the shadiversity club MACHICOLATIONSSSSSSSS!

[Eri she/her]

19 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

That's a pretty big claim.

I said "low-key". This means "a little", right? Sincerely asking, I'm not a native speaker and sometimes mess up the emotional tone. Anyway what I meant is that he's not sexist enough to stop watching him or make a drama about it or something similar, but still has some opinions on gender roles that I think aren't true or helpful. He's a gentleman, not a "nice guy", but still, he's a bit… old-fashioned? I don't know how to explain this better.

I don't remember exact examples, he said some things along the line of "women are delicate and meant to be protected" and this made me roll my eyes a bit. I still like his videos. Just some parts are kinda… not something I'd agree on.

Also, I'm not American, so I often say for example "stupid" instead of "not great" and I don't mean "this person should die and never does anything right", I just mean "this wasn't correct". 

19 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Well, I have no idea, but he is Christian and probably attracts other Christians. 

I'm Christian too, but I don't think other denominations of Christianity and similar (I'm not sure if LDS is Christianity?) don't seem to have this correlation with fantasy/SF. Sure, Tolkien and Lewis were religious, but I don't think there's a general trend for Catholics or Protestants to be more into fantasy than, say, atheists. And Shad lives in Australia, so it can't be just that he went to BYU or something like that. IDK.

Maybe other denominations are just shy. For example, most of my Catholic friends aren't very much into fandom and many of my fandom friends are atheists or at least not very Catholic, so it doesn't feel natural to mention the other "part" of me when I'm in a group centered about the other "part". I don't know. There are definitely things here that I wish I could learn.

OK, maybe let's talk about werevolves or something. And castles. 

[Aspiring Writer]

3 hours ago, Eri said:

I said "low-key". This means "a little", right? Sincerely asking, I'm not a native speaker and sometimes mess up the emotional tone. Anyway what I meant is that he's not sexist enough to stop watching him or make a drama about it or something similar, but still has some opinions on gender roles that I think aren't true or helpful. He's a gentleman, not a "nice guy", but still, he's a bit… old-fashioned? I don't know how to explain this better.

I don't remember exact examples, he said some things along the line of "women are delicate and meant to be protected" and this made me roll my eyes a bit. I still like his videos. Just some parts are kinda… not something I'd agree on.

Also, I'm not American, so I often say for example "stupid" instead of "not great" and I don't mean "this person should die and never does anything right", I just mean "this wasn't correct". 

I don't think someone who tends to follow traditional gender roles should be considered sexist, especially since we know he doesn't view that as the 'right way'. Traditional is a better term. Sexist is more about prejudice, and despite his delicate things line, he is very comfortable with the thought of women fighting with swords in both fantasy and real-life.

As for the questions on language, low key isn't really used as a little. It's meant to mean restained or showing less emotion. Like saying 'I low-key want to eat a cake' casually, without putting much emotion into your voice. I hope that made sense. But yeah, saying he is low-key sexist does not mean a little sexist, just that he is sexist. Maybe less vocal is all. And again, think sexist is the wrong term here as well.

I normally use stupid. Little fun fact, Americans vary greatly, and how we talk will depend on where we were raised state-wise and maybe even city wise. I do normally say stupid rather than not great, and also indicate someone should die because they can never do anything correctly for the love of- XD Yeah, no worries.

Also, yes, I wonder when we will get an update on the castles he's making. That will have to wait, though, because he is making a video on Wonder Woman 1984 and the fact WW basically raped a guy. XD That is going to be a hilarious video. 

[Eri she/her]

1 hour ago, Aspiring Writer said:

As for the questions on language, low key isn't really used as a little. It's meant to mean restained or showing less emotion. Like saying 'I low-key want to eat a cake' casually, without putting much emotion into your voice. I hope that made sense. But yeah, saying he is low-key sexist does not mean a little sexist, just that he is sexist. Maybe less vocal is all. And again, think sexist is the wrong term here as well.

Storms. Sorry, I seriously thought "low-key X" meant "in the general direction of X, but not as much". OK, he's not sexist then, but I wish there was a smaller word to use here. He feels genuinely like a good guy, just sometimes stupid or naive in certain areas. That's what I meant. 

And very smart in other areas, like castles and swords and stuff (until he starts talking fantasy and expects it to follow real-world physics, I have a problem with this too, I think it's just too narrow idea of the genre).

Storms, I'm really critical of people… He's one of my favorite YTers, you know.

1 hour ago, Aspiring Writer said:

 he is making a video on Wonder Woman 1984 and the fact WW basically raped a guy. XD That is going to be a hilarious video. 

Huh, really? Ugh. I don't watch a lot of movies, didn't know that.

I don't think video about something like this could be hilarious. Interesting, probably. Informative. But I don't think hilarious.

[Aspiring Writer]

46 minutes ago, Eri said:

Storms. Sorry, I seriously thought "low-key X" meant "in the general direction of X, but not as much". OK, he's not sexist then, but I wish there was a smaller word to use here. He feels genuinely like a good guy, just sometimes stupid or naive in certain areas. That's what I meant. 

Hmm, I did suggest traditional, which I guess you can say is a naive view. He's open-minded, though, which I find to be the most important part. Being naive and stubborn is a bad combination. 

 

48 minutes ago, Eri said:

(until he starts talking fantasy and expects it to follow real-world physics, I have a problem with this too, I think it's just too narrow idea of the genre).

I'm going to have to disagree on this. Wanting Fantasy to start to follow things like physics is something I really enjoy and brings something new to the genre and forces the writer to get creative. Restrictions on writers can end up creating new ideas that haven't really been done. I myself am trying to write a fantasy series and am trying to bring as much real-world science into it as I think is appropriate. It's obviously not holy realistic, there's magic, but how that magic works and is used is fairly scientific, and I think that brings something new and also makes it so writers don't depend on the 'MAGIC' excuse when writing.

 

51 minutes ago, Eri said:

Storms, I'm really critical of people… He's one of my favorite YTers, you know

It's good to be critical of people, even those you like. You need to keep them honest and call them out when they say or do something stupid. There's a limit, don't get me wrong, but being simply critical is by no means a bad thing

 

53 minutes ago, Eri said:

Huh, really? Ugh. I don't watch a lot of movies, didn't know that.

I don't think video about something like this could be hilarious. Interesting, probably. Informative. But I don't think hilarious.

The circumstances are just ridiculous. You need to hear his rant to know why it's funny. It's just so stupid and you wonder why nobody saw it. The guy doesn't even have a name, in the credits he's called Handsome Guy. It's so bad and dumb, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity. 

[Eri she/her]

9 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Hmm, I did suggest traditional, which I guess you can say is a naive view.

Hm. Funny thing is that I'd call myself "traditional" compared to internet average.

By "naive" I meant more of "he assumes that nice people don't do wrong things, would likely defend some really bad people because they were his internet friends" and stuff like this. Trusts that other well-spoken white fandom guys are all good people - kind of naive. The Dalinar in tWoK kind of naive. 

Generally, Shad has some Kholin vibes to me. (And I don't mean Gavilar in RoW prologue, I mean the good guy Kholins)

9 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

He's open-minded, though, which I find to be the most important part. Being naive and stubborn is a bad combination. 

I agree. One of the things that I admire in Shad is being able to say he was wrong about something without being a jerk about it.

9 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

I'm going to have to disagree on this. Wanting Fantasy to start to follow things like physics is something I really enjoy and brings something new to the genre and forces the writer to get creative. Restrictions on writers can end up creating new ideas that haven't really been done. I myself am trying to write a fantasy series and am trying to bring as much real-world science into it as I think is appropriate. It's obviously not holy realistic, there's magic, but how that magic works and is used is fairly scientific, and I think that brings something new and also makes it so writers don't depend on the 'MAGIC' excuse when writing.

I'm all for restrictions and hard magic, but there's a difference between internal logic and real-world physics. I'm not sure if I'll have the time to rewatch his videos and find the quote, but there was at least one video which gave me a strong impression that Shad considers Shardblades to not make sense, because they lack mass. I'm talking about this level of wanting realism. (I think it was before he helped with the book, and he might have been talking about lightsabers not exactly Shardblades).

Sorry for lacking quotes, since my kids had online lessons I watched much less YT, so it's been some time since I saw those videos. I just remember that there were a few comments about realism that I disagreed with. Maybe it was in context of ttRPG, I tend to have strong opinions of those and the phrase "realistic RPG mechanics" is a sure way to make me suspicious. (Fate and narration-supporting mechanics and verisimilitude based on group trying to keep it, not on bloated physics-simulating rules - it's what works for me)

9 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

The circumstances are just ridiculous. You need to hear his rant to know why it's funny. It's just so stupid and you wonder why nobody saw it. The guy doesn't even have a name, in the credits he's called Handsome Guy. It's so bad and dumb, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity. 

Wow. Sounds like parodying superhero tropes, I have a hard time imagining someone would do this with straight face. But in the 80s everything was possible... 

[Aspiring Writer]

5 hours ago, Eri said:

would likely defend some really bad people because they were his internet friends"

Hope you're not referring to EFAP

 

5 hours ago, Eri said:

I'm all for restrictions and hard magic, but there's a difference between internal logic and real-world physics. I'm not sure if I'll have the time to rewatch his videos and find the quote, but there was at least one video which gave me a strong impression that Shad considers Shardblades to not make sense, because they lack mass. I'm talking about this level of wanting realism. (I think it was before he helped with the book, and he might have been talking about lightsabers not exactly Shardblades).

That would be lightsabers, and he isn't wrong. With how lightsabers are explained, all the mass should be at the hit, which isn't what we see, but he does concede there are in-world ways to explain it and that it is internally consistent. He would simply like it if they were more realistic, but he won't call them bad just because they say screw you to science. 

 

6 hours ago, Eri said:

Maybe it was in context of ttRPG, I tend to have strong opinions of those and the phrase "realistic RPG mechanics" is a sure way to make me suspicious.

I can't speak to RPGs, so I going to take some of your word on it.

[BreezeCauthon he/him]

22 hours ago, Eri said:

Storms. Sorry, I seriously thought "low-key X" meant "in the general direction of X, but not as much". 

If it makes you feel any better, I am a born-and-raised English speaker and I also thought it meant that.

[Eri she/her]

11 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Hope you're not referring to EFAP

I have no idea what this is, so I don't think I'm referring to it.

[Aspiring Writer]

59 minutes ago, Eri said:

I have no idea what this is, so I don't think I'm referring to it.

It's a podcast Shad occasionally comes onto. They get a lot of unwarranted hate for various reasons, the most recent being they don't like the Mandalorian because it's filled with plot holes and contrivances, all the characters intelligence is no more than a baby's, plot armor is through the roof, barely any actual characters, they are mostly just props, etc, etc. If you have seen Shad's video on Mando, you get the general drift. 

I do not suggest it. You don't seem like the type to like it, the humor can be strange, and you honestly seem too... not sure what word to use, but yeah, I don't think it's for you. If you want to try it, the channel is Mooler. Good day to you, sir.

[Eri she/her]

3 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

It's a podcast Shad occasionally comes onto. They get a lot of unwarranted hate for various reasons, the most recent being they don't like the Mandalorian because it's filled with plot holes and contrivances, all the characters intelligence is no more than a baby's, plot armor is through the roof, barely any actual characters, they are mostly just props, etc, etc. If you have seen Shad's video on Mando, you get the general drift. 

I do not suggest it.

Thanks. I haven't even watched Mandalorian, I'm not a big SW fan nowadays. I really enjoyed Force Awakens, but I'm happy that I didn't see further parts (especially that I hoped for ReyxFinn). It all just got too incoherent.

I have a vague feeling that for some strange reason liking newer Star Wars stuff on the internet when you're conservative, or not liking it when you're a liberal, is a no-no. And that's really weird to me. (Also, I'm not sure if "conservative / liberal" are the right words.)

3 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

You don't seem like the type to like it, the humor can be strange, and you honestly seem too...

Tumblr-y? Female/feminist? Kinda SJW-ish? I feel like that's the general direction and I admit to being a bit in that direction. It's complicated. But emotionally, aestethically, I'm often something like that, yep. So your intuition about what channels I'd like is probably good (for yt book/movie criticism, I like Dominic Noble who is also kinda in that direction and, for something lighter, Screenrant who is simply funny and you may like him too). 

Anyway, I do like Skallgrim sometimes (he's less interesting than Shad and I don't like his voice a lot) and some Lindybeige and generally rather enjoy swords-and-stuff videos, which stereotypically speaking I shouldn't like. A lot depends if the video is informational. I love learning stuff.

3 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

not sure what word to use, but yeah, I don't think it's for you. If you want to try it, the channel is Mooler. Good day to you, sir.

As I said, I'm not a sir (this photo and especially the Sleepless effect on it make me look androgynous, but I'm a woman).  Anyway good day to you too.

[Eri she/her]

Wait, the "1984" is a title, not the date of production?!!! Wha--- I thought "well, for a movie made in 1984 it's not that weird" but now--- oh. OH.

(Yeah, I'm out of the movies&series loop movies this much.) Thanks for mentioning this video btw.

[Frustration]

On 1/2/2021 at 4:01 AM, Eri said:

BTW, speaking of Shad, what's with the majority of fantasy people, HEMA people and similar being members of the LDS Church? Almost every time I follow someone for fantasy-related content, they eventually mention "as a member of the LDS, I [something]". (Also, that great t-shirt saying "we gave you Battlestar Galactica and Twilight, sorry for Twilight"). Not wanting to be offensive, it's just a mystery to me. Especially that I live in Europe (it's that place with castles and the right timezone and almost no LDS).

Uhm, I think it's more we're more open about religion on average but I can't say.

On 1/3/2021 at 10:02 AM, Eri said:

I'm Christian too, but I don't think other denominations of Christianity and similar (I'm not sure if LDS is Christianity?)

It is

7 hours ago, Eri said:

I have a vague feeling that for some strange reason liking newer Star Wars stuff on the internet when you're conservative, or not liking it when you're a liberal, is a no-no. And that's really weird to me. (Also, I'm not sure if "conservative / liberal" are the right words.)

Right vs left would be better as not all right wing is conservative nor all left wing liberal, but yes.

The reason why is that in America politicas are invading everything and it's bleeding over into entertainment.

[Eri she/her]

12 hours ago, Frustration said:

Uhm, I think it's more we're more open about religion on average but I can't say.

Thank you for replying. 

Backing from potentially controversial topics, I watched some Shad's videos from the corona time (didn't have the mood earlier) and the idea of an immortal running around in full plate (well, chainmail at least) + two daggers is quite funny. I'm pretty sure armor+daggers would make a lot of people scream "bUt thaT's uNrealistic!" 

Where do you think the line lies between effective fighting and looking cool? Would you accept a movie/book character in armor (more than leather or [whatever the fabric thing was called in English]), fighting with two daggers?

[Aspiring Writer]

On 1/5/2021 at 11:56 AM, Frustration said:

Right vs left would be better as not all right wing is conservative nor all left wing liberal, but yes.

The reason why is that in America politicas are invading everything and it's bleeding over into entertainment.

Yes, it is part of why most mainstream entertainment has been getting progressively worse.

 

On 1/6/2021 at 0:58 AM, Eri said:

Where do you think the line lies between effective fighting and looking cool? Would you accept a movie/book character in armor (more than leather or [whatever the fabric thing was called in English]), fighting with two daggers?

Are you referring to Gambeson?

As for that, this is very much a preference, but I would be fine if it made sense. If this person was in close quarters or doing something that would make them want two daggers rather than any other weapon, or they had supernatural abilities that would make them prefer daggers rather than other weapons. As long as there is some good logic behind it, I can accept it.

Edit- My advice to everyone who wants something cool in their story, try and make it logical. think about why your character would use this, why is it useful, what are the advantages and disadvantages to having this, and RESEARCH. You don't need to do heavy research, just some basics and checking to see if you have misconceptions that you need to knock out of that cavity in your skull. Do not follow tropes blindly; an example of this would be the sword lock, which Shad has numerous times stated is stupid on so many levels. Try and learn how sword fights are actually conducted, and then implement that. It really does make your work better, and you may end up attracting an audience that you will come to respect as much as they respect you. Talking about the recent excrement being released from Hollywood, streaming services, and television (And watching a writing critique video getting me back in the mood) made me want to type this, because it is everywhere.

An example from the Mandalorian (which is really crappy, writing-wise. Again, we all watch Shad, and he has made it clear Mando is terrible. Not saying you shouldn't enjoy it; he does while acknowledging it's crap. But let's just say when someone asks about a pothole and your answer is 'so we can have the plot', just give up and admit it's crap and save us both the energy. Okay, Mando rant over) is that he doesn't use his full arsenal despite him having a weapon perfect for the situation. When he got attacked by the spiders, he kept shooting them rather than use his flamethrower. When fighting Moff Gideon, he uses the spear rather than the flamethrower, which can't really be deflected. The Moff Gideon one is probably a better example, as the spiders one is just dumb and to create false tension while the Gideon one is meant to be a cool fight scene. It makes no sense not to burn him with the context provided. It's a non-deflectable attack you can use on him. They even state that Mando doesn't have whistling birds, so the writers clearly realized that could have been a way to defeat Gideon without the spear. It's not like they don't realize it.

Now because I am a more competent writer than everyone who writes the Mandalorian (because that's the world I live in sadly.) there is an easy fix to this, and it's making clear that the flamethrower uses some type of fuel and he needs to conserve as much of it as possible. This can be done using a throwaway line in an episode, like "I need to refuel/refill the flamethrowers. Overused them." or by showing him refueling it or even going out of his way to purchase whatever is needed to fuel the flamethrower. It makes sense that would require fuel, it would explain why he doesn't use it as often as he should, and you can make him run out to have scenes like the spear fight happen and not have some of the audience wonder why he doesn't burn Gideon to a crisp. Wouldn't be that hard and wouldn't take up more than a few minutes max. And guess what? This took less than a minute of thought for me to figure out.

It's really not that hard a lot of the time. Sometimes it is, and you really need to consider what you are doing and how to explain it and need to do the aforementioned research, and some times, you find your idea is stupid and you need to burn it with fire. An example is in TLJ and the hyperspace jump, which breaks in world rules, logic, and creates problems for future installments all for a cool shot, and you should throw the idea away and think of something else that can create a cool shot while not causing problems.

And I will give a personal example of these, because I really don't want to come off as if I don't understand how hard this is or that I am trying to say I am superior to all these people without even trying. As my name suggests, I write a lot, and I have run into all of these problems. An example of a scene I want and had to rework because it broke rules is I wanted a telepath to disguise herself telepathically and infiltrate a party full of telepaths. Small problem... telepaths are immune to telepaths. Telepathy is fairly fickle in most interpretations with loose rules, and I had that mindset when writing. However, once I put the definitive rules down, I realized this couldn't work, because I wanted it to be a hard magic system that everyone could understand. So I agonized over the scene and the magic, seeing if there was any way I could make it work, and finally realized I couldn't in the way I made it and had to add an element into the story to save myself, which to be clear is not how you should normally handle it. I am well aware that I have to consider that element form that point forward, and I took a lot of consideration before finally deciding this was the only way, as I wanted to keep the scene to have certain character interactions and plot progression, and I still may end up just scratching the scene and starting anew. Another example of a scene I wanted was, in my science fantasy, was to have a super-powered character fight a wildcat as proof of her growth and a kind of right of passage, and the cat was trained to fight super-powered people but escaped and if you think that sounds dumb, that's because it's not. Dumb does not begin to describe that sludge I called a scene, there were so many levels of retarded. I ended up removing it after, and I'm ashamed to say, far longer than was appropriate (by my standards), and it is one of my more embarrassing moments, as not only did I write it, I considered keeping it. Thankfully, my brain finally refreshed after loading for several days and realized the stupidity and I deleted it and continued on, now more aware of my own fallibility and making sure I never repeat that mistake and if I do, I will quickly realize the mistake I made and not have to debate it. Thing is, that moment gave me a little insight into what the writers who made that dumb crap might've been thinking when they wrote it. It was quite eye-opening and a learning experience and I now know how those kinds of scenes may end up being written. It also, of course, increased my dissatisfaction that they were unable to spot it afterward like I had, because if I can spot my own errors, they should be able to have them and their writing team being able to spot and correct theirs, but they didn't. they kept it despite all logic, either not thinking about it, or thinking about it but being too attached to the idea.

Rethink what you are doing, and feel free to delete stuff, you will have dumb stuff in your first draft. Brandon Sanderson said that ideas aren't valuable, though he is referring to story ideas, not small stuff like the examples I provided, and that you shouldn't work for years on one idea. I think BS might be a little too extreme there, as I don't think you should throw away a perfectly good idea that you have worked on simply because it's taking you a long time, but for the small things like a spear vs darksaber fight, or a hyperspace jump, or a really out of place wildcat fight, rework it or delete it. One bad scene can break an entire story. Yes, it will be painful and hard, but writing is painful and hard, that is why it is so challenging to become a good writer, and why it is so satisfying when you finally become one (Unfortunately not speaking from experience, but I am sure Shad would agree. He did tear up when he saw his book.) 

This turned out way bigger than intended, but talking about how recent media has been garbage made me want to rant, and talking about the rule of cool and what are its limits got me on this tangent. Writers who are reading this (Of which I think @Frustration and @Channelknight Fadran is trying to be?) take what I said seriously. This is one of the big errors I have seen made repeatedly over and over, not thinking about things enough or even thinking about it and then dismissing it, unwilling to let the scene go. It's not easy, and I acknowledge it, I have to take at least a few days to decide on whether or not something should stay, because it's a big thing to ask someone to outright delete something they wrote. But believe, it will be better in the long run, and you may end up thinking of something better after you try rewriting it and seeing more possibilities than you did before.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Aspiring Writer

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Yes, it is part of why most mainstream entertainment has been getting progressively worse.

It's so bad.

Please I just want a story.

Is that too much to ask for!

[Aspiring Writer]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

It's so bad.

Please I just want a story.

Is that too much to ask for!

For some reason, these days it is. It is depressing on so many levels, not the least being people like my sister like the crap writing being churned out and making my life's passion seem fairly insignificant and pointless, especially when you know you can do better than the so-called 'professional writers'. I'm just trying to enjoy the few gems that still exist.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Spoiler

14 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Yes, it is part of why most mainstream entertainment has been getting progressively worse.

 

Are you referring to Gambeson?

As for that, this is very much a preference, but I would be fine if it made sense. If this person was in close quarters or doing something that would make them want two daggers rather than any other weapon, or they had supernatural abilities that would make them prefer daggers rather than other weapons. As long as there is some good logic behind it, I can accept it.

Edit- My advice to everyone who wants something cool in their story, try and make it logical. think about why your character would use this, why is it useful, what are the advantages and disadvantages to having this, and RESEARCH. You don't need to do heavy research, just some basics and checking to see if you have misconceptions that you need to knock out of that cavity in your skull. Do not follow tropes blindly; an example of this would be the sword lock, which Shad has numerous times stated is stupid on so many levels. Try and learn how sword fights are actually conducted, and then implement that. It really does make your work better, and you may end up attracting an audience that you will come to respect as much as they respect you. Talking about the recent excrement being released from Hollywood, streaming services, and television (And watching a writing critique video getting me back in the mood) made me want to type this, because it is everywhere.

An example from the Mandalorian (which is really crappy, writing-wise. Again, we all watch Shad, and he has made it clear Mando is terrible. Not saying you shouldn't enjoy it; he does while acknowledging it's crap. But let's just say when someone asks about a pothole and your answer is 'so we can have the plot', just give up and admit it's crap and save us both the energy. Okay, Mando rant over) is that he doesn't use his full arsenal despite him having a weapon perfect for the situation. When he got attacked by the spiders, he kept shooting them rather than use his flamethrower. When fighting Moff Gideon, he uses the spear rather than the flamethrower, which can't really be deflected. The Moff Gideon one is probably a better example, as the spiders one is just dumb and to create false tension while the Gideon one is meant to be a cool fight scene. It makes no sense not to burn him with the context provided. It's a non-deflectable attack you can use on him. They even state that Mando doesn't have whistling birds, so the writers clearly realized that could have been a way to defeat Gideon without the spear. It's not like they don't realize it.

Now because I am a more competent writer than everyone who writes the Mandalorian (because that's the world I live in sadly.) there is an easy fix to this, and it's making clear that the flamethrower uses some type of fuel and he needs to conserve as much of it as possible. This can be done using a throwaway line in an episode, like "I need to refuel/refill the flamethrowers. Overused them." or by showing him refueling it or even going out of his way to purchase whatever is needed to fuel the flamethrower. It makes sense that would require fuel, it would explain why he doesn't use it as often as he should, and you can make him run out to have scenes like the spear fight happen and not have some of the audience wonder why he doesn't burn Gideon to a crisp. Wouldn't be that hard and wouldn't take up more than a few minutes max. And guess what? This took less than a minute of thought for me to figure out.

It's really not that hard a lot of the time. Sometimes it is, and you really need to consider what you are doing and how to explain it and need to do the aforementioned research, and some times, you find your idea is stupid and you need to burn it with fire. An example is in TLJ and the hyperspace jump, which breaks in world rules, logic, and creates problems for future installments all for a cool shot, and you should throw the idea away and think of something else that can create a cool shot while not causing problems.

And I will give a personal example of these, because I really don't want to come off as if I don't understand how hard this is or that I am trying to say I am superior to all these people without even trying. As my name suggests, I write a lot, and I have run into all of these problems. An example of a scene I want and had to rework because it broke rules is I wanted a telepath to disguise herself telepathically and infiltrate a party full of telepaths. Small problem... telepaths are immune to telepaths. Telepathy is fairly fickle in most interpretations with loose rules, and I had that mindset when writing. However, once I put the definitive rules down, I realized this couldn't work, because I wanted it to be a hard magic system that everyone could understand. So I agonized over the scene and the magic, seeing if there was any way I could make it work, and finally realized I couldn't in the way I made it and had to add an element into the story to save myself, which to be clear is not how you should normally handle it. I am well aware that I have to consider that element form that point forward, and I took a lot of consideration before finally deciding this was the only way, as I wanted to keep the scene to have certain character interactions and plot progression, and I still may end up just scratching the scene and starting anew. Another example of a scene I wanted was, in my science fantasy, was to have a super-powered character fight a wildcat as proof of her growth and a kind of right of passage, and the cat was trained to fight super-powered people but escaped and if you think that sounds dumb, that's because it's not. Dumb does not begin to describe that sludge I called a scene, there were so many levels of retarded. I ended up removing it after, and I'm ashamed to say, far longer than was appropriate (by my standards), and it is one of my more embarrassing moments, as not only did I write it, I considered keeping it. Thankfully, my brain finally refreshed after loading for several days and realized the stupidity and I deleted it and continued on, now more aware of my own fallibility and making sure I never repeat that mistake and if I do, I will quickly realize the mistake I made and not have to debate it. Thing is, that moment gave me a little insight into what the writers who made that dumb crap might've been thinking when they wrote it. It was quite eye-opening and a learning experience and I now know how those kinds of scenes may end up being written. It also, of course, increased my dissatisfaction that they were unable to spot it afterward like I had, because if I can spot my own errors, they should be able to have them and their writing team being able to spot and correct theirs, but they didn't. they kept it despite all logic, either not thinking about it, or thinking about it but being too attached to the idea.

Rethink what you are doing, and feel free to delete stuff, you will have dumb stuff in your first draft. Brandon Sanderson said that ideas aren't valuable, though he is referring to story ideas, not small stuff like the examples I provided, and that you shouldn't work for years on one idea. I think BS might be a little too extreme there, as I don't think you should throw away a perfectly good idea that you have worked on simply because it's taking you a long time, but for the small things like a spear vs darksaber fight, or a hyperspace jump, or a really out of place wildcat fight, rework it or delete it. One bad scene can break an entire story. Yes, it will be painful and hard, but writing is painful and hard, that is why it is so challenging to become a good writer, and why it is so satisfying when you finally become one (Unfortunately not speaking from experience, but I am sure Shad would agree. He did tear up when he saw his book.) 

This turned out way bigger than intended, but talking about how recent media has been garbage made me want to rant, and talking about the rule of cool and what are its limits got me on this tangent. Writers who are reading this (Of which I think @Frustration and @Channelknight Fadran is trying to be?) take what I said seriously. This is one of the big errors I have seen made repeatedly over and over, not thinking about things enough or even thinking about it and then dismissing it, unwilling to let the scene go. It's not easy, and I acknowledge it, I have to take at least a few days to decide on whether or not something should stay, because it's a big thing to ask someone to outright delete something they wrote. But believe, it will be better in the long run, and you may end up thinking of something better after you try rewriting it and seeing more possibilities than you did before.

 

The next person to claim that Mandolorian was bad and their own abilities beyond that of John Favreau and Taika Waititi will taste my dagger.

[Eri she/her]

18 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Are you referring to Gambeson?

Yes, I think it's this. 

As for Mandalorian discourse, didn't watch. My biggest dissapointment recently was "the Dragon Prince" (yes, it's a kids show...) which everyone hyped about because it was made by the people who made "Avatar the Last Airbender". But while [controversial opinion] the visuals were awesome, [another one] characterisation and narrative structure and generally most of the story stuff besides its bare bones were... mediocre, at best.

[Aspiring Writer]

21 minutes ago, Eri said:

Yes, I think it's this. 

As for Mandalorian discourse, didn't watch. My biggest dissapointment recently was "the Dragon Prince" (yes, it's a kids show...) which everyone hyped about because it was made by the people who made "Avatar the Last Airbender". But while [controversial opinion] the visuals were awesome, [another one] characterisation and narrative structure and generally most of the story stuff besides its bare bones were... mediocre, at best.

I've seen dragon prince. I know what you're talking about.

 

3 hours ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The next person to claim that Mandolorian was bad and their own abilities beyond that of John Favreau and Taika Waititi will taste my dagger.

Then I suggest you start killing everyone with even a microcosm of writing talent and the dignity to admit they have it, because if you can't say you can write better than the Mandalorian, do the universe a favor and don't write.

Hey, put the dagger down, I can back up my claims, try and give me yours.

[Eri she/her]

11 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Then I suggest you start killing everyone with even a microcosm of writing talent and the dignity to admit they have it, because if you can't say you can write better than the Mandalorian, do the universe a favor and don't write.

Hey, I can't say I can write better than the Mandalorian and I ... well, sometimes write something. Like, that one time. I wish I did it more.

Spoiler

Can't say because I haven't seen it, remember?

But seriously, I think this discussion isn't going in a good direction.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Eri
ctrl-v went wild

[Aspiring Writer]

14 minutes ago, Eri said:

Hey, I can't say I can write better than the Mandalorian and I ... well, sometimes write something. Like, that one time. I wish I dCan't say because id it more.

  Reveal hidden contents

Can't say because I haven't seen it, remember?

 

... Why did you italicize "the even a"? Also, I said having even a little writing talent because the Mandalorian is legit the quality of my first draft. It's really hard not to compare the two and see similarities. I'm basically trying to say if you can not write better than the Mandalorian, you really shouldn't write. It's a minimal level of writing quality, and I would be insulting myself if I pretend I couldn't do better.

Also, I'm sure Fadran isn't actually mad. He just likes the show, and like everybody who likes the show, tends to not like admitting its flaws because that would mean they like something bad, which for some reason is unacceptable to them. I like the CW Batwoman show (Well, someone's coverage of it, and it's ironically. It's hilarious.), and boy, that has some awful writing. Almost everything in it is bad. Never understood why people can't admit a show they like might not be that high-quality. (Writing-wise, of course. Mando has the set design and CG down.)

Edited January 16, 2021 by Aspiring Writer

[Eri she/her]

10 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

... Why did you italicize "the even a"?

I did? IDK The post editor went weird on me and did some strange things. This editor + my mouse = the cursor jumps to random places sometimes.

10 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Also, I said having even a little writing talent because the Mandalorian i

If you're explaining to me, maybe read the spoiler tag ;D
I'm not saying you're wrong yk.

10 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Also, I'm sure Fadran isn't actually mad. He just likes the show, and like everybody who likes the show, tends to not like admitting its flaws because that would mean they like something bad, which for some reason is unacceptable to them. I like the CW Batwoman show (Well, someone's coverage of it, and it's ironically. It's hilarious.), and boy, that has some awful writing. Almost everything in it is bad. Never understood why people can't admit a show they like might not be that high-quality. (Writing-wise, of course. Mando has the set design and CG down.)

I don't think there's any show or book that I wouldn't find a way to complain about, even on pure technical / verisimilitude level. This includes AtLA (Uncle Iroh the creepy pervert), SA (ok, it's not purely technical and partially about opinions), Mistborn (Red sun. Red leaves. They wouldn't be able to absorb any light and do photosyntesis) or basically everything. 

OTOH, saying that something has "a writing level of a typical first draft" is a strong statement and it's normal that it could make people feel like they need to defend themselves.

PS: your signature has a typo: it's Dalinar, not Daliner.

[Aspiring Writer]

4 minutes ago, Eri said:

I'm not saying you're wrong yk.

now I do. Thx.

 

4 minutes ago, Eri said:

AtLA

What does this stand for?

 

5 minutes ago, Eri said:

I don't think there's any show or book that I wouldn't find a way to complain about, even on pure technical / verisimilitude level. This includes AtLA (Uncle Iroh the creepy pervert), SA (ok, it's not purely technical and partially about opinions), Mistborn (Red sun. Red leaves. They wouldn't be able to absorb any light and do photosyntesis) or basically everything. 

Um, first the Mistborn one, I believe the sun is red because of the atmosphere and ash, not because it's actually a Red Sun. Does that change your analysis, or does the problem still exist? I'm curious, I love this stuff.

But on to the main point, this is actually something I hear a lot, and similarly to you, it is said responding to someone trying to be critical about some media. When someone points out an error in one thing, some like to point out, in defense of that media, that some media they like has similar errors, or just errors in general. First, this is whataboutism, and is not normally used to advocate discussion. Not to say it shouldn't be used in discussion, it can be. However, this does not defend the piece of media, but instead tries to find the person's bias, in the best-case scenario, and tries to diminish people's ability to critically analyze media at it's worst. Example of the first when justified is if someone is okay with unlimited bullets in one movie, but then isn't okay in the next, showing a double standard. This shows they don't have a consistent standard when analyzing media. However, this does not remove the flaw from the movie. This does not make your position better, you're simply making your opponent's position worse. In the end, your film will still have a flaw. 

However, a less justified example is when someone says this scene in a movie is bad and then someone else brings up a similar scene from another movie (One that person probably likes or considers in high regard). First off, similar scenes have different contexts. You cannot say someone burning enemy soldiers in a war with fire magic is the same as taking your dragon and burning a city full of civilians to the ground and say they are the same because they both burn people. The context surrounding a scene will dictate if it is well written. So this comparison logic doesn't really work, especially for character motivation which can vary very drastically between characters that might seem similar at first glance and may not make sense when copy-pasted into a different scenario. 

And furthermore, a bad example is when someone is poking holes into something you like and you try and poke holes in something they like, trying to basically say "See? This thing you like also has problems. They are both bad, so you can't call mine bad without saying yours is bad." First off, this is an incredibly weak position to put yourself in, as this means you cannot counter or argue against any of the points made against you and you have to try and bring something else down to bring your thing up, which already says something about the quality of what you are trying to defend, and not in a good way.

But now comes to the real meat of what we're talking about and why your point is incomplete. Yes, every story has its flaws. It is an unfortunate thing. However, saying everything has flaws does not make them equally bad. The severity and the amount of those flaws in a piece of media will determine how well written it is. A good piece of media will have lots of working elements with a few minor and maybe the occasional major error. A bad piece of media will have constant errors and plotholes that break the story and plot, or reduce the quality of it at the least, like making characters seem incredibly dumb. 

Infinity War, for instance, is a great example of a good film with flaws. The characters bounce of each other incredibly and their motivations and how they go about them are solid. However, a flaw you can point out is that the Infinity Stones abilities make no sense. We have seen Thanos turn people into string and never use that ability again. They are incredibly powerful, and yet it is still possible for the Avengers to fight him and even come close to beating him. In the end, Thanos wins, so the flaw does not break the story, because even if he did do those things, the conclusion would be he wins. Nothing is lost. However, it is still a flaw, and at its worse, it makes Thanos seem less bright, though still effective and dangerous. But it's not story breaking, and Thanos' character remains intact motivational and competence wise while giving us spectacle.

Mandalorian, however, is an example of a poorly written series with at least one major flaw every episode and some of which consist for the entirety of the show. I mentioned how he seems to neglect his full arsenal and not use the best equipment for the task, sacrificing his intelligence and competence. Other examples would be him not having his jetpack despite having an autopilot function on it so he can press a button and call it back to him, creating a pothole that would've drastically changed the story. And a plothole that consists through all of the Mandalorian is that a vast majority of blaster bolts hit his armor despite there being several large gaps between plates and the chances of him not getting shot even when charging an enemy and getting shot in the armor 24 times exactly and 0 times on his body are minuscule. 

So yes, they both have flaws, but they are not equal in quality. You can find errors in all media and complain about them, but simply having flaws doesn't make a piece of media bad, there is context that you have to take into account. Everything is not bad, there are varying degrees of qualities, and if it is impossible to avoid at least one flaw, then we simply shift the scale of peak quality to include at least one flaw and keep striving to only have one flaw.

Sorry for taking what you said and expanding on it this much, but it's something I've heard a lot and had plenty of time to think about. This isn't really targeted toward you and more to anyone who would make that argument, which is why a lot of it probably isn't relevant to what you were exactly trying to convey. 

On another note, I have seen and heard why you have problems with SA, and while I'm not going to argue against those, I would like to say they, like you said, are more subjective and not objective flaws, and can go both ways. I like the prequels. I find them enjoyable. I will wholeheartedly admit they are poorly crafted. A lot of poorly crafted things can end up being enjoyable, and a lot of well-crafted things can end up being unenjoyable. But it is necessary to be able to distinguish the two from each other. Again, not really pointed at you, just wanted to give a short paragraph about it. You seem to have a good handle of it. Maybe you got it from Shad. He is pretty good at distinguishing the two.

Also, sorry if the long responses are annoying, I'm passionate about the topics and have a lot to say. Not sure if this will come to a surprise, but this is part of why I am trying to start a youtube channel as a little side project.

[Eri she/her]

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

What does this stand for?

AtLA = Avatar the Lasr Airbender.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Um, first the Mistborn one, I believe the sun is red because of the atmosphere and ash, not because it's actually a Red Sun. Does that change your analysis, or does the problem still exist? I'm curious, I love this stuff.

No, it's not a matter of astronomy. I know why it's red.

It's a matter of the light falling on leaves is red, and red leaves reflect all (well, technically probably not all, but vast majority) of it, so they don't get energy to do photosyntesis. Photosyntesis uses absorbed light, which hits a particle and... I forgot the detail. But as a result it makes sugar for the plant to use later and energy to use now.

red leaves won't absorb enough red light. type of the star doesn't matter. I believe if you put regular Earth plants behind a green stained glass, they'd die, like they die in darkness. Only a little slower. They need the right frequency of light to grow.

OK, thb [RoW spoilers]

Spoiler

Lights in the Cosmere are magical and don't 100% follow physics, so I think this could be explained in some Realmatic way. 

But I don't think it was planned, I just think Brandon didn't know enough physics and biology to notice it's a problem and made the leaves red (or orange? Orange is bad too, everything that reflects red), because it fits the gloomy and oppressive look of pre-Catacendre Scadrial.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

But on to the main point, this is actually something I hear a lot, and similarly to you, it is said responding to someone trying to be critical about some media. When someone points out an error in one thing, some like to point out, in defense of that media, that some media they like has similar errors, or just errors in general. First, this is whataboutism, and is not normally used to advocate discussion.

I agree.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Not to say it shouldn't be used in discussion, it can be. However, this does not defend the piece of media, but instead tries to find the person's bias, in the best-case scenario, and tries to diminish people's ability to critically analyze media at it's worst. Example of the first when justified is if someone is okay with unlimited bullets in one movie, but then isn't okay in the next, showing a double standard.

Well, I don't full agree here. What if one movie is a gritty war drama, and another is a pulpy action? Different genres work better or worse with a given trope.

I'm not a "realism above all" person and am OK with unilimited bullets in many genres, but for, say, a realistic historical movie I would have a problem with unlimited bullets.

Genre matters.

It also gets more complicated with narrative errors, because they can be more or less severe. Like, you can have a character that's a total Mary Sue, you can have one that' s kinda a Mary Sue but also cool and you can have a character that is kinda ok, but compared to other characters of same author is a Mary Sue anyway. The first is more of a problem, even if they all can be described with the same trope.

With those two clarifications, I agree. The fact that I like a movie doesn't make it free of any faults.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

This shows they don't have a consistent standard when analyzing media. However, this does not remove the flaw from the movie. This does not make your position better, you're simply making your opponent's position worse. In the end, your film will still have a flaw. 

However, a less justified example is when someone says this scene in a movie is bad and then someone else brings up a similar scene from another movie (One that person probably likes or considers in high regard). First off, similar scenes have different contexts.

Indeed. 

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

You cannot say someone burning enemy soldiers in a war with fire magic is the same as taking your dragon and burning a city full of civilians to the ground and say they are the same because they both burn people.

...also, Azula and Ozai were better written and more cohesive in their being evil than Danerys.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

 But now comes to the real meat of what we're talking about and why your point is incomplete. Yes, every story has its flaws. It is an unfortunate thing. However, saying everything has flaws does not make them equally bad.

I agree.

What I meant saying that everything has flaws was "it's unwise to get defensive about flaws in a thing you like, or to assume that the thing you like has no flaws, or should have no flaws". Not having flaws is not a prerequisite for people to be allowed to like a piece of media. 

Yet, often when someone says "this book/movie has this problem", people feel attacked and hear it as "this book is not perfect, therefore you are not allowed to enjoy it". I do it too. But it's stupid anyway.

And yes, as long as something doesn't hurt people or make you a worse person, everyone is allowed to like even dumb things with a ton of flaws. Especially when they're fun.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

The severity and the amount of those flaws in a piece of media will determine how well written it is. A good piece of media will have lots of working elements with a few minor and maybe the occasional major error. A bad piece of media will have constant errors and plotholes that break the story and plot, or reduce the quality of it at the least, like making characters seem incredibly dumb. 

I agree. But it still can be a lot of fun.

[I cut the part about stuff I haven't seen. I'm rather out of the popculture loop, because... kids I guess? I'm not sure]

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Sorry for taking what you said and expanding on it this much, but it's something I've heard a lot and had plenty of time to think about. This isn't really targeted toward you and more to anyone who would make that argument, which is why a lot of it probably isn't relevant to what you were exactly trying to convey. 

Yeah, but it's interesting to read. And thanks for the clarification.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

On another note, I have seen and heard why you have problems with SA, and while I'm not going to argue against those, I would like to say they, like you said, are more subjective and not objective flaws, and can go both ways.

You mean Kaladin, don't you? 

Yes, I know, I know, a lot of ppl love him. They're all valid and if reading about him helps them in their lifes, that's great. I really mean it, it's not /s. I just wish they didn't downvote me this much on Reddit, because it's frustrating.

I generally don't think I like a lot of epic fantasy elements. I like SA, but it's not typical in a lot of places. Kaladin is, in may aspects, a typical epic fantasy protag: 100% good, heroic and stuff. I like good characters, I just don't like... I don't want how to explain it. I like characters that are good, but not predictable in their moral choices. I don't like when most of characters turn evil, but I like not knowing how a given character would turn. 

(Which is funny, because I have a lot of idealism, and... let's just say that after the Wonder Woman video my respect for Shad grown even more, even if his mental image of feminists is "a band of evil people who enjoy a man suffering". Not all feminists are like that. (pun intended) Also, he did something that requires a lot of courage from a guy.)

There are also other reasons I don't like him, some dumb and based on jealousy, some maybe wise and based on actually unfortunate writing choices (still better than any other author, but not great for Brandon). But indeed, let's not go there. I think I'm really bad at explaining my opinions, especially in a persuasive way.

5 hours ago, Aspiring Writer said:

Also, sorry if the long responses are annoying, I'm passionate about the topics and have a lot to say. Not sure if this will come to a surprise, but this is part of why I am trying to start a youtube channel as a little side project.

Nice. I like youtube essays and edutainment. I hope you'll post a link when you start it. (warning: if you have a high-pitched voice, I won't watch it regardless of how good it'll be, I just can't stand high-pitched voices, sorry.)

[Aspiring Writer]

17 hours ago, Eri said:

Well, I don't full agree here. What if one movie is a gritty war drama, and another is a pulpy action? Different genres work better or worse with a given trope.

I'm not a "realism above all" person and am OK with unilimited bullets in many genres, but for, say, a realistic historical movie I would have a problem with unlimited bullets.

Genre matters.

You're correct, but I'm focusing on fantasy and sci-fi.

 

17 hours ago, Eri said:

..also, Azula and Ozai were better written and more cohesive in their being evil than Danerys.

Um, first off, everyone is better written and cohesive than Danerys after that season 8 screw up, and two, no idea who Azula or Ozai are.

 

17 hours ago, Eri said:

(warning: if you have a high-pitched voice, I won't watch it regardless of how good it'll be, I just can't stand high-pitched voices, sorry.)

XD I don't know if my voice would be considered high pitched, but I am trying to make it sound better in recordings. 

Edit, also, let me be clear, you're voice probably doesn't sound that great either by your own standards most likely. I'm not trying to be insulting, but seriously, go and record yourself and see how you sound, because it sounds SO different to what you think you sound like. I wanted to storming kill myself when I heard my voice (In the "Holy rust, I sound annoying and infuriating' type of way, not the depressed way) It is a seriously strange experience everyone should do at least once. if you end up liking your own voice, good for you. I definitely didn't and tried very hard to control my pitch. I'm not insecure about it by any means, but it's like someone wearing formal clothes to work. You want to present yourself well when doing something you want people to see.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Aspiring Writer