In writing, epithets ("the taller man"/"the blonde"/etc) are inherently dehumanizing, in that they remove a character's name and identity, and instead focus on this other quality.

Which can be an extremely effective device within narration!

They can work very well for characters whose names the narrator doesn't know yet (especially to differentiate between two or more). How specific the epithet is can signal to the reader how important the character is going to be later on, and whether they should dedicate bandwidth to remembering them for later ("the bearded man" is much less likely to show up again than "the man with the angel tattoo")

They can indicate when characters stop being as an individual and instead embody their Role, like a detective choosing to think of their lover simply as The Thief when arresting them, or a royal character being referred to as The Queen when she's acting on behalf of the state

They can reveal the narrator's biases by repeatedly drawing attention to a particular quality that singles them out in the narrator's mind

But these only work if the epithet used is how the narrator primarily identifies that character. Which is why it's so jarring to see a lot of common epithets in intimate moments-- because it conveys that the main character is primarily thinking of their lover/best friend/etc in terms of their height or age or hair color.

they used to make smackable technology. you used to be able to hit your tv when it didn't work good.

top 10 most divorced men to ever live right behind henry viii

obsessed with characters who were written for one another. like, what do you mean the reason for my existence is to be by your side? what do you mean our divine purpose is to belong to one another, for better or worse?

anyone who thinks dostoevsky's writing is dry and humourless is missing out on passages like this

As long as you have the desire to be somebody, you will not fall into decadence. And you don’t have that kind of goal. You are passionate about wanting to see what it is like to fail.

Dazai Osamu, A New Hamlet

We’re all a bunch of clowns. If you want to see a farce, look in the mirror. A man crushed by reality puts on a show of endurance. If that’s beyond your comprehension, dear reader, then you and I will never understand each other. Life’s a farce, so we might as well make it a good one.

Dazai Osamu, Flowers of Buffoonery

You may be wrong there, [sir].. Many homicidal lunatics are very quiet unassuming people.

Agatha Christie, And Then There Were None

no but like lucy and lockwood from lockwood and co and sherlock and william from moriarty the patriot actually sort of have similar vibes?

moriarty the patriot: aka death note if misa and L were the same person (but it was someone light actually liked)

who lives who dies who tells your story

What if Jesus and Dostoevsky were something more than oomfs…

Moriarty The Patriot DYING WISH by Tasuku Hatanaka

Louis James Moriarty

"No. I refuse."

"Wha— you can't refuse! You were chosen to defeat me! I'm your greatest enemy!"

"Says who?"

more stuff about becoming a god being inherently dehumanizing pls

One thing I really love about the Rivers of London series is that the narrator is this guy who is canonically interested in almost everything and periodically gets distracted during stakeouts because he stops to read a plaque, so it's very natural in the course of the narration for him to be like, "Hold that thought and let me tell you the history of this very tasteful lingerie shop in Soho."