the GM has something in mind." Well, both Myr'atta and Otohan died before we got that (we still don't have it for Otohan) so I think we can safely say the waiting game is for suckers. Like, if you like characters based on aesthetic alone that's valid as a choice, but I'm not taking your meta or arguments seriously because that's a superficial judgment.

It's also frustrating because it's like...the GMs and the fans who keep insisting to be PATIENT long after a boring antagonist has worn out their welcome for me are simultaneously like "the audience will not remember this guy if I don't shove them in their face in a stilted cutscene" and also "clearly, the audience will infer that this boring-ass antagonist MUST have something deeper going on and therefore they will extend credit indefinitely." It's the absolute opposite of what they should be prioritizing. Instead of trying to jingle the antagonist in front of me like keys while still doing nothing to develop their personality, maybe have the party...idk, have a vision. find a letter. learn something secondhand from someone talking in a bar that sheds light on their motivation.

In WBN it's actually a totally different problem. The scene is 100% unnecessary. We know what the Man in Black wants. We know what's going on with him. We know his goals and his allies. We saw him only a couple episodes ago and he's been a topic of discussion throughout a good chunk of the arc. Hell, we even know how dope-ass his aesthetic is. This is just showing something the party doesn't know and can't act on, for several minutes of Brennan talking to himself, and I think it actually destroys what would be a gut-punch of undead Sir Curran showing up on the opposite side of Eursulon, whose entire deal is being inspired by him.

So: The EXU scenes are less intrusive for their brevity, the fact that the Ted ones are pretty good, and that at least they don't spoil a moment, but at the same time they still don't solve the problem of an underdeveloped antagonist for Myr'atta and Poska. The WBN scene meanwhile drags on, and actually does too much by taking what could be an unbelievably devastating reveal and having it happen when Eursulon isn't even there to respond. I couldn't tell if this actually spoiled it for Lou, since they record well in advance, but if it did that's such a missed opportunity.

Anyway I think my point is that (with the exception of the very first scene of a campaign that is setting the stage, before the PCs are introduced) these cutscenes only work if they are extremely short and purely for vague flavor. I think if you want to have a scene with no PCs present, you should perhaps write a book or a screenplay instead of playing D&D.

[lesbianjunimo]

alright! so! I just finished my first playthrough of episode eight!! going to put my immediate thoughts in some bullet points here (putting under a read more for spoilers, since it is the latest ep after all):

many people were skeptical about the Nerissa reveal, but honestly I feel like she's become a good narrative device. and yeah, I don't agree with her most of the time, but in this episode she was finally vulnerable and opened up to Traveler and admitted to being stubborn and being in the wrong about some things. which was great, and exactly what I needed from her! I wanted her to be vulnerable, and to show that, and I enjoyed her much more in this chapter.

loving how we can just say live on air that the monarchy should be abolished, that is honestly so slay

Zovack having a sister who died in the Orionite mines...now that was a reveal I was not expecting, and an intriguing one at that

I love KY-L3. Or however you spell it, lmao. he's so fun and he clearly is so fond of Traveler. his protective streak about Nerissa was very sweet.

ZANE INVITING TRAVELER INTO HIS AND ALISA'S BED...BRO. Bro. I almost stuck with the "Don't tempt me" option but telling Zane that I didn't mind if he flirted with me felt icky when I'm on someone's route lol

The "flirty reply" option when your love interest texts you...bro kill me that was so cringe. It's straight up cringe sexting I can't take that shit seriously oh my god...nope never picking that again (jk I need to see how bad it is on the other routes too LMAO)

soft kiss!! at least on Cal's route!! I've said before that one of my main gripes with a6 is that kisses feel like they're softblocked behind the horny options, and that can make it seem like the people who aren't into horniness are being shafted sometimes. for example, you don't get a morning after scene with your love interest unless you have sex. and yeah, I get that it isn't really a morning after scene without the after sex part but like they couldn't just snuggle up in bed with you and stay the night and still be cute in the morning? the texts you get instead on Cal's route are sweet but like if you don't fuck you miss out on an entire scene, which makes it feel a bit like you're punished for not being horny lol. but oh well, that's what fanfic/headcanon is for

WE DID GET A NON HORNY KISS THOUGH FINALLY. after you get the Cal betrayal lore (which I will get into in a moment), on his route he gives you a soft kiss and I LOVED IT.

CAL LORE. WE GOT THE EX'S NAME Y'ALL. It's Selah! She was a singer on Goldis, working for Zovack the whole time. Cal fell for her, but she still couldn't get what she wanted out of him, so she moved on to his childhood best friend, Jasper. They framed Cal for the murder together. Jasper's betrayal hurt Calderon far more than Selah's did. Also, in this scene, we learn that Cal's moms know how to party kjhdslfj

okay so overall, my first impressions are mainly good!! the only things I straight up was like "um" about were the "flirty option" texts...like that was so embarrassing, i'm SORRY i think it's just my asexuality shining through but ough dhsflkj, and the fact that the cute scene at the beginning of the episode is softlocked behind the horny. other than that, I had a blast!!

[gwenyn28]

Scriptwriting 101

Since there are a few people who really seem to think that a tv show is “just” a tv show I had the urge to explain a few things, especially concerning the writing process and what is seen on the screen.

I am not a screen-/scriptwriter myself but it is quite easy to dig into the world of writing and find the important points when it comes to tv shows and/or media in general.

Therefore, I decided to sum this all up in one post you can pull up whenever somebody tells you that “the curtain is just blue because it’s blue”.

First of all, the writers are writing for the screen. If you write a line about an internal monologue or thought you have to think about what it would look like on screen. Why? Well, that’s quite simple. Because the viewer isn’t able to look into the character’s head to see his thoughts. Therefore, you have to show it. To visualize it, using different narrative devices to do so.

If a character thinks “I don’t like him” but doesn’t want anybody to know, how would you portray this on screen? Maybe with a disgusted face. Maybe with a disgruntled noise. Maybe with a quip. You have to show the viewers this thought. this dislike. Otherwise, you won’t be able to get the message across.

Therefore, one of the most important rules for screenwriting is “Show, don’t tell”.

Usually, you don’t have a narrator who explains everything a character does. Ideally, the audience should be able to pick up on the context from the dialog and action.

For example: It’s not needed to be said that a character grew up as a person. It can be shown in a montage of his past. Or with a well-placed sentence to show this growth.

By experiencing a show, the only kind of information the audience absorbs is what can be seen and heard on screen. And that’s it.

Now people could say “yeah, isn’t this about the curtain then? If it is shown blue, then it is blue, right?”

Well, no. Yes, the curtain is blue. And that is what the audience can see. But the bigger point is to question WHY is the curtain blue. Okay, not everything is really that thought through, at least not the color of a random curtain. But other things might have a deeper meaning and subtext because the writers could not convey their idea/story otherwise.

They have to show some things so that the audience can figure it out what they wanted to tell with what they have shown.

Be it with words that are said or actions like giving a certain character a scene where they act like another character to show how similar they are.

And there comes the next big point. The “Show, don’t tell” rule is very often in correlation with the limited time the writers have for their story/episode. Usually, on tv you have a limited number of minutes for each and every episode. So, every second counts.

If you decide to write a certain part and to keep it in the episode, it has to be important. To show something without explicitly telling it.

So, some scenes might seem random and not important. But believe me, they usually are. Why would you keep something that blocks a time slot in your episode if it was not important for the plot, character growth or characterization in general?

Imagine. You want to write an episode of a show. And you have a general idea about the topic for this episode. You start to line it out, work around it, put life into it. And in the end, you notice that you have written a lot more than what would fit into the episode. What would you cut off? Right. Stuff that does not help the general storyline or the characters.

For example: You have written about a beautiful sunset. The birds are chirping, there’s a slight breeze. You can see a car passing by a park. What would you do? Keep it or cut it off?

Keep it if it is needed to show one of your characters walking around that park to pan in on him with the camera to set the tone for the next scene.

Cut if off if it is just a filler and in no relation with any story or character.

Many scenes are therefore intentional to show with actions or dialog what the writer wanted to convey in that scene. A tv show hasn’t the advantage like a book where every thought, every emotion can be described in detail. It is limited and has to use other methods to keep a storyline up and working.

Coming back to the aforementioned narrative devices. These are writing techniques used in writing in general, not only in media. They are important everywhere.

But let’s look at them from a tv show perspective. I have already explained why it is important to show stuff, mostly using dialog and visuals, so that the audience gets it and the possible subtext/context. Let’s look at how a writer would do it.

Foreshadowing:

This is a way to provide hints on what will happen in a later episode. You could show for example that somebody waits for a call, not being able to reach another person just to find out that said person wasn’t available due to an accident that will be shown at the end of an episode. The audience will then realize “Wow, that makes sense. Because the person couldn’t be reached before.”

Language:

It is always important what kind of language you use. Which words are said and which aren’t, mostly in combination what kind of tone they use. Calling somebody by their dead name and/or mispronouncing them get the point across that this person is a transphobe, for example. There’s no need to tell the viewer that this person is an asshole anymore because the audience already knows. So, the words that are used and how they are used is a vital point for the “show, don’t tell” because it can give a clue about the character or the situation they are in.

Plot devices:

It’s a technique used to move the plot forward. Plot devices can be objects or characters to show a certain character trait or support a storyline. For example, if you have a show and all of a sudden somebody from the past appears, a long-lost sibling maybe, it could be to show the difficult family situation. That sibling might be not important in the long run and could be gone a few episodes later. But it started another storyline and gave some insight to one of the main characters. Or the audience finds out that one of the characters has a relative with mental health issues who just appears in one episode which could be just to explain why a main character acted the way they did when faced with mental health issues in their current situation.

These are just a few storytelling tools that are often used in writing. And they all circle back to the “show, don’t tell” rule. Because if you look at each one of them and the examples I gave? Imagine how the situations would be without showing what I just described.

Would there be the “gasp” moment when you find out about the car accident without these little scenes before or would it be just “oh, car accident, whatever”?

Would it be believable if you have somebody call out another person as a transphobe without words used to show that the person really is?

Would it be understandable to start a new storyline without the long-lost sibling who started it?

No, usually, it wouldn’t.

Now, people could ask again about the “show, don’t tell”. Because why use these narrative devices when the rule is just to show stuff? Easy as that. Because otherwise a story would be boring.

It’s quite essential for a writer to put some tension into a story, to create a plot that hooks the audience (these are narrative devices as well, by the way). So, yeah. Show stuff. But make it exciting. Otherwise, nobody would tune in for the next episode.

This leads me to the next and probably last point.

Tuning in again. You might tune in again because a story is exciting. Yes. That’s one reason. Another one is or at least could be that the audience can relate to the characters. Writers usually give characters certain traits or flaws that the audience would get the feeling that this could be them. And that these characters might be fictional but still human somehow.

Characters don’t need to be perfect. They need to be relatable.

Connecting this with the main rule means that a character and his actions are just shown to give the audience a better feeling for them and who they are. So that they can relate. It’s usually important because if something happens off screen, the understanding might not be there. The audience needs to see things to understand what and why it happened. For example, a break-up offscreen always leaves the question about how and why they really broke up and that could dampen further scenes.

So, in conclusion. If something isn’t on screen it leaves the audience without something to relate to. Some might say that it probably wasn’t something important then and yes, I would agree. But there is also the possibility that something is left off screen on purpose to make the audience wary of a situation of a character because they haven’t seen things with their own eyes.

To sum this all up then:

A tv show doesn’t do stuff just because they can. The writing is intentional because they have limited means to convey their story to keep it exciting and relatable. Otherwise, the audience wouldn’t continue to watch. So, maybe the next time you talk to somebody about a show, think about the possibility that there has been some subtext to it. And not just that the curtain is blue.