make believe worlds

✰ v/alex ✰ she/her ✰ writeblr ✰ prompts open ✰ exclusionists dni | minor | linktree

[alexwritesfiction]

hello! welcome :)

longer about me | masterlist | not comfy with tag games! 

buy me a coffee!

fandoms: rwrb | john green | tsoa | pjo | skz | more

im alex (she/her), I’m a freelance writer currently in high school. I write every genre except sci-fi and historical fiction! i mostly write lovey-dovey contemporary and diverse topics (and too much angst) my stories will always have significant queer, differently abled, black rep etc. I dabble in a lot of genres :)

my top ongoing WIPs (unmentioned ones are on hold/brainstorming)

breathe (aesthetic side project) #breathe

If I Could Touch You • two best friends separated by the military fall in love through the letters they write to each other • 1970s • queer • writing

Xavier • a gang leader’s daughter and the leader of a mafia get tied in an arranged marriage • enemies to lovers • editing

cool people (mutuals):

@i-love-books-and-so-do-you (leo/jai they/them) || @euphoniouspandemonium syd (he/they/she ) || @ink-fireplace-coffee carmen (she/her) || @baguettethebooklover emily (she/they)

peace out <3

[annabelle--cane]

stop. analyse that text through the lens of its author's intentions and original historical context. okay now take the author out back and kill them dead and analyse that text as though it were published by your mutual yesterday and is in direct conversation the contemporary discourse that's most relevant to your life. okay now pick your favorite angle of interpretation and come up with the strongest possible argument against it. now imagine that the text is your best friend and that it means you well and that you naturally give it every benefit of the doubt because you're on its side and you want the best for it. now imagine that the text wants you dead and it'll eat you if you don't eat it first. now pretend that you found this text locked away in a cave with no evidence of when or where it came from and you have to divine its meaning solely through its internal coherence and nothing else. okay now address the elephant in the room aspect of the text you've been ignoring because you find it boring or confusing or uncomfortable and become the number one expert on it. now spend forty minutes assigning all the characters dnd classes with at least three sentences of reasoning each. okay now do the cha cha slide.

[amarenacherriezzz]

[xenonsreturn]

[crown-princess-carrion]

I think it's a sign of good media when you have to reread or rewatch it to get the full experience. First time is for getting your brain blasted by the story and being confused second time is for knowing who's who and what's what and willingly getting your brain blasted again.

[personsonable-deactivated201908]

me holding a gun to a mushroom: tell me the name of god you fungal piece of shit

mushroom: can you feel your heart burning? can you feel the struggle within? the fear within me is beyond anything your soul can make. you cannot kill me in a way that matters

me cocking the gun, tears streaming down my face: I’M NOT FUCKING SCARED OF YOU

[miaislying]

Hey OP? What the FUCK does this mean?

[personsonable-deactivated201908]

decay exists as an extant form of life

[miaislying]

That’s a terrifying answer, have a nice day

[worldheritagepostorganization]

World Heritage Post

[prokopetz]

Some day I want to see a show that does the “no filler episodes” thing from the opposite direction. Just a whole season worth of low-stakes character pieces that seem to move the overall story absolutely nowhere, then episode 26 pulls all the triggers at once and this massive Rube Goldberg machine of a plot the show’s been quietly setting up in the background the whole time hits you like a truck.

[v3rb4tim]

Incredible one-liners as always

[nondelphic]

"just write a little every day" ok but what if i write nothing for 3 weeks and then suddenly type like i’m being hunted by god

[spanishandricotta]

what if instead of rick riordan we had frick friordan and instead of the gods fighting eachother they all had se- oh

[cloudstation]

That post that's like "stop writing characters who talk like they're trying to get a good grade in therapy" really blew the door wide open for me about how common it's become for a character's emotional intelligence to not be taken into consideration when writing conflict. I remember the first time I went to therapy I had such a hard time even identifying what I was feeling, let alone had the language to explain it to someone else. Of course there are plenty of people who've never been to therapy a day in their life who are in tune to their emotions. But even they would have some trouble expressing themselves sometimes. You have to take into account there are plenty of people who are uncomfortable expressing themselves and people who think they're not allowed to feel certain ways. It also makes for more interesting conflict to have characters with different levels of understanding.

[withswords]

i think people have gotten out of the habit of writing characters being untruthful unless they're evil. sometimes people just lie, or they believe and repeat things that aren't true. people just do not and often Can not tell the absolute truth about themselves all the time even during heated and climactic moments. why are you writing everyone being absolutely honest about their feelings!!

[naamahdarling]

A character shown to be very self-aware and emotionally intelligent having a failure of that when under pressure or in conflict is incredibly dramatic. A lapse into previous maladaptive behavior is especially effective on me, because it is so believable, because I have been to therapy for ages and this STILL happens to me regularly. I have a character who is 47, has been in therapy for years, is doing really good, is aware of his weak points, is extremely honest. I get the genuine pleasure of putting him through shit that will ruin that. You can have your heavily-therapized characters AND conflict. Don't be afraid to break them. Let them have challenges that they fail. It's realistic, and it gives you somewhere to go.

[rottenbrainstuff]

Look it’s not even just whether or not X character would realistically have that level of emotional intelligence or not. The whole entire thing just feels so transparently “we can’t have anything bad or unhealthy as decreed by the latest round of social media posts going around.” It feels like I’m reading some shitty Chick Tract or something. It feels like I’m reading material published by a church. It feels like I’m reading one of those self help books written for kids that tries to teach a morality lesson through a narrative.

It’s boring and it’s silly. Since when did we decide that all fiction had to be a Victorian morality pamphlet? I don’t want to read a morality pamphlet. I want to read an interesting situation. Sometimes people doing stupid things and having to deal with the consequences of their stupid things is interesting. Sometimes watching someone make a mistake and knowing it’s a mistake is interesting. Sometimes I am sad and you know what I DO just want to be comforted by a nice quiet thing where nothing bad happens and everyone behaves nicely. Sometimes I don’t.

For the love of god I want to read grown up narratives, not children’s stories teaching me the importance of sharing with my friends. Ok??

[little-racing-driver]

No, you don't get it, I'm obsessed with that moment between Max and Charles. Max was ready to overtake Charles so he wouldn't get stuck behind him and hinder his long run due to Charles' dirty air. But Charles didn't want Max to overtake him either because that would ruin HIS data (and god knows Ferrari needs good data, they are horrible still). So he pulled a very clever move (I know how much you protect your kitten, GP, but that WAS a clever move). Charles hindered Max and further skewed his data, and Max LAUGHED. He suffered from that stunt, and he LAUGHED. He recognised Charles' genius, and he LAUGHED. Nobody talk to me, I need several business days to recover

[lettersiarrange]

New writing rule: Checkov’s friend

If you introduce a named character with a relationship to a protagonist, their character arc must be resolved in a way that feels reasonable and satisfying

Which is to say: they can’t just dissappear when they’re no longer a convenient plot device

[cluegrrl]

Thor’s Mum rule – If you’re going to kill a character who’s carried any part of the plot, take a bit to reimagine the plot as if she were the main character, and the story ends when she dies.  If it’s unsatisfying, rewrite either her plot points, or her death, to make both more meaningful.

Which is to say – don’t treat side characters as ammo with which to hurt your main guy.  ESPECIALLY if they’re women.

[dr-dendritic-trees]

I’m reblogging because this second part is the best explanation of how I distinguish between fridged characters and other characters who just die.

And yes, it is intrinsically a bit subjective and that’s okay.

[natalieironside]

If you're a writer you're supposed to write a lot of bullshit. It's part of the gig. You have to write a lot of absolute garbage in order to get to the good bits. Every once in a while you'll be like "Oh, I wish I hadn't wasted all that time writing bullshit," but that's dumb. That's exactly the same as an Olympic runner being like "Oh, I wish I hadn't wasted all that time running all those practice laps"

[internetgreatesthits]

[si-lee-me]

[ruhlare]

From "Waves of Longing"

[linusbenjamin]

Pride and Prejudice 2005 ☼ dir. Joe Wright