RightingWrite by Fadran - Fantasy

[Channelknight Fadran]

HOLY SCUD KYL???

[KyL]

On 8/23/2021 at 5:59 PM, Channelknight Fadran said:

HOLY SCUD KYL???

tbh forgot I still had this account until I got this random email

[Channelknight Fadran]

OKAY

HUMANS

I'LL BE POSTING HERE MORE OFTEN (HOPEFULLY)!!

[Frustration]

23 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

OKAY

HUMANS

I'LL BE POSTING HERE MORE OFTEN (HOPEFULLY)!!

AH!

[Channelknight Fadran]

Which one do you guys want first: Soft Worldbuilding or Static Characters?

(Either way I'll be using Castle in the Sky as my prime example so please go watch that when you get the chance)

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Which one do you guys want first: Soft Worldbuilding or Static Characters?

(Either way I'll be using Castle in the Sky as my prime example so please go watch that when you get the chance)

You going to just ask or change the poll?

[Channelknight Fadran]

Kay I just remembered that answers carry over even if you edit the poll so I deleted and replaced it; if you answered, sorry. You're gonna have to answer again.

[Mat]

3 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Kay I just remembered that answers carry over even if you edit the poll so I deleted and replaced it; if you answered, sorry. You're gonna have to answer again.

I says I already answered, so I just see the new question but I can't answer  

Spoiler

I pick static characters, though

 

[Channelknight Fadran]

Well that's good because that's what I've been working on.

[Frustration]

I'm also for static

[The Unknown Ajah]

I may or may not read it, but I vote for static. 

[Channelknight Fadran]

Then WATCH CASTLE IN THE SKY. It WILL NOT MAKE SENSE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CASTLE IN THE SKY.

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Then WATCH CASTLE IN THE SKY. It WILL NOT MAKE SENSE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CASTLE IN THE SKY.

Where would I find it?

[Channelknight Fadran]

It can be found on HBO Max. You can also buy it for $10 or more on a number of other platforms but, like... that's money, though.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Hehe I'm allowed to double-post all I want because this is my thread!

I finished the Static Characters thing! Should I post it now or should I wait for y'all to watch the accompanying movie? Because there are a lot of spoilers and it will make no sense if you haven't seen it.

[Frustration]

Just now, Channelknight Fadran said:

Hehe I'm allowed to double-post all I want because this is my thread!

I finished the Static Characters thing! Should I post it now or should I wait for y'all to watch the accompanying movie? Because there are a lot of spoilers and it will make no sense if you haven't seen it.

Just put it in a spoiler box.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Sure. I'll do that.

Here it is! But first GO WATCH CASTLE IN THE SKY!!!

(Hey @revelryintheart, if you're interested in reading about a Ghibli movie...)

Spoiler

Pazu: A Masterclass in Static Characters

Spoiler alert for Castle in the Sky! If you haven’t seen it already, then go watch it! It’s really really really good! And if you don’t mind spoilers, then too bad. Go watch it anyways. You probably won’t understand all this if you don’t.

Anyways…

Pazu! An absolute pal of a lad. He’s twelve years old in the movie, working as an engineer’s assistant at the mines. He’s hardy and determined; cheerful and optimistic; he takes everything in stride and is always happy to help. In fact you rarely see him without a smile on his face except in the absolute worst of times.
So why am I bringing this boy up? Sure, he’s great and all, but why exactly is he in a RightingWrite?

The answer, of course, is because he’s a perfect example of a well-written, well-rounded “Static” character.

I guess the first thing I have to clarify here is what a Static Character is. In writing, there are two types of characters: Static and Dynamic. I’ve talked to great lengths about Dynamic characters before: characters that grow and change throughout the story. They are essential to any story as a means for the audience to connect with the story at an emotional level, to provide empathy by conflict, action, and reaction. I could go on forever about just how important they are, but that’s not why I made this post. I made this post to talk about their unchanging counterparts: Static Characters.

These bois are really hard to pull off correctly, so I’ll tread lightly for my explanation of them. Essentially, Static Characters do not have any substantial change throughout the story. That said they don’t necessarily have no change; it just usually isn’t very significant or paced the same. A static character, for example, might make a change at the beginning of the story but stay the same through to the end; even during and after the climax, where the emotional tension is highest and the most change should be taking place.

A weak understanding of Static Characters can be found in most villains. While a hero might win an external conflict against the bbeg, it’s in the primary conflict—a protagonist’s arc—that they truly win. Their ability to change for the better will often be in the antagonist’s lack of change. In short, heroes win when they learn, and villains lose when they don’t. And while this is a great dynamic to have in your story under most circumstances, it sets a bad precedent for Static Characters in general, putting them in a negative light that they really don’t deserve.

This is, of course, because a character can win an emotional conflict without change. You can have a character arc without learning anything important; you can just see a plot through to the end instead. And Pazu is a perfect example of this.

At the start of the movie, Pazu is kind and helpful and determined. He meets Sheeta—who, might I add, is definitely not a Static Character—who ultimately pulls him into an adventure of fleeing pirates, the military, laser demon robots, and essentially the life they used to have. This is not a Hero’s Journey; it’s barely a Coming-of-Age. Pazu doesn’t have to be conflicted about leaving his life of comfort behind because he (in his own words) “wouldn’t miss an adventure like this for the world.” Whereas

Sheeta only wishes she could live out her simple life as a farmer with her family, Pazu’s absolutely determined to keep her safe and defeat Muska (the bbeg in this case) once and for all.

Heck, there’s even a scene where it seems like he’s going through a character change, but he actually isn’t. After he and Sheeta are captured by the military, she tells him (in order to keep him safe, of course) to leave and forget that their adventure had ever happened. Some people might mistake the following scenes (where Dola and the boys recruit him into saving her) as him learning to believe in himself or some cheesy crap like that, but he didn’t run away in the first place because he was scared or in self-doubt; he ran away because (again, in his own words) “[Sheeta] told [him] to.” And as soon as Dola mentioned that she’d been forced to tell him that, he was immediately ready to fly back there and save her.

That said, this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any emotion or empathy to be felt here. Just because Pazu didn’t go through any change, doesn’t mean that we couldn’t connect with him. He’s obviously conflicted about leaving, but can’t go back either way. There’s something about the scene where he tries to throw away the hush money that Muska gave him that spells it all out; of course he wants to go back, but he can’t. Which is why he fails to throw the coins away.

(Disclaimer: I might be reading way too much into that. Coming up with clear, scene-by-scene thematic elements is not my forte. Just because I understand how theme works now does not mean that I endorse all those “explain how the use of the color purple on that one painting in this scene describes the character’s inner conflict” that dumb english teachers throw at you. I think it makes sense though, so please; pretend like I’m right).

Before I go any further, though I think that at this point I have to go through Sheeta’s arc. The two characters are, of course, far to closely intertwined to simply drop one of them from the equation. Sheeta’s arc is something of a combination of a Hero’s Journey and a Coming-of-Age. She’s very clearly against opposing Muska and finding Laputa, instead reminiscing about her homeland and returning to it someday. She even goes so far to tell Pazu flat-out that she doesn’t want anything to do with everything. Her arc is somewhat predictable (though by no means weak or lazy), with her coming to terms with her responsibility and eventually standing off against Muska, condemning him and her to death to save the world from Laputa’s incredibly destructive power.

So to recap, a thirteen-year-old child who was kidnapped from her home and wanted nothing less than to live happily on her farm was faced with a decision to save the world that required her own death and she stuck with it.

See, this is what Dola meant when she told her boys that they need to marry someone like her someday! Guys, gals, non-binary pals; go find yourself a Sheeta!
Anyways, Sheeta and Pazu are clearly character foils. One’s perfectly ready to go on a big adventure, while the other would much rather stay completely out of it. I guess it might seem a little insensitive that Sheeta’s arc is to become more like Pazu, but in lieu of the fact that she’s really the only person that can realistically save the planet for complete and total annihilation, I do think that ‘becoming more like Pazu’ is a pretty decent thing to do.

Pazu is a metric of sorts; a representation of how she needs to be in order to complete her arc. If he were in her place, Pazu wouldn’t hesitate to do what he needed to in order to save the day, which is why it’s so important that he isn’t the hero of this story.

Of course, none of this is to say that he doesn’t have any conflict. A badly-written static character is only static because they don’t have any trigger to change; but this is not the case for Pazu. He endures a number of struggles and conflict, including having to leave his home behind (potentially forever, according to Dola), being imprisoned by the military (and only released when he’s forced to forget about Sheeta), and even facing steady gunfire (and like an absolute champ at that). This lad is by no means a blank slate or a Mary Sue.

So what is it that we can take away from this? What can we learn from Pazu to write our own Static Characters?

For starters, I think it’s important that you keep your Statics to a minimum. Having a story comprised entirely of these will be stale and somewhat boring; there are only so many aspirations that you can represent on their own without a Dynamic character or two to accompany them. A good Static character can’t work if there isn’t someone changing alongside them. There’s something of a juxtaposition to the variety that I think a story should realistically have.

In terms of writing the Statics themselves, though, I think that a pretty solid way to create one is to give them a reason for why they shouldn’t change. Think of it in terms of stuff that shouldn’t change; like, for example, pretty much all of Pazu. He’s cheerful, happy to help, determined; all of which isn’t something that he shouldn’t be. Also think of it in terms of the themes of the story; weave in their traits to the thematics, tone, and arcs of the other characters. Provide context in the form of these characters like you would for a Dynamic; just keep it the same as best you can.

Overall, of course, the best thing to take away from this (I think) is that it’s okay to write a Static Character in your story. Not every character has to learn, grow, and change; they can remain the way they are throughout the story. In fact, a lot of characters should. It might be difficult at first; in fact, I can assure you that it’ll be difficult. I’ve never written a Static before and I don’t plan to for awhile; partially because the amount of time and effort put into characters like these is like no other, and partially because maybe I just want to keep Pazu as my perfect little Static Boi.

 

[Frustration]

Epic Fadran

28 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

 

  Hide contents

Of course, none of this is to say that he doesn’t have any conflict. A badly-written static character is only static because they don’t have any trigger to change; but this is not the case for Pazu. He endures a number of struggles and conflict, including having to leave his home behind (potentially forever, according to Dola), being imprisoned by the military (and only released when he’s forced to forget about Sheeta), and even facing steady gunfire (and like an absolute champ at that). This lad is by no means a blank slate or a Mary Sue.

 

^This, I think this is the most important part here.

Static characters have emotion, they are still people, they just maintain the same beliefs and goals throughout.

It reminds me of my favorite character in visual medium, Technoblade from Dream SMP

Technoblade is a static character, he has one set of goals and he's willing to do anything to get them. However his line "I'm a person!" has more emotional weight than many of the Dynamic characters entire arcs, preciely for that reason. Because he doesn't change, becuase he follows one path the other characters dehumanise him, treat him more like a force of nature, an event than a person. So when he says "I'm a person!" it's a reminder that even though he doesn't show it, even though it doesn't change him, he stil hurts.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Pet peeves!

Everyone has 'em. I have 'em too. Imma drop the ones that I have for writing.

That's it. Go ahead and read.

Spoiler

Pet Peeves in Writing (by Fadran):

- Only chapter numbers: Where the scud are all the chapter titles? How am I supposed to talk about my favorite chapter in a book if it's just a number? Do you have any clue how lazy it is just dropping a number, or a roman numeral if you're trying to be fancy? Just name your dang chapters!

- Weak hard magic systems: I've seen a lot of this on the Shard, actually. These are 'hard' magic systems that are, by in large, just "by using this you can control that." A=B and that's it. Magic systems should not be a formula. Having hard rules is great, but just having one hard input for one hard output is just math class disguised as a wizard.

- Proper noun dropping: The reason why I couldn't read Dune at first was because the first chapter was literally just a conglomerate of proper noun after proper noun after proper noun. People seem to think that the best way to immerse your readers in your world is by having characters just talk about capitalized things, like "ooh, the Scimmigala has been weaved into to the Phlorgamant and now Jingant has been released from Querasa"... this is lazy. First chapters need to establish a setting, not the entire world. Pull on a few tidbits that fit the tone and put those in the first chapter, then add the rest later on.

- The hate against soft worldbuilding: WHAT IS WITH THE HATE AGAINST SOFT WORLDBUILDING? SOFT WORLDBUILDING IS AMAZING AND I LOVE IT TO DEATH. (But imma do a class on this soon so I won't go into it)

- The hate against soft magic systems: This one actually ties in with my pet peeve against weak hard magic systems, as I've noticed that a lot of the people that write them are also really against soft magic because they, more often than not, do not understand theme and tone. Soft magic systems are awesome, versatile, incredibly tone-setting, and generally pretty frikin awesome to watch. (I'll also add these into my Soft Worldbuilding lesson so more on this later)

- The hate against static characters: I've already given you a lesson on this, so I won't go into detail, but I have totally noticed the abject stigma against all static characters. Did y'all know that Superman is actually super intriguing and really well-written? And that all the movies where he's evil or whatever are bad representations of the original character? I took a whole philosophy class on this guy and I could go on for ages about how everyone who complains about the lack of depth in his character is wrong. But, in short, static characters are great; just don't have too many of them and write the ones you do have really well.

- The Mistborn reboots: I'm not joking when I say that ninety percent of the stuff I read on the Shard (here in the creative corner) are of one of the most overused genres of all time: the dark fantasy. It seems like every single story follows a rough-and-tough alleycat warrior living in a dark and gritty urbanscape, beating the snot out of the feds because it's also always a dystopia. Now, this is somewhat unfair of an accusation, because Mistborn took this setting and wrote it right, so there's a juxtaposition between Sanderson and everyone else, which of course makes it look bad. But otherwise... just pick a new genre already. Some guy trying to avenge his tragic backstory by brutally murdering all the cops (using his magic, of course) is gonna get old eventually; it's already gotten old for me.

- Taverns: Just give them a normal house already.

- Jumpy text for emphasis: This should be used only when absolutely necessary. Talking

Like this

To emphasize

Something

Just hurts

My scudding

Brain

- Obvious character arcs: He has a grudge against the emperor for killing his family? I wonder how that's gonna end. All she wants is for this one guy to love her? Geeze, good thing he doesn't have a crush on anyone else! I'm not saying that predictable arcs are bad by any means; it just bothers me when people take them really seriously and play them out like they're a breakthrough commentary on the nature of humanity. Like, I get that murder is bad. I don't need to read fifty chapters about why. That and people often drop a really obvious clue for what the arc is really early on, all "my name is Inigo Montoya, the six-fingered man killed my father, and that sucker's gonna die." Very few people even know what their arc is, let alone tell it to everyone else; throw in confusion, mystery, vagueness. Make it a little less obvious.

- Heartless murder: Let's face it. Our protagonists kill a lot of people. So give me some emotional response to that. Are all our protagonists also sociopaths? I sure hope not!

- Sexy armor: I feel like this one should speak for itself. Why would a hardened warrior lady have a big hole cut out of her armor right down the middle? Because you need to take a chill pill.

- Detailed mourning: This one mostly bothers me because I have lost people and can say from experience that you don't need a good reason to be sad. I see too many characters going into long speeches about how losing their best friend made them feel this way becauase of this one thing in their tragic backstory and it reminds them of that or whatever. Have your characters be sad because they're sad: it's a lot more human that way.

- Blow-by-blow fight scenes: Even Sanderson hits this point; I distinctly rememebr skimming over a lot of the fights in Mistborn because he just goes through every single motion. I don't want to know how exactly the two swordsmen exchanged blows over and over again; by doing that you're slowing every beat to a crawl, and instead of an epic fast-paced fight scene, I've got the commentary on a fencing match. Loosen up; just tell me they exchanged blows. You get, like, five solid "CLANG"s out of that sentence alone.

- Speaking of, how about swords?: I love swords. Listen, I really do. But where the scud are all the axes already?

- Unnecessary filler: Do I have to explain this one? I probably don't. Listen, guys; I don't need to know exactly what's in the tavern's meal, or the conversation the MC had with a random NPC. Just have the plot keep going.

- The hate for necessary filler: There's a scene in Spirited Away that doesn't have any real consequence on the plot or character arcs, but fits so well that I have to label it as 'constructive filler.' The main character (Chihiro) has lost her parents and is being forced to work under an abusive capitalist, but in one scene is snuck out of the building by her friend. There's a scene that follows that's just her crying. She doesn't say anything, doesn't give a speech; she just cries. We already know she's sad, we already know her life is hard, but there's something about this scene of simple, raw emotion that captures all that far better than any subtext ever could.

- Too little subtext: I call this the Hunter x Hunter problem, because that show suffers from this way too much. Basically, this is when you have little to no subtext in your writing and explain everything as you go along. Let your readers come to some assumptions on their own, and wait to explain things later so the payoff is better.

- Too much subtext: I don't want to have to come up with the entire plot on my own! Geeze, it's like a badly-engineered literature test...

- People who don't defend their use of these pet peeves and just take them as gospel: Go ahead! Disprove me! I don't just not mind, I endorse this. I encourage it. Give me your scudding opinions, you cowards.

 

[The Unknown Ajah]

10 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

He has a grudge against the emperor for killing his family? I wonder how that's gonna end.

By the character realizing that the captain who killed his father was actually acting without orders after killing the emperor and feeling terrible about it.

[Mat]

14 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Only chapter numbers: Where the scud are all the chapter titles? How am I supposed to talk about my favorite chapter in a book if it's just a number? Do you have any clue how lazy it is just dropping a number, or a roman numeral if you're trying to be fancy? Just name your dang chapters!

I am so guilty of this xD

15 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Jumpy text for emphasis: This should be used only when absolutely necessary. Talking

Like this

To emphasize

Something

Just hurts

My scudding

Brain

Also guilty of this on occasion. I like this kind of thing for emphasis though so I’ll keep doing it thank you

16 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

Unnecessary filler: Do I have to explain this one? I probably don't. Listen, guys; I don't need to know exactly what's in the tavern's meal, or the conversation the MC had with a random NPC. Just have the plot keep going.

Robert Jordan be like:

[Frustration]

16 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

- Weak hard magic systems: I've seen a lot of this on the Shard, actually. These are 'hard' magic systems that are, by in large, just "by using this you can control that." A=B and that's it. Magic systems should not be a formula. Having hard rules is great, but just having one hard input for one hard output is just math class disguised as a wizard.

Slides my magic system based on physics under the rug

18 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

- The hate against soft magic systems: This one actually ties in with my pet peeve against weak hard magic systems, as I've noticed that a lot of the people that write them are also really against soft magic because they, more often than not, do not understand theme and tone. Soft magic systems are awesome, versatile, incredibly tone-setting, and generally pretty frikin awesome to watch. (I'll also add these into my Soft Worldbuilding lesson so more on this later)

PREACH BROTHER! PREACH!

20 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

- The Mistborn reboots: I'm not joking when I say that ninety percent of the stuff I read on the Shard (here in the creative corner) are of one of the most overused genres of all time: the dark fantasy. It seems like every single story follows a rough-and-tough alleycat warrior living in a dark and gritty urbanscape, beating the snot out of the feds because it's also always a dystopia. Now, this is somewhat unfair of an accusation, because Mistborn took this setting and wrote it right, so there's a juxtaposition between Sanderson and everyone else, which of course makes it look bad. But otherwise... just pick a new genre already. Some guy trying to avenge his tragic backstory by brutally murdering all the cops (using his magic, of course) is gonna get old eventually; it's already gotten old for me.

Yeah, one of my big gripes with the genre is that even when new plots are made, they feel like mixtures of old plots.

Not that I don't understand, plotting is really hard, but a little creativity would be nice.

22 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

"my name is Inigo Montoya, the six-fingered man killed my father, and that sucker's gonna die."

Ok, Princess Bride is perfect.

 

I find myself agreeing with a lot of this, thank you.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Princess Bride is perfect. And the tone really allows Inigo to go around telling people about his character arc.

[Condensation]

2 hours ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

But where the scud are all the axes already?

read axed on webtoon

[Channelknight Fadran]

no