Sometimes I Look At My Writing Journey And It Looks Like I've Gone Nowhere. I Have No Audience. I Don't

I should start a blog called "How to Do Things Wrong". People can watch I do as much research as my attention span will let me do that day and then witness my anxiety foil all my preparations.

(Sponsored by the fact that it took me an hour to fill out a form that asked me to describe me and my work.)

I've been kicking an idea around in my head for ages and I keep running into roadblocks, so I hope that if I write stuff down it'll organize my thoughts. Or at least prevent me from losing them in a plethora of handwritten notes scattered around.

I love the relationships and characters in SW, but I've always thought that they were problematic. Plus, the dynamics and backgrounds didn't really fit the narrative I'd built up in my head prior to the prequels.

Since I don't really do fanfic (really bad experience in the late 90s), I thought I could fix it with by tweaking the characters and placing them in an OC setting.

Padme - Love this girl, but they really wasted her potential. First I'd get rid of her election and make her born royalty or a position of power. She's clearly trained for it from birth. I got the impression that she and her peers voluntarily pursued politics and I can't imagine the average kid being interested in administration or law from a young age. It just seems like an odd hyperfixation to have so many involved. She's also clearly a warrior and diplomacy is her weapon. I'd like to lean into the diplomatic Jedi archetype that the EU made for Leia, although Padme definitely isn't above getting her hands dirty and throwing a chair at someone when her words stop working.

I'd probably place her in a love triangle/throuple situation because I always thought that Obi-Wan suited her more. The romance in the prequels between her and Anakin seemed like it only happened because it had to happen rather than real chemistry, so I'd also try to do justice to their relationship.

Finally, Padme would disappear before anyone knew she was pregnant to protect the twins from their falling father. Darth Vader seemed genuinely surprised that he had a son, not that he was alive.

Anakin - The majority of my issues with Anakin is his behavior during his courtship of Padme. He was a walking red flag and while I know people ignore those all the time, he didn't come across as someone likeable...which he did in every other scene where he was allowed to be a Jedi warrior. His banter with Obi-Wan hinted at a deep friendship and his frustrations with the Jedi order/Council made sense even if they weren't articulated well. I think mostly I'd have to simply fix the execution of his flaws and insecurities.

I'd also close the age gap between him and the other two. Aside from the creepiness factor in his romance with Padme, the age discrepancy between Obi-wan and Anakin as apprentices/knights is kinda weird. Obi-Wan was supposed to be 25 in Phantom Menace. I get that he's going to be a mentor/old man later on in the series, but that seems really old to still be a padawan.

Obi-Wan - Nothing. You're perfect, baby. <3

(Except for the age thing.)

Sometimes, you just have to sit down and make yourself write!

But not yet, though.

I wish more people would critique books this way. I'm tired of blurbs being "a tour de force" and "next great American novel". I want to know if it's worth reading for *me*, not some vague audience. I'm glad authors can get praise like that and they deserve it (if it's real), but it tells me nothing as a potential reader.

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

This year is the year that I'll finally accept that it's okay for me to act like a gremlin and I'll be one step closer to my final form!

It me.

Me to myself: no, you can't write something new, you're supposed to be working on WIP! *gestures to sad WIP in the corner*

Also me: okay, fine, I won't write something new. *starts scrolling on social media* Happy?

Sometimes, writing is just editing. Editing is sometimes acknowledging that something doesn't belong in the work no matter how good it is. And that really hurts.

(Don't discard the material though. Save it in a separate file for later. Maybe you'll reuse it or maybe it'll remind you on a rainy day how good you are.)

I hate the culture of trying to be a "successful" self-published author. I'm a part of a lot of writers groups and so many want to over-stress marketing: Do you have a marketing plan? Do you have a blog? Do you have followers? Are you on booktok?

That's great and all, but have you finished your book? Have you gotten it edited? Is your book even worth reading? Like, how do you have time to actually write if you're spending all this time being a social media personality? I barely have enough time to come home from my day job to write, let alone try to market as an introvert who is used to the internet being a lovely anonymous space.

Every time I have an idea for a fic, I overthink it and talk myself out of it. I don't know the characters well enough. This doesn't fit the setting/canon. Which is why in all the years I've been writing, I only ever wrote one Pokémon fanfic when I was like 14 and a fictionalization of a Slayers RPG I ran. OCs are easier because I make the canon!