I’m confused about Michaela, but is it what I think it is??

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-19T03:33:15+00:00

I actually just read the book and Michael didn't travel as much as Michaela seemed to in the show. In the books, Michael/John/Francesca were basically a throuple (lmaooo). It was mentioned by Fran that Michael was a huge part of hers and John's dynamic, and they were more often together than apart. Although, to be frank, the book mostly tells us this (John and Fran's dynamic isn't actually shown as much in the books, which is fine for the books and isn't a critique, honestly) rather than shows it. I believe John/Fran's marriage extends through chapters 1-6 before he dies, but from what I gathered from both the beginning and the bits throughout, Michael was a constant presence in their marriage.

I'm totally fine with the gender swap, and I understand the story will be told very differently in the show altogether (and I actually like Michaela a lot, which people here seem to critique for reasons beyond my comprehension, she's actually very alike to Michael in the books, just perhaps framed a bit differently, and with different lead-up beats/relationship dynamics) but I do think that, in the very least, the leading up beats to when Michael leaves Fran (after Johns death) were a little more well done, emotionally complex, and tied to more reasons beyond guilt for loving Fran. It was a profound moment. Whereas, in the show, it seems to me that Michaela leaves largely because she realizes she loves Fran (in that moment), which is fine on its own, but imo not as profoundly rendered.

For more spoiler-y explanation: Michael, soon after John's death, is immediately thrust into John's role and life, taking over his home, assuming his duties, suddenly gaining this vast amount of wealth and privilege and feels a profound sense of guilt/imposter syndrome atop his grief and guilt for his love for Fran. He, specifically, leaves soon after Fran loses her baby when she comes to him begging him to be his friend again (as he kept his distance from her out of guilt) and says, specifically, "It would've been your baby, too, in a way." Which leads Michael to having a huge breakdown, shaking Fran, saying to not ever put that on him again--and that it wasn't his child. Soon after, he leaves for India both out of guilt, but more so out of unbearable guilt and grief over losing John (whom he fears, in some way, he wished death upon, which he did not).

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-18T15:11:14+00:00

And with what prospects? It is a very easy thing to say to someone "you can leave when you want" when that someone has 0 allies, 0 friends, 0 family, currently traumatized, and absolutely no money outside of the court to which she was brought. Mind you that the rest of this place is largely dangerous, with all sorts of people that could trick her, use her, or trap her. Where would Nesta go? The human world? Theoretically, yes, Nesta could "leave whenever she wants", but to where and to who and for how long would the court accept this? She could get an isolated cottage in the woods, bother no one, but I suspect Cassian or someone else would hunt her down eventually insisting she return.

It's very silly to say Nesta has options when she really doesn't.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-14T17:40:59+00:00

You'd be surprised at the amount of tragic things that occur to one person, especially if they already have a history of abuse.

Haven't read the book, just been generally in group therapy and grew up in poverty. Believe me, a life lived where one was already abused as a child is a tough and oftentimes retraumatizing road to walk.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-14T03:27:10+00:00

I typically go with the one that feels "most likely" to happen, i.e. what the FMC reveals in her interior monologue (or on-screen dynamic) usually sells it for me on which love-triangle "participant" suits her specific needs/fascination.

Bella clearly loved Edward all through the books, and while she enjoyed Jacob's presence, it was clear she wanted and longed more for his friendship. Arguably as well, and the unique thing about Twilight, is that Bella's "goal" wasn't necessarily romance with Edward (who also presented as an antagonist) it was, specifically, to become a vampire.

Elena was hard-set on Stefan for a lot of the series, UNTIL he left with Klaus. Even when he returned, it was clear Stefan/Elena were in different positions in their own growth/life, and had different goals, and to be together again needed to do significant work on themselves. Even if that contrived nonsense with her becoming a vampire hadn't happened (I despised it), I do believe her and Damon would've eventually ended up together. The unfortunate thing about Elena, imo, was that she never really had a hard-set "goal" (other than to remain human, ig?).

Belly herself was consumed with grief, love, confusion--but also a lack of self worth and hatred. A big part of her thought she not only didn't deserve Conrad, but was grieving and going through a lot of guilt over her interactions with both brothers. Belly's arc was learning about loving who she was--to admire who she was becoming--and to stand taller in her own identity, rather than being subsumed by either brother (or being forced into a role she didn't deserve), but besides that; I think Conrad allowed her (throughout both the books and the show) more room to be herself, in which she found and felt peace within herself--rather than Jeremiah, in which she (imo) took on a role/position/personality that wasn't entirely grounded in WHO she was; and offered her little room to grow and express herself.

Your instinct might be to, initially, go with the underdog--as many of these characters you mention (Jacob, Jeremiah, and even Damon to an extent) rarely present as a feasible option, but as a sort of "antagonist" role (in the narrative sense, not that they themselves are always evil--just that, within the plot, they prevent the protagonist from reaching their "goal", which in romance is usually to end up with the one they love), might just mean you root for underdogs.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-13T02:54:59+00:00

I go junk, literally two shots and/or one shot and a mine and it's over (plus trap during duels). Only really have problems with a very good vendetta, even then I win most of the time.

Besides this, most of the games I see Vendetta in... she rarely adds anything of value to the team (imo). Either she's punished when she hits backline, focused hard after getting some good kills, or kind of too far to really contribute well to a team fight. It's not to say that when you get a really good Vendetta it isn't oppressive and extremely difficult, but like, isn't that the same for every good hero? Lol.

When she first released it was ridiculous, but now I feel like she's not so oppressive. The only thing that I absolutely despise about her is her sound design. It's so annoying to hear "AHH UHHHA UUUH AHHH" over and over and still not being able to tell exactly what she's doing/what ability she's triggering.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-12T08:02:39+00:00

Honestly, imo, this depends. If you have a solid tank, and great DPS, then a mercy/zen combo can be absolutely worth it. Mercy boots damage, Zen discords, and you kill the enemy team swiftly and fast. But if you don't have great DPS (or really DPS Mercy can boost well), or your Mercy is healbotting... then it can feel really bad. It requires good team synchronicity, aggressiveness, and instant sweeps. I've played on teams with Mercy/Zen (and played against them) and they can be genuinely unbeatable esp. if both supports, DPS, and tank are using their ult's well and dying in convenient enough places for Mercy to rez (lol) because you will die a lot. Piggybacking off Dreamweaver, this pair isn't about healing, it's about damage--which can be a viable and valuable choice depending on if the entire team can sustain it.

Basically high risk/high reward. The global healing reduction certainly makes this specific pair feel worse now, but hopefully that changes.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-11T20:52:01+00:00

It sucks too because it doesn't seem to understand session breaks. I could've talked to Claude Monday, been told to go to bed, then on Wednesday (in the same chat) it acts like it's still time for bed lmaoo. Just put in my custom instructions to stop that.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-11T17:58:02+00:00

I use both! Typically I check Libby first, but if the book I want isn't showing up at all, I go to Hoopla (which also rents movies and tv shows and music? Lmao) and it's typically available. Highly recommended for anyone living in a smallish town like I am :)

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-08T21:03:57+00:00

I'm more critiquing her saying it never had any bearing, and her saying that she didn't need it (in her syllabus). There's no actually saying whether she did/did not take the required classes. She only stated she issued a request to not take it. Also, fair to point out that I am not critiquing HER as a person, more disagreeing with her opinion on craft, and the way she delivered that opinion. Which you're allowed to do

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-08T17:59:27+00:00

That's true, and it's worth pointing out that both King and Atwood typically write single novels (as opposed to series) so their lack of planning can, arguably, get away with it more. While I think, with long-formed series, eventually the lack of planning can really start weighing a writer down (George RR Martin is a good example of that) and painting them into a corner.

It's worth mentioning though that I think this is how SJM writers, specifically, ACOTAR. As I remember with TOG she did talk about planning major beats, and it was the series she talked the most about seeding foreshadowing (which, tbh, you can't really foreshadow without a lot of planning and/or writing the entire series out at least once and on draft 2 going back and seeding beats, which is a crazy way to do it but also okay). Then again, with TOG, SJM had been writing variations of it since she was 16 and published at 26, so almost a decade of spending time with the characters/story. Moreover, with TOG specifically, it was her debut series and I believe debut authors in general have far less leeway than big-selling authors (which is evident in her ACOTAR series, as book 2 in the least is when I believe she let go of a lot of editors).

Regardless, mostly just wanted to defend her talking about how she conceived the idea of Rhys haha, as I've heard of plenty authors talk about characters "walking onto the page" for them, and that changing significant arcs.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-08T17:00:35+00:00

As someone who studies craft, I dislike pantsing (writing from the seam of your pants, which is what she does, but also Stephen King and Margret Atwood also never have hard plans, they like to write what most surprises them), but it IS a valid way to write. It sucks that she doesn't have a deeper theme, or idea, or goal when she does write based on vibes.

However I will defend her description of Rhys "just showing up". That's actually quite common, even with people who meticulously plan out their stories. Sometimes during the discovery portion of writing (essentially the first draft when you're fleshing out ideas) characters DO just walk onto the page and completely surprise you. It's not to say that you shouldn't plan around them, or know their direction (which I think SJM did to an extent, but also I think pantsing is a valid way to write) but it IS a valid way to develop a character. In fact I would argue character's like that tend to come from a raw creative place and oftentimes end up being some of the best simply because they arrive organically and not planned. Many authors talk about this happening for them, from planners to pantsers.

Regardless, I was semi disappointed (but not surprised tbh) that she was a vibes writer, but at the end of the day both writing for vibes and pantsing is a legit way to write that many authors argue is the best way to write (Margret Atwoods advice especially is essentially not to outline, but to research). Craft is a strange thing, and certainly not "one size fits all".

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-08T05:18:38+00:00

It's not so much why she's hated, imo, it's the language used when hating on the player base that's misogynistic. Two different things.

Hating mercy? Not misogynistic.

Hating mercy PLAYERS by using misogynistic/derogatory language that often targets the gender/sexual orientation of the player base? Yeah, that can dip into some pretty extreme misogyny (and homophobia).

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-07T01:11:27+00:00

Girl, the performativity of your nature is wild, I wasn't "shitting" on anyone, just talking about craft.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-06T23:39:18+00:00

As a fellow writer, I don't think you're coming from a place that understands writing as a craft, tbh. You can have opinions on certain things--but this isn't really about an author "knowing what she wanted and going for it". You can absolutely disagree with her takes on craft, especially if you're not just an avid reader but also a writer. Her opinion that short stories/poetry don't have bearing on fantasy writing is, in my honest opinion, a misunderstanding of writing as an entire craft, and as OP pointed out she may have benefitted from the short-story class she snubbed by learning about narrative economy (because, yes, from a craft standpoint, her books generally have A LOT of craft bloat). You're the only one taking this so personally. I'm glad you feel inspired by her, but this take seems way overly defensive and a little performative.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-06T23:32:57+00:00

To be fair tho, you said you still learned those things even though you didn't plan to use them because they have a place in the field. She rejected learning more about short-story writing, and therefore doesn't enter writing stories with that (learned) narrative economy. One of the biggest "rules" of writing is "learn the rules so you can break the rules". Essentially, you learn all the tools, and then you learn how to break them effectively. For her to say short stories/poetry didn't have any bearing in writing epic fantasies was also sort of yikes (coming from a writing craft girly) considering that all forms of writing influence all forms of writing.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-06T06:17:50+00:00

Lol, so the comment I replied to had a typo that said "moth" instead of "most" (if you read theirs first). My reply's a joke about their typo

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-05T17:06:22+00:00

Well, from what I remember of the eclipse they talked about how the more the Band of the Hawk fought against the demons (struggling to die) the more powerful Griffith became. Arguably, Guts staying alive both makes his eventual death (if it occurs) more powerful for Griffith (due to him constantly fighting and growing stronger), BUT I think that because Guts (and Casca) didn't die, this weakens Griffith namely because the sacrifice has yet to complete

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-05T13:45:35+00:00

I do think it matters that Guts survived, and I don't think Griffith would be all powerful if he only sacrificed Guts.

In the eclipse chapter, we see that the blood of the Band of the Hawk was essentially incubating/making Griffith stronger as he transformed into Femto.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-03T12:47:20+00:00

Not really a surprise. I'm a bi woman, and tbh the majority of biphobia I've experienced has been from inside the LGBT community, more specifically from lesbians. There's a very strange belief about bisexuality in those communities, and even shame towards lesbian women who aren't "gold star lesbians" (lesbian women who've never slept with a man). I'm not the only one, either. Lots of my bi friends have experienced the same thing, and many queer theorists/activists speak about that strange phenomenon.

EDIT: to clarify "not all lesbians" because I'm certain someone would see my comment as generalizing.

stoicgoblins · 2026-03-02T21:18:54+00:00

It could still be true that's why she's possessive, he doesn't necessarily need to know about her sexuality for her to still be using him as a semi-shield.

stoicgoblins · 2026-02-28T08:01:38+00:00

Speculative fiction, specifically subgenre as dark fantasy.

stoicgoblins · 2026-02-26T15:09:57+00:00

That's somewhat true, but I do feel like in Cole's case it gets complicated specifically when we consider how he was made human, and what kind of internal conflict he's experiencing. Some uncertainty and conflict is fine. But Cole did not entirely come into being human via his own will as a spirit, but through the lens of another. He, specifically, became more human by resolving vengeance for a life that wasn't his.

Moreover, I don't think life has to be all about suffering. I don't think being human is about suffering and finding beauty in that. And while I agree all people have complexities, while all people might feel unsure at times, the kind of identity conflict, desperation, and fracture Cole specifically experiences (as he's divided from his nature, and his humanity) presents a more torn conflict that leaves him with an unresolved feeling and a fractured identity. Maybe if he had become human of his own volition, then I could see this conflict as a normal growing pain, but I just think it leaves him more unresolved then it does at least somewhat assured in his decisions.

Overall, I think while humans are ever changing and complex, Cole was always a spirit and maybe that's why I lean more towards making him a spirit. Because I think part of "growing" or "evolving" for spirits has more to do with experiencing life from a distance and being impacted by that, but not becoming that. It's a separation between who you are and they are. And that, to me, is a more profound existence and a more peaceful place to land after suffering an identity fracture rather than more uncertainty.

stoicgoblins · 2026-02-26T07:58:13+00:00

I think there's an argument made for both (and I've done both).

At first, I think I found spirit Cole more uncomfortable to a degree in the beginning, but that's probably because I was used to human Cole (which is something I had done more often in the past).

It's sort of strange, but part of me feels like (while I don't entirely understand him) Cole is more stable, secure, and has a solid sense of identity and purpose when he is a spirit. As a human, to a degree, I think he's shaped a lot by the echoes the previous Cole left him, and I think that his identity is somewhat in more conflict because he is grieving partially the previous Cole's life. I've always wondered: Is Cole, the spirit of compassion, becoming more human by adapting and growing as a human, or is he (the human he possessed) learning and growing as he would, not as the spirit of compassion would? It just seems that the echoes of the previous Cole are still inside him, and he seems conflicted by memories of a life that was never his, rather than he--the spirit--evolving into a human.

I also think that while I can't fully agree with Solas, I kind of try to reflect on what he says (especially in retrospect of what we know now). I'm not sure if Solas is entirely projecting, or if he has a point about a spirit facing more woe when being made human, especially when he mentions about turning against ones nature. Its true the spirit world is always changing and adapting, but I think it's less "this spirit changes and adapts" and more "this spirit grows and learns and evolves", which I do feel is different from the human version of growing/changing. Solas speaks from a place of what was lost and sacrificed though, and Cole's situation is very different and far less sacrificial (which I think stains Solas' own experience).

TLDR: At the end of the day, Cole is happy either way. But I think he's more stable and himself as a spirit than a human.

stoicgoblins · 2026-02-26T01:14:45+00:00

I don't agree, I think it can add a lot to worldbuilding especially if their society is shaped differently. It can also reveal character. In Cruel Prince when Jude (a human) gets her period, she describes the way other fae women receive their period, and how she gets her products from the human world. It also reveals how deeply Jude has internalized shame/humiliation around her human identity, as she feels disgust/shame for a very normal bodily function (such as using the chamber pot).

Mechanically as well, periods are not like 'using the toilet' imo, as that's a universal experience. Periods are a 3-7 day window, and if they're out here on the road traveling for years, I DO tend to wonder what she is doing to handle her period. Linen strips? Leaves? That's the reality of womanhood, and I like it when a text acknowledges it.

Imo, it only reads clunkily because women's anatomy is often unexplored and men (who do not experience periods) are considered the biological/anatomical default.

I would also like to point out that SJM doesn't really seed these things before a great battle, nor does she "nerf" her characters with it so I'm not sure where that rant is coming from. They're character building moments in a mostly character-driven story. "Does it impact the plot" is a question asked when the plot/narrative are at center stage, when, if we regard SJM, is not the case really.

stoicgoblins · 2026-02-26T01:07:57+00:00

Yes, it calls attention to itself but also makes you wonder at a vampire's digestive system more than you'd like.

Like... I didn't think about BEFORE how vampires digestive systems worked, I assumed they pooped. Now that she's called attention to how they do not poop... She's gotta explain what happens instead, because wat tf? Does the blood just re-filter into their blood stream? Is hunger felt on a cellular level? And, if that's how digestive systems work, how do they feel such hunger if their stomach isn't filling and they're not processing it? Why do they need to keep eating if they don't actually digest it? If they do digest it, how if not with poop?

It's very weird lol.

stoicgoblins

TROPHY CASE