mouthporn.net
#tropes – @fizzgigfurball on Tumblr
Avatar

Urban Unreasoning

@fizzgigfurball / fizzgigfurball.tumblr.com

Proudly biting at the ankles of evil. He/him. A collection of stuff I like, not much else to tell.
Avatar

Two ways to subverse Chekhov’s gun

Firstly, what is Chekhov’s gun?

It’s a theory by Anton Chekhov saying every element in your story must serve a purpose, you’re not allowed to lead your audience on and imply something that you will not deliver on. If you mention a gun hanging over the fire in act one, someone must fire it before the end of act three. It’s about reader expectations.

For example

If a girl in a supernatural story receives a silver necklace as a gift, you can safely assume she will encounter (or turn into) a vampire later on.

So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that the readers could see your set-up (the gun hanging over the fire) and guess what the follow-up will be (someone firing it).

Okay, how can you subverse it?

Two ways:

  • Camouflage the set-up
  • Fire the gun twice

Camouflage the set-up

How do you that?

  • Present it as an insignificant detail
  • Hide it in the crowd
  • Distract the reader by immediately following it up with something big and or shocking

The advantages:

  • If done well, it makes readers go “OHHH, I should have seen this coming!!

The disadvantages:

  • The reader may gloss over your set-up, because you have hidden it too well. If they don’t catch the set-up at all, they may find the follow-up abrupt, out of the blue or out of character.
  • There is still a chance the reader still knows what you’re doing.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, I’m saying you should do it cleverly.

Fire the gun twice

How do you do that?

Mention the figurative gun over the fire and use the gun for something relatively small. The audience will think this is the follow-up. Later, use the gun again. Usually, readers don’t see this coming but won’t think it comes out of the blue.

I hope this was helpful. Don’t hesitate to ask me any questions, and happy writing!

Follow me for more writing advice, or check out my other writing tips here. New topics to write advice about are also always appreciated.Tag list below the cut. If you like to be added to or removed from the list, let me know.

Avatar

Things I did not understand as a child:

  • Whether Miss Piggy and Kermit were dating or not, given how much the show and the movies waffled on it.
  • Why Statler and Waldorf went to the Muppet Show if they hated it.

Things I understand now:

  • The notion of a tumultuous on-again off-again relationship.
  • The fact that it’s fun to criticize things.
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
tlbodine

Why Isn’t “Mass Shooter” a Modern Horror Monster?

Horror reflects the anxieties of the culture that produces it. In the 1950s, we got monster movies about radiation-mutated creatures and invaders from beyond the stars, mirroring our Cold War Science fears. 

In the 1970s, as “Women’s Liberation” and birth control went mainstream, we see an influx of horrors settled on childbirth and children and family dysfunction. 

And as the 70s bled into the 80s, while real-world serial killers were leaving behind trails of victims, the masked psycho was dominating the field with countless slashers. 

But now – throughout the 2010s – mass shootings loom large our our collective American consciousness. Hardly a week goes by without hearing of one somewhere, and they inspire fear and terror. Yet we haven’t seen them show up to dominate horror media in the way serial killers do – what’s up with that? 

Horror-media discussion about gun violence under the cut! 

Avatar
Avatar
prokopetz

“Generically medieval”, by which we mean our peerage is French, our castles are German, our weapons are Italian, and everybody speaks English.

you can have religion in one of 2 flavors: “woo hoo aesthetic garnish” and “Sinister State Control in Bad Allegory for Problems in Modern Christianity”

Also, the latter is aesthetically French Catholic, theologically German Protestant, and has the institutional structure of the Church of Scientology.

not to mention that this land is simultaneously inhabited by thinly modified northern vikings (Nordic pre-medieval/9th century), travelling mongols (European medieval/13th century) and a wealthy italian merchant family with a house full of oil paintings (Southern European renaissance/15th century). the dance of the day is waltz (refined German 18th century country dance).

Avatar
“The LEGO Movie was my favorite movie of 2014, but it strikes me that the main character was male, because I feel like in our current culture, he HAD to be. The whole point of Emmett is that he’s the most boring average person in the world. It’s impossible to imagine a female character playing that role, because according to our pop culture, if she’s female she’s already SOMEthing, because she’s not male. The baseline is male. The average person is male. You can see this all over but it’s weirdly prevalent in children’s entertainment. Why are almost all of the muppets dudes, except for Miss Piggy, who’s a parody of femininity? Why do all of the Despicable Me minions, genderless blobs, have boy names? I love the story (which I read on Wikipedia) that when the director of The Brave Little Toaster cast a woman to play the toaster, one of the guys on the crew was so mad he stormed out of the room. Because he thought the toaster was a man. A TOASTER. The character is a toaster. I try to think about that when writing new characters— is there anything inherently gendered about what this character is doing? Or is it a toaster?”

— Bojack Horseman creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg commenting on how weird gendered defaults in entertainment are, and why we should think twice about them. Excerpted from this longer original post. (via 360degreesasthecrowflies)

Avatar
Avatar
susiephone

when will YA authors realize that the mr. darcy fantasy isn’t “hot rich guy is a huge dick to you” but “hot rich guy fucking respects and listens to you”

Avatar
inkbleeder

“hot rich guy only seems like a huge dick because he has the social skills of an agarophobic lobster.”

“hot rich guy falls in love with you, respects your wishes when you tell him to fuck off, mends his ways with no ulterior motive and opens his dumb awkward heart to you”

Avatar

#5yrsago Cold Equations and Moral Hazard: science fiction considered harmful to the future

My latest Locus column is “Cold Equations and Moral Hazard”, an essay about the way that our narratives about the future can pave the way for bad people to create, and benefit from, disasters. “If being in a lifeboat gives you the power to make everyone else shut the hell up and listen (or else), then wouldn’t it be awfully convenient if our ship were to go down?”

Apparently, editor John W. Campbell sent back three rewrites in which the pilot figured out how to save the girl. He was adamant that the universe must punish the girl.
The universe wasn’t punishing the girl, though. Godwin was – and so was Barton (albeit reluctantly).
The parameters of ‘‘The Cold Equations’’ are not the inescapable laws of physics. Zoom out beyond the page’s edges and you’ll find the author’s hands carefully arranging the scenery so that the plague, the world, the fuel, the girl and the pilot are all poised to inevitably lead to her execution. The author, not the girl, decided that there was no autopilot that could land the ship without the pilot. The author decided that the plague was fatal to all concerned, and that the vaccine needed to be delivered within a timeframe that could only be attained through the execution of the stowaway.
It is, then, a contrivance. A circumstance engineered for a justifiable murder. An elaborate shell game that makes the poor pilot – and the company he serves – into victims every bit as much as the dead girl is a victim, forced by circumstance and girlish naïveté to stain their souls with murder.
Moral hazard is the economist’s term for a rule that encourages people to behave badly. For example, a rule that says that you’re not liable for your factory’s pollution if you don’t know about it encourages factory owners to totally ignore their effluent pipes – it turns willful ignorance into a profitable strategy.
Avatar

Advice on Writing Thieves, Assassins, or Other Stealthy Characters

I’ve put a lot of research into this, and I’ve seen a lot of great rogue-like characters, where the author was clearly unsure as to how they perform their criminal activities. If you feel the need to ask why I know this stuff, my main writings are for a book series called “A Thief’s War,” which should be more than enough explanation. I swear I’m not personally a thief.

Anyway, here we go:

Lockpicking:

I’ve seen some stories where characters grab a paperclip, and boom, no lock can stop them. I’ve also seen some where master thieves take a hammer and smash the lock.

A lock has a series of tumblers in it, each of which need to click into place for it to unlock. A key’s design is usual exactly what it must be to get these tumblers into the proper position.

There are a wide array of shapes and sizes for lockpicks, and if you’re going to go around picking locks, you’re going to need more than one. There is no universal lockpick. Furthermore, for some reason a lot of people don’t include the secondary locking tool: a lock wrench. This is used to turn the the lock, and to keep the tumblers in place once you’ve appropriately placed them with the lockpick.

A lockpicker will know that a tumbler is in place when they hear it click, but the noise is usually quiet, so they’ll often have their ear close to the door.

Can you pick a lock with a paperclip? Yes, but it’s hard as hell, and a paperclip won’t fit into all locks. Not to mention it’s a pain turning the lock once the tumblers are in place.

 With code locks, a lot of movies or books show someone pressing their ear closely to the lock, whilst turning it, and listening for a click when it hits the right number. This actually works. These are the most useless goddamn locks in history.

Now, if you’re writing modern day, with smart locks and various other such tech, I’m afraid I can’t help. I haven’t studied that as much. Though, the previous advice will help for most locks, and that information still applies to basically all types of lock that aren’t incredibly expensive.

Sneaking:

The dashing rogue slips through the shadows, his cloak billowing behind him, and somehow none of the dozen patrolling guards walking right by happen to notice him.

Yeah, that’s not how it works.

Sneaking involves a lot of remaining very still, knowing your surroundings, and holding your breath.

A thief infiltrating a house will scout it out, usually for weeks in advance. Sometimes they’ll pose as various businessmen, and try to get the owners of the house let them in for a while so they can study the ins and outs of it. Cracking open a window isn’t quiet, and you need to know what doors will creak and what doors won’t.

If you’re trying to sneak, you need to try and stick near furniture and heavy objects. The floor isn’t nearly as likely to creak when you’re near these. Furthermore, you need to step lightly, and wear the appropriate footwear. Usually some cloth wrapping’s around one’s feet will help to be quiet, but avoid any shoes that might make clacking noises, or sound like they’re peeling off the floor when they move. A thief will also never scuff their feet, if they’re any good at sneaking.

Black clothing only helps you sneak if it’s dark, and your surroundings aren’t bright coloured. If you’re in a city of white buildings and marble, you’ll want matching attire. This is just for if you’re skulking about a city, though. Just make sure you don’t stand out. However, dark clothing will greatly help you not be seen from a distance when it’s night.

If a thief suspects someone is nearby, they should always try to locate a nearby hiding spot, and remain perfectly still. Do not move, and hold a thief will hold their breath if they start getting anxious, as heavy breathing could easily give someone away.

Many stories also don’t seem to account for the fact that various rogues and criminals have shadows, too. Even a quick and subtle movement of a shadow might be enough to give away one’s presence. It’s really, really hard to actually sneak up on someone due to this, and several other factors. Most people will actually feel tense, and usually catch wind of it if someone is sneaking up behind them, as even very quiet sounds and movements like breathing will subconsciously register to people if you get too close.

I’m a master assassin, and I carry a goddamn greatsword:

There is a reason they would use daggers. Assassins didn’t usually sneak into the king’s bedchamber in the dead of night, without being seen once. There are guards. A long hallway with two guards standing in front of the door at the end, there is absolutely no way to slip past that.

They would usually have to get into the building during the day, disguised as a servant, or even another guard. They’d have to wait for the perfect opportunity to sneak into that nobleman’s bedchamber, midday when he was absent, and then wait in there for hours.

If the assassin is sneaking in at night, they rarely go through the interior of the building. Just like a thief, they’ll get the layout of the building, and then they’ll usually enter through a window, or wherever is closest to the target. If they don’t have those guard patrols memorised, they’re screwed.

But you know what’s not subtle? An assassin carrying around a scimitar, or some flashy crossbow. If you’re going to sneak past people, you need a weapon no one will see, and that you can probably hide if someone decides to search you.

Fingerprints:

This is mainly relevant for modern era stories, and I just wanted to say that I’ve seen a few shows where a criminal isn’t wearing gloves throughout the whole thing. You always wear gloves, you never leave the murder weapon. If you touched something without gloves, you may as well take it with you to avoid risk.

Slipping out of Handcuffs:

This usually requires dislocating your fingers. Ouch. But, if the one cuffing or tying up the thief isn’t paying too much attention, you can keep your hands at an appropriate angle that the cuffs will not go on correctly, or the ropes not pulled tight enough, and you can probably slip out of them.

Who needs masks when you have shadowy hoods?

Guess what the easiest facial feature to notice in the dark is? If you guessed eyes, then you’re right. But, if you’re blending in, and your eyes are veiled by the hood that’s somehow not obscuring your vision while you crane your neck downwards to ensure that it covers your face, then people are usually still going to be able to see your lips, which stand out the second most of any feature on a person.

Yes, a hood is good if you’re trying to blend in. But it’s not good for making sure people don’t see your face. Wear a damned mask.

This is all I’ve got, for now. Hope it helps someone!

Avatar

Mad Max told a story about sexual violence and survivorship without relying on rape scenes to impress upon the audience how *serious* things were.

instead of watching the abuse on screen, we hear about it through the interactions between the wives. they tell us what happened, and in that way they take control of their own narrative.

rather than being voyeurs witnessing the wives’ trauma played out onscreen, we were an audience listening to their story.

and that makes a world of difference.

THIS THIS THIS.

So instead of showcasing the specific treatment we were told of it, which is the contrary philosophy of most filmmaking (show, don’t tell)

or they made the decision to not sensationalize and fetishize the rape and brutalization of women. and in doing so spared the feelings of thousands of trauma survivors in their audience.

but whatever, film theory 101.

“Show don’t tell” is for FUCKING AMATEURS. 

Avatar
mad-madam-m

This statement:

“So instead of showcasing the specific treatment we were told of it, which is the contrary philosophy of most filmmaking (show, don’t tell)”

demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea behind “show, don’t tell.” I would argue that Mad Max: Fury Road DOES show us how the Wives were treated by Immortan Joe. However, it chooses not to do so in the obvious way (which would be showing the abuse), but rather by showing us in other ways.

We’re shown the message the Wives leave behind: “We are not things,” from which we can infer that’s exactly how they’ve been treated for God knows how long.

We’re shown that they wear flimsy white fabric that leaves their bodies on display, unlike pretty much everybody else in the film.

We’re shown them using boltcutters to rid themselves of chastity belts, devices which pretty much exist solely to remove a woman’s ability to choose her sexual partners.

We’re shown rage from the Dag when, even though time is of the essence, she takes the time to run back and kick one of the discarded belts as hard as she can before running back to join the others at the War Rig.

We’re shown Angharad using her pregnant body to shield Max and Furiosa from Immortan Joe, because she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt he won’t shoot her or her unborn child because he still views her as his property.

We hear Furiosa’s “Remember me?” before she kills Joe, and there’s so much fury and anger in those two words that you know she was a Wife before she was an Imperator.

We ARE shown what happened to the Wives. The issue lies in thinking that the only way to show that they were abused is to show the abuse itself. And as MM:FR demonstrates, that isn’t the case.

Avatar
Avatar
glumshoe

wow this classic sci-fi novel would be so good without the rampant [choose at least two: sexism, racism, homophobia, eugenics, rape, ableism, really long boring chunks that think they’re descriptive but don’t actually convey usable information]

nevynk

You mean you don’t wanna take a history and moral philosophy course in the middle of reading a story?

I actually do kinda want to do that, but not if it includes huge heaps of the other shit portrayed as Good, Actually.

Avatar
cupofsorrows

Don’t forget ‘flimsily disguised horniness’ and its rarer subtrope, ‘author’s particular fetish worming into the plot a few times too many’

OOF YEAH. That’s. That’s so uncomfortable.

Avatar

Trends that should stop: having “evil” versions of female characters wear more revealing clothes and act more sexually aggressive than the “good” version, because that demonizes women’s sexuality and ties it to having lower morals and it’s just generally a shitty gross trope

And having those sexually aggressive “evil” versions being flirtatious toward women when the “good” version is straight. Like wow way to not-so-subtly condemn bi/pansexual and lesbian women

Avatar
Avatar
inky-duchess
Court Archetypes: The Bad Queen

These are the women of your nightmares, she-wolves who tear apart kingdoms to satisfy their own ends. She will poison your children, kill the innocent and look good doing it. Sometimes they are bad to the bone, other times they are innocently slandered. (Sorry for this absolute bible of a post)

We have 5 categories of the Bad Queen:

  • The She-Wolf
  • The Slandered
  • The Schemer
  • The Murderer
  • The Adulteress

She-Wolf

This lady goes to war to protect the ones she loves and the throne she sits on. In a world of armoured men, she will march at the head of an army and usurp power from her husband to rule in her own right.

  • Isabella of France: The OG she-wolf. Isabella was wife to Edward II, who was in love with two different men throughout their marriage. Though staying loyal, Edward constantly abused her emotionally even giving her wedding jewels to his lovers and threatening to take her children away. Isabella was sent to France to negotiate a peace, instead she raised an army and invaded England to oust her husband from his throne and replace him with their son. While Isabella’s invasion was popular since Edward and his boyfriends were major dickwads, history paints her as a monster because she was a traitorous wife. It is even rumoured that she had Edward killed by having him sodomized with a red-hot poker. (This probably never happened and she did not sleep with William Wallace Mel Gibson, you dumb oscar-hungry fuck)
  • Margaret of Anjou: Married to the insipid and catatonic King Henry VI, Margaret was not a popular queen. Derided and denounced for being too bold and strong-willed by her enemies, Margaret was pushed out of the doings of the kingdom. When Richard of York, decided to take the crown after her husband fell into a coma, Margaret fled the kingdom taking her seven year old son with her. She went to Scotland and returned to reign down an army on her enemies. Though killing the pretender, beheading him and placing his head on a spike wearing a paper crown, she was defeated by his son at and Towtonand exiled to France. Years later she returned but was defeated at Tewkesbury, her son dying in battle. She was paraded through the streets of London and imprisoned in the Tower before being allowed to go home.
  • Empress Matilda: The daughter of Henry I of England, Matilda was the only heir to throne. She was usurped by her cousin Stephen leading to decades-long civil war. Matilda was denounced for her role in the war and even chased from London on her coronation day by a mob.

The Schemer

This queen will do all she can to gain the throne. She may be a murderer or poisoner. She is as shrewd as any politician and many are no match for her political savvy and ambition.

  • Catherine de Medici: The daughter of the ruler of Florence. She was married to Henri II of France as a young girl after years of imprisonment. She was rumoured to have poisoned her enemies, though this was a common libel to spread about Italians in the day. After Henri II died in an accident, Catherine became Regent for all her sons, Francis, Charles and Henri. She is infamous for her treatment of her husband’s mistress Diane, stripping her of her castle and banishing her and her rumoured role in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
  • Margaret of Burgundy: The daughter of Richard, Duke of York and Sister to Richard III and Edward IV. She was married to the Duke of Burgundy and ruled as Regent for her stepdaughter Mary. She is considered a gracious lady up to the installation of the Tudors. Margaret funded many an invasion against Henry VII. She was rumoured to find young peasant boys and send them against Henry in the guise of her nephews the thought to be dead, Princes in the Tower.
  • Lucrezia Borgia: Though not a queen, Lucrezia was the daughter of Pope Alexander or Rodrigo Borgia. She was reputedly said to be a meticulous poisoner, killing off any rivals to her father or any of her family members. She is rumoured to have had an incestuous relationship with her brother Caesere though this may be just be slander.

The Slandered

  • Marie Antoinette: Four infamous words: Let them eat cake. Marie Antoinette was Queen of France from the age of eighteen. She lived a lavish life at Versailles contrasting with the poverty of her people. The rebels even accused her of sexually abusing her son. The slander and propaganda about her is so great today that most think that it is fact.
  • Anne Boleyn: Anne was at the centre of great change in England. She was seen as the great “goggled-eyed” whore. She was damned for her treatment of Catherine of Aragon and Mary Tudor. She was accused posthumously of poisoning Mary and Catherine but there is no grounds for this. Though her tendencies to overreact are well-known, she was mainly despised due to her Lutheran leanings, French-aimed polictal views and the ructions she caused in the kingdom. She was innocent of the crimes she died for but still slandered in history.
  • Elizabeth Woodville: The mother of the princes in the tower and Elizabeth of York, this queen was a commoner before her second marriage. By standing under an oak tree, she caught the eye of King Edward IV. By marrying her, he placed the kingdom on a course of civil war. There were rumour s that she was a witch and had entranced the young king. The people disliked her numerous family as they snapped up ever office and opportunity in that land. She became beloved late in life.

The Murderer

  • Wu Zhetian/Zhao: China’s only Empress Regnant. Wu took power after her husband died and ruled until she was eighty. Though her rule found women greater rights, great architecture built and famine staved off by revolutionary food storage practices, she is known only by her crimes. It is said that as a concubine she strangled her own baby daughter to frame the Empress. The Empress was treated to a horrid death, her limbs cut off and placed in large wine jars where they lingered for days before dying. She had their bodies taken out of the jars and beheaded.
  • Mary Tudor: Mary was a tragic princess with a backstory on par with many Disney Princesses. When she gained her throne, Mary went on to purge her kingdom of Protestants. She became known as Bloody Mary as she burnt some three hundred heretics. (Though this is quite a horrifying number, her sister, brother and father put thousands to death yet she is the only one who is vilified for her actions)
  • Isabella of Castile: The grandmother of Mary Tudor. Though Isabella is a canonized saint and a badass, she and her husband began the Spanish Inquisition driving out the Muslims and Jews from Spain. She presided over the death of thousands in her kingdom for doing nothing more than their faith.
  • Elizabeth Bathory: The Blood Countess. This Hungarian countess is infamous for bathing in the blood of virgins, killing women and children and torturing men to death in her castle. This is not embellished. She actually was a serial killer.
  • Ranavalova of Madagascar: She was the most infamous monarch of the island. She executed members of the late King’s family. In an effort to keep her country self-sufficient and independent, she forbade outsiders from the island and slaughtered tens of thousands if missionaries and her own people for disobedience and religious differences.

The Adulteress

  • Catherine of Valois: This may seem a strange addition to this list. Catherine of Valois was the beloved and honoured wife of Henry V. But after her marriage she was disgraced by her second marriage to her master of the wardrobe, Owen Tudor. Many at the time condemned her for a whore and slut, since she married a commoner, a servant and a Welshman at that.
  • Katherine Howard: The youngest and most tragic of Henry VIII’s wives. Katherine did cheat on the king, unlike Anne Boleyn, but with a man her own age. Her own family condemned her for a whore and history remembers her as loose and flighty. (It is thought that more than one of her lovers had in fact raped her as a minor)
  • Catherine the Great: Russia’s greatest Catherine. Her name is forever tied to rumours of adultery and bestiality. She is one of the queens of history who openly kept lovers. Most of them where younger than her and stationed in the Cavalry Guards. Catherine brought enlightenment to Russia but us most remembered for the rumour that she died fucking a horse.
  • Cleopatra: The Ancient World’s infamous seductress. Cleopatra was Egypt’s last queen and cited as a sexually vivacious woman who seduced honourable men and turned them into traitors. In fact, life isn’t that interesting. Cleopatra was said to be a great mind and pleasing voice, not a beauty. It was her mind that drew men to her.
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net