3:45 Regarding tragedies, I once heard a joke that if you had Hamlet and Othello swap roles, both plays would have happy endings. Hamlet's caution would have led him to double-check if Desdemona was actually being unfaithful, while Othello would've killed Claudius straightaway before anyone else could get caught in the crossfire.
Well said, Dunkin. A comment on the Cranking up to eleven: It took me a decade of writing to understand this, so for some of us it doesn't come intuitively. The texts I write is clear and powerful in my own head, but to evoke emotional engagement in the reader the actions must be larger than life. These days people have already seen everything, so they need a true spark to get invested in a story.
Many TH-cam authors giving advice tend to give advice that is lacking or unusable. But somehow, I'm always taking something away from your videos and applying it immediately into my novels. The way you present these ideas and provide ways to fix certain problems is fantastic. I find that your advice 'sticks' in my mind whereas I fail to retain advice from others. Keep doing what you are doing because it is very much appreciated
Great points! Thank you for the advice. :) I think point 5 might benefit from some more exploration. To me, the most interesting tool for character developement is doubt. They grow when they start doubting their actions, when they start to understand that their cause may not be just, or they are going about it the wrong way.
Thank you for the video! I’ve just subscribed to your channel (the sea turtles in your audience intrigue me) 😅 I have a question if I may: how would you oppose writing a “sympathetic villain” vs. simply showing clear motivations (a clear train of thought and worldview) of a villain character. I’m curious because there’s been a trend lately to write “sympathetic villains” as though they were simply misunderstood (I dislike that a lot, to be honest). Yes, as you’ve said in this video, everyone thinks of themselves as the main heroes of the story, but evil is evil and a story should be clear on that. I would love to know your thoughts. Thanks a lot! :)
"Evil is evil" is what Salem lawyers would say about witches. Moral relativism can be troubling but it's rarely as dangerous or misguided as moral absolutism. We can probably assume it's on a case by case basis. Besides. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I think the vast majority of people understand sympathetic villains are bad guys. It's why we call them villains...
I guess, it is personal preference, but I don't fully agree with you on your points. 1st point: More or less yes. Personally, though I don't think it is an issue, if a character is loved by most of the main cast. As long as they have their own unique reason to do so. The problem is when everybody loves said character for the exact same reasons [or even worse it is just some shallow ego pandering]. 2nd point: Flaws. In my personal experience [worldview if you will], there are no real flaws or stregths. Every traits be it a flaw or strength can be beneficial in certain situtations and hinderence in others. Sadly, it is rarely considered by writers. That's why I don't like stories where the flaws drive the story forward [or at least only the flaws]. Not to mention, for me it feels like the world itself revolves around the character [albeit in a negative way], which I don't really like. Personally, I prefer when the motivations, desires and goals of the different characters clashes and that's the driving force of the story. For me the most interesting stories are where the characters done the best they could, yet they still fail or made the bad decesion yet they succeed. The right choice is not always the best choice, just as the wrong choice is not always the bad one either. 3rd point: This one I completly agree with. 4th: Crancked to eleven? I'm not sure, if our definition of "11" is the same, but I really don't like overcooked characters. Slight exaggeration is fine, but when I see cranked up characters, I feel like I don't read about a person anymore, but a personified personality trait. Usually, it is a turn off for me. Also, personally I don't think we are that complex as we want to belive we are. I find myself and to be honest all people pretty simple. We are all unique in some sence, yet we are barely different. So sure, it is only neccessary to show why certain character is different and we can fill the rest. 5th: I don't think it is neccessary. A self-aware character can be well-aware of the fact that they are not good nor the heroes. I would say it is not neccessary them to belive they are the heroes, I think what's neccessary is that their motivations and reasons should be understandable. Although, the more villaneous someone gets the more they need to belive they are the hero of their own story. The interesting self-contradiction of the idealism is the fact, that idea itself is subjective. There is no idea which would make everyone happy. The more someone belives they are the heroes who makes the world better, the more villaneous they became [it doesn't matter if their ideals is the most noble] Funnily, I often find the supposed to be heroes of the stories more oppressive than the supposed to be villains. With that said, these are just my personal opinions or perferences. Ultimately though, seeing the best sellers, your advices are well-founded. If someone wants to be famous I'm not the one who should be listened to :)
I don't completely agree with point 5. My "hero" doesn't think of himself as a hero and is driven by longing, pain, remorse, love and his fierce protective nature. He first becomes a villain, then a hero. I like these types of characters much more than the usual hero in every other story, just when it's written well of course
soft disagree on the "all characters want to make the world a better place, villains just do it wrong" take. I think good villains often understand that they're making the world worse, but they're adhering to higher or lower principles (nihilism or greed, for example).
i grew up to have a different way to think when it comes to the "everyone thinks themselves the hero of the story" and that is "there is no such thing as a hero" and the most evil thing one can do is to think of themselves as a hero, from growing up and seeing damaged men come home from military service, the problems that creates to my own issues... i can't see how anyone can justify themselves and think they are the hero because what makes you the hero? "you think your the good guy, i know i'm the bad guy" is a quote from a man i used to know and i think that makes characters more interesting and believable
I know, I know. I been developing my novel since I was 9. The entire sentence is a red flag. Hahahah. But I’m really breaking ground. Imagine having 22 years of marinated ideas, and finally begin to break ground. I dont even think most coaches are familiar with the concept due to its rarity. When I ave bouts of energy, its….. unnatural. Im only 31. Still have lots of time. Want to have my first draft published within 36 ish months.
Goodluck! Im about 15 and i just started it like a year ago. That sounded so bad but anyways good luck to us both! i hope to publish when im maybe in my 20s or 30s
One of my pet peeves: novels set in bygone times in which the heros, male and female have twenty first century notions of gender, equality and privilege. If they develop those concepts through events detailed in the story, well enough, but few of us challenge the perceptions of the society we are born in without some pretty strong motivation. Men in the Middle Ages weren’t born considering women equal. Even if they had powerful mothers or wives, they were more likely to think those women exceptions rather than the rule. I hate anachronisms
I wrote an 80's LGBT satire that has a lot of humor and the f word, even the hard N word in it. Flagged for review by Amazon, it was approved by their review panel for self-publication. Amazon doesn't publish hate speech, but the piece has a one star review encouraging people to contact Amazon and complain about it. Amazon stands by me. I will never have anything bad to say about Amazon for how well they have supported my art and free speech.
I'm with you. That's why I soundly reject "for a modern audience" remakes. They take a movie of its time, and they ass-end it into something utterly incoherent and pale. Same applies to those tales from the bygone era which and told in 2024, with modern sensibilities, as you yourself pointed out. Racial equality wasn't law until 1965, yet here we have Sally Writer penning a novel taking place in 1936 where people of color are featured prominently, and none in chains, and none excluded or segregated. Some even run convenience stores (the 5 and dimes as they were called) and speak with perfect diction and elocution. Totally believable. Doesn't break immersion AT ALL. But nothing will ever beat a medieval themed tale where women are forefront on the battlefield because reasons, as it's always been thus. And not one of them a barely-clothed "heathen" who lived in the bushes surviving on bark soup and the occasional hapless critter. Nah. All from proud and prominent families of honor and distinction. If you're prepared to write a themed or period piece - be prepared to write for that period, and accurately, meaning you WILL be uncomfortable writing it. If you can't handle the discomfort, then put the pen down or pick something else to write. Nothing breaks immersion faster than having to sing to yourself, "One of these things is not like the other...one of these things just doesn't belong..."
Couple problems with this. One is you don't know what those people thought. You're under the impression that you know because you're painting every society all over the world within thousands of years of history with the same broad brush, colored by your more immediate "ancient history" and of popular portrayals. Two: people challenge the societies they live in. The entire purpose of parody has been to do that from the very beginning. What was the role of the court jester? To challenge the king. (Speaking of kings.) When Martin Luther King Jr. was a small child he stood up in Sunday School to challenge the idea that Noah could fit two of each animal on any boat. Now, you can say "Yeah, he became a preacher tho," but who would be missing the point then? Did he go on to become someone who _doesn't_ challenge our perceptions of society? More importantly, no one taught him to question the ark story, he was just a smart kid. Sometimes the only "motivation" a person needs is intelligence and will. At one point in Japan's history beauty trends meant women with white facepaint, small makeup dots where their eyebrows used to be, and blackened teeth were the cream of the crop. If you're goal as a filmmaker is to make the largest portion of your current day audience be stunned by one woman's beauty is it clever to present her in a way that most people will find offputting, simply for the "sake" of historical accuracy? This is literally the same thing. If your goal is to create a character that people can get behind then those people don't want to pretend THEY have archaic morals just so your fictional story can be "accurate" for its own sake. And because the world is always a more nuanced place than we ever accept collectively, it's possible that many of these "revisionist" takes are at least as much if not more accurate than the traditional ones you accept without question.
Sometimes things sound true and authentic to us because they reinforce our core beliefs. And as Duncan points out, fiction is just that. We may strive for accuracy, but as you rightly say, the broad sweep of history is much more nuanced than can be painted with even the broadest brush. I take Nothing without Question but having majored in Art History, I see that Art, music and literature very much reflect the zeitgeist of their times. Can we really ever stand what it was like to be a woman living in the Frankish Empire where women were property, not people? Yes, a few notable women in that era blazed like comets, forging their own destiny. My point was that to paint a true picture, the author needs to reference the events or situations that empowered them
@@dianahaugh7521 I saw the movie The Nightingale. It's a rough movie about misogyny racism and forced colonization. In it, a New Zealand woman bonds with a tribal man while on a quest for revenge. Even though we already sympathize with her because she's been through hell. At the beginning they make it explicitly clear that she is a racist. I liked this detail because it's authentic, and she has to overcome her own prejudices to build a bridge between the two characters across a tumultuous river of shared trauma. It did occur to me however, that not every movie can be The Nightingale. But yeah, there are some people who think their idea of what's "average" is the rule and can never be an exception. We are universally mislead by averages, as far as i can tell. *Most* people don't have the average birthday, for example. I feel like that should tell us something about how we conceive of this. If somebody was the absolute most average person who ever lived, they would likely be the most unique person to ever exist. As authors we generally write about people we consider exceptional anyway. So as long as you're not suggesting that we purge or even shy away from ostensibly progressive characterization, out of inherently biased intuition and a generally flawed understanding of what is "likely" based on the "average," then I think we might be on more or less the same page about this.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with number 5. Someone who is good (the hero) is more likely to understand the difference between right and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will always do what they know is right. Even if they know their actions are bad, they might do it anyway for different reasons. Maybe it's for revenge, maybe it's for pettiness, maybe they just really like messing with people. But, it's not like they don't know what they are doing is bad.
Saying everyone is the hero of their own story is the absolute worst take on writing from recent writing discourse. Some people think that they are doing an evil thing for evil reasons but just can't help themselves, following orders, or is just that selfish. Have you heard of the experiment that had people do a fake electricution of people and every single one of them followed the orders, even when they had tantrums about doing it.
@@futurestoryteller true, it was the vast majority of people. But to say that EVERYONE must think they are the hero of their own story is also a flat out lie. Give some room for error in your arguments. Say that it's a story beat that's been well liked in recent media. To present your opinion as fact is rather disingenuous and flies in the face of storytelling tropes.
@@alexiavya722 It was a significant majority. It was not a "vast majority." I have many problems with your characterizations, I don't have any problems with your primary argument. In fact I think that many people who are _right_ are under the impression that they're wrong too, which further undermines the point made in the video.
Yeah, everyone do have their own opinions like how I do enjoy an humorous middle school book. More nonsensical the better, like Marvin and the moths. It’s a story about Marvin creating hyper intelligent moths and a Shakespeare obsessed predator with a lab set of pork belly juice. Where the town is owned by a pork belly company and a secret Society of elephants. There is also a detective pray mantis with a cockroach as his Watson.
I appreciate this list of "5 Things you Need to Make an 'Anti-Woke' Protagonist" although I do think number five should be its own opposite. How is the reader supposed to know that I'm right if I ever insinuate my idealized self-insert could be wrong!?
But as lonesome, isolated drunken, depressed; okay maybe not the last part; hahaha we novice and unpublished writers neeeed to toot our horns. No one else is going to, and most of the time even after we are published still no one bothers tooting for us.
3:45 Regarding tragedies, I once heard a joke that if you had Hamlet and Othello swap roles, both plays would have happy endings.
Hamlet's caution would have led him to double-check if Desdemona was actually being unfaithful, while Othello would've killed Claudius straightaway before anyone else could get caught in the crossfire.
As a sea turtle, I love your videos and advices.
Yes, nine out of ten sea turtles do enjoy these videos!
Well said, Dunkin. A comment on the Cranking up to eleven: It took me a decade of writing to understand this, so for some of us it doesn't come intuitively. The texts I write is clear and powerful in my own head, but to evoke emotional engagement in the reader the actions must be larger than life. These days people have already seen everything, so they need a true spark to get invested in a story.
Many TH-cam authors giving advice tend to give advice that is lacking or unusable. But somehow, I'm always taking something away from your videos and applying it immediately into my novels. The way you present these ideas and provide ways to fix certain problems is fantastic. I find that your advice 'sticks' in my mind whereas I fail to retain advice from others.
Keep doing what you are doing because it is very much appreciated
Glad it was helpful!
Great points! Thank you for the advice. :)
I think point 5 might benefit from some more exploration. To me, the most interesting tool for character developement is doubt. They grow when they start doubting their actions, when they start to understand that their cause may not be just, or they are going about it the wrong way.
Thank you for the video! I’ve just subscribed to your channel (the sea turtles in your audience intrigue me) 😅 I have a question if I may: how would you oppose writing a “sympathetic villain” vs. simply showing clear motivations (a clear train of thought and worldview) of a villain character. I’m curious because there’s been a trend lately to write “sympathetic villains” as though they were simply misunderstood (I dislike that a lot, to be honest). Yes, as you’ve said in this video, everyone thinks of themselves as the main heroes of the story, but evil is evil and a story should be clear on that. I would love to know your thoughts. Thanks a lot! :)
"Evil is evil" is what Salem lawyers would say about witches. Moral relativism can be troubling but it's rarely as dangerous or misguided as moral absolutism. We can probably assume it's on a case by case basis.
Besides. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I think the vast majority of people understand sympathetic villains are bad guys. It's why we call them villains...
I like this a lot. Most advice video repeat themselves. You don’t get anything new. You, however !
I guess, it is personal preference, but I don't fully agree with you on your points.
1st point: More or less yes. Personally, though I don't think it is an issue, if a character is loved by most of the main cast. As long as they have their own unique reason to do so. The problem is when everybody loves said character for the exact same reasons [or even worse it is just some shallow ego pandering].
2nd point: Flaws. In my personal experience [worldview if you will], there are no real flaws or stregths. Every traits be it a flaw or strength can be beneficial in certain situtations and hinderence in others. Sadly, it is rarely considered by writers. That's why I don't like stories where the flaws drive the story forward [or at least only the flaws]. Not to mention, for me it feels like the world itself revolves around the character [albeit in a negative way], which I don't really like. Personally, I prefer when the motivations, desires and goals of the different characters clashes and that's the driving force of the story. For me the most interesting stories are where the characters done the best they could, yet they still fail or made the bad decesion yet they succeed. The right choice is not always the best choice, just as the wrong choice is not always the bad one either.
3rd point: This one I completly agree with.
4th: Crancked to eleven? I'm not sure, if our definition of "11" is the same, but I really don't like overcooked characters. Slight exaggeration is fine, but when I see cranked up characters, I feel like I don't read about a person anymore, but a personified personality trait. Usually, it is a turn off for me. Also, personally I don't think we are that complex as we want to belive we are. I find myself and to be honest all people pretty simple. We are all unique in some sence, yet we are barely different. So sure, it is only neccessary to show why certain character is different and we can fill the rest.
5th: I don't think it is neccessary. A self-aware character can be well-aware of the fact that they are not good nor the heroes. I would say it is not neccessary them to belive they are the heroes, I think what's neccessary is that their motivations and reasons should be understandable. Although, the more villaneous someone gets the more they need to belive they are the hero of their own story. The interesting self-contradiction of the idealism is the fact, that idea itself is subjective. There is no idea which would make everyone happy. The more someone belives they are the heroes who makes the world better, the more villaneous they became [it doesn't matter if their ideals is the most noble] Funnily, I often find the supposed to be heroes of the stories more oppressive than the supposed to be villains.
With that said, these are just my personal opinions or perferences. Ultimately though, seeing the best sellers, your advices are well-founded. If someone wants to be famous I'm not the one who should be listened to :)
Honestly mate you are such a wise coach. Thanks for all your lessons.
I don't completely agree with point 5. My "hero" doesn't think of himself as a hero and is driven by longing, pain, remorse, love and his fierce protective nature. He first becomes a villain, then a hero. I like these types of characters much more than the usual hero in every other story, just when it's written well of course
soft disagree on the "all characters want to make the world a better place, villains just do it wrong" take. I think good villains often understand that they're making the world worse, but they're adhering to higher or lower principles (nihilism or greed, for example).
i grew up to have a different way to think when it comes to the "everyone thinks themselves the hero of the story" and that is "there is no such thing as a hero" and the most evil thing one can do is to think of themselves as a hero, from growing up and seeing damaged men come home from military service, the problems that creates to my own issues... i can't see how anyone can justify themselves and think they are the hero because what makes you the hero? "you think your the good guy, i know i'm the bad guy" is a quote from a man i used to know and i think that makes characters more interesting and believable
Loved this! Great advice, as usual. Thank you!
I know, I know. I been developing my novel since I was 9. The entire sentence is a red flag. Hahahah. But I’m really breaking ground. Imagine having 22 years of marinated ideas, and finally begin to break ground. I dont even think most coaches are familiar with the concept due to its rarity. When I ave bouts of energy, its….. unnatural. Im only 31. Still have lots of time. Want to have my first draft published within 36 ish months.
Goodluck! Im about 15 and i just started it like a year ago. That sounded so bad but anyways good luck to us both! i hope to publish when im maybe in my 20s or 30s
Underrated channel, good video 👍
Appreciate it!
One of my pet peeves: novels set in bygone times in which the heros, male and female have twenty first century notions of gender, equality and privilege. If they develop those concepts through events detailed in the story, well enough, but few of us challenge the perceptions of the society we are born in without some pretty strong motivation. Men in the Middle Ages weren’t born considering women equal. Even if they had powerful mothers or wives, they were more likely to think those women exceptions rather than the rule. I hate anachronisms
I wrote an 80's LGBT satire that has a lot of humor and the f word, even the hard N word in it. Flagged for review by Amazon, it was approved by their review panel for self-publication. Amazon doesn't publish hate speech, but the piece has a one star review encouraging people to contact Amazon and complain about it. Amazon stands by me. I will never have anything bad to say about Amazon for how well they have supported my art and free speech.
I'm with you. That's why I soundly reject "for a modern audience" remakes. They take a movie of its time, and they ass-end it into something utterly incoherent and pale. Same applies to those tales from the bygone era which and told in 2024, with modern sensibilities, as you yourself pointed out. Racial equality wasn't law until 1965, yet here we have Sally Writer penning a novel taking place in 1936 where people of color are featured prominently, and none in chains, and none excluded or segregated. Some even run convenience stores (the 5 and dimes as they were called) and speak with perfect diction and elocution. Totally believable. Doesn't break immersion AT ALL. But nothing will ever beat a medieval themed tale where women are forefront on the battlefield because reasons, as it's always been thus. And not one of them a barely-clothed "heathen" who lived in the bushes surviving on bark soup and the occasional hapless critter. Nah. All from proud and prominent families of honor and distinction.
If you're prepared to write a themed or period piece - be prepared to write for that period, and accurately, meaning you WILL be uncomfortable writing it. If you can't handle the discomfort, then put the pen down or pick something else to write.
Nothing breaks immersion faster than having to sing to yourself, "One of these things is not like the other...one of these things just doesn't belong..."
Couple problems with this. One is you don't know what those people thought. You're under the impression that you know because you're painting every society all over the world within thousands of years of history with the same broad brush, colored by your more immediate "ancient history" and of popular portrayals.
Two: people challenge the societies they live in. The entire purpose of parody has been to do that from the very beginning. What was the role of the court jester? To challenge the king. (Speaking of kings.) When Martin Luther King Jr. was a small child he stood up in Sunday School to challenge the idea that Noah could fit two of each animal on any boat. Now, you can say "Yeah, he became a preacher tho," but who would be missing the point then? Did he go on to become someone who _doesn't_ challenge our perceptions of society? More importantly, no one taught him to question the ark story, he was just a smart kid. Sometimes the only "motivation" a person needs is intelligence and will.
At one point in Japan's history beauty trends meant women with white facepaint, small makeup dots where their eyebrows used to be, and blackened teeth were the cream of the crop. If you're goal as a filmmaker is to make the largest portion of your current day audience be stunned by one woman's beauty is it clever to present her in a way that most people will find offputting, simply for the "sake" of historical accuracy? This is literally the same thing. If your goal is to create a character that people can get behind then those people don't want to pretend THEY have archaic morals just so your fictional story can be "accurate" for its own sake. And because the world is always a more nuanced place than we ever accept collectively, it's possible that many of these "revisionist" takes are at least as much if not more accurate than the traditional ones you accept without question.
Sometimes things sound true and authentic to us because they reinforce our core beliefs. And as Duncan points out, fiction is just that. We may strive for accuracy, but as you rightly say, the broad sweep of history is much more nuanced than can be painted with even the broadest brush. I take Nothing without Question but having majored in Art History, I see that Art, music and literature very much reflect the zeitgeist of their times. Can we really ever stand what it was like to be a woman living in the Frankish Empire where women were property, not people? Yes, a few notable women in that era blazed like comets, forging their own destiny. My point was that to paint a true picture, the author needs to reference the events or situations that empowered them
@@dianahaugh7521 I saw the movie The Nightingale. It's a rough movie about misogyny racism and forced colonization. In it, a New Zealand woman bonds with a tribal man while on a quest for revenge. Even though we already sympathize with her because she's been through hell. At the beginning they make it explicitly clear that she is a racist. I liked this detail because it's authentic, and she has to overcome her own prejudices to build a bridge between the two characters across a tumultuous river of shared trauma.
It did occur to me however, that not every movie can be The Nightingale.
But yeah, there are some people who think their idea of what's "average" is the rule and can never be an exception. We are universally mislead by averages, as far as i can tell. *Most* people don't have the average birthday, for example. I feel like that should tell us something about how we conceive of this. If somebody was the absolute most average person who ever lived, they would likely be the most unique person to ever exist. As authors we generally write about people we consider exceptional anyway. So as long as you're not suggesting that we purge or even shy away from ostensibly progressive characterization, out of inherently biased intuition and a generally flawed understanding of what is "likely" based on the "average," then I think we might be on more or less the same page about this.
Sea turtle here, I feel so ✨️SEEN✨️
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with number 5. Someone who is good (the hero) is more likely to understand the difference between right and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will always do what they know is right. Even if they know their actions are bad, they might do it anyway for different reasons. Maybe it's for revenge, maybe it's for pettiness, maybe they just really like messing with people. But, it's not like they don't know what they are doing is bad.
I've watched several of your videos over the past several weeks, but this one was the one that led to a sub. Good job. Earned a new sub.
Saying everyone is the hero of their own story is the absolute worst take on writing from recent writing discourse. Some people think that they are doing an evil thing for evil reasons but just can't help themselves, following orders, or is just that selfish. Have you heard of the experiment that had people do a fake electricution of people and every single one of them followed the orders, even when they had tantrums about doing it.
I could haggle on various points, the thing that stands out most to me though is "every single one of them followed the orders" is a flat out lie.
@@futurestoryteller true, it was the vast majority of people. But to say that EVERYONE must think they are the hero of their own story is also a flat out lie. Give some room for error in your arguments. Say that it's a story beat that's been well liked in recent media. To present your opinion as fact is rather disingenuous and flies in the face of storytelling tropes.
@@alexiavya722 It was a significant majority. It was not a "vast majority."
I have many problems with your characterizations, I don't have any problems with your primary argument. In fact I think that many people who are _right_ are under the impression that they're wrong too, which further undermines the point made in the video.
@@futurestoryteller Maybe I just got a wrong impression from the video then? It seems like we’ve come to the same conclusion.
@@alexiavya722 Why do you keep talking to me like this is my channel?
Yeah, everyone do have their own opinions like how I do enjoy an humorous middle school book. More nonsensical the better, like Marvin and the moths. It’s a story about Marvin creating hyper intelligent moths and a Shakespeare obsessed predator with a lab set of pork belly juice. Where the town is owned by a pork belly company and a secret Society of elephants. There is also a detective pray mantis with a cockroach as his Watson.
Everyone liked Forrest Gump
Actually no.
I appreciate this list of "5 Things you Need to Make an 'Anti-Woke' Protagonist" although I do think number five should be its own opposite. How is the reader supposed to know that I'm right if I ever insinuate my idealized self-insert could be wrong!?
Five signs you need to do something with that beard of yours...like trim it, feed it. Something!
Satire!
Bro is living through his PRIME Amish days and you’re just having none of it. 😪😪😂
But as lonesome, isolated drunken, depressed; okay maybe not the last part; hahaha we novice and unpublished writers neeeed to toot our horns. No one else is going to, and most of the time even after we are published still no one bothers tooting for us.
Talk bout tooting ones own horn. Hahahahahaha.