my name is amity

"I don't know what to write about"

gatheringbones

“I don’t know what to write about; not even a little bit of a story comes to mind”

what kinds of tropes and storyforms do you have the strongest emotional reactions to, what links those things together, what terribly exciting tropes and storyforms emerge when you combine them in interesting ways, what sorts of people and personalities emerge in the process, which of those people and personalities seem the most interesting, how are you going to scare the living hell out of them for a couple hundred pages, what marvelous new space do they end up in because of it

gatheringbones

the more I read and the more I began to see what was possible I started to realize how exciting it was for me to see a mad person in fiction who was a source of joy to the people around them. I recognized how emotional I became every time I saw a variation on this extremely hard to find combination of images— a mad person, surrounded by people who love and take delight in them. nothing else seemed to come close to the feelings I felt when examining this image, and the more I examined the more there was to examine, like there always is when you're leaning into love like that.

then faces appeared, then characters, then story, and so on. the story creates itself in response to the needs being expressed by powerful images.

gatheringbones.tumblr.com

THE AUDRE LORDE QUESTIONNAIRE TO ONESELF

What are the words you do not have yet? [Or, “for what do you not have words, yet?”]
What do you need to say? [List as many things as necessary]
“What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own, until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence?” [List as many as necessary today. Then write a new list tomorrow. And the day after.]
If we have been “socialized to respect fear more than our own needs for language and definition”, ask yourself: “What’s the worst that could happen to me if I tell this truth?”* [So, answer this today. And every day.]

Adapted from “The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action,” collected in The Cancer Journals.

*This question is borrowed from Naomi Wolf’s Commencement address at Scripp’s College, “A Woman’s Place.”

This resource was created by Divya Victor for students of her Creative Writing courses at Nanyang Technological University in January 2016. It has since been misappropriated by individuals and organizations, and it has also been responsibly used by a variety of non-profit and educational organizations. If you choose to use this resource in your classroom, please credit the author. Any use of this resource, in part or whole, by non-educational organizations requires written permission from the author.

Divya Victor

Bitism

i’m founding a new school of media criticism which i’ve decided to call Bitism. the Bitist school of literary analysis asks a simple question: is this work committed to the bit?

you see, any work of fiction is either committed to the bit or it’s not. the worst thing a piece of media can be is ashamed of its own premise, of the genre it in habits, of the tropes and aesthetics we expect from it. to be committed to the bit does not inherently make it good, but it makes it more worthy of respect than those which are not.

also, that’s not to say that a story cannot parody or criticize the genre it inhabits or mimics. we can discuss the bit, we can deconstruct the bit, we can ask ourselves whether or not it’s a good bit, but to commit to it first will strengthen these discussions, not detract from them. commitment to the bit is, after all, the first step to genuine sincerity. and sincerity will exalt and elevate parody such that it can stand on its own feet.

commitment to the bit turns melodrama into camp, elevates parody to biting commentary, and allows cringe to open up into a resonant, if unpolished, expression of true emotion.

fully expect bitism to take the literary world by storm sometime in the next few years.

linecoveredinjellyfish.tumblr.com

The significance of plot without conflict

In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act plot structures–which permeate Western media–have conflict written into their very foundations. A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.

The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general–arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishōtenketsu.

Kishōtenketsu contains four acts: introduction, development, twist and reconciliation. The basics of the story–characters, setting, etc.–are established in the first act and developed in the second. No major changes occur until the third act, in which a new, often surprising element is introduced. The third act is the core of the plot, and it may be thought of as a kind of structural non sequitur. The fourth act draws a conclusion from the contrast between the first two “straight” acts and the disconnected third, thereby reconciling them into a coherent whole. Kishōtenketsu is probably best known to Westerners as the structure of Japanese yonkoma (four-panel) manga; and, with this in mind, our artist has kindly provided a simple comic to illustrate the concept.

Each panel represents one of the four acts. The resulting plot–and it is a plot–contains no conflict. No problem impedes the protagonist; nothing is pitted against anything else. Despite this, the twist in panel three imparts a dynamism–a chaos, perhaps–that keeps the comic from depicting merely a series of events. Panel four reinstates order by showing us how the first two panels connect to the third, which allows for a satisfactory ending without the need for a quasi-gladiatorial victory. It could be said that the last panel unifies the first three. The Western structure, on the other hand, is a face-off–involving character, theme, setting–in which one element must prevail over another. Our artist refitted the above comic into the three-act structure to show this difference.

The first panel gives the reader a “default position” with which to compare later events; and the second panel depicts a conflict-generating problem with the vending machine. The third panel represents the climax of the story: the dramatic high point in which the heroine's second attempt "defeats" the machine and allows the can to drop. The story concludes by depicting the aftermath, wherein we find that something from the first act has changed as a result of the climax. In this case, our heroine sans beverage has become a heroine avec beverage.

What this shows is that the three-act plot, unlike kishōtenketsu, is fundamentally confrontational. It necessarily involves one thing winning out over another, even in a minor case like the one above. This conclusion has wide-ranging implications, since both formats are applied not just to narratives, but to all types of writing. Both may be found under the hood of everything from essays and arguments to paragraphs and single sentences. As an example, the reader might re-examine the first two paragraphs of this article, in which a “default position” is set up and then interrupted by a “problem” (namely, the existence of kishōtenketsu). The following paragraphs deal with the conflict between the two formats. This paragraph, which escalates that conflict by explaining the culture-wide influence of each system, is the beginning of the climax.

As this writer is already making self-referential, meta-textual remarks, it is only appropriate that the article’s climax take us into the realm of post-modern philosophy. It is a worldview obsessed with narrative and, perhaps unconsciously, with the central thesis of the three-act structure. Jacques Derrida, probably the best known post-modern philosopher, infamously declared that all of reality was a text–a series of narratives that could only be understood by appealing to other narratives, ad infinitum. What kinds of narratives, though? Perhaps a benign, kishōtenketsu-esque play between disconnection and reconnection, chaos and order? No; for Derrida, the only narrative was one of violence. As a Nietzschean, he believed that reality consisted, invariably, of one thing dominating and imposing on another, in a selfish exercise of its will to power. The “worst violence”, he thought, was when something was completely silenced and absorbed by another, its difference erased. Apparently, Derrida was uncontent with the three-act structure’s nearly complete control over Western writing: he had to project it onto the entire world. Eurocentrism has rarely had a more shining moment.

Kishōtenketsu contains no such violence. The events of the first, second and third acts need not harm one another. They can stand separately, with Derrida’s beloved difference intact. Although the fourth act unifies the work, by no means must it do violence to the first three acts; rather, it is free merely to draw a conclusion from their juxtaposition, as Derrida does when he interprets one narrative through the lens of another. A world understood from the kishōtenketsu perspective need never contain the worst violence that Derrida fears, which would make his call for deconstruction–the prevention of silence through the annihiliation of structure–unnecessary. Is it possible that deconstruction could never have been conceived in a world governed by kishōtenketsu, rather than by the three-act plot? Is the three-act structure one of the elements behind the very worldview that calls for its deconstruction? Can the Western narrative of the will to power remain coherent in the face of a rival narrative from the East? This writer would prefer to ask than to answer these questions.

Now, dear readers, comes the aftermath. The dust left over from the climax is settling. Kishōtenketsu has been shown to generate plot without conflict, which reveals as insular nonsense the West’s belief that they are inseparable. The repercussions of this extend to all writing; and, if this writer's conclusion is to be believed, to philosophy itself. Despite this, it should be noted that many of history’s greatest works have been built on the three- and five-act structures. By no means should they be discarded. Rather, they should be viewed as tools for telling certain types of stories. At the same time, this writer would like to end by calling for a renewed look at kishōtenketsu in the West. It offers writers the opportunity to explore plots with minimal or no conflict. Perhaps it could even change our worldview.

stilleatingoranges.tumblr.com

Top Tips for Clues, Red Herrings, and Breadcrumbs

One of the most important parts of writing MYSTERY is figuring out what to do with clues and red herrings - and how to use them effectively. Here’s some advice that’s never steered me wrong:

Hide the real clue before the false ones! Most people, so by extent your readers and your sleuth, tend to focus on the last piece of information presented to them. A good strategy is to mention/show your real clue and then quickly shift focus.
Do a clue cluster! Squeeze your real clue in among a whole pile of red herrings or other clues, effectively hiding it in plain sight. This works especially well with multiple suspect mysteries.
Struggling to think of what a clue could be? Try this list:

Physical objects: Letters, notes, tickets, emails, keepsakes, text messages, diaries, etc.
Dialogue: voicemail recordings, overheard conversations, hearsay, gossip, rumours. All of these can hold grains of truth!

Red herrings distract and confound your protagonist and your reader, so you should be careful not to overuse them. Well balanced, red herrings should lead your characters down false paths to create confusion, tension, and suspense.
Contradictions! Have characters claim they did so-and-so at such-and-such a time, but other characters have evidence that contradicts this.
Balance! Avoid a clue that’s so obvious it’s like a neon sign saying “Look at me, I’m a clue!” but don’t make it so obscure it’ll be missed entirely. A good clue should leave a reader saying “Damn, I should have noticed that”

aye-write.tumblr.com

Writing Bored is often annoying but it is also super important

Anonymous asked: Sweet love, what are your biggest creative inspirations? How do the words just flow from you? I long to feel such passion for words and write in those ways. Sending you love and love and love.

i love u but this is not accurate to my experience. i love u but i don’t feel that way. i love u but. i am rarely excited to write.

that’s the whole secret. i taught myself to sit down and do it anyway. writing is a craft, not just a hobby. in the same way musicians sit down and make themselves run scales - writers need to sit down and just-write-something.

“but it’s bad”. so what? you don’t need to sell it. it just needs to exist so your muscles warm up.

“i have nothing left to say.” me neither. i ran out of things to say about 10 years ago.

“i don’t know what to do here!” there isn’t a right answer. you are leaning in to that feeling, not away from it.

“i hate what i’ve made.” yeah, that happens. keep going anyway. you don’t need to like it, you just need to do it.

our brains are plastic and every time we do this, we train ourselves a little bit better. we might not be able to say exactly why we hated something we wrote, but if you write 40 things you hate, your brain starts forming a picture in your subconscious - maybe you actually only like to write about feathers. maybe you’re not really into prose. maybe you like gardens. whatever.

and it makes you bored. that’s the most important thing. it makes you super, horribly bored. and then you write anyway. writing bored is often annoying but it is also super important. because your brain is going to start looking for new things to say and do. and then , there you go - suddenly you’re writing something fun and wild.

and if that doesn’t come for a year? whatever. you have had a year of practice. of writing without the wings of inspiration. when it does come, you’ll be able to push through parts that would have otherwise stopped you - because you haven’t been stopped by worse conditions. you’ll have a more interesting language scheme, you’ll have a sense of your own style, you’ll have a better grasp on body language… and it feels amazing. it’s like. taking off the weights around your ankles.

without that year of practice? of slogging? you don’t have those muscles. so the first time inspiration sort-of flags, you find yourself unable to finish your writing. or it’s not “good enough” so you stop. or you don’t love a paragraph, so you stop.

with the year of bad writing, you’re like - i don’t even care about that stuff, i’ve made worse, let’s keep going. you can make yourself do it.

artists do studies and try different styles. singers do voice lessons and try different genres. dancers put in hours at the gym and then hike to rehearsal. the thing about art is that it is difficult and not all of it is going to come from a place of harmony and passion. it’s just about gritting your teeth and grinding through it.

because when you do finally get it? yeah, dude. i promise it’s worth it.

inkskinned.tumblr.com

Self-Doubt and Creativity

Martha Beck: I became a force to be reckoned with because I just started doing what fascinated me and I have to be so fascinated that the complete nervous collapse that is waiting for me in self-doubt cannot get to me, but for me, it's not a feeling of I owe it to my story or anything. It's just like, Oh, I got to follow this trail, this is... Oh, yeah, I got to follow that trail.

Rowan Mangan: And does that even carry you through that sort of initial... Through the long stretch?

Martha Beck: Yeah, by then it's like I'm hungry. It's like tracking an animal. It really is. You and I both have tracked animals. We used to track bears on the ranch in California. It's so fun. These little humanoid, not little, big humanoid footprints and you get so entranced by the track itself and the whole world goes away because I think the human mind is meant to be a sort of forensic expert. Excuse me, a forensic expert that is constantly decoding the world and when you see something going forward... If something's fascinating to get my attention, it's moving. I love in Tom Brown books... Brown's book, The Tracker, it's not his book. His ghostwriter was amazing in this one book. But a guy named Tom Brown wrote The Tracker, and the first sentence is, "The first track is the end of a string. At the other end, a being is moving.

[. . .] And I was actually reading about using family systems therapy to deal with different aspects of yourself. And I realized I'd been doing this for years without really knowing it. You let the critic come out, the nasty critic, you let it have it say, and this one psychologist recommends you even let it write down all its abusive, horrible stuff. And then you say to it, "Okay, I get that you're somehow a guardian of something in my psyche and that you have to be vicious and ferocious. Now I would like you to step back and I want the writer to step forward and write with you in the back. I heard you." It's very important that you say to the critic, "I've heard you."

Because it comes on like a vicious monster, but it's always a scared child. So, if you say, "Go away, I need to focus." It doesn't respond by feeling calmer, it gets more aggressive. So, I've been pushing it away and holding it out with fascination. But as I was reading this stuff, I'm like, "Oh wait, somewhere in there I got a little softer."

And I started saying to that vicious critic: "I get that you're trying to help me. Say your say, step back. Will you let the writer come out and write now," and the interesting thing is that if you let it have it say and you ask it nicely, it will. And then the writer comes forward and you can write down, “I’m afraid of the critic,” and say, "Well the critic's just sitting over there. She's fine. How about we get back to the fascination now?"

marthabeck.com

A Story is a Simple Progression of Desires

gatheringbones

and it's so easy to chart an interesting and exciting story onto the simple progression of desires.

a character wants something, and they either get it or they don't. the not getting it propels the story. or they get it, and it turns out that it wasn't actually what they wanted, and now they want something else and that propels the story. or something happens to them and some terribly exciting transformation takes place and now they have a much more accurate picture of what they want and hopefully an increased drive and ability to acquire it. or they meet friends with similar desires, or they meet friends who help transform them into someone who can articulate their desires, or they meet enemies who achieve the exact same effect.

and it's funny. show me a grand and mystical sci fi fantasy tableau full of the most arcane and unknowable concepts known to man and a character who wants something as simple and boring as a restroom break and a cup of coffee and I will laugh ever time and I will instantly be on their side. they will become a human being to me and that's all I care about. Not magical vistas or spaceships, but people going after what they want.

gatheringbones

that whole "make your characters want things" does so much work for you in a story, even if what your characters want is stupid and irrelevant, because how people go about pursuing their desires tells you about them as a person.

do they actually move toward what they desire? how far are they willing to go for it? do they pursue their desires directly or indirectly? do they acquire what they desire through force, trickery, or negotiation? do they tell themselves they aren't supposed to feel desire and suppress it? does the suppressed desire wither away and die, or does it mutate and grow even stronger? is the initally expressed desire actually an inadequate and poorly translated different desire that they lack language for? does the desire change once the language has been updated, or when new experiences outline the desire more clearly? do they want something else once they have better words for it, or once they know that they definitely don't want something they thought they wanted before?

how does the world accommodate those desires? what does the world present to your character and in what order to update and clarify their desires? how does your magic system or sci-fi device correspond to those desires and the pursuit of them?

there's so much good story meat on those bones; you just have to be brave and decisive enough to let characters want specific things instead of letting them float in the current of the plot.

gatheringbones.tumblr.com

here have 10 pieces of writing advice that have stuck with me over the years

every character’s first line should be an introduction to who they are as a person
even if you only wrote one sentence on a really bad day, that’s still one sentence more than you had yesterday
exercise restraint when using swear words and extra punctuation in order for them to pack a punch when you do use them
if your characters have to kiss to show they’re in love, then they’re not in love
make every scene interesting (or make every scene your favorite scene), otherwise your readers will be just as bored as you
if you’re stuck on a scene, delete the last line you wrote and go in a different direction, or leave in brackets as placeholders
don’t compare your first draft to published books that could be anywhere from 3rd to 103rd drafts
i promise you the story you want to tell can fit into 100k words or less
sometimes the book isn’t working because it’s not ready to be written or you’re not ready to write it yet; let it marinate for a bit so the idea can develop as you become a better writer
a story written in chronological order takes a lot more discipline and is usually easier to understand than a story written with flashbacks

battlestar-royco.tumblr.com

Write Small Examples of Big Concepts

gatheringbones

give readers smaller examples of big concepts you want them to understand later.

also give them the antithesis of something you want them to value later so that they know why it has value--it's the same basic principle of food tasting better when you're starving, or warmth being warmer after freezing, or companionship being more welcome afterloneliness.

gatheringbones

why do we like character x? because they would never do what character y did.

how do we understand (large and complex exploitative system)? oh we already familiarized ourselves with a smaller version on a personal and emotional level and the same basic principles for how to deal with it still apply, just scaled up.

why does (plot point) feel so cathartic? because the opposite of what that plot point does has been happening for so long that we've lost hope for anything any different.

clever use of negative space and constructed needs!

gatheringbones.tumblr.com

A Counterpoint to "Writing What You Know"

HALDERMAN: You do invent wonderful landscapes. The Earthsea trilogy creates such a vivid picture of the sea--have you done a lot of sailing?

LE GUIN: All that sailing is complete fakery. It's amazing what you can fake. I've never sailed anything in my life except a nine-foot catboat, and that was in the Berkeley basin in about three feet of water. And we managed to sink it. The sail got wet and it went down while we sang "Nearer My God to Thee." We had to wade to shore, and go back to the place we'd rented it and tell them. They couldn't believe it. "You did what?" You know, it's interesting, they always tell people to write about what they know about. But you don't have to know about things, you just have to be able to imagine them really well.

-some kind of interview with Ursala K. Le Guin/p>

Captainkirkk's Helpful Tips for Beginners

Anonymous asked: hey newbie writer here - do you happen to have any helpful tips about writing for beginners?

It depends on what kind of tips you're looking for. But here's some basic advice:

Planning can keep you on track and it can also prevent writer's block. For me, if I have a quick plan (even if it's just a few bullet points) before I start writing something, no matter how small, I never get halfway through a fic and think, "Shit, now what?" and freeze up. If you can, get in the habit of doing some quick planning before writing.
It takes practise to be able to write longer word-counts. When I started fanfiction, I could only manage ~1k. I remember being SO damn proud of myself for getting to 5k during one particular fic, because that seemed like an impossible amount for me. So don’t compare yourself to other writers! Write what feels comfortable for you. Pushing yourself is healthy, but don’t stress yourself out - you’ll only burn out that way.
Switch things up and figure out what works for you. Do you struggle to write on your computer, do you need paper and pen to function? Do you like listening to lo-fi, musicals on loop, character playlists - or do you need absolute silence? Try writing at home, at the library, maybe get some sun and write in your backyard. Changing up my location and writing tool always helps me get back into the swing of things (though I don’t know if that’ll work for anyone else…)
And finally: write for yourself. Don’t get me wrong, writing other people’s prompts and ideas can be super fun, but make sure that first and foremost you enjoy what you’re writing. Have fun with it. Writing is indulgent - let yourself be indulgent. Write that thing that’s been nagging at the back of your head for ages. Write that fic you really want to see but doesn’t seem to exist. If you have fun with your writing, you’ll keep doing it - and readers will come.

I hope this very vague advice helps, anon. Happy writing.

captainkirkk.tumblr.com

What Makes a Good Retelling

Not to get too intense about it, but I really do love a good retelling, but my criteria for good retellings are... not high, but perhaps more specific than they are for most people. If I had to make a list

A good retelling must understand the original text and its context. If one is retelling a Greek myth, you must understand not only the plot of the myth, but the author should also at least understand the intent behind the myth, both in charitable and uncharitable interpretations.
A good retelling must add something new by telling this story again. You can't just say that this is the same story... but in space! You have to know that the creation of a different context for a story fundamentally creates different themes and understandings, and take advantage of that. To go back to Greek myth, Hadestown is fundamentally a retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. However, instead of solely focusing on Hades as a figure representing Death, Hadestown focuses on Hades as a patron of the wealthy, the lord of all wealth hidden beneath the earth as much as the bones that also lay there. The story is then reframed as not just the story of Orpheus and Eurydice but also of the story of an early 1900s company town wherein Hades is the exploitative boss. Orpheus is voice of the downtrodden, traveling to this place of the downtrodden and trying, in his own way, to affect some tiny bit of change. In what I'd consider one of the seminal songs in the musical, "If It's True," where his simple action of singing this question about whether this is the only way things have to be awakes the deadened workers and their collective force makes Hades respond.
A good retelling must stand on its own even if the audience is unfamiliar with other tellings. Knowing the original should enhance the experience, but it should not be necessary. Sorry to keep using musical examples, but The Tain by The Decemberists is still a great song with solid lyrics, even if they're abstracted from the original story of The Cattle Raid of Cooley. They change the lyrics to more modern ideas, with references to Charlemagne, cars, and so on, but the through-line of the story is very clearly there. The story even ends with a direct question to Medb - was all that really worth it?

I dunno where I was going with the rest of this, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

jayahult.tumblr.com

Title

Anonymous asked: Hi, I was wondering if you could provide examples of Head Hopping and advice on how to avoid it.

Guide: Head Hopping and How to Avoid It

To avoid head hopping, you have to understand what it is. To understand what head hopping is, you have to understand POV, so let's start there.

The Different Types of Point-of-View

Every story is told by a narrator, and every narrator has a point of view. There are several different POVs in fiction:

Third-Person (he/she/they/them)

third-person omniscient (all knowing/objective)
third-person objective (limited to one character/objective)
third-person limited (limited to one character/subjective)

Second-Person (You, limited and subjective)

First-person (I/me/we/us, limited and subjective)

Objective/Impersonal vs Subjective/Personal

When narration is objective/impersonal, it means the facts of the story are reported to the reader without being filtered through the personal feelings, prejudices, experiences, or interpretations of the point-of-view character.

When narration is subjective/personal, it means the facts of the story are reported to the reader through the filter of the personal feelings, prejudices, experiences, and interpretations of the point-of-view character.

Objective/Impersonal: Sarah was afraid to take the test.

Subjective/Personal: Sarah already felt like a failure as she stared down at the blank test, her heart racing with the fear that she didn't know the answers.

Third-Person Omniscient vs Head Hopping

While the third-person omniscient narrator can "hop around" from one character's thoughts to the next, because this POV is objective (impersonal), you don't feel like you're inside each character's head.

Head hopping occurs when the third-person omniscient narrator "hops around" from one characters thoughts to the next but is being subjective (personal) by filtering everything through each character's unique experience. It can also occur when a third-person limited or first-person narrator (who isn't an established clairvoyant or mind reader) seems to know what other characters are thinking, feeling, or doing when that information hasn't been reported to them somehow.

Example of Third-Person Omniscient:

Sarah was afraid to take the test, but she was in good company. Peter, in the desk beside her, tugged at his collar and swallowed. In the desk behind him, Valerie closed her eyes and prayed to the history gods that she'd pass the test.

-- notice how none of this information is filtered through the personal feelings or experiences of the characters mentioned. The information is purely objective and impersonal.

Example of Head Hopping:

Sarah already felt like a failure as she stared down at the blank test, her heart racing with the fear that she didn't know the answers. She was in good company. Peter, in the desk beside her, tugged at his collar and swallowed back the nervous bile that stung his throat. Had he even studied last night? He couldn't remember now, but he sure remembered that this test would account for 75% of his grade in this class. If he didn't pass, he could say goodbye to Spring Break in Florida. In the desk behind him, Valerie closed her eyes and prayed to the history gods that she'd studied well enough. She'd stayed up so late cramming the information into her already saturated brain, her eyes felt heavy and her head was swimming. All she could do was hope it was enough to get a passing grade.

-- see how this information is filtered through the personal feelings and experiences of the characters? Notice how you kind of get whiplash, because one second you're in Sarah's head, then you're in Peter's, then you're in Valerie's? That's head hopping.

How to Avoid Head Hopping

You can avoid head hopping by making sure the narrator only filters information through the POV character's mind when it's appropriate, such as when writing first-person or third-person limited.

If you're writing in first-person or third-person limited and you need to get inside the heads of multiple characters, make sure each character gets their own scene or chapter. In other words, don't go into another character's head until you've used a scene break or switched to a new chapter.

I hope that helps!

Writing Questions Answered

Writing Advice by Charles Palahniuk

In six seconds, you’ll hate me.

But in six months, you’ll be a better writer.

From this point forward – at least for the next half year – you may not use “thought” verbs. These include: Thinks, Knows, Understands, Realizes, Believes, Wants, Remembers, Imagines, Desires, and a hundred others you love to use.

The list should also include: Loves and Hates.

And it should include: Is and Has, but we’ll get to those, later.

Until some time around Christmas, you can’t write: Kenny wondered if Monica didn’t like him going out at night…”

Thinking is abstract. Knowing and believing are intangible. Your story will always be stronger if you just show the physical actions and details of your characters and allow your reader to do the thinking and knowing. And loving and hating.

Instead, you’ll have to Un-pack that to something like: “The mornings after Kenny had stayed out, beyond the last bus, until he’d had to bum a ride or pay for a cab and got home to find Monica faking sleep, faking because she never slept that quiet, those mornings, she’d only put her own cup of coffee in the microwave. Never his.”

Instead of characters knowing anything, you must now present the details that allow the reader to know them. Instead of a character wanting something, you must now describe the thing so that the reader wants it.

Instead of saying: “Adam knew Gwen liked him.”

You’ll have to say: “Between classes, Gwen was always leaned on his locker when he’d go to open it. She’d roll her eyes and shove off with one foot, leaving a black-heel mark on the painted metal, but she also left the smell of her perfume. The combination lock would still be warm from her ass. And the next break, Gwen would be leaned there, again.”

In short, no more short-cuts. Only specific sensory detail: action, smell, taste, sound, and feeling.

Typically, writers use these “thought” verbs at the beginning of a paragraph (In this form, you can call them “Thesis Statements” and I’ll rail against those, later) In a way, they state the intention of the paragraph. And what follows, illustrates them.

For example:

“Brenda knew she’d never make the deadline. Traffic was backed up from the bridge, past the first eight or nine exits. Her cell phone battery was dead. At home, the dogs would need to go out, or there would be a mess to clean up. Plus, she’d promised to water the plants for her neighbor…”

Do you see how the opening “thesis statement” steals the thunder of what follows? Don’t do it.

If nothing else, cut the opening sentence and place it after all the others. Better yet, transplant it and change it to: Brenda would never make the deadline.

Don’t tell your reader: “Lisa hated Tom.”

Instead, make your case like a lawyer in court, detail by detail. Present each piece of evidence. For example:

“During role call, in the breath after the teacher said Tom’s name, in that moment before he could answer, right then, Lisa would whisper-shout: ‘Butt Wipe,” just as Tom was saying, ‘Here’.”

One of the most-common mistakes that beginning writers make is leaving their characters alone. Writing, you may be alone. Reading, your audience may be alone. But your character should spend very, very little time alone. Because a solitary character starts thinking or worrying or wondering.

For example: Waiting for the bus, Mark started to worry about how long the trip would take..”

A better break-down might be: “The schedule said the bus would come by at noon, but Mark’s watch said it was already 11:57. You could see all the way down the road, as far as the Mall, and not see a bus. No doubt, the driver was parked at the turn-around, the far end of the line, taking a nap. The driver was kicked back, asleep, and Mark was going to be late. Or worse, the driver was drinking, and he’d pull up drunk and charge Mark seventy-five cents for death in a fiery traffic accident…”

A character alone must lapse into fantasy or memory, but even then you can’t use “thought” verbs or any of their abstract relatives.

Oh, and you can just forget about using the verbs forget and remember.

No more transitions such as: “Wanda remember how Nelson used to brush her hair.”

Instead: “Back in their sophomore year, Nelson used to brush her hair with smooth, long strokes of his hand.”

Again, Un-pack. Don’t take short-cuts.

Better yet, get your character with another character, fast. Get them together and get the action started. Let their actions and words show their thoughts. You -- stay out of their heads.

And while you’re avoiding “thought” verbs, be very wary about using the bland verbs “is” and “have.”

One of the most-common mistakes that beginning writers make is leaving their characters alone.

For example:

“Ann’s eyes are blue.”

“Ann has blue eyes.”

Versus:

“Ann coughed and waved one hand past her face, clearing the cigarette smoke from her eyes, blue eyes, before she smiled…”

Instead of bland “is” and “has” statements, try burying your details of what a character has or is, in actions or gestures. At its most basic, this is showing your story instead of telling it.

And forever after, once you’ve learned to Un-pack your characters, you’ll hate the lazy writer who settles for: “Jim sat beside the telephone, wondering why Amanda didn’t call.”

Please. For now, hate me all you want, but don’t use “thought” verbs. After Christmas, go crazy, but I’d bet money you won’t.

Blue-Sunshine's Guide to Crafting Culture

draange asked: I have a random question for you! What is your process/method for developing culture when the source material gives you little to work with?

Ooh I like this question.

Okay, so there are a lot of factors for the development of culture and while a lot of cultural nuances are wildly unpredictable there are a few solid building blocks for how I start my framework;

First - location. Do I know the setting this people lives in, geographically/ topography/ biome wise? A lot of cultural practice is developed out of necessity and natural surroundings. Clothing developes to suit whether the climate is hot or cold. So does their method of housing and architecture. Types of materials and colors/paints/dyed first depend upon what is naturally, locally available and usually have more cultural importance than colors that dont naturally occur in the world around them. How those colors are utilized in nature around them also influences color symbology- blue is often associated as a good color because it is the color of the sky. Purple may be associated as a death color or evil color if, say, the purple flowers that grow in that region are fatally toxic and kill people, etc.

People who live near the ocean probably place great importance on water symbology in their culture, and their language probably includes many descriptive for water as well as water based idioms and metaphors. People who live in windswept plains and valleys probably place a lot of importance on the wind and sky.

Geography also heavily influences agriculture, which determines food culture and preferences. People in colder climates don't tend to have peppers or spicy foods, but would have more preservative type foods - pickled fish, preserved jams and jellies, dried goods, hard breads, etc. People in jungles would have more fruits, juices, meats etc, but probably not much for dairy or milk products, if there is no suitable type of livestock animal.

Basically if you can't grow it, you don't eat it.

There is so much about geographical influence in culture but that's a good basic start so I'll move on.

Second - language. Do I know anything about the language? From my fic, let's make an example: Mando'a and Basic. Mando'a is a genderless language. Basic is not. That actually says a lot about their cultures right there. It suggests that while Basic - speaking cultures have a strong emphasis on the social construct of gender, Mando's don't, which means they determine social roles very differently. Mando's wouldn't have a big divide of 'mens' roles and 'womens' roles. Every society not egalitarian, however, has some form of social strata, so you have to determine what it's based on. Age groups? Birth Castes? Phenology? Ancestry? One of these, none of these, or a mix?

Building from language, let's talk about names. Naming customs are very revealing. How do people introduce themselves? In english/american, we do 'Title, Self, Family, of Collective' ( Such as Doctor John Watson of England), most often in order of importance. We're also fairly casual about use of our given name and often stress the importance of our given (first name) over our surname/family name. Some cultures, and often more collectivistic cultures, the surname comes first and is given more emphasis and first names are often to be used only by much closer friends and family. This places a stronger cultural emphasis on community and or family.

Cultures with stronger community emphasis are more likely to have multigenerational or even multi family dwellings, where as cultures more individualistic will place more emphasis on growing independent and having smaller, more insular households that may live apart from their natal family.

Third - hierarchy. Do I know their form of governance? Is it a Monarchy, with a high regard for ancestry and possessiveness of territory? Is it a democracy, with a lot more public discourse and political nuance? A military state, with rigid legal guidelines and warfare mindset? Socialist state, with strong public welfare and communal property? Capitalist state, where everything is built on exploitation and money?

Government doesn't just determine how leadership works but also how expressive the population can be in opinion and personal individuality, what kind of opportunities they have, what their baseline lifestyle and economic class is, and what kind of civic engagement is required of them.

Hierarchy also goes back to social roles - how is your society broken up, who has power and who doesn't? How do you recognize who has power and who doesn't? What visual cues are there, what linguistic cues are there? Do these details already exist? Do they need to be expounded upon or made up entirely?

I could probably go on forever but most of it boils down to asking myself questions to explain what I'm seeing or not seeing.

Take Mandalore for example - why was their planetary ruler a Duchess? When a duke/duchess is second in rank to a king/queen. So I looked into wookiepedia and found out about the Mand'alor, which I looked up to find out it translated to 'sole ruler'. Or, colloquially, the king.

But culturally not a monarchy, because this was not a hereditary position and not an elected monarchy like naboo or else Satine should have been Queen/ Mand'alor, so... I created a more culturally appropriate position for Satine to inhabit which translates, poorly, into Basic as 'Duchess' or 'second to the king in rank' which still respected the absent seat of the Mand'alor.

Stuff like that.

Edit; Let's add to this, more star wars specific;

Four - time. When I built Yoda's peoples culture, I based it first off the bog monster we all knew Yoda to be and then off of how long he lived. Asking myself - what does your art look like when you have so many years to work on it? To create something? When you want it to last for so, so much longer even still? How does a long life change your perspective? What about the inverse? What does a very short life change about how you develop?

Five - historical events. What major events, if any, occurred in their history? Cataclysms, miracles? These can not only effect the historical record, but impact mythology, stigma/ prejudice, or even theology, can mark holidays or start small rituals that may not make a whole lot of sense generations later.

Six - physiology. Do they have other body parts/ types? Montrals and lekku implied a higher sensitivity to sound a pressure, which influences not only their senses but their emphasis/ take on things like music and natural phenomena. Eyeless people have no color concept but would have a stronger touch and vocal nuance. Pure black eyes indicate light sensitivity, etc.

Second edit; feel free to ask specific questions on this topic too, I love world-building.

blue-sunshine-mauve-morning.tumblr.com

Seven Things to Define a Character

kaylapocalypse

Actually

The question I get the most is how I write characters that feel like real people.

Generally when I’m designing a human being, I deconstruct them into 7 major categories:

Primary Drive
Fear: Major and Secondary
Physical Desires
Style of self expression
How they express affection
What controls them (what they are weak for)
What part of them will change.

Primary Drive:

This is generally related to the plot. What are their plot related goals? How are they pulling the plot forward? how do they make decisions? What do they think they’re doing and how do they justify doing it.

Fear:

First, what is their deep fear? Abandonment? being consumed by power? etc. Second: tiny fears. Spiders. someone licking their neck. Small things that bother them. At least 4.

Physical desires:

How they feel about touch. What is their perceived sexual/romantic orientation. Do their physical desires match up with their psychological desires.

Style of self expression:

How they talk. Are they shy? Do they like to joke around and if so, how? Are they anxious or confident internally and how do they express that externally. What do words mean to them? More or less than actions? Does their socioeconomic background affect the way they present themselves socially?

How they express affection:

Do they express affection through actions or words. Is expressing affection easy for them or not. How quickly do they open up to someone they like. Does their affection match up with their physical desires. how does the way they show their friends that they love them differ from how they show a potential love interest that they love them. is affection something they struggle with?

What controls them (what they are weak for):

what are they almost entirely helpless against. What is something that influences them regardless of their own moral code. What– if driven to the end of the wire— would they reject sacrificing. What/who would they cut off their own finger for. What would they kill for, if pushed. What makes them want to curl up and never go outside again from pain. What makes them sink to their knees from weakness or relief. What would make them weep tears of joy regardless where they were and who they were in front of.

WHAT PART OF THEM WILL CHANGE:

People develop over time. At least two of the above six categories will be altered by the storyline–either to an extreme or whittled down to nothing. When a person experiences trauma, their primary fear may change, or how they express affection may change, etc. By the time your book is over, they should have developed. And its important to decide which parts of them will be the ones that slowly get altered so you can work on monitoring it as you write. making it congruent with the plot instead of just a reaction to the plot.

That’s it.

But most of all, you have to treat this like you’re developing a human being. Not a “character” a living breathing person. When you talk, you use their voice. If you want them to say something and it doesn’t seem like (based on the seven characteristics above) that they would say it, what would they say instead?

If they must do something that’s forced by the plot, that they wouldn’t do based on their seven options, they can still do the thing, but how would they feel internally about doing it?

How do their seven characteristics meet/ meld with someone else’s seven and how will they change each other?

Once you can come up with all the answers to all of these questions, you begin to know your character like you’d know one of your friends. When you can place them in any AU and know how they would react.

They start to breathe.

kaylapocalypse.tumblr.com

How Dets Creates Original Characters

Anonymous asked: Same anon that asked about Bombur's kids, thanks for satisfying my insatiable curiosity :D! Do you have a particular process for characterization?

No worries, it was my pleasure!

THIS GETS LONG STRAP YOURSELF IN

~~Process what is process~~ Well, I tend to jump into it feet first and splash around for a while until I find things that stick for me. I begin with a general idea of a character, and then I reverse-engineer their life. Here, let’s take Barur Stonebelly as an example. Here we go!

Initial idea for character: Famous chef, son of Bombur, giant moustache.

Okaaaaaay, not much to begin with. What do I already know about his family? They’re warm people, kind. Loyal. Interested in food and humour. Poor initially, and thereafter fabulously wealthy. His eldest sister is a diffident, retiring Dwarrow with a truly once-in-a-lifetime talent, and he has grown up in that shadow. He is third amongst 12 siblings, so he will know how to take responsibility, how to care for children and how to lead.

So Barur is going to have a background in which he was cherished. He was wanted. He grew up surrounded by love and laughter, but he was somewhat lost in a crowd. He is a leader and a nurturer, but he is very blunt and matter-of-fact thanks to having so many younger siblings to be responsible for. He is a good, if impatient, teacher. His early poverty would have impressed upon him a sense of urgency: even though they are rich beyond counting now, Barur would remember what it was like to go hungry. Beneath all his work would be an unspoken drive: never go hungry again. He would not speak in the manner that his younger siblings do: they would have a much more educated manner of speech. But Barur would have gone to poor schools, and have a working-class accent.

He would have discovered food through his father’s work - aaaaand BOOM, love of his life, right there. From that moment onwards, his life is dedicated to food and its creation. Perhaps he is one of those Dwarves who dedicates himself to his craft alone, and takes no partner? EXCELLENT, now we’re getting somewhere! It is both a craft and a way to show his love. There is nothing - nothing - about food that Barur will not investigate. This pays off in a big way: He moves through the kitchens like a whirlwind, mastering every single discipline and way of preparing food until he is at the pinnacle of his craft - and it still isn’t enough. He is running three of the Royal kitchens before he is ninety. He is Head Chef by age 120. Bombur sells treats and experiments developed by Barur at his market stall, and his fame begins to grow. Barur begins to step out from behind his talented sister’s shadow. He earns an epithet to his name. Which epithet? “Stonebelly” sounds good. Is he of Bomburesque proportions? Yes, but the epithet is not about his considerable tum, but instead refers to his incredible ability to eat and cook anything. Dwarrows respect skill <3

Barur takes the youngest of his siblings (Albur) under his wing and teaches him. He has a tendency to take over from Albur because he wants everything to be perfect, which never allows Albur to make his own mistakes. Barur is still impatient, after all, and his main focus is always FOOD FOOD FOOD. He is a professional cook, with the utter buzzsaw-like focus that entails.

Soooo, moving on. Dedicated to craft = Aro-Ace, maybe? Awesome, let’s go deeper! So Barur is devoted to food, and rather impatient, and a total perfectionist. He also isn’t terribly social or gregarious, and tends to keep to his family and his work. This suggests that Barur would peremptorily wave off any attraction that came his way. There is food to be cooked, he is busy. Unless the person who is attracted to him is a friend, he probably would dismiss it as someone else’s problem. If they are a friend, he would gently let them down by cooking them something they liked, wishing them luck with their next crush, and saying sorry not sorry, basically.

Friends? But he is so work-focused! Okay, so all his friends would be made through work. Perhaps his second/sous-chef is his best mate? Nice! How about rivals? Perhaps there is a rival chef? An obsessive like Barur wouldn’t even notice, probably. Rivals schmivals, his focus is still the food not the fame.

Okay, loyal to family, let’s look at that: so perhaps he lives in the family home still? GOOD ME LIKEY. Lives with his parents and his youngest siblings, looks after his ailing father a lot. He and Bombur would cook together - that would be their ‘thing’. Barur would have helped his father a lot with his market stall after retaking Erebor. Which of his siblings is he close to? Well, Barur is third eldest. I imagine he would have looked up to Baris a LOT as a kid: she was the eldest, and I know what that’s like (I myself am third kid in my family!). But his elder brother Barum would have had very similar feelings and experiences, and so I think they would have been tight as tight. Barum and Barur, together as a pair for decades. Best friends.

And then what? Barum gets married and starts having a LOT of kids… Oh. So Barur is left a bit on the outside. He’s no longer the most important person in Barum’s life. Is that when he throws himself into work and becomes Head Chef? Is that when he takes on his youngest siblings? Is that when he grows closer to his sous, his best friend? YAAAAAS ALSO GOOD. What about all the kids, his nine (soon to be ten) nieces and nephews? I’ll bet Barur makes every. single. nameday cake - and every other kid in the Mountain is green as emeralds! It’s how Barur expresses care: through gifts of food.

What about his famous ongoing vendetta against Gimizh Cookie-Thief? Well, Gimizh IS family, the youngest of his cousins. A chaos-machine like Gimizh is infuriating to someone like Barur. He has a decent sense of humour, which would have been encouraged as a child by his jolly laughing mum Alris - but NOT in the middle of service! The priority here is FOOD, for goodness’ sake! Besides, a kitchen can be dangerous. Even so, afterwards Barur would have to laugh and shake his head at Gimizh’s more outrageous schemes. He would try now and again to teach Gimizh more decorous kitchen behaviour (not very patiently, to be fair - and Gimizh is all in-one-ear, out-the-other, so none of it sticks). He would most likely cook a few more treats in every batch, knowing that approximately 2% of them will mysteriously disappear :)

Giant moustache, huh? So perhaps Barur is a bit vain about it, and keeps it in spectacular order, waxing and oiling and trimming it obsessively. Hm, perhaps he has a behavioural tic, smoothing it down when he is frustrated or annoyed. It could be something of a signature style, like his father’s massive braid. But food, the central fact of Barur’s life is food! So he would have to tie his moustache back when cooking.

Let’s pause there, phew. So in this way, a picture of a character begins to form. Their speech, their mannerisms, their motives, their appearance, their way of life, their history and their relationships. It’s not the only way to do it, but it’s the way I do it. I hope that it was interesting, or at least not too tedious! :D

determamfidd.tumblr.com

123 Ideas for Character Flaws

Idea: Try to create three distinct characters that share the same flaw. Explore the different dimensions of each one!

Absent-minded - Preoccupied to the extent of being unaware of one’s immediate surroundings. Abstracted, daydreaming, inattentive, oblivious, forgetful.
Abusive - Characterized by improper infliction of physical or psychological maltreatment towards another.
Addict - One who is addicted to a compulsive activity. Examples: gambling, drugs, sex.
Aimless - Devoid of direction or purpose.
Alcoholic - A person who drinks alcoholic substances habitually and to excess.
Anxious - Full of mental distress or uneasiness because of fear of danger or misfortune; greatly worried; solicitous.
Arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. Inclined to social exclusiveness and who rebuff the advances of people considered inferior. Snobbish.
Audacious - Recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; braze, disobedient.
Bad Habit - A revolting personal habit. Examples: picks nose, spits tobacco, drools, bad body odour.
Bigmouth - A loud-mouthed or gossipy person.
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Blunt - Characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion. Frank, callous, insensitive, brusque.
Bold - In a bad sense, too forward; taking undue liberties; over assuming or confident; lacking proper modesty or restraint; rude; impudent. Abrupt, brazen, cheeky, brassy, audacious.
Callous - They are hardened to emotions, rarely showing any form of it in expression. Unfeeling. Cold.
Childish - Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile.
Complex - An exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear. (List specific complex.)
Cruel - Mean to anyone or anything, without care or regard to consequences and feelings.
Cursed - A person who has befallen a prayer for evil or misfortune, placed under a spell, or borne into an evil circumstance, and suffers for it. Damned.
Dependent - Unable to exist, sustain oneself, or act appropriately or normally without the assistance or direction of another.
Deranged - Mentally decayed. Insane. Crazy. Mad. Psychotic.
Dishonest – Given to or using fraud, cheating; deceitful, deceptive, crooked, underhanded.
Disloyal - Lacking loyalty. Unfaithful, perfidious, traitorous, treasonable
Disorder - An ailment that affects the function of mind or body. (List the disorders name if they have one.) See the Mental Disorder List.
Disturbed - Showing some or a few signs or symptoms of mental or emotional illness. Confused, disordered, neurotic, troubled.
Dubious - Fraught with uncertainty or doubt. Undecided, doubtful, unsure.
Dyslexic - Affected by dyslexia, a learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words.
Egotistical - Characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance. Boastful, pompous.
Envious - Showing extreme cupidity; painfully desirous of another’s advantages; covetous, jealous.
Erratic - Deviating from the customary course in conduct or opinion; eccentric: erratic behaviour. Eccentric, bizarre, outlandish, strange.
Fanatical - Fanatic outlook or behaviour especially as exhibited by excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions on some subject.
Fickle – Erratic, changeable, unstable - especially with regard to affections or attachments; capricious.
Fierce - Marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently; fervid.
Finicky - Excessively particular or fastidious; difficult to please; fussy. Too much concerned with detail. Meticulous, fastidious, choosy, critical, picky, prissy, pernickety.
Fixated - In psychoanalytic theory, a strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behaviour that persists throughout life. Fetish, quirk, obsession, infatuation.
Flirt -To make playfully romantic or sexual overtures; behaviour intended to arouse sexual interest. Minx. Tease.
Gluttonous - Given to excess in consumption of especially food or drink. Voracious, ravenous, wolfish, piggish, insatiable.
Gruff - Brusque or stern in manner or appearance. Crusty, rough, surly.
Gullible - Will believe any information given, regardless of how valid or truthful it is, easily deceived or duped.
Hard - A person who is difficult to deal with, manage, control, overcome, or understand. Hard emotions, hard hearted.
Hedonistic - Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Hoity-toity- Given to flights of fancy; capricious; frivolous. Prone to giddy behaviour, flighty.
Humourless - The inability to find humour in things, and most certainly in themselves.
Hypocritical - One who is always contradicting their own beliefs, actions or sayings. A person who professes beliefs and opinions for others that he does not hold. Being a hypocrite.
Idealist - One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. One who is unrealistic and impractical, guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.
Idiotic - Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.
Ignorant - Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge.
Illiterate - Unable to read and write.
Immature - Emotionally undeveloped; juvenile; childish.
Impatient - Unable to wait patiently or tolerate delay; restless. Unable to endure irritation or opposition; intolerant.
Impious - Lacking piety and reverence for a god/gods and their followers.
Impish - Naughtily or annoyingly playful.
Incompetent - Unable to execute tasks, no matter how the size or difficulty.
Indecisive - Characterized by lack of decision and firmness, especially under pressure.
Indifferent - The trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally, remaining calm and seeming not to care; a casual lack of concern. Having or showing little or no interest in anything; languid; spiritless.
Infamy - Having an extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act that affects how others view them.
Intolerant - Unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion and narrow-minded about cherished opinions.
Judgemental - Inclined to make and form judgements, especially moral or personal ones, based on one’s own opinions or impressions towards others/practices/groups/religions based on appearance, reputation, occupation, etc.
Klutz - Clumsy. Blunderer.
Lazy - Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
Lewd - Inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious. Obscene or indecent, as language or songs; salacious.
Liar - Compulsively and purposefully tells false truths more often than not. A person who has lied or who lies repeatedly.
Lustful - Driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires.
Masochist - The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
Meddlesome - Intrusive in a meddling or offensive manner, given to meddling; interfering.
Meek - Evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness.
Megalomaniac - A psycho pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
Naïve - Lacking worldly experience and understanding, simple and guileless; showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgement.
Nervous - Easily agitated or distressed; high-strung or jumpy.
Non-violent - Abstaining from the use of violence.
Nosey - Given to prying into the affairs of others; snoopy. Offensively curious or inquisitive.
Obsessive - An unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone.
Oppressor - A person of authority who subjects others to undue pressures, to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.
Overambitious - Having a strong excessive desire for success or achievement.
Overconfident - Excessively confident; presumptuous.
Overemotional - Excessively or abnormally emotional. Sensitive about themselves and others, more so than the average person.
Overprotective - To protect too much; coddle.
Overzealous - Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea.
Pacifist - Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. (Can double as a merit in certain cases)
Paranoid - Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.
Peevish - Expressing fretfulness and discontent, or unjustifiable dissatisfaction. Cantankerous, cross, ill-tempered, testy, captious, discontented, crotchety, cranky, ornery.
Perfectionist - A propensity for being displeased with anything that is not perfect or does not meet extremely high standards.
Pessimist - A tendency to stress the negative or unfavourable or to take the gloomiest possible view.
Pest - One that pesters or annoys, with or without realizing it. Nuisance. Annoying. Nag.
Phobic – They have a severe form of fear when it comes to this one thing. Examples: Dark, Spiders, Cats
Practical - Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative. No-nonsense.
Predictable - Easily seen through and assessable, where almost anyone can predict reactions and actions of said person by having met or known them even for a short time.
Proud - Filled with or showing excessive self-esteem and will often shirk help from others for the sake of pride.
Rebellious - Defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate; inclined to rebel.
Reckless - Heedless. Headstrong. Foolhardy. Unthinking boldness, wild carelessness and disregard for consequences.
Remorseless - Without remorse; merciless; pitiless; relentless.
Rigorous - Rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from a standard; demanding strict attention to rules and procedures.
Sadist - The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. Deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
Sadomasochist - Both sadist and masochist combined.
Sarcastic - A subtle form of mockery in which an intended meaning is conveyed obliquely.
Sceptic - One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
Seducer - To lead others astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt. To attempt to lead or draw someone away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance.
Selfish - Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
Self-Martyr - One who purposely makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy from others, as a form of manipulation, and always for a selfish cause or reason.
Self-righteous - Piously sure of one’s own righteousness; moralistic. Exhibiting pious self-assurance. Holier-than-thou, sanctimonious.
Senile - Showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease.
Shallow - Lacking depth of intellect or knowledge; concerned only with what is obvious.
Smart Ass - Thinks they know it all, and in some ways they may, but they can be greatly annoying and difficult to deal with at times, especially in arguments.
Soft-hearted - Having softness or tenderness of heart that can lead them into trouble; susceptible of pity or other kindly affection. They cannot resist helping someone they see in trouble, suffering or in need, and often don’t think of the repercussions or situation before doing so.
Solemn - Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
Spineless - Lacking courage. Cowardly, wimp, lily-livered, gutless.
Spiteful - Showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt; motivated by spite; vindictive person who will look for occasions for resentment. Vengeful.
Spoiled - Treated with excessive indulgence and pampering from earliest childhood, and has no notion of hard work, self-care or money management; coddled, pampered. Having the character or disposition harmed by pampering or over-solicitous attention.
Squeamish - Excessively fastidious and easily disgusted.
Stubborn - Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bull-headed. Firmly resolved or determined; resolute.
Superstitious - An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear from an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
Tactless - Lacking or showing a lack of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with others.
Temperamental - Moody, irritable, or sensitive. Excitable, volatile, emotional.
Theatrical - Having a flair for over dramatizing situations, doing things in a ‘big way’ and love to be ‘centre stage’.
Timid -Tends to be shy and/or quiet, shrinking away from offering opinions or from strangers and newcomers, fearing confrontations and violence.
Tongue-tied - Speechless or confused in expression, as from shyness, embarrassment, or astonishment.
Troublemaker - Someone who deliberately stirs up trouble, intentionally or unintentionally.
Unlucky - Marked by or causing misfortune; ill-fated. Destined for misfortune; doomed.
Unpredictable - Difficult to foretell or foresee, their actions are so chaotic it’s impossible to know what they are going to do next.
Untrustworthy - Not worthy of trust or belief. Backstabber.
Vain - Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of their physical appearance. Lovers of themselves. Conceited, egotistic, narcissistic.
Weak-willed - Lacking willpower, strength of will to carry out one’s decisions, wishes, or plans. Easily swayed.
Withdrawn - Not friendly or Sociable. Aloof.
Zealous - A fanatic.

thewritershandbook.tumblr.com

How to make a scary villain

Nobody hides under their blankets when they see Snidely Whiplash or Jesse and James. Here are a few tips on how to make an effective villain that makes your readers sleep with a nightlight.

Give them an unusual, unsympathetic reason to hurt or kill.

If Lord Skulsanstuf kills for revenge, because of bigotry, or to prove how cool he is, he’s not as powerful. Readers hear about people in real life killing for those reasons all the time.

Instead, make him kill because he wants beautiful people never to have the experience of growing old and ugly. Make him kill because he thinks the only way to stay pure is to drink a glass of blood every morning. Then do a chapter from his perspective and show how delighted he is with his way of thinking. Instant chills.

Allow them to kill fully developed characters.

Nobody cares that Lady Lotsoblood burned an entire village to the ground and tortured all the children to death if nobody in that village is important enough in your story to have a name. Look at all your characters and figure out which ones are the most expendable. Then let Lotsoblood work her magic.

Go in detail about the strange deeds they commit.

I would never want to be stabbed, but I especially don’t want a knife to run down the side of my cheek, lifting parts of my skin so my assailant can brutally rip them off later. That sounds a lot worse because I can imagine it better in my head.

Don’t bog them down with too many evil traits.

A vivisector who kicks puppies and burns down buildings in his spare time is silly, not scary. Good, nice traits can drive in the fact that your villain is human and therefore anybody could turn into them, which is a scary thought.

Don’t make them annoying.

Professor Umbridge hits almost every point on this list, but she’s too annoying to be truly scary.

Give them control of every situation.

Until the very final battle, the villain should know more about what’s happening than the heroes. The heroes should have a hard time keeping a secret no matter what measures they put in place.

shannahmcgill.tumblr.com

Anti-villain motivations besides “tragic past”

the-right-writing, Mar 13, 2017

They do bad things because they’re scared.
They’re gullible or misinformed. Example: somebody who has been told the heroes are out to hurt them.
They are desperate for interaction, validation, kindness, or attention, and the dark side gives them those things.
They want to change their allegiance, but are pressured by people close to them to stay evil.
They have an otherwise noble goal that they will do literally anything to achieve. Example: somebody who wants to protect their child, even if it means throwing other children into danger.

clevergirlhelps.tumblr.com

therosielord, Jul 9, 2015

Give me a villain who truly believes 100% that they are doing the right thing. Give me a villain who believes in their cause with all their heart and soul. Give me a villain who shows true, utter anguish at the thought of their plans being ruined. Give me a villain who is desperate to win because they think that their work is what will save us all. Villains never think their villains. Give me a villain who acts just like a hero.

therosielord.tumblr.com

Cool Nicknames for Guys

3D Waffle	Hightower	Papa Smurf
57 Pixels	Hog Butcher	Pepper Legs
101	Houston	Pinball Wizard
Accidental Genius	Hyper	Pluto
Alpha	Jester	Pogue
Airport Hobo	Jigsaw	Prometheus
Bearded Angler	Joker's Grin	Psycho Thinker
Beetle King	Judge	Pusher
Bitmap	Junkyard Dog	Riff Raff
Blister	K-9	Roadblock
Bowie	Keystone	Rooster
Bowler	Kickstart	Sandbox
Breadmaker	Kill Switch	Scrapper
Broomspun	Kingfisher	Screwtape
Buckshot	Kitchen	Sexual Chocolate
Bugger	Knuckles	Shadow Chaser
Cabbie	Lady Killer	Sherwood Gladiator
Candy Butcher	Liquid Science	Shooter
Capital F	Little Cobra	Sidewalk Enforcer
Captain Peroxide	Little General	Skull Crusher
Celtic Charger	Lord Nikon	Sky Bully
Cereal Killer	Lord Pistachio	Slow Trot
Chicago Blackout	Mad Irishman	Snake Eyes
Chocolate Thunder	Mad Jack	Snow Hound
Chuckles	Mad Rascal	Sofa King
Commando	Manimal	Speedwell
Cool Whip	Marbles	Spider Fuji
Cosmo	Married Man	Springheel Jack
Crash Override	Marshmallow	Squatch
Crash Test	Mental	Stacker of Wheat
Crazy Eights	Mercury Reborn	Sugar Man
Criss Cross	Midas	Suicide Jockey
Cross Thread	Midnight Rambler	Swampmasher
Cujo	Midnight Rider	Swerve
Dancing Madman	Mindless Bobcat	Tacklebox
Dangle	Mr. 44	Take Away
Dark Horse	Mr. Fabulous	Tan Stallion
Day Hawk	Mr. Gadget	The China Wall
Desert Haze	Mr. Lucky	The Dude
Digger	Mr. Peppermint	The Flying Mouse
Disco Thunder	Mr. Spy	The Happy Jock
Disco Potato	Mr. Thanksgiving	The Howling Swede
Dr. Cocktail	Mr. Wholesome	Thrasher
Dredd	Mud Pie Man	Toe
Dropkick	Mule Skinner	Toolmaker
Drop Stone	Murmur	Tough Nut
Drugstore Cowboy	Nacho	Trip
Easy Sweep	Natural Mess	Troubadour
Electric Player	Necromancer	Turnip King
Esquire	Neophyte Believer	Twitch
Fast Draw	Nessie	Vagabond Warrior
Flakes	New Cycle	Voluntary
Flint	Nickname Master	Vortex
Freak	Nightmare King	Washer
Gas Man	Night Train	Waylay Dave
Glyph	Old Man Winter	Wheels
Grave Digger	Old Orange Eyes	Wooden Man
Guillotine	Old Regret	Woo Woo
Gunhawk	Onion King	Yellow Menace
High Kingdom Warrior	Osprey	Zero Charisma
Highlander Monk	Overrun	Zesty Dragon
Zod

Paired Life

TERFs, anti's, fash, incels, and others - the mindset

queeranarchism, Jan 8, 2023 5:43 AM

To recognize TERFs, anti’s, fash, incels and other internet shitstains, one pattern you need to recognize is this:

They take some normal human behavior
Explain it in the darkest, most bad faith way possible
And then ignore any other, often more realistic, explanation.

A simple example:

A lot of adults watch TV shows about high school relationship drama.
Dark bad faith take: all these adults are obsessing over teenager sex lives because they want to fuck teenagers.
More realistic explanation: a lot of adults have memories of their own high school relationship drama that they like to relive, process, etc through media.
Another realistic explanation: People can empathize with the stories of hobbits, dragons, defense lawyers, plucky detectives, space rebels, talking dogs and teenagers in high school without always having a desire to fuck the characters involved. It is possible to just enjoy a story as a story without it fulfilling some emotional of sexual need.

Like, when you take a tiny step back, it becomes clear that the jump from ‘adults watch high school dramas’ to ‘they all want to fuck teenagers’ is absolute moon logic.

This logic only works if you assume the absolute worst possible things about the group you’re talking about. This logic works if the only lens you can see a group through is ‘predator’ and you do not acknowledge that they are completely humans who can just do non-predatory things like ‘enjoying stories’.

And assuming the absolute worst possible things about a specific group while denying their complexity and humanity… well, that is absolutely key to what TERFs, anti’s, fashos, incels, etc. do.

queeranarchism, Jan 8, 2023 8:05 AM

Someone asked me in private why I grouped ‘TERFs, anti’s, fash, incels’ together. Do I think anti’s are as bad as fash?

Short answer: no, anti’s are not as bad as fash. They’ve done some pretty despicable things. Spreading false accusations, doxxing, suicide baiting, trying to get people fired, stalking, etc. But they’re not trying to gain political power in order to commit genocide. So on the shitstain pyramid they’re a few tiers below fash.

I grouped these in a row here not because they’re all exactly the same amount of terrible, but because they’re groups to watch out for. If you’re a queer person trying to exist safely online, you do not want to interact with any of these groups. If you do not enjoy being brainwashed into a hate group, you do not want to interact with any of these groups.

It’s also notable that TERFs, incels and anti’s all have a tendency to fall down the fash radicalization pipeline because they already share some basic ways of thinking. Assuming the absolute worst possible things about a specific group while denying their complexity and humanity is an example of that shared way of thinking.

queeranarchism, Jan 11, 2023 12:03 AM

#Can someone please explain what ‘anti’ stands for? It’s to common of a term for me to connect it with something specific

Ok, here;s my attempt: ‘Anti’ is a term that emerged in fan fiction communities to describe a group of people who felt that some forms of romantic or erotic fan fiction should be off limits to write. Stuff like:

Fiction that describes relationships between characters who are abusive to each other in the original work.
that describes relationships between characters who are related.
Fiction that describes relationships with a big age difference.
Fiction that describes relationships between minors.
Fiction that describes rape.

Ignoring the fact that exploring unethical and potentially unethical situations is an essential part of what fiction is for. Fan fiction has always been a realm through which people, especially teenagers and young adults , explore their relationship to harm, to trauma, to ethical grey areas, to taboos and to forbidden fantasies. It’s where a lot of teenagers and young adults learn that what is hot in their fantasy isn’t what they want in real life, which is an important part of sexual development.

But according to Anti’s, writing of any romantic or erotic scenario that would be unethical in real life, makes the author itself unethical. This is then used as a reason to cyberbully a person, harass, spread horrible rumors and in some cases stalk, doxx, try to get them fired, to to get them to commit suicide, etc.

Over time the term ‘Anti’ came to be used outside the fan fiction universe as people noticed that the same people doing this stuff were also campaigning against stuff like kink at Pride parades. Anti came to be defined by stuff like:

A literal interpretation of fiction in which producing unethical scenarios in fiction is itself unethical.
A strong judgement of either all kinks of a lot of kinks, and against the expression of anything remotely kinky in public spaces.
A strong judgement against the idea that any teenager is having sex or watching porn before they’re legally an adult. An abstinence-only approach to talking about teen sexuality.
A strong judgement against any sort of age differences, which they seem to get stricter on every year. A strong judgement against any friendly interaction between adults and teenagers, no matter how nonsexual. An obsession with the idea that adults are constantly preying on teenagers (hence the ‘watching high school dramas is sexualizing teenagers’ stuff).
The idea ‘if it makes me uncomfortable, it must be unethical’.
And importantly: the willingness to engage in organized online violence against people who are seen by the Anti’s as violating these rules. Once it has been decided that someone is ‘a predator’ or ‘a pedo’ (usually over something trivial like commenting positively on a fan fic) any amount of violence is deemed justified.

Now most Anti’s are just ‘protect the children’ pearl clutching conservatives who are very online. Most probably spend their younger years being online bullies and their later years campaigning against sex-positive sex education in schools and driving the new satanic panic or some shit like that. But a notable number of Anti’s have gone from these positions towards becoming a terf or a fascist. Turns out that people in a ‘protect the children’ panic mode who see predators everywhere are quite vulnerable to fascist ideology. No big surprise there.

queeranarchism, Feb 20, 2023 1:09 PM

I found another one! Obviously bad faith take of the day: “Ancient vampires lusting after teenagers is a trope pushed by pedophiles to normalize age differences”. Like, no. That’s more bullshit.

Fictional vampires are often interested in teenager girls because the primary readers/viewers of vampire stories are teenage girls, who like imaging themselves as the object of desire. And why do you think teenager girls like reading about magical monsters who desire them? Well, because:

They’re very aware that most of the actual boys and men in their life are crap. They do not make good material for their romantic and sexual fantasies.
The romantic interest of fantasy can be everything the actual boys and men in their lives are not: courteous, easy to talk to, attentive, interested in culture, etc. In an eternally hot teenage boy body without the toxic masculinity and the acne. But since perfection makes a boring story, there needs to be tension. And one way to create that tension while maintaining the fantasy is to give that perfect man a fictional bad trait that is so obviously unreal that it can be easily separated from the rest of him. A charming man who is secretly an abuser is just an abuser. A charming man who is secretly a vampire or a werewolf is an interesting fictional character because the scary part of him is obviously fake.
Desire and fear are key emotions experienced by teenager girls who pursue romance, relationships and/or sex. Going on a date could bring pleasure but also danger. The monster is a metaphor for that particular complicated mixture of emotions. The will-I-won’t-I decision process of the heroin that considers whether to give the vampire/werewolf/phantom/cryptid a chance provides a metaphor of the risk assessment girls and women go through when they decide whether an actual relationship is safe. But again: because the dilemma is fictional, the metaphor can be explored without reading about actual date rape.

These stories about monsters who desire teenage girls appear again and again because they meet the needs of teenage female readers. It’s simple as that. We do not need to invent a sinister hidden agenda to explain why these stories are popular.

And it’s fine to comment on how weird some of these fictional relationships are. I love that What We Do In The Shadows joke. But the moment we start looking for a sinister agenda behind the fact that teenage girls like reading about vampires who like teenage girls, we’re on the weird conspiracy slide.

nyxelestia, Aug 29, 2023 6:21 PM

Fiction helps us understand with people other than ourselves, and wether consciously or subconsciously, antis, TERFs, fascists, and other such cultural puritans want to limit fiction in order to limit our empathy - both for the people around us, and for the people we’ve never met.

This turned into a proper ramble, sorry not sorry.

tl;dr

Works of fiction use fantastical tropes and traits to tell us real stories about ourselves. These stories often challenge our understandings and preconceived notions. Those underlying and “real” stories are WHY fascists, TERFs, and antis benefit from fans fighting over shipping or character drama. There are things we can learn about other people from their tastes in fiction, but it’s exactly the opposite of what antis, fascists, and TERFs want us to learn.

Too Long, Reading Anyway

1: Works of fiction use fantastical tropes and traits to tell us real stories about ourselves.

Most of the stuff antis, TERFs, fascists, etc. clutch at their pearls about are usually relatively superficial to the stories they’re complaining about. Nine times out of ten, if you strip back the more fantastical tropes and traits of a story, the deeper story is far more real and relatable than meets the eye, or otherwise pertinent to a real world issue.

Look past the zombies of most popular zombie apocalypse stories, and you’ll see stories of mutual aid, found families, and building community even admidst a world of strife (Walking Dead, Last of Us).
Peel away vampires and werewolves in popular paranormal dramas and you’ll find stories about relatable romances (Twilight) or mental health and trauma (Teen Wolf).
Fans might flock to superhero movies for the cool superpowers and action scenes, but they stayed for the multidimensional examinations of fatherhood and family (Marvel movies) or interrogations of the role of centralized power in public life (Marvel comics).
Look underneath the stories about magic and monsters and you’ll find stories about recovering from trauma and trying not to pass that onto the next generation (The Witcher), dysfunctional family dynamics (Supernatural), or tensions besides desire and duty (Merlin).
Before its flaming implosion, one of the most popular fantasy series on television might’ve gained attention for its magic, dragons, and gore, but it stayed in our collective attention because of its takes on the personal, the political, and the relationships between the two (Game of Thrones).
Meanwhile, the high fantasy movie series that still remains one of the most popular of all time is a story of survival of one’s friendship and one’s self through overwhelming trauma (Lord of the Rings).
The two most popular science fiction franchises in America both came out of the gate with political statements that took a firm stance amidst the greatest political controversies at the times of their inceptions (Star Wars and Star Trek).
The globe’s most popular low-fantasy franchise was such a strong denouncement of bigotry and bias that even when its creator turned out to BE a bigot and biased, fans stuck to the lesson that the fiction taught us and turned our backs on her (Harry Potter).

2: These stories often challenge our understandings and preconceived notions.

More and more, these underlying stories are challenges to how we view the world or what we presume to be true. At the height of the Cold War, Star Trek refuted the narrative of capitalism being the only path to a thriving society, while Star Wars demonstrated that city/world-destroying weaponry was inherently imperialistic no matter how much you dressed up its ownership in veneers of democratic governance. In a culture that romanticizes the ideal of a father as a protector and collectively assumed that being a good person and being a good parent are the same thing, The Last Of Us challenges that very notion by pitting the two against each other. In an era with increasing awareness of and sympathy towards exploitative abuse, intergenerational trauma, and mental illness, Teen Wolf took the surprisingly controversial stance that revenge resolves nothing, and being a victim will not absolve you of the pain you cause others.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The idea that fiction could challenge and even undermine the preconceived notions established by real world institutions and oppressors is what drives so much of the book-banning, censorship, and yes fandom puritanism. It’s not that shipping drama is really about Protect The Children™ Hysteria; it’s that shipping drama AND Protect The Children™ Hysteria are both about the fear that what you think you already know about the world may not be right - and may even be actively wrong. No one likes being wrong and no one likes being afraid, and this is a combination of them both.

3: Those underlying and “real” stories are WHY fascists, TERFs, and antis benefit from fans fighting over shipping or character drama.

Superheroes as a genre have always been a conversation between the American public and our relationship with state powers like the military and the police. Marginalized Americans have always been cognizant that these powers were not here for us. The fantasy of kind and just individuals using powers unique to them to combat the complacency and oppression from state powers was borne from that awareness, and adapted over the decades to new iterations of the same old problem. This dialogue about the role of state violence in direct and indirect oppression of marginalized minorities, and non-state power against oppression, is dangerous for fascists - which is why they would vastly prefer public attention be on interpersonal dramas, ship wars, and private relationships. Who cares about the sanitization of the role of state violence in the accural of wealth? People ship Tony Stark with Peter Parker and that’s gross! People keep giving Batman the wrong girlfriend and they’re wrong!

Regardless of whether or not Across the Spider-verse’s Gwen Stacy is specifically and canonically a trans girl, her narrative is one heavily interrelated to trans experiences. If you can empathize with how being her true self nearly cost her her relationship with her father, you can empathize with someone whose gender expression risks their relationships with their parents. If you can empathize with her pain that her father associates her existence with the loss of a prior child, you can empathize with every trans person whose parent has told them that coming out as a different gender felt like the death of the child they had before. If you can empathize with her desperation to be included in something, how much of yourself you have to suppress or cut away to satisfy increasingly conditional inclusivity, and the necessity of needing to create your own group to belong in, then you can empathize with the experience of so many trans and queer people who went through something similar when heternormative society never had a place for us. It is because of all this that TERFs and transphobes kick up a fuss about whether or not she is canonically trans. After all, if people are too busy fighting over whether or not Gwen Stacy is trans, they are less likely to recognize all the elements of her story that are fantastical iterations of trans people’s real lived experiences, and thus are less likely apply the empathy they had for the fictional character to real people with similar struggles.

I’ll be the first to complain at length about the racism in the Teen Wolf fandom - indeed, for many people, I was the first person/a post I wrote was their big turning point. However, that’s a controversy about the Teen Wolf fandom; when it comes to the show itself, the biggest controversies all really boiled down to, “Whose pain is legitimate? And whose pain is NOT legitimate or even actively deserved?” And the rhetoric used in people’s justifications were increasingly close to real world rhetoric used to devalue the experiences of marginalized minorities and prop up the private agonies of cis white men and other people in demographics of power or majority. THAT was the reason why the “character/ship” drama exploded in that fandom. The fandom had to reject the show’s messaging, main characters, and main point, because to not do that while participating in the fandom was to accept its implicit message that the pain and suffering you’ve experienced does not justify the pain and suffering you cause, and your trauma does not make you the center of everyone else’s world. The characters’ sexualities or ships were largely secondary to this deeper, underlying story that challenged certain fans more deeply than whatever ship or character they hated the most…but the characters’ sexualities and ships sure made for a great distraction, didn’t it? How many people even know that Teen Wolf is about mental health and trauma in the first place, let alone the stances it took on those things before executive meddling kicked in for the last third of the show?

4: There are things we can learn about other people from their tastes in fiction, but it’s exactly the opposite of what antis, fascists, and TERFs want us to learn.

The fleeting thought that sent me on a spiral writing this essay in the first place was, “I’d shudder to see what they’d make of my father’s favorite Netflix show.”

My dad was functionally cut off from his family at the age of 10 and sent off to an abusive military school. He happened to get a great education there, and a lot of opportunities opened up to him because of it, but it came at the cost of perpetually feeling isolated and alone, trying to make his own way in the world when he left that school, and spending much of his early adulthood living out of a suitcase and having to hustle just for single meal to eat that day.

Fast forward half a century.

Netflix puts on a show whose first few episodes are just like that: the main character is very young, without family, in an institution that was supposed to take care of them but is hostile and stifling of their creativity; they get the opportunity to leave, but it is hard; their whole life is packed into a suitcase as they have to hustle for basic fares and food; and even once they get taken to a new family and forge new friendships, their upbringing has a lasting impact on their ability to build a new life for themselves.

I have a lot of issues with my father, and there’s a reason I’m low-contact with him, but I am not without empathy for him or sympathy for his past, and even after knowing him my whole life, this new Netflix show - which I personally cannot stand but he adores - genuinely gave me new insight into his psyche, one that I truly believe may help me mend my relationship with him going forward, or at least make coping with our existing troubled relationship a little easier. There are things about him which I still have to learn, and this story helped me learn them.

How cool is that? How wonderful is it that so much healing and bonding can be had over a TV show? One based on a book written over a hundred years ago, no less! That’s even cooler! How amazing is it that a children’s novel can have such a lasting impact that over a century later, it can still help people and families heal?

Social dividers would never see that, and indeed actively fear that. “Social dividers” is how I describe fascists, antis, TERFs: anyone who wants people to stay apart from each other, anyone who wants everyone to divide the world into “us vs them” just like they do, anyone who both lacks empathy of their own and cultivates its absence in others.

For their own varying reasons, all of them would just hear, “Sixty-five year old Indian man’s favorite show on Netflix is Anne With an E” and scream “PEDOPHILE!”

The idea that an Indian born and raised in a city on the other side of the planet from a white person born and raised in rural New England is a direct challenge to the ethnic divisions of the fascists’ worldview. Fascists cannot accept that some human experiences transcend geography, race, and ethnicity, and more importantly they cannot let anybody else accept it, either.

The idea that a man can have experience with traumas very similar to a girl is inherently contradictory to transphobes’ ideology that masculinity is inherently the source of all feminine trauma. For TERFs and conservative women especially, so much of their transphobia is misplaced rage at patriarchy and men in their lives being directed at other women, and to accept that men are perfectly capable of empathizing with women’s experiences is to accept that the men in their own lives are simply choosing not to. That’s why transphobes not only cannot accept a man and a girl sharing similar trauma, they cannot let anyone else accept masculine empathy, either.

The idea that a child of a dysfunctional parent can look at a story and look at the parent that caused so much strife in her life and say, “I get it,” is vehemently contradictory to the needs of so many victims in fandom who absolutely must divide the world into perfect parents and abusive parents. The idea that one’s own trauma could manifest as turning you into a traumatizer of others, and the idea that a victim could say, “regardless of my forgiveness, I appreciate having this greater understanding,” is a direct threat to their division of the world into “victims” and “victimizers” with no overlap between them. To accept that feeling like or being a victim does not preclude you from being someone else’s victimizer means accepting that you could become a victimizer, and therefore lose your perceived license to mistreat others - which is why antis not only cannot accept this idea, they can’t allow anyone else to accept this, either.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 =

Works of fiction use fantastical tropes and traits to tell us real stories about ourselves: the tropes to simplify a story down to its core elements and then the traits to exaggerate them.

These stories often challenge our understandings and preconceived notions: by making us questions the characters and their choices, implicitly questioning our own character and our own choices.

Those underlying and “real” stories are WHY fascists, TERFs, and antis benefit from fans fighting over shipping or character drama: because that means we’re all distracted from the deeper meanings that challenge their ideologies.

There are things we can learn about other people from their tastes in fiction, but it’s exactly the opposite of what antis, fascists, and TERFs want us to learn: namely just how empathetic most people can be, and how the things we share vastly outweigh the things we don’t.

Antis, TERFs, and fascists have different ideologies, but all share the desire to not only divide the world into simple binaries, but make everyone else do it, too.

And nuance in fiction and fandom is a direct challenge to both of these goals.

queeranarchism, Sept 5, 2023 5:30 AM

I loooooove this addition., Well worth the read. Thank you.

Small addition: it’s worth noting how Anti’s, TERFs and fascists are focusing a lot on stories that feature sex and sexual desire. In other words: they’re trying to limit our ability to question our sexuality and to think critically about the ethics behind our choices regarding sexuality, to have empathy for others and recognize what we share with others who experience sexuality differently.

queeranarchism.tumblr.com/

The tragedy of young pretty conservative women.

Here's what I find so tragic about these young pretty conservative women.

You're such a gaslighted demographic because one of the pillars of this ideology that you're bought into is that some people are just inherently superior, and inferior people deserve to be exploited.

And sure, y'know, women are technically property but you--you don't have to worry about that because you are hot property. Exceptions will be made for you, so you're more than willing to play into this needlessly cruel game because you've been assured that you'll win, and soon the young winning man of your dreams will look at you and say, "Yes, that is what I'm supposed to want, and acquiring her will make me look like a superior man." And on your way to your superior life together you will become his obedient righteous lonely domestic servant.

Congratulations.

Until one day you get a scary mammogram and you'll discover that he never signed up to be a nurse maid, and unlike you the young twenty-four-year-old bleach blonde at the office understands that he's the most important person in any room. And she'll have no qualms about poaching your mate because he's her ticket to a superior life.

And at that moment, when the handle has snapped off of the basket that held all of your eggs, you might realize that you were flattered into giving your entire life away in service of a man who only ever saw you as a commodity, because I assure you that is how these men see you. And being hot property won't have protected you from a life of being used up and discarded.

But here's the kicker: you'll have sunk so much of your life into proving your own politics right that you won't be able to direct that rage in the appropriate direction because that will mean admitting that you were had!

So there you'll be. A middle-aged woman with a pert haircut and great botox standing in line at a Kroger, making the fact that your life didn't turn out as promised into an assistant manager's problem, because don't they know that exceptions are supposed to be made for you?!

Good luck, babe. Good luck.

"I don't know what to write about"

THE AUDRE LORDE QUESTIONNAIRE TO ONESELF

Bitism

The significance of plot without conflict

Top Tips for Clues, Red Herrings, and Breadcrumbs

Writing Bored is often annoying but it is also super important

Self-Doubt and Creativity

A Story is a Simple Progression of Desires

here have 10 pieces of writing advice that have stuck with me over the years

Write Small Examples of Big Concepts

A Counterpoint to "Writing What You Know"

Captainkirkk's Helpful Tips for Beginners

What Makes a Good Retelling

Title

Guide: Head Hopping and How to Avoid It

The Different Types of Point-of-View

Objective/Impersonal vs Subjective/Personal

Third-Person Omniscient vs Head Hopping

How to Avoid Head Hopping

Writing Advice by Charles Palahniuk

Blue-Sunshine's Guide to Crafting Culture

Seven Things to Define a Character

kaylapocalypse

How Dets Creates Original Characters

123 Ideas for Character Flaws

How to make a scary villain

Anti-villain motivations besides “tragic past”

the-right-writing, Mar 13, 2017

therosielord, Jul 9, 2015

Cool Nicknames for Guys

TERFs, anti's, fash, incels, and others - the mindset

queeranarchism, Jan 8, 2023 5:43 AM

queeranarchism, Jan 8, 2023 8:05 AM

queeranarchism, Jan 11, 2023 12:03 AM

queeranarchism, Feb 20, 2023 1:09 PM

nyxelestia, Aug 29, 2023 6:21 PM

queeranarchism, Sept 5, 2023 5:30 AM

The tragedy of young pretty conservative women.

@rebecca_larsen