"i Want More Media With Zero Drama, No Tension, And Zero Problematic Characters And I Am Not Joking"

So this is just a hypothetical question of mine, buuuuuuuut…

Is it normal for one of your OTPs to consist of a canon character and the OC that you specifically created to explore a different side to said canon character despite the canon material having so far never shown any hint of that side existing and to avenge said canon character after his/her death?

Again, it’s a hypothetical question.

5 things your character can't do while speaking

Choke. Just think about it, seriously. Think about what choking is and imagine speaking while it’s happening. That would fuckin’ hurt, man.

Hiss. Look, it’s just not possible, okay? No matter how “evil” you want your character to seem.

Snarl. Animals snarls. The Beast from Beauty and the Beast snarls. The Hulk snarls. You know who doesn’t snarl? PEOPLE WHEN THEY’RE SPEAKING.

Shriek. Come on, 99% of the time, “shriek” is not the word you want.Let’s face it: if you put an exclamation point at the end of the sentence, your reader gets the picture. Don’t bring to mind banshees and screaming toddlers.

Sneer. I’m not even going to bother explaining this one. “SNEER” ISN’T EVEN A SOUND.

Have you ever read so much fanfiction and consumed so much fanart that you genuinely forgot what canon is?

"Fire and Blood is biased propaganda by the maesters so nothing in the real Dance of the Dragons actually happened like in the books, you can't critique the show for showing things as they really were!"

I'm so tired of this take...

GRRM wrote the original ASOIAF series as an anti-monarchy and anti-war story. He's an author who makes a point to flesh out characters and motivations, he understands that there isn't truly a good vs bad narrative to any large-scale, real-world conflict like war, and he understands the sociopolitical factors involved. His series highlights that it's the most vulnerable people in society who suffer when those in power play their game of thrones and make consequential decisions based on their own personal motivations without thought to the consequences to those that will have to the pay the price for them. That's GRRM's entire point with the original series: war destroys everything, it is never really justified, and through war the powerful set in motion terrible events that the most vulnerable are most like to suffer.

So the idea that all of a sudden with the prequel book Fire and Blood GRRM pivoted to write a biased textbook that purposefully misconstrues a conflict where the real story behind the pages is that one side of a dynastic civil war was led by a faultless, pure woman whose divine right to rule was stolen from her, and she's justified in plunging the realm into war to reclaim her throne because the other side was uniquely misogynist against her and was made up of selfish flawed people who just wanted to steal her power from her because she was a woman...

Sure, Fire and Blood may be a history book with unreliable narrators and sources that are trying to recount long-lost histories of the realm and possibly failing to capture the totality of what actually occurred. But I can absolutely guarantee you that the intended real history of the Dance of the Dragons as it took place in the world of ASOIAF was not some black and white, good vs bad tale of morality where one side was right and the other side was wrong like the show and some fans are insisting.

The actual Dance of Dragons as it exists in the ASOIAF timeline and universe, keeping in line with GRRM's original intention and message of the ASOIAF books, is 100% a story of a flawed, ultra-powerful family that fractured into two ideologically different factions that led to a pointless civil war in which neither side was justified in their attempts to seize power from the other. The result was that the family killed themselves until the only survivors were the traumatized children left over from either faction. In this pursuit of absolute power within one family thousands were subjected to the abject horrors of war: pillaging, famine, torture, sexual violence, being burned alive, and so much more. Neither side was faultless. Neither side had "the right" or justification to enact this conflict. Neither side bore sole responsibility for the conflict. Neither side was good or bad while the other was the opposite.

It really just fits outside of the world of ASOIAF to think that Fire and Blood's account of the Dance of the Dragons was uniquely biased against a single woman and her side of the conflict wherein this woman and her supporters were actually good people that had bad things done to them and all accounts in the book relating to them are inaccurate, yet most accounts of everyone else in the story were more or less true and accurate to how events played out. Like are you actually serious that this is how you think this story and history played out in this world of ASOIAF? That ultimately the story of the Dance of the Dragons is not anti-monarchy and anti-war in line with the original ASOIAF series but actually it's the story of a uniquely good woman in this terrible world who had a rightful claim to the throne and whose power was taken from her solely because of misogyny so she was justified in going to war to take it back? Like that's your analysis and interpretation on this conflict?

The way that the show is presenting this story is so unbelievably and ridiculously reductionist and simplified to the point where you begin to question why someone wanted to try to adapt the material at all... but then of course you remember that 1) Game of Thrones made a lot of money for a lot of people 2) its later seasons of mediocre, oversimplified writing continued to be rewarded with huge budgets, profits, and awards nominations despite the obvious downgrade of quality 3) so many modern writers believe the general audience needs to be spoonfed ideas and that they can't handle complexity, so it's more important that they shape an existing story into something that is a palatable, profitable hero vs villain tale that everyone can casually enjoy (and ideally appeals to modern sensibilities) than they try to create a compelling, thought-provoking, interesting and faithful adaptation of the source material.

pov: you're waking up and it's june 1st

(happy pride month yall!)

how to weave subplots into your story without getting tangled in the mess

Subplots: the spicy side quests of your main narrative. They deepen your world, flesh out your characters, and keep things interesting. But if you’ve ever added one and ended up with a story that feels like it’s running in six directions at once… yeah. Let’s fix that.

1. your subplot should serve the main plot

Don’t just throw in a romance arc or a secret sibling reveal because it’s fun (though it is fun). Ask:  

- Does this subplot challenge the main character’s goals?  

- Does it echo or contrast the main theme?  

- Does it change something by the end?

If it’s just a cute side quest with no real impact, it’s fanfic material for your own story. Cool, but maybe not plot-essential.

2. intertwine, don’t parallel

Bad: your subplot exists in a bubble, running beside the plot but never touching it.  

Better: your subplot interacts with the main plot. Maybe it complicates things. Maybe it supports the MC in a moment of crisis. Maybe it explodes everything.

Example: your MC is hunting a killer, and the subplot is their failing marriage. Good subplotting means the stress of the hunt affects the marriage, and the marriage affects the hunt.

3. stagger your arcs

Your main plot might hit its midpoint twist at chapter 10. Have a subplot hit a *smaller* emotional beat around chapter 7 or 13. It keeps pacing dynamic and gives your readers something to chew on between big moments.

4. use subplots to develop side characters

Side characters are more than background noise. Give them wants. Give them stakes. Let their stories *collide* with your MC’s. That’s when the magic happens.

5. know when to shut it down 

Not every subplot needs a 3-act structure and a dramatic finale. Some are small. Some fade out naturally. Some just shift the perspective enough to reframe the main plot. If you’re tying up subplot #6 with a bow in the epilogue, maybe ask yourself if it really needed to be there.

6. outline the spiderweb 

It helps to map out how every subplot connects to the main story. Literally. Draw lines. Make a chaos diagram. It doesn’t have to be neat—just make sure those threads touch.

TL;DR:

Subplots are great. Subplots are juicy. But they’re not decoration—they’re infrastructure. Weave them into the story’s bones or risk writing 3 novels in one.

heeppy hoolida

im taking media away from some of u guys until you can pass a 6th grade literary analysis test