was thinking about takeshi and how he's my favorite brand of unconditional devotion btw. the utter and absolute and all-consuming kind that runs so deep to the very core and is so intrinsic and fundamental to it, it can only express itself in the most casual and natural and certain way. without second thoughts, without any room for doubts or for any moral dilemma to be had over it, because of course he ought to always be breathing and living for his chosen person first and foremost. of course he ought to hang on their every word and make them true no matter what, no matter what he has to do to make it happen, no matter what he has to do to other people to make it happen, and no matter what it might turn him into in the process. because it's obviously the way the world should be for his chosen person. at their feet, ready to bend over backwards and break and build itself again to better answer to all their needs even if they don't ask it for it. it's the only right way it should be for them, and of course takeshi's going to do his utmost at all times to make it a reality as much as possible.

and his devotion comes out as naturally as breathing, comes out lighthearted and nonchalant like he might as well be talking about the weather, but it's not unaware of itself. it's not that takeshi doesn't know it's unhealthy and wrong and that he's willing to go entirely too far in its name for anyone's good. it's not that he wouldn't hear you out if you were to sit him down and explain to him just why he needs to tone it down a little (a lot). logically, he'd agree with you and know you're right. and then he'd tell you he's still not going to do anything whatsoever about it. that he's not bothered by it and doesn't feel the need to change anything to his attitude. makes it a point to never let anyone or anything sway him even an inch in the stand he took when it comes to that, no matter how many thousand of times you might go over the subject with him.

because the morality of his devotion isn't the point at all. is entirely irrelevant to it and doesn't affect the way he expresses it all. it's not the metric with which he draws a line in the sand to hold it accountable to. because the thing is, takeshi's entire world revolves around tsuna--tsuna is his entire world altogether, and it's just a matter of fact, that simple. to him it's a truth as unchanging as the sky being blue, and so being the way he is according to that truth is the only way he can imagine being that'd feel right to him. and so the actual and only metric that matters here is "would tsuna be happier if i were to do this?" and/or "is this something tsuna needs me to do?"

and like. i don't think takeshi ever stops being a kind person capable of compassion and understanding and mercy and forgiveness even ten years later once they became mafia through and through. and i don't think either he grows up to be feared and called a monster per se despite the things they inevitably had to do during those ten years (and the things they'll inevitably keep having to do as long as they keep being mafia), at least not in the way, for example, they'll never stop fearing and calling mukuro one. but i do think that among the tenth gen, he ends up being the one with the most ruthless, merciless and horrific blood on his hands of that particular and distinct loving kind. you know the one i mean, right? he comes to be the one most expected and the one first expected to be willing and to take it upon himself to go through with it when the need arises. and to think little of it after, if anything at all. all in the name of making tsuna's reign as easy on him as possible.

and it's to the point where it's the kind of blood that makes even mukuro pause at times. or, when takeshi is the one coming up with solutions himself during meetings, makes even reborn blink. not because it's unjustified or wouldn't be safe or efficient or anything of the sort, but because it is unwarrantedly thorough in its retaliation. and sometimes, at times like this, he's the one tsuna needs to step in for the most, because he's the only one who can reason with him that "yes, this would work in getting rid of our problem" but "no, please, don't do that takeshi". because if tsuna is the only thing that infers on just how much and in what ways he'll let himself be devoted to him, then of course, he's also the only one takeshi's willing to reign himself in for without second thoughts. because he'd hate to ever do something tsuna would disapprove of or wouldn't want him to do. or do something that'd make tsuna see him differently or love him back less even in the slightest.

and it's also like. his devotion isn't an undisciplined one. it's not one he doesn't have control over, the very opposite. it's a very purposeful and conscious choice he chooses to keep making over and over again every step of the way, and he taught himself to have control over it, to know when it's needed and/or wanted, and how much and in which ways it is when it happens, and to keep it down otherwise. and, yes, to also reign it back in at tsuna's request at times when it still slips past his control. because it's all about making tsuna's happiness easier and secure and long-lasting, and never about burdening him with just how committed he is to do that.

so it comes down to this: takeshi willing to go above and beyond and more for tsuna unless tsuna explicitly asks him not to. and to tsuna needing to ask him not to every now and then. and to other people pointing out to him how too many times tsuna's already needed to stop him, and that maybe there's a hint for him to take there. and to takeshi seeing the hint, looking it straight in the eye and recognizing it for what it is and just. deciding it doesn't apply to him because it's all perfectly normal behavior to him. because it's the only kind of behavior that makes sense to him and feels right.

and so—to circle back to my first point—he can only express his devotion as naturally as breathing, so casually, almost like it's something inconsequential and not worth talking about despite how unmistakably it couldn't be further away from being the truth. it's the only way he could have always known how to express it, because, after all, who has ever taken time to ponder about the details and the hows of the way they breathe?

and i, for one, absolutely eat that shit up every time, thanks for coming to my ted talk <3

i've been reading your fic and i really adore your writing!! im trying to get better at it myself right now do you have any tips?

oh thank you !!!! that makes me happy i'm glad people like it so much despite the absolute silliness and seeming ooc-ness of it... (bc yeah i Know what happens in the first chapter seems bizarre for toya to do. only thing i can tell you irt That is chapter four is titled "in which An decides she wants to run over Toya with a bicycle") BUT UM anyway. advice...

hm. a big part of learning to become a better writer finding your inner voice. and i can't exactly help you with that aspect. but i suppose i have some suggestions for what to keep in mind when writing...?

- first and foremost: read (and write!) things other than fanfiction. there's nothing wrong with fanfic. it's fun and it's a unique form of literature and i think it does deserve love and respect or whatever. but when it comes to fanfic, you're going into these stories already familiar with the characters and the settings, even in the case of a huge AU riddled with OCs. it doesn't require you to stretch your imagination very far. it's important to expose yourself to other kinds of literature, too, so you can learn from them and improve your imagination and critical thinking skills

- show, don't tell - but don't be overly descriptive either. when you write, you must trust your reader to work with you and use their own knowledge to make your story come to life - writing is a team effort between You and anyone who may read your words! people know grass is green, the sky is blue, trees are... trees, etc. unless you're describing a world where these things aren't true, you. don't need to spend time establishing them. you can write the word "forest" and your readers will know what to imagine. and as tempting as it may be to, for example, flex your prose skills to describe the gorgeous gradient of a romantic sunset for 3 paragraphs, unless it serves to move the story forward or reflect your characters' emotions and thoughts, you don't need to. and i strongly recommend just cutting anything like that out because i guarantee people will just skim or skip over it all together.

overly detailed descriptions will come off as patronizing and alienate your reader. draw their attention to the things that matter - they'll fill in the rest. trust me.

- simple language is not a bad thing. don't pull out a thesaurus. don't fucking do it. put it back. you don't need to replace every instance of "said", "big", or...whatever simple word that some tumblr user told you is #bad to use too frequently in your writing. now if you've said the word Big like 28 times within two paragraphs and it wasn't on purpose, you probably need to revise .

but like. seriously. use the words already in your vocabulary. your readers will notice when you've used a thesaurus for a "fancier" synonym. and if you want to expand your vocabulary because you genuinely feel like your word choice is stale, go read some books (not fanfiction)

- in the instance of said especially. don't fret too much over how often you use it. it's like a filler word. it helps break up strings of dialogue so your reader can keep track of who is saying what. if you're constantly trying to find words to use instead of 'said' when said literally works perfectly fine, you're not going to get anything done AND your dialogue is going to come out as clunky and awkward because of unnecessary words being shoved where they don't belong

it's a fine line between letting your readers read a conversation between characters peacefully and actually overusing the word said. but you'll get the hang of it

- the first thing you write down will suck. you will not be happy with it. read this and accept it right now. too many people get hung up over first drafts riddled with mistakes. just write and get the basics of the story down before you lose it - you can go back and edit and revise any time and as many times as you need.

- learn grammar rules, and then learn that grammar is arbitrary and you can break these rules whenever you want for the impact. you'll notice in and what's a little kiss between bros? i've done this a few times. idr all of them anymore but like

But Toya really really really really does not need to know about that.

obviously commas are Supposed to go in between each of those really's. but i didn't put them because a comma denotes a slight pause and i didn't want a slight pause and smushing them all together like "reallyreallyreallyreally" would have been too fast. don't go overboard (but there are exceptions even to this so...?) but remember you're allowed flexibility with words and punctuation and sentence and paragraph structure

- writing is hard. don't be discouraged when the words don't come out. you're manipulating language to conjure consistent images in different people's heads. this is an incredibly difficult thing to do. be patient with yourself. if you have to write something insanely bare bones to establish a point before moving onto the next one, then like... do it.

i'm serious. and what's a little kiss between bros? was like. not even joking, the part i call chapter 2 now started off as "Mizuki gets to school and after talking to Toya, they figure out Akito is on the roof. They go there and confront him."

and then i moved onto their conversation, which came out pretty okay the first time. the beginning of chapter two, up until akito and mizuki begin talking, is like... 2.4k words. it started off as a mere 23. this is what i mean when i say just... write the first draft without worrying about how it looks. put down what needs to happen, and you can pretty it up later. you can pretty it up 15 times if you need to

- have fun. or else.

This isn't aimed specifically at you, more a general question, but do you think some people have a hard time distinguishing between bad writing vs rather it just wasn't what they personally wanted/to their taste? There were things I wanted in the series that weren't included, but overall I think it was a well made series. Whereas I sometimes think people's disappointment makes them think it must be a universal experience.

Any anon: *sends an ask*

Me: *one eternity later* so here's about 5000 words on this general topic that may or may not answer the question you asked in the first place.

That said, this is a really good question and I've been thinking about it for a few days, bc I don't think that there's actually an answer. I mean, on the one hand, it's not for me to say whether someone else's judge of good writing is objective enough, but at the same time, the fact is that it is extremely hard to not let subjectivity cloud your opinion on good vs bad writing. And to be completely fair, I think that people criticizing the show get more flack for it but it absolutely goes the other way as well - that is, people who enjoyed the show seem to believe that the writing is good because it is to their taste and/or they did get what they wanted. I mean, for example, back when the show first started airing and the whole "Loki is ooc" wank started really gaining ground, some people's reasoning behind their "no he's definitely ic" was "well I write him this way, so I see nothing wrong with this portrayal." Which is like a 10/10 on the subjective reasoning scale, so yknow.

(Incidentally, I do think that inconsistency in Loki's characterization can be proven objectively, just by looking at previous canon and identifying the differences in the portrayals, but I mean, there are still people who will look at that kind of evidence and tell you you're cherry-picking to support your argument or you interpreted the first one wrong or whatever so, like, it's moot at this point. Some people don't want to somehow invalidate themselves or their fan-ness by liking the "wrong" Loki, so they'll twist themselves into pretzels to insist he's been the same all this time, when the reality is that there isn't a right or a wrong Loki but there are two versions within the story, and ymmv on which one you prefer, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. But I digress.)

Another example is the handling of Loki's storylines - for as many people who dislike the series bc it didn't include or address any of Loki's trauma, for example, there are just as many people who like it because it didn't address the trauma. They don't want to watch a depressing storyline about Thanos and Loki's suffering. They don't want to sit through objectively "darker" content. They wanted to see Loki redeemed and to find worth in himself and to find people who loved him, and they feel that they got it. Other people who wanted to see those same exact things feel that they absolutely did not get it. The former group thinks the writing was great; the latter group think it's shit. It literally is just all subjective.

I think that the subjectivity of it is what causes there to be so many fucking problems when it comes to wank and ~the discourse~ and people aligning themselves with one side or another. Both sides want to be right and neither of them are, and that's because everyone's, like, "litmus test" of what made the series good or bad writing is coming from not only what they perceive is good writing (or not) but also their own biases, their own experiences, and their own perspectives of how the world works. (Not to mention their own sense of morality and how it should be portrayed in fiction, which is how you end up with purity culture and censorship fuckery, but that's another topic tbh.)

For example, on the issue of trauma, there was some really obnoxious wank posted awhile back wherein some people on the positive-side started saying that the people who didn't like the Loki series just haven't dealt with their own trauma and/or were not in a place of recovery, which caused them to view the series through a biased lens of wanting Loki to remain as traumatized and/or mentally ill as they personally were. And the people who came up with this argument made it a point to be like, "I have trauma/mental illness too and I had no issue with how the topic was treated, but I am in a better place than I have been in the past, and I can therefore appreciate Loki being in a better place, too." Understandably, people were offended by this bc, yknow, who is anyone to determine or judge how anyone else is engaging with fiction or why they feel the way they do and also the audacity, but for another thing, the people making this argument are being just as biased as they're accusing the antis of being, they're just framing it as a good thing. "I can see clearly now the rain is gone" and everything. And it just - it doesn't work that way. It's obnoxious to try and psychoanalyze people based on their responses to fiction, yes, but also you can't use someone else's (perceived or not) bias against the Thing as proof that it's actually good. That doesn't prove anything except that their biases are different than yours. (Relatedly, I also disagree with people who argue that if one doesn't see Loki's handling of trauma as a bad thing that they don't know anything about trauma bc, again, a lot of people who have trauma of their own had no issues and being on the positive side doesn't make their personal traumas or struggles invalid. Again, I digress.)

And lest this sound like I'm attacking the positive-side, I'm really not, bc it truly does work both ways - that is, I've seen (much more recently, which has made me feel some kinda way) some pretty blatant toxicity from the antis, too, including believing that those who liked the series or ship Sylki or Lokius or whatever are, like, abuse apologists or transphobic or just plain too dumb to understand why the writing isn't good, and that's not fair or right, either. But they feel just as justified in their view as the positives feel in theirs, yet neither side can come up with any reason for why they are correct that doesn't somehow tie into "this is good because I like it" or "this is bad because I don't like it."

Not to blow smoke up my own ass, but though I'm often self-deprecating about my comptency as a writer, I think that I do actually have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to this type of thing. I have an MFA from a really good school that focuses on the arts, and I learned from very accomplished writers, and I like to think that this gives me a smidgen of credibility when it comes to my own perception of what good writing is and isn't. Please don't mistake this as me saying that I alone am valid in literary critique irt the Loki series; quite the opposite - I'm saying that I know, objectively, what makes writing good because I spent a lot of time and money learning it, and yet my view of the series is just as subjective as everyone else's. I admit that sometimes I get really baffled at some of the positive arguments I see bc the person will be like, omg this was such good writing! and I'll be like, are you serious right now how do you not see everything that's wrong with it? but to be completely fair, I also get really baffled at some of the anti takes where the person will be like, this was so awful bc of xyz and I'll be like, I don't know wtf you're talking about did you hurt yourself with that reach or.

Anyway, my point is that as a fan and a consumer of fiction/media in general, my opinion is subjective along with everyone else's and I'm not above calling something shitty bc it's not what I wanted, and as a person who went to school for this sort of thing, all I can say is that the only way to get some measure of objectivity in determining whether or not a story (or writing in general) is good is to consider it based on what are generally considered the essential elements of fiction: characters, setting, plot, conflict, and theme.

The first question is, obviously, does the Thing have each of these elements? Loki does. The second question is, was the Thing successful in how it handled each of these elements? Were the characters thoroughly developed and did they serve their purpose in the narrative? Is the plot structured so that there's a beginning, middle, and end? Were the themes recognizable?

I think that you can objectively answer these questions in a yes/no sense - the characters showed some development and served a purpose in the story, there was a narrative arc of beginning, middle, and end (a cliffhanger end does still count as an ending, in that each character came to the end of their particular journey in this story with the cliffhanger leaving them on the precipice of a new story), the themes were established, etc. But as soon as you go further in-depth with your answers - well, there was some character development but this felt rushed or that wasn't believable or this thing was completely overlooked; or - this character showed really great growth between point A here and point B there and the theme of XYZ was handled really well, this or that was foreshadowed or paid off nicely, etc.

And neither side is wrong, but that also means neither side is right, and ideally this is what can spawn some really great literary discussions, if one is in an environment that is not tumblr dot com. The most beautiful thing about fiction is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and you can interpret it however you want to, and whether you're "right" or not, if your interpretation makes the Thing more meaningful to you and gives you something to think about and evokes an emotional and intellectual response, then you do you, boo. Yknow?

... So the very long, rambly answer to your question, nonny, is that yes, I do think that the lack of ability to distinguish "bad writing" from "I didn't like this" is a thing, but it goes both ways and one can never be truly, 100% objective in their media consumption and honestly, if we could all just get the fuck over our egos and the need to be right, we'd probably all be having a much better time in fandom. Which, to your second point about people thinking their experience is universal, I do think that that happens and I wish it didn't - I don't want anyone to speak for me and my experience of the show, for example, and neither does anyone else, so I don't know why so many people insist on doing it.

I can't help but think you're being a bit too hard on Eleanor because of ship bias. I mean, why would you called her 'her worst self' and 'selfish' when she's always been one to throw stuff to get in heaven (even with the character development)? But suddenly she's being sappy and depending on someone who isn't Michael and the whole M/E fandom is at her throat. I'm as unconfortable as the next shipper with all the C/E scenes but is it really Eleanor and her characterization that's at fault?

Yes, of course I am biased (to a certain degree). When the show caters to my preferences, I’m more docile and much less likely to nitpick and complain, when it doesn’t and it drops the ball to boot, I get grumpy. So I’m your garden variety fan, basically. But I don’t believe I’m “at Eleanor’s throat”. Her and Chidi being together doesn’t make me uncomfortable bc it’s her and Chidi and not her and Michael (+ I often see things popping up in the C/E dynamic that can have potentially interesting implications for Michael’s development and for M/E, too. Generally speaking, the three of them make up a curious whole for me).

I know the chances of (2-sided) M/E happening are somewhere btw zero and never, so I’m not exactly eyeballing C/E as some kind of obstacle to my personal shipper nirvana, jumping at any chance to “punish” Eleanor for choosing the “wrong” partner. But I do feel uncomfortable with the way the C/E romance is written this season. “They are sidelining my no. 1 dynamic”, while frustrating, is not the reason for this, it’s not why I’m not crazy about Eleanor’s behavior and Chidi’s OOC-ness.

Eleanor + character development always resulted in stuff like her being emotional and vulnerable w/o getting aggressive and demanding, her accepting it when Chidi turned her down w/ dignity despite feeling heartbroken, and her being considerate of others to the point of volunteering to go to the Bad Place to save them. This is where she was a year ago and the year before that at the end of each season. This is not where she is now. I’m not saying being selfish and throwing stuff is not in her character make up or her problem-solving toolbox. Her overcoming these impulses, however, is the very point of her character development (made blindingly obvious last season when she lied about passing the Judge’s test and refused to go through the portal to TGP). What we have (currently! so it can change any time) in S3 is the opposite (see the in-your-face door to TGP that won’t open for her), it’s her completely giving in to these impulses to the point of seriously endangering everyone, meaning that she has, in fact, regressed. I suspect it is a point the show is trying to make but we’ll have to wait and see.

In “Janets”, all Janet asks is that they stay put until she and Michael deal w/ accounting. Eleanor works herself into a state over Chidi not opening up to her on command, putting Janet through hell and almost erasing her friends from existence while her own self is also disintegrating. Despite the serious consequences, this harmful behavior carries right over into the next ep where all Michael asks is that they lay low bc folks in TGP are so rule obsessed, they can send all of them right back to TBP. Eleanor immediately smashes stuff at the door to TGP bc it doesn’t open up for her when she demands it. It’s her bullying of Chidi from the previous ep all over again, only in a vase-meets-door form. Even Chidi has to be all about her now as he magically turns into a grossly idealized version of himself (see in S2 how she rejected a similar “fake Chidi”), spending the entire ep trying to prevent her from blowing up again while the rest of the team is cleaning up the mess in the mail room and Michael is away trying to fix the calculation issue. Despite the crazy-intense circumstances, everybody is trying to do something for somebody else except her - she is still hyper-focused on herself and it stands out to me bc this is a version of her I’ve never seen before and it’s def not the best one.

Again, it’s not because she is w/ Chidi but the issues become especially apparent within that dynamic since the second Michael showed her those memories, she just latched onto Chidi, expecting him to fill the void left by her screwed up upbringing that’s been freshly dredged up thanks to her not-dead mother. They made her lurch from “I’m incapable of love” to “I’m madly in love and nothing else matters”, hand-waving determinism while failing to provide any other reason why these 2 are suddenly together again. They are trying to play it as romantic/funny but it’s not romantic when someone’s whole identity has to be propped up by another person and it’s not funny how that other person has to repress his own identity/issues to be able to do this. It’s a suffocating, unsustainable interplay. Or if it’s meant to be interpreted as “love cures mental illness and erases every character flaw in 5 minutes, so you can finally be the proper romantic partner”, then it’s even worse. You don’t have to be a shipper of another ship or look too deep into this story to see these (imo) legitimate problems (but it helps, yes, since it’s natural to be more critical of sth you’re not emotionally invested in and gloss over stuff to preserve the fun potential when it’s your OTP or sth, I do give you that).

Eleanor having to coerce love and attention out of Chidi will never be cute, either, or proof that those feelings were there all along. People pushed some quotes from WJH into my face about how Chidi calms down bc he finally has what he always wanted - interesting choice of words, btw, given the pin Michael gave Eleanor - but 1) an actor’s opinion will not automatically replace my own (no, not even if it’s Ted’s or some other big fave’s) and 2) how exactly were we supposed to glean that Chidi wanted to be with her so much in this reboot? Was it when he went steady w/ another woman despite Eleanor being an option all along? was it when he refused to give private lessons to her bc he was just too busy? or was it when he - despite witnessing her meltdown - sent her packing bc they already had enough material for his study? For some reason the writers missed every opportunity to build this up properly and make this extremely syrupy display stick, but I’ve already said everything about that in another post.

This whole idea of “he felt this way all along, he just didn’t actually show it, so we can skip actual development” is a lazy, corner-cutting approach which reminds me of the worst kind of fanservice attempts I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing with several of my favorite shows recently. I have very low tolerance for that stuff now bc it never ends well. I did not expect to see this particular brand on this particular show, but here we are, I guess. Or if it’s a case of creative exhaustion/boredom where this billion times rebooted couple is concerned, then maybe it’s time to park them and give a not yet over-explored dynamic some attention instead to keep things fresh and fluid as opposed to stale and forced - again, not an unreasonable request, even if it comes from someone who is invested in another dynamic, given the lack of care that was apparently put into developing C/E this season.

I don’t like not liking things on this show (and it’s not Eleanor I don’t like, it’s the way they deconstructed her in order to write her back into a relationship as if she couldn’t exist w/o it), and I am sorry if I disappointed or offended bc it was not my intention. I hope they flip things or introduce a new angle that will make me re-evaluate. I am always open to that whenever new material arrives and I honestly hope they will make me eat my words soon. I will merrily absorb the suckerpuches. But for now, this is my opinion and “you just don’t like that she is not with your fave” - while a natural factor - is not the main reason why I made my comments.