Portraying Conflict

Types of Characters In Fiction By: Karen Bernardo

Major or central characters are vital to the development and resolution of the conflict. In other words, the plot and resolution of conflict revolves around these characters.

Minor characters serve to complement the major characters and help move the plot events forward.          

Dynamic - A dynamic character is a person who changes over time, usually as a result of resolving a central conflict or facing a major crisis. Most dynamic characters tend to be central rather than peripheral characters, because resolving the conflict is the major role of central characters.          

Static- A static character is someone who does not change over time; his or her personality does not transform or evolve.

Round - A rounded character is anyone who has a complex personality;he or she is often portrayed as a conflicted and contradictory person.

Flat - A flat character is the opposite of a round character. This literary    personality is notable for one kind of personality trait or characteristic.            

Stock - Stock characters are those types of characters who have become conventional or stereotypical through repeated use in particular types of stories. Stock characters are instantly recognizable to readers or audience members (e.g. the femme fatale, the cynical but moral private eye, the mad scientist, the geeky boy with glasses, and the faithful sidekick). Stock characters are normally one-dimensional flat characters, but sometimes stock    personalities are deeply conflicted, rounded characters (e.g. the “Hamlet” type).

Protagonist- The protagonist is the central person in a story, and is often referred to as the story’s main character. He or she (or they) is faced with           a conflict that must be resolved. The protagonist may not always be           admirable (e.g. an anti-hero); nevertheless s/he must command involvement     on the part of the reader, or better yet, empathy.

Antagonist - The antagonist is the character(s) (or situation) that represents    the opposition against which the protagonist must contend. In other           words, the antagonist is an obstacle that the protagonist must overcome.

Anti-Hero- A major character, usually the protagonist, who lacks conventional   nobility of mind, and who struggles for values not deemed universally           admirable. Duddy, in Mordecai Richler’s The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, is a classic anti-hero. He’s vulgar, manipulative and self-centered. Nevertheless, Duddy is the center of the story, and we are drawn to the challenges he must overcome and the goals he seeks to achieve.

Foil - A foil is any character (usually the antagonist or an important supporting character) whose personal qualities contrast with another character (usually the protagonist). By providing this contrast, we get to know more about the other character.

Symbolic - A symbolic character is any major or minor character whose very existence represents some major idea or aspect of society. For example, in Lord of the Flies, Piggy is a symbol of both the rationality and physical weakness of modern civilization; Jack, on the other hand, symbolizes the violent tendencies (the Id) that William Golding believes is within human nature.

READ MORE HERE

Can we all just take a moment to recognize how fantastic Tyler Posey’s acting was in this week’s episode? Posey has gone from playing the always-happy-and-supportive true alpha to a much darker and self-conflicted Scott McCall, and he has done it phenomenally. The way he portrayed the conflict and frustration his character felt was truly believable and spot on. Posey has grown so much since the beginning of this show and his acting in this past episode proves that he has only gotten better, and will continue to improve even more. He took his experience with depression and battling his internal demons and really let it show through in his acting last night. So let’s give it up for Tyler fuckin’ Posey everyone.

7

The US is killing more civilians in Iraq and Syria than it acknowledges

ISTANBUL, Turkey — In almost a-year-and-a-half of bombing Iraq and Syria, the United States admits to killing just 22 innocent people. That number is impossibly low.

A GlobalPost investigation has unearthed a disturbing truth about the US military campaign against the Islamic State: Many more civilians are dying in American airstrikes than the US government acknowledges. People in Iraq and Syria can see what is happening. And so can the enemy. The Islamic State portrays the conflict as a war on Sunnis and a war on Muslims. When the coalition kills civilians — and does not investigate and apologize — the Islamic State fills the void with propaganda. 

According to the US Department of Defense: “No other military on Earth takes the concerns over collateral damage and civilian casualties more seriously than we do.” Yet our investigation found there has been no honest official estimate of how many civilians the United States has killed in Iraq and Syria. Even if civilian casualties are an inevitable part of war, the American public is being fed the comforting illusion that this war can be fought without shedding much innocent blood.

And that is simply not the case.

Read the full story here.

The Harry Potter series has been an unbelievable comfort to me for the better part of my life. When I needed to escape my world as a child, I dove into another: a world of magic. I grew attached to many of the characters–their internal battles, bravery, and sacrifice. As I’ve read and re-read the series, I have developed an understanding with the character of Severus Snape–a character who ultimately died knowing that he had done everything he could to fulfill his fate, no matter how difficult that knowledge was to sit with. To Alan Rickman, the man who took on the responsibility of portraying Snape’s conflicted life and noble death: I hope that like Severus Snape, you passed on with a sense of acceptance of all you have accomplished in life. Rest in Peace.

To LaFontaine, With Love

Carmilla has suddenly become a show that is all the more personally meaningful to me with the canonisation of LaFontaine being gender-nonbinary. LaFontaine is one of few characters that even touches on the subject of not fitting into a gender dichotomy, and that in itself is beautiful and amazing to me because it shows the possibility for progress, and the potential for the gender-nonbinary to be accepted and to accept themselves.

One thing that really has struck me is how authentically Kaitlyn Alexander has managed to portray the conflict that is obviously present in LaFontaine. This character is fighting themself, trying to reconcile the obvious discomfort of someone so important to them, and the identity that they have realised for themself. Perry isn’t someone any of us would be unfamiliar with. LaFontaine is actually presenting, on a very public medium, the struggles that they face, and the need for understanding and acceptance. The way Perry treats LaFontaine, and their reaction to the treatment (particularly in Episode 26) strikes a deep chord in the audience - the lack of understanding on one side creates pain for both, and we’ve always seen LaFontaine as a great person, and evidently so has Perry, so why should this view change? Why should your best friend since you were five suddenly seem like a freak to you? No matter how much these questions seem obvious to answer, to Perry this is an actual quandary. The show isn’t just showing us LaFontaine, it might be able to show us how Perry grows and learns (fingers crossed). 

We’ve all seen these people (and heck, most of us have these people in our lives) - those who mean so much to us, but cannot accept who we are. I’d say that these people may be destructive to us, or they may damage us due to their reactions and views, but at the end of the day it is up to us to figure if they are worth sticking around for and trying to change and educate them. They aren’t always bad people; Perry isn’t a bad person, I think we as a fandom know that. They might just be misinformed or conflicted, and while that definitely doesn’t excuse anything (and LaFontaine’s reaction proved that) there is hope here. We can find a moveable middle that we can make change with. LaFontaine (and Kaitlyn, no doubt) is an inspiration, and Carmilla as a show has gifted us with so much. 

Before this show I was never entirely comfortable with my own discomfort over the issues that MOGAI (particularly the gender-nonbinary, in this case) face, because I never saw it personally beyond the little I’ve experienced myself. This is the importance of representation very clearly personified in one character, one immensely important character - LaFontaine.

So, to the creators and writers and actors and everyone behind Carmilla, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. LaFontaine, and Kaitlyn, will continue to be a source of great light for many, I believe, and it is fantastic that such a character has emerged. To Kaitlyn, particularly, I say my sincerest and deepest thank yous, for giving us such a valuable instance of representation, and for all you have done for this fandom as a whole. If a single episode where this reality has been cemented in canonical truth has made me understand myself more already, think of the wonders more representation (and good representation in many other respects as well) can do. 

To LaFontaine, with love.

honestly I don’t think we appreciate the fact that tae’s first official acting gig is a historical drama and that he’s one of the leading characters enough

first off, let’s just start with how taehyung never studied acting or film besides for the basic idol training. So far, all of his experience with acting has been with music videos and the hyyh prologue. (and while doing the laundry but anyways)

in complete honesty the hyyh series really puts a spot light on taehyung’s natural-born acting skills. like the fact he had to play the complex character of a young man who kills his father and had to portray the internal conflicts his character faces while submerged in ice cold water is phenomenal, especially since everything taehyung did could be interpreted as some level of symbolism. he did so well and really, it was not awkward at all considering the fact that again- this is an idol who has had no previous experience in acting besides for the usual kpop music videos.

I am so proud of him.

But to act in a historical drama is seriously on a different level. Like one, you have to literally learn a different language since korean developed differently throughout the time periods. two, you have to be willing to act while wearing thick layers of traditional clothing under the scorching sun or cold night (plus there’s the hair extensions to suffer from). and three (if the drama calls for it, which hwarang is as it is about a group of elite swordsman), you have to learn how to ride horses and perform basic stunts.

and because of how difficult historical dramas can be, most idols start off by acting in modern time sitcoms or rom-coms. But no, taehyung just went straight to it despite his crazy schedule with bts!! and I completely have faith in him! I’m so proud, he’s going to do so so so well in this!

We saw how tired taehyung was each time he came back from filming. But he still managed to give us a smiling face at each of the concerts without falling ill.

So guys, let’s respect taehyung’s upcoming performance in hwarang and let’s respect his talent in acting :)

(ps: if he has a kiss scene, please be professional. Taehyung is no longer bts’s v when he’s an actor, he is Kim Taehyung. So let’s just appreciate that)

Color Pie Friday: Aligning Black

Today’s article is a continuation of an exploration into the overlaps between the Dungeons & Dragons alignment system and Magic’s color pie. It began when I looked at how alignment matched up with the color pie. The result was that alignment is heavily weighted on White’s belief of peace and order. In addition, each axis on the alignment chart highlighted White’s conflicts with Black and Red, both enemy colors. I then asked, “Well, then could there be other alignment grids rooted in the beliefs of the other four colors?”

A few weeks ago I dove head-first into Blue’s philosophies and showed that it’s definitely possible. All you have to do is figure out Blue’s enemy-colored conflicts and portray Blue as “right” and Red & Green as “wrong.” This produces a grid that showcases Blue’s way of thinking.

Today it’s time to analyze Black’s worldviews and motivations in order to produce a grid that explains why Black thinks it’s the best. Because I can already see the controversy blooming on the horizon, remember that this article is all from Black’s perspective and is not a reflection of my ideas on Green & White nor a complete look at Green & White’s parts of the color pie. With that out of the way, let’s get into it.

The Basics of Black

If you read the article on Blue’s alignment, today’s article will be structured the same way and look very similar. For example, we can start with a basic grid that sets up our dichotomies:

As with past grids, we put our central color along the “positive” sections of the grid and the enemy colors on the “negative” sections. The top-left block is the monocolored block that represents the epitome of the color’s philosophies (This was Lawful Good on the original alignment, White’s ultimate identity.) On the bottom-right dwells Green/White, the thing Black hates the most.

Each neutral section is filled in by Black’s ally colors. These colors are also allies of Black’s enemy, so they usually take a middle-ground stance on the issue at hand (more on this later). With Blue and Red added in, the grid looks like this:

So Blue takes a neutral position in the Black/White conflict, able to side with either color. Red plays the same role in the Black/Green conflict. But what are those conflicts and how might they be expressed on an alignment grid like this?

The Philosophies of Black’s Alignment

First, we have to talk through Black’s conflicts with Green and White. In addition to looking at what each color believes, we need to figure out why Black thinks it’s the winning side of the argument.

The core of the Black/Green conflict is free will vs. determinism. Black thinks that you have the agency to make your own decisions in order to affect your life. Green believes that your actions are affected by things outside your control. Black values the power of choice, while Green values the power of fate. Its ultimate goal is power, which for Black means being in charge of its own life. A belief in any kind of predetermined action totally undercuts Black’s desires. Black is Ambitious, always striving for more and more control over its life. It values results and the ability to change things for the better. To Black, Green is Complacent. Green settles for less, showing no motivation to do anything. Black sees Green as a color that makes excuses for laziness.

The Black/White conflict is the classic bout of amorality vs. morality. Black feels that if it can do something, it should be able to do it. Nothing is off-limits to Black if it means getting the results it wants. White, however, thinks that a sense of right and wrong should govern actions, thoughts, and motivations. The main way this conflict is expressed is internalized motivation vs. externalized motivation. Black wants to do what is best for itself. Black is Independent. Black doesn’t need anyone to watch out for it since Black can take care of itself. White, however, is Subordinate, always kowtowing to the needs of others. Black thinks White is a fool for following false beliefs and sacrifice its own well-being.

These beliefs set up our two axes in Black’s alignment grid. Black is Ambitious and Independent, while its enemies are Complacent and Subordinate. Thus, Black’s grid looks like this:

Now remember that Blue and Red fill in these neutral positions. What are the philosophical reasons why?

Red sits between Black and Green, which means it also sits between the Ambitious and Complacent spectrum. In the free will vs. determinism argument, Red can’t really pick a side. It looks at Black’s sense of autonomy and says, “Eh, other things affect me all the time. If you punch me, I’m gonna get me mad. That would make me punch you back. I can’t help that.” Then again, Green thinks that the world is ordered and filled with patterns. Red chuckles and goes, “Well sure if I get punched I’ll punch back. But I can also be the one doing the punching. You could give me a flower and I might still punch you back.”

Blue sits between the Independent and Subordinate sides of the Black/White conflict. Blue is always looking for perfection, but it can be swayed on how big that goal is. Personal perfection leans towards Black’s ideas of independence, while social perfection leans towards White’s ideas of community.

Bringing It All Together

That’s a lot of information, but thankfully the alignment charts are designed to organize it all pretty conveniently. When we take the colors and what they stand for and slap them onto the grid, this is what we get:

This is a basic chart of how Black views the world. Black values ambition and self-reliance, but it can’t stand those that won’t take responsibility for their lives or who won’t work to make sure their own needs are met. But let’s take some time to break down each alignment with a little blurb.

Ambitious Independent (Black): This is the pinnacle of Black’s philosophy. These people have a goal and actively pursue it until they achieve it. They don’t rely on anyone’s help, only using assistance as a means to an end. They put their own needs before the needs of anyone else.

Neutral Independent (Red/Black): The most egocentrically reckless alignment thrives on disorder. They see themselves as a wild stallion with the power to do literally anything they want. Nobody puts restrictions on these people, who will desperately fight for their personal liberty.

Complacent Independent (Green/Black): These people enjoy being autonomous in their life, but they’re not really looking to change much about how they life. They’re fine with whatever happens to them, as they have the confidence and resources to ensure their survival.

Ambitious Neutral (Black/Blue): This is the group most result-oriented group. Whether they work for themselves or work for others, they want to get things done. They are people with clear-cut goals and a concrete plan to achieve them.

True Neutral (Red/Blue): This is the most balanced part of Black’s alignment grid. They may ambitious in some aspects of their life, but not others. Sometimes they’ll act in their own interest and sometimes they’ll act in the interests of others. They’re generally not focused enough on one part of their life to make significant change in it. They may be heavily conflicted individuals that have trouble choosing a path.

Complacent Neutral (Green/Blue): These people see everything as a part of a great system of interconnected parts. They see that everything has a cause and revel in looking back at how today got to be where it is. They’re not interested in trying to innovate, preferring to take what the world gives them.

Ambitious Subordinate (Black/White): They have lofty goals, working hard to change the world for the sake of others. They don’t necessarily want to help everyone, but the fact that they may compromise their own well-being for someone else means that they’re not totally self-serving.

Neutral Subordinate (Red/White): This group makes almost all of its decisions based on external factors. They will work in service of other people, ideals, or laws. They are the most self-sacrificial group, always willing to put their lives on the line for what they believe in.

Complacent Subordinate (Green/White): These people just go with the flow. They let the world happen to them and are perfectly fine with how things turn out. When the world gives them lemons, they don’t even make lemonade. They just eat lemons.

By the nature of the way these grids are set up, each one will be missing two different color pairs. For Black’s grid, it’s missing White/Blue and Red/Green. These pairs will probably end up in the bottom-left and top-right corners, respectively. White/Blue would tend to be more subordinate than independent, while Red/Green would tend to be more complacent than ambitious.

This incongruence speaks to an important thing to keep in mind when looking at these alignment grids: the colors on the grid don’t necessarily perfectly reflect the color pairs that appear. These grids are best used as a way to delve into a particular color’s philosophy at a different angle. This is a map of Black’s values, not a blueprint to the color pie.

The Final Grid

Of course, what better way to showcase the fact that colors are much more complicated than a simple alignment grid than by placing some planeswalkers on it? Let’s see here:

So while some characters might line up with the colors on Black’s grid, they don’t necessarily have to. After all, it’s going to take five whole alignment grids to match the basics of the color pie.

But what are the fruits of today’s labors? We learned an awful lot about what Black values and what it hates seeing in others. Black is the color that focuses the most on itself, making it the most independent and self-reliant color. Black hates when others make decisions for it and loathes having to play by someone else’s rules. Black is confident that it knows what it needs, and no other color is going to stop it getting what it wants.

Join me next week, planeswalkers, when things get a little messy.

[Demons’Bond -The path of exile-]

Hello, Shall we date? fans!

Prior to the official release of our new title, “Demons’ Bond –The path of exile-”(PAID version), we’ll give you a sneak preview!
This is a love story set in the age of Warring State in Japan, portraying conflicts and bonds among the heroine and other demons.

The gorgeous photos and moving sound tracks will emphasize the spectacular story too!

Monster of the Day: Adlet

The Adlet (or Erqigdlet) are a race of creatures in the Inuit mythology of Greenland, as well as the Labrador and Hudson Bay coasts. While the word refers to inland native American tribes, it also denotes a tribe with dogs’ legs and human bodies. The lower part of the body of the canine Adlet is like that of a dog and their upper part is like a man’s. All Adlet run quickly, and usually encounters between men end up in battle, with man as the victor.

In Inuit lore, they are often portrayed as in conflict with humans, and are supposed to be taller than Inuit and white people. In some stories they are cannibals.

I don’t think that Satsuki would have felt sad in the canon, she would have felt relief. I personally love to portray Satsuki with conflicting feelings towards Ragyo so in my headcanons a part of her does feel sad and lonely on Mother’s Day but in the canon Satsuki is not portrayed like that. 

I love to headcanon that Satsuki spends Mother’s Day with the Mankanshoku family because she sees Sukuyo as her adoptive mother but she knows that she can never have such a happy and carefree mother-daughter-relationship like Mako and Sukuyo so even if she is happy to be with them, she doesn’t really feel like she belongs to them. Same with Ryuko actually, though she has spent a long time with Sukuyo already. And Satsuki probably knows that so she spends more time with Ryuko on Mother’s Day because they both share the same history of not having a (caring) mother around while growing up.

I guess Satsuki spent Mother’s Day with Ragyo very formally. She probably bought Ragyo flowers and feigned love and gratitude. Or maybe they just didn’t celebrate Mother’s Day at all which is actually more likely imo. In both Ragyo’s and Satsuki’s opinions this day would have been just another meaningless day the pigs in human clothing made up to open a new industry, to sell more flowers and chocolate and whatever.

See above^^

Maybe they also wrote “fuck off shitty mom”-cards on Mother’s Day.

Watch on anarcho-queer.tumblr.com

Battle in Seattle is a 2007 film depicting the historic anti-globalization protest in 1999, as thousands of activists arrive in Seattle, Washington in masses to protest the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999. The World Trade Organization is considered by protesters to contribute to widening the socioeconomic gap between the rich and the poor while it claims to be fixing it and decreasing world hunger, disease and death.

The movie portrays conflicts between the peaceful protesters and those committing property destruction whose actions were widely covered by the media. Although the protest began peacefully with a goal of stopping the WTO talks, police began teargassing the crowd and the situation escalated into a full-scale riot and a State of Emergency that pitted protesters against the Seattle Police Department and the National Guard.

anonymous asked:

Are there things about how you were portrayed in canon that conflict with what you were actually like in those lives?

Lots and lots honestly.

Ken:

The Digimon Kaizer was the result of inheriting part of my brother’s spirit, rather than a ‘dark seed’. I don’t remember the incident with Oikawa well, but I believe that the way he manipulated the other children was in some way copied from what happened to me.

Miyako and I did get married, as we did in canon, but we got divorced shortly there after.

I had a relationship with my (basically unseen in canon) police partner.

Vriska:

Trolls had tails

Lord English wasn’t Caliborn/the Cherubs didn’t exist

I gained the memories of Mindfang when I went through Ancestral Awakening.

I still don’t know exactly what happened in the end, but it was super different than in canon.

Pearl:

No *confirmed* differences yet, but in my timeline Rose Quartz was Pink Diamond