# I



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

..................


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Corvid said:


> Is this good/bad? Who could say?
> 
> But, just thinking about this today as I work on my latest, my favorite movies, or stories I gravitate towards, all feature fairly arc-less protagonists.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you prefer plot-driven to character-driven works? I think it's a spectrum, with most works being somewhere in the middle, so there's both a plot arc and one or more character arcs, but some works are strongly to one end or the other. That's my general impression, at any rate.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

Supporting examples are both numerous and omnipresent. Virtually all episodic TV, well into the 80's, had no character arcs.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

.....................


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Corvid said:


> Back to the Future, Mad Max: Fury Road, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Raiders of the Lost Ark, 3:10 to Yuma, Aliens


I feel like this is also a list of movies that bucked popular trends. Back to the future took the summer adventure movie, added classic sci-fi elements, and took on something of an odd relationship of an older scientist and his high school age friend. Fury Road gave us a stylized post-apoc world with 80s cocaine-hollywood levels of weirdness and even subverted the series protagonist from Max to Furyosa. No Country was a modern western, which, when has that happened, before or since? Aliens took star trek like sci-fi, turned the lights down low, and let HR Geiger do whatever he wanted. And The Big Lebowski goes out of it's way to be the structurally weirdest movie ever. Lazy protagonist who gets in an ever escalating problem and it's narrated by a cowboy? Sure! But just because it somehow works.

So, maybe character arcs are less important to you than seeing something of quality that fresh, or even just a unique vision.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't know if I agree those films are without character arcs. They may not have strong arcs but in most of them at least one character has an arc.

In Back to the Future, Marty's dad has a strong arc (though in an untraditional way) and Marty also has a shift in his perspective.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm not a big fan of change, so plot-based suits me just fine. As for writing, I like to take the same characters and put them into different situations to see how they'll react.

It also makes it easier to continue a 10-12 book series five years later.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't know if I agree those films are without character arcs. They may not have strong arcs but in most of them at least one character has an arc.
> 
> In Back to the Future, Marty's dad has a strong arc (though in an untraditional way) and Marty also has a shift in his perspective.


Hmm, yes, I think you're right.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

I'm definitely a more plot-driven kind of person.  I too don't really care much for character arcs, character "growth," etc.

I watch a lot of TV, and I'm definitely in the minority when I comment that I don't like all the "personal stuff," or "relationship stuff" in some shows.  (Especially cop or other action shows.)  My statement usually is:  "It's a show about government agents, so I want to see those agents at work.  I don't care who they're dating or who's in financial trouble.  If I want a soap opera, I'll watch a soap-y show."


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

Not to reinforce stereotypes or anything, but I think it's pretty well understood that women tend to be drawn more to characters/relationships and men are more likely to be drawn to plot/action-heavy stories. In extremely general terms, of course, with plenty of exceptions. But I think this is why a lot of men say they don't read female authors. They claim that women don't write as well or don't write interesting stories, but what they really mean is that they (the readers) find character/relationship stuff boring and they want to read about action.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

I remember reading a book on Facebook ads for authors, and they said it paid to split your target audience into male/female and write different ad copy for each. One ought to concentrate on the characters, the other on the plot.

I guess his point was that even if only 70-80% of each grouping are more inclined towards a certain type of copy, you'll still get a better result than if you write something which tries to appeal to everyone. He backed it up with figures, too.

The downside is that this method ignores people who fit into one category but prefer the other type of blurb, and indeed people who fit neither or both categories.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

ShawnaReads said:


> Not to reinforce stereotypes or anything, but I think it's pretty well understood that women tend to be drawn more to characters/relationships and men are more likely to be drawn to plot/action-heavy stories. In extremely general terms, of course, with plenty of exceptions. But I think this is why a lot of men say they don't read female authors. They claim that women don't write as well or don't write interesting stories, but what they really mean is that they (the readers) find character/relationship stuff boring and they want to read about action.


This might definitely be true, but I'm the exact opposite as a reader. I'm a guy and I 95% of the time prefer character stories. I'd bet that you are right though, and I'm just a little strange maybe


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Corvid said:


> Back to the Future, Mad Max: Fury Road, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Raiders of the Lost Ark, 3:10 to Yuma, Aliens


In BTTF I think Marty comes to realise people truly do have agency over their lives and can change how things go, time travel or not - i.e. if his parents had made different decisions they wouldn't have ended up poor. In the trilogy as a whole he learns not to care about peer pressure etc and be a more responsible adult, i.e. not getting into a drag race because somebody called him chicken.

All the Mad Max films (except the first, which is an odd film, maybe why I love it so much) have a very old, cliched character arc: the lone male reluctant hero who doesn't care about anyone but himself but eventually comes to care about and protect others. See also Han Solo, Kevin Costner in Waterworld, the protagonists of half the Westerns ever made... there's a thousand of them.

No Country For Old Men's main character comes to the realisation that evil and violence will forever be a presence in the world and there's little he can do to combat it or explain it. (From a perspective of literary analysis, the main character is Sheriff Bell, not Moss.)

Aliens begins with Ripley being relatively cold and distant (much as she is in Alien) but revealing a warmer side after finding Newt and also developing a sort of surrogate family unit along with Hicks. She also overcomes her distrust of androids with Bishop.

I haven't seen The Big Lebowski or 3:10 to Yuma but I think you are probably correct about Raiders of the Lost Ark, because Lucas and Spielberg really just based it off old, simplistic 1930s and 1940s matinee adventure serials.

My point is that most stories with any kind of firm characterisation at all have character arcs, even if they're not hugely obvious or important or central. In the stuff you cited (among the ones I disputed) I'd say Max's arc is the most clear and Marty's the least. It's certainly true that plot-driven stories have less character growth and less of an "arc" than character-driven narratives, but I can think of plenty that buck the trend. My favourite example would be Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove series, which has incredibly complex lead characters, namely Gus and Call, who do not change one iota from beginning to end of a 3,000-page series.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

The OP just likes action movies, which are accepting of light internal character arcs, but those arcs are often there. I think Shane mostly nailed it. A few additions...



ShaneCarrow said:


> All the Mad Max films (except the first, which is an odd film, maybe why I love it so much) have a very old, cliched character arc: the lone male reluctant hero who doesn't care about anyone but himself but eventually comes to care about and protect others. See also Han Solo, Kevin Costner in Waterworld, the protagonists of half the Westerns ever made... there's a thousand of them.


Fury Road is actually Furiosa's story. Max is a side character. Furious experiences the change and the struggles with it.



> I haven't seen The Big Lebowski or 3:10 to Yuma but I think you are probably correct about Raiders of the Lost Ark, because Lucas and Spielberg really just based it off old, simplistic 1930s and 1940s matinee adventure serials.


Indy experiences change in each film. In Raiders he overcomes his fear of snakes, rekindles a relationship he'd thought was lost, and overcomes his skepticism of religious belief. In temple, it's craving fortune and glory to prioritizing a local culture over his own reward, and in Crusade he confronts his opinion of his father.

Lebowski is a pretty typical serial detective story where the protagonist effects change upon the outside world that's out of balance in some way--usually justice. This kind of story is a good example where the protagonist rarely undergoes an internal change. Grab any Lee Child book for a contemporary novel example. Reacher is just Reacher, time after time. Bond is mostly like this, but the recent films tried to mix it up a little.


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

NikOK said:


> This might definitely be true, but I'm the exact opposite as a reader. I'm a guy and I 95% of the time prefer character stories. I'd bet that you are right though, and I'm just a little strange maybe


I would imagine only a very small percentage of people actually fit completely into all the gender stereotypes, if any. I fall along the expected female line in this way (although I think that's been getting more true as I get older; when I was a teen, I read mostly plot-based stories; I never read a romance book until my mid-twenties, and only because a male relative recommended one), but I definitely fall into the expected male stereotype in other ways.

This kind of thing is probably why stereotypical characters are so frustrating to read. No one is actually simple enough that they meet all the expected stereotypes or generalities. It's not that hard to write believable characters if you just think of them as people instead of plot devices. (And this may be partly why I prefer character-based stories. I like the characters to decide how the story should go by their natural actions and reactions, not have their actions and reactions ham-fisted in to fit the desired plot line.)


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

​Even Reacher has character arcs if you know where to look.

Same with Mad Max and many others mentioned. It's all about the strength of the arc that differentiates plot driven and character driven.

They might be set in their ways, but they have to face challenges driven by circumstance they would normay avoid.

That in itself is a character arc, however soft with strong characters not open to change.


----------



## Louise Bates (Sep 24, 2020)

I'm pretty much the exact opposite--I will happily read a book with no plot that's just the characters talking and meandering about and living their daily lives (bonus points if those daily lives are in a fantasy world or on a spaceship). I have to fight with my stories to make sure there's enough plot and it's not just endless conversation and introspection! There's definitely room for all sorts of preferences, and it's one of the things I love about indie publishing, that pretty much every reader can find a book for them, whether it fits in the mainstream "this is the way a story must be constructed" or not. All plot and no character arc? You got it! All characters and no plot? There's some of that, too. Books for every type of reader!


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Louise Bates said:


> I'm pretty much the exact opposite--I will happily read a book with no plot that's just the characters talking and meandering about and living their daily lives (bonus points if those daily lives are in a fantasy world or on a spaceship). I have to fight with my stories to make sure there's enough plot and it's not just endless conversation and introspection! There's definitely room for all sorts of preferences, and it's one of the things I love about indie publishing, that pretty much every reader can find a book for them, whether it fits in the mainstream "this is the way a story must be constructed" or not. All plot and no character arc? You got it! All characters and no plot? There's some of that, too. Books for every type of reader!


Ha, nice. This is almost exactly how I pick books too, so I like your style  Someone criticized a book I did once by saying, "It's like the reader is sitting in a dingy bar listening to the characters tell stories" and I was like, hmm, I know you are trying to say that as a bad thing but it's also precisely what I was going for. I took it as a win overall.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

Those 80s shows had a sort of character arc in every episode. They just never stuck to the next episode.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

................................


----------



## alcyone (Aug 11, 2020)

Corvid said:


> To preface: when I refer to character, I'm referring to the protagonist. And, by arc, I'm referring to the character entering the story one way, and leaving the story having fundamentally changed as a person.


To put it in craft terms, you like stories with flat or static character arcs. Basically, the hero starts off as the hero, and they are the same person at the end. Any change or growth that occurs is relatively minimal. You can find those arcs in every genre, but they tend to be most common in action/adventure, the established superhero, and mystery stories.

The "fundamentally changed as a person" arc is the transformational arc, basically The Grinch who's heart literally grows on the screen. In a more subtle form, it's often seen in genres that favor some version of the hero's journey, like fantasy or sci-fi.

In the middle are growth arcs. Basically, the character learns something. They don't change fundamentally as a person, but they are a little wiser for the experience. These are found in all genres.

(I think of arcs as existing on a spectrum. Few arcs are truly perfectly flat, and few arcs involve the true 180-degree change like we see in The Grinch.)


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

If you didn't want to discuss the finer points of character arcs, why did you make a thread about them?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Thinking about a character like Furiosa, I'm starting to wonder if there's always a clear difference between a character arc and a plot arc. I mean, her situation fundamentally changes from beginning to end, and becoming leader must cause/necessitate internal change. But do we really *see *any psychological change on display? I could be forgetting stuff, but I'm thinking not: she's tough as nails at the beginning and also at the end. But maybe character arcs don't have entail _psychological _change; maybe when a character achieves a goal or endures/overcomes adversity, that's a type of character arc?


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Like others have said, all the movies listed have characters arcs. I can't speak to Yuma because I haven't seen its but the rest most certainly do.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Like many things taught in lit classes, character arcs are aimed at high literature. High lit seldom sells. Sure there are exceptions--LOTR comes to mind--but genre fiction is not primarily about character arcs. In fact, arcs can destroy a series if the arc undermines the fundamental "certain something" that made the series great. Like, if sexual tension between two protagonists is a primary part of it, they can't seal the deal by for example getting married--at least until the end of the series--without risking losing that certain something.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy had little or no arc until the movies. They are frozen in time, as are Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes, Beaver Cleaver, Gilligan, the A Team, the Quantum Leap guys.

Not to say genre fiction can't have arcs. B5 comes to mind, and streaming and binge-watching series today, there are many more arcs. But there are still relatively changeless characters even as others have arcs. 

Think of an arc as an ingredient that is sometimes prominent, sometimes absent.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Try writing romance without character arcs. That is pretty much the entire point of the genre. So yes, character arcs are hugely important in that genre, as well as in chick lit and women’s fiction. 

Not that people change in fundamental ways. I would argue that people seldom change. Rather, they grow. 

I agree that action adventure and thrillers may have less of a character arc, though even in the plot-heavy technothrillers of Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan definitely grew and changed. And even Jack Reacher is interesting as a person. One reason Child writes him at younger ages is to show how his character developed. I cannot speak to sci fi or modern fantasy in general as I do not read much of it. 

I guess it depends how much you are interested in people. I do not say that negatively. Just that some people are more interested than others in how people work and why they do the things they do. I like books with well developed characters, personally, and people do change as a result of their experiences. 

Edited for typos caused by working on my phone.


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

David VanDyke said:


> Sure there are exceptions--LOTR comes to mind--but genre fiction is not primarily about character arcs.


What an absolutely ludicrous overstatement.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Try writing romance without character arcs. That is pretty much the entire point of the genre. So yes, character arcs are hugely important in that genre, as well as in chick lit and women's fiction.
> 
> Not that people change in fundamental ways. I would argue that people seldom change. Rather, they grow.


Yeah, I was going to say. Romance is all about the character and relationship arcs.


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

alcyone said:


> To put it in craft terms, you like stories with flat or static character arcs. Basically, the hero starts off as the hero, and they are the same person at the end. Any change or growth that occurs is relatively minimal. You can find those arcs in every genre, but they tend to be most common in action/adventure, the established superhero, and mystery stories.
> 
> The "fundamentally changed as a person" arc is the transformational arc, basically The Grinch who's heart literally grows on the screen. In a more subtle form, it's often seen in genres that favor some version of the hero's journey, like fantasy or sci-fi.


who was that editor who used to scream, "adults don't change!" and then in tiny print there was this scribble added, "or at least not very much"

obvious character arcs feel preachy, & many of us don't like preachy


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Yeah, I was going to say. Romance is all about the character and relationship arcs.


which could be one of the reasons there's such a deep divide between romance & non-romance readers

there's literally every kind of genre in romance, including thrillers & sci-fi, because there is a deep philosophical divide between those who can believe a person will change over the course of a novel & a HEA is always w/in the realm of possibility -- and those who simply can't suspend disbelief that much

thus romance readers need their own thrillers, psychological kidnappings, alien abduction stories, you name it, no matter how non-romancey it sounds on the surface, it can become romance by the addition of the ability to believe the beloved can change, grow, learn to love you

even if he's green


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

Corvid said:


> I would argue we're grafting arcs onto characters as an academic exercise, as writers are wont to do, but I don't think there's any 'there' there. I think we're prone to inventing arcs in our minds when we consume stories - sort of like your brain filling in gaps in your eyesight or hearing, or experiencing the phantom pain from a missing appendage. You could probably do this for the most plot-focused story out there if you wanted to...
> 
> And, so, I think we tend towards mistaking 'external things happening' for character growth/devolution. That's the thing I'm getting at with the above examples; 'doing stuff' is not a character arc. Having stuff or other people fundamentally change around you is not a character arc either.


oh, i understood you to mean this the first time you said it

which i suppose means i already held the same opinion you do

i actually don't object to character arcs, i just don't think they're very likely to happen over the course of one adventure in the life of an adult, & many movies are unwatchable to me because they want to give me a just-so story about a character changing when i'm a grown-up & i know the person doesn't change in that situation


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

You might not change dramatically as an adult (though some people actually do), but if you never learn anything and never grow any way, you're just stagnating. Is that really the kind of life you want to live? Do you really want to be the same at 80 as you were at 20, never having learned or grown in any way?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Thinking about a character like Furiosa, I'm starting to wonder if there's always a clear difference between a character arc and a plot arc. I mean, her situation fundamentally changes from beginning to end, and becoming leader must cause/necessitate internal change. But do we really *see *any psychological change on display? I could be forgetting stuff, but I'm thinking not: she's tough as nails at the beginning and also at the end. But maybe character arcs don't have entail _psychological _change; maybe when a character achieves a goal or endures/overcomes adversity, that's a type of character arc?


I would say that Furiosa had a character arc. It's a bit tougher to see, because in the beginning of the story we know nothing about it, so it's harder to see where she's coming from. But later on when she's talking to Max, she basically says that she wants to get home to the Green Place. She's tried before, but now that she drives the war rig, this is the best chance she'll ever get. So when she leaves she's just trying to get away, but when she comes back she's made the choice to stand up and fight for a better life, and she's become a hero to all those people she helped to liberate.


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

ShawnaReads said:


> You might not change dramatically as an adult (though some people actually do), but if you never learn anything and never grow any way, you're just stagnating. Is that really the kind of life you want to live? Do you really want to be the same at 80 as you were at 20, never having learned or grown in any way?


exactly

when i'm reading fiction, i don't want to be preached at

character arcs PREACH


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

nightwork said:


> which could be one of the reasons there's such a deep divide between romance & non-romance readers
> 
> there's literally every kind of genre in romance, including thrillers & sci-fi, because there is a deep philosophical divide between those who can believe a person will change over the course of a novel & a HEA is always w/in the realm of possibility -- and those who simply can't suspend disbelief that much
> 
> ...


What deep divide between romance and non romance readers? Seriously, is there evidence of this? I have never heard this. I write romance and have always read many things. Most of my readers read many things also, I believe. Personally, I mostly read nonfiction and thrillers.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Honestly, I don't really get genre romance. I know I'm a six figure romance author, but I don't get what 90% of readers want. I don't think it's a character arc vs not character arc thing. I think there's a whole lot of other stuff going on in genre romance.


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

Usedtoposthere said:


> What deep divide between romance and non romance readers? Seriously, is there evidence of this? I have never heard this. I write romance and have always read many things. Most of my readers read many things also, I believe. Personally, I mostly read nonfiction and thrillers.


you're not everybody, you're one body

what you do is cool, & i have all the respect but my readers aren't like that

i'll freely admit even tho most of my income is romance, i didn't read romance for many a year if it wasn't a fanfic & i actually can't read romance unless it's w/in a very tiny specific niche

my personal experience is that a lot of people either read romance or read not-romance, not both

if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, but honestly? for most of my readers, i'm not wrong

i'll say this--

my thriller/suspense readers are like you & are much more open but my cupcake readers (AKA nothing fucking happens) readers are still my bread & butter

my experience is "character arc" is lazy writing

but my experience isn't all experience

there are literally millions of readers


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Honestly, I don't really get genre romance. I know I'm a six figure romance author, but I don't get what 90% of readers want. I don't think it's a character arc vs not character arc thing. I think there's a whole lot of other stuff going on in genre romance.


this


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

nightwork said:


> my experience is "character arc" is lazy writing


How do you mean?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Ah. I thought perhaps there was research that somehow romance readers read only romance and was curious. Sounds like that is not the case but rather this is just a prejudice or perception. 

Also, what is “genre romance” vs ... some other kind of romance? Seriously confused by all this. 

I guess everybody can write, read, and enjoy what they please. But why the heck do so many craft discussions end up with people dissing romance? Including people who write it? I think I will start a conversation about how terrible sci fi is sometime. It would be a change, at least!


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I would say that Furiosa had a character arc. It's a bit tougher to see, because in the beginning of the story we know nothing about it, so it's harder to see where she's coming from. But later on when she's talking to Max, she basically says that she wants to get home to the Green Place. She's tried before, but now that she drives the war rig, this is the best chance she'll ever get. So when she leaves she's just trying to get away, but when she comes back she's made the choice to stand up and fight for a better life, and she's become a hero to all those people she helped to liberate.


Yup. At the start she's working for The Man. Then she just wants to run from The Man. By the climax she's determined to fight The Man. And at the end, she's decided to free/lead/help the people she had no problem leaving behind in slavery at the start. While still being a badass from start to finish, she's changed.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Furiosa, like Max, also learns to trust people. Obviously she trusts people who are already in her in-group, but she learns to trust others like Max and Nux.

Also it's very popular to say that Fury Road is "really" Furiosa's story (I think this is because there's a burning desire for female protagonists) but I think that's true of all the films after the first one.* Max is really a frame story, an Eastwood-esque Man With No Name who shows up out of the desert, helps people solve their problems, and vanishes again. There's a fan theory that he's an idea or a legend rather than the same character in each film, which explains why the V8 Interceptor is destroyed in Road Warrior, exists in Fury Road again, then gets destroyed again. And also why he's portrayed by a different actor; similar to the theory that James Bond is a code name and the different actors are genuinely different men.

*The first movie is a really odd duck in a lot of ways, shot on a shoestring budget by indie directors on the outskirts of Melbourne - it's so different from the others but still really fun and great and I really recommend it if you've never seen it.


----------



## Brian D. Anderson (Nov 4, 2019)

Character development is a difficult yet important skill to master. Even with plot driven stories. If you don't want to be pilloried with reviews complaining about shallow characters I suggest you make an effort to overcome your aversion to it. Most of what you cited were movies. Creating fully realized characters within a two hour movie is a tall order. By necessity they're plot driven. Particularly in modern films where special effects and CGI are heavily implemented. I would also point out that Indiana Jones is a character we know quite well. We know his background, his fears, his passions, etc. It took several films to get there, naturally. But it's a character we understand and love. It's why Indiana Jones is a cultural icon and the rest you named are just fun movies. 
You don't have to sacrifice plot in favor of character development. You just have to learn how to build your characters in ways that enhance the story.


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

nightwork said:


> character arcs PREACH


They really don't, though. Preachy books can be preachy in many ways, and yes, using character arcs can be one of them. But that's a totally separate issue. I don't think you actually understand what character arcs are.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> And even Jack Reacher is interesting as a person. One reason Child writes him at younger ages is to show how his character developed.


I recently read No Middle Name, and he seems completely the same as a teenager as he does at 50. Bizarrely so. Like, even his parents call him "Reacher". 

I've only noticed two changes in Reacher and neither is internal. First, he was the guy who never got his nose broken in a fight for a lot of books, then he got his nose broken and after that he's the guy with the broken nose. The second thing is he wore a watch for a number of books but that was too much luggage for Reacher, so he just keeps perfect time in his head later in the series.

I think it would be impossible to put most of the Reacher books in order just by reading them outside of the flashback books that take place before Killing Floor. Even those would just be by occupation, not by anything different in Reacher's behavior.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

One of the greatest TV series of all time, Breaking Bad, was all about a slow series of contradictory character arcs. Jesse gets redemption while Walter slides slowly into amorality. The son becomes more and more disillusioned. The wife becomes more and more corrupted as she is both selfless and selfish in different measure. You could watch it like a guy and not care about the arcs because the other aspects of the story were so good, but it's those arcs that made it.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

This is an interesting thread. The replies are all over the place.

Character arcs are always there in some form or another. Although our personalities and hard-to-break habits remain, we are always learning about ourselves, others, and the world around us, even if it's just as subtle as momentary questioning. What "development" people notice is connected to what resonates with them. There's a lot I've come across, movies, tv, books... I don't get it, but it resonates with others, it connects to their thoughts and experiences.

What I don't prefer is contrivances. If the characters are changing just to manufacture drama and there's no consistency or sense to their behavior, that's what I would call a bad arc, or better yet, it's just not for me.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> This is an interesting thread. The replies are all over the place.
> 
> Character arcs are always there in some form or another. Although our personalities and hard-to-break habits remain, we are always learning about ourselves, others, and the world around us, even if it's just as subtle as momentary questioning. What "development" people notice is connected to what resonates for them. There's a lot I've come across, movies, tv, books... I don't get it, but it resonates with others, it connects to their thoughts and experiences.
> 
> What I don't prefer is contrivances. If the characters are changing just to manufacture drama and there's no consistency or sense to their behavior, that's what I would call a bad arc, or better yet, it's just not for me.


Well stated. Writing realistically developing characters (as a result of changes in their lives acting upon the people they already were) is, well, ... an art.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Whatever genre you write, you (probably unconsciously) write people at inflection points in their lives. It would be pretty dull, after all, to write about people living their everyday life, and then ... The End. (I have read one book a bit like this, the first in a very popular sort of "cozy women's fiction" series, that to me was like watching paint dry but clearly wasn't for others, so I guess there's an audience for well-written books of every stamp!) Inflection points do tend to make an impact on us. I could tell you with some certainty how I was changed by four or five very traumatic episodes in my life, things that sometimes took mere seconds to occur. And how I was changed in a much more positive way by some relationships, romantic or otherwise. 

Those are the kinds of changes I write in romance. Not huge things where somebody is a different person. Ways in which, often over the course of months, your relationships, romantic and otherwise, open you up to a fuller expression of yourself. A better version of the "you" you always had the potential to be. It isn't that the other person changed you. It is that your experiences changed you, including the traumatic ones. Perhaps losing somebody you loved made you more aware of how precious life is. Perhaps taking responsibility for a child made you realize your capacity for love. Perhaps moving to a new country with a different outlook on life shifted your outlook as well. 

Lots of things happen in our lives. Writing the more hopeful outcomes of those inflection points is one of the joys of mine. But to do that, you have to know your characters, and as Bite The Dusty says above, the changes have to act on them in an organic way. 

The same thing is true in thrillers, Westerns, fantasy, mystery ... many genres. You're hopefully always writing those inflection points, and the characters are reacting to them in realistic ways, and hence sucking the reader in. I just finished a technothriller by an extremely popular author, the first I'd read. Although that is one of my favorite genres, the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts. The plot was interesting, but being unable to care about the characters made the book less engaging for me. I suspect the author's characterizations got better over time, or he wouldn't be so popular. I may give it another try. We'll see.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I would say that Furiosa had a character arc. It's a bit tougher to see, because in the beginning of the story we know nothing about it, so it's harder to see where she's coming from. But later on when she's talking to Max, she basically says that she wants to get home to the Green Place. She's tried before, but now that she drives the war rig, this is the best chance she'll ever get. So when she leaves she's just trying to get away, but when she comes back she's made the choice to stand up and fight for a better life, and she's become a hero to all those people she helped to liberate.





J. Tanner said:


> Yup. At the start she's working for The Man. Then she just wants to run from The Man. By the climax she's determined to fight The Man. And at the end, she's decided to free/lead/help the people she had no problem leaving behind in slavery at the start. While still being a bad*ss from start to finish, she's changed.


Ah, great points. I'd forgotten this aspect of the story. So it's actually a fairly typical post-apocalyptic character arc from loan-wolfism toward community protector. Though she's already rescuing the "wives" at the beginning, which tempers the initial loan-wolfism. That's good -- makes her not just a type.



Usedtoposthere said:


> Whatever genre you write, you (probably unconsciously) write people at inflection points in their lives.


This is a great way to think about it, IMO.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

jdcore said:


> One of the greatest TV series of all time, Breaking Bad, was all about a slow series of contradictory character arcs. Jesse gets redemption while Walter slides slowly into amorality. The son becomes more and more disillusioned. The wife becomes more and more corrupted as she is both selfless and selfish in different measure. You could watch it like a guy and not care about the arcs because the other aspects of the story were so good, but it's those arcs that made it.


There is an argument, though, that nothing in Walt's character has fundamentally changed from how he was his whole life; we get indications that's he's always been a proud, arrogant, jealous and bitter man, but what changes is that he begins to act on those feelings.

There's a really, really good essay by Chuck Klosterman arguing that Breaking Bad is the best of the Big Four shows of its day because - unlike Mad Men, The Wire and The Sopranos - it's the only one in which the characters make choices entirely from their uninfluenced free will, rather than being products of their environment.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> There is an argument, though, that nothing in Walt's character has fundamentally changed from how he was his whole life; we get indications that's he's always been a proud, arrogant, jealous and bitter man, but what changes is that he begins to act on those feelings.
> 
> There's a really, really good essay by Chuck Klosterman arguing that Breaking Bad is the best of the Big Four shows of its day because - unlike Mad Men, The Wire and The Sopranos - it's the only one in which the characters make choices entirely from their uninfluenced free will, rather than being products of their environment.


That's a pretty dumb argument for a show being good. It's a weird worldview too. How can anyone be uninfluenced by their environment? That's a fundamental misreading of the human experience. Also really a weird point to make listing The Wire as a comparison, because The Wire is a show about institutions and how they don't change. It has characters, and some of them develop, but that's not really the point.

In any case, enough already with TV shows about bad guys doing bad things (esp if they say they're doing it for their family). And enough with mentioning those four shows in particular. They're well done, but nothing could live up to the hype Breaking Bad and The Wire have & I'd disqualify both of them from any great TV shows list for the lack of female characters. For some reason those four shows are always the top four. And there isn't a show with a female lead until the teens or twenties. Sigh...

(Omar is pretty great tho')


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

To the OP, I'm curious what you think about Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  I feel like it's the closest in tone to the first movie, but has a major character arc for Indy.  He has to take on his father's obsession that he always resented, then he starts to understand it, and in the end they both have to let it go.  It's kind of a, you can't escape your parent's lives story but also a, never too late to change, story.  I guess I'm just curious if the focus on characters and relationships make it a worse view for you?  I love that one, personally.  But I also like Temple of Doom too...so...maybe not the best judge


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

ShayneRutherford said:


> How do you mean?


as a reader & viewer i find it very formulaic & predictable when writers rely on character arcs instead of organic changes in behavior (which aren't arc-y at all if you've ever met actual humans)

the creator is just going thru the same tired motions of "change" we've seen a million times already


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Whatever genre you write, you (probably unconsciously) write people at inflection points in their lives.


Exactly. What is a story without challenges and choices? And how would characters face challenges and make choices without development?

And the development doesn't have to hit you over the head. It can be as subtle as the contrast between what the character says, believes, and does. It all comes down to the reader in the end, and what they see in it. I think the reason why arcs that end with a marked change are what people think of when they think of arcs is because they're more compelling for creating the illusion of internal progress. And you don't have to be preachy to create the illusion of internal progress in a story.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

nightwork said:


> as a reader & viewer i find it very formulaic & predictable when writers rely on character arcs instead of organic changes in behavior (which aren't arc-y at all if you've ever met actual humans)
> 
> the creator is just going thru the same tired motions of "change" we've seen a million times already


I've met actual humans, and none of them were the same when I met them as the day they were born. Most of them were affected by pivotal moments in their lives. Change and growth might be formulaic and predictable, but it's not unrealistic. It sounds to me like your problem is in the presentation, not the arc itself. Presentation varies as widely as anything else.


----------



## Clay (Apr 17, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> And enough with mentioning those four shows in particular. They're well done, but nothing could live up to the hype Breaking Bad and The Wire have & I'd disqualify both of them from any great TV shows list for the lack of female characters. For some reason those four shows are always the top four. And there isn't a show with a female lead until the teens or twenties. Sigh...


Should we be "woke" and pretend inferior shows are better just because they have more female leads? Maybe those four shows don't fit your taste but I can't think of too many shows that are better then the four listed.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I think the reason why arcs that end with a marked change are what people think of when they think of arcs is because they're more compelling for creating the illusion of internal progress. And you don't have to be preachy to create the illusion of internal progress in a story.


This is a really awesome description of a thing!



Clay said:


> Should we be "woke" and pretend inferior shows are better just because they have more female leads? Maybe those four shows don't fit your taste but I can't think of too many shows that are better then the four listed.


I don't think that being woke has anything to do with it. There is the matter of taste (for me I don't like any of those four shows, at all) and the matter of perspective. Is it really a big stretch for someone to want to see someone like them as the lead? Why is a woman wanting to see women in fiction offensive? Plus, "Inferior shows" is kinda a myth. Talk to ten random people and you will get ten different best shows ever. I like say, the show Leverage better than any of those four and if you asked me, I'd say that they were the inferior shows, and Leverage has two female main characters. Wokeness and inferiority are dismissive and just plain untrue to the world beyond your favorite shows.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Clay said:


> Should we be "woke" and pretend inferior shows are better just because they have more female leads? Maybe those four shows don't fit your taste but I can't think of too many shows that are better then the four listed.


Wow.
If we're going to be jerks just to be jerks, it's "than"


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)




----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> I don't think that being woke has anything to do with it. There is the matter of taste (for me I don't like any of those four shows, at all) and the matter of perspective. Is it really a big stretch for someone to want to see someone like them as the lead? Why is a woman wanting to see women in fiction offensive? Plus, "Inferior shows" is kinda a myth. Talk to ten random people and you will get ten different best shows ever. I like say, the show Leverage better than any of those four and if you asked me, I'd say that they were the inferior shows, and Leverage has two female main characters. Wokeness and inferiority are dismissive and just plain untrue to the world beyond your favorite shows.


Couldn't have put it any better.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Wow.
> If we're going to be jerks just to be jerks, it's "than"


Hahahaha!


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> That's a pretty dumb argument for a show being good. It's a weird worldview too. How can anyone be uninfluenced by their environment? That's a fundamental misreading of the human experience. Also really a weird point to make listing The Wire as a comparison, because The Wire is a show about institutions and how they don't change. It has characters, and some of them develop, but that's not really the point.


Oh, I don't actually agree that it's a good metric for why a show is good - I just thought it was an interesting angle. Breaking Bad is not a very realistic show in the way it presents its characters' fates as being merely a matter of choice, but it does make it an interesting character piece.



> In any case, enough already with TV shows about bad guys doing bad things (esp if they say they're doing it for their family).


...You did watch to the end right?


----------



## Clay (Apr 17, 2020)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Wow.
> If we're going to be jerks just to be jerks, it's "than"


If you're going to be a grammar Nazi at least end your sentence with the correct punctuation.



NikOK said:


> Why is a woman wanting to see women in fiction offensive?


Who said that? Nobody. Who implied that? Nobody.

All of those shows have female characters in lead roles, by the way.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

NikOK said:


> This is a really awesome description of a thing!
> 
> I don't think that being woke has anything to do with it. There is the matter of taste (for me I don't like any of those four shows, at all) and the matter of perspective. Is it really a big stretch for someone to want to see someone like them as the lead? Why is a woman wanting to see women in fiction offensive? Plus, "Inferior shows" is kinda a myth. Talk to ten random people and you will get ten different best shows ever. *I like say, the show Leverage better than any of those four* and if you asked me, I'd say that they were the inferior shows, and Leverage has two female main characters. Wokeness and inferiority are dismissive and just plain untrue to the world beyond your favorite shows.


Yay for the Leverage shout-out!!!  That show inspired one of my series.


----------



## Brian D. Anderson (Nov 4, 2019)

You like what you like. Ex: The new Ghostbusters sucked not because of an all female cast. It was just a terrible movie. But say that to some people and you're a misogynist. I can't stand the new Doctor. Couldn't give a tinker's d&%m that she's female. I was actually sort of excited about it initially. I imagined how cool the episodes would be as the Doctor explored being female for the first time in over 2000 years. None of that. Nope. And what we did get was terrible. Just terrible. The most ham fisted, on the nose, politically charged, poorly crafted, garbage I've ever had the displeasure to witness. I remember being disappointed Olivia Colman wasn't chosen. Now I'm glad. It would have been a stain on her career.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Jena H said:


> Yay for the Leverage shout-out!!!  That show inspired one of my series.


It's really good  My gf was watching it and I was like, wait, wait wait, I have to watch them all now. So, I'm catching up, but so far it is pretty amazing.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> ...You did watch to the end right?


I haven't met anyone else who feels this way, but the end of Breaking Bad 100% ruins the show for me. SPOILERS, obviously.

Walt gets everything he wants! He goes out in a blaze of glory killing nazis and his family gets more money than they'll ever need. The only conclusion I can take from the show is making drugs gets you everything you want.

Yeah, he dies, but he was always going to die. He had terminal cancer.

Okay, I did start. But I'm going to stop here, cause if I REALLY start I'll go for twenty minutes.



Clay said:


> Should we be "woke" and pretend inferior shows are better just because they have more female leads? Maybe those four shows don't fit your taste but I can't think of too many shows that are better then the four listed.


Yes, of course, my tiny female brain has inferrior taste to your superior male brain.

You got me.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Bite the Dusty said:


> This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.


I think I'll offer Dickens as my gift to this thread and Ebenezer Scrooge as an example of the ultimate character arc, because . . . well, Dickens. (And the season of bells, cedar boughs, and twinkling lights many of us will soon be caught up in.)

He began with Ebenezer here:

_"Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn't thaw it one degree at Christmas."
_

And he ended him here:

_"He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them: for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him."
_[/i]
Have a Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## Louise Bates (Sep 24, 2020)

EC Sheedy said:


> _"Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! _


Ha, now I'm wondering just how many of us heard Gonzo's voice narrating that line in our heads as we read it. Almost time for my annual rewatch of Muppet Christmas Carol!


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Like, if sexual tension between two protagonists is a primary part of it, they can't seal the deal by for example getting married--at least until the end of the series--without risking losing that certain something.


A prime example of this is the TV Moonlighting. First year or two, much sexual tension. Then they got together, and it wasn't so interesting. Remington Steele was much the same. Two main characters begin to have feelings, once they seem to act on them, downhill. Star Gate: SG1 had what the fans interpreted at least as an attraction between Sam and O'Neill, which wasn't openly resolved. There were hints, which some people say is just someone's imagination (must have been too subtle).

Anyway, I like character and plot. If there's no growth in a character over the course of the story, I feel disappointed. Things change people. This could be why I dislike many book series, it's just the same, flat character having stuff thrown at him, book after book after book. Yawn.

I just finished Thomas Perry's Jane Whitefield series, and the only reason I kept going was that Jane did change, at least in some ways. I didn't feel it was a huge thing, but it was there. It impacted her through the plots.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

unkownwriter said:


> A prime example of this is the TV Moonlighting. First year or two, much sexual tension. Then they got together, and it wasn't so interesting. Remington Steele was much the same. Two main characters begin to have feelings, once they seem to act on them, downhill.


That's because those shows had no other story questions to keep people interested from week to week. Instead of introducing other story questions that could run over the length of the season and/or series, they hung everything on 'will they, won't they?' and then paid the price for it when they answered that question too soon.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

unkownwriter said:


> Star Gate: SG1 had what the fans interpreted at least as an attraction between Sam and O'Neill, which wasn't openly resolved. There were hints, which some people say is just someone's imagination (must have been too subtle).


I'm shocked at that, because it was made crystal clear how things ended up. No spoilers from me, but I'm genuinely surprised.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

EC Sheedy said:


> I think I'll offer Dickens as my gift to this thread and Ebenezer Scrooge as an example of the ultimate character arc, because . . . well, Dickens.


Scrooge is an excellent example of didactic done right!


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I haven't met anyone else who feels this way, but the end of Breaking Bad 100% ruins the show for me. SPOILERS, obviously.
> 
> Walt gets everything he wants! He goes out in a blaze of glory killing nazis and his family gets more money than they'll ever need. The only conclusion I can take from the show is making drugs gets you everything you want.
> 
> ...


Hey, we're posting on an internet forum, we can go on as long as we want. 

I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of the ending, though I do think they stuck the landing better than most other long-running shows.

I strongly disagree that Walt gets what he wants. His wife and son now despise him, and while they supposedly have access to some of his millions via his old bosses, we know that they're under the eye of the feds and I don't think much of that will ever trickle through to them. I think the prior episodes are the real culmination of his drug profit journey: his brother-in-law gets murdered in the desert and he goes into a horribly lonely exile. It's hell. (There's a fan theory that he actually dies in the car he steals in New Hampshire, and everything after that is an afterlife fantasy. I think that's basically ripped off the more plausible Minority Report fantasy.)

I guess my point was that in the final episode he admits he was actually doing it for himself because it made him feel good, and you can bring that back around to the point of the thread by arguing that's his arc: he starts out definitely just trying to provide for his family, but quickly realises he enjoys the thrill of power and by the end of the series that's the only reason he was still doing it.

I also think there's something familiar there for all of us as writers: looking at Breaking Bad now it very much feels like a series that's about turning a sympathetic hero into a hated villain, but I genuinely don't think that's what the writers had in mind in season 1. It was a story that grew in the telling.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

unkownwriter said:


> Star Gate: SG1 had what the fans interpreted at least as an attraction between Sam and O'Neill, which wasn't openly resolved. There were hints, which some people say is just someone's imagination (must have been too subtle).


I'm actually watching this right now. Funny that it came up, but it's a really fun show. I think it helps that they're both characters who don't give their personal lives much attention. So, if they are shy about it even after they can date, it kind of fits. But in my head fiction they are totally together. And, if anyone gets a chance, there is a very good time loop/grounhogs day episode. It's well worth finding in the series.


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

Louise Bates said:


> I'm pretty much the exact opposite--I will happily read a book with no plot that's just the characters talking and meandering about and living their daily lives (bonus points if those daily lives are in a fantasy world or on a spaceship). I have to fight with my stories to make sure there's enough plot and it's not just endless conversation and introspection! There's definitely room for all sorts of preferences, and it's one of the things I love about indie publishing, that pretty much every reader can find a book for them, whether it fits in the mainstream "this is the way a story must be constructed" or not. All plot and no character arc? You got it! All characters and no plot? There's some of that, too. Books for every type of reader!


You must be a fan of Becky Chambers. I had to try reading Record of a Spaceborn Few and it was exactly what you like. The world building is awesome, but nothing extraordinary happens. It was like reading about average people solving average problems - no heroes, no villains, no disasters. I could appreciate the approach but I found it super boring.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

Louise Bates said:


> I'm pretty much the exact opposite--I will happily read a book with no plot that's just the characters talking and meandering about and living their daily lives (bonus points if those daily lives are in a fantasy world or on a spaceship).


A story without a plot is like a song without a melody.

Also a story without a plot is like my ex-wife telling you about her day.


----------



## Louise Bates (Sep 24, 2020)

C. Gold said:


> You must be a fan of Becky Chambers. I had to try reading Record of a Spaceborn Few and it was exactly what you like. The world building is awesome, but nothing extraordinary happens. It was like reading about average people solving average problems - no heroes, no villains, no disasters. I could appreciate the approach but I found it super boring.


I did enjoy that book, and its sequel! Although the third one dragged too much even for me, lol.



jdcore said:


> A story without a plot is like a song without a melody.
> 
> Also a story without a plot is like my ex-wife telling you about her day.


Ha! I do like some plot, but I guess, to be more specific than I was initially, my preference is when the characters drive the story, rather than the plot dictating how things go. Like Katherine Addison's The Goblin Emperor--there's definitely a plot there, but the heart of the story is Maia and how he responds to sudden power. Or--to take an old-fashioned example--Anne of Green Gables, where the story _is_ Anne's growth, how she is shaped by coming to Green Gables, and how she in turn shapes the lives of those around her.

Like I said before, that's the beauty of indie publishing, we all get to write and therefore read the stories we prefer, and we aren't forced into the box of what traditional publishers think will sell!


----------



## ShawnaReads (May 9, 2019)

Simon Haynes said:


> I'm shocked at that, because it was made crystal clear how things ended up. No spoilers from me, but I'm genuinely surprised.


Yeah, Sam/O'Neill was definitely not subtle or a matter of opinion. It was absolutely there, though the writers seemed to mostly forget about it for a long stretch of the show. (I think anyone who claims it wasn't a canon ship are probably people who favor an opposing ship, like Jack/Daniel.) Shipping wars can involve a whole lot of willful blindness on the part of the losing side(s).

I'm a big fan of the slice of life genre of anime/manga, though there are a few of those that are too boring for me. Usually, the ones I like blend in a good amount of comedy and/or romance, and they have interesting characters. I'm actually pretty disappointed that slice of life isn't bigger in the West, but I think that has to do with Western storytelling 'rules' being so heavily about plot, action, and forward momentum ('kill your darlings' and all). The Japanese have figured out how to tell compelling stories without those things, or with variations on them which don't conform to our strict Western definitions of them (which I say without any intended implication that _all _Japanese stories fit into that category, of course).


----------



## Lorri Moulton [Lavender Lass Books] (Jun 15, 2019)

Didn't Jack and Sam end up together in the episode that closed with fish in his pond


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Hey, we're posting on an internet forum, we can go on as long as we want.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of the ending, though I do think they stuck the landing better than most other long-running shows.
> 
> ...


I do like the fan theory. It's the only way I can appreciate the show. I think the show ruined itself for me, because the penultimate episode is the perfect ending. The man dies alone in a cabin in the woods, miserable and isolated, surrounded by money that's now useless to him. So really anything better than that would have been a disappointment to me. But even with all the caveats above he wins too much. And the whole going out in a blaze of glory killing nazis thing... it's way too heroic of an ending for him.

And I think it being a TV show and not a book makes a difference here. It's like the old chestnut about war movies: you can't make an anti-war film because war looks good on screen. You can't make an anti-drug empire season about killing nazis, because it just looks good on film. (I don't know that you could do it in a book. I haven't seen it attempted).

I never really thought Walt was doing it for his family. I think it was always pride, but he certainly became more selfish as time went on. I have a real I CAN'T with people who won't admit they're scumbags or who are dishonest about their intentions. So I always hated Walt (and I hate condescension so I always hated Mike as well).

I'm not really a fan of shows where there's no one I root for and/or enjoy seeing onscreen. I don't necessarily have a consistent moral framework in who I'll root for, but, hey, I'm just watching TV for my own enjoyment. I don't have to justify it. I always loved when Saul showed up even though he was a scumbag. He knew he was a scumbag and he didn't pretend otherwise. And Bob Odenkirk is just super watchable. Watching Better Caul Saul has turned me more and more against Breaking Bad bc I love the Saul/Jimmy parts and don't like the Breaking Bad lesser villains prequel parts. And ofc I hate Mike, but he's also just not an interesting character with room for development. He's good as the straight man playing against Saul, but on his own snoozeville. (I did finally actually enjoy the BB prequel part the latest season, I think bc they brought in new characters, who had room to grow and change and mess things up. I already got the point of Mike and Gus in BB).

BB lost me the season Jesse spent moping. I get it. He was traumatized. But moping is just not entertaining television. I was watching for him (and Saul, but obviously Saul is a more minor character) so once that happened, I just kind of lost interest.

I can appreciate a show where I don't want anyone to win, but I'll never really love it. I appreciate The Wire (and I'll even give it a pass on being all dudes since it's about a segment of society often ignored in TV), but man is there no one to root for. Even the most good & honest cop is cheating on her spouse (GF?) and abandoning her kid! Well, there is Omar. Never forget Omar.

In no way is Ozark a better show than Breaking Bad, but I prefer it bc I get to see women taking back their power. Plus, you can watch the show via the lens of the perils of working with your spouse and wooh, that's so true. (Also it's 2020. My standards are lower this year). I think it was the same problem as BB though, where the show thinks the male lead is sympathetic, and he's not. He's even played by Jason Bateman! Who always plays characters who think they're good guys who are better/smarter than everyone else but are really just as bad.


----------



## Diamond Eyes (Feb 11, 2017)

ShawnaReads said:


> I'm a big fan of the slice of life genre of anime/manga ... I'm actually pretty disappointed that slice of life isn't bigger in the West, but I think that has to do with Western storytelling 'rules' being so heavily about plot, action, and forward momentum ('kill your darlings' and all).


Yeah, same. I do like heavy plot action stuff too. But I'd like to find some books that are like sci-fi or fantasy slice-of-life. Just hanging out with some characters on a space station or maybe some farmer in a fantasy world that happens to be filled with dragons and other magical elements. And the farmer isn't going to eventually be slaying dragons. No it's just a farmer or whoever doing their thing in this strange setting. It's more about their day to day life in this interesting world and what it's like to simply live in a place where that genre stuff is a reality.

Plot driven books are fun, but those sometimes can feel really forced. I think it's from all the writing advice that tells everyone that every scene, every sentence, every word, every syllable must be pushing the plot forward or developing character or it needs to be cut out as filler. But sometimes I just like to watch or read characters just hanging out doing whatever like some fly on the wall watching them go about their strange little fictional lives.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I can appreciate a show where I don't want anyone to win, but I'll never really love it. I appreciate The Wire (and I'll even give it a pass on being all dudes since it's about a segment of society often ignored in TV), but man is there no one to root for. Even the most good & honest cop is cheating on her spouse (GF?) and abandoning her kid! Well, there is Omar. Never forget Omar.


I think it was David Mitchell (though I can't find the interview now) who had this theory that someone's favourite character in The Wire says something about their personality... though I'm not sure what, exactly, for each character! His was Freamon, whereas mine is Colvin: the one genuinely good cop in the series who never does anything bad in his personal life, and in his professional life very seriously breaks the law (by unilaterally de facto legalising drugs in his precinct) but only for the good of his community, because the law in question is the greater evil.

But I think I have a lot of tolerance for flawed characters who do bad things because, you know, I'm no saint myself. We're drifting away from the "story arc" idea now, but the insistence a lot of people have on "likeable" characters (and I know that's not what you're saying here) is something that I've really never understood. I need them to be sympathetic to some degree, yes, but I don't need my characters to be heroes.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Lorri Moulton [Lavender Lass Books] said:


> Didn't Jack and Sam end up together in the episode that closed with fish in his pond


Yep, and I think in an episode after that Carter is talking to someone and mentions that she's in a relationship. It probably had to do with Richard Dean Anderson not really being in the show after a while. I just saw the one where they did invisible O'neal as a joke about him being in the show but not in the show. It's confusing to explain, but it's a pretty good episode.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

ShawnaReads said:


> Yeah, Sam/O'Neill was definitely not subtle or a matter of opinion. It was absolutely there, though the writers seemed to mostly forget about it for a long stretch of the show. (I think anyone who claims it wasn't a canon ship are probably people who favor an opposing ship, like Jack/Daniel.) Shipping wars can involve a whole lot of willful blindness on the part of the losing side(s).


So true. I liked the idea, but the Johnlock shippers ruined Sherlock long before Moffat and Gatiss did. That was toxic and a half.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Lorri Moulton [Lavender Lass Books] said:


> Didn't Jack and Sam end up together in the episode that closed with fish in his pond


But wasn't that alt-Sam and alt-Jack??

As for the shipping, I'm one of those who are very glad that the writers didn't hit us over the head with any sort of attraction. Both parties admitted their feelings, but they more or less agreed to ignore and carry on. And I'm glad. I hate the whole " 'shipping" phenomenon.

And yes, the Groundhog Day episode is a hoot and a half. It's just a good show, in many ways. (Although I do have quibbles about later seasons.) Also, I think Stargate: Atlantis is just as good as (and in some ways better than) SG-1. There's actually some character development on that one. Plus, Jason Momoa. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

I remember binge watching the X-Files, hitting one ep where it suddenly became obvious Mulder and Scully had feelings for each other, and then wondering how I'd missed the pretty obvious signs leading up to that point. It was great how they just kept that going season after season.

The worst plot decision ever, for any series, is to end the tension and allow the characters to hook up.

The Stargate series are all-time faves of mine, except Universe where all the characters were unpleasant, back-stabbing #$%^#$ most of the time. I don't mind drama, but constant infighting and bickering is ugh.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Simon Haynes said:


> I remember binge watching the X-Files, hitting one ep where it suddenly became obvious Mulder and Scully had feelings for each other, and then wondering how I'd missed the pretty obvious signs leading up to that point. It was great how they just kept that going season after season.
> 
> The worst plot decision ever, for any series, is to end the tension and allow the characters to hook up.
> 
> The Stargate series are all-time faves of mine, except Universe where all the characters were unpleasant, back-stabbing #$%^#$ most of the time. I don't mind drama, but constant infighting and bickering is ugh.


I remember the first time I ever heard (read) that people shipped the "obvious" relationship of Xena and Gabrielle. Had I been naive? I usually watch shows pretty closely, how had I missed anything? Eventually I just decided that some people see what they want to see, which (IMO) is what that was.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Jena H said:


> I remember the first time I ever heard (read) that people shipped the "obvious" relationship of Xena and Gabrielle. Had I been naive? I usually watch shows pretty closely, how had I missed anything? Eventually I just decided that some people see what they want to see, which (IMO) is what that was.


There's seeing what you want to see and then there's queer-baiting.

Xena, for instance, queer-coded because of homophobia and the related creative constraints. On top of that, people connected to the show confirmed it:










Johnlock, the ship I mentioned earlier, was a different situation. There was clear queer-coding, there's video compilations that would make it hard to doubt it was intended as canon when viewed out of context, but as someone watching the show, I could tell it was queer-baiting.

They baited the audience with stuff the hetero audience wouldn't notice or would brush off, knowing full well they never intended to deliver what they were advertising to those they baited. Then they turned around and mocked and gas-lit the audience that saw what they were putting down, insisting they were _ just seeing what they wanted to see_. And that's fucked up.

Yes, sometimes people just see what they want to see. Now, I think showrunners with more creative control even cave to fandom ships, gay or straight, but there's a long history of queer-baiting in media and then turning around and acting like their queer audience is crazy.

Putting that aside, the fun of the Sherlock fandom for me was the interaction, discussing the mysteries and possibilities on Tumblr. I was bummed when everything and everyone that didn't wholeheartedly believe Johnlock was canon or "endgame" was shunned. For fandoms and ships to be fun, open minds are necessary. I loved the idea, and I saw the hints, but I knew better and wanted to focus on the mysteries... what a waste that turned out to be. Plus the misogynistic treatment of any female love interest on the show by the Johnlock crowd was gross to say the least.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Sorry, but I can think of nothing worse than a plot driven story with no character arc whatsover, least of all to try and write one. If nothing else, for a plot to be carried, it has to have a character interesting enough who would carry the plot. For them to be interesting, we need to know what makes them tick that we can identify with to want to follow them.

When we talk about a character arc, what we are really talking about is inner conflict. This is what creates the hook. Inner conflict is desire v fear. Character is internal and plot is external to the character that intensifies the inner conflict.

The hook we all strive for isn't some action that gets the plot moving forward, it's just a component part of the hook. There has to be a balance between what many call character driven and plot driven to write a satisying and unputdownable story.

Without internal character conflict, we might as well throw away the tried and tested mid-point of a story.

* A plot only story might just as well be text book fake news report on the lines of a conspiracy theory or true crime.*

*And a character only story could be shelved as literary fiction, and we know those don't usually sell.*

It has to be a mixture of the two to follow a fiction-genre story journey. What is the point of a main character and his/her supporting cast if we don't get to understand him/her by his/her interactions with others, and the antogonist, his/her desires and fears, and the internal conflict that leads him/her to face the outside circumstances brought about by the plot. It's no coincidence that many films start by showing the MC in their everyday circumstances.

I can understand if someone prefers plot heavy, or character heavy, which is all about balance, but it has to have both for a story to work.

As for Jack Reacher and Harry Bosch type series, just remember that if you follow the series, then the MCs character is usually determined in the first book. In the case of Jack Reacher, his character is set in that it always starts with him going along in his life drifting with some pupose for arriving somewhere he's at and is dragged into circumstance outside where he wants to be.

At least those are my views. Feel free to pull my views to pieces.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> I think it was David Mitchell (though I can't find the interview now) who had this theory that someone's favourite character in The Wire says something about their personality... though I'm not sure what, exactly, for each character! His was Freamon, whereas mine is Colvin: the one genuinely good cop in the series who never does anything bad in his personal life, and in his professional life very seriously breaks the law (by unilaterally de facto legalising drugs in his precinct) but only for the good of his community, because the law in question is the greater evil.
> 
> But I think I have a lot of tolerance for flawed characters who do bad things because, you know, I'm no saint myself. We're drifting away from the "story arc" idea now, but the insistence a lot of people have on "likeable" characters (and I know that's not what you're saying here) is something that I've really never understood. I need them to be sympathetic to some degree, yes, but I don't need my characters to be heroes.


I live in the romance world which is a bizzaro world when it comes to likable characters (dudes can pretty much do anything as long as they're bossy and/or miserable), so I'm out of touch with what people say about likability.

I enjoy flawed characters. I even enjoy terrible characters, as long as I'm not being asked to root for them (ie a sharp satire like Veep or Arrested Development. I'm laughing at these people, not with them). I don't think it's about likability so much as relatability. And a lot of the "great TV" shows are male power fantasies (what if I was a really hot genius who could sleep with everyone and disrespect women? What if I was a crime Lord? Etc). Which is also fine, but it never goes acknowledged by critics, wheras every show dealing with "female" issues is labeled as such.

I do like Colvin, though IIRC he doesn't show up until season three? There are so many characters on The Wire. I'm still team Omar, even though he's a concept as much as he's a character.

If anyone wants to support my Stringer Bell is asexual theory, I'll be here all day (I can't get any support on this, but so far I've only asked straight dudes who, pressumably, aren't trying to read the sexual energy of male characters). When he seduces that person form that thing... God it's so uncomfortable and forced.

Really, if you ever want to talk about the sexuality of any fictional character, I'm here and I'm a professional.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

I'm usually not into shows about cops, but that almost makes me curious enough to watch The Wire. Asexual characters are hard to find, and I've only come across them in animated series like BoJack and Steven Universe.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I'm usually not into shows about cops, but that almost makes me curious enough to watch The Wire. Asexual characters are hard to find, and I've only come across them in animated series like BoJack and Steven Universe.


I've definitely got no outside support for this theory, so YMMV. I wouldn't be thinking it so hard if the show hadn't launched Idris Elba's career and he wasn't considered a sex symbol. I'm not sure what property gave him sex symbol status, but if it was The Wire, I'm very confused. (I want to say Luther? Ohhh him and Ruth Wilson are fire with this cop/criminal cat and mouse thing)/

The Wire is definitely not a typical cop show, so it may appeal to you a lot more or a lot less. Also it's about a literal wiretap. For some reason, I thought the wire mentioned in the title was a metaphor.

It is not.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Decon said:


> Sorry, but I can think of nothing worse than a plot driven story with no character arc whatsover, least of all to try and write one. If nothing else, for a plot to be carried, it has to have a character interesting enough who would carry the plot. For them to be interesting, we need to know what makes them tick that we can identify with to want to follow them.


It's been a long day, and I might be misinterpreting this, but I don't think "no character arc" equals "boring or uninteresting character." Obviously characters have to interact and be interesting to the reader. But that's not the same as a character "arc," (imho, at least). Others have given examples, and just now James Bond jumped to mind--he does his spy thing, fools around with the beautiful women, and ends up accomplishing his mission. Does he "grow" as a character? Not usually, not during that two hours. But, he's still interesting and entertaining.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Jena H said:


> It's been a long day, and I might be misinterpreting this, but I don't think "no character arc" equals "boring or uninteresting character." Obviously characters have to interact and be interesting to the reader. But that's not the same as a character "arc," (imho, at least). Others have given examples, and just now James Bond jumped to mind--he does his spy thing, fools around with the beautiful women, and ends up accomplishing his mission. Does he "grow" as a character? Not usually, not during that two hours. But, he's still interesting and entertaining.


Agreed. There are tons of examples. But episodic TV is probably the best. Sitcom characters pretty much reset to zero after every episode, and yet people love these characters and tune in specifically to see them be the same person they always are. They can be still be interesting while lacking development. When the show changes anything, whether due to off-script issues like an actor leaving the show, or on-screen changes like transitioning from sexual tension to a relationship, the shows are often accused of jumping the shark by the fans. People aren't watching a lot of these shows for character growth. They're watching for comfort.

While I'm not often one of those viewers, there's really nothing wrong with it, and there's an audience for it in books too. Reacher remains a great (nearly unassailable in my view) example.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

Decon said:


> Sorry, but I can think of nothing worse than a plot driven story with no character arc whatsover, least of all to try and write one. If nothing else, for a plot to be carried, it has to have a character interesting enough who would carry the plot. For them to be interesting, we need to know what makes them tick that we can identify with to want to follow them.


If we're talking about a long series, an author could tie themselves in knots trying to give their characters a meaningful arc in each book. And what if the books aren't sequels, but series books that can be read in any order?

Once upon a time I loved movies and avoided TV series, although I did enjoy Hill Street Blues back in the day. But for the past 20 years it's the other way around, and I prefer to stay in the same world and watch the same characters. I seek out long series of books for the same reason.

My point is that the audience is made up of all kinds of people with very different tastes. I write for people who want to embark on a long series where the characters remain roughly the same but the setup, events and bad guys are always new.

Also, nearly all of my books take place over 1-3 days tops. That's a very short timespan for someone to undergo a substantial, life-changing character arc. They're more like 'here are three wild and chaotic days in the life of'


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I've definitely got no outside support for this theory, so YMMV. I wouldn't be thinking it so hard if the show hadn't launched Idris Elba's career and he wasn't considered a sex symbol. I'm not sure what property gave him sex symbol status, but if it was The Wire, I'm very confused. (I want to say Luther? Ohhh him and Ruth Wilson are fire with this cop/criminal cat and mouse thing)/
> 
> The Wire is definitely not a typical cop show, so it may appeal to you a lot more or a lot less. Also it's about a literal wiretap. For some reason, I thought the wire mentioned in the title was a metaphor.
> 
> It is not.


Noted! I realize I'm trying to justify signing up for HBO Max before the 25th so I can watch WW84, but you're selling me on Luther now and I think that's on Prime. Idris has always been hotter than his roles, he would've made such a great Bond, and Ruth Wilson was amazing in The Affair.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Noted! I realize I'm trying to justify signing up for HBO Max before the 25th so I can watch WW84, but you're selling me on Luther now and I think that's on Prime. Idris has always been hotter than his roles, he would've made such a great Bond, and Ruth Wilson was amazing in The Affair.


I think all the HBO shows are on Prime.

I know, that is a tragedy. I remember, after finishing The Wire last year (or the year before), doing my usual search for think pieces and seeing tons of mid 00s stuff saying he should be Bond. Come to think of it, my last published billionaire was probably a response to that, though I can't plot and have no interest in plotting, so the hero was just a sexy former Mi6 dude, with no references to actual spy type missions.

I get my "what if Bond was interesting to me" fix from Killing Eve, though everyone else I know who loved Fleabag did not like Killing Eve, so YMMV there. I think all three seasons are on Hulu. And the cat/mouse chemistry between Jodie Comer and Sandra Oh is great too. It's really smart and fun.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I've definitely got no outside support for this theory, so YMMV. I wouldn't be thinking it so hard if the show hadn't launched Idris Elba's career and he wasn't considered a sex symbol. I'm not sure what property gave him sex symbol status, but if it was The Wire, I'm very confused. (I want to say Luther? Ohhh him and Ruth Wilson are fire with this cop/criminal cat and mouse thing)/
> 
> The Wire is definitely not a typical cop show, so it may appeal to you a lot more or a lot less. Also it's about a literal wiretap. For some reason, I thought the wire mentioned in the title was a metaphor.
> 
> It is not.


It's a metaphor for listening to the what the city is saying 

Elba is a sex symbol, I think, because he utterly personifies a very specific type of imposing, powerful man - the kind (some) women want, and that nearly all men want to be like. It's not just physical; in his performance as Bell he exudes a kind of confidence you can't get just by lifting weights. I think it also helps that in his public life he's a lovely, bubbly personality with a London accent.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

The accent certainly doesn't hurt.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I think all the HBO shows are on Prime.
> 
> I know, that is a tragedy. I remember, after finishing The Wire last year (or the year before), doing my usual search for think pieces and seeing tons of mid 00s stuff saying he should be Bond. Come to think of it, my last published billionaire was probably a response to that, though I can't plot and have no interest in plotting, so the hero was just a sexy former Mi6 dude, with no references to actual spy type missions.
> 
> I get my "what if Bond was interesting to me" fix from Killing Eve, though everyone else I know who loved Fleabag did not like Killing Eve, so YMMV there. I think all three seasons are on Hulu. And the cat/mouse chemistry between Jodie Comer and Sandra Oh is great too. It's really smart and fun.


How did I not know this? That's great, because as much as I love shows on HBO, I hate AT&T. The thought of giving them my money directly isn't a pleasant one.

It really is. I much prefer Daniel Craig in a different kind of role, like Knives Out. That sounds like a fun way to get into a character's headspace. It wouldn't actually be them, but it also wouldn't feel like you either.

I read an article last year about how real spies are more common and boring than we think, and it made me realize why I love Killing Eve (haven't watched season 3 yet, I'm behind!). It feels dressed down if not realistic, and intimate, even where Jodie Comer was concerned. She had dimension that most of the spy stuff I've seen or read has lacked. I imagine Sandra Oh's experience would be closer to that of the average person drawn into that work.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> It's a metaphor for listening to the what the city is saying
> 
> Elba is a sex symbol, I think, because he utterly personifies a very specific type of imposing, powerful man - the kind (some) women want, and that nearly all men want to be like. It's not just physical; in his performance as Bell he exudes a kind of confidence you can't get just by lifting weights. I think it also helps that in his public life he's a lovely, bubbly personality with a London accent.


I think it's interesting because he seems super opposed to being a sexy symbol and he (appears to) intentionally take roles that are not sexy.

But, really, Stringer Bell could not have less sexual energy.

(If you want to see the guy Stringer Bell wanted to be, may I take this opportunity to recommend The Good Wife. Mike Cotler's character Lemond Bishop is a semi-legit Chicago crime lord, who is can flip from charming to menacing like that. Also, he's radiating sexual energy. Which is neither here nor there, but not really what I expected after seeing him on Luke Cage, and you know, I am a professional, so I have to mention this. But, seriously, watch The Good Wife, it's an amazing show).

A lot is probably casting. Despite what romance novels would have you believe, you rarely see physically imposing men cast as romance leads. I expect most romance leads on film are under six feet tall, if not under 5'10''. It's rare to see physically imposing actors in non action roles, unless they're cast as imposing people.

(I did spend three of my last four books basically picturing a composite of those two guys as the hero, so... you don't have to convince me of anything, unless it's Stringer Bell having a lot of heterosexual energy. I could see him having repressed same sex feelings, given the circumstances).

Speaking of spies and TV endings, The Americans is a great show with a flawless ending. I have not seen a better TV ending and I doubt I ever will. (I also enjoyed Bojack Horseman's ending quite a bit and Fleabag's as well, though it's only 12 episodes, so it doesn't have as big of a task. The Good Wife, despite being an amazing show, does not really bring it with the ending so much. Or even really the last season, but you have to admire the Kings for trying).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

The Good Wife botched it so hard in the last few seasons, but I give the Kings a pass. That green screen feud between Archie Panjabi and Julianna Margulies must've been distracting them from the fact that their planned ending didn't make sense anymore. I couldn't imagine working towards something for so long only to realize it wasn't right. I might've botched my first attempt at writing a series, but almost no one knows about it and there's no pressure involved outside of my own feelings about it. Must've been stressful to be them trying to put out fires and land the plane.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> The Good Wife botched it so hard in the last few seasons, but I give the Kings a pass. That green screen feud between Archie Panjabi and Julianna Margulies must've been distracting them from the fact that their planned ending didn't make sense anymore. I couldn't imagine working towards something for so long only to realize it wasn't right. I might've botched my first attempt at writing a series, but almost no one knows about it and there's no pressure involved outside of my own feelings about it. Must've been stressful to be them trying to put out fires and land the plane.


But now we have The Good Fight which is just as good as The Good Wife, if not better. (I do miss the longer seasons and larger cast/ensemble, but The Good Fight takes such amazing, wild swings. I love it even when it doesn't land. Though when I rewatched Season 3 in quarantine, Michael Sheen's character felt less ridiculous. I didn't buy him during "normal life," but mid-quarantine, yeah, I see it. I have a total creator crush on the Kings. They're the perfect showrunners in terms of trying to keep their show fresh and entertaining, trying to make a great show, and trying new ideas without getting self-indulgent. When CBS cut one of their songs, they considered putting the "CBS cut this" for the entire length of the song, and then didn't, because that would have been self-indulgent. It's just so rare to find people making great TV who are putting the audience first. This is esp obvious with The Wire, where the show is doing absolutely nothing to try to invite you to follow the action, much less find entertainment value. You really have to commit to watching 2-3 episodes. But even a show that's highly entertaining like Breaking Bad has a lot of pretentious stylistic flourishes. Some people like these, but I got enough of that stuff in film school. Get to the point, please. Stop with the ants on the ice cream cone. Okay, that was BCS, but still...).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

I haven't got around to The Good Fight, but that's nice to know. I love Christine Baranski. Speaking of the Kings, did you check out Evil? I didn't realize it was them until after it aired but I think I saw it on Netflix. I'll give The Wire the anime-standard 4 episodes. Your TV taste and mine seem to overlap.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I haven't got around to The Good Fight, but that's nice to know. I love Christine Baranski. Speaking of the Kings, did you check out Evil? I didn't realize it was them until after it aired but I think I saw it on Netflix. I'll give The Wire the anime-standard 4 episodes. Your TV taste and mine seem to overlap.


I did watch Evil! I forgot to cancel my CBS All Access so I watched it on that, but I got a little fangirl squee when I saw it trending on Netflix. I love The Kings. It's no The Good Wife season 2-5, but it's solid.

I really like the skeptical guy in the denim shirt who's name escapes me at the moment. That actor popped up in a few things lately. His character is the true romantic option on Younger if you ask me.

Younger is borderline too fluffy for me, but it's kind of amazing through the lens of "what if this was a smart parody of the publishing industry." (Which it is sometimes but other times not so much).

(Of course, all shows pale in comparison to TGW seasons 2-5, but I have already watched all the A-list procedurals, so I have to move onto B list and even C list).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Okay, I think I might've ruined this thread with my holiday TV plans.

So, I checked it out and HBO is only on prime if you pay extra, but HBO Max has a 7 day free trial, more than enough time to get The Wire episodes sampled and watch WW84. CBS All Access also has a 7 day trial but I feel more confident I'll enjoy The Good Fight so maybe I'll just sign up, watch, and hopefully remember to cancel. I'll keep an eye out for denim shirt guy lol.

The Americans... was it stressful? That's why I never watched Breaking Bad. I watched one episode, completely out of sequence and out of context and it still gave me heart palpitations. Younger might be more my speed right now. B and C might not be A, but sometimes it's more relaxing to watch something with lower stakes. Life and death nonstop can be a lot, especially after the year we've had.

One last question... did you ever watch The Closer? Kyra Sedgwick was so good. The show might have been B, but she is an A to me. The mysteries are less complex, but they're less stressful too. And bringing it back to the thread topic, I appreciated her character arc.


Spoiler



It was pretty thoughtful and ahead of it's time how she and other characters came to question her biases and abuses of power.


 I'm spoiler tagging it in case you haven't seen. It might not have been the best show ever, but it's underrated.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Okay, I think I might've ruined this thread with my holiday TV plans.
> 
> So, I checked it out and HBO is only on prime if you pay extra, but HBO Max has a 7 day free trial, more than enough time to get The Wire episodes sampled and watch WW84. CBS All Access also has a 7 day trial but I feel more confident I'll enjoy The Good Fight so maybe I'll just sign up, watch, and hopefully remember to cancel. I'll keep an eye out for denim shirt guy lol.
> 
> ...


Denim shirt guy is on Evil ha. Let me look up the actor's name. Aasif Mandvi. He's also on This Way Up (just okay tbh) and he's on two or three episodes of Younger, where he's wearing a suit and glasses, so, naturally he's a lot hotter on Younger. No one is hot in a denim shirt. It's just nice to see an attractive brown guy presented as a legitimate love interest. That almost never happens!

There are a lot of Kings favs on Evil, so it's fun watching just for that. Ofc I have watched TGW/TGF three times through now.

Ooh, everyone is pulling content for their unique services! I am trying to watch Dickinson before our Apple TV expires and Dexter before it leaves Netflix. (It's not amazing, but I like it so far, and I love the Miami setting/Latin music/Cuban culture. Although the Latin music makes me miss partner dancing like mad. I've heard the ending is terrible, though I think I know the main spoiler, so maybe it won't be so bad). Showtime is making their own service too. HBO has their own service. Everyone has their own service!

I have seen The Closer and I totally agree, an A actor on a B show. It's a little middlebrow, but it's unique in that it's all about the confession, and I totally agree on the spoilers. I watched most of Major Crimes too. It doesn't have the same pizzaz, what with losing the whole confession conceit, but it's a solid middle of the road cop show. Then they started doing multi-part episodes, and I was like hey, this is not why I watch TV! I want to get in and out here! Your show is not good enough to pull off an interesting five episode mystery.

The Americans is a pretty tense show, so maybe wait until you're in the mood for that.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I think it's interesting because he seems super opposed to being a sexy symbol and he (appears to) intentionally take roles that are not sexy.
> 
> But, really, Stringer Bell could not have less sexual energy.
> 
> ...


I think a huge part of this is the split between what women want, and what men think women want. Stringer Bell is a cool, calm, confident and physically perfect man, which is what men think women want (and therefore strive to emulate)... whereas Idris Elba the person is all of those things plus a gentle giant with a good sense of humour and lovely personality, which is what most women actually want, with the first part being negotiable.

On a completely different note, if anyone has Amazon TV, I hugely recommend The Terror. One of the most underrated shows of the past decade, an adaptation of a novel which was an adaptation of the true story of a pair of 19th century exploration ships getting trapped in the Arctic. Some of the best character work I've seen on TV (Jared Harris and Tobias Menzies are absolutely brilliant) and it's really, really sad and moving.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Denim shirt guy is on Evil ha. Let me look up the actor's name. Aasif Mandvi. He's also on This Way Up (just okay tbh) and he's on two or three episodes of Younger, where he's wearing a suit and glasses, so, naturally he's a lot hotter on Younger. No one is hot in a denim shirt. It's just nice to see an attractive brown guy presented as a legitimate love interest. That almost never happens!
> 
> There are a lot of Kings favs on Evil, so it's fun watching just for that. Ofc I have watched TGW/TGF three times through now.
> 
> ...


I know, it's too much. I think that's the plan, confuse us, get us to sign up for a bunch of streaming services, and then cross their fingers we forget about it and before you know it we own nothing and spent hundreds. I'm trying to budget for releases so I have to stay on top of it.

I heard Dickinson was good and Dexter was bad, but I also heard John Lithgow is in Dexter and I just refuse to believe anything with him in it could be bad. And it's a fun premise.

I didn't watch Major Crimes. I liked Mary McDonnell on Battlestar Galactica, and I liked her enough as an oddball side character on TC, but I felt so complete after TC ended I didn't watch the spinoff. I agree with you, though, I don't like multi-episode mysteries much. Even when it's a good production, like The Alienist, it feels too drawn out. I would rather do longer episodes/less episodes like the Brits. I get bored and cap out at 90 minutes, which is strange considering I prefer a good, long mystery novel.


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

Jena H said:


> It's been a long day, and I might be misinterpreting this, but I don't think "no character arc" equals "boring or uninteresting character." Obviously characters have to interact and be interesting to the reader. But that's not the same as a character "arc," (imho, at least). Others have given examples, and just now James Bond jumped to mind--he does his spy thing, fools around with the beautiful women, and ends up accomplishing his mission. Does he "grow" as a character? Not usually, not during that two hours. But, he's still interesting and entertaining.


this

my interest in a lot of fiction is about an adult how they are in the world

not how they "grow" & change, if they're adult, they probably won't (look around you, it's 2020)

you can have a wonderful character who never "arcs" a bit, in fact, the best characters often are who they are from beginning to end


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> I think a huge part of this is the split between what women want, and what men think women want. Stringer Bell is a cool, calm, confident and physically perfect man, which is what men think women want (and therefore strive to emulate)... whereas Idris Elba the person is all of those things plus a gentle giant with a good sense of humour and lovely personality, which is what most women actually want, with the first part being negotiable.


It's true, I am yet to convince a female friend (esp a romance writing friend) to watch The Wire and report back. It's all men who stare blankly at me when I offer this theory. And, even when I explain it, they don't quite understand what I mean. This man is supposed to be attractive to women. Of course all his characters are sexy (highly sexual) too. (Which sort of ignores what acting is).

Perhaps my attitude would have been different years ago, before I started writing romance. Not to TMI, but I've always been a very sexual person. Not in an I want to bone everyone kind of way. More a "sex is a subject that interests me kind of way." But writing romance certainly cranks that up to the Nth degree.

One day...

One day someone will come to support my theory.

One day...

But also, to bring it back to Todd on Bojack Horseman (and further derail this thread), I flove Bojack Horseman. I don't really like Todd so much though, not because he's asexual (though, I will admit the concept is foreign to me), but because he's just too wacky for the rest of the show. Gosh, Bojack Horseman has some of the best satire on TV. Whew, vicious.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

I liked Todd. His wacky wasn't out of place to me, with one exception: when he worked for that weird clock corporation or whatever. That was an acid trip of a subplot. Then again, Sextina Aquafina was one of my favorite diversions, so maybe I'm not the best judge of what's too wacky.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I liked Todd. His wacky wasn't out of place to me, with one exception: when he worked for that weird clock corporation or whatever. That was an acid trip of a subplot. Then again, Sextina Aquafina was one of my favorite diversions, so maybe I'm not the best judge of what's too wacky.


Yeah, that subplot didn't quite land. I got what they were doing and it was funny but it was a bit much. I don't mind Todd. He's just less interesting than the other MCs.

I love Sextina Aquafina though. That's some solid gold celebrity parody. And Brap Brap Pew Pew is by far my favorite episode.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Yeah, that subplot didn't quite land. I got what they were doing and it was funny but it was a bit much. I don't mind Todd. He's just less interesting than the other MCs.
> 
> I love Sextina Aquafina though. That's some solid gold celebrity parody. And Brap Brap Pew Pew is by far my favorite episode.


True. I don't know if it was the edibles, or if it just went over my head. Wasn't it just mocking mega-corporations that could be run by anyone and half the time they don't even know what they're selling?

I hadn't really thought too deeply about why I like Todd, but Todd and Diane are the normies. Everyone else is successful, or was successful and doesn't need success to get by. Even though Diane and Todd are both figuring themselves out when the show starts, I think Diane at least had a direction and her head screwed on. Todd was a floater, and I liked that contrast. Maybe he's even a foil for BoJack, they were both floundering but in very different ways.

Me too! One of my closest friends was mortified when I sat her down to watch it. She refuses to watch animated shows, and I agreed to leave her alone if she'd just watch this one episode. I was convinced she'd want to get started at the beginning immediately. I was very wrong lol. But I don't care what anyone says, it was pure magic transitioning from the campy Sextina music video to the compassionate scene with Diane talking to the other patient in the waiting room. A prime example of a story with something to say without devolving into a lecture.

This is like the never-ending story of TV talk, but now that I think about it, since you said you still have Apple TV you should check out Ted Lasso. It's feel good and funny.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I love that it totally ignores the usual very special episode take on abortion and instead comments on the way we're allowed to talk about it. Also a diverse panel of white men in now ties!!!

The song is just so funny too. It kills me everytime.

Todd and Diane (also Mr PB) are both a little annoying in that they fall into success but Diane appears to work very hard whereas Todd just falls backwards into it. I find that a bit annoying, but more so bc the show tries to have their cake and eat it too with that.

I think the Henry Fondle plot is a comment on how CEOs get away with harassment. A litteral sex robot becomes CEO. It's funny! But it's a little too wacky to be plausible IMO.

I've heard a lot about Ted Lasso and I may need more British football player inspiration (only ex football players who are now billionaires ofc) so I might check it out. I've been torn between billionaire and sports for my next series, bc those are the only two hot market segments that interest me, but I'm leaning rich dudes pretty hard for whatever reason (object covers prob).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Exactly. They really thought that one through.

Now you mention it, that's true about them failing upwards. And you might not like Ted Lasso after all. It's about a white dude failing up, landing a gig he's not qualified for, and succeeding because of a can do attitude. This reminds me of what you said about readers here and there. I think I don't like cop shows, I think I don't like corny, but then here I am talking about cop shows and liking corny.

Anyway, Diane is different to me. Yes, her big success in the end was by accident, but she embraces it and she works hard. Mr PB just skates through, oblivious to everything, and I suppose Todd does the same, only not so oblivious.

That really is a blur to me. I remember the robot... I guess it's almost time for a rewatch.

I'm sure it's a win win. People are stressed about money, and they love their sports stars who also just happen to be rich, so fantasy fulfilled either way. Billionaires are ruined for me. I know it's just a fantasy, but over the past couple years I've seen too much stupidity, ugly, and an evil amount of indifference to ever want to fantasize about that. Give me a secure, emotionally intelligent and handsome millionaire that didn't harm others, animals, or the environment in order to make his money and I'm in. And then we can talk about how unrealistic that fantasy is lol. Unfortunately, that probably wouldn't win you as many readers.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I'm sure it's a win win. People are stressed about money, and they love their sports stars who also just happen to be rich, so fantasy fulfilled either way. Billionaires are ruined for me. I know it's just a fantasy, but over the past couple years I've seen too much stupidity, ugly, and an evil amount of indifference to ever want to fantasize about that. Give me a secure, emotionally intelligent and handsome millionaire that didn't harm others, animals, or the environment in order to make his money and I'm in. And then we can talk about how unrealistic that fantasy is lol. Unfortunately, that probably wouldn't win you as many readers.


I get it. I don't get the broader billionaire readership, but I've been doing my books more "my way" and... well, I've only got one of those out, so the results remain to be seen, but the one book did pretty well. I like to underline the income inequality/unfairness of it all but I'm pretty sure you can't really write an anti-capitalist billionaire book.

I just like men in suits who use their ties for other purposes. And object covers. That's a good 75% of it. (If I never see another male cover model it will be too soon. Plus, much easier to write interracial when you don't need to find a cover photo. The selection is not good).

My guys all have vague tech companies where they do vague tech things. IRL they would be millionaires at best, but it's fun to have all the options extreme wealth brings. It's esp nice in quarantine when real life feels so far away. I can't write two characters going to the grocery store right now. But taking a helicopter to a rented house in the Hamptons? Sure, why not?

I don't really get the sports readers either though! (And I'm having a big what is this/what am I even doing with new adult at the moment). I'm just not a sports fan and the two sports that would interest me most--soccer and swimming--are not really what readers want. It's all hockey and American football which I find boring.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I just like men in suits who use their ties for other purposes.


Who doesn't? Yeah, that all makes sense. It's a fantasy anyway, it just seems harder to divorce from reality these days, even for a few hours. I'm starting to understand why the roaring 20s followed the 1918 pandemic. Like my cat, I'm built for this, but my roommate is going crazy, so I'm going a little crazy stuck at home with them.

This might be naive, but I'd like to think the "my way" is what makes books truly work. Sure, sometimes I pick up something that seems to objectively lack any spark, something that reads generic and hollow. But that's rare. Most of the time it's just a not-for-me situation. I don't know what it's like to successfully publish and live off my work, but I imagine there's pressure to deliver sameness, and from where I'm sitting, that looks like a blessing and a curse. A blessing that your hard work has paid off, but a curse because delivering consistently sounds tough. And then what if you want to do something different? It makes me wonder if now, when I still have everything left to prove, is going to be the least stressful in some ways.

I'm not a sports fan either, but If what you're drawn to is both the aesthetic of the tie and the power dynamic it represents, you could probably find a way to write that dynamic into most things, including sports. You just have to find the power dynamic in that situation that will keep you interested. I know, all things considered it's hilarious that I'd give you anything resembling advice, but I'm having fun talking about this stuff so thanks for humoring me lol. In the end, if your instincts got you where you are, I'm sure you'll invest your time in the right story.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm probably going to do sports in the future, when I'm not bummed to writr a series set where my family lives. Right now that's depressing because I can't visit. I do have to read more first though (ugh). So far, all the football books I've read have no football but the hockey books have a fair amount of hockey, which surprised me.

I think that's good advice about power dynamics. Good advice can come from anywhere. I'm always open to new ideas.

That's so funny! I feel like I read stuff that's empty all the time, though less so now that I know more of the ghostwritten pen names. A lot of stuff I read is not empty but a thematic mess, stating one theme while portraying the opposite in the plot and/or character development. And a lot of indie books really need another pass, just in general, but the market doesn't reward that extra effort so it doesn't happen unless the author really wants to make it happen.

But I can't really read romance anymore, even if it's good. The inner editor turns on so fast is the book is remotely like mine. And I am way out of step with the tastes of the market. But I really do have to read before I plan my next series so ugh...

(Also I don't like when the hero treats the heroine poorly and that's a lot of books. Even ones not sold that way).


----------



## nightwork (Aug 11, 2020)

nothing makes me angrier than a football book with no football

hockey & baseball romance writers would never miss a chance to give you a blow by blow and who GAF about hockey

football writers should give us the same respect, i know the game has a lot of ins and outs but c'mon, to not have a game scene at all is obnoxious


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I'm probably going to do sports in the future, when I'm not bummed to writr a series set where my family lives. Right now that's depressing because I can't visit. I do have to read more first though (ugh). So far, all the football books I've read have no football but the hockey books have a fair amount of hockey, which surprised me.
> 
> I think that's good advice about power dynamics. Good advice can come from anywhere. I'm always open to new ideas.
> 
> ...


It's like salt in the wound, isn't it? And this time of year is already harder on some.

There's pen names that are entirely ghost written? That does sound like it would lead to empty. If I don't feel a spark quickly I put a book down. I used to go to B&N and read the first chapter or two, putting back books until I found one I wanted to finish. I've always gravitated toward reading romance on my kindle though, and for that there's the Look Inside, and that's usually good enough. Maybe I'm just good at filtering, but I do come across thematic messes.

People, after all, are thematic messes, so in a way it makes sense. I do wonder when the thesis doesn't match the conclusion how it goes unnoticed, but then again there were so many issues in my first attempt that I didn't see until other eyes were on it. Thankfully, I have a number of honest friends. Joyce Carol Oates would have us put everything in a drawer, take it out once a year, and revise it for a decade, so another pass isn't too much to ask really.

I really hope that doesn't happen to me. TV and movies can be a great escape, but books are something else. I don't want to lose the joy of reading for pleasure. When it comes to your reading to prepare for a series, would audio books work? I don't like to sit and read nonfiction, but with a solid narrator I don't mind listening to it.

You're not wrong. What people consider redeemable or excusable no longer surprises me, but it's still a downer. You must have read romance more widely than I have. I can read mysteries and thrillers year-round, but I have to take romance and urban fantasy in small doses or it dulls the magic.


----------



## c&#039;est la vie (Dec 19, 2019)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Me too! One of my closest friends was mortified when I sat her down to watch it. She refuses to watch animated shows, and I agreed to leave her alone if she'd just watch this one episode. I was convinced she'd want to get started at the beginning immediately. I was very wrong lol. But I don't care what anyone says, it was pure magic transitioning from the campy Sextina music video to the compassionate scene with Diane talking to the other patient in the waiting room. A prime example of a story with something to say without devolving into a lecture.


I'm late to the party, but that was my favorite BoJack Horseman episode too! I was the opposite of mortified.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> People, after all, are thematic messes, so in a way it makes sense. I do wonder when the thesis doesn't match the conclusion how it goes unnoticed, but then again there were so many issues in my first attempt that I didn't see until other eyes were on it. Thankfully, I have a number of honest friends. Joyce Carol Oates would have us put everything in a drawer, take it out once a year, and revise it for a decade, so another pass isn't too much to ask really.
> 
> I really hope that doesn't happen to me. TV and movies can be a great escape, but books are something else. I don't want to lose the joy of reading for pleasure. When it comes to your reading to prepare for a series, would audio books work? I don't like to sit and read nonfiction, but with a solid narrator I don't mind listening to it.
> 
> You're not wrong. What people consider redeemable or excusable no longer surprises me, but it's still a downer. You must have read romance more widely than I have. I can read mysteries and thrillers year-round, but I have to take romance and urban fantasy in small doses or it dulls the magic.


True. I read a book recently that was such a thematic mess but people seemed to accept the stated theme. I was really surprised the book did so well, not because it was poorly written (it was fine), but because the guy was a big zero. if I wrote a guy like that, I'd be raked over the coals. It wasn't that he was a jerk (though he was, he insulted the heroine then ignored her for 80% of the book). It was that he was a passive or sometimes passive aggressive loser. He didn't go after anything and he blamed her for his actions (sadly, that's common in romance). He also hooked up with another girl after hooking up with the heroine, but that was really glossed over.

It makes me sad that so many women see this behavior as worthy of a romance hero. I don't like the over the top alphas who kidnap the heroine because they're so obsessed, but I can understand the appeal of that. A guy who wants you so much he'll kill for you. That's passion!

I think it's easier with it being over the top too. Kidnapping is a thing that happens but it's far outside my life experiences. Where a guy generally being a jerk to me or ignoring me... not so much. That's not something I'd tolerate IRL. I won't tolerate it in a book either.

(Now, a guy who's a bit brusque or moody, sure. But a guy who is intentionally cruel? Or ignoring me? Not just avoidant attachment style but straight up ignoring me. Uh, bye, door's that way. But ofc some things are easier to write than read, because when you write you're in control of the characters).

I'm a visual person, so I've never really gotten into audiobooks. I just have to get into the mindset of putting aside my "omg the patriarchy has won" and/or "how can this be what people want" and/or "how can this person be more successful than I am" thoughts when I read for research. With romance in particular, I really do know too much though. It's not even bad stuff, necessarily. Sometimes it's good stuff like knowing an author is from here or likes that. It makes it hard to get lost in the book when I'm thinking "oh yeah, that's so her" or "oh is she like this because she works with that person who is horrible in this way."



nightwork said:


> nothing makes me angrier than a football book with no football
> 
> hockey & baseball romance writers would never miss a chance to give you a blow by blow and who GAF about hockey
> 
> football writers should give us the same respect, i know the game has a lot of ins and outs but c'mon, to not have a game scene at all is obnoxious


I have to imagine it's what most readers want, since I've seen it a few times. But then I'm not that well versed in sports romance either.

I think hockey and football are most popular because they're super violent. I have a theory that soccer could do well, esp in non US countries (I can't imagine American football sells well in other countries, at least not as a primary hook), but I haven't been able to get good data yet (and I'm all about the European markets).

I'm just not a "team player" ha, so I have a hard time getting into that mindset. If I do write a sports romance, I'm going to write it like a rock star/band series and retheme it. I'm not sure if that will work, but rock stars don't sell too well these days, so it's that or risking another under-performing series. (Which I prob will eventually. I have such great titles for my third rocker series. Sigh).


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> True. I read a book recently that was such a thematic mess but people seemed to accept the stated theme. I was really surprised the book did so well, not because it was poorly written (it was fine), but because the guy was a big zero. if I wrote a guy like that, I'd be raked over the coals. It wasn't that he was a jerk (though he was, he insulted the heroine then ignored her for 80% of the book). It was that he was a passive or sometimes passive aggressive loser. He didn't go after anything and he blamed her for his actions (sadly, that's common in romance). He also hooked up with another girl after hooking up with the heroine, but that was really glossed over.
> 
> I think hockey and football are most popular because they're super violent. I have a theory that soccer could do well, esp in non US countries (I can't imagine American football sells well in other countries, at least not as a primary hook), but I haven't been able to get good data yet (and I'm all about the European markets).


I really like your point about passionate characters. A lot of the time I will take passionate and flawed over passive and by the book any day. And, especially over your example of passive and flawed. That's a rough one. But I guess I just thought it was a great point about how engaging a passionate character can be!

And, this reminds me, so I have a theory about american football, and it may be completely off the wall, but hear me out (or don't, that's absolutely cool too). I've had this idea that football is the ultimate "mammoth hunting simulator". What I mean is that it's super close to a game that an ancient hunter might play to practice their hunting skills. The team comes up with a plan, they execute the plan, it goes wrong, they have to adapt. 
An older not physically capable but very experienced person calls the shots and relays this to a chosen field leader. The defense is chasing after one moving point and coordinating with each other to trap it, the offense is trying to protect a captured package and take it back to their safe zone. There are large times of inactivity which give way to instant all or nothing action, and you make your squad up of various people of different skills which will ultimately give you the best result as a team.

I...went to biology school and after that when I see football I think, oh it's like evolutionary ecology from hunter gatherer society. Probably also helps that I don't really like any sports, except martial arts stuff, so I am absolutely judging it all from afar. Umm, sorry to go off on a tangent. Might just be super tangenty today.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

NikOK said:


> I really like your point about passionate characters. A lot of the time I will take passionate and flawed over passive and by the book any day. And, especially over your example of passive and flawed. That's a rough one. But I guess I just thought it was a great point about how engaging a passionate character can be!
> 
> And, this reminds me, so I have a theory about american football, and it may be completely off the wall, but hear me out (or don't, that's absolutely cool too). I've had this idea that football is the ultimate "mammoth hunting simulator". What I mean is that it's super close to a game that an ancient hunter might play to practice their hunting skills. The team comes up with a plan, they execute the plan, it goes wrong, they have to adapt.
> An older not physically capable but very experienced person calls the shots and relays this to a chosen field leader. The defense is chasing after one moving point and coordinating with each other to trap it, the offense is trying to protect a captured package and take it back to their safe zone. There are large times of inactivity which give way to instant all or nothing action, and you make your squad up of various people of different skills which will ultimately give you the best result as a team.
> ...


This thread is full tangent now.

Passion is more interesting to read (or watch), as a general principle. Of course there are exceptions, but it's hard to root for someone if they don't even care if they reach a goal. And passion can overwhelm logic, so it can get characters into some interesting jams too.

It's not as necessary in survival stories, but we still want to watch people who put up a fight.

I've heard people talk about football as a very American game. Obviously, it has outsized popularity in the US, but I think it's also so much about claiming land. It has a real manifest destiny vibe to it.

I like the idea about evolutionary psychology. I think that's why sports are popular. They train us for battle (or the hunt) AND they channel the urge for conquest into something socially acceptable. We have football rivalries so we won't have more violent rivalries. At least that's my theory.

I just can't get into it, personally. Like I said, not a team player. (Also, I don't think I'd be able to live with myself if I wrote a football team that was mostly white guys, though that's what I see in the market. Isn't the NFL less than 30% white? Yes, it is, I just looked it up).

IDK why soccer isn't more popular. Soccer players and their thighs. Sigh... But I also like the worldliness of soccer. It's fun writing guys who aren't from the US. Lets me get in some jabs at US politics/culture without alienating readers (in theory). Though it did take me a book and a half to feel comfortable writing Britishisms.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> True. I read a book recently that was such a thematic mess but people seemed to accept the stated theme. I was really surprised the book did so well, not because it was poorly written (it was fine), but because the guy was a big zero. if I wrote a guy like that, I'd be raked over the coals. It wasn't that he was a jerk (though he was, he insulted the heroine then ignored her for 80% of the book). It was that he was a passive or sometimes passive aggressive loser. He didn't go after anything and he blamed her for his actions (sadly, that's common in romance). He also hooked up with another girl after hooking up with the heroine, but that was really glossed over.
> 
> It makes me sad that so many women see this behavior as worthy of a romance hero. I don't like the over the top alphas who kidnap the heroine because they're so obsessed, but I can understand the appeal of that. A guy who wants you so much he'll kill for you. That's passion!
> 
> ...


Seriously, yuck. I don't get it.

That is something I also understand. It's like Twilight. Is Edward a deranged stalker? Yes. Does Bella need a restraining order. Absolutely. Did those books capture the overhwelming emotions of wanting and feeling wanted. Bingo. Despite whatever flaws people get hung up on, she did that right, so at least that I can understand, even if I can't go there with controlling psycho heroes sometimes.

Exactly, over the top is as close as you can get in contemporary. PNR is where this works for me. If it's a vampire, or a were, or whatever, it's easier for me to indulge in a fantasy I'd never want to partake in real life. If the hero is just a irredeemable or indifferent douche, that's got to be about wanting what you can't have, right?

lol, the patriarchy has won... that's a tough one to push past. And everything you're saying is exactly why I'd be afraid to take a crack at romance even though I read it. Some of the things I like to read I wouldn't want to write. I'm not sure I could wrap my head around some of it if I was the one in charge.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> This thread is full tangent now.


Undeniably.



Crystal_ said:


> IDK why soccer isn't more popular. Soccer players and their thighs. Sigh... But I also like the worldliness of soccer. It's fun writing guys who aren't from the US. Lets me get in some jabs at US politics/culture without alienating readers (in theory). Though it did take me a book and a half to feel comfortable writing Britishisms.


Okay, I know I keep going back and forth. Maybe you _should_ watch Ted Lasso lol.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Undeniably.
> 
> Okay, I know I keep going back and forth. Maybe you _should_ watch Ted Lasso lol.


LOL, it's on the watch with husband list, especially now that our Apple TV is extended two months (was that everyone? He's the Apple user. I think we got it free with the Mac Mini he bought last year). After we finish Legend of Korra. (Which is not a timeline we'll necessarily make because he's slow with TV).

The patriarchy is always winning, but someone's got to work against that. If I ever switched genres it would be to write Gone Girl type stuff. Thrillers were women destroy men who wronged them. I'd have to learn to plot though. My friend suggested a revenge theme on an idea of mine and I'm thinking about it (though ofc in the end they get together. Would readers forgive a heroine out for revenge. If she has a good reason...)


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> IDK why soccer isn't more popular. Soccer players and their thighs. Sigh... But I also like the worldliness of soccer. It's fun writing guys who aren't from the US. Lets me get in some jabs at US politics/culture without alienating readers (in theory). Though it did take me a book and a half to feel comfortable writing Britishisms.


Bwhaha, you make a solid argument with thighs  But yeah, soccer just never caught on in America. Who knows why, but I feel like the fact that it was big internationally put the nail in the coffin for America. If we're not first to the party, we're calling the cops and shutting it down. There's just that weird American America mentality. Like, we'll stick with obviously worse sports (looking at you baseball) so long as they are ours.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

NikOK said:


> Bwhaha, you make a solid argument with thighs  But yeah, soccer just never caught on in America. Who knows why, but I feel like the fact that it was big internationally put the nail in the coffin for America. If we're not first to the party, we're calling the cops and shutting it down. There's just that weird American America mentality. Like, we'll stick with obviously worse sports (looking at you baseball) so long as they are ours.


Yes, everyone I know who likes baseball says it's boring! They're the people who like it and they still think it's boring.

When I did a non-scientific poll of my readers (what's your favorite sport for sports romance), baseball came in third after hockey and football. I think maybe one person mentioned soccer... Maybe...

(I think 90% of hockey romance's popularity may be that puck rhymes with another word, but I'm not totally sure of that. It's got to be a top five reason, at the very least).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Rugby romance is so awesome BECAUSE the guys are under pressure to be decent people, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. (That's kind of the ethos of the sport. It's all about humility, and I'm a big fan of humility in a hero.) Also: no helmets, no pads, short shorts. And it's just a fun game to watch. Exciting. Fast-moving. 

I write a little football romance occasionally (with only a little football in it, haha), but rugby romance is way more fun. I'm pretty sure you could write it from an American point of view, but not with super-rich athletes. (That's part of the humility thing, though. It's hard to write humble guys if they make $10 million a season or something. I still try anyway.) 

ETA: I was the first one to write it, but now there's a bunch of it out there. Which is very cool.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> LOL, it's on the watch with husband list, especially now that our Apple TV is extended two months (was that everyone? He's the Apple user. I think we got it free with the Mac Mini he bought last year). After we finish Legend of Korra. (Which is not a timeline we'll necessarily make because he's slow with TV).
> 
> The patriarchy is always winning, but someone's got to work against that. If I ever switched genres it would be to write Gone Girl type stuff. Thrillers were women destroy men who wronged them. I'd have to learn to plot though. My friend suggested a revenge theme on an idea of mine and I'm thinking about it (though ofc in the end they get together. Would readers forgive a heroine out for revenge. If she has a good reason...)


I thought that was on Netflix, but you must finish Legend of Korra! Season 1 was mediocre, but overall I think Korra was even better than the original.

I'm biased because that's a big chunk of what I love to read, but I say why not? If you read and love thrillers, I'm sure plotting won't be as hard as it seems.

And revenge romance is already a thing, isn't it? That was my impression when reading blurbs for bully romances, only those are usually about a man taking revenge on a woman from what I can tell. I don't know what it says about me but I feel way more comfortable with a woman taking revenge on a man, especially if she has a legit reason and doesn't throw it away to be with him easily.

Revenge is always in fashion.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> Bwhaha, you make a solid argument with thighs  But yeah, soccer just never caught on in America. Who knows why, but I feel like the fact that it was big internationally put the nail in the coffin for America. If we're not first to the party, we're calling the cops and shutting it down. There's just that weird American America mentality. Like, we'll stick with obviously worse sports (looking at you baseball) so long as they are ours.


You are so right! I wonder what else we're missing out on.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Rugby romance is so awesome BECAUSE the guys are under pressure to be decent people, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. (That's kind of the ethos of the sport. It's all about humility, and I'm a big fan of humility in a hero.) Also: no helmets, no pads, short shorts. And it's just a fun game to watch. Exciting. Fast-moving.
> 
> I write a little football romance occasionally (with only a little football in it, haha), but rugby romance is way more fun. I'm pretty sure you could write it from an American point of view, but not with super-rich athletes. (That's part of the humility thing, though. It's hard to write humble guys if they make $10 million a season or something. I still try anyway.)
> 
> ETA: I was the first one to write it, but now there's a bunch of it out there. Which is very cool.


I credit myself (and the designers I hired) with starting some cover trends. Which is probably a slight exaggeration, though in one case my designer specifically told me those covers where the most "knock off requested." A lot of people came to her asking for something similar. So I think I can probably take a little credit there. It is cool but also annoying. Why can't I be the only one doing the thing?

I've never asked how your books do overseas! Do they do well in the UK? I don't see a lot of sports romance in the UK charts, but, in general, indie romance doesn't rank as high in the UK charts.



Bite the Dusty said:


> I thought that was on Netflix, but you must finish Legend of Korra! Season 1 was mediocre, but overall I think Korra was even better than the original.
> 
> I'm biased because that's a big chunk of what I love to read, but I say why not? If you read and love thrillers, I'm sure plotting won't be as hard as it seems.
> 
> ...


I'm way more comfortable with a woman taking revenge on a man. I think that's normal. The power fantasy is less problematic if it's the person with less power taking their power back. But I don't know that I've seen any ladies in romance taking revenge. And it's not really the kind of mindset I understand, perse. It seems like a lot of energy to spend on someone. Better to move on. But it could be an interesting challenge because it's not what I'd do. Well, maybe when I was younger. I can get the vengeance part. Not so much going from revenge to love, but then I'm not big on enemies to lovers either.

I didn't mind the first season of LoK but it was a little half-baked. Speaking of thematic messes. It wasn't a mess, but it never really punctuated it's point. It feels like they were going somewhere with bending as an allegory for... something... but they never got there. (I ship Asami and Korra obviously).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I'm way more comfortable with a woman taking revenge on a man. I think that's normal. The power fantasy is less problematic if it's the person with less power taking their power back. But I don't know that I've seen any ladies in romance taking revenge. And it's not really the kind of mindset I understand, perse. It seems like a lot of energy to spend on someone. Better to move on. But it could be an interesting challenge because it's not what I'd do. Well, maybe when I was younger. I can get the vengeance part. Not so much going from revenge to love, but then I'm not big on enemies to lovers either.
> 
> I didn't mind the first season of LoK but it was a little half-baked. Speaking of thematic messes. It wasn't a mess, but it never really punctuated it's point. It feels like they were going somewhere with bending as an allegory for... something... but they never got there. (I ship Asami and Korra obviously).


I see it as an over the top variation of enemies to lovers, one of my favorite tropes. Is it healthy? Nope, but neither is a lot of what keeps the couple stuck together. Will the heroine be criticized more for doing the same thing the hero in a different book did? Probably. Scanning goodreads has been enlightening and disturbing.

Revenge to love is tough, but it's a thin line between hate and love, right? Challenging, but not impossible.

It was terrible. And I loved the original so I was super duper disappointed. I wasn't going to keep watching, but a friend told me to, and Korra just gets better as it goes. It was a remarkable rebound.

Every thread is going to be about the ships lol. You're right, they tried to make it about power and ended up confusing themselves and me. I ship them so hard, and it was there, inevitable and obvious, but Nickelodeon squashed it. I just wish we could know what would've happened if the show was backed by Netflix. It would've been epic, but the show is still wonderful despite the shortcomings.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> I credit myself (and the designers I hired) with starting some cover trends. Which is probably a slight exaggeration, though in one case my designer specifically told me those covers where the most "knock off requested." A lot of people came to her asking for something similar. So I think I can probably take a little credit there. It is cool but also annoying. Why can't I be the only one doing the thing?
> 
> I've never asked how your books do overseas! Do they do well in the UK? I don't see a lot of sports romance in the UK charts, but, in general, indie romance doesn't rank as high in the UK charts.


Yeah, if people see that something's become a thing, they're going to do the thing. Never mind. Those books are different from mine, so--whatever.

My NZ books have always done reasonably well in the UK, and better in Germany (especially in translation).

There and in Australia. All my books that are set in or have characters from AU/NZ do very well there, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I see it as an over the top variation of enemies to lovers, one of my favorite tropes. Is it healthy? Nope, but neither is a lot of what keeps the couple stuck together. Will the heroine be criticized more for doing the same thing the hero in a different book did? Probably. Scanning goodreads has been enlightening and disturbing.
> 
> Revenge to love is tough, but it's a thin line between hate and love, right? Challenging, but not impossible.
> 
> ...


I do like Korra a lot more than Ang. I never really liked Ang. I think he's just too young for me to find him interesting. I love that Korra is as dumb as a bag of rocks half the time. Girl, slow your roll! Make a plan! It's great. A lot of brilliant idiots on that show, esp the Earth bending brother and the CEO guy. They're hilarious.

(It does bother me immensely how enormous all the benders are. Agile people are not usually so tall and jacked, but how the eff did Ang grow up to be like 6'4''? He was tiny! It bothers me so much).

I had this idea of doing a Cruel Intentions inspired book, but then I realized it's not my kind of book. I get distracted by the shiny things selling, but high school bullies is just not in my area of interest. I do want to write a younger series but not atm, when everything is bullies. What I want to do next is a Cyrano de Bergerac plot (omg did I finally learn how to spell it after typing it 100 times?), but I have not worked out how I'm going to make that a high heat book, since logically, the couple wouldn't get together until the very end. It really works better as a YA series for that reason. (The Half of It on Netflix was a very good coming of age Cyrano de Bergerac story. If you can get your hands on the filmmaker's first movie, Saving Face, it's also very good, but I'm not sure it's streaming anywhere).

I'm 50/50 on that or a more sure thing plot I've used before. I like the plot (and it could be some good catharsis for where I am right now), but it would be nice to write something new too.



Usedtoposthere said:


> Yeah, if people see that something's become a thing, they're going to do the thing. Never mind. Those books are different from mine, so--whatever.
> 
> My NZ books have always done reasonably well in the UK, and better in Germany (especially in translation).
> 
> There and in Australia. All my books that are set in or have characters from AU/NZ do very well there, for obvious reasons.


If you're visibly successful, people copy you. Or they riff off you. It's just the way it is.

That's good to know. I would imagine they do well in AU/NZ. I am still getting into indie German, but I published my first two French translations this year and they did really well. They were definitely not sports romances though. Billionaires. Everyone likes billionaire, I guess.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I do like Korra a lot more than Ang. I never really liked Ang. I think he's just too young for me to find him interesting. I love that Korra is as dumb as a bag of rocks half the time. Girl, slow your roll! Make a plan! It's great. A lot of brilliant idiots on that show, esp the Earth bending brother and the CEO guy. They're hilarious.
> 
> (It does bother me immensely how enormous all the benders are. Agile people are not usually so tall and jacked, but how the eff did Ang grow up to be like 6'4''? He was tiny! It bothers me so much).
> 
> ...


I got lucky, I was at the right-ish ages for both shows. Korra was more adult, but she also was still in that relatable stupid-but-still-thinks-they-know-best phase. I still love Ang and company, but it's less enjoyable to rewatch.

That's so true lol. If animation were more accurate we'd be more Bob's Burgers than Korra.

I love Cruel Intentions, but I think you're right. Bully stuff isn't what I read and I still somehow know it's over-saturated at the moment. I haven't heard of that show or movie, so I'll be adding it to the list. I had to google Cyrano de Bergerac. That sounds a lot like Roxanne, this old movie with Steve Martin. Loved it if that's the sort of story you're talking about. Roxanne was with adults, but I do think the story is a better sell as YA.

Is YA the reason you're hesitating?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Yes, Roxanne is based on the original French play. I haven't read the original play yet but I believe the love interest's name is Roxanne.

My guy is going to have gnarly scars instead of a huge nose. Something like that.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Sounds like a neat idea to me. It might be the Korra discussion but I'm picturing Zuko.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Sounds like a neat idea to me. It might be the Korra discussion but I'm picturing Zuko.


I could see him being a good romance hero.

It is a better YA fit and I love YA and I'd love to write YA but I'm not sure I could give up all my bad words and sex scenes (and I don't want to write sexy high schoolers). I've had young NA on the to do for awhile but I only see sports selling in that space atm, and, well, we've covered that &#129315;

I think I want to write more erotic right now too. I can't really buy college boys as masters of sex. I like doing more low key, realistic sex sometimes, a lot even, just not right now.

Maybe that's a sign it's time for arranged marriage #4 lol. (I seriously love wedding tropes though).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

You really do sound torn in a bunch of different directions. I guess I'm not the only one. I committed to a series and I'm following through on it, but every time I'm distracted by a new idea, a weirder idea, I think it must be my subconscious or something trying to procrastinate.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> I do like Korra a lot more than Ang. I never really liked Ang. I think he's just too young for me to find him interesting. I love that Korra is as dumb as a bag of rocks half the time. Girl, slow your roll! Make a plan! It's great. A lot of brilliant idiots on that show, esp the Earth bending brother and the CEO guy. They're hilarious.


Ha, sorry to butt in on a convo, but have you all seen The Dragon Prince on netflix? It's very avatar-esque. Though maybe a little more serious in tone, but it does have really good cute animals (which was my favorite part of avatar) and the voice of sokka (which was my second favorite part of avatar). Plus the main romance is just kind of, well they're dating now, and it's all good, and I like that. They actually move right past the "main characters can't tell each other about their feelings" thing. It's kind of refreshing. But human people are just the worst in the show. So worst.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Yep. This is my first time actually starting a brand spanking new series since 2015. All my other series were set up in a previous one. I did write a standalone potential first in series in 2018, but it was an idea I'd wanted to write for awhile.

So I'm letting myself go with considering all the ideas for a little while. Once I start a series and start setting up next characters, I'm committed to them (and hate to drop them, like I did with the 2018 series. Maybe one day...), so I'm savoring the freedom, even if it's a bit overwhelming.



NikOK said:


> Ha, sorry to butt in on a convo, but have you all seen The Dragon Prince on netflix? It's very avatar-esque. Though maybe a little more serious in tone, but it does have really good cute animals (which was my favorite part of avatar) and the voice of sokka (which was my second favorite part of avatar). Plus the main romance is just kind of, well they're dating now, and it's all good, and I like that. They actually move right past the "main characters can't tell each other about their feelings" thing. It's kind of refreshing. But human people are just the worst in the show. So worst.


No, but I have seen the memes! There are some good memes. I feel like I absorb so many things via meme these days. I haven't seen The Mandalorian but I feel like I got the point.

Ha, you sound like my husband. He calls all the sky bison and Korra's dog Appa. I bought him an Appa plush for his birthday so he's really going with it. It would be pretty boss to have a real sky bison but I think I'd be a firebender for sure, so no sky bison for me.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> Ha, sorry to butt in on a convo, but have you all seen The Dragon Prince on netflix? It's very avatar-esque. Though maybe a little more serious in tone, but it does have really good cute animals (which was my favorite part of avatar) and the voice of sokka (which was my second favorite part of avatar). Plus the main romance is just kind of, well they're dating now, and it's all good, and I like that. They actually move right past the "main characters can't tell each other about their feelings" thing. It's kind of refreshing. But human people are just the worst in the show. So worst.


You're already in, you cannot butt lol. I tried watching and stopped after the first couple episodes. I just remember feeling underwhelmed. It got better? Humans are the worst? Hmmm, where did they get that idea from?



Crystal_ said:


> Yep. This is my first time actually starting a brand spanking new series since 2015. All my other series were set up in a previous one. I did write a standalone potential first in series in 2018, but it was an idea I'd wanted to write for awhile.
> 
> So I'm letting myself go with considering all the ideas for a little while. Once I start a series and start setting up next characters, I'm committed to them (and hate to drop them, like I did with the 2018 series. Maybe one day...), so I'm savoring the freedom, even if it's a bit overwhelming.
> 
> ...


Everything is a mixed bag, but it's nice to know the excitement of starting something new doesn't wear off. I'd rather take my time and think it through than regret committing to something after the fact.

And I didn't finish my thought last night when I posted. I meant maybe that's just normal, to feel pulled in different directions, and I just think it's procrastination because of some BuzzFeed article that got in my head. My writer friends don't really talk about their process at all, it's almost secretive, so it's nice to hear someone else lay it out and it's familiar.

The point of the Mandalorian is definitely baby Yoda. To me that's all there is, but I'm a puppet person. I'm still devastated The Dark Crystal Netflix show got cancelled.

That is such a great gift. Appa and Momo are nonnegotiable to me!


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Bite the Dusty said:


> You're already in, you cannot butt lol. I tried watching and stopped after the first couple episodes. I just remember feeling underwhelmed. It got better? Humans are the worst? Hmmm, where did they get that idea from?


I liked it a lot better after they leave the human place and get to the magical lands. Everything is way more interesting with nutty creatures everywhere. There's this thing called "adora-burrs" and I don't want to spoil too much, but they are like tribbles that get stuck to people's clothing and they are the cutest. But, it's definitely one of those shows where you have to watch it in order, so it is kinda a shame because there's too much going on to skip ahead.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Everything is a mixed bag, but it's nice to know the excitement of starting something new doesn't wear off. I'd rather take my time and think it through than regret committing to something after the fact.
> 
> And I didn't finish my thought last night when I posted. I meant maybe that's just normal, to feel pulled in different directions, and I just think it's procrastination because of some BuzzFeed article that got in my head. My writer friends don't really talk about their process at all, it's almost secretive, so it's nice to hear someone else lay it out and it's familiar.


This year, I've gotten really into the Write Better Faster classes/QuitBooks. If you haven't read the books by Becca Syme, check them out. They're all about questioning conventional indie advice and finding what works for you and your process. The classes are great too but the books are a cheaper/easier start.

They use Gallup Strengths Finder. I've got #4 Ideation, which basically means I'm full of ideas and enjoy things with new ideas. I've usually got my Ideation focused on my current series, so it's fun letting it run free. But overwhelming too.

I think it's normal to want to do multiple things or walk different paths. Part of adult life is realizing everything is a trade off and accepting that. If I want to write something more commerical, it may be less interesting to me and visa versa. If I want to write slow burn, I can't write early book sex scenes. If I want to be an indie author, I can control my packaging, marketing, and content... And now I have to learn those skills.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Ha, you sound like my husband. He calls all the sky bison and Korra's dog Appa. I bought him an Appa plush for his birthday so he's really going with it. It would be pretty boss to have a real sky bison but I think I'd be a firebender for sure, so no sky bison for me.


Ha, well great minds like fluffy animals alike. Or something like that. Yeah, I'd miss out too because I'd definitely be an earth bender. But I'd get to hang out with badgermoles, Toff, Bolin, and Bolin's fire ferret...so...sorry sky bisons.


Crystal_ said:


> This year, I've gotten really into the Write Better Faster classes/QuitBooks. If you haven't read the books by Becca Syme, check them out. They're all about questioning conventional indie advice and finding what works for you and your process. The classes are great too but the books are a cheaper/easier start.
> 
> They use Gallup Strengths Finder. I've got #4 Ideation, which basically means I'm full of ideas and enjoy things with new ideas. I've usually got my Ideation focused on my current series, so it's fun letting it run free. But overwhelming too.
> 
> I think it's normal to want to do multiple things or walk different paths. Part of adult life is realizing everything is a trade off and accepting that. If I want to write something more commerical, it may be less interesting to me and visa versa. If I want to write slow burn, I can't write early book sex scenes. If I want to be an indie author, I can control my packaging, marketing, and content... And now I have to learn those skills.


All legit advice right here. Thanks! I should definitely check out some of these sources. The marketing side is a real slog for me and usually I end up thinking, well I'll get more into it when I finish this next thing. Then I line up five more things to finish. Maybe looking at some things with a fresh approach will help. I appreciate this a ton.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> I liked it a lot better after they leave the human place and get to the magical lands. Everything is way more interesting with nutty creatures everywhere. There's this thing called "adora-burrs" and I don't want to spoil too much, but they are like tribbles that get stuck to people's clothing and they are the cutest. But, it's definitely one of those shows where you have to watch it in order, so it is kinda a shame because there's too much going on to skip ahead.


I'm down to try again with shows, it's paid off. I trust my first impressions enough to pass on finishing something but I also trust recommendations if people seem like they have similar taste. Sometimes stories need a moment to find their stride.

Did you watch Kipo?


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> This year, I've gotten really into the Write Better Faster classes/QuitBooks. If you haven't read the books by Becca Syme, check them out. They're all about questioning conventional indie advice and finding what works for you and your process. The classes are great too but the books are a cheaper/easier start.
> 
> They use Gallup Strengths Finder. I've got #4 Ideation, which basically means I'm full of ideas and enjoy things with new ideas. I've usually got my Ideation focused on my current series, so it's fun letting it run free. But overwhelming too.
> 
> I think it's normal to want to do multiple things or walk different paths. Part of adult life is realizing everything is a trade off and accepting that. If I want to write something more commerical, it may be less interesting to me and visa versa. If I want to write slow burn, I can't write early book sex scenes. If I want to be an indie author, I can control my packaging, marketing, and content... And now I have to learn those skills.


Thanks, Crystal. I'll check them out, the timing is good. I've read the Chris Fox books, except for Relaunch and Ads, which I'm saving for later. I'll have to look more into that assessment also, it looks interesting so far.

I've always had a scattered attention span, and school forced me to focus. I'm trying to apply the same principles to my writing, but it's hard to know sometimes whether I should let my mind run or if that's just letting myself get off track. It's like that old saying, when it rains it pours. When I'm writing is when the other ideas come. It's useful for what I'm writing sometimes, but the majority are ideas that have nothing to do with my WIP.

I'm still in the figuring out how to do that phase. It's been helpful how you talk about it so plainly, the compromises, the thought process behind the decisions. I'm not saying the writers I know personally are untruthful, I just don't relate when they go on about inspiration from dreams, or the muse. That all sounds like immaculate conception without commercial consideration. My writing comes from asking "what if?" against something else, usually a piece of someone else's creation. Then when I'm writing, the "what if?" turns in on my own story and off I go.

I'm just trying to sort this out so I can move on to sorting out the rest. I've only got my feet wet with one ad course so it might be naivety, but at least with the marketing I plan to do (skipping social media), it seems like it isn't as personal of a puzzle. Now I'm writing this, I'm realizing it's probably all hard, and what I'm not doing now just seems easier lol.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I'm down to try again with shows, it's paid off. I trust my first impressions enough to pass on finishing something but I also trust recommendations if people seem like they have similar taste. Sometimes stories need a moment to find their stride.
> 
> Did you watch Kipo?


Is Kipo good? I saw the preview and had no idea what was happening. Maybe it would be worth it to give it another chance. I do like the giant pink jaguar.

And yeah, I mean, I like Dragon Prince, but I can always be an oddball, so it is what it is. I feel like the older I get the more I like just goofy shenanigans in shows. There was a time when I liked thought provoking complex stories but now I'm kinda, meh, give me something silly all day every day. And Dragon Prince definitely files into the silly drawer.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> Is Kipo good? I saw the preview and had no idea what was happening. Maybe it would be worth it to give it another chance. I do like the giant pink jaguar.
> 
> And yeah, I mean, I like Dragon Prince, but I can always be an oddball, so it is what it is. I feel like the older I get the more I like just goofy shenanigans in shows. There was a time when I liked thought provoking complex stories but now I'm kinda, meh, give me something silly all day every day. And Dragon Prince definitely files into the silly drawer.


I get it. For me it's mood-dependent. I thought the same thing when I saw it pop up poking around Netflix, but Kipo is super cute and all about the wonderbeasts. I watched season 1 and loved it. I think a second season has come out too.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Thanks, Crystal. I'll check them out, the timing is good. I've read the Chris Fox books, except for Relaunch and Ads, which I'm saving for later. I'll have to look more into that assessment also, it looks interesting so far.
> ...
> I'm still in the figuring out how to do that phase. It's been helpful how you talk about it so plainly, the compromises, the thought process behind the decisions. I'm not saying the writers I know personally are untruthful, I just don't relate when they go on about inspiration from dreams, or the muse. That all sounds like immaculate conception without commercial consideration. My writing comes from asking "what if?" against something else, usually a piece of someone else's creation. Then when I'm writing, the "what if?" turns in on my own story and off I go.


Sure thing.

The Quit Books are more productivy whereas Chris Fox's books are more business. I wouldn't take necessarily business advice from Becca since she's not an author or marketer. And I would probably not take much productivity advice from Chris unless it was of the this works for me variety. I do like his books though. They're still what I reccomend when people ask.

Ha, well I have my huge ambitions and pretentious moments too. I don't think of my muse perse (once upon a time I jokingly referred to a musician crush from my teen years as my muse but we've grown apart) but I have spent a lot of time on the last year or two thinking of my purpose. Why do I write, what am I trying to accomplish, which goals will truly fulfill me?

It took awhile for me to do well financially, but now that I'm secure in my biz and my brand, I'm less focused on money and more on meaning. Only a little less because more money = more readers. But I know I won't care unless they're my books and I feel like readers are coming away from them better. That can mean a lot of different things to me, but I sometimes forget that goal when I get caught up in social media or author drama or just watching someone else hit #1.

Intent and purpose aren't discussed often in the indie world and I'm thinking about how I want to work to change that. I think it's a missing piece of the puzzle for many author, but ofc I can see why how to make money is a more compelling initial focus. There is a lack of 201 and 301 indie author resources.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> The Quit Books are more productivy whereas Chris Fox's books are more business. I wouldn't take necessarily business advice from Becca since she's not an author or marketer. And I would probably not take much productivity advice from Chris unless it was of the this works for me variety. I do like his books though. They're still what I reccomend when people ask.
> 
> ...


Understood.

Maybe it's all just the same thing dressed up with different words. When I've witnessed muse talk, it's usually abstract, a metaphor for inspiration. Inspired by a person, an article, an event, a book, a movie, how someone else expressed their perspective of an idea, liking a character and then thinking about that type of person in different circumstances... if that's what the "muse" is, I get that. It's the abstract that loses me.

It's probably naivety again, but I just couldn't imagine finishing a book if I had zero to say. Even when people declare that's what they're doing, I don't really believe them, I assume what they have to say is just subconscious. Finishing a book is so much work without a guaranteed result to have no intent outside of money. I just can't wrap my head around it.

201 and 301 is a great way of putting it, and it makes me wonder if I'm getting ahead of myself again.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> The Quit Books are more productivy whereas Chris Fox's books are more business. I wouldn't take necessarily business advice from Becca since she's not an author or marketer. And I would probably not take much productivity advice from Chris unless it was of the this works for me variety. I do like his books though. They're still what I reccomend when people ask.
> 
> ...


Yeah, over the past few years I have moved more and more toward just writing what I want to write at the pace I want to write it and forgetting everything else. Of course, I had the freedom to do that because (A) I'd sold a lot of books in the past, (B) I had a bunch of books out there already generating income (32 so far), and (C) I'm old enough and have enough basic financial security that I don't really need to make more money. Benefits of starting to write at 50+ after a long career and marriage, I guess.

It was still a real sea change, though, to step away from the ego gratification of seeing your name on rankings, of having people pay attention to you, and of making significantly MORE money--where you could do even MORE of the things.

It was making me unhappy, though. Basically, I hate marketing. (Ironically, because I came to this after a career as a marketer.) More precisely--I'm good at packaging and presentation (blurbs, covers), and good at content (writing something engaging in an engaging way). What I hate, what I've always hated, is SELLING. Even when I was a marketer, I worked with the sales director. I gave her the tools she needed to sell, but we were both real clear that I was lousy at selling.  I hate asking people to buy my book. It brings up all sorts of squirmy discomfort for me. Cross-promotion, advertising, all that stuff--just a big ol' NO for me. Which makes release day easy, haha. I just write a newsletter and I'm done.

What I'm really interested in, at this point, is forging my own path in terms of writing. I have an audience clamoring for one particular thing I do (which I only do half the time or less), and a smaller but still pretty good audience that will read almost anything I write. I write for myself, and to communicate what I want to say to people who want to hear it. i always have. I'm just clearer now on my priorities.

I took Becca's course (Write Better Faster). It didn't work well for me (my "writing personality" is really different from the personality I show up as in those tests, and my process is pretty subconscious), but I've heard nothing but raves from everybody else I know who's taken it. As for me, I still go at the speed I went when I started writing fiction, 9 years and 32 books ago.

Not to say that my ego still doesn't get in there and make trouble in my head at times. But I'm getting better at accepting my priorities (really only one now--"get better at writing"). It's really important, from what I've seen, to know why you're doing this and what matters most to you.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> It was making me unhappy, though. Basically, I hate marketing. (Ironically, because I came to this after a career as a marketer.) More precisely--I'm good at packaging and presentation (blurbs, covers), and good at content (writing something engaging in an engaging way). What I hate, what I've always hated, is SELLING. Even when I was a marketer, I worked with the sales director. I gave her the tools she needed to sell, but we were both real clear that I was lousy at selling.  I hate asking people to buy my book. It brings up all sorts of squirmy discomfort for me. Cross-promotion, advertising, all that stuff--just a big ol' NO for me. Which makes release day easy, haha. I just write a newsletter and I'm done.
> 
> What I'm really interested in, at this point, is forging my own path in terms of writing. I have an audience clamoring for one particular thing I do (which I only do half the time or less), and a smaller but still pretty good audience that will read almost anything I write. I write for myself, and to communicate what I want to say to people who want to hear it. i always have. I'm just clearer now on my priorities.
> 
> ...


Usedto, I wonder if maybe your results weren't accurate? Ofc not everyone clicks with Strengths. My husband thinks they're silly. But I've found them a really useful tool and even the Strength positions that initially surprised me make more sense when I learn more about them. As with anything, I'd use what clicks with you and ignore everything else.

I prefer the books and their new thing, individual Strengths classes, to WBF, but I was already very familiar with MBTI, which they use for a large part of the class, and I already worked out a lot of things the hard way. And... I don't actually care about writing better, faster. I took the class more because I'd been in an on and off slump for awhile, and COVID was not helping matters.

I did well with my fifth published book, which was also something that really clicked with me (inspired by the aforementioned musician... so inner 16 year old girl, very happy) and for awhile, I kept on that series/niche, and kept in that general space and really did write stuff that I liked that other people liked to. It wasn't easy, but I was happy to be writing and making money, and writing my books, and while I always wanted to do better, I hadn't... well, I guess I was always pretty jaded. I almost quit reading romance around book three, bc I kept accidentally picking up books that horrified me, but I hadn't lost faith yet, I guess.

Then I published a book that was really personal that just didn't do well... and worse, readers were kinda dismissive and rude about. They meant well. I get they were excited to hear about my main series, but it's quite insulting to hear "when's the other series coming back" as a reply to an email where I talk about how this new book is coming soon, and it's really awesome and personal to me.

Basically, I'd let myself buy into this whole passion = connecting with readers thing. And when I lost that, I started to feel like... WTF am I doing? If people want this high school bullies and other abusive hero type stories, and no one even seems to mind that, and it's not even considered okay to talk about it in a critical manner... then why am I hear. And tbh I'm having one of those days again today, though for a more personal reason (actions of a friend; though I've been rocking this on and off since the latest RAM. The overall vibe was a little condescending/patronizing IMO).

So I took Becca's class, and read her books, because of that, and it has helped, but it's taken a long effin' time and reflection, and it's still a WIP.

Mostly, I find the classes and the BFA space are good for helping you accept your work style, your brain, your goals. I can tell myself "yes, I'll be happy if I hit #1 no matter what, even if it's a GW book I don't believe in" or "I shouldn't care if people mention me as X kind of author" or even "I'm okay writing concepts that bore me" but none of those things are true. And I'm going to cause myself a lot of pain trying to convince myself of them.

I can also tell myself "yes, I'll write faster, I'll just care less about quality," but I know that will never actually work out. I knew that deep down already, but it's nice to be confronted with "evidence" and talk to a lot of other people who feel the same way. And also have language for talking about it with others in a way that doesn't feel judgemental (as talks about speed and quality often do. I'm high Compliance and I don't have to accept anyone else's idea of quality. In fact, I never will. If someone tells me their books are good, I don't have to agree. And I don't need them to agree my books are good either).

Bite, I think it's good to set intentions from the beginning. Get them laminated so you don't forget them, ha. At the end of the day, I have most of the same goals I had when I was a teenager who wanted to be a writer, but I've added a few on (mostly of the patriarchy destroying variety). Romance is simultaneously the perfect place for me (because, really, I want to write books about people trying to have relationships, and show how effin hard relationships are and how hard it is to truly understand another person... just like I did when I was a teenager) and the worst place for me (because of the same thing-- a lot of time, the ugly reality, or the rawness is just too much for readers, and btw if someone calls their book raw, it does not mean this--and also because it's an industry full of internalized misogyny, in the authors, readers, and culture... which also makes it a good place to fight the patriarchy, but it certainly feels like an uphill battle).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

How I've coped with the misogyny thing is simply by not reading or paying attention to what anybody else is doing in romance. (Did I mention I've never done cross promo) I didn't start out doing that on purpose, but at the beginning, when I had my first few books out and was taking a look around to see what other people were doing, I got kinda horrified by some of what was popular. I also found that I couldn't read romance except for some old favorites that aren't much "like" any romance out there now (Eva Ibbotson, for ex.) If it's good, it makes me insecure. If it isn't, it makes me nuts. 

Bottom line--I like my own stories best in romance. That's why I started writing them. I try to write what I've seen in a lifetime of marriage & raising sons & having male friends, as far as the ways men can be awesome, the way they're different from women, the things that are maddening and also really comforting. And the ways in which men and women are just people, too, more alike than they are different. From my perspective as both a lifelong feminist and a realistic wife of 40 years. 

Some people think my stuff is boring, because it doesn't tend to be high conflict (not between the couple, because people who don't get along well don't necessarily have great relationships). Something for everybody out there, even in romance, and I think that gets missed at times as people "study the market." (Which really means studying a tiny slice of the market, which is heavily promoted and maybe is trying to appeal to a segment of the romance market that is far from mine.) 

Which isn't advice for anybody else, but I don't get much chance to talk about this stuff (or any, really), and it's interesting.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

These discussions might not draw the most engagement here, but they're the best. It's a relief to know other writers have these thoughts and doubts, even super successful authors.



Crystal_ said:


> Bite, I think it's good to set intentions from the beginning. Get them laminated so you don't forget them, ha. At the end of the day, I have most of the same goals I had when I was a teenager who wanted to be a writer, but I've added a few on (mostly of the patriarchy destroying variety). Romance is simultaneously the perfect place for me (because, really, I want to write books about people trying to have relationships, and show how effin hard relationships are and how hard it is to truly understand another person... just like I did when I was a teenager) and the worst place for me (because of the same thing-- a lot of time, the ugly reality, or the rawness is just too much for readers, and btw if someone calls their book raw, it does not mean this--and also because it's an industry full of internalized misogyny, in the authors, readers, and culture... which also makes it a good place to fight the patriarchy, but it certainly feels like an uphill battle).


I'm actually nerdy enough to be excited by that lol. As soon as my state reopens, I'll be on it. If Staples is still around, of course.

I hate when people say it, it's corny as hell, but "be the change" is all we can do. You're doing your part just by showing up, lassoing the readers, and giving them books with something to think about.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I've spoken a lot (though maybe not here) about my strategy of tricking the readers. Well, not tricking exactly, but getting them to come for the sexy bad boys (sub the trope or hook of your choice) and stay for the nuanced take on trauma and mental illness and addiction... (Sub other topics readers wouldn't naturally pic up. Those are my favs but it's not a complete list).

It's worked pretty well (it's only been conscious strategy for the last half of my career thus far) but it does mean I'm not really broadcasting my status. I'm sure that's a part of why I feel unacknowledged for my work (the mental health part), but I haven't worked out how to broadcast it in a way that also sells books. But there must be readers out there because I know I'd pick that up. Just not as many as will pick up off limits bad boy or moody fake husband (thus the strategy of tricking the readers).

But that often means using a light touch so I don't alienate (too many) genre readers and sometimes I worry I'm going so light no one is noticing. I do try to spell it out at least once.

I think it's always wise not to pay too much attention to how other people are doing, especially if you have a clear thing you write (or you write what moves you atm). There's really nothing good that will come out of it.


----------



## marissa_lopez (Jan 25, 2018)

I hate Character Arcs, as long as the pacing doesn't suck I don't care if the character grew, because if the pacing is bad I am going to close the book anyways. Gone with the wind is my favorite book and Scarlet still tried to be with Ashley to the very end. She was always a tough girl before the war


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Usedtoposthere said:


> How I've coped with the misogyny thing is simply by not reading or paying attention to what anybody else is doing in romance.


I mean, I don't know for sure, but it sounds like you plowed ahead, stuck to your guns, and made the stories you wanted to see into a reality. That's probably not coping with the misogyny as much as it is being generally awesome.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

When I think of "tricking readers" I think of The Hunger Games books. What a successful trick. She got the masses to read a YA book they thought was a high school allegory with a love triangle and pageantry, only to be fed a story about the human cost of war, the evils of exploitative capitalism and authoritarian rulers, the necessity of rebellion, and the traumas that never fully heal. Some may not have liked where the story went, but I'm sure the books gave them something to think about.

If you have found a way to say something you want to say and make money doing it, I'd count that as pretty spectacular.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> When I think of "tricking readers" I think of The Hunger Games books. What a successful trick. She got the masses to read a YA book they thought was a high school allegory with a love triangle and pageantry, only to be fed a story about the human cost of war, the evils of exploitative capitalism and authoritarian rulers, the necessity of rebellion, and the traumas that never fully heal. Some may not have liked where the story went, but I'm sure the books gave them something to think about.
> 
> If you have found a way to say something you want to say and make money doing it, I'd count that as pretty spectacular.


A girl after my own heart.

The Hunger Games is my favorite series of all time. Even if Mockingjay has some hammy cliffhangers.

THG is a great litmus test too. If someone speaks of it dismissively, esp if they've read it, you know they're dismissing it because it's aimed at teenage girls. A sexist jerk you can ignore.

I bought my sister's middle school class Catching Fire... right before COVID put everyone distance learning. Actually, I'm not sure I actually bought it, or if I promised to buy it and it didn't happen (we had a death in the family right after that promise, so shit got kinda complicated. One day, when school is back in session, if she hasn't finally started teaching abroad or teaching only drama. She teaches English, History, and drama. I'm surrounded by musical theater lovers. It's horrible and I don't even mind musical theater, but enough with the Les Mis, enough).


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> A girl after my own heart.
> 
> The Hunger Games is my favorite series of all time. Even if Mockingjay has some hammy cliffhangers.
> 
> ...


Too true! I remember feeling angry standing in a subway looking at what Hollywood did with the merchandising. I thought, I'll find this ironic and hilarious later, but right now, this is just going to give people an excuse to dismiss the books. But people who think that way don't need an excuse, I suppose.

That's neat that you did/wanted to do that. I think it's a modern classic, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the school curriculum one day. But I'm sorry to hear that. This year is just too much.

Les Mis is played out lol.

Did you ever read THG prequel? I was so surprised when I saw Snow was the MC. I'm sort of curious to see how she tries to humanize young him, but what does it matter if we know who he becomes? And worse, that it was a choice.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Too true! I remember feeling angry standing in a subway looking at what Hollywood did with the merchandising. I thought, I'll find this ironic and hilarious later, but right now, this is just going to give people an excuse to dismiss the books. But people who think that way don't need an excuse, I suppose.
> 
> That's neat that you did/wanted to do that. I think it's a modern classic, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the school curriculum one day. But I'm sorry to hear that. This year is just too much.
> 
> ...


OMG tell me about it. I get the songs are bangers, but enough already with oh god, what's the song called... whatever it's called.

And all the dorky guys I know were big on being Team Gale bc Liam Hemsworth is more conventionally attractive. But he has the screen presence of a rock. OMG is there no chemistry between him and Jennifer Lawrence.

I did read the prequel. It was very much of the "this did not need to exist" category for me. It was entertaining enough, but it less subtle and special than THG and it really needlessly explained a lot of things that needed no explanation. (Though, to bring it to Strengths, that might be my low Context and low Connectedness talking).

For me, it was a big who cares about President Snow. It's a pretty readable book but I don't think it adds anything to the THG universe.

Santiano Fontana narrates the audiobook (he's a big broadway star) so that really brought me and my sister together lol. (Ofc she listens to audiobooks, being into musical theater). When I convinced her to watch TGW, she'd text me every episode "omg this Broadway star." But, sadly, I think she abandoned the show pretty early.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> OMG tell me about it. I get the songs are bangers, but enough already with oh god, what's the song called... whatever it's called.
> 
> And all the dorky guys I know were big on being Team Gale bc Liam Hemsworth is more conventionally attractive. But he has the screen presence of a rock. OMG is there no chemistry between him and Jennifer Lawrence.
> 
> ...


Seriously? The dorks didn't even have Peeta's back lol? I was on team Peeta. I know height is a big deal for some people, but for me who a person is diminishes the importance of the physical. You might not be on my radar at first sight, but if you're a good human you'll get there. Gale in the books always just seemed like the idea of a an inevitable relationship rather than an actual one. They had a relationship, of course, it just came off brother/sister to me more than romantic. Or maybe I just love that Katniss and Peeta literally couldn't be together because one would have to kill the other. Talk about enemies to lovers. But nope, I think Peeta's sacrifices just spoke louder to me. And when it came to the movies, yeah, zero chemistry. I know other people saw it, and read it, but I never thought it was a triangle or a true second contender. I remember that age and confusion about love vs. in love. That's all I saw there.

I'm really going to have to take that test when I can. I know my curiosity will get the better of me since it's one of my favorites, but life's grim enough without climbing in Snow's head right now. I ended up paying for HBO Max since they have no free trial anymore, and started watching I May Destroy You, billed the top comedy of the year by lots of the lists, and had to turn it off by episode 2.

That's too bad, but she probably has a full schedule being a teacher. That's a lot. The Kings do love their Broadway stars. You're reminding me how much I love that show, but I'm still heartbroken how Alicia and Kalinda went left though. I can even forgive the final season, but I can't get over that.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

To somehow go back to the main topic, I was thinking about this with Better Caul Saul. And I'm clearly on record here as thinking Breaking Bad is overhyped (which, honestly, it would have to be, bc it's so hyped) and not liking Better Caul Saul's emphasize on Mike and then Gus.

I didn't like Mike on BB, so I didn't really like him on BCS, but he's also just not interesting, and his scenes aren't interesting. Because he already is the character he is on BB. So there's no room for him to change (and there are no existential stakes either. We know he's going to make it).

He's not an interesting character, in general. He's good at everything, wow. He's a real Gary Stu tbh. But Gus is a more interesting character, who is flawed in a way that actually impacts him (flaws need to cause the character problems to be interesting), and he's more interesting than Mike on BCS...

But he's so much less interesting than the new characters. Because, again, he's nearly the same person he is on BB. Wheras the new villains could become anyone or anything. And they could live or die.

So I think, whether you watch for plot or character development, the new characters are more interesting than the old, because they have room for growth and room for failure or success of their goals. There just aren't high stakes to anything Mike and Gus do, because it doesn't really matter if they make their BCS goals. Whether they do or not, they're going to end up how they end up.



Bite the Dusty said:


> Seriously? The dorks didn't even have Peeta's back lol? I was on team Peeta. I know height is a big deal for some people, but for me who a person is diminishes the importance of the physical. You might not be on my radar at first sight, but if you're a good human you'll get there. Gale in the books always just seemed like the idea of a an inevitable relationship rather than an actual one. They had a relationship, of course, it just came off brother/sister to me more than romantic. Or maybe I just love that Katniss and Peeta literally couldn't be together because one would have to kill the other. Talk about enemies to lovers. But nope, I think Peeta's sacrifices just spoke louder to me. And when it came to the movies, yeah, zero chemistry. I know other people saw it, and read it, but I never thought it was a triangle or a true second contender. I remember that age and confusion about love vs. in love. That's all I saw there.
> 
> I'm really going to have to take that test when I can. I know my curiosity will get the better of me since it's one of my favorites, but life's grim enough without climbing in Snow's head right now. I ended up paying for HBO Max since they have no free trial anymore, and started watching I May Destroy You, billed the top comedy of the year by lots of the lists, and had to turn it off by episode 2.
> 
> That's too bad, but she probably has a full schedule being a teacher. That's a lot. The Kings do love their Broadway stars. You're reminding me how much I love that show, but I'm still heartbroken how Alicia and Kalinda went left though. I can even forgive the final season, but I can't get over that.


Oh yeah, they were my OTP for sure (not nec romantically, though I would have been fine with that). I guess The Kings were hamstrung by their feud. They did what they had to do. That's what I admire about them, they're not overly precious the way a lot of more prestige shows are. They are writers who work, to borrow a term from a podcast I listen to. Also, Darkness at Noon is a total classic.

I don't generally like third person, so I didn't love the POV change, though I don't know that I'd want to be in President Snow's head in first person. But I also felt like Collins was a little awkward in third person. It was hard to follow the action some of the time. I think the movie will be more exciting if they ever make it, because the exciting stuff in the book is, ironically or perhaps apropo, the first produced Hunger Games. (The sorta conclusion at the end, that Snow is in horror of making the Hunger Games into a truly popular thing doesn't stick for me. Uh, spoilers, I guess? Because, while it is horrible, the genius of the games is that they keep an entire country in line, fighting each other, while only sacrificing 23 people a year. Twenty-three children is a lot, sure, but it's pretty small potatoes compared to the loss of life in a rebellion or a full blown war. It's actually a really smart idea. And Snow is already pretty evil at that point, so I didn't really buy that he'd be oh no, what have I done.

I think, as with BCS above, the character development stakes are a bit weaker for Snow, because we know who he becomes. But he starts far enough away from that guy (with enough years between the prequel and the OT), that there is room for character development. And there are other characters, new characters, who we have room to grow or live or die.

In other news, I finally got support for my Stringer Bell is asexual theory from my BIL's girlfriend. The first woman I've talked to he's seen seasons 1 & 2 of The Wire also. (Asexual or perhaps repressing his queer feelings for his partner... but... well, I can't say any more without spoilers. She hasn't watched season 3 so we could not discuss the thing that happens in season 3). It was truly a banner day over here. Truly.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Crystal_ said:


> Oh yeah, they were my OTP for sure (not nec romantically, though I would have been fine with that). I guess The Kings were hamstrung by their feud. They did what they had to do. That's what I admire about them, they're not overly precious the way a lot of more prestige shows are. They are writers who work, to borrow a term from a podcast I listen to. Also, Darkness at Noon is a total classic.
> 
> I don't generally like third person, so I didn't love the POV change, though I don't know that I'd want to be in President Snow's head in first person. But I also felt like Collins was a little awkward in third person. It was hard to follow the action some of the time. I think the movie will be more exciting if they ever make it, because the exciting stuff in the book is, ironically or perhaps apropo, the first produced Hunger Games. (The sorta conclusion at the end, that Snow is in horror of making the Hunger Games into a truly popular thing doesn't stick for me. Uh, spoilers, I guess? Because, while it is horrible, the genius of the games is that they keep an entire country in line, fighting each other, while only sacrificing 23 people a year. Twenty-three children is a lot, sure, but it's pretty small potatoes compared to the loss of life in a rebellion or a full blown war. It's actually a really smart idea. And Snow is already pretty evil at that point, so I didn't really buy that he'd be oh no, what have I done.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't have minded if it was romantic either, but I didn't see that. I just loved their friendship and mutual respect. I guess I'm still just sour grapes because they were real in my head lol. I've never listened to that one. My friend, the one who won't watch anything animated, she's obsessed with the true crime podcasts. I started to listen to one she picked out, it was the one they adapted into Dirty John, but I stopped. That stuff sketches me out, and I'm writing about murders these days lol.

I'd actually be more interested in just seeing the movie, now you mention it. I wouldn't want to be in his head either, and it would take a whole lot in first person to convince me that he has a remorseful, human bone in his body. The character represented a Machiavellian leader, the corrupting force of power, and the immoral uses and abuses of it. You say it's smart and I cringe, because when you put it like that you're right. Maybe I need to get off my high horse, but I don't see me buying him as even a oz. sympathetic or relatable.

I'm glad you finally got support for the theory lol! I'll be taking a crack at it on the other side of Christmas.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

..............................


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

It's in the eye of the beholder, I think.

I'm probably in the weeds on this one, but feel free to join me. I thought more on this after the thread sank. I came up with three characteristics of a character arc (or call it ranges/spectrum):

1) Overt vs. Subtle
2) Intentional vs. Unintentional
3) Didactic vs. Ambiguous

Then you add a person in the mix and it's even more complicated. Every reader comes with their own unique set of personalities, experiences and beliefs. They project themselves onto the book, or show or whatever and in the end you get different results. I tend to be analytical, I worry sometimes I overthink, so I might find the subtle, unintentional or ambiguous character arcs in something fluffy or procedural. Someone very different might watch or read something intentional and overt and completely miss the creator's point. Endless possible interpretations.

I'm not saying there aren't superficial narratives out there, there are. Many of the ones I love are comfort reads/watches because they require less of me and sometimes I just need to turn off my brain, but I've also had the experience of re-reading and re-watching and discovering layers I didn't see before, or reading articles or opinions that completely re-frame what I thought was there.

Re-watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer last year was a very different experience than watching it for the first time as a teenager. It's the same show, but what I relate to and see is mindbogglingly different.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Corvid said:


> Huge agree on _The Hunger Games_ being a modern classic. The opening chapter of that book is a masterclass unto itself. The whole first book is just insanely clean, and efficient, or put more simply: well-written. I thought _Catching Fire_ was really good too. Wish I had even a modicum of Suzanne Collins' writing talent. I haven't read the prequel, but I'm not a fan of prequels generally - which is a funny thing to say given I've just been singing the praises of _BCS_.
> 
> Bringing it back - a bit - towards character arcs, and relating it to television, I was a big fan of shows from the '80s where arcs were pretty much flat if not non-existent. I loved _The Equalizer_, and _Matlock_, to throw out a couple of examples. I've never seen an episode of _Murder, She Wrote_, but I'm thinking there wasn't much of an arc for Jessica Fletcher either. I could stand to be corrected on that.


Damn straight.

In this book I recommend to everyone now, Dear Writer, You Need To Quit, Becca Syme says we love things for their virtues, not their flaws. No one has ever said, "I loved this book. It was so mediocre, but it didn't have any weaknesses." And even though I can see how Mockingjay could really use another pass--certain parts are rushed and many of the cliffhangers are quite ham-fisted--I still love it for its gutsiness. And for some reason I really did believe Katniss would get to District 13 and it would be great. Too much time watching kids shows, I guess.

I think you're right about old-school procedurals. Most of them had no or light arcs for the leads, because they were written with syndication in mind, and creators wanted people to be able to jump in at any moment. But I wonder if the characters involved in the case of the week have mini-arcs. Certainly, they have new information come to light and certainly their life changes--someone they know was murdered. So I want to say... yes, they do, even if it's not our conventional idea of a character arc.

I don't think the no arc leads flies in the age of binge-watching. At the very least, people want to see the relationships between the detectives grow and change. Even the silly cozies of recent(ish), like Psych and Monk, have arcs. They're slower moving, over the course of seasons, but they're there.

But then even the detectives and lawyers on_ Law and Order_ had arcs. Sometimes even big arcs. Lenny Briscoe (Jerry Orbach) has a reunion with his estranged daughter that leads to a big character moment... but you could totally miss it if you aren't watching the whole season on DVD (they might even cut it from reruns).

I do wonder about the arcs of the case of the week characters. I know I've seen clear arcs for them on TGW, but I haven't really thought about it on other shows. Hmm...


----------



## Nick G (Sep 21, 2018)

As an outsider (not a writer), this topic and all the opinions were an interesting read. It's more philosophical than I'd have thought, but I'm one of those who would think a procedural didn't have character arcs as described.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Corvid said:


> Also, Nik, to answer your question, I find _Temple_, _Crusade_, and _Crystal Skull_ all far inferior to _Raiders_, but I understand _Crusade_'s popularity even if I found it nowhere near as good. That said, I really liked the opening scene with River Phoenix. He would've been a great person to take up the mantle.
> 
> Bringing it back - a bit - towards character arcs, and relating it to television, I was a big fan of shows from the '80s where arcs were pretty much flat if not non-existent. I loved _The Equalizer_, and _Matlock_, to throw out a couple of examples. I've never seen an episode of _Murder, She Wrote_, but I'm thinking there wasn't much of an arc for Jessica Fletcher either. I could stand to be corrected on that.


Ha, you know, I'm starting to think that yeah, you might not like character arcs  But that's good. I feel like knowing what you like and why is kind of a hard thing to come to.

And yeah, there were some shows from that era that really tried to avoid change at all costs. Which makes sense. They were shows made for tuning in once a week, or in the evening with the family or something like that, and it was kind of relaxing just to jump into another day in the life of Matlock. Today with netflix and binge watching it can get a little hard to go through episodes of a show like that. At least for me, it's easier to watch something like MASH where there is just enough change over time with the characters to keep me coming back.

Heh, I don't know, at least there is a wide range of fictions out there. So everyone can find something that's good for them. I feel like I am on the complete opposite side of the arc thing than you are, but at least we both got stuff to watch 



Bite the Dusty said:


> It's in the eye of the beholder, I think.
> 
> I'm probably in the weeds on this one, but feel free to join me. I thought more on this after the thread sank. I came up with three characteristics of a character arc (or call it ranges/spectrum):
> 
> ...


Ha, dang. I'm feeling tired right now and I can't fully absorb this, but when I come back to this post with a fresh head, I know I'm going to learn something epic.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> Ha, dang. I'm feeling tired right now and I can't fully absorb this, but when I come back to this post with a fresh head, I know I'm going to learn something epic.


Something epic-ly convoluted, for sure. Sometimes I reread my own thoughts and can't help but think of Professor Trelawney lol. I have a mind like a filing cabinet that's been ransacked. As usual, I think Crystal nailed it and if what I said sounds like a foreign language, just read hers!


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Something epic-ly convoluted, for sure. Sometimes I reread my own thoughts and can't help but think of Professor Trelawney lol. I have a mind like a filing cabinet that's been ransacked. As usual, I think Crystal nailed it and if what I said sounds like a foreign language, just read hers!


Nah, I got you  Was just having a, stare at the screen, moment. I think you are right that the reader has a lot to do with it. I definitely like a more subtle or ambiguous story arc, and I think part of it is the moment of realization. Like, oh...wait, that's what this is all about? If the reveal is powerful enough, then it really sticks with me when it clicks. But at the same time if the arc is subtle but then it reveals to be something run of the mill it's always a little disappointing.

One example I can think of (because we were watching it the other night) was Batman Returns. In the movie catwoman has this running thing where something happens to her and she counts down her nine lives and that's kind of her "power". But after a while you start to realize that all these things are actually just things that she could survive, and then when it comes to the end it's more of the idea of, whoa, it's probably all in her head. Like, she might have survived a trauma and woke up different. Not having her arc really spelled out made it great to me. When her and bruce wayne figure out who each other are and she says, "do we have to fight now?" I was like, wait, that's what this is? Two people who snapped and they literally don't know how to be day to day? I find that kind of arc way more powerful than something like the newer movies. Where batman has kind of a jerk personality and fights crime with his terrible martial art skills because, well, I guess because Michael Caine gave him some really great speeches. Heh, I am completely bias here, but it's just the first example I could think of.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

............................


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> Nah, I got you  Was just having a, stare at the screen, moment. I think you are right that the reader has a lot to do with it. I definitely like a more subtle or ambiguous story arc, and I think part of it is the moment of realization. Like, oh...wait, that's what this is all about? If the reveal is powerful enough, then it really sticks with me when it clicks. But at the same time if the arc is subtle but then it reveals to be something run of the mill it's always a little disappointing.
> 
> One example I can think of (because we were watching it the other night) was Batman Returns. In the movie catwoman has this running thing where something happens to her and she counts down her nine lives and that's kind of her "power". But after a while you start to realize that all these things are actually just things that she could survive, and then when it comes to the end it's more of the idea of, whoa, it's probably all in her head. Like, she might have survived a trauma and woke up different. Not having her arc really spelled out made it great to me. When her and bruce wayne figure out who each other are and she says, "do we have to fight now?" I was like, wait, that's what this is? Two people who snapped and they literally don't know how to be day to day? I find that kind of arc way more powerful than something like the newer movies. Where batman has kind of a jerk personality and fights crime with his terrible martial art skills because, well, I guess because Michael Caine gave him some really great speeches. Heh, I am completely bias here, but it's just the first example I could think of.


Excellent example. I just happened to have watched that over the holidays for the first time. It's technically a Christmas movie, right? I thought it was a lot of fun, way more fun than what Batman's become in more recent movies, but I didn't think about any of what you just outlined. I thought it was a little weird she was shot multiple times but there didn't appear to be bullet holes or wounds. Plus, as far as powers go, if you spend your lives that quick it doesn't seem like such a great power. The trauma metaphor makes so much sense now you mention it.

But what you said does tie in to what I kept wondering while watching the amazing animated Harley Quinn. If you haven't watched, no worries, no spoilers. I kept wondering why Batman is so high and mighty about not killing the killers when he must occasionally if accidentally kill people in his vigilante efforts, people he might not even realize he's harmed, and returning lunatics to Arkham just leads to inevitable breakouts and they certainly kill others when they return to the streets. I started to wonder if it's not just the criminals, but also Batman who's snapped, and if he killed the others he'd be without a purpose, so he rounds them up and waits for them to get loose, all while the city he claims to protect suffers. Or it could just be a black and white moral code, but that's less interesting lol.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I think yes and no. Most people are suckers for cliffhangers and consume highly serialized content.

But there are also more anthologies and mini-series than ever. Streaming shows don't have to be as broad or survive for as long. That opens up options.

TV is a business as publishing is. When the best strategy was aim for 100 episodes and all the residuals, that's what people did. Now, Netflix rarely keeps a show past season three because they get the buzz from launch, not longevity.

Other streaming platforms... Who knows?

I expect you'll have a harder time selling a long running series with no arcs. But a series with small arcs... That still seems popular in spy and detective fiction.


----------

